diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aa2a4094db2c86f0110da6b51c0c29901c844d7847798c50540f44b2a5e48e0b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aa2a4094db2c86f0110da6b51c0c29901c844d7847798c50540f44b2a5e48e0b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2f8282b56579f69757a972cce9bd6eb7cc1ad93e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aa2a4094db2c86f0110da6b51c0c29901c844d7847798c50540f44b2a5e48e0b.md @@ -0,0 +1,75 @@ +Filing # 193147674 E-Filed 03/01/2024 04:41:55 PM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM +BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-0144681-AG +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff +VS. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney +of Palm Beach, County, Florida; SHARON +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of +Palm Beach County, Florida, +Defendants. +COPY +THE MCCLATCHY COMPANY, LLC'S MOTION TO INTERVENE +The McClatchy Company, LLC ("McClatchy"), publisher of The Miami Herald, moves to +intervene in this action for the limited purpose of obtaining, pursuant to §905.27, Florida Statutes, +access to grand jury materials relating to Jeffrey Epstein. The grounds for this motion are: +1. +McClatchy +publishes The Miami Herald. +The reporting of McClatchy's +professional journalists, especially Julie +have been central and instrumental in exposing +Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse and trafficking of minors. +The Miami Herald's first articles +regarding Mr. Epstein were published in November 2018. +Through an initial and amended complaint, and then the prosecution of an appeal, +Plaintiff has sought to obtain through this action grand jury materials relating to Mr. Epstein. +By Agreed Order dated February 28, 2024, the Court permitted the Associated +Press to intervene in this action, writing that "ItJhe Associated Press is hereby permitted to +*** FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL +ABRUZZO, CLERK. 03/01/2024 04:41:55 PM *** + + +intervene in this matter and shall be granted access to any grand jury materials the Court orders to +be disclosed." +4. +Yesterday, on February 29, 2024, this Court entered an order ruling that under the +law, as it existed on that date, releasing the grand jury materials would not further justice and, on +that basis, the Court would not order the release of the materials. However, the Court noted that +the governing law will change on July 1, 2024, and the Court granted the parties leave to file a +motion for reconsideration once the law changes. +Through this Motion, McClatchy seeks to intervene in this action for the limited +purpose of obtaining access to any grand jury materials that, upon motion for reconsideration, the +Court orders to be disclosed. As the publisher of a newspaper of géneral circulation, McClatchy +has standing to intervene for the purpose of opposing closure of records and seeking to obtain +access to records. See, e.g., Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So.2d 113, 118 +(Fla. 1988); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Lewis, 426 So.2d 1, 4 (Fla. 1983). +WHEREFORE, McClatchy respectfully requests the entry of an Order permitting it to +intervene in this action for the limited purpose of obtaining access to the grand jury materials +related to Mr. Epstein. +NOT +Respectfully submitted, +HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP +701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300 +Miami, Florida 33131 +(305) 374-8500 (telephone) +(305) 789-7799 (facsimile) +By: Is/ Scott D. Ponce +Scott D. Ponce (FBN 0169528) +sponce@hklaw.com +Attorneys for The McClatchy Company, LLC +2 +#243187610_v1 + + +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that I filed this document on March 1, 2024 using Florida's e- +filing portal, which will serve a copy on all counsel of record. +By: Is/ Scott D. Ponce +NOT A CERTIFIED COPY +3 +#243187610_v1 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aa2a4094db2c86f0110da6b51c0c29901c844d7847798c50540f44b2a5e48e0b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aa2a4094db2c86f0110da6b51c0c29901c844d7847798c50540f44b2a5e48e0b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5ac533eacc48fc7e1f684da6755263d03a36e294 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aa2a4094db2c86f0110da6b51c0c29901c844d7847798c50540f44b2a5e48e0b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "aa2a4094db2c86f0110da6b51c0c29901c844d7847798c50540f44b2a5e48e0b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4339496db74c9b07c40ba52cfddfbd492fcd1515938378d9844d04cffbf804ef", + "output_sha256": "3276930dded65dd73aae7a43eedd84fbe1baa6648da97a1ed80a8c4b08df9c40", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aa50a43f537e295bdc6ce73f0a48584495e3ae8a2ccbb4dbbff40fd2f9c3dee1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aa50a43f537e295bdc6ce73f0a48584495e3ae8a2ccbb4dbbff40fd2f9c3dee1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9ed74d97acb9b921c2772ec0d45a89ab34b1ad13 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aa50a43f537e295bdc6ce73f0a48584495e3ae8a2ccbb4dbbff40fd2f9c3dee1.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 35 Filed 03/06/20 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE 1000, +Plaintiff, +Case No. 1:19-cv-10577 (LJL) +NOTICE OF APPEARANCE +VS. +DARREN I. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, +in their capacities as the executors of the ESTATE +OF JEFFREY EDWARD EPSTEIN, +Defendants. +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney, Andrew Villacastin, who +is a member in good standing of the bar of this Court, hereby appears as counsel for +Plaintiff Jane Doe 1000 in the above-captioned proceeding. +Dated: New York, New York +March 6, 2020 +BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP +By: +Is/ Andrew Villacastin +Andrew Villacastin +55 Hudson Yards +Telephone: (212) 446-2300 +Fax: (212) 446-2350 +avillacastin@bsfllp.com +Attorney for Plaintiff Jane Doe 1000 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aa50a43f537e295bdc6ce73f0a48584495e3ae8a2ccbb4dbbff40fd2f9c3dee1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aa50a43f537e295bdc6ce73f0a48584495e3ae8a2ccbb4dbbff40fd2f9c3dee1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e74a1d1b67f3a242a6e482af67fc6292d323a7c2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aa50a43f537e295bdc6ce73f0a48584495e3ae8a2ccbb4dbbff40fd2f9c3dee1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "aa50a43f537e295bdc6ce73f0a48584495e3ae8a2ccbb4dbbff40fd2f9c3dee1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f7dbc8c39ebcc3f67782eb619ce0c8aebb256245ab4a9548f1f018a4472c8d29", + "output_sha256": "e6a5259376a2537be21a8f0e91e3e1a7bb91e124559a4850657b1b8e042bbfa7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aa513ba46d29e289075ffee0aeeade79836cc38c9df33ef7626f1c2c9fb4b55d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aa513ba46d29e289075ffee0aeeade79836cc38c9df33ef7626f1c2c9fb4b55d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d3ef8f3dad95b8b8bd2460b1bc8b62614852a0e3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aa513ba46d29e289075ffee0aeeade79836cc38c9df33ef7626f1c2c9fb4b55d.md @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 58 kl +Filed 03/23/20 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE +Case No. 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF +Plaintiff, +-against- +DARREN I. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, +in their capacities as executors of the ESTATE +OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN +Defendant. +NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS +TO: +ATTORNEY SERVICES CLERK AND ALL OTHER PARTIES +I have cases pending +I have no cases pending +Pursuant to Local Rule 1.3 of this Court, please take notice of the following attorney information change (s) for: +Mary "Molly" S. DiRago +FILL IN ATTORNEY NAME +_ My State Bar Number is _6282757 +My SDNY Bar Number is: +1am, +• +An attorney +A Government Agency attorney +A Pro Hac Vice attorney +FIRM INFORMATION (Include full name of firm (OLD AND NEW), address, telephone number and fax number): +OLD FIRM: +FIRM NAME: TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP +FIRM ADDRESS: One North Wacker Drive, Suite 2905 Chicago, IL 60606 +FIRM TELEPHONE NUMBER: 13121759-1928 +FIRM FAX NUMBER: 1712759-1939 +NEW FIRM: +FIRM NAME: TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP +FIRM ADDRESS: 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3900, Chicago, IL 60606. +FIRM TELEPHONE NUMBER: 13121759-1928 +FIRM FAX NUMBER: 312759-1939 +I will continue to be counsel of record on the above-entitled case at my new firm/agency. +• +I am no longer counsel of record on the above-entitled case. An order withdrawing my appearance +was entered on +by Judge +Dated: 03/20/2020 +Is/ Mary "Molly" S. DiRago +ATTORNEY'S SIGNATURE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aa513ba46d29e289075ffee0aeeade79836cc38c9df33ef7626f1c2c9fb4b55d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aa513ba46d29e289075ffee0aeeade79836cc38c9df33ef7626f1c2c9fb4b55d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f75e874f5249a5c6ce7e6030d86d0e89720107cf --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aa513ba46d29e289075ffee0aeeade79836cc38c9df33ef7626f1c2c9fb4b55d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "aa513ba46d29e289075ffee0aeeade79836cc38c9df33ef7626f1c2c9fb4b55d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "eff57bc18029dd6b744cc3956af4f001c9f42da77344e82767f6692a388c3b9e", + "output_sha256": "cf1a23339ccc8d14fb2d65a99aea59fa32357f78d1669bab0014fd614fc4062a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aa64e5146004d1e945dfd4256551eb7c77ed75f36d7d97dd0471a0872202be0b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aa64e5146004d1e945dfd4256551eb7c77ed75f36d7d97dd0471a0872202be0b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..35ea7fa9de708ed9028888b519e3afcc38698c5a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aa64e5146004d1e945dfd4256551eb7c77ed75f36d7d97dd0471a0872202be0b.md @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 68-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 2 +34 +IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM +BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 502008CA025129XXXXMB AI +A.C., +V. +Plaintift, +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and +Defendants. +ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO +FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO PLAINTIFF AND TO OVERRULE +PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS, & FOR DEFENDANT'S EXPENSES, +INCLUDING ATTORNEYS' FEES +THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion To +Compel Responses To First Request To Produce To Plaintiff And To Overrule +Plaintiff's Objections, & For Defendant's Expenses, Including Attorneys' Fees +and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being fully advised in these +premises, it is hereby +ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion is hereby granted/ +deniedas +to +# 17 + 7/18 +→ and denced +as to #22 as phrased. +Responses to +be fter semed w/in 10 dap. +DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach County Courthouse, West Palm +Beach, Florida, this 23 day of _ +FUB +< 2008 +Edward A. +Garrison +Circuit Judge +Copies furnished: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ., and MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESO., 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, +FL 33401; JACK SCAROLA, ESQ., AND JACK P. +Shipley, P.A., 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., +ESQ., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & +West Palm Beach, FL 33409, and JACK A. +Austrian ReSus a Fis, PA, One Clearake Centre, Suite 1400, 250%, +Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +EXHIBIT" B +COVENARI + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 68-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 2 +35 +A.C., +IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM +BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 502008CA025129XXXXMB Al +Plaintiff +V. +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and +Defendants. +ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO +INTERROGATORIES AND TO OVERRULE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS, & FOR +DEFENDANT'S EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEYS' FEES +THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion To +Compel Answers To Interrogatories And To Overrule Plaintiff's Objections, & For +Defendant's Expenses, Including Attorneys' Fees, and the Court having heard +argument of counsel and being fully advised in these premises, it is hereby +ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion is hereby granted/ +denled +as to #5, 12$18, denied as +to #2. +Responses to be soned whin +10 dap. +DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach County Courthouse, West Palm +Beach, Florida, this 23 day of . +Edward A. Garrison +Circuit Judge +Copies furnished: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ., and MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESO. 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, +, ESQ., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & +TENG, DE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aa64e5146004d1e945dfd4256551eb7c77ed75f36d7d97dd0471a0872202be0b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aa64e5146004d1e945dfd4256551eb7c77ed75f36d7d97dd0471a0872202be0b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ff416f80eeaec57911ded86b138a75be73fd980b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aa64e5146004d1e945dfd4256551eb7c77ed75f36d7d97dd0471a0872202be0b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "aa64e5146004d1e945dfd4256551eb7c77ed75f36d7d97dd0471a0872202be0b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "858bd93cb454bc1713a50cb4b29580f722e85b2e1965bfcbbcfcbe7b3ab9ac3b", + "output_sha256": "8d57437031732d553ce1a56028feb649c1bcabe3f6f9ecc0a01ee48edcca6058", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aab0673f361474330755b66d67bf69bd5bb3317f77d4629c0485e90fe328449b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aab0673f361474330755b66d67bf69bd5bb3317f77d4629c0485e90fe328449b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..01c41889feb5956851bc1531b019a5bb79fd5d67 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aab0673f361474330755b66d67bf69bd5bb3317f77d4629c0485e90fe328449b.md @@ -0,0 +1,327 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 56-1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 1 of 8 +From: +Sent: +To: +Cc: +Subject: +Moskowitz, Bennet J. +Wednesday, July 15, 2020 5:24 PM +Laura Menninger +Nathan Werksman; Claudia Lomeli; Robert Glassman; +daniel.weiner@hugheshubbard.com; Metcalfe, Mary +Re: Jane Doe (1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF) +: Keilah Betts; Kevin Boyle +Ms. Menninger: +Thanks for confirming our understanding. As we previously advised Robert, the parties also need to get on the same +page about a confidentiality agreement before we start productions; that was clear from our written discovery +responses to him. We thought that would be discussed on Friday as well. We are still available to meet and confer as +discussed, and will take up Robert's premature, erroneous letter with Judge Freeman unless he immediately withdraws +it. +Best, +Bennet +On Jul 15, 2020, at 5:17 PM, Laura Menninger wrote: +EXTERNAL SENDER +That is correct. I understand that we were having a call tomorrow to discuss a number of scheduling issues, including +scheduling depositions. I said that I needed to see the discovery and disclosures produced to date, prior to that call. I +have yet to receive any discovery produced by either side. +I now have other meetings scheduled at 10 am, 1 pm and 4:30 pm on Friday (all MST). Let me know if you all still want +to have a discussion or not, given Mr. Glassman's very premature letter to the court. If so, please send me whatever +docs have been produced to date. +I believe that we need to compile a deposition schedule for all witnesses that the parties intend to depose at one time, +so Mr. Glassman I assume you will be providing dates for your client's deposition. +Laura A. Menninger Partner +Haddon, +•. P.C. +150 E. 10th Avenue | Denver, CO 80203 ++1 303 831 7364 (Office) +Imenninger@hmflaw.com +From: Moskowitz, Bennet J. +Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 3:14 PM +To: Laura Menninger +Cc: Nathan Werksman ; Claudia Lomeli < lomeli@psblaw.com>; Robert Glassman +; daniel.weiner@hugheshubbard.com; Metcalfe, Mary +; Keilah Betts ; Kevin Boyle +Subject: Re: Jane Doe (1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF) +1 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 56-1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 2 of 8 +Hi Laura, +You may have seen that Robert just filed a letter to Judge Freeman claiming, among other things, that we unilaterally +canceled Mr. Indyke's deposition to be obstructionist. Our understanding is that you requested we speak to, among +other things, set new dates for that and all other discovery dates and deadlines which were set before you appeared in +this action. Indeed, that is why we are supposed to speak on Friday. Is my understanding correct? +Thank you, +Bennet +Bennet J. Moskowitz* +Partner +troutman pepper +Direct: 212.704.6087 +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +*Licensed to practice law in New York and Connecticut +On Jul 15, 2020, at 2:34 AM, Robert Glassman wrote: +EXTERNAL SENDER +Friday works for us too. I am still waiting on a response from Ms. Menninger concerning the depositions | emailed her +about on July 8. I would also like to add to the agenda for Friday scheduling the deposition of Ms. Maxwell. +Robert Glassman, Esq. +Panish Shea & Boyle LLP +11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 +Los Angeles, CA 90025 +Tel: (310) 477-1700 +Fax: (310) 477-1699 +Email: glassman@psblaw.com +Web: www.psblaw.com +CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: +This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipients). Any review, use, +distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the +recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail or telephone, and delete all copies of this message. +If you are a potential client, the information you disclose to us by email will be kept in strict confidence and will be protected to the +full extent of the law. Please be advised, however, that Panish Shea & Boyle LLP and its lawyers do not represent you until you have +signed a retainer agreement with the firm. Until that time, you are responsible for any statutes of limitations or other deadlines for +your case or potential case. +From: Moskowitz, Bennet J. [mailto:Bennet.Moskowitz@troutman.com] +Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 1:56 PM +To: Laura Menninger +Cc: Robert Glassman ; Nathan Werksman ; Claudia Lomeli +2 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 56-1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 3 of 8 +; daniel.weiner@hugheshubbard.com; Metcalfe, Mary L +; Keilah Betts +Subject: Re: Jane Doe (1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF) +Friday works for us to speak. We sent our discovery materials yesterday. In the meantime, we Will mark Mr. Indyke's +deposition off the calendar subject to whatever new schedule we all reach. +Bennet J. Moskowitz* +Partner +troutman pepper +Direct: 212.704.6087 +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +*Licensed to practice law in New York and Connecticut +On Jul 13, 2020, at 12:19 PM, Laura Menninger wrote: +EXTERNAL SENDER +I am free Wednesday afternoon and all day Friday, presuming I have received the current discovery and disclosures by +then. +Laura A. Menninger Partner +Haddon, +, P.C. +150 E. 10th Avenue | Denver, CO 80203 ++1 303 831 7364 (Office) +Imenninger@hmflaw.com +From: Moskowitz, Bennet J. +Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 10:18 AM +To: Laura Menninger ; Robert Glassman < glassman@psblaw.com> +Cc: Nathan Werksman ; Claudia Lomeli ; +daniel.weiner@hugheshubbard.com; Metcalfe, Mary L +; Keilah Betts + +Subject: Re: Jane Doe (1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF) +Today we will send you discovery served by or to the Co-Executors and responses thereto. When can we all speak? +Thanks, +Bennet +Bennet J. Moskowitz* +3 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 56-1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 4 of 8 +Partner +troutman pepper +Direct: 212.704.6087 +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +*Licensed to practice law in New York and Connecticut +On Jul 13, 2020, at 12:07 PM, Laura Menninger wrote: +EXTERNAL SENDER +I did not yet receive the disclosures or discovery. When can I expect those? +Thank you, +Laura +Laura A. Menninger | Partner +Haddon, +. P.C. +150 E. 10th Avenue | Denver, CO 80203 ++1 303 831 7364 (Office) +Imenninger@hmflaw.com +From: Robert Glassman +Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 10:03 AM +To: Laura Menninger ; 'Moskowitz, Bennet J.' +Cc: Nathan Werksman ; Claudia Lomeli ; +'daniel.weiner@hugheshubbard.com' ; Metcalfe, Mary +; Keilah Betts +Subject: RE: Jane Doe (1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF) +Bennet, yes, the depositions that were scheduled yesterday are, as previously advised, being continued, and the doc +requests that went along with them are withdrawn for now. +Laura, we will get you the disclosures and discovery both propounded and answered thus far. Free to discuss the +scheduling order next week. +Thanks. +Robert Glassman, Esq. +Panish Shea & Boyle LLP +11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 +Los Angeles, CA 90025 +Tel: (310) 477-1700 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 56-1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 5 of 8 +Fax: (310) 477-1699 +Email: glassman@psblaw.com +Web: www.psblaw.com +CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: +This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipients). Any review, use, +distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the +recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail or telephone, and delete all copies of this message. +If you are a potential client, the information you disclose to us by email will be kept in strict confidence and will be protected to the +full extent of the law. Please be advised, however, that Panish Shea & Boyle LLP and its lawyers do not represent you until you have +signed a retainer agreement with the firm. Until that time, you are responsible for any statutes of limitations or other deadlines for +your case or potential case. +From: Laura Menninger [mailto:Imenninger@hmflaw.com] +Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 8:53 AM +To: 'Moskowitz, Bennet J.' ; Robert Glassman +Cc: Nathan Werksman ; Claudia Lomeli ; +'daniel. weiner@hugheshubbard.com' ; Metcalfe, Mary +; Keilah Betts +Subject: RE: Jane Doe (1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF) +Counsel - +Given my appearance in the case, please provide me with your R. 26 disclosures, any discovery requests that have been +propounded in the matter, and any responses thereto. +I will need to confer with you next week about my anticipated request for relief from the scheduling order to the extent +it contemplated deadlines that passed or are soon approaching, all scheduled prior to my client's service in this case. +Thank you, +Laura +Laura A. Menninger Partner +Haddon, +1. P.C. +150 E. 10th Avenue | Denver, CO 80203 ++1 303 831 7364 (Office) +Imenninger@hmflaw.com +From: Moskowitz, Bennet J. +Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 7:31 AM +To: Robert Glassman +Cc: Nathan Werksman ; Claudia Lomeli ; +'daniel.weiner@hugheshubbard.com' ; Metcalfe, Mary +; Keilah Betts ; Laura Menninger + +Subject: RE: Jane Doe (1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF) +Robert, +5 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 56-1 +Filed 07/16/20 Page 6 of 8 +Again, please confirm you are withdrawing the document requests in the deposition notices. We do not want +to have to burden Judge Freeman with this issue. +I have added Laura Menninger to this email chain given her appearance in this action. +Thank you, +Bennet +Bennet J. Moskowitz* +Partner +troutman pepper +Direct: 212.704.6087 +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +*Licensed to practice law in New York and Connecticut +From: Moskowitz, Bennet J. +Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 3:00 PM +To: 'Robert Glassman' +Cc: Nathan Werksman ; Claudia Lomeli ; +'daniel. weiner@hugheshubbard.com' < daniel. weiner@hugheshubbard.com>; Metcalfe, Mary +; Keilah Betts +Subject: RE: Jane Doe (1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF) +We did not receive anything. Also, please confirm you are withdrawing the document requests in the deposition +notices. +Bennet J. Moskowitz* +Partner +troutman pepper +Direct: 212.704.6087 +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +*Licensed to practice law in New York and Connecticut +From: Robert Glassman +Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 2:57 PM +To: Metcalfe, Mary +; Keilah Betts ; +'daniel.weiner@hugheshubbard.com' ; Moskowitz, Bennet J. + +Cc: Nathan Werksman ; Claudia Lomeli +Subject: RE: Jane Doe (1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF) +EXTERNAL SENDER +Mary +, supplemental responses were served on you and Bennet yesterday by email per our agreement. Looks like +they were sent at 5:05 PST. Let us know if you need us to re-send them to you. + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 56-1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 7 of 8 +As we discussed on our call, the depositions set for tomorrow were taken off calendar and are being rescheduled at a +later date. +Robert Glassman, Esq. +Panish Shea & Boyle LLP +11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 +Los Angeles, CA 90025 +Tel: (310) 477-1700 +Fax: (310) 477-1699 +Email: glassman@psblaw.com +Web: www.psblaw.com +CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: +This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, +distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the +recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail or telephone, and delete all copies of this message. +If you are a potential client, the information you disclose to us by email will be kept in strict confidence and will be protected to the +full extent of the law. Please be advised, however, that Panish Shea & Boyle LLP and its lawyers do not represent you until you have +signed a retainer agreement with the firm. Until that time, you are responsible for any statutes of limitations or other deadlines for +your case or potential case. +From: Metcalfe, Mary +[mailto:MaryGrace.Metcalfe@troutman.com] +Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2020 11:31 AM +To: Keilah Betts ; 'daniel. weiner@hugheshubbard.com' ; +Moskowitz, Bennet J. +Cc: Robert Glassman ; Nathan Werksman ; Claudia Lomeli + +Subject: RE: Jane Doe (1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF) +Robert, +We have reviewed the subpoena below. It is accompanied a notice of deposition, similar to those issued alongside the +subpoenas you sent us in April. As we noted then, such notices of deposition are improper. Please let us know if you +will withdraw this one as you did its predecessors. +Furthermore, you have included document requests without specifying a response date. Please clarify that point. +Finally, you indicated last week that we could expect to receive supplemental discovery responses addressing the +concerns we raised in our letter last month. We have yet to receive these responses. Please send them immediately. +Thank you, +Mary +W. Metcalfe +Associate +troutman pepper +Direct: 212.704.6029 | Mobile: 425.984.4165 +marygrace.metcalfe@troutman.com +7 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 56-1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 8 of 8 +From: Keilah Betts +Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 4:40 PM +To:'daniel.weiner@hugheshubbard.com' ; Moskowitz, Bennet J. + +Cc: Robert Glassman ; Nathan Werksman ; Claudia Lomeli + +Subject: Jane Doe (1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF) +Importance: High +EXTERNAL SENDER +Counsel - Attached please find the Deposition Notice and Subpoena for Darren Indyke. +Mr. Weiner - Per a previous conversation with Attorney Werksman, you are willing to accept service of the subpoena on +behalf of your client, Mr. Darren Indyke. Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail. Thank you +Keilah Betts +Panish Shea & Boyle LLP +11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 +Los Angeles, CA 90025 +Tel: (310) 477-1700 +Fax: (310) 477-1699 +Email: betts@psblaw.com +Web: www.psblaw.com +CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: +This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipients). Any review, use, +distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the +recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail or telephone, and delete all copies of this message. +If you are a potential client, the information you disclose to us by email will be kept in strict confidence and will be protected to the +full extent of the law. Please be advised, however, that Panish Shea & Boyle LLP and its lawyers do not represent you until you have +signed a retainer agreement with the firm. Until that time, you are responsible for any statutes of limitations or other deadlines for +your case or potential case. +This e-mail (and any attachments) from a law firm may contain legally privileged and confidential information +solely for the intended recipient. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it. +Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other use of this e-mail (and attachments) is strictly +prohibited. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting computer viruses, but you should +scan attachments for viruses and other malicious threats; we are not liable for any loss or damage caused by +viruses. +8 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aab0673f361474330755b66d67bf69bd5bb3317f77d4629c0485e90fe328449b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aab0673f361474330755b66d67bf69bd5bb3317f77d4629c0485e90fe328449b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..897b9f3e78190c54cfdf040132dc46cc08d1e389 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aab0673f361474330755b66d67bf69bd5bb3317f77d4629c0485e90fe328449b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -96, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "aab0673f361474330755b66d67bf69bd5bb3317f77d4629c0485e90fe328449b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "d04c5cde2f80df4bffa9303dfad4f49d25fa771ef724e588c855212ee615203e", + "output_sha256": "6f741d7550e5ade37096c90c8c0e005ad3f0ceb5e721728bce3d927aca0c53ea", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aabbbe156df390eef8c7a2ee0eb0b7caae41ea6a9e52acee16c8c3c07ea3d2a0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aabbbe156df390eef8c7a2ee0eb0b7caae41ea6a9e52acee16c8c3c07ea3d2a0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1e54a3c3d9151219dd3addad0ea2f194284bd644 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aabbbe156df390eef8c7a2ee0eb0b7caae41ea6a9e52acee16c8c3c07ea3d2a0.md @@ -0,0 +1,341 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 233 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2009 Page 1 of 9 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO.2, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80119-MARRAJ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO.3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO.4, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80381-MARRA/| +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 233 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2009 Page 2 of 9 +Page 2 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., +Defendants. +DOE II, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80994-MARRA/JOHNSON +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80993-MARRA/ +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80893-MARRA/ +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80469-MARRA/JOHNSON +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 233 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2009 Page 3 of 9 +Page 3 +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80591-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80656-MARRA1 +vS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Response in Opposition to Jane Doe Numbers 2-7 Notice Of +Joinder In Plaintiffs' Jane Does 101 and 102's Motion for No-Contact Order, with +Incorporated Memorandum of Law +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN") by and through his +undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Response in Opposition to Jane Doe Numbers 2-7 Notice +of Joinder In Plaintiffs' Jane Does 101 and 102's Motion for No-Contact Order, with +Incorporated Memorandum of Law. In support, EPSTEIN states: +I. +Introduction +1. Jane Doe 101 and 102 filed their Motion for No-Contact Order on May 22, 2009. (DE +113). +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 233 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2009 Page 4 of 9 +Page 4 +2. Epstein filed his Response In Opposition to the Motion for No Contact Order on May 29, +2009. (DE 127). The arguments set forth in the Response In Opposition to the Motion for No- +Contact Order are incorporated herein by reference as if same were outlined herein. +3. Jane Doe 101 and 102 filed their Reply to Epstein's Response to their Motion for No- +Contact Order on June 4, 2009. (DE 136). +4. On June 8, 2009, Jane Doe Numbers 2-7 filed their Notice of Joinder in Plaintiffs' Jane +Does 101 and 102's Motion for No-Contact Order. (DE 45)(the "Notice of Joinder"). +Il. Response +5. The Notice of Joinder is unwarranted and simply a waste of attorney time and judicial +resources. However, it does once again telegraph for this court Plaintiffs' collective efforts to +stall this case by any means possible. +6. The Notice of Joinder is riddled with inaccuracies and misstatements. For example, +has not been asked to gather any information relative to Jane Doe 4 and Jane Doe +7. See Affidavit of +, Exhibit "A". Moreover, +only spoke to Jane +Doe 7 when approached by her and her boyfriend at a local West Palm Beach bar. Id. At that +time, +told Jane Doe 7 that she "I] could not believe she was bringing a lawsuit +against Jeffrey Epstein, as +knew] she has taken money from a number of older +men and even traveled to Chicago with one of them." Id. +also told Jane Doe 7 +that she intended to tell the truth about everything she knew about Jane Doe 7 and her escapades +with other men. Id. As such, any contact was initiated by Jane Doe 7 in a public forum. +7. It is clear from the attached Affidavit that at least Jane Does 4 and 7 have made +misstatements in order to stall this case. As to Jane Doe numbers 2, 3, 5, and 6, no supporting +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 233 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2009 Page 5 of 9 +Page 5 +allegations exist to substantiate the entry of any such order. Plaintiffs simply make much to do +about nothing. +8. For the reasons set forth herein and in Epstein's Response Motion (DE 127), Epstein asks +that this Court deny Plaintiff's Notice/Motion for No-Contact Order. +Wherefore, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, requests that this court deny the Notice/Motion for +No-Contact Order, and for such other and further reliefs this Court deems just and proper. +By c +MICHAEL J.PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +need this day on all ouce of record da tre on he following service lit in the +manner specified by CM/ECF on this 30 day of +Respectfully submitted, +By: +ROBERTID. CRITTON, JR., ESQ +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 233 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2009 Page 6 of 9 +Page 6 +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Brad +, Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Suite 2218 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: 954-522-3456 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +bedwards@rra-law.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +08-80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08- +80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +08-80993, 08-80994 +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +801-585-5202 +2290 10* Avenue North +801-585-6833 Fax +Suite 404 +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +Isidro. M. +1, Esq. +• Law Firm, P.A. +08-80811 +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +Jack Scarola, Esq. +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack P. +1, Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +Searcy Denney +Scarola Barnhart +& 08-80469 +Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-686-6300 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +isx@searcylaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +305 358-2800 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 233 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2009 Page 7 of 9 +Page 7 +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. +Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. +Ricci-Leopold, P.A +2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +561-684-6500 +Fax: 561-515-2610 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-08804 +skuvin@riccilaw.com +tleopold@riccilaw.com +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases +Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +7 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 233 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2009 Page 8 of 9 +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR +PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA +CASE NO. 502008CA006596XXXXMB +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +and +Defendants. +/ +AFFIDAVIT OF +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared +, who after being first duly sworn, deposes and says: +4. +5. +My name is +I am and have been represented by McIntosh, Sawran, Peltz & Cartaya, P.A. +I was a Defendant in the case styled, Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein. +and +1. Case No. 502008CA006596XXXXMB AB. +I have read the document entitled " Plaintiffs Jane Does' 2-7 Notice of Joinder +in Plaintiffs' Jane Does 101 and 102's Motion for No-Contact Order." +I am writing this affidavit in response to the statements within the motion that +refer to me. +I have not had any contact with Jeffrey Epstein since he was arrested. +I have not been asked by Mr. Epstein or his attorneys to gather information +about Jane Doe 4 and Jane Doe 7. +A + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 233 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2009 Page 9 of 9 +I am not being supported by Mr. Epstein nor did I say that to Jane Doe 4 and +7. +Based on the statements within the motion, I can identify Jane Doe 7 and only +spoke to her when she and her boyfriend approached and confronted me at Dr. +Feelgood's. +10. +When Jane Doe 7 and her boyfriend confronted me, I told her that I could not +believe she was bringing a lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein, as I know that she +has taken money from a number of older men and even traveled to Chicago +with one of them. +11. +I also told Jane Doe 7 and her boyfriend that I intended to tell the truth about +everything I know about her and what she has done with other men. +12. I will tell the truth about Mr. Epstein, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 7 or anyone else +that I am asked about. I resent any suggestion that I would lie to assist Mr. +Epstein. +FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. +SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this and +day of July +2009, by Halen Roon +(name of person), who is personally +known to me or who has produced fL Drivers License +(type of +identification) as identification. +Cheme Hurles: +SIGNATURE OF NOTARY +Netary Poole slale a Fionda +Cheryl A Hughes +My Commission DD592524 +Expires 09/06/2010 +PRINTED NAME OF NOTARY diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aabbbe156df390eef8c7a2ee0eb0b7caae41ea6a9e52acee16c8c3c07ea3d2a0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aabbbe156df390eef8c7a2ee0eb0b7caae41ea6a9e52acee16c8c3c07ea3d2a0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fa61cddfb667bd15686b8cf5dc9f4908bd8efece --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aabbbe156df390eef8c7a2ee0eb0b7caae41ea6a9e52acee16c8c3c07ea3d2a0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -108, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "aabbbe156df390eef8c7a2ee0eb0b7caae41ea6a9e52acee16c8c3c07ea3d2a0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "fdba108c807cbf544d978f50216dec54662f75056f1a4d8601661f5ec171e27f", + "output_sha256": "f7832d55858f6b1efabbf2c1d73b30afab081c640239f37b37c8b76b22502497", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aabd56d98609cf94f62ad220573f4890de42ff25caac0f98b0db572c0e722f25.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aabd56d98609cf94f62ad220573f4890de42ff25caac0f98b0db572c0e722f25.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f3ab87f6988f309f33a34ee3b35592d667614593 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aabd56d98609cf94f62ad220573f4890de42ff25caac0f98b0db572c0e722f25.md @@ -0,0 +1,248 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 244 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2013 Page 1 of 9 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 +V. +UNITED STATES +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RENEWED MOTION +FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE +NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE +COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and +through undersigned counsel, to file this reply in support of their Motion for an Order Directing +the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (DE 50, renewed in DE 226), in +light of the Government's response (DE 230). The Government's response confirms each of the +victims' arguments in support of their motion, specifically (1) that the Government's privilege +log is grossly inadequate; (2) the CVRA's requirement that the Government exercise its "best +efforts" to protect crime victims' rights requires the production of the withheld documents; and +(3) the CVRA creates a right to access to documents that support their position, just as criminal +defendants have a right to access such documents. For each of these reasons, the Court should +grant the victims' motion and provide the materials that it has received in camera to the victims. +THE GOVERNMENT'S PRIVILEGE LOG IS GROSSLY INADEQUATE. +In their motion, the victims explained that the Government has substantially violated the +Court's order to provide an appropriate privilege log in connection with the disputed documents. +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 244 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2013 Page 2 of 9 +DE 226 at 6-12. The victims gave four specific illustrations of the inadequacies. The +Government has now responded, but its response only reinforces the fact that it has properly +invokes privilege in this case. +As an illustration of the inadequacies, the victims offered the example of the +Government's failure to identify any documents among the 13,468 pages that it is withholding +that concern AUSA Bruce Reinhart's internal knowledge about the Epstein prosecution before he +left the U.S. Attorney's Office and became employed by Epstein. DE 226 at 8-9. The victims +pointed out that the Government had admitted, in its response to the request for admission (RFA) +#22, that +"The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and/or other +Government entities have collected information about ... Bruce Reinhart's possible involvement +in the Epstein matter." The victims wondered where that "collected information" was among the +thousands of pages, since none of the document descriptions even contains the word "Reinhart." +In its response, the Government says that the "fallacy" in the victims' +"reasoning is the assumption that the basis for the government's response to the request for +admission was a document, rather than a personal observation. If it was based on the latter, there +would be no document to produce." DE 230 at 3 (emphasis added). So which is it? Was the +Government's answer based solely on a "personal observation" or not? There is simply no way +to tell, even after reading the Government's response to the victims' motion. If the Government +is taking the position that it does not have even a single document in its possession regarding the +Reinhart issue, they should be required to state that forthrightly. The victims' would note that +this would be remarkable, since the Reinhart issue was specifically brought to the attention of the +Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) - and presumably triggered at +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 244 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2013 Page 3 of 9 +least some kind of analysis of the issue. Yet, once again, it is impossible to tell where the +Government is asserting privilege over Reinhart documents or staking out the extraordinary +position that it does not have even a single document with the word "Reinhart" in it anywhere. +The victims similarly raised the point about other attorneys apart from Reinhart. The +victims noted that, in the Government's answers to RFA #22(b), it admitted that "It]he Justice +Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and/or other Government entities have +collected information about ... [o]ther government [attorneys'].. • possible improper behavior +in the Epstein matter." In response, the Government says that the victims have made a +"fallacious assumption" that such other information about, for example, former AUSA Matt +Menchel would be contained in a document, because the information "need not have been based +upon a document." DE 230 at 3-4. Here again, the Government deliberately leaves ambiguous +whether or not it is saying there are no such documents. And here again, it would be truly +remarkable if the Government, while "collect|ing] information" about such subjects did not +produce even a single written document. If so, this might well be the first federal investigation +in history in which federal investigators did not bother to take any notes! +The victims also noted that while it appeared that OPR had inquired into the possible +wrongdoing by government prosecutors, none of the underlying factual information regarding +those inquiries appears to have been produced. DE 226 at 10. In response, the Government says +that it has properly invoked privilege over the OPR documents. DE 230 at 4. Here again, the +Government ducks the issue. The victims contend that they cannot tell which of the thousands of +pages of documents that the Government is withholding contain the factual information that OPR +collected regarding improper government behavior. The Government's privilege log shows +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 244 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2013 Page 4 of 9 +certain correspondence about OPR inquiries; but the log does not reveal any underlying +substantive information that was "collected" during the OPR investigation. Where in the log is +the information that was collected? +The declaration from Robin C. Ashton, Counsel of OPR, only deepens the mysteries +swirling around the Government's privilege log. For example, Ashton asserts "deliberative +process" privilege over allegedly internal communications that were designed to "finalize" a +letter that was to be sent to U.S. Attorney Ferrer. DE 243-1 at 5-6 (arguing that certain +documents were "part of the internal deliberations to finalize the letter|] to U.S. Attorney +Ferrer"). Yet this assertion of privilege obviously implies that there was a final letter delivered +to U.S. Attorney Ferrer - a final letter over which "deliberative" process obviously could not be +invoked. See DE 225 at 4 (noting that "[a]ny deliberative process privilege would only cover ... +the processes by which a decision was made, not the final decision itself") (citing NLRB v. Sears +Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 151-52 (1975)). But victims cannot find any description of a final +letter sent to U.S. Attorney Ferrer anywhere in the privilege log. +As a fourth and final illustration of the inadequacies of the Government's privilege log, +the victims pointed out that it appeared that the Government was claiming that there is no a +single document - no email, no investigative report, no grand jury information, no record of any +type - existing in the Middle District of Florida after the Southern District of Florida was recused +from handling certain aspects of this case. DE 226 at 10-11. In response, the Government evades +the issue, stating that "the USAO-MDFL assumed responsibility for the Epstein case, and +exercises its own independent judgment and discretion about what action to take, if any." DE +230 at 6. Is the Government really saying that there not a single responsive document exists in +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 244 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2013 Page 5 of 9 +the Middle District of Florida. Neither its privilege log nor its response to the victims" motion +clarifies what the Government's position truly is. +The victims offered these four illustrations as evidence of pervasive inadequacies in the +Government's privilege log. In view of these inadequacies, the Court should provide all the +documents covered by the Government's privilege log to the victims. +Il. +THE CVRA'S BEST EFFORTS REQUIREMENT CREATES A FIDUCIARY +EXCEPTION TO ALL PRIVILEGES. +The victims have also asked the Court to provide all the withheld documents to them on +grounds that the CVRA's "best efforts" provision creates a fiduciary exception to any applicable +privileges. In response, the Government hangs its hat on a single case: United States v. Jicarilla +Apache Nation, 131 S.Ct. 2313 (2011). There, an Indian tribe argued that it was entitled to +receive attorney-client privileged information about the handling of certain moneys held in trust +by the Government because of "common-law trust principles." Id. at 2325. In rejecting the +tribe's claim, the Supreme Court held that "the Tribe must point to a right conferred by statute.. +• in order to obtain otherwise privilege information from the Government against its wishes." +Id. (emphasis added). The Supreme Court found that the Tribe could point to no such statutory +right within the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994. Id. at 2325-30. +Here, of course, the victims are not proceeding under an Indian trust fund statute, but +rather the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. They have very specifically +pointed to "a right conferred by statute" as the basis for obtaining the information in question. +The victims have explained that the CVRA obligates government prosecutors to "make their best +efforts to see that crime victims are ... accorded[] their rights" under the CVRA. 18 U.S.C. § +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 244 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2013 Page 6 of 9 +3771(c)(1). Throughout their pleadings, at great length, they have explained why this specific +statutory requirement obligates the Government to produce information that would help ensure +that they are accorded their rights under the CVRA, including a right to be treated with fairness +that creates "due process" protections. See DE 226 at 12-17; see also Part III, infra; DE 50 at 3- +5; DE 76 at 2-6. +Moreover, even assuming as the Government argues in its brief, that "the Government +seeks legal advice in a "personal' rather than a fiduciary capacity," DE 230 at 8 (citing Jicarilla +Apache Nation, 131 S.Ct. at 2328), that does not obviate the more specific requirement here that +it must use "best efforts" to protect crime victims' rights. The victims have explained in detail +why production of the documents to them is the only course of action consistent with the +Government's "best efforts" obligations. The victims, moreover, have not made any general +claim, but only a specific claim that on the unique facts of this case the CVRA requires +production of the documents. The Government does not even try to argue that withholding the +documents in this case is somehow consistent with its CVRA best efforts obligations, +presumably because no such argument would be plausible. For this reason as well, the Court +should produce all the documents to the victims. +III.THE VICTIMS HAVE A RIGHT UNDER THEIR CVRA'S "FAIRNESS" RIGHT +TO RECEIVE THE DOCUMENTS. +The victims finally argued in their motion that the CVRA's right "to be treated with +fairness" entitled them to access to documents helpful to their case. DE 226 at 14-17. The +victims noted that criminal defendants receive exculpatory information automatically from the +Government, and the situation here requires analogous treatment. +Id. In response, the +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 244 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2013 Page 7 of 9 +Government claims that the victims do not have a "liberty" or "property" interest sufficient to +trigger a due process claim, citing various Fourteenth Amendment cases. DE 230 at 8-9. But, +once again, the Government evades the issue. The victims indisputably have a statutory right +under the CVRA to be "treated with fairness." If the Government is correct that the crime +victims here lack a sufficient life, liberty, or property interest to invoke that right, then no crime +victim in any case would ever be able to invoke that right. Surely, the right to fairness must +mean something, particularly given that Senator Kyl, a CVRA co-sponsor, has directly stated +that "ItJhe broad rights articulated in this section [§ 3771(a)(8)] are meant to be rights themselves +and are not intended to just be aspirational. One of these rights is the right to be treated with +fairness. Of course, fairness includes the notion of due process. Too often victims of crime +experience a secondary victimization at the hands of the criminal justice system. This provision +is intended to direct Government agencies and employees, whether they are in executive or +judiciary branches, to treat victims of crime with the respect they deserve." 150 Cong. Rec. +S4269 (Apr. 22, 2004). +The Government never even claims that it could somehow be "fair" to the victims for the +Government to withhold information that would allow the victims to prove their case, +particularly where the Government has repeatedly refused to stipulate to the relevant facts +surrounding the victims' treatment. See DE 225-1 at 1-6 (affidavit recounting the Government's +repeated efforts to block a stipulation concerning relevant facts). The victims have persuasively +explained why their congressionally-recognized right to "fairness" requires the relevant +documents be produced to them. For this reason as well, the Court should produce to the victims +all of the documents that the Government is withholding on grounds of privilege. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 244 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2013 Page 8 of 9 +CONCLUSION +The Court should enter an order directing the Government not to withhold material +evidence in this case and should provide to the victims the materials it has received for in camera +review. +In addition, to solve the problem that the Government has not indicated which +documents apply to which requests, the Government should be required to provide such a +responsive document. +DATED: October 28, 2013 +Respectfully Submitted, +/s/ +JAFFE, WEISSING, +1. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +and +Paul G. Cassell +ro Hac Vic +J. Quinney College of Law at th +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: (801) 585-5202 +Facsimile: (801) 585-6833 +E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 244 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2013 Page 9 of 9 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I certify that the foregoing document was served on October 28, 2013, on the following +using the Court's CM/ECF system: +Dexter Lee +A. +Villafaña +500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Telephone: (561) 820-8711 +Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 +E-mail: Dexter.Lee @usdoj.gov +E-mail: +Attorneys for the Government +Roy Black, Esq. +Jackie Perczek, Esq. +Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 +Miami, FL 33131 +Telephone: (305) 37106421 +Email: pleading@royblack.com +Jay P. Lefkowitz +Kirkland & Ellis, LLP +601 Lexington Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +Telephone: (212) 446-4970 +Email: lefkowitz@kirkland.com +G. Weinberg, P.C. +20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 +Boston, 02116 +Telephone: (617) 338-9538 +Email: owlmgw@att.net +Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein +Is/l +J. diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aabd56d98609cf94f62ad220573f4890de42ff25caac0f98b0db572c0e722f25.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aabd56d98609cf94f62ad220573f4890de42ff25caac0f98b0db572c0e722f25.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..65cd090ad7dd134f63d990932b8654b3820bccd2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aabd56d98609cf94f62ad220573f4890de42ff25caac0f98b0db572c0e722f25.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -108, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "aabd56d98609cf94f62ad220573f4890de42ff25caac0f98b0db572c0e722f25", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b83bd8c4995a7c2b651b155ed4a86976e7512f9724fc1ad144b0042cb6594e7a", + "output_sha256": "56171c2ced5243307f8cb270a782de86c3e8b3bec31072654447f6c2351031d8", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aadc65cc9e6a37876523ff82cc24a115588cc669867dca791f7b6510134ee0e5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aadc65cc9e6a37876523ff82cc24a115588cc669867dca791f7b6510134ee0e5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..40bef5353e9c9836fa89746ace4f12821ae048ac --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aadc65cc9e6a37876523ff82cc24a115588cc669867dca791f7b6510134ee0e5.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +Filing # 109662729 E-Filed 07/01/2020 12:21:07 PM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida. +Defendants. +/ +COPY +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES +Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and +through the undersigned attorneys, moves the Court, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, +to award him reasonable attorneys' fees for the defense of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, +(the "Complaint"), and as grounds therefor, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served +a copy of this Motion, together with a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with +subsection (4) of the above Statute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior +to the filing of this Motion. In said letter, Defendant's attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which +establish that the Complaint is without support of the facts or the law. +WHEREFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach +County, Florida, respectfully requests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff's +attorneys to pay said Defendant's attorneys' fees incurred herein after service of this Motion. +*** FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL SHARON R BOCK, CLERK. 07/01/2020 12:21:07 PM *** + + +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on this 1st day July, 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed via +the Florida E-File Portal for electronic service on the parties of record herein. +SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +Is/ Douglas A. Wyler +Arthur I. L +_. Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 108249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 002126Y +Douglas A. Wyler, Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-1 +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +(904) 261-3693 +(904) 261-7879 +NOT A CERTAIN diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aadc65cc9e6a37876523ff82cc24a115588cc669867dca791f7b6510134ee0e5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aadc65cc9e6a37876523ff82cc24a115588cc669867dca791f7b6510134ee0e5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a44de5826799d05f30877fba91b3a082d3f17ea9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aadc65cc9e6a37876523ff82cc24a115588cc669867dca791f7b6510134ee0e5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "aadc65cc9e6a37876523ff82cc24a115588cc669867dca791f7b6510134ee0e5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "a0c0c6979ab71591d28499831722186d493221f1ee30ad73af30a6148ea384c8", + "output_sha256": "de43f3e87a2f49c20fc56e457b011a72ecbd9dac47ed3cc0bbab3a8e72414aae", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab148711ba83d2622312e2538d7b0e4215955d5f19678a3ad3de345da7d65f78.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab148711ba83d2622312e2538d7b0e4215955d5f19678a3ad3de345da7d65f78.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..230b9a27297415d6bed241cb551351bd1845c780 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab148711ba83d2622312e2538d7b0e4215955d5f19678a3ad3de345da7d65f78.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/27/2013 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Petitioners, +VS. +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, +Respondent. +NOTICE OF APPEAL BY INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the +Eleventh Circuit from an Order Granting Petitioners' Motion to Proffer Government +Correspondence in Support of CVRA Claims & Granting Motion to Unseal Correspondence and +Related Unredacted Pleadings of Petitioners dated June 18, 2013 [DE 188], an Order Denying +Government's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction & Order Lifting Stay of +Discovery dated June 19, 2013 [DE 189], and an Omnibus Order dated June 19, 2013 [DE 190]. +We certify that on June 27, 2013, the foregoing document was filed electronically with +the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. +By: +Respectfully submitted, +BLACK, SREBNICK, KORNSPAN +& STUMPF, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1300 +Miami, Florida 33131 +Telephone (305) 371-6421 +Fax (305) 358-2006 +/sl +ROY BLACK, ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 126088 +Email: rblack@royblack.com +JACKIE PERCZEK, ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 042201 +Email: iperczek@royblack.com diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab148711ba83d2622312e2538d7b0e4215955d5f19678a3ad3de345da7d65f78.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab148711ba83d2622312e2538d7b0e4215955d5f19678a3ad3de345da7d65f78.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6ec33f9991dde4ef7f7f6d8ad0960458bb48ef55 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab148711ba83d2622312e2538d7b0e4215955d5f19678a3ad3de345da7d65f78.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ab148711ba83d2622312e2538d7b0e4215955d5f19678a3ad3de345da7d65f78", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "910cdc5b03da22558d786dd8c946259766f6dcb1dd9322dea6a6c0b0142c97e8", + "output_sha256": "07369586501bae3985e6c489b8e43c522290f86e609a81ab74e6325824a69747", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab22d7c5a87785fba3604e153a42651912a48aa27b140bf45483e070f1b94cbb.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab22d7c5a87785fba3604e153a42651912a48aa27b140bf45483e070f1b94cbb.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..feedb78cca85e22cd73b34b2a30bcec2d49146a2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab22d7c5a87785fba3604e153a42651912a48aa27b140bf45483e070f1b94cbb.md @@ -0,0 +1,171 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 371 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +DEFENDANT'S RE-NOTICE (DATE CHANGE ONLY) OF INDEPENDENT +MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF, JANE DOE # 6(80994) +Defendant, JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, pursuant to Rule 35, Fed. R. Civ. P.., notices +the Plaintiff for an independent/psychological medical examination and states: +An appointment for examination of the Plaintiff has been made with Ryan +I, M.D. of C.W. +, M.D., P.A. at 9:00 a.m. on November 23, 2009 at Prose Court +Reporting located at One Clearlake Centre, 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite #1500, +West Palm Beach, FL, 33401. The Plaintiff is to wear comfortable clothing and bring a +sweater. The examination shall consist of an interview and testing and will likely last +until 5:30 p.m. See infra and Motion attached at DE (308) for scope, time and place of +IME. See Exhibits attached as well. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 371 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2009 Page 2 of 4 +2. +Plaintiff has not provided an available date; however, unless a timely and +valid objection to this Notice is made, the Plaintiff is required by this Rule to be in +attendance at the above-scheduled examination. +3. +Pursuant to Rule 35, if the psychiatrist performing the examination is +called as a witness, the psychiatrist shall not be identified as one appointed by the Court. +The cost of the examination will be originally borne by the Defendant but +is subject to taxation by the Court upon proper motion. +The interview will be videotaped. +6. Dr. Halls' specialties and qualifications are attached to the Motion +to Compel the IME at DE (308). The time, place, manner, conditions and scope +of the examination are attached to the Motion to Compel the IME at DE (308). +See Affidavit attached thereto. All of the above documents have been provided +to the Plaintif's counsel and, therefore, sufficient notife had been made. +By: +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is +being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in +the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 26* day of October, 2009 +Repetly substited,. +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bat No 224162 +rcrit@bcldlaw.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 371 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2009 Page 3 of 4 +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/J +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +LEsq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Suite 2218 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: 954-522-3456 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +edwards@rra-law.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +08-80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, +08-80232, +, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +08-80994 +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +801-585-5202 +2290 10t Avenue North +801-585-6833 Fax +Suite 404 +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Isidro M. +Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80811 +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack P. +_ Esq. +561-832-7137 F +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 371 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2009 Page 4 of 4 +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, 08-80469 +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-686-6300 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +isx(@searcylaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +305 358-2800 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +riosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases +Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Leopold, Kuvin, P.A. +2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +561-684-6500 +Fax: 561-515-2610 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-08804 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab22d7c5a87785fba3604e153a42651912a48aa27b140bf45483e070f1b94cbb.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab22d7c5a87785fba3604e153a42651912a48aa27b140bf45483e070f1b94cbb.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0e991145d71fb4444ac76331d1dc55fc921eab69 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab22d7c5a87785fba3604e153a42651912a48aa27b140bf45483e070f1b94cbb.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ab22d7c5a87785fba3604e153a42651912a48aa27b140bf45483e070f1b94cbb", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "075689e702906238eb4160f476d3cc1ae25fdcd8712d950505d68b7c7b2a6d0f", + "output_sha256": "0fff548ab1f1dc2a67d68457d35710586dfc9e4d2fa3c852d9e16ffd27688e53", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab26928759682ccd796a7961516d7fa183e7491fe5847c6360db8b44465c6173.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab26928759682ccd796a7961516d7fa183e7491fe5847c6360db8b44465c6173.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dd7dc450b68a9974dc35c4fec0110f982f0213ab --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab26928759682ccd796a7961516d7fa183e7491fe5847c6360db8b44465c6173.md @@ -0,0 +1,167 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 115 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO.2, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80119-MARRA/J| +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO.3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80232-MARRA/J +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO.4, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80380-MARRA/] +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80381-MARRA/] +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 115 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 2 of 6 +Page 2 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +vS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., +Defendants. +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80993-MARRA/| +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80893-MARRA/_ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 115 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 3 of 6 +Page 3 +DOE II, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80469-MARRA/] +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80591-MARRA/) +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80656-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT, EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' +JANE DOE'S 2 THROUGH 7, MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME +TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL +AND/OR IDENTIFY JANE DOE IN THE STYLE ET AL. +Defendant, JEFFERY EPSTEIN, (EPSTEIN), by and through his undersigned +attorneys, hereby files his Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Enlargement +of Time to Respond to Epstein's Motion to Compel and/or Identify Jane Doe in the style + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 115 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 4 of 6 +Page 4 +of this case and Motion to Identify Jane Doe in Third-Party Subpoenas for purposes of +Discovery, or alternatively Motion to Dismiss Sua Sponte, and states as follows: +1. +Epstein filed the Motion to Compel and/or Identify Jane Doe's 2 through +7 on May 5, and 6, 2009. +2. +Plaintiffs' Response is due on May 22, 2009. While the undersigned +counsel agreed that Plaintiffs could have an extension of time of one week to file and +serve their opposition Motion (i.e., until May 29, 2009), Plaintiffs do not find it a +reasonable agreement. Plaintiffs have requested an additional twenty (20) days to +respond to the Motion to Compel and/or Identify. As set forth in the Motion to +Compel and/or Identify, the failure and/or refusal to allow Epstein to identify Jane +Doe's 2 through 7 in various third-party subpoenas is preventing meaningful discovery +and the preparation of Epstein's defenses in this matter in anticipation of trial. The +Motion to Compel and/or Identify Jane Doe is incorporated herein by reference. +Therefore, all those arguments apply herein. +3. +As set forth in the Motion to Compel and/or Identify, Jane Doe Numbers +2 through 7, these cases have been filed for some time. Therefore, discovery should +have been permitted so that Epstein would be able to properly prepare and defend the +claims brought against him by Jane Doe Numbers 2 through 7. Plaintiffs, and their +counsel, have not agreed to the relief set forth in the Motion to Compel and/or Identify +Jane Doe Numbers 2 through 7. CMA agreed to such relief. Exhibit "A". Therefore, +any extension granted to Jane Doe's Numbers 2 through 7 will further delay discovery + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 115 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 5 of 6 +Page 5 +in this matter. Such a delay has been addressed by Epstein filing his Motion to Strike +cases from the current trial docket, dated May 19, 2009. +Discovery should not be delayed in these matters any longer. +WHEREFORE, Epstein hereby respectfully requests that an Order be entered +requiring Plaintiffs, Jane Doe's #2 through #7 to file their opposition Motion to the +Motion to Compel and/or Identify on or before May 29, 2009, and for such other and +further relief as this Court deems just and proper. +Michael/J. Pike, Esq. +Attornes-for Defendant Epstein +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document +is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List +in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 1Z day of May, 2009: +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 115 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 6 of 6 +Page 6 +By: _ +D. CRUTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab26928759682ccd796a7961516d7fa183e7491fe5847c6360db8b44465c6173.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab26928759682ccd796a7961516d7fa183e7491fe5847c6360db8b44465c6173.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..44cc857c631c71841739a76d6839b2088ab3f70d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab26928759682ccd796a7961516d7fa183e7491fe5847c6360db8b44465c6173.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ab26928759682ccd796a7961516d7fa183e7491fe5847c6360db8b44465c6173", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "a05cfe0acefac4eed8d9a8db17ed31bfae04f186e57f7f1ed71af78ae17f8848", + "output_sha256": "e75b0f3cb4d65a8f244b88fa0655db03191d84f8a469571556da0506c1ccd123", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab466d7a94cd298129bf70c2a24bead5e381bf18252a10a7de997a775ab8f0b6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab466d7a94cd298129bf70c2a24bead5e381bf18252a10a7de997a775ab8f0b6.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6f104b6127ba6af09869101dbefe6fbfbc4c28e7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab466d7a94cd298129bf70c2a24bead5e381bf18252a10a7de997a775ab8f0b6.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 49 Filed 09/10/21 Page 1 of 1 +Sanders LLP +Troutman Pepper +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +troutman.com +troutman" +pepper +Bennet J. Moskowitz +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +September 10, 2021 +VIA ECF +Hon. Debra C. Freeman +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +New York, NY 10007 +Re: +Jane Doe v. Darren . Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as +the Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF +Dear Judge Freeman: +We represent Defendants Darren |. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors +of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, in the referenced action. We write jointly with Plaintiff +to report that the parties are attempting to resolve this matter extrajudicially. Accordingly, +to preserve the parties' resources and in the interest of judicial economy, the parties +respectfully request that the Court enter a sixty-day stay of this action, through November +9, 2021. Should the parties resolve Plaintiff's claims through settlement, they will +thereafter promptly discontinue this action with prejudice. +Respectfully submitted, +/s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab466d7a94cd298129bf70c2a24bead5e381bf18252a10a7de997a775ab8f0b6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab466d7a94cd298129bf70c2a24bead5e381bf18252a10a7de997a775ab8f0b6.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cf20f7fc47a9eddf03ddd75be1c6c0279c94eedc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab466d7a94cd298129bf70c2a24bead5e381bf18252a10a7de997a775ab8f0b6.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ab466d7a94cd298129bf70c2a24bead5e381bf18252a10a7de997a775ab8f0b6", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e31d7f492de21c112a0e8f352cfdb997d68617522b0a96bd15853453d0636e64", + "output_sha256": "14f66cd8327f97ff1688bf90d696988e78121e3c825a6cf758c552ac396cd7cf", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab516e542d9b62650a448f450f2e910648b65daad0de3f2756882460bc72a352.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab516e542d9b62650a448f450f2e910648b65daad0de3f2756882460bc72a352.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..098aff0fd8af7f6ae14408b44bc1ffb37e0836e1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab516e542d9b62650a448f450f2e910648b65daad0de3f2756882460bc72a352.md @@ -0,0 +1,104 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2009 Page 2 of 4 +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/_ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +2 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2009 Page 3 of 4 +Defendants. +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09- 80469-CIV-MARRA +Plaintift, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09- 80591-CIV-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +ORDER +THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order Against +Piecemeal Depositions of Jane Doe No.'s 2, 3, 4, and 7 and Motion to Consolidate Cases for +Purposes of Discovery (DE 66 in 08-80119; DE 58 in 08-80232; DE 73 in 08-80380; DE 23 in +08-80993). The Court has reviewed the motions, responses, replies, and is otherwise fully +advised in the premesis. It is hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: +Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order Against Piecemeal Depositions is GRANTED, +pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). As to each of the ten above-styled cases, Defendant is limited +3 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2009 Page 4 of 4 +to a single deposition of each Plaintiff, during which Defendant may depose the plaintiff as both +a party and a witness to all other cases of a similar nature of which the plaintiff deposed is aware. +Defendant should not expect to be able to re-depose any plaintiff relative to any new cases that +may be filed. Therefore, Defendant should examine each plaintiff about the facts relating to all +individuals of whom they are aware, regardless of whether an individual has in fact filed a claim +against Defendant. In the event additional cases are filed, upon a showing of good cause, the +Court will determine whether Defendant will be permitted to re-depose any of the plaintifts as +witnesses to the allegations made in those newly filed cases. +Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery is GRANTED. In the +interests of judicial economy and efficiency, cases 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, and 08-80993 +are hereby CONSOLIDATED for purposes of discovery only. +Additionally, the parties in the other six above-styled causes (08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80811, 08-80893 09-80469, 09-80591) are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or +before May 5, 2009 why all of the cases should not be consolidated for discovery purposes. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +Florida, this 28" day of April, 2009 +Copies furnished to: +all counsel of record +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +4 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab516e542d9b62650a448f450f2e910648b65daad0de3f2756882460bc72a352.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab516e542d9b62650a448f450f2e910648b65daad0de3f2756882460bc72a352.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c3a44594aaa0e88c53044c0c5ba8227453c22eac --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab516e542d9b62650a448f450f2e910648b65daad0de3f2756882460bc72a352.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ab516e542d9b62650a448f450f2e910648b65daad0de3f2756882460bc72a352", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "3b5ee815c4a096ee6c319cb43c08f23da97010fd63ef17ff8fce94dd08d7e26c", + "output_sha256": "2c7f7d456886b1ba70ba0950ace3a3904ce7498332195bc41d952982cfb3c274", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab9e451f8c6e840bc83e73a2ec442492f3f54eadff41814db6502a00807b6026.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab9e451f8c6e840bc83e73a2ec442492f3f54eadff41814db6502a00807b6026.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8df6600cd09694bca18b388e15dcfa38f917b445 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab9e451f8c6e840bc83e73a2ec442492f3f54eadff41814db6502a00807b6026.md @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 549 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2010 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092, +PLAINTIFES JANE DOES 2-8' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR +ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S +RULE 4 APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDERS +DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 480) AND APRIL 1, 2010 (DE 513) +Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-8, by and through undersigned counsel, file this Unopposed +Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Response to Defendant's Rule 4 Appeal of Portions of +The Magistrate's Orders Dated February 4, 2010 (DE 480) and April 1, 2010 (DE 513), and state +as follows: +Defendant Epstein filed his Rule 4 Appeal on May 12, 2010. +Plaintiffs' +Response is presently due to be filed on May 26, 2010. +Plaintiffs request a brief enlargement of time of two (2) days, until and including +May 28, 2010, to file their Response. +3. +Plaintiffs' counsel requires an enlargement of time due to demands on Plaintiffs' + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 549 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2010 Page 2 of 4 +counsel in this and other cases and matters, including A.G.D. et al. v. Siegel, case no. 09-CV- +80959, U.S. District Court, S.D. Fla; and Doe v. Waterford Kids Academy, Inc., case no. 09-CA- +10377, Orange County Circuit Court. +4. +Plaintiffs bring this Motion in good faith and not for purposes of undue delay. +5. Pursuant to S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.I(A), Plaintiffs' counsel has conferred with counsel for +Defendant regarding the relief sought in this Motion, who has advised Plaintiffs' counsel that +Defendant has no objection to the enlargement of time requested. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request an enlargement of time of two (2) days, +until and including May 28, 2010, to file their Response to Defendant's Rule 4 Appeal. +Dated: May 26, 2010. +Respectfully submitted, +By: s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 549 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2010 Page 3 of 4 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on May 26, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served +this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission +of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for +those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Stuart S. Mermelstein + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 549 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2010 Page 4 of 4 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +bedwards@rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab9e451f8c6e840bc83e73a2ec442492f3f54eadff41814db6502a00807b6026.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab9e451f8c6e840bc83e73a2ec442492f3f54eadff41814db6502a00807b6026.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6bc3036e7b14751297da92ddb14b4f9acc71637d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ab9e451f8c6e840bc83e73a2ec442492f3f54eadff41814db6502a00807b6026.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ab9e451f8c6e840bc83e73a2ec442492f3f54eadff41814db6502a00807b6026", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "329da5a0e551f2441d36313c6cbfbf88dd0eaf1c0f94ac65582f062cd435c469", + "output_sha256": "9dc32ada46fa70d1ac4ea53045e37f1769b302e81e67ee4057729f0cd3c8a3a8", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac08794c9a1b55a5eccbc9330aebd07c2778acb07044c82992a369aeaea296c2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac08794c9a1b55a5eccbc9330aebd07c2778acb07044c82992a369aeaea296c2.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c2adb9dfe5a35e840606eaef602a58ac5a25553a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac08794c9a1b55a5eccbc9330aebd07c2778acb07044c82992a369aeaea296c2.md @@ -0,0 +1,198 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 44-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 1 of 5 +The Psychological Trauma Center +a division of Preventive Psychiatry Associates Medical Group, Inc. +Medical Director: Gilbert W. Kliman, M. D. +2105 Divisadero St, San Francisco, CA 94115 +Phone (415)292-7119 Fax (415) 749-2802 +www.expertchildpsuchiatry.com +Forensic Child Psychiatric Evaluations, Life Care Plans de Testimony +DECLARATION OF GILBERT KLIMAN, M. D. +June 4, 2009 +RE: EXPECTATION OF HARM FROM DISCLOSING THE PLAINTIFFS' IDENTITIES +IN DOES V JEFFREY EPSTEIN +1. I, Gilbert W. Kliman, M.D., of 2105 Divisadero Street, San Francisco, California, +CA. Physicians License G55912, declare the following under penalty of perjury: +2. I have been retained by plaintiffs' law firm, Mermelstein & Horowitz, to give expert +testimony. If called as a witness, I would testify truthfully and competently concerning +my psychiatric findings about each of the plaintiffs' alleged experiences of sexual abuse, +and the enduring effects that I find each of the young women have suffered as a direct +result of the sexual acts perpetrated by the defendant. +3. I have been asked to respond to the Defense motion, which requests that some of the +plaintiffs, who are now adults, should be publicly named. It is my opinion that +involuntary public disclosure will result in the plaintiffs experiencing revictimization, +albeit by a justice system that is designed to protect them. If their identities are released, +the victims will be at-risk of having their personal lives scrutinized by friends, extended +family, spouses, children, fellow students, employers and fellow employees, the media +and general public. This type of exposure humiliates many victims and represents another +betrayal of trust. Public exposure places the plaintiffs at further risk of stigmatization, +shame and retraumatization. +4. Due to traumatization the plaintiffs are arrested in their development, and even those +who are now legally adults are arrested in part to adolescent aspects of psychology. +5. The plaintiffs do not hold their heads high with pride for having been sexually +controlled by Mr. Epstein. They hold their heads low with shame. The internal life of a +typical adolescent, into late adolescence and early adult years in the best of +circumstances, usually involves generous proportions of self-consciousness, shame, selfabsorption and self-doubt and self-blame about sexual acts. + +1 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 44-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 2 of 5 +6. Clinically harmful levels of shame, self-consciousness, self-doubt and self-blame are +even more prominent among victims of molestations than among the general population. +7. Molested teenagers are particularly vulnerable to wrongful manipulations and special +clinical harms from the experiences of shame and humiliation. In fact, shame and efforts +to cope with it played an underlying role in the harm to each plaintiff. Each was lured +into Mr. Epstein's sexual lair with the promise of overcoming bodily and sexual shame +by earning money and bettering their lot in life. The defendant capitalized on their sexual +naiveté, insecurities and effort to better themselves, and he worked hard to overcome +their shame at his enlistment of them in his selfish gratifications. +8. The defendant who wishes to make their identities public is one whom the criminal +justice system has already determined is a person who has already committed a crime of +child molestation. That surely means he has already exploited and manipulated the girls' +state of adolescent sexuality, including their embarrassment, awkwardness and bodily +self-consciousness. He perverted their nascent and developing moral structures by posing +as a generous, avuncular mentor who could coach them about their bodies, sex and love. +The exploitation of adolescent bodies, sex and love is - from a psychoanalytic point of +view - an influence on the developing moral conscience of the children, as well as on +their sexual urges. Now the ravaging of their internal and private moral conscience is +intended by the perpetrator to be made a public ravaging. +9. Among sexual trauma victims, the insidious and destructive persistence of shame, +humiliation and associated self-blame is well-documented (Finkelhor and +Stigmatization, as experienced by a sexual trauma victim, has especially painful and +pathologic consequences. Shame lingers and becomes integrated within the adolescent +victim's malleable emerging identity, character structure and self image. Moral clarity is +distorted. Perceptions of self-blame and guilt are magnified. The impact of shame lends +to cultivating a self image of being "spoiled goods." +10. Stigmatization following sexual trauma results in long-term risks that can negatively +shape multiple facets of adult development: sexual, emotional, interpersonal and +vocational. Stigmatization, which is generally to be avoided among psychiatric patients, +increases risks among those - as in our plaintiffs as a group - who experience clinical +depression and self-destructive behaviors: drug use, criminal activity, even prostitution. +Stigmatization following abuse is associated with delinquency due to increased anger +and affiliation with deviant peers (Feiring et al., 2007). +11. Shame and guilt are important dimensions of both complex and single event, +posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Symptoms of shame are associated with feelings of +helplessness and powerlessness, which each of the plaintiffs endorsed experiencing in +relation to Mr. Epstein. +2 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 44-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 3 of 5 +12. The DSM-IV-TR recognizes both powerlessness and helplessness as requisite parts of +the traumatic experience in Criterion A for the diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder +Seligman, recent Past President of the American Psychological +Association, coined relevant terms of "learned helplessness and "Loss of Personal Locus +of Control." See Seligman, M.P. 1975: Helplessness, Depression, Development and +Death. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco). The teenaged girls suffered the loss of personal +locus of control to a much more experienced, sexually aggressive, powerful and +dominant, manipulative perpetrator. +13. Releasing names of the plaintiffs to the public will reenact experiences of +powerlessness and helplessness in the face of a boundary violation. Repetition and +reenactment represent central features of Criterion B in the DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of' +posttraumatic stress disorder trauma. In effect, release of their identity and public +intrusion into their personal life represents a reenactment of the shame of sexual +traumatization. Repetition and reenactment are central pathologies that afflict sexual +trauma survivors. +14. Victims of sexual abuse often rely upon some form of dissociation, splitting or denial, +as a defensive means to manage overwhelming affects associated with the sexual trauma. +Each of the plaintiff girls has employed some variation of this defense, both during the +massages and then subsequently following disclosure of the abuse. Primitive, +maladaptive responses of this nature will become additionally reinforced as a result of +public disclosure. +15. Another aspect of the plaintiffs' experience, which is recognized by DSM-IV-TR, is +that the trauma was associated with human design factors (such as cruel intention to do +harm, rape, torture). Trauma of this origin has a tendency to produce more "severe or +long lasting" posttraumatic stress disorder than natural events (DSM IV TR p. 464). A +policy of deliberate revelation of the names of the victims would reinforce the sense of +design, pattern and policy of human intentions. +16. Negative expectations about significant activities are noted in DSM-IV-TR, as part of +Criterion C. Symptoms of foreshortened future are characteristic of a traumatized +individual's clinical course (C4). They expect revictimization. They expect bad outcomes +(C7) in their social, educational, vocational, relational plans. They are hypervigilant +(Criterion D4) for further trauma, and this affects lifestyle choices and future planning. +Hypervigilance is part of the arousal set of criteria. Public disclosure of the victims' +identity will aggravate existing symptoms of hypervigilance. +17. The DSM-IV-TR diagnostic category of "chronic" is justified for each of the +plaintiffs. Scientific literature shows that the prognostic consequences of PTSD and +residual effects may last for decades (U.S. Dept. of Health, 2005; Issues in Child Abuse +Prevention Number 9 Autumn1998: Long-term Effects of Child Sexual Abuse, Paul E +Mullen and Jillian Fleming). The lasting impact upon character, identity and moral +development will probably affect long-term influences upon adult development. It is +more probable than not that stigmatization associated with public disclosure of the +3 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 44-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 4 of 5 +plaintiffs" identities will intensify the scope, nature and severity of the chronic symptom +course. +18. In addition to PTSD, shame and humiliation themselves have also been associated +with causing clinical depression. Coexisting PTSD and clinical depression places the +plaintiff's at increased risk for re-victimization and high risk sexual behaviors (e.g., +sexually transmitted disease, premature pregnancy, rape) (Nelson, 2002), and at greater +risk to victimize others (Filipas and Ullman, 2006; Desai, Centers for Disease Control, +2002) who are in their control. Studies have also shown that chronic symptoms of PTSD, +in association with a single episode of Major Depressive Disorder, can produce lifetime +adjustment difficulties, which include suicidality (Oquendo et al, 2005; Dube et al, CDC, +2001; Rohde, J. Am. Acad. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2005). The plaintiffs will be +additionally vulnerable to these clinical outcomes, if they suffer the stigmatization and +humiliation associated with public disclosure of their identities. +19. Alternative hypothesis: I have applied the evidence shown from examination and +testing of the plaintiffs and relevant observations and information from other +professionals while testing an alternative hypothesis: that no harm would result from +public disclosure of the plaintiffs' identities. During the evaluations with the six +plaintiffs, I used generally acceptable criteria for establishing whether a DSM-IV-TR +disorder occurred. I established that there were provable and diagnosable injuries, +primarily posttraumatic stress disorder and comorbid depression. Based upon these +diagnostic signs, it is more probable than not, that exposing the plaintiff's identity to the +public is not a trivial concern or one without substantial clinical repercussions. I believe +that most child, adolescent and adult psychiatrists would share the opinion that additional +psychiatric injury will result from such exposure. +20. However, consider for the sake of argument, that my diagnostic conclusions are +incorrect, notwithstanding having fulfilled standard psychiatric evaluation procedures of +taking a history from multiple sources, videotaping and transcribing my initial interview, +and reviewing available medical and legal documents. Even if this was the case, and my +diagnostic conclusions were faulty, I believe that multiple experts, even those who may +now propose publication of the victims' names, would still come to a conclusion that the +plaintiff's suffered sexual abuse, and in some cases, multiple acts of ongoing abuse, at the +hands of Jeffery Epstein. Even without developing a subsequent disorder, there is much +clinical evidence and scientific literature showing likelihood of substantial psychiatric +harm to these sexually abused plaintiffs. +21. To form these conclusions, I have used my extensive experience in forming these +opinions. That experience is both as a treating child psychiatrist and separately as a +forensic psychiatrist. I have treated hundreds of minor patients, as well as additionally +evaluated hundreds of children and adolescents who have suffered sexual abuse. I have +made long term followups of many of the children and have treated many adults who +have been molested as adolescents. It is my opinion, with a reasonably high degree of +medical certainty that the defense motion to allow public disclosure of the plaintiffs' +identities is clinically and ethically a wrongful plan. The act of revealing their identities +against their wishes places the plaintiffs at risk, in the best of circumstances, of suffering +4 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 44-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 5 of 5 +an aggravation of existing diagnostic concerns. It is more probable than not that releasing +personal identities will +an exacerbation and magnification of symptoms lending to +increased risk of revictimization and retraumatization. +I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the +foregoing statements are true and correct, and that this declaration was executed at San +Francisco, California on June 4, 2009. +Sincerely, +Babel Kina 1D +Gilbert Kliman, M.D. +Distinguished Life Fellow, American Psychiatric Association +Senior Fellow, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry +Brockman Award Holder, for Distinguished Lifetime Contributions to +Psychoanalysis and Psychiatry, bestowed by the American College of Psychoanalysis and +Psychiatry +LEONID NAKHODKIN ≤ +Сомм.# 1791115 +NOTARY PUBLIC- CALIFORNIA +ÔTY & COUNTY OF SAR FRANCISCO +Mr CoNa, EXP. FEE. 27, 2012 T +State of California, City & County of San Francisco +Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed before me on this +day of yu nor by Gilbert Kinceeu +proved to me on the basis of sailstactory evidence +1 a no need a lockde . +5 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac08794c9a1b55a5eccbc9330aebd07c2778acb07044c82992a369aeaea296c2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac08794c9a1b55a5eccbc9330aebd07c2778acb07044c82992a369aeaea296c2.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..583c7646b63538016a21f8d58a7de4f17ee234d0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac08794c9a1b55a5eccbc9330aebd07c2778acb07044c82992a369aeaea296c2.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -73, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ac08794c9a1b55a5eccbc9330aebd07c2778acb07044c82992a369aeaea296c2", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 7, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "6b6fb2b94c748d65c2f5cfda7d7c1e826e8ec7bf419614b3e7397d2f41331026", + "output_sha256": "364ca5cadad2f0940937027c9933d103eea66c371b2cd0db2872640c883b7a6f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac14aa157dd2778f72909a229c8946c828f343aa24e60bde4eb60d550023d12c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac14aa157dd2778f72909a229c8946c828f343aa24e60bde4eb60d550023d12c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d391a625926a93d8e325248c3e44ae0960f70cab --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac14aa157dd2778f72909a229c8946c828f343aa24e60bde4eb60d550023d12c.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DECLARATION OF JEFFREY M. HERMAN REGARDING SERVICE +OF PROCESS AND THIS COURT'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE +Jeffrey M. Herman, deposes and states as follows: +I am counsel for Plaintiff in this action. After the parties' briefed the issue of service +of process on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, this Court found valid service under New York law and +entered an Order to Show Cause Why Default Should Not be Entered Against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein, dated July 16, 2008. +I submit this Declaration to correct what appears to be a factual error in the Court's +Order to Show Cause. I do so even though this error is in Plaintiff's favor. +3. +In the Order to Show Cause, this Court finds that "It]he process server also mailed a +copy of the summons and complaint to Defendant on May 5, 2008, via first class mail. (DE 4)." It is +my understanding that the Affidavit of Service (DE 4) crosses out language regarding mail to the +Defendant, and that the process server in this case did not mail a copy of the Summons and +Complaint to the Defendant's New York address. In none of the papers Plaintiff filed in this matter +is it asserted that the Summons and Complaint was mailed, nor did Plaintiff claim that service was +valid under New York law. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 2 of 2 +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA +Under penalties of perjury, I declare the foregoing to be true and correct. +Dated: July 21, 2008. +s/ Jeffrey M. Herman +Jeffrey M. Herman +Herman & Mermelstein, P. A. +2 +www.hermanlaw.com diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac14aa157dd2778f72909a229c8946c828f343aa24e60bde4eb60d550023d12c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac14aa157dd2778f72909a229c8946c828f343aa24e60bde4eb60d550023d12c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..13b9dedc7c06de6be8ceca08d43e3b0b43d2dd30 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac14aa157dd2778f72909a229c8946c828f343aa24e60bde4eb60d550023d12c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ac14aa157dd2778f72909a229c8946c828f343aa24e60bde4eb60d550023d12c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0fa1cca59847298c4833250aea98d528522f5c7e2341aaa787f16507ae44e11c", + "output_sha256": "d6ffac34bcccc9a3fe6de918bbdc1a7caa0963ba7b64df6f3855a640a6c0c32b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac30ada9c9d9ed8cd752b8555eaf34d2e9dc12382331c5854e67f563d89e0862.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac30ada9c9d9ed8cd752b8555eaf34d2e9dc12382331c5854e67f563d89e0862.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..767f590f870cede9a53a917dcb8298b624d31bfb --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac30ada9c9d9ed8cd752b8555eaf34d2e9dc12382331c5854e67f563d89e0862.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +Filing # 117976955 E-Filed 12/10/2020 10:51:36 AM +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida, SHARON R. BOCK, +as Clerk & Comptroller, Palm Beach County, +Defendants. +CASE NO: 2019-CA-014681 +COPY +AMENDED NOTICE FOR NON-JURY TRIAL +Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and +take approximately a half-day to try and is presently limited to the issue of entitlement regarding +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 10th day of December, 2020, a copy of the foregoing has +been electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein. +SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +Is/ Douglas A. Wyler +Arthur I. I +_ Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 10249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-I +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +(904) 261-3693 +(904) 261-7879 Fax +Primary: jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, 12/10/2020 10:51:36 AM diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac30ada9c9d9ed8cd752b8555eaf34d2e9dc12382331c5854e67f563d89e0862.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac30ada9c9d9ed8cd752b8555eaf34d2e9dc12382331c5854e67f563d89e0862.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..94a4c0400417dd79ae1a1b312032b7daaba45bbc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac30ada9c9d9ed8cd752b8555eaf34d2e9dc12382331c5854e67f563d89e0862.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ac30ada9c9d9ed8cd752b8555eaf34d2e9dc12382331c5854e67f563d89e0862", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b2a19050df7f141ba98ffde974bb78b269feec76ca36caedf77339eb874fac81", + "output_sha256": "4e9a7ccc0b4dee61998f3a317700d7bcee2e5c605b172b31a9b557487d663e71", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac389bbcc65bb35edf542c082fc23c04470100add396763d8a2572e8fa4a0753.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac389bbcc65bb35edf542c082fc23c04470100add396763d8a2572e8fa4a0753.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3e8ceb94c563b36d4b77417dd3ec76756f2232a7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac389bbcc65bb35edf542c082fc23c04470100add396763d8a2572e8fa4a0753.md @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM +Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2008 Page 1 of 1 +Form 42 - DOORMAN WITH MILITARY +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN PA +ATTN: +U.S. SOUTHERN DIST. COURT +FLORIDA COUNTY +Index No. 08CV80380 +JANE DOE NO.4 +plaintiff +Date Filed +- against - +Office No. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +defendant +Court Date: +STATE +OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NEW YORK +: SS: +HARRY +being duly sworn, deposes and says; I am over 18 years +of age, not +7th day of May, 2008 +a party to this action, and reside in the State of New York. That on the +07:45 AM +9 EAST 71ST ST +NEW YORK, NY 10021 +I served the SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT +after prior attempts were made on: 04/23/2008 06:15 PM 04/24/2008 02:30 PM 05/01/2008 06:27PD +upon JEFFREY EPSTEIN +the DEFENDANT therein named by delivering and leaving a true copy or copies +of the aforementioned documents with +"JOHN +", ASSISTANT & HOUSE STAFF EMPLOYEE WHO +REFUSED TRUE NAME +a person of suitable age and discretion, who refused access to DEFENDANT's +actual apartment, and accepted in accordance with his/her everyday duties. +Deponent describes the person served as aforesaid to the best of deponent's ability +at the time and circumstances of the service as follows: +SEX: MALE +COLOR: +HAIR: +AGE: 45 HEIGHT: 6:0 WEIGHT: 200 +OTHER IDENTIFYING FEATURES: MUSTACHE/BEARD +On_05/12/2008-I deposited-in the United States mail a true copy of-the aforementioned -- +documents properly-enclosed and-sealed-in a-post-paid wrapper-addressad to-the-said +DEFENDANT at the above address - That-address,inglast known residence, usual place of abode of the DEFENDANT. +cepy fatted 1st-olass mait-marked pereenal-"-confidential not-indieating en the-outside thereof-- +by-return address or-otherwise that said notico is-frol-at attorney-er cencorne-actien against +the person to-be serued ** & 5/5/08 9:20PM +That at the time of service as aforesaid, I asked person spoken to whether DEFENDANT +was in the military service of the State of New York or United States and received a negative +reply. Upon information and belief based upon the conversation and observation as aforesaid +I aver that the DEFEAT Se not +I aver that the DEFENDANT is not in the military service of the State of New York or the +United States as that term is defined in the statutes of the State of New York or the Federal +DEPONENT STATED AT THE TIME OF +SEPONENT STATED AT THE TIME OF SERVICE HE HAD LEGAL +PAPERS IN A FLORIDA ACTION• +Sworn to before me this +12th day of May, +2008ni +SAMSON +Notary Public, Sta +New York +No. 01NE-4783767 +Qualified in NEW YORK COUNTY +Commission Expires 11/03/2009 +AETNA +CENTRA +JUDICIAL +225 BROADWAY, SUITE 1802 +NEW YORK, NY, +10007 +Reference No: 3HM4124083 +SERVICES diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac389bbcc65bb35edf542c082fc23c04470100add396763d8a2572e8fa4a0753.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac389bbcc65bb35edf542c082fc23c04470100add396763d8a2572e8fa4a0753.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3f1566c64cfac898528e654be4eb10b6f5db741c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac389bbcc65bb35edf542c082fc23c04470100add396763d8a2572e8fa4a0753.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -14, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ac389bbcc65bb35edf542c082fc23c04470100add396763d8a2572e8fa4a0753", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "7c9283c905daae42c2bc56243022c33459d461160e32ec96ecd260c67046c935", + "output_sha256": "202154a83c53943d674ca5b607aa1ac7d8ec7249277a31e560b71b29f3b75d8a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac574fc6784ae215f6fc832d9075aba6205d29f095964cc20500f0eaff3952e0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac574fc6784ae215f6fc832d9075aba6205d29f095964cc20500f0eaff3952e0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b07a2281da1cc3c6a3d945b1c5a2c360e8add380 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac574fc6784ae215f6fc832d9075aba6205d29f095964cc20500f0eaff3952e0.md @@ -0,0 +1,208 @@ +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 328-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 1 of 8 +Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 1 of 8 +Jane Doe #5 +V. +Jeffrey Epstein +AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD C.W. +L.M.D. +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF SEMINOLE +On this day personally appeared before me, the undersigned authority, Richard +c.W.L +M.D., who, being by me first duly sworn under oath deposes and says: +1. +My name is Richard C.W. +M.D. Iam over the age of majority, and make +this affidavit and declaration upon the basis of personal knowledge of the factual matters +contained herein. +2. +since 1996. +I have maintained a private practice in psychiatry and forensic psychiatry +3. I, also, currently serve as a Courtesy Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the +University of Florida, College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida; Affiliate Professor, Dept of +Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, University of South Florida; and Professor of +Psychiatry, Department of Medical Education, University of Central Florida College +Medicine. +4. +I received my undergraduate degree from the Johns +University and +PENDANTS + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 328-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 2 of 8 +Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 2 of 8 +medical degree from the University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida. +I served as a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy, where I +researched and evaluated biological and neurochemical factors associated with the onset of +psychiatric disorders and served as a representative to the Joint Services Task Force +planning Operation Homecoming, the return of POW's from Vietnam. +6. +I have previously served as an assistant clinical professor at the University of +South Florida College of Medicine, directed one of the ten model mental health centers in +the United States, and served as a medical consultant to the Kennedy Space Center. +7. I am a former member of the academic faculty at the University of Texas, in +Houston, Texas where I served as Assistant Professor and then Associate Professor of +Psychiatry and Internal Medicine, Director of Clinical Research, Director of Residency +Training, Chief of the Consultation/Liaison Service, and Chief Psychiatrist at the M.D. +Cancer Hospital in Houston. +8. +I, also, have served as a Professor of Internal Medicine and Psychiatry at the +Medical College of Wisconsin where I was appointed Chief of Psychiatry at the Milwaukee +County and Froedtert Hospitals. +9. +In addition, I have served as a Professor of Psychiatry and Internal Medicine +and Associate +at the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, Memphis. +10. +The amended complaint filed by Jane Doe #5 against Jeffrey Epstein makes +2 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 328-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 3 of 8 +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 247-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 3 of 8 +sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon a minor and seek damages in excess +of $50 million. Jane Doe #5 alleges confusion, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, and +severe psychological and emotional injuries. It is further alleged that she suffered, and will +continue to suffer, severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, +psychological, and emotional damages. +11. +She alleges the intentional infliction of emotional distress and that Mr. +Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress, severe mental anguish and pain. +12. She further alleges that she has suffered personal injury including mental, +psychological and emotional damage. +13. +Plaintif's counsel has retained an expert witness, Dr. Kliman of the +Psychological Trauma Center, a division of Preventive Psychiatry Associates Medical +Group, Inc., of San Francisco, California, of which Gilbert W. Kliman, MD, is the medical +director. Dr. Kliman's initial records indicate the following concerning Jane Doe #5. +14. Plaintiff reports she went to three different schools in the eighth grade. (Page +3, GK Contemp note) +15. Plaintiff reports "T have had girls be mean to me and even rumor that they +would slice my throat when I was younger." (Page 4, GK Contemp note) +16. +Plaintiff noted that she had caught her mother and stepfather having sex. +(Page 7, GK Contemp note) +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 328-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 4 of 8 +Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 4 of 8 +17. +"I got kicked out when I was 18 (by both parents). (Page 7, GK Contemp note) +18. +Plaintiff noted that her mother suffers from depression/stress. (Page 7, GK +Contemp note) +19. +Plaintiff noted that during her sophomore and junior years of high school she +drank every weekend and started trying drugs. (Page 7, GK Contemp note) +• 20. +"Her problems began during adolescence." (Page 7, GK Contemp note) +21. Family psychiatric history includes: a history of a blood relative having been +sexually abused, plaintiff's mother was physically abused by sisters, and plaintiff's father +"was very irresponsible as a father figure when I was growing up" and used drugs. (Pages +7 and 8, GK Contemp note) +22. Plaintiff noted "My stepfather hit me on a few occasions. But on one +occasion, I lost hearing in my ear for two weeks." (Page 8, GK Contemp note) +23. Plaintiff reported that she has been sexually active since age 13 and had 8-10 +partners. (Page 8, GK Contemp note) +24. +Plaintiff reported that she had been raised by her father between ages 12 to 18 +and that she found her childhood hard to remember, unhappy and painful. (Page 8, GK +Contemp note) +25. Plaintiff reports that her drug use has included marijuana and pain pills +without prescription and that on several occasions she has drunk too much alcohol. (Page +4 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 328-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 5 of 8 +Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 5 of 8 +9, GK Contemp note) +26. +Plaintiff reported that her mother's sisters had paid a male to rape her (the +mother) in a closet at school. She had been raped three times, twice in childhood and once +on a date. Also, an uncle raped the mother. (Page 1, GK Follow-up note) +27. Plaintiff reported having suicidal thoughts in the 9i or 10% grade. (Page 4, +GK Follow-up note) (Pre-Epstein) +28. +All of the above show that this plaintiff came from an unstable and disturbed +home, had been subject to previous physical and sexual abuse, was fearful, isolated, and +had had suicidal ideation prior to meeting Mr. Epstein. For further elaboration of her +history and background, access to all available records is crucial if one is to fully +understand the impact of any of these events on her subsequent behavior and proportion +the impact of specific events, if any, or her current and future level of function. +29. In Dr. Kliman's initial replenishment retainer agreement and fee schedule +(date 7/18/08), in a heading entitled "Regarding Full Disclosure," Dr. Kliman notes that +prior to deposition, counsel will make every effort necessary to provide experts with +information requested by the experts including: 1) a list of all depositions, statements, +declarations, and motions in the case, 2) a copy of any requested items, and 3) most +importantly, a list of all medical, clinical, school, and work records known to the attorney +in the case. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 328-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 6 of 8 +Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 6 of 8 +30. +Dr. Kliman notes on page 8 of his contract opinior formation that he will not +form opinions, give reports, or testify in certain circumstances. +These include +circumstances where he has reason to believe a retaining attorney has " available important +and relevant documents which are being deliberately withheld from us." "We define such +as documents in possession of retaining attorney, which we have requested or that we have +stated would ordinarily be part of medical opinion formation on the topics concerning, +which our input is requested." We request the same. +31. It is critical for an IME examiner to be able to make a cogent assessment of +any plaintiff and to understand their medical, social, academic, psychological and +psychiatric condition/state prior to any act of alleged victimization. There are a number of +variables that combine to determine the effects of such alleged victimization, including the +type and character of the alleged assault, and key victim variables such as demographics, +psychological reactions at the time of the trauma, previous psychiatric or psychological +history, previous victimization history, current or previous psychological difficulties, and +general personality dynamics and coping style, as well as sociocultural factors such as drug +use/abuse; poverty; social inequity and/or inadequate social support; any previous history +of abuse within or outside the family; whether individuals were abused by strangers, +acquaintances or family members; and whether there was any history of indiscriminate +behavior that may have placed them at increased risk. It is important to know if there had +6 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 328-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 7 of 8 +Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 7 of 8 +been previous sexual conduct, contact with police or welfare agencies, alcohol or drug +use/abuse, voluntary sexual activity, contraceptive use, genital infections, or apparent +indifference to previous abuse. +32. +It is also essential to understand the plaintiff's level of emotional support, +whether any significant psychiatric illnesses were present, whether they were taking any +medications (prescribed or non-prescribed), whether there had been previous suicide +attempts, thoughts, plans, etc. +33. +Knowledge of plaintifl's relationships to her family and familial factors, +including social disadvantage, family instability, impaired parent/child relationship, and +parental adjustment difficulties is also critical. +34. +It is, therefore, crucial that the independent medical examiner has available to +him a full and complete record that includes medical, previous legal, social, criminal, +academic, psychological and psychiatric records/data; psychological tests; laboratory tests; +and clinical, hospital, physician records. These, in essence, are the same and similar records +that plaintiff's expert witness (Di. Kliman) feels are essential for him to do an appropriate +evaluation. To obtain the necessary information, it will be necessary to identify the plaintiff +by name. Such identification will not humiliate the plaintiff since all we are requesting is +pertinent information as noted above relative to their past medical and psychiatric histories +and conduct. We would concur and request of the court that the same and such other +7 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 328-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 8 of 8 +Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 8 of 8 +similat information be made available to us to conduct our examination. +Respectfully submitted, +Rutal faire +Richard C. W. 1 +Courtesy Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, University of Florida, College of Medicine +Affiliate Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, University of South +Florida +Professor of Psychiatry, Department of Medical Education, University of Central Florida +College of Medicine +8 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac574fc6784ae215f6fc832d9075aba6205d29f095964cc20500f0eaff3952e0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac574fc6784ae215f6fc832d9075aba6205d29f095964cc20500f0eaff3952e0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2bc02342fcfbcf45685f0559c10d313ec015e279 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac574fc6784ae215f6fc832d9075aba6205d29f095964cc20500f0eaff3952e0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -370, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ac574fc6784ae215f6fc832d9075aba6205d29f095964cc20500f0eaff3952e0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 10, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e604bd5856d29de0f5e33b528efa93b12020b53c69366bb2beb7f5394c4ee458", + "output_sha256": "01411ff789a0d1e8be4d14d2a04e28d2f855a14103caab1f261288b0e762cb4a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac6a2e483ca590b24cd186bd094cd941b97e5a315a53dbd6c91b6cdf674252bd.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac6a2e483ca590b24cd186bd094cd941b97e5a315a53dbd6c91b6cdf674252bd.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2f5e5e44dc28393cf373db5d9902e3aec35378d6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac6a2e483ca590b24cd186bd094cd941b97e5a315a53dbd6c91b6cdf674252bd.md @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 256 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2014 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Plaintiffs, +VS. +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, +Defendant. +ORDER ON MOTION FOR INTERVENTION BY JEFFREY EPSTEIN +THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Motion of Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") for +Limited Intervention (DE 215). This matter is fully briefed and is now ripe for review. The +Court has carefully considered the briefs and is fully advised in the premises. +"Permissive intervention under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)] is appropriate +where a party's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common +and the intervention will not unduly prejudice or delay the adjudication of the rights of the +original parties." Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Sandy Lake Properties, Inc., 425 F.3d 1308, 1312 (11th +Cir. 2005). Through his Motion, Epstein asks to intervene "for the limited purpose of protecting +his interests in the secrecy of matters which occurred before the federal grand jury of which he +was a target." Motion at 1. After carefully reviewing the briefs from the parties involved, the +Court finds that Epstein has a legitimate interest in asserting a claim that the grand jury material +may be protected from disclosure by the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). See United +States v. Eisenberg, 711 F.2d 959, 961 (11th Cir. 1983). This claim will present questions of law +and fact in common with the main action. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 256 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2014 Page 2 of 2 +Further, the Court finds that the intervention will not unduly prejudice or delay the +adjudication of the rights of the original parties. Accordingly, the Court will exercise its +discretion to permit Epstein to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b). This +order should not be construed as an indication of how the Court will rule on the merits of the +claim that the documents in question are protected. +It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion of Jeffrey Epstein for +Limited Intervention (DE 215) is GRANTED. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +Florida, this 21" day of September, 2014. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Court +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac6a2e483ca590b24cd186bd094cd941b97e5a315a53dbd6c91b6cdf674252bd.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac6a2e483ca590b24cd186bd094cd941b97e5a315a53dbd6c91b6cdf674252bd.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6163a4e9138ffc7d90e6fd27654ecbfa9bf2bd01 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac6a2e483ca590b24cd186bd094cd941b97e5a315a53dbd6c91b6cdf674252bd.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ac6a2e483ca590b24cd186bd094cd941b97e5a315a53dbd6c91b6cdf674252bd", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "a6e1f0641027444913c50c7d6e6f539088a9c31216bff3a8e0afaf77d8866793", + "output_sha256": "890b614695b59162b19f961e9c1f22c0a1068537b82adcf71cbf718c386cbb4f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac70dd619590774fc1205eb08b301b039906619c2e0a916cefa0ebee94f8f4d3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac70dd619590774fc1205eb08b301b039906619c2e0a916cefa0ebee94f8f4d3.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2d432df65993cebc8e2622f0b1f3a2120e225543 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac70dd619590774fc1205eb08b301b039906619c2e0a916cefa0ebee94f8f4d3.md @@ -0,0 +1,87 @@ +Dave Aronberg on Twitter: "the following link: https://t.co/AD/cMS2b.| became Palm Beach County State Attorney in: 2013... (2/3)* / Twitter +4/13/22, 11:54 AM +* Thread +- +Dave Aronberg @ @aronberg • Jan 30, 2020 +In response to a large number of requests, my office is posting online all the +public records from the investigation and prosecution of #JeffreyEpstein, +These records, which have all been released previously pursuant to public +records requests, can be accessed through.. (1/3) +• 9 +17 46 +• 57 +1 Dave Aronberg ® +@aronberg +... +the following link: +sa15.org/stateattorney/.. +sa15.org > Newsroom > Public Records +The Jeffrey Epstein case occurred several years and +multiple State Attorney administrations before | +beçame Palm Beach County State Attorney in 2013... +(2/3) +1:28 PM - Jan 30, 2020 - Twitter Web App +ti +NOT A +Q. +Search Twitter +New to Twitter? +Sign up now to get your own personalized timeline! +G Sign up with Google + Sign up with Apple +Sign up with phone or email +By signing up, you agree to the Terms of Service and +Privacy Policy, including Cookie Use. +Relevant people +Dave Aronberg @ +I @aronberg +Follow +State Attorney for Palm Beach County +since 2013, Former State Senator & +House Fellow iri Treasury Dept. +"One of the best cookie jars on +cable.*-Room Rater +What's happening +War in Ukraine • LIVE +Ukrainian humanitarian corridors +halted as evacuation routes +deemed too dangerous' +_ The Times @ - April 12, 2022 +Explained: The weapons of the +Ukraine war +The Telegraph @ - April 12.2022 +The railway workers keeping +Ukraine running +US national news - 1 hour ago +New York City police name +suspect in Brooklyn subway +shooting +Trending with +laines +Sports: Trending +Wade +Trending with Hines +- Bob Stoops +Show more +Party_JOINT +https://twitter.com/aronberg/status/1222949739865497602 +ID#. J11 EV# Jil +DATEADMITED: 9/6/2022 +Case No. 2019-CA-014681 +ABRUZZO CLERK +CA Aronter OPAZZA BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEfI ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 3:44:22 PM +Joint Exhibit +J11 + + +Dave Aronberg on Twitter: *the following link: https://t.co/AOlcgMS2b.I became Palm Beach County State Attorney in 2013...(2/3)* / Twitter +Don't miss what's happening +People on Twitter are the first to know. +Log in +4/13/22, 11:54 AM +Sign up +NOT A CERTIFIED COPY +https://twitter.com/aronberg/status/1222949739865497602 + +CA/Aronberg OPAZZE BEACH COUNTY, FL, | +ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 3:44:22 PM diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac70dd619590774fc1205eb08b301b039906619c2e0a916cefa0ebee94f8f4d3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac70dd619590774fc1205eb08b301b039906619c2e0a916cefa0ebee94f8f4d3.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b2ace1d5c8871da5d6b48b443a0575eb88a8d94b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac70dd619590774fc1205eb08b301b039906619c2e0a916cefa0ebee94f8f4d3.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -35, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ac70dd619590774fc1205eb08b301b039906619c2e0a916cefa0ebee94f8f4d3", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "30b1d6a2f7c0fca12c5f1f771ea4e6b2c740eb0fd0f939843f9fd6900ed6bff4", + "output_sha256": "4963792175ee7a888c468c43759e35b8bf2934705bf82625a70885e6fb4d76af", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac7c17a773b35f1b1d7d448f615ac088b70faab013d37d58ab1f1243dba8b88e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac7c17a773b35f1b1d7d448f615ac088b70faab013d37d58ab1f1243dba8b88e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..775c2e82b6ccc0084dfae96224707cb65933abea --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac7c17a773b35f1b1d7d448f615ac088b70faab013d37d58ab1f1243dba8b88e.md @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 563 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092, +NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF SUBPOENA +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 2-7, by and through +undersigned counsel, hereby file this Notice of Withdrawal of Subpoena served on the following: +Richard Kahn +1365 York Avenue +Apt. 28 +New York, NY 10021 +Dated: June 14, 2010 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +Is/ Jessica D. Arbour +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Jessica D. Arbour (FL Bar No. 067885) +jarbour@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 563 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 2 of 3 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on June 14, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served +this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission +of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for +those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Jessica D. Arbour +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 563 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 3 of 3 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +bedwards @rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Brett Jaffe +bjaffe@cohendresser.com +3 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac7c17a773b35f1b1d7d448f615ac088b70faab013d37d58ab1f1243dba8b88e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac7c17a773b35f1b1d7d448f615ac088b70faab013d37d58ab1f1243dba8b88e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1d2419b12de25ca6dd901f15c6d98453d61a3967 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac7c17a773b35f1b1d7d448f615ac088b70faab013d37d58ab1f1243dba8b88e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ac7c17a773b35f1b1d7d448f615ac088b70faab013d37d58ab1f1243dba8b88e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "457c0891accb3f9da7e287c672f815a72fbf9b60d6438fb372c43d63421fff39", + "output_sha256": "9194cdbf3071c16b6e0ea04101620033eff91fda70b736163fb544028f8ff1e1", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac91e9ac19dd00cfd26157058ca31d07e648c6c6c0fef0a07c199fa1a9b2bc11.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac91e9ac19dd00cfd26157058ca31d07e648c6c6c0fef0a07c199fa1a9b2bc11.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..341a59717840e83bdb0f641ac90b13acc2ed202b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac91e9ac19dd00cfd26157058ca31d07e648c6c6c0fef0a07c199fa1a9b2bc11.md @@ -0,0 +1,208 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 104 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/13/2009 Page 1 of 7 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA.| +JANE DOE NO. 4, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Reply to Plaintiff's Response In Opposition To +Defendant's Motion To Stay And/Or Continue Action For Time Certain With Incorporated +Memorandum Of Law +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN") by and through his +undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Reply to Plaintiff's Response In Opposition to +Defendant's Motion to Stay and/or Continue Action, and states: +Introduction and Argument +Plaintiff's Response in Opposition challenging the stay should not prevail when +5" Amendment principles are at issue and when there exists a real, substantial and not +remote possibility that Epstein may face criminal prosecution by the United States +Attorneys' Office ("USAO") if the USAO unilaterally determines that Epstein somehow +violated that certain Non-Prosecution Agreement dated June 30, 2008 ("NPA") and/or if +Epstein is forced to waive those 5" Amendment rights and participate in civil discovery +in order to defend this civil action. +Epstein should not be confronted with the substantial risk of loosing this civil +action by virtue of asserting his 5" Amendment privileges. Despite Plaintiff's contention, +Epstein's Motion does not concentrate solely on the fact that the pleadings are not at + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 104 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/13/2009 Page 2 of 7 +Page 2 +the summary judgment stage. The motion also concentrates on Epstein's risk of loosing +this entire civil action as a result of Epstein invoking his 5** Amendment rights. Severino +v. Klytie's Developments, Inc., 2008 WL 1782637, *2 (D. Colo)(recognizing that a stay is +appropriate under similar circumstances as in the instant case); see also infra. +In fact, waiver of Epstein's 5" Amendment privileges should not be compelled to +defend this civil action (and could be remedied by a reasonable stay), especially when +civil discovery may lead to the USAO unilaterally declaring a violation of the NPA. +The USAO has already unilaterally claimed that EPSTEIN violated the NPA by, +among other things, "investigating the Plaintiffs (by and though his attorneys) +whom brought civil suits against him for purposes of defending those civil +actions" and "by contesting damages in this action and in the other civil actions." +See Motion to Stay and Jack Goldberger Affidavit attached thereto as Exhibit "B". Thus, +these are not vague assertions as Plaintiff claims. How can Epstein truly defend these +matters and be afforded his due process rights when to do so might result in the USAO +claiming a breach of the NPA? The fact is that he cannot. Notwithstanding the +allegations against Epstein, this Court has an obligation to ensure his due process +rights are upheld in both the civil and criminal contexts. +Next, in her response, Plaintiff claims that a stay should not be entered because +a parallel criminal proceeding against Epstein does not exist. Not only is Plaintiff's +theory incorrect for reasons set out herein and in the Epstein's Motion to Stay, but her +response ignores the significant fact that a stay may be issued in light of an ongoing +investigation. It is clear from the NPA and Jack Goldberger's Affidavit (attached to the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 104 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/13/2009 Page 3 of 7 +Page 3 +Motion to Stay) "...that the criminal matters against Epstein remain ongoing until the +NPA expires by its terms in late 2010..., and the threat of criminal prosecution against +Epstein by the USAO continues presently and through late 2010." See Jack +Goldberger's Affidavit, 15 (attached to the Motion to Stay). In fact, the FBI refused to +provide information regarding this case and other related cases filed against Epstein ".. +.stating the materials are at this time exempt from disclosure because they are in an +investigative file, i.e., the matter is still an ongoing criminal investigation." See Jack +Goldberger's Affidavit, 17 (attached to the Motion to Stay) +Additionally, Plaintiff's response downplays the fact that civil discovery may result +in the USAO claiming a breach of the NPA. Epstein wishes to vigorously defend this +case and others filed against him; however, he does not wish to risk waiver of his 5"h +Amendment privileges, at least before the NPA expires or any investigation is closed. +Further, Plaintiff adopts the arguments set forth in Jane Doe's Response to the +Motion to Stay filed in 08-CIV-80893, which asserts that the NPA is not attached to +Epstein's Motion to Stay. The Court has a copy of the NPA. While it may be sealed, +this Court may review same, in camera. As such, Plaintiff's Best Evidence argument +(as adopted in the instant response) is entirely misplaced and should be disregarded. +a. +Justice Requires The Entry of A Stay +As set out in the Motion to Stay, once the NPA expires, EPSTEIN intends to +testify to all relevant and non-objectionable inquiries made to him in discovery be it a +deposition, in interrogatories or in production requests. +However, the current +circumstances are such that by testifying or responding to discovery, EPSTEIN will be + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 104 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/13/2009 Page 4 of 7 +Page 4 +required to waive his constitutional privileges, thereby subjecting himself to scrutiny by +the USAO as a result of matters alleged in this civil action (and others before this Court +and in the State of Florida 15" Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach County). +When an ongoing criminal investigation exists, courts have granted motions to +stay civil proceedings. In St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. U.S., 24 CI.Ct +513 (1991), the court held that staying a civil action for 6-9 months was reasonable in +light of a pending criminal investigation so long as the movant met certain elements +(see infra) and the stay was not immoderate or unreasonable. Taking into consideration +the Motion to Stay and this Reply as well as facts alleged by Plaintiff in her operative +pleading against Epstein, it is clear that Epstein has met the elements of St. Paul Fire +necessary for this Court to enter a stay: +Epstein has made a clear showing, by direct or indirect proof, that +the issues in the civil action are "related" as well as "substantially similar" +to the issues in the criminal investigation. +2. +Epstein has made a clear showing of hardship or inequity if +required to go forward with this civil case while the NPA and/or the +ongoing investigation exist. (see supra and see also Motion to Stay and +attached affidavit of Jack Goldberger, Esq. discussing Epstein's 5"h +Amendment Rights and how those rights affect this civil litigation - see +supra); and +Epstein, in light of the stays granted by other courts, has shown +that a stay in the instant matter until late 2010 (the date the NPA expires) +and the likely date any ongoing investigation will be closed is not +St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. U.S., 24 CI.Ct at 515-16; see also +Wilson v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 2006 WL 3791313, *1 (E.D. La. +2006)(granting motion to stay civil proceeding for 2 years and 7 months pending + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 104 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/13/2009 Page 5 of 7 +Page 5 +criminal investigation); Ostrow v. U.S., 1986 WL 6855, *1 (M.D. Fla.)(recognizing a +defendant's constitutional rights and allowing for a stay of the civil case until the criminal +aspects/investigation of Defendant's companion case are closed). +Here, Epstein is not required to "contemplate an in haec verba iron-clad +comparison of separate issues by direct proof." St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance +Company v. U.S., 24 CI.Ct at 516. Instead, a reading of the complaint, the NPA (in +camera), the pleadings in support of and against Epstein's Motion to Stay along with +other pleadings in the clerk's file, makes it clear that the facts in the instant matter and +those in the ongoing investigation are "related" and/or "substantially similar." Id. As +such, permitting this civil action to go forward would create a hardship on Epstein in that +he will be forced to invoke his 5* Amendment Privilege and risk loosing this case by +virtue of not being able to present evidence, or waive that right and risk a potential +criminal prosecution. Eastwood v. U.S., 2008 WL 5412857, *1 (E.D. Tenn.)) When a +party to a civil action is subject to criminal proceedings and/or investigations that relate +to such civil action, courts will often stay the civil proceeding so as to prevent the use of +civil discovery and evidentiary procedures to obtain evidence for use in the criminal +matter). Id. Courts will also stay a civil case to preserve 5" Amendment rights. Id. +Further, a comparison of Fed.R.Civ. Pro. 26 may expand the rights of criminal discovery +beyond the limits of Fed.R.Crim.Pro. 16(b). Epstein satisfies the requirements to stay +this action as set forth in St. Paul Fire and in Eastwood, including the similarity of issues +underlying the civil litigation and ongoing criminal investigation. As such, a stay should + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 104 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/13/2009 Page 6 of 7 +Page 6 +be entered in the instant matter. See also U.S. v. $75,020.00 In United States Funds, et +al., 2009 WL 1010359 (M.D. G.a. 2009). +III. Conclusion and Request for Relief +Based upon the foregoing, Epstein is entitled to a full stay of this proceeding (and +other related matters) until such time as the NPA expires and until the ongoing +investigation by the USAO is closed (i.e., until late 2010). Alternatively, in an effort to +protect Epstein's 5" Amendment and his due process rights in connection with +defending these civil matters, this court should enter a stay of any discovery directed to +Epstein and strike this case from the trial docket until the NPA and the ongoing +investigation are both concluded and/or expired. In this manner, Plaintiff's investigation +and discovery as to third parties will continue and will not be delayed. Epstein is +invoking his 5" Amendment rights in the first place, which means that objections to +discovery and deposition questions are being asserted so as not to waive those 5t +Amendment rights. Once the NPA and the ongoing investigation terminate, this court +could allow additional time for Plaintiff to complete Epstein's deposition and discovery +directed to him, and then set this case on the Court's most available docket. Despite +Plaintiff's contentions, Epstein's 5" Amendment rights and his due process rights +associated therewith and in connection with defending this civil case should trump any +civil claim for money damages when it comes to timing. Eastwood v. U.S., 2008 WL +5412857, *6 (reasoning that a stay is warranted when the risk to an individual's +constitutional rights is magnified). + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 104 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/13/2009 Page 7 of 7 +Page 7 +WHEREFORE, Epstein requests the following relief set forth above, and for such +other and further relief as this court deems just and prope +Robert D. Crifton, Jr. +Attorney for Defendant Epstein +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the +maner spected by CECE on this fully or May, 209: +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Jack Alan Goldberger +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1400 +Suite 2218 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +Miami, FL 33160 +561-659-8300 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 +Respectiny supmited, +By: L +ROBERTO CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No./ 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac91e9ac19dd00cfd26157058ca31d07e648c6c6c0fef0a07c199fa1a9b2bc11.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac91e9ac19dd00cfd26157058ca31d07e648c6c6c0fef0a07c199fa1a9b2bc11.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ecf4d4db0131a878ea4463e00a6a24c1abf907d3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac91e9ac19dd00cfd26157058ca31d07e648c6c6c0fef0a07c199fa1a9b2bc11.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -241, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ac91e9ac19dd00cfd26157058ca31d07e648c6c6c0fef0a07c199fa1a9b2bc11", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "d17355f9beaa22bbe57d55b981a7aa1311f76c25c4d3643259a0462ca3935588", + "output_sha256": "5aee26fe96d6a8553f261c59f6eab5931bd66443e686c2ee42798b7bd7c63ffe", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac9ec130215fbdce55a4d8346c27d5378275073cc112dba18afe31093f81cdc0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac9ec130215fbdce55a4d8346c27d5378275073cc112dba18afe31093f81cdc0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4e4f7e469b577b0032754f26011e8cb92bf84ff2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac9ec130215fbdce55a4d8346c27d5378275073cc112dba18afe31093f81cdc0.md @@ -0,0 +1,288 @@ +'Case 9:08-CV-80994-KAM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2008 Page 1 of 9 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-Marral +JANE DOE NO. 6 +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT'S, EPSTEIN, MOTION TO DISMISS & FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT +DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO.6'S COMPLAINT +Defendant, JEFFERY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, moves +to dismiss and for more definite statement of Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 6's Complaint. +Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(e), Fed.R.Civ.P. (2008). In support of his motion, Defendant +states: +Introduction +Defendant previously filed motions to dismiss and for more definite statement +directed to the Amended Complaints filed against Defendant in this Court in JANE DOE +NO. 2 (Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra/ +), JANE DOE NO. 3 (Case No. 08-CV- +80232-Marra +), JANE DOE NO. 4 (Case No. 08-CV-80380-Marra/ +and JANE DOE NO. 5 (Case No. 08-CV-80381-Marra/ +Defendant is also +filing similar motions in the actions filed by JANE DOE NO. 6 (Case No. 08-CV-80994- +Marra/Johnsn), and JANE DOE NO. 7 (Case No. 08-CV-80993-Hurley/ +). The +motions are directed to the Counts for Count I - "Sexual Assault and Battery," andCount +III - "Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422" in each + + +'Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2008 Page 2 of 9 +Case No. CV-80994-Marra-_ +Page No. 2 +of the respective complaints. However, there are distinctions in the six motions filed +based on the complaint allegations. For example, in the previously filed four motions +(Jane Doe Nos. 2 through 5), Defendant challenged the Plaintiffs' allegations as to +assault in all four actions, and challenged the battery allegations in JANE DOE NOS. 2 +and 3, but not in JANE DOE NOS. 4 and 5. Defendant moved to dismiss the §2422 +count in all four of the JANE DOE Nos. 2 through 5 actions. As to JANE DOE NO. 6, +Defendant challenges the battery allegations, but does not as to JANE DOE NO. 7 as +the underlying facts of the requisite "touching" are alleged. Defendant challenges the +18 U.S.C. §2422 count in both JANE DOE NO. 6 and NO. 7. +Motion +1. Counts I and III of JANE DOE NO. 6's Complaint are required to be dismissed for +failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has +failed to allege sufficient factual allegations in the Counts and instead alleges labels and +conclusions, and an attempted formulaic recitation of the elements in each Count. +2. In the alternative or in conjunction with, Defendant seeks more definite statement +of Count I and III. In Count I, the Plaintiff is required to more definitely allege what was +done to her; what EPSTEIN said and did, if anything, to create fear and apprehension in +Plaintiff; what was the intentional offensive or harmful contact in pleading the elements +of assault and battery. In Count III, Plaintiff is required to more definitely state the +underlying factual allegations to support her claim as set forth in the statute, 18 U.S.C. +§2422(b) and §2455. Rule 12(e). See discussion of law below herein. +WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court dismiss Counts I and +Ill, and require Plaintiff to more definitely plead the underlying elements of her claims. + + +'Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2008 Page 3 of 9 +Page No. 3 +Supporting Memorandum of Law +Standard on Rule 12(b)(6) Motion To Dismiss +As established by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly, 127 +S.Ct. 1955 (2007), a motion to dismiss should be granted if the plaintiff does not plead +"enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id, at 1974. +Although the complaint need not provide detailed factual allegations, the basis for relief +in the complaint must state "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic +recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id, at 1965. Further, "flactual +allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level ... on the +assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Id. +On a motion to dismiss, the well pleaded allegations of plaintiff's complaint are taken as +true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. M.T.V. v. DeKalb County +Sch. Dist., 446 F.3d 1153, 1156 (11th Cir.2006). +Significantly, the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly abrogated the +often cited observation that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a +claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove not set of facts in +support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Id, (abrogating and quoting Conley +v. +1. 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The Supreme +Court rejected the notion that "a wholly conclusory statement of claim [can] survive a +motion to dismiss whenever the pleadings le[ave] open the possibility that a plaintiff +might later establish some 'set of [undisclosed] facts' to support recovery." Id. As +explained by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp., supra at 1664-65: +While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not +need detailed factual allegations, +ibid.; Sanjuan V. American Bd. of +Sychiatry and Neurology, Inc., 40 F.3d 247, 251 (C.A.7 1994), a plaintiff's +obligation to provide the "grounds" of his "entitle[ment] to relief" requires + + +•Case 9:08-Cv-80994-KAM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2008 Page 4 of 9 +Case No. CV-80994-Marra| +Page No. 4 +more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements +of a cause of action will not do, see Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, +106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) (on a motion to dismiss, courts "are +not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual +alevator, Factual legion muse outer at meet +Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed.2004) (hereinafter +• Federal Practice ano +(IT]he pleading must contain something more ... than ... a statement of facts +that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action"), on +the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if +doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. 534 U.S. 506, 508, +n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. +i, 490 U.S. 319, +327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not +factual allegations: ishal based 02 a 410. 232, 236, 94 SC. int +factual allegations"); Scheuer v. +_ 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, +40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it +appears "that a recovery is very remote and unlikely"). +Pursuant to Rule 12(e), a party may move for more definite statement of a +pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed where the pleading "is so vague or +ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably frame a response." The motion is required +to point out the defects and the desired details. Id. +Count 1 - "Sexual Assault and Battery" is subject to dismissal as Plaintiff has +failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. +It is well settled that this Court is to apply Florida substantive law in this action. +Erie R.Co. v. Tompkins, 58 S.Ct. 817 (1938). Pursuant to Florida law, although the term +"assault and battery" is most commonly referred to as if it were a legal unit, or a single +concept, "assault and battery are separate and distinct legal concepts, assault being the +beginning of an act which, if consummated, constitutes battery." 3A Fla.Jur.2d Assault +§1. An assault and battery are intentional acts. See generally, Spivey v. Battaglia, 258 +So.2d 815 (Fla. 1972); and Travelers Indem. Co. v. PCR, Inc., 889 So.2d 779 (Fla. +2004). + + +' Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2008 Page 5 of 9 +Page No. 5 +An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful offer of corporal injury to another by force, +or exertion of force directed toward another under such circumstances as to create a +reasonable fear of imminent peril. See Lay v. Kremer, 411 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 1st DCA +1982). It must be premised upon an affirmative act - a threat to use force, or the actual +exertion of force. See 3A Fla.Jur.2d Assault §1 ("The essential element of the tort of +assault is the violence offered, and not actual physical contact."). +Tort of "battery" consists of the infliction of a harmful or offensive contact upon +another with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is +imminent. Quilling v. Price, 894 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 5" DCA 2005); +v. Atlantic +Federal Savings & Loan, 454 So.2d 52 (Fla. 4" DCA 1984)("'a battery consists of the +intentional infliction of a harmful or offensive contact upon the person of another"). See +3A Fla.Jur.2d Assault §1. +With the standard of pleading established in Twombly, supra, in the context of +the elements for assault and battery, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which +relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). As to the elements of assault, here are no factual +allegations as to what was said or done to Plaintiff such that it constituted an +"intentional, unlawful offer of corporal injury to another by force, or exertion of force +directed toward another under such circumstances as to create a reasonable fear of +imminent peril." See 113 of Comp. The same is true for the claim of battery. Plaintiff +makes the general allegation that "he (Defendant) sexually assaulted Jane." The other +allegations in 113 pertain to what Plaintiff allegedly did. Under applicable law, Plaintiff is +required to give more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the +elements of a cause of action. Iwombly, supra. Plaintiff is required to allege the facts + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2008 Page 6 of 9 +Case No. CV-80994-Marra: +Page No. 6 +of what was done to her; what EPSTEIN said and did, if anything, to create fear and +apprehension in Plaintiff; what was the intentional offensive or harmful contact? +As noted in the introduction and as this Court is well aware, there is more than +one action brought against this Defendant attempting to allege similar sounding claims. +The details as to a particular claim asserted by a particular Plaintiff are important to give +this Defendant fair notice of Plaintiff's claim so he may properly respond. Accordingly, +under applicable law, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for sexual assault and battery. +In the alternative to dismissing Count I, Defendant requests that Plaintiff be +required to give more definite statement as to what was done to her; what EPSTEIN +said and did, if anything, to create fear and apprehension in Plaintiff; what was the +intentional offensive or harmful contact in pleading the elements of assault and battery. +Rule 12(e). ( +Count III - "Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 +U.S.C. §2422" - is subject to dismissal as Plaintiff has failed to state a claim +upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). +Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint attempts to assert a claim for "Coercion and +Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422." In her prayer for relief, +Plaintiff demands judgment against EPSTEIN "for all damages available under 18 +U.S.C. §2255(a),...." Count Ill is required to be dismissed as Plaintiff has failed to +state a claim under the statutes for which relief can be granted. +The applicable version of these statutory provisions, (pre-2006 Amendments, as +the Amended Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004," 19), provides: +CHAPTER 117-TRANSPORTATION FOR ILLEGAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY +AND RELATED CRIMES +§ 2422. Coercion and enticement + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2008 Page 7 of 9 +Case No. CV-80994-Marra +Page No. 7 +(a) Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any +individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or +Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual +activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or +attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than +20 years, or both. +(b) Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign +commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the +United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any +individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution +or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal +offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned +not less than 5 years and not more than 30 years. +CHAPTER 110-SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF +CHILDREN +§ 2255. Civil remedy for personal injuries +(a) Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, +2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who +sutters personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in any +appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual +damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable +attorney's fee. Any minor as described in the preceding sentence shall be +deemed to have sustained damages of no less than $50,000 in value. +(b) Any action commenced under this section shall be barred unless the +complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues or in +the case of a person under a legal disability, not later than three years after +the disability. +Relevant to Plaintiff's complaint, 18 U.S.C. 2255(a) creates a civil remedy for "a +minor who is a victim of a violation of section ... 2422 ... of this title and who suffers +personal injury as a result of such violation ...." Plaintiff has failed to plead any factual +allegations whatsoever pertaining to violations of 18 U.S.C. 2422. Rather, Plaintiff has +alleged conclusory allegations simply attempting to track parts of the statutory language +in the statute without underlying factual allegations pertaining to the Plaintiff and any +conduct by Defendant. +See 128 of Comp. Plaintiff's allegations, (or lack of factual + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2008 Page 8 of 9 +Page No. 8 +allegations), are precisely what the standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Bell +Atlantic Corp. prohibits - Plaintiff's complaint alleges only "labels and conclusions, and +a (partial) formulaic recitation of the elements." +First, the Complaint fails to designate whether Plaintiff is relying on §2422(a) or +§2422(b). Second, although the complaint does contain a partial tracking of the +language in 18 U.S.C. §2422(b), it contains absolutely no factual allegations concerning +the requisite "using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce" +by Plaintiff to state a cause of action based on a violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b). As well, +there are no underlying factual allegations involving this Plaintiff as to the requisite +elements that a defendant knowingly persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced any +individual (Plaintiff in this case) who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in +prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal +offense, or attempted to do so. See 18 U.S.C. 2422(b); i.e. with what criminal offense +could Plaintiff and Defendant have been charged. Again, a Plaintiff cannot simply track +the language of a statute without some underlying factual allegations to state a claim +upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, Count Ill is required to be dismissed. +In the alternative, Plaintiff should be required to more definitely state the +underlying factual allegations to support her claim as set forth in the statute, 18 U.S.C. +§2422(b) and §2455. +Conclusion +As discussed above herein, under the pleading standard established in Twombly, +supra, and law concerning the elements of Count I and III, Plaintiff has failed to state +claims upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff's complaint lacks + + +• • • Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2008 Page 9 of 9 +Case No. CV-80994-Marra +Page No. 9 +underlying factual allegations and, thus, in the alternative to dismissal or in conjunction +with, Plaintiff is required to more definitely state the requisite factual allegations. +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the +manner specified by CM/ECF on this 14* day of October, 2008: +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +jherman@hermanlaw.com +Irivera@hermanlaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 +Respectfully submitted,/ +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac9ec130215fbdce55a4d8346c27d5378275073cc112dba18afe31093f81cdc0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac9ec130215fbdce55a4d8346c27d5378275073cc112dba18afe31093f81cdc0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2808958e93bf4b65e9b6be345068b38c1ac1eea9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ac9ec130215fbdce55a4d8346c27d5378275073cc112dba18afe31093f81cdc0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -184, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ac9ec130215fbdce55a4d8346c27d5378275073cc112dba18afe31093f81cdc0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 10, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "48dd2cca8cea205e6d2a8487376a87176f2dcd2f04c1b5233ca30155f1bf063c", + "output_sha256": "15e5525a1e5e6372b3100292d459e925ec29daf7d19c6731b9fb6d19a563fc75", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aca1ea57ab5c921e22c2ed8ed169d2c1d18fb531befa212c2d0c0e282b80c7b6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aca1ea57ab5c921e22c2ed8ed169d2c1d18fb531befa212c2d0c0e282b80c7b6.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d0e6989ab0cd670a779f104fed82f30ff763aa48 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aca1ea57ab5c921e22c2ed8ed169d2c1d18fb531befa212c2d0c0e282b80c7b6.md @@ -0,0 +1,5316 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 +Paged bof 1Dg +ELECTRONIC +July 18, 2008 +S. D. OF FLA +D.C. +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +08-80804-Civ-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: +JANE DOE, +a/k/a JANE DOE #1, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +and +Defendants. +NOTICE OF REMOVAL +In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446, and 1332(a)(1), the defendants, +Jeffrey Epstein, +, and +L, hereby remove this action' from +Palm Beach County Circuit Court to the United States District Court for the +Southern District of Florida, and respectfully state as follows: +Introduction +Six months ago, this plaintiff filed virtually the identical lawsuit in this +Court. See Jane Doe #1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-cv-80069-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed +Doe v. Epstein et al., Case No. 50 2008 CA 006596 XXXX MB (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. +filed Mar. 6, 2008). +1 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 2 of 100 +Jan. 24, 2008) (the "First Federal Action"). The First Federal Action named +Jeffrey Epstein as the sole tortfeasor, made the identical operative allegations as +the instant Amended Complaint, and demanded damages of $50 million. (The +amount of the demand against Epstein is evidently the product of recent reports in +the press that Epstein is wealthy.) +The First Federal Action was quickly followed by a series of substantially +identical "Jane Doe" lawsuits, all filed by the same attorney in a three-month span. +Compare Jane Doe #/ v. Epstein, Case No. 08-cv-80069-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed +Jan. 24, 2008), with Jane Doe #2 v. Epstein, No. 08-CV-80119-KAM (S.D. Fla. +filed Feb. 6, 2008) (asserting identical causes of action based on the same operative +allegations), Jane Doe #3 v. Epstein, No. 08-CV-80232-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed Mar. +5, 2008) (same), Jane Doe #4 v. Epstein, No. 08-CV-80380-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed +Apr. 14, 2008) (same), and Jane Doe #5 v. Epstein, No. 08-80381-CV-KAM (S.D. +Fla. filed Apr. 14. 2008) (same). +On February 20, amid these filings, Jane Doe #1 was deposed in State of +Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, 502006CF009454AXXXMB (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct., filed +Jul. 19, 2006), a parallel state-court criminal action. During that deposition, she +made numerous admissions that completely undermined the allegations against +Epstein that she had pled in her complaint. A copy of her deposition, with names +2 += Teinr.. +3059 GRAND AVENUE, SuITE 340, COCOMUT GROVE, FLOMIDA 33133 +2 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 3 of 100 +redacted, is attached hereto (Exhibit A). Two days later, counsel for Jane Doe #1 +filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice in the First Federal Action. +See Doe #1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80069-KAM, DE 9. +Two weeks later (March 6, 2008), having changed lawyers, Jane Doe #1 +refiled her complaint in Florida Circuit Court as the instant case, adding two +nominal defendants: +Mr. Epstein's personal secretary, and +one of Jane Doe #I's contemporaries. These defendants have nothing to +do with the plaintiff's case against Mr. Epstein, except that the presence of +as a defendant in this new case, because she is a citizen of Florida (Am. +Compl. 94), would ostensibly prevent complete diversity.? +As discussed below, however, +was named in the refiled +lawsuit only to destroy diversity jurisdiction, and to prevent any application of 18 +U.S.C. § 3509(k), a mandatory stay provision applicable in federal court. Haley +• Defendant +is a citizen of New York (Am. Compl. 9. 5), and is therefore a +nonresident defendant for purposes of diversity jurisdiction and removal. +3 Section 3509(k) of Title 18, United States Code, provides as follows: +If, at any time that a cause of action for recovery of compensation for +damage or injury to the person of a child exists, a criminal action is pending +which arises out of the same occurrence and in which the child is the +victim, the civil action shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the +criminal action and any mention of the civil action during the criminal +proceeding is prohibited. As used in this subsection, a criminal action is +ending until its final adjudication in the trial court +3 +Teinr +3 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 4 of 100 +besides having nothing to do with the substantive allegations of the +plaintiff's $50,000,000 case, is a community-college student with no assets +whatever. +Even if this case purports to identify a new (and strategically nondiverse) +tortfeasor, the refiled lawsuit is still directed against only one defendant—Jeffrey +Epstein. Then and now, the operative allegations are the same: Jane Doe alleges +that Jeffrey Epstein assaulted her "in violation of Chapter 800 of the Florida +Statutes."* +(Am. Compl. " 18) To sharpen her lawsuit, the plaintiff says she is +seeking damages in connection with a "conspiracy" (Am. Compl. 9| 22), a "plan" +(Am. Compl. 1| 32), a "scheme" (Am. Compl. 9 32), and an "enterprise" (Am. +Compl. 1 32). These theories of liability, however, cannot be supported by the +allegations in the Amended Complaint. Even if everything in the Amended +Complaint were true, recovery against +under any formulation, is +impossible under Florida law. +Focusing on the real parties to this controversy, the instant case could have +(once again) been brought here in federal court—just like the four other "Jane +18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) (emphasis added). +* Chapter 800, Florida Statutes, is entitled, "Lewdness; Indecent Exposure." +4 +Tein".. +3059 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 340, CoCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 +4 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 5 of 100 +Doe" lawsuits presently pending against Epstein, filed by this plaintiff's former +lawyer. +This case is properly removed to federal court, first, because there is +complete diversity among the real parties-in-interest, second, because the amount +in controversy exceeds $75,000, and third, because this Notice complies with the +requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446. +Discussion +A. This case is properly removable because it falls within the original +jurisdiction of the United States Distriet Court for the Southern +District of Florida. +A state-court case is properly removable when "it could have been brought, +originally, in a federal district court." Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 83 +(2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). This case was originally filed in federal +district court, and it is the same case today. Even though it was reconfigured to +look like a state-court lawsuit, this action falls squarely within the bounds of the +diversity-jurisdiction statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (establishing that federal +district courts have original jurisdiction over cases where the amount in +controversy [is more than $75,000] ... and [when the controversy] is between +citizens of different states"). +5 +* Tein». +5 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 6 of 100 +1. The amount in controversy in this action exceeds $75,000. +This case is a duplicate of the First Federal Lawsuit. In that case, Jane Doe +pled "damages in excess of $50 million." See Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-80069-KAM +(S.D. Fla. filed Jan. 24, 2008) (Compl. 9 6). That allegation is now deleted and the +Amended Complaint substitutes a generic prayer for relief. It is clear, however, +that Jane Doe still seeks more than $75,000 in damages. +This case, precisely like the First Federal Action, seeks damages in +connection with an alleged assault. (Am. Compl. 1| 16-19.) The Amended +Complaint alleges that Jane Doe "has suffered and will continue to suffer severe +and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological, and emotional +damages." (Am. Compl. 1 19.) These are the identical injuries Jane Doe asserted +in the First Federal Action, and are no less serious simply because pled under a +state-court caption. Cf., e.g., +v. Southwest Airlines, Co., 523 F. Supp. 2d +812, 820 (N.D. III. 2007) (determining, in the context of diversity jurisdiction, that +the $75,000 threshold had been satisfied, and "clearly [surpassed]," based on "the +nature of the injuries alleged" in the complaint). +' The Complaint seeks damages for "[more than]... $15,000." (Am. Compl. 96.) This +boilerplate is routinely used in Florida pleading practice to trigger application of section +26.012, Florida Statutes, the statute that establishes the jurisdictional amount required for +filing in Florida's Circuit Court (as opposed to County Court). +6 +6 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 +To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that +"[w]hen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from +state court is proper if it is facially apparent from the complaint that the amount in +controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement." +V. Best Buy Co., +Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). This case meets that standard, and +satisfies the first prong of diversity jurisdiction. +2. There is complete diversity among the real parties to this +controversy. +Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity. Carden v. Arkoma +Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 187 (1990) ("Since its enactment, we have interpreted the +diversity statute to require 'complete diversity' of citizenship." (citing Strawbridge +v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267-68 (1806))). See also MacGinnitie v. Hobbs +Group, LLC, 420 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2005) (stating that "[c]omplete +diversity requires that no defendant in a diversity action be a citizen of the same +state as any plaintiff'). As demonstrated below, this case satisfies the statutory +requirement of complete diversity. +(a) Plaintiff Jane Doe is a citizen of Florida. (Am. Compl. 9 1.) ° +"Jane Doe may, in fact, be a citizen of Georgia, not Florida, as she pled in her Amended +Complaint. See New York Post, Jul. 1, 2008 (reporting that "On his way into court [for +his state-court guilty plea on June 30], Epstein was served with a copy of a lawsuit by +Doe, who has since moved to another state."); Jane Doe Depo. at 77, 112 (indicating that +7 +Tein" +7 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 8 of 100 +(b) Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen of the U.S. Virgin Islands? +(c) Defendant +is a citizen of New York. (Am. Compl. 1 5.) +3. Defendant +was fraudulently joined to defeat diversity. +"A non-diverse defendant who is fraudulently joined does not defeat +diversity because his citizenship is excluded from the diversity calculus." Shenkar +v. Money Warehouse, Inc., No. 07-20634-CIV, 2007 WL 3023531, at *1 (S.D. Fla. +her twin sister lives with her mother in Georgia); Affidavit of +at 9 I(stating, "I am the mother and natural guardian for Jane Doe #I" with jurat executed +in Georgia before a Georgia notary), DE 4-2, Jane Doe No. 1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08- +80069-Civ-Marra (1/29/08); Intervenor's Complaint, at 9| 2 (filed by "Jane Doe's Mother" +and stating that "Jane Doe's Mother is a citizen and resident of the State of Georgia."). +DE 5-2, Jane Doe No. 1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80069-Civ-Marra (1/29/08); Petition for +Removal of Disability of Non-Age, at 11l 1, 2, 7 (filed "on behalf of S.D.G.," alleging that +"The mother is Da[w]n Lavogue +and her address is .... Ga.," and stating that +"S.D.G. is also the unnamed party in a lawsuit filed by her father on her behalf in the +U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 08-80069, which was +filed without the consent of the mother"), In re +Case No. 50 2008 +DR 001141 (Palm Beach Co. Family Ct.) (1/31/08). If this turns out to be the case, there +is complete diversity, regardless of +citizenship. Although the Eleventh Circuit +has recently indicated that a district court may not conduct jurisdictional discovery under +such circumstances, another division of this Court has since allowed it. Compare Lowery +v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1215-16, 1221 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding that +jurisdictional discovery to determine citizenship upon removal is inappropriate), with +Calixto v. BASF Constr. Chemicals, LLC, slip op., Case No. 07-60077-CIV-ZLOCH, +2008 WL 1840717, *1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 22, 2008) (ordering that parties "shall engage in +jurisdictional discovery for the Court to determine the citizenship of BASF and whether it +has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action") +- The Amended Complaint erroneously states that Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen of New +York. +8 +- Teinr +8 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 9 of 100 +Oct. 15, 2007) (Moreno, J.) (citing +Mav. Merrill I Pierce, Fenner & . +Inc., 292 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2002)); accord, e.g., Tedder v. F.M.C. Corp., +590 F.2d 115, 117 (5th Cir. 1979) (denying motion to remand where two resident +defendants were joined for the fraudulent purpose of defeating federal jurisdiction). +In this case, the plaintiff relies on her original allegations to support three causes of +action against +civil conspiracy (Am. Compl. 19 20-23); Intentional +Infliction of Emotional Distress (Am. Compl. 11 23-28); and civil RICO (Am. +Compl. 11 29-34). These allegations, however, do not support these claims, or +any other theory of liability that would allow recovery against +Cf. +Iv. The New York Times Co., 308 F.2d 474, 477 (5th Cir. 1962) (observing +that "determination of fraudulent joinder is to be based on whether there was a real +intention on colorable grounds to procure a joint judgment") (emphasis added).® +(a) Nonresident defendants have a right of removal. +The removal statute was enacted specifically "to protect defendants." Legg v. +Wyerh, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir. 2005). Cf., e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. +Co., 513 F. Supp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the +fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [of removal] granted to +8 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the +Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the +former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981. +9 +Tein. +9 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 10 of 100 +[defendants] by ... Congress"). In this case, by reconstituting her original federal +lawsuit and refiling it in state Court, the plaintiff has clearly sought to avoid the +strictures of the mandatory stay of this case that federal law requires under 18 +U.S.C. § 3509(k).? +In federal court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k), this action must be +automatically stayed pending final disposition of an ongoing parallel criminal +action against Mr. Epstein. See 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) (providing that a parallel civil +• By filing in state court, the plaintiff's attorney has also evidently sought to avoid the +clear command of our local rules forbidding public comment about the merits of a +pending lawsuit. Compare S.D. Fla. Local Rule 77.2(7) (A lawyer or law firm +associated with a civil action shall not during its investigation or litigation make or +participate in making an extrajudicial statement, other than a quotation from or reference +to public records, which a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means +of public communication if there is a reasonable likelihood that such dissemination will +interfere with a fair trial and which relates to (a) Evidence regarding the occurrence or +transaction involved. (b) The character ... of a party .... (d) The lawyer's opinion as to +the merits of the claims . . . ."), with Ricci~Leopold Home Page, http:// +www.riccilaw.com (click on "Breaking News," then access the hyperlink entitled, +03/13/08 - Consumer Justice Attorney Ted Leopold Files Case to aid Jane Doe in seeking +justice against sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. ) (describing character +of party defendant Epstein as a "sexual predator" (a term defined by Florida criminal +statutes) and quoting the plaintiff's attorney "Ted Leopold, managing partner" as +characterizing Epstein as "an extremely powerful and wealthy man," with "vast +resources," who acted "in the vilest way" at his "lavish mansion" with "lurid fantasies" +and inflicting "untold damage," and opining that he should "be held accountable;" also +quoting the plaintiff's attorney as opining that "[t]his case is both about justice and +making sure that a wealthy and powerful man knows that he is not above the law;" also +quoting the plaintiff's attorney's view of the evidence that plaintiff "continues to endure +emotional trauma daily") (Web site last visited July 17, 2008). +10 +10 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 11 of 100 +action arising from an alleged sexual assault of a minor "shall be stayed until the +end of all phases of [any] criminal action") (emphasis added). In this case, there is +a parallel federal criminal grand jury action pending in the Southern District of +Florida, In re Grand Jury, No. FGJ 07-103(WPB) (S.D. Fla.), which arises out of +the same allegations pled here. Thus, in resorting to fraudulent joinder, the +plaintiff has sought to avoid any application of this otherwise controlling statute. +Cf. Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MCR/WCS, 2005 WL 517847, at *1-2 (N.D. +Fla. Feb. 10, 2005) (staying civil diversity action over plaintiffs' objections on +grounds that the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) is clear that a stay is required in +a case ... where a parallel criminal action is pending which arises from the same +occurrence involving minor victims") (emphasis added). +Even outside the context of a mandatory federal statute, "the Supreme Court +[has] admonished [that] 'the Federal courts should not sanction devices intended to +prevent a removal to a Federal court where one has that right, and should be +equally vigilant to protect the right to proceed in the Federal court."" Legg, 428 +F.3d at 1325 (citing Wecker v. Nat'l Enameling & Stamping Co., 204 U.S. 176, +186 (1907)). See also id. (observing that "Congress 'did not extend [to defendants +a right of removal] with one hand, and with the other give plaintiffs a bag of tricks +11 +3059 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 340, COCONUT GROVE, FLOMOM 33133 +11 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 12 of 100 +to overcome it"" (quoting McKinney v. Bd. of Trustees of Maryland Cmty. Coll., +955 F.2d 924, 928 (4th Cir. 1992))). +To protect a nonresident defendant's right of removal, a federal court will +"determine the matter of jurisdiction" by examining "the true situation both as to +parties and causes of action." Bernblum v. Travelers' Inc. Co., 9 F. Supp. 34, 35 +(W.D. Mo. 1934) (emphasis added). See also id. (observing that "[t]he federal +courts will ... strike out the fiction injected into a case by a party to prevent +removal"'). In accordance with these principles, a plaintiff cannot destroy diversity +jurisdiction simply by conjuring up a nondiverse defendant; there must be at least +some "possibility that the state law might impose liability on [the nondiverse] +defendant under the circumstances alleged in the complaint." Florence v. Crescent +Res., LLC, 484 F.3d 1293, 1299 (11th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). See also, +Holloway v. Morrow, No. 07-0839-WS-M, 2008 WL 401305, at *5 (S.D. Ala. Feb. +11, 2008) (emphasizing that " the potential for legal liability must be reasonable, +not merely theoretical'' (quoting Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 n.5 (11th +Cir. 2005))) (emphasis added). +In this case, the plaintiffs have tried to whip Jane Doe's original, onedefendant complaint into a froth that looks non-federal. Cf. +v. Swan, 962 F. +Supp. 1436, 1439 (D. Utah 1997) (noting that "although plaintiffs' amended +12 +• Tein. +3059 GRAND AVINUE, SUITE 340, COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 +12 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 13 of 100 +complaint contains four claims for relief, the first and second claims state only one +cause of action") (emphasis added). Using her original allegations and adding +nothing, Jane Doe has tried to add claims against +for civil +conspiracy (Am. Compl. 11| 20-23), Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress +(Am. Compl. 19 24-28), and civil RICO (Compl. 11 29-34) in order to append a +nondiverse defendant to her Complaint. These claims, however, are untenable +under Jane Doe's own allegations, and therefore cannot be used to destroy +diversity jurisdiction. +(b) There is no possibility that the plaintiff can establish a cause of +action against +under Florida law. +(i) The conspiracy claim against +must fail. +As a general rule, "[a]n actionable conspiracy [under Florida law] requires +an actionable underlying fort or wrong." +(Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (citations omitted) (emphasis added)." +v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165 +10 +This case is governed by the general rule. Cf. Churruca v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 353 +So. 2d 547, 550 (Fla. 1977) (noting that while there is "ordinarily ... no independent tort +for conspiracy," there is a narrow exception to this rule when "the plaintiff can show +some peculiar power of coercion possessed by the conspirators by virtue of their +combination") (emphasis added). See generally Liappas v. Augoustis, 47 So. 2d 582, 583 +(Fla. 1950) (observing that '* instances of conspiracy which is in itself an independent tort +are rare and should be added to with caution'" (quoting Fleming v. Dane, 22 N.E.2d +609, 611, (Mass. 1939))) (emphasis added). Plainly, this case involves the general rule, +not the narrow exception, because only one person could have caused Jane Doe's +injuries. Cf. +v. Marlin, 529 So. 2d 1174, 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (upholding +13 +- Tein" +13 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 14 of 100 +Here, Jane Doe cannot assert a cause of action for "violation of Chapter 800, +Florida Statutes" (Am. Compl. 9 18) because there is no private right of action +under that Chapter. See generally Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Plaza Materials +Corp., 908 So. 2d 360, 374 (Fla. 2005) (observing that "not every statutory +violation carries a civil remedy" (citing Villazon v. Prudential Health Care Plan, +Inc., 843 So. 2d 842, 852 (Fla. 2003))). See also, e.g., Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. +Ferre, 636 F. Supp. 970 (S.D. Fla. 1985) ( +C.J.) (holding that violation of +Florida's criminal extortion statute does not give rise to a civil cause of action for +damages); Mantooth v. Richards, 557 So. 2d 646, 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (per +curiam) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff's claim for parental kidnapping where +"the mentioned statutes concern only criminal violations and do not afford a civil +remedy") (citation omitted) (emphasis added); +v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, +1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (holding that "[a]n act which does not constitute a basis +for a cause of action against one person cannot be made the basis for a civil action +for conspiracy"). +In this case, Jane Doe's claim under Count II (civil conspiracy) fails because +it derives exclusively from Count I (violation of Chapter 800, Florida Statutes). Cf. +grant of summary judgment against claim for independent conspiracy, noting that +"[w]hen the concerted acts of the defendants do not create a greater harm than if the acts +were committed by one person alone, then there can be no recovery"). +14 +Tein" +14 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 15 of 100 +Buchanan v. Miami Herald Publ'g Co., 230 So. 2d 9, 12 (Fla. 1969) (holding that +where Count I of the complaint had failed to state a cause of action for malicious +prosecution, there could be no civil-conspiracy claim in Count II "based on the +allegations of Count I"'). Because the statute she expressly pleads as the basis for +Count I, Chapter 800, Florida Statutes, provides no civil remedy, Jane Doe cannot +prevail on Count I. Therefore, she cannot prevail on her claim for conspiracy +(Count II) to violate Chapter 800, Florida Statutes (Count I). +(ii) The plaintiff cannot prevail against nondiverse defendant +on her claim for Intentional Infliction +of Emotional Distress (HIED). +Even if the plaintiff, for the sake of argument, can assert an IIED claim +against Jeffrey Epstein, the plaintiff still does not have a cause of action for lIED +against +First, the plaintiff cannot recover damages in connection +with her own illegal conduct; and second, the plaintiff's purported IIED claim fails +as a matter of law. +15 +Tein n. +15 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 16 of 100 +The plaintiff seeks damages in connection with her +own illegal conduct. +The plaintiff concedes that she went to Jeffrey Epstein's house "to give +Epstein a massage for monetary compensation." (Am. Compl. 9| 13.) The plaintiff +also concedes, in the guise of an allegation, that ! | +"brought Jane Doe +1o Epstein's mansion in Palm Beach" to help the plaintiff execute her own plan. +(Am. Compl. 9| 13.) Yet, the plaintiff's plan was illegal: under Florida law, it is a +crime "to practice massage" without a license. § 480.047, Fla. Stat. (1997). To say +it another way, the plaintiff admits that she went to Mr. Epstein's house to commit +a crime. +Based on these allegations, it is clear that the plaintiff seeks damages in +connection with her own illegal conduct; this is enough to support a finding of +fraudulent joinder. See Florence v. Crescent Resources, LLC, 484 F.3d 1293, 1298 +n.3 (11th Cir. 2007) (acknowledging that "under some circumstances, application +of an affirmative defense can support a finding of fraudulent joinder). This +conclusion is supported by well-established principles. +Under Florida law, a plaintiff cannot recover damages flowing from her own +illegal conduct. See +V. +, 93 Fla. 709, 112 So. 622, 628 (1927) (referring to +"the universal rule of our law that one in a court of justice cannot complain ... of +another's wrong whereof he was a partaker") (internal quotation marks and citation +16 +16 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 17 of 100 +omitted) (emphasis added); Turner v. L +1, 704 So. 2d 748, (Fla. 4th DCA +1998) ("[NJo public policy should allow appellant to recover damages as a result of +engaging in criminal conduct such as occurred in this case."). Cf. Ewell v. Daggs, +108 U.S. 143, 149 (1883) (stating that "'[njo court will lend its aid to a [plaintiff] +who founds [a] cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act'") (quoting +Holman v. +, 98 Eng. Rep. 1120 (K.B. 1775)); see also id. (explaining that +this policy is ""not for the sake of the defendant, but because [the courts] will not +lend their aid to such a plaintiff'" (quoting Holman, 98 Eng. Rep. 1120)) +(emphasis added); Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So. 2d 1076, 1082 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) +(Harris, J., concurring) (remarking in the context of an action brought against an +alleged prostitution house that "the court should continue its tradition of not +interceding in civil conflicts involving transactions that are either illegal or are +against public policy"). +Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff cannot blame someone else +) for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. Cf. Feld & Sons, Inc. +v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolffe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. +Ct. 1983) holding that law-firm clients could not recover damages flowing from +their own criminal acts, even though clients' lawyers had suggested the unlawful +conduct to begin with). See also Turner v. +1, 704 So. 2d 748, 751 (Fla. 4th +17 +Tein". +17 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 18 of 100 +DCA 1998) (approving reasoning in Feld & Sons, holding that "no public policy +should allow [a plaintiff] to recover damages as a result of engaging in criminal +conduct" where the plaintiff had provided false testimony at an arbitration +proceeding). +The plaintiff's IED claim fails as a matter of law. +To state a cause of action for IIED, a complaint must allege four elements: +(1) deliberate or reckless infliction of mental suffering; (2) outrageous conduct; (3) +the conduct caused the emotional distress; and (4) the distress was severe. Metro. +Life Ins. Co. v. McCarson, 467 So. 2d 277, 278 (Fla. 1985). Whether conduct is +outrageous enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress +is a question of law, not a question of fact. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 +So. 2d 592, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citations omitted). +In this case, without reaching the question of "outrage," the plaintiff has +failed to show that +conduct - - allegedly arranging an illegal +sexual massage that the plaintiff herself agreed to perform - - itself caused the +plaintiff to suffer any emotional distress. Even if the alleged agreement was +fraudulently induced, the plaintiff's IIED claim flows from Epstein's alleged +conduct, not the joint conduct of +and Doe in planning the massage. +18 +3059 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 340, COCONUT GROVE, FLOR DA 33133 +18 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 19 of 100 +(iii) The plaintiff cannot prevail on her claim for civil remedies +for criminal practices or racketeering ("civil RICO") pled in +Count IV. +A cause of action under section 772.104, Florida Statutes ("Civil Remedies +for Criminal Practices") requires a showing of direct injury. Even assuming for +the sake of argument that Jane Doe can establish that the defendants engaged in a +"pattern of criminal activity," she cannot establish that she was directly injured by +those activities. +Section 772.104 allows someone to bring a civil RICO claim only if "he or +she has been injured by reason of' any RICO violation. § 772.104, Fla. Stat. +(2007). Here, the allegations in Count IV, even if they are true, do not add up to a +civil RICO claim because there is no proximate cause between the purported +"pattern of criminal activity" and Jane Doe's alleged injuries. +In a doomed attempt to satisfy the extremely high burden of pleading civil +RICO under Florida law, the Amended Complaint lists a series of violations rooted +in Florida's prostitution statutes. (Am. Compl. 9 31.) According to the Amended +Complaint, the defendants participated in a criminal enterprise ... or conspiracy]" +(Am. Compl. 9. 30) over an unspecified length of time "to repeatedly find and +bring [Jeffrey Epstein] underage girls ... in order for Epstein to solicit, coerce, +entice, compel, or force such girls in acts of prostitution and/or lewdness" (Am. +19 +19 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 20 of 100 +Compl. ( 32). The alleged "pattern of criminal activity" comprises violations of +Chapter 796, Florida Statutes—the chapter that proscribes various crimes of +prostitution. +13 +These allegations do not tie directly into Jane Doe's alleged psychic injuries. +In contrast to a cognizable RICO claim, this action concerns only an isolated +occurrence. More important, the alleged injuries in this case are pled to have +resulted from an alleged sexual assault, an assault "in violation of Chapter 800 of +the Florida Statutes" (Am. Compl. 9 18) not anything having to do with the +facilitation of prostitution, or more succinctly, the violation of Florida's +prostitution law. +Civil RICO claims are extraordinarily difficult to plead successfully. There +are examples in the case law of RICO claims stemming from a prostitution +enterprise, but they are vastly different from what plaintiff pleads here. They +involve, for example, prostitutes who sued a house of prostitution (as an +"enterprise") for inflicting systematic and repetitive abuse on them, over time. See +Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So. 2d 1076, 1077 (Fla. Sth DCA 1997) (offering an example +of a civil RICO claim against the operators of an alleged "house of prostitution," +The Amended Complaint alleges a "pattern of criminal activity" comprising the +following criminal violations: §§ 796.03, 796.07(2)(D), 796.07(2)(h), 796.045, and +796.04, Fla. Stat. (Am. Compl. 9 31.) +20 +Teinn. +20 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 21 of 100 +where petitioners alleged that they had "suffered emotional pain, anguish, +humiliation, insult, indignity, loss of self-esteem, inconvenience, hurt and +emotional distress" as a result of being forced repeatedly, over time, to "perform +sexual acts to retain their employment"). Here, even if the Amended Complaint +can be read to plead that the defendants schemed to solicit other massages from +other people (see, e.g., Am. Compl. 19 9, 11, 12, 32), those activities are not +alleged in any way to have impacted Jane Doe. Cf., e. g., Palmas Y Bambu, S.A. v. +E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., Inc., 881 So. 2d 565, 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) +(holding that "'indirect injuries, that is injuries sustained not as a direct result of +predicate acts ... will not allow recovery under Florida RICO."" (quoting +O'Malley v. St. +Univ., Inc., 599 So. 2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992))) +(emphasis added). +Because the Amended Complaint does not satisfy the direct-injury +requirement under Florida's RICO law, Jane Doe has failed to allege a cause of +action against +| for violation of section 772.103, Florida Statutes. +B. This Notice satisfies the procedural requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446. +1. This notice of removal is timely. +In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446, this notice of removal is timely. Only +defendant Epstein has been served with process. Defendants +and +21 +Teinr. +21 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 22 of 100 +have not yet been served. In a multi-defendant lawsuit, removal is timely when +effected within 30 days after the last defendant is served. See +Dermaceuticals, +Inc. v. RX Solutions, United Health Group, Inc., No. 6:08-cv-330-Orl-31KRS, +2008 WL 1744794, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2008) (concluding that removal +petition was timely where it was filed within 30 days after the last defendant was +served). +2. Notice has been given, and state-court papers have been filed. +In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), defendants have served this Notice +of Removal on July 18, 2008. All papers filed in State Court are attached to this +Removal Petition. +3. There is unanimity among the defendants. +In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) the undersigned are authorized to +represent that all of the defendants join this Petition and consent to removal. +Conclusion +Because this is a civil action between citizens of different states, excluding +any fraudulently joined parties, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, +exclusive of interests and costs, this Court has original jurisdiction over this action +pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). +Tein r. +3059 GRAND AVIRUE, SUITE 340, COCOMUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 +22 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 23 of 100 +WHEREFORE, the Defendants, Jeffrey Epstein, +and +remove this case from Palm Beach Circuit Court to the United States +District Court for the Southern District of Florida. +Respectfully submitted, +TEIN, P.L. +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 +Tel: 305 442 1101 +Fax: 305 442 6744 +By: +WilL Ter +GUY A. +Fla. Bar No. 623740 +MICHAEL R. TEIN +Fla. Bar No. 993522 +tein@lewistein.com +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Tel. 561 659 8300 +Fax. 561 835 8691 +By: +Jack A. Goldberger +Fla. Bar No. 262013 +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Tein». +23 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 24 of 100 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document is being served this day, +July 18, 2008, on counsel of record identified on the service list by U.S. Mail. +willie: +Michael R. Tein +24 +Tein r. +3059 GRAND AVENUE, SuITE 340, COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 +24 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 25 of 100 +Service List +Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. +Ricci-Leopold, P.A. +2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +Fax: 561 697 2383 +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Douglas M. Mcintosh, Esq. +Jason A. +|| IL. Esq. +Mclntosh, Sawran, Peltz & Cartaya, P.A. +Centurion Tower +1601 Forum Place, Suite 1110 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Fax. 561 682-3206 +Counsel for Defendant +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Fax. 561 828 0983 +Counsel for Defendant +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +Michael J. Pike, Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & +Coleman, LLP +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Fax. 561 515 3148 +Co-Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein +25 +Teinn +3059 GRAND AVEMUT, SUITE 340, COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 +25 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 26 of 100 + +26 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Popument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 27 of 100 +ēnsor & Associates +Reporzing and Transcription, Inc. +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. +2006 CF09454AXX +STATE OF FLORIDA, +- VS- +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEPOSITION OF +Wednesday, February 20, 2008 +2:00 р.т. - 4:30 р.т. +Palm Beach County Courthouse +205 North Dixie Highway +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +copy +Reported By: +Judith F. Consor, FPR +Notary Public, +State of Florida +Consor & Associates Reporting and Transcription +Phone - 561.682.0905 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +27 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 28 of 100 +Reporting and Transcriptio, Inc. +Page 2 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +APPEARANCES: +On behalf of the State: +LANNA BELOHLAVEK, +ESQ. +ASSISTANT STATE +ATTORNEY +401 North Dixie Highway +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +561.355.7100 +On behalf of the Defendant: +MICHAEL R. TEIN, ESQ. +KATHRYN A. MEYERS, ESQ. +TEIN, PL +3059 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 340 +COCONUT GROVE, EL 33133 +On behalf of the Defendant: +JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ. +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS +250 AUSTRALIAN AVENUE SOUTH +SUITE 1400 +WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 +561.659.8300 +ALSO PRESENT: +ON BEHALE OF THE WITNESS: THEODORE J. LEOPOLD, ESQ. +KEITH J. BRETT, DIRECTOR OF MULTIMEDIA DIVISION, +LEGAL-EZE +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +28 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Dogument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 29 of 100 +Reporsing and Transcripsino, Inc. +Page 3 +1 +2 +3 +INDEX +WITNESS: +PAGE: +DIRECT EXAMINATION +BY MR. TEIN: +4 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +- +- - +NOEXHIBITS MARKED +- +- +- +.. CERTIFIED QUESTIONS... +Line +Page +53 +55 +59 +111 +112 +22 +1 +2 +14 +2 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +29 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Dogument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 30 of 100 +Reporting and Transcription, loc +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 4 +Deposition taken before Judith F. Consor, +Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of +Florida at Large, in the above cause. +- +- - +Thereupon, +having been first duly sworn or affirmed, was +examined +and testified as follows: +THE WITNESS: I do. +DIRECT EXAMINATION +BY MR. TEIN: +name. +Good afternoon. Please tell me your full +A. +A. +And can you please spell it. +Thank you. +May I call you +A. +Uh-huh. +I'm going to ask you a few +questions, several questions today. If at any time you +wan: to take a break, you just let me know. Okay? +A. Okay. +l. If you at any time don't understand one of +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +30 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Rpgument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 31 of 100 +Page 5 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +my questions, will you just please let me know? +A. +Yes. +Q. And if at any time you're not feeling well +or something +like that, you'll tell us, right? +A. +Yes. +e. +Do you feel okay today? +A. +Yes. +Not taking any alcohol or drugs or anything +like that, right? +A. +No. +So you feel ready to have your deposition +taken? +A. +Yes. +what is your address? +A. +I'm currently living at my aunt's house and +I don't know it off the top of my head. +Where is it? +A. +In Jupiter. +Who is your aunt? +A. +e. +A. +Who else is living there? +my uncle. +Anyone else living there? +A. No. +e. The contempt motion that your mother filed +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +31 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 32 of 100 +• Reporting and Transcription. Inc. +Page 6 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +against your father regarding your fifty million-dollar +lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein says that you live with +your aunt and uncle and have been living there; is that +correct? +A. +Yes. +How long have you been living with your +aunt and uncle? +Since my father kicked me out. +e. +A. +e. +That was Thanksgiving of this past year? +Yes, sir. +Okay. Didn't your firefighter boyfriend +get an apartment for the two of you? +A. +No, sir. He has an apartment, but by +himself. +Did he get an apartment for the two of you +to live in? +A. +No, sir. +l. Are you planning to move in with him? +A. +Maybe one day in the future. +l. Do you have a plan to move in with him +presently? +A. NO. +Have you been to the apartment that you and +have discussed moving in together? +A. +I have been to the apartment. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +32 of 316 + + +| Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 33 of 100 +Reporting anal Transcripzion, Inc. +Page +7 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +'==- +Where is that? +A. +Palm Beach Lakes. +Have you spent the night over there? +A. +No, sir. +Do you know the address there? +A. +I do not. +Isn't your sister +planning on living +with you and +A. +No. +you know that this court case is a +criminal prosecution, correct? +A. +Correct. +And you know that it's a criminal +prosecution against a man who has no criminal background. +Do you know that? +A. +I do now. +e. +You agree that court is a very serious +matter? +A. +Yes. +And you're here with your lawyer +Mr. Leopold, right? +A. +Yes. +R. +And you know that Mr. Leopold recently +filed a lawsuit in federal court against Jeffrey Epstein, +seeking fifty million dollars. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +33 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Daqyment 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 34 of 100 +• Reporting and Transcription, Inc. +Page 8 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. LEOPOLD: Let me just object. +let me instruct you. Anything that +you have learned through conversations between you +and me are protected. So if you know any of that +information outside of those discussions, you may +answer. +But if the only way you know it is +through our discussions, do not answer that +question. +BY MR. TEIN: +you know that Mr. Leopold recently +filed a lawsuit in federal court on your behalf against +Jeffrey Epstein seeking fifty million dollars? +MR. LEOPOLD: Same objection. +If you know the answer to that outside of +our discussions, you may answer. If it is the +only way that you know the answer is through our +discussions, do not answer that question. +THE WITNESS: Okay. +MR. LEOPOLD: Attorney/client privilege. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. +You can answer the question unless -- +MR. LEOPOLD: Same objection. +MR. TEIN: Let me finish. +MR. LEOPOLD: Excuse me. We're -- +MR. TEIN: No. Let me finish. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +34 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 35 of 100 +Reporting anal Transcription, Inc. +Page 9 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. LEOPOLD: +, we're not going to do +that. +MR. TEIN: My name is not +I'm going to finish my question. Okay? +MR. LEOPOLD: Do not answer until you hear +from me. +BY MR. TEIN: +Other than conversations that you have had +with Mr. Leopold - I'm not asking about that - are you +aware that Mr. Leopold has filed a lawsuit in federal +court seeking fifty million dollars from Jeffrey Epstein +on your behalf? +MR. LEOPOLD: Same objection. +Anything that you learn through +conversations between you and me, do not answer. +Those are protected. If you know through any +other realm of knowledge, you may answer. +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. TEIN: +You have no idea that Mr. Leopold filed a +fifty million-dollar lawsuit on your behalf against +Jeffrey Epstein? +MR. LEOPOLD: Same objection. +Do not answer that question if it's through +discussions that you and I had. Outside of that, +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +35 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Rpgument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 36 of 100 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +you may answer. +Page 10 +So do not answer that question if +that is the only basis by which you understand +that answer. +THE WITNESS: +NO. +BY MR. TEIN: +You didn't know that? +MR. LEOPOLD: Don't answer that question. +Again, it's attorney/client privilege. Any +information you've learned through conversations +between you and I are protected. If you know it +through any other realm, you may answer. +MR. TEIN: Are you going to say that for +every question in the deposition, Mr. Leopold? +MR. LEOPOLD: When you ask improper +questions like that without the proper -- +MR. TEIN: You're going to stop your +speaking objections +right now. Okay? +MR. LEOPOLD: Without the proper -- +MR. TEIN: You need to stop your speaking +objections. +Let's continue. +MR. LEOPOLD: Counsel, you just asked me a +question and I'm going to state it on the +record -- +MR. TEIN: You need to stop your speaking +1655 Paim Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +36 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Doçyment 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 37 of 100 +Page 11 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +objections. Check your rules. +MR. LEOPOLD: Excuse me. +For the record, +Counsel asked me a question. I'll state the +answer on the record. +He asked me the question am +I going to be answering that way throughout the +deposition. So long as there's improper +foundation and predicate asked by the attorney, I +will protect my client and I make the record where +appropriate. If counsel wishes to ask an +appropriate worded question with the proper +foundation and predicate, I will certainly allow +the client to answer the question. +MR. GOLDBERGER: Why don't you just state +attorney/client privilege and just be done with +it? +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. LEOPOLD: I want the record to be +clear. +MR. TEIN: You want to waste time is what +you want to do. +You were supposed to be here this morning +and you totally broke the deal, the agreement that +you had with us if your hearing got cancelled. +But let's move on and maybe you'll stop +obstructing this deposition. +MR. LEOPOLD: I think the record is very +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +37 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Dagument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 38 of 100 +Page 12 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +clear where we stand thus far. +Is there a recording taken of this +deposition? +THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. +MR. LEOPOLD: Just make sure that's +preserved. +BY MR. TEIN: +Go to Exhibit 20-01 -- well, before you do +that, +are you aware that a lawyer named Jeffrey +Hernan filed a lawsuit on your behalf, yes or no? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. +Any conversations that you and I have had +regarding that, if that is the only way by which +you understand how to answer that question, do not +answer. It's attorney/client privilege, as well +as any conversations you may have had with the +attorney from Miami. That is also attorney/client +privilege. And I'm assuming - +MR. TEIN: You're actually wrong about the +attorney/client privilege. +MR. LEOPOLD: I'm assuming Counsel is not +asking you to divulge attorney/client -- +MR. TEIN: Of course not. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. +are you aware that Jeffrey Herman, +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +38 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Regument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 39 of 100 +Reporting and Transcriptinn, Ine +Page 13 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +an attorney, filed a fifty-million-dollar lawsuit on your +behalf against Jeffrey Epstein, yes or no? +MR. LEOPOLD: Same objection. +MR. TEIN: We've heard the objection 10 +times already. +MR. LEOPOLD: Counsel, excuse me. +MR. TEIN: Just say attorney/client +privilege. Stop interrupting my questions. +MR. LEOPOLD: I'm entitled to make an +objection for the record, which I'm doing, and +I'll make the same objection. And if it calls for +attorney/client privilege, any conversations you +and I have had, do not answer the question. +And I think that it might be appropriate, +for the record, to ask questions via +as opposed to +I think that +would be more appropriate for this deposition. +BY MR. TEIN: +Go ahead. +Please anser yes or no. +A. +Yes. +Thank you. +In fact, you know that Mr. Herman held a +press conference after he filed the fifty-million-dollar +Lawsuit on your behalf, don't you? +A. +After it happened. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +39 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 40 of 100 +Page 14 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +You know that he had a press conference, +don't you, yes or no? +A. +Yes. +In fact, let's go to Exhibit 20-01. +MR. GOLDBERGER: Look behind you. You'll +see it. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. +A. +Have you ever seen that picture before? +Yes. +Is that a picture of your father, your +stepmother and Mr. Herman at the press conference +regarding your lawsuit? +A. +Yes. +Now you know that this is a very serious +matter, don't you? +MR. LEOPOLD: Asked and answered. +objection. +MR. GOLDBERGER: All right. You can +object. You're representing a witness here, +Mr. Leopold. You can object on privilege grounds. +You cannot make legal objections. +You have no +standing to do so. +MR. LEOPOLD: I'm going to make them and +then -- +MR. GOLDBERGER: We're -- +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +40 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Rogument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 41 of 100 +Reporzing and Transcription, Inc. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 15 +MR. LEOPOLD: We're going to leave or we're +going to take a break, because his demeanor is not +appropriate. There's no reason to have this kind +of demeanor. If you want to have this kind of +demeanor with me -- +MR. TEIN: You are obstructing this +deposition. +MR. GOLDBERGER: Why don't you guys go +outside and just talk about - +MR. LEOPOLD: She -- her job is very +difficult and she's not going to be able to take +us both talking at the +same time. +MR. GOLDBERGER: Off the record. +MR. LEOPOLD: We're not going off the +record, Jack. We're not, Jack. Her job is very +difficult. I'm going to make the record. +I don't think it is appropriate, especially +in the small confines of this room, to be very +aggressive with this young lady. +MR. TEIN: That's not happening. Stop, +stop actually - +MR. LEOPOLD: If you're going to interrupt +me, we're going to cancel this deposition - +MR. TEIN: Stop misrepresenting. +THE COURT REPORTER: I need one at a time, +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +41 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Dogyment 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 42 of 100 +Page 16 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +no matter who it is. +MR. LEOPOLD: I think we're going to take a +break. +Perhaps you might want to talk to your +co-counsel -- +MR. TEIN: I don't need to talk to him. +MR. LEOPOLD: But we're going to take a +break. +MR. TEIN: We're not taking a break unless +the witness needs a break. +You're obstructing this deposition, Ted. +MR. LEOPOLD: Come on, +You all want to continue in this +demeanor -- +MR. TEIN: You're obstructing the +deposition. Stop making speeches. We're not +discussing this with you. The questions are to +your client. Go take your five-minute break. +MR. LEOPOLD: Fine. We need to make sure +the record's clear and clean. +And I want to make sure, as I've already +asked you -- I know that you're one of the best in +town -- that this audio -- this needs to be +preserved. Okay? +MR. TEIN: Go take your five-minute break, +Mr. Leopold, now. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +42 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM Rtcument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 43 of 100 +1 reporting and Transcription, Inc. +Page 17 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +You were supposed to be here at nine a.m.; +it's now after two. Take your break and come +back. +MR. LEOPOLD: Okay. If the demeanor keeps +up, we will not be here beyond those five minutes. +MR. TEIN: Take your break and come back. +MR. LEOPOLD: Okay. So I suggest that you +relax. +MR. TEIN: I suggest that you take your +break. +MR. GOLDBERGER: Let them take that +five-minute break. +take deep breaths. +take a break. +MR. LEOPOLD: But I would suggest that you +MR. TEIN: Suggest whatever you want. Go +(Thereupon, a recess was taken.) +BY MR. TEIN: +you agree that giving testimony +today at your deposition is something very serious, don't +you? +A. +Yes. +A. Yes. +e. +And you respect the court, don't you? +Let me show you Exhibit 31-001. Can you +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +43 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM _ Detiment 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 44 ot 100 +Page 18 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +22 +23 +24 +25 +read that out loud, please. +A. +Okay. What do you want? +R. +A. +Will you read that out loud, please. +1. +e. +Thank you. +Lol hah my baddd...1o1 yah i got some +A. +stupid court shit on the 20th...bullshit...and damn you +still have court shit with him? Like after so long wow +im sorry... well yah well we will definitely havta make +plans for sure. because i miss u tons times a million and +no no no i love you...o and p.s. i love ur default pic +niggaa. Muah xo. +Did you send that message last week to a +friend of yours on MySpace? +A. I wouldn't know. There's no dates and I've +deleted that Myspace, so -- +We're going to talk about that in a second. +A. +e. +A. +e. +Okay. +Did you send that message last week - +Right. +Let me finish my question. +Did you send that message last week to a +friend of yours on Myspace? +A. I wouldn't know the date, but obviously, +it's to a friend. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +44 of 316 + + +Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 45 of 100 +Page 19 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Did you send that message to a friend of +yours on MySpace? +A. +Sure, yes. +R. +Were you referring to this deposition? +A. +Yes. +Do you find the term n-i-g-g-e-r offensive? +A. +That's not anywhere in there. +What word did you use in there? +MR. LEOPOLD: Where are you referring to, +Counsel? There's 20 plus words in there. +MR. TEIN: Don't make a speaking objection. +THE WITNESS: Are you referring to +anything -- +MR. LEOPOLD: No, +Don't -- don't -- +let him ask you the question. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. +? +What question were you asking, +MR. LEOPOLD: She doesn't ask questions. +You ask the questions. +What is the question +pending? +BY MR. TEIN: +what is the last word on there in +the text of your message before the closing? +A. Niggaa. +e. Don't you find that term offensive? +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +45 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 46 of 100 +Keporting and Transcription, Inc +Page 20 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. +No. +MR. LEOPOLD: +Can you spell it for the +record, please. +THE WITNESS: N-i-g-g -- +MR. TEIN: No, no, no. You are not going +to be asking questions. +MR. LEOPOLD: I'm not asking questions. +I'm asking for the record the word to be spelled, +because we don't have a video here today. +MR. TEIN: These exhibits are part of the +record. You -- +MR. LEOPOLD: Well, it's not marked as an +exhibit. +MR. TEIN: Stop interrupting me, +Mr. Leopold. I have marked and identified as an +exhibit and you will get it. +MR. LEOPOLD: There has been no +identification of this document in the record. +MR. TEIN: MI. Leopold, stop interrupting +this deposition. +MR. LEOPOLD: What is the exhibit number +marked for identification? +MR. TEIN: 31-001. +MR. LEOPOLD: Do we have copies? Is it on +the record anywhere? +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +46 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Degument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 47 of 100 +Page 21 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. TEIN: +Let me ask you, +did you in fact +write your friend this message about this deposition? +A. +Yes. +So you wrote your friend that this +deposition is stupid court s-h-i-t, correct? +A. +Yes. +Because you think this deposition is stupid +court s-h-i-t, don't you? +A. +No. +You wrote that to your friend, didn't you? +A. +Yes. +e. +You think that court is stupid, don't you? +A. +In some cases. +e. +And you think that court is bull s-h-i-t, +don't you? +A. +No. +e. +And you think this deposition is bull +s-h-i-t, don't you? +A. +No. +You wrote that to your friend, didn't you? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and +answered. +MR. TEIN: That's not an objection. +BY MR. TEIN: +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +47 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 48 of 100 +Consor & Associates +70 Reporting and Transcription, Inc. +Page 22 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +You wrote that to your friend, didn't you? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and +answered, for the fourth time. +MR. TEIN: You are improperly objecting, +Mr. Leopold. You have no grounds to object. And +• +that's not an objection. +MR. LEOPOLD: It is an objection. +MR. TEIN: Then terminate the deposition if +you think it's been asked and answered. +MR. LEOPOLD: Counsel, I am not precluded +from just making an objection to the form of the +question. As the courts well know, +and if you +practice here in West Palm Beach, many of the +judges require you to set the objection with +specificity. And I will do that. And if you +don't want me to, you can make the record. But I +will do that. +MR. TEIN: Here's what we'll do, Ted. You +can -- I will allow you to reserve an objection to +form for every single one of my questions. +Otherwise, all you're doing is obstructing. +MR. LEOPOLD: I won't do that. +MR. TEIN: Of course; because you want to +obstruct. +MR. LEOPOLD: All right. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +48 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 49 of 100 +õnsor & Associates +• Reporting and Transcription, Inc. +Page 23 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. TEIN: +you think that giving testimony +today, under +oath, is bull s-h-i-t, don't you? +A. +No. +Q. And you wrote that to your friend on +MySpace last week, didn't you? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and +answered. +THE WITNESS: No, I did not. +BY MR. TEIN: +A. +You didn't write this exhibit? +I wrote that, but I didn't write what you +said. +e. +You wrote in this exhibit, "I got some +stupid court s-h-i-t on the 20th. Bull s-h-i-t." Didn't +you write that? +A. +Yes. +Referring to this deposition, didn't you? +A. +Referring to the court. I was later +informed that it was a deposition. +I'm going to ask you some questions now +about what happened when you went to Jeff Epstein's house +three years ago. Okay? +A. +Uh-huh. +when the police interviewed you one month +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +49 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 50 of 100 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 24 +after you went to Epstein's house, you swore on your +mother's grave that you and Epstein +did not engage in sex +of any kind? +A. +Yes. +0. +Didn't you tell that to the police? +A. Yes. And I will continue. I have never +had sex with him. +Did what happened upstairs at Jeff +Epstein's house take you completely by surprise, +A. +Yes. +Now the civil complaint that you filed +against Mr. Epstein for fifty million dollars alleged +tha: you were totally shocked by what happened when you +got there. +A. +Yes. +Were you totally shocked by what happened +when you got to Epstein's house? +A. +Yes. +e. You didn't expect it at all, did you? +A. No. +e. You had absolutely no idea why your friend +was taking you to Epstein's house, right? +A. I was informed it was a massage. +l. All you thought that it was going to be was +a massage, correct? +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +50 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Rogument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 51 of 100 +Rº Reporzing and Transcripsion, Inc. +. Page 25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. +Yes. +0. +Before you got to Epstein's house +never said anything to you on the telephone about sexual +activity with Epstein, did she? +A. +No. +Q. And before you got to Epstein's house +never sent you a message over the Internet about +sexual activity with Epstein, did she? +A. +No. +e. Did +ever try to convince you to +engage in any sexual activity with Epstein? +A. NO. +l. Did +every try to convince +you to engage in any sexual activity with Epstein? +A. I don't know who +is. +2. Do you have a friend +A. No. +l. Okay. Before you went so Epstein's house +did anyone call or e-mail you to induce you to engage in +sexual activity with Epstein? +A. +No. +e. So you're sure that before you got to +Epstein's house no one tried to persuade you to engage in +sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein? +A. NO. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +51 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM Pagument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 52 of 100 +Cõnsor & Associates +7 Reporting and Transcriptien Inc +Page 26 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +You're sure that -- let me ask the question +again. +You're sure that before you got to +Epstein's house no one tried to persuade you to engage in +sexual activity with Epstein for money. Are you? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. +Asked and +answered. +THE WITNESS: No. And I've already +answered that a bazillion times. +BY MR. TEIN: +He's coaching you now. So I'm going to ask +the question -- +MR. LEOPOLD: Counsel, I've made an +objection for the record. +MR. TEIN: Stop speaking. +MR. LEOPOLD: I'm not going to stop +speaking. You can't interrupt me when I'm making +the record. +MR. TEIN: You're coaching the witness. +MR. LEOPOLD: Counsel -- +MR. TEIN: Stop coaching the witness. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. +let me ask you - +MR. LEOPOLD: If you continue to - +MR. TEIN: Stop interrupting my questions. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +52 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Dogyment 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 53 of 100 +Reporting and Transcripsion, Inc +Page 27 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. LEOPOLD: If you do it one more time, +we're leaving. +BY MR. TEIN: +0. +MR. LEOPOLD: I'm going to make the record. +You cannot interrupt me when I'm making the +record. +Out of professional conduct, you cannot +do that. I'm entitled to make the record. I made +an objection, asked and answered. Your demeanor +is inappropriate. You're willing and you are able +and you're responsible to ask a question in a +professional manner, +and ask the question and once +you get the answer, to either follow up on it or +move on, but not continuously browbeat and ask the +same question over and over because you don't like +the answer. +MR. TEIN: Calm down, sir. +MR. LEOPOLD: Trust me, I'm very calm here. +When I'm not calm, you'll know it. I'm very calm. +So please continue on. But I will not +allow you to continue to harass her in the +demeanor that you're doing. Ask her a question +and move on. +MR. TEIN: Are you done? +MR. LEOPOLD: Thank you. I am. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +53 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 54 of 100 +Reporting and Transcripsion, Inc. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 28 +MR. TEIN: +Stop misrepresenting the record +and calm down. +I'm going to ask my question. +Stop it. +BY MR. TEIN: +MR. LEOPOLD: I think the record is very +clear. +MR. GOLDBERGER: Let me just clarify +something. When you object to the form of a +question, you're not instructing the witness not +to answer the question, are you? +MR. LEOPOLD: No. And I'm not making that +objection; only on attorney/client privilege. +MR. TEIN: Will you stop speaking now so I +can ask my question? Are you done? +Okay. I'm going to ask my question. +BY MR. TEIN: +Listen, +MR. LEOPOLD: Hold on. Stop. +I've been doing this for 20 plus years and +have met a lot of attorneys, but I've never had an +experience like this where I've -- +MR. TEIN: Stop your speeches. +MR. LEOPOLD: If you continue to do this, +whether it's with me or with my client, I will not +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +54 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Dogument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 55 of 100 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +Page 29 +put up +with it and I don't need to put up with it +and it's not appropriate. And I'm sure +Mr. Goldberger knows all this, because I know that +he wouldn't do this. +So I will not put up with +it. And I think it's highly inappropriate to do +this with this child sitting here, the way you're +acting, primarily towards me, and I will not put +up with it. +MR. TEIN: Will you please stop your speech +so I can ask questions? +MR. LEOPOLD: So long as you act +professionally, I will do so. But if you continue +to do it this way, I will leave. +MR. TEIN: Suit yourself. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. TEIN: +e. +are you sure that before you got to +Epstein's house no one tried to persuade you to engage in +sexual activity with Epstein for money? +MR. LEOPOLD: Asked and answered. +objection. +MR. TEIN: Did you get her answer? +THE COURT REPORTER: No, I did not. +THE WITNESS: I'm sure. +BY MR. TEIN: +Let me ask you a few questions about your +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +55 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 56 of 100 +2 Reponing and Transcriptize, inc. +Page 30 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +contact with Jeffrey Epstein. +Okay? +A. +(Witness nods head up and down.) +Jeff never e-mailed you, did he? +A. +e. +A. +e. +No. +Jeff never text messaged you, did he? +No. +Jeff never chatted in a chat room with you, +did he? +A. NO. +e. Before you got to Epstein's house you had +never spoken to jeff, had you? +A. +No. +And before you got to Epstein's house you +had never met Jeff? +A. +Correct. +e. +Before you got to Epstein's house you had +never told Jeff that you were under 18, right? +A. +No. +Before you got to Epstein's house had you +ever told Jeffrey that you were under 18? +A. +No. I never spoke to the man before that. +And you only went to Jeff Epstein's house +that one time three years ago, correct? +A. +Yes. +You never went there again, correct? +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +56 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 57 of 100 +1 Reporting and Transcripsion, Inc. +Page 31 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. +No. +O. All right. Let me ask you two final areas +of questioning about this and we'll move onto something +else. +Okay? +A. +Uh-huh. +Yes. +I'm sorry. +e. Before you got to Epstein's did anyone +associated with Epstein ever call you on the phone and +try to persuade, induce, entice or coerce you to engage +in any sexual activity? +A. +No. +e. +Before you got to Epstein's did anybody +associated with Epstein ever contact you on the Internet +and try to persuade, induce, entice or coerce you to +engage in any sexual activity? +A. +No. +e. +who told you that when you got to +Jeff Epstein's house you should lie to jeff about your +age? +A. +e. +Was it +or was it the other girl in +the car who you rode over with to Epstein's house? +A. +e. +Who was the other girl in the car with you +that day? +A. +I honestly don't know. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +57 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 58 of 100 +* Roporting and Transcription, Inc. +Page 32 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Had you ever seen her before? +A. +No, sir. +0. +You told the police that when you rode over +to Epstein's you had no idea who she was, right? +A. +Correct. +l. You told the police that you didn't know +her name, but she was like really dark, kind of like a +Spanish girl? +A. Yes. +e. +Those were your words, right? +A. +Yes. +e. +Do you now know who she is? +A. No, sir. +e. So it was +who told you to lie about +your age to Jeff Epstein? +A. Yes, sir. +e. +And +told you that if you weren't 18, +Epstein wouldn't let you into his house, right? +A. +That's -- yes, yes. +l. All right. Let's talk for a minute about +when you first met Jeff. Okay? +A. Sure. +2. When you first met Jeff he tried to find +out how old you were, right? +A. Excuse me? +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Pogyment 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 59 of 100 +Reporting and Transcription, Iac. +Page 33 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +When you first met Jeff he tried to find +out how old you were, right? +A. +Not when we first introduced each other; +when +we get upstairs, then, yes. +During the massage Jeff asked you how old +you were, correct? +A. +Yes, yes. +e. Now hadn't you already told Jeff's +assistant, the one who walked you upstairs, that you went +to college and had just moved down here from Ohio? +A. +I never spoke to the lady. +Do you want to rethink that answer? +MR. LEOPOLD: Is that a question? +BY MR. TEIN: +Do you want to rethink that answer? +A. No. I didn't really speak with her that +much. +on that? +Do you want to try to refresh your memory +MR. LEOPOLD: Do you have something to +refresh her memory with? +MR. TEIN: Do you want to stop making +speaking objections? +MR. LEOPOLD: No. But to refresh someone's +memory, you show them a document. +1655 Paln Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Doçument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 60 of 100 +• Reporting and Transcripsion, Inc. +Page 34 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. TEIN: I know how to do this. +MR. LEOPOLD: Then show her +a document. +MR. TEIN: Stop speaking. +MR. LEOPOLD: I'm not going to stop +speaking. I'm going to continue to make the +record. +MR. TEIN: You're obstructing. Please +stop. +MR. LEOPOLD: I'm not obstructing. But if +you want to refresh her recollection, you need to +show her something. +That's not a proper question. I object to +the foundation and the predicate of that question. +MR. TEIN: Are you done? +MR. LEOPOLD: I am now. Thank you. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. +Do you want to try to refresh your memory +as to whether you had any conversation with the woman who +walked you upstairs in Epstein's house in which you told +her that you went to college and had just moved down from +Ohio? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Object to the +form of the question. Lack of foundation and +predicate. +BY MR. TEIN: +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +60 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Mament 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 61 of 100 +Page 35 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +e. +A. +You can answer the question. +Sure. +Q. +Is there anything that would refresh your +memory that in fact you told Mr. Epstein's assistant, the +one who walked you upstairs, that you went to college and +you had just moved down here from Ohio? +A. +I don't remember saying that, but if you -- +I don't remember saying that myself, so -- +e. +That would be a lie, right? +A. +No. I really don't remember. +e. +So you told Jeff that you were 18 years. +old, correct? +A. +Yes. +e. Do you remember Detective +Pagan of +the Police Department, Palm Beach Police Department? +A. +Yes. +Do you remember you spoke to her? +A. +Yes. +e. +Do you remember that you told Detective +Pagan that when you lied about your age to Jeff you said +it really fast because you didn't want to make it sound +like you were lying? +A. I don't remember the words exactly, but I +do remember telling her I told him I was 18. +e. +And do you remember telling Detective Pagan +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +61 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 62 of 100 +1172: Reporsing and Transcription, Inc +Page 36 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +that when you lied to Epstein about your age that you +said it really fast so Epstein wouldn't realize you were +lying? +A. +No, I don't remember saying those words +exactly to her. I remember telling +her that I told +Epstein I was 18. +Does it sound right to you that you told +Detective Pagan that you said your age really fast to +Epstein - +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Objection. Asked and +answered. +BY MR. TEIN: +- so he wouldn't think that you were +lying? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and +answered, lack of foundation, mischaracterization +of her earlier testimony. She's already answered +that question. +BY MR. TEIN: +l. You can answer it. +MR. LEOPOLD: Same objection. It's been +asked and answered. +You can answer. I've made the objection. +THE WITNESS: I forget the question, now. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +62 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 63 of 100 +Page 37 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. TEIN: +Let me put it again. +Does it sound right to you that you told +Detective Pagan that when you lied about your age to +Jeffrey Epstein, you said it really fast because you +didn't want to make it sound like you were lying? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Lack of +foundation, asked and answered. +THE WITNESS: I could have possibly said +that, yes. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. +You didn't want Mr. Epstein to know that +you were lying about your age, right? +A. +Correct. +You didn't want Mr. Epstein to know that +you were not 18 yet, right? +A. +Correct. +You wanted Mr. Epstein to believe that you +really were 18, right? +A. +Correct. +Do you remember when Mr. Epstein asked +where you went to school? +A. +Yes. +l. And you told MI. Epstein you went to +Wellington, right? +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +63 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 64 of 100 +Page 38 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. +Yes. +Was that the truth? +A. +No. +In fact, you went to +Palm, right? +A. +Yes. +0. +So you lied to Mr. Epstein again, correct? +A. +Yes. +Is Wellington the college that you told +Jeff's assistant that you were attending? +A. +I don't remember having that conversation +with her, so I wouldn't know if that's what I said. +That was a lie, though, wasn't it? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection to the form of the +question, lack of foundation. You're making an +assumption. She just answered you she can't tell +you that. +MR. TEIN: Speaking objection. And you +well know that, Mr. Leopold. +MR. LEOPOLD: She can't answer that +question. The way you phrased that question, +you're purposely making her not be honest in her +testimony. She can't answer a question like that. +She doesn't remember. So then you say, "So you +were lying." That's improper and you know that. +That's not a proper question. And any attorney +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +64 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 65 of 100 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 39 +that would do that to a witnesses or to a person +that's sitting in this chair is not acting +professionally. You can't ask a question like +that. You can do it, but it's not proper. And +I'm sure you weren't trained that way, certainly +not ethically. +MR. TEIN: Will you stop? +MR. LEOPOLD: I'm not going to stop, +because the way you're asking that question is +improper and you know it. +MR. TEIN: You're losing your cool. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. +MS. +-- +MR. LEOPOLD: Trust me. I'm very calm. +When I lose my cool, you'll know it. +MR. TEIN: I do know it. +BY MR. TEIN: +Ms. +Mr. Epstein never asked you +to do anything other than massage him, correct? +A. Incorrect; because he asked me to take off +my bra, so that would be two things he's asked me to do. +e. Other than asking you to take your bra off, +Mr. Epstein never asked you to do anything with him other +than massage, correct? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Foundation, +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +65 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM. Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 + +Consor & Associates +Reporting and Transcripsino, Inc. +Page 40 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +predicate. +THE WITNESS: Correct. +BY MR. TEIN: +You told the police, in your words, that +you did not whack him off, right? +A. +Correct. +e. +What does that mean? +A. +Whack, like whacking off? +e. +Your term, what does that mean? +A. +Masturbating. +l. Mr. Epstein never tried at any time to grab +your hand, did he? +A. +No. +l. Mr. Epstein never tried to put your hand +anywhere, did he? +A. +No. +l. At no time did you touch Mr. Epstein's +penis, did you? +A. +No. +e. And he did not touch you, correct? +A. Incorrect. +l. Well, you told the police, "At no time did +he touch me." Were you lying to the police then? +A. +No. Well, I wasn't being fully truthful, +but I wasn't lying. +1655 Paim Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +65 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 67 of 100 +1 Reporting and Transcription, Inc +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 41 +You told the police twice when you spoke to +Pagan that "at no +time did he touch me." Didn't +you say that to the police? +A. +Yeah. +Q. And you're saying that that was not fully +truthful. Is that what you're saying now? +A. +Correct. +And you're saying if you're not fully +trithful, that's not a lie. Correct? +A. You took that out of context like really +bac. I didn't mean like that. Touching my legs and - +he never kept his hands to himself the entire time. +That's what I'm trying to say. +e. +You told the police, "At no times did he +touch me. " You agree with that, correct? +A. +No, I don't agree with that, because he did +touch me. +Did you tell the police that he did not +touch you, yes or no? +A. It's a possibility, but I do not remember. +2. Okay. And you did not have any type of sex +with Jeff, correct? +A. No. +e. And you did not have any type of oral sex +with Jeff, correct? +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +57 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 68 of 100 +Reporting and Transcripsion, Inc, +Page 42 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. +No. +No type of intercourse with Jeff, correct? +A. +Correct. +All right. Let's talk about what happened +after the massage was +over. +A. +okay. +After the massage, you told Epstein that +you wanted to bring your twin sister back so she could +make some money, correct? +A. +Incorrect. +e. +Your twin sister is +right? +A. +Correct. +e. +And you love +very much, don't you? +A. +Yes. +And when you left the house you were joking +with the other girls, weren't you? +A. +Incorrect. +e. +Well, when +and the other girl in the +car that day made their statements to the police they +told the police that you were joking afterwards. Are you +saying that they were lying to the police about that? +A. No. But a question or -- questions from +- like she asked me questions, but it wasn't +joking. She was kind of like in a happy way, like, "•. +what did you do? What did you do?" Like those kind of +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 69 of 100 +Page 43 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +things, +but it wasn't joking about it at all. +Q. +You joked about it, didn't you? +A. +No. +You said to +that if you did this +every weekend you'd be rich, didn't you? +A. +No. That's what +told me. +You didn't tell that to +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and +answered. +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. TEIN: +After you left Epstein's house you took the +money and you went shopping with +and the other +girl in the car, correct? +A. +Incorrect. I didn't spend any of the +money. +e. +A. +You went to Marshall's, didn't you? +I went along, yes, but I didn't - +You went shopping with them at Marshall's, +didn't you? +69 of 316 +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. +THE WITNESS: I guess you could say that. +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Lack of predicate +and foundation. Mischaracterization of earlier +testimony. +1655 Paln Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 + +1- Reponing and Transcription, Inc +Page 44 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. TEIN: +Q. And +bought a purse, right? +A. +Yes. +And you were with her the whole time at +Marshall's, correct? +A. +Yes. +Q. +Now +I tell me about when the federal +prosecutors told you about getting reimbursed. +A. +I have no idea what you're talking about. +e. +Tell me about when the federal prosecutors +spoke to you about getting money you feel you're entitled +to from Mr. Epstein. +A. +I don't know what you're talking about. +Do you know who +Villafona is? +A. +No, sir. +Did you ever meet with any federal +prosecutors? +A. +think they were like FBI. +e. +I think -- yeah. I think they were -- I +Uh-huh. Did you meet with federal +prosecutors? +A. +They came to my house one time, yes. +e. When did they come to your house? +A. Very long ago. +l. Was it this year, 2008? +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +70 o1316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM. Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 71 of 100 +Cansor & Associates +• Reporing and Transcription, Inc. +Page 45 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. +It was not this year, no. +was it 2007? +A. +I'd have to say at least two years ago or a +year ago, yeah. So it would be 2007, 2006; but it was a +while ago. +How many federal prosecutors or FBI agents +came to your house? +A. +people came. +I'm trying to remember. I want to say four +Did they give you their business cards? +A. +If they did, I don't remember, and they +weren't toward me. Maybe my parents have them. I don't +know. +R. +A. +Did they give you their cell phone numbers? +No. +e. +Did you ever speak to them on their cell +phones? +A. +No, sir. +e. Did they speak to your parents? +A. +That's something you'd have to ask my +parents. +Do you know whether they spoke to your +parent's? +A. +No, sir. +You have no idea? +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +71 of 316 + + +Dogument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 72 of 100 +Page 46 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. +No, sir. +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and +answered. +BY MR. TEIN: +So if I say the name to you +Villafona, you don't know who that is? +A. +No, sir. +How many women and how many men came to +your house? +A. +I want to say two ladies and two guys. +e. Did someone named Jeffrey Sloman come to +your house? +A. +I don't know names, sir. +Q. Do you know who Jeffrey Sloman is? +A. +No, sir. +2. Do you know who Jeffrey Herman is? +A. Yes. +l. That's the lawyer who first sued Epstein on +your behalf, right? +A. +Yes. +e. +Has Mr. Herman advanced your family any +money? +MR. LEOPOLD: Any conversations that you've +had with Mr. Herman regarding that issue, you are +not to disclose. If you've learned in some other +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +72 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM _PReument 1 Entered on FLSD, Docket 07/21/2008 Page 73 of 100 +• Reporting anil Transcription, Inc. +Page 47 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +fashion, you may answer. +THE WITNESS: +Okay. +I wouldn't +know. +BY MR. TEIN: +You don't know? +A. +No. +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Foundation. +Attorney/client privilege. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. +And you say you don't know who Jeff Sloman +is? +A. +No, sit. +Does it refresh your recollection that he's +the number two prosecutor at the U.s. Attorney's Office? +A. +No. +e. +That he's +Villafona's boss? +A. +No. +Does it refresh your memory that he's the +ex-partner of Jeff Herman, the first lawyer who sued +you -- sued Mr. Epstein on your behalf for fifty million +dollars? +A. +No, sir. I don't know who he is. +Q. Without telling me any conversations that +you've had with your lawyers, how is it that you selected +Mr. Herman as your lawyer from the 81,000 members of the +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +73 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Rpgument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 74 of 100 +Reporting and Transcription, Ine. +Page 48 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Florida Bar? +A. +I did not select him. +Who did? +A. +My father. +Did you ever meet Mr. Herman? +A. +Once. +Don't -- don't tell me what you discussed +with him. Where did you meet him? +A. I was shopping in my -- he showed up at my +friend's house. +Whose house? +A. +My friend +e. +Is that +from the Quarterdeck +Tavern? +A. +e. +Yes. +And did you have a meeting with him at +house? +A. +e. +A. +e. +Yes. I guess you could say that. +And who else was there? +My Aunt +And what was that meeting about? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. That calls for +attorney/client privilege. +BY MR. TEIN: +What discussions did you have with +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +74 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Dogyment 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 75 of 100 +Page 49 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Mr. Herman in the presence of +A. +None. +0. What discussions did you have in the +presence of her aunt? +A. +Of my aunt? +MR. GOLDBERGER: It's the witness's aunt. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. +A. +1 of your aunt. +The only one that we've ever discussed or +ever had. +e. +And so you were in a conversation with +Mr. Herman and your aunt? +A. +Yes, sir. +And you discussed privileged matters during +that conversation? +MR. LEOPOLD: Object to the form. I think +you might have to educate her on that question. +BY MR. TEIN: +You discussed the lawsuit? +A. +Yes. +l. Did +tell you about any +conversations that she had with Mr. Herman? +A. As far as I'm concerned, she's never spoken +or she's never had a conversation. She only opened the +doo: and then left. She's the one who answered the door. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +75 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 76 of 100 +ēnsor & Associates +Page 50 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Why did the meeting take place at +house? +A. +Q. +I spent the night that night at her house. +And when was this? +A. +A while ago. +How long ago? +A. +A month and a half ago. I'm guessing. +A month and a half ago? +A. +Uh-huh. +e. +So was it before of after Mr. Herman filed +the fifty-million-dollar lawsuit against Epstein? +A. +After. +e. +Did you meet with an FBI agent named +Nesbitt Kurkendall, a woman? +A. +I don't know. +Did Ms. Kurkendall speak to you about +getting reimbursed from Mr. Epstein? +A. +I've never had a discussion with anyone +about getting reimbursed from Mr. Epstein. +e. +Have you met with an agent named Jason +Richards? +A. +e. +A. +Not to my knowledge. +How about an agent named Tim Slater? +No, sir. +How about an agent named Junior Ortiz? +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +76 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 77 of 100 +1 Reporsing and Transcription, Inc. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 51 +A. +No. +Q. +And we've learned that many of the girls, +some of whom are as old as 23, were told by the +government that they would get money at the end of the +criminal prosecution. +Does that sound familiar to you? +A. +No, sir. +Other than Mr. Leopold here -- I'm not +asking about Mr. Herman either -- +A. +Uh-huh. +-- did anyone ever discuss with you that +you: could get reimbursement for your damages? +A. +No, sir. +l. Did you or any member -- +MR. LEOPOLD: Are you referring to a +criminal matter or a civil matter? +BY MR. TEIN: +e. +Did you or any member - +MR. LEOPOLD: Excuse me. Let me object to +the form of the question. +BY MR. TEIN: +Did you or any member of your family ever +get a victim notification letter from anyone? +A. I no longer live at that residence and I +wouldn't know. +So your testimony is that you have never +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +TT of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 78 of 100 +Roporzing and Transcription, Ane. +Page 52 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +T8 of 316 +received a victim notification letter, correct? +rect. +e. +And your testimony is that you don't know +if your parents have ever received a victim notification +letter, correct? +A. +Correct. +0. +Have you given any evidence to prosecutors +or law enforcement in this case? +A. +What do you mean by evidence? +Well. Anything that you can touch of feel. +A. +No. +question. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. +A. +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection to the form of the +So you haven't given anything physical - +No. +-- any item to any prosecutor, police +officer or law enforcement agent, correct? +A. +My cell phone four years ago or three years +ago, but that's it. +You gave your cell phone to whom? +A. +e. +A. +MM Pagan. +Did she keep it? +Ask her. +You gave it to her and then you didn't get +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 79 of 100 +I Reporting and Transcription, Inc +Page 53 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +it back at the end of the meeting? +A. +No. They -- yeah. No. They have it. I'm +guessing. I don't have it. +Q. How much money are you hoping to get out of +Mr. Epstein? +MR. LEOPOLD: objection to the form of the +question. Attorney/client privilege. +BY MR. TEIN: +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +How much money are you hoping to get, you, +yourself, hoping to get out of Epstein? +MR. LEOPOLD: Same. Same objection, +attorney/client privilege. +Don't answer the question. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. I'm not asking about what your lawyer told +you. +79 of 316 +... . +MR. LEOPOLD: I'm instructing her not to +answer the question, because any of those +conversations involve her counsel. +MR. TEIN: Certify that. +MR. LEOPOLD: Please. +....CERTIFIED QUESTION. +.......•• +BY MR. TEIN: +0. NoW, +deposition, didn't you? +you lied to get out of this +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 80 of 100 +Roporsing and Transcription, Inc +Page 54 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. +No, siI. +Q. You didn't want to come to court today and +tell the story that you had told to the police under +oath, did you? +MR. LEOPOLD: object to the form of the +question. Lack of foundation, predicate. +THE WITNESS: No. I have no problem coming +here and talking to you. +BY MR. TEIN: +And to avoid getting served with a lawful +subpoena, you lied about your name, didn't you? +A. No. +And in fact, just lying yourself wasn't +enough, was it? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection to the form of the +question. +Don't answer it. It's not a question. +Object to the form of the question. Lack +of foundation. +MR. TEIN: Are you instructing her not to +answer? +MR. LEOPOLD: I am. +MR. TEIN: Certify it. +MR. LEOPOLD: Please. +80 of 316 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 81 of 100 +Reporting and Transcripsion, Inc. +Page 55 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +…••• +BY MR. TEIN: +......CERTIFIED QUESTION........ +You asked your co-workers -- +MR. LEOPOLD: It's vague and ambiguous. +BY MR. TEIN: +Q. You asked your co-workers at the +Quarterdeck Tavern to lie for you, didn't you? +A. No. I informed my boss about what was +going on and he told me that he would help in any way +that he can. +Okay. You got your friend +'to lie +by switching name tags with you, correct? +A. +Incorrect. It was a coincidence that same +night she was not wearing her name tag; she was wearing +mine. But I was also not wearing - I was wearing my +name tag. Everyone switches name tags. It just so +happens it was a coincidence that same night the people +came with the papers. +MR. TEIN: Will you put up Exhibit 18-001? +MR. GOLDBERGER: And mark 18-001 for +identification purposes to this deposition. +MR. LEOPOLD: None of them have been marked +yet. Can we mark them and put them as attachment +to the depositions? Because I think you've shown +three photos now. And this is the only one that +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +81 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Doçument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 82 of 100 +/ Reposing and Transcription, Inc. +Page 56 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +has been marked for identification yet. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. +MR. LEOPOLD: Hold on just a second. +Just +so the record is clear -- +MR. TEIN: I'm not speaking to you. +MR. LEOPOLD: Okay. Then don't speak to me +then. But I'll speak to Mr. Goldberger, perhaps. +But at least for the record, can we put on +the record what the previous two photographs were +marked for identification? +MR. GOLDBERGER: We will make sure that the +record is clear at the end of the deposition so +that there's no ambiguity. +MR. LEOPOLD: Thank you. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. +I've put a photograph marked 18-001 +up on the screen. Do you see that? +A. Yup. +A. +Who is that in the photo? +on the left and me on the right. +right? +A. +Yes. +your friend at the +Quarterdeck Tavern, right? +1655 Palr Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +82 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 83 of 100 +P Reporting and Transcription, Inc +Page 57 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. +Yes. +e. +your friend, who you say the day +that the process servers went to serve you with a +subpoena for this deposition, just happened -- just by +coircidence, was wearing your name tag? +A. +Yes, sir. +And just by coincidence, you were wearing +her name tag, correct? +A. +Yes. +e. +Your testimony under oath is that's just a +coincidence, right? +A. +Total honesty. +e. It just happens to be the day that you were +going to be served with a subpoena, correct? +A. That wasn't the first day that -- +MR. LEOPOLD: +just answer the +question. It calls for a yes or no. +THE WITNESS: Yes. +83 of 316 +BY MR. TEIN: +e. You said that wasn't the first day you were +going to be -- you thought you were being served with a +subpoena, correct? +A. +Correct. +e. You knew before the day that you switched +name tags with +that the process servers were +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 84 of 100 +Page 58 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +looking for you, didn't you? +A. +No. I knew -- +MR. LEOPOLD: Just answer it. It calls for +a yes or no. +THE WITNESS: +Okay. +No. +BY MR. TEIN: +Now you can explain the answer that your +counsel stopped you from explaining. +A. Okay. I work at Quarterdeck and people +were telling me that people were looking for me. So yes, +I was aware that people were searching for me. But I had +no :dea who they were or what their intentions were. But +I thought they were just people I didn't want to talk to. +so i just didn't want to talk to them. And every time +they'd come to work I wasn't there. And so happens the +night that they came in me and my friend switched name +tags. No big deal. +e. +That's a lie, isn't it? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Don't answer that +question. That's harassment and I will not allow +it. He could ask the questions and we'll allow a +jury to make that determination, but not counsel. +I will not allow her to answer that +question. +MR. TEIN: Certify it. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +84 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 85 of 100 +Page 59 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +85 of 316 +MR. LEOPOLD: I'll certify it. +..................CERTIFIED QUESTION.......... +She's +answered that question. +She's explained it five +tines already. The fact that Counsel doesn't like the +answer, that's a different query. +MR. TEIN: Stop making speaking objections. +MR. LEOPOLD: I'm not. I'm not going to +put up with it, because it's in appropriate, jack, +and you know it. I will not allow Counsel to +berate a witness, +whether it's in a criminal case +or a civil case, whether my client or -- +MR. TEIN: Calm down. +MR. LEOPOLD: Excuse me. +No, I'm not going to allow it. That is not +proper. +MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay. +MR. LEOPOLD: If he wants to say that she's +lying after asking it five times and her +explaining in great detail, he can do that. But +I'm not going to allow her to answer, nor be +harassed by him. It's improper. +MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay. But your response +that Counsel doesn't like the question -- or +doesn't like the answer -- just let me finish. +MR. LEOPOLD: Absolutely. I wasn't going +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 86 of 100 +insor & Associates +Roporting and Transcription, Inc +Page 60 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +to interrupt you. +MR. GOLDBERGER: Just requires us to say we +like the answer to that question. And it's not +you and I or you and Mr. Tein who are testifying +here. It's the witness. +MR. LEOPOLD: Fine. But after the sixth +time of asking the same question and then coming +back and pointing a finger at her and saying, +"You're a liar" -- +MR. TEIN: That didn't happen. +MR. LEOPOLD: That's fine. But I'm not +going to allow her to answer that question, +because she's answered that same question and has +explained it. +Now Counsel might be sitting there rubbing +his head with a migraine. That's his problem. +But if he can't ask a question appropriately in a +professional manner, we will leave. I will not +allow her to be berated like that. +MR. GOLDBERGER: Actually, we're very happy +with the answer. +MR. LEOPOLD: That's great. +MR. GOLDBERGER: Do you want us to get into +that? +MR. TEIN: Ted -- +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +86 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM . Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 87 of 100 +Reporting and Transcriptien, Inc +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 61 +MR. LEOPOLD: This is really big stuff that +you're going through. +But that's fine; just ask +your question and move on. But do it one time. +If you don't understand it, I'll let you follow +up, but I'm not going +to allow you to ask the same +question time and again and then call her a +liar. +Just ask the question, get the answer and move to +the next subject matter. +MR. TEIN: Ted, I'm sitting right across +the table from you. +MR. LEOPOLD: Yes, sir. +MR. TEIN: Please be quiet. Don't yell. +MR. LEOPOLD: I will not be quiet. +MR. TEIN: Stop yelling. +MR. LEOPOLD: +when I'm yelling +you'll know it. I will not -- +MR. TEIN: My name is not M +MR. LEOPOLD: I thought your first name was +1, MI. Tein. +MR. TEIN: You watched me for three days at +the evidentiary hearing where you sat in the back +of the courtroom. You should know who I am. +MR. LEOPOLD: Well, that's the impression +you must have made in the courtroom. +I will not be quiet. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +87 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 88 of 100 +Page 62 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. TEIN: That's obnoxious. Stop being +obnoxious. It's stupid. Let's go ahead with the +questions. +MR. LEOPOLD: I will make the record. +MR. TEIN: Let's get on with the questions. +MR. LEOPOLD: Do you need a break? +(Thereupon, a recess was taken.) +BY MR. TEIN: +okay. +after you told your manager +at the Quarterdeck Tavern everything that was going on +and he told you he would help you any way he could, he +hid you in the kitchen from the process servers, correct? +A. +Incorrect. +e. +Isn't it true that lying to avoid service +is a meaningless lie to you, +A. +Incorrect. +What is your manager's name? +A. +I have three. Would you like to know +all -- +e. +A. +Who's the one who lied for you? +A. +e. +A. +And what did +do to lie for you? +Said I wasn't there. +And who did he tell wasn't there? +Ask him. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +88 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 89 of 100 +šnsor & Associates +Reporting and Transcription, inc +Page 63 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Where were you when +told this +someone that you were not at the Quarterdeck Tavern? +A. +Eating nachos. +e. +At the Quarterdeck Tavern? +A. +Yes. +What did you do so that +would lie to +the process servers for you? +A. +Nothing. +You just got him to lie for you, didn't +you? +A. +wasn't there. +e. +No. I had no influence on him saying I +He took that upon himself? +Isn't it true that MI. Epstein's process +servers had to ask the police to get you out of the +restaurant so that they could serve you? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Lack of +foundation, predicate. +BY MR. TEIN: +You can answer the question. +MR. LEOPOLD: If you know. Don't guess. +THE WITNESS: No. Can you repeat the +question? +MR. TEIN: Don't coach. +MR. LEOPOLD: Don't guess. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +89 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 90 of 100 +Page 64 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. TEIN: That's a coaching. +MR. LEOPOLD: No. That's an instruction to +the client. +MR. TEIN: No. You don't do that. +THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question? +MR. LEOPOLD: Let me just state for the +record -- +BY MR. TEIN: +Once the police -- isn't it true that +Mr. Epstein's process servers had to ask the police to +get you out of the restaurant so that they could serve +you? +A. +Incorrect. My boss called the police. +And once the police showed up, to stop you +from lying to avoid service, you made up another lie that +the process servers had harassed you. Isn't that +correct? +A. +e. +Incorrect. +You lie all the time, don't you? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. +THE WITNESS: Incorrect. +BY MR. TEIN: +You have a MySpace page, don't you? +No longer do I have a Myspace page. +A. +deleted it. +I +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +90 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 91 of 100 +Page 65 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +R. +When did you delete your MySpace page? +A. A couple days ago. +Who told you to take your MySpace page down +a couple of days ago? +A. +Nobody. I'm sick and tired of MySpace. +You all of a sudden got sick and tired of +MySpace and just a few days before this deposition you +decided to delete your MySpace page, correct? +A. +Correct. +Is that your testimony under oath? +A. +Yes. +e. +Did you take your MySpace page down because +you thought the government might subpoena it? +A. +Incorrect. +Hadn't your Myspace page been up for over +three months before you took it down? +A. +Correct. But I also had made tons of +MySpaces over the last years. I just get tired of them +and delete them because -- drama -- and make new ones. +e. +We're going to talk about that. +So you deleted your MySpace page after you +were already under subpoena for this deposition, correct? +Correct. +A. +e. +What about the MySpace page didn't you want +us to see, +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +91 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 92 of 100 +ansor & Assocíates +Koporting and Transcription, Inc +Page 66 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. +Nothing. +Q. Well, we're going to come back to MySpace +in a second. +A. +You do that. +'m going to ask you some questions +about why you lie about your age so often, okay? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection to the form. +Argumentative. +BY MR. TEIN: +l. +You lie about your age all the time, don't +you? +82 of 316 +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection, argumentative. +THE WITNESS: Incorrect. +BY MR. TEIN: +l. +You lie about your age to get body +piercings, don't you? +A. +Incorrect. +e. +You have body piercings, don't you? +A. +Yes. +e. +You have four body piercings; isn't that +right? +A. +Five. +other than the piercings on your ears - +I'm not talking about that - +A. +I, then no; just one. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 93 of 100 +Page 67 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +0. +And where is the one body piercing? +A. +Belly. +When did you get that? +A. +For my birthday, with my stepmother and my +father. +And when was that? +A. +When I was 14. +e. +Okay. So you had that body piercing when +you met Epstein, correct? +A. +It might have been, or maybe that - yeah, +either my 14th birthday or my 15th. I honestly don't +remember. +Now you've lied about your age to get into +bars by using driver's licenses that aren't yours, +correct? +A. +Incorrect. +l. Are you swearing under oath that you've +never done that? +A. +Yes, I swear under oath. +And you've lied about your age to buy beer, +correct? +A. +Incorrect. +You're swearing under oath that you've +never lied to stores about your age? +A. I've never lied to a store about my age of +1655 Pam Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +93 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 94 of 100 +• Reporting and Transcripsion, Inc. +Page 68 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +anything. +Q. +You try to look much older than you are, +don't you? +A. +Incorrect. +And you've lied about your age on your +MySpace pages, don't you? +A. +Incorrect. +e. +All right. Let's look at Exhibit 26-01 +one. +MS. BELOHLAVER: 26-001? +MR. TEIN: Yes. +BY MR. TEIN: +On this page you lied to everyone that you +were 18, didn't you? +A. +Correct. +e. +Let's go to Exhibit 33. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: That's 33-001? +TEIN: Correct. +BY MR. TEIN: +On this page you lied to everyone that you +were 19, didn't you? +A. +Incorrect. +MR. LEOPOLD: Just answer the question. +THE WITNESS: +• incorrect. +BY MR. TEIN: +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +94 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 95 of 100 +Page 69 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +! 18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Now you can explain your answer. +A. I know that I have seen all of these and I +know that this one is mine. +Can you go down? +MR. LEOPOLD: Just for the record, you're +pointing to the photo. +THE WITNESS: I'm pointing to +BY MR. TEIN: +You're pointing to the one where it says +your age is 18? +A. +Correct. +l. That's yours, right? +A. Correct. That's mine from a couple years +ago that I have not been on, because I don't use that. +Please keep going down, please. And I think that's it, +because there's no one -- just that one is mine. +l. So the one you pointed to where it says +your age is 18, that's yours, correct? +A. +Correct. +And when you wrote 18 as your age on your +MySpace page, that was a lie, wasn't it? +A. +Correct. +l. Did you lie about your MySpace page back +then because you couldn't post on MySpace unless you were +18? +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +95 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 96 of 100 +Heporting and Transcription, Inc +Page 70 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. +Correct. +There was a rule many years ago +that you had to be 18 to have a MySpace. +So you lied about your age so you could +post on MySpace, right? +A. +Yes. +Q. +Let's go back to the top one on this page, +33-01. +Are you testifying now under oath that this +Myspace page where the headline says, "Iwins do have more +fun, " and the location is given as Lox, abbreviation for +Loxahatchee, and the age is 19, and it says +is it your testimony that you did not post +that? +A. +correct. +l. Now let's go back to the one that you were +pointing to before on this page, where it says your age +is 18 and you lied about your age to post MySpace, okay? +A. +Uh-huh, yes. +All right. Why did you finally put your +true age on your MySpace profile four days before you +were scheduled to testify before the Grand Jury? +A. +I don't know what you're talking about. +MR. LEOPOLD: If you don't understand, ask +him to ask the question again. +MR. TEIN: Don't coach. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +96 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 97 of 100 +1% Reponing and Transcription, Inc. +Page 71 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +THE WITNESS: I don't know which MySpace +you're talking about. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. The MySpace page that you're just pointing +to, where it says you were 18. +A. Yes. +Q. And you were lying about your age, right? +A. +Uh-huh. +Why did you finally post your true age on +your MySpace profile -- +A. +Uh -- +e. +-- four days before you were scheduled to +testify before the Grand Jury? +A. +I honestly don't know which Myspace, +because I've had like a bazillion Myspaces, and in that +year, I had two, that one and another one, and that one's +been deleted. So I don't know which one you're referring +to. +You remember that you changed your age on +your MySpace page from 18 to your true age just four days +before you went and testified in the Grand Jury? +A. +No. +e. You don't remember that. +A. No. +e. Do you remember Detective Recarey? Did you +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +87 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Doçument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 98 of 100 +I Reporting and Transcription, Inc. +Page 72 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ever meet a Detective Recatey? +A. +I don't know the names. +How many different detectives have you met +with on this case from Palm Beach? +A. +Probably a good six or seven, maybe. +Did one of the detectives tell you before +you testified in the Grand Jury that you should take your +Myspace age and put your true age? +A. +No. +Didn't Detective Recarey have to come to +your house to pick you up to get you to testify in front +of the Grand Jury? +A. +Possibly; maybe because I didn't have a +rice; I was only 14 or 15 at the time. +e. +Your mom didn't drive you? +A. +No. +Stepmom didn't drive you? +A. +I think my dad. +•, my dad; my dad drove +me. +e. +A. +Your dad drove you? +Yes, sir. +So your testimony is Detective Recarey did +not drive you, correct? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. /asked and +answered. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +98 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Doçument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 99 of 100 +Reporting and Transcripting, Inc. +Page 73 +1 +2 +3 +THE WITNESS: +No. I'm pretty sure my dad +drove me, because he was there with me. +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. TEIN: +e. Did any detective tell you to change your +age on your MySpace page, to put your true age? +A. +No, sir. +Now you also lied on your MySpace page +about your income, didn't you? +A. +Yes. +e. +And you lied, saying that you made a +quarter million dollars a year and higher, correct? +A. +As a joke, yes. +e. +That was a lie, wasn't it? +A. +Yes. +e. +And you also lied on your MySpace page, +saying that you were married, didn't you? +A. +Possibly. And that might have been an +error on my part. +Now you also lie to the police, don't you? +A. +No. +e. +Well, you lied to the police in your +tape-recorded statement that you gave to Detective +Pagan three years ago, didn't you? +A. +To my knowledge, no, I did not. +e. Well, you lied to the police when you +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +99 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 100 of 100 +* Roporting and Trenscripsin, Inc +Page 74 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +accused Mr. Epstein of attempting to murder your father, +didn't you? +A. No. I never heard a statement saying that +Mr. Epstein tried to murder my father. +Q. You made that statement, didn't you? +MR. LEOPOLD: Do you have a statement to +show her? That's been asked and answered. +MR. TEIN: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the +witness' answer, Mr. Leopold. +BY MR. TEIN: +you told the police, didn't you, +that Mr. Epstein almost killed your father, didn't you? +A. +No. +l. Three years ago, before Mr. Epstein even +knew about this investigation, you told the police that +Epstein had "already come to my dad's house and did +something to my dad's tires and my dad almost died. I +didn't want my dad to get hurt, because Jeff already +almost killed him." +Didn't you say that? +A. +Not to my knowledge or recollection. +I +have never said anything like that. +R. +That would have been a complete lie, +wouldn't it have been? +A. +Yeah. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +100 of 316 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aca1ea57ab5c921e22c2ed8ed169d2c1d18fb531befa212c2d0c0e282b80c7b6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aca1ea57ab5c921e22c2ed8ed169d2c1d18fb531befa212c2d0c0e282b80c7b6.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9cce5b51542d5b73eb63484aa71d30404a2df035 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aca1ea57ab5c921e22c2ed8ed169d2c1d18fb531befa212c2d0c0e282b80c7b6.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -7240, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "aca1ea57ab5c921e22c2ed8ed169d2c1d18fb531befa212c2d0c0e282b80c7b6", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 105, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "79396c2967ec69ee8c7fef4970393c7f154cee3b798a75427a475429bb86d1aa", + "output_sha256": "008ecc30aa3444dcad9fce83e7961cf5bdde6041c32010949b6730926af78b0c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/acb3ccde203d7e911c6cefacf9f88860f5cb746843e21f7d0bd0c0401757e488.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/acb3ccde203d7e911c6cefacf9f88860f5cb746843e21f7d0bd0c0401757e488.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aa40e0a7814b4cca6e93645d790c519fba0407bd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/acb3ccde203d7e911c6cefacf9f88860f5cb746843e21f7d0bd0c0401757e488.md @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80381-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DECLARATION OF JEFFREY M. HERMAN REGARDING SERVICE +OF PROCESS AND THIS COURT'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE +Jeffrey M. Herman, deposes and states as follows: +I am counsel for Plaintiff in this action. After the parties' briefed the issue of service +of process on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, this Court found valid service under New York law and +entered an Order to Show Cause Why Default Should Not be Entered Against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein, dated July 16, 2008. +2. +I submit this Declaration to correct what appears to be a factual error in the Court's +Order to Show Cause. I do so even though this error is in Plaintiff's favor. +3. +In the Order to Show Cause, this Court finds that "It]he process server also mailed a +copy of the summons and complaint to Defendant on May 5, 2008, via first class mail. (DE 4)." It is +my understanding that the Affidavit of Service (DE 4) crosses out language regarding mail to the +Defendant, and that the process server in this case did not mail a copy of the Summons and +Complaint to the Defendant's New York address. In none of the papers Plaintiff filed in this matter +is it asserted that the Summons and Complaint was mailed, nor did Plaintiff claim that service was +valid under New York law. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 2 of 2 +CASE NO.: 08-80381-CIV-MARRA/ +Under penalties of perjury, I declare the foregoing to be true and correct. +Dated: July 21, 2008. +s/ Jeffrey M. Herman +Jeffrey M. Herman +Herman & Mermelstein, P. A. +2 +www.hermanlaw.com diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/acb3ccde203d7e911c6cefacf9f88860f5cb746843e21f7d0bd0c0401757e488.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/acb3ccde203d7e911c6cefacf9f88860f5cb746843e21f7d0bd0c0401757e488.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f69205b252c5152efbbcf1d33132db19bbfb00ff --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/acb3ccde203d7e911c6cefacf9f88860f5cb746843e21f7d0bd0c0401757e488.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "acb3ccde203d7e911c6cefacf9f88860f5cb746843e21f7d0bd0c0401757e488", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "a8df0e833c2f792b6c80680c12e070f357ec552ac26c5f51c499a64892252e90", + "output_sha256": "4cda13cb52cd53be2100cc334e17c0bd4b01b7de126a6a37c790c68db6a4369d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/acbb14a62e99e16e3840f49b90077e1b710aaa1aab469877743f5ab2be39fbd1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/acbb14a62e99e16e3840f49b90077e1b710aaa1aab469877743f5ab2be39fbd1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6be3bae322512c0bdc7c1ceb33f4ff99986a0ac5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/acbb14a62e99e16e3840f49b90077e1b710aaa1aab469877743f5ab2be39fbd1.md @@ -0,0 +1,118 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 14 +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2008 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80381-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO SET ASIDE CLERK DEFAULT +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 5, by and through her undersigned counsel, submits this Plaintiff's +Response to Motion to Set Aside Clerk Default, as follows: +Introduction +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein claims that service of process on him was ineffective under +Florida or Federal law, based solely on a "bare bones" affidavit that raises more questions than it +answers. On this basis, Defendant seeks to set aside a clerk's default. At a minimum, the issue of +whether service was effective under Florida or Federal law is at this point one of fact which should +be the subject of discovery. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion should be denied, or alternatively, +stayed until such time as discovery on these matters is concluded. +The Affidavit Attached to the Defendant's +Response to the Motion is Insufficient +Service of process was effected at Jeffrey Epstein's New York residence on May 7, 2008, at +7:45 a.m. by handing a copy of the Summons and Complaint to a person in Defendant's residence +who refused to identify himself. (See D.E. 4, Affidavit of Service). Defendant now attaches to his +Motion as Exhibit "A" the Affidavit of Richard Barnett, who claims to have received the copies of +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2008 Page 2 of 5 +the Summons and Complaint on May 7, 2008 at Defendant Epstein's residence. In this Affidavit, +Mr. Barnett states very little. He asserts that he does not now, nor has he ever, resided at 9 E. 71st +Street, New York, New York (Mr. Epstein's residence). He fails to state in this Affidavit, however, +where he does live, if not at the residence in question; what he was doing at the subject address when +service was made; his relationship with Defendant Epstein, and how often he was at the residence; or +why he refused to identify himself to the process server. He also fails to state who instructed him to +answer the door on May 7, 2008 and take service anonymously. +The Court may grant limited discovery on the issue of service of process. Commonwealth of +Puerto Rico v. SS Zoe Colocotroni, 61 F.R.D. 653, 656-57 (D.P.R. 1974) ("discovery regarding the +legal sufficiency of service of process so as to acquire in personam jurisdiction over the person of a +defendant is permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 26"). See also +Blair v. City of Worcester, 522 F.3d 105, 111 (Ist Cir. 2008); Monteiro v. San Nicolas, S.A., 254 +F.2d 514, 516-17 (2d Cir. 1958) (holding that discovery was appropriate on disputed issues of +service of process). The parties do not dispute that if the person who in fact received the copies of +the summons and complaint resided at the residence, then service would have been valid under +Florida or Federal law on May 7, 2008.' See National Development Co. v. Triad Holding Corp., +930 F.2d 253 (2d Cir. 1991) (upholding service of process on housekeeper of defendant's New York +apartment, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(1) [now 4(e)(2)], because the defendant was actually living in +'Defendant notes that under Rule 4(e) there is no priority between alternative methods of service. +This means that Plaintiff has the option of perfecting service under either federal law, the law of the +forum state, or the law of the state where service is made: "Either may be turned to with no +attempted prior resort to the other." Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 (Commentary C4-22). It does not stand, +however, for the proposition that the defendant can accept service under New York law, while +ignoring valid service under Florida or Federal law. Accordingly, once valid service was made on +Defendant Epstein under Federal or Florida law on May 7, 2008, Defendant was required to answer +to otherwise respond to the Complaint by May 27, 2008 to avoid default, which he failed to do. +Herman & Mermelstein, P. A. +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2008 Page 3 of 5 +the apartment at the time service was effected). Alternatively, if the extraordinary difficulties +encountered in serving Mr. Epstein were the result of Mr. Epstein's deliberate avoidance or +deception, while knowing of the lawsuit, then it would likewise be appropriate to find good service +and a default. See +Keevan & Son, Inc. v. Callier Pipe & Tube, Inc., 107 F.R.C. 665, 671-72 +(S.D. Fl.a. 1985) ("[e]ffective service is most likely found when a defendant has engaged in +deception to avoid service of process"). +Based on what Mr. Barnett's Affidavit does not +disclose, Plaintiff should be granted discovery to determine whether service was proper under +Florida or Federal law. Plaintiff would at a minimum like to take the depositions of Mr. Barnett and +Mr. Epstein with regard to the service of process issues that have arisen in this matter. +Conclusion +Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff requests that this Court deny Defendant's Motion to Set +Aside Clerk Default, or alternatively, withhold ruling on the Motion until discovery on the issue of +service of process is completed; and such other and further relief as this Court deems proper. +Dated: June 25, 2008. +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Jeffrey M. Herman +Jeffrey M. Herman (FL Bar No. 521647) +jherman@hermanlaw.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@hermanlaw.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on June 25, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day +HeRmaN & MerMElsteIN, P. A. +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2008 Page 4 of 5 +to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices +of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who +are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Jeffrey M. Herman +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. +- 4 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2008 Page 5 of 5 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/, +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Is/ Jeffery M. Herman +Herman & Mermelstein, P. A. +- 5- \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/acbb14a62e99e16e3840f49b90077e1b710aaa1aab469877743f5ab2be39fbd1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/acbb14a62e99e16e3840f49b90077e1b710aaa1aab469877743f5ab2be39fbd1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..41e668edede13b64feda864789dcdee6972ddcf3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/acbb14a62e99e16e3840f49b90077e1b710aaa1aab469877743f5ab2be39fbd1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -151, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "acbb14a62e99e16e3840f49b90077e1b710aaa1aab469877743f5ab2be39fbd1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0d9c8c9cefc8d1911bee6220ff4fef6f7211ae9acecae2db2534fee5511fd942", + "output_sha256": "983a429fbf568a6822357c89c50c1ece8d9fe480b4af3e75297e2c0ce61cd3f7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/acc96a39f25f05996d47b4a772b6c661a83f27123ef5f66b252d9d845e7918f0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/acc96a39f25f05996d47b4a772b6c661a83f27123ef5f66b252d9d845e7918f0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4ec3b69aba4dadbb51b7811a568520781aefcd8e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/acc96a39f25f05996d47b4a772b6c661a83f27123ef5f66b252d9d845e7918f0.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 136-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2011 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA. +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Petitioners, +VS. +UNITED STATES, +Respondent. +ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF +TIME TO FILE REPLIES AND RESPONSES TO PETITIONERS' +RESPONSES AND MOTIONS FILED ON DECEMBER 5, 2011 +THIS MATTER is before the Court upon respondent's motion for enlargement of time to +file replies and responses to petitioners' responses and motions filed on December 5, 2011. +Having carefully considered the same, and finding that good cause has been shown, and +petitioners do not oppose the motion, it is +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that respondent's motion is GRANTED. Respondent +shall have up to and including January 6, 2012, to file its reply to petitioners' response to +Government's sealed motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (D.E. 127), and +petitioners' response to Government's sealed motion to stay (D.E. 129); and to file its response + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 136-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2011 Page 2 of 2 +to petitioners' protective motion for remedies (D.E. 128), and protective motion to compel (D.E. +130). +DONE AND ORDERED at West Palm Beach, Florida, this +day of December, +2011. +KENNETH A. MARRA +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +CC: +Counsel of Record +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/acc96a39f25f05996d47b4a772b6c661a83f27123ef5f66b252d9d845e7918f0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/acc96a39f25f05996d47b4a772b6c661a83f27123ef5f66b252d9d845e7918f0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dc90d58203f8dd8071db71298b8d6e58b87b97fe --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/acc96a39f25f05996d47b4a772b6c661a83f27123ef5f66b252d9d845e7918f0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "acc96a39f25f05996d47b4a772b6c661a83f27123ef5f66b252d9d845e7918f0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e7ca1f9645b903b073fbf58ea0cbfc7e8a3ef91f6e7bebc9229d5175add336ed", + "output_sha256": "443f4f7691bf1bee7a9ec201481ab6a1183f55583f0ee6234acc43222d4831b5", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/acca8e2fd2fcd4290af83905fb1142b67e66530d8053876423a4b82bcd03feb6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/acca8e2fd2fcd4290af83905fb1142b67e66530d8053876423a4b82bcd03feb6.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4cf0075e4fafcd1bc361688fa8da397a050b0a1b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/acca8e2fd2fcd4290af83905fb1142b67e66530d8053876423a4b82bcd03feb6.md @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 291-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 1 of 4 +Tape 1 +12/2/08 +The Psychological Trauma Center +a division of Preventive Psychiatry Associates Medical Group, Inc. +Medical Director: Gilbert W. Kliman, M. D. +2105 Divisadero St., San Francisco, CA 94115 +Phone (415)292-7119 Fax (415) 749-2802 +www.experichildpsychiatry.com +Forensic Child Psychiatric Evaluations, Life Care Plans & Testimony +with Dr. Kliman +Transcription by: K. Rios +00:00:05 +Dr. Kliman: +Dr. Kliman: +just turned on a video camera and I see that I have your written +permission to make this videotape. Thank you and I trust that your +attorney has explained to you that I'm a psychiatrist and that, he's asked +me to give a preliminary opinion meeting with you today and that I may +proceed possibly to be having some part in a legal case that you re +involved in. In fact by out meeting I do have a part because I'll be +consulting with your attorney. Do you have any questions about that? +[shaking her head] Uh-uh. +And you understand because this consultation is at the request of your +attorney that it doesn't have the same confidentiality that it might if you +were consulting me as a treating doctor. I'm gonna have to discuss this +meeting with your attorney and he in turn might discuss it with another +attorney or even in court. So your privacy is not as complete as you might +wish it to be... +So this tape will be; like given out or something? +00:01:42 +Dr. Kliman: Well...I don't think it will be given out but it could be shared by your +attorney with the attorney for the other side of a case that I believe you're +brining, you're suing somebody. Is that correct? +Uh huh. +Dr. Kliman: So it would be up to a judge to decide whether the tape will be seen by +jury or in court. But it certainly will be seen by your attorney and it will be +seen by the attorney for the other side; if your attorney chooses to do that. +So how you proceed will be up to you and your attorney. That's the first + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 291-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 2 of 4 +reversing; I was driving... there were cars parked all along the way...he +like ran out in front of my car to try to stop me from leaving. +00:41:06 +Dr. Kliman: And you ran into a ditch? +Dr. Kliman: +Dr. Kliman: +Uh huh. +Were you hurt? +No. +Was the car badly injured? +Yeah well the airbags went off; and that was pretty much it and then we +Dr. Kliman: +Did your ex-boyfriend get hurt? +No. +Dr. Kliman: +Was he drunk when he did that? +Yeah when he ran out in the car. +Dr. Kliman: +Were you drunk when this happened? +No. I had a few drinks but I wasn't like intoxicated. +00:42:06 +Dr. Kliman: +Dr. Kliman: +Anything else that happened in college that is regrettable? +My relationship with my ex-boyfriend. +Okay and tell me about that? +Nothing, it was just my ex-boyfriend that I...I mean I dated him like for; +he was like my first love growing up and it was always just on and off and +to cole and the is ved of to laksoment le and like denteber going +Jacksonville to go see him; and it just kinda brought back an old flame; +and I wish I would have never. Because we wasted a lot of my... wasted + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 291-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 3 of 4 +two years of my college just on like on him, he didn't deserve my time +really because he wasn't a good influence in my life. +00:43:13 +Dr. Kliman: +He drank more than you drank at least on one occasion. +He drank... growing up he was like an alcoholic. He drank all the time. +Dr. Kliman: +And yourself? +No, well for the most part I didn't really hang out with him that much +because growing up I had soccer Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday from +7:30 to 9:30 at night and then the only days I had off was Monday and +00:44:03 +Dr. Kliman: +Dr. Kliman: +Dr. Kliman: +So was alcohol ever a problem for you? +No. +But it was for him? +Yeah. +How about other drugs for either him or you? +I never touched any other drugs but for him that's one of the main reason +why I ended it; its cause he started doing oxy...I don't ever know. He +would always call them [not audible] but it was a form of oxycodines +form of heroine; and I told him that he needed to stop. He lied... he would +lie to me about them like doing drugs and stuff like that; and one day I +caught him, he told me he quit and I told him I he had to stop drinking and +that's when he started taking those oxycodines; because he said that he +would... I stopped drinking cause he would drink all the time so... so +he stopped drinking and like he kind of tricked me; ... well he stopped +drinking and the reason he stopped drinking because he was taking this +other pills. And whenever I found out he was taking those pills; I was like +you need to stop taking them or whatever so then started sneaking it. Like +one time I like heard him like snorting something in the back and I walked +in on him; like what are you doing? And then I was kinda like what am I +doing with myself? like I have my whole life ahead of me; like you know + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 291-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 4 of 4 +Dr. Kliman: +Dr. Kliman: +Yeah. +It was wasteful and distressing. +I got a restraining order on him once, it was bad. +Why? +Because he used to like...he was just the type of guy...he was an alcoholic +whenever he would drink like he would like spit in my face. Or like push +me or like...he was like abusive. Like after like two years.after like the +first year and a half of being with him he was just like really nasty. Since +he drank all the time and whenever he would drink we would break up or +whatever; whenever he would drink like he was just so nasty towards me; +and he would like unleash everything that was on his mind toward me and +so finally my parents were just like you need to like break up; like I said I +would break up with him I would get back together with him. So I broke +up with him, my dad you just need to stay away from him because he +would like come to my house and he would like follow me; me and friends +if I would try to leave and go somewhere so my dad was like you need to +get a restraining order on him. So I listened to my family, it was kind of a +thing my dad at the same time, like because I would always go back +together back and forth with; my dad was just like...its kinda like my dad +punishing me because my dad would be like I don't want you going out +because he would think that if I always went out that I would always hang +out with my ex-boyfriend. So my dad didn't like that.and he knew that +only way to do that was to get a restraining order. So that's what I did I +got a restraining order and I stopped hanging out with him. +00:49:17 +Dr. Kliman: +So your dad had a caring involvement in your love life and your sports +Life your schol lie now what other bad things if any have happened +00:49:47 +Nothing. +Dr. Kliman: You haven't flunked any courses? +No I withdrew from two courses. One International Business, which I +20 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/acca8e2fd2fcd4290af83905fb1142b67e66530d8053876423a4b82bcd03feb6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/acca8e2fd2fcd4290af83905fb1142b67e66530d8053876423a4b82bcd03feb6.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..34cd53b9835ca90346e5100a123316ef54dd7f74 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/acca8e2fd2fcd4290af83905fb1142b67e66530d8053876423a4b82bcd03feb6.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "acca8e2fd2fcd4290af83905fb1142b67e66530d8053876423a4b82bcd03feb6", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c431ca30873364b0e9db9bf8feab17dffb441d016a31162fd6e378bf07073131", + "output_sha256": "978a6e2811882d8ec72f7eda49759efcc13db5a497c4cf47f9f14208bb0231ae", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/acefa50e8e31994c0aa7aad5e01f1b63d5d2dbd87b1c1d833e3c46eee5bd2dd0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/acefa50e8e31994c0aa7aad5e01f1b63d5d2dbd87b1c1d833e3c46eee5bd2dd0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1181e57c168d98e9cd0361cf17446579527e0770 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/acefa50e8e31994c0aa7aad5e01f1b63d5d2dbd87b1c1d833e3c46eee5bd2dd0.md @@ -0,0 +1,281 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 1 of 11 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL +ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS +Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, files this Reply Memorandum in Support of +Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents, as follows: +I. +Introduction +Defendant relies upon generalization s regarding the nature of the case and the allegations in +the pleadings in justifying his assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege in response to each and +every interrogatory and document request propounded by Plaintiffs. This blanket assertion of the +privilege is insufficient to deny Plaintiffs all discovery in these cases. Defendant otherwise fails to +set forth any basis for denying Plaintiffs any and all answers to its written discovery under the +psychotherapist-patient privilege, the Federal Rules of Evidence, on grounds of relevance, third +party privacy rights, or other grounds. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request an Order +compelling answers to interrogatories and production of documents. +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 2 of 11 +IL. +Argument in Reply +A. +Defendant Has Made a Blanket +Assertion of the Privilege Against +Self-Incrimination That Is Insufficient +Defendant Cannot Rely on its Blanket Objections +to Interrogatories on Fifth Amendment Grounds +Defendant Epstein insists that he has not asserted a "blanket privilege" to discovery under the +Fifth Amendment, even though he has repeated the identical objection to each of Plaintiff's +discovery request on this ground. The federal courts have noted that "[t]he term "blanket assertion' +is not limited to the situation where the defendant makes a single response to numerous questions." +United States v. Buaiz, 2008 WL 5050102 (E.D. Tenn. 2008). Rather, as here, where the defendant +refuses to answer on fifth amendment grounds each and every question, such repeated assertions are +fairly characterized as a "blanket assertion". Id.; Capitol Products Corp. v. Hernon, 457 F.2d 541 +(8th Cir. 1972). +Accordingly, it is not sufficient to support the invocation of the Fifth Amendment with +nothing more than sweeping generalizations applicable to all questions that were asked in discovery. +See United States v. Pierce, 561 F.2d 735 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 923 (1978) ("a +blanket refusal to answer any question is unacceptable"). +Defendant Epstein's Response does not set forth reasonable cause for a concern of selfincrimination in response to specific interrogatories. It is particularly deficient with regard to +interrogatory, nos. 1-2 (identity of employees who worked or came to Palm Beach residence), no. 7 +(Defendant's presence in Florida), no. 8 (identity of health care providers), no. 9 (persons providing +transport services), no. 11 (Epstein's telephone numbers) and no. 12 (employees" telephone +numbers). Epstein's references to allegations of sexual abuse, exploitation and battery in the +Complaints in this and other civil actions against him, along with the alleged plan and scheme of +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 3 of 11 +recruiting girls to come to Epstein's Palm Beach mansion to give him "massages", fall well short of +demonstrating that any interrogatory asked of Epstein that is relevant and within the broad scope of +Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) would realistically and necessarily furnish a link in the chain of evidence +needed to prove a crime against him. +Epstein alternatively points out that there is a "narrow exception" which allows a blanket +assertion of the privilege where the trial court determines it to be legitimate based on the court's +knowledge of the case and the expected testimony. United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 +(Sth Cir. 1980); United States v. Tsui, 646 F.2d 365 (9th Cir. 1981). This is not a case, however, +where this narrow exception should apply. In Tsui, the Court allowed a blanket assertion of the +privilege only because it was clear that the witness would only be questioned about the real estate +transactions that were at the heart of his criminal liability concerns, and the proponent of the +testimony argued only that the witness did not have a reasonable fear of prosecution. Id. at 368. +Such unusual circumstances are not present in the instant cases. Because a blanket assertion of the +Fifth Amendment privilege is not legitimate in these cases, the Court must make a "particularized +inquiry", and "only as to genuinely threatening questions should [the witness's] silence be +sustained." Goodwin, 625 F.2d at 701 (quoting United States v. Melchor Moreno, 536 F.2d 1042, +1049 (Sth Cir. 1976)). +Defendant further asserts that Plaintiff's interrogatories requesting that he identify employees +may lead to evidence tending to incriminate him because one of his employees, +, is +identified in the Complaint. (Defendant Memorandum (DE 56), p. 18). This does not, however, +support a blanket refusal to answer on Fifth Amendment grounds. It does not demonstrate how +answers to these interrogatories, seeking the identities of all employees who were assigned or came +to the Palm Beach residence, could realistically furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 4 of 11 +prosecute Epstein. +Similarly, the allegations of the Complaints alone do not reveal the danger of selfincrimination from answers to interrogatories seeking information on when Epstein was in the State +of Florida, who provided transportation services to Epstein, his telephone numbers, his employees' +telephone numbers, and his health care providers.' Discovery requests that seek background +information or information on events and experiences of the witness for which he cannot realistically +or genuinely be expected to be charged with a crime are not subject to Fifth Amendment protection. +See Krause v. +, 390 F.Supp 1070, 1071-72 (N.D. Ohio 1974) (allowing questions to be asked +regarding personal backgrounds and experiences excluding the event at issue in the pending criminal +indictment). +2. +Defendant Has Not Demonstrated That the Act of +Producing Documents in Response to Specific Requests +Would be Sufficiently Testimonial and Incriminating +Defendant Epstein makes a general assertion that a response to any of Plaintiff's document +requests would entail testimonial self-incrimination. (Defendant's Response (DE 56), pp. 22-23). +Whether the act of producing a particular document would be sufficiently testimonial and +incriminatory to support the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is a "fact +dependent inquiry." United States v. Wujkowski, 929 F.2d 981, 985 (4th Cir. 1991). It is the burden +of the party asserting the privilege to "explain how the act of producing documents would pose a real +danger of incrimination." Bear Sterns & Co. v. Wyler, 182 F.Supp. 2d 679, 681 (N.D. III. 2002). +Defendant's reliance on United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), is inadequate. In +Hubbell, it was apparent from the breadth of the description of documents demanded in the +government's subpoena that "the prosecutor needed respondent's assistance both to identify +' See Interrogatory nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, 12. +-4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 5 of 11 +potential sources of information and to produce those sources." Id. at 41. In Bear Sterns, the Court +explained that the facts of Hubbel! were unique and do not support a blanket, all-encompassing +assertion by a witness or party that the production of documents would be testimonial and +incriminating: +To begin with, in Hubell, the incriminatory nature of the production +of the document sought was obvious. The respondent was already +incarcerated as a result of one investigation and he was the target of a +second. Indeed, the second investigation was directed at whether the +respondent was in compliance with a plea agreement-resulting from +testimony that he had Whitewater information that he had not +provided-it would be an admission that he failed to comply with the +specifically found that respondent's acknowledgment of the existence +of certain records sought in the government's subpoena would be +directly incriminating. Hubbell, 167 F.3d at 582. +Id. at 683. +As noted by the Court in Bear Sterns, a determination that the production of documents +would be testimonial cannot be premised on the witness's say so: +A witness is not exonerated from answering merely because he +declares that in so doing he would incriminate himself; his assertion +does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination. +Id. at 684. In Bear Sterns, the Court found that the defendant failed to meet his burden in asserting +the privilege against self-incrimination in response to a request for production that included wire +transfer records, telephone records, bank records, and records pertaining to specific investment +firms. Id. Plaintiffs seek in their document requests, among other things, telephone records, travel +records, correspondence and communications, and personal calendars and diaries. The act of +producing such records is not a crime. See id. ("[a]s the plaintiff notes, it is not a crime to make a +- 5- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 6 of 11 +wire transfer, use the phone, or possess corporate records"). Defendant Epstein has failed to meet +his burden of demonstrating that the document requests made by Plaintiffs in these cases would pose +a real danger of incrimination. As in Bear Sterns, the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of +Documents should accordingly be granted. Id. +B. +Defendant Epstein Fails to Demonstrate Why His +Invocation of the Fifth Amendment Would Not +Warrant an Adverse Interest In These Civil Cases +Defendant Epstein does not dispute the general rule that an adverse inference may be drawn +in a civil case from a defendant's refusal to testify or respond to discovery by invoking the privilege +against self incrimination. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318-20 (1976). He instead asserts +that there is a "recognized exception" that applies in a case where the adverse inference is the sole +basis for the plaintiff's prima facie case or will cause the automatic entry of summary judgment. +(Defendant's Response, (DE 56), pp. 14-15); Federal Trade Comm'n v. Transnet Wireless Corp., +506 F.Supp. 2d 1247, 1252 n. 4 (S.D. Fla. 2007). This exception plainly would not apply here. +There are witnesses other than Defendant to the acts and conduct alleged in these cases, including +Plaintiffs and other victims. See Transnet Wireless, 506 F.Supp. 2d at 1252 n. 4 (holding that the +Court "will draw adverse inferences where appropriate" in reviewing a motion for summary +judgment, "in light of the myriad evidence presented by plaintiff"). +In any event, it would be premature at this stage of the case for the Court to foreclose the use +of an adverse inference from the Defendant's invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination. +This issue would arise either in a motion for summary judgment or a motion in limine. Accordingly, +based on the foregoing, Defendant's self-serving assertion in his discovery responses concerning the +drawing of an adverse inference is improper, and should be rejected and stricken. +C. Plaintiff Is Entitled to Discovery of Health Care +Information Requested In Interrogatory No. 8 +- 6 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 7 of 11 +Defendant Epstein argues that Plaintiff' s Interrogatory no. 8 is overbroad because it seeks +information over a ten year period. As to Defendant Epstein's psychological condition, particularly +any problem of a sexual nature, ten years is more than reasonable. Any psychosexual condition has +likely existed for most or all of Defendant Epstein's adult life. +Defendant Epstein next asserts Florida's psychotherapist-patient privilege under Florida +Statute §90.503(2). As set forth in Plaintiff's Motion, the allegations of child sexual abuse in this +case bring into play the exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege of Florida Statute §39.204. +Defendant asserts that this Court is required to hold an in camera inspection of documents to +determine, as to each document, whether Florida Statute §39.204 is applicable. See Doherty v. John +Doe No. 22, 957 So.2d 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Plaintiff agrees that such an in camera +inspection would be appropriate to evaluate whether the documents relate to allegations of child +sexual abuse. In this regard, any notes or records relating to Epstein's sexual interests or tendencies +produced in an in camera inspection would be relevant and should be turned over to Plaintiff as +falling within the exception of $39.204. +D. +Third Party Privacy Rights Are +Not a Basis to Deny Discovery +The right to privacy discussed in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 454 (1972), has nothing +to do with the discovery issues in this case. Eisenstadt concerns the distribution of a contraceptive +device. Yet Defendant relies entirely on Eisenstadt in contending that third party privacy rights +provide a basis for Defendant to object to discovery in this case. The vague argument and +unsupported assertion raised by Defendant in this case, "that the privacy rights of third parties are +implicated", is frivolous and must be rejected. +E. +Plaintiff Is Entitled In Discovery to Documents +Relating to Plea Agreements and Criminal Proceedings +- 7- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 8 of 11 +Defendant asserts that Plaintiff should not be entitled to receive any documents responsive to +her Request nos. 1-4 for the sole reason that these documents would not themselves be admissible +under Fed.R.Evid. 408 and 410. It is well established that broad discovery under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 +should not, without more, be limited on the basis of admissibility at trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(1946 +Advisory Committee Note). (Rule 26(b) "may cover not only evidence for use at the trial but also +inquiry into matters in themselves inadmissible as evidence but which will lead to the discovery of +such evidence. The purpose of discovery is to allow a broad search for facts, the names of +witnesses, or any other matters which may aid a party in the preparation or presentation of his +case"). Accordingly, the fact alone that plea agreements and related documents may not be +admissible at trial is not a basis to deny their production in discovery.? In Cupac, Inc. v. Mid-West +Agency, Inc., 100 F.R.D. 440 (S.D. Ohio 1983), the Court held on these grounds that a party could +obtain discovery relating to a criminal plea, including the answers to questions asked by the +prosecutor, even though this information would be inadmissible under Fed.R.Evid. 410. Any +concerns regarding the disclosure of documents responsive to request nos. 1-4 could be addressed in +an appropriate protective order. Plaintiffs and their counsel, however, should have these documents +in discovery. +F. An In Camera Hearing May Be Appropriate To Determine +Whether Defendant Properly Claims Privilege In +Response To Interrogatories And Document Reguests +Given the fact intensive nature of the inquiry into whether a defendant has met his burden in +asserting a privilege against self-incrimination, some courts have conducted in camera, ex parte +hearings to determine whether assertions of the privilege are valid in each instance. See United +* Plaintiff further notes that her document request no. 4 seeks documents obtained in discovery and +investigation of the criminal cases, not documents pertaining to the plea agreement. Accordingly, +Rules 408 and 410 could not serve as a basis to object to these requests. +- 8 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 9 of 11 +States v. Duncan, 704 F.Supp 820 (N.D. III. 1989); see also United States v. Wujkowski, 929 F.2d +981, 986 (4th Cir. 1991) (*[wle hold only that the district court must undertake a more careful +examination of the documents in question and provide a basis for its findings"). To the extent that +this Court is in doubt as to whether to uphold the Defendant's privilege claim as to any particular +document request or interrogatory, then an in camera hearing would be appropriate. +Ill. Conclusion +Based on the foregoing, and for the reasons stated in Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Answers +to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, +Plaintiff requests that Defendant Epstein be ordered to answer interrogatories and produce +responsive documents. +Dated: April 20, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By:_ +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiff +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +-9- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 10 of 11 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on April 20 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day +to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices +of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who +are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 10 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 11 of 11 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 11 - diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/acefa50e8e31994c0aa7aad5e01f1b63d5d2dbd87b1c1d833e3c46eee5bd2dd0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/acefa50e8e31994c0aa7aad5e01f1b63d5d2dbd87b1c1d833e3c46eee5bd2dd0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a576abbccdd71e089bb2f430151bce561b9fad99 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/acefa50e8e31994c0aa7aad5e01f1b63d5d2dbd87b1c1d833e3c46eee5bd2dd0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -136, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "acefa50e8e31994c0aa7aad5e01f1b63d5d2dbd87b1c1d833e3c46eee5bd2dd0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 13, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "1c1ed67d63d89a38d6241e8544f6f33f97f4d15deebebffd9dc3c9fe80ace62a", + "output_sha256": "70764d09f90da41666fe403e925469e176efd47ab4adce8944fc18fb04557cde", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad0e517cc5c6311d288d92fe2dbddc3b4d23deb6284f27e40586eaeb3eef171f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad0e517cc5c6311d288d92fe2dbddc3b4d23deb6284f27e40586eaeb3eef171f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cdc698883a3aaa138c7aed0a0ac8b34055dcaaad --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad0e517cc5c6311d288d92fe2dbddc3b4d23deb6284f27e40586eaeb3eef171f.md @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ +Filing # 142670628 E-Filed 01/26/2022 10:41:38 AM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION: AG +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +COPY +Defendants. +CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER'S +NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION TO AMEND FINAL JUDGMENT +Defendant, +Abruzzo, in his official capacity as Clerk of the Circuit Court and +Comptroller, Palm Beach County, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby withdraws his +Motion to Amend Final Judgment [DE 81] filed on January 3, 2022. See Hasan v. Lanny, No. +SC10-1361, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 345 (Fla. 2013) (notice of withdrawal is sufficient to withdraw a +motion prior to it being heard); see also Simpson v. Simpson, 780 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) +(withdrawal of a post-judgment motion removes the toll to file an appeal). +*** FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL +ABRUZZO, CLERK. 01/26/2022 10:41:38 AM *** + + +Dated: January 26, 2022 +By: +Respectfully submitted, +CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & +COMPTROLLER, PALM BEACH COUNTY +s/ Collin D. +Esq. (FL Bar No. 1018081) +Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller, +Palm Beach County +P.O. Box 229 +West Palm Beach, FL +Tel.: (561) 355-2983 +E-mail: eservice@mypalmbeachclerk.com +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on January 26, 2022 the foregoing document was furnished upon +Stephen Mendelsohn, Esq., Michael J. Grygiel, Esq., and Nina D. Boyajian, Esq., Greenberg +Traurig, P.A. at e-mails: mendelsohns@gtlaw.com; smithl@gtlaw.com; FLService@gtlaw.com; +grygielm@gtlaw.com; boyajiapn@gtlaw.com; riveraal@gtlaw.com via the Florida ePortal +System. +NOT +By: +s/ Collin D. +Collin D. +, Esq. + diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad0e517cc5c6311d288d92fe2dbddc3b4d23deb6284f27e40586eaeb3eef171f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad0e517cc5c6311d288d92fe2dbddc3b4d23deb6284f27e40586eaeb3eef171f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3ea238063fb12c0c1aebd03313ef6a26e9b97836 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad0e517cc5c6311d288d92fe2dbddc3b4d23deb6284f27e40586eaeb3eef171f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -35, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ad0e517cc5c6311d288d92fe2dbddc3b4d23deb6284f27e40586eaeb3eef171f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c2aa7d271db14b1256bc475147912145140b3263e31d1c3604b7e58e2485b603", + "output_sha256": "7c8af1daf8258866ee490b6035738637cbe40c3e8500e4fc766b06d13d6de6f9", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad1e967688d9ca619dc182da079428c00f7fa2d8725aaffef4b01c9c4d6b5963.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad1e967688d9ca619dc182da079428c00f7fa2d8725aaffef4b01c9c4d6b5963.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9568f7bd3cd041a7ab90349dab275be7bfc078a5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad1e967688d9ca619dc182da079428c00f7fa2d8725aaffef4b01c9c4d6b5963.md @@ -0,0 +1,325 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2008 Page 1 of 10 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA_ +JANE DOE NO. 5 +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT'S, EPSTEIN, MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR MORE +DEFINITE STATEMENT DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT +Defendant, JEFFERY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, moves +to dismiss and for more definite statement of Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 5's Amended +Complaint. Rules 12(b)(6), and 12(e) and (f), Fed. R.Civ.P. (2008). In support of his +motion, Defendant states: +Introduction +Defendant is filing similar motions to dismiss and for more definite statement +directed to the Amended Complaints filed against Defendant in this Court in JANE DOE +NO. 2, JANE DOE NO. 3, JANE DOE NO. 4 and JANE DOE NO. 5. The motions are +directed to the Counts for "Sexual Assault and Battery," and "Coercion and Enticement +to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422" in each of the respective complaints. +However, there are distinctions in the four motions filed based on the complaint +allegations. For example, Defendant challenges the Plaintiffs' allegations as to assault +in all four actions, and challenges the battery allegations in JANE DOE NOS. 2 and 3, +but not in JANE DOE NOS. 4 and 5. Defendant moves to dismiss the §2422 count in all +four actions. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2008 Page 2 of 10 +Page No. 2 +Motion +1. Counts I and III of the Amended Complaint are required to be dismissed for +failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has +failed to allege sufficient factual allegations in the Counts and instead alleges labels and +conclusions, and an attempted formulaic recitation of the elements in each Count. +2. In the alternative, Defendant seeks more definite statement of Count I and III. In +Count I, the Plaintiff is required to more definitely allege in the context of the claim for +assault underlying factual allegations pertaining to the creation in Plaintiff of "imminent +fear of peril;"; what EPSTEIN said and did, if anything, to create fear and apprehension +in Plaintiff. In Count III, Plaintiff is required to more definitely state the underlying factual +allegations to support her claim as set forth in the statute, 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) and +§2455. Rule 12(e). See discussion of law below herein. +3. Also, Plaintiff's reference in Count III to 28 U.S.C. §2255, pertaining to habeas +corpus proceedings is required to be stricken as immaterial. Rule 12(f). Plaintiff is +required to more definitely state what statutory provision she is relying on. Rule 12 (e). +WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court dismiss Counts I and +Ill, strike the immaterial statutory reference, and require Plaintiff to more definitely plead +the underlying elements of her claims. +Standard ooring Memora duot Dismiss +As established by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly, 127 +S.Ct. 1955 (2007), a motion to dismiss should be granted if the plaintiff does not plead +"enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id, at 1974. +Although the complaint need not provide detailed factual allegations, the basis for relief + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2008 Page 3 of 10 +Case No. CV-80381-Marra- l +Page No. 3 +in the complaint must state "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic +recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id, at 1965. Further, "Ifjactual +allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level ... on the +assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Id. +On a motion to dismiss, the well pleaded allegations of plaintiff's complaint are taken as +true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. M.T.V. v. DeKalb County +Sch. Dist., 446 F.3d 1153, 1156 (11th Cir.2006). +Significantly, the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly abrogated the +often cited observation that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a +claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove not set of facts in +support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Id, (abrogating and quoting Conley +V. +, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The Supreme +Court rejected the notion that "a wholly conclusory statement of claim [can] survive a +motion to dismiss whenever the pleadings le[ave] open the possibility that a plaintiff +might later establish some 'set of [undisclosed] facts' to support recovery." Id. As +explained by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp., supra at 1664-65: +While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not +need detailed factual allegations, ibid.; Sanjuan v. American Bd. of +Psychiatry and Neurology, Inc., 40 F.3d 247, 251 (C.A.7 1994), a plaintiff's +obligation to provide the "grounds" of his "entitle[ment] to relief" requires +more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements +of a cause of action will not do, see Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, +106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) (on a motion to dismiss, courts "are +not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual +allegation"). Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief +above the speculative level, see 5 C./ +& A. +Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed.2004) (hereinafter +1a Federal Practice and +• & +(IThe pleading must contain something more ... than ... a statement of facts +that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action"), on +the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2008 Page 4 of 10 +Case No. CV-80381-Marra- +Page No. 4 +doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.. 534 U.S. 506, 508, +n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. +i. 490 U.S. 319, +327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not +countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's +factual allegations"); Scheuer v. +_ 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, +40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it +appears "that a recovery is very remote and unlikely"). +Pursuant to Rule 12(e), a party may move for more definite statement of a +pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed where the pleading "is so vague or +ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably frame a response." The motion is required +to point out the defects and the desired details. Id. +Count I - "Sexual Assault and Battery" is subject to dismissal as Plaintiff has +failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. +It is well settled that this Court is to apply Florida substantive law in this action. +Erie R.Co. v. Tompkins, 58 S.Ct. 817 (1938). Pursuant to Florida law, although the term +"assault and battery" is most commonly referred to as if it were a legal unit, or a single +concept, "assault and battery are separate and distinct legal concepts, assault being the +beginning of an act which, if consummated, constitutes battery." 3A Fla.Jur.2d Assault +§1. An assault and battery are intentional acts. See generally, Spivey v. Battaglia, 258 +So.2d 815 (Fla. 1972); and Travelers Indem. Co. v. PCR, Inc., 889 So.2d 779 (Fla. +2004). +An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful offer of corporal injury to another by force, +or exertion of force directed toward another under such circumstances as to create a +reasonable fear of imminent peril. See Lay v. Kremer, 411 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 1st DCA +1982). It must be premised upon an affirmative act - a threat to use force, or the actual +exertion of force. See 3A Fla.Jur.2d Assault §1("The essential element of the tort of +assault is the violence offered, and not actual physical contact."). + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2008 Page 5 of 10 +Case No. CV-80381-Marral +Page No. 5 +As further explained in Florida Jurisprudence, 2d, Assault §1 - +An assault is defined as an intentional unlawful offer of corporal +injury to another by force, or force unlawfully directed toward the person of +another, under circumstances as to create a fear of imminent peril, +coupled with the apparent present ability to effectuate the attempt. At +common law, a tortious assault is an act that puts another in reasonable +apprehension of immediate bodily harm. +In 1|12 of her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff does plead the requisite +"touching" element of "battery," so that aspect of the assault and battery claim is not +being challenged. With the standard of pleading established in Twombly, supra, in the +context of assault, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. +Rule 12(b)(6). As to the elements of assault, there are no factual allegations as to what +was said or done to Plaintiff such that it constituted an "intentional, unlawful offer of +corporal injury to another by force, or exertion of force directed toward another under +such circumstances as to create a reasonable fear of imminent peril." See 112-13 of +Am. Comp. In 113 alleges that JANE DOE NO. 5 (and another unidentified girl) "were +then able to get dressed, leave the room and go back downstairs. Esptein gave both +girls money for this 'massage.'" Allegations as to circumstances creating a fear of +imminent peril are lacking. +Under applicable law, Plaintiff is required to give more than labels and +conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action. Iwombly, +supra. Plaintiff is required to allege the facts of what was done to her; what EPSTEIN +said and did, if anything, to create fear and apprehension in Plaintiff. +As noted in the introduction and as this Court is well aware, there is more than +one action brought against this Defendant attempting to allege similar sounding claims. +With all due respect, the details as to a particular claim asserted by a particular Plaintiff + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2008 Page 6 of 10 +Page No. 6 +are important to give this Defendant fair notice of Plaintiff's claim so he may properly +respond. Accordingly, under applicable law, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for +"sexual assault and battery" has Plaintiff has failed to plead requisite factual allegations +concerning the assault. +In the alternative to dismissing Count I, Defendant requests that Plaintiff be +required to give more definite statement as to what was done to her; what EPSTEIN +said and did, if anything, to create fear and apprehension in Plaintiff; in pleading the +elements of assault. Rule 12(e). +Count III - "Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 +U.S.C. $2422" - is subject to dismissal as Plaintiff has failed to state a claim +upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Count Ill also contains an +immaterial reference to 28 U.S.C. $2255, which is required to be stricken +and more definitely stated. +Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint attempts to assert a claim for "Coercion and +Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422." In her prayer for relief in +Count III, Plaintiff "demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein for all +damages available under 28 U.S.C. §2255(a), ...." +Although the reference to "28 U.S.C. §2255," pertaining to habeas corpus +proceedings - federal custody and remedies on motion attacking sentence, is probably +a typographical error by Plaintiff, and the reference to "28" was meant to be "18," +Defendant requests that Plaintiff correct this error so that Defendant may have fair +notice of the claim Plaintiff is attempting to assert. Whether or not the "28" is +typographical error, Defendant is still entitled to dismissal of the count. +The applicable version of these statutory provisions, (pre-2006 Amendments, as +the Amended Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2002-2003," 18), provides: + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2008 Page 7 of 10 +Case No. CV-80381-Marra-v +Page No. 7 +CHAPTER 117-TRANSPORTATION FOR ILLEGAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY +AND RELATED CRIMES +§ 2422. Coercion and enticement +(a) Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any +individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or +Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual +activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or +attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than +20 years, or both. +(b) Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign +commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the +United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any +individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitutior +or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal +nieless torn 5 years tandoot rehan 30 ye ander this tile and imprisoned +CHAPTER 110-SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF +CHILDREN +§ 2255. Civil remedy for personal injuries +(a) Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, +2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who +suffers personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in any +appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual +damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable +attorney's fee. Any minor as described in the preceding sentence shall be +deemed to have sustained damages of no less than $50,000 in value. +(b) Any action commenced under this section shall be barred unless the +complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues or in +'The above-quoted version of 18 U.S.C. §2422 is the post-2003 amendments which +amended the statute as follows: +2003 Amendments. Subsec. (a). Pub.L. 108-21, § 103(a)(2)(A), struck out "10" +and inserted "20". +Subsec. (b). Pub.L. 108-21, § 103(a)(2)(B), struck out "15" and inserted "30". +Pub.L. 108-21, § 103(b)(2)(A)(i), struck out ", imprisoned" and inserted "and +imprisoned not less than 5 years and". +Pub.L. 108-21, § 103(b)(2)(A)(i), struck out ", or both" at end of subsec. (b). +Defendant is not waiving his right to claim that the pre-2003 amended version of the +statute is applicable in this action. However, for purposes of this motion, the relevant +statutory language is the same. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2008 Page 8 of 10 +Case No. CV-80381-Marra| +Page No. 8 +the case of a person under a legal disability, not later than three years after +the disability. +Relevant to Plaintiffs complaint, 18 U.S.C. 2255(a) creates a civil remedy for "a +minor who is a victim of a violation of section ... 2422 ... of this title and who suffers +personal injury as a result of such violation ...." Plaintiff has failed to plead any factual +allegations whatsoever pertaining to violations of 18 U.S.C. 2422. Rather, Plaintiff has +alleged conclusory allegations simply attempting to track parts of the statutory language +in the statute without underlying factual allegations pertaining to the Plaintiff and any +conduct by Defendant. See 129 of Am. Comp. Plaintiff's allegations, (or lack of factual +allegations), are precisely what the standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Bell +Atlantic Corp. prohibits - Plaintiff's complaint alleges only "labels and conclusions, and +a (partial) formulaic recitation of the elements." +First, the Amended Complaint fails to designate whether Plaintiff is relying on +§2422(a) or §2422(b). Second, although the complaint does contain a partial tracking of +the language in 18 U.S.C. §2422(b), it contains absolutely no factual allegations +concerning the requisite "using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign +commerce" by Plaintiff to state a cause of action based on a violation of 18 U.S.C. +2422(b). As well, there are no underlying factual allegations involving this Plaintiff as to +the requisite elements that a defendant knowingly persuaded, induced, enticed, or +coerced any individual (Plaintiff in this case) who has not attained the age of 18 years, +to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with +a criminal offense, or attempted to do so. See 18 U.S.C. 2422(b); i.e. with what criminal +offense could Plaintiff and Defendant have been charged. Again, a Plaintiff cannot +simply track the language of a statute without some underlying factual allegations to + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2008 Page 9 of 10 +Case No. CV-80381-Marra- +Page No. 9 +state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, Count Ill is required to be +dismissed, and the reference to 28 USC 2455 be stricken. +In the alternative, Plaintiff should be required to more definitely state the +underlying factual allegations to support her claim as set forth in the statute, 18 U.S.C. +§2422(b) and §2455. +Conclusion +As discussed above herein, under the pleading standard established in Twombly, +supra, and law concerning the elements of Count I and III, Plaintiff has failed to state +claims upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff's complaint lack +underlying factual allegations and, thus, Plaintiff is required to more definitely state the +requisite factual allegations. Finally, Plaintiff should correct any improper statutory +references. +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the +manner specified by CM/ECF on this 6 day of October, 2008: +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +250 Australian Avenue South +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1400 +Suite 2218 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +Miami, FL 33160 +561-659-8300 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +jherman@hermanlaw.com +Irivera@hermanlaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2008 Page 10 of 10 +Page No. 10 +Michael R. Tein, Esq. +$ Tein, P.L +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, FL 33133 +305-442-1101 +Fax: 305 442 6744 +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +tein@lewistein.com +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad1e967688d9ca619dc182da079428c00f7fa2d8725aaffef4b01c9c4d6b5963.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad1e967688d9ca619dc182da079428c00f7fa2d8725aaffef4b01c9c4d6b5963.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..658d27691505b94bb812a11cd58acc8c6f569b81 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad1e967688d9ca619dc182da079428c00f7fa2d8725aaffef4b01c9c4d6b5963.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -193, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ad1e967688d9ca619dc182da079428c00f7fa2d8725aaffef4b01c9c4d6b5963", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 11, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8550dd91414f9aa50e2ca10b138046d84e9f2bbfc5621451af4cf44d2d7390c3", + "output_sha256": "79c987bcdb8d9c03f4829dbcdd7c0866d237871c3081fde3c800620914038684", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad29d6cfc3db23136476624a74de2a817b29e3e0ef4beb62e78a166a8b3762b0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad29d6cfc3db23136476624a74de2a817b29e3e0ef4beb62e78a166a8b3762b0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..919ba0ab1f1b3fe87f071275fe284f2ea97c142b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad29d6cfc3db23136476624a74de2a817b29e3e0ef4beb62e78a166a8b3762b0.md @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@ +Filing # 147731023 E-Filed 04/14/2022 03:40:25 PM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida. +Defendants. +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +COPY +AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT +OF REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES & COSTS +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, appeared Robert Winess, Esq., who, after being +first duly sworn, deposes and says: +I am a practicing attorney in Palm Beach County, Florida. I was admitted to The +Florida Bar in 2002 and have practiced law in the State of Florida continuously ever since. +2. +the State of Florida. +I manage and practice in a firm that handles legal matters, including litigation, in +I represent a wide range of clients including numerous corporate and +professional clients as well as individuals and professional groups. I handle many different civil +matters and have experience in litigation against media entities. +I am familiar with the amount customarily charged by attorneys in this community +for civil litigation and allowed by the court for attorney's fees in civil litigation contingency fees +cases such as this matter. +*** FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL +ABRUZZO, CLERK. 04/14/2022 03:40:25 PM *** + + +I am familiar with the hourly billing rates charged for legal services in this +community by senior partners, partners, associates, and paralegals. My current hourly billing rate +is $500.00 per hour. The hourly rate charged in this community by attorneys with comparable +experience is between $450.00 and $600.00 per hour. The hourly rate charged by the attorneys +for Defendant Aronberg is found within the middle of that range. Specifically, the hourly rate for +services performed by Defendant Aronberg's attorney, Douglas A. Wyler, is $425.00 per hour and +this is a reasonable hourly rate for a named partner with the extensive experience and skill +demonstrated by Mr. Wyler within this community. Likewise, Mr. Wyler's senior partner, Arthur +hourly rate is $475.00 per hour, which is also a reasonable rate within this community. +I have reviewed the pleadings and documents filed in this cause and have otherwise +generally become familiar with the proceedings in this case. Similarly, I have examined the record +of time expended in this matter by the attorneys for Defendant Aronberg in this matter. It is my +opinion that the hours expended by the attorneys are consistent with the work-product performed, +as reflected in the file, as well as counsel's expectation to incur an additional 15.0 hours at $425.00 +an hour in preparing for, traveling and attending the hearing on sanctions/attorneys' fees are +reasonable. Accordingly, 144 hours of attorney time reflects an accurate billing and expenditure +of time for counsels' services from the date of their demand under § 57.105, Fla. Stat. +6. +Based on the criteria in +v. Florida Patient's Compensation Fund, 472 So.2d +1145 (1985), the amount of time spent, and a reasonable hourly rate for legal services of the type +performed by Defendant Aronberg's attorneys in this case, $61,840.00 (calculated at 131.2 hours +x $425.00/hour + 12.8 hours x $475.00/hour) is a reasonable fee for the attorneys of record in the +above styled cause. + + +I have reviewed said file in light of the criteria set forth in Rule 4.1-5 of the Florida +Bar Rules of Professional Conduct and the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court in Florida +Patient's Compensation Fund v. +1, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 1985) and Standard Guaranty +Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990). +In my opinion, the outcome achieved by counsel for Defendant Aronberg in this +case demonstrates the level and skill in advocacy of representation which Defendant Aronberg +received in this case. +11. +Based upon my experience, it is my opinion that the events described in the +Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed in this case for which Defendant Aronberg +seeks compensation are based on a reasonable and necessary expenditure of time and expenses. I +base my conclusions on the foregoing and my knowledge of the time required to litigate similar +civil cases involving media entities. +FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. +ROBERT WINESS, ESQ. +VERIFICATION +UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, I DECLARE THAT I HAVE READ THE FOREGOING +AND THAT THE FAĆTS STATED THEREIN ARE TRUE. +ROBERT S. WINESS, ESQ +APRIL 14, 2022 +DATE + + +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 14th day of April, 2022, a copy of the foregoing +Amended and Supplemental Affidavit of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees has been electronically filed +with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein. +SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +Is/ Douglas A. Wyler +Arthur I. +,, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 10249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 0021261) +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-1 +Fernandína Beach, Florida 32034 +(904) 261-3693 +(904) 261-7879 Fax +Primary: jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net +Allorneys for Defendant, Dave Aronberg +NOT A CER diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad29d6cfc3db23136476624a74de2a817b29e3e0ef4beb62e78a166a8b3762b0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad29d6cfc3db23136476624a74de2a817b29e3e0ef4beb62e78a166a8b3762b0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f1ee8efb06a7d00118fa1c51b54be3de0247b7c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad29d6cfc3db23136476624a74de2a817b29e3e0ef4beb62e78a166a8b3762b0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ad29d6cfc3db23136476624a74de2a817b29e3e0ef4beb62e78a166a8b3762b0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f1a070aac8dd3bf1f5fb6aaecc38ae4fbc48a6c4669bd9c93d5ce3c974572940", + "output_sha256": "aed35fd5af75eff7f2e5f81ed2470214db77e89d653675f01a0bdb7d5fe6ebb7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad351df5512ecb4534caccffe4fe5453c1c2d81bb4fb28ff907b997f9f0db9b5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad351df5512ecb4534caccffe4fe5453c1c2d81bb4fb28ff907b997f9f0db9b5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d74692ece819040876b7bbb0621fad5ae6d5473d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad351df5512ecb4534caccffe4fe5453c1c2d81bb4fb28ff907b997f9f0db9b5.md @@ -0,0 +1,230 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-CIV -MARRA +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiff, JANE DOE, will take the deposition of +Jean Luc Bruhel on Tuesday, September 22, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., at: +Esquire Court Reporters +One Penn Plaza +Suite 4715 +New York, NY 10119 +The deposition shall be conducted pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure +and shall continue day to day, weekends and holidays excepted, until completed. +¡HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served +by U.S. Mail and email transmission this //I6f day of August, 2009 to all those on the +attached Service List. +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 2 of 5 +ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER +Attorneys for Plaintiff +401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Tel: (954) 522-3456 +Fax: (954) 527-8663 +Email: bedwards@rra-law.com +By: = +sale +BRAD +, ESQ. +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +CC: +Esquire Court Reporters + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 3 of 5 +AO 88A (Rev. 01/09) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition or to Produce Documents in a Civil Action +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +for the +Southern District of Florida +JANE DOE +Plaintif +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant +Civil Action No. +08-90893CIV-MARRA/JOHNSO +(If the action is pending in another district, state where: +SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION +OR TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS IN A CIVIL ACTION +To: Jean Luc Bruhel, 301 E. 66th Street, New York, NY +• Testimony: YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at a +depositione be take in chiors, i actinging age as, or deganize in et person a party in it rest you not designate +about the following matters, or those set forth in an attachment: +Place: Esquire Court Reporters, One Penn Plaza +Suite 4715, New York, NY +Date and Time: +09/22/2009 10:00 am +The deposition will be recorded by this method: +] Production: You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents +lectronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of thi +material: +The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rule +45 (d) and (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, are +attached. +Date: +CLERK OF COURT +OR +Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk +The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) +Attorney's signature +who issues or requests this subpoena, are +Brad +Esq., Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 3330 +Bedwards@rra-law.com. (954) 522 2346 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 4 of 5 +AO 8SA (Rev. 01/09) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition or to Produce Documents in a Civil Action (Page 2) +Civil Action No. 08-90893CIV-MARRA/JOHNSO +PROOF OF SERVICE +(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.) +This subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any) +was received by me on (date) +• I personally served the subpoena on the individual at (place) +on (date) +i or +• I left the subpoena at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name) +, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there, +on (date) +, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or +• I served the subpoena on (name of individual) +designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) +, who is +on (date) +; or +• 1 returned the subpoena unexecuted because +• Other (specify): +; or +Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also +tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of +$ +My fees are $ +for travel and S +for services, for a total of $ +0.00 +1 declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. +Date: +Server's signature +Printed name and title +Server's address +Additional information regarding attempted service, etc: + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 5 of 5 +AO 88A (Rev, 01/09) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition or to Produce Documents in a Civil Action (Page 3) +Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), and (e) (Effective 12/1/07) +(c) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena. +(d) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena. +(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or +(1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. +attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take +These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically +reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a +person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this +duty and impose an appropriate sanction - which may include lost +earnings and reasonable attorney's fees - on a party or attorney +(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. +(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce +documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or +to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the +place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear +for a deposition, hearing, or trial. +(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or +tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or +attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to +inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or +to inspecting the premises - or to producing electronically stored +information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be +served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 +days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the +following rules apply: +(l) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving +party may move the issuing court for an order compelling production +(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and +the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's +officer from significant expense resulting from compliance. +(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. +(A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must +quash or modify a subpoena that: +(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; +(ii) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer +to travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is +employed, or regularly transacts business in person — except that, +subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), the person may be commanded to +attend a trial by traveling from any such place within the state where +(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if +no exception or waiver applies; or +(iv) subjects a person to undue burden. +(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by +a subpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the +subpoena if it requires: +(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, +development, or commercial information; +(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that +does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from +the expert's study that was not requested by a party; or +(lil) a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to incur +substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial. +(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances +described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or +modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under +specified conditions if the serving party: +(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that +cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and +(ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably +compensated. +(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce +documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary +course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to +the categories in the demand. +(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not +Specified. If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing +electronically stored information, the person responding must +produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or +in a reasonably usable form or forms. +(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One +Form. The person responding need not produce the same +electronically stored information in more than one form. +(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person +responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored +information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably +accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel +discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show +that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue +burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless +order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows +good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(bX(2)(C). The +court may specify conditions for the discovery. +(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection. +(A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed +information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to +protection as trial-preparation material must: +(i) expressly make the claim; and +(ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, +communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without +revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the +parties to assess the claim. +(B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a +subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trialpreparation material, the person making the claim may notify any +party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. +After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or +destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use +or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take +reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it +before being notified; and may promptly present the information to +the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person +who produced the information must preserve the information until +the claim is resolved. +(e) Contempt. The issuing court may hold in contempt a person +who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the +subpoena. A nonparty's failure to obey must be excused if the +subpoena purports to require the nonparty to attend or produce at a +place outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3XA)(ii). diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad351df5512ecb4534caccffe4fe5453c1c2d81bb4fb28ff907b997f9f0db9b5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad351df5512ecb4534caccffe4fe5453c1c2d81bb4fb28ff907b997f9f0db9b5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8c187913bcdc6be1f6a1d61981673c7e2de52697 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad351df5512ecb4534caccffe4fe5453c1c2d81bb4fb28ff907b997f9f0db9b5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -62, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ad351df5512ecb4534caccffe4fe5453c1c2d81bb4fb28ff907b997f9f0db9b5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "fd5aa2d37d74765ecd0e728ebba4a281d89f3a49366ff609c264c9036afada15", + "output_sha256": "ab09dd4da790e97aaabfead2b141bf2c98ba5372a7786306fea47593f81f8bf1", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad4239b787296d75ce4f1fb3b918fe566b7727dc128f11d448f418baf0c18280.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad4239b787296d75ce4f1fb3b918fe566b7727dc128f11d448f418baf0c18280.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1982dd6cc2148e88af8d19f05bea9f9d0dad4d57 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad4239b787296d75ce4f1fb3b918fe566b7727dc128f11d448f418baf0c18280.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +Filed 08/13/21 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff. +V. +DARREN K INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in +their capacities as executors of THE ESTATE OF +JEFFERY E. EPSTEIN, +Defendants. +Case No. 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF +DECLARATION OF BENNET J. +MOSKOWITZ +BENNET J. MOSKOWITZ hereby declares as follows: +1. I am a member of the bar of the State of New York. +2. Iam a partner at Troutman Pepper +Sanders LLP, counsel of record for +Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. +Epstein (the "Co-Executors"). +3. I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances set forth herein. +4. I submit this declaration in support of the Co-Executors' Statement on Plaintiff's +Application to Proceed Anonymously (the "Statement"), filed contemporaneously herewith. +5. The sole purpose of this Declaration is to place before the Court copies of the +cited by the Co-Executors in their Statement. +6. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of an +7. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a copy of a l + + +Filed 08/13/21 Page 2 of 3 +8. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a copy of a +9. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a copy of a +10. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a copy of an +11. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a copy of al +12. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a copy of a l +13. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a copy of a +14. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a copy of a l +15. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a copy of a l + + +Filed 08/13/21 Page 3 of 3 +16. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a copy of al +17. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a copy of an +18. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a copy of al +19. Attached hereto as Exhibit N is a copy of an | +20. Attached hereto as Exhibit O is a copy of an +I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. +Dated: New York, New York +August 13, 2021 +Is/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz + + +Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 34-1 +Filed 08/13/21 Page 1 of 1 +Exhibits Filed Under Seal \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad4239b787296d75ce4f1fb3b918fe566b7727dc128f11d448f418baf0c18280.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad4239b787296d75ce4f1fb3b918fe566b7727dc128f11d448f418baf0c18280.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b02a36f95faf2aa38a38821eb1a0de7075ad4be4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad4239b787296d75ce4f1fb3b918fe566b7727dc128f11d448f418baf0c18280.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -202, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ad4239b787296d75ce4f1fb3b918fe566b7727dc128f11d448f418baf0c18280", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2c8cef1cf497abdde66394165f1b771b820abe9e8c0677d4c27d11204210f557", + "output_sha256": "71325f6bebc001949ac839164994a3ed9d4746627aca0e2c8627f27a3fa790e1", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad9c7071f36e74c539b819897968adca0992ddcb7546702b9e6917d4dd401fe6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad9c7071f36e74c539b819897968adca0992ddcb7546702b9e6917d4dd401fe6.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..123d148c9a1d5b5c4ae16974432daaf550c293c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad9c7071f36e74c539b819897968adca0992ddcb7546702b9e6917d4dd401fe6.md @@ -0,0 +1,80 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 86 Filed 12/21/20 Page 1 of 2 +PANISH +SHEA & +BOYLE +LLP +December 21, 2020 +VIA ECE +Hon. John G. Koeltl +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl Street +New York, NY 10007 +Re: Doe v. Indyke, et al., 1:20-cv-000484-JGK-DCF +Letter Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(2) +Dear Judge Koeltl: +Pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(2), plaintiff Jane Doe in the above-referenced action hereby +requests that the Court dismiss this case forthwith in accordance with the terms set forth in the +concurrently submitted stipulation for dismissal executed by both plaintiff Jane Doe and +defendants Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. +Only defendant Ghislaine Maxwell is refusing to stipulate to the dismissal. +Brief Background +Following the filing of this lawsuit, plaintiff Jane Doe was consistently encouraged by the +parties to stay this case so that she may participate in the Epstein Victims' Compensation +rogram ("the Program"). Because, however, the Program rules clearly stated that "[i]ndividual +who have filed a lawsuit need not agree to a stay of litigation or make any other concession it +any pending litigation to be eligible to participate in the Program," plaintiff did not agree to such +a stay. Instead, defendant Ghislaine Maxwell brought a motion to stay these proceedings which +was then joined by the Epstein Estate and the U.S. Government. Magistrate Judge Freeman +granted the stay. +Since that time, plaintiff submitted a claim to the Program. The Program administrator +made a monetary offer to plaintiff which plaintiff accepted. The Epstein Estate and Ghislaine +Maxwell mandated that Ms. Maxwell be included in the Program settlement release (presumably +because when she committed her tortious and criminal conduct against the victims she was doing +so as an agent and/or employee in the scope of her agency and/or employment with Mr. Epstein). +Plaintiff signed the release and sent it back to the Program administrator. The Program rules +state, in part, that payment cannot be disbursed to the plaintiff until a dismissal has been entered +in this action. +11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 • Los Angeles, California 90025 • 310.477.1700 phone • 310.477.1699 fax • www.psblaw.com + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 86 Filed 12/21/20 +PARISH +SHEA & +BOYLE™ +Hon. John G. Koelti +Daniel T +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +December 21, 2020 +Page 2 +Now, however, after Ms. Maxwell is the one who sought to stay this case and push +Plaintiff into the Program, she is now also the one who is preventing Plaintiff from dismissing +this action in a timely and expedient manner pursuant to the terms of the Program. +Despite the straightforward nature of the dismissal, counsel for Ms. Maxwell has found +one excuse after another not to stipulate to the enclosed dismissal executed by the other parties. +And despite Plaintiff's counsel's multiple attempts to secure Ms. Maxwell's stipulation, it has +become increasingly obvious that she will inexplicably not provide it. Indeed, just today, +counsel for Ms. Maxwell stated, for the very first time, that "I will be able to get back to you +after I have had a chance to meaningfully discuss with my client. I do not know when that will +occur but I am reasonably confident we will be able to meet the Court's January 12 deadline." +Not one time did counsel for Ms. Maxwell bring this up during the meet and confer process +concerning the dismissal. Nor did she raise it to Judge Freeman at a recent status conference +concerning the dismissal that she is also blocking in another Epstein case entitled +v. Darren K. Indyke, Richard D. Kahn, & Ghislaine Maxwell 19-10475-LGS-DCF. +Conclusion +There is no good faith basis in fact or law for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to prevent +this case from being dismissed following the settlement reached among the parties. The only +conceivable reason is that she is being difficult for the sake of being difficult. Ms. Maxwell has +already done unimaginable harm to Plaintiff when she was a child. She should not be permitted +to perpetuate that harm by not allowing Plaintiff to bring much needed closure to this chapter in +her life. Plaintiff is respectfully requesting that the Court exercise its discretion and dismiss her +case in accordance with the terms set forth in the partially executed stipulation for dismissal so +she can satisfy the terms set forth in the Program rules, the Court can clear this case from its +docket and the parties can move on. +Respectfully submitted, +PANISH SHEA & BOYLE +Is/ Robert Glassman +Robert Glassman +Encl. diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad9c7071f36e74c539b819897968adca0992ddcb7546702b9e6917d4dd401fe6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad9c7071f36e74c539b819897968adca0992ddcb7546702b9e6917d4dd401fe6.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d78b53862809245c96d55bff97167a13bb164a67 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ad9c7071f36e74c539b819897968adca0992ddcb7546702b9e6917d4dd401fe6.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ad9c7071f36e74c539b819897968adca0992ddcb7546702b9e6917d4dd401fe6", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e36093dd1a7c6f214c1a93614e56d93ff26770553dd4526c0e67d847d6a7c960", + "output_sha256": "8b944c84650543f05af1044f5194d3dd0b54a13155534ddefb12b500f0ba55de", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/adaa5e64172a224187b39e36e519e16ff39b0acd3cbe09e6bcf7cb35a7d29ab6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/adaa5e64172a224187b39e36e519e16ff39b0acd3cbe09e6bcf7cb35a7d29ab6.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8c9e58729796f754768afccfa55c034a7b7b05ee --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/adaa5e64172a224187b39e36e519e16ff39b0acd3cbe09e6bcf7cb35a7d29ab6.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2010 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA-.| +JANE DOE NO. 6 +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE +THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the parties' Stipulation of Dismissal with +Prejudice [DE 961, filed June 25, 2010. The Court has reviewed the Stipulation, the +pertinent portions of the record, and is otherwise advised in the premises. +in +accordance with the parties' Stipulation, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: +1. The above-styled action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. +2. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. +3. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' +settlement. +4. The Clerk shall CLOSE THIS CASE. +DONE AND ORDERED in I +at West Palm Beach, Florida this 25 * day +of June, 2010. +KENNETH A. MARRA +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +Copies Furnished to: +All Counsel of Record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/adaa5e64172a224187b39e36e519e16ff39b0acd3cbe09e6bcf7cb35a7d29ab6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/adaa5e64172a224187b39e36e519e16ff39b0acd3cbe09e6bcf7cb35a7d29ab6.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..40930c8a9116eeebbbda45f61336921244e0eae5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/adaa5e64172a224187b39e36e519e16ff39b0acd3cbe09e6bcf7cb35a7d29ab6.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "adaa5e64172a224187b39e36e519e16ff39b0acd3cbe09e6bcf7cb35a7d29ab6", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b9d18ca557e918eab422de242c657b13db3cdb533baa3897ef3d0c8e523138f1", + "output_sha256": "73808c325eded829eea844b4621574ea194f4999a7c7caccbd7fbf807565cca3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/adab30c130bf05bcd8916bafec9bb96f1c2e286555f03928d20033d0e78404c7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/adab30c130bf05bcd8916bafec9bb96f1c2e286555f03928d20033d0e78404c7.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8f0d7026745049f5c2350f48a1d5625ba0b4425f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/adab30c130bf05bcd8916bafec9bb96f1c2e286555f03928d20033d0e78404c7.md @@ -0,0 +1,146 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 85 | +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2011 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 +V. +UNITED STATES +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S NOTICE OF NEWLY-AVAILABLE +SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR FINDING +OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIMES VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT +COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and +through undersigned counsel, to provide notice of newly-available supplemental authority in +support of their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victim Rights Act and Request +for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (DE #48). +As the Court is aware, the victims and the Government disagree over whether Congress +designed the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) to extend right to victims during the +investigative phase of a criminal case. In March and April, the parties filed briefs on their +respective positions. +On June 6, 2011, Senator Jon Kyl - the co-sponsor of the CVRA - sent a letter to +Attorney General Eric Holder directly stating that he had drafted the CVRA to extend rights to +crime victims during the investigative process and expressing his concern that the Government +was not doing everything it could to protect crime victims during the investigative phases of +criminal cases. +On June 8, 2011, Senator Kyl inserted his letter into the Congressional Record. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2011 Page 2 of 5 +The letter directly supports the victims' position in this case, as Senator Kyl states: "When +Congress enacted the CVRA, it intended to protect crime victims throughout the criminal justice +process - from the investigative phases to the final conclusion of a case." Letter from Senator +Jon Kyl to Attorney General Eric Holder, June 6, 2011, reprinted in 157 CoNG. REC. S3608 +(June 8, 2011). +Of additional relevance to the briefing in this case, Senator Kyl also wrote to General +Holder to explain that he believed that crime victims had the right to confer during the +investigative process. Senator Kyl also asked why federal prosecutors were quoting his remarks +regarding the CVRA out of context to suggest otherwise. As the Court is aware, in this case the +Government has quoted legislative history from Senator Kyl as supporting its position that the +CVRA applies only after formal criminal charges have been filed. See United States' Response +to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion for Findings of Violations of the Crime Victim Rights +Act (DE #57) at 19-20 (quoting Senator Kyl as believing that the right to confer with prosecutors +only applies "after charging"). +Senator Kyl had seen his remarks (mis)quoted by the +Government to that same effect elsewhere in Justice Department opinion, and clearly thought +this use was inappropriate: +did want to express my surprise that your prosecutors are so clearly quoting n +marks out of context. Here is the full passage of my remarks, which were pi +of a colloquy with my co-sponsor on the CVRA, Senator Feinstein: +Government concerning any critical stage or disposition of the case. The +right, however, is not limited to these examples. I ask the Senator if he +concurs in this intent. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2011 Page 3 of 5 +Senator Kyl: Yes. The intent of this section is just as the Senator says. +This right to confer does not give the crime victim any right to direct the +prosecution. Prosecutors should consider it part of their profession to be +available to consult with crime victims about concerns the victims may +have which are pertinent to the case, case proceedings or disposition. +Under this provision, victims are able to confer with the Government's +attorney about proceedings after charging. +150 Cong. Rec. S4260, S4268 (Apr. 22, 2004) (statements of Sens. Feinstein & +Kyl) (emphases added). Read in context, it is obvious that the main point of my +remarks was that a victim's right to confer was "intended to be expansive." +Senator Feinstein and I then gave various examples of situations in which victims +could confer with prosecutors, with the note that the right to confer was "not +limited to these examples." It is therefore troubling to me that in this opinion the +Justice Department is quoting only a limited portion of my remarks and +wrenching them out of context to suggest that I think that crime victims do not +have any right to confer (or to be treated with fairness) until after charging. +157 CONG. REC. S3608 (June 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl). For all the reasons that Senator +Kyl gave for believing that his remarks were being "wrench[ed] ... out of context" there, the +prosecutors in this case are likewise wrenching them out of context here. +Senator Kyl - one of two Senate co-sponsors of the CVRA - clearly agrees with the +victims' position in this case that the CVRA protect victims even before charges are filed. +Senator Kyl explained in his recent letter that the CVRA gives to crime victims the right to +consult with prosecutors "how the case was being handled before being filed in court...." Id. +(emphasis added). Senator Kyl then went on to explain how the Fifth Circuit had extended rights +to crime victims before the formal filing of charges in In re +1, 527 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2008) - +a case the victims cite in this case. +Senator Kyl then specifically disagreed with the Justice +Department's assumption "that it has no obligations to treat victims fairly or to confer with them +until after charges are formally filed." Id. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2011 Page 4 of 5 +Senator Kyl concluded his letter to the Attorney General with a very pointed question +discussing non-prosecution agreements: "My first question: What is the Justice Department +doing to extend to victims their right to fair treatment and their right to confer with prosecutors +when the Justice Department is negotiating pre-indictment plea agreements and non-prosecution +agreements with defense attorneys ...." Id. Along with the rest of Senator Kyl's letter, this +question makes clear that one of the principal drafters of the CVRA fully agrees with the +victims' interpretation of the CVRA in this case - i.e., that specifically-identified crime victims +have rights during the negotiation of pre-indictment non-prosecution agreements. +For the benefit of the Court, the full text of Senator Kyl's letter is attached to this notice. +(Exhibit A). The victims respectfully request that the Court consider this letter when reaching a +decision on how to interpret the CVRA in this case. +DATED: June 17, 2011 +Respectfully Submitted, +JAFFE, WEISSING, +_. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 3330 +Telephone (954) 524-2820 +'acsimile (954) 524-282 +Florida Bar No.: 54207: +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2011 Page 5 of 5 +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +The foregoing document was served on June 17, 2011, on the following using the Court's +CM/ECF system: +Dexter Lee +A. +Villafaña +Assistant U.S. Attorneys +500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Fax: (561) 820-8777 +E-mail: Dexter.Lee@usdoj.gov +E-mail: +Attorneys for the Government +L. Ackerman, Jr. +Burnett PA +777 S. Flagler Drive, West Tower, Suite 901 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeffrey Epsteir +(courtesy copy of pleading via U.S. mail) +5 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/adab30c130bf05bcd8916bafec9bb96f1c2e286555f03928d20033d0e78404c7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/adab30c130bf05bcd8916bafec9bb96f1c2e286555f03928d20033d0e78404c7.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2c130a4f782e3db6654b0998e8e4ef38ce108b04 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/adab30c130bf05bcd8916bafec9bb96f1c2e286555f03928d20033d0e78404c7.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "adab30c130bf05bcd8916bafec9bb96f1c2e286555f03928d20033d0e78404c7", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "aaedd0a49afec1e54145829a24e70ba81498b5e954c14bbb592fbf8810725124", + "output_sha256": "a75212c8af843ff812e441caaa062ee30a5c59ee16e4c51dedf068b061d5dd28", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/adb5eb6798c7ed43c27cac73869c016eca70c67e1e052bf431514768207ba7c5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/adb5eb6798c7ed43c27cac73869c016eca70c67e1e052bf431514768207ba7c5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..58476692f3161660ce10ecf58a3ea1ef94b155ce --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/adb5eb6798c7ed43c27cac73869c016eca70c67e1e052bf431514768207ba7c5.md @@ -0,0 +1,213 @@ +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 328-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 1 of 6 +Yes. +And he exposed himself to you. +Mmhm. +So all of those things you might define them as sexual abuse because they don't involve +intercourse. +Yeah, I guess sexual abuse to me was like being raped. As in intercourse. You know? +Does that make sense?. +41:20 +Mmhin. +All. Because I.just se, you know, I dont know. Like, yeah, Whath did ya insided, +now that I understand sexual abuse, but, I guess, that question I meant being raped, like +intercourse. With intercourse. +So these were sexual things that he did. You would agree with that? +, Jeffrey Epstein? yes. I just didn't, intercourse I did not have with him. No +intercourse. +I understand that, yes. +41:55 +Yeah. +Now, I just wanted to clarify that. Not only for myself, but for anybody who is studying +these records. +Okay. +I just want to be sure that we're diligent. +Yeah, no no no. It's just I didn't, you know, understand. +It's alright. You're not expected to understand all this. Now you mentioned that you had +been sexually active since age thirteen. +Yes. +42:32 +And could you tell me when you first had intercourse. +It was actually with my husband when I was thirteen years of age. Um, basically we +DEFENDANT'S + +•* '18 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 328-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 2 of 6 +were dating on and off. I guess I started too young, but um, I guess I was looking—my +father never showed me love. Ever. You know, like I was always left at my daycare. This +will lead up to my point. But I was always left at my daycare when he was supposed to +pick me up. Or 'cause he was supposed to take me, so he wouldn't. So, through sex, I +found that "love" that I was missing. Through sex. Like an emotional, by a man. Do you +understand what I'm saying? +43:16 +Dr. Kliman: I do. +• Um, so I guess I did it to get like, the feeling, like when I first lost my virginity. But it +wasn't exactly like I wanted to do it. It was sort of like, pressured on me. You know by +people that were there. I was at my dad's house. And you know, people were like, I +it's not a big deal. Blah, blah, blah. Just do it." +Dr. Kliman: Who were those peoplé? +Мордови +school. +My old friends and his old friends. Back in, you know, the summer of going into high +Dr. Kliman: That's of your husband's old friends. +43:53 +Yeah. But we weren't hus—we were just like- +Your current husband then as a boy had old friends. +Yeah. +And they were saying then, L +, it's not a big deal." +Yes. You know, we were both immature and stupid. And it happened. And I didn't really +enjoy it, to be honest. It hurt. After that we actually didn't talk for a while. My husband +and i. But at that point, we were just friends. +How long did you not talk? +44:23 +Um, we didn't talk 'til probably junior year in high school. Like, we always went to the +same school, but we didn't talk again I mean, we talked here and then through +sophomore year, but it was like, "Hi. Bye." But we actually started talking, and like +having an actual friendship again junior year. +So you didn't date. +all No. We were on and off. Like we never had the title of a relationship and we were just +like, either together or we weren't together, together or we weren't together. And that's +'19 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 328-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 3 of 6 +from doctors that you need to let her scream to let her know that you're not going to +come to her every cry. And that kills me inside because I don't want her to feel like she's +being neglected or left alone. Um, so, like from what I was saying, last night you know, +after my mother-in-law went to sleep, at twelve in the morning I went and got my +daughter. And you know, I started feeding her. And she was like hungry. She was eating. +'Cause my daughter, she's not hungry. She'll, no. But she was like eating. And then that +made me feel guilty because okay so she's been up here crying for like two hours +because she's been hungry. But you know, my mother-in-laws you know, she's like, "The +best thing is to leave her up there crying." But I mean it kills me. +04:33 +BALAN +So you're having trouble with structuring her life? +Mmhm. I just want—I mean, what I'm doing might not be the best thing to do, but I just +don't want her to feel neglected, like she's doing something. +Would you feel that it's correct to say that you're over-anxious? +Over-anxious? +Yes. +Yeah. Mimhm. +You mentioned that in the past, your drug use had included marijuana. +Yes. +When was the last time? +05:13 +That was a long time ago. Probably like my junior year in high school. +When was the last time you took pain pills without a prescription? +Um, probably my senior year in high school. +When did it start with the pain pills? +Ral I started all my drinking - like don"t get me wrong, had, of course I had it is wine, but +when I started getting drunk was around you know, sophomore, junior year is when I +started getting drunk on weekends. Um, that's when I started. Drugs? I've never got like +into them, I've tried them. I did take, I liked Xanax. The one that makes you just +carefree. I didn't abuse—I mean, don't get me wrong, I abused it because I wasn't +prescribed to it, but I didn't like pop them over and over. Like, I would take one at night +to like calm down, or something like that. +06:23 +3 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 328-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 4 of 6 +When was the last time you did that? +Um, the, it wasn't a Xanax. It was um, a pain pill to help you sleep at night. And that was +actually after high school. I just remembered that. +A Percocet? +Yes. It was a Percocet. I was a Percocet. I took half of it, and I just stayed home and I +passed out. And it was like the best sleep. Just made me go to sleep really easily, be +relaxed. +06:55 +Now, again. Just following up things you wrote about. You said your illegal use is never, +and am I correct that that's nowadays? Never nowadays? +No. I don't do any drugs. +Nowadays. Okay. Your current self-image is a little overweight. You regard yourself as a +little overweight? +Yeah. +Now. You mentioned to me that you don't eat except once a day. +Not everyday. But yeah, most likely I eat after I get home from school, which is eleven +thirty at night. Unless I feel nauseous, and then I have to eat something. +Are you binging? +Throwing up, purging? +07:45 +Well, that's bulimia. Do you overeat and then throw up? +No. I, I uh, used to. +When did you stop doing that? +Probably I stopped my junior year in high school. I only did if for a little bit. +How many weeks or months did you do it? +Probably like four to five months. It wasn't that long. +Okay. Have you ever been very overweight? +08:28 +When I was pregnant. When I was nine months pregnant, I weighed two hundred and +'4 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 328-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 5 of 6 +Um, I just, I mean basically I was mentally, physically abused, sexually abused now that +I know the definition, um, just...you know, I was very shy and timid so a lot of people... +walked all over me when I was young. +Dr. Kliman: Okay. So that would be peers. Peers walked all over you +Yeah. +mentally. +When I was younger. Yeah. 'Cause after middle school, when I got into high school, and +I told you like my sophomore year, I started like changing my whole personality. +13:40 +Dr. Kliman: So until you were about thirteen, fourteen, fifteen? +Yeah because when my husband first met me, he even knew how I was. He even said, +"You've changed so much. You used to be so nice and innocent and shy. Like, why have +you changed to being, acting like such a bitch when I know how your heart really is? +How do you put on such an attitude and a front towards people?" +14:10 +Okay. But for now we're trying to make a list of everything. Now, when your grandma +recently had this amputation. Do you regard that as a severe stress on you? +Yes. I was very stressed when she was going through the surgery. +Any other things like that? +14:44 +Um, my mom probably about three weeks ago, she said uh, she couldn't take it anymore. +She wants out. She wants to go on vacation and get away. And I'm so scared of my mom +ike cracking. Like losing it. Like going into a mental institution. 'Cause she, I've never +seen her so like uptight and stressed in my entire life. She's always had a little bit, bu +now it's like even my stepfather says it's the worst he's ever seen her. +15:17 +Okay, that's a fear that you have. +Mmhm. It's a fear. +Did she threaten to kill herself? +No. +Now, you said at one time you had suicidal thoughts. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 328-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 6 of 6 +Yes. +When was that? +I was living with my father, and uh, it must have been ninth or tenth grade. I'm not sure +exactly when. But I remember I was, while I was in high school. And my mom and my +dad were on the phone, you know, together. And I was downstairs and I saw, you know, +he, earlier he brought home papers for like a boarding school. And um, he was on the +phone with my mom. And I was just overhearing them talk about how they both didn't +want me. She's like, "Well, you have her now. It's your turn." He's like, "Well, I don't +- want her anymore. Blah blah blah." And then, they. basically. were just talking about me +as if they both, you know, didn't want me. And I basically took a knife out of the +kitchen. And I was going to, you know, but my dad's girlfriend, the one I actually don't +like, is the one that stopped me at that time. +16:28 +What did she do? +She just like grabbed the phone out of my hand, because I was listening, and I was +crying my eyes out with a knife in my hand. And she just talked to me. And you know, +know, they don't mean what they say and they're just really stressed out. So that was one +experience that I had. +So she didn't deny that parents can really talk very rejecting talk. +17:09 +• Dr. Kliman: +No, she didn't deny it. She just said that you get stressed. +She protected you. +Yeah. +Did you cut yourself with that knife? +No. +Did you do anything else to hurt yourself? +прува, +Did you plan anything else? +No. I mean, don't get me wrong. Like, I've had thoughts. Like, you know, I've had—this +isn't recently. This was awhile ago. I had thoughts like what's the point of me being +here? Why am I here? Like, there's no point. Like, nobody loves me and cares about me, +8 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/adb5eb6798c7ed43c27cac73869c016eca70c67e1e052bf431514768207ba7c5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/adb5eb6798c7ed43c27cac73869c016eca70c67e1e052bf431514768207ba7c5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bec915399faf80ed707760482c01d4873c8f26bd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/adb5eb6798c7ed43c27cac73869c016eca70c67e1e052bf431514768207ba7c5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -584, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "adb5eb6798c7ed43c27cac73869c016eca70c67e1e052bf431514768207ba7c5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "adac23f14747290949968abdb56ac2d17c020d09e4b04ea7bacb86b7134ed720", + "output_sha256": "6cde09eb8e1f4713e49879800ab7ef3e45a5012041fcbba70246e2ddc4073612", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ade78920da02ef88f15c31581c2397d55ba6d91f076a6c1241cc3499bf6f8ade.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ade78920da02ef88f15c31581c2397d55ba6d91f076a6c1241cc3499bf6f8ade.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8aacbdffeede02f5760aaac43de1dd0b4785f4ef --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ade78920da02ef88f15c31581c2397d55ba6d91f076a6c1241cc3499bf6f8ade.md @@ -0,0 +1,228 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/, +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/_ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 2 of 6 +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/, +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +/ +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/S +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/, +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEN +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 3 of 6 +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRA/_ +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA- +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA-| +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/.] +UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO SUBMIT +AGREED ORDER PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER(DE 192) +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned +attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time in which to submit an + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 4 of 6 +Agreed Order, if possible, pursuant to this Court's Order dated July 7, 2009 (DE 192) +granting Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe 102's Motion for an Order for +Preservation of Evidence. As good cause in support of granting the motion, Defendant +states: +1. On May 26, 2009, Plaintiffs Jane Doe 101 and Jane Doe 102, filed a Motion for +an Order for Preservation of Evidence with Incorporated Memorandum of Law (DE 114). +2. On June 10, 2009, Defendant Epstein, filed his Response in Opposition to +Plaintiffs' Motion (DE 151). +3. On June 22, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their Reply to Defendant's Response in +Opposition (DE 168). +4. On July 7, 2009, this Court entered an Order directing parties to attempt to submit +an agreed order granting Plaintiffs' Motion on or before July 20, 2009 (DE 192). +5. Both Plaintiff and Defense counsel need an additional five (5) days to attempt to +reach an agreement. +6. As certified below, counsel for Defendant conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs, +and Plaintiffs' counsel is in agreement with the requested extension. +WHEREFORE Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order +granting an extension until July 24, 2009, to file an agreed order. +Local Rule 7.1 Statement +Counsel for the movant conferred by telephone and correspondence with counsel +for the Plaintiffs and counsel for Plaintiffs' is in agreement with the requested extension +until July 24, 2009 for the parties to file an agreed order. +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +Attorney for Defendant + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 5 of 6 +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is +being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in +the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 20® day of July, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Brad +1. Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +101 East Las Olas Boulevar +Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Phone: 954-522-3456 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +bedwards@rra-law.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +08-80994 +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 6 of 6 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 10 Avenue North +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80811 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +801-585-5202 +801-585-6833 Fax +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Isidro M. +Esq. +Law Firm, P.A. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +Jack Scarola, Esq. +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Searcy Denney Scarola Bahat & Shipley. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80469 +P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-686-6300 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +jsx@searcylaw.com +iph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +305 358-2800 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +Cobe /oriehendaw.com. +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases +Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. +jagesg@bellsouth.net +Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Ricci-Leopold, P.A. +2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +561-684-6500 +Fax: 561-515-2610 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-08804 +skuvin@riccilaw.com +tleopold@riccilaw.com diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ade78920da02ef88f15c31581c2397d55ba6d91f076a6c1241cc3499bf6f8ade.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ade78920da02ef88f15c31581c2397d55ba6d91f076a6c1241cc3499bf6f8ade.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a1191f407c5dce77a61029b8e681651ccb132a39 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ade78920da02ef88f15c31581c2397d55ba6d91f076a6c1241cc3499bf6f8ade.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ade78920da02ef88f15c31581c2397d55ba6d91f076a6c1241cc3499bf6f8ade", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c5f7e1065540294f2da54e03240680cfd853b1db3be20f8bd28c8b0637240e15", + "output_sha256": "1da4380a721e8dd085a20a1a3a3ec1179921bac15f999380dde39302f5528dd8", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/adec8f19f8cd2bf9cbe17ac76776d8b04feb31c101093f788930715005700853.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/adec8f19f8cd2bf9cbe17ac76776d8b04feb31c101093f788930715005700853.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9523810dc070c037f04f9815b94bdca7413ab51f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/adec8f19f8cd2bf9cbe17ac76776d8b04feb31c101093f788930715005700853.md @@ -0,0 +1,114 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 239 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2013 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Petitioners, +VS. +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, +Respondent. +RESPONDENT'S THIRD MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME +TO FILE DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE +Respondent, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Third Motion for +Enlargement of Time to File Declaration in Support of Deliberative Process Privilege, and states: +1. On September 4, 2013, this Court granted the government's motion for enlargement of +time to file declaration in support of invocation of the deliberative process privilege. The Court +granted the government until Friday, September 13, 2013, to file the declaration. +2. The undersigned expected to be filing, on September 13, 2013, a declaration from a +Department of Justice Official to formally invoke the deliberative process privilege for +documents from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), and a declaration from the +United States Attorney, to formally invoke the deliberative process privilege for documents +generated by the U.S. Attorney's Office. When the undersigned did not receive a declaration +from the Department of Justice by September 13, 2013, the undersigned believed that the DOJ +had determined not to invoke the deliberative process privilege. +3. At the same time, the United States Attorney, Southern District of Florida, was +reviewing the documents for which the deliberative process privilege was asserted, to determine + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 239 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2013 Page 2 of 4 +if he would formally invoke the privilege, but the review was not complete. The government +requested an enlargement of time to September 20, 2013, to file the United States Attorney's +Declaration. D.E. 236. The Court granted the government's motion. D.E. 237. The +Declaration of United States Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer was filed on September 20, 2013. +4. On September 20, 2013, the Office of Professional Responsibility advised the +undersigned that the DOJ had not decided against invoking the deliberative process privilege. +The reason no declaration was provided on September 13, 2013, was because the Office of the +Deputy Attorney General (ODAG) believed the undersigned was working with another DOJ +component and had obtained the declaration. The undersigned spoke with OPR, who advised +that it needed an additional fourteen (14) days, to review the documents, and finalize the +declaration. +5. Accordingly, the government respectfully requests an enlargement of time of fourteen +days, up to and including October 4, 2013, to file its declaration from the DOJ in support of the +deliberative process privilege. +The government regrets seeking another extension, but the +additional time sought is to enable the appropriate official to review the documents and formally +invoke the deliberative process privilege. +CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE +On September 20, 2013, the undersigned contacted petitioners' counsel regarding the +instant motion. Petitioners' counsel graciously did not oppose this motion. At present, +petitioners' reply in support of their renewed motion for an order directing the U.S. Attorney's +Office not to withhold relevant evidence is due on September 30, 2013, ten days after the filing +of the government's declaration. D.E. 237. In the event the Court grant's the government's +motion, the government respectfully requests that petitioners' date for filing their reply be +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 239 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2013 Page 3 of 4 +enlarged to October 15, 2013. +DATED: September 20, 2013 +Respectfully submitted, +WILFREDO A. FERRER +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +By: +s/ Dexter A. Lee +DEXTER A. LEE +Assistant U.S. Attorney +Fla. Bar No. 0936693 +99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 300 +Miami, Florida 33132 +(305) 961-9320 +Fax: (305) 530-7139 +E-mail: dexter.lee@usdoj.gov +ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 20, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. +s/ Dexter A. Lee +DEXTER A. LEE +Assistant U.S. Attorney +SERVICE LIST +Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, +Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/ +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jaffe, Weissing, +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +(954) 524-2820 +Fax: (954) 524-2822 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. +Paul G. Cassell +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 239 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2013 Page 4 of 4 +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 +(801) 585-5202 +Fax: (801) 585-6833 +E-mail: casselp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 +Roy Black +Jackie Perczek +Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1300 +Miami, Florida 33131 +(305) 371-6421 +Fax: (305) 358-2006 +E-mail: rblack@royblack.com +jperczek@royblack.com +Attorneys for Intervenors +4 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/adec8f19f8cd2bf9cbe17ac76776d8b04feb31c101093f788930715005700853.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/adec8f19f8cd2bf9cbe17ac76776d8b04feb31c101093f788930715005700853.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b044320fb5d533b1aff99bf4d0482a874f8d5607 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/adec8f19f8cd2bf9cbe17ac76776d8b04feb31c101093f788930715005700853.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "adec8f19f8cd2bf9cbe17ac76776d8b04feb31c101093f788930715005700853", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f7155ab7baa87474323d15779312c4703ae070d0418480a40d638538b4ac1ad8", + "output_sha256": "496981955a0335105eba04c13361cbd1c4fcba4273708d19ade69ec2f9fc9af2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/adf009da568fb3eaeba82ae4c6c91d5a4d34b7fa50a51993b655c0bfdac96f0f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/adf009da568fb3eaeba82ae4c6c91d5a4d34b7fa50a51993b655c0bfdac96f0f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..007da208d9348511010647e56f54c311a85f33ac --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/adf009da568fb3eaeba82ae4c6c91d5a4d34b7fa50a51993b655c0bfdac96f0f.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 28 +Filed 11/14/19 Page 1 of 2 +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +troutman™ +New York, New York 10022 +sanders +troutman.com +Bennet J. Moskowitz +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +November 14, 2019 +ECF +Hon. Katherine Polk Failla +Thurgood Marshall +United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 +Re: +Jane Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the +Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 1:19-CV-08673-KPF +Dear Judge Failla: +We represent Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. +Epstein (together, "Defendants"), in the referenced action. We write to respectfully request a +two week extension of Defendants' time to answer, move or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's +Complaint, from November 15, 2019 to November 29, 2019. The Initial Pretrial Conference in +this matter is scheduled for December 13, 2019. The requested extension would not affect any +other scheduled dates in this action. We request this short extension because motion practice +at this time would be detrimental to the potential for a non-adversarial resolution of this action. +Earlier today, Defendants sought expedited approval from the Superior Court of the U.S. Virgin +Islands, where Decedent's will is in probate, to establish a voluntary claims resolution program +that will allow Plaintiff the opportunity to seek to resolve her sexual abuse claims against +Decedent through a voluntary, confidential, non-adversarial alternative to this litigation. Jordana +(former Deputy Special +_ of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund), +Kenneth R. Feinberg (the nation's leading expert in fashioning effective dispute resolution +alternatives) and Camille S. Biros (also an alternative dispute resolution expert) will design and +administer the program. Plaintiff and her counsel will be invited to provide input on the +program's design. +This is the first request for an extension of this deadline. The Court previously So Ordered the +parties' agreement whereby we accepted service of Plaintiff's Complaint, which Plaintiff filed on +September 18, 2019, and setting the November 15 response deadline (ECF #10). +Yesterday, Plaintiff's counsel submitted a letter to Your Honor preemptively objecting to this +request and referring to our having made similar requests to other SDNY judges (ECF #27). It +thus bears mentioning Judge Castel, Judge Daniels and Judge Ramos granted such requests. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 28 +November 14, 2019 +Page 2 +Filed 11/14/19 Page 2 of 2 +troutmanT +sanders +Thank you for your attention to this matter. +Respectfully submitted, +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +40617442v1 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/adf009da568fb3eaeba82ae4c6c91d5a4d34b7fa50a51993b655c0bfdac96f0f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/adf009da568fb3eaeba82ae4c6c91d5a4d34b7fa50a51993b655c0bfdac96f0f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3d8994090f7771f3385a2e62ee156e4940df265c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/adf009da568fb3eaeba82ae4c6c91d5a4d34b7fa50a51993b655c0bfdac96f0f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "adf009da568fb3eaeba82ae4c6c91d5a4d34b7fa50a51993b655c0bfdac96f0f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "cda7e60fd010996da641d60b739bac619dfa000e75c06e07e9f7169ed3b01dd5", + "output_sha256": "8f563485b87a8c825620cb8b014ef9626a26d54b81dc3947a6e7514d654351ee", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/adf386b5f78abdceb5036b95b23268fe7e97db12809bc3c384d470f4907f8367.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/adf386b5f78abdceb5036b95b23268fe7e97db12809bc3c384d470f4907f8367.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6856f0630c85441def0dbe2123a38fc435ae204d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/adf386b5f78abdceb5036b95b23268fe7e97db12809bc3c384d470f4907f8367.md @@ -0,0 +1,163 @@ +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 308-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 1 of 6 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2009 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +ORDER +THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Emergency Motion +For Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff (D.E. # 228). For the following +reasons said Motion is granted. +In this case, which has been consolidated for purposes of discovery, Plaintiffs are +former under-age girls who allege they were sexually assaulted by Defendant, Jeffrey +Epstein ("Epstein"), at his Palm Beach mansion home. The scheme is alleged to have +taken place over the course of several years in or around 2004-2005, when the girls in +question were approximately 16 years of age. As part of this scheme, Epstein, with the +help of his assistant +allegedly lured economically disadvantaged minor girls +to his homes in Palm beach, New York and St. +with the promise of money in +1 +A" + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 308-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 2 of 6 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 289 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2009 Page 2 of 6 +exchange for a massage. Epstein purportedly transformed the massage into a sexual +assault. The three-count Complaint alleges sexual assault and battery (Count 1), +intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count II), and, coercion and enticement to sexual +activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422 (Count III). +By the instant Motion Epstein seeks an order compelling +one of the Plaintiffs, in the case, to submit to an independent +psychological/psychiatric medical examination by Ryan +M.D., presently +scheduled for September 8, 2009. +has agreed to submit to said exam, but +requests the Court impose certain restrictions. Since the filing of the Motion the +parties have managed to resolve some of the issues involved, such as the proposed +examination's time and date and, +request to have a representative from +her team present at said examination. As for the latter issue, Defendant has agreed +to provide, at his expense, a video feed and monitor in an adjacent room for +Plaintiff's representative's use. The remaining issues involve Plaintiff's request for +a court order limiting the scope of the proposed examination by disallowing repeated +questioning regarding "highly sensitive areas of inquiry including Plaintiff's medical +history, psychiatric history, sexual history, social history, sexual abuse history, +substance abuse history, etc.,'and imposing certain time restraints on the +examination itself. +Plaintiff's request to limit the scope of the examination is denied. It is Dr. +' See Pltff's Resp. to Rep.(D.E. #279), p.3. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 308-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 3 of 6 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 289 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2009 Page 3 of 6 +routine procedure when conducting psychological/psychiatric medical +examinations of patients to require the patient to fill out a 10-page "Life History +Questionnaire" and a 14-page "Patient Questionnaire." Both questionnaires request +detailed background information regarding past medical history, psychiatric history, +social history, work history, and the like. Presumably Plaintiff will be asked these +same questions two more times, first by defense counsel at +deposition +scheduled to take place shortly, and again by Dr. L +at the upcoming examination. +Plaintiff's objection is that by having to answer these same questions about the +same subject matter three separate times "would only serve to embarrass, humiliate, +intimidate and further victimize Plaintiff." Pitff's Resp. (D.E. #254), p.6. Plaintiff's +position is that she should only "be required to regarding past medical history, +psychiatric history, social history, work history, and the like, if at all, only one time," +either during the "deposition of Plaintiff or through Dr. +examination, but +certainly not both." Id +Plaintiff cites no case law and independent research has uncovered none, to +support her novel position that a Plaintiff who puts her mental, emotional and +psychiatric state at issue can place a limitation on the number of times defense +counsel or agents retained by him can inquire into areas relevant to these issues +where the subject matter involved is "highly personal," "embarrassing," "sensitive," +or otherwise "humiliating." Plaintiff is seeking millions of dollars in personal injury +damages for, among other things, "physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional +3 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 308-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 4 of 6 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 289 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2009 + +distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss +of self-esteem, loss of dignity, [and] invasion of her privacy." = Based on the +allegations made in Defendant's Reply, Plaintiff's childhood was, to put it mildly, a +difficult one, with numerous episodes of child abuse and sexual abuse, which in turn +may of been the cause of Plaintiff's later engaging in numerous instances of +substance abuse, self-mutilation, prostitution, aggravated assault, truancy, and the +like. According to Defendant, in 2005 Plaintiff's mother filed a case committing +for a Petition for Involuntary Assessment for substance abuse, stating in +the accompanying file that +has been diagnosed as "Bipoloar and +Schizophrenic." * +Under these circumstances, where Plaintiff is seeking to recover medical +expenses associated with these complex medical issues, full knowledge of Plaintiff's +past and present medical, psychological, familial and social histories is essential. +And while +neither duplication nor embarrassment is desired, under the +circumstances presented, where the number and scope of damages claimed are +vast and Plaintiff's past history eventful, it may nonetheless be unavoidable. This is +not to say that restrictions on the scope of questioning may never be put into effect. +If, as the case progresses, Plaintiff can show that Defendant's invasive questioning +First Am. Compl., Counts I-XXX. +2 Plaintiff, +3 (D.E. #273), pp.7-8, +^ As quoted in Def's Rep. (D.E. #273), p.8, from Palm Beach County Case #05MH1667. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 308-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 5 of 6 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2009 + +is being done in bad faith or for purposes of harassment, the Court may reconsider +imposing limitations of the sort requested herein. At this point, however, the Court +agrees with Defendant that to restrict the number of times defense counsel may ask +Plaintiff personal and sensitive questions concerning some of the pivotal issues in +this case, would work an injustice by preventing Defendant from being able to defend +himself. +The Court likewise rejects Plaintiff's request to limit the time for conducting the +examination and any related testing to 6 hours. Dr. +has filed an affidavit stating +that he needs 6-8 hours to conduct the examination and related testing, and that +anything less than that might result in compromising the test results. Considering +the 31 counts alleged against Defendant, as well as Plaintiff's event-filled past, the +amount of time sought does not appear unreasonable. Should the length of time +prove draining, Plaintiff may take breaks as needed, of reasonable duration. +Furthermore, Defense Counsel and Dr. +are hereby put on notice that while the +Court has allowed the full 8 hours requested for the examination and related testing, +should less time be needed, the Court expects less time will be taken, and in no +event may the examination and related testing exceed a total of 8 hours. In +accordance with the above and foregoing, it is hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Epstein's Emergency Motion +For Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff (D.E. # 228) is GRANTED IN +" Affidavit of Dr. +, attached as Ex. "B" to Defendant's Rep. (D.E. #273). +5 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 308-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 6 of 6 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2009 Page 6 of 6 +ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS HEREOF. +DONE AND ORDERED this September 4, 2009, in +at West Palm Beach, +Florida. +LINNEA R. JOHNSON +UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE +CC: +The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra +All Counsel of Record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/adf386b5f78abdceb5036b95b23268fe7e97db12809bc3c384d470f4907f8367.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/adf386b5f78abdceb5036b95b23268fe7e97db12809bc3c384d470f4907f8367.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..835dc90734b39476e9ff40bd17aa1345036de462 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/adf386b5f78abdceb5036b95b23268fe7e97db12809bc3c384d470f4907f8367.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -214, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "adf386b5f78abdceb5036b95b23268fe7e97db12809bc3c384d470f4907f8367", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 10, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "278237bf2b4b9942e16565a94ffa6e086faf88763f4bfbdd154fc64fd059e80b", + "output_sha256": "6f0e312da85c28e752dae47b813b172a1c2e0b32d73e83e0bddd94a640b0ce5c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae05559323cefd471d718d5c982a218ec361678c39738be538530406017cba93.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae05559323cefd471d718d5c982a218ec361678c39738be538530406017cba93.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5e0ec72b54dc8ff530239def9e8a1fa2db970657 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae05559323cefd471d718d5c982a218ec361678c39738be538530406017cba93.md @@ -0,0 +1,230 @@ +Filing # 112002684 E-Filed 08/18/2020 03:46:04 PM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County. Florida. +Defendants. +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +COPY +DEFENDANT DAVE ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY FINAL JUDGMENT +AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT THEREOF +Defendant +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, +(hereinafter "Aronberg"), by and through counsel below and pursuant to Rule 1.510 Florida Rules of +Civil Procedure, moves for entry of summary final judgment in his favor as to the remaining claim for +Declaratory Relief in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint', and in support thereof states as follows: +STATEMENT OF THE UNDISPUTED FACTS +The following is a stafement of facts material to this motion for summary judgment as to which +there is no genuine issue: +1.A +Count I of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, (hereinafter "Complaint"), filed +January 17, 2020, seeks Declaratory Relief pursuant to Section 86.011, Florida Statutes. +Specifically, Plaintiff's Count I seeks a court order "declaring that pursuant to Fla. Stat. +Section 905.27(1)(c) and the Court's inherent authority, The Palm Beach Post may gain access to the +testimony, minutes, and other evidence presented in 2006 to the Palm Beach County grand jury" that +'On June 8, 2020, this Court entered its Order Granting Defendants Motion to Dismiss Count Il of the Plaintiff's First +Amended Complaint with Prejudice. +*** FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL SHARON R BOCK, CLERK. 08/18/2020 03:46:04 PM *** + + +was empaneled during the first Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Epstein"), sex abuse investigation, +(hereinafter "Requested Materials"). Complaint pg. 20 +Plaintiff seeks to use the Requested Materials "for the purpose of informing the public." +Id. +Plaintiff seeks the above-referenced declaratory relief, including copies of the +Requested Materials, from both Aronberg, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, and +Defendant, Sharon R. Bock, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida, (hereinafter the +"Clerk"). +5. +Neither Aronberg nor the Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, +("SAO"), is in control, custody, or possession of the Requested Materials. Aronberg Aff. 1 3, attached +as Exhibit "A". +6. +The declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff seeks materials that are impossible for +Aronberg or the SAO to produce. Exhibit "AX f4. +Neither Aronberg nor the SAO has the legal authority to obtain and/or deliver the +Requested Materials. Exhibit "A" 15. +8. +The undisputed facts set forth above in paragraphs 6-7 have been repeatedly made +evident by Aronberg to the Plaintiff and the public through not only the pleadings and correspondence +in this matter, but also through an office press release and Aronberg's publie social media accounts. + +Neither Aronberg nor the SAO has the authority to demand that the Clerk grant the +SAO access to grand jury materials after a criminal case has concluded. Exhibit "A" 97. +10. +During Aronberg's administration, neither he nor his office has accessed grand jury +materials from the Clerk's office in this or any other instance. Exhibit "A" 98. +2 + + +11. +As provided in section 905.17(1), Florida Statutes (2020), the Clerk has sole custody +and possession of the Requested Materials, which can only be released by the Clerk pursuant to an +order of the Court. Exhibit "A" 99. +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Legal Standard Governing Motions For Summary Judgment +"The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to +interrogatories, and admissions on file together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine +issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a +tter of law." Rule +1.510, Fla. R. Civ. P. It is appropriate to resolve a declaratory action on summary judgment when, as +here, the decree seeks a legal interpretation of a statute. Rahimi v. Global Discoveries, Ltd., LLC, 252 +So. 3d 804 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). +Il. +The Requested Materials Can Only Be Released By The Clerk Pursuant To A Court +Order +Notably, neither Aronberg nor the SAO is in control, custody, or possession of the Requested +Materials. Exhibit "A" 9| 3. Nonetheless, pursuant to Section 905.27(1)(c), Florida Statutes and the +Court's inherent authority, Plaintiff seeks a court order declaring that Aronberg provide copies of the +Requested Materials to The Palm Beach Post for the purpose of informing the public. Complaint pg. +20-21. Plaintiff is seeking declaratory relief alleging its entitlement to the Requested Materials +pursuant to the "furthering justice" exception to grand jury secrecy. § 905.27, Fla. Stat. (2020). +Despite bringing its declaratory relief claim pursuant to Section 905.27, Florida Statutes, "a +single part of a statute should not be read in isolation." Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Loftus, 276 +So. 3d 849, 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). 'Instead, "all parts of a statute must be read together in order to +achieve a consistent whole.'" Id. (quoting Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., +604 So. 2d 452, 455 (Fla. 1992). +3 + + +Section 905.17(1), Florida Statutes makes clear that grand jury records, like the Requested +Materials in this matter, are to be maintained with the Clerk, and can only be released by the Clerk +pursuant to a court order. To wit: +The stenographic records, notes, and transcriptions made by the court reporter or +stenographer shall be filed with the clerk who shall keep them in a sealed container not +subject to public inspection. The notes, records, and transcriptions are confidential +and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State +Constitution and shall be released by the clerk only on request by a grand jury for use +by the grand jury or on order of the court pursuant to s. 905.27. +Section 905.17(1), Florida Statutes (2020). (Emphasis added.) +Text, context, and purpose are the ordinary tools used for discerning statutory meaning, with +the overarching principle being "that judges lack the power to construe an unambiguous statute in a +way which would extend, modify, or limit its express terms or its reasonable and obvious implications. +To do so would be an abrogation of legislative power." Id. Here, the plain language of section 905.17 +is clear and unambiguous and, therefore, controls. See Horowitz v. Plantation Gen. Hosp. Ltd. P'ship, +959 So. 2d 176, 182 (Fla. 2007). +Accordingly, based on the clear, unambiguous statutory language set forth in section 905.17(1), +only the Clerk, not the State Attorney, may release grand jury materials pursuant to an order of the +court. Thus, it is apparent that Aronberg and the SAO lack the legal authority to obtain and deliver the +Requested Materials. Exhibit "A" 9| 5. Likewise, the declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff seeks +materials that are impossible for Aronberg or the SAO to produce. Exhibit "A" 1| 4. Again, the Clerk +has sole custody and possession of the Requested Materials. These facts have been repeatedly made +evident by Aronberg to the Plaintiff and the public through not only the pleadings and correspondence +in this matter, but also through an office press release and Aronberg's public social media accounts. + +Although the above-referenced statutory authority illuminates the fact that only the Clerk may +release grand jury records like the Requested Materials herein, it remains significant to note that neither +4 + + +Aronberg nor the SAO has the authority to demand that the Clerk grant the SAO access to grand jury +materials after a criminal case has concluded. Exhibit "A" 9 7. Hence, during Aronberg's +administration, neither he nor his office has accessed grand jury materials from the Clerk's office in +this or any other instance. Exhibit "A" 98. +III. +Conclusion +The ultimate facts underlying the lawsuit are not in dispute. The Court is fully empowered to +dispose of this matter based on application of the undisputed facts to the plain language of Section +905.17, Florida Statutes, which renders the Plaintiff's action for declaratory relief an impossibility for +Aronberg to perform and that must be denied as a matter of law. +WHEREFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, +Florida, respectfully requests that this motion be granted and that summary final judgment be entered +in his favor consistent with this motion, and hereby respectfully requests that this Court dismiss the +Complaint with prejudice and grant such other relief, including attorney's fees and costs, as this Court +deems fit and proper under the circumstances. +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 18th day of August, 2020, a copy of the foregoing has been +electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein. +NOT +_SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +/s/ Douglas A. Wyler +Arthur 1. L +Esq +Fla. Bar No.: 10249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-1 +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +(904) 261-3693 +(904) 261-7879 Fax +Primary: jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net +5 + + +General Counsel for the Florida Prosecuting +Attorney's Association +6 + + + + + + +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida. +Defendants. +AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID ARONBERG +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +COPY +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +Before me, the undersigned authority personally appeared DAVID ARONBERG, being first duly sworn, +states: +My name is David (Dave) Aronberg, and I am the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial +Circuit/Palm Beach County, Florida, since 2013, and a Defendant in the above-captioned matter. +Plaintiff is seeking declaratory relief, pursuant to Fla. Stat. 905.21(I)(c) and the Court's +inherent authority, allowing Plaintiff access to the testimony, minutes, and other evidence presented in 2006 +to the Palm Beach County grand jury, (the "Requested Materials"), and to use those materials for the +purpose of informing the public. +Despite Plaintiff's above-described action for declaratory relief, neither myself nor the +Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, ("SAO"), is in control, custody, or possession +of the Requested Materials. +As such, the declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff seeks materials that are impossible +for me or my office to produce. +5. +To be clear, neither myself nor the SAO has the legal authority to obtain and deliver the +Requested Materials. +6. +I have repeatedly made these facts evident to the Plaintiff and the public through not only +the pleadings and correspondence in this matter, but also through an office press release and my public +social media accounts. + + +7. +Despite the contentions of Plaintiff, neither myself nor the SAO has the authority to +demand that the Clerk grant the SAO access to grand jury materials after a criminal case has concluded. +8. +Moreover, during my administration, neither myself nor my office has accessed grand jury +materials from the Clerk's office in this or any other instance. +9. +As provided in section 905.17(1), Florida Statutes (2020), the Clerk has sole custody and +possession of the Requested Materials, which can only be released by the Clerk pursuant to an order of the +Court. +FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30 day of July; 2020, by DAVID ARONBERG, who is +personally known'to me or has shown +as personal identification. +NOT A CER +Notary's Stamp or Segly sue +LATOSHA LOWE-GOODE +Commission # GG 967813 +Expines May 28, 2024 +Banded Then Sudet Malary Bernier \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae05559323cefd471d718d5c982a218ec361678c39738be538530406017cba93.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae05559323cefd471d718d5c982a218ec361678c39738be538530406017cba93.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b34282867eca88ebe9377dbee2a0a6c6992461f5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae05559323cefd471d718d5c982a218ec361678c39738be538530406017cba93.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -203, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ae05559323cefd471d718d5c982a218ec361678c39738be538530406017cba93", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 14, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "296f6d5cf994f0049ab852d8e6e3980df712778788a93200bfd6977b6d818f5c", + "output_sha256": "a96477e74400a51818e815313582325cd2a0a76d52ffbfeffc7281b0e59f10bb", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae34df66883e3fe0c0fa9a8063c581e00b7c8953877dddedc7bcf0f4d4de600e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae34df66883e3fe0c0fa9a8063c581e00b7c8953877dddedc7bcf0f4d4de600e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..15784a279dc5cf7f6722408f7b1a6e94ca9debf1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae34df66883e3fe0c0fa9a8063c581e00b7c8953877dddedc7bcf0f4d4de600e.md @@ -0,0 +1,304 @@ +JS ACC/SNY +REV. 06/01/17 +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF civAPEUVER SheEFiled 09/18/19 Page 1 of 2 +The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or +other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the +United States in September 1974, is required for use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. +PLAINTIFFS +Jane Doe +DEFENDANTS +Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as executors for Estate of Jeffrey E +Epstein +ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER +Roberta A. Kaplan +Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP +350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110, New York, NY 10118 +ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN) +Erika A. Kellerhals and William Blum, Kellerhals +Palms Professional Building, 9053 Estate +St. +1. U.S. Virgin Islands 00802 +CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE +(DO NOT CITE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY) +28 USC 1332; New York causes of action +Kroblin PLLC, M +. Suite 101 +Judge Previously Assigned +Has this action, case, or proceeding, or one essentially the same been previously filed in SDNY at any time? No Yes • +If yes, was this case Vol. • Invol. • Dismissed. No [] Yes [If yes, give date +& Case No. +IS THIS AN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CASE? +No X +Yes O +NATURE OF SUIT +(PLACE AN (x] IN ONE BOX ONLY) +TORTS +ACTIONS UNDER STATUTES +CONTRACT +[1110 +[ ] 120 +[ 1 130 +[ ] 140 +[1150 +PERSONAL INJURY +INSURANCE +[ ] 310 AIRPLANE +MARINE +[ 1315 AIRPLANE PRODUCT +ACT +LIABILITY +NEGOTIABLE +[ 1320 ASSAULT. LIBEL & +INSTRUMENT +SLANDER +RECOVERY OF +[ ] 330 FEDERAL +OVERPAYMENT & +EMPLOYERS' +ENFORCEMENT +OF JUDGMENT +LIABILITY +115 +1 15 +[ ] 340 MARINE +MEDICARE ACT +i 1345 MARINE PRODUCT +RECOVERY OF +LIABILITY +DEFAULTED +I 1350 MOTOR VEHICLE +STUDENT LOANS +[ ] 355 MOTOR VEHICLE +(EXCL VETERANS) +PRODUCT LIABILITY +[1153 +RECOVERY OF +[X 360 OTHER PERSONAL +OVERPAYMENT +INJURY +OF VETERAN'S +[ ] 362 PERSONAL INJURY - +BENEFITS +MED MALPRACTICE +[ 1160 +[1190 +[] 195 +STOCKHOLDERS +SUITS +OTHER +CONTRACT +CONTRACT +PRODUCT +LIABILITY +[1 196 FRANCHISE +PERSONAL THERE +FORFEITURE/PENALTY +PHARMACEUTICAL PERSONAL [ 1 625 DRUG RELATED +INJURY/PRODUCT LIABILITY +SEIZURE OF PROPERTY +[ 1365 PERSONAL INJURY +21 USC 881 +PRODUCT LIABILITY +BANKRUPTCY +11422 APPEAL +28 USC 158 +[ ] 423 WITHDRAWAL +28 USC 157 +| 1 368 ASBESTOS PERSONAL | 1690 OTHER +INJURY PRODUCT +LIABILITY +PROPERTY RIGHTS +PERSONAL PROPERTY +| 1820 COPYRIGHTS +i j830 PATENT +370 OTHER FRAU +1571 TRUTH IN LENDIN +| ] 835 PATENT-ABBREVIATED NEW DRUG APPLICATION +I 1840 TRADEMARK +OTHER STATUTES +I 1375 FALSE CLAIMS +[ ] 376 QUI TAM +11400 STATE +REAPPORTIONMENT +[ 1410 ANTITRUST +[ 1430 BANKS & BANKING +[ ] 450 COMMERCE +1460 DEPORTATION +| 1470 RACKETEER INFLU- +ENCED & CORRUPT +ORGANIZATION ACT +(RICO) +|480 CONSUMER CREDI +1490 CABLE/SATELLITE T +REAL PROPERTY +[|210 +CONDEMNATION +11230 +FORECLOSURE +RENT LEASE & +EJECTMENT +11240 +TORTS TO LAND +TORT PRODUCT +LIABILITY +1 1290 +ALL OTHER +REAL PROPERTY +I ] 380 OTHER PERSONAL +PROPERTY DAMAGE +I 1385 PROPERTY DAMAGE +PRODUCT LIABILITY +LABOR +I 1710 FAIR LABOR +STANDARDS ACT +[ 1720 LABOR/MGMT +SOCIAL SECURITY +| 1861 HIA (1395(1) +| ] 862 BLACK LUNG (923) +|] 863 DIWC/DiwW (405(g)) +[ ] 864 SSID TITLE XVI +1 865 RSI (405(g)) +PRISONER PETITIONS +RELATIONS +1463 ALIEN DETAINEE +[ ] 740 RAILWAY LABOR ACT +/ 1510 MOTIONS TO +| ] 751 FAMILY MEDICAL +FEDERAL TAX SUITS +ACTIONS UNDER STATUTES +VACATE SENTENCE +LEAVE ACT (FMLA) +28 USC 2255 +I 1870 TAXES (U.S. Plaintift or +CIVIL RIGHTS +[ 1530 HABEAS CORPUS +I 1790 OTHER LABOR +Defendant) +] 535 DEATH PENALTY +LITIGATION +| ] 871 IRS-THIRD PARTY +1440 OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS | | 540 MANDAMUS & OTHER | ] 791 EMPL RET INC +26 USC 7609 +(Non-Prisoner) +SECURITY ACT (ERISA) +[ 1441 VOTING +IMMIGRATION +| 3443 EMPSOYMENT +PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS +11462 NATURALIZATION +11445 AMERICAN MATHS +1550 CIVIL RIGHT +APPLICATION +DISABILITIES - +1560 CIVIL DETAINE! +SO CIVIL DETAINETION 11465 OTHONGRATIO +EMPLOYMEN +ONDITIONS OF CONFINEMEN +1446 AMERICANS WITH +DISABILITIES -OTHER +[ 1448 EDUCATION +[ 1850 SECURITIES/ +COMMODITIES/ +EXCHANGE +1 1890 OTHER STATUTORY +ACTIONS +1 1891 AGRICULTURAL ACTS +1 1893 ENVIRONMENTAL +MATTERS +1 1 895 FREEDOM OF +INFORMATION ACT +1 896 ARBITRATION +1 899 ADMINISTRATIV +Check if demanded in complaint: +CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION +UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 +DEMAND $_ +OTHER +Check YES only if demanded in complaint +JURY DEMAND: EYES ENO +DO YOU CLAIM THIS CASE IS RELATED TO A CIVIL CASE NOW PENDING IN S.D.N.Y. +AS DEFINED BY LOCAL RULE FOR DIVISION OF BUSINESS 13? +IF SO, STATE: +JUDGE +DOCKET NUMBER +NOTE: You must also submit at the time of filing the Statement of Relatedness form (Form IH-32). + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 2 Filed 09/18/19 Page 2 of 2 +(PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY) +X 1 Original +• 2 Removed from +Proceeding +State Court +• a. all parties represented +ORIGIN +• 3 Remanded • 4 Reinstated or +from +Appellate +Reopened +Court +_ D. At least one party +is pro se. +(PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY) +BASIS OF JURISDICTION +• 1 U.S. PLAINTIFF [2 U.S. DEFENDANT • 3 FEDERAL QUESTION +* 4 DIVERSITY +(U.S. NOT A PARTY) +] 5 Transferred from • 6 Multidistrict +(Specify District) +Litigation +(Transferred) +•7 Appeal to District +Judge from +Magistrate Judge +L 8 Multidistrict Litigation (Direct File) +IF DIVERSITY, INDICATE +CITIZENSHIP BELOW. +CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY) +(Place an [X] in one box for Plaintiff and one box for Defendant) +CITIZEN OF THIS STATE +PTF +DEF +[*1 [11 +CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE [12 [x2 +CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF A +PTF DEF + +FOREIGN COUNTRY +INCORPORATED or PRINCIPAL PLACE | 14[ ]4 +OF BUSINESS IN THIS STATE +PTF DEF +CORPORATED and PRINCIPAL PLACE | 15 | ] +F BUSINESS IN ANOTHER STAT +FOREIGN NATION +116 116 +PLAINTIFF(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTY(IES) +Jane Doe +Nassau County, New York +c/o Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP +350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110, New York, NY 10118 +DEFENDANT(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTY(IES) +DEFENDANT(S) ADDRESS UNKNOWN +EPRESENTATION IS HEREBY MADE THAT, AT THIS TIME, I HAVE BEEN UNABLE, WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE, TO ASCERTAI +HE RESIDENCE ADDRESSES OF THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANTS +Defendants are sued as executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. Per 28 USC 1332, Defendants are +deemed citizens of the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), decedent Epstein's domicile. Defendants' residential +addresses are unknown to Plaintiff. Defendants' counsel listed above. +COURTHOUSE ASSIGNMENT +I hereby certify that this case should be assigned to the courthouse indicated below pursuant to Local Rule for Division of Business 18, 20 or 21. +Check one: THIS ACTION SHOULD BE ASSIGNED TO: +SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD +PLAINS +X MANHATTAN +ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN THIS DISTRICT +İX YES (DATE ADMITTED Mo.05 +Attorney Bar Code # +. Yr. 1993 +DATE +RECEIPT # +Magistrate Judge is to be designated by the Clerk of the Court. +Magistrate Judge +Ruby J. Krajick, Clerk of Court by +. Deputy Clerk, DATED +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (NEW YORK SOUTHERN) +is so Designated. diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae34df66883e3fe0c0fa9a8063c581e00b7c8953877dddedc7bcf0f4d4de600e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae34df66883e3fe0c0fa9a8063c581e00b7c8953877dddedc7bcf0f4d4de600e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3be7e74c65d357eb3b730a23d6fa690b9baa793d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae34df66883e3fe0c0fa9a8063c581e00b7c8953877dddedc7bcf0f4d4de600e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -30, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ae34df66883e3fe0c0fa9a8063c581e00b7c8953877dddedc7bcf0f4d4de600e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "3a56da3419f73ebbe8547339728123cf3cab855a85da2ff861543861e9dd2874", + "output_sha256": "0f853b3d17b0c07b77e14ba0ae5029fd391c6a40928185ce6c1e8ff74d4288d5", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae40b50e187675ec58f287df3dfa480d480850c5466e87c9e6e820da43970521.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae40b50e187675ec58f287df3dfa480d480850c5466e87c9e6e820da43970521.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6324f1c7088dc5d943896b5989b21bc573d7782d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae40b50e187675ec58f287df3dfa480d480850c5466e87c9e6e820da43970521.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 291-4 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 1 of 1 +IN THE CIRCOIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +Case No: 502004DR012235XXXXMB +Division: FB +MEMO OF DISPOSITION +Petitioner +VS +[V Present w Coumset: +[ ] Not Present +-VS- +PRESTON SCOTT VINYARD +Kespondent, +[ Present w/Counsel. +1] Not Present +[ ] Called/contacted clerk +I ] Called/contacted clerk +Date of hearing: _0-6-0 +Heard by Judge: +Kathleen. Kaoll +Service: +[V Executed by: +PBSO +_per return on 9-23-04 +[ ] Unexecuted by: +_. per_ +Court Extends Injunction For/Till +10-1-05 +Court Appoints: +[ ] Guardian Ad Litem +[ ] BIP +1] Other +Case Disposition +Case Reopened: +[ ] DA - Dismissed After hearing +< J DB- Dismissed Before hearıng +[DJ - Disposed by Judge +Petitioner's New Address +Respondent's New Address: +Sherrle Norton +Deputy Clerk +memodisp.frm + +"D" diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae40b50e187675ec58f287df3dfa480d480850c5466e87c9e6e820da43970521.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae40b50e187675ec58f287df3dfa480d480850c5466e87c9e6e820da43970521.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1d2e368f0fc84864530a2dad4b63549ed9ec230b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae40b50e187675ec58f287df3dfa480d480850c5466e87c9e6e820da43970521.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -23, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ae40b50e187675ec58f287df3dfa480d480850c5466e87c9e6e820da43970521", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "898d0a586dfca92a3ba8c6d039c2791b6cda720a764995046cb539748be981b3", + "output_sha256": "3adc16d1631261274f48ed3e92569d235bae0b562e593be85d714f431cd79a60", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae4e5936a004751c82be095a694ac004b5fe5c653ddabbee1847999256537369.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae4e5936a004751c82be095a694ac004b5fe5c653ddabbee1847999256537369.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..70ded865dc02bc46242f86ce1164611f9c9ac7de --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae4e5936a004751c82be095a694ac004b5fe5c653ddabbee1847999256537369.md @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 38 | +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +troutman.com +Filed 04/17/20 Page 1 of 1 +troutman" +sanders +Bennet J. Moskowitz +D: 212-704-6000 +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +April 17, 2020 +VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING +Hon. John G. Koeltl +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +New York, NY 10007-1312 +Re: +Jane Doe v. Darren . Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as co-executors +of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF +Dear Judge Koeltl: +We represent Darren. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. +Epstein, in the above-referenced action. We write pursuant to Your Honor's Individual Practices +$ 2G to request oral argument on the Co-Executors' Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 37). +Respectfully submitted, +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae4e5936a004751c82be095a694ac004b5fe5c653ddabbee1847999256537369.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae4e5936a004751c82be095a694ac004b5fe5c653ddabbee1847999256537369.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bd52fc55e8f3cde0196a1b64697af4f8e969d9c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae4e5936a004751c82be095a694ac004b5fe5c653ddabbee1847999256537369.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ae4e5936a004751c82be095a694ac004b5fe5c653ddabbee1847999256537369", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "68bd0c1d5084c3aa8e7d6ad1528b234a7d22938554b32bcd290fc3d7aecd917f", + "output_sha256": "99c0bc193108ba81cb10d0332bc985971504a113158300b39c1aec456abce16f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae4fa588245875e71a43614d4194c909cd6d353bf362e64deabc666aef7dcac3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae4fa588245875e71a43614d4194c909cd6d353bf362e64deabc666aef7dcac3.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a40020d1c8a514b43e8693999f0e1dba0e770888 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae4fa588245875e71a43614d4194c909cd6d353bf362e64deabc666aef7dcac3.md @@ -0,0 +1,4981 @@ +Case 9:08-cV-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 1 of 100 +* Reporting and Transcription, Inc. - +Page 75 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Because Mr. Epstein never came to your +dad's house, correct? +A. +Correct. +And no one who worked for Mr. Epstein ever +did something to your dad's tires, did they? +MR. LEOPOLD: +foundation, predicate. +Don't guess. +objection. +Lack of +101 of 316 +BY MR. TEIN: +l. It's not true that Mr. Epstein almost +killed your father, is it? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and +answered, lack of foundation, predicate. +BY MR. TEIN: +You can answer. +A. +No. +Now you told the police that you didn't +know who was in the car with you and +on the day +you went to Epstein's house, didn't you? +A. +Yes. +e. +And that was a lie, wasn't it? +A. +It's the truth. +e. +You told the police that there was someone +in the car next to you and you specifically said you +didn't know her name, right? +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 + + +Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 2 of 100 +ensor & Associates +Reporing and Transcription, Inc +Page 76 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. +Correct. I do not know her name. +e. You said, "I don't know her name, but she +was dark like a Spanish girl." Those were your words, +right? +A. +Yes. +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and +answered. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. +Who was in the car that day with you and +A. +Again, I do not know. +It was your good friend +wasr.'t it? +A. +No. I don't know a +e. You lied to the police about who was in the +car with you and +didn't you? +A. Incorrect. +e. Let me ask you some questions about who you +may have spoken to about this case. All right? +A. +Go ahead. +l. Did you speak to your twin sister +A. +Not in detail, but of course she knows; +she's family. And yes. +What's her e-mail? +A. +I don't think she has an e-mail. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +102 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 3 of 100 +1 Reposing anal Transcription, Inc. +Page 77 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +What is her phone number? +gosh. +I don't know off the top of my +A. +head. +Q. +And what is her home address? +A. +She lives with my mom. +In Georgia? +A. +Yes, sir. +e. +What about +boyfriend +Did you +speak to him about Epstein's case? +A. That's my mom's boyfriend. My sister +doesn't have a boyfriend. My mom's husband's name is +so maybe you get them confused. +l. Do you know his phone number? +A. No. +e. Where does he live? +A. With my mom. +e. In the same house with her? +A. +Yes. They're married. +e. +So not boyfriend; husband? +A. Yeah, husband. +Have you spoken to +about +what happened in Mr. Epstein's house? +A. +Not in detail, but he knows the basics, +yes. +What is his e-mail? +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +103 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 4 of 100 +1 Reponsing and Transcription, Inc +Page 78 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. +I don't know. +What is his phone number? +A. +How is that relevant? +What is his phone number? +A. +561.719.2652. +What is his home address? +A. +I don't know. +A. +e. +A. +Where does he live? +In Palm Beach Lakes somewhere. +Ever been to his house? +Yes. +You don't know what his address is? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and +answered. She just said she doesn't know. +MR. TEIN: Don't coach. +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and +answered. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. +A. +e. +A. +You can answer the question. +I don't know the exact address. +What street is it on? +It's an apartment complex; its not a +street. +A. +What's the name of the apartment complex? +Something Cove. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +104 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM. Ecument 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 5 of 100 +I Reparing and Transcripzine, Inc. +Page 79 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +What apartment number is it? +A. I couldn't tell you. +Q. When was the last time you went there? +A. +Just visited this past weekend. +That's the +first and last time I went there. +How about +Have you spoken +to him about your case? +A. +No. We no longer speak. +8. +What's his phone number? Actually, we +already have his phone number and e-mail. +How about +Have you ever +spoken to her about your case? +A. +I don't know an +Have you ever met +A. No. But just to let you know, I don't +really know names. If you have pictures of there faces I +could tell you. +All right. Let me see if I can refresh +your memory. +A. +okay. +e. +Does it refresh your memory that +is the other girl who made allegations about Epstein, but +refused to show to the Grand Jury when she had to testify +about them under oath? +A. +No, sir. I have no knowledge of any other +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +105 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM. Pocument 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 6 of 100 +• Reporting and Transcription, Inc. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 80 +girls in this whole situation. +We're not allowed to know +each other. +I didn't get the last four words. +A. +We're not allowed to know each other. +And what about +Have you +of met her? +A. +No, sir. +2. Let's see if I can refresh your memory on +her. She's the other person represented by your lawyer +Mr. Herman, who is suing Epstein for fifty million +dollars. +A. +I have no knowledge of her. +Never met her? +Never met her. +A. +A. +I don't know who that is either. +A person named +who knows +Is that +A. +I don't know, sir. +Do you remember making a statement to +Detective Pagan that's in the police reports? +A. +No, sir. +Have you read the police reports in this +case? +A. +Yes. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +106 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM . +Apcument 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 +Pant Eeporting and Transcripcian, Ins. +Page 81 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +0. +They're on the Internet, right? +A. +Yes, I think. +Were you surprised when the police reports +were released on the Internet containing your statements +that you had made to the police? +A. +Yes. +You didn't want to see that happen, right? +A. +No. +So you're saying you don't know a +MR. LEOPOLD: objection. Asked and +answered. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. Does it refresh your memory that he was +somebody who had gone to jail for drugs and car theft? +A. +No, sir. +2. Someone who knows d +A. NO. +You don't know if he met with Detective +Recarey? +A. +No, sir. +e. +How about +A. Yes, I remember. +l. Did you ever speak to +happened at Mr. Epstein's house? +I know who that is. +about what +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +107 of 316 + + +Pecyment 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 8 of 100 +• Reporting anal Transcription, Inc. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. +He knows what happened four years ago. +Page 82 +He +doesn't know this is still going on today. +0. +What's his address? I'm sorry. I have his +address. +A. +I don't know. +e. +How about +A. +You know who that is? +A. I know who that is, yes. +e. He's the one you stayed out drinking all +night one night last year when your dad reported you +missing? +A. +No, sir. +e. Remember the baseball game you were +supposed to go to? +A. +No, sir. +Did you speak to +about this +case? +A. +No, six. +How about +A. +e. +A. +information. +That's my sister's ex-boyfriend. +He's the one with the sawed-off shotgun +with the obliterated serial number? +Ask him. I would not know that +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +108 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM . +Degument 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 9 of 100 +õnsor & Associates +Page 83 +about this +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +case? +Did you speak to +A. +No, sir. +Q. Have you spoken to +case? +about this +is • +A. +No. I don't know who +R. +Did your parents speak to +A. +Ask my parents. +Let's see if I can refresh your memory as +to who he is. Okay? +A. Uh-huh. +2. He's the Vanity Fair reporter who made a +financial arrangement with your father. +A. I am aware of that. And again, I was not +aware like that my dad did it until after it was done. +And I don't know the details about that. I just know +what you know about that, like that they talked. +e. +Tell me what you know about the financial +arrangement that +the Vanity Fair reporter, +made with your father. +A. +I don't know about the details at all. +e. +How much money did +give to +your father? +A. +I don't even know he gave money to my dad. +I'm sorry? +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +109 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 10 of 100 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page +: 84 +A. +I didn't even know he gave money to my dad. +What do you know about the deal that +A. +has with your father? +I only know they spoke on the telephone +once. I don't know anything else. +When was +• that? +A. This was a while ago, a year or two -- or a +year ago. I honestly don't know. +l. Did +the Vanity Fair +reporter, offer any money to your father? +A. I don't know. +e. Did +the Vanity Fair +reporter, give you any money? +A. No, siI. +e. Did he offer you any money? +A. +No, sir. Never spoke to him. +2. What reporters have you spoken to? +A. +Zero. +e. +What about your family members? What +reporters have they spoken to? +A. The whole Palm Beach County, obviously, as +you can see in that newspaper. +l. Tell me -- let's go through each one that +you remember. Other than the Vanity Fair reporter, +what other reporters have any member of your +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +110 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Dagument 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 11 of 100 +Cansor & Associates +MI Reporting and Transcription, Ine. +Page 85 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +family spoken to? +A. +I don't know. +And I know my mom has spoken +to zero. My sister spoke to zero. My father and +stepmother, I wouldn't know. You'd have to ask them. +don't contact them. +0. +Well, I just want to know -- I don't want +you to -- I want to know what's in your mind. All right? +MR. LEOPOLD: She just told you. She just +answered -- +MR. TEIN: Be quiet. +BY MR. TEIN: +What I want to know is what you know from +your personal knowledge. My question to you is: What +knowledge do you have about family members of yours +speaking to reporters? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and +answered. +And if you can't talk professionally, we're +going to leave. +MR. TEIN: Do what you want to do. +MR. LEOPOLD: Are you going to continue to +talk this way? +MR. TEIN: I'm not going to answer any +question that you ask me, Mr. Leopold. +MR. LEOPOLD: Okay. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +111 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 12 of 100 +šnsor & Associates +Reponing and Transcription, Inc +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page +: 86 +MR. TEIN: But you are misrepresenting the +record and you are grandstanding for your client +and it's wrong. So be quiet. And you know how to +make an objection. +Make it. Otherwise stop +talking. +BY MR. TEIN: +MR. LEOPOLD: Excuse me. +MR TEIN: If you want to leave the +deposition, leave. But you'll be back here. +MR. LEOPOLD: Excuse me. If I could just +make the record, instead of interrupting me, +please. That's what we do professionally. +There's a recorder here. I'm certainly not being +obstructionist. I'm going to make the record. +But we're going to act with some +semblance of +professionalism, hopefully, by all parties in the +room. That goes to me, that goes to your +co-counsel sitting behind you and next to you, the +court reporter and everyone else in the room. +Everyone is entitled to that. +You've asked a question. She answered the +question fully and she's not going to be harassed +because you don't like the answer. If you want to +follow up -- +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +112 of 318 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 13 of 100 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +|18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 87 +MR. TEIN: Stop engaging me. +Make your +speech and then we'll ask the questions. +MR. LEOPOLD: Well, you won't let me finish +making the objection, so it's difficult to do +that. +But if you want to follow with an +appropriate question, feel free to do that. +But +we're not going to harass the witness. +MR. TEIN: I disagree with everything +you've said. Let's ask the questions. Okay? +MR. LEOPOLD: Ask an appropriate question. +MR. TEIN: Are you going to stop talking? +MR. LEOPOLD: I'm going to make -- protect +my client and make appropriate objections. +But +there's not a question pending right now. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. +has +spoken to any reporters? +A. +No. +answered. +BY MR. TEIN: +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and +Has +been given money by any +reporters? +A. +No. +Has your mom spoken to any reporters? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +113 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Dggument 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 14 of 100 +• Reporting and Transcription, Inc +Page 88 +.... +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +answered. +THE WITNESS: +No. +BY MR. TEIN: +0. +Has your mom's husband +spoken to any +reporters? +A. +No. +e. +Has your mom's husband +money from reporters? +A. +No. +received any +Are you sure you don't know +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and +answered. +THE WITNESS: I'm positive. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. +I'll try again to refresh your memory. +A. okay. +e. Does it refresh your memory that she had +been arrested for drugs and was cooperating with +Detective Recarey against Epstein to get herself a better +deal? +A. +No. I don't know who she is. +Have you spoken to anyone else who's been +at Epstein's house? +A. +No. +Without telling me what was said -- I don't +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +114 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80804-KAM Doçument 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 15 of 100 +Page 89 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +wart to know about any conversations with any lawyers, +okay -- +A. +Uh-huh. +R. +-- did you or your parents speak to any +other law firms besides Mr. Herman and Mr. Leopold's law +firns? +A. +No. +Now without telling me about anything that +was said, what -- did one just come to mind? +A. No. I was thinking about something else. +e. +What were you thinking about? +A. +Does family court matter? +Okay. Without telling me what was said, +who prepared you for today's deposition? +A. +What do you mean prepared? +l. Did you talk about this deposition, about +what would happen, with anybody? +A. +Yes. +e. +Don't tell me what was said. +A. +Okay. +e. +I'm not asking that. I don't want to know +that. +A. +e. +A. +Okay. +Who prepared you for today's deposition? +Mr. Leopold. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +115 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 16 of 100 +Page 90 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Anybody else? +A. +No. +When did you meet with Mr. Leopold to +prepare for today's deposition? +A. +This morning. +And how long did that meeting last? +A. +Until it started. +. e. +Now you told me that you previously had +read the police reports in this case? +A. +Yes. +e. +Have you read your statement that you gave +to the police? +A. +Yes, sir. +e. +And in what form was that statement? +A. +What do you mean? +l. Was it in the form of a police report or a +transcript? +A. +What's the difference? +A transcript has questions and answers on +it. A police report is just typed out narrative. +A. +• it's a police report. +And when did you read the police report? +A. +A few days ago. I overread it a few days +ago. +e. +Had you read it before that? +1655 Palrn Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +116 of 316 + + +... +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM _D enent 1-1 Entered on FLSD Pocket 07/21/2008 Page 17 of 10 +onsor « Associates +Roporting and Transcription, Inc. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 91 +A. +No. +e. Now you told me -- again, I don't want to +know what was said. +A. +Uh-huh. +You told me that you met with Mr. Leopold +this morning to prepare for your deposition, right? +A. +Yes. +R. +When did you set up that meeting with +Mr. Leopold to take place this morning? +A. +Gee, like, like five days ago, four days +ago. +So you're aware that Mr. Leopold told us +that he could not start the deposition this morning +because he had a court appearance, correct? +MR. LEOPOLD: Don't answer that question. +Calls for attorney/client communications. +BY MR. TEIN: +Have you seen the letter that Mr. Leopold +wrote to us stating that he -- an e-mail that Mr. Leopold +wrote to Mr. Goldberger stating that he could not be here +this morning because he had a court appearance? Did you +see chat e-mail? +MR. LEOPOLD: You can answer that question. +THE WITNESS: No. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +117 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80804-KAM Dogument 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 18 of 100 +Reporting ond Transcripsion, Inc. +Page 92 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. TEIN: +Q. Have you listened to your tape-recorded +statement to the police? +A. +Yes. +Where did you listen to that? +A. In, I think, this building. I don't know. +It was here. +e. +When did you listen to that statement? +A. +This morning. +And who was present when you listened to +that statement? +A. +Mr. Leopold -- and I forget your name. +MR. GOLDBERGER: Ms. Belohlavek. +THE WITNESS: Ms. Belohlavek. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. +And you hadn't listened to your statement +before that, correct? +A. +No, sir. +Have you met with lawyers representing +anyone else suing Epstein? +A. +No, sir. +Q. How many times have you spoken to officers +with the Palm Beach Police Department? +A. +More than I like can count. It's been +ongoing for four years, so quite a few times. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +118 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Doçument 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 19 of 100 +Reporting and Transcription, Joc +Page 93 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +When was the last time you spoke with +officers of the Palm Beach Police Department? +A. +A while ago. I'd say a year ago. +R. +A year +ago? +A. +Yeah. Maybe a year and a half. +Do you remember Detective Recarey? +A. +e. +No. +Do you remember +Pagan, Detective +Pagan? +A. +e. +Yes. +How many times have you spoken to Detective +Pagan? +A. +She was the only one I spoke to about this +until for some reason she wasn't on the case anymore. +When was that? +R. +A. The first meeting I ever had was with her +and then I think like I met with her like 10 times or 12 +times or something like that, and then I didn't get — +another investigator questioned me after that. +And who was that? +A. I don't remember. +R. +And what type of questions did they ask +you? +A. +The same. +The same questions all over again? +1655 Paim Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +119 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Dogyment 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 20 of 100 +Page 95 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. +I'd have to say like a year and a half ago, +a year ago. It was a long +time ago. +(Discussion held off the record.) +MR. TEIN: Tell me the last answer, please. +(Thereupon, a portion of the record was +read +by the reporter.) +BY MR. TEIN: +And who was present when the FBI spoke to +you at your father's house? +A. My stepmother was there, but she wasn't +around. She made herself like do other things. +e. +And how many FBI agents were there? +A. I think four. +And you don't remember any of their names? +A. +No, sir. +Q. And were there any lawyers there? +A. +Not that I know of. +e. +And none of them gave you their cell phone +numbers? +A. +No. +Q. And the last time you spoke to the FBI was +a year and a half ago? +A. +It was a while ago. +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and +answered. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +120 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM JEl fument 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 21 ot 10 +777 Reporting and Transcripsinn, Inc. +Page 96 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. TEIN: +Q. And the last time you spoke to the federal +prosecutor's office was when? +A. I don't know. +Did any of the FBI agents tell you that +Villafona had spoken with Mr. Leopold? +A. No. +0. Did any of the FBI agents tell you that +Villafona had spoken with Mr. Herman? +A. No. +l. Did any FBI agents tell you that Jeff +Sloman spoke with Mr. Herman. +A. +No. +l. Did any FBI agents tell you that Jeff +Sloman spoke with Mr. Leopold? +A. +No. +e. Do you know whether any of the federal +prosecutors allowed Mr. Herman to review a draft +indictment? +A. +I wouldn't know. +Do you know if any of the federal +prosecutors discussed a draft indictment with Mr. Herman? +A. +I wouldn't know. +e. +Have you ever e-mailed with any FBI agent +or any federal prosecutor? +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +121 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM -Dulment 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 22 of 10 +ansor « Associate. +• Reporzing and Trenscripsinn, Inc. +Page 97 +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. +No. +8. Have you ever text messaged with any FBI +agent or any federal prosecutor? +A. +No. +l. Has the FBI told you about other testimony? +A. No. +l. +Has the FBI told you about what other girls +have said? +A. NO. +e. Have federal prosecutors told you what +other girls have said? +A. +No. +e. Do you have any way of getting in touch +with the FBI if you wanted to get in touch with them? +A. No. +l. How about your parents? Do they know how +to get in touch with the FBI? +A. +I don't know. +e. +And by your parents, I'm referring to both +sets, okay? +A. +M. Well, I'm referring to only my dad, +because my mom really doesn't care to know any of this +stuff. +e. +So the answer would be the same for your +mom and +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +122 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Dement 1-1 Entered on FLSD Pocket 07/21/2008 Page 23 ot 100 +Ensor & Associates +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 98 +A. +Yeah. +e. +Ocariz about this case? +Have you spoken to a lawyer named Burt +A. +No. +l. Do you know who Burt Ocariz is? +Let's see if I can refresh your memory. +Does it refresh your memory that he's a good friend of +Villafona's boyfriend? +A. +I don't know who ! +Villafona is. +• Villafona is the lead federal +prosecutor that's on the federal part of this case. +Okay? +A. +No. +So does it refresh your memory that ocariz +is the good friend of l +Villafona's boyfriend? +A. +Not at all. +Does it refresh your memory that Villafona +tried to get Epstein to pay for Ocariz to represent you +in the federal case? +A. NO. +0. Do you know if Detective Recarey has spoken +with your father? +A. No. +2. Do you know if Detective Recarey has spoken +to your stepmother? +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +123 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Dogument 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 24 of 100 +Roporting and Transcripsion, Inc. +Page 100 +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +First off, this is not a warehouse. This +is in +garage. +Second of all, I'm not being gang-raped. +Everyone has their clothing on. +Thirdly, if you'd look at all the other +pictures in that album, I'm drinking -- what's +when you're sick you drink it? +BY MR. TEIN: +You can't ask questions of your counsel. +A. +All right. I'm drinking like Sprite. I'm +not drinking any kind of alcohol, if you would 1ook at my +other pictures in that album. +You guys picked the possibly worst pictures +out of there to present. And it was just a goofy +picture. All of these kids like to be goofy. And that's +what we were doing. +e. +Who's the man on the left of the picture +holding his -- holding a beer bottle as if it were a +penis towards your mouth? +A. +e. +A. +Who's the man behind you, right up towards +your backside, with you bent over? +That one? +The right side, kissing with his mouth. +That's +A. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +124 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80804-KAM Dagyment 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 25 of 100 +/ Reporting and Transcripsion. Inc +Page 101 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +He's the one grabbing towards the groin +area +of +A. +Yes. +Q. And there's three other men in the photo. +What +are their names? +The one on the left with the hat? +A. +That's +(phonetic). +0. +Smiling? +A. +e. +Yes. +Who's the one kissing -- +MR. LEOPOLD: Don't interrupt. Let her +finish the record. She's testifying. +MR. TEIN: I know you don't like this +picture, my friend. +MR. LEOPOLD: The picture is fine. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. Who's the one with the hat? +MR. LEOPOLD: No. Hold on. Stop, +You have to let the witness finish her +answer. She was in the process of explaining and +you cut her off. +Please finish what you were saying and then +Counsel can ask you whatever he wishes after that. +THE WITNESS: Okay. This guy -- +MR. LEOPOLD: Just make it so the record is +clear who you're referring to. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +125 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 26 of 100 +1 Reporing and Transcription, Inc. +Page 102 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +THE WITNESS: +-- on the far left is +BY MR. TEIN: +R. +He's the one whose head is near the groin +of +right? +A. +Yes. +And in the middle there's a man smiling. +Who's that? +A. +e. +A. +e. +That's +And who's the one in the red hat, kissing? +That's +(phonetic). +Let me stop you for a second. Are you +done? +A. +Yes, I'm done. +Who is +A. +My sister's friend. Well, she's a mutual +friend, but more my sister's. +What is her last name? +A. +e. +A. +e. +Spell that. +I don't know how to -- +Have you spoken to her about this case? +A. +No. +Who's +A. +My sister's friend. I don't really speak +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +126 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 27 of 100 +Reporting and Trenscription, Inc. +Page 103 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +to him at all. +Q. +A. +A. +Q. +case? +A. +A. +What's his last name? +And have you spoken to +about this +No, sir. +Have you spoken to +about this case? +Not in detail, but yes. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Are we referring to +THE WITNESS: Yes. +MR. TEIN: Yes. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Okay. +BY MR. TEIN: +A. +Have you spoken to +about this case? +Do you have a friend named +l. From freshman year? +A. +e. +A. +No. +How about +No. +Have you spoken to +about this case? +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +127 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Dagument 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 28 of 100 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 104 +A. +R. +A. +No. +What's her last name? +I don't know how to spell it. +Is she the person whose house you went to +on New Year's this year? +A. +No. I wasn't at her house on New Year's. +Where were you when you took the picture of +"Can you say blazed, " that's on your website? +A. +I wouldn't know or -- wait. We were at a +birthday party for some girl's 16th birthday. +Were you drinking at that party? +A. +No. There was no alcohol or anything +there. +What does "blaze" mean to you? +A. +It's like -- it just means like messed up. +But we weren't, if you look at the picture. +e. +Messed up like drunk, right? +A. +Sure. +Who's +A. A girl I know, like from like two years +ago. +She's the one you were supposed to be +staying with when you went drinking with +A. +No. +What's +last name? +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +128 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Docyment 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 29 of 100 +Page 105 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. +Q. +A. +A. +A. +A. +e. +drinking. +Where does she live? +I don't know. +In +Palm. +Uh-huh. +I'm +guessing. +Do you know her phone number? +No, I do not. +Let's look at 25-010. +See, I'm drinking - +I'm not asking you about what you're +Who are the men in this photo who are +pretending to gang up on you and stab you with knives? +Who are they? +A. +and +e. +Are these firemen? +A. +Are those? +two stabbing with knives. +- he said the +That's why I said that. I +don't know. That's +and +Are these firemen? +A. No. They're all on -- except +they're all on full rights for football. +Go to 025-015. +MR. LEOPOLD: 025 dash? +MR. TEIN: 015. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +129 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Rogument 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 30 of 100 +Reporting and Transcription, Jac. +Page 106 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +THE WITNESS: +Gosh, that's so long ago. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. +Who took the photo of you licking the +penis? +A. +e. +My stepmother. +Whose idea -- that was your stepmother's +idea? +A. +It was in Buca di Beppo, where she works +currently, and that was before she worked there. And we +just thought it would be funny. +MR. TEIN: 19-007. Can you enlarge that? +BY MR. TEIN: +Who took this photo of you simulating you +having sex with a man? +A. +We're not simulating having sex, and +it's - I. and the person who took it was, I'm pretty +but I know him as +I don't know his +sure, +last name. +e. +Go to 19-006, please. +Who took this photo of you simulating sex +with a man? +A. +having sex, Mr. - +Tein. +The same person. And we're not simulating +Did you post that on the Internet? +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +130 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 31 of 100 +P? Reporting and Transcription, Inc. +Page 107 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. +Actually, this is an old MySpace I never +finished and I never like did anything. I just kind of +made it and left it. +So the answer is yes, you posted this on +MySpace? +A. +R. +Yup. +Go to 25-016. Who took this photo of you +simulating sex with a woman? +MR. LEOPOLD: Object to the form of the +question. Argumentative. +THE WITNESS: First off, she's piercing my +belly button or repiercing it, and I'm pretty sure +it was just like we put up a camera somewhere and +put a timer on it. We didn't have anybody take +it. +BY MR. TEIN: +l. +A. +You posted that on your Myspace page? +Yeah. +Yep. +Go to 25-013. Is that a photo of you? +Who's in the photo with you? +A. +e. +A. +e. +A. +Yep. +l. Is this you coming out of the shower? +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +131 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Docyment 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 32 of 100 +Reporsing and Transcription, Ine. +A. +e. +A. +A. +A. +Page 108 +Yes. +Are you clothed in this picture? +Yeah. I have a halter dress on. +Where is that picture taken? +In +house. +Did you post that on the Internet? +Yes. +All right. +MR. TEIN: You can take that down. +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. TEIN: +Now your boyfriend is +correct? +A. +Yeah. +You lie about your age in order to conceal +something about your relationship with +isn't that correct? +A. +No. +22 years old, isn't he? +A. +Yes. +And +is a firefighter with the Palm +Beach Fire Department, right? +A. Yup. +Does the Palm Beach Fire Department know +that your boyfriend is dating an underage girl? +A. +Actually, mister, it's legal. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +132 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Docyment 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 33 of 100 +1' Roporting and Transcriprian, Inc. +Page 109 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +1=8 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Well -- +MR. LEOPOLD: Just answer the question, +THE WITNESS: Yes. +BY MR. TEIN: +Q. Did they know two weeks ago that you were +dating an underage girl (sic)? +A. +Yes. I met everybody in there. +Did they know your age? +A. +e. +Yes. +Did you lie about your age so that the fire +department wouldn't think that! +is committing a +crine by having a sexual relationship with an underage +gir!? +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Objection. Assumes facts +not in evidence. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. +You can answer the question. +A. NO. +Does the Palm Beach Police Department know +is having a sexual relationship with an +that +underage girl? +MR. LEOPOLD: Don't guess. Answer if you +know. +THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question? +Ph. 561.682:0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +133 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80804-KAM Dącument 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 34 of 100 +Reporting and Transcription, Ine. +Page 110 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. TEIN: +that +is having a +A. +Does the Palm Beach Police Department know +a member of the Palm Beach Fire Department, +sexual relationship with an underage girl? +I'm guessing no. +Q. You lie about your twin sister +don't +you? +BY MR. TEIN: +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Argumentative. +Don't you? +No. I have never lied for or to +You lie about the fact that she has a drug +A. +e. +habit, right? +A. +having a drug habit. +No. I would never accuse my sister of +Do you try to conceal the fact that she has +a drug habit? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Argumentative. +BY MR. TEIN: +l. You can answer the question. +A. No. My sister does not have a drug habit. +e. You lied when you went to the crack house +in Georgia, didn't you? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Argumentative. +Lack of foundation, lack of predicate. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +134 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80804-KAM Dgfument 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 35 of 100 +A Renoring and Transcriptio, Inc. +Page 111 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +=9 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +THE WITNESS: +Never +- what did you say? +BY MR. TEIN: +Q. You lied when you went to the crack house +in Georgia, didn't you? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Argumentative. +Lack of foundation, lack of predicate. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. +A. +e. +You can answer the question. +I have never been to a crack house. +Who don't you lie to? +MR. LEOPOLD: objection. Argumentative. +Don't answer the question. +MR. TEIN: Certify it. +•.... +......CERTIFIED QUESTION.... +BY MR. TEIN: +You don't lie to +do you? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and +answered. +Don't answer the question. +BY MR. TEIN: +e. +No. You can answer that question. +MR. LEOPOLD: No. I just told her not to. +You've asked that question about five -- +MR. TEIN: No, I haven't. +MR. LEOPOLD: Don't answer the question. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +135 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 36 of 100 +1? Reporting and Transcripsion, Inc. +Page 112 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. TEIN: I'll certify it. +....... CERTIFIED QUESTION.. +MR. LEOPOLD: For the record, you have to +stop interrupting me because she can't take down +both of us talking at the same time. +BY MR. TEIN: +A. +You tell +Excuse me? +the truth, don't you? +You tell +the truth, don't you? +A. +When it's -- yes, I tell +the truth. +Who's +drug dealer? +A. My sister does not have a drug dealer. She +lives in Georgia with my mother. +e. +Okay. Who is the drug dealer who dropped +you and +off at 5:45 a.m., in 2006, after being out +all night, the two of you, using drugs at Palm Beach +Country Estates where your father called the police? +A. +e. +He's the drug dealer? +A. He is a drug dealer. +e. Do you remember +was arrested by the +Palm Beach Police Department and taken to the Juvenile +Assessment Center that morning? +A. I do remember that. +l. Now before you massaged Epstein, you were +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +136 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM Dolent 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 37 of 100 +Roporting and Transcription, Inc +Page 113 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +involuntarily admitted into a juvenile educational +facility; isn't that right? +A. +Did you say involuntarily? +Q. Yes. +A. No. I was willing to go. I -- duly said +sure. +And you went there because you were lying +so much, no one could control you; isn't that correct? +A. +That's very incorrect. +e. +Now you lie to your parents all the time, +dor.'t you? +A. +Incorrect. +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Argumentative. +BY MR. TEIN: +Sorry? +A. +Incorrect. +The day you went to Epstein's house you +lied to your father about where you were going; isn't +that correct? +A. +Correct. +You admitted to the police that you told +you. father that you were going shopping, didn't you? +A. +Yes. +Q. And that was a lie, wasn't it? +A. Yes. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +137 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM _@ohment 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 38 of 100 +Page 114 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +And isn't it true that your father has +accused you of lying? +A. +All the time. +Didn't your father throw you out of the +house Thanksgiving of this past year because you were +lying so much to him? +A. +Yes, he did kick me out. +No, that's not +the reasons why. +l. Didn't your father throw your sister +out of the house, too? +A. Yes. +e. And he threw her out of the house the week +after Thanksgivings, right? +A. +I don't know the date, but sure. +Sounds about right? +A. Sure. +e. And the reason he threw her out of the +house was because she was lying, too? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Lack of +foundation. Calls for speculation. +BY MR. TEIN: +correct, right? +A. +l. When your counsel coaches you, you say it's +I've never been coached. +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +138 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM Eument 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 39 of 100 +{ Reporting and Transcription, Ipe. +Page 115 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +=9 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. TEIN: +Okay. When your counsel that it was there +was lack of foundation, you agree with your counsel, +right? +A. I was like saying, "Yeah, let's move on," +because there was no point to asking that question. +out of the house +0. +Your father threw +because she was lying, correct? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Lack of +foundation. +Hold on, +Let me just make the +objection. +Lack of foundation, predicate, calls for +speculation. +BY MR. TEIN: +l. +A. +e. +A. +e. +Answer. +I'm not my sister. I don't know. +I want to know what you know only. +I don't know. +You don't know. That's your answer? +A. +Yes. +Now your parents filed the police report +regarding Mr. Epstein, right? +Yes. +A. +e. +Now your parents are also lying, aren't +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +139 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM Duent 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 40 of 100 +I Reporting and Transcription, Ine. +Page 116 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +they? +A. +Yes. +MR. LEOPOLD: Just so the record is clear, +the father -- because the mother was up north. +MR. TEIN: Don't testify, Counsel. +MR. LEOPOLD: So the record is clear, just +the father. +The mother was +MR. TEIN: Counsel, don't coach and +testify, please. That's absolutely improper. +MR. LEOPOLD: You just asked the wrong +question. +MR. TEIN: You can't coach her that way and +you well know it. +MR. LEOPOLD: For the record, it's the +father. He's remarried, I think on his third +marriage. +MR. TEIN: You cannot -- it's absolutely, +totally against the rules and you know it. +MR. LEOPOLD: The natural mother lives in +Georgia. +MR. TEIN: You need to behave yourself, +lawyer. +MR. LEOPOLD: The natural mother lives in +Georgia. The father is here locally. +MR. TEIN: Stop coaching. Stop talking. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +140 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80804-KAM Pdadment 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 41 of 100 +I Reporting and Transcription, Inc +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 117 +You object. You know the rules. You just +lectured me about the rules, Counsel. +So why +don't you play by the rules? +Or only when they +fit you? Why don't you grandstand a little more +now. Give us a five-minute speech, Mr. Leopold. +MR. LEOPOLD: Are you finished, for the +record? +you want. +MR. TEIN: I'm not talking to you. Do what +MR. LEOPOLD: Don't say anything yet. +BY MR. TEIN: +your parents -- +MR. LEOPOLD: Hold it. Don't say anything +yet. Let me - +BY MR. TEIN: +l. Your parents, who filed the police report +are also liars. +MR. LEOPOLD: Don't answer the question. +We're not going to answer until I make the record. +I want to put on the record, now that Counsel +appears to be finished with his comments for the +record, that the previous question was +inappropriate, was intentionally misleading. +Now you can ask the question. +BY MR. TEIN: +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +141 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM Dokinent 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 42 of 100 +9 Reporting and Transcription, Inc. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 118 +Your parents, who filed the police report +in this case, are also proven liars, aren't they? +MR. LEOPOLD: Same objection. +BY MR. TEIN: +l. Aren't your parents liars? +MR. LEOPOLD: Calls for speculation. Lack +of predicate. +MR. TEIN: Stop coaching. You know what +that is, Leopold. +MR. LEOPOLD: Calls for speculation. Lack +of foundation. +THE WITNESS: When you say parents, my mom +is not, but sure, yeah, my dad has been to jail +for lying. +BY MR. TEIN: +Your dad went to federal prison for two +years for lying, right? +A. Correct. +Did he tell you it was for a financial +fraud? +A. Yes. +l. For stealing money from some financial +institution? +A. +Correct. +And do you think your father is trying to +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +142 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 43 of 100 +→ Koparing and Transcription, lac +Page 119 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +steal your lawsuit money away from you? +Don't look to your lawyer for the answer. +MR. LEOPOLD: You can answer if you know +the answer to it. I have no idea. +THE WITNESS: Yeah. +BY MR. TEIN: +Q. And your father filed a lawsuit, the first +lawsuit for fifty million dollars against Mr. Epstein +without consulting you, correct? +A. +Correct. +l. And your father had a lawyer file the first +lawsuit on your behalf for fifty million dollars against +MI. Epstein without your knowledge, correct? +A. Correct. +Q. And you don't trust your father, do you? +A. Correct. +l. And you believe he's trying to manipulate +you for his own gain, don't you? +A. +Sort of. +R. +Well, you know that your mother filed a +statement, an affidavit, saying that you don't trust your +father and that you believe he's trying to manipulate you +for his own gain; isn't that correct? +A. +Correct. +e. +You agree with that statement, don't you? +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +143 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM Roament 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 44 of 100 +-Ensor & Associates +21. Reporting and Transcription, Ine. +Page 120 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. +e. +A. +Uh-huh. Yes. +Do you trust your stepmother? +My stepmother, no. +You think she's also trying to steal your +Epstein lawsuit money away +from you, don't you? +A. I would like to clarify something. You +keep saying my Epstein lawsuit money. I don't have any +money, and it's just a lawsuit at the moment. So I just +don't trust her. +e. +Okay. You think that your stepmother is +trying to take advantage of this lawsuit to try to get +money from Mr. Epstein that belongs to you, right? +A. +Yes. +Did your stepmother tell you why she was +arrested? +A. +No. +e. +ever been arrested? +No. +Did your stepmother tell you that she's +Did she tell you she was arrested for +fraud? +A. +Never. +Hawthorne Aviation? +A. +No. +Did she tell you that she was fired from +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +144 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 45 of 100 +1 Repoing and Transcription, Inc. +Page 121 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Did she tell you that she was fired from +Hawthorne Aviation for stealing? +A. +No. +MR. TEIN: Let's take a break. +(Thereupon, a recess was taken.) +BY MR. TEIN: +before you met Jeffrey Epstein, had +you ever had sexual intercourse? +A. +A. +Yes, yeah. +How many times? +Just a few. Twice. +With how many different men? +A. +e. +Two. +How old were they? +A. +being one year older than me, +and then the other person was two years older than me. +What was his name? +A. +How old were you when you first had sexual +intercourse? +A. +14. +How many - before you met Epstein, how +many different men had you had any type of sexual +activity with? +A. +Just those two. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +145 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 46 of 100 +Page 122 +Are you saying you never kissed a man other +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +than those two? +MR. LEOPOLD: +objection to the form of the +question. +THE WITNESS: +Yes, I had kissed people +before. +BY MR. TEIN: +Before you met Epstein, had you ever had +oral sex? +A. +No. +Ever in your life, have you exchanged sex +for something of value? +A. +No. +MR. TEIN: We're done. +THE WITNESS: +1, okay. +MR. LEOPOLD: We'll read. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: I don't have any +questions. Thank you. +MR. LEOPOLD: Before we go off the record, +it's my understanding -- Mr. Goldberger can +correct the record -- but we have stipulated that +color copies of the documents that were identified +for identification certainly will be attached to +the deposition and counsel will be taking the +photographs across street so that they can be +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +146 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM : helment 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 4/ of 10 +onsor d Associater +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 123 +laser color copied so that we have a copy, and I'm +assuming he'll get a copy to the court reporter, +too, to attach, actually a certified copy to the +deposition. +MR. GOLDBERGER: Done. +MR. LEOPOLD: That's if you agree to that. +If not, then I want to pull each one out and put +exhibit labels on them, which we should do before +we leave. +MR. GOLDBERGER: We're not going to do +either. I'll have copies sent to the court +reporter and she can attach them to the +deposition. +MR. LEOPOLD: So you're not going to agree +to what we talked about during the break then. +MR. GOLDBERGER: I'm not quite sure what +your asking me to do. Let me finish. +MR. LEOPOLD: Okay. Sure. That's fine. +MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay. If you want me to +go over to Ms. Belohlavek's office and make copies +and then I'll give those to the court reporter, +fine. All I'm saying is that I would avoid that +process. I would send copies to the court +reporter. But if it will make you happier - +MR. LEOPOLD: I'm not? +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +147 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Mament 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 48 of 100 +→ Keporting and Transcription, Inc. +Page 124 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. GOLDBERGER: Let me finish. +MR. LEOPOLD: I'm not interrupting now. +MR. GOLDBERGER: But if it will make you +happier if I go over to Ms. Belohlavek's office +and make a copy of those photos that were part of +this deposition and then I'll give them to the +court reporter, I'll be happy to do it. +MR. LEOPOLD: I trust you implicitly, +however you with to do it. However, the +documents, before they leave this room, need to +have an exhibit sticky on them with the +appropriate - +MR. GOLDBERGER: Want to go get some? +We +don't have any. +MR. LEOPOLD: I will do that. Excuse me. +Let me finish the record, please. You can't do +that to the court reporter. She's going to stroke +out. You can't do that. You have to let me -- +MR. TEIN: Finish your sentence, Ted. You +are the most long-winded lawyer I've ever seen in +my life. Finish your sentence. +MR. LEOPOLD: Jack, tell him not to raise +his voice, please. +MR. TEIN: Finish your sentence. Is there +going to be a period at the end of the sentence or +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +148 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM - Vestment 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 49 of 10 +PT Reporting and Transcription, Inc. +Page 125 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +is it just going to be comma after comma after +comma? +Go ahead, lawyer. +MR. LEOPOLD: All right. The exhibits, +I +can't prevent you from taking them, but I will +object and I will be bringing it to the court for +sanctions. You cannot take the exhibits out of +the room without them being marked. I want them +marked, because you cannot identify in the record +what was used. And with all due respect to +Mr. Goldberger, I do not -- the way this +deposition is going, I do not want to rely on +Counsel from Miami to mark the appropriate +exhibits. I will not do that. I cannot prevent +you from taking them. But if you do, I will be +bringing the matter to the court with appropriate +sanctions, because that is improper. That is +improper. When you use something in a deposition, +they are to be marked. And you have refused to do +that throughout for what ever reason. +MR. TEIN: You're wrong. Finish your +sentence because you're talking about something +you have no idea. +Every single one is marked, Ted. Every +single one is already marked. But you want to +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +149 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Dalent 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 50 of 100 +bonsor & Associates +Roporting and Transcripsion, Inc +Page 126 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +argue about everything. Ever single one is +already marked. Isn't that silly, Ted? +MR. GOLDBERGER: Thirty years of doing this +and I have never had an argument over this. +MR. TEIN: You've made -- Ted, you are +obstructionist, you are a liar. You have lied and +misrepresented things, for the record. You are +grandstanding. +MR. LEOPOLD: You need to back up. +MR. TEIN: No, no. I'm going to finish. +MR. LEOPOLD: You can finish, but don't +hover over me. +MR. TEIN: No one is hovering over you. +Stop trying to make a lying record. +Let me say something else. +Don't you dare threaten me with sanctions, +after you lied in a letter to my co-counsel about +the fact -- be quiet. Be quiet and let me finish. +You lied in a letter to my co-counsel, +Mr. Leopold, in which you said -- it was a +complete and utter lie -- that you were +unavailable this morning because you had a +hearing. That was a lie. I have never seen a +lawyer deign to do something like that. +So you will get the ex -- be quiet. Let me +1655 Pal Beach Lakes Bivd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +150 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM yament 1-1 Entered on FLȘD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 51 of 100 +Ensor & Associates +7L Reporting und Transcription, Inc +Page 127 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +finish. You behave. +MR. LEOPOLD: Don't point your finger at +me. +MR. TEIN: Listen. +Be quiet and I won't +have a need to point it at you. +MR. LEOPOLD: Don't point your finger at - +MR. TEIN: Mr. Leopold -- +MR. LEOPOLD: Don't point your finger at +me. +MR. TEIN: Mr. Leopold, let me finish. +MR. LEOPOLD: Don't raise your voice +either. +MR. TEIN: Mr. Leopold - +MR. LEOPOLD: Jack, do you want to take +care of this? +MR. TEIN: Let me finish my sentence. The +exhibits are marked. We are walking out of here. +You are someone who misrepresents the +record. It is absolutely atrocious what you do. +That is not how a lawyer should behave. This +deposition is over. +You will get your exhibits, +Mr. Leopold. +MR. GOLDBERGER: I understand what you're +saying, Michael, and I understand Ted's position. +Just so there's - we're going to have lots +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +151 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM D lent 1-1 Entered on FLSD Pocket 07/21/2008 Page 52 ot 100 +• Reporting and Transcription, Inc. +Page 128 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +of issues in this case. We're going to have lots +of reasons to disagree. +I'm going to take it over now and I'm going +to make copies and I'm going to give them to +Ms. Consor. If you want to go find some exhibit +labels and put some exhibit labels on it, be my +guest. But that's what I'm offering to do. +THE WITNESS: Let me say two things, +because I am happy to always disagree, and with +you, I have no problem; we could always do it +professionally. I have not problem. +I want to say two things so the record is +very clear. +Since for whatever reason I have not been +able to look at exhibits, because they have been +refused to have been shown to me -- +MR. TEIN: That's a lie. +MR. LEOPOLD: - Jack, if you represent +that the documents have the appropriate exhibit +numbers or some identifying markings, 25, 30.000, +whatever they may be, then you can take them, make +copies, send me a copy, make sure the court +reporter gets a copy and then send me a bill for +my copies, that's fine. I didn't know that they +are marked that way because I haven't been able to +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +152 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Dozent 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 53 of 100 +consor « Assoclares +Reporting and Transcripsion, Inc +Page 129 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1ook at them. +MR. GOLDBERGER: They are barcoded, and the +number that we've made reference to in the +deposition coincides with the barcoding. +MR. LEOPOLD: That's fine. Eight by eleven +color laser copies are fine. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: The State Attorneys Office +is not going to charge anybody for color copies I +print out. +MR. LEOPOLD: That's fine. He's going to +take them back to his office. +Secondly -- and I will be more than happy +to do it, because it sounds like you all know more +about it than I -- but I'm happy to get affidavits +from Mr. Pincus, Judge Stern, everybody else about +what happened with this hearing today, because I +know very little about it. But my representations +are what they are. +MR. GOLDBERGER: They stay -- +MR. LEOPOLD: Let me just finish for the +record. +My representations or comments about what +happened, representation about this hearing this +morning, I know very little about it. I - +MR. GOLDBERGER: I'll take your word on +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +153 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM _ ENdment 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 54 of 100 +ensor & Associates +Reporting and Transcriptinn, Inc. +Page 130 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +that. +MR. LEOPOLD: No, no, no. I just put it on +the record. I will get an affidavit -- I'm +assuming it sounds like you need it -- from Mr. +Pincus. I have no clue about what happened and +why it was canceled. All I was told when I was +out of town yesterday was that the hearing this +morning was cancelled. +MR. GOLDBERGER: I'1l take your word for +it. +MR. LEOPOLD: If you want an affidavit, +I'll get it for you. +MR. GOLDBERGER: It's a personal issue for +me because I had to disrupt a vacation and if it +was done just because it wasn't convenient for +you, then I'm offended by that. But if you're +telling me that it was planned and it didn't +happen, I'll take your word for it. +MR. LEOPOLD: I am more than happy to get +you an affidavit, because I don't know the reason +why it was canceled other than the fact that I'm +assuming since my deposition was taken for four +hours on Monday for preparation for the hearing +today, for whatever reason it was canceled, I am +told it is being re-noticed. Why it was canceled, +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +154 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM Defament 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 55 of 101 +- Reporting and Transcription, Inc. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 131 +I have no idea, but if your co-counsel wishes an +affidavit to that effect from Mr. Pincus, I'm more +than happy to get it. But I don't know the reason +why it was canceled. +MR. TEIN: I don't need it. But what I do +take issue with is regardless of why it was +canceled, you owed us the courtesy of saying, You +know what? We can start earlier this morning. +MR. LEOPOLD: I owe you nothing. +MR. TEIN: I don't care. Don't interrupt +me. +because of you. +Because Jack canceled his vacation plans +MR. GOLDBERGER: That's all right, that's +all right. +MR. TEIN: And you're selfish. And this +deposition is over. Good-by Mr. Leopold. +MR. GOLDBERGER: You can go off the record. +- - - +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +155 of 316 + + +ase 9:08-CV-80804-KAM -D Yment 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 56 of 10 +onsor d Associate +Reporting and Transcripcan, Inc. +Page 132 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +CERTIFICATE +--- +The State of Florida, +County of Palm Beach. +I hereby certify that I have read the +foregoing deposition by me given, and that the statements +contained herein are true and correct to the best of my +knowledge and belief, with the exception of any +corrections or notations made on the errata sheet, if one +was executed. +Dated this _ +day of +, 2008. +21 +24 +25 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +156 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM 0 anSON Stered on FLSD Pocket 07/21/2008 Page 57 of 100 +Associates +Page 133 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +DATE: +February 25, 2008 +TO: +c/o Lana BelontaveR +Office of the State Attorney +401 N. Dixie Highway +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +IN +RE: +STATE OF FLORIDA -V- JEFFREY EPSTEIN +CASE NO.: +2006 CF09454AXX +Please take notice that on Wednesday, the +20th of February, 2008, you gave your deposition in the +above-referred matter. +At that time, you did not waive +signature. It is now necessary that you sign your +deposition. +Please call our office at the below-listed +number to schedule an appointment between the hours of +9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. +If you do not read and sign the deposition +within a reasonable time, the original, which has already +beer forwarded to the ordering attorney, may be filed +with the Clerk of the Court. If you wish to waive your +signature, sign your name in the blank at the bottom of +this letter and return it to us. +Very truly yours, +Judith F. Consor, FPR +Consor & Associates Reporting and Transcription +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 500 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +I do hereby waive my signature: +ce via transcript: +JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ. +LANNA BELOHLAVEK, ESQ. +MICHAEL R. TEIN, ESQ. +THEODORE J. LEOPOLD, ESQ. +file copy +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +157 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM - hument 1-1. +Associates +Page 134 +1 +2 +3 +ERRATA SHEET +IN RE: STATE-V-JEFFREY EPSTEIN +DEPOSITION OF: +2008 +TAKEN: February 20th, +4 +DO NOT WRITE ON TRANSCRIPT - ENTER CHANGES HERE +PAGE # LINE # +CHANGE +REASON +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Please forward the original signed errata sheet to this +office so that copies may be distributed to all parties. +Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read my +deposition and that it is true and correct subject to any +changes in form or substance entered here. +DATE:_ +SIGNATURE OF DEPONENT: +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +158 of 316 + + +*CEnSor EnterS ELia PIKet 07/12/2008 Page 59 of 100 +Page 135 +1 +2 +3 • +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ) +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH. | +I, the undersigned authority, certify that +personally appeared before me on the 20th +of February, 2008 and was duly sworn. +WITNESS my hand and official seal this 25 day +of February, 2008. +Qual I Conse +Judith F. Consor, FPR +Notary Public - State of Florida +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +159 of 316 + + +Ensor Eaten 5 5 2a Pket 07/21/2008 Page 60 of 100 +I Heparing and Transcription, Inc +Page 136 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +CERTIFICATE +The State Of Florida, ) +County Of Palm Beach.) +I, Judith F. Consor, Court Reporter and Notary +Public in and for the State of Florida at large, do +hereby certify that I was authorized to and did +stenographically report the deposition of +that a review of the transcript was requested; and that +the foregoing pages, numbered from 1 to 131, inclusive, +are a true and correct transcription of my stenographic +notes of said deposition. +I further certify that said deposition was +taken at the time and place hereinabove set forth and +that the taking of said deposition was commenced and +completed as hereinabove set out. +I further certify that I am not an attorney or +counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or +employee of any attorney or counsel of party connected +with the action, nor am I financially interested in the +action. +The foregoing certification of this transcript +does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any +means unless under the direct control and/or direction of +the certifying reporter. +DATED this 25 day of February, +300% +Reallegas +Quail I Conser +Judith F. Consor, Court Repor +Florida Professional Reporter +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +160 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 61 of 100 +STATE COURT +PLEADINGS +161 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 62 of 100 +From: ur +Page: 15/51 +Date: 5/29/2008 12:09:2 +15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY +FLORIDA +C88*2008 CA 00 6596 XXXX MB +JANE DOE, by and through +JANE DOE'S MOTHER as parent and nutural +guardian, +Plaintiffs, +Defendants. +583 +2008 MAR - 6 PM 4: 37 +COUNTY +UIT CIVIL +AB +COMPLAINT +Plaintiffs, JANE DOE, by and through JANE DOE'S MOTHER as parent and natural +guardian of JANE DOE, bring this Complaint against Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +,and +, and state as follows: +Parties, Jurisdietion and Venue +1. Jane Doe is a citizen and resident of the State of Florida. She is a minor under the age of +18 years. +2. Jane Doe's Mother brings this action as parent and natural guardian of Jane Doe +3. This Complaint is brought under fictitious names 1o protect the identity of the Minor +Plaintiff because this Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexul assault and abuse upon a +minor. +4. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen and resident of the State of New York. +5. Defendant +is u citizen and resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. +6. Defendant +is a citizen and resident of the State of New York +162 of 316 +This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 63 of 100 +JWn +Page: 16/51 +Date: 5/29/2008 12:09: +7. This is an action for clamages in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) exclusive of +interest and costs. +8. Venue is proper in this Court under section 47.011, Florida Statutes, because the causes of +action brought herein accrued in Palm Beach County, Florida and one or more Defendants resides in +Palm Beach County, Florida. +Fuctual Allegations +9. At all relevant times, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein was an adult male. Epstein is a financier and +money manager with a secret clientele limited exclusively to billionaires. He is a man of iremendous +wealth, power and influence. He maintains his principal home in New York and also owns residences +in New Mexico, St. +and Palm Beach, Florida. The allegations herein concern Epstein's +conduct while at his lavish estate in Palm Beach. +10. Upon information and belief, Epstein has a sexual preference and obsession for minor girls +He engaged in a plan, scheme, and/or enterprise in which he gained access to primarily economically +disadvantaged minor girls in his home, sexually assaulted these girls or coerced them to engage in +prostitution, and then gave them money. In or about 2005, Jane Doe, then 14 years old, fell into +Epstein's trap and became one of his victims. +II. Upon information and belief, Jeffrey Epstein carried out this scheme/enterprise and assaulted +girls in Florida, New York and on his private island, known as Little St. James, in St. +12. An integral clayer in Epstein's Florida scheme was +an assistant of Epstein's +from Now York, New York und Haley +a Palm Beach Community College student from +Loxahatchee, Florida. They recruited girls ostensibly to give a wealthy man a massage for monetary +compensation in his Palm Beach mansion. Under Epstein's plan/enterprise. +was +contacted shortly before or soon afler Epstein was at his Palm Beach residence. Epstein, | | or +someone on their behalf directed +to bring one or more underage girls to the residence. + +163 of 316 +This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 64 of 100 +From: ul +Page: 17/51 +Date: 5/29/2008 12:09:2 +upon information and belief, gencrally sought out cconomically disadvantaged +underage girls from Loxahatchee and surrounding areas who would be enticed by the money being +offered - generally $200 to $300 per "massage" session - and who were perceived as less likely to +complain to authorities or have credibility if allegations of improper conduct were made. This was an +important clement-of Epsiein's plan/enterprise. +13. Epstein's plan, scheme, and/or enterprise reflected a particular patern and method. Upon +arrival at Epstein's mansion, Mr. L +would introduce each victim to +Epslein's +assistant, who gathered the girl's personal information, including her name and telephone number. +would then bring the girl up a flight of stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table +in addition to other furnishings. There were photographs of nude women lining the stairway hall and +in the bedroom. +would then leuve the girl alone in this room, whereupon Epstein would +enter wearing only a towel. He would then remove his towel, lay down naked on the massage table, +and direct the girl to remove her clothes. He then would perform one or more lewd, lascivious and +sexual acts, including masturbation, touching the girl's vagina with a vibrator, or digitally penetrating +the girl's vagina. +14. Consistent with the foregoing plan, scheme, and/or enterprise, +recruited Jane +Doe to give Epstein a massage for monetary compensation. +Epstein's mansion in Palm Beach. Jane was introduced to +brought Jane Doe to +who led her up the flight of +stairs to the room with the massage table +set up the message lable and laid our message +oils and told Jone Doe that Epstein would be in shortly and than left the room. Jane Doe was alone in +the room when Epstein arrived. Epslein told her to remove her clothes and left the room. When +Epstein returned he was wearing only a towel. He removed his lowel, and laid down on his +stomach on the message table. Epsiein again told Jane Doe remove her clothes. In shock, fear +and trepidation, Jane Doe complied, removing her clothes except for her panties and bra. Shortly + +164 of 316 +This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 65 of 100 +From: u. +wn +Page: 18/51 +Date: 5/29/2008 12.09:2 +after starting to rub Epstein's back, Epstein told Jane Doe to sit on his back. Jane Doe, out of fear +and trepidation, complied. After a period of time Epstein got up from the table and went behind +the door. For several minutes Jane Doe heard loud noises and moans and believes that Epstein +was masturbating. Thereafler Epstein, naked, returned to the message table and laid fuce up on +the table. Epstein than told Jane Doe to continue with the message and told her to sit on top of +him. Out of fear and trepidation she complied. As Jane Doe rubbed Epsiein's chest Epsiein +began te use a vibrator on Jane Doe's vagina. Thereafter Epstein began to digilally stimulate and +allempt to penetrate lane's vagina. At this same time Epslein was masturbating. Upon reaching +orgasm Epstein got up from the message lable and told Jane Doe 1o write down her name and +phone number and than left the room. +15. Jane Doe was then able to get dressed, leave the room and go back down the stairs and +into the kitchen. Epstein, +and +| were wailing for Jane Doe. Epstein paid Jane Doe +$300. +was paid $200 by Epstein for bringing Jane to him. +brought Jane +Doe home. +16. As a result of this encounter with Epstein, the 14-year old Jane Doe experienced +confusion, shame, humiliation, embarrassment and the assault sent her life into a downward +spiral. +: +COUNT I +Sexual Assault against Defendant Epstein +17. Plaintiff Jane Doe by and through her Mother, as parent and natural guardian, repeats and +realleges paragraphs | through 16 above. +18. Defendant Epslein tortiously assaulted Jane Doe sexually in or about 2005. +19. This sexual assault was in violation of Chapter 800 of the Florida Statutes, which +recognizes as a crime the lewd and lascivious acts committed by Epstein upon Jane Doe. + +165 of 316 +This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 66 of 100 +From: t; +Page: 19/51 +Date: 5/29/2008 12:09 +20. As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's assault on Jane Doe, she has suffered and +will continue to sufler severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological +and emotional damages. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe, by and through her Mother, as parent and natural +guardian, demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein for compensatory damages, +costs, attorney's fees, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. +Further, Plaintiff' reserves the right to amend this Complaint to add a claim for punitive damages +pursuant to Florida Law. +COUNT II +Civil Conspiracy against Defendants Epstein, Mond M +21. Plaintiff Jane Doe by and through her Mother, as parent and natural guardian, repeats and +realleges paragraphs 1 through 16 above. +22. Defendanis Epstein, +and +conspired to subject Jane Doe to the sexual +assault of Defendant Epsiein. +23. Each of the Defendants committed an overt act in pursuance of this conspiracy: +Defendant Robson used false pretenses to lure Jane Doc to the home of Defendant Epsiein so +that Epstein could sexually assault Jane Doe; Defendant +I delivered Jane Doe 1o Defendant +Epslein's bedroom so that Epsiein could sexualiy assault Jane Doe; and Defendant Epstein +actually commitied sexual assault against Jane Doe. +24. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' civil conspiracy, Jane Doe has suffered +and will continue lo suffer severe and permanent Iraumatic injuries, including mental, +psychological and emotional damages. + +166 of 316 +This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 67 of 100 +From: ut +Page: 20/51 +Date: 5/29/2008 12:09:2 +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe, by and through her Mother, as parent and natural +guardian, demands judgment against Defendants Jeffrey Epstein, +and +for compensatory damages, costs, attorney's fees, and such other and further relief as this +Court deems just and proper. Further, Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint to add +a claim for punitive damages pursuant lo Florida Law. +COUNT 111 +Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against Defendant Epstein +25. Plaintiffs Jane Doe by and through her Mother, as parent and natural guardian, repeat and +reallege paragraphs: through 16 above +26. Epslein's conduct was intentional or reckless +27. Epstein's conduet was outrageous, going beyond all bounds of decency. +28. Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress not only to lane Doe. Epstein knew +or had reason to know that his intentional and outrageous conduct would cause emotional trauma +and damage to Jane Doe and her mother. +29. As a direct and proximale result of Epstein's intentional or reckless conduci, Jane Doe +will continue to suffer severe mental anguish and pain. +WHEREFORE, inc Doe, by and through her Mother, and June Doe's Mother, individually, +demand judgment against Defendant Jeffrey Epslein for compensatory damages, costs, attorney's +fees, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Further, Plaintiff +reserves the right to amend this Complaint to add a claim for punitive damages pursuant to +Florida Law. +: + +This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com +167 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 68 of 100 +From: Ui +iwn +Page: 21/51 +Date: 5/29/2008 12:09:: +COUNT IV +Civil Remedy for Violation of Florida Statute Section 772.103 against +Defendants Epstein, +and +30. Plaintiffs Jane Doe by and through her Mother, as parent and natural guardian, repeal and +reallege paragraphs 1 through 16 above. +3l. Defendants participated in an enterprise, or conspired or endenvored to so participate, +through a pattern of criminal activity in violation of Florida Statule section 172. 103(3) (4). +32. Defendants engaged in this pattern of criminal activity by engaging in at least two of the +following incidents of criminal aclivity with the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, +victims, and methods of commission within a 5 year period: +a. Procuring for prostitution, or causing to be prostituted, any person who is under +the age of 18 years in violation of Florida Statule section 796.03; +b. Soliciting, inducing, enticing, or procuring another to commit prostitution, +lewdness, or assignation in violation of Florida Statute section 796.07(2)(f), or +aiding, abetting or participating in such acts in violation of Florida Statute section +796.07(2)(h); +c. Knowingly recruiting, enticing, harboring, transporting, providing, or obtaining +by' uny means a person, knowing that force, fraud, or coercion will be used 1o +cause that person to engage in prostitution in violation of Florida Statute section +796.045; or +d. Forcing, compelling, or coercing another to become a prostitute in violation of +Florida Statute section 796.04. +33. Under Defendants' plan, scheme and enterprise, Defendant Epsiein paid Defendant +to repeated. y find and bring him underage girls, who were delivered to Epstein by +Page 7 of9 +168 of 316 +This fax was recsived by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 69 of 100 +›wn +Page: 22/51 +Date: 5/29/2008 12:09 +M +Defendants +and +in order for Epstein to solicit, induce, coerce, entice, compel or +force such girls to engage in acts of prostitution and/or lewdness. +34. Plaintiff Jane Doe was the victim of Defendants' plan, scheme and enterprise. Defendant +_took Jane Doe to Epstein's home under the pretense that Jane Doe would be paid to give +Epstein a massage. Defendant +delivered Jane Doe to a room with a message table and +told that Epstein would be in shortly. Jane Doe was alone in the room when Epstein arrived. +Epstein told her to remove her clothes und left the room. When Epstein returned he was wearing +only a towel. He removed his towel, and laid down on his stomach on the message table. Epstein +ugain told Jane Doe remove her clothes. In shock, fear and trepidation, Jane Doe complied, +removing her cloites except for her panties and bra. Shorlly after starting to rub Epstein's back, +Epstein told Jane Doe to sit on his back. Jane Doc, out of fear and trepidation, complied. After a +period of time Epsiein got up from the table and went behind the door. For several minutes Jane +Doe heard loud noises and moans and believes thal Epstein was masturbating. +Thereafter +Epstein, naked, returned to the message table and laid face up on the table. Epslein than told +Jane Doe to continue with the message and told her to sit on top of him. Out of fear and +trepidation she complied. As Jane rubbed Epstein's chest Epstein began lo use a vibrator on Jane +Doe's vagina. +Thereafier Epslein began to digitally stimulale and altempt to penetrate Jane +Doe's vagina. Ai this same time, with his other hand, Epstein was masturbating. Upon reaching +orgasm Epslein gor up from the message table and told Jane Doe 1o write down her name and +phone number and than lefi the room +35. Jane Doe was ther able 10 get dressed, leave the room and go back down the stairs and +into the kitchen. Epstein, +Land +were waiting for Jane Doe. Epsiein paid Jane Doe + +: +This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit http://www.gfi.com +169 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 70 of 100 +Page: 23/51 +Date: 5/29/2008 12:09:: +$300. +was paid $200 by Epstein for bringing Jane to him. +brought Jane +Doe home. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doc, by and through her Mother, as parent and natural +guardian, demands judgment against Defendants Jeffrey Epstein, Haley | +and +for compensatory damages, treble damages under Florida Stalute section 772.104, costs +and atlorney's fees under Florida Statute section 772.104, and such other and further relief as this +Court deems just and proper. Further, Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint to add +a claim for punitive damages pursuant to Florida Law. +JURY TRIAL DEMAND +Plaintiffs demand a jury trial in this action. +Dated: March _6e. 2008 +Respectfully submitted, +RICCI-LEOPOLD, P.A +Fax: +By: +Florida Bar No +LEOPOLD + + +This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com +170 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 71 of 100 +171 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 72 of 100 +Page: 24/51 +Date: 5/29/2008 12:09: +Civil Cover Shee! +Form 1.997 Civil Cover Sheet +The civil cover sheet and the information conlained herein neither replace nor supplement +the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. This form is +required for the use of the Clerk of the Court for the purpose of reporting judicial +workload data pursuant to Florida Statute 25.075. +50 2008 CA 00 65 96 XXXX MB +1. +CASE STYLE +CIRCUIT COURT +JANE DOE, by and through JANE DOE'S MOTHER +As parent and natural guardian, +f and +ERK +2008 HAR - 6 PM 4: 37 +LED +AB +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +TYPE OF CASE: +Torts:' +3. +Professional Malpractice +Products Liability +uto Negligeno +'Other Negligenc +Other Civil: +Contracts +Condominium +Real Property/Mongage Foreclosure +Eminent Domain +Other +ISJURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT? +YES +NO +This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com +172 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 73 of 100 +From: u. +Jwn +Page: 25/51 +Date: 5/29/2008 12:09: +M +• +DATED THIS +day of March, 2008. +RICCI-LEOPOLD, P.A +2925 PGA Blvd. +Suite 200 +Palm Beact Gardens, FL +32440 +HEODOREJ. +KOPOLD +Florida Bar No. 705608 +This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com +173 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 74 of 100 +174 of 316 + + +case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD. Docket 07/21/2008 Page 75 ot 10 +Page: 26/51 +ate: 5/29/2008 12:097 +I5TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY +FLORIDA +CASE NO: 50 2008 CA 006596 XXXX +MB AB +JANE DOE, by and through JANE DOE'S +MOTHER, as parent and natural guardian, +Plaintiff, +VS. +REPREY EPSTEIN, +and +13 Pi 1:1,2 +Defendants. +SUMMONS +PERSONAL, SERVICE ON A NATURAL PERSON +TO DEFENDANT: +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +457 Madison Avenue +4'' Floor +New York, New York +IMPORTANT +A lawsuit has been filed against you. You have 20 calendar days after this summons is +If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case, and your wages, money, and +property may thereafter be taken without further warning from the Court. There are other legal +requirements. You may want to call an attomey right away. If you do not know an altomney, you +may call an attorney referral service or a legal aid office (lisled in the phone book). +If you choose to file a wrillen response yourself, at the same time you file your written +response lo the Court you must also mail or take a copy of your written response to the "Plaintiff/ +Plaintiff's Altomey" named below. +This fax was received by GFi FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com +175 of 316 + + +Page: 27/51 +intered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 76 ot 10 +te: 5/29/20 +"In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons in need of a special +accommodation to participale in this proceeding shall, within # reasonable time prior 1o any +proceeding, contact the Administrative Office of the Court, 205 North Dixie Highway, Room +5.2500, West Palm Bench, FL. 33401, telephone (561)355-2431, 1-800-955-8771 (TDD), or 1-800- +955-8770 (V), via Flonda Relay Service". +THEODORE J. LEOPOLD, ESQUIRE +RICCI-LEOPOLD, P.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard +Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +(561) 684-6500 +THE STATE OF FLORIDA +TO EACH SHERIFF OF THE STATE: You are commanded to serve this Sumnons and a copy of +the complain/petition in this lawsuit on the above named defendants). +DATED ON +*ARON BOCK SANDRA CUEVA +CHERK OF THE CIRCUTT COURI +By: +Deputy Clerk +IMPORTANTE +Usted ha sido demandado legalmente. Tiene 20 Dias, contados a partir del recibo de +esta notificacion, para contestar la demanda adjunta, por escrito, y presentarla ante este tribunal. +Una llamada telefonica no lo prolegera. Si used desea que el tribunal considere su defensa, debe +presenlar su respuesta por escrito, incluyendo el numbero del caso y los nombres de las partes +interesadas. Si usted no contesta la demanda a tiempo, pudiese perder el caso y podria ser +despojndo de sus ingresos y propiedades, o privado de sus deruchos, sin previo aviso del tribunal. +Existen otros requisitos legales. Si lo desea, puede usted consultar a un abogado inmediatamente. +Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a una de las oficinas de asislencia legal que aparecen en la + +This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com +176 of 316 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 77 ot 101 +From: Ui +Page: 28/51 +Date: 5/29/2008 12:09: +Si desea responder a la demanda por su cuenta, al mismo tiempo en que presenta su +respuesta ante el tribunal, debera usted enviar por correo o entregar una copia de su respuesta a la +persona denominada abajo como "Plaintifl/Plaintiff's Attorney" (Demandante o Abogado del +Demandante). +"De acuerdo con el Acto o Decreto de los Americansos con Impedimentos, +Inhabilitados, personas en necesidad del servicio special para participar en este procedimiento +deberán, dentro de un tiempo razonable, antes de cunlquier procedimiento, ponerse en contacto con +la officina Administratativa de la Cone, 205 Nonh Dixie Highway, oficina 5.2500, West Palm +Beach, FL 33401, Téléfono (561) 355-2431, 1-800-955-8771 (TDD) 6 1-800-955-8770 (V), Via +Florida Relay Service". +IMPORTANT +Des poursuites judiciares ont ere entreprises contre vous. Vous avez, 20 jours +consecutifs a partir de la date de l'assignation de cette citation pour deposer une reponse ecrite a la +plainte ci-jointe aupres de ce tribunal. +Un simple coup de telephone est insuflisant pour vous +proteger. Vous eles oblige de deposer votre reponse ecrite, avec mention du numero de dossier cidessus et du nom des parties nommees ici, si vous souhaitez que le tribunal entende votre cause. Si +vous ne deposez pas votre reponse ecrite dans le relai requis, vous risquez de perdre la cause ainsi +que votre salaire, votre argent, et vos biens peuvent etre saisis par la suite, sans aucun preavis +ulterieur du tribunal. Il y a d'autres obligations juridiques et vous pouvez requerir les services +immediats d'un avocat. Si vous ne connaissez pas d'avocal, vous pourriez telephoner a un service de +reference d'avocats ou a un bureau d'assistance juridique (figurant a l'annuaire de telephones). +Si vous choisissez de deposer vous-meme une reponse ecrite, il vous faudra +egalement, en mème temps que celte formalite, faire parvenir ou expedier une copie de votre +reponse ecrite au "Plaintift/PlaintifT's Attorney" (Plaignant ou a son avocat) nomme ci-dessous. +En accordance avec la Loi des "Americans With Disabilities". Les personnes en +besoin d'une accormedation speciale pour participer a ces procedures doivent, dans un temps +raisonable, avant d'entreprendre aucune autre démarche, contacter l'office administrative de la Court +situé au 5.2500, 205 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Fl. 33401 le telephone (561)355- +2431 ou 1-800-955-8771 (TDD) ou 1-800-955-8770 (V) Via Florida Relay Service. +IMPORTANT +Depré ako ki fer avek Americans With Disabilities Act, tout moun ki ginyin yun +bézwen espésiyal pou akomodasiyon pou yo patisipé nan pwogram sa-a dwé, nan yun rézonab avan +Nanh Dice Hiervay, Cham ninko 52300 Wes Palm Beach, Florido 3, ki en tom ha 05. +(561)355-2431 oubyen 1-800-955-8771 (T.D.D. oubyen 1-800-955-8770 (V) an pasan pa Fiorida + +177 of 316 +This fax was received by GFl FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 78 of 100 +178 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-From Docum Page 23is Enter 22d92pocket 07/21/2008 Page 79 of 100 +1STH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY +FLORIDA +CASE NO: 50 2008 CA 006596 XXXX +MB AB +JANE DOE, by and through JANE DOE'S +MOTHER, as parent and natural guardian, +Plaintiff, +vS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN; +and +Defendants. +SUMMONS +PERSONAL, SERVICE ON A NATURAL PERSON +23E313 Fil 1:42 +Aliti +TO DEFENDANT: +12247 72 COURT NORTH +PALM BEACH, FL +IMPORTANT +A lawsuit has been filed against you. You have 20 calendar days after this summons is +served on you to file a written response to the attached complaint/petition with the Clerk of this +Court, A phone call will not protect you. Your written response, including the case number given +If you do nol file your response on lime, you may lose the case, and your wages, money, and +property may thereafter be taken without further warning from the Court. There are other lega +If you choose to file a written response yourself, at the same time you file your written +response to the Court you must also mail or take a copy of your written response to the "Plaintift/ +Plaintiff's Attomey" named below. +This fax was received by FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: ht://www.gfi.com +179 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM. Documepage Jors Enterad 9315065D Bockąt 07/21/2008 Page 80 of 100 +"In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons in need of a special +accommodation to participale in this proceeding shull, within a reasonable time prior to any +proceeding, contact the Administrative Office of the Court, 205 North Dixie Highway, Room +5.2500, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, telephone (561)355-2431, 1-800-955-8771 (TDD), or 1-800- +955-8770 (V), via Florida Relay Service". +THEODORE J. LEOPOLD, ESQUIRE +RICCI-LEOPOLD, F.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard +Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +(56]) 684-6500 +THE STATE OF FLORIDA +TO EACH SHERIFF OF THE STATE: You are commanded to serve this Summons and a copy of +the complain/petion in this lavsui MA N8 20aned defendan(s). +DATED ON +, 2008. +COMP +SARON SOCK +arcount +07 +SANDRA CUEVA +IMPORTANTE +Usted ha sido demandado legalmente. Tiene 20 Dias, contados a partir del recibo de +esta notificacion, parn contestar la demanda adjunta, por escrito, y presentaria ante este tribunal +Una llamada telefonica no lo protegera. Si usted desca que el tribunal considere su delensa, debe +presentar su respuesin por escrito, incluyendo el numbero del caso y los nombres de las partes +interesadas. Si usted no contesta la demanda a tiempo, pudiese perder el caso y podria ser +despojado de sus ingresos y propiedades, o privado de sus derechos, sin previo aviso del tribunal. +Existen otros requisitos legales. Si lo desea, puede usted consultar a un abogado inmediatamente +Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a uno de las oficinas de asistencia legal que aparecen en la +Si desea responder a la demanda por su cuenta, al mismo liempo en que presenta su +respuesta ante el tribunal, debera usted enviar por correo o entregar una copia de su respuesta a la + +This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com +180 of 316 + + +, Documenage: Js Enterte 93r552 Bockąt 07/21/2008 Page 81 of 100 +persona denominada abajo como "Plaintiff/Plaintiff's Attorney" (Demandante o Abogado del +Demandante). +"De acuerdo con el Acio d Decreto de los Americansos con Impedimentos, +Inhabilitados, personas en necesidad del servicio special para participar en este procedimiento +deberán, dentro de un tiempo razonable, antes de cualquier procedimiento, ponerse en contacto con +la officina Administretativa de la Corte, 205 North Dixie Highway, oficina 5.2500, West Palm +Beach, FL 33401, Téléfono (561) 355-2431, 1-800-955-8771 (TDD) ó 1-800-955-8770 (V), Via +Florida Relay Service". +IMPORTANT +Des poursuites judiciares ont ete entreprises contre vous. Vous avez 20 jours +consecutifs a partir de la date de l'assignation de cette citation pour deposer une reponse ecrite a la +plainte ci-jointe aupres de ce tribunal. +. Un simple coup de telephone est insuffisant pour vous +proteger. Vous etes oblige de deposer votre reponse ecrile, avec mention du nurero de dossier cidessus et du nom des parties nommees ici, si vous souhaitez que le tribunal entende votre cause. Si +vous ne deposez pas votre reponse ecrite dans le relai requis, vous risquez de perdre la cause ainsi +que votre salaire, vore argent, et vos biens peuvent etre saisis par la suite, sans aucun preavis +ulterieur du tribunal. Il y a d'autres obligations juridiques et vous pouvez requerir les services +immediats d'un avocat. Si vous ne connaissez pas d'avocat, vous pourriez telephoner a un service de +reference d'avocats ou a un burcau d'assistance juridique (figurant a l'annuaire de telephones). +Si vous choisissez de deposer vous-meme une reponse ecrite, il vous faudra +egalement, en meme temps que cette formalite, faire parvenir ou expedier une copie de votre +reponse ecrite au "Plaintifi/Plaintiff's Atomey" (Plaignant ou a son avocat) nomme ci-dessous. +Eri accordance avec la Loi des "Americans With Disabilities". Les personnes en +besoin d'une accommodation speciale pour participer a ces procedures doivent, dans un temps +raisonable, avant d'entreprendre aucune autre démarche, contacter l'office administrative de la Court +situé au 5.2500, 205 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 le telephone (561)355- +2431 ou 1-800-955-8771 (TDD) ou 1-800-955-8770 (V) Via Florida Relay Service. +IMPORTANT +Dápré ako ki fet avek Americans With Disabilities Act, tout moun ki ginyin yun +(561)355-2431 oubyen 1-800-955-8771 (T.D.D. oubyen 1-800-955-8770 (V) an pasan pa Florida +181 of 316 + +This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 82 of 100 +182 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804 Kom Docum Page 371 Enter225920Pocket 07121/2008 Page 83 of 100 +15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY +FLORIDA +CASE NO: 50 2008 CA 006596 XXXX +MB AB +JANE DOE, by and through JANE DOE'S +MOTHER, as parent and natural guardian, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +and +Defendants. +SUMMONS +PERSONAL SERVICE ON A NATURAL PERSON +TO DEFENDANT: +301 East 66" Street +Apt. ION +New York, New York +IMPORTANT +A lawsuit has been filed against you. You have 20 calendar days after this summons is +served on you to file a written response to the attached complaint/petition with the Clerk of thi +Court. A phone call will not protect you. Your written response, including the case number give +above and the names ef the parties, must be filed if you want the Court to hear your side of the case +If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case, and your wages, money, and +property may thereafter be taken withoul further warning from the Court. There are other legal +requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know un attorney, you +may call an attomey referral service or a legal aid office (listed in the phone book). +If you choose to file a written response yourself, at the same time you file your wrillen +response to the Court you must aiso mail or take a copy of your written response to the "PlaintifT/ +Plaintiff's Attorey" named below. +183 of 316 +This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-Krom Docume age 3315 Entered 28/58D Bocket 07/21/2008 Page 84 of 100 +"In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons in need of a special +accommodation to participate in this proceeding shall, within a reasonable lime prior to any +proceeding, contact the Administrative Office of the Court, 205 North Dixie Highway, Room +5.2500, West Palm Beach, Fl. 33401, telephone (561)355-2431, 1-800-955-8771 (TDD), or 1-800- +955-8770 (V), via Florida Relay Service" +THEODORE J. LEOPOLD, ESQUIRE +RJCCI-LEOPOLD, P.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard +Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410 +(561) 684-6500 +THE STATE OF FLORIDA +TO EACH SHERIFF OF THE STATE: You are commanded to serve this Summons and a copy of +the complaint/pelition in this lawsuit on the above named defendant(s). +DATED ON +MAR 1 8209808. +1A L +aul +KHARON BOCK +CERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT +SANDRA CUEVA +•By: +Deputy Clerk +IMPORTANTE +Usted ha sido demandado legalmente. Tiene 20 Dias, contados a partir del recibo de +esta notificacion, para contestar la demanda adjunta, por escrito, y presentarla ante este tribunal. +Una llamada telefonica no lo protegera. Si usted desea que el tribunal considere su defensa, debe +preventa su respuesia por escrito, incluyendo el numbero del caso y los nambres de las partes +Si usted no contesta la demanda a tiempo, pudiese perder el caso y podria ser +despojado de sus:ingresos y propiedades, o privado de sus derechos, sin previo aviso del tribunal. +Existen otros requisitos legales. Si lo desea, puede usted consultar a un abogado inmediatamente +Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a una de las oficinas de asistencia legal que aparecen en la +184 of 316 + +This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-K-rom Ocumenage Sais Entered 992r2008 2.B.ockgl 07/21/2008 Page 85 of 100 +Si desca responder a la demanda por su cuenta, al mismo tiempo en que presenta su +respuesta ante el tribunal, debera usted enviar por correo o entregar una copia de su respuesta a la +persona denominada abajo como "Plaintiff/Plaintiff's Attorney" (Demandante o Abogado del +Demandante). +"De acuerdo con el Acto o Decreto de los Americansos con Impedimenios, +Inhabilitados, persones en necesidad del servicio special para participar en este procedimiento +deberan, dentro de un tiempo razonable, antes de cualquier procedimiento, ponerse en contacto con +in officina Administrutativa de la Corle, 205 North Dixie Highway, oficina 5.2500, West Palm +Beach, FL. 33401, Téléfono (561) 355-2431, 1-800-955-8771 (TDD) ó 1-800-955-8770 (V), Via +Florida Relay Service". +IMPORTANT +Des poursuites judiciares ont cle entreprises contre vous. Vous avez 20 jours +consecutifs a partir de la date de l'assignation de cette citation pour deposer une reponse ecrite a la +plainte ci-jointe aupres de ce tribunal. Un simple coup de telephone est insuffisant pour vous +proteger. Vous etes oblige de deposer votre reponse ecrite, avec mention du numero de dossier cidessus et du nom des parties nommees ici, si vous souhaitez que le tribunal entende votre cause. Si +vous ne deposez pas votre reponse ecrite dans le relai requis, vous risquez de perdre la cause ainsi +que votre salaire, votre argent, el vos biens peuvent etre saisis par la suite, sans aucun preavis +ultericur du tribunal. Il y a d'autres obligations juridiques et vous pouvez requerir les services +immediats d'un avocat. Si vous ne connaissez pas d'avocat, vous pourriez telephoner a un service de +reference d'avocats ou a un bureau d'assistance juridique (figurant a l'annuaire de telephones). +Si vous choisissez de deposer vous-meme une réponse ecrite, il vous faudra +egalement, en meme temps que cette formalite, faire parvenir ou expedier une copie de votre +reponse ecrite au "Pla niff/Plaintiff's Atomey" (Plaignant ou a son avocat) nomme ci-dessous. +En accordance avec la Loi des "Americans With Disabilities". Les personnes en +besoin d'une accommodation speciale pour participer a ces procedures doivent, dans un temps +raisonable, avant d'entreprendre aucune autre démarche, contacter l'office administrative de la Court +situé au 5.2500, 205 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 le lelephone (561)355- +2431 ou 1-800-955-8771 (TDD) ou 1-800-955-8770 (V) Via Florida Relay Service. +IMPORTANT +North Dixie Highway, Cham niméro 5.2500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 iéléfon nan se +(561)355-2431 oubyen 1-800-955-8771 (T.D.D. pubyen 1-800-955-8770 (V) an pasan pa Florida +185 of 316 + +This tax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit http://www.gfi.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 86 of 100 +186 of 316 + + +RETURN OF SERVICE +County of Palm Beach +Circult Court +State of Florida +Case Number: 502008CA006596XXXXMBAB +Plantift: +JANE DOE BY AND THROUGH JANE DOE'S MOTHER, AS PARENT +AND NATURAL GUARDIAN +V5. +Defendant: +JEFFREY EPSTEIN. +AND +Ted Leopold, Esquire +RICCI~LEOFOLD, P.A. +2925 Pga Blvd. Suite 200 +Paim Boach Gardens, FL. 33410 +CIRCUIT +18 HAR +72nd COURT NORTH, +| PALM BEACH, FL +1, Nan J. Cutler, do hereby affirm that on the 21st day of March, 2008 at 8:34 pm. I: +SERVED BY RESIDENTIAL SUBSTITUTION by leaving e true copy of this Summons and Complaint with the date +and time of service endorsed thereon by me. This address is the above named subject's usual place of abode The +our document was served to a person residing at this numerical who was verified to be 15 years of age or olde +and was identified as TOMMY +FATHER and informing this subject of the contents therec +I certity that I am over the age of 18, have no interest in the above action, and am a Certified Process Server in +good slanding in the judicial circuit in which the process was served +Many Cathe +Alan J. Cutler +C.W. SERVICES +490B Grasoleaf Drive +Palm Boach Gardens, FL. 3341B +(661) 630-4866 +Our Job Serial Number: 2008034295 +Cosign @ 1083-200% Deistene Serncar In - Procate Servere Toulor V9 5y +187 of 316 +This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM, Documenso Document to mes Et8 2 ok 077212034 29 8 01200 +15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY +FLORIDA +CASE NO: 50 2008 CA 006596 XXXX +MB AB +JANE DOE, by and through JANE DOE'S +MOTHER, as parent and natural guardian, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +SARAH +and +Defendants. +SUMMONS +PERSONAL SERVICE ON A NATURAL PERSON +: +TO DEFENDANT: +1224772 COURT NORTH +TIL PALM BEACH, FL +IMPORTANT +A lawsuit has been filed against you. You have 20 calendar days after this summons is +served on you to file a written response to the attached complain/petition with the Clerk of this +Court. A phone call will not protect you. Your written response, including the case number given +It you do not file yor response on into fled nay went out year your side of her, and. +property may thereafter be taken without further warning from the Court. There are other legal +equirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, yo +nay call an attorney referral service or a legal aid office (listed in the phone book +If you choose to file a wriden response yourself, at the same time you file your written +response to the Court you must also mail or take a copy of your written response to the "Plainti ff/ +PlaintifT's Attomey" named below. +This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com +188 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-Kom Documenge 37151 Entered25252Docket 07/21/2008 Page 89 of 100 +"In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons in need of a special +accommodation to participate in this proceeding shall, within a reasonable time prior 1o any +proceeding, contact the Administrative Office of the Cour, 205 North Dixie Highway, Room +5.2500, West Palm Beach, FL. 33401, telephone (561)355-2431, 1-800-955-8771 (TDD), or 1-800- +955-8770 (V), via Florida Relay Service". +THEODORE J. LEOPOLD, ESQUIRE +RICCI~LEOPOLD, P.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard +Suite 200 +Paim Beach Gardens, FL. 33410 +(561) 684-6500 +THESTATE OF FLOFIDA +TO EACH SHERIFF OF THE STATE: You are commanded to serve this Summons and a copy of +she complainu/petition in this lawsui A 8 named defendan (s). +DATED ON +-, 2008. +SHARON BOCK +CLERK OY THE CIRCUIT COURT +Deputy Clerk +SANDRA CUEVA +IMPORTANTE +Usted ha sido demandado legalmente. Tiene 20 Dias, contados a partir del recibo de +Una llamada telefonica no lo protegera. Si usted desea que el tribunal considere su defensa, debe +presentar su respuesta por escrito, incluyendo el numbero del caso y los nombres de las partes +si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a una de las oficinas de asistencia legal que aparecen en la +Si desca responder a la demanda por su cuenta, al mismo liempo en que presenta su +respuesta ante el tribunal, debera usted enviar por corren o entregar una copia de su respuesta a la + +Tris fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com +189 of 316 + + +From: +OWn +Page: 38/51 +Entere 9292dat-S.8 Dosket 07/21/2008 Page 90 of 100 +persona denominada abujo como "Plnintiff/PlaintifT's Attorney'" (Demandante o Abogado del +Demandante). +"De acuerdo con el Acto d Deoreto de los Americansos con Impedimentos, +Inhabilitados, personas en necesidad del servicio special para participar en este procedimiento +deberán, dentro de un t.empo razonable, antes de cualquier procedimiento, ponerse en contacto con +la officina Administratativa de la Corte, 205 North Dixie Highway, oficina 5.2500, West Palm +Beach, Fl. 33401, Téléfono (561) 355-2431, 1-800-955-8771 (TDD) • 1-800-955-8770 (V), Via +Floridn Relay Service". +IMPORTANT +Des poursuites judiciares ont ete entreprises contre vous. Vous avez 20 jours +consecutifs a partir de la date de l'assignation de cette citation pour deposer une reponse ecrite n la +pleinte ci-jointe nupres de ce tribunal. Un simple coup de telephone est insuffisant pour vous +proteger. Vous etes oblige de deposer votre reponse cerite, avec mention du numero de dossier cidessus et du nom des parties nommees ici, si vous souhaitez que le tribunal entende votre cause. Si +vous ne deposez, pas votre reponse ecrite dans le relai requis, vous risquez de perdre la cause ainsi +que votre salaire, votre argent, et vos biens peuvent etre saisis par in suile, suns aucun preavis +ullerieur du tribuhal. Il y a d'autres obligations juridiques et vous pouvez requerir les services +immediats d'un avocat. Si vous ne connaissez pas d'avocat, vous pourriez telephoner a un service de +reference d'avocats ou a un bureau d'assistance juridique (figurant a l'annuaire de telephones). +Si vous choisissez de deposer vous-meme une reponse ecrito, il vous faudra +egalement, en mère temps que cette formalite, faire parvenir ou expedier une copie de votre +reponse ccrite au "Plaintift/Plaintif's Atomey" (Plaignant ou a son avocat) nomme ci-dessous. +En accordance avec la Loi des "Americans With Disubilities". Les personnes en +besoin d'une accommodation speciale pour participer a ces procedures doivent, dans un lemps +raisonable, avant d'entreprendre aucune autre démarche, contacter l'office administrative de la Court +situé nu 5,2500, 205 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL. 33401 le iclephone (561)355- +2431 ou 1-800-955-8771 (TDD) ou 1-800-955-8770 (V) Via Florida Relay Service. +IMPORTANT +Dripré ako ki fet avek Americans With Disabilities Act, tout moun ki ginyin yun +hiper raniman kapu ko. y die kontale Atmininative Ofice of the Cour, Ki han limer 205, +North Dixie Highway, Cham niméro 5.2500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 téléfon nan sé +(561)355-2431 oubyen 1-800-955-8771 (T.D.D. oubyen 1-800-955-8770 (V) an pasan pa Florida +Reluy Service. +i +Page 3 of3 +190 of 316 +This fax was received by GFl FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 91 of 100 +191 of 316 + + +Document 1-1 +Page: 39/51 +, Entere d12972das FBPocket 07/21/2008 Page 92 of 100 +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ISTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN +AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA +CASE NO. S0 2008 CA006596 +XXXX MB +JANE DOE, by and through JANE +DOE'S MOTHER, as parent and natural +guardian +03 +AFR +Plaintiff, +VS. +F ll +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +and ( +Defendants. +4:12 +MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS +COMESNOW1 +by and through her undersigned attorneys, +and files this Motion 10 Quash Service of Process, and as grounds therefore would +state as follows: +1. Florida Statute $48.031(1) allows service of original process +by delivering a copy of it to the person to be served or by leaving copies at his or her +usual place of abode with any person residing there who is fifteen years or older and +informing that person of their contents. +An agent for counsel for the Plaintiff purports to have served +with a copy of the Complaint viaresidential substitution on March +21, 2008 at 8:34 b.m. (A true and correct copy of the Return of Service is attached +192 of 316 +MCINTOSN, SAWIAN, P'ELTZ, 4 CAlTAYA, P.A. - ATTURNEYSAT LAW - DI PURUM PLACE - SUITE H10 • WI3I TALM BEACH, V1 13001 +TELEPHUNL (M1) *42-1709 +MACSIAILA: 1961) 082-110i +This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit. http://www.gfi.com + + +Document 1-1 +Page: 40/51 +, Entere d2972505 F28gPoCket 07/21/2008 Page 93 of 100 +CASE NO. 50 2008 CA006596 XXXX MB +193 of 316 +hereto as Exhibit A.) As the Court can see, the agent for the Plaintiff who served the +Summons and Complaint purports to have served the same on Tommy +, who +is identified as +father. Said service was purportedly made at 12247 +72nd Court North +Palm Beach, Florida, located in Palm Beach County. +3. +On March 21, 2008, +usual place of abode was not +1224772nd Court North, +Palm Beach, Florida, in Palm Beach County. Rather, +usual place of abode on March 21, 2008, was an entirely different +location. +did not authorize anyone, including Tommy +, 10 +accept service of process on her behalf. Therefore, this service was not proper and +was ineffective. +4. It is well recognized in Florida that a person's usual place of abode is +defined as the place where the person is actually living at the time of service. See +Shurman v. Allantic Morigage and Investment Corp., 795 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2001). In +the Sturman opinion, the Supreme Court of Florida also confirmed that "statutes +governing service of process are to be strictly construed and enforced." Id. at 954. +5. +There are different schools of thought as to the most appropriate way to +challenge service of process. There is also some confusion with regard to whether +filing a motion other than a Motion 10 Quash Service of Process waives one's right +2 +MCINTOSH, SAWILAN, PRITY, & CARTAVA, I'-A. - ATTORNEYS ATLAW - AGUS PORUM PLACE • SITE ILD • WEST PALM HACI, FL. 23401 +TELEPHONE (941) 481-3301 +FAGSIMILE: (361) 482-3206 +This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM Document 1-151 EnDate 1292054128gDoçket 07/21/2008 Page 94 of 100 +CASE NO. 50 2008 CA006596 XXXX MB +to move to quash service of process. Therefore, +files this Motion to +Quash Service of Process in lieu of any other type of motion or responsive pleading +pursuant to the Fourth District Court of Appeal's opinion in Baraban r. Sussman +which holds that the "preferable manner of presenting a defense of insufficiency of +service of process ...is by a Motion to Quash such allegedly insufficient service of +process rather than py a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint." Baraban v. Sussman, 439 +So. 2d 1046, 1047 (Fla. 4"' DCA 1983). +reserves the right to supplement this motion with evidence +to support it. +WHEREFORE, +the entry of an Order granting +Process. +respectfully moves this Honorable Court for +Motion to Quash the Service of +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was +furnished via regular mail to Theodore J. Leopold, Esq., Ricci-Leopold, P.A., 2925 +PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, P.O. Box 2946, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410, this +10th day of April, 2008. +194 of 316 +3 +MCINTOSH. SAWDAM, PELTZ, i CANTAVA, l.A. - ATTORNEYS AT LAW - 160 MOMA PRACI - SUTE 1NO - WEST PALA ALACI, MI. 234U1 +TELEPHUNE 15611483-3203 +VAS SIMILE 1561663-2106 +This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com + + +Page: 42i5, Entered +Date 19525d8 52oPocket 07/21/2008 Page 95 of 100 +CASE NO. 50 2008 CA006596 XXXX MB +McINTOSH, SAWRAN, PELT/ +& CARTAYA, P.A. +Centurion Tower +1601 Forum Place, Suite 1110 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Telephone: (561) 682-3202 +Facsinnle: +(561) 682-3206 +By:_ +DOUGLAS M. McINTOSH +Florida Bar No. 325597 +JASON A. MeGRATH +Florida Bar No. 97349 +4 +MCINTOSH, SAWAN, FALI, 4 CANTAYA, l'.A.- ATTORMEYS AT LAW - 180) FORUN PLATE • SUITE 10O - WENI TAIM BLACH, FL THUI +TELEPHONE. (361) •83-3202 +FAC.SEMILK (3411 B87-3704 +This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com +195 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804 Km Documege: 13151 Entere 9281054128g ogket 07/21/2008 Page 96 of 100 +RETURN OF SERVICE +County of Palm Boach +Circult Court +Stato of Florida +Coco Numbo*: 502008CA008596XXXXMBAB +Plaintit: +JANE DOE BY AND THROUSH JANE DOE'S MOTHER, AS PARENT +AND NATURAL GUARDIAN +VE. +Defandant: +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +AND +For +Ted Leopold, Esquire +RICCI-LEOPOLD, P.A +08 MAR 25 +2025 Pgo live. Sulle 200 +Palm Boach Gardona, FL 33410 +Recolved by C.W SERVICES on the 19th dily of March. 2008 at D 20 am ta be served on HALLY ROPSON, 12247 +72nd COURT NORTH, +PALM BEACH, FL. +1, Alan d. Cutlar, do horaby eMrm that on the 21at day of March, 2008 ot 8:34 pm, I: +SERVED BY RESIDENTIAL SUBSTITUTION by leaving a true copy of this Summons and Complaint with the date +and lime of service andorsed thoreon by . This addross is the above named subjec's usual place of abode. The +Dur document was served too person residing at this numerical who was verified to be 15 your of age or olde +nd was identified as TOMMY ROBSON/FATHER und Informing this subjact of the contents there +I carity thal i am over the age of 18, have no interest in the above action, and am a Certified Process Server in +good slanding in the judicial circult in which the process was sarved. +C.W. SERVICES +BD8 Grassloaf Driv +alm Boach Gardena, FL 3341 +(861) 630-4868 +Our Job Sarial Number. 2008034295 +Coperipris 1982-2005 Dainbao Decides, Is • Procese dervers Tocoa VO.0) +DEFENDANT'S + +A +196 of 316 +This fax was received by GFl FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit. http://www.gfi.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 97 of 100 +197 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 98 of 100 +Page: 44/51 +Date: 5/29/2008 12:09: +RETURN OF SERVICE +County of Palm Boach +Circuit Court +Stato of Florida +Case Number: 502008CA008596XXXXMBAB +Plaintifi +JANE DOE BY AND THROUGH JANE DOE'S MOTHER, AS PARENT +AND NATURAL GUARDIAN +VS. +Defendant: +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +AND +•н= +J°r. +2008 MAY 20 +For. +Ted Leopold, Esquire +RICCI-LEOPOLD, P.A +AHIO: 1 +2025 Pga Bid Suite 200 +9: 8 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +Received by C W SERVICES on the 14th day of May, 2008 at 3:59 pm to be served on JEFFREY EPSTEIN. 368 +EL. BRILLO WAY. PALM BEACH FL. 334BD +I, Alan J Cutler, do hereby affirm that on the 18th day of May, 2008 at 9:15 am. I: +BERVED BY RESIDENTIAL SUBSTITUTION by leaving a true copy of this Summons and Complaint with the date +and time of service endorsed thereon by me This address is the above named subject's usual place of abode The +court document was served to person residing at this numerical who was verified to be 15 years of age or older +and was identified as JANJSZ BANASIAK (LIVE IN HOUSE MANAGER) and informing this subject of the contents +Military Status: Based upon inquiry of party served, defendant is not in the military service of the United States. +I certify that 1 am over the age of 18, have no interest in the above action, and am a Certified Process Server in +good standing in the judicial circuit in which the process was served +AlaCetter +Alan J. Cutler +Court Officer #B43 +C.W. SERVICES +490B Grasoloaf Drive +Palm Beach Gardons, FL 3341B +(661) 630-4866 +Our Job Serial Number: 2008035775 +This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com +198 of 316 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 99 of 100 +From: Li +Page: 45/51 +Date: 5/29/2008 12:09.: +34296 +97 +15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY +FLORIDA +CASE NO: 50 2008 CA 006596 XXXX +MB AB +JANE DOE, by and through JANE DOE'S +MOTHER, us parent and natural guardian, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Tand +Defendunts. +SUMMONS +PERSONAL, SERVICE ON A NATURAL PERSON +TO DEFENDANT: +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +457 Madison Avenue +4'' Floor +New York, New York 10022 +IMPORTANT +A lawsuit has been filed aguinst you. You have 20 calendar days afler this summons is +served on you fil i rite report o the liced cane rein til ase Cite thin +above and the names of the parties, must be filed if you want the Court to hear your side of the case. +r you done it eater poten on for our on to e out. r +requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you +may call an attorney referral service or a legal aid office (listed in the phone book). +If you choose to file a written response yourself, at the same time you file your written +response to the Court you must also mail or take a copy of your written response to the "Plaintiff/ +Plaintiff's Attorney" named below. +L +199 of 316 +This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 100 of +Page: 46/51 10.0e: 5/29/200B 12:09: +"In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons in need of a special +accommodation to participate in this proceeding shall, within a reasonable time prior to any +proceeding, contact the Administrative Office of the Court, 205 North Dixie Highway, Room +5.2500, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, telephone (561)355-2431, 1-800-955-8771 (TDD), or 1-800- +955-8770 (V), via Forida Relay Service". +THEODORE J. LEOPOLD, ESQUIRE +RICCI-LEOPOLD, P.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard +Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410 +(561) 684-6500 +THE STATE OF FLORIDA +TO EACH SHERIFF OF THE STATE: You are commanded to serve this Sumnions and a copy of +the complaint/petition in this lawsuit on the above named defendants) +CIR C +DATED ON +MARE +CONTROLLE +SHARON BOCK SANDRA CUZIA +CHERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT +By: +Deputy Clerk +IMPORTANTE +Usted ha sido demandado legalmente. Tiene 20 Dias, contados a partir del recibo de +esta notificacion, para contestar la demanda adjunta, por escrito, y presentarla ante esle tribunal. +Una lamada telefonica no lo protegera. Si usted desea que el tribunal considere su defensa, debe +presentar su respuesta por escrito, incluyendo el numbero del caso y los nombres de las parles +interesadas. Si usted no contesta la demanda a tiempo, pudiese perder el caso y podrin ser +despojado de sus ingresos y propiedades, o privado de sus derechos, sin previo aviso del tribunal. +Existen otros requisi os legales: Si lo desca, puede usted consultar a un abogado inmediatamente +Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a una de las oficinas de asistencia legal que aparecen en la + +This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com +200 of 316 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae4fa588245875e71a43614d4194c909cd6d353bf362e64deabc666aef7dcac3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae4fa588245875e71a43614d4194c909cd6d353bf362e64deabc666aef7dcac3.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..75a34fb743fc18ad85e0d893b1f10d9a6abb1816 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae4fa588245875e71a43614d4194c909cd6d353bf362e64deabc666aef7dcac3.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -5570, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ae4fa588245875e71a43614d4194c909cd6d353bf362e64deabc666aef7dcac3", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 122, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "d0bce4d9504230ae2120eaaa3436969cff76e65ce3ca13b57684c51d80708835", + "output_sha256": "cc4330681f3ef65df76263431f77023ab807a5aa67aa77c300ccea6fc4f13b2c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae6adc7df1d0e88a869f98d050cf8af4d1c1107e94a39d757c6f1ca5890c9e8b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae6adc7df1d0e88a869f98d050cf8af4d1c1107e94a39d757c6f1ca5890c9e8b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1cb488dc2555326c94ca6e929a0537fb6d436d60 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae6adc7df1d0e88a869f98d050cf8af4d1c1107e94a39d757c6f1ca5890c9e8b.md @@ -0,0 +1,127 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFF'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR +PROTECTIVE ORDER AGAINST PIECEMEAL DEPOSITIONS, AND +MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY +Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, files this Reply Memorandum In Support of +Motion for Protective Order Against Piecemeal Depositions, and Motion to Consolidate for Purposes +of Discovery, as follows: +DEFENDANT FAILS TO SET FORTH ANY PREJUDICE +OR CONFUSION THAT WOULD MILITATE AGAINST +CONSOLIDATING THESE CASES FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY +In response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate, Defendant asserts that not all common +issues of fact are present and the parties are not identical. These are not reasons to deny +consolidation, particularly the limited consolidation for purposes of discovery sought here.' Rule +42(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., requires only a common question of law or fact, and there need not be an +identity of parties. Defendant also asserts without support or explanation that "confusion will result +and motions in limine will undoubtedly be filed..." In Ramsay v. Broward County Sheriff's +Office, 303 Fed. Appx. 761, 2008 WL 5237162 (11th Cir. 2008), the Court affirmed the District +' In a case relied upon by Defendant, Kelly v. Kelly, 911 F.Supp. 66 (N.D.N.Y. 1996), the issue was +consolidation for purposes of joint trial, so that case is inapposite here. +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2009 Page 2 of 6 +Court's consolidation of two employment discrimination actions, noting that the party opposing +consolidation "has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion by consolidating the two +actions insofar as she has introduced no evidence establishing confusion or prejudice." Id. at *3 & +n. 5. +The risk of confusion or prejudice is generally more likely to arise when there is +consolidation for purposes of trial, which is not being sought in the present cases at this time. See +Hendrix v. Raybestos - Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492, 1495 (11th Cir. 1985). Here, the common +and overlapping motion practice in these cases attests to the efficiencies to be gained by +consolidating for purposes of discovery. Additionally, these cases are on the same or similar +discovery tracks, so there would be no prejudice or confusion arising from the cases being at +different stages of litigation. See Borough of Olyphant v. PPL Corp., 153 Fed. Appx. 80, 2005 WL +2673489 (3d Cir. 2005) (a case cited by Defendant, the Court noted that it has discretion to deny a +motion to consolidate "if it would cause delay in one of the cases or if one of the cases is further +into discovery than the other case"); see also +Motor Credit Co. v. Chiorazzo, 529 F.Supp. 2d +535, 542 (D.N.J. 2008) (denying consolidation of two actions because discovery was nearly +complete in one while the other was in its preliminary stages). +It is within this Court's broad discretion to consolidate: "[Rule 42(a)] is a codification of a +trial court's inherent managerial power to control disposition of the causes on its docket with +economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.' " Hendrix, 776 F.2d at 1495 +(citation omitted). Given the nature of these cases, the common facts alleged and the common issues +of law, consolidation for purposes of discovery would be in the interests of judicial economy and +efficiency. Defendant fails to set forth anything to the contrary. +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2009 Page 3 of 6 +II. THERE SHOULD BE ONLY ONE DEPOSITION FOR EACH PLAINTIFF +In response to Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order to limit Defendant to a single +deposition of each Plaintiff, Defendant fails to set forth any reason why it needs to take two separate +depositions of each Plaintiff. Defendant asserts that it has the right to take both party depositions +and witness depositions, which Plaintiff does not dispute. Where the same person is both party and +witness in related cases, however, it makes eminent sense that there should be only one deposition of +that person. The Court's authority to grant a protective order in this regard falls squarely within +Rule 26(c), which allows such an order to be issued to protect a party from annoyance, +embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. The unnecessary burden and harassment +that would arise from more than one deposition of a plaintiff/victim in these cases is patent and +obvious, particularly since these cases concern sensitive fact issues of sex with minors. +In opposition to the Motion, Defendant makes a vague reference to "proper preparation", but +fails to articulate how its preparation will be prejudiced or otherwise adversely affected by a single +deposition of each Plaintiff.? To the contrary, separate depositions would create an artificial, +awkward dividing line between which questions are of the deponent as a witness and which are of +the deponent as a party, likely giving rise to unnecessary disputes and motion practice. Given the +common and overlapping facts in these cases, there is no reason why a party witness cannot be +questioned in a single sitting on all facts pertinent to Epstein. A protective order is therefore +warranted in these cases so that each Plaintiff has her deposition taken only once. +Conclusion +" Defendant offers as a "compromise" to limit each Plaintiff to two depositions. This would not +sufficiently ameliorate the problem and concern raised in the Motion. Defendant fails to proffer any +reason why it is necessary to take two separate depositions of the same witness. +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2009 Page 4 of 6 +Based on the foregoing, and for the reasons set forth in Plaintiff's Motion for Protective +Order, Motion to Quash Subpoena, and Motion to Consolidate for purposes of discovery, Plaintiff +respectfully requests an Order (i) consolidating these cases for purposes of discovery; (ii) limiting +the Defendant to a single deposition of each Plaintiff; and (iii) such other and further relief this +Court deems just and proper. +Dated: April 27, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiff +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +- 4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2009 Page 5 of 6 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on April 27 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day +to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices +of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who +are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 5- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2009 Page 6 of 6 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 6- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae6adc7df1d0e88a869f98d050cf8af4d1c1107e94a39d757c6f1ca5890c9e8b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae6adc7df1d0e88a869f98d050cf8af4d1c1107e94a39d757c6f1ca5890c9e8b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c32caa2e784b64f5e5ca3c5eedb3ee9484517c3a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae6adc7df1d0e88a869f98d050cf8af4d1c1107e94a39d757c6f1ca5890c9e8b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ae6adc7df1d0e88a869f98d050cf8af4d1c1107e94a39d757c6f1ca5890c9e8b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c1f602df51b57ffbe4d00487462782301a9d1e42a6f6b01a9460ff8ff01672a9", + "output_sha256": "bd632d5a0cf0587511b700ae22272371f433b2b96a23160405b98f00eeda59d0", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae844360ce32a357674a31a24520fafdce67ce83ebbff2929e9adbf8148e7fa6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae844360ce32a357674a31a24520fafdce67ce83ebbff2929e9adbf8148e7fa6.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c58e8b127132c5898299f07fa8ff38e191b4e4af --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae844360ce32a357674a31a24520fafdce67ce83ebbff2929e9adbf8148e7fa6.md @@ -0,0 +1,164 @@ +Fruse 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 291-18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 1 of 3 +1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION +CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA +WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA +JANE DOE, et al., +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +• 15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +210 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Plaintiffs, +JUNE 12, 2009 +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING +BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH A. MARRA, +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +APPEARANCES: +FOR THE PLAINTIFES: +ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQ. +Mermelstein & Horowitz +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Miami, EL 33160 +For Jane Doe +305.931.2200 +J. +,, ESQ. " +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Jane Doe 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 +954.522.3456 +ISIDRO M. I +|, ESQ. +• Elkins Boehringer +224 Datura Avenue +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Jane DOE II +561.832.8033 +RICHARD H. WILLITS, ESQ. +2290 10th Avenue North +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +For C.M.A. +561.582.7600 +5 + + +Case 9:08 cv-80119-KAM Document 291-18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 2 of 3 +33 +1 +course, he would be entitled to take discovery, and we don't +2 +believe that any of that violates the non-prosecution +3 +agreement. +4 +The issue with the pleading that he filed, the motion +5 +to dismiss the case, I believe it's Jane Doe 101, represented +6 +by Mr. Josefsberg, is that that is a case that was filed +7 +exclusively under 18 U.S.C., Section 2255. , She met that +8 +requirement. Mr. Epstein is moving to dismiss it, not on the +9 +basis of damages, he is saying that he cannot be held liable +10 +under 2255 because he was not convicted of an offense. +11 +The reason why he was not convicted of an offense is +12 +because he entered into the non-prosecution agreement. So that +13 +we do believe is a breach. +14 +The issue really that was raised in the motion to stay +15 ฿ +and that I addressed in our response to the motion to stay is +16 +that Mr. Epstein's -- Mr. Epstein wants to stay the litigation +17 +in order to leave, in order to sort of attack the cases of the +18 victims whether they are fully within the non-prosecution t +19 not, non-prosecution agreement or not, and leave the Government +20 +without a remedy if he does, in fact, breach those terms. And +21 +that is why we opposed the stay. +22 +THE COURT: I'm not sure what you mean by that last +23 statement. +24 +MS. VILLAFANA: Well, because this issue related to +25 +the motion to dismiss on Mr. Josefsberg's client came up after + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 291-18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 3 of 3 +34 +1 +we had filed that response. And what we said in the response +'to the motion to stay is that the reason why he wants to stay +3 +the litigation is so that the non-prosecution agreement +4 +terminates based on a period of time, as he puts it. And then +5 +afterwards he would be able to come in here and make all of +6 +these arguments that clearly violate the non-prosecution +7 +agreement but we would be without remedy. +8 +THE COURT: But you're not taking the position that +9 other than possibly doing something in litigation which is a +10 violation of an express provision of the non-prosecution +11 +agreement, any other discovery, motion practice, investigations +12 +that someone would ordinarily do in the course of defending a +13 +civil case would constitute a violation of the agreement? +14 +MS. VILLAFANA: No, Your Honor. I mean, civil +15| litigation is civil litigation, and being able to take +16 +discovery is part of what civil litigation is about. And while +17 +there may be, for example, if someone were to try to subpoena +18 the Government, we would obviously resist under statutory +19 reasons, all that sort of stuff. But, no, Mr. Epstein is +20 +entitled to take the deposition of a plaintiff and to subpoena +21 +records, etc. +22 +THE COURT: And even if he seeks discovery from a +23 +Government agency, you have the right to resist it under the +24 +rules of procedure but that would not constitute a violation, +25 +again unless there's a provision in the prosecution agreement \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae844360ce32a357674a31a24520fafdce67ce83ebbff2929e9adbf8148e7fa6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae844360ce32a357674a31a24520fafdce67ce83ebbff2929e9adbf8148e7fa6.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a9f946f4695a1ba6591cbc61b38c7567feff3958 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae844360ce32a357674a31a24520fafdce67ce83ebbff2929e9adbf8148e7fa6.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -199, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ae844360ce32a357674a31a24520fafdce67ce83ebbff2929e9adbf8148e7fa6", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "212d28630d1f39145591012b15f9d27be723f80349e382ceb2d036caea9d4e97", + "output_sha256": "0960e92b60379ab1492aeed4e732186b2ea0cf349f0ccfa04b4b9fdd8e0effab", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae994127810ad19f43bfa192c82b8ca07afe42a7412bbbca07ee7896f03c0cd1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae994127810ad19f43bfa192c82b8ca07afe42a7412bbbca07ee7896f03c0cd1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0fa6d8a934d5ce80c77dc9ca460010c0e1dc4d47 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae994127810ad19f43bfa192c82b8ca07afe42a7412bbbca07ee7896f03c0cd1.md @@ -0,0 +1,209 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 1 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +AMENDED COMPLAINT +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 6 ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), brings this Complaint against Jeffrey +Epstein, as follows: +2. +Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue +Jane Doe No. 6 is a citizen and resident of the State of Florida, and is sui juris. +This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name to protect the identity of the +Plaintiff because this Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon a +minor. +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen and resident of the State of New York. +4. +This is an action for damages in excess of $50 million. +5. +This Court has jurisdiction of this action and the claims set forth herein pursuant to 28 +U.S.C. §1332(a), as the matter in controversy (i) exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs; +and (ii) is between citizens of different states. +6. +Additionally, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 because +Plaintiff alleges a claim under the laws of the United States. This Court has supplemental +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 2 of 8 +jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over all other claims set forth herein which form part of +the same case or controversy. +This Court has venue of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §$1391(a) and 1391(b) as a +substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. +Factual Allegations +8. +At all relevant times, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") was an adult male, +approximately 52 years old. Epstein is a financier and money manager with a secret clientele limited +exclusively to billionaires. He is himself a man of tremendous wealth, power and influence. He +maintains his principal home in New York and also owns residences in New Mexico, St. +and Palm Beach, FL. The allegations herein concern Epstein's conduct while at his lavish estate in +Palm Beach. +Upon information and belief, Epstein has a sexual preference and obsession for +underage minor girls. He engaged in a plan and scheme in which he gained access to primarily +economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home, sexually assaulted these girls, and then gave +them money. In or about 2004, Jane Doe, then approximately 13 years old, fell into Epstein's trap +and became one of his victims. +10. +Upon information and belief, Jeffrey Epstein carried out his scheme and assaulted +girls in Florida, New York and on his private island, known as Little St. James, in St. +11. +Epstein's scheme involved the use of young girls to recruit underage girls. These +underage girls were recruited ostensibly to give a wealthy man a massage for monetary +compensation in his Palm Beach mansion. Epstein, upon information and belief, generally sought +out economically disadvantaged underage girls from western Palm Beach County who would be +enticed by the money being offered - generally $200 to $300 per "massage" session - and who were +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 3 of 8 +perceived as less likely to complain to authorities or have credibility if allegations of improper +conduct were made. This was an important element of Epstein's plan. +12. +Epstein's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. The underage +victim would be brought or directed to Epstein's mansion, where she would be led up a flight of +stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table in addition to other furnishings. The girl would +then find herself alone in the room with Epstein, who would be wearing only a towel. He would +then remove his towel and lie naked on the massage table, and direct the girl to remove her clothes. +Epstein would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual acts, including masturbation. +13. +Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, when Jane Doe was only 13 years +old, she was recruited by another girl to give Epstein a massage for monetary compensation. Jane +was brought to Epstein's mansion in Palm Beach. Once there, she was led up the flight of stairs to +the room with the massage table. Epstein came into the room and directed Jane to remove her +clothes and give him a massage. As directed by Epstein, Jane stripped to her underwear. Epstein +then sexually assaulted Jane during the massage. In addition, Epstein masturbated during the +massage. Epstein then paid Jane money. +14. +As a result of this encounter with Epstein, Jane experienced confusion, shame, +humiliation and embarrassment, and has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries. +COUNT I +Sexual Assault and Battery +15. +Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. +16. +Epstein made an intentional, unlawful offer of offensive sexual contact toward Jane +Doe, creating a reasonable fear of imminent peril and sexual assault. +17. +Epstein intentionally inflicted harmful or offensive sexual contact on the person of +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 4 of 8 +Jane Doe. +18. +Epstein tortiously committed a sexual assault and battery on Jane Doe. Epstein's acts +were intentional, unlawful, offensive and harmful. +19. +Epstein's plan and scheme in which he committed such acts upon Jane Doe were +done willfully and maliciously. +20. +As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's assault on Jane, she has suffered and +will continue to suffer severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and +emotional damages. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 6 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and such other and further relief as this +Court deems just and proper. +COUNT II +Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress +21. +22. +23. +Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. +Epstein's conduct was intentional or reckless. +Epstein's conduct with a minor was extreme and outrageous, going beyond all bounds +of decency. +24. +Epstein committed willful acts of child sexual abuse on Jane Doe. These acts resulted +in mental or sexual injury that caused or were likely to cause Jane Doe's mental or emotional health +to be significantly impaired. +25. +Epstein's conduet caused severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. Epstein knew or had +reason to know that his intentional and outrageous conduct would cause emotional distress and +damage to Jane Doe, or Epstein acted with reckless disregard of the high probability of causing +-4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 5 of 8 +severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. +26. +As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's intentional or reckless conduct, Jane +Doe, has suffered and will continue to suffer severe mental anguish and pain. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 6 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for compensatory damages, costs, punitive damages, and such other and further relief as this +Court deems just and proper. +COUNT III +Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422 +27. Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. +28. Epstein used a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, +induce or entice Jane Doe, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or +sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. +29. +On June 30, 2008, Epstein entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida §§ 796.07 +and 796.03, in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case nos. 2008-cf- +009381AXXXMB and 2006-cf-009454AXXXMB), for conduct involving the same plan and +scheme as alleged herein. +30. +As to Plaintiff Jane Doe, Epstein could have been charged with criminal violations of +Florida Statute §796.07(2) (including subsections (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) thereof), and other +criminal offenses including violations of Florida Statutes $§ 798.02 and 800.04 (including +subsections (5), (6) and (7) thereof). +31. +32. +Epstein's acts and conduct are in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422. +As a result of Epstein's violation of 18 U.S.C. $2422, Plaintiff has suffered personal +injury, including mental, psychological and emotional damages. +- 5- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 6 of 8 +33. +Plaintiff hired Herman & Mermelstein, P.A., in this matter and agreed to pay them a +reasonable attorneys' fee. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 6 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. §2255(a), including without limitation, actual +and compensatory damages, costs of suit, and attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as +this Court deems just and proper. +JURY TRIAL DEMAND +Plaintiff demands a jury trial in this action on all claims so triable. +Dated: February 27, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Adam D. Horowitz +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiff +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +- 6- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 7 of 8 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on February 27, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of +Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those +parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +- 7- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 8 of 8 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +/s/ Adam D. Horowitz +- 8- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae994127810ad19f43bfa192c82b8ca07afe42a7412bbbca07ee7896f03c0cd1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae994127810ad19f43bfa192c82b8ca07afe42a7412bbbca07ee7896f03c0cd1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b4570ed14031b957425a89cd18d3c7144f31d8bd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ae994127810ad19f43bfa192c82b8ca07afe42a7412bbbca07ee7896f03c0cd1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -96, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ae994127810ad19f43bfa192c82b8ca07afe42a7412bbbca07ee7896f03c0cd1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "52b295a1f51f33e5c055de49532e5b7287ebd8c943776b7b9e298faea1daddd2", + "output_sha256": "13b2d7ce931b59eb023e2d8556e80da464d07f0f3fcf87966b80e23d2444ff0e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aebafbf8c0736be16b47070181891224d7e236a9665aec82cd2db85a5c93dda5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aebafbf8c0736be16b47070181891224d7e236a9665aec82cd2db85a5c93dda5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..928a9f98a3ce0d3da510b0c7f91bb5ce16f951fe --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aebafbf8c0736be16b47070181891224d7e236a9665aec82cd2db85a5c93dda5.md @@ -0,0 +1,259 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 1 of 9 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 2 of 9 +JANE DOE NO. 6 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRAI, +C.M.A. +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRAJ, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/ +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 3 of 9 +DOE II +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80469-MARRAI +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101 +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRAI. +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102 +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA!! +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFF, C.M.A!'S, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING +TREATMENT RECORDS FROM PARENT-CHILD CENTER, INC, DR. SERGE THYS, +DOMINIQUE HYPPOLITE/SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, GOOD +SAMARITAN HOSPITAL, ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL, FLORIDA ATLANTIC +UNIVERSITY AND GLORIA C. HAKKARAINEN, M.D. AND INCORPORATED +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Plaintiff, C.M.A., by and through her undersigned attorneys, hereby files her +Motion For Protective Order Regarding Treatment Records From Parent-Child Center, +Inc., Dr. Serge Thys, Dominique Hyppolite/School District of Palm Beach County, Good +Samaritan Hospital, St. Mary's Hospital, Florida Atlantic University and Gloria C. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 4 of 9 +Hakkarainen, M.D. and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, and in support there of +states as follows: +1. +This is an action to recover money damages against Defendant, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for acts of sexual abuse and prostitution committed upon the thenminor, C.M.A. +2. Plaintiff has plead thirty separate counts against EPSTEIN for separate +incidences of abuse committed by EPSTEIN against Plaintiff pursuant to 18 U.S.C. +§2255. 18 U.S.C. §2255, entitled "Civil remedy for personal injuries", creates a private +right of action for minor children who were the victims of certain enumerated sex +offenses. 18 U.S.C. §2255 also creates a statutory floor for the amount of damages a +victim can recover for a violation of same. Plaintiff has also alleged a single count of +Sexual Battery against EPSTEIN. +There presently exists between the Plaintiff and EPSTEIN a disagreement +as to whether the statutory damage floor established in 18 U.S.C. §2255 is recoverable +for each commission of an enumerated sex offenses listed in 18 U.S.C. §2255, or +whether the statutory damage floor can only be enforced once, regardless of how many +times a defendant perpetrates an enumerated sex offense against a minor victim. +This disagreement between the parties is properly the subject of +Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint For Failure to State a Cause +of Action, and Motion For More Definite Statement; Motion to Strike, and Supporting +Memorandum of Law (Attached hereto as Exhibit "A'") which is currently pending before +this Court. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 5 of 9 +5. +In the event that the Court rules that Plaintiff can recover the statutory +damage floor established in 18 U.S.C. §2255 for each proven incident of abuse +committed by EPSTEIN upon her, Plaintiff intends to rely exclusively on the statutory +damages, rather than those damages which are available at common law. (See +Plaintiff, C.M.A.'s Conditional Notice of Intent to Exclusively Rely on Statutory Damages +Provided by 18 U.S.C. §2255 attached hereto as Exhibit "B). If however, the Court +rules that the statutory floor applies only one time, regardless of the number of times +EPSTEIN committed an enumerated sexual offense against her, Plaintiff will be +pursuing all damages available to her at both common law and by statute. +6. Given Plaintiff's intent to rely exclusively on the statutory damages +available to her under 18 U.S.C. §2255 as outline above, Plaintiff will not be presenting +any evidence of the extent of her physical, emotional, or pecuniary injuries, beyond +evidence that she was the victim of sexual contact to which she was legally incapable of +consenting by virtue of her age (including, pain and suffering, emotional distress, +psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, +loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, and loss of the capacity to enjoy life). +Accordingly, any testimony and/or discovery regarding those types of damages would +not be relevant to any material issue pending in this case. +Presently pending before the Court is Defendant EPSTEIN's Motion to +Compel Plaintiff C.M.A. to Respond to Defendant's First Request to Produce and +Answer Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, and to Overrule Objections, and For an +Award of Defendant's Reasonable Expenses (Attached hereto as Exhibit "C"). +5 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 6 of 9 +EPSTEIN is seeking from Plaintiff the production of certain treatment records of hers +from the Parent-Child Center, Inc., Dr. Serge Thys, a psychiatrist, Dominique +Hyppolite/School District of Palm Beach County, Good Samaritan Hospital, St. Mary's +Hospital, Florida Atlantic University and Gloria C. Hakkarainen, M.D. +8. +None of the treatment records from the Parent-Child Center, Inc., Dr. +Serge Thys, Dominique Hyppolite/School District of Palm Beach County, Good +Samaritan Hospital, St. Mary's Hospital, Florida Atlantic University and Gloria C. +Hakkarainen, M.D. will have any relevance whatsoever in the event that Plaintiff +pursues only those statutory damages available to her under 18 U.S.C. §2255. To the +contrary, the production of these confidential and private treatment records would only +serve to further humiliate, embarrass, and victimize C.M.A +Furthermore, C.M.A.'s treatment records from the Parent-Child Center, +Inc., Dr. Serge Thys, Dominique Hyppolite/School District of Palm Beach County, Good +Samaritan Hospital, St. Mary's Hospital, Florida Atlantic University and Gloria C. +Hakkarainen, M.D. are protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege pursuant to +the Supreme Court's decision in Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1923 +(1996)("All agree that a psychotherapist privilege covers confidential communications +made to licensed psychiatrists and psychologists. We have no hesitation in concluding +in this case that the federal privilege should also extend to confidential communications +made to licensed social workers in the course of psychotherapy.") Ordinarily, a plaintiff +does not place her mental condition in controversy merely by requesting damages for +mental anguish or "garden variety" emotional distress. In order to place a party's mental + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 7 of 9 +condition in controversy the party must allege a specific mental or psychiatric disorder +or intend to offer expert testimony to support their claim of emotional distress. Turner v +Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89 (S.D.Cal. 1995). The evidence sought is also protected +under the substantive privacy rights recognized in Florida Statute §§90.503 and +90.5035. +10. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully moves for the entry of a protective order +pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(c) regarding Plaintiff's treatment records from the +Parent-Child Center, Inc., Dr. Serge Thys, Dominique Hyppolite/School District of Palm +Beach County, Good Samaritan Hospital, St. Mary's Hospital, Florida Atlantic University +and Gloria C. Hakkarainen, M.D. More particularly, Plaintiff requests the entry of an +order precluding the discovery of those records until such time as the Court rules on the +issue regarding whether the statutory damage floor as contained in 18 U.S.C. §2255 +applies to each proven commission of an enumerated sexual offense by EPSTEIN +against CMA. Should the Court rule that 18 U.S.C. §2255 provides a per incident +damage floor, the treatment records would have absolutely no relevance whatsoever. +In the event that the Court rules that the damage floor applies only once, the parties can +then further brief the Court as to whether C.M.A has placed her mental condition "in +controversy" such that it operates as a waiver of the psychotherapist-patient privilege. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, C.M.A., respectfully requests that this Court enter a +protective order preventing the discovery of Plaintiff's treatment records from the +Parent-Child Center, Inc., Dr. Serge Thys, Dominique Hyppolite/School District of Palm +Beach County, Good Samaritan Hospital, St. Mary's Hospital, Florida Atlantic University +7 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 8 of 9 +and Gloria C. Hakkarainen, M.D. until such time as the Court decides whether the +statutory damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 are available to a victim of an +enumerated sexual offense on a per incident basis. +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1 +Counsel for the movant conferred via telephone with counsel for the Defendant +and counsel for the Defendant is not in agreement with Plaintiff's Motion For Protective +Order Regarding Treatment Records From the Parent-Child Center, Inc., Dr. Serge +Thys, Dominique Hyppolite/School District of Palm Beach County, Good Samaritan +Hospital, St. Mary's Hospital, Florida Atlantic University and Gloria C. Hakkarainen, +M.D. and Incorporated Memorandum of Law. +Is/ Jack P. +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 20th day of July, 2009, I electronically filed the +foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using CM/ECF system, which will send a notice +of electronic filing to all counsel of record on the attached service list. +Is/Jack P. +Jack Scarola +Florida Bar No.: 169440 +Jack P. +Florida Bar No.: 0547808 +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: +(561) 686-6300 +Fax: +(561) 383-9424 +Attorneys for Plaintiff +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 9 of 9 +COUNSEL LIST +Richard H. Willits, Esquire +Richard H. Willits, P.A +2290 10th Avenue North, Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Phone: +(561) 582-7600 +Fax: +(561) 588-8819 +Robert Critton, Esquire +Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman LLP +515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33414 +Phone: +(561) 842-2820 +(561) 844-6929 +Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: +(561) 863-9100 +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esquire +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 South Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: +(561) 202-6360 +Fax: +(561) 828-0983 +9 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aebafbf8c0736be16b47070181891224d7e236a9665aec82cd2db85a5c93dda5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aebafbf8c0736be16b47070181891224d7e236a9665aec82cd2db85a5c93dda5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9ec2af3b2b3a36a4052c7c196b2548d044b2737e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aebafbf8c0736be16b47070181891224d7e236a9665aec82cd2db85a5c93dda5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -110, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "aebafbf8c0736be16b47070181891224d7e236a9665aec82cd2db85a5c93dda5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 10, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2d3cd49392538fd754649ee501e8fd84fadd3ee738185a0f64f6cff4616ce2fd", + "output_sha256": "ee4d928d805c6240e88f7632d4fe35951c1b81f207038a4c0b19bcb5dd41e89f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aec29e57ae0c1bcb76604c7d4181fea31ac3d54abe3f3abdd62ebbaf345706fa.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aec29e57ae0c1bcb76604c7d4181fea31ac3d54abe3f3abdd62ebbaf345706fa.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6c1c83c3b503e140fdca3c88bf90852239bbc095 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aec29e57ae0c1bcb76604c7d4181fea31ac3d54abe3f3abdd62ebbaf345706fa.md @@ -0,0 +1,431 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 1 of 16 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092, +JANE DOE NO. 4's APPEAL PURSUANT TO S.D.FLA.L.MAG.R. 4 +OF ORDER DENYING HER MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER +AGAINST SECOND DAY OF DEPOSITION EXTENDING PAST SEVEN HOURS +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 4 ("Plaintiff"), by and through undersigned counsel, files this +Appeal, pursuant to S.D.Fla.Mag.J.R. 4 and 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A), of the Magistrate Judge's +Omnibus Order entered on November 17, 2009 (DE 413), which denied Jane Doe No. 4's +Motion for Protective Order Against Second Day of Deposition Extending Past Seven Hours, on +the grounds set forth below. +I. Introduction and Summary +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's demonstrated strategy in defense of these cases has been to +harass, intimidate, embarrass and humiliate the Plaintiffs. He has done this through the +aggressive use of investigators; extensive and invasive discovery on the details of the Plaintiffs' +sexual histories with men other than Epstein; and now, by means of a badgering and berating the +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 2 of 16 +Plaintiffs at deposition.' The Plaintiffs in these cases - who generally have low socio-economic +backgrounds and poor self-esteem - are particularly vulnerable to Defendant's nefarious tactics, +and indeed it may fairly be inferred that this is a significant reason why Jeffrey Epstein, a +convicted sex offender, selected them to be his victims in the first place. By denying Plaintiff's +Motion for Protective Order in its entirety, the Magistrate Judge's Order (DE 413) is clearly +erroneous and contrary to law. This Order compels Jane Doe No. 4 to sit for an additional four +hours of deposition, after having her deposition taken for five hours and thirty-five minutes +(excluding breaks) over the course of a full day. Plaintiff appeals this Order on the grounds that +it fails entirely to recognize or acknowledge that: +• Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(1) and S.D.Fla.L.R. 26.1(K), the 7-hour time limit for +depositions is presumptive; it is clearly Defendant's burden by motion to show cause +for a longer deposition, which Defendant fails entirely to satisfy.? +• Under S.D.Fla.L.R. 30.1(A)(5), the questioning of Jane Doe No. 4 during the first 5½ +hours of her deposition was abusive. It demonstrates that no more than 7 hours are +necessary for a fair and appropriate deposition, and that the additional four hours of +deposition time ordered by the Magistrate Judge will undoubtedly subject Jane Doe +No. 4 to further abuse as described in S.D.Fla. L.R. 30.1(A)(5). +• Under this Court's Order Consolidating Cases dated May 14, 2009 (DE 98), any +waiver of the 7 hour limit is subject to the admonition that no party has the authority +'pedict or Paste Do Nosie, ought ispier of the price seous pricies aint to +these instances, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiffs any relief. See infra. +2 Defendant not only fails to satisfy this burden, but the 446 pages of transcripts of the existing +deposition, in three volumes, demonstrate by themselves that Defendant should not be permitted +to exceed the 7-hour limit. See infra and attached Exhibits 1-3. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 3 of 16 +"to take unnecessarily long depositions, or abuse the process." (I 8). The Magistrate +Judge's Order contains no such admonition, yet the transcripts of the existing +deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 demonstrate vividly Defendant's abuse of the +deposition process. +Rules 26(c) and 30(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are designed to prevent +exactly the misconduct demonstrated in the present case - Jeffrey Epstein's use of discovery as a +tactic with the ulterior motive to harass and humiliate the Plaintiff. The Magistrate Judge's +failure to provide any protection to Plaintiff whatsoever under these circumstances, and +perfunctorily grant Defendant carte blanche in discovery, is clearly erroneous. +I. Procedural Background +Jane Doe No. 4's deposition was originally scheduled for September 16, 2009. On that +date, while Plaintiff was walking to the conference room where the deposition was to be taken +pursuant to Jeffrey Epstein's notice, Jeffrey Epstein appeared within a few feet of Plaintiff, in +contravention of the express agreement of Epstein's counsel and in violation of the No-contact +Order entered by this Court. (DE 238). This gave rise to motion practice that was resolved by +the Magistrate Judge's Order dated October 23, 2009 (DE 369), which required that Jane Doe +No. 4 sit for deposition on October 27, 2009 at 11:00 a.m., and prohibited Jeffrey Epstein from +appearing at the deposition. +Prior to the deposition, Plaintiffs' counsel advised Defendant's counsel of their position +that the deposition could go no longer than 7 hours absent court order. Jane Doe No. 4 appeared +" As discussed below, the Magistrate Judge issued her decision granting Defendant all the relief +equested in his Response Memorandum before Plaintiff had an opportunity to file a Reply t +Jefendant's Response Memorandum, and without the benefit of the transcripts of Jane Doe No +4's existing deposition, which had not been filed at the time that the Order was entered. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 4 of 16 +for deposition at the court ordered date and time. Jane Doe's deposition proceeded from 11:11 +a.m. until 6:05 p.m. The deposition transcript is in three volumes and at this point 446 pages in +length. A complete copy of the deposition transcripts, volumes I-III, is attached hereto as +Exhibits 1-3, respectively. +Subsequent to the deposition, the parties attempted to reach agreement on the remaining +time for a second day of deposition of Jane Doe No. 4. Plaintiff's counsel calculated the +aggregate time of Jane Doe No. 4 in deposition on October 27, 2009 (excluding breaks) as 5 +hours, 35 minutes, which Defendant's counsel did not dispute. Defendant's counsel, however, +insisted on taking Jane Doe No. 4's deposition for an additional 4 hours, giving Defendant +almost 10 hours of aggregate deposition time of Jane Doe No. 4 over two days. As a result, +Plaintiff filed a Motion for Protective Order on November 3, 2009 (DE 392). Prior to the filing +of this Motion, another Plaintiff in these cases represented by different counsel, Jane Doe, filed a +similar Motion for Protective Order (DE 378), attempting to limit Defendant from taking a +second day of Jane Doe's deposition. The principal argument set forth in both Motions +concerned interpretation of the Court's Order Consolidating Cases dated May 14, 2009 (DE 98). +Plaintiffs contended that the waiver of the 7-hour deposition limit set forth in paragraph 8 of that +Order did not authorize the Defendant to take a deposition exceeding 7 hours of a Plaintiff absent +court order. On November 12, 2009, Defendant filed his response in opposition to Jane Doe No. +4's Motion for Protective Order. (DE 404). +Under S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1, Plaintiff had until +November 23, 2009 to file a Reply. However, well prior to this date, on November 17, 2009, the +Magistrate Judge issued an Omnibus Order (DE 413) which denied the relief sought in the +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 5 of 16 +Motions of both Jane Doe and Jane Doe No. 4 in their entirety.* The decretal portion of this +Omnibus Order, which Jane Doe No. 4 appeals, is as follows: +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff Jane Doe's Motion +for Protective Order Barring Second Deposition and for Sanctions. +(D.E. #378); and Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4's Motion for Protective +re Second Day of Deposition (D.E. # 392) are DENIED. Epstein's +counsel is hereby given leave to re-depose Jane Doe for up to 3 +additional hours and hereby given leave to re-depose Jane Doe 4 +for up to 4 additional hours. +II. +Abusive Deposition Questioning +The transcripts of Jane Doe No. 4's deposition, attached hereto as Exhibits 1-3, are +replete with instances of abusive deposition conduct, consisting of harassing, humiliating and +irrelevant questions having no legitimate discovery purpose. This abusive and unnecessary +questioning demonstrates that: (1) the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4, as well as the other +Plaintiffs in these cases, can be fairly completed within 7 hours; and (2) providing Defendant +with an additional four hours of deposition time for Jane Doe No. 4 will more likely than not +subject Jane Doe No. 4 to additional abuse. +For example, Defendant's counsel asked Jane Doe the following sequence of questions in +response to her testimony that she has had three abortions: +Q. - you went and aborted three kids? Why wouldn't you want +people to know that? +Q. Does it cause you any upset to know that you aborted three +kids in your life? +* Plaintiff in her Motion for Protective Order described the nature and extent of the abusive +questioning at Jane Doe No. 4's deposition, and stated her intent to file the transcript when it +became available. (Motion (DE 392) at pp. 3-4 & n.1). Nonetheless, the Court issued the +Omnibus Order without the benefit of the three-volume transcript, which is now filed as Exhibits +1-3 to this Appeal. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 6 of 16 +Q. Were you told before each of these abortions that you had what +they call viable fetuses? +Q. Does it give you any, any emotional pain that you aborted three +fetuses? +Q. It's contrary to everything you ever learned as a child as a +Roman Catholic, isn't it? +Q. Does your mom know you aborted three kids? +Q. Does your dad know you aborted three kids? +Q. What do you think they'd think? +Q. Do you think they're going to be happy about that? +Q. Is it going to cause you a little emotional upset? +Q. My question is, is it going to cause you any emotional upset? +Q. Wouldn't you agree with me that aborting three fetuses - ... +would be far more traumatic than giving a man a massage in the +nude? +Q. I want you to tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury whether +or not aborting three fetuses is more traumatic than giving a man a +massage in the nude. +(Transcript, Exh. 2, pp. 301-305). +While it may not be inappropriate to ask a plaintiff in a +personal injury case a question about whether having abortions caused her emotional distress, the +foregoing questions were intended and designed to provoke, harass, embarrass and humiliate +Jane Doe No. 4. Early in this line of questioning, Jane Doe No. 4 answered "of course" to the +question of whether having these abortions caused her upset. (Id., p. 301, line 19). Despite this, +Defendant's counsel proceeds through four additional pages of deposition transcript asking +essentially the identical question in different ways, unmercifully badgering Jane Doe No. 4 on an +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 7 of 16 +enormously sensitive topic, and going so far as to intimate that he will disclose the abortions to +her parents. +As another example, Defendant's counsel marked as Exhibit 1 to the Deposition the +Proposal for Settlement that was served on Plaintiffs' counsel in March, 2009. (Transcript, Exh. +1, p. 71). He proceeds to ask Jane Doe No. 4 a series of questions about this Proposal for +Settlement, including whether she has seen and had an opportunity to review the Proposal. Of +course, such questions could never lead to competent, admissible evidence at trial. (Id., Pp. 71- +73). See S.D.Fla.L.R. 30.1(A)(5).° +Defendant's counsel asked Jane Doe No. 4 a number of repetitive questions, over +approximately 9 transcript pages, regarding how she came to see Plaintiffs' forensic expert, Dr. +Gilbert Kliman, who has been retained in this case by Plaintiffs' counsel pursuant to +Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2) and Fed.R.Evid. 702. (Transcript, Exh. 2, Pp. 237-244, 267). Defendant's +counsel had previously received extensive expert discovery from Dr. Kliman, including his +interviews and testing of the Plaintiffs. Such deposition questions by Defendant's counsel were +pointless and plainly not calculated to lead to competent, admissible evidence at trial. +There are many other examples that may be gleaned from the attached transcripts. +Defendant's counsel asked repetitive questions regarding exact dates that various types of sexual +conduct occurred during the course of numerous massages given to Epstein by Jane Doe No. 4 +over an approximate two year period, badgering the Plaintiff when Jane Doe No. 4 could only +" This line of questioning is the subject of a separate Motion for Protective Order to prevent +Defendant's counsel from asking Plaintiff's parents leading questions about the abortions at her +deposition. (DE 420). +" Defendant's counsel also asked Plaintiff an inordinate number of repetitive, intimidating +questions concerning the oath and her duty to tell the truth to police officers. (See Transcript, +Exh. 1, pp. 7-10, 52-53). +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 8 of 16 +recall generally the months that certain sexual conduct commenced during her junior year of high +school. (Transcript, Exh. 2, pp. 143-153). Defendant's counsel asked Plaintiff a number of +questions regarding how Epstein had treated the Plaintiff, and then later in the deposition asked +virtually the identical series of questions again. (Compare Transcript, Exh. 2, pp. 163-177, with +pp. 288-296). +The foregoing demonstrates that much of the deposition time consumed by Defendant's +counsel was wasted with harassing, repetitive and badgering questions. An examination of the +446 existing pages of deposition transcripts reveals that Defendant's counsel does not require +more than 7 hours to conduct a fair deposition of Plaintiff. +IV. Argument +A. THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER IS CONTRARY TO LAW +The Magistrate Judge's decision to grant Defendant Epstein a second day of deposition of +Jane Doe No. 4, for an additional four hours, is contrary to law. The error is apparent in the +following portion of the Court's decision: +Epstein contends the Court's May 14, 2009 Consolidation Order, +which provides that "Local Rule 26.1K (limiting deposition time to +(Omnibus Order (DE 413), p. 3) (emphasis supplied). Initially, as noted in the highlighted +language above, the Magistrate Judge is equivocal on the issue of whether it is Epstein's burden +to show cause for a deposition exceeding 7 hours. Yet the Advisory Committee's Note to +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 9 of 16 +Fed.R.Civ.P. p. 30 makes clear that "It]he party seeking a court order to extend the examination +... is expected to show good cause to justify such an order." Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d) Advisory +Committee's Note (2000 Amendment) (emphasis supplied). Rule 30(d)(1) establishes the +"presumptive duration" of a deposition as 7 hours. See Home Design Services, Inc. v. W. Gargas +Constr., Inc., 2009 WL 3190462 (N.D. Fla. 2009). It is incumbent upon the party seeking a +longer deposition to move the court for additional time and show cause. Here, the Court +erroneously found sufficient cause in the Defendant's Response Memorandum to Plaintiff's +Motion for Protective Order. +B. THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS ARE NOT SUPPORTED +BY THE RECORD, INCONSISTENT WITH THE TRANSCRIPTS OF +JANE DOE NO. 4'S DEPOSITION, AND THUS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS +The Court's finding of cause is clearly erroneous. The first ground stated by the +Magistrate Judge to support substantial added deposition time of Jane Doe No. 4 is that Plaintiffs +are "seeking millions of dollars." This ground has been stated by the Magistrate Judge in +rejecting, in their entirety, the prior attempts by Plaintiffs to place limits on the Defendant's +abusive discovery conduct. (See DE 299 (Order dated September 15, 2009, denying Plaintiffs' +Motion for Protective Order on conduct of Epstein's investigators, p. 5); DE 377 (Omnibus +Order dated October 28, 2009, granting Defendant's Motion to Compel Answers to +Interrogatories and Request for Production regarding Plaintiffs' sexual histories, p. 4)). Yet the +Magistrate Judge has not in any of these instances articulated why the Plaintiffs' seeking millions +of dollars warrants granting the Defendant carte blanche in discovery, thereby facilitating +Defendant's thinly veiled strategy to harass, +embarrass and humiliate the Plaintiffs. +Indeed, the Magistrate Judge never mentions that Epstein is a reputed billionaire. While a +plaintiff's demand for millions of dollars would in the typical case threaten the financial well + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 430 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 10 of 16 +being of the defendant, this is not the typical case. Every indication is that the "millions of +dollars" sought by Defendant's sex abuse victims are, or at least could be, a trivial sum to +Defendant Epstein. +The Magistrate Judge in the Omnibus Order states additional reasons for granting +Defendant four additional hours of deposition of Jane Doe No. 4, including the need to ask +questions about: (1) Jane Doe No. 4's alleged drug use; (2) repeated instances of domestic +violence; (3) multiple aborted pregnancies; (4) arrests; and (5) details regarding her past sexual +history. (Omnibus Order, p. 4). With regard to topics (1) through (4), a review of the 446 pages +of existing deposition transcripts reveals that Jane Doe No. 4 has already been questioned +extensively on each of these topics.® As to past sexual history, Jane Doe No. 4 pursuant to Court +Order has recently answered interrogatories detailing her past sexual history. The instances in +which Jane Doe No. 4, on her counsel's advice, refused to answer questions at deposition +regarding her sexual history are de minimus. (See Exh. 1 p. 5, Exh. 2, p. 182, Exh. 3, pp. 314- +317, 368). Indeed, she answered at her deposition most of questions concerning her sexual +history with men other than Epstein. (See, e.g., Transcript, Exh. 3, pp. 323-350, 354-355). Any +remaining questions regarding Jane Doe No. 4's sexual history can easily and fairly be covered +" It should also be noted that Plaintiffs seek millions of dollars inclusive of punitive damages. +The discovery sought by Defendant through the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 is not pertinent te +he issue of punitive damages, which focuses on the willful and wanton acts of Epstein ir +sexually molesting teenage girls. +" See the following portions of the attached transcripts: +a. alleged drug use (Exh. 1, pp. 86-88, Exh. 2, pp. 213-223). +b. instances of domestic violence (Exh. 1, pp. 26-32, Exh. 2, pp. 200-206, Exh. 3, pp. 349-359, +425). +c. aborted pregnancies (Exh. 2, pp. 301-307, Exh. 3, pp. 311-318, 426). +d. arrests (Exh. 1, pp. 25-26, Exh. 3, pp. 338-349). +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 11 of 16 +in the 1 hour and 25 minutes of additional deposition time Plaintiff has agreed to provide to +Defendant's counsel.° +The Magistrate Judge issued a clearly erroneous decision in large part because she did not +have the benefit of the complete 446-page transcript of Jane Doe No. 4's deposition at the time +she made her ruling. +She did not have the benefit of the transcript because she ruled +prematurely, before Plaintiffs' counsel had an opportunity to reply to Defendant's Response or to +file the complete transcript. In this instance, a careful review of the transcript is necessary in +determining whether additional time is necessary for a fair deposition of Jane Doe No. 4. +Instead, the Magistrate Judge's decision was premised on an inaccurate characterization of the +existing deposition record and the topics yet to be covered, which Plaintiff's counsel could have +corrected and clarified in the Reply prior to the Magistrate Judge's decision, if afforded the time +to do so provided under S.D. Fla.L.R. 7.1(C). +To make matters worse, the Magistrate Judge ordered that Defendant's counsel have up +to four additional hours deposition time of Jane Doe No. 4, without restriction or qualification. +In contrast, this Court's Order Consolidating Cases dated May 14, 2009 (DE 98) expressly notes +that the waiver of the 7-hour limit set forth therein '° "shall not be construed as authority for any +party to take unnecessarily long depositions, or abuse the process." (Order, p. 4, 9l 8). No such +admonition is present in the Magistrate Judge's Order. +The Magistrate Judge ultimately makes the following finding: +The Court agrees with Epstein that all of the foregoing issues are +directly relevant to Plaintiffs' damage claims and credibility, and +to deny him additional time in which to depose these Plaintiffs +9 This will provide Defendant's counsel with an aggregate 7 hours of deposition time. +'' As discussed above, Plaintiffs believe that the waiver of the 7-hour rule set forth in that Order +does not authorize the Defendant to take a deposition of a Plaintiff in excess of 7 hours. +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 12 of 16 +would be unreasonable under the circumstances and result in +prejudice to Epstein by denying him the opportunity to obtain +discovery that is central to his defense. +(Omnibus Order (DE 413), pp. 4-5). As discussed above, Defendant has submitted nothing in +the record to support the conclusion that he will be prejudiced or denied the opportunity to obtain +discovery that is central to his defense. To the contrary, a review of the transcripts of Jane Doe +No. 4's deposition emphatically demonstrates that this finding is wrong. The Magistrate Judge's +Order is thus clearly erroneous. +In support of the Order, the Magistrate Judge relies upon Osbourne v. Columbia +Helicopters, Inc., 2009 WL 2215076 (S.D. W. Va. 2009). (See Omnibus Order, p. 5). Osbourne +was a employment case in which the Court permitted the plaintiff's deposition to exceed 7 hours +because plaintiff "submitted unverified, incomplete and inaccurate responses to [defendant's] +written discovery." Id. at *5. Here, in contrast, Plaintiffs have not been evasive in discovery. +Defendant has not only received written discovery responses from Plaintiff, but extensive +discovery from Plaintiff's psychiatric expert, Dr. Gilbert Kliman, and an 8-hour independent +medical examination of the Plaintiff. An objection was made by Plaintiff to detailed written +discovery requests on Plaintiff's sexual history with men other than Epstein. The Plaintiff's +objection on this narrow issue was decided by the Magistrate Judge in favor of Epstein, who +granted Epstein's Motion to Compel in its entirety (DE 377) shortly after the deposition of Jane +Doe No. 4 took place on October 27, 2009." Nonetheless, contrary to the Magistrate Judge's +" As discussed above, the instances in which Jane Doe No. 4 was instructed not to answer +uestions based on the then undecided issue of discovery of Plaintiff's sexual history were d +ninimus, and do not support an extended deposition of Jane Doe No. 4. Additionally +subsequent to the deposition, Plaintiff answered Defendant's written discovery requests on the +subject of her sexual history in accordance with the Magistrate Judge's Order. +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 13 of 16 +finding, any lack of discovery on the issue of sexual history does not support an additional four +hours of deposition of Jane Doe No. 4. Indeed, it may be anticipated that Epstein's counsel will +use this additional time for abusive questioning on Jane Doe No. 4's sexual history."2 +Finally, it should be noted that this is not a document driven commercial or employment +case, where the need for a lengthy deposition of a party may be supported with cause. See +Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., 206 F.R.D. 518, 522 (S.D.Fla. 2002), (allowing the +plaintiff to depose the defendant's accountant and corporate representative for an additional +seven hours because it was a complex commercial case involving seven years of commercial +activity and 10,000 pages of documents). See also Pace v. City of Palmetto, 2007 WL 470477 +(S.D.Fla. 2007) (granting one hour additional deposition time because the deponent had not read +documents in advance, and was taking an inordinate amount of time during the deposition to read +documents). In such a case, it may be anticipated that there will be little if any prejudice or +damage to the party witness created by a lengthy deposition exceeding one day. In stark +contrast, the depositions of the Plaintiffs in these cases covers the most intimate and private +details of their lives. Particularly given the harassing and badgering questioning engaged in by +Defendant's counsel, a two day deposition will needlessly revictimize, embarrass and humiliate +the Plaintiffs, which is the apparent strategy of Defendant in these cases. +V. +Conclusion +For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4 respectfully requests that the +Magistrate Judge's Omnibus Order (DE 413) be reversed as it pertains to the amount of time +' See, e.g., Transcript, Exh. 2, pp. 181-182 where Defendant's counsel asks Plaintiff if her +former boyfriend "had taken his penis and inserted it in your vagina", and whether she had given +him oral sex. He later in the deposition asked her again, regarding the same boyfriend, "when +was the first time you gave him oral sex", and "when was the first time he stuck his penis in you +and ejaculated." Transcript, Exh. 3, p. 355. +13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 14 of 16 +remaining for Jane Doe No. 4's deposition; that Defendant's counsel be limited to an additional +one hour and 25 minutes of deposition time for Jane Doe No. 4; that Defendant's counsel be +admonished to refrain from abusive deposition conduct pursuant to S.D.Fla. L.R. 30.1(A)(5); and +that Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. +Dated: December 1, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 2-8 +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +14 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 15 of 16 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on December 1, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via +transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized +manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic +Filing. +Is/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +15 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 430 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 16 of 16 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +bedwards@rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +josetsberg@podhurst.con +16 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aec29e57ae0c1bcb76604c7d4181fea31ac3d54abe3f3abdd62ebbaf345706fa.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aec29e57ae0c1bcb76604c7d4181fea31ac3d54abe3f3abdd62ebbaf345706fa.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3a11bf7ebac6998f6088ce2bef88b51a9597642d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aec29e57ae0c1bcb76604c7d4181fea31ac3d54abe3f3abdd62ebbaf345706fa.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -192, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "aec29e57ae0c1bcb76604c7d4181fea31ac3d54abe3f3abdd62ebbaf345706fa", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 16, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "351fbee813d8f87d93401016ee3a9028806c1d3e74836d79957ad765a7c4baa6", + "output_sha256": "6d46617fd6bfb87057c5a8fa6b536cab92b51f5b782db881b2776d77dbae2720", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aec9c7d5be101a594bbb8e5ffed62e56d65ff61b45482213e1b1ffdb23c5c3fe.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aec9c7d5be101a594bbb8e5ffed62e56d65ff61b45482213e1b1ffdb23c5c3fe.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5fc806dba0563b811323a7c1676e09c34397cfbf --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aec9c7d5be101a594bbb8e5ffed62e56d65ff61b45482213e1b1ffdb23c5c3fe.md @@ -0,0 +1,176 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2009 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2009 Page 2 of 6 +JANE DOE NO. 6 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRAJ, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRAI, +C.M.A. +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRAJ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/ +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2009 Page 3 of 6 +DOE II +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/. +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101 +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/. +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102 +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRAI. +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF FILING WITHDRAWAL OF PREVIOUSLY RAISED +OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S, MOTION TO COMPEL +AND/OR IDENTIFY C.M.A. IN THE STYLE OF THIS CASE AND MOTION TO +IDENTIFY C.M.A. IN THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS FOR PURPOSES OF +DISCOVERY, OR, ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO DISMISS SUA SPONTE, WITH +INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Plaintiff, C.M.A., by and through her undersigned attorneys, hereby files notice of +withdrawal of previously raised objections to Defendant, JEFRREY EPSTEIN'S, Motion +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2009 Page 4 of 6 +to Compel and/or Identify C.M.A. in the Style of This Case and Motion to Identify C.M.A. +in Third-Party Subpoenas For Purposes of Discovery, or, Alternatively, Motion to +Dismiss Sua Sponte, With Incorporated Memorandum of Law, and further states as +follows: +1. +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, filed a Motion to Compel and/or Identify +C.M.A. in the Style of This Case and Motion to Identify C.M.A. in Third-Party Subpoenas +For Purposes of Discovery, or, Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss Sua Sponte, With +Incorporated Memorandum of Law (D.E. 67) on April 29, 2009. +2. +EPSTEIN's Motion seeks the following relief (taken verbatim from the +conclusion of his Motion): +a) "That C.M.A. be identified by her legal name in the style of this case; +b) That Epstein be granted leave to identify C.M.A. by her legal name in +Third-Party Subpoenas (but not file them in Court, or, if required, in a +redacted form); and +c) That on an alternative basis, this court dismiss this action Sua Sponte +until such time as C.M.A. identifies herself in the style of this matter. +Doe v. Rostker, 89 F.R.D at 163." +3. +Plaintiff withdraws her objection to a) and b) requested above. The +request to have C.M.A.'s case dismissed is rendered moot given C.M.A.'s acquiescence +to a) and b). To the extent that it is not, however, C.M.A. continues to object to c) +above. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2009 Page 5 of 6 +4. +Counsel for EPSTEIN is free to prepare a proposed agreed order +reflecting the above for the Court's consideration following the undersigned's review of +same. +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1 +Counsel for the movant conferred via telephone with counsel for the Defendant +regarding the filing of the instance Notice and he has no objection to Plaintiff filing +same. +s/ Jack P.| +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 20th day of May, 2009, I electronically filed the +foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using CM/ECF system, which will send a notice +of electronic filing to all counsel of record on the attached service list. +Is/Jack P. +Jack Scarola +Florida Bar No.: 169440 +Florida Bar No.: 0547808 +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: +(561) 686-6300 +(561) 383-9424 +Attorneys for Plainti, C.M.A. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2009 Page 6 of 6 +COUNSEL LIST +Richard H. Willits, Esquire +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 10th Avenue North, Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Phone: +(561) 582-7600 +Fax: +(561) 588-8819 +Robert Critton, Esquire +Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman LLP +515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33414 +Phone: +(561) 842-2820 +(561) 844-6929 +Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: +(561) 863-9100 +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esquire +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 South Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: +(561) 202-6360 +Fax: +(561) 828-0983 +6 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aec9c7d5be101a594bbb8e5ffed62e56d65ff61b45482213e1b1ffdb23c5c3fe.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aec9c7d5be101a594bbb8e5ffed62e56d65ff61b45482213e1b1ffdb23c5c3fe.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2c793da5405bf4094bae327dfd736db04d08696a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aec9c7d5be101a594bbb8e5ffed62e56d65ff61b45482213e1b1ffdb23c5c3fe.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "aec9c7d5be101a594bbb8e5ffed62e56d65ff61b45482213e1b1ffdb23c5c3fe", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "1970550f2d3216de4c6f1910acf90776312530e706d182a339946ed96a46f741", + "output_sha256": "895545b59b35ee583ad5f8c1726e529263b4241ed658dd4d663a56a12879ef32", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aef247349d661e41034c580cc8b753bf60a0da798770c9e54fe7d73acb6b3b98.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aef247349d661e41034c580cc8b753bf60a0da798770c9e54fe7d73acb6b3b98.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..02738a50c649309bc86f3f3226c0332685dadff8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aef247349d661e41034c580cc8b753bf60a0da798770c9e54fe7d73acb6b3b98.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +THC LAN OFF +JACOBS & ASS +ARTHUR I +ScHOLz & WYLER, LLC. +BiLITY COMPANY OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS +ATTORNEYS AT LAW +GATEWAY TO AMELIA +981667 GATEWAY BLVD, SUITE 2OII +FERMANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA 32034 +TELEPHONE (904) 261-3693 +FAX NO. (904) 261-7879 +RICHARD J. SCHOLZ, P.A. +RICHARD J. SCHOLZ +DOUGLAS A, WYLER, P.A. +DOUGLAS A WYLER +• November 26; 2019 +Office of the State Attorney +15th Judicial Circuit +Attn: +Jeanne Howard +401 North Dixie Highway +• West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Re: +CA. Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronberg et al. +Case No.: 2019-CA-014681 +COPY +Dear Mrs. Howard: +The purpose of this letter is to confirm that +above-referenced matter. +Scholz & Wyler, LLC will represent you regarding the +Our fees will be contingent upon our success in this matter. You will not be liable or required to pay any +monies to our office unless we are successful in our representation of you regarding the above-referenced +litigation and receive a court order awarding attorneys' fees. +Accordingly, should we be successful in this matter, you agree to be billed for the time incurred in defending +this action at our current hourly rates. At this time, our current hourly rates are: $475.00/hour for senior +partners, $425.00/hour for other partners, $375.00/hour for associate attomeys, and $125:00/hour for +paralegal time. +Furthermore, the attorneys' fees paid to our firm shall be calculated by the above listed hourly rates +multiplied by the number of hours expended in defending this actiori or the total fee mandated and awarded +by the court order herein, whichever is greater. +By signing below, you agree to the terms as set forth above. Please retur a signed and dated copy of this +letter to our office. If you have any questions or conceis, please contact our office, On behalf of the +firm, we are proud to represent you in this matter. +•Sincerely, +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq +For the Firm +Ramsal +6/4/220 +Party. +JOINT +Date +ID#. J05 +EV# J05 +DATE ADMITTED: 9/6/2022 +Case No. 2019-CA-014681 +ABRUZZO CLERK +CA/Aronbar@0D9109 BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 2:57:43 PM +Joint Exhibit +J05 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/aef247349d661e41034c580cc8b753bf60a0da798770c9e54fe7d73acb6b3b98.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aef247349d661e41034c580cc8b753bf60a0da798770c9e54fe7d73acb6b3b98.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4acc6a946bb79947488a9710445536acffbc454f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/aef247349d661e41034c580cc8b753bf60a0da798770c9e54fe7d73acb6b3b98.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "aef247349d661e41034c580cc8b753bf60a0da798770c9e54fe7d73acb6b3b98", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ab8d753ac43dc9f573291abc35f5255d09b2b358a29d67722216db614d3925df", + "output_sha256": "f68a4134b6fcc907c5cfb79a3ff71aec28d2ee74ccae33dd851fd0f0c4802f2b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/af10c09259020113789596fbb1df8742f0e17b2d5bd88fbf93807d580a9da9c6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/af10c09259020113789596fbb1df8742f0e17b2d5bd88fbf93807d580a9da9c6.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0389f83515784e7e0ea0163aec794691b6971557 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/af10c09259020113789596fbb1df8742f0e17b2d5bd88fbf93807d580a9da9c6.md @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 475-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 1 off Il +From: "Brad +' +Date: February 26, 2010 9:30:19 AM MST +To: "'Jack Goldberger'" +Subject: RE: Nadia depo +I will call you today sometime but I am tied up most of the day. All attorneys erossnoticed the depo for Monday and it has been on for awhile, so we will need to get a +date in the very near future that works for everyone's schedule, and as you know that +is not easy to do. Like I said, I will call you at my first opportunity today but this is +not completely in my control. +Brad +Civil Justice Attorney +Jaffe, Weissing, +, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone: 954-524-2820 +Facsimile: 954-524-2822 +pathtojustice.com +-=--Original Message-...- +From: Jack Goldberger [mailto jgoldberger@agwpa.com] +Sent: Thursday. February 25, 2010 7:44 PM +Го: Brad +Subject: Nadia depo +I left u a message and didn't hear back from u. I have hearings on my +lake county cap sex battery case set next week in conflict with Nadia +depo. Please call me on cell to set another date.! +Sent from my iPhone +2/26/2010 +ExmorrA diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/af10c09259020113789596fbb1df8742f0e17b2d5bd88fbf93807d580a9da9c6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/af10c09259020113789596fbb1df8742f0e17b2d5bd88fbf93807d580a9da9c6.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a4744ed44d5f952bdcf82e930fa75849c69aa22e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/af10c09259020113789596fbb1df8742f0e17b2d5bd88fbf93807d580a9da9c6.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -14, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "af10c09259020113789596fbb1df8742f0e17b2d5bd88fbf93807d580a9da9c6", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e17ff2aeba6c86fdc8228f7c8061032caaaa3dcfa0bb6e5e00bd1e276330a160", + "output_sha256": "1af71e473b8df8b26fbebdf8b1b0135a6e3f27909c51f4d8c32cf3daff9e81f5", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/af1967766007d82eb047ff792eb36e6b93643a543c3d3c93e54d2c4567ebdedb.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/af1967766007d82eb047ff792eb36e6b93643a543c3d3c93e54d2c4567ebdedb.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c53fb2b7106dae662dd362de728ff6801e8fbd57 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/af1967766007d82eb047ff792eb36e6b93643a543c3d3c93e54d2c4567ebdedb.md @@ -0,0 +1,140 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 2 of 6 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRAJ +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80993-MARRA/ +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80811 -MARRAJ +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80893-MARRA/ +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 08-CV- 80469-MARRA/ +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 3 of 6 +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al., +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80591-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 102, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80656-MARRA1 +/ +NOTICE OF FILING PROPOSED ORDER +Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-7, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby file the +attached Proposed Order in reference to document no. 111 filed in case no. 08-80119 on May 21, +2009. +Dated: May 27, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By:_ +s/ Adam D. Horowitz +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuscattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 4 of 6 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 5 of 6 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on May 27, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served +this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission +of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for +those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 6 of 6 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +bedwards@rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +/s/ Adam D. Horowitz +6 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/af1967766007d82eb047ff792eb36e6b93643a543c3d3c93e54d2c4567ebdedb.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/af1967766007d82eb047ff792eb36e6b93643a543c3d3c93e54d2c4567ebdedb.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4df27de9dd3edbe578c8f79f21a90229cb132804 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/af1967766007d82eb047ff792eb36e6b93643a543c3d3c93e54d2c4567ebdedb.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "af1967766007d82eb047ff792eb36e6b93643a543c3d3c93e54d2c4567ebdedb", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "64045c8d04c8cc08886aca9b0a96f8a11dfaab037b9ab3d50ae289cb65cd2c5d", + "output_sha256": "55c7723cbcf35139425aadbef2417bd881fe0d1362c3b2a8fbdb87b66da2062d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/af357d60079792572a391b84681fdc0db690dfc4277b44b1483973e982f882d0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/af357d60079792572a391b84681fdc0db690dfc4277b44b1483973e982f882d0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..af92c547cc9e5d6ac98ce6a007a64ac076efa932 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/af357d60079792572a391b84681fdc0db690dfc4277b44b1483973e982f882d0.md @@ -0,0 +1,296 @@ +JS ACC/SNY +REV. 06/01/17 +Case 1:19-CV-11869-MKV-DCF civEUVER ShEeFiled 12/27/19 Page 1 of 2 +The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or +other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the +United States in September 1974, is required for use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. +PLAINTIFFS +Anastasia Doe +DEFENDANTS +Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn +ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER +Pottinger LLC +425 North Andrews, Ave., Suite 2, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +954-524-2820 +ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN) +CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE +(DO NOT CITE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY) +28 U.S.C. section 1332 +Judge Previously Assigned +Has this action, case, or proceeding, or one essentially the same been previously filed in SDNY at any time? No Yes • +If yes, was this case Vol. •] Inval. • Dismissed. No • Yes [If yes, give date +& Case No. +IS THIS AN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CASE? +No +Yes U +NATURE OF SUIT +(PLACE AN (x] IN ONE BOX ONLY) +TORTS +ACTIONS UNDER STATUTES +CONTRACT +[1110 +[ ] 120 +[ | 130 +[ ] 140 +[1150 +115 +1 15 +[1153 +PERSONAL INJURY +INSURANCE +[ ] 310 AIRPLANE +MARINE +[ 1315 AIRPLANE PRODUCT +ACT +LIABILITY +NEGOTIABLE +[ ] 320 ASSAULT. LIBEL & +INSTRUMENT +SLANDER +RECOVERY OF +[ ] 330 FEDERAL +OVERPAYMENT & +EMPLOYERS' +ENFORCEMENT +LIABILITY +OF JUDGMENT +[ ] 340 MARINE +MEDICARE ACT +[ 1 345 MARINE PRODUCT +RECOVERY OF +LIABILITY +DEFAULTED +I 1350 MOTOR VEHICLE +STUDENT LOANS +[ ] 355 MOTOR VEHICLE +(EXCL VETERANS) +PRODUCT LIABILITY +RECOVERY OF +[X 360 OTHER PERSONAL +OVERPAYMENT +INJURY +OF VETERAN'S +[ ] 362 PERSONAL INJURY - +BENEFITS +MED MALPRACTICE +STOCKHOLDERS +SUITS +OTHER +CONTRACT +CONTRACT +PRODUCT +LIABILITY +[] 196 FRANCHISE +PERSONAL MORE +FORFEITURE/PENALTY +PHARMACEUTICAL PERSONAL [ 1 625 DRUG RELATED +INJURY/PRODUCT LIABILITY +[ 1365 PERSONAL INJURY +SEIZURE OF PROPERTY +21 USC 881 +PRODUCT LIABILITY +BANKRUPTCY +11422 APPEAL +28 USC 158 +1 1423 WITHDRAWAL +28 USC 157 +| 1 388 ASBESTOS PERSONAL | 1690 OTHER +INJURY PRODUCT +LIABILITY +PROPERTY RIGHTS +PERSONAL PROPERTY +| 1820 COPYRIGHTS +İ j 830 PATENT +1 370 OTHER FRAU +i 371 TRUTH IN LENDIN +1 1835 PATENT-ABBREVIATED NEW DRUG APPLICATION +1 1840 TRADEMARK +[ ] 380 OTHER PERSONAL +PROPERTY DAMAGE +I 1385 PROPERTY DAMAGE +PRODUCT LIABILITY +LABOR +I 1710 FAIR LABOR +[ 1160 +[1190 +STANDARDS ACT +I 1720 LABOR/MGMT +SOCIAL SECURITY +| 1861 HIA (1395f1) +] 862 BLACK LUNG (923) +1883 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)} +[ ] 864 SSID TITLE XVI +1 865 RSI (405(g)) +PRISONER PETITIONS +1463 ALIEN DETAINEE +RELATIONS +¡ 1S10 MOTIONS TO +[ ] 740 RAILWAY LABOR ACT +| 1 751 FAMILY MEDICAL +FEDERAL TAX SUITS +ACTIONS UNDER STATUTES +VACATE SENTENCE +LEAVE ACT (FMLA) +28 USC 2255 +1 1870 TAXES (U.S. Plaintift or +CIVIL RIGHTS +[ 1530 HABEAS CORPUS +I 1790 OTHER LABOR +Defendant) +] 535 DEATH PENALTY +LITIGATION +1 1871 IRS-THIRD PARTY +1440 OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS | | 540 MANDAMUS & OTHER | ] 791 EMPL RET INC +26 USC 7609 +REAL PROPERTY +(Non-Prisoner) +SECURITY ACT (ERISA) +[ 1441 VOTING +11210 +CONDEMNATION +I 43 HOUSENT +PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS +IMMIGRATION +I1462 NATURALIZATION +11230 +FORECLOSURE +RENT LEASE & +11445 AMERICAN ANS +1550 CIVIL RIGHT +APPLICATION +EJECTMENT +DISABILITIES - +1560 CIVIL DETAINE +SO CIVIL DETAINETION 11465 OTHONGRATIO +11240 +TORTS TO LAND +EMPLOYMEN +ONDITIONS OF CONFINEMEN +TORT PRODUCT +| 1446 AMERICANS WITH +LIABILITY +DISABILITIES -OTHER +11290 +ALL OTHER +| 1448 EDUCATION +REAL PROPERTY +OTHER STATUTES +I 1375 FALSE CLAIMS +I 1376 QUI TAM +11400 STATE +REAPPORTIONMENT +[ 1410 ANTITRUST +| 1430 BANKS & BANKING +[ ] 450 COMMERCE +1460 DEPORTATION +1 470 RACKETEER INFLU- +ENCED & CORRUPT +ORGANIZATION ACT +(RICO) +1480 CONSUMER CREDI +i 490 CABLE/SATELLITE T +[ 1 850 SECURITIES/ +COMMODITIES/ +EXCHANGE +11890 OTHER STATUTORY +ACTIONS +11891 AGRICULTURAL ACTS +11893 ENVIRONMENTAL +MATTERS +I 1895 FREEDOM OF +INFORMATION ACT +1 1 896 ARBITRATIOI +1 899 ADMINISTRATIV +Check if demanded in complaint: +CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION +UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 +DEMAND $_ +OTHER +Check YES only if demanded in complaint +JURY DEMAND: * YES ENO +DO YOU CLAIM THIS CASE IS RELATED TO A CIVIL CASE NOW PENDING IN S.D.N.Y. +AS DEFINED BY LOCAL RULE FOR DIVISION OF BUSINESS 13? +IF SO, STATE: +JUDGE +DOCKET NUMBER +NOTE: You must also submit at the time of filing the Statement of Relatedness form (Form IH-32). + + +Case 1:19-cv-11869-MKV-DCF Document 2 Filed 12/27/19 Page 2 of 2 +(PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY) +X 1 Original +• 2 Removed from +Proceeding +State Court +a. all parties represented +• 3 Remanded +from +Appellate +Court +ORIGIN +• 4 Reinstated or +Reopened +b. At least one party +is pro se. +(PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY) +BASIS OF JURISDICTION +• 1 U.S. PLAINTIFF • 2 U.S. DEFENDANT L 3 FEDERAL QUESTION +X4 DIVERSITY +(U.S. NOT A PARTY) +• 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict +(Specify District) +Litigation +(Transferred) +•7 Appeal to District +Judge from +Magistrate Judge +L 8 Multidistrict Litigation (Direct File) +IF DIVERSITY, INDICATE +CITIZENSHIP BELOW. +CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY) +(Place an [X] in one box for Plaintiff and one box for Defendant) +CITIZEN OF THIS STATE +PTF +DEF +1X1 111 +PTF DEF + +CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE [12 [x2 +CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF A +FOREIGN COUNTRY +INCORPORATED or PRINCIPAL PLACE | 14[14 +OF BUSINESS IN THIS STATE +PTF DEF +CORPORATED and PRINCIPAL PLACE | 15 | ] +F BUSINESS IN ANOTHER STAT +FOREIGN NATION +116 [16 +PLAINTIFF(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTY(IES) +c/o +Pottinger, LLC, 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +DEFENDANT(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTY(IES) +Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as Co-Executors Of The Estate Of Jeffrey E. Epstein, c/o Darren +K. Indyke, Esq. 575 Lexington Ave., 4th Fl, New York, NY 10022 +DEFENDANT(S) ADDRESS UNKNOWN +REPRESENTATION IS HEREBY MADE THAT, AT THIS TIME, I HAVE BEEN UNABLE, WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE, TO ASCERTAIN +THE RESIDENCE ADDRESSES OF THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANTS: +COURTHOUSE ASSIGNMENT +I hereby certify that this case should be assigned to the courthouse indicated below pursuant to Local Rule for Division of Business 18, 20 or 21. +PLAINS +X MANHATTAN +ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN THIS DISTRICT +Ix NO +IT YES (DATE ADMITTED Mo. +Attorney Bar Code # +Yr.- +Check one: THIS ACTION SHOULD BE ASSIGNED TO: +/s/l +J.L +DATE 12/27/2019 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD +RECEIPT # +Magistrate Judge is to be designated by the Clerk of the Court. +Magistrate Judge +Ruby J. Krajick, Clerk of Court by +Deputy Clerk, DATED +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (NEW YORK SOUTHERN) +is so Designated. diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/af357d60079792572a391b84681fdc0db690dfc4277b44b1483973e982f882d0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/af357d60079792572a391b84681fdc0db690dfc4277b44b1483973e982f882d0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bdea241e7fdcc19f0dee67ba988a899b061b051e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/af357d60079792572a391b84681fdc0db690dfc4277b44b1483973e982f882d0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -30, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "af357d60079792572a391b84681fdc0db690dfc4277b44b1483973e982f882d0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b843d9348e85fce8c0417cd098df6adf7d74575d437b25f35a0ffe56111b75e7", + "output_sha256": "607e2cc480ef617f85aad32961bf924c8693445a50e2fdd2046e20a9bff94a2a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/af508a5819c27927bb30c53f74a6813f9ec618397533f09d4210d242d554c581.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/af508a5819c27927bb30c53f74a6813f9ec618397533f09d4210d242d554c581.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6f970523645690906f4132d73ca8a82c1a8f8ceb --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/af508a5819c27927bb30c53f74a6813f9ec618397533f09d4210d242d554c581.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2011 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, +Plaintiffs, +V. +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, +Defendant. +! +NOTICE OF GOVERNMENT's NoN-OBJectioN To BLAck, WeInBErG & LeFkowItz's +MOTION FOR ExTENSION OF TIME To FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL +BRIEFING, AND To JEFFREY EPSTEIN's MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OVERLONG PLEADING +With respect to the motion of proposed intervenors Black, Weinberg & Lefkowitz for an +extension of time until October 31, 2011, to file a reply in support of their supplemental briefing, +[DE 110], and with respect to Jeffrey Epstein's motion for leave to file an overlong reply in support +of his motion for limited intervention [DE 109], the government has indicated that it has no objection +to either motion. +We certify that on October 16, 2011, the foregoing document was filed electronically with +the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. +Respectfully submitted, +BLACK, SREBNICK, KORNSPAN +& STUMPF, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1300 +Miami, Florida 33131 +Office: (305) 371-6421 +Fax: (305) 358-2006 +By _ +/SI +ROY BLACK, ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 126088 +JACKIE PERCZEK, ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 0042201 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/af508a5819c27927bb30c53f74a6813f9ec618397533f09d4210d242d554c581.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/af508a5819c27927bb30c53f74a6813f9ec618397533f09d4210d242d554c581.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..29ea390e9769085026d3f808a3a0dc8d6f4ceb48 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/af508a5819c27927bb30c53f74a6813f9ec618397533f09d4210d242d554c581.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "af508a5819c27927bb30c53f74a6813f9ec618397533f09d4210d242d554c581", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2229a16c64b956df639b7d925ddfe9f703ae66b4772c9d9a4e610a6d49ef19a6", + "output_sha256": "600459bcc437410529d6a4e007b5c831ebd8c3d4e7b01a5d50e43a1ec5b9fdd3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/af6db7733dbcb002b9ce436e3e710f5512ed003e3f28f1d08385b45bd796fa66.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/af6db7733dbcb002b9ce436e3e710f5512ed003e3f28f1d08385b45bd796fa66.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4d3aca940ffbd2b7e70f6bbb0f432b6b9ae442cc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/af6db7733dbcb002b9ce436e3e710f5512ed003e3f28f1d08385b45bd796fa66.md @@ -0,0 +1,88 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE 15, +Plaintiff, +-V- +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, +as Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, +Defendants. +19 Civ. 10653 (PAE) +ORDER +PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: +In this diversity action, plaintiff Jane Doe 15 ("Doe")' brings claims of battery, assault, +and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in +their capacities as co-executors of the estate of Jeffrey Epstein. These claims arise from Doe's +allegations of sexual trafficking and abuse perpetrated against her by Epstein in 2004, when she +was age 15. Doe alleges that Doe visited Epstein's Manhattan townhouse in New York City, +where Epstein's secretary photographed her and groomed her for future sexual exploitation; on +Epstein's behalf, the secretary later invited Doe to visit Epstein at his ranch in New Mexico, and +arranged Doe's visit. See Dkt. 1 ("Cmplt.") 11| 2-4, 25-26, 30-37. Epstein's sexual abuse of +Doe occurred during the visit to the New Mexico ranch that ensued. Id. 911 5-6, 41-69. +The defendants have filed a partial motion to dismiss, directed solely at Doe's prayer for +punitive damages. They argue that New Mexico law governs Doe's claims, and that under New +Mexico law, punitive damages are unavailable in a personal injury action against the personal +' Doe has been granted leave to proceed pseudonymously. Dkt. 22. + + +representative of an estate. See Dkt. 18 (motion); Dkt. 19 (memorandum of law in support); +Dkt. 34 (reply). Doe opposes that motion. Dkt. 29 (memorandum of law in opposition). +The Court grants defendants' motion. The Court's analysis substantially tracks the +analysis in a memorandum and opinion it issued earlier this week granting a motion seeking the +same relief in another case in which a plaintiff has brought the same personal injury claims +against the executors arising from sexual abuse Epstein allegedly perpetrated on her. See Mary +Doe v. Indyke and Kahn, 19 Civ. 10758 (PAE) ("Mary Doe"); see id. Dkt. 38 ("Mary Doe Op.") +(issued April 28, 2020). The Court here incorporates that decision by reference. +In Mary Doe, Epstein's abuse was alleged to have occurred in his Manhattan townhouse. +The Court noted that the New York statute that authorizes personal injury actions against the +personal representative of the decedent precludes punitive damages in such actions, see Mary +Doe Op. at 4 (citing New York Estates, Powers and Trusts Law ("EPTL") § 11-3.2(a)(1)), and +required dismissal of Mary Doe's prayer for such damages, id. at 4-6. The Court rejected Mary +Doe's counter-arguments: that defendants' motion was premature, id. at 6-7, and improperly +styled as a motion to dismiss, id. at 7-9, and that the law of the United States Virgin Islands +("USVI"), where Epstein's estate is being probated, applies, and permits punitive damages +against an estate in such an action, id. at 9-16. As to the final argument, the Court noted that +under New York choice-of-law rules, the substantive law of the location of the tortious conduct +occurred generally applies as to punitive damages, and that there was no reason to depart from +that rule here, id. at 9-14. In any event, the Court held, it is likely that, as a matter of common +law, the USVI-like New York, the majority of states, and Restatement (Second) of Torts +$ 908 +— would not allow imposition of punitive damages on a tortfeasor's estate, id. at 14-16. +2 + + +The parties in this case are represented by the same counsel as in Mary Doe, and make +substantially the same arguments for and against dismissal. The one variation is that, because +Epstein's abuse is alleged to have occurred at the New Mexico ranch, defendants argue that New +Mexico law applies. See Dkt. 19 at 2-6; Dkt. 34 at 5-8. But that, defendants argue, does not +change the result, because New Mexico common law as announced by the state supreme court, +like EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1), bars punitive damages in a personal injury action against a tortfeasor's +estate. See Jaramillo v. Providence Wash. Ins. Co., 871 P.2d 1343, 1351-52 (N.M. 1994) +(canvassing laws; noting that "punishment and deterrence are not accomplished by enabling +recovery of punitive damages from the estate of deceased tortfeasors"; and adopting majority +rule that "[w]hen the tortfeasor cannot be punished for his culpable behavior, punitive damages +no longer have the desired effect and, therefore, the victim loses the legal entitlement to recover +those damages"); see also Barbara R. as next friend of S.R. v. +No. 03 Civ. 1225 (MCA) +(WDS), 2006 WL 8443923, at *28 (D.N.M. Sept. 30, 2006) (citing Jaramillo and noting that +"It Jhe rationale behind this rule is that "to punish the estate ignores the central purpose of +punitive damages, which is to punish the tortfeasor and to deter him from repeating the wrongful +act"). Doe, for her part, does not dispute that New Mexico law mirrors New York law. Instead, +in opposing dismissal, she makes the same three arguments as in Mary Doe. +The Court again finds punitive damages unavailable as a matter of law and plaintiffs' +counter-arguments unavailing. As to the third argument, relating to choice of law, unlike in +Mary Doe, there is indeed room for debate about which jurisdiction's law applies. But the +debate is between New York (where the grooming process began) and New Mexico (where the +sexual abuse occurred). And under either state's law, imposition of punitive damages on the +3 + + +Epstein estate is squarely prohibited. Doe does not have any stronger argument than did Mary +Doe that USVI law applies in her case, or, if it did, that it would permit such damages. +The Court, accordingly, grants defendants' motion to dismiss the prayer for punitive +damages. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. 18. +SO ORDERED. +Paul A. Engelmaye +United States District Judge +Dated: April 30, 2020 +New York, New York +4 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/af6db7733dbcb002b9ce436e3e710f5512ed003e3f28f1d08385b45bd796fa66.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/af6db7733dbcb002b9ce436e3e710f5512ed003e3f28f1d08385b45bd796fa66.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..746b0f99a0513cefa4f7bb595ea94aa90d2c3c6e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/af6db7733dbcb002b9ce436e3e710f5512ed003e3f28f1d08385b45bd796fa66.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "af6db7733dbcb002b9ce436e3e710f5512ed003e3f28f1d08385b45bd796fa66", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "45c7ebf914f28e1cb2a2b32f5cd7b47e9bb4df896f5f88cb06dbe3277eb80c0b", + "output_sha256": "f3abc1ccf92ac38511b0998b9566eb28a99209fc690318c3840e7fbfb7675d24", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/afb43c387c31bd63ecdb19a4c2072ef5fe100ac48943ef01039486ca800b343d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/afb43c387c31bd63ecdb19a4c2072ef5fe100ac48943ef01039486ca800b343d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6174d23986948ed1b2826a1e5c964f3caa6c5839 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/afb43c387c31bd63ecdb19a4c2072ef5fe100ac48943ef01039486ca800b343d.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 72 Filed 10/01/20 Page 1 of 1 +BSF +BOIES +| SCHILLER +FLEXNER +October 1, 2020 +VIA ECF +The Honorable Debra Freeman +Daniel +| Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +New York, NY 10007-1312 +Re: +Jane Doe 1000 v. Darren |. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as +executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Edward Epstein, 19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF +Dear Judge Freeman: +Pursuant to the Court's September 4, 2020, order (ECF No. 70) Plaintiff and Defendants +Darren . Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, jointly +submit this status report. Plaintiff submitted her claim to the Epstein Victims' Compensation +Program on June 26, 2020, and has since been actively participating in the Program. Plaintiff +expects that her participation in the Program will conclude in the coming weeks. +Respectfully submitted, +/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley +Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. +Boies Schiller Flexner LIP +/s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz, Esq. +Troutman Pepper LLP +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) +BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP +55 Hudson Yards, New York, NY 10001 | (t) 212.446.2300 | (f) 212.446.2350 | www.bsfllp.com diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/afb43c387c31bd63ecdb19a4c2072ef5fe100ac48943ef01039486ca800b343d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/afb43c387c31bd63ecdb19a4c2072ef5fe100ac48943ef01039486ca800b343d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4e45d6d42aeaa4cf8536efe30ceda8ec988e5b1c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/afb43c387c31bd63ecdb19a4c2072ef5fe100ac48943ef01039486ca800b343d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "afb43c387c31bd63ecdb19a4c2072ef5fe100ac48943ef01039486ca800b343d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "378ab9a1eeed2d2e1b709f086bed706595443c36e210cbb56c7a9b12c2c912d7", + "output_sha256": "8aab728afb1abc1cc80ebea08dcc68c3bc191ab70a55275236901aaaa580b2e8", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/afcb8514ff8b1d848e4560386307cea38eb79483c0090f814d0061a13a44cfe0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/afcb8514ff8b1d848e4560386307cea38eb79483c0090f814d0061a13a44cfe0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..31262aeb3103d3c9891e6287f344b1691871a744 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/afcb8514ff8b1d848e4560386307cea38eb79483c0090f814d0061a13a44cfe0.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 77-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2009 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +ORDER + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 77-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2009 Page 2 of 2 +Upon Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Reply Memoranda in +Support of Motions to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents, and good +cause being shown, it is hereby +ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is granted. Plaintiffs shall have an enlargement of time of +two (2) weeks, until April 20, 2009, to file reply memoranda in support of the Motions to Compel +Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents. +DONE AND ORDERED in +1, in Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this +day of +- 2009. +DISTRICT COURT JUDGE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/afcb8514ff8b1d848e4560386307cea38eb79483c0090f814d0061a13a44cfe0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/afcb8514ff8b1d848e4560386307cea38eb79483c0090f814d0061a13a44cfe0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3bb506b1df1e785f78b24cc255eef32e85269516 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/afcb8514ff8b1d848e4560386307cea38eb79483c0090f814d0061a13a44cfe0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "afcb8514ff8b1d848e4560386307cea38eb79483c0090f814d0061a13a44cfe0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "663ea2aabf066a3aa333b6405ab0cddba2b2ee816d92fb295a5183e8cf3be83b", + "output_sha256": "f9f37df5f34d2a6a3371ca306070b9af04a070db871e119d2790366f52d85f85", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/affb104714c717e589f7dc3ded80b518364303e13853a967e80fb9341e4a7403.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/affb104714c717e589f7dc3ded80b518364303e13853a967e80fb9341e4a7403.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..30cfac8f42c385525750496dd1eaa8f791e48add --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/affb104714c717e589f7dc3ded80b518364303e13853a967e80fb9341e4a7403.md @@ -0,0 +1,141 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2008 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR STAY +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein respectfully moves for a mandatory stay of this +action under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3509(k). As discussed below, +this action is subject to a mandatory stay based on the existence of two pending +parallel criminal actions. +Introduction +This civil action is a private counterpart to two ongoing criminal actions, one +in Palm Beach state court, the other in Miami federal court. Both cases purport to +arise from the same occurrence: the alleged sexual assault of a minor, Jane Doe +No. 3. A federal statute directly on point provides that when an alleged sexual +assault involving a child victim results in a "criminal proceeding," a commonly + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2008 Page 2 of 6 +derived civil suit "shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the criminal +action." 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) (emphasis added).' A stay of this case is required +until there is no longer a pending criminal action derived from the same underlying +allegations. See 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k). +Discussion +The parallel state criminal action pending in Palm Beach Circuit Court is +still in the discovery phase. State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 2006 CF +09454 AXX (Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County). Meanwhile, there is +also a parallel federal criminal grand jury action pending in the Southern District of +Florida. In re Grand Jury, No. FGJ 07-103(WPB) (S.D. Fla.) Both cases arise +out of the same occurrence and allege that the minor plaintiff is a victim. +The language of section 3509(k) of title 18, United States Code, is clear: a +parallel "civil action shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the criminal +' The full text of the mandatory-stay provision reads: +If, at any time that a cause of action for recovery of compensation for +damage or injury to the person of a child exists, a criminal action is +pending which arises out of the same occurrence and in which the +child is the victim, the civil action shall be stayed until the end of all +phases of the criminal action and any mention of the civil action +luring the criminal proceeding is prohibited. As used in this +subsection, a criminal action is pending until its final adjudication ir +the trial court. +18 U.S.C. § 3509(k). +2 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80232-KAM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2008 Page 3 of 6 +action." 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) (emphasis added). When it comes to statutory +construction, the mandatory nature of the word "shall" is well-settled. See, e.g., +V. +531 U.S. 230, 241 (2001) (noting Congress' "use of a mandatory +'shall' to impose discretionless obligations") (emphasis added); Lexecon Inc. v. +Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35 (1998) (explaining that +"the mandatory 'shall' ... normally creates an obligation impervious to judicial +discretion"') (emphasis added). Cf. . +V. +530 U.S. 327, 350(2000) +('Through the PLRA [Prison Litigation Reform Act], Congress clearly intended to +make operation of the automatic stay mandatory, precluding courts from +exercising their equitable powers to enjoin the stay. And we conclude that this +provision does not violate separation of powers principles.") (emphasis added). +One district court within the Eleventh Circuit, facing the identical issue with +a pending state prosecution, recently construed "the plain language of § 3509(k)" +as "requir[ing] a stay in a case ... where ... a parallel criminal action [is] +pending." Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MCR/WCS, 2005 WL 950623, at *2 +(N.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2005) (Francis II) (emphasis added). Accord Doe v. Francis, +No. 5:03 CV 260 MCR/WCS, 2005 WL 517847, at *1-2 (N.D. Fla, Feb. 10, 2005) +(Francis 1) (staying federal civil action in favor of "a criminal case currently +pending in state court in Bay County, Florida, arising from the same facts and +involving the same parties as the Instant action," noting that "the language of 18 +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2008 Page 4 of 6 +U.S.C. § 3509(k) is clear that a stay is required in a case such as this where a +parallel criminal action is pending which arises from the same occurrence +involving minor victims") (emphasis added). There is no contrary opinion from +any court. +In determining that the federal stay provision is mandatory, the Francis II +court expressed that there was apparently no case law supporting, or even +"discussing the [avoidance] of a stay [under the command of] § 3509(k)." Francis +II, 2005 WL 950623, at *2. Deferring to the statute as written, the Francis II court +rejected the plaintiffs' argument that some of the alleged victims had already +reached their majority. +See id. The court similarly rejected the plaintiffs' +argument that it would be in the victims' best interests to avoid a stay so as to +counteract the victims' "ongoing and increasing mental harm due to the 'frustrating +delay in both the criminal case and [the civill case.'" Id. The Francis II court, in +adhering to the plain language of the statute, also adhered to the "well established +priority of criminal proceedings over civil proceedings." Cf. United States v. +Hanhardt, 156 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1000 (N.D. III. 2001) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. +50(a)). +Conclusion +Because this civil action arises from the same allegations as two pending +criminal actions, § 3509(k) mandates a stay of this civil action. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2008 Page 5 of 6 +WHEREFORE, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein respectfully requests that the +Court enter a stay under 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k), coextensive with the state and +federal criminal actions. +Respectfully submitted, +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & +WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Tel: 561 659 8300 +Fax: 561 835 8691 +By: /s/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger +Fla. Bar No. 262013 +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2008 Page 6 of 6 +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7 +Counsel for defendant has conferred in good faith with counsel for the +plaintiff, who opposes the relief requested in this motion. +Is/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 20, 2008, I electronically filed the +foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that +the foregoing document is being served this day on counsel of record identified +below by facsimile and U.S. Mail. +Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Fax: 305 931 0877 +/s/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger +6 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/affb104714c717e589f7dc3ded80b518364303e13853a967e80fb9341e4a7403.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/affb104714c717e589f7dc3ded80b518364303e13853a967e80fb9341e4a7403.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7be2ceb45541f7302612d26d5dff068a19715aa7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/affb104714c717e589f7dc3ded80b518364303e13853a967e80fb9341e4a7403.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "affb104714c717e589f7dc3ded80b518364303e13853a967e80fb9341e4a7403", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "278adfbf45098acc16058f4828eec48846a4b597f7ebe61f1c366f593972e055", + "output_sha256": "b70c284b024a5f195af00bf5e31b3233d0005d9ae7d95d41e0ce5b891a06f61e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0285b9754f40992393c7756c8e703221d34218f002c441c9efb255b5b2e65a2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0285b9754f40992393c7756c8e703221d34218f002c441c9efb255b5b2e65a2.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f294655dd8c5fa0dd9a52487bd400386d0147a7a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0285b9754f40992393c7756c8e703221d34218f002c441c9efb255b5b2e65a2.md @@ -0,0 +1,111 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2008 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE, by and through JANE +CASE NO.: 08-80804-CIV- +DOE'S MOTHER, as parent and natural +MARRA/JI +guardian +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +and +Defendants. +/ +NOTICE OF LACK OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1.8.3 AND +NOTICE OF INCORRECT ASSERTION OF CERTIFICATE OF +COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1.8.3, INACCURATE +CHARACTERIZATION OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT +OF TIME TO FILE CIVIL RICO CASE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO +LOCAL RULE 12.1 AS UNOPPOSED, AND IMPROPER SUBMISSION OF +PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION +FOR ENLARGEMENT TO FILE CIVIL RICO CASE STATEMENT +PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 12.1 +COMES NOW, the Defendant, I +by and through her undersigned +attorneys, and files this, her Notice of Lack of Compliance with Local Rule 7.1.8.3 and +Notice of Incorrect Assertion of Certification of Compliance with Local Rule 7.1.8.3, +Inaccurate Characterization of Plaintiff's Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Civil +Rico Case Statement Pursuant to Local Rule 12.1 as Unopposed, and Improper +Submission of Proposed Order Regarding Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for +Enlargement of Time to File Civil Rico Case Statement Pursuant to Local Rule 12.1, +and sets forth as follows: +On August 13, 2008, counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted to the Court an +Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Civil Rico Case Statement +MCINTOS, SAWRAN, PELTZ, & CARTAYA, P.A. • ATTORNEYS AT LAW - 1601 FORUM PLACE « SUITE 1118 - WEST PALM BEACH, FL 3405 +TELEPHONE (561) 683-3202 +FACSIMILE (561) 683-3306 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2008 Page 2 of 3 +CASE NO. 08-80804-CIV-MARRA/. +Pursuant to Local Rule 12.1, as well as a proposed order on said motion. (True +and correct copies of these documents are attached hereto as Exhibit A.) The +Motion inaccurately certifies that opposing counsel conferred with counsel for +the Defendants and that Defendants' counsel do not oppose the motion. Neither +of the undersigned attorneys, whom are known to represent Defendant +were consulted in any way regarding this Motion and most certainly did +not communicate to opposing counsel regarding whether said Motion would be +opposed or not. Therefore the certification is incorrect as was the presentation to +the Court of the Motion and the proposed order as being unopposed. +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 29, 2008, I electronically filed the +foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the +foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the +attached Service List, either via U.S. Mail or transmission of Notices of Electronic +Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or +parties who are not authorized to receive Notices of Electronic Filing. +MINTOSH, SAWRAN, PELTZ & +CARTAYA, P.A. +Centurion Tower +1601 Forum Place, Suite 1110 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Telephone: (561) 682-3202 +Facsimilez +(561) 682-3206 +By: +DOUGLAS M. MCINTOSH +Florida Bar No.: 325597 +JASON A. +Florida Bar No.: 97349 +2 +MCINTOSH, SAWRAN, PELTZ, & CARTAYA, P.A. - ATTORNEYS AT LAW • 160I FORUM PLACE • SUITE 1110 • WEST PALM BEACH, FL 13401 +TELEPHONE ($61) 682-3242 +FACSIMILE (561) 683-3206 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80804-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2008 Page 3 of 3 +CASE NO. 08-80804-CIV-MARRA/] +SERVICE LIST +THEODORE J. LEOPOLD, ESQUIRE +SPENCER T. KUVIN, ESQUIRE +(Attorneys for Plaintiff) +Ricci -Leopold, P.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +BRUCE E. REINHART, ESQUIRE +(Attorneys for Defendant, +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ. +(Attorneys for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein) +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQUIRE +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQUIRE +(Attorneys for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein) +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, P.A. +515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +MICHAEL R. TEIN, ESQUIRE +GUY ALAN, ESQUIRE +(Attorneys for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein) +I Tein, P.L. +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, FL 33133 +3 +MCINTOSII, SAWRAN, PELTZ, & CARTAYA, P.A. - ATTORNEYS AT LAW - 1601 FORUM PLACE « SUITE 1110 « WEST RALS BEACH, FL3401 +TELEPHONE (361) 681-3202 +FACSINTEE (568) 652-3206 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0285b9754f40992393c7756c8e703221d34218f002c441c9efb255b5b2e65a2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0285b9754f40992393c7756c8e703221d34218f002c441c9efb255b5b2e65a2.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3dda5ef22044899ecb26414dddb98ab74b241036 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0285b9754f40992393c7756c8e703221d34218f002c441c9efb255b5b2e65a2.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b0285b9754f40992393c7756c8e703221d34218f002c441c9efb255b5b2e65a2", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "3c94df7a950a84252384450ed6236a00db02cc3283c9d996618a0c136db21c38", + "output_sha256": "5fe44f6ae83973c0415f5c426624b2d99affa6252a34c7e97dd3a2ffdcd162b2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b028d6a119bacb3790918e7dfb64c831e70bd4478246f1436efcfcfea4192941.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b028d6a119bacb3790918e7dfb64c831e70bd4478246f1436efcfcfea4192941.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e9a43e90c08d81a573e4eed1c5b55e4d195e9b69 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b028d6a119bacb3790918e7dfb64c831e70bd4478246f1436efcfcfea4192941.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2008 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CLERK'S DEFAULT +CASE NO. 9:08-cv-80381-KAM +Jane Doe No. +5 +Plaintiff (s), +V. +Jeffrey Epstein +Defendant (s) . +It appearing that the defendant (s) herein, Jeffrey Epstein, +is +in default for failure to appear, answer or +otherwise plead to the complaint filed herein within the time +required by law. Default +is +hereby entered against +defendant (s). +this date +Jeffrey Epstein +June 2, 2008 +_1. +as of course, on +STEVEN M. LARIMORE +CLERK OF COURT +By: Ahlai Israel +Deputy Clerk +CC: +Hon. +Print Reset diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b028d6a119bacb3790918e7dfb64c831e70bd4478246f1436efcfcfea4192941.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b028d6a119bacb3790918e7dfb64c831e70bd4478246f1436efcfcfea4192941.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ad6fc97cf866f8d3ed997e6fc5323460a4515851 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b028d6a119bacb3790918e7dfb64c831e70bd4478246f1436efcfcfea4192941.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b028d6a119bacb3790918e7dfb64c831e70bd4478246f1436efcfcfea4192941", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b4313f2504c4e66d2fecad8dfe353e163c62c8e758dfca8b22e57a3159f26c47", + "output_sha256": "8610937c8a6fc4d99af7f33a7223231941dc74762cd3b8610e90844a74925d07", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b032c14dbaed2cded7adcf40b4e82c56001fb5a9248896ed9c40c200666de3c0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b032c14dbaed2cded7adcf40b4e82c56001fb5a9248896ed9c40c200666de3c0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a79802146f7aa98046d14ef58f32fc3ad58d3ce5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b032c14dbaed2cded7adcf40b4e82c56001fb5a9248896ed9c40c200666de3c0.md @@ -0,0 +1,827 @@ +Case 9:08-Cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 1 of 29 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 +V. +UNITED STATES +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S REPLY TO GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO +THEIR MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' +RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDIES +COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and +through undersigned counsel, to reply to the Government's Response (DE #57) to their Motion +for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on +Appropriate Remedies (DE #48). +The Government argues that because it chose not to formally file an indictment in this +case, the victims had (for example) no CVRA right to confer with prosecutors about a secret +non-prosecution agreement barring federal prosecution of Epstein for crimes committed against +the victims. This position contravenes the CVRA's plain language. The CVRA covers agencies +involved in the "detection" and "investigation" of federal crimes, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1), and +allows victims to file for protection of CVRA rights even when "no prosecution is underway," 18 +U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3). Moreover, a number of courts have ruled that the CVRA extends victims +rights even before an indictment is filed. This Court should at least enter a narrow ruling that, +on the facts of this case, the CVRA extends rights to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 because the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 2 of 29 +government concluded that they were victims of specific federal offenses, sent them notices to +that effect, and then negotiated with defense attorneys an agreement not to prosecute the specific +offenses that were committed against these victims. +The Government violated the rights that the CVRA extended to Jane Doe #1 and Jane +Doe #2. The Government did not afford the victims their right to confer about the nonprosecution agreement (NPA) it negotiated with Jeffrey Epstein - an agreement that blocked +federal prosecution of Epstein for the multitude of sex offenses he committed again the victims. +And equally troublingly, the Government did not treat the victims with fairness when it +concealed the existence of this agreement from the victims for many months. Accordingly, the +Court should hold that the Government violated the victims' rights. The Court should then +establish a briefing schedule and hold a hearing on the appropriate remedy for this deliberate +violation of the victims' rights. +1. +THE CVRA'S PLAIN LANGUAGE DEMONSTRATES THAT CONGRESS +EXTENDED RIGHTS TO VICTIMS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS +BEFORE A FORMAL INDICTMENT IS FILED. +Congress clearly extended crime victims' rights in the criminal justice process even +before the formal filing of an indictment. The CVRA plainly provides that "lo]fficers and +employees of the Department of Justice and other departments and agencies of the United States +engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to +see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in [the CVRA]." 18 +U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1) (emphasis added). The victims have cited this provision prominently and +repeatedly in their pleadings. +See, e.g., Victims' Initial Petition at 4; Victims Summary +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 3 of 29 +Judgment Motion' at 26. Yet the Government's 53-page response does not even cite -- much +less discuss -- this important provision. +The Government instead boldly stakes out the broad claim that because it choose (for +reasons that have never been explained) not to file "federal criminal charges ... against Jeffrey +Epstein in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, ... [the victims] cannot invoke +any protections under the CVRA." Gov't Resp. at 8. This sweeping position is simply +irreconcilable with § 3771(c)(1) of the CVRA. If an indictment is a prerequisite to CVRA rights, +then departments and agencies of the United States "engaged in the detection [and] investigation +... of crime," 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1) would never have any rights to "accord[]" to crime +victims. +Of course, an indictment takes place after detection and investigation of the crime. +Thus, under the Government's construction of the CVRA, the provision covering agencies +detecting and investigating crimes would be rendered a nullity, contrary to "the well-established +rule of statutory construction that [courts] must give effect to every word of a statute when +possible." Accardo v. U.S. Attorney General, 634 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2011). The +victims have made this point repeatedly in their pleadings. The Government responds with +nothing but silence. +The Government's position flounders on other CVRA language as well. The CVRA +provides that victims should "assert[|" their rights "in the district court in which a defendant is +being prosecuted for the crime or, if no prosecution is underway, in the district court in the +district in which the crime occurred." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) (emphasis added). Of course, the +' For clarity, the victims will refer to their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime +victims' Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (doc. #48) as their +"summary judgment" motion. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 4 of 29 +victims did precisely what the statute commands: since "no prosecution is underway" against +Epstein, they asserted their rights 'in the district court in the district in which the crime +occurred" - i.e., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. +The Government does find room in its pleading to analyze this provision, calling it a +mere "venue provision." Gov't Resp. at 13. But even assuming this a venue provision, the +question remains what is the provision's purpose. Under the victims' interpretation of the +CVRA, the provision logically explains where victims should assert their rights before an +indictment is filed. Under the Government's interpretation of the CVRA, the provision is +rendered a nullity - as soon as an indictment is filed, a prosecution is already underway, and +there is no need to consider where vietims would file if "no prosecution is underway." +Buried in a footnote, the Government struggles to offer some coherent meaning to the +venue provision. The Government concedes that the language in the provision should not be +read to be "superfluous" and gamely argues that the provision covers "the time between arrest +and indictment." Id. at 13 n.9. This concession gives away the game. Either CVRA rights +attach at the point of indictment (as the Government claims throughout its brief) or at some +earlier point in the process. Yet buried in this footnote is the Government's contradictory +admission that an indictment is not necessary to "trigger" the CVRA, as a mere arrest is +sufficient. Id. But the Government does not offer any reason for believing that rights have to be +triggered by a formal arrest of the defendant, rather than other similar events (such as the +extensive plea discussions with Epstein's defense attorneys that took place in this case). +This footnote is not the only time that the Government has conceded that the CVRA +extends right to victims before the filing of an indictment. Surprisingly, the Government itself +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 5 of 29 +has previously explained directly to the Court in this very case that some CVRA rights apply +before the formal filing of charges. In the first hearing held in this case, the Government offered +the example of the victim's right "to be reasonably protected from the accused," 18 U.S.C. § +3771(a)(I), as a right the applies before the filing of charges: +Now, there are certain of the eight rights accorded in 3771(a) that could come up +before any charge is filed. For instance, let's say somebody believes that the +perpetrator of the crime is going to try to harm them or threaten] them or +intimidate|| them into not testitying or cooperating with the government and, of +course, no indictment has been returned. If an individual went to the government +and believed that the individual had not acted appropriately, they can go to the +district court and say I need to have my rights under 3771(a)(1) enforced because +those people are threatening me, and the government hasn't done enough. That +would be a situation. +July 11, 2008 Tr. at 10-11 (emphasis added). Of course, if the right to be reasonably protected +applies before an indictment, there is no reason other rights should have the same scope. +One more statutory provision makes clear that the CVRA extends rights to victims even +before an indictment is filed. The CVRA defines that a "victim" is entitled to rights as "a person +directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a federal offense ...." 18 +U.S.C. § 3771(e) (emphasis added). Obviously, the "commission" of a federal offense takes +place well before an indictment charging that particular offense, meaning that a "victim" with +protected rights under the CVRA can come into existence earlier in the process. Indeed, in this +case the Government has already conceded that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have been harmed +by the commission of federal offenses, as the Government has stipulated that they are "victims" +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 6 of 29 +under the CVRA. See, e.g., July 11, 2008 Tr. at 14 (Government stipulation that Jane Doe #1 +and #2 are "victims within the meaning of the Act).' +In sum, the CVRA's plain language extends rights to crime victims before the filing of +any indictment - as even the Government has, at times, conceded. +Il. +CASELAW RECOGNIZES THAT VICTIMS HAVE RIGHTS BEFORE AN +INDICTMENT IS FILED. +All of the courts who have examined the CVRA have agreed with the victims' position +here and concluded that the CVRA extends rights even before the formal filing of an indictment. +The most prominent example is the Fifth Circuit's decision in In re +527 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. +2008), a case that is remarkably similar to the present case. In that case, prosecutors and defense +attorneys for a major corporation secretly negotiated a plea agreement to resolve the +corporation's criminal liability for an explosion at an oil refinery. They obtained an order from +the district court allowing them to keep the agreement secret until it was presented in court. The +plea agreement was later presented in court, and victims objected. 527 F.3d at 393. The victims +argued that their CVRA right to confer with the prosecutors during the negotiation of the plea +agreement had been violated. When the district court rejected their claims, the victims filed for +mandamus review in the Fifth Circuit. +2 The Government claims that Congress "maintained separate legislation aimed at rights +governing pre-charging protections," Gov't Resp. at 19, supposedly found in 42 U.S.C. § 10607. +No court has cited § 10607 has bearing on construction of the CVRA. And, in any event, it was +clearly the intent of Congress to put in place a new law that would "correct, not continue, the +legacy of the poor treatment of crime victims in the criminal process." 150 CONG. REC. S10910, +S10911 (Oct. 9, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl). Accordingly, they adopted a new law to +supersede "the former victims' law [i.e. § 10607] that this bill [the CVRA] replaces." Id. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 7 of 29 +The Fifth Circuit agreed with the victims that the Government violated their right to +confer during the plea negotiations. The Fifth Circuit began its analysis by rejecting the very +same claim that the Government advances here: that the CVRA only applies after an indictment +is filed. Instead, the Fifth Circuit agreed with the victims that there are clearly rights under +the CVRA that apply before any prosecution is underway."" 527 F.3d at 394 (quoting BP +Products, 2008 WL 501321 at *11, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12893, at *36) (emphasis added). +The Fifth Circuit then agreed with the victims that "Illogically, [the rights that apply before any +prosecution is underway] include|] the CVRA's establishment of victims" 'reasonable right to +confer with the attorney for the Government." 527 F.3d at 394 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5)) +(emphasis added). The Fifth Circuit then held that "[a]t least in the posture of this case (and we +do not speculate on the applicability to other situations), the government should have fashioned a +reasonable way to inform the victims of the likelihood of criminal charges and to ascertain the +victims' views on the possible details of a plea bargain." 527 F.3d at 394. +The Government seeks to deflect the force of +by arguing that a federal criminal +charge was ultimately filed in that case. Gov't Resp. at 29. But this misses the central holding +of +While it is true that prosecutors ultimately lodged charges in +the Fifth Circuit +specifically held that the victims' CVRA rights attached before the decision to file charges had +been made. The Fifth Circuit concluded that "logically" the "rights under that CVRA that apply +before any prosecution is underway ... includel]" the right to confer with the prosecutor: 527 +F.3d at 394. The Fifth Circuit went on to clearly explain that the CVRA "gives the right to +confer. ... [T]he victims should have been notified of the ongoing plea discussions and should +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 8 of 29 +have been allowed to communicate meaningfully with the government, personally or through +counsel, before a deal was struck." Id. (emphasis added). +The Government next tries to distinguish L +based on the fact that the prosecutors in +the Fifth Circuit had sought a court order trying to dispense with notice to victims under the +"multiple victim" exception to the CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(2). Gov't Resp. at 29-30. But +here again, this was not the basis for the Fifth Circuit's holding. +Instead, the Fifth Circuit +reasoned that the prosecutors and the district court "missed the purpose of the CVRA's right to +confer. In passing the Act, Congress made the policy decision - which we are bound to enforce +- that the victims have a right to inform the plea negotiation process by conferring with +prosecutors before a plea agreement is reached." 527 F.3d at 394 (emphasis added). +The Fifth Circuit's decision In re +is but one of a series of cases that hold that the +CVRA extends rights to victims before the formal filing of charges. The district court decision +in that case also reached the same conclusion. The district court in +noted that "the +"reasonable right to confer' under subsection (a)(5) [of the CVRA] is tied to the "case.' A +threshold issue is the relationship of this right ... to the period before a charging instrument is +filed." United States v. BP, 2008 WL 501321 at *11 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2008). The district +court then recognized that "It)he CVRA states that the 'rights described in subsection (a) shall be +asserted in the district court in which a defendant is being prosecuted for the crime or, if no +prosecution is underway, in the district court in which the crime occurred." Id. (quoting 18 +U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) (emphasis in original). +The district court then firmly rejected the +Government's argument (advanced both in +and here) that the CVRA only extends rights +after charges are filed: +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 9 of 29 +There are clearly rights under the CVRA that apply before any prosecution is +underway. For example, the right to be "reasonably protected from the accused" +is not tied to a "proceeding" or "case." The right to reasonable notice of "any +release or escape of the accused" is not tied to a "proceeding" or "case." The +right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and +privacy may apply with great force during an investigation, before any charging +instrument has been filed." The government's obligation to give victims notice of +their rights under subsection (a) can apply before any charging instrument is filed, +depending on which subsection (a) right is at issue and the circumstances +involved. +2008 WL 501321 at *11 (emphases added). +The district court then went on to analyze whether the right to confer applied before +charges were filed. The district court explained "[t)he legislative history makes clear that, like +other CVRA rights, the right to confer was intended to be broad. In a floor statement relating +specifically to the right to confer, Senator Feinstein, one of the CVRA's sponsors, stated that the +right to confer was 'intended to be expansive,' applying to 'any critical stage or disposition of +the case.'* 2008 WL 501321 at *11 (citing 150 CoNG. REC. S4260, S4268 (daily ed. Apr. 22, +2004)). +Ultimately, after reviewing various authorities, the district court concluded that the +Government acted properly under the CVRA in seeking district court permission to keep the plea +agreement secret until after the parties had reached an agreement. 2008 WL 501321 at *17. Of +course, if the CVRA's right to confer did not apply before the filing of charges, there would have +been no need for the Government to seek the court's permission. And, in any event, the Fifth +Circuit ultimately ruled that the victims in that case had a right to confer with prosecutors. +Another district court has also rejected the Government's position that CVRA rights only +3 In a later part of its decision, the district court explained that the "right to fairness" is a +very broad right and was designed "to promote a liberal reading of the statute in favor o +interpretations that promote victims' interest in fairness, respect, and dignity." 2008 WL 50132: +at *15; accord United States v. +1. 458 F.Supp.2d 1271, 1272 (D. Utah 2006). +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 10 of 29 +attach after an indictment. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has agreed +with the Fifth Circuit's ruling in +• "IT]he Fifth Circuit has noted that victims acquire rights +under the CVRA even before prosecution. See In re +527 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir.2008). +This view is supported by the statutory language, which gives the victims rights before the +accepting of plea agreements and, therefore, before adjudication of guilt. See 18 U.S.C. § +3771(a)(4)." United States v. Okun, 2009 WL 790042 at *2 (E.D.Va. 2009). +Still another decision at odds with the Government's position is United States v. Rubin, +2008 WL 2358591 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). This decision is instructive because it not only explains +that victims have rights before the formal filing of charges, but that recognizing such rights does +not create limitless obligations. Rubin involved victims of a fraud scheme who sought to +exercise CVRA rights, including the right to confer. After discussing +the district court +explained that rights attach after an investigation has gone beyond a nascent or theoretical stage: +But, assuming that it was within the contemplation and intendment of the CVRA +to guarantee certain victim's rights prior to formal commencement of a criminal +proceeding, the universe of such rights clearly has its logical limits. For example, +the realm of cases in which the CVRA might apply despite no prosecution being +"underway," cannot be read to include the victims of uncharged crimes that the +government has not even contemplated. It is impossible to expect the government, +much less a court, to notify crime victims of their rights if the government has not +verified to at least an elementary degree that a crime has actually taken place, +given that a corresponding investigation is at a nascent or theoretical stage. +Id. at *6. +In this case, the criminal investigation of Epstein went far beyond the "nascent or +theoretical stage" when the Government began negotiating a plea agreement with him. In fact, +we now know that the Government was well beyond theory, having prepared a 53-page federal +indictment, accompanied by an extensive "pros memo" (i.e., prosecution memorandum), +consisting of more than 80 pages detailing the numerous felony sex offenses that Epstein had +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 11 of 29 +committed against at least 40 young female victims over many years. The Government then +negotiated extensively with defense attorneys over these charges. It was at that point (at a +minimum) that the Government should have extended to the victims their right to confer. +To the same effect is In re Peterson, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. 2010), a case that the +Government cites as supporting its position. Gov't Resp. at 21-22. But Peterson squarely rejects +the Government's legal position that the CVRA only extends rights after the filing of formal +criminal charges. In particular, Peterson held that "a victim's "right to be treated with fairness +and with respect for [his or her] dignity and privacy,' 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8), may apply before +any prosecution is underway and isn't necessarily tied to a 'court proceeding' or "case' ...." +2010 WL 5108692 at *2 (citing In re +,, 527 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. +BP Products North American, Inc., 2008 WL 501321 (S.D. Tex. 2008)). Peterson, however, +found that on its particular facts the "conclusory allegations" in the victims' petition there did not +"create a plausible claim for relief under the CVRA." Id. In this case, the victims have +advanced far more than conclusory allegations and have a very specific claim for relief. +Peterson does hold that the right to confer only applies after charges have been filed. Id. +But the authorities Peterson cites for that proposition prove no such thing. Confusingly, +Peterson cited the Fifth Circuit's ruling in +for support, 2010 WL 5108692 at *2; but (as +just explained) +held exactly the opposite. Similarly, Peterson cites other cases involving +the right to confer after charges had been filed. But none of these cases actually presented the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 12 of 29 +issue of the CVRA's application to pre-indictment situations, since charges had already been +filed in each of these cases. See, e.g., In re Stewart, 552 F.3d 1285, 1289 (11th Cir. 2008).* +Peterson also argues that the right to confer is limited to post-indictment situations +because a victim has "[t]he reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the +case." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8) (emphasis added). Building on that point, the Government cites +Black's Law Dictionary for claim that a "case" about which the victims can confer must be +limited to "*a suit instituted according to the regular course of judicial procedure.'" Gov't Resp. +at 10 (quoting Black's Law Dictionary). But the Government does not disclose that Black's Law +Dictionary also clearly defines a "case" as "[a] criminal investigation" as in "the Manson case." +BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 228 (8th ed. 2004). +Accord WEBSTER's THIRD NEw +INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 345 (1993) (defining "case" as "a circumstance or situation (as a +crime) requiring investigation or action by the police or other agency"). Given two possible +interpretations of the word "case" - one confining victims" rights to judicially-filed cases and the +other extending rights more broadly - the Court should choose the more expansive interpretation. +Not only is the CVRA "remedial legislation" that should be broadly construed to achieve its +purposes, +v. Kia Motors of America, Inc., 554 F.3d 943, 948 (1 1th Cir 2008), but the +sponsors of the CVRA stated that the right to confer was "intended to be expansive. For +* Interestingly, in In re Stewart, the Eleventh Circuit stated that the CVRA "does not limit +the class of victims to those whose identity constitutes an element of the offense or who happen +to be identified in the charging document." 552 F.3d at 1289. Instead, the determination is +made by looking to those who suffer "harmful effects" from a crime. Id. +Of course, In re Stewart simply does not speak to what kinds of rights crime victims have +before a charging document is filed, because that issue was not before Eleventh Circuit on the +facts of that case. But the "harmful effects" test is easy to apply in cases such as this one. +Obviously, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 directly suffered harmful effects when Jeffrey Epstein +repeatedly sexually abused them. +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 13 of 29 +example, the victim has the right to confer with the Government concerning any critical stage or +disposition of the case." 150 CoNG. REC. S4260, S4268 (daily ed. Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of +Sen. Feinstein). Clearly, the drafters of the CVRA would not have wanted the victims to be +deprived of the opportunity to confer with prosecutors about critically important dispositions of +their case. Indeed, in a later law review article about the CVRA, Senator Kyl stated emphatically +that "[w]hen a case is resolved through a plea bargain without the victim's knowledge or +participation, a grave injustice has been committed by the authorities." Jon Kyl et al., On the +Wings of Their Angels: The Scott +, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, +and Nila +Crime Victims' Rights Act, 9 +& CLARK L. REV. 581, 602 (2005). Such a +"grave injustice" is what the Government has caused the victims here to suffer. +If there were any doubt about what a "case" means, the Court need look no further than +the Government's own CVRA notices to the victims. In these notices the Government told the +victims that they had rights under the CVRA, including the right to confer with prosecutors about +their "case." See Victims' Summary Judgment Motion, Exhibits C & D. The notices also +concluded: "At this time, your case is under investigation." Id. (emphasis added). Obviously, +5 The Government extracts from this same colloquy a statement from Senator Kyl that +victims have a right "to confer with the Government's attorney about proceedings after +charging." Gov't Resp. at 54 (quoting 150 CoNG. REC. S4260, S4268 (daily ed. Apr. 22, 2004) +(statement of Sen. Kyl) (emphasis added). But read in context, it is quite clear that Senator Kyl +was simply offering one illustration of the circumstances in which victims could confer with +prosecutors, such as when they had questions about proceedings. Indeed, just a few sentences +before the sentence quoted by the Government in this colloquy, Senator Feinstein gives examples +and states that the right to confer "is not limited to these examples. I ask the Senator [i.e., +Senator Kyl] if he concurs in this intent." Id. (statement of Sen. Feinstein). Senator Kyl then +answers "yes" and proceeds to give his own examples, including the example quoted by the +Government. +13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 14 of 29 +the plain language of the word "case" extended more broadly then than the Government is now +willing to admit in its pleadings. The Court should reject the Government's newly-contrived +limiting construction. +III. THE GOVERNMENT IS ESTOPPED FROM ARGUING THAT THE CVRA +DOES NOT EXTEND RIGHTS TO THESE VICTIMS BECAUSE THE U.S. +ATTORNEY TOLD THEM THEY HAD CVRA RIGHTS. +Not only does the CVRA extend rights to the victims for the reasons just explained, but +the Government is estopped from arguing otherwise in this case. The U.S. Attorney for the +Southern District of Florida has already sent official letters to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (and +their attorney) informing them that they have CVRA rights in this case. See Victims' Summary +Judgment Mot. at 33-34. And the victims detrimentally relied on this information. Id. The +Government is accordingly now estopped from taking a different position. +In response to the victims' estoppel argument, the Government does not dispute that the +victims relied on the Government's promises. Indeed, the Government does not even challenge +the victims" point that "the U.S. Attorney's Office engaged in affirmative misconduct." Id. at +34. Instead, the Government raises a technical objection that because it was acting in a +"sovereign capacity," estoppel will not lie. Gov't Resp. at 43-44 (citing FDIC v. +, 735 +F.2d 408 (11th Cir. 1984). But the asserted "sovereign capacity" exception to estoppel against +the Government no longer exists in the Eleventh Circuit. Instead, the Circuit has now made clear +that estoppel will apply against the Government, provided affirmative misconduct is shown. For +example, in Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286, 1303 (11th Cir. 1999) - a more recent case than any +cited by the Government - the Eleventh Circuit applied the four-factor test cited by the victims +14 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 15 of 29 +as applicable to a claim of estoppel against the government in a deportation situation - an +obvious example of the Government acting in its sovereign capacity. +Moreover, the cases that the Government cites as dealing with sovereign capacity dealt +with a different subject entirely: when an agent of the Government can bind the Government. +For instance, United States v. Vondereau, 837 F.2d 1540 (11th Cir. 1988), held that a +government loan officer had no authority to waive payment on a government loan. The reason +was that agent had no authority "to waive the debt owed or decide that the Government would +not proceed against [the debtor]." Id. at 1541. Here, in contrast, the CVRA letters on which the +victims relied were sent by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida +(signed "by" the Assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case). See Victims' Summary +Judgment Motion, Exhibits C & D. The letters began: "Pursuant to the [CVRA], as a victim +and/or witness of a federal offense, you have a number of rights. Those rights are: ... (5) The +reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in this case; ... (8) The right to +be treated with fairness and respect for the victim's dignity and privacy." Exhibits C & D. +Accordingly, the Government, cannot now take a new position in this litigation. +IV. +THE GOVERNMENT VIOLATED JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S CVRA +RIGHTS. +As just explained, the structure of the CVRA, court cases interpreting the Act, and the +Government's promises to the victims make clear that crime victims had rights under the CVRA +in this case +even though the Government ultimately decided not to indict Epstein. The +Government violated these CVRA rights of Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 by deliberately +concealing from them its negotiation and agreement to a non-prosecution agreement barring the +15 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 16 of 29 +prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein for the federal offenses he committed again them. In particular, +the Government violated the victims' rights to confer with prosecutors, to be treated with +fairness during the criminal justice process, and to accurate notice of court hearings. +A. The Government Violated the Victims' Right to Confer. +The Government's almost exclusive argument is that, as a matter of law, the CVRA does +not extend crime victims' rights before charging. As a result, the Government does not seem to +seriously contest that, if the Court rejects its legal contention, the facts prove it did not confer +with the victims. For example, the Government does not dispute the victims' proposed fact #18 +that it entered into a confidentiality provision with Epstein that put itself "in a position that +conferring with the crime victims (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) about the nonprosecution agreement would violate" the confidentiality provision. Nor does the Government +dispute the victims' proposed fact #25 that "[a]t no time before reaching the non-prosecution +agreement did the Justice Department notify any victims, including for example Jane Doe #1, +about the non-prosecution agreement. The victims were therefore prevented from exercising +their CVRA right to confer with prosecutors about the case and about the agreement." Many +other similar facts show a clear violation of the right to confer. See, e.g., Victims' Proposed +Facts #7 (Jane Doe #1 told by the Government she has a right to confer), #8 (Jane Doe #2 told +the same thing), #19 (Government wanted to conceal non-prosecution agreement to avoid public +• The Government asserts that the victims only "became interested in seeing Epstein +prosecuted in January 2008, [when] he had already signed the NPA." Gov't Resp. at 37. The +victims strenuously dispute this assertion and request an evidentiary hearing on this point if it +important to the Court's resolution of this case. +16 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 17 of 29 +criticism), #20 (Government failure to confer about modifications of NPA), #21 (deceptive +description of case given to Jane Doe #1); #33 (false notices sent to victims). +The Government also seeks to persuade the Court not to find a violation of the right to +confer by misconstruing what is at stake. Thus, the Government erects a huge strawman when it +argues that the victims are asking to "open the inner workings of prosecutorial discretion" to +judicial review, Gov't Resp. at 21, and to challenge a prosecutor's "choice of the charges to +bring" and "who ... to charge," id. The victims are asking for no such thing. The victims are +simply asking for a finding that the prosecutors in this case did not afford them the +congressionally-protected "right to confer" about the non-prosecution agreement that the +prosecutors negotiated with Epstein. The NPA barred prosecution of the federal sexual offenses +that Epstein had committed against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, and as such Epstein was +completely unpunished for the many serious felony sexual crimes he committed against them. +Under the CVRA, the victims were entitled to confer about this disposition and attempt to +persuade prosecutors not to give Epstein this shockingly lenient disposition. Recognizing a right +to confer about such dispositions is "not an infringement ... on the government's independent +prosecutorial discretion; instead, it is only a requirement that the government confer in some +reasonable way with the victims before ultimately exercising its broad discretion." In re +527 F.3d at 395 (internal citations omitted). +The victims fully understand that if they had conferred with the Government, the +prosecutors could possibly have ultimately reached the same kind of agreement. But there is +good reason to believe that if the prosecutors had exposed their dealings to scrutiny by Jane Doe +#1 and Jane Doe #2, they would not have reached such a sweetheart deal. Remarkably, despite +17 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 18 of 29 +spending 53 pages to justify what happened in this case, the Government does not write even a +single sentence explaining why it entered into an NPA barring federal prosecution of a sex +offender who had committed hundreds of federal sex crimes against young girls. Perhaps there +is some reason for this extraordinary leniency. But if so, the Government has yet to offer it. The +Government's silence fully supports the victims' proposed fact (not contested by the +Government) that "the U.S. Attorney's Office - pushed by Epstein - wanted the non-prosecution +agreement kept from public view because of the intense public criticism that would have resulted +from allowing a politically-connected billionaire who had sexually abused more than 30 minor +girls to escape from federal prosecution with only a county court jail sentence." Victims' +Proposed Fact #19.l +In any event, regardless of the ultimate consequences of conferring, +Congress promised to all crime victims - including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 - that they +would be able to confer with prosecutors before a disposition was reached in their case. The +prosecutors here simply violated that right. +B. +The Government Violated the Victims Right to Be Treated With Fairness. +The Government also violated the victims "right to be treated with fairness and with +respect for the victim's dignity and privacy." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). Entirely apart from +whether the victims had any right to confer with prosecutors, at a bare minimum they had a right +to be treated fairly and not be deceived by the Government. Instead, the Government +deliberately misled the victims about what was happening in their case, concealing from them +the negotiation of a non-prosecution agreement and the true impact of that agreement, and +sending them and their attorney false information that the case "is currently under investigation" +and that "It]his can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we +18 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 19 of 29 +conduct a thorough investigation." Victims' Proposed Fact #33. Obviously, a victim of crime is +not treated fairly if prosecutors are deceiving them about what is going on in their case. +Whatever else "fairness" might mean, it has to at least mean that they not misled. The +Government violated this right too. +C. The Government Violated the Victims' Right to Accurate Notice. +The Government also violated the victims' "right to reasonable, accurate and timely +notice of any public court proceedings ... involving the crime ...." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2) +(emphasis added). The Government claims that it complied with this right by giving the victims +notice of the state court proceeding in which Epstein pled guilty to sex offenses involving other +girls. Gov't Resp. at 35.? But the Government violated the victims' right to "reasonable" and +"accurate" notice about this hearing. The Government concealed from Jane Doe #1 and Jane +Doe #2 the fact that the NPA barring prosecution against them was going to be presented at the +hearing. As a result, the victims thought that the hearing had nothing to do with their cases and +did not attend. See Victims' Proposed Fact #41. Indeed, shortly before the hearing, the +Government continued to conceal what was happening with regard to the non-prosecution +agreement. See Victims' Proposed Fact #42. The Government misled the victims and thus +simply failed in its duty to provide "reasonable" and "accurate" notice. +THE GOVERNMENT'S PARADE OF HORRIBLES WILL NOT MATERIALIZE +IF THE COURT RULES IN THE VICTIMS' FAVOR. +' The Government also seems to argue that the CVRA did not apply to this hearing +because it was held in state court. But the hearing was one "involving the crime" committed +against the victims, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2), because the NPA was involved in the proceedings in +state court. +19 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 20 of 29 +The Government also tries to persuade the Court not to enforce the CVRA rights of Jane +Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 through a standard rhetorical device: the parade of horribles. Thus, the +Government warns this Court that to accept the victims" position will somehow lead to an array +of challenges to discretionary prosecutorial decisions. Gov't Resp. at 21 And prisoners in +particular, the Government claims, will be able to tie up prosecutorial resources. Id. +A ruling in the victims' favor will not create any such problems. For example, nothing +suggests that prosecutors in the Fifth Circuit have had difficulty implementing the In rel +decision requiring pre-indictment conferring with victims in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. +The simple fact is that affording crime victims their rights is not complicated. For example, +treating victims with "fairness" simply requires that prosecutors not conceal relevant facts from +victims - something far simpler than deliberate acts of concealment. Cf. Sir Walter Scott (" +what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."). +The Government seems to be arguing that conferring with victims about non-prosecution +agreements will be burdensome. But the Government does not explain how often it even enters +into such agreements. Presumably this is because only a tiny handful of cases are resolved in +this way, and the Government would be hard-pressed to find even a single one where it caused +numerous felony criminal charges to simply evaporate without the dozens of victims even +knowing it. +More important, the victims here are not proposing that the Court hold that prosecutors +must drop everything and rush to confer with all possible victims whenever a conceivable federal +crime can be hypothesized. The narrow facts of this case do not present any such need for broad +holding. Cf. In re +527 F.3d at 394 (finding CVRA violation "on the specific facts and +20 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 21 of 29 +circumstances of this case"). Instead, the victims here ask the Court to issue a limiting ruling, +that prosecutors must confer at least when: +They have identified a specific federal offense(s) committed against a +specific victim by a specific individual; +They have determined that there is sufficient evidence to support a federal +criminal prosecution; +3. +They have notified that specific victim that she has rights under the +CVRA; +They then negotiate a non-prosecution agreement or plea agreement with +that individual through his attorney; and +5. +They are attempting to reach a tentative arrangement with that individual +and his attorney resolving the federal criminal liability for crimes +committed against the specific victim. +Of course, all of these five facts are present here. See, e.g., Victims' Proposed Facts #4, #5, #6, +#7, #9. #17. It is hard to imagine that such a limited holding will create difficulties for +prosecutors in future cases. And, on the facts of this case, it clear both that the CVRA applied +and the Government violated the victims' rights by concealing what was happening regarding the +prosecution of sex offenses Epstein committed against the victims. +Proof positive that such a limited holding will create no difficulties for the Government +comes from the internal e-mails cited by the victims in their opening memorandum. As these e- +mails make abundantly clear, high level prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office fully +understood in 2007 that the CVRA already required them to notify victims about the NPA. See, +e.g., Victims' Proposed Facts #26, 27. Nothing in these e-mails suggests that it would have been +21 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 22 of 29 +burdensome to notify the victims and confer with them.® And the Government has not disputed +that "[a]t all times ... it would have been practical and feasible for the federal government to +inform Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 of the details of the proposed non-prosecution agreement +with Epstein, including in particular the fact that the agreement barred any federal criminal +prosecution." Victims' Proposed Fact #51. +A final "horrible" suggested by the Government is that adopting the victims' position +would mean that AUSAs would have "to meet and confer with each and every prisoner who +alleged that he or she was the victim of an assault from another prisoner" - even if the U.S. +Attorney's Office determined that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. Gov't Resp. at +22-23. The Government distorts the victims' position. The victims are not arguing for a right to +confer whenever a crime might have been committed. Instead, the victims are urging (as senior +prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office themselves recognized) that when federal prosecutors +have concluded that they have sufficient evidence to charge a crime and are negotiating with +defense attorneys about that crime, then they should confer with the victims as well. That rule +already applies in (for example the Fifth Circuit, and does not appear to have created any +problems for the Government, in cases both inside and outside of federal prisons. +8 To be sure, there were more than 30 victims of the Epstein crimes that prosecutors +would have needed to confer with. But this would not have been difficult to accomplish. +Prosecutors, for example, could have held a single mass meeting for all the victims on one +evening and obtained their views on the proposed non-prosecution agreement. Federal +prosecutors have used such group meetings in cases involving far larger numbers of victims, +such as the Oklahoma City bombing case and the W.R. +_ case. See, e.g., United States v. +W.R. +1. 408 F.Supp.2d 998, 1016 (D. Mont. 2005) (Community Advisory Group set up in +the town of Libby, Montana to ensure compliance with the CVRA during criminal prosecution +for mass environmental crime involving hundreds of community members). +22 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 23 of 29 +VI. +THE COURT SHOULD FIND THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS VIOLATED +THE VICTIMS' RIGHTS AND SCHEDULE BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND +HEARING ON THE APPROPRIATE REMEDIES. +For all the reasons just explained, the Court should find that the Government has violated +Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's rights under the CVRA. At the tail end of its brief, however, the +Government briefly raises a flurry of desperate arguments to avoid such a finding. All these +arguments are meritless. +The Government first claims that the victims have failed to pursue this case +expeditiously. The Government does not deny that the victims timely filed their petition with +this Court,? focusing instead on what has happened since then. But the Court has already ruled +on whether the victims have been proceeding in a timely manner — a ruling that the Government +studiously ignores. On September 8, 2010, the Court entered an order administratively closing +this case (doc. #38), and just five days later the victims explained in detail the reasons for the +delay in moving forward with their CVRA case, including the fact that they had been diligently +pursuing vital information to prove their claims (doc. #41).' On October 28, 2010, this Court +entered an order finding that the victims had shown "good cause" for the delay. That ruling is +now the law of the case, and the Government fails to even discuss it - much less, offer some +reason for overturning the Court's earlier finding. The Government also candidly admits that +since then "the delay from October 28, 2010 through early March 2011 was due to the United +States' efforts to reach [an] amicable resolution of the case ...." Gov't Resp. at 46 n.22. +' The CVRA does not appear to impose specific timelines for victims to act, other than +requiring the victim proceed to the court of appeals (in certain situations) within 14 days after the +denial of their rights in the district court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(5)(B). +1' Rather than repeat all of the information in this pleading, the victims simply adopt the +information therein by reference. +23 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 24 of 29 +During those more than four months, the Government never asked the victims to move their case +along more quickly. To the contrary, it was the victims who were ultimately forced to set a +deadline for the Government to respond. In short, there is simply no undue delay by the victims +in this case, much less a sufficient basis for denying the victims their day in court by dismissing +their case. +11 +The Government further raises a "standing" argument. Gov't Resp. at 50. This is +nothing more than a repackaging of the Government's (meritless) argument that the victims have +no rights in this case. In any event, the Government confuses the merits of the victims' claims +with their ability to have them adjudicated. It is well-settled that "[s]tanding in no way depends +on the merits of the plaintiff's contention that particular conduct is illegal; it focuses on the party +seeking to get his complaint before a federal court and not on the issues he wishes to have +adjudicated." Mulhall v. UNITE HERE Local 355, 618 F.3d 1279, 1286 (11th Cir. 2010) +(internal quotation omitted). The Government here has already stipulated that Jane Doe #1 and +Jane Doe #2 are "victims" in this case. And Congress has specifically conferred standing on +crime victims to have their CVRA claims adjudicated. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(1) ("The crime +victim ... may assert the rights described in subsection (a)."); see also 150 CONG. REC. S4260, +S4269 (statement of Sen. Feinstein) (discussing § 3771(d)(1) and explaining "It]his provision +" The Government also attempts to raise Jeffrey Epstein's "rights to Due Process." +Gov't Resp. at 46. The victims are mystified as to why the Government would want to assert the +rights of the criminal who sexually abused them, even at the same time as it is trying to defeat +their CVRA rights. Cf. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1) (government attorney's "shall make their best +efforts to see that crime victims are ... accorded" their CVRA rights). In any event, the +Government obviously lacks "standing" to assert someone else's rights - particularly where that +person has already hired legions of attorneys who can speak for him. Jeffrey Epstein has +deliberately chosen not to intervene in this case, and accordingly any issues regarding his rights +are simply not before the Court. +24 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 25 of 29 +ensures that crime victims have standing to be heard in trial courts ...."). The victims have +standing to move forward with their case. +The final argument the Government raises concerns the remedy that the victims are +seeking. Perhaps anticipating that the Court will be unwilling to bless its deliberate and +egregious CVRA violations, the Government tries to stake out the preemptive position that this +Court would be powerless to respond. This argument contradicts fundamental American +jurisprudence, which holds that "where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy ....." +Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803) (internal quotation omitted). +The victims have deferred full briefing on the remedy issue because they understand it is +possible that the Court may not agree that their rights have been violated. If so, extensive +briefing on remedial questions would be a waste of time. Moreover, generally "the nature of the +remedy is to be determined by the nature and scope of the ... violation." Nichols v. Hopper, 173 +F.3d 820, 824 (11th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation omitted). Until the Court identifies the scope +of the Government's violations, it will be difficult to craft an appropriate remedy. The victims, +therefore, specifically continue to request (as they did in their opening pleading at p. 37) an +opportunity for full briefing and argument on the remedy question once the Court rules on +whether their rights have been violated. +But while the victims are reserving full briefing, a few words in response to the +Government may be useful. The Government does not dispute the victims' overarching point +that illegal plea arrangements are subject to judicial review and invalidation, even in situations +where defendants may have relied on those arrangements. See Victims' Summary Judgment +Mot. at 37-39 (citing, e.g., United States v. +, 98 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 1996); United States v. +25 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 26 of 29 +70 F.3d 563, 567 (10" Cir. 1995); Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951, 959-60 (Colo. 1999)). +The Government, however, seeks to escape from the general rule that illegal plea arrangements +can be invalidated on the ground that the non-prosecution agreement is somehow different. The +Government claims that because a NPA would not normally be subject to "judicial scrutiny and +approval," Gov't Resp. at 51, then the victims cannot have it invalidated under the CVRA. +The victims are not asking for "judicial scrutiny and approval" of the NPA. The victims +fully understand that the ultimate decision whether to enter into such an agreement is to be made +by the U.S. Attorney. But in passing the CVRA, Congress determined that federal prosecutors +have to respect certain rights of crime victims', including their right to confer and to be treated +fairly. The Government is not free to violate the CVRA simply because the fruits of that +violation are embodied in an NPA. The mere fact that something is covered in an NPA does not +block judicial review. See, e.g., United States v. Castaneda, 162 F.3d 832, 834-35 (5th Cir. +1998) (reviewing issue of government's obligations under a NPA); United States v. Hyles, 521 +F.3d 946, 952 (8th Cir. 2008) (reviewing existence and scope of alleged NPA); United States v. +780 F.2d 929, 931-32 (11th Cir. 1986) (reviewing and relieving government of its +obligations under a NPA). +The CVRA also commands that courts have their own obligation to protect victims' +rights. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b)(1). Congress expected that the courts would ensure victims' rights +were respected, because "without the ability to enforce the rights in the criminal trial ... courts +of this country any rights afforded are, at best, rhetoric. We are far past the point where lip +service to victims' rights is acceptable. The enforcement provisions of [the CVRA] ensure that +26 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 27 of 29 +never again are victim's rights provided in word but not in reality." 150 CoNG. REC. S10910, +S10911 (statement of Sen. Kyl) (Oct. 9, 2004). +If the Court agrees with the victims that the Government has violated their rights, it will +then be appropriate for the Court to consider how to ensure that those rights are translated into a +"reality" for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. One possible remedy is invalidation of the entire +NPA, since it was negotiated in clear violation of the CVRA. But more limited remedies are +available as well. For example, the Court could simply remove Jane Doe #1 from the operation +of the NPA, since it was her rights the Government violated. This remedy would leave the NPA +in effect as to other victims, thereby eliminating any concern about their situations. +Other remedies may also exist - a subject that the Court should explore at a full hearing +on the matter. But what should not be an option is what the Government seems to propose: that +the Court would do nothing to respond to clear, deliberate, and serious violations of the CVRA. +Congress expected that the courts would enforce the rights created in the CVRA. The victims +request an opportunity to ask this Court to do exactly that. +CONCLUSION +The Court should rule that the Government has violated the victims' rights under the +CVRA. The Court should then establish an appropriate briefing schedule and hold a hearing on +the appropriate remedy for those violations. +DATED: May 2, 2011 +Respectfully Submitted, +S/ +JAFFE, WEISSING, +27 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 28 of 29 +|, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 524-2820 +Facsimile (954) 524-2822 +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 +28 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 29 of 29 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +The foregoing document was served on May 2, 2011, on the following using the Court's +CM/ECF system: +Dexter Lee +A. +Villafaña +Assistant U.S. Attorneys +500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Fax: (561) 820-8777 +E-mail: Dexter. Lee@usdoi.gov +E-mail: +Attorneys for the Government +Roy Black, Esq. +Jackie Perczek, Esq. +Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1300 +Miami, FL 33131 +(305) 37106421 +(305) 358-2006 +G. Weinberg, P.C. +20 Park Plaza +Suite 1000 +Boston, | +02116 +(617) 227-3700 +(617) 338-9538 +L. Ackerman, Jr. +Burnett PA +777 S. Flagler Drive, West Tower, Suite 901 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein +(courtesy copy of pleading via U.S. mail) +29 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b032c14dbaed2cded7adcf40b4e82c56001fb5a9248896ed9c40c200666de3c0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b032c14dbaed2cded7adcf40b4e82c56001fb5a9248896ed9c40c200666de3c0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..35cdadf0e5dc9267243b46ae936d1ab84fdcb7ff --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b032c14dbaed2cded7adcf40b4e82c56001fb5a9248896ed9c40c200666de3c0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -352, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b032c14dbaed2cded7adcf40b4e82c56001fb5a9248896ed9c40c200666de3c0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 31, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "fd29e7936e78a419fae2526d9c0b330d3662852ab930ddf3672cb28b7d4074e1", + "output_sha256": "ee8c2d71ed5c3eb213c696e9b4c74590852a6b62bc05f3f885028cfe15ed7894", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b044813ee13597252d3ef9dd849782a7653473d3a05be810ec30a758bf9b9a4d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b044813ee13597252d3ef9dd849782a7653473d3a05be810ec30a758bf9b9a4d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8fbe952cbda733ccf3c2cbd0126a93c77615dcff --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b044813ee13597252d3ef9dd849782a7653473d3a05be810ec30a758bf9b9a4d.md @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 289 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2009 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRAI +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +ORDER +THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Emergency Motion +For Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff (D.E. # 228). For the following +reasons said Motion is granted. +In this case, which has been consolidated for purposes of discovery, Plaintiffs are +former under-age girls who allege they were sexually assaulted by Defendant, Jeffrey +Epstein ("Epstein"), at his Palm Beach mansion home. The scheme is alleged to have +taken place over the course of several years in or around 2004-2005, when the girls in +question were approximately 16 years of age. As part of this scheme, Epstein, with the +help of his assistant +allegedly lured economically disadvantaged minor girls +to his homes in Palm beach, New York and St. +with the promise of money in + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 289 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2009 Page 2 of 6 +exchange for a massage. Epstein purportedly transformed the massage into a sexual +assault. The three-count Complaint alleges sexual assault and battery (Count I), +intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count II), and, coercion and enticementto sexual +activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422 (Count III). +By the instant Motion Epstein seeks an order compelling +one of the Plaintiffs, in the case, to submit to an independent +psychological/psychiatric medical examination by Ryan +M.D., presently +scheduled for September 8, 2009. +has agreed to submit to said exam, but +requests the Court impose certain restrictions. Since the filing of the Motion the +parties have managed to resolve some of the issues involved, such as the proposed +examination's time and date and +request to have a representative from +her team present at said examination. As for the latter issue, Defendant has agreed +to provide, at his expense, a video feed and monitor in an adjacent room for +Plaintiff's representative's use. The remaining issues involve Plaintiff's request for +a court order limiting the scope of the proposed examination by disallowing repeated +questioning regarding "highly sensitive areas of inquiry including Plaintiff's medical +history, psychiatric history, sexual history, social history, sexual abuse history, +substance abuse history, etc., and imposing certain time restraints on the +examination itself. +Plaintiff's request to limit the scope of the examination is denied. It is Dr. +'See Pitff's Resp. to Rep.(D.E. #279), p.3. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 289 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2009 Page 3 of 6 +routine procedure when conducting psychological/psychiatric medical +examinations of patients to require the patient to fill out a 10-page "Life History +Questionnaire" and a 14-page "Patient Questionnaire." Both questionnaires request +detailed background information regarding past medical history, psychiatric history, +social history, work history, and the like. Presumably Plaintiff will be asked these +same questions two more times, first by defense counsel at +deposition +scheduled to take place shortly, and again by Dr. +at the upcoming examination. +Plaintiff's objection is that by having to answer these same questions about the +same subject matter three separate times "would only serve to embarrass, humiliate, +intimidate and further victimize Plaintiff." PItff's Resp. (D.E. #254), p.6. Plaintiff's +position is that she should only "be required to regarding past medical history, +psychiatric history, social history, work history, and the like, if at all, only one time," +either during the "deposition of Plaintiff or through Dr. +examination, but +certainly not both." Id. +Plaintiff cites no case law and independent research has uncovered none, to +support her novel position that a Plaintiff who puts her mental, emotional and +psychiatric state at issue can place a limitation on the number of times defense +counsel or agents retained by him can inquire into areas relevant to these issues +where the subject matter involved is "highly personal," "embarrassing," "sensitive," +or otherwise "humiliating." Plaintiff is seeking millions of dollars in personal injury +damages for, among other things, "physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 289 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2009 Page 4 of 6 +distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss +of self-esteem, loss of dignity, [and] invasion of her privacy." ^ Based on the +allegations made in Defendant's Reply,' Plaintiff's childhood was, to put it mildly, a +difficult one, with numerous episodes of child abuse and sexual abuse, which in turn +may of been the cause of Plaintiff's later engaging in numerous instances of +substance abuse, self-mutilation, prostitution, aggravated assault, truancy, and the +like. According to Defendant, in 2005 Plaintiff's mother filed a case committing +for a Petition for Involuntary Assessment for substance abuse, stating in +the accompanying file that +has been diagnosed as "Bipoloar and +Schizophrenic." * +Under these circumstances, where Plaintiff is seeking to recover medical +expenses associated with these complex medical issues, full knowledge of Plaintiff's +past and present medical, psychological, familial and social histories is essential. +And while neither duplication nor embarrassment is desired, under the +circumstances presented, where the number and scope of damages claimed are +vast and Plaintiff's past history eventful, it may nonetheless be unavoidable. This is +not to say that restrictions on the scope of questioning may never be put into effect. +If, as the case progresses, Plaintiff can show that Defendant's invasive questioning +2 Plaintiff, +First Am. Compl., Counts I-XXX. +3 (D.E. #273), pp.7-8, +"As quoted in Def's Rep. (D.E. #273), p.8, from Palm Beach County Case #05MH1667. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 289 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2009 Page 5 of 6 +is being done in bad faith or for purposes of harassment, the Court may reconsider +imposing limitations of the sort requested herein. At this point, however, the Court +agrees with Defendant that to restrict the number of times defense counsel may ask +Plaintiff personal and sensitive questions concerning some of the pivotal issues in +this case, would work an injustice by preventing Defendant from being able to defend +himself. +The Court likewise rejects Plaintiff's request to limit the time for conducting the +examination and any related testing to 6 hours. Dr. +has filed an affidavit stating +that he needs 6-8 hours to conduct the examination and related testing, and that +anything less than that might result in compromising the test results. Considering +the 31 counts alleged against Defendant, as well as Plaintiff's event-filled past, the +amount of time sought does not appear unreasonable. Should the length of time +prove draining, Plaintiff may take breaks as needed, of reasonable duration. +Furthermore, Defense Counsel and Dr. +are hereby put on notice that while the +Court has allowed the full 8 hours requested for the examination and related testing, +should less time be needed, the Court expects less time will be taken, and in no +event may the examination and related testing exceed a total of 8 hours. In +accordance with the above and foregoing, it is hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Epstein's Emergency Motion +For Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff (D.E. # 228) is GRANTED IN +' Affidavit of Dr. +attached as Ex. "B" to Defendant's Rep. (D.E. #273). +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 289 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2009 Page 6 of 6 +ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS HEREOF. +DONE AND ORDERED this September 4, 2009, in +, at West Palm Beach, +Florida. +LINNEA R. JOHNSON +UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE +CC: +The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra +All Counsel of Record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b044813ee13597252d3ef9dd849782a7653473d3a05be810ec30a758bf9b9a4d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b044813ee13597252d3ef9dd849782a7653473d3a05be810ec30a758bf9b9a4d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cbbac92f91f124eb2248afabe31df23eb15c329b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b044813ee13597252d3ef9dd849782a7653473d3a05be810ec30a758bf9b9a4d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b044813ee13597252d3ef9dd849782a7653473d3a05be810ec30a758bf9b9a4d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "af3adf8bbd26466ee451478858e80f0b3af682573f556331891e9ffa4a7268ea", + "output_sha256": "49c8e04d0e3d71812493e9426d2c6057331e0d3e77af1a3018b46040fff68826", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b045b2df4c8957e8a018fec22bb72ba32682b1dc8b7ccab873f1a3aa7f95dcca.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b045b2df4c8957e8a018fec22bb72ba32682b1dc8b7ccab873f1a3aa7f95dcca.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..02ef18cd365d56bb481de76c15aacfd91fdba6e6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b045b2df4c8957e8a018fec22bb72ba32682b1dc8b7ccab873f1a3aa7f95dcca.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +COM +ABRUZZO +RECEIPT + +CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER +PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +MAM BEACH COMAT +Printed On: +01/2712022 02:35 + +Receipt Number: 4327045 - Date 01/27/2022 Time 2:35PM +Received of: +Greenberg Traurig +401 East Las Olas Blvd. +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Cashier Name: +ADMIN +Cashier Location: E-Filing +Receipt ID: + +Balance Owed: +Total Amount Paid: +Remaining Balance: +0.00 +AG: Circuit Civil Central - AG(Civil) +Case# 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB -- PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +Case Total +Bal Remaining +0.00 +0.00 +Payments +Ref# +Type +EFiling_CREDITCARD +Total Received +Total Paid +Amount + +How was your service today? Please visit www.mypalmbeachclerk.com/survey or send your +feedback to clerkweb@mypalmbeachclerk.com. +For office locations and information about Clerk & Comptroller services: +Visit www.mypalmbeachclerk.com or call (561) 355-2996. +NOT A +NOT \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b045b2df4c8957e8a018fec22bb72ba32682b1dc8b7ccab873f1a3aa7f95dcca.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b045b2df4c8957e8a018fec22bb72ba32682b1dc8b7ccab873f1a3aa7f95dcca.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eab09f1327a83967f58b8697ad120a6411e051ae --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b045b2df4c8957e8a018fec22bb72ba32682b1dc8b7ccab873f1a3aa7f95dcca.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -95, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b045b2df4c8957e8a018fec22bb72ba32682b1dc8b7ccab873f1a3aa7f95dcca", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b1c86067d107b6c4e85adb55e7bf5956495bc05d274248f07e3369193b27f96c", + "output_sha256": "f2db21072d2861a2553123f36d5547629148dabb67797f95200012284e9479e4", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0696516116429a020bbb572bc2bde1b5ff20a980269729efdf711cae988b62c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0696516116429a020bbb572bc2bde1b5ff20a980269729efdf711cae988b62c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e17d9ad0a6d61ea3d13632bceb4bb8fb2b889b22 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0696516116429a020bbb572bc2bde1b5ff20a980269729efdf711cae988b62c.md @@ -0,0 +1,54 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2009 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +NOTICE OF STRIKING DOCKET ENTRY NO. 17 +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 6, by and through undersigned counsel files this Notice of Striking +Docket Entry No. 17, and states as follows: +On February 27, 2009, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in this matter and +inadvertently selected the wrong document to be filed. +Plaintiff respectfully requests that Docket Entry No. 17 be stricken from the Court's +docket in this matter. +Dated: March 3, 2009. +Respectfully submitted, +By:_ +s/ Adam D. Horowitz +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiff +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +- 1 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2009 Page 2 of 3 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on March 3, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day +to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices +of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who +are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2009 Page 3 of 3 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +/s/ Adam D. Horowitz +- 3- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0696516116429a020bbb572bc2bde1b5ff20a980269729efdf711cae988b62c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0696516116429a020bbb572bc2bde1b5ff20a980269729efdf711cae988b62c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b2a9ccec09603975429819b93718bbb8fc7ee4c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0696516116429a020bbb572bc2bde1b5ff20a980269729efdf711cae988b62c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b0696516116429a020bbb572bc2bde1b5ff20a980269729efdf711cae988b62c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f4d6968aa54000834f3ce6c1be6f387d229461e585aac1f1877edb4d5cddf384", + "output_sha256": "bd3b0ee7f10866287b6a72bf136342b5a819c4b1b3f14052dd080f350f588abb", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b06df3ce38ccdff3e4b3f8f91e20bfe823ec5c2f8d7a3ffc43d775a26c8a10ab.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b06df3ce38ccdff3e4b3f8f91e20bfe823ec5c2f8d7a3ffc43d775a26c8a10ab.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..38171c7becc5db6b4eb712f12a97526fabbeb04c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b06df3ce38ccdff3e4b3f8f91e20bfe823ec5c2f8d7a3ffc43d775a26c8a10ab.md @@ -0,0 +1,136 @@ +Items checked out. +by: WOODY, CINDY +March 27, 2023 11:53 +Items checked out to: APPEALS/ +CLERGER +/CLERK/CENTRAL/EVIDENCE/STORAGE/VAULTC/ROW06/COLUMN01/SHELF03/POSITION7/BOX4838 +Item: +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J01 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96232000 LETTER TO D. ARONBERG +FROM S. MENDELSOHN +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J02 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96232046 LETTER TO J. PACENTI FROM +N. CRUZ +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J03 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96232568 LETTER TO J. MUSGRAVE +FROM N. CRUZ +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J04 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96232587 SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT/ +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB JOS JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC, +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96232597 LETTER TO J. HOWARD +FROM D. WYLER +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB JOG JOINT ARONBERG DAVE.CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LL +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96232621 MOTION TO DISMISS +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J07 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96232626 MOTION FOR AN ORDER +UNSEALING GRAND JURY TESTIMONY +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB JOB JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96232771 ORDER DENYING THE +STATE'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER UNSEALING GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WITHOUT +PREJUDICE +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J09 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +'UBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96233133 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAIN +0-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J10 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE.CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLO +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96233147 DEFENDANT, DAVE +ARONBERG, AS STATE ATTORNEY OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA'S ANSWER TO +FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT II +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J11 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96233207 DEFENDANT ARONBERG +TWITTER POST +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J12 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MBJ13 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96233241 HEARING TRANSCRIPT +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J14 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96233252 EMAIL TO S.MENDELSOHN +FROM D.WYLER +PUBLISHER OF THE PALACE ence 9623271 FRENSLIC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96233271 ORDER GRANTING +DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS COUNT II OF THE PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED +COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J16 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96233302 LETTER TO D. WYLER FRON +S. MENDELSOHN +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J17 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LIF +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96233324 DEFENDANT DAVE +ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence 9623381 AFRIDATOR DAVIS DAVIS4 +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96233361 AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID +ARONBERG +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J19 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96233376 DEFENDANT DAVE +ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY FINAL JUDGMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN +SUPPORT THEREOF +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J20 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96233496 MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF +PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS, LLC IN OPPOSITION TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S FLA. STST. +SECTION 57.105 MOTION +) COPY +Reason: APPEALS + + + +Items checked out +by: WOODY, CINDY +March 27, 2023 11:53 +Items checked out to: APPEALS/ +CLERGER +/CLERK/CENTRAL/EVIDENCE/STORAGE/VAULTC/ROW06/COLUMN01/SHELF03/POSITION7/BOX4838 +Item: +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J21 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96234910 DEFENDANT, DAVE +ARONBERG'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO THE +STATE ATTORNEY'S FL.STAT.SECTION57.105 MOTION +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J22 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96234956 LETTER TO D. WYLER FRON +S. MENDELSOHN +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J23 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96234983 PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS, +LLC'S NOTICE OF DROPPING STATE ATTORNEY, DAVE ARONBERG +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J24 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235024 +INVOICE +SUAL THE PALM EACH DE ENdeRED EGA DEFENDAN DANES LIE +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235036 DEFENDANT DAVE +ARONBERG'S AMENDED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J26 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLCA +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235080 AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY'S +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J27 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235127 APPENDIX TO MOTION OF +PLAINTIFF CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND INCORPORATED +MEMORANDUM OF LAW (REDACTED) +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J28 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235199 MOTION OF PLAINTIFF CA +FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND INCORPORATED +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +0-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J29 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +JBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235230 AMENDED MEMORANDUM C +LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DAVE ARONBERG'S AMENDED MOTION FOR +ATTORNEYS' FEES +50.2019 CA 01-51-X-MACHINT ARONBERG SAVE CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LYC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235274 FINAL JUDGMENT +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J31 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235368 AMENDED RESPONSE AND' +MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS, LLC IN OPPOSITION TO STATE +ATTORNEY DAVE ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES UNDER FLORIDA +STATUTES SECTION 57.105 +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J32 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235442 JACOB SCHOLZ & WYLER V +0-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J33 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE.CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC | +UBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235586 AMENDED & SUPPLEMENTA +AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEYS' FEES & COSTS +50-2019-CA-014681- XXXX.MB J34 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE.CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235661 DEFENDANT, DAVE +ARONBERG'S NOTICE OF DROPPING CLAIM FOR ATTORNEY FEE MULTIPLIER +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J35 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235723 AMENDED AND +SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES & COSTS +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J36 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235757 JAMES V. WILLE, 480 SO.2D +0-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J37 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLO +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235786 LETTER FROM M. GRYGIEL +TO D. ARONBERG +COPY +Received by: APPEALS/ +CLERGER +Reason: APPEALS + diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b06df3ce38ccdff3e4b3f8f91e20bfe823ec5c2f8d7a3ffc43d775a26c8a10ab.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b06df3ce38ccdff3e4b3f8f91e20bfe823ec5c2f8d7a3ffc43d775a26c8a10ab.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f2e1816736e37bce2e54d0080c8b99d31566f076 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b06df3ce38ccdff3e4b3f8f91e20bfe823ec5c2f8d7a3ffc43d775a26c8a10ab.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -46, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b06df3ce38ccdff3e4b3f8f91e20bfe823ec5c2f8d7a3ffc43d775a26c8a10ab", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "715d6dfb30aa747b0e0ec173f58211287b6e00c2f16ac04a0c0f87198926e490", + "output_sha256": "4e3fb7703d55774315b8258388f35124b18669dd5282e840cb4ce6eb05fe8ac7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b07e6260d13b9323d634f5935b5d8512b3abb1498b959809d09f30a3203e1080.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b07e6260d13b9323d634f5935b5d8512b3abb1498b959809d09f30a3203e1080.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1e713d49e01363c38612f36f2705f2c743765a14 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b07e6260d13b9323d634f5935b5d8512b3abb1498b959809d09f30a3203e1080.md @@ -0,0 +1,108 @@ +Filing # 110057611 E-Filed 07/10/2020 11:12:10 AM +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +DIVISION: AG +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida, +Defendants. +COPY +REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS +Plaintiff, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, by +and through their undersigned counsel, hereby requests that Defendant, SHARON R. BOCK, as +Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida, produce all materials requested herein at +the offices of the undersigned counsel within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, or such shorter +time as may be ordered by the Court, pursuant to Rule 1.350, Fla. R. Civ. P. +DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS +"Epstein Grand Jury Materials" shall refer to all evidence, testimony, documents, +transcripts, notes, bills and other items used in or presented to the grand jury in and for Palm Beach +County, Florida in the prosecution of Jeffrey E. Epstein, date of birth January 20, 1953, Palm +Beach Circuit Court Case No. 50-2008-CF-AXXX-MB. +2. +"Clerk" shall refer to the Office of the Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, +Florida established by the Fla. Constitution, Article V, Section 16. +*** FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL SHARON R BOCK, CLERK. 07/10/2020 11:12:10 AM *** + + +3. +"State Attorney" shall refer to the Office of State Attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida +established by Fla. Constitution, Article V, Section 17. +DOCUMENTS REQUESTED +Copies of all logs, notations, registers, lists and entries that show the delivery of Epstein +Grand Jury Materials from the Clerk to the State Attorney. The specific materials delivered need +not be disclosed or produced. +Copies of all logs, notations, registers, lists and entries that show the return of Epstein +Grand Jury Materials by the State Attorney to the Clerk. The specific materials returned need not +be disclosed or produced. +Copies of all communications between the Clerk and the State Attorney concerning the +storage, possession, delivery, receipt and control of Epstein Grand Jury Materials. The specific +materials referenced need not be disclosed or produced +4. +Copies of all logs, notations, registers, lists and entries that show the general types of +Epstein Grand Jury Materials in the possession of the Clerk, without revealing their contents. +Copies of all logs, notations, registers, lists and entries that show the delivery of Epstein +Grand Jury +not be disclosed or produced +terials to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The specific materials referenced need +6. +Copies of all logs, notations, registers, lists and entries that show the delivery of Epstein +Grand Jury Materials to the United States Department of Justice and/or any Office of the United +States Attorney. The specific materials referenced need not be disclosed or produced. +2 + + +7. +Copies of all subpoenas and any judicial process served upon the Clerk for production of +Epstein Grand Jury Materials. +8. +Copies of all communications between the Clerk and the United States Department of +Justice, or the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any Offices of the United States Attorney +concerning Epstein Grand Jury Materials. The specific materials referenced need not be disclosed +or produced. +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 10th day of July 2020, a copy of the foregoing has been +electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein. +Respectfully submitted, +NOT A +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +Allorneys for CA Florida Holdings, LLC, +Publisher of The Palm Beach Post +Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. +5100 Town Center Circle, Suite 400 +Boca Raton, Florida 33486 +Telephone: (561) 955-7629 +Facsimile: (561) 338-7099 +By: /s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN +Florida Bar No. 849324 +mendelsohns@gtlaw.com +smithl@gtlaw.com +FLService@gtlaw.com +3 + + +By: Is/ Michael J Grygiel +MICHAEL J GRYGIEL +(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) +54 State St., 6th Floor +Albany, New York 12207 +Telephone: (518) 689-1400 +Facsimile: (518) 689-1499 +grygielm@gtlaw.com +By: Is/ Nina D. Boyajian +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 +Los Angeles California 90067 +Telephone: (310) 586-7700 +Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 +boyajiann@gtlaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com +ACTIVE 5133 +NOT A CER +4 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b07e6260d13b9323d634f5935b5d8512b3abb1498b959809d09f30a3203e1080.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b07e6260d13b9323d634f5935b5d8512b3abb1498b959809d09f30a3203e1080.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cea42a49dba2c8345bc94ba24d9e15055fb78447 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b07e6260d13b9323d634f5935b5d8512b3abb1498b959809d09f30a3203e1080.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -358, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b07e6260d13b9323d634f5935b5d8512b3abb1498b959809d09f30a3203e1080", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8b170e833603aad90a0540a3954bfa23840dbb18596073216b2910f6f0303b55", + "output_sha256": "3f1a15be8a93de7c00447d5b0165f5f5fbe590e0cc74c40b99d5462f69656274", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0873ccb3f3c3220f3e446c014df5f5fe402e3d4b0031b2cec57f0f74ff4a633.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0873ccb3f3c3220f3e446c014df5f5fe402e3d4b0031b2cec57f0f74ff4a633.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1275d95c402772193bffdf6bab728a59d705dde9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0873ccb3f3c3220f3e446c014df5f5fe402e3d4b0031b2cec57f0f74ff4a633.md @@ -0,0 +1,162 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 336 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2009 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092, +PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 4'S REPLY MEMORANDUM +IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 4'S MOTION +FOR SANCTIONS AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 4, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files this +Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4's Motion for Sanctions and +Motion for Protective Order, and states as follows: +In his Response to Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4's Motion for Sanctions and +Motion for Protective Order (D.E. 322), Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") makes no attempt to +excuse his reckless behavior immediately before the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4. +2. +Instead, Epstein chooses to focus on his purported "right" to attend the +depositions of the Plaintiffs in these civil lawsuits' and urges this Court to adopt a narrow +'As detailed in Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order as to Jeffrey Epstein's Attendance +at Deposition of Plaintiffs (D.E. 292), no such "right" exists as the Court is authorized by + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 336 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2009 Page 2 of 6 +interpretation of the broadly-phrased No-Contact Orders. In doing so, Epstein disregards +the fact that before the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 the parties entered into a specific +stipulation ("the Stipulation") that Epstein would not attend the deposition of Jane Doe +No. 4 or even be seen by her on the date of the deposition. (D.E. 306, Ex. +C; D.E. 305, Ex. 3). +3. +Epstein's own admissions in his Affidavit demonstrate that, at a minimum, +Epstein recklessly violated the Stipulation. (D.E. 305, Ex. 4).? Epstein admits he knew +exactly when and where the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 was being held. Id. at 92. +Epstein also knew of the Stipulation providing that the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 +would only go forward if Epstein did not attend and was not seen by Jane Doe No. 4. +(D.E. 305, Ex. 3; D.E. 305, Ex. 4). In addition, Epstein was "explicitly instructed" by the +judge in his criminal case as to the broad language of the No-Contact Orders prohibiting +"direct or indirect" contact with Jane Doe No. 4 and his other victims. (D.E. 238, p. 4). +4. +It is undisputed that Jeffrey Epstein stood just feet away from Jane Doe +No. 4 and crossed paths with her immediately before she was entering the room where +her deposition was to be held. The parties differ as to precisely what occurred during this +encounter. In particular, Epstein does not admit to staring at and intimidating Jane Doe +No. 4 to the point of tears. In resolving this factual dispute, the Court may consider that +Jeffrey Epstein is a convicted felon and find that his credibility should be accordingly +diminished. See Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1) (allowing impeachment by a +Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) to enter an Order "designating the persons who +may be present while the discovery is conducted." +2 The Affidavit submitted on behalf of Plaintiff demonstrates that Epstein purposefully +violated the Stipulation and No-Contact Orders by staring down Jane Doe No. 4 from a +few away. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 336 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2009 Page 3 of 6 +conviction of a qualifying crime).? Additionally, Epstein's version of events is +contradicted by an exhibit he filed with this Court. Compare D.E. 305, Ex. 4-5 with D.E. +305, Ex. 8. In his Affidavit, Epstein states that his encounter with Jane No. 4 occurred no +earlier than 1:04 p.m.* (D.E. 305, Ex. 4). Yet, the deposition transcript itself reveals that +Epstein's Affidavit is a sham because Plaintiff's counsel went on the record to announce +the cancellation of the deposition at 1:03 p.m. (D.E. 305, Ex. 4). The time was +announced by a court reporter, and even Epstein's counsel agreed that was the correct +time. Id. This occurred after the altercation in the lobby between Jane Doe No. 4 and +Epstein, and after Plaintiff's counsel attempted to console his client. (D.E. 306, 16).5 +Thus, Epstein's contention that his encounter with Jane Doe No. 4 occurred no earlier +than 1:04 p.m. is refuted not only by Plaintiff, but also by his own filings in this Court, +including the statements of his counsel and a neutral court reporter. +5. +At a minimum, Epstein recklessly violated a good-faith Stipulation +between counsel and two no-contact Orders which broadly prohibit Epstein from having +any "direct or indirect" contact with his abuse victims, including Jane Doe No. 4. (D.E. +238). Epstein's egregious misconduct is compounded by his filing of a sham Affidavit +designed to conceal his reckless behavior. +" It is well-settled that Federal Rule of Evidence 609 is applicable to all witnesses in civil +cases. See e.gu, Shingleton v. Armor Velvet Corp., 621 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1980). +'Epstein attaches significance to 1:04 p.m. because he "assumed" by that time that Jane +Doe No. 4 would have been in the deposition room for her 1:00 p.m. deposition. +S Following the incident in the lobby, Plaintiff's counsel exited the building with his +client and attempted to console his visibly distraught client. (D.E. 306, Ex. A 99l 5-6). He +then entered the deposition room to confer with all counsel as to what had occurred. (D.E +306,96). It was only after this brief discussion that Plaintiff's counsel went on the record +at 1:03 p.m. to announce the termination of the deposition based on the earlier event. Id. +Accordingly, Plaintiff maintains that these incidents in the lobby occurred at +approximately 1:00 p.m. (D.E. 306, Ex. A, 1 3). + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 336 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2009 Page 4 of 6 +The issues in the present Motion for Sanctions and Motion for Protective +Order substantially overlap with the facts and legal arguments in Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. +2-8° Motion for Protective Order as to Jeffrey Epstein's Attendance at Deposition (D.E. +292), which was filed before Jane Doe No. 4's depositions.° Accordingly, Plaintiff +adopts and incorporates the remaining facts and arguments set forth in Plaintiffs' Motion +for Protective Order. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 4, respectfully requests (1) an award of +sanctions, including attorneys' fees and costs reasonably and necessarily incurred by +Plaintiff due to Defendant's non-compliance with the Court's No-Contact Order; (2) an +Order excusing Jane Doe No. 4 from her deposition on September 16, 2009, due to +Defendant's violation of the No-Contact Order and defense counsel's breach of his +promise to Plaintiff's counsel that Defendant would not be seen at Plaintiff's deposition; +(3) an order directing that any depositions of Plaintiffs in the future be at a court +reporter's office selected by Plaintiffs' counsel; (4) appointment of a special +to +preside at Plaintiffs' depositions and control the proceeding, to be paid for by Defendant; +and (5) all other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. +Dated: October 2, 2009. +Respectfully submitted, +By: s/ Adam D. Horowitz +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +" Indeed, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order as to Jeffrey Epstein's Attendance at +Depositions was filed to prevent the precise harm that occurred at the deposition of Jane +Doe No. 4. (D.E. 292, 1I). + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 336 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2009 Page 5 of 6 +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on October 2, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. 1 also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner +specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF +or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive +electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 336 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2009 Page 6 of 6 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +bedwards @rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia @bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0873ccb3f3c3220f3e446c014df5f5fe402e3d4b0031b2cec57f0f74ff4a633.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0873ccb3f3c3220f3e446c014df5f5fe402e3d4b0031b2cec57f0f74ff4a633.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ac9dcb6e9c3fdd7ef9780057bbdbf83dcfad1399 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0873ccb3f3c3220f3e446c014df5f5fe402e3d4b0031b2cec57f0f74ff4a633.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b0873ccb3f3c3220f3e446c014df5f5fe402e3d4b0031b2cec57f0f74ff4a633", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "cb419a12e2c06e20b3b8b39017b48e78a1066903b5eddb8ad93002013d498a9d", + "output_sha256": "7bc56dea03c949c8d3e7c3079bfd4dd24d01b5c4250a5a0a99f409ef6cc43dc4", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0a7679e5549efc3590d5795baecff4582df7172eef8db87e0f4674a13d1e9d4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0a7679e5549efc3590d5795baecff4582df7172eef8db87e0f4674a13d1e9d4.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..563fad33d8e4058650859be0a9950f2fffacabd5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0a7679e5549efc3590d5795baecff4582df7172eef8db87e0f4674a13d1e9d4.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80069-KAM Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2008 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.08-80069-CIV-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 1 by and through +JANE DOE'S FATHER as parent and natural +guardian, and JANE DOE'S FATHER, and +JANE DOE'S STEPMOTHER, individually, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +ORDER REQUIRING COUNSEL TO CONFER, FILE JOINT SCHEDULING REPORT +AND FILE JOINT DISCOVERY REPORT +THIS ORDER has been entered upon the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff's counsel is +hereby ORDERED to forward to all defendants, upon receipt of a responsive pleading, a copy of +this order. +It is further ORDERED: +1. Every motion when filed shall be accompanied by a proposed order, except that +motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment need not be accompanied by a proposed +order. +2. Pretrial discovery in this case shall be conducted in accord with Local Rule 16.1 and +Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. +3. Pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless this action is +excluded under Rule 26(a)(1)(E), the parties must confer within twenty-one (21) days after the +filing of the first responsive pleading by the last responding defendant, to consider the nature and +basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of + + +Case 9:08-cv-80069-KAM Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2008 Page 2 of 2 +the case, to make or arrange for the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), and to develop a +proposed discovery plan that indicates the parties' views and proposals concerning the matters +listed in Rule 26(f). +4. The parties are jointly responsible for submitting a written report of this conference +outlining the proposed discovery plan within 14 days after the conference. +5. Counsel for the parties shall hold a scheduling conference either at the same time as +the discovery conference described in Rule 26(f) or within fourteen (14) calendar days thereafter. +See Local Rule 16.1(B). +6. Within fourteen (14) days of the scheduling conference, counsel shall file a joint +scheduling report pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(B)(2). This report shall indicate the proposed +month and year for the trial plus the estimated number of trial days required, as well as an +indication of whether the trial is to be a jury trial or bench trial. +7. The parties may submit a single report combining the discovery plan report and the +scheduling conference report. +8. Failure of counsel or unrepresented parties to file a discovery plan report or joint +scheduling report may result in dismissal, default, and the imposition of other sanctions including +attorney's fees and costs. +DONE AND SIGNED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, +this 28" day of January, 2008. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies furnished to: +All counsel +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0a7679e5549efc3590d5795baecff4582df7172eef8db87e0f4674a13d1e9d4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0a7679e5549efc3590d5795baecff4582df7172eef8db87e0f4674a13d1e9d4.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6bfae3da36333854f62137d90ca386d8b42090c7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0a7679e5549efc3590d5795baecff4582df7172eef8db87e0f4674a13d1e9d4.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b0a7679e5549efc3590d5795baecff4582df7172eef8db87e0f4674a13d1e9d4", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "240bce1807a7469e05f6d4e1fa20ed67193cba9eebc4981595ff6187760cafae", + "output_sha256": "792fb671004b1df6f1a1d351c1d33ade7ad3e816d5a4393b70437520c57e86a6", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0afe6c362c0e3d593f5476fc8c116872c3633281caa43086d0845a535c023c7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0afe6c362c0e3d593f5476fc8c116872c3633281caa43086d0845a535c023c7.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..46686e03b873ea05650a7620818df5bbd2e77222 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0afe6c362c0e3d593f5476fc8c116872c3633281caa43086d0845a535c023c7.md @@ -0,0 +1,203 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 68 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 1 of 7 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/] +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 68 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 2 of 7 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRAJ +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80993-MARRAJ +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80811 -MARRAJ +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80893-MARRA| +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 08-CV- 80469-MARRA/ +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 68 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 3 of 7 +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al., +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80591-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80656-MARRA1 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +/ +PLAINTIFFS JANE DOES' 2-7 NOTICE OF JOINDER IN PLAINTIFFS' +JANE DOES 101 AND 102'S MOTION FOR NO-CONTACT ORDER +Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 join in Plaintiffs Jane Does 101 and 102's Motion for No- +Contact Order, filed May 22, 2009, and state as follows: +Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 incorporate and adopt the facts set forth in the pending +Motion for No-Contact Order. Additionally, Plaintiffs offer additional facts in support of the +Motion for a No-Contact Order, as set forth below. +2. +Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 were all identified on the +victims list provided to Defendant Epstein's counsel in connection with the Non-prosecution +Agreement, and each has been identified as victims to Defendant Epstein in their pending +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 68 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 4 of 7 +actions. In June 2008, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Pucillo ordered Defendant Epstein "not +to have any contact, direct or indirect," with any of his victims. Judge Pucillo clarified that +forbidden "indirect" contact included, but was not limited to, text messages, emails, telephone +calls, or messages through third parties. As detailed herein, Jane Does 4 and 7 have been +contacted on multiple occasions by at least one person representing that she is cooperating with +and communicating on behalf of Defendant Epstein. In these contacts, the Plaintiffs/victims +were threatened and harassed. +3. +As with other Plaintiffs, Jane Does 4 and 7 were first introduced to Defendant +Epstein by Hayley +, who was a high school friend.' +4. +had had contact with these Plaintiffs on several occasions in which she +represented to Plaintiffs Jane Doe 4 and 7 that she is cooperating with Defendant Epstein's +attorneys and that she is being financially supported by Defendant Epstein. Moreover, +has told these Plaintiffs specifically that she is communicating on behalf of Defendant Epstein. +5. +During these contacts, +made disparaging comments to the Plaintiffs and +also sent disturbing text messages to Jane Doe No. 4. In one text, +specifically stated, "I +just met with my lawyer today and I'm finally done with the Epstein case. LOL. I knew you were +suing Jeffrey all along and I've learned so much about you in the meantime. LOL." Jane Doe 4 +understood this to mean that +had exchanged private information about Jane Doe 4 with +Defendant Epstein and his attorneys. Since February, 2009, Jane Doe 4 has continued to receive +text messages from +that are sometimes harassing and other times seek information about +Jane Doe 4's private life, her lawsuit against Defendant Epstein, and/or her lawyer's strategy. +was +named in at least one civil case against Mr. Epstein as a co-defendant. See +Jane Doe v. Epstein, case no. 50-2008-CA-0065996, Palm Beach County Circuit Court. +brought multiple underage girls to Epstein in addition to Jane Does 4 and 7. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 68 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 5 of 7 +6. +On one occasion, +approached Jane Doe 7 and disclosed that she was +cooperating with Defendant Epstein's defense, and that she ( +agreed that she would +testify against Jane Doe 7 and the other plaintiffs to make sure that none of the Plaintiffs ever +received any money from Defendant Epstein, making clear that her testimony would not be +truthful to achieve this end. She also made disparaging comments to Jane Doe 7, accusing her of +ruining Defendant Epstein's reputation. +7. +The very possibility of any contact with Epstein or his agents, including | +causes anxiety and distress particularly to Jane Doe 4 and 7, as well as the other Plaintiffs. A nocontact order should prevent further harassment of the Plaintiffs by Epstein and his agents, +including, but not limited to, Hayley +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7, respectfully join Plaintiffs Jane Does 101 and +102 in moving this Court to enter an order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for a No Contact Order +prohibiting the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, from any contact or communication with Plaintiffs, +either directly or indirectly, except through Plaintiffs' attorneys of record for the duration of the +Order. +Dated: June 8, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By:_ +_s/ Adam D. Horowitz. +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 68 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 6 of 7 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +THEREBY CERTIFY that on June 8, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via +transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized +manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic +Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 68 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 7 of 7 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +bedwards@rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +/s/ Adam D. Horowitz +7 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0afe6c362c0e3d593f5476fc8c116872c3633281caa43086d0845a535c023c7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0afe6c362c0e3d593f5476fc8c116872c3633281caa43086d0845a535c023c7.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a052f1730dba7eba32e45417d504a25c5f8b92cd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0afe6c362c0e3d593f5476fc8c116872c3633281caa43086d0845a535c023c7.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -86, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b0afe6c362c0e3d593f5476fc8c116872c3633281caa43086d0845a535c023c7", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "caa4b07be4399aa86c397f2f7f187bb4eafd68e36f3b1f2bacd7d2c34e958e39", + "output_sha256": "40b3a4c4e64aba7d4feda8214107aa8dd1400cb0827e74b4e663aabead926804", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0c475aab0bb9b78467c779207781ac9653429fa72c742c723a4c2c585393a35.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0c475aab0bb9b78467c779207781ac9653429fa72c742c723a4c2c585393a35.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..54f740a97acc88a4805ff8cf1e2dad10bd8c5d96 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0c475aab0bb9b78467c779207781ac9653429fa72c742c723a4c2c585393a35.md @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 257 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2009 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRAJ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRAJ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +VS. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 257 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2009 Page 2 of 5 +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRAJ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 257 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2009 Page 3 of 5 +Defendants. +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09- 80469-CIV-MARRAJ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09- 80591-CIV-MARRAJ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102 +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09- +80656-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +AMENDED ORDER +THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant's Response in Opposition to +Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order Regarding Treatment Records and Motion to Strike +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 257 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2009 Page 4 of 5 +C.M.A.'s Conditional Notice of Intent to Rely Exclusively on Statutory Damages (D.E. #216 +in Case No. 08-80119). For the following reasons that portion of the Motion which seeks +an order striking C.M.A.'s Conditional Notice of Intent to Rely Exclusively on Statutory +Damages is deferred to the United States District Court, as the undersigned is without +authority to grant the relief sought. The Response in Opposition, filed as part of the +Motion, shall be considered by the undersigned when addressing Plaintiff's Motion for +Protective Order. +By this Motion Defendant seeks two distinct forms of relief each of which, due to the +nature of the relief sought, requires a ruling and/or consideration by two different judges, +the District Judge (regarding Motion to Strike C.M.A.'s Conditional Notice of Intent to Rely +Exclusively on Statutory Damages) and the Magistrate Judge (regarding Defendant's +Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order Regarding Treatment +Records). This fact was brought to the attention of Defendant's counsel's office prior to +the filing of the instant motion, and for purposes of judicial efficiency and docket control, +it was requested that instead of filing one motion seeking the dual relief sought here, +Defendant instead file two separate motions. +Rather than heed the Court's suggestion, however, Defendant's counsel has filed +one motion seeking the dual relief described above, stating in a footnote "It]he Response +in Opposition to the Motions for Protective Order and the Motion to Strike are inextricably +woven together in that each deal with critical discovery issues. Thus the Response and the +Motion to Strike must be handled simultaneously by the Court." Def's Resp. and Mtn. (DE. +#216), p.4 (emphasis added). Obviously what the Court "must" do is for the Court, and not +for any particular party, to decide. Decision-making is and always has been the exclusive +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 257 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2009 Page 5 of 5 +province of a judge, while a party's role is limited to that of requesting relief. This is a fact +all parties would do well to remember. Having reviewed the pleadings filed incident to this +matter, and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the portion of Defendant's Motion seeking to +Strike C.M.A.'s Conditional Notice of Intent to Rely Exclusively on Statutory Damages is +DEFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, as the undersigned is without +authority to grant the relief sought. That portion of Defendant's Motion containing a +Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order Regarding Treatment +Records shall be considered by the undersigned when addressing Plaintiff's Motion for +Protective Order. +DONE AND ORDERED this August 10, 2009, in +1, at West Palm Beach, +Florida. +LINNEA R. JOHNSON +UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE +CC: The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra +All Counsel of Record +5 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0c475aab0bb9b78467c779207781ac9653429fa72c742c723a4c2c585393a35.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0c475aab0bb9b78467c779207781ac9653429fa72c742c723a4c2c585393a35.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bbc7e405662e947119a5c6fe7cd3bf67fe65e22b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0c475aab0bb9b78467c779207781ac9653429fa72c742c723a4c2c585393a35.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b0c475aab0bb9b78467c779207781ac9653429fa72c742c723a4c2c585393a35", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ba67f943b059b7951b766926e7d55b44ea04e92c0e19a5f3de04622c5a3f84af", + "output_sha256": "965b346961c79d3ad85384b11c82186624929f95fd3e4b8a825f5c5a7b7a2fd6", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0f6cff8ac583738afe705f6498f9e6759fc1444f595fe4030855f2841d9a29e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0f6cff8ac583738afe705f6498f9e6759fc1444f595fe4030855f2841d9a29e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bc88a4ac6e7c8dc7db732c9da794bfa488972005 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0f6cff8ac583738afe705f6498f9e6759fc1444f595fe4030855f2841d9a29e.md @@ -0,0 +1,432 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 1 of 15 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRAJ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRAJ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 2 of 15 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80993-MARRA +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811 -MARRA/ +JANE DOE, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80893-MARRA/ +DOE II, +VS. +CASE NO.: 08-CV- 80469-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 3 of 15 +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al., +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80591-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80656-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFES JANE DOES 2-7'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO +COMPEL AND/OR IDENTIFY PLAINTIFFS IN THE STYLE OF THIS CASE AND +MOTION TO IDENTIFY JANE DOE IN THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS FOR +PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY, OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO DISMISS +"SUA SPONTE", WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-7, hereby serve their Response to Defendant's Motion to +Compel and/or Identify Plaintiffs in the Style of this Case and Motion to Identify Jane Doe in +Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, or Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss "Sua +Sponte", With Incorporated Memorandum of Law, and state as follows: +The lawsuits filed by JANE DOES 2-7 involve private, intimate facts pertaining +to their own childhood sexual abuse and exploitation by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 4 of 15 +2. +Jane Does 2-7 filed their suits under a pseudonym' to prevent public disclosure of +the private, highly sensitive and intimate facts pertaining to their sexual assaults, and the public +association of their identities with Defendant Epstein and these assaults. +Dr. Gilbert Kliman," a well-known forensic psychiatrist with an expertise in the +field of child trauma, has met with and evaluated each of Jane Does 2-7 and opined that public +disclosure of their real names would create a substantial risk to them of further psychological +harm. See Exhibit "A", Declaration of Gilbert Kliman, M.D. +Dr. Kliman opines as follows: +Releasing names of the plaintiffs to the public will reenact experiences of +powerlessness and helplessness in the face of a boundary violation. Repetition and +reenactment represent central features of Criterion B in the DSM-IV-TR diagnosis +of posttraumatic stress disorder trauma. In effect, release of their identity and +public intrusion into their personal life represents a reenactment of the shame of +sexual traumatization. Repetition and reenactment are central pathologies that +afflict sexual trauma survivors. +Victims of sexual abuse often rely upon some form of dissociation, splitting or +denial, as a defensive means to manage overwhelming affects associated with the +sexual trauma. Each of the plaintiff girls has employed some variation of this +defense, both during the massages and then subsequently following disclosure of +the abuse. Primitive, maladaptive responses of this nature will become +additionally reinforced as a result of public disclosure. +Another aspect of the plaintiffs' experience, which is recognized by DSM-IV-TR, +is that the trauma was associated with human design factors (such as cruel +intention to do harm, rape, torture). Trauma of this origin has a tendency to +produce more "severe or long lasting" posttraumatic stress disorder than natural +events (DSM IV TR p. 464). À policy of deliberate revelation of the names of the +victims would reinforce the sense of design, pattern and policy of human +intentions. +It is my opinion, with a reasonably high degree of medical certainty that the +defense motion to allow public disclosure of the plaintiffs' identity is clinically +" Defendant and his counsel are aware of the real names of Jane Does 2-7. +" A copy of the curriculum vitae of Dr. Gilbert Kliman is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 5 of 15 +and ethically a wrongful plan. The act of revealing their identity against their +wishes places the plaintiffs at risk, in the best of circumstances, of suffering an +aggravation of existing diagnostic concerns. It is more probable than not that +releasing personal identities will +an exacerbation and magnification of +symptoms lending to increased risk of revictimization and retraumatization. +See Exhibit "A", 99l 13-15, 21 +5. +Given the private nature of the allegations in this lawsuit and the serious risk of +harm to the mental health of Jane Does 2-7 if a public disclosure of their identities were required, +Jane Does 2-7 should be permitted to continue using a pseudonym in this lawsuit. +6. +Notably, in one of the cases consolidated for purposes of discovery, Jane Doe v. +Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08-80893, this Court recognized the harm likely to result from public +disclosure of the victims' identities in these cases, and allowed the Plaintiff in that case to +"proceed in this action under the pseudonym Jane Doe'", by Order dated October 6, 2008. +Jeffrey Epstein sets forth no facts to support his bare contention that Jane Does 2- +7 use of a pseudonym in these proceedings interferes with his "constitutional due process right." +See Motion to Compel, p. 3. Defendant and his counsel know the identities of these Plaintiffs. +8. +Defendant also requests the Court's permission to use the real names of Jane Does +2-7 in various third-party subpoenas for discovery purposes. Defendant does not identify any of +the entities or persons to whom he intends to send subpoenas. An order granting the relief +requested without limitations would essentially nullify Jane Does 2-7's right to proceed +anonymously. Jane Does 2-7 therefore object to the issuance of third-party subpoenas, and +submit that Defendant can obtain the discovery he seeks by alternative means that will preserve +the confidentiality of the Jane Does 2-7's identities. +9. +If this Court were to permit third party subpoenas or records custodian +depositions using the existing captions and identifying Jane Does 2-7 in the body of the +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 6 of 15 +subpoena by their names, due to publicity surrounding the Defendant's crimes, then Jane Does 2- +7 would effectively be revealed as abuse victims in these cases against Defendant Epstein. Any +subpoenas or notices to third parties therefore should not disclose the type of action or the +Defendant's identity. There are alternatives which would preserve Jane Does 2-7's anonymity +and be more efficient and cost-effective at the same time. For instance, Defendant can obtain +records from various non-party sources through Plaintiffs' counsel, who can certify that they +have obtained the records through authorizations signed by Jane Does 2-7. Another means to +obtain non-party records concerning Plaintiffs is the appointment of a special +who would +verify authenticity and completeness of the records. +10. +Finally, Jeffrey Epstein's request that this Court order a "sua sponte" dismissal is +illogical. Sua sponte means "[w]ithout prompting or suggestion; on its own motion." Black's +Law Dictionary 1437 (7th ed.1999). Thus, the definition of sua sponte does not fit these +circumstances, because the Court is being prompted by Epstein's Motion. Velchez v. Carnival +Corp, 331 F.3d 1207 (11th Cir. 2003). In any event, there is no basis or authority to support a +dismissal of these cases. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 respectfully request that (i) this Court deny +Defendant's Motion to Compel and/or Identify Plaintiffs in the Style of this Case and Motion to +Identify Jane Doe in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, or Alternatively, Motion +to Dismiss "Sua Sponte", in its entirety; (ii) Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 be permitted to continue +using their pseudonyms in this litigation; (ill) this Court order that records from non-parties +relating to Jane Does 2-7, including medical and employment records, only be obtained through +Plaintiffs' counsel by means of signed authorizations that do not include the caption or identify +Epstein as the party seeking records, or alternatively, appoint a special +to obtain the +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM +Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 7 of 15 +records, who would verify authenticity and completeness of the records; and (iv) all other relief +this Court deems just and appropriate. +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +PLAINTIFFS JANE DOES 2-7 SHOULD BE PERMITTED +TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY IN THIS CASE DUE TO THE +SENSITIVE, PRIVATE NATURE OF THE UNDERLYING FACTS +AND THE RISK OF PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM TO THE PLAINTIFFS +Federal courts permit a party to proceed under a pseudonym when special circumstances +warrant anonymity. See, e.g., Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 685-87 +(11th Cir.2001); Does / thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068-69 (9th +Cir.2000); James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 238-39 (4th Cir. 1993); EW v. New York Blood Center, +213 F.R.D. 108, 110-12 (E.D.N.Y.2003); Javier v. +-Botello, 211 F.R.D. 194, 196 +(W.D.N.Y.2002); Doe v. | +105 F.Supp.2d 40, 43-44 (E.D.N.Y.1999); Doe v. United Servs. +Life Ins. Co., 123 F.R.D. 437, 439 (S.D.N.Y.1988). Sexual assault victims are a paradigmatic +example of those entitled to a grant of anonymity. See Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193 (E.D. +N.Y. 2006); Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisc., 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir.1997) +("fictitious names are allowed when necessary to protect the privacy of ... rape victims, and other +particularly vulnerable parties or witnesses"); see also Doe v. City of Chicago, 360 F.3d 667, 669 +(7th Cir. 2004). +The decision whether to allow a plaintiff to proceed anonymously is within the court's +discretion. See Aware Woman Ctr., 253 F.3d at 684; Javier, 211 F.R.D. at 195; EW, 213 F.R.D. +at 110. As set forth above, this Court exercised its direction in one of the consolidated cases, +Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08-80893, to allow a plaintiff to proceed under the +pseudonym "Jane Doe" in an Order dated October 6, 2008. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 8 of 15 +Courts will permit a party to proceed under a pseudonym where "the party's need for +anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public's interest in knowing the +party's identity." Does I Thru XXIII, 214 F.3d at 1068; see Javier, 211 F.R.D. at 195; EW, 213 +F.R.D. at I11; As set forth herein, the balancing test in this case weighs in favor of permitted +plaintiff to continue to proceed anonymously: +In undertaking this balance, courts have considered such facts as +(1) whether the plaintiff is suing the government or a private +person; (2) whether the plaintiff would be compelled to disclose +intimate information; (3) whether plaintiff would be compelled to +under a pseudonym would thereby be prejudiced; (6) the ages of +the parties whose identity is to be suppressed; (7) the extent to +which the identity of the litigant has been kept confidential; (8) +whether, because of the purely legal nature of the issues presented +or otherwise, there is an atypically weak public interest in knowing +the litigants' identities; and (9) the public interest in guaranteeing +open access to proceedings without denying litigants access to the +justice system. +Doe v. Del Rio, 241 F.R.D. 154, 157 (S.D. N.Y. 2006) +The public has a strong interest in protecting the identities of sexual assault victims so +that other victims will not be deterred from reporting such crimes. See Doe v. +, 202 F.R.D. +173, 176 (E.D.Pa.2001) (granting anonymity to sexual assault victim); Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 +F.R.D. 193 (E.D. N.Y. 2006). That is particularly true in these consolidated cases where there +are numerous victims with similar claims. Although these cases have gained considerable media +attention, there appears to be little public interest in knowing the specific identity of each of the +victims. +With regard to the second factor, courts have granted anonymity to protect against +disclosure of a wide range of issues involving matters of the utmost intimacy, including sexual +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 9 of 15 +assault. See, e.g., Aware Woman Cir., 253 F.3d at 685 (abortion); EW, 213 F.R.D. at 111 +(infection with hepatitis B); Doe v. L +1. 202 F.R.D. 173, 176 (E.D.Pa.2001) (sexual assault +victim); L +, 105 F.Supp.2d at 42 (sexual assault victim); WGA v. Priority Pharmacy, Inc., 184 +F.R.D. 616, 617 (E.D.Mo.1999) (status as AIDS patient); Doe v. United Servs. Life Ins. Co., 123 +F.R.D. 437, 439 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (sexual orientation); see also Blue Cross, 112 F.3d at 872 +(recognizing rape victims as entitled to anonymity). It cannot be reasonably denied that a +person's sexual history - especially during their childhood - is an intimate fact. When the +childhood sexual history includes criminal sexual contact by an adult, the facts are even more +intimate and personal. In the electronic age in which we live, these concerns are heightened. As +federal courts have recognized in this context, it is now possible to "determine whether a given +individual is a party to a lawsuit in federal court anywhere in the country by the simplest of +computer searches, to access the docket sheet of any such case electronically, and ... that entire +case files will be accessible over the Internet." Doe v. City of New York, 201 F.R.D. 100, 102 +(S.D.N.Y.2001) (denying anonymity where any injury was purely reputational and case did not +involve private or intimate matter); see EW, 213 F.R.D. at 112-13. +As Dr. Kliman explains in his Declaration, disclosure of Jane Does 2-7's identities will +place these Plaintiffs "at-risk of having their personal lives scrutinized by friends, extended +family, spouses, children, fellow students, employers and fellow employees, the media and +general public. This type of exposure humiliates many victims and represents another betrayal of +trust. Public exposure places the plaintiff's at further risk of stigmatization, shame and +retraumatization." See Exhibit "A" at 9l 3. Dr. Kliman also finds it of no consequence that some +of the plaintiffs are now legally adults in that "[dJue to traumatization the plaintiffs are arrested +in their development, and even those who are now legally adult are arrested in part to adolescent +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 10 of 15 +aspects of psychology." Id. at 9 4 +The policy of protecting victims of sexual misconduct from undue embarrassment and +disclosure of their private affairs is firmly established in Fed.R.Evid. 412. The protections of +Rule 412 are designed to "encourage victims of sexual misconduct to institute and participate in +legal proceedings against alleged offenders." (Committee Notes to 1994 Amendment). +Likewise, many states in this country, including Florida and New York, have similarly enacted +laws to protect the anonymity of sexual assault victims. See Fla. Stat. $$794.024, 794.026 +(2008); N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 50-b (McKinney 2009). In 1994, the Florida Legislature passed +The Crime Victims Protections Act. The legislative stated purpose for the Act was "to protect +the identity of victims of sexual crimes." Fla. AGO, 2003-56, 2003 WL 22971082 (Dec. 15, +2003). Under §794.024, Florida Statutes, court records that identify the name and/or address of a +victim of a sexual crime are presumed to be confidential and exempt from public access. Id. +Similarly, upon approving New York's rape shield law, then Governor Mario +stated, +"sexual assault victims have unfortunately had to endure a terrible invasion of their physical +privacy. They have a right to expect that this violation will not be compounded by a further +invasion of their privacy." 1991 McKinney's Sessions Laws of N.Y., at 2211-2212 (quoted in +Deborah S. v. Diorio, 153 Misc.2d 708, 583 N.Y.S.2d 872 (N.Y.City Civ. Ct.1992)); see also +Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 597, 97 S.Ct. 2861, 53 L.Ed.2d 982 (1977) ("Short of homicide, +[rape] is the ultimate violation of self"). +As to the fourth factor of risk injury, Dr. Kliman has evaluated Jane Does 2-7, and has +concluded that the childhood sexual abuse at issue has caused features of post-traumatic stress +disorder (PTSD), including shame, guilt, helplessness, and powerlessness. See Exhibit "A" at TYl +4-7. Dr. Kliman further states, +"it is more probable than not that releasing personal identities +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 11 of 15 +will +an exacerbation and magnification of symptoms lending to increased risk of +revictimization and retraumatization." Id. at 9| 21. Thus, this is not a case analogous to those +cited by defendant in which the plaintiffs were merely at risk of "personal embarrassment." +Instead, there is a genuine and immediate risk of psychological harm. +None of the cases cited by Defendant where courts denied a plaintiff's request for +anonymity involved victims of childhood sexual assault or evidence of emotional or +psychological harm that would result from disclosure of the plaintiff's identity. See Doe v. Hartz, +52 F.Supp.2d 1027 (N.D.Iowa 1999); Doe v. Shakur, 164 F.R.D. 359 (E.D.N.Y.1996); Doe v. +Bell Atlantic Bus. Sys. Servs., 162 F.R.D. 418 (D.Mass.1995); Doe v. Univ. of Rhode Island, 28 +Fed.R.Serv.3d 366, 1993 WL 667341 (D.R.I. Dec. 28, 1993). +As to the factor of prejudice, the Defendant does not identify how his ability to conduct +discovery or impeach Jane Does 2-7's credibility has been or will be impaired if these Plaintiffs +are permitted to proceed under a pseudonym. See EW, 213 F.R.D. at 112, +105 F.Supp.2d +at 44-45. Other than the need to make redactions and take measures not to disclose these +Plaintiffs' identities, Defendant will not be hampered or inconvenienced merely by Plaintiffs' +anonymity in court papers. As set forth above, Defendant already knows their true identities. See +Aware Woman Center, 253 F.3d at 687 (no prejudice where plaintiff offered to disclose her name +to defendant); EW, 213 F.R.D. at 112; +105 F.Supp.2d at 44-45. +II. +DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO USE +THE REAL NAMES OF JANE DOES 2-7 IN THIRD-PARTY +SUBPEONAS EXCEPT FOR THOSE ISSUED TO PERSONS WHOM +PLAINTIFES HAVE ALREADY DISCLOSED THEIR SEXUAL ABUSE +As for the use of Jane Does 2-7's real names in subpoenas issued to non-parties, a party +may obtain discovery of any non-privileged matter that is relevant to a claim or defense of any +party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(I). However, a district court may limit discovery "for good cause +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 12 of 15 +shown" by making "any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from +annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense," including that the +discovery not be had or that it be had only by a method other than that selected by the party +seeking discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). Jane Does 2-7 have articulated a specific and substantial +harm from disclosure of their identities. +If this Court were to permit Defendant to issue third-party subpoenas containing Jane +Doe 2-7's real names, the identity of the Defendant, and/or facts pertaining to the nature of the +case to whomever Defendant wants, it would be akin to requiring these Plaintiffs to use their real +name in the pleadings. +Instead, Jane Does 2-7 propose to voluntarily execute authorizations +(which would not contain the case names or the identity of the Defendant) to allow Defendant to +obtain education, employment, and medical records to be used for purposes of this litigation +only. Alternatively, Defendant can obtain the records through a special +who would +verify authenticity and completeness of the records. Either of these approaches would not only +place Jane Does 2-7 at less risk of psychological harm, but would also be more cost-effective and +efficient. +CONCLUSION +Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 respectfully request that Defendant's +Motion to Compel and/or Identify Plaintiffs in the Style of this Case and Motion to Identify Jane +Doe in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, or Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss +"Sua Sponte" be denied in its entirety, and that Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 be permitted to continue +using their pseudonyms in this litigation. Additionally, to avoid public disclosure of the +Plaintiff's identities in non-party records discovery, Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 request that such +3 Defendant and Plaintiff have previously agreed that education records can be obtained in this +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 13 of 15 +discovery be obtained either through Plaintiffs' counsel by means of written authorizations, or by +the appointment of a special +Dated: June 8, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Adam D. Horowitz +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 2-7 +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +manner in lieu of subpoenas. +13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 14 of 15 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on June 8, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served +this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission +of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for +those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +14 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 15 of 15 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +bedwards@rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +/s/ Adam D. Horowitz +15 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0f6cff8ac583738afe705f6498f9e6759fc1444f595fe4030855f2841d9a29e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0f6cff8ac583738afe705f6498f9e6759fc1444f595fe4030855f2841d9a29e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..661e8c65462e321d785a57bcb806797343c2b45c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b0f6cff8ac583738afe705f6498f9e6759fc1444f595fe4030855f2841d9a29e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -180, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b0f6cff8ac583738afe705f6498f9e6759fc1444f595fe4030855f2841d9a29e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 15, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "23d62d3d3ff8bf4653b3d8a79a23f2a8acefbfbe2e965dc2ea491d8b741d338b", + "output_sha256": "2537700c5d73adbd684dbdef93c0832bdaf2c75562ee60b7c6d758f01f10855d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1020e6c5bc1214a056a693a165c298c25bf68295f916d31bad4baf99c8fe184.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1020e6c5bc1214a056a693a165c298c25bf68295f916d31bad4baf99c8fe184.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b74e5bc251fa71d94e0d10dca30871065da51802 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1020e6c5bc1214a056a693a165c298c25bf68295f916d31bad4baf99c8fe184.md @@ -0,0 +1,293 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 317-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2009 Page 1 of 9 +The Psychological Trauma Center +a division of Preventive Psychiatry Associates Medical Group, Inc. +Medical Director: Gilbert W. Kliman, M. D. +2105 Divisadero St., San Francisco, CA 94115 +Phone (415)292-7119 Fax (415) 749-2802 +www.expertchildpsychiatry.com +Forensic Child Psychiatric Evaluations, Life Care Plans & Testimony +Tape 1 +Dr. Kliman w +12.3.08 +Transcription done by: K. Rios +12.27.08 +00:00:05 +What would you like me to call you? +is fine. +let me just make a few announcements that my name is Dr. +Gilbert Kliman. I introduced myself to you a few minutes ago and is there +anybody else with us? +No. +This time did anybody come with you? +No. +00:00:31 +Dr. Kliman: It's now almost 10:30 in the morning and we're meeting at the Marriot +Courtyard in a conference room and this meeting is staking place on +December 3rd and 2008. +Okay. +Dr. Kliman: I've already told you that I'm a psychiatrist and that your attorney asked +le to meet with you; and I want to be sure it's clear that I am making +ideotape and I have vour written permission to do tha +Yes. +"B" +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 317-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2009 Page 2 of 9 +And you understand that I'll have to share this videotape with your +attorney because this is a consultation that he's requested... +Yes. +So that he can proceed with a case that you're bringing. You have a +complaint that you're making in the legal system. +Yes. +So that means the confidentiality of what we're discussing is very limited +compared to what you'd expect in talking with a psychiatrist ordinarily. +Okay. +00:02:02 +And this tape might even be shared with the attorney for the other side o +he case you're bringing. It might possibly be used by a cour +Okay. +Do you have any questions about that? +I guess not. No. +Well if you think of any you can interrupt at any time. +Okay. +So first I need to get acquainted with you. Maybe you can tell me a little +bit about yourself as a person. +Okay. My name is +I recently got +married...I come from... +Dr. Kliman: There's a big sigh after that. +Yeah. I come from a broken family that's...from an abusive father and +alcoholic father. I mainly grew up with my mom. I'm 20 years old now, +How long ago did you marry? +00:03:18 +About 3 months ago, going on to 3 months since we got married, which +I'm very happy about. I go to school part time. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 317-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2009 Page 3 of 9 +I want to congratulate you again. +Thank you. +I congratulated you when you walked in and told me you were recently +married. +Yes thank you. I work full time, I go to school part time and that's pretty +much about..about me. +00:03:51 +That's your whole story? +Uh huh. +I'm sure that's a good introduction. Now, first tell me about your recent +marriage and how you met your husband and what can you tell me about +him? +We met... we met through one of my ex-boyfriends. I saw him one time +and then I found him on the internet called MySpace and we starter +talking for about a good couple months. I had went away to Alaska on a +trip and then I came back around his birthday and we finally met in person +again, for the second time and then we just started hanging out and we +clicked. We dated on and off for about two and a half years and then +we've always talked about you know, that we don't want to be with +anyone else, that we love each other and we care about each other; that we +just have that feeling of knowing that we can spend the rest our lives with +each other. I was engaged for about a year, year and a half and then we +had separated for a little while. +00:05:06 +Why did you separate? +I was just going through a lot. I didn't know what I wanted in life. I didn't +know who I was. I felt a sense of loosing control of who I am and what +Try to give me an idea how long ago this deep depression was? +It's been going on for a year, maybe a little bit longer. When I was in... +When did it start? +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 317-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2009 Page 4 of 9 +I did not realize it until, I guess like when I was little. I've always just +been, I just shut people out. I... this is hard for me. Just when I was young, +I guess like when my parents got divorced, the abuse and like I just never +knew how much pain there was. +/ +00:06:47 +Dr. Kliman: You know I have some Kleenex here for you, if you need it. +Thanks. +So you were saying, you didn't realize how much pain there was? +Yeah. I mean I never really talked about any incidents that's ever +happened in my life. I never thought that I needed to talk to anyone or like +see why I get so angry or why I am the way I am with men; or people that +I love that are close to me, or why I treat the ones that are close to me the +way that I do. And then being with him, it brought out a lot of things. +Who is him? +My husband. +Okay. +00:07:30 +My now husband and like we was always there for me and like. +What is his first name again? +Okay. +Yeah. He was always there for me and he used to treat him like crap and +then we had broken up and I would just started to like.... just couldn't +Dr. Kliman: Yo you went into therapy to do that? To figure that out or did you start by +No I needed help. I was... I've tried to commit suicide probably about five +times. +/ +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 317-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2009 Page 5 of 9 +When was the first time? +When my parents were getting a divorce, I tried to cut my wrists. +Dr. Kliman: Do you remember how old you were? +Probably about 11 and then I tried sitting in the car in the garage and I had +written a letter to my mom. +Dr. Kliman: How old were you then? +Probably like about 15. +00:08:51 +Dr. Kliman: Okay. +And then... +That was inside the garage, in the car with the motor running? +At my house, yes. I would have went through with it if my sister and my +nephew wouldn't have walked in the door. +Dr. Kliman: Both of them walked in? +Yeah and when I saw my nephews face, I was like I can't. I can't leave, I +wanted to see him grow up and I didn't know how my parents would feel; +and then I swallowed a whole bunch of pills and then my friend was like I +need to take you to the hospital and I wouldn't go, so she took me into the +bathroom and made me throw up. +00:09:44 +How old are you at that point? +18, 19. Getting ready to be 19. +And do you know what kind of pills those were? +No. I just took a whole bunch of pills stuck them in the bottle and just took +them with me. +Where did you get them? +My house. My parents house in the medicine cabinet; and then... +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 317-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2009 Page 6 of 9 +Uh huh... I prefer not to drive, I try not to drive. I rather take a taxi. +Does he usually go out with you when you go to clubs? +yes. +00:37:53 +Now, I'd like to move on to another test, which I think overlaps this one +some; I'm going to go to that one which is called the PDS. +Okay. +And I see you took another one which is called the MMPI, but I'm gonna +have to wait for that one to be scored so I can fully use it. +Okay. +Now you mentioned here, that you had a sexual assault by a stranger and +what do you mean by that? +I was raped when I was 15. +And can you tell me about that? +Do you need details? +Excuse me? +Do you need details? +I don't need details but I do need certain aspects like who the person +was... +Can I just give you the basics? I never talk about this....it was a graduation +Friends boyfriend sole tom iany. He as up me vest Phim my best +were all hanging out we went to our friends graduation party. I was +drinking beer, he was getting me the drinks which was my first mistake +Dr. Kliman: Did you have a lapse of memory after one of those drinks? +18 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 317-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2009 Page 7 of 9 +I couldn't remember anything until the next day. I though it was a dream +and then I woke up and I saw that I had marks on my body, and that's +when I went to the doctors. +Dr. Kliman: Okay, so you couldn't remember anything until the next day? +Uh huh...I had no idea what happened. I don't even know what +happened... +So when you say he brought me the drinks and that was my first +mistake... +Because you're never supposed to have anyone get you your drink you're +supposed to get it yourself. +Well... do you have, have you been able to recover the memory of what +happened? +Uh huh +You have? Okay... but you didn't remember anything until the next day. +You saw marks on yourself... +I thought I had locked the bedroom door to where I was sleeping. +00:41:00 +You thought you had lots of what..? +I thought I had locked the door. +Of where the bedroom I was sleeping in. He came in, I couldn't move, I +couldn't do anything, I couldn't talk...I was paralyzed. He came in and he +ripped my pants off and then he proceeded to have intercourse with me +and then he left. I woke up the next day not knowing what happened. I +was dressed, you know, wearing the clothes I went to bed with and then I +got picked up from my friends house by mom. I went home and I +continued to sleep because I was really tired and then...I thought I was +having a bad dream and then I woke up and I looked at my legs and I saw +the marks to where he had ripped my pants down; and then I told my mom +and we immediately went to the doctor and got a rape kit. Done. +What did the doctor say about it? +19 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 317-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2009 Page 8 of 9 +That there was no semen inside. That she wanted me to get tested for any +diseases and that to get blood work done to see if there's any type of drug +that he used. But...she asked me if I wanted to press charges and went +over, you know, everything that happens... told me that the marks, the. +scratch marks would go away after a while and... she just really try to +convince me to write a report. +00:42:43 +Dr. Kliman: She tried to get you to write a report? +Uh huh. +But you wouldn't? +Uh-uh. +And this event is different than the event of sexual contact that you also +mentioned when you were younger than 18, with somebody who was 5 or +more years older? +I was about 12. +You were 12? +I was about 12 years old when I first got molested. +Dr. Kliman: By? +My best friends brother than had gotten out of jail. He molested me and +his sister and the two other friends that we were with. When we were +sleeping...that we reported. +Dr. Kliman: He molested how many children? +A total of four. +That same night? +Uh huh +In what manner did he do that? +00:44:17 +20 +Ta. . + + +Case 9:08 cv-90119-KAM Document 317-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2009 Page 9 of 9 +He played with... while we were sleeping he rubbed our bottom area and +our top area and our face and our hair and he never did anything more than +that. +How did you know he did that? +Because we all woke up, but we just never told anyone. Until he finally +raped his sister, that's when everything was laid out on the table and that's +when everyone started speaking about it... and then we had to go to some +safe house and get questioned. +How much time passed between the time that he played with your bottoms +and tops and face and hair; and the time that he raped his sister? +Not even a month. +How many times did he do this to you?. +Just one time. +But he touched all those parts? +Uh huh. +And that was at night? +Yeah we had a sleep over and one of the girls was up... but she was still +awake but she pretended she was sleeping and the rest of us were already +knocked out. +• Dr. Kliman: +But you remember it happened? +I remember being touched yes. But I thought it was just...I thought I was +just dreaming I didn't know; and then when my friend told me, you know; +this is what happened and she felt the same thing and when my other +friend said this is what happened, you know, she felt like the same thing; +and then when we found out that he raped his own sister, I mean it was +pretty much obvious. And he would always make.. we would always +hangout her house would be the house to smoke pot or drink and whatnot +and he would always be there and her parents were always working and +they wouldn't come home until 6 o'clock at night and her brother was +there; and he was the one always giving us pot, and stuff like that. He's +always made, you know, smart comments but never really went through +with anything or anything in that matter. +21 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1020e6c5bc1214a056a693a165c298c25bf68295f916d31bad4baf99c8fe184.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1020e6c5bc1214a056a693a165c298c25bf68295f916d31bad4baf99c8fe184.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8778dad49d29d2cf5deb6c0648b46d4e36d8c366 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1020e6c5bc1214a056a693a165c298c25bf68295f916d31bad4baf99c8fe184.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -721, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b1020e6c5bc1214a056a693a165c298c25bf68295f916d31bad4baf99c8fe184", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 10, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "41a466edb452dead899f7671e413383ce8aee11443647e9e710e91852d6b222f", + "output_sha256": "fcb00b449fa1d2bcbab7617d39b2d4d979249c99cd81a5ded5a84c31f8f0db5a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1689ba52c197c2cc8533254af0f2f514a2935462fae2ea1ec0ca14c8bfac015.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1689ba52c197c2cc8533254af0f2f514a2935462fae2ea1ec0ca14c8bfac015.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a7e8962c813b9cf70841d72c1396a976ea75fd01 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1689ba52c197c2cc8533254af0f2f514a2935462fae2ea1ec0ca14c8bfac015.md @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@ +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 39 Filed 01/09/20 Page 1 of 2 +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 38 Filed 01/08/20 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE 17, +Plaintiff. +V. +Case No. 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF +DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN, +AS JOINT PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF +THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, NINE +EAST 7Ist STREET CORPORATION, LAUREL, +INC., FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, INC., +NES, LLC, MAPLE, INC., LSJE, LLC, HBRK +ASSOCIATES, INC., NAUTILUS, INC., +CYPRESS, INC. and JEGE, INC. +Defendants. +JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER STAYING ACTION +WHEREAS independent claims administration experts are designing and implementing +the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (the "Program") to resolve sexual abuse claims +against decedent Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Decedent") in a non-adversarial alternative to litigation; +and +WHEREAS Plaintiff Jane Doe 17 ("Plaintiff"; and together with Defendants Darren K. +Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Nine East 71st +Street Corporation, Laurel, Inc., Financial Trust Company Inc., NES LLE, Maple, Inc., LSJE, +LLC, HBRK Associates, Inc., Nautilus, Inc., Cypress, Inc., and JEGE, Inc., the "Parties") seeks +to participate in the Program; and +WHEREAS the Parties seek to preserve their resources and judicial economy by staying +this action unless and until Plaintiff ceases her participation in the Program; and +40967362vl + + +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF +Document 39 Filed 01/09/20 Page 2 of 2 +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 38 Filed 01/08/20 Page 2 of 2 +WHEREAS, should Plaintiff resolve her claims against Decedent via the Program, the +Parties will thereafter promptly discontinue this action with prejudice; +WHEREAS, on December 23, 2019, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint +(ECF Nos. 34-36); and +WHEREAS Plaintiff intends to amend her Complaint (ECF No. I); +IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned +counsel for the Parties, that: (1) the captioned action is hereby stayed pending further Order of +the Court; (2) Plaintiff has 30 days from after the lifting of the stay, if any, to amend her +Complaint; and (3) Defendants have 30 days from Plaintiff's filing of her Amended Complaint to +answer, move or otherwise respond thereto. +Dated: January 8, 2020 +New York, New York +Respectfully submitted, +Weisman, Brodie, Starr & Margolies, P.A. +By: +/s/ David H. Brodie +David H. Brodie, Esq. +Laura J. Starr, Esq +1301 N. Federal Highway +Lake Worth, FL 33460 +Telephone: (561) 588-9500 +Attorneys for Plaintiff +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP +By:/s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +875 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +(212) 704-6000 +Attorneys for Defendants +Date: +19/20 +New York, New York +Granted, +anl A. Engele +HON. PAUL A. ENGELMAYER +United States District Judge +- 2 - +40967362v1 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1689ba52c197c2cc8533254af0f2f514a2935462fae2ea1ec0ca14c8bfac015.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1689ba52c197c2cc8533254af0f2f514a2935462fae2ea1ec0ca14c8bfac015.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..213949f84f42eb1c102cd3f91623bb5a4012a05f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1689ba52c197c2cc8533254af0f2f514a2935462fae2ea1ec0ca14c8bfac015.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b1689ba52c197c2cc8533254af0f2f514a2935462fae2ea1ec0ca14c8bfac015", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c26f571aa72e303345b404e9ba34f2611a44b5ddd35c9cd8f191f652238246f7", + "output_sha256": "7f719f883f486739e750c2edaf83183a2611e6a63380e32d6d24009bd11d75b7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b18b791338ed8ee73e6da27924617888d512cfc61ffcdce41475aebcc3858dcf.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b18b791338ed8ee73e6da27924617888d512cfc61ffcdce41475aebcc3858dcf.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a815490de37a976c6878a3b9da8192055c392e4e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b18b791338ed8ee73e6da27924617888d512cfc61ffcdce41475aebcc3858dcf.md @@ -0,0 +1,212 @@ +Cașe 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 469-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/17/2010 Page 1 of 7 +Case 9:09-mj-08308-LRJ Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2009 +Page 1 of/ +1091 (Rev. 5/85) Criminal Complaint AUSA VILLAFAÑA +FILED by +- D.0. +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA +United States District Court +DEC - 1 2009 +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +STEVEX U S. DIST ORE +S0. OF FLA. +CRIMINAL COMPLAINT +VS. +ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ, +Defendant. +CASE NUMBER: 09-8308-LRJ +1, the undersigned complainant, being duly sworn, state the following is true and correct to the best +of my knowledge and belief. +From at least as early as January 18, 2007, through on or about November 3, 2009, in Palm Beach +County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant, +ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ, +did corruptly conceal a record, document, or other object, with the intent to impair the object's availability +for use in an official proceeding and otherwise corruptly obstructed or impeded an official proceeding, +in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c) +I further state that I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation +Complaint is based on the following facts: +_, and that this +Continued on the attached and made a part hereof. +Sworn to before me, and subscribed in my presence, +upon my finding of probable cause. +December / +, 2009 +at +Date +LINNEA R. T +UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDEE +West Palm Beach, Florida +City and State +Pano Pam +Signature of Judisiat Officer + +3 + + +Cașe 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 469-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/17/2010 Page 2 of 7 +Case 9:09-mj-08308-LRJ Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2009 Page 2 of 7 +AFFIDAVIT +1, Christina J. Pryor, being duly sworn, do state and attest as follows: +1. +1 am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and have +been so employed for three (3) months. I am currently assigned to the Safe Streets Task +Force, Miami Field Division, FBI Squad PB-2. Prior to joining the Miami Field Division, +I attended the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, for five (5) months where 1 received +training in federal criminal laws and investigation techniques, including the laws related to +obstruction of justice. +2. +This affidavit is based upon my own personal knowledge of the facts and +circumstances surrounding the investigation, and information provided to me by other law +enforcement officers. This affidavit does not purport to contain all the information known +to me about this case but addresses only that information necessary to support a finding of +probable cause for the issuance of a criminal complaint charging Alfredo Rodriguez with +obstruction of official proceedings, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section +1512(c). +On October 27, 2009, agents of the FBl met with and interviewed a +cooperating witness ("CW"). The CW reported that, while conducting discovery in a +pending civil case before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, +he came into contact with Alfredo Rodriguez ("Rodriguez"), who was a subpoenaed witness +in the civil case. +4. +Rodriguez had been interviewed by FBI agents on January 18, 2007, in +connection with a federal criminal investigation into the sexual exploitation of minors. Prior + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 469-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/17/2010 Page 3 of 7 +Case 9:09-mj-08308-LRJ Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2009 Page 3 of 7 +to being interviewed by FBI, Rodriguez had also been contacted and interviewed by local +police detectives, and had been asked to produce documents related to the criminal +investigation. The civil litigation involving the CW related to civil damages claims made by +victims of the criminal activity that formed the basis of the state and federal criminal +investigations. +The CW explained to agents that Rodriguez had been deposed under oath on +two occasions. The first deposition occurred on July 27, 2009, and the second deposition +was conducted on August 9, 2009. In connection with those depositions, Rodriguez was +served with a subpoena duces tecum that called for the production of several types of +documentary evidence. The CW was present for both depositions and Rodriguez testified +that he had no documents responsive to the subpoena duces tecum. +In August 2009, after the conclusion of the second deposition, the CW received +a phone call from Rodriguez. Rodriguez informed the CW that he had additional information +that he had not previously disclosed to any law enforcement agency or any of the civil +attorneys. Rodriguez described the information as, the Holy Grail or Golden Nugget and +explained that he had compiled lists of additional victims in the case and their contact +information. Rodriguez explained that the information contained hundreds of additional +victims and their phone numbers from diverse geographic locations, including New York, +New Mexico, and Paris, France. +7. +Rodriguez asked the CW to pay him $50,000.00 and, in return, Rodriguez +would turn over the documents relating to the victims. In his initial and subsequent +2 + + +Cașe 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 469-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/17/2010 Page 4 of 7 +Case 9:09-mj-08308-LRJ Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2009 Page 4 of 7 +communications with Rodriguez, the CW explained to Rodriguez that he was under +subpoena to turn over such information and that it would be illegal for Rodriguez to demand +money for turning over the information. Rodriguez persisted that he would only turn over +the information in his possession in exchange for $50,000.00. +On October 28, 2009, in a consensually-monitored phone call, the CW +telephoned Rodriguez. Rodriguez again indicated that he would not turn over the +information relating to the additional victims without monetary compensation. Rodriguez +was told that an associate of the CW would be in touch with him regarding the information +and exchange. The associate that the CW referred to was, in fact, an undercover employee +(UCE) of the FBI. +9. +On October 29, 2009, the FBI UCE contacted Rodriguez via telephone. +Rodriguez again explained that he would only turn over the information in exchange for +monetary compensation. The UCE advised Rodriguez that it would take several days to +acquire the funds and that once the funds were obtained, he/she would contact Rodriguez. +During the conversation, Rodriguez admitted that he knew that the information was relevant +to the FBI's criminal investigation and was called for by the investigation. Rodriguez +explained that he had not turned over the information to the FBI because: (1) it was his +"property" and he should be compensated for it; and (2) he was afraid that the target of the +investigation would make him "disappear" or otherwise harm him, and the information was +his "insurance policy." +10. +On November 2, 2009, the UCE made contact with Rodriguez via telephone. +3 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 469-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/17/2010 Page 5 of 7 +Case 9:09-mj-08308-LRJ Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2009 Page 5 of 7 +In that conversation, Rodriguez and the UCE continued the discussion regarding the purchase +of the documents and scheduled a meeting for the following day. +11. +On November 3, 2009, Rodriguez met with the UCE at a predetermined +location. During the meeting, Rodriguez produced a small bound book and several sheets +of legal pad paper containing hand written notes. Rodriguez explained that he had taken the +bound book from his former employer's residence while employed there in 2004 to 2005 and +that the book had been created by persons working for his former employer. Rodriguez +discussed in detail the information contained within the book, and identified important +information to the UCE. In addition, Rodriguez admitted he had previously lied to FBI. +Rodriguez asked the UCE about the $50,000.00, took possession of the money, and began +counting it. +12. Rodriguez was then detained for Obstruction of Official Proceedings, Title 18, +U.S. Code, Section 1512(c), and questioned. After Miranda warnings were administered by +agents, Rodriguez waived his rights and signed a written waiver of those rights. Rodriguez +admitted that he had the documents and book in his possession and had never turned them +over to local law enforcement or the FBI. In addition, Rodriguez advised he had witnessed +nude girls whom he believed were underage at the pool area of his former employer's home, +knew that his former employer was engaging in sexual contact with underage girls, and had +viewed pornographic images of underage girls on computers in his employer's home. +Rodriguez was then released from custody for further investigation. +13. +The items that Rodriguez had attempted to sell to the UC for $50,000.00 +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 469-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/17/2010 Page 6 of 7 +Case 9:09-mj-08308-LRJ Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2009 Page 6 of 7 +were reviewed by an agent familiar with the underlying criminal investigation. As Rodriguez +had described, the items contained information material to the underlying investigation that +would have been extremely useful in investigating and prosecuting the case, including the +names and contact information of material witnesses and additional victims. Had those items +been produced in response to the inquiries of the state law enforcement officers or the FBI +Special Agents, their contents would have been presented to the federal grand jury. +Based upon the foregoing, your affiant believes that probable cause exists to believe +that, from at least as early as January 18, 2007 through on or about November 3, 2009, in +Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, Alfredo Rodriguez +did corruptly conceal a record, document, or other object, with the intent to impair the +object's availability for use in an official proceeding and otherwise corruptly obstructed or +impeded an official proceeding, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c). +FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. +J. PRYOR +FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESHGATION +Sworn to and subscribed before me +this +_ day of December, 2009. +INNEA R. JOHNSOP +UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 469-3 l +Entered on FLSD Docket 02/17/2010 Page 7 of 7 +Case 9:09-mj-08308-LRJ Document 3 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2009 Page 7 of 7 +Case No. +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA +09-8308-LRJ +VS. +ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ, +Defendant. +1. +2. +CRIMINAL COVER SHEET +Did this matter originate from a matter pending in the Northern Region of the United +States Attorney's Office prior to October 14, 2003? +_ Yes X No +Did this matter originate from a matter pending in the Central Region of the United +States Attorney's Office prior to September 1, 2007? +. YesX No +By: +Respectfully submitted, +JEFFREY H. SLOMAN +ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +MUltilana +Assistant United States Attorney +Florida Bar No. 0018255 +500 East Broward Boulevard, 7th Floor +Ft Lauderdale, FL 33394 +Telephone: 954-660-5946 +Facsimile: 954-356-7230 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b18b791338ed8ee73e6da27924617888d512cfc61ffcdce41475aebcc3858dcf.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b18b791338ed8ee73e6da27924617888d512cfc61ffcdce41475aebcc3858dcf.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b96bb9232ba51c9b41f23140fa80efe17e0910c0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b18b791338ed8ee73e6da27924617888d512cfc61ffcdce41475aebcc3858dcf.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -91, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b18b791338ed8ee73e6da27924617888d512cfc61ffcdce41475aebcc3858dcf", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "16907af7b8b0f6e8fa14124b3adedcaf3ca168c8b00f3a0f172a752783f22a6c", + "output_sha256": "532e3b9d81ead8ab23cfb7e0d636f4216bd7b88c55768eb43b7d50617518a252", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1c37a771c994e861b5e1a306d69db1ff7bc0bdabc2f231a62ebe45adf8e5a72.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1c37a771c994e861b5e1a306d69db1ff7bc0bdabc2f231a62ebe45adf8e5a72.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c063d231fb9e962dba6666da72bef176d039b27a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1c37a771c994e861b5e1a306d69db1ff7bc0bdabc2f231a62ebe45adf8e5a72.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 434 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/03/2009 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRAI +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +ORDER VACATING OMNIBUS ORDER OF NOVEMBER 17, 2009 +(D.E. #413) +THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. On November 17, 2009 (D.E. +#413) the undersigned entered an Omnibus Order on two motions filed by the +Plaintiffs, Plaintiff' Jane Doe's Motion for Protective Order Barring Second +Deposition and for Sanctions (D.E. #378) and Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4's Motion for +Protective Order Re Second Day of Deposition (D.E. #392). The Court inadvertently +ruled on such motions without waiting for Plaintiffs to file their reply memorandums. +Accordingly, it is hereby, +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the undersigned's Omnibus Order of + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 434 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/03/2009 Page 2 of 2 +November 17, 2009 (D.E. #413) is hereby VACATED. A ruling on the motions which +were the subject of said Omnibus Order is forthcoming and shall be issued +separately. +DONE AND ORDERED this December 3, 2009, in +, at West Palm +Beach, Florida. +Lence +LINNEA R. JOHNSON +UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE +CC: +The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra +All Counsel of Record +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1c37a771c994e861b5e1a306d69db1ff7bc0bdabc2f231a62ebe45adf8e5a72.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1c37a771c994e861b5e1a306d69db1ff7bc0bdabc2f231a62ebe45adf8e5a72.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cf81d51a2cbee60c1a5f745b088646e97a562b64 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1c37a771c994e861b5e1a306d69db1ff7bc0bdabc2f231a62ebe45adf8e5a72.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b1c37a771c994e861b5e1a306d69db1ff7bc0bdabc2f231a62ebe45adf8e5a72", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b299e60518b50bf6b6153fd2b565b1ed4d8206916fdd500e55badcc491094f39", + "output_sha256": "bdd1ac52e0177eed4ed87637ca16e29b7165046634f8305372dbccdc73f8173a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1d719c67b3bc4e2622cd723d754a5244c7497e96c97ca354258bec80f4c48f4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1d719c67b3bc4e2622cd723d754a5244c7497e96c97ca354258bec80f4c48f4.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aa12bf07f06ce86612bae2983a16fdc44f1e50e5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1d719c67b3bc4e2622cd723d754a5244c7497e96c97ca354258bec80f4c48f4.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +Case 9:08-CV+ an enkoAsteR, cument 69-4 Entered on FLSD Dock8138:42p.2°09 +Doe No. 5 v. Epstein +Page 3 + +2. +• +3. +List the names, business addresses, telephone and cell phone numbers, dates of +employment, immediate +supervisor (name and address) and rates of pay +regarding all employers, including self-employment, for whom you have worked +in the past 10 years; this includes listing all sources of income you have received. +Answer this question by year, i.e. 1998 - 2008. +Answer: +Plaintiff was unemployed until 2001. +1. Steamers Raw Bar & Grill +13860 Wellington Trace +Wellington, FL +Approx. 2001 +Hostess +Approx. $7.00/hour +2. Trade Secret +Wellington +Mall +Wellington, FL +Approx. 2002-2003 +Sales associate +$7.00/hour +3. Coral Ridge Country Club +3801 Bayview Drive +Ft. Lauderdale, FL +Approx. 2004-2005 +Restaurant Hostess +$9.00/hour +4. Gunther Mazda +1880 S. State Rd. 7 +Ft. Lauderdale, FL +Approx. 2005-2006 +Receptionist +$9.00/hour +List all former names and when you were known by those names. State all +addresses where you have lived for the past 10 years, the dates you lived at +each address, your Social Security number, your date of birth, and, if you are or +have ever been married, the name of your spouse or spouses. List any children +EXHIBI(D" diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1d719c67b3bc4e2622cd723d754a5244c7497e96c97ca354258bec80f4c48f4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1d719c67b3bc4e2622cd723d754a5244c7497e96c97ca354258bec80f4c48f4.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f7f53c719961b58384e0dbe8dfe01e09bb8193a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1d719c67b3bc4e2622cd723d754a5244c7497e96c97ca354258bec80f4c48f4.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -23, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b1d719c67b3bc4e2622cd723d754a5244c7497e96c97ca354258bec80f4c48f4", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "7a876c38b57809bd269cdc5f2729549de29d2240e6bd9ddff57eabf8bb3ee9f9", + "output_sha256": "5b43a02803fb738642a94aad4f168246a1175d54a86cd102027a781679834838", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1f5e16dd365e79a0779b79fa5d7fb911db24144d7a1f09a871aad27fe9aba65.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1f5e16dd365e79a0779b79fa5d7fb911db24144d7a1f09a871aad27fe9aba65.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e141fcfa8d16b2f12f6a2cb8e33be5727351a818 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1f5e16dd365e79a0779b79fa5d7fb911db24144d7a1f09a871aad27fe9aba65.md @@ -0,0 +1,80 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/16/2009 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 09-80656-MARRA +JANE DOE No. 102, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant, +DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION +OF TIME IN WHICH SERVE RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO COMPLAINT +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned +attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time in which to respond to +Complaint dated, May 1, 2009 [DE 1]. Defendant seeks an extension until November +27, 2009, to file his response. +As good cause in support of granting the motion, +Defendant states: +1. On May 1, 2009 Plaintiff filed a Complaint [DE 1]. Defendant's response would +be due on August 20, 2009, as previously agreed upon. +2. The parties continue to work together to potentially resolve this case and are +close to a resolution. +3. The requested extension is fair and reasonable under the circumstances as it will +provide time to allow the Defendant, EPSTEIN to fully and adequately respond. +4. As certified below, counsel for Defendant conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, and +Plaintiff's counsel is in agreement with the requested extension. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/16/2009 Page 2 of 3 +Doe 102 v. Epstein +Page 2 +WHEREFORE Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order +granting an extension until November 27, 2009, to file a response to Plaintiff's +Complaint. +Local Rule 7.1 Statement +Counsel for the movant conferred by telephone and correspondence with +counsel for the Plaintiff and Counsel for Plaintiff is in agreement with the requested +extension until November 27, 2009 for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. +Robert D. Critton Jr., Esq. +Attorney for Defendant +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the +manner specified by CM/ECF on this 16 day of November, 2009 +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +305 358-2800 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +josefsberg@podhurst.con +ezell@podhurst.con +Counsel for Plaintiff +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/16/2009 Page 3 of 3 +Doe 102 v. Epstein +Page 3 +Respectfully submitted, +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +URMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAI +15 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 40( +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1f5e16dd365e79a0779b79fa5d7fb911db24144d7a1f09a871aad27fe9aba65.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1f5e16dd365e79a0779b79fa5d7fb911db24144d7a1f09a871aad27fe9aba65.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..de1d172a2dc2a00c98c01de7a23722fc685a23d1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1f5e16dd365e79a0779b79fa5d7fb911db24144d7a1f09a871aad27fe9aba65.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b1f5e16dd365e79a0779b79fa5d7fb911db24144d7a1f09a871aad27fe9aba65", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "a8fe5078a27146bb527ba842d67cdebc7ed332731a042a1dcb1300b569eba382", + "output_sha256": "89fd80007046332b06cb0d2ab855e8b59441d18c35d735e40c2ee2a4fc0cd46a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1f94f6219166421a52c4315895dac50afa6d49afed6fc6880f80bb114b698cc.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1f94f6219166421a52c4315895dac50afa6d49afed6fc6880f80bb114b698cc.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..36baa790cc681b370d363ecb785baf871aeeb285 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1f94f6219166421a52c4315895dac50afa6d49afed6fc6880f80bb114b698cc.md @@ -0,0 +1,124 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 470 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2010 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/| +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME +TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, and Plaintiff, +JANE DOE, by and through her undersigned attorneys respectfully moves this Court for an +extension of time to complete discovery deadlines, and as good cause in support of granting the +motion, states as follows: +This case is currently set on a two week trial docket commencing on July 19, +2010. +The Amended Complaint filed by the Plaintiff is still the subject of a Motion to +Dismiss filed on June 12, 2009 (DE 87). Thus, an Answer has not yet been filed. +The majority of the deposition of Plaintiff has occurred; however, several witness +depositions have yet to occur. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 470 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2010 Page 2 of 4 +Page 2 +4. +The scheduling of depositions in this matter has become much more difficult +since the case was consolidated on May 14, 2009, due to the number of attorneys involved and +the fact that witnesses, plaintiffs and the defendant may only be deposed once. (See Order +Consolidating Cases for Purpose of Discovery and Procedural Motions That Relate to Multiple +Cases). +Due the fact that depositions are still being scheduled, both Plaintiff and +Defendant are in agreement with extending the discovery cutoff an additional two (2) week from +April 2, 2010, making the new discovery cutoff date April 16, 2010. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant request that this Court enter an order granting the +Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1 +Counsel for the movant conferred via e-mail with counsel for the Plaintiff and counsel for +the Plaintiff is in agreement with moving the above date. +By: Is/ Michael J. Pike L +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 470 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2010 Page 3 of 4 +Page 3 +Respectfully submitted, +By: /s/ Michael J. Pike +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESC +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/S +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Fistos & +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz/@sexabuseattorney.com +•. Jaffe, Weissing, +Lehrman, PL +425 N. Andrews Avenue +Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Phone: 954-524-2820 +Fax: 954-524-2822 +brad@pathtojustice.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- +80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08- Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, +08-80993, 08- Pro Hac Vice +80994 +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +801-585-5202 +801-585-6833 Fax +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 470 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2010 Page 4 of 4 +Page 4 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Estein +Isidro M. +Esq. +Law Firm, P.A. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- +80469 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1f94f6219166421a52c4315895dac50afa6d49afed6fc6880f80bb114b698cc.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1f94f6219166421a52c4315895dac50afa6d49afed6fc6880f80bb114b698cc.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b73a78cfb5537525c87f4acaeb6ed9db2e183627 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b1f94f6219166421a52c4315895dac50afa6d49afed6fc6880f80bb114b698cc.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -133, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b1f94f6219166421a52c4315895dac50afa6d49afed6fc6880f80bb114b698cc", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "789cd72e71e38f46799b75dc709c03aab7fedf91e4b68bf201aca0e2e3285df0", + "output_sha256": "2c614026615ae2d3ce07480658a37fec9a8cea26f62fef552eb43278d2c69ba4", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b20dd7c2ee90e55596b9144d794cfbcc4e6b1fee69df5f9cb39b4e3f66b3d07c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b20dd7c2ee90e55596b9144d794cfbcc4e6b1fee69df5f9cb39b4e3f66b3d07c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c768cfbcd31a089f802dae87ecc17ae99f52b257 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b20dd7c2ee90e55596b9144d794cfbcc4e6b1fee69df5f9cb39b4e3f66b3d07c.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 35 +Filed 04/01/20 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO: 20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF +[PROPOSEDJ SCHEDULING ORDER +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, +in their capacities as the executors of the +ESTATE OF JEFFREY EDWARD EPSTEIN and +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, an individual, +Defendants. +DEBRA FREEMAN, United States Magistrate Judge: +It is hereby ORDERED that: +1. The parties shall serve their initial disclosures no later than April 10, 2020. +2. The parties shall serve their initial document requests and interrogatories no later than April +20, 2020. +3. Any motions to amend the pleadings or to join any additional parties shall be filed no later +than May 14, 2020. +4. The parties shall confer and stipulate as to a protocol regarding the production of documents +and electronically stored information no later than June 1, 2020. +5. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than July 21, 2020. +6. Expert discovery shall be conducted on the following schedule: +a. Plaintiff's expert reports shall be served no later than July 21, 2020. +›. Defendants'. +Expendie very sall be comall be no later than Seem ur 8, 21. 2020 +7. The parties may stipulate to modify interim deadlines in this Scheduling Order, without +seeking prior leave of Court. +1 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 35 +Filed 04/01/20 Page 2 of 2 +8. The parties shall submit joint status reports to the Court, regarding discovery and the +progress of settlement discussions no later than June 19, 2020. +Dated: New York, New York +April 1 +_ 2020 +SO ORDERED +Sea Im +DEBRA C. FREEMAN +United States Magistrate Judge +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b20dd7c2ee90e55596b9144d794cfbcc4e6b1fee69df5f9cb39b4e3f66b3d07c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b20dd7c2ee90e55596b9144d794cfbcc4e6b1fee69df5f9cb39b4e3f66b3d07c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b62962bf6006b0afd1474ea86780d1f92ac73a6c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b20dd7c2ee90e55596b9144d794cfbcc4e6b1fee69df5f9cb39b4e3f66b3d07c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b20dd7c2ee90e55596b9144d794cfbcc4e6b1fee69df5f9cb39b4e3f66b3d07c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8259e80119e0e11bc0587821ad7560cb03d51054a762bde6cb30c9d0fc03834d", + "output_sha256": "0adb3743d78ba50b0d11e80c937cbe1cc7bc6eeead76a65eb4cc936ad5317f45", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b24b2891bff2bac6f85e25bcc03ac52453bb9c19c7b00e6357ef17e44c314b9e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b24b2891bff2bac6f85e25bcc03ac52453bb9c19c7b00e6357ef17e44c314b9e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67e25252083d7b4d687be77783d185ce6b24170d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b24b2891bff2bac6f85e25bcc03ac52453bb9c19c7b00e6357ef17e44c314b9e.md @@ -0,0 +1,217 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 126 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 1 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 126 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 2 of 8 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80993-MARRA/ +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80811 -MARRA/JI +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80893-MARRA/ +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 08-CV- 80469-MARRA/C +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 126 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 3 of 8 +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al., +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80591-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80656-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFFS JANE DOES' 2-7 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE +ORDER AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-7 ("Plaintiffs" or individually, "Plaintiff"), by and through +undersigned counsel, hereby file Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order, pursuant to +S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1, and state as follows: +1. +Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 are proceeding with a Jane Doe pseudonym as this case +involves facts of the utmost intimacy and there is a genuine risk of psychological harm if their +identities are disclosed. See Exhibit "A" (Declaration of Gilbert Kliman, M.D.) (See also DE +144, Jane Does' 2-7 Response to Defendant's Motion to Compel Identity, et al.). +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 126 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 4 of 8 +2. +Despite the obvious need for Plaintiffs to have their identities protected, +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein has employed investigators who have made repeated contacts with exboyfriends, former employers, and others who know nothing of the underlying facts of the case. +These investigators have contacted such nonparties asking them for extensive personal +information about a Plaintiff, such as names and contact information of former boyfriends and +other friends and acquaintances in the Plaintiff's community. +3. +The Defendant's repeated contacts with these nonparties is harassing and +designed to intimidate the Plaintiffs. The purpose and intent of these contacts is to brand the +Plaintiffs as alleged sexual abuse victims to their families, friends and communities. +4. +A Motion is pending in which this Court is being asked to determine whether and +how Defendant may obtain discovery from nonparties. (DE 91, 144). Defendant's investigative +efforts improperly circumvent the issues in the pending Motion, and only serve to highlight the +need for this Court to implement appropriate protective measures to prevent Defendant from +harassing, intimidating, and intruding unnecessarily into the personal lives of the Plaintiffs. +5. +While it is not unusual for a defendant to use appropriate means to obtain records +from former employers and others referenced in a plaintiff's discovery responses, it is not +customary for a defendant to retain private investigators to make personal contact with these +individuals. Indeed, this practice is particularly inappropriate in a sexual abuse case where these +nonparties are unaware of the underlying abuse. Plaintiffs have a well-grounded fear that the +investigators will use the opportunity of their contacts with these nonparties to "out" the +Plaintiffs' as alleged childhood sexual abuse victims of Jeffrey Epstein. (See Kliman Decl., Exh. +"A" hereto). +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 126 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 5 of 8 +6. +As an example of the investigators' intimidation tactics, three of Defendant's +investigators recently called the former employer of Jane Doe 4 on repeated occasions over a +two-day period, asking personal questions about her, including the name and telephone number +of her ex-boyfriend. See Exhibit "B", Declaration of Jane Doe 4. +7. +Similarly, one of Defendant's investigators contacted the former employer of Jane +Doe 6. See Exhibit "C", Declaration of Jane Doe 6. +8. +There is no basis for Defendant or his multiple investigators to make repeated +personal contacts with former employers and ex-boyfriends to ask personal questions about a +Plaintiff. It is apparent that these contacts are not designed to obtain relevant information, but +rather are intended to intimidate the Plaintiffs and to reveal that they are childhood sexual abuse +victims. +9. +Accordingly, Plaintiffs request the entry of a protective order that would prevent +Defendant, his attorneys and investigators from making ex parte contacts concerning this +litigation with nonparties who have no knowledge that a Plaintiff was a childhood sexual abuse +victim of Jeffrey Epstein. +10. This Court has discretion to enter a protective order designed to protect a party +from, among other things, annoyance or embarrassment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). As set forth above, +given the investigators' conduct, a protective order is appropriate to prevent unnecessary +intrusion into the Plaintiffs' personal lives and divulgation of Plaintiffs in their communities as +childhood sexual abuse victims. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7, respectfully request that this Court grant +Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order, as follows: (i) order Defendant, his attorneys and +investigators to cease making ex parte contacts with nonparties identified in plaintiffs" discovery +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 126 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 6 of 8 +responses, such as, for example, former employers; (ii) order Defendant, his attorneys and +investigators to cease making ex parte contacts with nonparties found during the course of +discovery or investigation who know the Plaintiff or live in her community, such as, for example, +current and former boyfriends and family friends of the Plaintiffs; (il) order Defendant, his +attorneys and investigators to cease making ex parte contacts with nonparties who otherwise +know one of the Plaintiffs personally but who are unaware that she is an alleged victim of +childhood sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein; and (iv) grant all such other relief this Court deems +just and appropriate. +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1.A.3 +Undersigned counsel has conferred with Defendant's counsel in a good faith effort to +resolve the issues raised in this motion, and has been unable to do so, as Defendant's counsel has +advised that Defendant opposes this motion. +Dated: July 29, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By:_ +s/ Adam D. Horowitz. +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 126 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 7 of 8 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on July 29, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served +this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission +of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for +those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 126 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 8 of 8 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +bedwards@rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike @bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +8 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b24b2891bff2bac6f85e25bcc03ac52453bb9c19c7b00e6357ef17e44c314b9e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b24b2891bff2bac6f85e25bcc03ac52453bb9c19c7b00e6357ef17e44c314b9e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0d235a454eb2049bd1cba44d2db9635a4a8addd8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b24b2891bff2bac6f85e25bcc03ac52453bb9c19c7b00e6357ef17e44c314b9e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -98, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b24b2891bff2bac6f85e25bcc03ac52453bb9c19c7b00e6357ef17e44c314b9e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "82830d0bb9ad047d4038de9a0e53b2ecd3d060d28968384650c3814e5fe02318", + "output_sha256": "2911e6818ed14c6fa59b81c28a40cbaf08c0554cec39a7196d35d7873886eee4", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b258e52891759d46df9c156088b06af38b491dc5ca5c3a2112dfdb0c51e3acd8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b258e52891759d46df9c156088b06af38b491dc5ca5c3a2112dfdb0c51e3acd8.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..47c205037dba07725946018226396129971ea5a0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b258e52891759d46df9c156088b06af38b491dc5ca5c3a2112dfdb0c51e3acd8.md @@ -0,0 +1,863 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 1 of 22 +From: +Sent: +To: +Subject: +Jack Scarola [JSX@SearcyLaw.com] +Tuesday, May 08, 2012 3:41 PM + +Re: Epstein discovery +Thank you. +On May 8, 2012, at 3:27 PM, "Tonja Haddad Coleman" < tonja@tonjahaddadpa.com> wrote: +> Fine. +> Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq. +> Tonja Haddad, P.A. +> Justice Building +> 524 South Andrews Avenue +> Suite 200 North +> Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +> (954) 467-1223 +> (954) 337-3716 facsimile +> www.tonjahaddadpa.com +> The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged +> and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the +> person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are +> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or +> duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are +> not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email +> and destroy all copies of the original message. +> +> ---Original Message-...- +> From: Jack Scarola [mailto:JSX@SearcyLaw.com] +> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 3:23 PM +> To: +> Cc: Brad +> Subject: Re: Epstein discovery +> +> You have misunderstood my communication. I am not asking you to waive +> anything but only to agree that the production we are making does not +> constitute a waiver as to anything we have continued to assert is +> privileged. +> +> On May 8, 2012, at 3:08 PM, "Tonja Haddad Coleman" +> +> wrote: +> +>> +>> Jack: +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 2 of 22 +>> +»> Thank you for your response. I am sure you are aware that the law +>> permits you to respond to a discovery request by stating that +>> "without waiving the objection" you are producing the documents. +>> However, because I have yet +> to +»> see the documents, or your privilege log, I cannot possibly agree to +>> anything, much less concede a privilege, as it is my understanding +>> that +»> of the items to which you are objecting, for example, are electronic +>> communications to/from government entities which, as Mr. +is +>> likely aware from his days as a government attorney, are legally a +>> matter of +> public +>> record, will not, in fact, be privileged under any theory. +>> That being said, kindly send what you have and if we still deem it +>> non-responsive, in non-compliance with the Court's order, or +>> otherwise not subject to any privilege, we can take it up with the Judge. +>> Thank you. +>> +>> +>> Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq. +>> Tonja Haddad, P.A. +>> Justice Building +>> 524 South Andrews Avenue +>> Suite 200 North +>> Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +>> (954) 467-1223 +>> (954) 337-3716 facsimile +>> www.tonjahaddadpa.com +>> +>> The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged +>> and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the +> person(s) +>> named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby +> notified +>> that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this +>> communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended +> recipient, +>> please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of +>> the original message. +> +> +>>----Original Message----- +>> From: Jack Scarola [mailto:JSX@SearcyLaw.com] +>> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:35 AM +>> To: tonja@toniahaddadpa.com +>> Ce: Brad +>> Subject: Epstein discovery +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 3 of 22 +> +>> I have completed my review of the documents responsive to your +»> outstanding discovery request and it appears from that review that +>> ALL of the +> documents +>> tall within the attorney work product privilege. Nevertheless, we are +>> prepared to produce the documents to you today with very minor and +>> clearly identified redactions, if you will agree that our production +>> does not constitute or support a waiver of any other privilege +>> assertion. In the absence of such an agreement, we will be obliged to +>> assert privilege as to all the documents and make them available to +>> the Court for in camera inspection. +>> Please let me have your response at your earliest convenience so as +>> not to delay our production. +>> +/ **Ф••••**************************************** +****** +6 35 36 3538 +>****** +>>************** Privileged and Confidential Electronic communication +>> is not +> a +>> secure mode of communication and may be accessed by unauthorized persons. +>> This communication originates from the law firm of Searcy Denney +>> Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. and is protected under the +>> Electronic +> Communication +>> Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. S2510-2521. The information contained in this +> E-mail +>> message is privileged and confidential under Fla. R. Jud. Admin. +>> 2.420 and information intended only for the use of the individual(s) +>> named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended +>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, +»> distribution, or copy of this +> communication +>> is strictly prohibited. Personal messages express views solely of the +> sender +>> and shall not be attributed to the law firm. If you received this +>> communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by +>> e-mail or +> by +>> telephone at (800) 780-8607 and destroy all copies of the original +> message. +>> Thank you. +> +>******* +**** +>****** +>>********* +>> +#***** +>********** +>****** +›************** Privileged and Confidential Electronic communication is +> not a secure mode of communication and may be accessed by unauthorized persons. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 4 of 22 +> This communication originates from the law firm of Searcy Denney +> Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. and is protected under the Electronic +> Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. S2510-2521. The information +> contained in this E-mail message is privileged and confidential under +> Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420 and information intended only for the use of +> the individual(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not +> the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any +> dissemination, distribution, or copy of this communication is strictly +> prohibited. Personal messages express views solely of the sender and +> shall not be attributed to the law firm. If you received this +> communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone at (800) 780-8607 and +destroy all copies of the original message. +> Thank you. +> * * ******************* +********************** +>****** +.******** +H........... +*********** * +Privileged and Confidential Electronic communication is not a secure mode of communication and may be +accessed by unauthorized persons. This communication originates from the law firm of Searcy Denney Scarola +Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. and is protected under the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. +S2510-2521. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged and confidential under Fla. R. Jud. +Admin. 2.420 and information intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. If the reader of this +message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copy of +this communication is strietly prohibited. Personal messages express views solely of the sender and shall not be +attributed to the law firm. If you received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by +e-mail or by telephone at (800) 780-8607 and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you. +*******************••*•••••••••••*•••••••*••••••••**•*•••••••••••••••••• •••••••**. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 5 of 22 +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15"* JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CIVIL DIVISION AG +CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB +Judge David F. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, +V. +SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and +J. +individually, +Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. +ORDER ON PLAINTIFF JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S +MOTION TO COMPEL AND AMEND PROTECTIVE ORDER +THIS MATTER came before the Court on Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Compel and +Amend Protective Order in the above-styled case. This Court having reviewed the Motion, having +heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:, The Motion seeks to Compel a Request to +Produce and to modify this Court's prior Protective Order in regard to specific requests of the Defendant +.. In addition, the Motion seeks authority to direct a subpoena to the Bankruptcy Trustee of +the former law firm of the Defendants +and ROTHSTEIN. The Court finds that the Amended +Request for Production and request for subpoena, does request documents which the Court finds are either +relevant and/or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Therefore, within twenty (20) days +of the date of this Order, the Defendant +shall produce any non-privileged documents as +identified in Paragraph 13 of +Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order. In addition, +the Plaintiff EPSTEIN is given authority to issue a subpoena to the Bankruptcy Trustee requesting the +identical documents that are non-privileged. +Nothing in this Order shall constitute any waiver or ruling upon any privilege that may apply to +said documents and the Defendant +and/or others may file an objection to any such +documentation on any privilege grounds and shall file a privilege log specifically identifying such +documents. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 6 of 22 +Order on Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order + +DONE AND ORDERED in +this +day of April, 2012. +APR 1 0 2012 +JUDE DAVID CROW +HONORABLE DAVID F. +CIRCUIT JUDGE +Copies furnished to: +. Ackerman, Jr., Esq. +Burnett, P.A. +901 +Point West +777 South Flagler Drive +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Lilly Ann L +, Esq. +The L-S Law Firm +Four Seasons Tower, 15" Floor +1441 Brickell Avenue +Miami, FL 33131 +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue, South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +Marc S. Nurik, Esq. +Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik +One E. Broward Blvd., Suite 700 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +J. +Esq. +Jaffe, Weissing, +Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 7 of 22 +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG +VS. +SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, +and +individually. +Defendants. +PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES +AND FOR SANCTIONS +Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein, by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to +Rule 1.380 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby moves this Court to enter an +order compelling the Defendant +yet again, to provide responses to +Plaintiff's Request for Production. Plaintiff likewise requests that this Court order +sanctions against Defendant +for his direct and flagrant disregard of this Court's +previous Order dated April 10, 2012. In support thereof, Plaintiff states: +INTRODUCTION +On March 9, 2012, Plaintiff Epstein served upon Defendant +a Motion to +Compel and to Amend and Lift a Protective Order. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff's +Motion is attached hereto as "Exhibit A." On April 10, 2012, this Court entered an Order +on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, stating that "within twenty (20) days of the date of this +Order, the Defendant +shall produce any non-privileged documents as +identified in Paragraph 13 of +[sic] Motion to Compel and Amend Protective +Order." See Order entered April 10, 2012, a true and correct copy of which is attached +hereto as "Exhibit B." The Order further avowed that "InJothing in this Order shall + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 8 of 22 +constitute any waiver or ruling upon any privilege that may apply to said documents and +the Defendant +and/or others may file an objection to any such documentation +on any privilege grounds and shall file a privilege log specifically identifying such +documents." See Exhibit B (emphasis added). Accordingly, all responses were due on or +before April 30, 2012. +On May 9, 2012, Plaintiff' received Defendant +untimely response to the +afore-referenced Request to Produce. A perfunctory review of the items provided by +established that his response was both incomplete and deficient. +response contained nothing more than partial electronic communications between himself +and three or four of the countless reporters with whom he had communications during the +relevant time period. On or about May 15, 2012, and after sending a letter to Defendant +explaining his non-compliance, Plaintiff filed its initial Motion to Compel and for +Sanctions. In response thereto, Defendant served upon Plaintiff a privilege log' as to the +electronic mail correspondence between +and a member of the press, +There was no reference, objection, or privilege asserted as to the rest of the items +Defendant was ordered by this Court to produce; to wit: "[a]ll e-mails, data, +correspondence, and similar documents dated April 1, 2008 through August 1, 2010 by and +between +Scott W. Rothstein, Mare Nurik, Cara +Mike Fisten +and any one of the following regarding or mentioning Jeffrey Epstein in any way: (a) the +U.S. Attorney's Office, (b) the State Attorney's Office, (c) the Federal Bureau of +‹ While the document is labeled "Privilege log," it contains an objection to each of the Discovery +requests as "irrelevant" notwithstanding that this Court has already deemed them as relevant. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 9 of 22 +Investigation, (d) +and (e) any other news employees or reporters." See +Exhibit A. Accordingly, Defendant's response undeniably corroborates that he wholly +disregarded this Court's Order, failed to comply with this Court's Order to produce the +items responsive to Plaintiff's Request, and failed to provide any privilege log with respect +to any of the afore-referenced parties, with the single exception being +Finally, and of paramount concern, is the undeniable fact that these requests were +due to Plaintiff on or before April 30, 2012; two full weeks before the deadline imposed +upon Plaintiff by the Federal court to turn over documents Plaintiff intends to utilize in its +deposition of Scott Rothstein; the Co-Defendant in this case. The documents were due to +the Federal court on or before May 15, 2012, and Plaintiff's deposition of Scott Rothstein +is now scheduled for the week of June 11, 2012; dates about which Defendant has +firsthand knowledge and has been aware for several weeks. To date, and notwithstanding +the above, Defendant has willingly, intentionally, and irrefutably ignored an Order from +this Court resulting in his calculated thwarting of the discovery process. As such, and as +demonstrated more fully below, Plaintiff's requested order and sanctions are warranted. +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +As this Court is aware, it Ordered Defendant +to provide the following +specific items: +[a]ll e-mails, data, correspondence, and similar documents dated April 1, +2008 through August 1, 2010 by and between +J. +Scott W. +Rothstein, Marc Nurik, Cara | +Mike Fisten +and any one of the +following regarding or mentioning Jeffrey Epstein in any way: (a) the U.S. +Attorney's Office, (b) the State Attorney's Office, (c) the Federal Bureau of +Investigation, (d) | +and (e) any other news employees or +reporters. +3 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 10 of +See Exhibit A. The Order further avowed that Defendant/ +was permitted to assert +any alleged privilege by filing "a privilege log specifically identifying such documents." +See Exhibit B. +failed to either provide the items requested or a privilege log as to +his communications with all listed entities/persons, other than +1.2 It is well-settled +law that if a party alleges that information requested from it is protected by privilege, then +a privilege log must be prepared and attached to the response, or the privilege is waived. +See TIG Insurance Corp. of America v. I +1. 799 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) +(stating that failure to provide a reason for privilege and prepare a privilege log constitutes +waiver of the privilege) (emphasis added). Here, +fails to either respond to the +Request to Produce or assert any privilege as Court ordered, with the single aforereferenced exception. A court has the inherent power to implement and enforce effective +judicial proceedings pursuant to pretrial rules. As such, when a party fails to comply with +a pretrial order, a court has broad discretion in determining sanctions. First Republic +Corp. of America v. Hayes, 431 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Accordingly, Defendant +inapposite and patent disregard for this Court's Order mandates sanctions. +Finally, Plaintiff certifies that he "in good faith, has conferred or attempted to +confer with the person or party failing to make the discovery in an effort to secure the +information or material without court action." FLA. R.Civ. P. 1.380. A true and correct +copy of the correspondence sent to Defendant +regarding the first Motion to +2 The applicability and veracity of +assertion that the communications between himself +and +are "Work Product Privilege" will be addressed in a separate Motion and +Memorandum of Law, as Plaintiff opposes this contention and submits that it has no basis in law +or fact. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 11 of +Compel is attached hereto as "Exhibit C," and the second, which was sent after receiving +the +privilege log" is attached hereto as "Exhibit D." Pursuant to Rule 1.380 of the +Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Epstein is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees +necessitated by Defendant's flagrant disregard of both this Court's Order and the aforereferenced Rules of Civil Procedure. +CONCLUSION +Accordingly, for all of the reasons delineated above and in reliance upon the +applicable law cited herein, Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein respectfully requests that this Court, +yet again, Order Defendant +to respond in full to Plaintiff's Request to +Produce, award attorney's fees as sanctions, and such other and further relief as this Court +deems proper, including any available for +interference and impediment regarding +the deposition of Scott Rothstein. +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served +upon all parties listed on the attached service list, via facsimile and US Mail, this May 30, +2012. +Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 0176737 +LAW OFFICES OF TONJA HADDAD, PA +524 South Andrews Avenue +Suite 200N +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +954.467.1223 +954.337.3716 (facsimile) +Tonja@tonjahaddadpa.com +5 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 12 of +SERVICE LIST +CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Searcy Denney Scarola et al. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +Jack Goldberger, Esq. +Alterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, PA +250 Australian Ave. South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Mare Nurik, Esq. +1 East Broward Blvd. +Suite 700 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +J. +Esa. +Jaffe Weissing| +425 N Andrews Avenue +Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Lilly Ann +, Esq. +LS Law Firm +Four Seasons Tower +15th Floor +1441 Brickell Avenue +Miami, Florida 33131 +Fistos Lehrman + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM +Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 13 of +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15" JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CIVIL DIVISION AG +CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB +Judge David F. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, +V. +SCOTT ROTHSTEIN. individually, and +individually, +Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. +PLAINTIFF JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL +AND AMEND PROTECTIVE ORDER +Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epsteir"), by and through his undersigned counsel, moves this +Court to compel the production of documents from Defendant, +) and to amend and lift a protective order relating to a subpoena to the Bankruptcy +Trustee. The grounds för this Motion are as follows: +1. On April 12, 2010, Epstein sent a Request to Produce to +requesting the +following documents: +Il emails, data, +correspondence, niemos, or similar documents between +J. +Scott W. Rothstein, William Bergery and +Adler +and/or any attorney of represertative of RRA and any investor or third party +(person or entity) regarding Jeffrey Epstein of which mentions Jeffrey Epstein +(including Mike Fisten, Kenneth Jenne, +or Rick (Rich) +Fandrey). +2. +On May 11, 2010, +served his response to this request by stating: +3. Objection as to communications to or from investigators as that is +protected by the work-product and/or attorney-client privilege. + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 14 of +Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order +3. +Although +did not object to producing all documents requested, he did +not produce any documents responsive to this request. Nor did +who asserted privilege, +prepare a privilege log related to this request. It is important to note that this request went to +documents within +possession and control as opposed to documents that were produced +from the Bankruptcy Trustee. +4. +The documents requested in #3 were also requested by means of a subpoena to the +Bankruptcy Trustee dated April 17, 2010. After several motions and orders to compel, +finally prepared a privilege log relating to communications to and from the investigators among +others. +However, +did not produce any e-mails or documents between the lawyers at +RRA and (a) the U.S. Attorney's Office, (b) the State Attorney's Office, (c) the Federal Bureau of +Investigation - to which he had not objected and for which he did not claim a privilege on his +privilege log. +representatives and third parties such as +employees or reporters. +did not produce any documents by and between RRA lawyers or +a reporter, and any other news +has not identified any communication with reporters on his +privilege log. +6. +On January 3, 2011, Epstein sent a second subpoena requesting the following +documents from the Bankruptcy Trustee: +1. +Any and all email communicațions by/between any attorney and/or +employee of the former Rothstein law firm, including but not limited to, Scott +Rothstein, +Adler, William Berger, Michael Fisten. Ken Jenne, David +Boden, Deborah +Andrew Ratnett +Richard Fandry, +Christina Kitterman, Gary +and +, on the one hand, and any +of the following regarding Jeffrey Epstein: +2 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 15 of +Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order +U.S. Attorney's office; +State of Florida Attorney's Office +Federal Bureau of Investigations; +City of Palm Beach Police Department; +Any investigator working for the State of Florida; +Any attorney, law firm and any agent of any attorney or law firm who represented +any individual with a claim against Jeffrey Epstein. +7. +Оп April 1, 2011, Epstein sent a Request to Produce to +seeking +documents that support +I contention that Epstein has waived his Fifth Amendment right +by speaking to reporters. +8. +On May 5, 2011, +responded with objections and claits of privilege. +did not prepare a privilege log even though the Court ordered him to do so. +9. +On July 14, 2011, this Court entered an Order granting a Motion for Protective +Order without prejudice relating to the records on the subpoena to the Bankruptcy Trustee based +on scope and relevancy. A copy of the Order is attached to this Motion as Exhibit 1. +filed his Retiewed Motion for Summary +10. On November 11, 2011, +Judgment and a lengthy Statement of Undisputed Facts it which he purported to identify +"summary judgment evidence" on which he relied. Such "undisputed facts" reference and/ór +quote the Palm Beach Police Incident Report (see 13), correspondence from the U.S. Attorney's +Office to Epstein (see 115, 19, 25), correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and +Epstein's counsel (see 116, 20, 27) to support +argument that he acted in good faith and +that Epstein "violated his agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office..." (128). +also +quotes correspondence from the U.S. Attorney's Office to Epstein's counsel (see I6) specifically +in support of his contention that there was a "joint attempt to minimize Epstein's civil exposure." +3 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 177-1. Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 16 of +Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order +(Id.). +also cites from a proposed plea agreement (see 120) in support of his contention +that Epstein engaged in witness tampering. +11. +has also referred to statements allegedly made by Epstein to a reporter in +1180-81 of his Undisputed Statement of Facts. +contends Epstein's alleged statements to +reporters waives his Fifth Amendment rights. +12. As a result of Edwards relying on communications with the government and +reporters as part of his Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment and to support his contention +that Epstein has waived his Fifth Amendment rights by speaking with reporters, discovery is +highly appropriate on these issues and should be permitted. +Epstein wishes to amend and narrow his request to the Trustee to obtain the +following records: +All e-mails, data, correspondence, and similar documents dated April 1, 2008 +through August 1, 2010 by and between +Scott W. +Rothstein, Marc Nurik, Cara +Mike Bisten and any one of the +following regarding or mentioning Jettrey Epstein in any way: (a) the U.S. +Attorney's Office, (b) the State Attorney's Office, (o) the Federal Bureau of +Investigation, (d) +and (e) any other news employees or +reporters. +14. +The described documents are not privileged, so no in camera review is necessary. +Epstein's request has been narrowed so that compliance and production are not overly broad or +burdensome. +The request is relevant and necessary in order for Epstein to defend +Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, including +contention that Epstein has +waived his Fifth Amendment rights by discussions and communications with media, news +employees or reporters. +4 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 17 of +•Case No: 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG +Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order +15. Based on the above, Epstein requests the following relief: +a. +An Order directing +to produce the above-described records that +are in his possession and control; +b. +An Order directing the Bankruptcy Trustee to produce the records +described above and amending the prior protective order so as to allow the Bankruptcy Trustee +to produce the records described above; and +c. +That the Order contain a specifio deadline for compliance. Epstein +requests compliance within twenty (20) days of the date of the Order so as to allow time for any +additional discovery in advance of Rothstein's deposition and in advance of the hearing on +Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. +16. +The undersigned counsel certifies that he has and will continue to attempt to +resolve this matter with counsel for +without the need of a heating. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, requests the Court grant its Motion to +Compel and Amend Protective Ordet for the reasons set forth above. +Respectfully +submitted, +Ackerman, Jr. + +BURNBIT, P.A. +901 +Point West +777 South Flagler Drive +West Palm Beach, Flotida 33401 +Telephone: (561) 802-9044 +Facsimile: (561) 802-9976 +and +E. Knight +Florida Bar. No. 607363 +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1: Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 18 of +Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order +WHITE BURNETT, P.A. +Espirito Santo Plaza, 14th Floor +1395 Brickell Avenue +Miami, Florida 33131 +Telephone: (305) 789-9200 +Facsimile: (305) 789-9201 +Attoineys for Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein +CERTIRICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via U.S. +Mail on this 9* day of March, 2012 to: Jack Scarola, Esq., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & +Shipley, P.A., 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409; Jack Alan +Goldberger, Esq., Atterbuty, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., 250 Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400, +West Palm, Beach, FL 33401-5012; and Marc S. Nurik, Esq., Law Offices of Mare S. Nurik, One +East Broward Blvd., Suite 700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +ekerman, Jr. +6 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 19 of +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15" JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CIVIL DIVISION AG +CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB +Judge David F. C +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, +SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and +individually, +Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. +ORDER ON PLAINTIFE JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S +MOTION TO COMPEL AND AMEND PROTECTIVE ORDER +THIS MATTER came before the Court on Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Compel and +Amend Protective Order in the above-styled case. This Court having reviewed the Motion, having +heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:, The Motion seeks to Compel a Request to +Produce and to modify this Court's prior Protective Order in regard to specific requests of the Defendant +In addition, the Motion seeks authority to direct a subpoena to the Bankruptcy Trustee of +the former law firm of the Defendants +and ROTHSTEIN. The Court finds that the Amended +Request for Production and request for subpoena, does request documents which the Court firds are either +relevant and/or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Therefore, within twenty (20) days +of the dater of this Order, the Defendant +shall produce any non-privileged documents as +• identified.in Paragraph 13o£EDWARDS..Motion to. Compel. and.Amend Protective Order.-In addition, +is given authority to issue a subpoena to the Bankruptcy Trustee requesting the +identical documents that are non-privileged. +Nothing in this Order shall constitute any waiver or ruling upon any privilege that may apply to +said documents and the Defendant +and/or others may file an objection to any such +documentation on any privilege grounds and shall file a privilege log specifically identifying such +documents. + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 20 of +Order on Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order + +this +DONE AND ORDERED in +day of April, 2012, +APR 1 0 2012 +HONORABLE DAVID F. CROW +JUDGE DAVIDECR +CIRCUIT JUDGE +Copies furnished to: +L. Ackerman, Jr., Esq. +Burnett, P.A. +901 +Point West +T77 South Flagler Drive +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Lilly Ann +, Esq. +The L-S Law Firm +Four Seasons Tower, 15 Floor +1441 Brickell Avenue +Miami, FL 33131 +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd. +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue, South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +Marc S. Nurik, Esq. +Law.Offices of Marc S. Nurik +One B. Broward Blvd., Suite 700 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Esq, +Jaffe, Weissing, +, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2. +Fort Lauderdale; FL 33301 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 21 of +TONJA HADDAD, PA +524 South Andrews Avenue +954.467.1223 telephone +Suite 200 North +964.337.3716 facsimile +Fort Lauderdale, FL 83301 +tonja@tonjahaddadpa.com +May 11, 2012 +Via US and Electronic Mail +Jack Scaróla, Esq. +Searcy +ret:al. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. +West Palm Beach, FL, 33409 +Re: +Epstein i Edwards et al +Dear Mr Scarola: +We are in receipt of your purported responsive documents to Paragraph 13 of our Motion +to Compel and have teviewed same. Pleasé note that the request to which you were +Court-ordered to respond required fou to provide the followings +"All e-mails, data, correspondence, and similar documents dated April 1, 2008 through +August I by and between Bradley Bradley Edwards, Scott W. Rothstein, Mare Nurik, +Cara Holmes, Mike Fisten and anguone of the following regarding or mentioning Jettrey +Epstein in any way: (a) the U.S. Attomey's Oftice, (b) the State Attorney's. Office, (c) the +Federal-Burcat of Investigation, (d) Conchita Sarnott, and (g) any otber news employees +ot reporters?" +See Paragraph 13 of Motion to Compel. +However, you provided little more than multiple copies of correspondence responsive to +subpatts (d) and (e) As such, please be advised that it ve do not receive items +responsive fo the actual request, to wit: all e-mails, data, conespondence, and similar +documents dated April 1, 2008 through August 1, 2010 by and between Bradley J. +Edwards, Scott W. Rothstein, Marc Nurik; Cara Holmes, Mike Fistenand any one of the +following regarding or mentioning Jeffrey Epstein in any wayt (a) the US. Attorney's +Office, (b) the State. Atforney's Office, and (o) the Federal Bureau of Investigation on Or +before Monday, May 14, 2012, We wil be left with no choice but to, yet again; file all +appropriate motions with the Court and seek any and all sanctions available, including +those to which you will be vulnerable for violation of a Court arder. +Singerely: +TONIA HADDAD, PA +for the fimm + + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 flage 22 of +22 +From: Tonja Haddad Coleman [tonja@tonjahaddadpa.com] +Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:47 AM +To: +"Mary E. Pirrotta' +Cc: +'Jack Scarola' +Subject: RE: +adv. Epstein +Jack: +To avoid any further miscommunications, misunderstandings, attempts to circumvent +or delay the legal process, and any other intellectually dishonest or legally inconsistent +statements made by you, please note the following with respect to your purported +statement below and its accompanying attachment. As you are undoubtedly aware, +you were Ordered by Judge +to produce the following (or provide a proper +privilege log regarding same): +[a]ll e-mails, data, correspondence, and similar documents dated April 1, 2008 +through August 1, 2010 by and between +J. +. Scott W. Rothstein, +Marc, Nurik, Cara Holmes, Mike Fisten and any on of he following regarding or +mentioning Jeffrey Epstein in any way: (a) the U.S. Attorney's Office. (b) the +State Attorney's Office, (c) the Federal Bureau of Investigation, (d) +I, and (e) any other news employees or reporters. +The plain language contained therein could not be more clear and definite. However, +you have provided a privilege log that addresses correspondence with one of the parties +listed above. As such, you are, yet again, failing to comply with the Court's Order. +Accordingly, we disagree with your assessment as delineated below, and do not agree +that you have completed production in accordance with Judge +Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq. +TONJA HADDAD, P.A. +Justice Building +524 South Andrews Avenue +Suite 200 North +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +(954) 467-1223 +(954) 337-3716 facsimile +www.tonjahaddadpa.com +The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the +person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or +duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and +destroy all copies of the original message. diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b258e52891759d46df9c156088b06af38b491dc5ca5c3a2112dfdb0c51e3acd8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b258e52891759d46df9c156088b06af38b491dc5ca5c3a2112dfdb0c51e3acd8.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2945ee62abe4576478e3f402a560cc7457f5d233 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b258e52891759d46df9c156088b06af38b491dc5ca5c3a2112dfdb0c51e3acd8.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -807, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b258e52891759d46df9c156088b06af38b491dc5ca5c3a2112dfdb0c51e3acd8", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 32, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "79662ea456194ba15542d9ee925e228c7c9092000c2e4c21b763433706b57661", + "output_sha256": "afca0a62a2d6ef9801a0098e03bb230aa78ec98b7933fa83ccbcc2cf55968e23", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b25cd903876de5c911a0a4f3c95218c543ae8147d237fdd6cbd4939fe3d6f1af.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b25cd903876de5c911a0a4f3c95218c543ae8147d237fdd6cbd4939fe3d6f1af.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..55ecb3af9389ee1d0b57491fb9064dc90be3b6b5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b25cd903876de5c911a0a4f3c95218c543ae8147d237fdd6cbd4939fe3d6f1af.md @@ -0,0 +1,434 @@ +• . Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 61-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 1 of 10 +JANE DOE NO. 5, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA-| +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +_' +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS +TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, +serves his responses and objections to Plaintiff's December 9, 2008 Amended First Set +Of Interrogatories To Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, attached hereto. +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent by fax and +U.S. Mail to the following addressees this 26th +_ day of January, 2009: +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +jherman@hermanlaw.com +Irivera@hermanlaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #5 +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein + + + +. Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 61-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 2 of 10 +Page 3 +DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO +PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES +Interrogatory No. 1. +Identify all employees who performed work of services inside +the Palm Beach Residence. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his +constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the +interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or +about 2002-2003." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for a time period from +January 1, 2003 until present. Also, see "Employee" as defined in paragraph g of +Plaintiff's interrogatories. +Interrogatory No. 2. +Identify all Employees not identified in response to +interrogatory no. 1 who at any time came to Defendant's Palm Beach Residence. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the +interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or +about 2002-2003." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for "all Employees" "who at +any time" came to the residence. Also, see "Employee" as defined in paragraph g of +Plaintiff's interrogatories. + + +. Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 61-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 3 of 10 +Page 4 +Interrogatory No. 3. +Identify all persons who came to the Palm Beach Residence +and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the +interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or +about 2002-2003." +Interrogatory No. 4. +Identify all persons who came to the New York Residence +and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the +interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or +about 2002-2003." +Interrogatory No. 5. +Identify all persons who came to the New Mexico Residence +and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my + + +•. Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 61-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 4 of 10 +Page 5 +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +to and without waiving his +constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the +interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or +about 2002-2003." +Interrogatory No. 6. +Identify all persons who came to the St. +Residence +and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, +however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his +constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the +interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or +about 2002-2003." +Interrogatory No. 7. +List all the time periods during which Jeffrey Epstein was +present in the State of Florida, including for each the date he arrive and the date he +departed. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the +interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the + + +•. Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 61-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 5 of 10 +Page 6 +discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or +about 2002-2003." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for a time period from +January 1, 2003 until present. +Interrogatory No. 8. +Identify all of Jeffrey Epstein health care providers in the +past (10) ten years, including without limitation, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental +health counselors, physicians, hospitals and treatment facilities. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the +interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, such information is privileged pursuant to +Rule 501, Fed. Evid., and §90.503, Fla.Evid. Code. In addition, such information is +protected +by the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act +(HIPAA). +Interrogatory No. 9. +List all items in Jeffrey Epstein's possession in Palm Beach, +Florida, at any time during the period of these interrogatories, which were used or +intended to be used as sexual aids, sex toys, massage aids, and/or vibrators, and for +each, list the manufacturer, model number (if applicable), and its present location. +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the +interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges a time period +of "in or about 2002-2003," while Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information from January + + +•. Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 61-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 6 of 10 +Page 7 +1, 2003, until present. Further, the request is meant to embarrass and harass the +Defendant. +Interrogatory No. 10. +Identify all persons who provide transportation services to +Jeffrey Epstein, whether as employees or independent contractors, including without +limitation, chauffeurs and aircraft crew. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the +interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff places no time limitation. +Interrogatory No. 11. +Identify all telephone numbers used by Epstein, including +cellular phones and land lines in any of his residences, by stating the complete +telephone number and the name of the service provider. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that | cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the +interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's allegations claim a time period of "in or +about 2002-2003" and involve Defendant's Palm Beach residence. +Interrogatory No. 12. +Identify all telephone numbers of employees of Epstein, +used in the course or scope of their employment, including cellular phones and land +lines in any of his residences, by stating the complete telephone number and the name +of the service provider. + + +•. Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 61-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 7 of 10 +Page 8 +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the +interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's allegations claim a time period of "in or +about 2002-2003" and involve Defendant's Palm Beach residence. +Interrogatory No. 13. List the names and addresses of all persons who are +believed or known by your, your agents, or your attorneys to have any knowledge +concerning any of the issues in this lawsuit; and specify the subject matter about which +the witness has knowledge. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, +, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the interrogatory seeks information +that is attorney-client and work product privileged as it seeks information known by +Defendant's attorneys. The interrogatory is so overbroad that Defendant cannot +reasonably form a response, including the raising of additional privileges which may +apply. Without waiving any objection, see Rule 26 disclosures made by Defendant's +counsel in this case. +Interrogatory No. 14. +State the name and address of every person known to you, +your agents, or your attorneys who has knowledge about, possession, or custody, or +control of, any model, plat, map, drawing, motion picture, videotape or photograph +pertaining to any fact or issue involved in this controversy; and describe as to each, +what item such person has, the name and address of the person who took or prepared +it, and the date it was taken or prepared. + + +*. Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 61-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 8 of 10 +Page 9 +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by. the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the interrogatory seeks information +that is attorney-client and work product privileged as it seeks information known by +Defendant's attorneys. +Interrogatory No. 15. +Identify all persons who have made a claim, complaint, +demand or threat against you relating to alleged sexual abuse or misconduct on a +minor, and for each provide the following information: +a. The person's full name, last known address and telephone number; +b. The person's attorney, if represented; +c. The date of the alleged incidents); +d. If a civil case has been filed by or on behalf of the person, the case number +and identifying information. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges and without waiving such objection, +with regard to subparagraph (d), Defendant's counsel states that such information is +public record and equally attainable by Plaintiff. +Interrogatory No. 16. State the facts upon which you intend to rely for each denial +of a pleading allegation and for each affirmative defense you intend to make in these +cases. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +vell as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +egarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 61-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 9 of 10 +Page 10 +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his +constitutional privileges, no answer to the Amended +Complaint has been filed by defense counsel in this case; however, Defendant does not +intend to waive his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. Defendant further +objects in that Plaintiff's interrogatory attempts to obtain discovery in other cases filed +by her undersigned counsel. +Interrogatory No. 17. +Identify all witnesses from whom you have obtained or +requested a written, transcribed or recorded statement relating to any issue in these +cases, and for each, in addition to the witness's identifying information, state the date of +the statement and identify the person taking the statement. +Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well +as his U.S. constitutional privileges. +I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects to this +interrogatory in that it seeks information that is attorney-client and work product +privileged. In addition, the request is overbroad in that it seeks information "relating to +any issue." +STATE OF Florida +COUNTY OF Palm Beach) +I hereby certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths +and take acknowledgments, personally appeared Jeftrec +Epstein +known to +ne to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Interrogatories who + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 61-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 10 of 10 +Page 11 +acknowledged before me that he/she executed the same, that I relied upon the following form of +identification of the above-named person: personally known/identification, and that an oath +was/was not taken. +WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this _ 26 th +day of January +NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF FLORIDA +Nayanira Alanis +we Commission # DD841844 +i Expires: DEC. 01, 2012 +BONDED THRU ATLANTIC BONDING CO., INC. +(SEAL) +My Commission Expires:_ +Commission #: \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b25cd903876de5c911a0a4f3c95218c543ae8147d237fdd6cbd4939fe3d6f1af.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b25cd903876de5c911a0a4f3c95218c543ae8147d237fdd6cbd4939fe3d6f1af.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..894362590ab9f050c3041a6e1c3ee4cc056ec736 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b25cd903876de5c911a0a4f3c95218c543ae8147d237fdd6cbd4939fe3d6f1af.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -366, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b25cd903876de5c911a0a4f3c95218c543ae8147d237fdd6cbd4939fe3d6f1af", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 12, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b8034dda211f4310babc858d15e8dc0a7b8a31709bdde597b936f7d897853b1e", + "output_sha256": "8a2241907d7009f429b086bafd697e6b2c40ef64ce6eff0c8732367535e743f7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b25d22ae505a360675e0726326504e7813e8a713c548d24828c582c12d4a10c1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b25d22ae505a360675e0726326504e7813e8a713c548d24828c582c12d4a10c1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2232f0ed67415bbb7cd8f3fd10b6369e27e01a6c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b25d22ae505a360675e0726326504e7813e8a713c548d24828c582c12d4a10c1.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 12-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/01/2010 Page 1 of 1 +VI. +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION +ATTACHMENT TO CIVIL COVER SHEET +FOR: Jane Doe 103 v. Jeffrey Epstein +RELATED PENDING CASES +08-80119 - KAM +08-80232 - KAM +08-80380 - KAM +08-80381 - KAM +08-80811 - KAM +08-80893 - KAM +08-80993 - KAM +08-80994 - KAM +09-80469 - KAM +09-80802 - KAM +09-81092 - KAM + +"A" diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b25d22ae505a360675e0726326504e7813e8a713c548d24828c582c12d4a10c1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b25d22ae505a360675e0726326504e7813e8a713c548d24828c582c12d4a10c1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f6759b34462169ed72d5a8fb4ca56d6ce91ba355 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b25d22ae505a360675e0726326504e7813e8a713c548d24828c582c12d4a10c1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -19, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b25d22ae505a360675e0726326504e7813e8a713c548d24828c582c12d4a10c1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "3697ef40003ceada0bc13bd913713e4bd573ded0b97eacacd71adb5185ae1f51", + "output_sha256": "36111ae3d2b8a2ff129e38118c264604486504a807fd053420138d35dc734f58", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2628a35734a8b6c764dfea63d58d8c6f1827f8c275fd29e751c9a645b5cf549.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2628a35734a8b6c764dfea63d58d8c6f1827f8c275fd29e751c9a645b5cf549.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed7b17c93a6a1cc435aea9f7c34fd3e71a06213c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2628a35734a8b6c764dfea63d58d8c6f1827f8c275fd29e751c9a645b5cf549.md @@ -0,0 +1,381 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 403-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2009 Page 1 of 4 +0260 +1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +2 +CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA +4 +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +5 -VS- +6 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +VOLUME III +8 Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +9 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-801092 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +VIDEO-CONFERENCED AND VIDEOTAPED +DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE +Wednesday, September 30, 2009 +9:37 a.m. - 6:10 p.m. +One Clearlake Centre +250 South Australian Avenue, 1st Floor +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +18 +19 +20 Reported By: +Pamela J. L +RPR, FPR, CLR +21 Prose Reporting Agency, Inc. +22 +23 +- - - +24 +25 +0261 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +APPEARANCES: +On behalf of the Plaintiff, Jane Doe: +BRAD J. +ESQUIRE +ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER +Las Olas City Centre, Suite 1650 +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +954.315.7273 +bedwards@rra-law.com +On behalf of the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQUIRE +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP +303 Banyan Boulevard +"EXHIBIT +A" +file:///C/...ents%20and%20Settings/Production/Desktop/Epstein%20for%20J.%20Cadwell-ASCIls/DOE,%20JANE%20-%20Vol.%201|Itxt[1 1/5/2009 1:46:44 PM] + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 403-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2009 Page 2 of 4 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. No, 1 do not recall. +Q. Okay. Turn -- flip the page. There was a +document -- the letter is -- and just so the record is +clear -- I'm enclosing a proposal for settlement in +order to resolve the action which has been filed by your +client. And then attached -- and that's paraphrasing -- +attached to the letter is a proposal of settlement, sent +by Mr. Epstein to you, in the amount of $45,000, plus +$5,000 for attorney's fees. +0425 +1 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +: Form. +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Were you aware sometime in March of '09 that +2 you were offered $45,000 to resolve the case? +A. Yes. +Q. Okay. And did you understand that -- that +if, in fact, Mr. Epstein comes back and gets an award of +a sum something less than $45,000, say $30,000, or +you're not successful in getting a judgment in excess of +35 - 30,000, $32,000, that you'll be responsible -- or +you may be responsible for all of Mr. Epstein's +attorney's fees and costs that were incurred after the +proposal for settlement? +MR. +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. That is that Mr. Epstein can get a judgment +against you, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars, are +you aware of that fact? +A. No. +Q. Okay. And do you know that that will be +against you for your entire life until you pay that off? +MR. +: Form. +THE WITNESS: No. +MR. +: How is that reasonably calculated +to lead to admissible evidence? +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. Ms. Jane Doe, we've talked about the first +0426 +1 +time you went to Mr. Epstein's house and, I believe, the +2 +3 +second time you went to Mr. Epstein's house; correct? +MR. +: Form. +4 +THE WITNESS: Yes. +5 +BY MR. CRITTON: +6 +Q. Okay. And you've testified that you went to +7 +Mr. Epstein's house another approximately 18 times; is +8 +that correct? +9 +A. +Yes. +10 +Q. All right. And we have not discussed any of +11 +12 +those events, at least as of this point today; have we? +: Form. +13 +THE WITNESS: I know that I have told you +14 +that every time I ever went to his house, he +15 +touched me, and I gave him a massage. +16 +BY MR. CRITTON: +17 +Q. Okay. But we talked about that generally; we +18 +haven't gone into each detail as to when the event +file:///C/...ents%20and%20Settings/Production/Desktop/Epstein%20for%20J.%20Cadwell-ASCIIs/DOE,%20JANE%20-%20Vol.%20111.txt[11/5/2009 1:46:44 PM] + + +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +0427 +1 +2 +3 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +0428 +1 +2 +4 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 403-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2009 Page 3 of 4 +occurred or what occurred at each of those massages; +have we -- other than what you generally have told me; +correct? +MR. +Form. +THE WITNESS: Correct. +MR. CRITTON: I'm going to adjourn the +deposition now. It is about five after 6:00, and +the Court's order said that we could, if +appropriate, go longer than seven hours. There are +a number of additional areas that I want to cover +with your client, including some background +information that was not disclosed in her answers +to interrogatories that I've not yet gotten to. +I'd like to go into the other visits that she +had with Mr. Epstein, that is who she saw, what +occurred, both by her and with Mr. Epstein, and +anyone else who may have been present at the time. +I want to review the various counts of the +complaint with her, separate and apart from the +allegations of the various visits. +There's some other background -- family +background information I want to cover with her, +and I want to cover with her any other areas of +which she may have knowledge regarding witnesses, +including with regard to either L.M. issues, E.W. +issue, or potentially other individuals who are +Plaintiffs in this case. +There are some other additional, as I said, +family background that I wish to explore, as well +as the medical records, which I have not yet had an +opportunity to discuss with her, which we obtained, +and her school records. +My best estimate for the time for completing +her deposition is approximately two and half to +three hours. If I can do it in a more reasonable +or a quicker fashion, I will certainly do that. +And as I advised you, Brad, I am going out of +town on Friday. I'm in the process of moving my +house. It's supposed to occur on Monday or Tuesday +of next week. We -- it is now, as I said, +6 o'clock. We started about a little before +10 o'clock today. I think that the request is not +unreasonable, and I will also have opportunity to +have reviewed the transcript, so that I'm not -- +that I don't ask duplicative questions or retread +some area that we've already covered that I think +has been properly covered. +As I indicated earlier is we spent almost +eight hours with a person named Rodriguez, who was +a house manager for Mr. Epstein for approximately +six months, who was, I'd say, a small-time player. +And this is a young lady who is seeking +file:///C/..ents%20and%20Settings/Production/Desktop/Epstein%20for%20J.%20Cadwell-ASCIIs/DOE,%20JANE%20-%20Vol.%2011l.tx/[11/5/2009 1:46:44 PM] + + +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +0429 +1 +2 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +0430 +1 +2 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 403-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2009 Page 4 of 4 +extensive damages, whose -- damages in excess of +$50 million for both compensatory and punitive +damages. And I think we have a right to fully +explore. It's certainly not the intent to harass, +intimidate or to cause her any undue stress. +be glad to work out a time that works for both you +and Ms. Jane Doe. +MR. +Just so that it is clear, we -- +we will not be in agreement to your proposal. I +wrote down the various areas you intend to go into. +Every single one of them was covered. I will be +able to point to those areas in the transcript when +we have a hearing on this matter. +As you pointed out earlier, Mr. Critton, the +seven-hour time limit was relieved by way of the +consolidation order, and it was done in the context +of depositions that are going to require multiple +attorneys -- because there are so many attorneys +involved in this ultimate litigation -- multiple +attorneys to ask questions of a particular witness +whose deposition is going to exceed seven hours, +such as Mr. Rodriguez, who was asked questions by +all seven or eight attorneys. This witness is +being asked questions by one attorney. That was +not the intent of the Court's order, and I think +that Judge Marra is going to have to rule on that +issue again. Every single one of the issues that +you intend to go into was covered. +And I'd like to also put on the record that +in your last 15 minutes you proceeded to go into +proposals for settlement, which you know are not +admissible, nor reasonably calculated to lead to +admissible evidence, and you did that at your own +peril. And so, if we are going to resume any +deposition of Jane Doe, then it will be by way of +court order. +MR. CRITTON: We're done, end 6:09 p.m. +(Whereupon, the Deposition was suspended at +6:09 p.m.) +file:///C/..ents%20and%20Settings/Production/Desktop/Epstein%20for%20J.%20Cadwell-ASCIIs/DOE,%20JANE%20-%20Vol.%201II.txt[1 1/5/2009 1:46:44 PM) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2628a35734a8b6c764dfea63d58d8c6f1827f8c275fd29e751c9a645b5cf549.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2628a35734a8b6c764dfea63d58d8c6f1827f8c275fd29e751c9a645b5cf549.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..70e789840bc95ed34c4c9ffbac999c9e8d9a9b54 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2628a35734a8b6c764dfea63d58d8c6f1827f8c275fd29e751c9a645b5cf549.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b2628a35734a8b6c764dfea63d58d8c6f1827f8c275fd29e751c9a645b5cf549", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "47a0fc1c0ba172ce3369adcbb66e88121eba7be18a63f194c93ae5fdec377f23", + "output_sha256": "b1c44c5c235b3d3937077d967e8de0571076d05571e9b4ec2cf72a02e6deadd3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2be414f93480faa3874410630d061e3e986db94e6747f2736729283bdffd323.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2be414f93480faa3874410630d061e3e986db94e6747f2736729283bdffd323.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..deaf25b8ff60ba1a3ef7e3269c662f8f0623b9aa --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2be414f93480faa3874410630d061e3e986db94e6747f2736729283bdffd323.md @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ +SHARON R. BOCK +CLERK & COMPTROLLER +PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +SACH COUNTY +RECEIPT + +Printed On: +11/15/2019 09:38 + +Received of: +Receipt Number: 3417823 - Date 11/15/2019 Time 9:38AM +Greenberg Traurig +Greenberg Traurig +333 S.E. 2d Avenue +Miami, FL 33131 +Cashier Name: +Cashier Location: +E-Filing +Receipt ID: + +Balance Owed: +Total Amount Paid: +Remaining Balance: +0.00 +Division: +AG: Circuit Civil Central - AG(Civil) +Case# 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB -- PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF PB POST +Item +Balance +Fees +Case Total +421,00 +Paid +Bal Remaining +0.00 +0.00 +Payments +Ref# +Type +EFiling_CREDITCARD +Total Received +Total Paid +Amount + +How was your service today? Please visit www.mypalmbeachclerk.com/survey or send your +feedback to clerkweb@mypalmbeachclerk.com. +For office locations and information about Clerk & Comptroller services: +Visit www.mypalmbeachclerk.com.or call (561) 355-2996. +10, \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2be414f93480faa3874410630d061e3e986db94e6747f2736729283bdffd323.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2be414f93480faa3874410630d061e3e986db94e6747f2736729283bdffd323.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4c5ca0810496c3d12958b41734a5200ce286a687 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2be414f93480faa3874410630d061e3e986db94e6747f2736729283bdffd323.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -102, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b2be414f93480faa3874410630d061e3e986db94e6747f2736729283bdffd323", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "53725ca8d8115b71370ac4400b2cd0fce49b35dc6cb14027dfa8bb7a623a2fde", + "output_sha256": "e88109f217da50f57285a5f808c040fb7bcc3e2d958876415cdbd2f85eecd564", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2d66712e9161156e6c0406cb90a8887565193e326467188d35f0db26b4fe1ac.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2d66712e9161156e6c0406cb90a8887565193e326467188d35f0db26b4fe1ac.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d03d85e38081fe1c8c6b1c6aecef579202213d3b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2d66712e9161156e6c0406cb90a8887565193e326467188d35f0db26b4fe1ac.md @@ -0,0 +1,426 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 14 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA-| +JANE DOE NO. 4 +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF, JANE DOE NO. +4. TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE & TO +OVERRULE OBJECTIONS, & FOR AN AWARD OF DEFENDANT'S +REASONABLE EXPENSES +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, +moves this Court for an order compelling Plaintiff, JANE DOE No. 4 To respond to +specified production requests and to overrule her objections asserted in Plaintiff's +Responses To Defendant's First Request To Produce, dated January 26, 2009. +Defendant further seeks an award of his reasonable expenses, including expenses, +associated with the making of this motion. Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P. (2008); Local Gen. +Rules 7.1 and 26.1 H (S.D. Fla. 2008). In support of his motion, Defendant states: +Introduction +Prior to the filing of this motion, counsel for Defendant and counsel for Plaintiff +corresponded with each other and were able to resolve some of the discovery issues +related to Defendant's First Request to Produce and Plaintiff's Response thereto. By +letter, dated March 3, 2009, the Plaintiff agreed to withdraw her "General Objections" +set forth in her response. As well, issues as to production request no. 14 are presently + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 14 +Page No. 2 +resolved. This motion addresses those requests on which the parties were unable to +come to an agreement. +Also, Defendant has filed simultaneously with this motion a Motion To Compel +directed to certain of Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, also +dated January 26, 2009, and which addresses identical discovery issues. Both motions +should be determined at the same time. +Motion To Compel Responses to Nos. 1 +1. +Individual and/or joint income tax returns and supporting documentation +including W-2 and 1099 forms for 2002-2007 and, as well as all records or +documentation relative to the Plaintiff's earnings for the current year +Response: +Plaintiff has no such documents in her possession. Plaintiff objects to this request as +overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of +admissible evidence. +Without waiving this objection, Plaintiff has no responsive +documents. +Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery Sought in No. 1 +Plaintiff initially claims that she "has no such documents in her possession." +Plaintiff does not make a relevancy objection, but instead claims that the request is "not +reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Plaintiff also +claims that the request is "overbroad" and "unduly burdensome," but fails to make any +showing whatsoever how the request is overbroad or unduly burdensome as required +under Rule 26(c) and Local Gen. Rule 26.1 H (S.D. Fla. (2008). On its face, the six +year time period of 2002-2007 for Plaintiff's tax return's and supporting documentation +is reasonable. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint alleges that the alleged sexual +abuse and exploitation of her by Defendant occurred in in 2002-2003." 2d Am. +Complaint, 119. + + +Case 9:08-cV-80380-KAM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 3 of 14 +Page No. 3 +Although Plaintiff claims to have no such documents in her possession, in her +answers to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, no. 2, dated January 26, 2009, +Plaintiff identifies four places of employment for various time periods beginning in 2004- +2005 to the summer of 2008. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is Plaintiff's Answer to +interrogatory no. 2. Defendant's counsel by faxed letter, dated March 31, 2009, +requested that Plaintiff sign and submit two IRS Forms 4506-T requesting tax returns for +Each of the years 2002 - 2007. In the event, Plaintiff complies with the request, +Defendant will withdraw his motion to compel directed to request no. 1. +Also, such information is both relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. It is well settled that relevant information is +discoverable, even if not admissible at trial, so long as the discovery is reasonably +calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 26(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.; +Donahay v. Palm Beach Tours & trans., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007). +Discoverability of such information is governed by Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P., pursuant to +which the scope of discovery is broad. Donahay, supra, at 686, and cases cited therein. +"Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to +the claims or defense of any party involved in the pending action." Id. +Plaintiff's tax returns, along with the requested supporting documentation, for the +six year period are relevant to Plaintiff's damages claims detailed below herein. Such +information would show Plaintiff's employment and earning history, as well as provide +evidence as to how Plaintiff has been able to function in her daily life before, during and +after the alleged incident. Was she self-sufficient? Was she able to get out of bed each +morning and support herself? What type of job did she hold? One's ability to earn a + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 4 of 14 +Page No. 4 +living and be self-supporting has not only a financial component, but also an +emotional/psychological/mental component. +In her Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff attempts to allege claims in Count I +for "Sexual Assault and Battery," Count I for "Intentional Infliction of Emotional +Distress," and in Count Ill for "Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of +18 U.S.C.A. §2422," and seeks damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255(a). (Plaintiff +alleges diversity of citizenship as a basis for this Court's jurisdiction. 2d Am. Complaint, +115). Counts I and Il are brought pursuant to state law. +In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges that "she has suffered and will continue to suffer +severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and emotional +damages," and "severe mental anguish and pain." She also seeks actual (Count III) +and compensatory damages for her alleged injuries. 2d Am. Complaint, 11922, 27-28, +34, and "Wherefore" clauses. In her answers to interrogatory no. 9, Plaintiff further +states that: +Plaintiff has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries, including +without limitation, corruption of morals, anxiety, intrusive thoughts, disturbed +sleep, impaired concentration, disruption and distortion of normal development, +loss of innocence. ... (Interrog. No. 9). +Plaintiff also alleges that " +a Palm Beach Community College +student," was a part of "Epstein's plan and scheme (which) reflected a particular pattern +and method" in the alleged recruiting of girl's to come to EPSTEIN's Palm Beach +mansion and give him "massages" in exchange for money. 2d Am. Complaint, 111-13. +According to the complaint allegations - "Upon information and belief Epstein has a +sexual preference and obsession for underage minor girls." 119. The "girl would be led +up a flight of stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table... The girl would be + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 5 of 14 +Page No. 5 +alone with EPSTEIN; "Epstein would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious and +sexual acts, including masturbation and touching the girl's vagina." 2°° Am. Complaint, +111, 12. Plaintiff alleges that "in 2002-2003," she, "then approximately 15 years old, fell +into Epstein's trap and became one of his victims." 19. +Plaintiff alleges that she +"returned on many occasions to the Palm Beach mansion to provide Epstein with +massages." 914. Plaintiff further alleges that on these occasions "Epstein engaged in +sexual contact and activity with minor Jane, which included, among other things, +directing Jane to remove all her clothes, masturbating during the massage, and digitally +penetrating Jane's vagina. ... This sexual abuse occurred for approximately three +years." T14. Plaintiff further alleges that "Epstein committed willful acts of child sexual +abuse" on her, which resulted in "mental or sexual injury," and "caused or likely to cause +Jane Doe's mental or emotional health to be significantly impaired." 2d Am. Complaint, +126. +As discussed above, the tax returns, and supporting documentation, will provide +direct evidence as to Plaintiff's claimed damages. Such information does not only go to +compensatory or actual damages as alleged in the complaint, but also her +emotional/psychological/mental health type damages. (Plaintiff did not answer +interrogatory no. 10 regarding each item of damage claimed but, in addition to +objections, stated that "discovery is ongoing and will be supplemented ...). The time +period will allow Defendant to compare how Plaintiff was doing in her life prior to, during, +and after the alleged incident. +Accordingly, Plaintiff's objection is required to be +overruled, and Defendant is entitled to the documents requested. + + +Case 9:08-cV-80380-KAM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 6 of 14 +Page No. 6 +Production Requests Nos. 10, 11, 17, & 18 +10. +All photographs, movies, dvds, and videotapes in which you performed +sexual acts or simulated sexual acts. +All photographs, movies, dvds, and videotapes in which you performed +sexual acts or simulated sexual acts in exchange for money or other consideration. +17. +All documents reflecting the names and addresses of other individuals +with whom you have had sexual activity from January 1, 2000 - December 31, 2005. +18. +All documents reflecting the names and addresses of other individuals +with whom you have had sexual activity from January 1, 2006 through November 30, +2008. +Plaintiff asserted the identical answer to each of the above stated interrogatories: +Response: +Plaintiff objects to this request as harassing and not reasonably calculated to lead to +discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, this interrogatory [sic] is outrageous, +offensive and is apparently posed for the purpose of intimidating the Plaintiff. Any +evidence that could conceivably be obtained through this request would not be +admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 412. Without waiving this objection, none to Plaintiff's +knowledge. +Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery Sought in 10, 11, 17, & 18 +Plaintiff does not make a relevancy objection, but instead claims that the +requests are "not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible +evidence," claiming that such "evidence ... would not be admissible under Fed.R.Evid. +412." Plaintiff further claims, without making any showing in her answer and without +moving for a protective order in accordance with Rule 26(c) and Local Gen. Rule 26.1 H +(S.D. Fla. 2008), that the interrogatory is "harassing,' "outrageous, offensive and is +apparently posed for the purpose of intimidating Plaintiff." See Defendant's Motion to +Compel directed to Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, +addressing identical discovery issues. Both Defendant's interrogatories and production + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 7 of 14 +Page No. 7 +requests seek information regarding Plaintiff's sexual conduct and history; Plaintiff +raised the same objections. +In each of her responses, Plaintiff also states that - "Without waiving this +objection, none to Plaintiff's knowledge." Plaintiff's response is evasive - either the +requested items exist or do not existed. Defendant is entitled to a better response +specifically indicating whether the items requested in each of the production requests +nos. 10, 11, 17, and 18 - (1) exist or do not exist; (2) are in the possession or control of +Plaintiff or some other person that Plaintiff is able to identify; and (3) why Plaintiff +qualifies her answer of "none" with the phrase "to Plaintiff's knowledge." (Did such +items exist and Plaintiff destroyed or deleted them?) +As to the relevance of the information sought, it is well settled that relevant +information is discoverable, even if not admissible at trial, so long as the discovery is +reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 26(b)(1), +Fed.R.Civ.P.; Donahay v. Palm Beach Tours & trans., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. +2007). Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, Rule 412 does not automatically result in a +determination that such sexual history and sexual activity/behavior information is never +admissible. In fact, written into the Rule are the procedures to follow in determining +when such information is admissible at trial. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule +412, Fed.R.Evid, makes clear that the procedures to determine admissibility of an +alleged victim's/plaintiff's sexual conduct or activity in civil cases does not apply to +discovery of such information. Rather, discoverability of such information is governed +by Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P., pursuant to which the scope of discovery is broad. Donahay, +supra, at 686, and cases cited therein. "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 8 of 14 +Page No. 8 +matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the claims or defense of any party involved in +the pending action." Id. +Rule 412, entitled "Sex Offense Cases; Relevance of Alleged Victim's Past +Sexual Behavior or Alleged Sexual Predisposition," provides in relevant part - +(a) Evidence generally inadmissible.--The following evidence is not admissible +in any cIvil .. +• proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct except as +provided in subdivisions (b) and (c): +(1) Evidence offered to prove that any alleged victim engaged in other sexual +behavior. +(2) Evidence offered to prove any alleged victim's sexual predisposition. +(b) Exceptions.- +* +* +* +* +(2) In a civil case, evidence offered to prove the sexual behavior or sexual +predisposition of any alleged victim is admissible if it is otherwise admissible +under these rules and its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of +harm to any victim and of unfair prejudice to any party. Evidence of an alleged +victim's reputation is admissible only if it has been placed in controversy by the +alleged victim. +(c) Procedure to determine admissibility.-- +(1) A party intending to offer evidence under subdivision (b) must— +(A) file a written motion at least 14 days before trial specifically describing +the evidence and stating the purpose for which it is offered unless the court, for +good cause requires a different time for filing or permits filing during trial; and +(B) serve the motion on all parties and notify the alleged victim or, when +appropriate, the alleged victim's guardian or representative. +(2) Before admitting evidence under this rule the court must conduct a +hearing in camera and afford the victim and parties a right to attend and be +heard. The motion, related papers, and the record of the hearing must be +sealed and remain under seal unless the court orders otherwise. +In confirming +that Rule 412 does not control the discoverability of such +information, the Advisory Committee Notes (1994 Amendments) state - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 9 of 14 +Page No. 9 +The procedures set forth in subdivision (c) do not apply to discovery of a +victim's past sexual conduct or predisposition in civil cases, which will be +continued to be governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. In order not to undermine the +governed by Fed. Predi +rationale of Rule 412, however, courts should enter appropriate orders pursuant +to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (c) to protect the victim against unwarranted inquiries and +to ensure confidentiality. Courts should presumptively issue protective orders +barring discovery unless the party seeking discovery makes a showing that +the evidence sought to be discovered would be relevant under the facts +and theories of the particular case, and cannot be obtained except +through discovery. In an action for sexual harassment, for instance, while +some evidence of the alleged victim's sexual behavior and/or predisposition in +the workplace mav perhaps be relevant, non-work place conduct will usually be +irrelevant. Cf. +v. McGregor Electronic Industries, Inc., 989 F.2d 959, 962- +63 (8th Cir. 1993) (posing for a nude magazine outside work hours is irrelevant +to issue of unwelcomeness of sexual advances at work). Confidentiality +orders should be presumptively granted as well. +(Emphasis added). +In accordance with Rule 412 and Rule 26, the discovery sought regarding any +photos, movies, dvds, and videotapes as described in requests nos. 10 and 11, and +Plaintiff's sexual activity with males, as described in nos. 17 and 18, including whether +she received any compensation or consideration therefore, are all relevant to Plaintiff's +damages claims and the type of injury she claims she has suffered. Defendant has no +other means of obtaining +such information and obtaining such information through +Plaintiff will better protect the confidentiality until the Court can make a determination in +accordance with the procedures under Rule 412(c) whether such information will be +admissible at trial. See Rule 412(c) quoted above. Defendant will agree to an order +keeping the confidentiality of the information obtained through discovery. +In her Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff attempts to allege claims in Count | +for "Sexual Assault and Battery," Count II for "Intentional Infliction of Emotional +Distress," and in Count Ill for "Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of +18 U.S.C.A. §2422," and seeks damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255(a). (Plaintiff + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 10 of 14 +Page No. 10 +alleges diversity of citizenship as a basis for this Court's jurisdiction. 2d Am. Complaint, +115). Counts I and Il are brought pursuant to state law. +In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges that "she has suffered and will continue to suffer +severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and emotional +damages," and "severe mental anguish and pain." She also seeks actual (Count III) +and compensatory damages for her alleged injuries. 2d Am. Complaint, 11122, 27-28, +34, and "Wherefore" clauses. In her answers to interrogatory no. 9, Plaintiff further +states that: +Plaintiff has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries, including +without limitation, corruption of morals, anxiety, intrusive thoughts, disturbed +sleep, impaired concentration, disruption and distortion of normal development, +loss of innocence. .... (Interrog. No. 9). +Plaintiff also alleges that " +a Palm Beach Community College +student," was a part of "Epstein's plan and scheme (which) reflected a particular pattern +and method" in the alleged recruiting of girl's to come to EPSTEIN's Palm Beach +mansion and give him "massages" in exchange for money. 21d Am. Complaint, 1111-13. +According to the complaint allegations - "Upon information and belief Epstein has a +sexual preference and obsession for underage minor girls." T9. The "girl would be led +up a flight of stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table... The girl would be +alone with EPSTEIN; "Epstein would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious and +sexual acts, including masturbation and touching the girl's vagina." 2° Am. Complaint, +T11, 12. Plaintiff alleges that "in 2002-2003," she, "then approximately 15 years old, fell +into Epstein's trap and became one of his victims." 79. Plaintiff alleges that she +"returned on many occasions to the Palm Beach mansion to provide Epstein with +massages." 1|14. Plaintiff further alleges that on these occasions "Epstein engaged in + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 11 of 14 +Page No. 11 +sexual contact and activity with minor Jane, which included, among other things, +directing Jane to remove all her clothes, masturbating during the massage, and digitally +penetrating Jane's vagina. ... This sexual abuse occurred for approximately three +years." 114. Plaintiff further alleges that "Epstein committed willful acts of child sexual +abuse" on her, which resulted in "mental or sexual injury," and "caused or likely to cause +Jane Doe's mental or emotional health to be significantly impaired." 2d Am. Complaint, +126. +The evidence sought is relevant based on the facts and theories of this action. +The items sought are clearly relevant to the injuries and damages claimed by +Plaintiff. The nature of her claimed injuries and damages are such that Defendant is +entitled to evidence which would show the nature of her relationship with males, +whether she has suffered other acts of sexual misconduct, including exploitation and +abuse, as alleged in her complaint, whether she suffered injury and damages as a result +of the other claimed sexual misconduct with males, and whether she has willingly or not +willingly engaged in sexual activity that has been photographed, or filmed by means of +movie, dvd or videotapes. +See United States v. Bear Stops, 997 F.2d 451 (8" Cir. +1993)(Defendant charged with sexual abuse of six year old boy was entitled to +admission of evidence relating to victim's sexual assault by 3 older boys to establish +alternative explanation for why victim exhibited behavioral manifestations of sexually +abused child.). +In further support of Defendant's motion, a copy of Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d +1076 (Fla. 5'" DCA 1997), rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998), is attached hereto as +Exhibit A as it is on point to the discovery issues in this action, and the relevancy and + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 12 of 14 +Page No. 12 +discoverability of Plaintiff's history of sexual activity and any payment, therefore. See +interrogatories 8, 22 and 30 propounded in the Balas case and footnote 1 herein. ' +Additionally and significantly, in other pending state court civil actions against Defendant +EPSTEIN attempting to assert similar claims and damages, the Circuit Court Judges +have already ruled that such information is discoverable as it is relevant to the damages +claims of Plaintiff. See Composite Exhibits B and C hereto. Composite Exhibit B +are the Orders, dated February 23, 2009, entered in the case of A.C. v. Epstein, and +, Case No. 502008CA025129 MB Al, 15" Judicial Circuit, In and For Palm Beach +County, State of Florida, which granted Defendant's motion to compel therein directed +to discovery identical to interrogatory no. 18 above, and to requests for production nos. +17 and 18 addressed below herein. (In the A.C. case, the Plaintiff answered without +objection interrogatories identical to nos. 19, 20, and 21 herein.) Composite Exhibit C +is a portion the transcript from a March 3, 2009 hearing on Defendant's motion to +compel discovery in the case of Jane Doe II v. Epstein, and +Case No. +502008CA020614 MB AF, 15" Judicial Circuit Court, In and For Palm Beach County, +State of Florida. Again, the Circuit Court Judge determined that the information sought +is relevant to the issue of damages and, thus, discoverable. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court enter an order granting +Defendant's motion to compel, overruling Plaintiff's objections, and compelling Plaintiff +be to produce the items sought and/or to better respond to the requests as specified +" In Balas v. Ruzzo, supra, the Plaintiffs alleged a multicount complaint including claims +for "coercion of prostitution" pursuant to §796.09, Fla. Stat.; for battery for the unwanted +and offensive touching of petitioners' bodies; false imprisonment for physically confining +the petitioners against their will; invasion of privacy; and intentional infliction of +emotional distress. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 13 of 14 +Page No. 13 +above. Defendant further requests that this Court award his attorney's fees and costs, +associated with this motion, in accordance with Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P., and applicable +Local Rules. +Rule 7.1 Certification +I hereby certify that counsel for the respective parties communicated by letters in +a good faith effort to resolve the discovery issues prior to the filing of this motion to +compel. Some of the issues were resolved. +Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Attorney for Defendant Epstein +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the +nanner specified by CM/ECF on this Ou-day of April, 2009 +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +By: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 14 of 14 +Page No. 14 +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2d66712e9161156e6c0406cb90a8887565193e326467188d35f0db26b4fe1ac.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2d66712e9161156e6c0406cb90a8887565193e326467188d35f0db26b4fe1ac.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..04f8860a6ce78a6c4761256bd1f2cd4cbce100dd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2d66712e9161156e6c0406cb90a8887565193e326467188d35f0db26b4fe1ac.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -390, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b2d66712e9161156e6c0406cb90a8887565193e326467188d35f0db26b4fe1ac", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 15, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0f01d58c289f4d3b26cccadcd5d81fbf3796bb0c60703220e68d7d5a7a9c5600", + "output_sha256": "23aaff15b663da0ad049f6625d03d337d9043254f1ac8a5dc5e74e26643afedf", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2df85d41d4b2491ce844136deedd487d388dea8b672f53334ef53329cddab66.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2df85d41d4b2491ce844136deedd487d388dea8b672f53334ef53329cddab66.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b14ffbe35cd1f971cf561919ed67f31d273a0ab9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2df85d41d4b2491ce844136deedd487d388dea8b672f53334ef53329cddab66.md @@ -0,0 +1,107 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2009 Page 2 of 4 +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/L_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/_ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2009 Page 3 of 4 +Defendants. +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09- 80469-CIV-MARRA +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09- 80591-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102 +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09- 80656-CIV-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +ORDER REQUESTING THE UNITED STATES TO PROVIDE ITS POSITION +REGARDING DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO STAY/CONTINUE THE CIVIL +CASES PENDING AGAINST HIM +THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the motions filed in several cases by Defendant +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2009 Page 4 of 4 +Jeffrey Epstein to Stay and/or Continue the Action for Time Certain Based on Parallel Civil and +Criminal Proceedings. See, e.g., docket entry 51 in C.M.A. v. Epstein and +, case no. 08- +80811 (attached). Epstein moves for a stay until the expiration of the Non-Prosecution +Agreement ("NPA") with the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) because, he claims, the +USAO has taken the position that he is violating the NPA by defending the civil actions filed +against him. Therefore, he argues that he cannot defend the civil actions without subjecting +himself to criminal prosecution. +While the Court recognizes that the United States is not a party to these actions and is not +obligated to comment on this matter, the position of the United States would greatly assist the +Court in resolving the merits of these motions to continue/stay the case. Accordingly, the Court +requests that the United States provide its position on the matter. The Court would appreciate the +governments position within 15 days if possible. If the United States is unwilling to state its +position, the Court would also appreciate being so advised. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +Florida, this 14" day of May, 2009 +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies furnished to: +all counsel of record +Ann +Villafana +4 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2df85d41d4b2491ce844136deedd487d388dea8b672f53334ef53329cddab66.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2df85d41d4b2491ce844136deedd487d388dea8b672f53334ef53329cddab66.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2ff580629ebab1ce24eccca19db520420a63453c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2df85d41d4b2491ce844136deedd487d388dea8b672f53334ef53329cddab66.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b2df85d41d4b2491ce844136deedd487d388dea8b672f53334ef53329cddab66", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "d73c01a7e70f87d806586ebd0e27f2d9ce38611bd4841ee2f20590cfee470b6f", + "output_sha256": "c9574176a06b8c4a326417d0429b379f12e8939dd120c200fefc1f86d6a1a0fe", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2efd30eb101ac2d52f38a0b2628d6031d2086cf9bfdb74f2e27fd2b9fb40b0b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2efd30eb101ac2d52f38a0b2628d6031d2086cf9bfdb74f2e27fd2b9fb40b0b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6bcebbec523cb798e6142dc67ac52adedbc88b4a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2efd30eb101ac2d52f38a0b2628d6031d2086cf9bfdb74f2e27fd2b9fb40b0b.md @@ -0,0 +1,134 @@ +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 19-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/, +JANE DOES #1 and #2 +V. +UNITED STATES +/ +STIPULATION +The parties to this action, petitioners Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, and the +respondent United States of America, by and through their undersigned counsel, do +hereby stipulate and agree that the following facts are true and correct and that no further +evidentiary hearing is required with respect to the pending "Victim's Emergency Petition +for Enforcement of Crime Victim Right Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. +In 2006, at the request of the Palm Beach Police Department, the Federal +Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") opened an investigation into allegations that Jeffrey +Epstein ("Epstein") and his personal assistants had used facilities of interstate commerce +to induce young girls between the ages of thirteen and seventeen to engage in +prostitution, amongst other offenses. +The case was presented to the United States +Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, which accepted the case for +investigation. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 19-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 2 of 6 +At the time that the investigation was opened, the Palm Beach County State +Attorney's Office had presented evidence to a state grand jury, which had returned an +indictment charging solicitation of prostitution. That charge made no reference to the +ages of the minor victims and, upon conviction, would not require sex offender +registration. +Jane Doe #1 is a woman with initials C.W., and Jane Doe #2 is a woman +with initials T.M. Both were victims of Epstein's while they were minors beginning when they +were fifteen years old. Both Jane Does were identified through the Palm Beach Police +Department's investigation of Epstein. +Attached as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4 to the Declaration of A., +Villafaña +are true and correct copies of victim notification letters sent to Jane Does 1 and 2 from +the United States Attorney's Office and the FBI. +Throughout the investigation, the FBI agents and the Assistant U.S. +Attorney had several meetings with Jane Doe #1. During those meetings, Jane Doe #1 +never expressed a desire to be consulted prior to the resolution of the investigation. Jane +Doe #2 was represented by counsel and, accordingly, all contact was made through that +attorney. That attorney never expressed that Jane Doe #2 wanted to be consulted prior to +the resolution of the investigation. +In September 2007, Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office reached an +agreement whereby the United States would defer federal prosecution in favor of + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 19-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 3 of 6 +prosecution by the State of Florida, so long as certain basic preconditions were met. +Those included a conviction on a state sex offense that reflected that the victims were +minors at the time the crimes occurred and that would require sex offender registration. +Another key objective for the United States Attorney's Office was to preserve a federal +remedy for the young girls whom Epstein had sexually exploited. The Agreement +contained an express confidentiality provision. The Agreement was subsequently +modified in October and December 2007. +Although individual victims were not consulted regarding the agreement, +several had expressed concerns regarding the exposure of their identities at trial and they +desired a prompt resolution of the matter. At the time the agreement and the +modifications were signed in September, October, and December 2007, Jane Doe #2 was +openly hostile to the prosecution of Epstein. +In October 2007, shortly after the initial agreement was signed, Jane Doe +#1 was contacted to be advised regarding the resolution of the investigation. On October +26, 2007, Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards met in person with +Jane Doe #1. The Special Agents explained that the investigation had been resolved, that +Epstein would plead guilty to state charges, he would be required to register as a sex +offender for life, and he had made certain concessions related to the payment of damages +to the victims, including Jane Doe #1. During this meeting, Jane Doe #1 did not raise any +objections to the resolution of the matter. + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 19-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 4 of 6 +Jane Doe #I's perception of the explanation provided by the Special Agents +was that only the State part of the Epstein investigation had been resolved, and that the +federal investigation would continue, possibly leading to a federal prosecution. +10. +When Epstein's attorneys learned that some of the victims had been +notified, they complained that the victims were receiving an incentive to overstate their +involvement with Epstein in order to increase their damages claims. Following the +signing of the Agreement and the modifications thereto, Epstein's performance was +delayed while he sought higher level review within the Department of Justice. +Throughout that period, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office maintained contact with +the victims, to be prepared if Epstein were to renege on the agreement. +11. +After Jane Doe #1 had been notified of the terms of the agreement, but +before Epstein performed his obligations, Jane Doe #1 contacted the FBI because +Epstein's counsel was attempting to take her deposition and private investigators were +harassing her. Assistant U.S. Attorney A. +Villafaña secured pro bono counsel to +represent Jane Doe #1 and several other identified victims in connection with the criminal +investigation. Pro bono counsel was able to assist Jane Doe #1 in avoiding the improper +deposition. +12. +In mid-June 2008, Attorney | +her that he represented Jane Doe #1 and, later, Jane Doe #2. Attorney | +I contacted AUSA Villafaña to inform +asked to + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 19-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 5 of 6 +meet to provide information regarding Epstein. Attorney +was asked to send any +information that he wanted considered, but did not send anything. +13. +On Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximately 4:15 p.m., AUSA Villafaña +received a copy of Epstein's proposed state plea agreement and learned that the plea was +scheduled for 8:30 a.m., Monday, June 30, 2008. AUSA Villafaña and the Palm Beach +Police Department attempted to provide notification to victims in the short time that +Epstein's counsel had provided. Attorney +was called to provide notice to his +clients regarding the hearing. +14. +On July 9, 2008, AUSA Villafaña sent a victim notification to Jane Doe #1 +I which is attached as Exhibit 6 to the Villafaña +via her attorney, +Declaration. That notification contains a written explanation of the full terms of the +agreement between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office. A notification was not +provided to Jane Doe #2 because the agreement limited Epstein's liability to victims +whom the United States was prepared to name in an indictment. +SO STIPULATED AND AGREED. +Dated: +2 +, ESQ. +Attorney for Petitioners Jane Does #1 & +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 19-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 6 of 6 +Dated: +By: +LEE +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY DEXTER +Attorney for Respondent United States diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2efd30eb101ac2d52f38a0b2628d6031d2086cf9bfdb74f2e27fd2b9fb40b0b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2efd30eb101ac2d52f38a0b2628d6031d2086cf9bfdb74f2e27fd2b9fb40b0b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..97c5b45de8348ad2a199f49a0f44747b1d44ffbd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2efd30eb101ac2d52f38a0b2628d6031d2086cf9bfdb74f2e27fd2b9fb40b0b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b2efd30eb101ac2d52f38a0b2628d6031d2086cf9bfdb74f2e27fd2b9fb40b0b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "668e8516a12b9be8a916233d583b75003b3af6f6e86596bc6f21ff3f1e90ead9", + "output_sha256": "6b151fcbd801287ced5b892aea350b7bb73f7281a4185def4c67e753dc1afcdd", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2f0881dd35aadb5a7db155c4a5e65ef6e47aa4f45c0cd3881c9ed626e64c4f0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2f0881dd35aadb5a7db155c4a5e65ef6e47aa4f45c0cd3881c9ed626e64c4f0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5b39b020c9d15c7dc01d275c28fe50f4a8017aba --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2f0881dd35aadb5a7db155c4a5e65ef6e47aa4f45c0cd3881c9ed626e64c4f0.md @@ -0,0 +1,173 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 288 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/J +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +JOINT UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION +OF TIME IN WHICH TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S MOTIONS +TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST TO PRODUCE, ANSWERS TO +REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, AND ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Plaintiff, JANE DOE, by and through their +undersigned counsel move this Court for an Extension of Time until September 11, 2009, +to file Responses to Plaintiff Jane Doe's Motions to Compel Responses to Request to +Produce, Answers to Request for Admissions, and Answers to Interrogatories, pursuant to +Local Rule 7.1 A.1()(S.D. Fla. 2008). As good cause for the requested extension, +Defendant states: +Brad +Counsel for the Plaintiff, is currently recovering from +a surgical procedure. Mr. +is scheduled to return to the office on Tuesday, +September 8, 2009. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 288 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2009 Page 2 of 4 +2. +Mr. +and the undersigned have agreed to review the above +Motions in an effort to determine whether any of the issues therein are covered by the +Court's Order on other 5'h Amendment Privilege issues (DE 242). +3. +The undersigned counsel has spoken with Brad +law partner, +William Berger, and each party has agreed to the extension of time until September 11, +2009. +4. +While the undersigned lawyers are attempting to resolve certain issues in +the above motions to conserve on judicial resources, no admissions are being made in this +Motion and no arguments are being abandoned. +Rule 7.1 A.3 Certification of Pre-Filing Conference +Counsel for Defendant conferred with Counsel for Plaintiff by telephone and/or +electronic mail, and Counsel for Plaintiff is in agreement with +ine requested extension. +By: +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed +vith the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document i +eing served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List i +the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 31d day of September, 2009 +Respectfully solomitted, +By: +CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 288 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2009 Page 3 of 4 +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Brad +Bothstein Rosentelat Adler +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Suite 1650 +'ort Lauderdale, FL 3330 +hone: 954-522-345 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +bedwards@rra-law.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +08-80994 +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Richard H. Willits, P.A +801-585-5202 +2290 10t* Avenue North +801-585-6833 Fax +Suite 404 +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Isidro M. +_ Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +Law Firm, P.A. +08-80811 +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +Jack Scarola, Esq. +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 288 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2009 Page 4 of 4 +Jack P. +LEsq. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, +08-80469 +P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +561-686-6300 +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +Fax: 561-383-9424 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +isx@searcylaw.com +Miami, FL 33130 +jph@searcylaw.com +305 358-2800 +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A +Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ect@brucereinhartiaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2f0881dd35aadb5a7db155c4a5e65ef6e47aa4f45c0cd3881c9ed626e64c4f0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2f0881dd35aadb5a7db155c4a5e65ef6e47aa4f45c0cd3881c9ed626e64c4f0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aeb148c147cba616a14df94d8ca348a4be0fd7c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2f0881dd35aadb5a7db155c4a5e65ef6e47aa4f45c0cd3881c9ed626e64c4f0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -49, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b2f0881dd35aadb5a7db155c4a5e65ef6e47aa4f45c0cd3881c9ed626e64c4f0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "6db4b20039fe7c759d2ec1da66596dab6cd8bd3915c59cc35ac95864610ddc17", + "output_sha256": "6a2d736e3dbaaa46cf1b9fea61dc18ed63983f63928ae55bb24d04b33395e2f8", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2fb8887d380dbb9a929909f4228a0dcd1374cc89886546322b94617d88816b1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2fb8887d380dbb9a929909f4228a0dcd1374cc89886546322b94617d88816b1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..115330bc141e1f372f86915c9c949eb2a6cb90bf --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2fb8887d380dbb9a929909f4228a0dcd1374cc89886546322b94617d88816b1.md @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@ +NMC +Case 9:08-PYALM BEAcH COUNTY SHERIFFSS +Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/2008 Page 1 of 1 +ORIGINAL RETURN +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +FLORIDA +Court +US DISTRICT +Case # +FL/EPSTEIN +SUMMONS & COPY & COPY OF COMPLAINT +(CASE NO. 08-CV-80994) +PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE +STOCKADE +673 FAIRGROUNDS RD +WEST PALM BEACH, FL +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN PA +18205 BISCAYNE BL STE 2218 +MIAMI FL 33160 +PLAINTIFF +JANE DOE NO 6 +DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN +SERVICE $ +CHECK +COST +20.00 +16077 +PD +DAN "X-10 +AT: 12:05:19 pm +Received this writ sp the +22nd +_ Day of +person at_/22 +_AME on the +day of Se eptember +A.D.20 +08 +_ and served the same on the within named +A.D. 2co/ in Palm Beach County Florida, a true copy of this Writ, endorsed thereon by +me, * with a copy of the Complaint, Petition, Or other Pleadings (*not applicable to service of Subpoena.) +9 INDIVIDUAL SERVICE +• SERVICE TO PERSON IN REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY / designated recipient of process/records custodian/parent or guardian of a minor, to wit: +as +(name) +(capacity) +• SUBSTITUTE SERVICE at usual place of abode with any person residing therein who is 15 years of age or older and informing the person of their contents, +(name) +(relationship) +• CORPORATE SERVICE +To +To +To +or registered agent: date +time +holding corporate office of. +_ as registered agent of said corporation. +as employee of said corporation, due to failure to comply with F.S. 48.091. Attempts to serve officer +_ date +time +0 +SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP (DIA) +To +To +as owner. +as manager. Attempts to serve owner at place of business: date +date +time +time +• PARTNERSHIP +To +as partner. +To +_ as designated employee or agent for service. +POSTING by attaching a copy to a conspicuous place on the property described by the complaint or summons. If applicable: +Attempts to serve resident/tenant in action for possession: date _ +Posted per map, property description: +time +NON-SERVICE: Person notified +_ date +time +. (See remarks below.) +SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION +Ric L. Bradshaw +By +2>41 +Sheriff of Palm Beach County. Florida +Note: Only that service indicated by the X is applicable to this retum - all other portions should not be considered. +ORIGINAL COPY diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2fb8887d380dbb9a929909f4228a0dcd1374cc89886546322b94617d88816b1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2fb8887d380dbb9a929909f4228a0dcd1374cc89886546322b94617d88816b1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..28a260812efed39c2166224954f04709608ef56a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2fb8887d380dbb9a929909f4228a0dcd1374cc89886546322b94617d88816b1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b2fb8887d380dbb9a929909f4228a0dcd1374cc89886546322b94617d88816b1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ed91b5eb4481a7c651606e4a76ca2b5899094aae1089eb3440ea42fa074052cb", + "output_sha256": "495bca19e192c220cde57a0141fbc0005abe896dd3797b8aa08a2d289943865e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2fe1b93fc8819603803bfa03624d493877479057fcc98047a66a95acc9fce9b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2fe1b93fc8819603803bfa03624d493877479057fcc98047a66a95acc9fce9b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..566e4cc1a8c029f764259bb649ceda26e0f565c2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2fe1b93fc8819603803bfa03624d493877479057fcc98047a66a95acc9fce9b.md @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 9-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +[PROPOSED| ORDER +Upon Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment Upon Default and Order Setting Hearing on Damages, +and good cause being shown it is hereby +ORDERED that +A hearing before a jury to assess damages shall be held on +Upon determination by the jury of the amount of damages, judgment shall be entered +for the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, for the amounts assessed by the jury and +for costs of suit, without further hearing or order of this Court. +DONE AND ORDERED in +in Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this +_day of +- 2008. +DISTRICT COURT JUDGE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2fe1b93fc8819603803bfa03624d493877479057fcc98047a66a95acc9fce9b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2fe1b93fc8819603803bfa03624d493877479057fcc98047a66a95acc9fce9b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bb7adbacee35e2bcc4e97ed4a87c67fb4569530a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2fe1b93fc8819603803bfa03624d493877479057fcc98047a66a95acc9fce9b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b2fe1b93fc8819603803bfa03624d493877479057fcc98047a66a95acc9fce9b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "bdeea817b75096c79270ffd8561c1b39f152d3c822f4ff364e8329bab9856c0e", + "output_sha256": "aabbbc7dea7d068ca5ee6563b2e377fbdc1ad6392af1228fe0dbe20872236d23", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2febcf6e22f579a30ad75bf2683c5fda6579047ea7eb1d04a07e7265a8b5a80.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2febcf6e22f579a30ad75bf2683c5fda6579047ea7eb1d04a07e7265a8b5a80.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c239279541bdcdd65e00a0a3d9101cc60e700e49 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2febcf6e22f579a30ad75bf2683c5fda6579047ea7eb1d04a07e7265a8b5a80.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 31-1 +• Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2010 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80802-MARRA-1 +JANE DOE NO. 8 +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE +THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the parties' Stipulation of Dismissal with +Prejudice [DE_], filed June , 2010. The Court has reviewed the Stipulation, the +pertinent portions of the record, and is otherwise advised in the premises. +accordance with the parties' Stipulation, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: +1. The above-styled action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. +2. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. +3. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' +settlement. +4. The Clerk shall CLOSE THIS CASE. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Florida this +_ day +of June, 2010. +KENNETH A. MARRA +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +Copies Furnished to: +All Counsel of Record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2febcf6e22f579a30ad75bf2683c5fda6579047ea7eb1d04a07e7265a8b5a80.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2febcf6e22f579a30ad75bf2683c5fda6579047ea7eb1d04a07e7265a8b5a80.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..592f849604940abbbeb0391297c00537d8132040 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b2febcf6e22f579a30ad75bf2683c5fda6579047ea7eb1d04a07e7265a8b5a80.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b2febcf6e22f579a30ad75bf2683c5fda6579047ea7eb1d04a07e7265a8b5a80", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ea3b5f9d1a143a92d8678bc61d9bab1881159192d77ebf75aa610475bf86f4cc", + "output_sha256": "153db40c36d9041d5f2ed31842de179c471c0dd859e96a7cacf3645c233bdedc", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3035d501ef64234b84bb1bb15ca310b4b46b65c52b317e5039819984181b9cc.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3035d501ef64234b84bb1bb15ca310b4b46b65c52b317e5039819984181b9cc.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3b54ad99790f37ccc1e89514528ec09e58425517 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3035d501ef64234b84bb1bb15ca310b4b46b65c52b317e5039819984181b9cc.md @@ -0,0 +1,137 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff +CASENO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08080119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, +08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +NON-PARTY, JEAN LUC BRUHNEL'S RESPONSETO PLAINTIFF +JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR +AN ORDER TO COMPEL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Non-party Jean Luc Bruhnel hereby files his Response to Plaintiff, Jane Doe's Motion +for an Order to Show Cause and for an Order to Compel and Incorporated Memorandum of Law +which was filed on March 10, 2010. (DE#483). Plaintiff's counsel seeks to compel Mr. Bruhnel, +| citizen who is not a party to the instant action, to sit for a deposition that was canceled +and for which he has never been re-noticed. This motion is premature at best, and frivolous. +While visiting New York, Mr. Bruhnel was served with a Subpoena and Notice of +Videotape Deposition in this matter.' As a courtesy, undersigned counsel for Mr. Bruhnel +' Please see Exhibit A, annexed hereto and incorporated by reference. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 2 of 6 +agreed to produce Mr. Bruhnel for deposition in Florida on November 3, 2010 for the +convenience of the parties because Mr. Bruhnel had plans to travel to Florida at that time. The +videotape deposition was accordingly canceled. Two new deposition notices were then e-mailed +to counsel for Bruhnel, both of which emanated from related cases in Florida Circuit Court, with +no additional notice emanating from the instant matter before this Court. ^ That scheduled +deposition was then canceled by agreement of the parties, who mutually agreed that plaintiff's +counsel's secretary would call counsel for Mr. Bruhnel to reset the deposition. +Neither plaintiff's counsel nor his secretary called to reschedule the deposition until +January, 2010. In the intervening time, all depositions in the myriad related matters had been +canceled, upon information and belief, due to the scandal involving plaintiff's counsel's previous +law partner. Further, Mr. Bruhnel had left the United States with no firm plan to return, which +was conveyed to plaintiff's counsel during a telephone conversation in January. +Mr. Bruhnel's counsel attempted to secure firm dates on which Mr. Bruhnel would be +traveling to the United States, but was unable to do so. Undersigned counsel accordingly +informed planitiff's counsel that she could not secure any firm dates. When plaintiff's counsel +insisted that Mr. Bruhnel provide deposition dates, plaintiff's counsel was informed that Mr. +Bruhnel could not be compelled to return to the United States. Undersigned counsel told +plaintiff's counsel that there were appropriate mechanisms through which he could secure Mr. +2 Please see Exhibit B, annexed hereto and incorporated by reference. +-2- + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 3 of 6 +Bruhnel's testimony abroad pursuant to Florida, Federal and International law. Indeed, +undersigned counsel directed plaintiff's counsel to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the +Hague Convention, each of which provide specific mechanisms for the securing of testimony +abroad. +Plaintiff's counsel has never served Mr. Bruhnel or undersigned counsel with a re-notice +for deposition since the cancellation of the prior scheduled depositions, and has never attempted +to avail himself of proper legal procedures to secure Mr. Bruhnel's testimony abroad. Further, +contrary to plaintiff's counsel's Certification to this court, plaintiff's counsel never conferred +with undersigned counsel for Mr. Bruhnel regarding the instant Order to Show Cause and for an +Order to Compel. +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +As stated above, the previously scheduled depositions were canceled by agreement of the +parties herein and Mr. Bruhnel has never been re-noticed for deposition. The motion currently +before the court is therefore premature and frivolous. Regardless, it is respectfully noted that the +Court lacks authority to compel Mr. Bruhnel to return to the United States for deposition. +Indeed, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically decline to confer upon the Court the +power to compel foreign nationals to appear before it. See Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 45, 28 USC +$ 1783. +The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the Hague Convention, however, have each +-3- + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 4 of 6 +adopted procedural rules to facilitate the deposition of a non-party foreign national. Indeed, The +Uniform Foreign Depositions Act, as adopted by Florida in section 92.251 ("UFDL") provides +a road map for litigants seeking to secure evidence from foreign non-party witnesses, stating: +(2) Whenever any mandate, writ or commission is issued out of any court of record in any +other state, territory, district, or foreign jurisdiction, or whenever upon notice or +agreement it is required to take the testimony of a witness or witnesses in this state, +witnesses may be compelled to appear and testify in the same manner and by the same +process and proceeding as may be employed for the purposes of taking testimony in +proceedings pending in this state. +§ 92.251 Florida statutes. +Thus, whenever a Florida litigant desires to depose a witness residing in another state, +that litigant must first secure the appointment of a commissioner from the court where the +litigation originates. See Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 507 So.2d 1180 (Fla 2" DCA 1987), at 1183. +The foreign litigant may then apply to the court having personal jurisdiction over the witness for +the process necessary to secure the attendance of the witness. Id. (citing Travelers Indem. Co. v. +. 388 So.2d 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)). See Greenlight Financial Services, Inc. v. Union +America Mortg., Inc., 971 So.2d 983 (Fla. 3" DCA 2008). This may be done through mechanisms +provided via The Hague Convention, to which France is a signatory. Given that several cases are +currently pending in Florida Circuit Court that are related to the instant matter, plaintiff may +avail herself of this mechanism to secure Mr. Bruhnel's testimony, but has chosen not to. +Accordingly, there has been no malfeasance herein by Mr. Bruhnel or his counsel, only +nonfeasance by plaintiff's counsel. +-4- + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 5 of 6 +Plaintiff's counsel has misrepresented to this court that he spoke to Mr. Bruhnel's +counsel about this motion prior to filing it with the Court. Undersigned counsel for Mr. Bruhnel +was never notified in any manner that any such motion was being prepared or filed. +Plaintiff's counsel has further misrepresented to this Court that undersigned counsel for +Mr. Bruhnel stated that Mr. Bruhnel, "has been out of this country since prior to the New Year +with no plans to return." In fact, undersigned counsel has consistently told Plaintiff's counsel +that she was unaware of Mr. Bruhnel's travel schedule and that she did not know when Mr. +Bruhnel planned to return to this country. +WHEREFORE, JEAN LUC BRUHNEL, a non-party to the instant matter, and +undersigned counsel for Mr. Bruhnel, respectfully request that the Court DENY plaintiff's +Motion for an Order to Show Cause and an Order to Compel in its entirety. Mr. Bruhnel and +undersigned counsel further respectfully request that the Court impose sanctions and attorney's +fees incurred in the defense of Plaintiff's frivolous motion, and for whatever further relief this +Court deems appropriate. +Dated: March 12, 2010 +Respectfully submitted, +TAMA BETH KUDMAN, P.A. +Attorney for Non-Party Witness, Jean Luc Bruhnel +777 South Flagler Drive +Suite 800 - West Tower +-5- + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 6 of 6 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 515-6032 +Fax: +(561) 828-0210 +E-mail: Tama@tkudmanlaw.com +By: s/ Tama Beth Kudman +TAMA BETH KUDMAN +Fla. Bar No.: 0637432 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on March 12, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document +with the clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day on all parties identified via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated +by CM/ECF. +-6- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3035d501ef64234b84bb1bb15ca310b4b46b65c52b317e5039819984181b9cc.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3035d501ef64234b84bb1bb15ca310b4b46b65c52b317e5039819984181b9cc.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8c3870a2dbcdf3e8a6c658f1c03070d716627b4c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3035d501ef64234b84bb1bb15ca310b4b46b65c52b317e5039819984181b9cc.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b3035d501ef64234b84bb1bb15ca310b4b46b65c52b317e5039819984181b9cc", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "1fac34c40b00ba4df21fc0d63c3473d8ec48a3e04dd23803d92f9d3374ad532c", + "output_sha256": "771d8fcc088e3e8daf15efd879d9b87a33a516e2fbcdc437d93d6df1870fde93", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3392f3db158a95ceb072333a5e2b15102b4dd3575cd0a7ecbd390a3df03d043.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3392f3db158a95ceb072333a5e2b15102b4dd3575cd0a7ecbd390a3df03d043.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e29339b26a9d8c0385050f4dafc3108ddaf7e4cf --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3392f3db158a95ceb072333a5e2b15102b4dd3575cd0a7ecbd390a3df03d043.md @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@ +. Case 9:08-CV-80380-KAM Document 29 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2008 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +08 JULY +PM 12: 24 +FILEO BY. +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +0. C. +FILED EX PARTE +UNDER SEAL +DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO FILE EX PARTE AND UNDER SEAL + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2008 Page 2 of 4 +Pursuant to S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.4, defendant Jeffrey Epstein hereby moves to +file his Notice of Continued Pendency of Federal Criminal Action, as well as this +motion, ex parte and under seal, stating as follows: +1. +In support of his motion to stay [DE 13], defendant has herewith filed +a Notice of Continued Pendency of Federal Criminal Action. +The Notice relates to a confidential agreement between the United +States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida and the defendant. +3. +The information contained in the Notice is material to this Court's +consideration of Epstein's motion to stay. +To avoid disclosure of confidential material, Epstein requests leave to +file the Notice, and this motion, ex parte and under seal. +Pending a ruling from this Court, Epstein has not served this motion +or the Notice on counsel for plaintiff. +2 + + +. Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2008 Page 3 of 4 +WHEREFORE, defendant Jeffrey Epstein respectfully requests leave to file this +motion and his Notice of Continued Pendency of Federal Criminal Action, ex parte +and under seal. +Respectfully submitted, +TEIN, P.L. +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 +i Milite. +: 305 442 6 744 +By:_ +GUY A. +Fla. Bar No. 623740 +MICHAEL R. TEIN +Fla. Bar No. 993522 +tein@lewistein.com +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Tel. 561 659 8300 Fax. 561 835 8691 +By: JACK A. GOLDBERGER +Fla. Bar No. 262013 +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +3 + + +... Case 9:08-CV-80380-KAM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2008 Page 4 of 4 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that this motion, in accordance with S.D. Fla. L.R. +5.4, has not been served on opposing counsel and was filed under seal on July 10, +2008. +Millie: +Michael R. Tein +4 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3392f3db158a95ceb072333a5e2b15102b4dd3575cd0a7ecbd390a3df03d043.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3392f3db158a95ceb072333a5e2b15102b4dd3575cd0a7ecbd390a3df03d043.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dcf8e84c3be2b67e0af3e790ddb4e50f2708bab3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3392f3db158a95ceb072333a5e2b15102b4dd3575cd0a7ecbd390a3df03d043.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b3392f3db158a95ceb072333a5e2b15102b4dd3575cd0a7ecbd390a3df03d043", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "123f1c18a96387d85dc380b0faed3d7a4a47b97ba06428a910d6603aa98ee02a", + "output_sha256": "5f132ce24268838b173ba327a5478eeb9cc9bae4489d3e28fc8e69b3d75eaa7a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b33af35f321c2a1c2529f980481b9775b1732f41ad374ba2b29f9abddedcc838.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b33af35f321c2a1c2529f980481b9775b1732f41ad374ba2b29f9abddedcc838.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..045ee66b95f8b8fb30c45e56ecee1e0d187c8c7d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b33af35f321c2a1c2529f980481b9775b1732f41ad374ba2b29f9abddedcc838.md @@ -0,0 +1,531 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 310-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 1 of 20 + +Jane Doe #2 +V. +Jeffrey Epstein +AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD C.W. M.D. +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF SEMINOLE +c.W._ +On this day personally appeared before me, the undersigned authority, Richard +M.D., who, being by me first duly sworn under oath deposes and says: +1. +My name is Richard C.W. +7. M.D. I am over the age of majority, and make +this affidavit and declaration upon the basis of personal knowledge of the factual matters +contained herein. +2. +I have maintained a private practice in psychiatry and forensic psychiatry +since 1996. +3. +I, also, currently serve as a Courtesy Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the +University of Florida, College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida; Affiliate Professor, Deptof +Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, University of South Florida; and Professor of +Psychiatry, Department of Medical Education, University of Central Florida College +Medicine. +4. +I received my undergraduate degree from the Johns I +1| University and +medical degree from the University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 310-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 2 of 20 +Document 247-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 2 of 20 +I served as a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy, where I +researched and evaluated biological and neurochemical factors associated with the onset of +psychiatric disorders and served as a representative to the Joint Services Task Force +planning Operation Homecoming, the return of POW's from Vietnam. +Thave previously served as an assistant clinical professor at the University of +South Florida College of Medicine, directed one of the ten model mental health centers in +the United States, and served as a medical consultant to the Kennedy Space Center. +I am a former member of the academic faculty at the University of Texas, in +Houston, Texas where I served as Assistant Professor and then Associate Professor of +Psychiatry and Internal Medicine, Director of Clinical Research, Director of Residency +Training, Chief of the Consultation/Liaison Service, and Chief Psychiatrist at the M.D. +Cancer Hospital in Houston. +8. +I, also, have served as a Professor of Internal Medicine and Psychiatry at the +Medical College of Wisconsin where I was appointed Chief of Psychiatry at the Milwaukee +County and Froedtert Hospitals. +9. +and Associate I +In addition, I have served as a Professor of Psychiatry and Internal Medicine +at the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, Memphis. +10. +The amended complaint filed by Jane Doe #2 against Jeffrey Epstein makes +sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon a minor and seek damages in excess +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 310-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 3 of 20 +Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 3 of 20 +of $50 million. Jane Doe #2 alleges confusion, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, and +severe psychological and emotional injuries. It is further alleged that she suffered, and will +continue to suffer, +severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, +psychological, and emotional damages. +1l. +She alleges the intentional infliction of emotional distress and that Mr. +Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress, severe mental anguish and pain. +12. +She further alleges that she has suffered personal injury including mental, +psychological and emotional damage. +13. +Plaintiff's counsel has retained an expert witness, Dr. Kliman of the +Psychological Trauma Center, a division of Preventative Psychiatry Associates Medical +Group, Inc., of San Francisco, California, of which Gilbert W. Kliman, MD, is the medical +director. Dr. Kliman's initial records indicate the following concerning Jane Doe #2. +14. The records available in this case at this time show that during the winter of +2003, plaintiff spent approximately one hour in defendant's house and 30-45 minutes alone +with the defendant (Page 11, interrogatories). She denied that she was suffering from any +physical infirmity, disability, disease, sickness, or psychiatric/psychological condition at the +time of the incident (Answers to defendant's first interrogatories, page 7). +15. +Plaintiff reports that she moved repetitively during her childhood. She +reports she was born in Buffalo, New York; lived there until one year, family then moved +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 310-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 4 of 20 +Document 247-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 4 of 20 +to Florida, a long process of moving back and forth twice to Virginia, twice to Florida, once +to Tennessee (Page 1, transcript 12/4/08). "I was moving from Buffalo to Florida, then +seven years in Florida til fourth grade til seventh grade in Virginia, then eighth to graduate +high school, I was back in Florida, West Palm Beach, | +Palm Beach High School. Then +after high school, I moved back to Virginia myself because I knew my parents were moving +to Tennessee and I didn't want to. My friends were in Virginia. Virginia for two years, then +Midlothian, Virginia for two years..." (Page 2, transcript 12/4/08). +16. +Plaintiff reports that she currently has a good relationship with her boyfriend +and that she is living with two other couples in a house in Richmond. "I am hanging out +and having fun ..." "Now I am having more fun, bike riding with boyfriend and +roommates and half pipe skateyard ramp in back yard, not just staying in the house, which +I do if I am not working." (Page 2, transcript) +17. Plaintiff reports that her mom and dad were always talking about her, +putting pressure on her, "so I shut myself away from the world." "I asked them if they +want me to fail in Virginia and come home... I don't want to give them the satisfaction." +"My family argues too much. It gives me headaches. (Page 2, transcript) +18. +Prior to her meeting Mr. Epstein, she reports, "My family made me the +person I am, not being paid attention to... " (Page 2, transcript). +19. +Plaintiff reports that prior to seeing Mr. Epstein, +the friend who took +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 310-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 5 of 20 +Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 5 of 20 +her, told her that she would be giving massages for money, didn't need experience, and +told her to lie about her age. She reports that she was 17+ at the time, but it was clear that +she had to be 18. "She said if anybody asks, you have to be 18." (Page 4, transcript) "TII +vouch for you that you are 18" (Page 4, transcript). +20. +She reports she didn't advise her mother or her boyfriend of any distress +(Pages 4 and 5, transcript). She notes that her parents divorced when she was three years +of age. "I didn't have a father figure and this guy comes into my life and is totally weird +and I had nobody to tell that to." (Page 6, transcript) +21. +She reports that her father struck her little brothers and that her father had +assaulted her mother and her stepfather then assaulted her father (Page 6, transcript). She +notes that her stepfather was "a little violent with my mom. He had three kids of his own +and mom had four and our whole life was whose kids did what, which were good and +which were bad. It was so annoying ... and he would get mad at me for random things, +like if I told my sister something, he told me not to. He would spank me... and smack me +across the face and kicked me out of the house when I was 17. This was before the Epstein +thing, when I was about 16, almost 17, and then Epstein, when I was about to be 18" (Page +6, transcript 1). +22. +Plaintiff reports that she is afraid of flying, that hurricanes scare her, and that +her "property was torn up during a hurricane" (page 1, transcript 2, 12/4/08). +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 310-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 6 of 20 +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 247-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 6 of 20 +23. +(Part 1, question 5 of Dr. Kliman's interrogatory and Page 1, transcript 2) +Plaintiff reports that she was sexually harassed by her stepbrother. "My stepbrother +wanted me to sit on his lap when his friend left us alone. I'm not going to do anything. I +said 'no, that's weird! Thad grown up with him and I think of him as a brother. That night, +I forgot to lock one of my doors, which was a chain lock to the bathroom... I was about +16." (Prior to Epstein) "I was sleeping and felt something at the end of my bed, shins, +grazing my leg, cracked my eyes open and I freaked out and he pretended to be confused +'where am I. Then he walked between two doors and I had a weird feeling he didn't leave. +..1 guess he ducked down and crawled around... Theard someone breathing and he tried +to do it again... I said 'get out, get out of my room please! I told my parents and they +kicked him out for a day. He snuck back in the house and wasn't punished... Once I +found him in my room naked under the covers... I had a feeling someone was in my room. +..I ran in and he was trying to get out of my bed to my closet... and he was naked... My +pink sandals were out of place and my see-through underwear was missing for months...I +told my parents and they kicked him out for a couple of days. I was distressed, scared of +him. He was always running after me and no one could stop him... He is three years older +than me, taller than me, and he has cerebral palsy, which they blame it on, that he doesn't +know what he is doing!" (Page 1, transcript 2) "He did something to my sister, touching her +neck and hair when she was on the computer. She told me, which this was after he did that + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 310-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 7 of 20 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 247-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 7 of 20 +to me." "He is a big part of why Lam the way I am, too. He has beat up my mom and my +sister and me. He has been in jail for hitting my mom. He threw her on the ground and +kicked her in the face. The police got him. I was 16." (Pre-Epstein) (Page 2, transcript 2) +24. +"I am so overprotective of everything and freaked out all the time. Always +looking behind me. Someone will steal me. I am always paranoid now." (Page 2, transcript +2) +25. +"Thave been thinking of hurting myself three or four years, feeling like I was +nobody and getting angry." (Page 2, transcript 2) " A good thing I started doing was writing +poems. I was 15. It was about my family problems. I want to lock people out and have +them come and find me." (Page 3, transcript 2) +26. +Plaintiff reports she saw a counselor, Cathy Sloan, who was a private +counselor that her mother had seen. "She talked to my mother about her problems because +my stepdad was not as nice and mellow as he is now. He used to be angry and when he +came home you would know you had to go in your room or go with your friends." Plaintiff +reports that a female psychiatrist wished to prescribed medications for her, but that +medicines made her face break out and that she didn't wish to take them. (Page 3, +transcript 2) "Beginning when I first went to Cathy Sloan at age 18, they said I was bipolar. +They said I have BPD (bipolar disorder) or OCD." (Page 3, transcript 2) +27. Plaintiff reports that before meeting Epstein, "Thad two boyfriends that I had +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 310-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 8 of 20 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM M +Document 247-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 8 of 20 +sex with." (Page 4, transcript 2) +28. +Plaintiff reports that she tried marijuana in the 124 grade and that it calms her +down. (Page 5, transcript 2) +29. +She notes that her mother would give her Xanax to calm her down and that a +friend gave her amphetamines (Adderall) and that she could concentrate more and get +things done easier. "I lived life more and had more energy." (Page 5, transcript 2) Dr. +Kliman notes she has had no evaluation for attention deficit disorder, a condition that +would have existed pre-Epstein. The plaintiff had to read things several times while in +school to comprehend. (Page 5, transcript 2) +30. +(Page 9, Tape 1, Dr. Kliman, 12/4/08) Plaintiff currently reports "I'm just +hanging out right now, I'm having fun and I kind of like it"….. "I feel free." +31. Plaintiff reports, "I just let people do whatever. I don't know what going +through my mind actually at the time. So much is going through my mind. I'm not even +thinking about what I should be doing." (Page 18, Tape 1) +32. +Plaintiff reports that she had some understanding of what would happen. +when she saw Mr. Epstein. She notes that a school friend told her "I go to this place and I +give people massages for money; and you don't have to have any experience. I was like +'wow... that sounds really weird. That sounds awesome, you know? What do you have to +do?' And she basically told me in a note... She was like 'well if you show anybody this or if +il +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 310-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 9 of 20 +Document 247-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 9 of 20 +you tell anybody... I'Il beat your ass' and I was like thinking to myself; why would she get +that mad about me telling somebody? What's wrong with what I'm going to do if she +wants to beat me up if I say something to somebody?... So she wrote me that note and +then she's like 'yea... the only thing is that everybody makes fun of me for it is that, it's +like older guys! I was like ' +.. that's not a problem. It's just an older person that you +give a massage to, and she was like 'yea, that's it' and then she picked me up from work +one day and that's when I was working at Publix and she took me in her car down to Palm +Beach City and we're; and she slowly started unraveling everything like everything that +was supposed to happen, she started actually kind of telling me a little bit as soon as we got +to his house or a little bit before it and she told me, you know," (at this point, plaintiff was +interrupted by Dr. Kliman, who changed the subject). (Page 21, Tape 1) +Plaintiff reports that she knew that Mr. Epstein did not want anyone younger +than 18. "She was like ... 'all right, well if anybody asks you're 18 because you have to be +18 to be here; and they are going to ask probably for like name and your number or +whatever just give that to them; but I'll vouch for you and say that you're 18'" (Page 22, +Tape 1) +34. +(Tape 2, Dr. Kliman) Question, Dr. Kliman: "And did you tell her that you +were 18?" Plaintiff" "I don't... I don't remember if I told her I was 18 or if she already +assumed because that's what the age of the girls that had been brought there are always + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 310-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 10 of + +! +that age. Have to be that certain age, so I think Yolanda told her that I was 18 cause like I +said I'm not really a good liar." (Page 1) +35. +Plaintiff reported that her parents divorced when she was three. She reports +that she could remember what was happening around the time of the divorce. "Just like all +the violence kind of going on all around and my dad like running away from us and just +moving to another state and not seeing him for a long period of time. So it's... it's already +that I didn't have like a father figure... " (Page 9, tape 2) Dr. Kliman: "You did have a +stepfather?" Plaintiff: "Yea, but he was more of always just yelling at me so I always in my +room by myself or I was hanging out with my friends." (Page 9, tape 2) +36. +Plaintiff reports that her father would hit her two brothers and that after the +mother had found that he had significantly beaten one of the brothers on "his back and +butt," the mother got angry. Her father hit her mother and the stepdad then hit her father. +(Page 10, tape 2) She reports that her stepfather was also violent with her mother and that +she grew up in a family of seven children (three of the stepfather's and four of her +mother's). (Page 10, tape 2) She reports that the stepfather would spank her or hit her or +send her to her room without dinner to punish her. On one occasion, she remembers, "he +just came at me and smacked me across the face and then kicked me out of the house." +[16+| (Page 11, tape 2) She believes this was about a year before the Epstein incident, when +she was "almost 18." (Page 11, tape 2) +10 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 310-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 11 of +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 247-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 + +37. +Plaintiff reports that while living in Loxahatchee, Florida, she was frightened +during Hurricane Katrina and then another hurricane when she was approximately 18 or +19. She notes it was "a frightening, crazy time apparently." She reports that the hurricane +scared her and that it was "really scary because our property was torn up... Huge tree +that landed on our house, that broke our screen enclosure to our pool." (Pages 13 & 14, +Tape 2) +38. +Plaintiff reported (Part 1, question 5, Dr. Kliman's interrogatory) that she had +a sexual assault by a family member or someone she knew. (Page 14, tape 2) She reported +that " my stepbrother Cody, he wanted me to sit on his láp like when his friend, which was +my boyfriend, had left us alone and we were like outside some kid's house waiting in the +van, and I was outside on the ground and my stepbrother was sitting in the passenger's +side with the door wide open talking to me and he was like 'why are you sitting on the +floor, why don't you come sit on my lap?' and I was like 'because I'm fine right here, and +he was like... ' I'm not going to do anything, it's okay, you can sit on my lap! I was like +'no, that's weird cause you're my brother' and I've grown up with these boy since I was +three. Since my dad left, so it's pretty much like they are my brothers and I think of them +as that; and then it was the same night that he asked me to sit on his lap. That it was like +3:00 o 4:00 in the morning and I was sleeping and I forgot to lock one of my doors. I have +two doors, one door that goes to the bathroom of my room and one that goes to the +11 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 310-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 12 of +Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 12 of 20 +hallway where everyone else's rooms are; and I always have like a chain lock on my +bathroom door and I forgotten to lock that one because I always lock my room, everywhere +I am always lock everything for some reason. I think because I'm scared that somebody is +going to get to me while I'm asleep." (Fear of assault preceded encounter with Epstein) +Plaintiff reported that she was 16 at this time. (Page 15, tape 2) She again describes the +episode reported earlier about her brother being in her bedroom and notes that she did tell +her parents and they put him out of the house. Subsequently, he was again found in her +room, as noted earlier, naked under her covers and she believes that he was using her +clothing. (Page 16, tape 2) Dr. Kliman asked if she experienced emotional distress that +lasted more than that day and her reply was "yea, of course, I was scared of him." (Page 17, +tape 2) "He was always like running after me and like he was always like the terror of my +house and nobody could ever stop him, nobody could ever do anything. He pretty much +just got fucked up all the time. Excuse me." She noted that her stepbrother is three years +older than her, making him 19 at the time of these episodes. Plaintiff reports, "He did +something to my sister. I guess he like I don't think he did anything sexual to her, but he +was like touching her... she freaked out... " (Page 17, tape 2) +39. +Plaintiff expressed her dissatisfaction at not being listened to by the sister, but +after the stepbrother touched the sister she felt the sister paid attention. "Now you actually +pay attention because it happens to you; but when I said something happened to me, you +12 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 310-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 13 of +Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 13 of 20 +know, nothing right? So I think that's a big part, why I am the way I am sometimes too, just +because they'тe... he's always been like that and he's always beat up my ... he's like beat +up my mom before a couple of times; he's beat up my sister; he's beat up me; he's been to +jail a couple of times." (Again demonstrating plaintiff's fear of physical harm and +inappropriate sexual contact prior to meeting Epstein.) Plaintiff reports that he was sent to +jail for "hitting my mom; he like threw her on the ground and started kicking her in the +face and stuff and then she called the cops on him and the police came and got him and +then I think ..." She reports she was around 16 at that time. (Prior to meeting Epstein) +(Page 18, tape 2) +40. Dr. Kliman inquired that since the stepbrother seemed to have a sexual +interest in her and that he was found naked, did she think that had something to do with +the way she was now. Her response was "a little bit of it." (Page 18, tape 2) +41. Dr. Kliman inquired about" why a little bit?" and her response was " well, just +because a lot of things have happened too that have made me who I am, not necessarily +just that one person. It just might be everything that has happened to me and I'm just so +overprotective of everything and I'm just really freaked out most of the time... Like I am +always looking behind me just because nobody ever looks behind them." (Page 18, tape 2) +42. +Plaintiff reported that she does not have bad dreams or nightmares of the +traumatic event with Epstein. (Page 20, tape 2) She reports that her bad dreams are what is +13 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 310-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 14 of +Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 14 of 20 +going on in her life at the moment. (Page 20, tape 2) In her dreams, she sees herself as +angry at somebody and her beating them up in her dreams and that a lot of her dreams are +about the boys that she is with. (Page 20, tape 2) In her dreams, she reports that she always +beats up the girls who may be having a relationship with her boyfriend as well. (Page 21, +tape 2) She reports that most of the dreams that she remembers are good dreams. (Page 1, +Tape 3) +43. +When questioned by Dr. Kliman about feeling that she is a horrible person +and asked how long she had had those feelings, plaintiff's response was "when I started to +get them... I don't... like I didn't really notice it at first until you started like reminding +me of all these things and that everything that put into place ..." [Indicating she is +suggestible.] (Page 1, Tape 3) +44. +In a response to a question about how long she had had trouble thinking +about hurting herself, plaintiff responded "for three or four years probably." (Age 16 or 17) +At that time, she felt she was a nobody and when she would get angry she would write +poems. She notes that she began doing that when she was in the ninth grade at about age +15, that she would write about her family problems, and she would lock her doors and lock +everyone out. She felt like she wanted someone to talk to her, but that nobody really +would... "Nobody really ever wanted to because I had brothers and stuff and my mom +was always too busy." "So I never really had anybody to talk to besides my friends... I +14 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 310-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 15 of +Ethered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 + +can't talk to my family when I'm mad because they don't understand because they don't +even know me." (Page 2, tape 3) +45. +She notes that when she saw a therapist, Cathy Sloan, who was seeing her +mother because of problems with the stepfather, that they wanted her to confront the issues +with the stepfather's anger. "... when he would come home from work, you would just; +you know that you'd have to go to your room; like everybody would just disburse, leave +and go and hide..." "They wanted her to talk to me because of the Epstein thing and +because of my stepbrother and so I talked to her about all that... Then she wanted to go +and get me on medication, and then... I'm not really about medications so I just never +took the medication that they would prescribe to me..." "I've never really gotten help, but +I've always wanted to get help. But I've just never fully gone 100% through with it I guess +you could say." (Page 3, tape 3) +46. Dr. Kliman asked plaintiff, "All right, and you have thoughts of killing +yourself?" Plaintiff: "I used to and that is why I started to write poems, cause I would just +feel like there was nothing else that I do; and I would just feel like it is better if I wasn't +around, then I wouldn't be causing anybody any problems..." "It's hard to be who +everybody wants you to be all the time... " (Page 6, tape 3)(The poem writing began prior +to Epstein, at approximately age 15.) +47. +Plaintiff reports that she had had sex with two boyfriends prior to Epstein. +15 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 310-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 16 of + +(Page 9, tape 3) Plaintiff is easily influenced. +... "I just have so much going on I just can't +put things together unless people start talking to me and then I'm like. yea." (Page 10, +tape 3) +48. +Plaintiff reports that she is currently happy with her life and has met someone +who she loves and whom she feels loves her. "I finally found somebody; now I'm kind of .. +• really happy." "I met him in Virginia. His name is Josh... Like love at first sight kind of +thing." "He's so adorable, he's like... he talks to me and he looks at me different; and he +looks at me like he cares about what I'm saying and he is listening and he really likes me. +And that's the thing that I've never gotten out of any boyfriend is that they liked me for the +way I am and the way that I will always be cause I'm always going to be the same person.. +. I think I love him too..." (Pages 11 & 12, tape 3) +49. Question: "When you have sex with Josh, do you have any interference from +thoughts about Epstein." Reply: "No, no." (Pages 11 and 12, tape 3) +50. +Plaintiff notes that she drank prior to the episode with Epstein. (Page 14, tape +3) She continued to drink afterward and increased her drinking. She reported that she +blacked out a couple of times. She notes at times that her amnesia was not simply due to +alcohol, but that she didn't remember some parts of what she did because "I didn't want to +remember some of it." [Volitional.] (Page 14, tape 3) +51. +Plaintiff reports that she has used cocaine and marijuana, with her first +16 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 310-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 17 of +EAtered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 + +marijuana use at age 18 or 19. (Page 16, tape 3) She notes that her mother had given her +Xanax, a friend gave her Adderall, and her mother gave her Strattera. (Pages 18 and 19, +tape 3) +52. +She noted that she had difficulty in school. "I can't read something and +actually understand it." "I actually have to like read it like at least twice." (Page 20, tape 3) +She notes that she had difficulty in math and had to repeat algebra II while in the 12th +grade. (Page 20, tape 3) +53. +All of the above show that this plaintiff came from an unstable and disturbed +home, had been subject to previous physical and sexual abuse, was fearful, isolated, and +had had suicidal ideation prior to meeting Mr. Epstein. For further elaboration of her +history and background, access to all available records is crucial if one is to fully +understand the impact of any of these events on her subsequent behavior and proportion +the impact of specific events, if any, or her current and future level of function. +54. In Dr. Kliman's initial replenishment retainer agreement and fee schedule +(date 7/18/08), in a heading entitled "Regarding Full Disclosure," Dr. Kliman notes that +prior to deposition, counsel will make every effort necessary to provide experts with +information requested by the experts including: 1) a list of all depositions, statements, +declarations, and motions in the case, 2) a copy of any requested items, and 3) most +importantly, a list of all medical, clinical, school, and work records known to the attorney +17 +! + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 310-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 18 of +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM +Document 247-3 Eftered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 + +in the case. +55. +Di. Kliman notes on page 8 of his contract opinion formation that he will not +form opinions, give reports, or testify in certain circumstances. +These include +circumstances where he has reason to believe a retaining attorney has "available important +and relevant documents which are being deliberately withheld from us." "We define such +as documents in possession of retaining attorney, which we have requested or that we have +stated would ordinarily be part of medical opinion formation on the topics concerning, +which our input is requested." We request the same. +56. +It is critical for an IME examiner to be able to make a cogent assessment of +any plaintiff and, to understand their medical, social, academic, psychological and +psychiatric condition/state prior to any act of alleged victimization. There are a number of +variables that combine to determine the effects of such alleged victimization, including the +type and character of the alleged assault, and key victim variables such as demographics, +psychological reactions at the time of the trauma, previous psychiatric or psychological +history, previous victimization history, current or previous psychological difficulties, and +general personality dynamics and coping style, as well as sociocultural factors such as drug +use/abuse; poverty; social inequity and/or inadequate social support; any previous history +of abuse within or outside the family; whether individuals were abused by strangers, +acquaintances or family members; and whether there was any history of indiscriminate +18 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 310-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 19 of +ERtered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 + +behavior that may have placed them at increased risk. It is important to know if there had +been previous sexual conduct, contact with police or welfare agencies, alcohol or drug +use/abuse, voluntary sexual activity, contraceptive use, genital infections, or apparent +indifference to previous abuse. +57. It is also essential to understand the plaintiff's level of emotional support, +whether any significant psychiatric illnesses were present, whether they were taking any +medications (prescribed or non-prescribed), whether there had been previous suicide +attempts, thoughts, plans, etc. +58. +Knowledge of plaintiff's relationships to her family and familial factors, +including social disadvantage, family instability, impaired parent/child relationship, and +parental adjustment difficulties is also critical. +It is, therefore, crucial that the independent medical examiner has available to +him a full and complete record that includes medical, previous legal, social, criminal, +academic, psychological and psychiatric records/data; psychological tests; laboratory tests; +and clinical, hospital, physician records. These, in essence, are the same and similar records +that plaintiff's expert witness (Dr. Kliman) feels are essential for him to do an appropriate +evaluation. To obtain the necessary information, it will be necessary to identify the plaintiff +by name. Such identificatiori will not humiliate the plaintiff since all we are requesting is +pertinent information as noted above relative to their past medical and psychiatric histories +19 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 310-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 +Page 20 of + +and conduct. We would concur and request of the court that the same and such other +similar information be made available to us to conduct our examination. +R +Richard C. W. || MD +Courtesy Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, University of Florida, College of Medicine +Affiliate Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, University of South +Florida +Professor of Psychiatry, Department of Medical Education, University of Central Florida +College of Medicine +20 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b33af35f321c2a1c2529f980481b9775b1732f41ad374ba2b29f9abddedcc838.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b33af35f321c2a1c2529f980481b9775b1732f41ad374ba2b29f9abddedcc838.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..34493bae3d848c0000e4ced799b511f00489581f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b33af35f321c2a1c2529f980481b9775b1732f41ad374ba2b29f9abddedcc838.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -1019, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b33af35f321c2a1c2529f980481b9775b1732f41ad374ba2b29f9abddedcc838", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 30, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "11223af5f11cdefabf2363ae4a43ddf08cd36a2f99ceeb18ec337c9047863163", + "output_sha256": "b1024891336afc94e455fb37836cdab7d2f94c962b895355bd99bd635831a35c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3448146ea100f1ace429bfd2b1e89a46029505207a8c5207e8ba9b615d290ed.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3448146ea100f1ace429bfd2b1e89a46029505207a8c5207e8ba9b615d290ed.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..02ef568d77d4ded02a2c605e183da081ade68178 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3448146ea100f1ace429bfd2b1e89a46029505207a8c5207e8ba9b615d290ed.md @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +CaseaseıY98698Ø9YA9AF Do@afement Filed 099097208/3lage1ag811 of 1 +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +troutman™ +sanders +troutman.com +Bennet J. Moskowitz +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +January 7, 2020 +ECF +JAN 0 8.2020 +Hon. Alison J. Nathan +Thurgood Marshall +United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 +Re: +Anastasia Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as Co-Executors of the +Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 1:19-cV-11869-AJN +Dear Judge Nathan: +We represent Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of +Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, "Defendants") in the referenced action. We write to respectfully +request the Court's approval of the parties' agreement described below. +On December 30, 2019, subject to the Court's approval: (1) we agreed to accept service of +750 +Plaintiff's Complaint (ECE #1) on Defendants' behalf; and (2) Plaintiff consented to Defendants +having through February 17, 2020 to answer, move or otherwise respond to Plaintifis +GRAEMED +Complaint. There have been no previous requests for adjournments or extensions of time in +this action. +Respectfully submitted, +so gApERED: +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +115/20 +ON ALSON T NATHAN +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3448146ea100f1ace429bfd2b1e89a46029505207a8c5207e8ba9b615d290ed.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3448146ea100f1ace429bfd2b1e89a46029505207a8c5207e8ba9b615d290ed.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..91349625a26694370d483075f84f167ddd35ab88 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3448146ea100f1ace429bfd2b1e89a46029505207a8c5207e8ba9b615d290ed.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b3448146ea100f1ace429bfd2b1e89a46029505207a8c5207e8ba9b615d290ed", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "90ead6568076d95879565b2b10d795d77f046e5696a1badca9fb228d02e2884f", + "output_sha256": "615c502b1fd97e1c556a6b54427a5eb60732ea341da624b0a19af383190de9d4", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b352c362bbf65408dc9d93a8a22eea49fd85210a81b8568ba057bca38befc725.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b352c362bbf65408dc9d93a8a22eea49fd85210a81b8568ba057bca38befc725.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ccd78816e45b163cc49f28ab4af1babcf1e458a7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b352c362bbf65408dc9d93a8a22eea49fd85210a81b8568ba057bca38befc725.md @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2008 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +NO. 08-80380-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL +THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to File +Under Seal, filed July 28, 2008. Defendant seeks to file his reply to his Motion to Stay under +seal.' The Court has carefully considered the motion and the record and is otherwise fully +advised in the premises. +As the Court has previously explained to the parties, the Local Rules for the Southern +District of Florida state that "proceedings in the United States District Court are public and Court +filings are matters of public record." S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.4(A). It is well settled that the media and +the public in general possess a common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records. See Nixon +v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). "The right to inspect and copy +records is not absolute, however. As with other forms of access, it may interfere with the +administration of justice and hence may have to be curtailed." +v. Graddick, 696 F.2d +'The parties are reminded that all documents filed conventionally (including those filed +under seal) must be filed with the Clerk's Office in West Palm Beach, Florida. +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2008 Page 2 of 2 +796, 803 (11th Cir. 1983). This right of access creates a presumption in favor of openness of court +records, which "must be balanced against any competing interest advanced." United States v. +Noriega, 752 F. Supp. 1037, 1040 (S.D. Fla. 1990). For example, courts may look to see whether +the records sought are for illegitimate purposes. +1. 696 F.2d at 803. Likewise, the Court +may consider whether "the press has already been permitted substantial access to the contents of +the records." Id. +In his motion to seal, Defendant states that he seeks to file this document under seal "to +comply with the confidentiality clause" in the agreement between Defendant and the U.S. +Attorney cited in his brief. (Def. Mot. 2.) The Court is familiar with the U.S. Attorney's +objections to unsealing any part of the agreement, see In re: Jane Doe, No. 08-80736-CIV (S.D. +Fla. July 11, 2008). However, as the Court has previously held, the U.S. Attorney's objections +do not outweigh the public interest in having access to court records. Further, the details of the +agreement contained in Defendant's Reply brief have, in large part, already been unsealed and +released to the public. The Court finds no justification to keep these documents under seal. +Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to File +Under Seal is DENIED. The Clerk shall UNSEAL docket entries 35 and 36 and make them +available for public inspection through CM/ECF at the earliest possible time. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +Florida, this 4' day of August, 2008. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies furnished to: all counsel of record +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b352c362bbf65408dc9d93a8a22eea49fd85210a81b8568ba057bca38befc725.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b352c362bbf65408dc9d93a8a22eea49fd85210a81b8568ba057bca38befc725.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..63cf3e7f8fcdb3e0ee502e5232a87362be8f79a1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b352c362bbf65408dc9d93a8a22eea49fd85210a81b8568ba057bca38befc725.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b352c362bbf65408dc9d93a8a22eea49fd85210a81b8568ba057bca38befc725", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "3c4ae5e040b557d409889c5146c5e17fc0ec73f4fb41956b33a44382e0c04bc4", + "output_sha256": "96e4bbdae5bbb6fab3c02cbefe0abb3a3e7ab4cc1a88132a9e4276cad44ec3ae", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b356f3d2fc023bcf45adb023503e1c8c81f807bfb6687b4bf997442fb97b6f67.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b356f3d2fc023bcf45adb023503e1c8c81f807bfb6687b4bf997442fb97b6f67.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cc8cf6c773850e58dc8f240aae88fdf0840f007b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b356f3d2fc023bcf45adb023503e1c8c81f807bfb6687b4bf997442fb97b6f67.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 148-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 Page 1 of 1 +May 29, 2009 +Page 2 +Written Consent to Amendment +I hereby consent to +Defendant EPSTEIN's request to amend his affirmative +defenses as set forth in his proposed Defendant EPSTEIN's First Amended Answer & +Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint in each of Plaintiffs, +Jane Doe No.2, Jane Doe No.3, Jane Doe No.4, and Jane Doe No.5; and as set forth in +Defendant EPSTEIN's First Amended Answer & Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's +(First) Amended Compaint in Jane Doe No.6, and Jane Doe No.7. +suite +Counsel for each of the Plaintiffs +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd. +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80119 +Jane Doe No. 3 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80232 +Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80380 +Jane Doe No. 5 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80381 +Jane Doe No. 6 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80994 +Jane Doe No. 7 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80993 +Dated:_ +Jue 5, 2009 + diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b356f3d2fc023bcf45adb023503e1c8c81f807bfb6687b4bf997442fb97b6f67.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b356f3d2fc023bcf45adb023503e1c8c81f807bfb6687b4bf997442fb97b6f67.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..721a21f6b714a426da860074c03e586094649559 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b356f3d2fc023bcf45adb023503e1c8c81f807bfb6687b4bf997442fb97b6f67.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -21, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b356f3d2fc023bcf45adb023503e1c8c81f807bfb6687b4bf997442fb97b6f67", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "edf2212ede40b74d317eb34868fa8d8269335eec411003ca0d530f1c5451fcd7", + "output_sha256": "f977db6b6584758784da3e265a63db56533894b75e164ce841b03088379a71cd", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3a4736a2254d572002c000b56af50aeda050e00b12300245e4b64d4da6e1733.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3a4736a2254d572002c000b56af50aeda050e00b12300245e4b64d4da6e1733.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b6903790d0ea9d9b6ffe3b9fd080ad477aa546e4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3a4736a2254d572002c000b56af50aeda050e00b12300245e4b64d4da6e1733.md @@ -0,0 +1,142 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2009 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JO +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/J +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/J +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2009 Page 2 of 5 +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JQ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JO +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/J +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +«Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/J +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2009 Page 3 of 5 +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON +/ +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA-JL +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA-JL +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/J +DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME +TO FILE REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' JANE DOE 2 -7 RESPONSES IN +OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO 1 SET OI +INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2009 Page 4 of 5 +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Epstein") by and through his +undersigned attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time in which to +reply to Plaintiffs' Responses In Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Answers +to Interrogatories And Production of Documents, dated March 2, 2009. Local General +Rule 7.1 A.1 and Rule 6, Fed. R. Civ. P. (2009). Defendant seeks an extension until May +22, 2009, to file his response. As good cause in support of granting the motion, +Defendant states: +1. Defendant's reply to the Plaintiff's Responses in Opposition to Defendant's +Motion to compel would be due on May 18, 2009. As certified below, Plaintiff's counsel +is in agreement with the requested extension of May 20, 2009. +2. Plaintiff's counsel also represents five other Plaintiffs pursuing claims against +Defendant, EPSTEIN. A total of five of the Plaintiffs have also filed Responses In +Opposition to Defendant's Motions to Compel bearing the same dates. In order to fully +and adequately respond to this and the other motions, Defendant is in need of an +extension until May 20, 2009. +3. The requested extension is fair in reasonable under the circumstances as it will +provide time to allow the Defendant, EPSTEIN, to fully and adequately reply to this and +the other Responses in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court enter an order granting the +Defendant an extension until May 20, 2009, in which to respond to Plaintiff's Response +in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and +Production of documents. +Local Rule 7.1 Certification +Counsel for the movant conferred by telephone with counsel for the Plaintiff and + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2009 Page 5 of 5 +Counsel for Plaintiff is in agreement with the requested extension until May 20, 2009 for +Defendant to respond to the motion to compel. +ell +Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Attorney for Defendant Epstein +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is +being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in +the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 18"* day of May, 2009: +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesg@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfuly tubmine +ROBERT D. CRÍTTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3a4736a2254d572002c000b56af50aeda050e00b12300245e4b64d4da6e1733.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3a4736a2254d572002c000b56af50aeda050e00b12300245e4b64d4da6e1733.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e591d338f81e8aff93d586e3fb88fc8c954937b8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3a4736a2254d572002c000b56af50aeda050e00b12300245e4b64d4da6e1733.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b3a4736a2254d572002c000b56af50aeda050e00b12300245e4b64d4da6e1733", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "7d3a117fd53415994c8083db6798be16970721dcb6b98260b347252ab7d811a4", + "output_sha256": "c7f19b13079ce546c77702dba12d4e00afe42e2aba846e2f8f3c566ccd50be77", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3ac09a6637d5705f693126bc152eb01fbb66cd8acc90a8ed4a6dbbe9e94c1f9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3ac09a6637d5705f693126bc152eb01fbb66cd8acc90a8ed4a6dbbe9e94c1f9.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..33ff6491637a8ed35b38218228543fb3b42a1066 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3ac09a6637d5705f693126bc152eb01fbb66cd8acc90a8ed4a6dbbe9e94c1f9.md @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +Filing # 147648602 E-Filed 04/13/2022 04:15:38 PM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +DIVISION: AG +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida +Defendants. +/ +DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG'S NOTICE OF DROPPING CLIAM FOR +ATTORNEY FEE MULTIPLIER +Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and +through the undersigned counsel, hereby gives notice of dropping his claim for an attorney fee +multiplier as set forth in his November 9, 2020, Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Despite +filing this Notice, Defendant Aronberg preserves all other claims set forth in his November 9, +2020, Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees. +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 13th day of April, 2022, a copy of the foregoing has +been electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein. +_SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +/s/ Douglas A. Wyler +Arthur I. _ +, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 10249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. +Party_JOINT +ID#. J34. EV#J34 +DATE ADMITTED: 9/6/2022 +CA/Aronberg-001595 +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, F +Joint Exhibit +J34 +ABRYZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:20:48 PM + + +Fla. Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-I +Femandina Beach, Florida 32034 +(904) 261-3693 +(904) 261-7879 Fax +Primary: jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net +Attorneys for Defendant, Dave Aronberg +NOT A CERTIFIED COPI +CA/ArOPhetS 91599 BEACH COUNTY, FL, L +ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:20:48 PM diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3ac09a6637d5705f693126bc152eb01fbb66cd8acc90a8ed4a6dbbe9e94c1f9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3ac09a6637d5705f693126bc152eb01fbb66cd8acc90a8ed4a6dbbe9e94c1f9.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9ddd8f2d44612a73b01ce081f99d799e670d825c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3ac09a6637d5705f693126bc152eb01fbb66cd8acc90a8ed4a6dbbe9e94c1f9.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b3ac09a6637d5705f693126bc152eb01fbb66cd8acc90a8ed4a6dbbe9e94c1f9", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ea509c12dc0a0d0afa28d8362d4fa75a89ad47b4071530f38643ea71c01816a3", + "output_sha256": "e9f311f5ce6642c646e38165b2d86386fd248193f0d2d1fb9fedcf045e1d6a0a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3c92043a329a6654c04f12275e07c6b3e350abba6b1ac45f9d99e7c2ee372fe.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3c92043a329a6654c04f12275e07c6b3e350abba6b1ac45f9d99e7c2ee372fe.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eaf030a371f9a21724d02f5cb68176d730d24d28 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3c92043a329a6654c04f12275e07c6b3e350abba6b1ac45f9d99e7c2ee372fe.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2011 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/, +JANE DOES #1 AND #2, +Petitioners, +V. +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, +Respondent. +ORDER +This matter comes before the Court on the United States of America's Unopposed Motion +for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion for Limited Intervention of Jeffrey Epstein and +Supplemental Briefing in Support of Motion to Intervene of Roy Black, +Weinberg, and Jay +Lefkowitz. (DE 95). Having reviewed the Motion and the Court file, and good cause having been +shown, the Motion is HEREBY GRANTED. +DONE AND ORDERED in +this lf day of September, 2011, at West Palm +Beach, Florida. +KENNETH A. MARRA +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +CC: +Counsel of Record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3c92043a329a6654c04f12275e07c6b3e350abba6b1ac45f9d99e7c2ee372fe.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3c92043a329a6654c04f12275e07c6b3e350abba6b1ac45f9d99e7c2ee372fe.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..64e2a0e52ff7ade7ea11b3316f224256a376fd77 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3c92043a329a6654c04f12275e07c6b3e350abba6b1ac45f9d99e7c2ee372fe.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b3c92043a329a6654c04f12275e07c6b3e350abba6b1ac45f9d99e7c2ee372fe", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "3d91823832d60d687d8c4a7b8799d9e2e496ec7d10a564b641479592ab07acb0", + "output_sha256": "eed22f80f0e78986ee708f36ae644db7ada4896be6bf1f1fc4633846fa9fc9b7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3fb4076123da4c5d922aa436aa4a8e1e6c36a49566a45a6a01df772bc389b65.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3fb4076123da4c5d922aa436aa4a8e1e6c36a49566a45a6a01df772bc389b65.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c660e1a0498c9a6d680412bbe578768c67f483b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3fb4076123da4c5d922aa436aa4a8e1e6c36a49566a45a6a01df772bc389b65.md @@ -0,0 +1,150 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 3, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +/ +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS COURT'S ORDER TO +SHOW CAUSE AS WHY ALL CASES SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED FOR DISCOVERY +PURPOSES AND MOTION TO CLARIFY THE COURT'S ORDER DATED APRIL 28, 2009 +Defendant, JEFFERY EPSTEIN, (EPSTEIN), by and through his undersigned +attorneys, hereby files his Response in Opposition to this Court's Order to Show Cause +as to Why All Cases Should Not be Consolidated for Purposes of Discovery and Motion +for Clarification of this Court's Order on general consolidation of discovery (DE 78), and +states: +L +Response In Opposition +Defendant has no further objections to consolidating these cases for +purposes of depositions as outlined in this Court's April 28, 2009 Order. +However, to consolidate the cases for purposes of all "discovery" including, but +not limited to, motion practice and related orders thereto will, without question, confuse +many of the individual discovery issues raised not only by Epstein as to the individual +Plaintiffs that have brought separate lawsuits against him, but will also confuse the +individual discovery issues raised by those same individual Plaintiffs as to Epstein. This +will undoubtedly lead to several motions to clarify certain orders which will seek + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 2 of 5 +Page 2 +explanation from the court as to how those orders affect Epstein as to each individual +Plaintiff's discovery requests and vice versa (i.e., how those future orders affect the +individual Plaintiffs' discovery requests directed to Epstein). +It is important to note that each related Federal matter before this court has its +very own distinct set of facts and defenses thereto. As such, the discovery served and +the responses received are particular and individualized as to both Plaintiff and +Defendant. +As such, discovery of "all" cases for general discovery consolidation +(separate and apart from depositions) will only cloud rulings on discovery and will result +in more attorney labor and judicial resources, which will inevitably be spent on motions +for clarification. +Each Plaintiff and Epstein have served and will in the future serve separate +requests for production, separate interrogatories, separate requests for admissions, and +separate motions to compel, responses and replies addressing certain discovery issues. +Obviously, both Plaintiff and Defendant will base their discovery related arguments on +the particularized facts of each case, which are separate and distinct from one another. +Moreover, the Plaintiffs will likely seek to retain different experts to support their +individual claims. In that regard, how will a general consolidation of discovery impact +discovery related to those experts' individualized opinions? +As this court is aware, certain case management orders are in place setting the +parameters of discovery. It is unclear how Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate and the +Courts Order will handle the potential problems and any other potential discovery +related issues outlined above. In fact, it appears that Jane Doe, in Case No. 08-CV- +80893 (DE 47), has expressed her own reasons for opposing the consolidation all the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 3 of 5 +Page 3 +cases for discovery purposes. Obviously, Jane Doe's counsel, like the undersigned, +anticipates that discovery issues will present themselves if general consolidation occurs +and does not want it to impact her case. In fact, the debates have already begun in +light of this Court's April 29, 2009 Order and the responses filed addressing same. This +provides the court with a glimpse of what will occur if general consolidation occurs, in +particular, how attorney resources and judicial resources will be unnecessarily used. +In addition, the initial style of each case should be maintained in pleadings and in +orders in an effort to maintain organization and application of the rulings this court +espouses for each case. Utilizing a compound multiple-type style will only confuse +cases that should be kept separate for all discovery purposes. +Motion for Clarification of this Court's April 28, 2009 Order +This Court ruled that cases 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380 and 08-80993 are +consolidated for discovery purposes. Epstein not only objects to the court's +consolidation order but seeks clarification from this Court as to how consolidation of +general discovery will impact motion practice and orders in the above cases. What does +the court mean when it says the above cases are consolidated "for purposes of +discovery only?" How does consolidation operate? The concerns addressing general +discovery consolidation are set out above and are therefore incorporated herein. +Likewise, for those reasons, the court should reverse its ruling on consolidation and +issue a new order maintaining the individuality of each case for discovery purposes. +In addition, Epstein not only objects to the court's potential consolidation of case +numbers 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469 and 09-80591 for +general discovery purposes, but respectfully requests that this court clarify how + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 4 of 5 +Page 4 +consolidation of general discovery will impact motion practice and orders in the above +cases should this court choose to consolidate same for discovery. Again, how does +consolidation operate? The concerns addressing general discovery consolidation are +set out above and are therefore incorporated herein. +In short, the Motions seeking consolidation for discovery purposes only do not +delineate how consolidation operates. As such, the Order granting the Motions to +Consolidate for discovery purposes only does not provide any additional information +addressing how consolidation will operate. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court not consolidate case numbers +08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469 and 09-80591, that it clarify its +order as to consolidation of case numbers 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380 and 08- +80993 (or the future consolidation of other cases) and that it reverse its April 28, 2009 +ruling on general consolidation in light of the potential problems presented in this +response, that an order be entered requiring the parties to utilize the style secured by +the initial case filing and not a compound-case style incorporating all case styles in one +particular document, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and +proper. +By: +del +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day on all counsel of record identified on the foflowing +Service List in the +manner specified by CM/ECF on this 4_ day of _ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM +Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 5 of 5 +Page 5 +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #3 +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3fb4076123da4c5d922aa436aa4a8e1e6c36a49566a45a6a01df772bc389b65.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3fb4076123da4c5d922aa436aa4a8e1e6c36a49566a45a6a01df772bc389b65.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7b5cbfbf9226fe33ed4d9faad0bf108e1efcc0d8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3fb4076123da4c5d922aa436aa4a8e1e6c36a49566a45a6a01df772bc389b65.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -61, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b3fb4076123da4c5d922aa436aa4a8e1e6c36a49566a45a6a01df772bc389b65", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0fb27c38d25c69db17e7873b8869a3742e61c1b6bacc83f996a294cc02066e03", + "output_sha256": "c809e776a375af25588852e89cfab097ee95d154048e71c96333ca7033dac7b1", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3ffb2b913349a74f9ae5511602b536b1e158bce5fe404f2a53d835c1577f584.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3ffb2b913349a74f9ae5511602b536b1e158bce5fe404f2a53d835c1577f584.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..422feb307df661fb35b3339f6d5529e94595035b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3ffb2b913349a74f9ae5511602b536b1e158bce5fe404f2a53d835c1577f584.md @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2008 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION +TO MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (DE #9) +In accordance with Local Rule 7.1(C), Defendant Jeffrey Epstein submits the +following response in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion (DE #9) for Judgment Upon +Default, and respectfully states as follows: +1. +Jeffrey Epstein has filed a motion (DE #11) to set aside the clerk's default +(DE #8) that would serve as the basis of a default judgment (DE #9-2). +2. +For the reasons detailed in that motion (DE #11 at 3), the clerk's default +was entered prematurely because substituted service was effected on June 2, not May 7. +Thus, in accordance with Rule 12(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, +Mr. Epstein has until June 23 to respond to the complaint. +Apart from the prematureness of the plaintiff's motion, "It]he law does not +favor defaults, and any doubts as to whether a party is in default should be decided in + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2008 Page 2 of 3 +favor of the defaulting party." E.g., Marschauser v. Travelers Indem. Co., 145 F.R.D. +605, 610 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (Highsmith, J.) (citing 10 Charles A. +, Arthur R. +& Mary K. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2681 at 402-03 (2d ed. 1983)). Cf. +id. (noting that "It]he Court's entry of an Order of Default is within the discretion of the +Court"). +4. +Because the default (DE 8) was premature, any default judgment at this +point would also be premature. See Franklin v. Scribner, No. 07cv438 BTM (LSP), 2007 +WL 2326085, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2007) (denying motion for default judgment where +the answer deadline had not yet passed); see also id. (characterizing the motion for +default judgment as "deficien[t]"). +WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, defendant Jeffrey Epstein opposes the +plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment. +Respectfully submitted, +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & +WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Tel: 561 659 8300 +Fax: 561 835 8691 +By: Is/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger +Fla. Bar No. 262013 +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2008 Page 3 of 3 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 19, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on counsel of record identified below by facsimile and +U.S. Mail. +Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Fax: 305 931 0877 +Is/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3ffb2b913349a74f9ae5511602b536b1e158bce5fe404f2a53d835c1577f584.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3ffb2b913349a74f9ae5511602b536b1e158bce5fe404f2a53d835c1577f584.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fa1121e174705af9b3ca382d8dd2fa7b2bd3bb1b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b3ffb2b913349a74f9ae5511602b536b1e158bce5fe404f2a53d835c1577f584.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b3ffb2b913349a74f9ae5511602b536b1e158bce5fe404f2a53d835c1577f584", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c4442c8d603fee5dca03911870203402cade16681e68cac43051a1a7d26be6d9", + "output_sha256": "fee6eda3a48bb8eaaf3464e21446427c15f61e0c43a514e6c1d9cc70c6943dff", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b41e855b1e54bc939e96d3155372dc488612c43ef567b2e71a301df5b6ff7cb8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b41e855b1e54bc939e96d3155372dc488612c43ef567b2e71a301df5b6ff7cb8.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4c7c1ce9daf2fade871dc828cc0b734b6053d3e9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b41e855b1e54bc939e96d3155372dc488612c43ef567b2e71a301df5b6ff7cb8.md @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ +IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA +FOURTH DISTRICT, 110 SOUTH TAMARIND AVENUE, WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401 +January 28, 2022 +CASE NO.: 4D22-0293 +L.T. No.: 502019CA014681XXXXMB +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST +Appellant / Petitioner(s) +BY ORDER OF THE COURT: +v. DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida, et al. +Appellee / Respondent(s) +This court notes that a motion tolling rendition is pending in the trial court. ORDERED +that the above-styled case is held in abeyance until the trial court disposes of the motion and +appellant files a copy of the order in this court. On that date, this case shall proceed, and the +briefing schedule shall run from that date. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(h)(2)(C). If the trial court +has not entered an order disposing of the motion within thirty (30) days from the date of this +order, appellant shall file a status report with this court as to the progress being made +towards disposition of the motion. +Served: +cc: Collin D +Michael J. Grygiel +Clerk Palm Beach +Douglas Wyler +Nina D. Boyajian +Jessica Neer McDonald +Stephen A. Mendelsohn +ct +on +Heisellu +LONN WEISSBLUM, Clerk +Fourth District Court of Appeal +(SIC +RECTED +FOURTH +FLORIDA +OF +TATE +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL +ABRUZZO, CLERK 1/28/2022 2:16:07 PM diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b41e855b1e54bc939e96d3155372dc488612c43ef567b2e71a301df5b6ff7cb8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b41e855b1e54bc939e96d3155372dc488612c43ef567b2e71a301df5b6ff7cb8.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b89485e4863a534da033945d1330a97f67d36d39 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b41e855b1e54bc939e96d3155372dc488612c43ef567b2e71a301df5b6ff7cb8.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b41e855b1e54bc939e96d3155372dc488612c43ef567b2e71a301df5b6ff7cb8", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "04057b99c2244589e72f648f6e166f1a4cc61157a275d1cabeb4cc11557efe9b", + "output_sha256": "bf7dd1419924ec8d12dce789e4bb8d7382a2e1c4af9f83c02a8499950e7bd9bc", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b43344f7e3d5c432868045fc330abd3176d0b000c55ea6f53e8209b24fdf6b5c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b43344f7e3d5c432868045fc330abd3176d0b000c55ea6f53e8209b24fdf6b5c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..de4fb72ec88ce56a478892f6ba28758925e9ca56 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b43344f7e3d5c432868045fc330abd3176d0b000c55ea6f53e8209b24fdf6b5c.md @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 421 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2009 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +ORDER RE-SETTING TRIAL DATE & PRETRIAL DEADLINES +THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 2-7 and Defendant +Jeffrey Epstein's Joint Motion for an Extension of Time to Complete Trial Deadlines (DE 415). +The Court has reviewed the Joint Motion and is otherwise advised in the premises. It is hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Joint Motion (DE 415) is GRANTED as follows: +Trial Date & Location +1. This case is set for trial on the two-week calendar commencing Monday, September 27, +2010. Counsel for all parties shall appear at a calendar call commencing at 10:00 A.M. on Friday, +September 24, 2010. Unless instructed otherwise by subsequent order, the trial and all other +proceedings in this case shall be conducted at the U.S. Courthouse, 701 Clematis Street, West Palm +Beach, Florida. +Pretrial Schedule +2. Pretrial discovery will be conducted in accordance with Local Rules 16.1 and 26.1 and + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 421 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2009 Page 2 of 2 +the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No pretrial conference shall be held in this action, unless the +Court determines, either sua sponte or upon motion and order, that a pretrial conference is +necessary. In setting the following deadlines, the Court has considered the parties' suggested +discovery schedule. Dates and other agreements between the parties not otherwise addressed herein +shall be considered part of this Order. To the extent this Order conflicts with the Local Rules, this +Order supercedes the Local Rules. +Discovery Cutoff +- April 12, 2010 +Substantive Pretrial Motions +- May 7, 2010 +Disclose/Exchange Expert Reports +- July 1, 2010 +Mediation Cutoff +- 60 days before calendar call +Mandatory Pretrial Stipulation +- Fifteen days before calendar call +Motions in Limine +- Fifteen days before calendar call +Responses to Motions in Limine +- Ten days before calendar call +Jury Instructions +- Five days before calendar call +Proposed Findings & Conclusions +- Five days before calendar call +Voir Dire Questions +- Calendar call +Exhibit List for Court +- First day of Trial (impeachment excepted) +Witness List for Court +- First day of Trial (impeachment excepted) +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +Florida, this 19" day of November, 2009. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies to: all counsel of record +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b43344f7e3d5c432868045fc330abd3176d0b000c55ea6f53e8209b24fdf6b5c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b43344f7e3d5c432868045fc330abd3176d0b000c55ea6f53e8209b24fdf6b5c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b5f172cfebfc36a802f38299c1c428d6f9c6f9af --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b43344f7e3d5c432868045fc330abd3176d0b000c55ea6f53e8209b24fdf6b5c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b43344f7e3d5c432868045fc330abd3176d0b000c55ea6f53e8209b24fdf6b5c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "270ac8701dafffba380dba14fbdf410623f3ee82802cb928380f644971f0c8e5", + "output_sha256": "b8b16d77c35522eb1a4abc0927cc85a03bbeaac30d1a35d8fb001441924e985b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b46102632c10662a679b29235fbbbdf4d87c6d2083524a0d8a62f17f543bd6bc.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b46102632c10662a679b29235fbbbdf4d87c6d2083524a0d8a62f17f543bd6bc.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5e97cfbdd6babd32f313b5a964f1ceeda18b4cd8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b46102632c10662a679b29235fbbbdf4d87c6d2083524a0d8a62f17f543bd6bc.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 34 +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +troutman.com +Filed 04/01/20 Page 1 of 1 +troutman™ +sanders +Bennet J. Moskowitz +bennet.moskowitz(@troutman.com +April 1, 2020 +VIA ECF +Hon. Debra C. Freeman +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +New York, NY 10007-1312 +Re: +Jane Doe v. Darren . Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as coexecutors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF +Dear Judge Freeman: +We represent Defendants Darren _. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of +Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, the "Co-Executors"), in the above-referenced action. On March 27, +2020, Judge Koeltl granted the Co-Executors leave to file a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint +(ECF Doc. No. 30). However, the Court did not set a briefing schedule. Accordingly, we write to +request Your Honor's approval of the parties' agreed briefing schedule for Defendants' motion to +dismiss, as follows: +• The Co-Executors shall file their motion to dismiss on or before April 17, 2020; +• Plaintiff shall file her response to the Co-Executors' motion to dismiss on or before April +27, 2020; and +• The Co-Executors shall file their reply in support of their motion to dismiss on or before +May 11, 2020. +Respectfully submitted, +Is/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b46102632c10662a679b29235fbbbdf4d87c6d2083524a0d8a62f17f543bd6bc.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b46102632c10662a679b29235fbbbdf4d87c6d2083524a0d8a62f17f543bd6bc.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a4a6687110453869a79f727a9c9204b5fa5af1d4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b46102632c10662a679b29235fbbbdf4d87c6d2083524a0d8a62f17f543bd6bc.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -14, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b46102632c10662a679b29235fbbbdf4d87c6d2083524a0d8a62f17f543bd6bc", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b5b27944859e536dfaa832c14b390543e97547df264b02ebc9899562ae245711", + "output_sha256": "7395ce7f56c52681b0b0b2f6538a93eacca45517fbd571e78f5cca3ca6aa8f09", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b47119ab278b001b5ca5cc8027da132195a9188e0e8f71ea577750ff54fd8f45.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b47119ab278b001b5ca5cc8027da132195a9188e0e8f71ea577750ff54fd8f45.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1a1039e36c233eb6ebd0dbe2ae5f005411dd0b81 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b47119ab278b001b5ca5cc8027da132195a9188e0e8f71ea577750ff54fd8f45.md @@ -0,0 +1,500 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 14-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 1 of 16 + + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 14-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 2 of 16 +350 FIFTH AVENUE | SUITE 7110 +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 +TEL (212) 763-0883 | FAX (212) 564-0883 +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0806 +DIRECT EMAIL tkaplanmkoplanhockar.com +October 11, 2019 +By Email: +Troutman Sanders LLP +785 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +bennet.moskowitz @troutman.com +Andrew Tomback +& Case LLP +1221 Avenue of the Americas +New York, NY 10020 +andrew.tomback@whitecase.com +Re: Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) +Dear Bennet and Andy: +We represent Plaintiff Jane Doe in the above matter. We write in response to +information we recently obtained regarding your client, Defendant Richard Kahn. +More specifically, on October 7, 2019, the Daily Mail reported that Mr. Kahn was +present at Jeffrey Epstein's 71 Street townhouse for about 45 minutes one day after Mr. Epstein +committed suicide, and that when he left the townhouse, he took with him a medium-sized blue +shopping bag. See Louise Boyle, Exclusive: Executor of Jeffrey Epstein's Estate - Named ir +Lawsuit - Was Seen Removing a Bag of Items from the Pedophile's Mansion the Day After his +Suicide... And After Millionaire had Admitted to Having "Damaging" Dirt on High-Powered +House Guests, DAILY MAIL (Oct. 7, 2019). +Please confirm whether this report is accurate. Is it true that Mr. Kahn entered Mr. +Epstein's townhouse and removed documents? If so, we ask that you promptly (1) share with us +a list of documents and/or materials Mr. Kahn removed from Mr. Epstein's townhouse that day +nd on any other occasion after Mr. Epstein's death and (2) confirm in writing that al +locuments and/or materials relevant to the matter are being retained and preserved pursuant t +the requirements outlined in the enclosed notice. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 14-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 3 of 16 +We look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. +Very truly yours, +Role 51 Kesm +Roberta A. Kaplan +cc: +Daniel H. Weiner +Enclosure: Document Retention Notice +2 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 14-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 4 of 16 +350 FIFTH AVENUE I SUITE 7110 +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 +TEL (212) 763-0883 | FAX (212) 564-0883 +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0885 +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplançakuplanheckar.com +October 11, 2019 +By Email: +Troutman Sanders LLP +785 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +Andrew Tomback +& Case LLP +1221 Avenue of the Americas +New York, NY 10020 +andrew.tomback@whitecase.com +Daniel H. Weiner +Hughes Hubbard & +One Battery Park Plaza +New York, NY 10004 +daniel.weiner@hugheshubbard.com +DOCUMENT RETENTION NOTICE BITECTED TO THE ESTATE OF JERFREY +The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein ("You"), including executors Richard Kahn and Darren +Indyke, is hereby put on formal notice of Your obligation to preserve all documents, +electronically stored information, and tangible things under Your possession, custody, or control +that are relevant to this action and/or have been, or are reasonably likely to be, requested during +discovery. Your agents, officers, employees, and other persons under their authority and control +are not permitted to destroy such materials either, and materials are "considered to be under a +party's control when that party has the right, authority, or practical ability to obtain [them] from +a non-party to the action." In re NTL, Inc. Sec. Litig., 244 F.R.D. 179, 195 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). +The obligation to preserve relevant evidence covers all documents, electronically stored +information, or tangible things in any form whatsoever, including, without limitation: writings; +contracts; authorizations; business and financial records; inspections; notes; calendars; drafts; +plans; drawings; charts; photographs; sound recordings; video recordings; images; emails; call + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 14-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 5 of 16 +records; voicemails; instant messages; text messages; computer files; spreadsheets; data created +by the use of banking, asset management, or financial software; all internet and web browsergenerated history files, caches, and "cookies"; flash drives; hard drives; cellphones; and other +data or data compilations stored in any medium from which information can be obtained. +Accordingly, the obligation requires You to suspend any destruction policies, including +but not limited to the deletion of emails, instant messages, text messages, voicemails, and other +electronic records, and take any and all measures necessary, including retaining archival +documents in storage and backing up and/or mirroring electronic records and metadata, to ensure +the retention of all materials that are relevant to this action, are reasonably calculated to lead to +the discovery of admissible evidence, or are reasonably likely to be requested during discovery. +You must also refrain from causing, ordering, requesting, or suggesting that any third-party +delete, alter or restrict access to any websites, social media accounts, or any other repositories +containing information potentially relevant to this dispute. +Please also note that electronically stored information typically contains relevant +discoverable information beyond what is apparent to the viewer, including, for example, +embedded data and metadata. Therefore, it is necessary to preserve all electronically stored +information in its original electronic form, even where paper copies might exist. Moreover, +electronically stored information can be easily modified, deleted, or corrupted, and You are +required to take all reasonable steps to ensure that all relevant, discoverable electronically stored +information is preserved. Because modification, deletion, or corruption may result from +automatic functions within the routine operation of an electronic information system, or from +routine upgrades or recycling of computer-related hardware or software, Your preservation +obligation includes, but is not limited to, the obligation to suspend any such operations, +upgrades, or recycling features or protocols (including any document or data destruction +policies) pending resolution of this action. +You should have already taken appropriate steps to preserve relevant materials. See +Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 218 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (*Once a party +reasonably anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine document retention/destruction +policy and put in place a 'litigation hold' to ensure the preservation of relevant documents."). +This includes, without limitation, any and all documents or other tangible materials at Mr. +Epstein's townhouse, as well as all of his other residences. It also covers any and all of Mr. +Epstein's computers, laptops, cell phones, smart phones, personal digital assistants and other +devices, and the data stored therein. +should you refuse or al to provide such confirmatio, we lies to sc popia. +2 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 14-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 6 of 16 +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +troutman" +sanders +troutman.com +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +E-MAIL +October 22, 2019 +Roberta A. Kaplan +Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP +350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 +New York, NY 10118 +Re: Jane Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the +Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 1:19-cv-08673-KPF +Dear Roberta: +As you know, we represent Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as Co- +Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, "Defendants"), in the referenced action. +We received your letter dated October 11, 2019 addressed to the undersigned and Andrew +Tomback. We understand Mr. Tomback has addressed your questions about Mr. Kahn. +As for your "Document Retention Notice Directed to the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein," Defendants +fully intend to satisfy their discovery obligations. However, your Notice unreasonably and +impermissibly attempts to broaden Defendants' preservation obligations beyond those in +applicable law. Your Notice is also otherwise unduly burdensome, overly broad, and not +proportional to the needs of the above referenced case. +The foregoing is without prejudice to Defendants' rights and legal positions, all of which are +hereby expressly preserved. +Very truly yours, +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz +40416329v1 + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 14-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 7 of 16 +Kyla Magun +From: +Sent: +To: +Cc: +Subject: +Julie Fink +Monday, October 28, 2019 6:27 PM +Bennet.Moskowitz@troutman.com +Roberta Kaplan; Kyla Magun +FW: Letter from R. Kaplan +Dear Bennet: +Thank you for your email. +Per your request, we previously provided you with a list of topics for which we requested that you retain all categories +of documents. We then asked that you confirm your agreement with these requests. However, your response does not +confirm your agreement and whether your client will be retaining all documents related to these topics. We would +appreciate an answer to that question promptly. +We are happy to discuss over the phone if you would prefer. If so, please let us know your availability to speak +tomorrow morning. +Very truly yours, +Julie +Julie Fink | Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP +350 Fifth Avenue | Suite 7110 +New York, New York 10118 +(W) 212.763.0885 | (M) 646.856.6431 +ifink@kaplanhecker.com +From: Moskowitz, Bennet J. +Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 8:30:57 AM +To: Roberta Kaplan ; Kyla Magun +Subject: RE: Letter from R. Kaplan +Dear Roberta, +While we continue to seek to accommodate your requests for information, as a courtesy and not because there +is any legal obligation to do so, many of your "topics" provided on October 23 assume facts and are +argumentative (e.g., "Efforts by Epstein to provide attorneys to persons who recruited girls for him or provided +sex-related services to him"). +Moreover, you now demand information that implicates the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product +doctrine. Accordingly, and while we will strive to be accommodating whenever possible - especially when, as +we have informed you, the Estate is very close to establishing a claims administration process as an +alternative to litigation- we decline to make any specific agreements or representations concerning your +To further allay any concerns you may have, we assure you nothing has changed in terms of preservation +since before you first reached out to us about a news article that, to the extent you believe suggested +1 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 14-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 8 of 16 +otherwise, was wrong. Further, and as we already advised, our clients take their preservation obligations +seriously. There is therefore no urgency and, in turn, no justification for judicial intervention. +If you nevertheless insist on seeking the Court's intervention, then we should first meet and confer by phone so +we can better understand the relief you would seek and legal and factual bases for it. We do not want to +unnecessarily burden the Court. +Best regards, +Bennet +Bennet J. Moskowitz* +troutmansanders +Direct: 212.704.6087 +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +*Licensed to practice law in New York and Connecticut +From: Roberta Kaplan +Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 10:07 AM +To: Moskowitz, Bennet J. ; Kyla Magun +Subject: Re: Letter from R. Kaplan +EXTERNAL SENDER +Dear Bennet: +Safe travels. We will expect a response before noon on Monday. Presumably, you are already aware of the documents +and other information that you are preserving. +Very truly yours, +Robbie +Roberta Kaplan +Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP +350 Fifth Avenue suite 7110 +New York, NY 10118 +212 763 0883 +From: Moskowitz, Bennet J. +Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 9:29 AM +To: Kyla Magun; Roberta Kaplan +Subject: Re: Letter from R. Kaplan +Hi Roberta, +I am traveling to Michigan today for an arbitration. However, we will be sure to get back to you by early next +week. +Best regards, +2 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 14-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 9 of 16 +Bennet +Bennet J. Moskowitz* +troutmansanders +Direct: 212.704.6087 +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +*Licensed to practice law in New York and Connecticut +On Oct 23, 2019, at 6:45 PM, Kyla Magun wrote: +EXTERNAL SENDER +ON BEHALF OF ROBERTA A. KAPLAN +Dear Bennet: +Thank you for your timely response. We write in response to the two aspects of our Document Retention Notice you +have suggested are overly broad. +First, regarding timing, in our Complaint, we allege that our client met Epstein in or around 2002. (See, e.g., ECF 1 1 +3.) Accordingly, we request that you apply our retention request to documents from 2002 to the present. As you know, +there is no statute of limitations with respect to our alleged causes of action, so this timeline is perfectly reasonable. +Second, we request that you retain all categories of documents related to the following topics: +• Epstein's financial records, including those of any and all entities associated with Epstein and those listed among +his assets in his will; +• Any and all statements or representations made by Epstein regarding his sexual pursuits; +• Any and all payments made by Epstein related to his sexual pursuits; +• Any and all criminal investigations of Epstein, including the Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into by Epstein +in 2008 and the US Attorney's 2019 investigation into Epstein; +• All persons who recruited girls to service Epstein; +• All persons who provided sex-related services to Epstein from 2002 to the present; +• Efforts by Epstein to provide attorneys to persons who recruited girls for him or provided sex-related services to +him; +• All properties owned by Epstein on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, including his 71" Street mansion; +• Any and all employees of properties owned by Epstein on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, including his 71" +Street mansion; +• Epstein's travel; +• Dates Epstein was present in New York; +• Lesley Groff; and, +• Epstein's last will and testament. +Please let us know within 48 hours whether you agree to these preservation requests. Given the sensitivity of this +matter, if we do not hear from you within 48 hours, we will have no choice but to consider seeking the intervention of +the Court. We reserve all rights. +3 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 14-1 +Filed 10/31/19 Page 10 of 16 +Finally, we confirm that our client has been and will continue to abide with all discovery obligations. +Very truly yours, +Robbie +Kyla Magun | Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP +Associate +350 Fifth Avenue | Suite 7110 +New York, New York 10118 +(W) 929.469.28go | (M) 646.784.4621 +kmagun@kaplanhecker.com +From: Moskowitz, Bennet J. +Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 4:24 PM +To: Roberta Kaplan +Cc: Kyla Magun +Subject: RE: Letter from R. Kaplan +Dear Roberta, +Happy to allay your concerns. Among other things, your Document Retention Notice in this action is (1) +completely unlimited as to time and (2) ambiguous regarding the scope of subject matter your client contends +should be preserved (see page 1, demanding preservation of all documents, ESI and tangible things that are +relevant to the action or are "reasonably likely" to be requested during discovery). +As we previously advised you, Defendants are fully aware of their discovery obligations (including document +preservation) and will comport themselves accordingly. We trust your client will do the same. +Best, +Bennet +Bennet J. Moskowitz* +troutmansanders +Direct: 212.704.6087 +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +*Licensed to practice law in New York and Connecticut +From: Kyla Magun +Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 2:57 PM +To: Moskowitz, Bennet J. +Cc: Roberta Kaplan +Subject: RE: Letter from R. Kaplan +EXTERNAL SENDER +ON BEHALF OF ROBERTA A. KAPLAN +4 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 14-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 11 of 16 +Dear Bennet: +We have reviewed your letter dated October 22, 2019. +In that letter, you write that while you fully intend to satisfy your discovery obligations, our document retention notice +attached to our letter to you dated October 11, 2019 somehow "unreasonably and impermissibly attempts to broaden +Defendants' preservation obligations beyond those in applicable law." +In light of that response, we ask that you explain with reasonable specificity which components of our notice you find to +be overly broad and whether there are particular requests in our October 11 letter or notice with which Defendants do +not intend to comply. Again, please identify any such requests (including types of documents or other information as +well as geographic/physical locations) with reasonable specificity so that we can actually understand what you are +talking about. +Given the risks of spoliation due to the lack of clarity in your response, we ask that you respond within 48 hours. +Very truly yours, +Robbie +Kyla Magun | Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP +Associate +350 Fifth Avenue | Suite 7110 +New York, New York 10118 +(W) 929-469.2890 | (M) 646.784-4621 +kmagun@kaplanhecker.com +From: Moskowitz, Bennet J. +Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 11:12 AM +To: Kyla Magun +Cc: Roberta Kaplan +Subject: RE: Letter from R. Kaplan +Please see the attached letter. +Best regards, +Bennet +Bennet J. Moskowitz* +troutmansanders +Direct: 212.704.6087 +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +*Licensed to practice law in New York and Connecticut +From: Kyla Magun +Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 6:09 PM +To: Moskowitz, Bennet J. +Cc: Roberta Kaplan +Subject: Letter from R. Kaplan +5 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 14-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 12 of 16 +EXTERNAL SENDER +ON BEHALF OF ROBERTA A. KAPLAN +Dear Bennet, +Attached, please find a letter relating to Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.). +Thank you, +Robbie +Kyla Magun | Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP +Associate +350 Fifth Avenue | Suite 7110 +New York, New York 10118 +(W) 929.469.28g0 | (M) 646.784.4621 +kmagun@kaplanhecker.com +This email and its attachments may contain information that is confidential and/or protected from disclosure by the attorney-client, work product or other +applicable legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of the email, please be aware that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, +dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in +error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the message from your computer system. Thank you. +This e-mail message (and any attachments) from Troutman Sanders LLP may contain legally privileged and confidential +information solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error, please delete the message +and notify the sender. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other use of this message (and attachments) is +strictly prohibited. +This email and its attachments may contain information that is confidential and/or protected from disclosure by the attomey-client, work product or other +applicable legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of the email, please be aware that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, +dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in +error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the message from your computer system. Thank you. +This e-mail message (and any attachments) from Troutman Sanders LLP may contain legally privileged and confidential +information solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error, please delete the message +and notify the sender. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other use of this message (and attachments) is +strictly prohibited. +This email and its attachments may contain information that is confidential and/or protected from disclosure by the attorney-client, work product on other +applicable legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of the email, please be aware that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, +dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in +error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the message from your computer system. Thank you. +This e-mail message (and any attachments) from Troutman Sanders LLP may contain legally privileged and confidential +information solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error, please delete the message +6 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 14-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 13 of 16 +and notify the sender. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other use of this message (and attachments) is +strictly prohibited. +This email and its attachments may contain information that is confidential and/or protected from disclosure by the attorney-client, work product or other +applicable legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of the email, please be aware that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, +dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in +error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the message from your computer system. Thank you. +This e-mail message (and any attachments) from Troutman Sanders LLP may contain legally privileged and confidential +information solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error, please delete the message +and notify the sender. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other use of this message (and attachments) is +strictly prohibited. +7 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 14-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 14 of 16 +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +troutman" +sanders +troutman.com +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +October 28, 2019 +E-MAIL +Roberta A. Kaplan +Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP +350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 +New York, NY 10118 +Re: +Jane Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the +Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 1:19-cv-08673-KPF +Dear Roberta: +As you know, we represent Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate +of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, "Defendants"), in the referenced action (the "Action"). Without +limiting or waiving your client Jane Doe's discovery obligations, we write to: (1) request immediate +confirmation that your client has preserved all materials -- including without limitation hardcopy +documents,' electronically stored information ("ESI") and tangible things -- relevant or potentially +relevant to the subjects of Jane Doe's Complaint (ECF # 1); and (2) ensure Jane Doe continues +to preserve such materials until the Action is fully concluded. +Such materials include, without limitation, all documents and communications? within Jane Doe's +possession, custody or control concerning (i.e., embodying, mentioning, or concerning, directly +or indirectly) Jeffrey E. Epstein. +Please confirm in writing no later than November 4, 2019 that Jane Doe has preserved and will +continue to preserve all documents and communications described above, and all other +information relevant or potentially relevant to the subject matter of the Action. +This letter contains only non-exhaustive references to relevant and potentially relevant information +and is without prejudice to Defendants' rights and legal positions, all of which are expressly +reserved. Specifically, and without limitation, this letter shall in no way limit what Defendants may +'The term "document" is defined to be synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the usage of the term +"documents or electronically stored information" in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(A). A draft or non-identical copy +is a separate document within the meaning of this term. +2 The term "communication" means the transmittal of information (in the form of facts, ideas, inquiries or +otherwise). + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 14-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 15 of 16 +October 28, 2019 +Page 2 +troutman" +sanders +seek during discovery in the Action. It is essential that Jane Doe preserve - and not alter, delete, +discard, or otherwise destroy - all information relevant or potentially relevant to the Action. +Very truly yours, +40464732v1 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 14-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 16 of 16 +350 FIFTH AVENUE | SUITE 7110 +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 +TEL (212) 763-0883 | FAX (212) 564-0883 +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0883 +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com +October 29, 2019 +By Email: +Troutman Sanders LLP +785 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +bennet.moskowitz/@troutman.com +Re: Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) +Dear Counsel: +As you know, we represent Plaintiff Jane Doe in the above matter. +We write in response to your letter dated October 28, 2019. We can confirm that our +client continues to abide by her discovery obligations and has preserved and will continue to +preserve through the end of this matter all materials relevant to the subjects in her Complaint. It +is worth noting, however, that our client's claims relate to crimes committed by Mr. Epstein +when our client was a child—only 14 years old, 17 years ago. +But unlike our client, Mr. Epstein was an adult during the relevant period. We have +repeatedly asked that you confirm with us that you are preserving Mr. Epstein's documents +related to the specific topics relevant to our Complaint, which we listed for you in our email +dated October 23, 2019. We still have not received a simple answer from you on this. As stated +in our emails dated October 23, 24, and 28, 2019, you need to respond immediately. In any +event, we continue to reserve all rights. +We look forward to hearing from you shortly. +Very truly yours, +Roll +Roberta A. Kaplan \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b47119ab278b001b5ca5cc8027da132195a9188e0e8f71ea577750ff54fd8f45.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b47119ab278b001b5ca5cc8027da132195a9188e0e8f71ea577750ff54fd8f45.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7a138934a1b3aa83a3b66fa720caa99eecd5f59d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b47119ab278b001b5ca5cc8027da132195a9188e0e8f71ea577750ff54fd8f45.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -439, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b47119ab278b001b5ca5cc8027da132195a9188e0e8f71ea577750ff54fd8f45", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 19, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "23e39cf68aa995544077abef20b3ae15a29b1d467f00d035e6554e4b57fff9a9", + "output_sha256": "e3829aad4373ef1e57b7bf49846b267356b419ab5ee2315bd92405dff58afa7b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b4935579233c4966d4d04563b76adab90802ffb0ad98378a723859ffefa33422.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b4935579233c4966d4d04563b76adab90802ffb0ad98378a723859ffefa33422.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed0b6348c3296bb8dc3f1cf50e7a2b7f26e409d9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b4935579233c4966d4d04563b76adab90802ffb0ad98378a723859ffefa33422.md @@ -0,0 +1,214 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 1 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +AMENDED COMPLAINT +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 2 ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), brings this Complaint against Jeffrey +Epstein, as follows: +Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue +Jane Doe No. 2 is a citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and is sui +juris. +This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name to protect the identity of the +Plaintiff because this Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon a +minor. +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen and resident of the State of New York. +This is an action for damages in excess of $50 million. +5. +This Court has jurisdiction of this action and the claims set forth herein pursuant to 28 +U.S.C. §1332(a), as the matter in controversy (i) exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs; +and (ii) is between citizens of different states. +6. +This Court has venue of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a) as a substantial +part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. +Factual Allegations +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 2 of 8 +At all relevant times, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") was an adult male, 52 +years old. Epstein is a financier and money manager with a secret clientele limited exclusively to +billionaires. He is himself a man of tremendous wealth, power and influence. He maintains his +principal home in New York and also owns residences in New Mexico, St. +and Palm Beach, +FL. The allegations herein concern Epstein's conduct while at his lavish estate in Palm Beach. +Upon information and belief, Epstein has a sexual preference and obsession for +underage minor girls. He engaged in a plan and scheme in which he gained access to primarily +economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home, sexually assaulted these girls, and then gave +them money. In or about 2004-2005, Jane Doe, then approximately 16 years old, fell into Epstein's +trap and became one of his victims. +Upon information and belief, Jeffrey Epstein carried out his scheme and assaulted +girls in Florida, New York and on his private island, known as Little St. James, in St. +10. Epstein's scheme involved the use of young girls to recruit underage girls. (Upon +information and belief, the young girl who brought Jane Doe to Epstein was herself a minor victim +of Epstein, and will therefore not be named in this Complaint). Under Epstein's plan, underage girls +were recruited ostensibly to give a wealthy man a massage for monetary compensation in his Palm +Beach mansion. The recruiter would be contacted when Epstein was planning to be at his Palm +Beach residence or soon after he had arrived there. Epstein or someone on his behalf would direct +the recruiter to bring one or more underage girls to the residence. The recruiter, upon information +and belief, generally sought out economically disadvantaged underage girls from western Palm +Beach County who would be enticed by the money being offered - generally $200 to $300 per +"massage" session - and who were perceived as less likely to complain to authorities or have +credibility if allegations of improper conduct were made. This was an important element of +Epstein's plan. +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 3 of 8 +11. +Epstein's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. Upon arrival at +Epstein's mansion, the underage victim would be introduced to +Epstein's assistant, +who gathered the girl's personal information, including her name and telephone number. +would then bring the girl up a flight of stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table in addition +to other furnishings. There were photographs of nude women lining the stairway +and in the +bedroom. The girl would then find herself alone in the room with Epstein, who would be wearing +only a towel. He would then remove his towel and lie naked on the massage table, and direct the girl +to remove her clothes. Epstein would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual acts, +including masturbation and touching the girl's vagina. +12. +Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, Jane Doe was recruited to give +Epstein a massage for monetary compensation. Jane was brought to Epstein's mansion in Palm +Beach. Once at the mansion, Jane was introduced to +who led her up the flight of +stairs to the room with the massage table. In this room, Epstein told Jane to take off her clothes and +give him a massage. Jane kept her panties and bra on and complied with Epstein's instructions. +Epstein wore only a towel around his waste. After a short period of time, Epstein removed the towel +and rolled over exposing his penis. Epstein began to masturbate and he sexually assaulted Jane. +13. +After Epstein had completed the assault, Jane was then able to get dressed, leave the +room and go back down the stairs. Jane was paid $200 by Epstein. The young girl who recruited +Jane was paid $100 by Epstein for bringing Jane to him. +14. +As a result of this encounter with Epstein, Jane experienced confusion, shame, +humiliation and embarrassment, and has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries. +COUNTI +Sexual Assault and Battery +15. +Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. +16. +Epstein acted with intent to cause an offensive contact with Jane Doe, or an imminent +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 4 of 8 +apprehension of such a contact, and Jane Doe was thereby put in such imminent apprehension. +17. +CEpstein made an intentional, unlawful offer of offensive sexual contact toward Jane +Doe, creating a reasonable fear of imminent peril. +18. +Epstein intentionally inflicted harmful or offensive contact on the person of Jane Doe, +with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent. +19. +Epstein tortiously committed a sexual assault and battery on Jane Doe. Epstein's acts +were intentional, unlawful, offensive and harmful. +20. +Epstein's plan and scheme in which he committed such acts upon Jane Doe were +done willfully and maliciously. +21. +As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's assault on Jane, she has suffered and +will continue to suffer severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and +emotional damages. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and such other and further relief as this +Court deems just and proper. +22. +23. +24. +of decency. +25. +COUNT II +Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress +Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. +Epstein's conduct was intentional or reckless. +Epstein's conduct with a minor was extreme and outrageous, going beyond all bounds +Epstein committed willful acts of child sexual abuse on Jane Doe. These acts resulted +in mental or sexual injury to Jane Doe, that caused or were likely to cause Jane Doe's mental or +emotional health to be significantly impaired. +26. +Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. Epstein knew or had +-4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 5 of 8 +reason to know that his intentional and outrageous conduct would cause emotional distress and +damage to Jane Doe, or Epstein acted with reckless disregard of the high probability of causing +severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. +27. As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's intentional or reckless conduct, Jane +Doe, has suffered and will continue to suffer severe mental anguish and pain. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for compensatory damages, costs, punitive damages, and such other and further relief as this +Court deems just and proper. +COUNT III +Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422 +28. Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. +29. Epstein used a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, +induce or entice Jane Doe, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or +sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. +30. +Epstein's acts and conduct are in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422. +31. As a result of Epstein's violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422, Plaintiff has suffered personal +injury, including mental, psychological and emotional damages. +32. Plaintiff hired Herman & Mermelstein, P.A., in this matter and agreed to pay them a +reasonable attorneys' fee. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for all damages available under 28 U.S.C. §2255(a), including without limitation, actual +and compensatory damages, costs of suit, and attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as +this Court deems just and proper. +JURY TRIAL DEMAND +Plaintiff demands a jury trial in this action on all claims so triable. +- 5- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 6 of 8 +Dated: September 22, 2008 +Respectfully submitted, +By:_ +s/ Jeffrey M. Herman +Jeffrey M. Herman (FL Bar No. 521647) +jherman @hermanlaw.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@hermanlaw.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiff +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +- 6- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 7 of 8 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on September 22, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via +transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized +manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic +Filing. +Is/ Jeffrey M. Herman +- 7- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 8 of 8 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Michael R. Tein, Esq. +tein@lewistein.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Michael Pike, Esq. +mpike@bclclaw.com +Is/ Jeffrey M. Herman +- 8- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b4935579233c4966d4d04563b76adab90802ffb0ad98378a723859ffefa33422.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b4935579233c4966d4d04563b76adab90802ffb0ad98378a723859ffefa33422.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..39e4317af61023eddf996139486f00b3fec3303f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b4935579233c4966d4d04563b76adab90802ffb0ad98378a723859ffefa33422.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -96, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b4935579233c4966d4d04563b76adab90802ffb0ad98378a723859ffefa33422", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "a0300960982c9aa07b8da39400994353cd1fe770cfd864f89f8ec6fa34c2b924", + "output_sha256": "319e77b5c170fa40eab865a40cd02dd7f0a1719b8801b2a97d63d83591d8fe8a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b495a4932e32c49f36d62113985f739f03eabfc8edf99762c3b52dfe52a1fc71.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b495a4932e32c49f36d62113985f739f03eabfc8edf99762c3b52dfe52a1fc71.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..64ab0946efcfab18077f5d7fe24ee0f1964c82af --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b495a4932e32c49f36d62113985f739f03eabfc8edf99762c3b52dfe52a1fc71.md @@ -0,0 +1,3626 @@ +- Filing # 116366269 E-Filed 11/09/2020 02:14:01 PM +INTHECIRCUITCOURTOFTHEFIFTEENTHJUDICIALCIRCUIT +INANDFORPA LMBEACHCOUNTY,FLORIDA +CAFLORIDAHOLDINGS, LLC, +PublisherofthePALMBEACHPOST, +Plaintiff, +v. +DAVEARONBERG,asState Attorneyof +BeachCounty,Florida +Defendants. +CASENO.:19 -CA-014681 +COPY +DEFENDANTDA VEARONBERG'SAMENDEDMOTIONFORATTORNEYS' FEES +Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Auorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and +through the undersigned counsel, hereby moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 1.525, Fla. +R. Civ. P. to enter an award of attorneys' fees, in his favor against Plaintiff, CA FLORIDA +HOLDINGS, LLC, publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, and in support thereof states the +following: +BASISFORA WARDINGATTORNEYS'FEES +1. +On November 14, 2019, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, publisher of the PALM +BEACH POST ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida (the "State Attorney" or "Defendant Aronberg") and SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida (the "Clerk"). The basis of the +action was asking the Court to order the State Attorney and the Clerk to disclose the 2006 Jeffrey +Epstcingrandjurymaterials, (the"RequestedMaterials"),pursuantto§905.27(1)Fla.Stat, +Party_JOINT +ID#. J25 EV#J25 +DATEADMITTED: 9/6/2022 +Case No. 2019-CA-01468 +ABRUZZO CLERI +CAVAronharg09Q31Q BEACH COUNTY, KIOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM +Joint Exhibit +J25 + + +On December 6, 2019, the State Attorney filed his Motion to Dismiss, then on +December 13, 2019, the Clerk also filed a Motion to Dismiss. In response, Plaintiff filed its First +Amended Complaint on January 17, 2020, which in addition to its original claim under § 905.27 +Fla. Stat. (Count II) added a claim for Declaratory Relief (Count I) that sought an order declaring +that the State Attorney and the Clerk disclose the Requested Materials to Plaintiff for the purpose +of informing the public. +3. +On January 24, 2019, both the State Attorney and the Clerk/filed theit Answer to +the First Amended Complaint and Motion to Dismiss Count II ("Answer/Motion to Dismiss). +Notably, the State Attorney's Answer/Motion to Dismiss asserted its right to attorneys' fees for +defending the action and requested such relief from the Court. +4. +On June 8, 2020, the Court entered its Order Granting Defendants Motions to +Dismiss Count Il of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint with Prejudice ("Order"). +Immediately following the Court's Order, on June 8, 2020, the State Attorney, +through the undersigned counsel, served Plaintiff with a demand pursuant to § 57.105 Fla. Stat., +to voluntary dismiss/withdraw the First Amended Complaint and the claims against the State +Attorney, along with a Motion for Attorneys' Fees ("57.105 Demand"). See, Exhibit "A". +Specifically, because of the Court's Order only Count I of Plaintiff's: Amended Complaint +remained, which sought Declaratory Relief under § 86.011, Fla. Stat. +6. +Here, in properly serving his 57.105 Demand on Plaintiff, the State Attorney also +properly put Plaintiff on notice that he would scek sanctions by filing the 57.105 Motion for +Attorneys' Fees if Plaintiff failed to dismiss the remainder of its First Amended Complaint within +21 days of service of the 57.105 Demand and Motion for Attorneys' Fees. +2 +CA/Arober ODOSINI BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +On June 23, 2020, Plaintiff's counsel sent a response to the 57.105 Demand +refusing to withdraw the remainder of the First Amended Complaint. See, Exhibit "B". +8. +§ 57.105, Florida Statutes states the following: +A motion by a party secking sanctions under this section must be served but may +not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the +motion, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not +withdrawn or appropriately corrected. +9. +Accordingly, after receiving Plaintiff's June 23, 2020, response refusing to +withdraw the remainder of the First Amended Complaint and waiting the prerequisite "21 days +after service of the motion" the State Attorney's Motion for Attorneys' Fees was filed with this +Court on July 1, 2020. See, Exhibit "C". +10. Thereafter, on August 18, 2020, the State Attorney filed his Motion for Summary +Judgment ("Motion" and proceeded, on October 21, 2020, to file a Motion to Set Hearing on the +State Attorney's Motion ("Motion to Set") after it became clear that there would be no resolution +of this matter without the Court's intervention. +11. Nonetheless, later the same day, rather than setting and participating in a hearing +on the merits as to State Attorney's Motion, Plaintiff filed its Notice of Dropping the State Attorney +("Notice") from the instant case. See, Exhibit "D". As a consequence of filing its Notice, Plaintiff +has effectively made an admission that its allegations against the State Attorney have no basis in +fact or law +12. +"An essential distinction between a notice of dropping a party and a voluntary +dismissal is that the former concludes the action as to the dropped party while the latter is generally +utilized to conclude the action in its entirety." Carter v. Lake County, 840 So. 2d 1153, 1155 (Fla. +5th DCA 2003). +3 +CA/Arontierg 000312 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +13. +Specifically, Plaintiff's Notice states: "Plaintiff, [sic], pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. +1.250(b), hereby notifies the parties that it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the +above case." +14. +Rule 1.250(b), Fla. R. Civ. P. states: +dropped, the notice of dismissal shall be recorded and cancels the notice of lis +pendens without the necessity of a court order. Parties may be dropped by order of +court on its own initiative or the motion of any party at any stage of the action on +such terms as are just. +15. Rule 1.420(a)(1), Fla. R. Civ. P., Voluntary Dismissal states: +(1) By Parties. Except in actions in which property has been seized or is in the +custody of the court, an action, a claim, or any part of an action or claim may be +dismissed by plaintiff without order of court (A) before trial by serving, or during +trial by stating on the record, a notice of dismissal at any time before a hearing on +motion for summary judgment, or if none is served or if the motion is denied, before +retirement of the jury in a case tried before a jury or before submission of a nonjury +case to the court for decision, or (B) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by +all current parties to the action. Unless otherwise stated in the notice or stipulation, +the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an +adjudication on the merits when served by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in +any court an action based on or including the same claim. +16. Notably, "[R]ule 1.250(b) expressly incorporates the procedural aspects of Florida +Rule of Civil Procedure 1420(a)(1) governing voluntary dismissal by providing that parties may +be dropped 'in the mánner provided for voluntary dismissal in rule 1.420(a)(1) subject to the +exception stated in that rule."" Siboni v. +, 52 So. 3d 779, 780 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). +1%. Likewise, because Rule 1.250(b) specifies that a party is dropped "in the manner +provided for voluntary dismissal in Rule 1.420(a)(1), the Siboni court concluded that "the manner" +includes the same entitlement to costs and attorney's fees which would have been enjoyed had the +dismissal occurred entirely under Rule 1.420(a)(1). Id. at 781. +4 +CA/Arohberg000318 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +18. +Accordingly, the Siboni court held that a "party dropped from litigation under rule +1.250(b) is subject to the time limitation contained in rule 1.525 governing service of a motion +seeking a judgment for costs and attorney's fees." Id. +19. +Although Plaintiff filed its Notice the claims asserted by Plaintiff have been, since +the filing of its initial complaint, completely without support of the facts or the law. At their very +core, all of Plaintiff's claims are based on the presumption that the State Attorney has the authority +to disclose the Requested Materials. Nonetheless, Section 905.17(1), Florida Statutes makes clear +that Plaintiff's Requested Materials can only be released by the Clerk pursuant to a court order. +The stenographic records, notes, and transcriptions made by the court reporter or +stenographer shall be filed with the clerk who shall keep them in a sealed container +not subject to public inspection. The notes, records, and transcriptions are +confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.0Z(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of +the State Constitution and shall be released by the clerk only on request by a grand +jury for use by the grand jury or on order of the court pursuant to s. 905.2Z. +Section 905.17(1), Florida Statutes (2020). +20. The State Attorney has no objection to the Clerk producing and disclosing the +Requested Materials should the Court grant an order to that effect, however, it is impossible for +the State Attorney to comply with the relief sought by Plaintiff in its remaining claim for +declaratory relief as he does not possess or control the Requested Materials and is statutorily barred +from any disclosure. +21. Although the State Attorney was prepared to make his argument to the Court, +Plaintiff decided instead to drop him as a party. Despite Plaintiff's decision, the Florida Rules of +Civil Procedure and the above authorities make clear that because Rule 1.250 specifies that a party +is dropped "in the manner provided for voluntary dismissal in Rule 1.420(a)(1)," it therefore +"operates as an adjudication on the merits." See, Siboni v. +52 So. 3d 779, 781 (Fla. 5th +DCA 2010); Rule 1.420(a)(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. +5 +CA/Arone@ 0D03 1A BEACH COUNTY; FL, + + +22. +and therefore: +Consequently, the filing of Plaintiff's Notice triggered Rule 1.525, Fla. R. Civ. P. +Under [§ 57.105], the legislature has expressed its unequivocal intent that where a +party files a meritless claim, suit or appeal, the party who is wrongfully required to +expend funds for attorneys' fees is entitled to recoup those fees. +County Conservation Alliance v. L +County, 73 So. 3d 856, 857 (Fla. Ist DCA 2011) +(finding that "Courts are not at liberty to disregard the legislative mandate that courts shall impose +sanctions in cases without foundation in material fact or law. The word "shall" in § 57.105, Fla. +Stat., evidences the legislative intent to impose a mandatory penalty to discourage baseless claims, +by placing a price tag on losing parties who engage in these activities. Section 57.105 expressly +states courts "shal!" assess attorney's fees for bringing, of failing to dismiss, baseless claims or +defenses."). +23. +In fact, "Section 57.105(1) clearly and explicitly confers upon the trial court the +authority to award attorney's fees to the prevailing party upon the court's initiative, if 'the court +finds that the losing party ... knew or should have known that a claim or defense when initially +presented to the court or at any time before trial... [wlas not supported by the material facts +necessary to establish the claim or defense." +47 So. 3d 320, 324 (Fla, 2d DCA +2010). +24. +The simple fact of the matter is that Plaintiff failed to withdraw its Amended +Complaint against the State Attorney within the 21-day period provided for in section 57.105(4), +and therefore the State Attorney was permitted to file his 57.105 Motion for Attorneys' Fees as +sanctions. +25. +Furthermore, based on the impossible nature of Plaintiff's demand of the State +Attorney, it was proper to demand withdrawal of Plaintiff's remaining claim for declaratory relief +6 +CA/Arontier@ 0D031 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +and serve the 57.105 Motion for Attorneys' Fees due to Plaintiff's claim lacking any basis in fact +or law. Again, neither the State Attorney nor his office has possession, custody or control of the +Requested Materials. Likewise, the State Attorney has no objection, and never has had any +objection, to the Clerk releasing the records sought by Plaintiff, as disclosure of the Requested +Materials sought by Plaintiff lies solely within the providence of the Clerk pursuant to an order of +the Court. +26. +Consequently, the State Attorney is entitled to recover all of his reasonable +attorneys' fees in defending this suit by virtue of 57.105, Florida Statutes. +REASONABLENESS AND AMOUNT OF ATTORNEYS' FEES +27. +From the service of the 57.105 Demand to the date of this motion, the attorneys for +the State Attorney have rendered 42.2 hours of legal services for a total amount of $18,275.00 in +defending this action. See time sheets detailing: the amount of hours by each timekeeper, the +timekeeper's hourly rate, and a description of the tasks done during those times, on attached +Exhibit "E". Of that amount, the undersigned has been paid $0.00 as the engagement with the +State Attorney is on a pure contingency fee basis. The undersigned expects to incur an additional +4.0 hours at $425.00 an hour in preparing for and attending the hearing on attorneys' fees. Thus, +the total amount of hourly attorneys' fees the State Attorney is seeking is 46.2 hours for a total of +$19,975.00, As further set forth below, the State Attorney also seeks a multiplier of 2.0, which +when applied makes the grand total attorneys' fees as sanctions sought herein $39,950.00. +28. +An Affidavit of Attorneys' Fees is attached hereto as Exhibit "F", which details +and breaks down the attorneys' fees sought herein. +7 +CA/ArontergOPAZIA BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +29. +The State Attorney would offer the following facts and arguments as they relate to +the factors promulgated in Rule 4-1.5 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and Florida Patient's +Compensation Fund v. +472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985): +Factor +(A) the time and labor +required, the novelty, +complexity, and difficulty +of the questions involved, +and the skill requisite to +perform the legal service +(B) the likelihood that the +acceptance of the +articular employmen +Facts and Arguments +The time involved by counsel was substantial, consuming nearly +75 hours of legal work. Moreover, the issues in controversy were +novel and complex in that Plaintiff sought to create a new private +statutory cause of action under Florida Statute § 905.27, implicated +several Ist Amendment issues, and further sought declaratory +relief pursuant to said Statute. Finally, this litigation has been +area of for nearly a year and required skil and knowledge in these +Because of the amount of time involved in this litigation anc +considering the relative small size of the firm representing the State +Attorney, the undersigned attorneys were forced to turn away or +vill preclude othe +employment by the lawyer the litigation, due to time required in the instant matter. +(C) the fee, or rate of fee, +customarily charged in the +locality for legal services +of a comparable or similar +and $475.00/hour for Mr. +• services are reasonable for +lawyers in theiryrespective communities possessing equa +experience and skill. +nature +(D) the significance of, or +amount involved in, the +subject matter of the +representation, and the +results obtained +The outcome of this case is of great public significance to the State +of Florida as it pertains to the disclosure of grand jury records anc +he role of the State Attorney concerning such disclosure. Here +the results obtained were the maximum sought by Defendant +Aronberg as he was dismissed from the case, albeit not within the +time constraints of the safe-harbor provision within § 57.105, Fla. +Stat. +There were not any extraordinary limitations imposed by the client, +however, Defendant Aronberg expected and received zealous +representation, with the desire that the case be dispensed of quickly +(E) the time limitations +mposed by the client or +by the circumstances and, +ecial time demands ‹ +quests of the attorney b +As general counsel for the FPAA the undersigned counsel has +8 +CA/Aranher@ OPAZM BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +(G) the experience, +reputation, diligence, and +ability of the lawyer or +lawyers performing the +service and the skill, +expertise, or efficiency of +effort reflected in the +actual providing of such +services +client a whether the +ested to any significan +ceree on the outcome o +the representation. +JUSTIFICATION FOR MULTIPLIER +30. +Defendant Aronberg was able to proceed with this litigation only if counsel would +receive a court order awarding contingency based attorneys' fees upon achievement of a successful +outcome in this case. See, Exhibit "G". Given this and the fact that counsel risked a total of 74.8 +hours of work for no pay, of which 39.4, hours is subject to the 57.105 Demand, Defendant +Aronberg submits that multiplier of 2.0 would be appropriate in this case. Based upon the hours +expended, the hourly rates and a 2.0 multiplier, Defendant Aronberg respectfully requests an award +of attorneys' fees as sanctions as stated herein. +31. +With régard to the application of a multiplier, the court must analyze the three +factors set forth in Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990): +(1) whether the relevant market requires a contingency fee multiplier to obtain +nonpaymen many ay, and 3) whe altony ote actors ser loate the risk of +applicable, especially the amount involved, the results obtained, and the type of fee +See, Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Pulloquinga, 183 So. 3d 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). +CA/Aronberg 000318 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +32. +Here, as to the first factor there was no other counsel in the relevant market who +would agree to represent Defendant Aronberg under the contingency fee agreement needed due to +the financial situation of the Office of the State Attorney as a public entity funded entirely by the +taxpayers of the State of Florida. Although "Risk Mitigation" within the Florida Department of +Financial Services and the Office of the Attorney General indeed represent the State Attorney in +some instances, this case was not picked up by either and Defendant Aronberg was lefi needing +representation by other, private counsel. Although the undersigned counsel and his law firm are +General Counsel for the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys' Association, Inc., ("FPAA") the instant +matter did not fall within the scope of representation for the FPAA and required a separate +engagement between Defendant Aronberg and the undersigned counsel. Accordingly, the +undersigned counsel and his law firm agreed to represent Defendant Aronberg on a contingency +fee basis and to try the case to final judgment considering that there was no other counsel willing +to represent Defendant Aronberg on such terms. +33. +With respect to the other factors to be considered in applying a multiplier as set +forth in Quanstrom, here Defendant Aronberg was unable to mitigate against non-payment of fees +because as a purely taxpayer funded entity, the Office of State Attorney had no other means by +which to pay the undersigned counsel. Additionally, Defendant Aronberg meets each of the +individual Rowe factors as set forth in the table located above on pages 8-9. Accordingly, based +on the foregoing the application of a multiplier herein is proper. In this vein, the +guidelines for the size of a multiplier, as follows: +court set +Based on our review of the decisions of other jurisdictions and commentaries on +the subject, we conclude that in contingent fee cases, the lodestar figure calculated +by the court is entitled to enhancement by an appropriate contingency risk +multiplier in the range from 1.5 to 3. When the trial court determines that success +was more likely than not at the outset, the multiplier should be 1.5; when the +likelihood of success was approximately even at the outset, the multiplier should +10 +CA Aront ODOM BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +be 2; and, when success was unlikely at the time the case was initiated, the +multiplier should be in the range of 2.5 to 3. +Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. +472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). +34. +Additionally, the Quanstrom court confirmed and modified the +approach, as +follows: +However, we find that the multiplier in +should be modified as follows; If the +trial court determines that success was more likely than not at the outset, it +apply a multiplier of 1 to 1.5; if the trial court determines that the likelihood of +uccess was approximately even at the outset, the trial judge may apply a multiplie +f 1.5 to 2.0; and if the trial court determines that success was unlikely at the outse +of the case, it may apply a multiplier of 2.0 to 2.5. Accordingly, our Rowe decision +is modified to allow a multiplier from 1 to 2.5. +Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828, 834 (Fla. 1990). Thus, based +upon all of the foregoing factors, Defendant Aronberg respectfully submits that a multiplier of 2.0 +is appropriate for this representation. +CERTIFICATION OF GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE +The undersigned certifies that a good faith effort was made to resolve the issues raised in +this motion by agreement of the parties. The parties were unable to resolve by agreement the +issues of entitlement to fees or the amount of fees. +WHEREFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach +County, Florida, prays that this Honorable Court will enter an Order awarding Defendant Aronberg +his reasonable attorneys' ices with a multiplier of 2.0 against the Plaintiff, CA FLORIDA +HOLDINGS, LLC, publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, in the amount of $39,950.00. +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 9th day of November, 2020, a copy of the foregoing +Defendant, Dave Aronberg's Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees has been electronically filed +with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein. +11 +CA/Aron di@080320 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +Is/ Douglas A. Wyler +Arthur I. +, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 10249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 0021261; +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-1 +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +(904) 261-3693 +(904) 261-7879 Fax: +Primary: jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net +NOT A C +NOT A CERTIFIED +Attorneys for Defendant, Dave Aronberg +12. +CA/Aronte@ ODO32M BEACH COUNTY, FL, L + + + + +CA/Arohbel@0B0322 BEACH COUNTY, FL, L +| ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM + + +Friday, September 18, 2020 at 11:09:24 Eastern Daylight Time +Subject: +SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT; CASE NO. 2019-CA-014681; CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC V. +DAVE ARONBERG ET AL. +Date: +From: +To: +Monday, June 8, 2020 at 3:58:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time +Douglas Wyler +'mendelsohns@gtlaw.com", smithi@gtlaw.com, flservice@gtlaw.com, BoyajianN@gtlaw.com, +riveraal@gtlaw.com, GRYGIELM@gtlaw.com +Attachments: 2020-06-08 Aronberg 57,105 Demand and Motion for Attorneys' Fees.pdf +Please see attached and below in this matter. +Court: +Case No: +Plaintiff: +Defendant: +Title of Documents +Served: +Sender's Name and +Telephone Number: +Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, +Florida +Case No. 2020-CA-014681 +CA Florida Holdings, LLC +Dave Aronberg +• Fla. Stat. § 57.105 Demand Letter +• Defendant, Dave Aronberg's Motion for Attorneys' Fees. +Douglas Wyler +(904) 261-3693 +Sincerely, +Doug Wyler, Esq. +Scholz & Wyler, LLC +961687 Gateway Blvd., STE 201-1 +Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 +904-261-3693 +904-261-7879 (fax) +doug.wyler@comcast.net +Please be advised that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential attorney-client +communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or +entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or +retransmit this communication but destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or +copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. + +CA/Arohtier@0B0328 BEACH COUNTY, FL, • + + +LAW OFFICES OI +6 ASSOCI +ARTHUR I. +5. P.A. +SCHOLz & WYLER, LIC. +A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS +ATTORNEYS AT LAW +GATEWAY TO AMELIA +961687 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE 201.1 +FERRANDENA BEACH, FLORDA 32034 +TELEPHONE (904) 261-3693 +FAX NO. (904) 261-7879 +RICHARD J. SCHOLZ, P.A. +RICHARD J. SCHOLZ +DOUGLAS A. WYLER, P.A. +DOUGLAS A. WYLER +June 8, 2020 +VIA ELECTRONIC & U.S. MAIL +Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. +Greenburg Traurig, P.A. +5100 Town Center Circle, Suite 400 +Boca Raton, FL 33486 +RE: CA Florida Holdings, LL.C v. Dave Aronberg et al. +Palm Beach County, Case No.: 2019-CA-014681 +COPY +Dear Mr. Mendelsohn: +As you are aware our firm represents the interests of Dave Aronberg, as State Attorney of Palm Beach +County, Florida, in the above referenced matter. The purpose of this letter is to demand the voluntary +dismissal of your First Amended Complaint, (the "Complaint"), dated January 17, 2020. This demanc +is made pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutés. +As you know, Section 57.105 provides: +(I) Upon the court's initiative or motion of any party, the court shall award a +reasonable attorney's fee, including prejudgment interest, to be paid to the +prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party's attorney +on any claim or defense at any time during a civil proceeding or action in which +the court finds that the losing party or the losing party's attorney knew or should +have known that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any +time before trial: +a. • Was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or +defense; or +b. Would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those +material facts. +Today, Judge Marx granted, with prejudice, Defendant Aronberg's Motion to Dismiss Count Il of the +Consists of Cou in to estat or the ict: As curing y, l believe only the coman se acron +and its sole remaining Count for Declaratory Relief is not supported by the material facts necessary to +• establish the claims asserted, and that your claims are not supported by the application of current law +to said material facts. +CA/Aronter 000324 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +First and foremost, the Complaint is not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the +claims asserted because neither Defendant Aronberg, nor The Office of the State Attorney for the +Fifteenth Judicial Circuit is in custody or control of the 2006 grand jury materials sought therein. +Simply put, the declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff, seeks records from my client that are +impossible for him or his office to produce. Accordingly, Defendant Aronberg is not a proper party to +this action because no matter what, he and his office do not have possession, custody, or control of the +requested materials. +In addition to the foregoing material facts that negate the claims asserted in the Complaint, your claims +are also not supported by the application of current law. Specifically, your action for declaratory relief +fails based on the clear, unambiguous statutory language found in Section 905.27(2), Florida Statutes, +which states: +When such disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection (1) for use in a civil +case, it may be disclosed to all parties to the case and to their attorneys and by the latter +to their legal associates and employees. However, the grand jury testimony afforded +such persons by the court can only be used in the defense or prosecution of the civil or +criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever. +Moreover, even if the Plaintiff were to prevail in the declaratory action, Mr. Aronberg would be unable +to comply with any court order granting disclosure of the requested documents because neither Mr. +Aronberg nor The Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit have possession, +Based on the foregoing, if the Complaint is not dismissed within 21 days of the service of this letter, +the enclosed Motion for Attorney's Fees will be filed and we will seek as sanctions, from your client +and your firm, recovery of the legal expenses incurred in defending this frivolous action. +Please govern yourself accordingly +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. +For the Firm +Encl.: Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees +CA/Aronterg0DA324 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida. +Defendants. +COPY +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES +Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and +through the undersigned attorneys, moves the Court, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, +to award him reasonable attorneys' fees for the defense of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, +(the "Complaint"), and as grounds therefor, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served +a copy of this Motion, together with a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with +subsection (4) of the above Statute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior +to the filing of this Motion. In said letter, Defendant's attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which +establish that the Complaint is without support of the facts or the law. +WHEREFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach +County, Florida, respectfully requests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff's +attorneys to pay said Defendant's attorneys' fees incurred herein after service of this Motion. +CA/Aronter 000326 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +I hereby certify that on this _ day +, 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed +via the Florida E-File Portal for electronic service on the parties of record herein. +SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +/s/ Douglas A. Wyler +Arthur I. +1, Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 108249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 +Douglas A. Wyler, Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-I +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +(904) 261-3693 +(904) 261-7879 +jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net +Attorneys for Defendant +NOT A CERT +CA Aronter ODOM BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + + + +CA/Aronter@0P0328 BEACH COUNTY, FL, L + + +GT GreenbergTraurig +Fax 561.659.9119 +mendelsohns@gtlaw.com +June 23, 2020 +Douglas A. Wyler +Jacob Scholz & Wyler, LLC +961687 Gateway Blvd. +Suite 201-1 +Fernandina Beach, Fl. 32034 +Re: CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronberg et al: +Case No. 2019-CA-014681 +COPY +Dear Mr. Wyler: +We are in receipt of your letter of June 8, 2020 with your proposed Fla. Stat. section 57.105 motion. +In your letter and your proposed motion, you assert that CA Florida Holdings, LLC and the law +firm of Greenberg Traurig, P.A. should be liable for the attorneys' fees to be incurred by State +Attorney Aronberg after the date of your letter, Your letter cites to Fla. Stat. sections 57.105(1) +(a) and (b) for support. As shown below, there is no basis for a Fla. Stat. section 57.105 motion, +and we expect that if the State Attorney were to make such a motion, the court should deny it. +Your letter omits a citation to section 57.105(3). Subsection 57.105(3)(a) provides that sanctions +may not be awarded where there is a "good faith argument for the extension, modification or +reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law, as it is applied to the material facts, with +a reasonable expectation of success." We have such a good faith argument. +Contrary to your ahalysis of Fla. Stat. section 905.27, there are actually three instances where a +court may order the release of grand jury materials. As we argue, the court may order release "in +furtherance of justice." There are few cases in Florida reviewing this provision and its scope. It is +an open and valid question as to whether the court may order release of grand jury transcripts to +the media, under both the statute and the First Amendment to the US Constitution in furtherance +of justice. The statutory language you cite refers to instances where a person is seeking grand jury +materials, for use in a civil or in a criminal case. In these limited situations, the statute allows for +such uses and for no other reason. However, the statute does not state, as you assert, that where +the media seeks grand jury materials based upon its constitutional standing, which the Circuit +Court acknowledged at the June 2, 2020 hearing includes The Palm Beach Post, that the statutory +Greenberg Traurig. P.A. | Attorneys at Law +5100 Town Center Circle | Suite 400 | Boca Raton, Flörida 33486 | T +1 561.955.7600 | F +1 561.338.7099; +Albany. Amsterdam. Atlanta. Austin. Berlin" Boca Raton. Boston. Chicago. Dallas, Delaware, Denver. Fort Lauderdale. Houston. Las Vegas. London. Los Angeles. +Mexico City? Miami. Milan Minneapolis, Nashville. New Jersey New York. Northern Virginia. Orangie County: Orlando. Philadelphia. Phoenix, Sacramento, +San Francisco. Seoul" Shanghai, Silicon Valley, Tallabassee. Tampa. Tel Avir. Tokyo; Warsaw, Washington, D.C. West Palm Beach. Westehester County: +CA/Aronberg 000329 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +Correspondencé to Douglas A. Wyler +June 23, 2020 +Page 2 +usé limitation you cite applies. No reported Florida case has addressed this issue and there is a +good faith basis for our view of Fla. Stat. section 905.27 +Your letter also argues that sanctions are applicable because the State Attorney has alleged that it +does not possess the Jeffrey Epstein grand jury transcripts. This allegation is also contained in the +State Attorney's Answer. Assuming that the State Attorney does not currently have physical +possession of the Epstein grand jury materials, which has yet to be demonstrated, this does not end +the matter. The State Attorney was named as a party not simply as a custodian of grand jury +records. The State Attorney was named in his official capacity as his office has was its primary +interest the protection of its grand jury system." [Italics in original.] In re Grand Jury Proceedings, +832 F. 3d 554, 559 (11" Circuit 1987). In that case, the US petitioned a state judge to order the +State Attorney to turn over grand jury transcripts. The State Attorney argued against their release +citing to Fla. Stat. section 905.27. Later, a federal grand jury subpoenaed the Broward County +State Attorney for delivery of state grand jury testimony. The Broward State Attorney advised the +federal court that it would produce the transcripts, thereby demonstrating that while it may not +have physical possession of the materials, he had. legal authority fo obtain and deliver them. It +should also be noted that the State Attorney moved to quash the subpoena arguing that it was +unlawful under Florida law and Fla. Stat. section 905.27. This case indicates that where one seeks +grand jury materials, the relevant State Attorney is a necessary party in order to protect the grand +jury that the Office of State Attorney supervised and to make arguments, if need be, against release +of the grand jury materials. These are some of the same reasons why the State Attorney was named +in this case. +Also, assuming the State Attorney does not have physical possession of the grand jury materials, +there is nothing in Florida law that prohibits the State Attorney from requesting that the Clerk +provide copies to the State Attorney. Chapter 905, Fla. Stats. does not contain a prohibition against +a State Attorney demand that the Clerk grant his office access to grand jury materials, even after a +criminal case has concluded. Upon information and belief, the Clerk's office maintains a log that +tracks release of grand jury materials to the State Attorney upon its request. Please confirm +whether the State Attorney has accessed grand Jury materąls from the Clerk's office in other +instances or that it has never done so. If the Clerk has such a log, then its contents should be +discoverable, or subject to Florida Public records laws. +Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | Attorneys at Law +CA/Aronber@0P033A BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +Correspondence to Douglas A. Wyler +June 23, 2020 +Page 3 +For these reasons, we decline your Fla. Stat. section 57.105 demand that the case be dismissed +against the Office of the State Attorney. We expect that your demand will be withdrawn. +Thank you, +Very truly yours, +/s/Stephen Mendelsohn +Stephen Mendelsohn +SAM:Is +ACTIVE +51081659v7 +NOT A CERTIFIED CÓPY +Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | Attorneys at Law +CA/Aronter OPONI BEACH COUNTY, FL, L + + + + +CA/Aronterg ODO33R BEACH COUNTY, FL, L + + +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida. +Defendants. +COPY +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES +Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and +through the undersigned attorneys, moves the Court, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, +to award him reasonable attorneys' fees for the defense of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, +(the "Complaint"), and as grounds therefor, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served +a copy of this Motion, together with a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with +subsection (4) of the above Statute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior +to the filing of this Motion. In said letter, Defendant's attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which +establish that the Complaint is without support of the facts or the law. +WHEREFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach +County, Florida, respectfully requests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff's +attorneys to pay said Defendant's attorneys' fees incurred herein after service of this Motion. +CA/Aronberg 009330 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +I hereby certify that on this Ist day July, 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed via +the Florida E-File Portal for electronic service on the parties of record herein. +SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +/s/ Douglas A. Wyler +Arthur 1. L +_ Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 108249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 0021261( +Douglas A. Wyler, Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-1 +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +(904) 261-3693 +(904) 261-7879 +jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net +Attorneys for Defendant, Dave Aronberg +NOT A +NOT A CER +CA Aronbdi@OBA334 BEACH COUNTY, FL, D + + + + +CA Aronbar@ OBO BEACH COUNTY, FL, M + + +Filing # 115383434 E-Filed 10/21/2020 04:13:35 PM +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +DIVISION: AG +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida, +COPY +Defendants. +PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS, LLC'S +NOTICE OF DROPPING STATE ATTORNEY, DAVE ARONBERG +Plaintiff, CA HOLDINGS, LLC, pursuant to Fla. R. Cix, P. /250(b), hereby notifies the parties that +it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the above case. +NOT A +Respectfully submitted, +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +Attorneys for CA Florida Holdings, LLC, Publisher. +of The Palm Beach Post +Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. +401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 2000 +Boca Raton, Florida 33486 +Telephone: (561) 955-7629 +Facsimile: (561) 338-7099 +By: +/s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN +Florida Bar No. 849324 +mendelsohns@gtlaw.com +k@gtlaw.com +FLService@igtlaw.com +CA/Arohbei@0DA33G BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +By: +Is/ Michael J Grygiel +MICHAEL J GRYGIEL +(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) +54 State St., 6th Floor +Albany, New York 12207 +Telephone: (518) 689-1400 +Facsimile: (518) 689-1499 +grygielm@gtlaw.com +By: +Is/ Nina D. Boyajian +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) +1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 +Los Angeles California 90067 +Telephone: (310) 586-7700 +Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 +boyajiann@gtlaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 21" day of October, 2020; a true and correct copy of the +foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the State of Florida e-filing system, which +will send a notice of electronic service for all parties of record herein +NOT A +ACTIVE 53317341v1 +/s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN +2 +CA Arontierg 00933M BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + + + +CA/Arohber@0B0338 BEACH COUNTY, FL, D + + +Scholz & Wyler, LLC +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 2011 +Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 +United States +904-261-3693 +Scholz & Wyler, LLC +Dave Aronberg +Balance +Invoice # +Invoice Date +Payment Terms +Due Date +$32,440.00 +00307 +November 6, 2020 +Aronberg (SAO15) adv. CA Florida Holdings, LLC +Time Entries +Date +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/03/2019 +12/03/2019 +EE +DW +Activity +Review +DW +Review +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +AIJ +DW +AIJ +DW +DW +Teleconferénce +Draft +Review +Review +Meeting +Meeting +Teleconference +Research S +Preparation +Draft +DW +Telecoriference +Alj +Review +AIJ +Teleconference +AIJ +Meeting +DW +Meeting +DW +Draft +DW +Teleconference +Description +Initial review of summons and complaint. +Reviewed motion for pro hao vice and Judge +Hafele' order granting +Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit +Drafted engagement letter and sent to client +Reviewed 15th circuit local rules +Initial review of complaint +Meeting w/ DAW to discuss lawsuit and strategy +Meeting wi/ All to discuss lawsuit and strategy +Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit +Research arid prep for Motion to dismiss +1st Draft motion to dismiss +Teleconference w/ Client, re: draft motion to +dismiss +Reviewed 1st Draft MTDismiss +Teleconference w/ client, re: draft motion to +dismiss +Meeting w/ DAW, ré: motion to dismiss +Meeting w/ Ald, re: MTDismiss +Completed final draft of motion to dismiss; filed with +Court +Spoke w/ client, re: final draft of motion to dismiss +Rate +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00| +Hours +1.5 +0.2 +0.5 +0.3 +1.0 +0.5 +0.5 +0.5 +2.0 +1.0 +0.5 +0.3 +0.5 +0.2 +0.2 +0.7 +0.5 +Line Total +$637.50 +$85.00 +$127.50 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$237.50 +$237.50 +$850.00 +$425.00 +$142.50 +$237,50 +$95.00 +$85.00 +$297.50 +CA/Aronter@0P9339 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +12/13/2019 +01/16/2020 +01/16/2020 +01/17/2020 +01/17/2020 +01/17/2020 +01/20/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/22/2020 +01/22/2020 +01/23/2020 +01/24/2020 +01/24/2020 +01/24/2020 +01/27/2020 +02/03/2020 +02/03/2020 +03/13/2020 +03/13/2020 +03/18/2020 +03/18/2020 +03/18/2020 +03/19/2020 +03/20/2020 +DW +AlJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +Teleconference +Review +Review +Review +Review +Review +Review +Teleconference +Review +Review +Review +Review +Teleconference +Meeting +Meeting +Review +Research & Draft +Teleconference +Various +Draft +Review +Review +Review +ence +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +Teleconference +Review +E-mail +E-mail +Review +Spoke with Clerk's attorney, re: response +Reviewed final draft MTDismiss +Reviewed Clerk's MTDismiss +Reviewed Clerk's Motion to Dismiss +Reviewed Order Setting Hearing on Defendants" +MTDismiss +Reviewed mation for pro hac vice +Reviewed Pl's Amended Complaint +Spoke with client, re: Amended Complaint +Reviewed Pl's notice of filing +Reviewed Pt's Am. Compl +Reviewed Judge Marx's Order Cancelling +MTDismiss Hearing +Reviewed Pl's Objection to Defendants' MTDismiss +Spoke with client, re: Amended complaint +Meeting w/ DAW, re: response to Am. Compl. +Meeting w/ Ald, re: response to Am. Compl +Reviewed Order granting pro hac vice admission +lesearched and drafted response, to Amende +Complaint +Spoke with Clerk's attorney, re; résponse to +amended complaint +Completed Answer/MTDismiss Amended +Complaint, filed with Court; sent copy to Client +Drafted and filed Notice of Unavailability +Reviewed final Answer/MTDismiss +Reviewed Clerk's Answer/MTDismiss +Reviewed Order setting hearing on Dets' +MTDismiss +Spoke w/ client, re: order setting MTDismiss +hearing for March 24, 2020 +eviewed Pl's Opposition to Aronberg MTDismis +Clerk's MTDismis +leviewed Pl's Opposition to Aronberg MTDismis +• Clerk's MTDismiss +Reviewed email from Pl's counsel, re: motion to +continue hearing +Reviewed Pt's unopposed motion for continuance +mails w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Pi's request t +ontinue hearing +Reviewed email from Pl, re: agreed order & +responded +Reviewed Court's agreed order continuing hearing +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +0.5| +0.2 +0.2 +0.1 +0.1 +1.0 +0.5 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2 +0.2 +0.1 +1.0 +0.2 +1.0 +0.4 +0.2 +0.3 +0.1 +0.5 +1.5 +0.7 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1 +0.1 +$95.00 +$95.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$425.00 +$42.50 +$142.50 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$95.00 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$425.00 +$85.00 +$425.00 +$170.00 +$95.00 +$127.50 +$42.50 +$637.50 +$332.50 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +CA/Aronberg: 099340 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +05/22/2020 +05/22/2020 +05/27/2020 +05/27/2020 +05/28/2020 +05/29/2020 +06/01/2020 +06/02/2020 +06/02/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +AIJ +DW +DW +Review +Teleconference +Review +Review +| Teleconference +Review +Teleconference +E-mail +Preparation +E-mail +Various +E-mail +Attend Hearing +Teleconference +E-mail +E-mail +Attend Hearing +Review +Review +Various +06/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/10/2020 +DW +AL +DW +AL +DW +DW +Various +Meeting +Meeting +Review +Various +Various +Reviewed order rescheduling hearing on Dets' +MTDismiss +Spoke w/ client, re: order rescheduling MTDismiss +hearing for June 3, 2020 +Reviewed Order rescheduling MDismiss hearing +Reviewed order setting Zoom hearing, re: +MTDismiss +Spoke w/ client, re: hearing will be via Zoom +Reviewed Clerk's filing: change of atty of record +Spoke with Clerk's new counsel, Nicole Fingertut +leviewed Pl's email, re: cases and authorities fo +Dismiss hearing; responder +Began oral argument prep for 6/8 MTDismiss +hearing +Reviewed email from Judge Marx's JA and +responded +Reviewed PI's 500+ page binder, re: MTDismiss & +Drafted and sent email to client, re: MTD hearing +tomorrow +Poomed for and atended MiDismiss hearing via +Spoke w/ Client, re: debrief MDismiss hearing +mailed courtesy copies of Aronberg's Answer an +ITDismiss to Judge Mar +Reviewed response from Client and replied +Aftended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom +Reviewed order granting MTDismiss w/ prejudice +leviewed Court's Order Granting Defendant: +MTDismiss Count I! w/ Prejudice +Shared order w/ Client and spoke w/, re: result and +plan going forward, re: 57.105 +Researched § 57.105 Fla. Stat.; drafted 57.105 +demand letter and proposed motion for attorneys' +fees/sanctions; Served Pl's counsel with demand +letter and proposed motion. +Meeting w/ DAW, re: Order & 57.105 +Meeting w/ Ald, re: Order & 57.105 +sandion 57.105 demand and proposed motion for +eviewed notice of change of attorney, re: Cler +alled and spoke w/ new counsel Cynthia Guerr +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +0.1 +0.3 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1 +1.0 +0.1 +3.0 +0.1 +1.5 +0.5 +0.1 +0.1 +1.0 +0.3 +0.5 +0.5 +$42.50 +$127.50 +$47.50 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$425.00 +$42.50 +$1,275.00 +$42.50 +$637.50 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$475.00 +$142.50 +2.0 +0.3 +0.3 +0.2 +0.3 +1.0 +$850.00 +$142.50 +$127.50 +$95.00 +$127.50 +$425.00 +CA/Aronter @OPOSANI BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +DW +AlJ +E-mail +Review +07/01/2020 +07/02/2020 +07/08/2020 +07/08/2020 +07/10/2020 +07/10/2020 +07/10/2020 +07/13/2020 +07/13/2020 +07/27/2020 +07/27/2020 +07/28/2020 +07/29/2020 +07/29/2020 +07/30/2020 +07/30/2020 +08/05/2020 +08/07/2020 +08/10/2020 +08/17/2020 +08/17/2020 +08/18/2020 +08/27/2020 +09/01/2020 +DW +DW +DW +DW +AL +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +ALJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +Various +E-mail +Teleconference +Teleconference +Draft +| Various +Meeting +Review +Teleconference +Review +Teleconference +Draft +Draft +Research & +Preparation +Various +Draft +Draft +Review +E-mail +Meeting +Various +Draft +Teleconfarence +Various +Review +Teleconference +Sent client copy of Pr's letter refusing to dismiss +complaint +Reviewed Pr's letter refusing to dismiss Count VAm. +Compl +Spoke w/ client, re: filing of 57.105 motion for +fees/sanctions; filed motion for attorneys' fees +based on Pl's failure to voluntarily dismiss +amended complaint count 1 +Email to client, re: affidavit and summary judgment +scussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion f +ummary Judgment and MSJ evidenc +iscussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion fo +ummary Judgment and MSJ evidenc +created 1s drat of Aconberg Afidavi, shared wr +Reviewed draft affidavit and discussed w/ DAW +Discussed draft affidavit w/ AU +Reviewed Pl's Request to Produce, re: Clerk +Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Request to Produce +Reviewed Pl's Amended Request to Produce, ré: +Clerk +Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Amended Request to +Produce +Revised Aronberg affidavit +Finalized Aronberg Affidavit and sent to client +Judgment +Received executed Aronberg Affidavit +Began drafting Motion for Summary Judgment +Continued dratting Motion for Summary Judgment +Reviewed email from Plaintiff attempting to set +hearing on 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions +Sent responsive email to Pl's counsel +Discussed draft MS w/ AlJ +Reviewed draft MSJ and met w/ DAW to discuss +nalized Motion for Summary Judgment; filed v +urt along with Aronberg affidav +Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: request to produce +Arie or ra mal and accepted conlerence call +Reviewed Clerk's response to request for +roduction +poke w/ Pl's counsel, re: dispute as to whethe +is esa be was sec 57105 too marion o +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +0.1 +0.1 +0.5 +0.1 +0.7 +0.7 +1.0 +0.2 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1 +0.1 +0.5 +0.5 +1.0 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2 +0.5 +2.0 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2 +0.5 +$42.50 +$47.50 +$42.50 +$297.50 +$332.50 +$425.00 +$142.50 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$425.00 +$42.50 +$850.00 +$425.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$237.50 +$850.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$85.00 +CA/ArontED 009342 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +09/16/2020 +09/17/2020 +09/17/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/22/2020 +10/02/2020 +10/02/2020 +10/02/2020 +10/02/2020 +10/12/2020 +10/13/2020 +10/13/2020 +10/13/2020 +10/13/2020 +10/14/2020 +10/14/2020 +10/14/2020 +AIJ +DW +DW +AL +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +AIJ Y +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +Meeting +Meeting +E-mail +Meeting +Meeting +Various +E-mail +E-mail +E-mail +E-mail +Various +Review +Review +Review +Review +Research +Research & +Analyze +Draft +Meeting +Various +Draft +Telephone +Telephone +Attend Hearing +Various +Discussed w/ DAW phone call w/ Pl's counsel +Discussed w/ AlJ phone call w/ Pl's counsel +Reviewed email from Pl's counsel requested +Aronberg to withdraw sanctions motion w/o +prejudice +Discussed w/ Ald filing motion for CMC +Discussed w/ DAW filing motion for CMC +Responded to Pl's 9/16/20 email and refused to +withdraw 57.105 motion; provided copy of motion to +set CMC and available dates for hearing +Reviewed Pr's email insisting that 57.105 motion be +withdrawn +Replied to Pl's counsel that the 57.105 motion for +sanctions will not be withdrawn and asking for +response, re: CMC +Sent client copy of email exchange w/ Pl's counsel; +called and spoke w/ Client +Drafted and filed Notice of Hearing on 10/15/20; set +up Court Call; spoke w/ client, re: hearing date +Reviewed PI's Memo of Law opposing Aronberg's +57.105 motion for fees/sanctions +Reviewed Pl's Response to Aronberg's request to +schedule 57.105 motion for fees after MSJ +Reviewed Prs Memo of Law opposing 57.105 +motion +Reviewed Pt's Response to Aronberg's request to +schedule 57,105 motion after MSJ +Research caselaw & statutes, re: response to PI's +Memo of Law +Continued researching caselaw, re: response to +Pr's memo of law +Created Ist draft of Response to Pt's Memo of Law +and shared w/ Client +Discussed w/ Al caselaw and draft response 1o +memo +Reviewed draft MSJ, discussed draft w/ DAW and +caselaw +Finalized and filed Response to Pl's Memo of Law +Spoke w/ client, re: memo of law +Spoke w/ client again, re: response to memo of law +Attended hearing, re: Motion to Set CMC; called +client to discuss +viewed email and letter from Pl, re: settlemer +ent copy to Client and called to discus +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +0.2 +0.2 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.5 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.5 +0.7 +0.7 +0.5 +0.5 +0.4 +1.0 +1.0 +4.0 +0.5 +0.7 +1.0 +0.2 +0.1 +1.5 +0.5 +$95.00 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +- $47.50 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$297.50 +$297.50 +$237.50 +$190.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$1,700.00 +$332.50 +$425.00 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$637.50 +CA/Aronberg 090343 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +• +10/16/2020 +10/16/2020 +10/16/2020 +10/16/2020 +10/16/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/22/2020 +DW +DW +AIJ +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AL +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AU +DW +DW +DW +DW +oW +DWY +DW +DW +AL +DW +DW +Telephone +Telephone +Various +Various +Meeting +Various +Telephone +| Telephone +Meeting +Meeting +Various +Telephone +Telephone +Meeting +Meeting +Various +Telephone +Telephone +Telephone +Meeting +Meeting +Various +Telephone +E-mail +Meeting +Meeting +Various +Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: settlement +Spoke w/ client, re: Pl's settlement proposal +Attended hearing, re: motion to set CMC; +discussed w/ client +Discussed PI's settlement proposal w/ DAW and +then w/ Client +Discussed PI's settlement proposal w/ AlJ +Drafted and shared proposed order w/ Pl's counsel +Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: settlement +Spoke w/ client, re: Pl's settlement proposal +Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ AlJ +Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ DAW +Uploaded proposed order, re: CMC for Judge +Hafele +Spoke w/ client, re: Pl's settlement proposal +Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: settlement +Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ DAW +Discussed Pl's settlement proposal wi AL +leviewed email from Pl, re: settlement; sent cop +, Client and called to discus +Spoke w/ client, re: settlement +Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: settlement +Spoke w/ client, re: setilement +Discussed Pt's settlement proposal wi AlJ +Discussed Ple settlement proposal w/ DAW +Drafted and filed Motion to Set Hearing on +Aronberg MSJ; drafted proposed order granting +motion to set; checked court availability; emailed +P's counsel, re: choose date for hearing +Reviewed Order, re: CMC unnecessary +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Sent email w/ Aronberg statement to media +Discussed media response w/ DAW +Discussed media response w/ AIJ +Reviewed Pl's Notice of Dropping Aronberg as +party; spoke w/ Client and Ald, re: notice and next +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +0.1| +0.2 +1.0 +0.4 +0.2 +0.5 +0.2 +0.5 +9,2 +0.2 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1 +0.2 +0.2 +0.5 +0.4 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2 +0.2 +1.0 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.3 +0.5 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$475.00 +$190.00 +$85.00 +$85.00 +$85.00 +$95.00 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$95.00 +$85.00 +$170.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$95.00 +$425.00 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$142.50 +$127.50 +CA/Aronbei@0D0344 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +10/22/2020 +AL +Various +Reviewed Pr's Notice of Dropping Aronberg as +party; spoke w/ Client and DAW, re: notice and next +steps +$475.00 +0.5 +Totals: +74.8 +Time Entry Sub-Total: +Sub-Total: +Total: +Amount Paid: +Balance Due: +COP +NOT A CERTIFIED +$237.50 +$32,440.00 +$32,440.00 +$32,440.00 +$32,440.00 +$0.00 +$32,440.00 +CA/AronteD ODA34& BEACH COUNTY, FL, L + + + + +CA/Aropherg 009349 BEACH COUNTY, FL, I + + +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 19-CA-01468! +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida. +Defendants. +AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEYS' FEES +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF NASSAU +BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority appeáred Douglas A. Wyler, Esq., who, after +being first duly sworn, deposes and says: +1. +Affiant is a partner of JACOBS, SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC, counsel for +Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, ("Aronberg"). +as well as general counsel to the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, ("FPAA"), and makes +this Affidavit of his own personal knowledge. +2. +Affiant is licensed to practice law in the State of Florida, is an active member of +the Florida Bar in good standing and has engaged in the practice of law in the State of Florida since +2015. +3. +As detailed herein, the services rendered by Affiant and his firm pertain to Affiant's +demand letter and motion for attorneys' fees sent to Plaintiff's counsel pursuant to § 57.105, +"Florida Stätutes, on June 8, 2020; in defending against Count I of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint +CA/Aronbeg OP9ЗM BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +and Plaintiff's October 21, 2020 Notice of Dropping State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the +above-captioned lawsuit. See, Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto. +4. +The total time Affiant's law firm has expended services rendered to date is 74.8 +hours, however, from the date of Defendant Aronberg's 57.105 demand, Affiant's law firm has +expended a total of 42.2 hours. Of the 42.2 hours expended since Defendant Aronberg's 57.105 +demand was served, the Affiant +5. +Of the 42.2 hours expended since Defendant Aronberg's 57.105 demand was +served, the total time Affiant has expended services rendered to date is 35.4 hours at the rate of +$425.00 per hour. Likewise, the total time Affiant's law partner, Arthur I. +, has expended +services rendered to date is 6.8 hours at the rate of $475:00 per hour. +6; +: Accordingly, since Defendant Aronberg's 57.105 demand was served, Defendant +Aronberg's counsel, +, SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC, has rendered services in the amount +of $18,275.00, in conjunction with the defense of the instant action pursuant to § 57.105, Florida +Statutes. See, Exhibit "C" attached hereto. +7. +Affiant expects to incur an additional 4.0 hours at $425.00 an hour in preparing for +and attending the hearing on attorneys' fees. Thus, the total amount of hourly attorneys' fees the +State Attomey is seeking is 46.2 hours for a total of S19,975.00. Additionally, the State Attorney +seeks a multiplier of 2.0, which when applied makes the grand total attorneys' fees sought herein +$39,950.00. +Dated this 9th day of November, 2020. +› FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. +Douglas A Wyler, Esq. Fla: Bar No. 119979 +CA/Aronberg 0003481 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF NASSAU +The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 9th day of November, 2020, +by Douglas +A. Wyler, Esquire, who is personally known to me and who did take an oath. +Notary Public - State of Florida +Taran R. Jackson +Name typed, printed or stamped +TARAN R JACKSON +Notary Public : State of Florida +Commission # GG 354341 +My Commm. Expices Aug 17, 2023 +Bonded through National Notary Assin. +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 9th day of November, 2020, a copy of the foregoing has +been electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein. +NOT A +JACOBS SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +/s/ Douglas:A. Wyler +Arthur I. ( +Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 10249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-1 +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +(904) 261-3693 +(904) 261-7879 Fax +Primary: jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net +Allorneys for Defendant, Dave Aronberg +CA/Aronberg 009349 BEACH COUNTY, FL, LI + + + + +CA/Aronbergop +BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +Friday, September 18, 2020 at 11:09:24 Eastern Daylight Time +Subject: +SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT; CASE NO. 2019-CA-014681; CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC V. +•DAVE ARONBERG ET AL. +Date: +From: +To: +Monday, June 8, 2020 at 3:58:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time +Douglas Wyler +'mendelsohns@gtlaw.com', smithl@gtlaw.com, flservice@gtlaw.com, BoyajianN@gtlaw.com, +riveraal@gtlaw.com,.GRYGIELM@gtlaw.com +Attachments: 2020-06-08 Aronberg 57.105 Demand and Motion for Attorneys' Fees.pdf +Court: +Case No: +Plaintiff: +Defendant: +Title of Documents +Served: +Sender's Name and +Telephone Number: +Sincerely, +Doug Wyler, Esq. +_ Scholz & Wyler, LLC +961687 Gateway Blvd., STE 201-| +Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 +904-261-3693 +904-261-7879 (fax) +Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, +Florida +Case No. 2020-CA-014681 +CA Florida Holdings, LLC +Dave Aronberg. +• Fla. Stat. § 57.105 Demand Letter +• Defendant, Dave Aronberg's Motion for Attorneys' Fees +Douglas Wyler +(904) 261-3693 +Please be advised that this e +il and any files transmitted with it are confidential attorney-client +communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or +entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or +retransmit this communication but destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or +copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. + +CA Aronher@0D935M BEACH COUNTY, FL, LI + + +. THE LAW OFFICES OF +JACOBS & A55 +ARTHUR I +SCHOLZ & WYLER, LiC. +JABILITY COMPANY OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS +- ATTORNEYS AT LAW +GATEWAY TO AMELIA +961687 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE 201.1 +FErNANDINA BEACH, FLORmA 32034 +TELEPHONE (904) 26I-3693 +FAX NO. (904) 261-7079 +RICHARD J. SCHOLZ, P.A. +RICHARD J. SCHOLZ +DOUGLAS A. WYLER, P.A. +DOUGLAS A. WYLER +June 8, 2020 +VIA ELECTRONIC & U.S. MAIL +Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. +Greenburg Traurig, P.A. +5100 Town Center Circle, Suite 400 +Boca Raton, FL 33486 +RE: +CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronberg et al. +Palm Beach County, Case No.: 2019-CA-014681 +Dear Mr. Mendelsohn: +COPY +As you are aware our firm represents the interests of Dave Aronberg, as State Attomey of Palm Beach +County, Florida, in the above referenced | +tter. The purpose of this letter is to demand the voluntary +dismissal of your First Amended Complaint, (the "Complain:"), dated January 17, 2020. This demand +is made pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes. +As you know, Section 57.105 provides: +(1) Upon the court's initiative or motion of any party, the court shall award a +reasonable attorney's fee, including prejudgment interest, to be paid to the +prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party's attorney +on any claim or defense at any time during a civil proceeding or action in which +the court finds that the losing party or the losing party's attorney knew or should +have known that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any +time before trial: +Was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or +b. +defense; or +Would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those +material facts. +Today, Judge Marx granted, with prejudice, Defendant Aronberg's Motion to Dismiss Count Il of the +Plaintiff's Complaint. Pursuant to the Court's ruling, the Plaintiff's only remaining cause of action +consists of Count I, for Declaratory Relief. Accordingly, we believe that the Complaint filed herein +and its sole remaining Count for Declaratory Relief is not supported by the material facts necessary to +establish the claims asserted, and that your claims are not supported by the application of current law +to said material facts: +CA/Aronher@0P9332 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +First and foremost, the Complaint is not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the +claims asserted because neither Defendant Aronberg, nor The Office of the State Attorney for the +Fifteenth Judicial. Circuit is in custody or control of the 2006 grand jury materials sought therein: +Simply put, the declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff, seeks records from my client that are +impossible for him or his office to produce. Accordingly, Defendant Aronberg is not a proper party to +this action because no matter what, he and his office do not have possession, custody, or control of the +requested materials. +In addition to the foregoing material facts that negate the claims asserted in the Complaint, your claims +are also not supported by the application of current law. Specifically, your action for declaratory relief +fails based on the clear, unambiguous statutory language found in Section 905.27(2), Florida Statutes, +which states: +When such disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection (1) for use in a civil +case, it may be disclosed to all parties to the case and to their atiorneys and by the latter +to their legal associates and employees. However, the grand jury testimony afforded +such persons by the court can only be used in the defense or prosecution of the civil or +criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever. +Moreover, even if the Plaintiff were to prevail in the declaratory action, Mr. Aronberg would be unable +to comply with any court order granting disclosure of the requested documents because neither Mr. +Aronberg nor The Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit have possession, +Based on the foregoing, if the Complaint is not dismissed within 2! days of the service of this letter, +the enclosed Motion for Attorney's Fees will be filed and we will seek as sanctions, from your client +and your firm, recovery of the legal expenses incurred in defending this frivolous action. +Please govern yourself accordingly +ALAN +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. +For the Firm +Encl.: Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees +CA/Arohbef@0D0353 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach Courty, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida. +Defendants. +DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES +Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and +through the undersigned attorneys, moves the Court, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105; +to award him reasonable attorneys' fees for the defense of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, +(the "Complaint"), and as grounds therefor, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served +a copy of this Motion, together with a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with +subsection (4) of the above Statute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior +to the filing of thiş Motion. In said letter, Defendant's attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which +establish that the Complaint is without support of the facts or the law. +WHEREFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach +County, Florida, respectfully requests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff's +attorneys to pay said Defendant's attorneys' fees incurred herein after service of this Motion. +CA/Aronbdi@0B0354 BEACH COUNTY, FL, I + + +Thereby certify that on this day_ +_ 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed +via the Florida E-File Portal for electronic service on the parties of record herein. +JACOBS SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +Is/ Douglas A. Wyler +Arthur I. +5, Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 108249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 +Douglas A. Wyler, Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-I +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +(904) 261-3693 +(904) 261-7879 +NOT A CERTIF +jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net +Attorneys for Defendant +CAAronketФорозза BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + + + +CA/Aronher@0P9359 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +Filing # 115383434 E-Filed 10/21/2020.04:13:35 PM +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +DIVISION: AG +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida, +COPY +Defendants. +PLAINȚIFF CA HOLDINGS, LLC'S +NOTICE OF DROPPING STATE ATTORNEY, DAVE ARONBERG +Plaintiff, CA HOLDINGS, LLC, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1350(b), hereby notifies the parties that +it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the above case. +CER +NOT A CER +Respectfully submitted, +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +Allorneys for CA Florida Holdings, LLC, Publisher +of The Palm Beach Post +Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. +401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 2000 +Boca Raton, Florida 33486 +Telephone: (561) 955-7629 +Facsimile: (561) 338-7099 +By: Is/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN +Florida Bar No. 849324. +mendelsohns@gtlaw.com +smithl@ytlaw.com +Fl.Servicer@gtlaw.com +CA/Aronberg 0D035M BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +By: Is/ Michael J Grygiel +MICHAEL J GRYGIEL +(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) +54 State St., 6th Floor +Albany, New York 12207. +Telephone: (518) 689-1400 +Facsimile: (518) 689-1499 +grygielm@gtlaw.com +By: +[s/ Nina D. Bovajian +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) +1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 +Los Angeles California 90067 +Telephone: (310) 586-7700 +Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 +boyajiann@gtlaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 21 day of October, 2020, a true and correct copy of the +foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the State of Florida e-filing system, which +will send a notice of electronic service for all parties of record herein +/s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN +OT A +ACTIVE 53317341V7 +2 +CAArohbeiф0ĐAз5а BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + + + +CA/Arontef@ 009359 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +Scholz & Wyler, LLC +961687 Gateway Bivd., +Suite 201l +Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 +United States +904-261-3693 +Jacobs Scholz & Wyler, LLC +Dave Aronberg +Balance +Invoice # +Invoice Date +Payment Terms +Due Date +$32,440.00 +00307 +November 6, 2020 +Aronberg (SAO15) adv. CA Florida Holdings, LLC +Time Entries +Date: +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/25/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/03/2019 +12/03/2019 +EE +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AU +AL +DW +DW +DW +OW +ANJ +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +Activity +Review +Review +Teleconference +Draft +Review +Review +Meeting +Meeting +Teleconference +Research & +Preparation +Draft +Teleconference +Review +Teleconference +Meeting +Meeting +Draft +Teleconference +Description +Initial review of summons and complaini. +Reviewed motion for pro hac vice and Judge +Hafele' order granting +Teléconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit +Drafted engagement letter and sent to client +Reviewed 15th circuit local rules +Initial review of complaint +Meeting w/ DAW to discuss lawsuit and strategy +Meeting w/ All to discuss lawsuit and strategy +Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit +Research and prep for Motion to dismiss +1st Draft motion to dismiss +Teleconference w/ Client, re: draft motion to +dismiss +Reviewed 1st Draft MTDismiss +Teleconference w/ client, re: draft motion to +dismiss +Meeting w/ DAW, re: motion to dismiss +Meeting w/ All, re: MTDismiss +Completed final draft of motion to dismiss; filed with +Court +Spoke w/ client, re: final draft of motion to dismiss +Rate +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425:00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +Hours +1.5 +0.2 +0.5 +0.3 +1.0 +1.0 +0.5 +0.5 +0.5 +2.0 +1.0 +0.5 +0.3 +0.5 +0,2 +0.2 +- 0.7 +0.5 +Line Total +$637.50 +$85.00 +$127.50 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$237.50 +:$212.50 +$237.50 +$850.00 +$425.00 +$142.50 +$237.50 +$95.00 +$85.00 +$297.50 +$212,50 +CA/Aronberg 009309 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +12/13/2019 +01/16/2020 +01/16/2020 +01/17/2020 +01/17/2020 +01/17/2020 +01/20/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/22/2020 +01/22/2020 +01/23/2020 +01/24/2020 +01/24/2020 +01/24/2020 +01/27/2020 +02/03/2020 +02/03/2020 +03/13/2020 +03/13/2020 +03/18/2020 +03/18/2020 +03/18/2020 +03/19/2020 +03/20/2020 +DW +AIJ +AU +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +AU +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +ALJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +Teleconfererice +Review +Review +Review +Review +Review +Review +Teleconference +Review +Review +Review +Review +Teleconference +Meeting +Meeting +Review +Research & Draft +Teleconference +Various +Draft +Review +Review +Review +Teleconference +Review +Review +Teleconference +Review +E-mail +E-mail +Review +Spoke with Clerk's attorney, re: response +Reviewed final draft MTDismiss +Reviewed Clerk's MTDismiss +Reviewed Clerk's Motion to Dismiss +Reviewed Order Setting Hearing on Defendants" +MT Dismiss +Reviewed motion for pro hac vice +Reviewed Prs Amended Complaint +•Spoke with client, re: Amended Complaint +Reviewed Pl's notice of filing +Reviewed Pl's Am. Compl +Reviewed Judge Marx's Order Cancelling +MTDismiss Hearing +Reviewed Pl's Objection to Defendants' MTDismiss +Spoke with client, re: Amended complaint +Meeting w/ DAW, re: response to Am. Compl +Meeting w/ AlJ, re: response to Am. Compl +Reviewed Order granting pro hac vice admission +Researched and drafted response to Amended +Complaint +Spoke with Clerk's attorney, re: response to +amended complaint +Completed Answer/MTDismiss Amended +Complaint, filed with Court: sent copy to Client +Drafted and filed Notice of Unavailability +Reviewed final Answer/MTDismiss +Reviewed Clerk's Answer/MTDismiss +Reviewed Order setting hearing on Dels' +MTDismiss +Spoke w/ client, re: order setting MTDismiss +hearing for March 24, 2020 +Reviewed Pl's Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss +& Clerk's MTDismiss +Reviewed Pt's Opposition to Aronberg MDismiss +& Clerk's MTDismiss +Reviewed email from PI's counsel, re: mation to +continue hearing +Reviewed Pr's unopposed motion for continuance +Emails w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Pr's request to +continue hearing +Reviewed email from Pl, re: agreed order 8 +responded +Reviewed Court's agreed order continuing hearing +$425,00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +.$425.00 +$425.00 +:$425.00 +$425.00 +-$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425,00 +$425,00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$125.00 +. $425.00- +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +_0.5 +0.2 +0.2 +0.5 +0.1 +0.1 +1.0 +0.5 +0.1. +0.3 +0.1 +0.2 +0.5 +0.2 +0.2 +0.1 +1.0 +0.2 +1.0 +0.4 +0.2 +0.3 +0.1 +0.5 +1.5 +0.7 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1 +0.1 +$212.50. +$95.00 +$95.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$425.00 +:$42.50 +$142,50 +$42.50 +/ $85.00 +$95.00 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$425.00 +$85.00 +$425.00 +$170.00 +$95.001 +$127.50 +$42.50 +$212,50 +$637.50 +$332.50 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$42.50| +$42.50 +CA/Aronterg 00936MI BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +DW +Review +05/22/2020 +05/22/2020 +05/27/2020 +05/27/2020 +05/28/2020 +05/29/2020 +06/01/2020 +06/02/2020 +06/02/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +DW +ALJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +AIJ +DW +DW +Teleconference +Review +Review +Teleconference +Review +Teleconference +E-mail +Preparation +E-mail +Various +E-mail +Attend Hearing +Teleconference +E-mail +E-mail +Attend Hearing +Review +Review +Various +06/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/10/2020 +OW +AU +DW +AU +DW +Various +Meeting +Meeting +Review +Various +DW +Various +Reviewed order rescheduling hearing on Dets' +MTDismiss +Spoke w/ client, re: order rescheduling MTDismiss +hearing for June 3, 2020 +Reviewed Order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing +Reviewed order setting Zoom hearing, re: +MTDismiss +Spoke w/ client, re: hearing will be via Zoom +Reviewed Clerk's filing: change of atty of record +Spoke with Clerk's new counsel; Nicole Fingerhut +Reviewed PI's email, re: cases and authorities for +MTDismiss hearing; responded +Began oral argument prep for 6/8 MTDismiss +hearing +Reviewed email from Judge Marx's JA and +responded +Reviewed Pts 500+ page binder, re: MTDismiss & +prepped for hearing +Drafted and sent email to client, re; MTD hearing +tomorrow +Prepped for and attended MTDismiss hearing via +Zoom +Spoke w/ Client, re: debrief MTDismiss hearing +Emailed courtesy copies of Aronberg's Answer and +MTDismiss 10 Judge Mar +Reviewed response from Client and replied +Attended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom +Reviewed order granting MTDismiss w/ prejudice +Reviewed Court's Order Granting Defendants +MTDismiss Count Il w/ Prejudice +Shared order w/ Client and spoke wi, re: result and +plan going forward, re: 57.105 +Researched § 57.105 Fla. Stat.; drafted 57.105 +demand letter and proposed motion for alforneys +fees/sanctions; Served Pr's counsel with demand +-letter and proposed motion. +Meeting w/ DAW, re: Order & 57.105 +Meeting w/ AlJ, re: Order & 57.105 +Reviewed 57.105 demand and proposed motion for +sanction +Reviewed notice of change of attorney. re: Clerk; +called and spoke w/ new counsel. Cynthia Guerta +Reviewed Pl's letter refusing to voluntarily dismiss +amended complaint despite 57.105 demand; called +and spoke w/ client, re: PTs refusal & next steps +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +" $425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +0.1 +0.3 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1 +0.2 +-0.1 +1.0 +0.1 +3.0 +0.1 +1.5 +0.5 +0.1 +0.1 +1.0 +0.3 +0.5 +0.5 +2.0 +0.3 +0.3 +0.2 +0.3 +1.0 +$42.50 +$127.50 +$47.50 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$42,50 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$425.00 +$42.50 +$51,275,00 +$42.50 +$637.50 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$475.00 +$142.50 +$850.00 +$142.50 +$127.50 +$95.00 +• $127.50 +$425.00 +CA/Aronter 009302 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +07/01/2020 +07/02/2020 +07/08/2020 +07/08/2020 +07/10/2020 +07/10/2020 +07/10/2020 +07/13/2020 +07/13/2020 +07/27/2020, +07/27/2020 +07/28/2020 +07/28/2020 +07/29/2020 +07/30/2020 +07/30/2020 +08/05/2020 +08/07/2020 +08/10/2020 +08/17/2020 +08/17/2020 +08/18/2020 +08/27/2020 +09/01/2020 +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +E-mail +Review +Various +E-mail +Teleconference +Teleconference +Draft +Various +Meeting +Review +Teleconference +Review +Teleconference +Draft +Draft +Research & +Preparation +Various +Draft +Draft +Review +E-mail +Meeting +Various +Draft +Teleconference +Various +Review +Teleconference +Sent client copy of Prs letter refusing to dismiss +complaint +Reviewed Pl's letter refusing to dismiss Count VAm. +Compl. +Spoke w/ client, re: filing of 57.105 mation for +tees/sanctions; filed motion for attomeys' fees +based on Pl's failure to voluntarily dismiss +amended complaint count 1 +Email to çlient, re: affidavit and summary judgment +Discussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for +Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence +Discussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for +Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence +Created ist draft of Aronberg Affidavit; shared w/ +client +Reviewed draft affidavit and discussed w/ DAW +Discussed draft affidavit w/ AlJ +Revigwed Pt's Request to Produce, re: Clerk +Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Request to Produce +Reviewed Pl's Amended Request to Produce, re: +Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Amerided Request to +Revised Aronberg affidavit +Finalized Aronberg Affidavit and sent to client +Research and prep for Motion for Summary +Judgment +Received executed Aronberg Affidavit +Began drafting Motion for Summary Judgment +Continued drafting Motion for Summary Judgment +Reviewed email from Plaintif attempting to set +hearing on 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions +Sent responsive email to Pi's counsel +Discussed draft.MSJ wl AlJ +Reviewed draft MSJ and met w/ DAW to discuss +Finalized Motion for Summary Judgment; filed w! +court along with Aronberg affidavit +Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: request to produce +Reviewed PI's email and accepted conference call +invite for 9/2/20 +Reviewed Clerk's response to request for +production- +Spoke w/ Pr's counsel, re: dispute as to whether +MSJ should be heard before 57,105 tee mation or +vis versa - call was unsuccessful +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$475.00| +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425:00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +o.1 +0.1 +0.5 +0.1 +,0.7 +0.7 +1.0 +0.3 +0.2 +o.i +0.2 +0.1 +0.1 +0.5 +0.5 +1.0 +0.1 +2.0 +1.0 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2 +0.5 +2.0 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2 +0.5 +$42.50 +$47.50 +$42.50 +$297.50 +$332.50 +$425.00 +: $142.50 +$85.00 +$42.50- +$85.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$425.00 +$42.50 +$$50.00 +$425.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$237.50 +$850,00 +$42.50 +$42,50 +$85.00 +CA/Aronberg 0003681 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +09/16/2020 +09/17/2020 +09/17/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/18/2020 +05/18/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/22/2020 +10/02/2020 +10/02/2020 +10/02/2020 +10/02/2020 +10/12/2020 +10/13/2020 +10/13/2020 +10/13/2020 +10/13/2020 +10/14/2020 +10/14/2020 +10/14/2020 +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW - +DW +DW +•DW +DW +DW +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +Meeting +Meeting +E-mail +Meeting +Meeting +Various +E-mail +E-mail +E-mail +E-mail +Various +Review +Review +Review +Review +Research +Research 8 +Analyze +Drait +Meeting +Various +Draft +Telephone +Telephone +Attend Hearng +Various +Discussed w/ DAW phone call w/ Pl's coursel +Discussed w/ AlJ phone call w/ Pl's counsel +Reviewed email from Pr's counsel requested +Aronberg to withdraw sanctions motion w/o +prejudice +Discussed w/ Alu filing motion for CMC +Discussed w/ DAW filing motion for CMC +Drafted and filed motion to set case management +confererice; re: MSJ 1st or Fee hearing 1st +Responded to PTs 9/16/20 email and refused to +withdraw 57.105 motion; provided copy of motion to +set CMC and' available dates for hearing +Reviewed Pl's email insisting that 57.105 mation be +withdrawn +Heplied to Pl's counsel that the 57.105 motion for +sanctions will not be withdrawn and asking for +response, re: CMC +Sent client copy of email exchange w/ PI's counsel; +called and spoke w/ Client +Drafted and filed Notice of Hearing on 10/15/20; set +up Court Call; spoke wi client, re: hearing date +Reviewed Pt's Merio of Law opposing Aronberg's +57.105 mation for lées/sanctions. +Reviewed P's Response to Aronberg's request to +schedule 57.105 motion for fees after MSJ +Reviewed Pt's Memo of Law opposing 57.105 +motion. +Reviewed Pr's Response to Aronberg's request to +schedule 57.105 motion after MSJ +Research Caselaw & statutes, re: response to PI's +Memo of Law +Continued researching caselaw, ré: response to +Pr's memo of law +Created 1st draft of Response to PI's Memo of Law +and shared w/ Client +Discussed wl All caselaw and draft response to +memo +Reviewed draft MSJ, discussed draft w/ DAW and +caselaw +Finalized and filed Response to Pl's Memo of Law +Spoke w/ client, ie: memo of law +Spoke w/ client again, re: response to memo of law +Altended hearing, re: Motion to Set CMC: called +client to discuss- +Reviewed email and letter from Pi, re: settlement. +Sent copy to Client and called to discuss. +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425:00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +:$425.00 +$425.00 +0.2 +0.2 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.5 +0.1 +0.1 +0.5 +0.7 +0.7 +0.5 +0.5 +0.4 +1.0 +1.0 +4.0 +0.5 +0.7 +1.0 +0.2 +0.1 +1.5 +0.5 +$95,00 +.$85.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$47.50 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$297.50 +$297.50 +$237.50 +$190.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$1,700.00 +$332.50 +$425.00 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$637,50 +CA/Aronter 009304 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +10/16/2020 +10/16/2020 +10/16/2020 +10/16/2020 +10/16/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/1/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/22/2020 +DW +DW +AlJ • +ALJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AL +DW +DW +DW +ALJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AU +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AL +DW +DW +Telephone +Telephone +Various +Various +Meeting +Various +Telephone +Telephone +Meeting +Meeting +Various +Telephone +Telephone +Meeting +Meeting +Various +Telephone +Telephone +Telephone +Meeting +Meeting +Various +Review +Telephone +Telephone +Telephone +Telephone +Telephone +E-mail +Meeting +Meeting +Various +Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: settlement: +Spoke w/ client, re: Pi's settlement proposal +Attended hearing, re: motion to set CMC; +discussed w/ client +Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ DAW and +then w/ Client +Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ AlJ +Drafted and shared proposed order w/ Pl's counsel +Spoke w/ PI's counsel, re: settlement +Spoke w/ client, re: PI's settlement proposal +Discussed Pl's settlement proposal wl AlJ +Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ DAW +Uploaded proposed order, re: CMC for Judge +Hafele +Spoke w/ client, re: Pts settlement proposal +Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: settlement +Discussed Pr's settlement proposal w/ DAW +Discussed Pl's settlement proposal W/ Ald +Reviewed email from Pl, re: settlement; sent copy • +to Client and called to discuss +Spoke w/ client, re: settlement +Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: setllement +Spoke w/ client, re: settlement +Discussed Pr's settlement proposal w/ ALJ +Discussed PI's settlement proposal w/ DAW +Drafted and filed Motion to Set Hearing on +Aronberg MSU; drafted proposed örder granting +motion to set; checked court availability; emailed +Pl's counsel, re: choose date for hearing +Reviewed Order, re: CMC unnecessary +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Sent email w/ Aronberg statement to media +Discussed media response w/ DAW +Discussed media response w/ AL +Reviewed Pr's Notice of Dropping: Aronberg as*** +party: spoke w/ Clierit and AlJ, re: notice and next +steps +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425,00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +0.1 +0.2 +1.0 +0.4 +0.2 +0.5 +0.2 +0.5. +0.2 +0.2 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1 +0.2 +- 0.2 +0.5 +0.4 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2 +1,0 +0.1 +0.2 +- 0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.3 +0.3 +0.5 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$475.00 +$190.00 +$85.00 +$85.00 +$85.00 +$95.00 +$42.50 +$85.00 +• $42.50 +$95.00 +$85.00 +$170.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$95.00 +$425.00 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$42.50| +$42.50 +$142.50 +$127.50 +CA/Aronherg 00930Й BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +:10/22/2020 +AN +Various +Reviewed Pls Notice of Dropping Aronberg. as +party; spoke w/ Client and DAW, re: notice and next +steps +$475.00 +Totals: +0.5 +74.8 +$237,50 +$32,440.00 +Time Entry Sub-Total: +Sub-Total: +Total: +Amount Paid: +Balance Due: +COP +NOT A CERTIFIED +$32,440.00 +$32,440.00 +.$32,440.00: +$0.00. +$32,440.00 +CA/Aronherg000368 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + + + +CA/Aronberg POTAMI BEACH COUNTY, FL, I + + +THE LAW OFFICES OF +COBS & ASSOCIATES, PA +ARTHUR L JACOBS +JACOBS SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC. +A LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANY OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS +ATTORNEYS AT LAW. +GATEWAY TO AMELIA +961607 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE 2OI-1 +FEMANDIA BEACH, FLORIDA 32004 +TELEPHONE (904) 261-3683 +FAX NO. (904) 261-7879 +RICHARD _J. SCHOLZ, P.A. +RICHARD J. SCHOL? +DOUGLAS A. WYLER, P.A. +DOUGLAS A WYLER +November 26, 2019 +Office of the State Attomey +15th Judicial Circuit +Attn:. Jeanne Howard +401 North Dixie Highway +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Re: +CA Florida Holdings, LIC v. Dave Aronberg et al. +Case No.: 2019-CA-014681 +COPY +Dear Mrs. Howard: +The purpose of this letter is to confirm that +above-referenced matter. +Scholz & Wyler, LLC will represent you regarding the +Our fees will be contingent upor our success in this matter. You will not be liable or required to pay any +monies to our office unless we are successful in our representation of you regarding the above-referenced +litigation and receive a court order awarding attorneys' fees. +Accordingly, should we be successful in this matter, you agree to be billed for the time incurred in defending +this action at our current hourly rates. At this time, our current hourly rates are: $475.00/hour for senior +partners, $425.00/hour for, other partners, $375.00/hour for associate attorneys, and $125.00/hour for +paralegal time. +Furthermore, the attorneys" fees paid to our firm shall be calculated by the above listed hourly rates +multiplied by the number of hours expended in defending this action or the total fee mandated and awarded +by the court order herein, whichever is greater. +By signing below, you agree to the terms as set forth above. Please retur a signed and dated copy of this +letter to our office If you have any questions or concers, please contact our office. On behalf of the +firm, we are proud to represent you in this matter. +Sincerely, +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq +For the Firm +6/4/220 +Date +CA/Aronter 000308 BEACH COUNTY, FL, \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b495a4932e32c49f36d62113985f739f03eabfc8edf99762c3b52dfe52a1fc71.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b495a4932e32c49f36d62113985f739f03eabfc8edf99762c3b52dfe52a1fc71.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0398470c7743c3b4157c0d4acea4a14e1dba9b45 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b495a4932e32c49f36d62113985f739f03eabfc8edf99762c3b52dfe52a1fc71.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -4861, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b495a4932e32c49f36d62113985f739f03eabfc8edf99762c3b52dfe52a1fc71", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 82, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "99a2ea0e992001a37253c38e20a32d8dcdedde85bcb1c48692dbd37d63f4be6b", + "output_sha256": "fcbeed39dfd577bfa906e234a0fe8a5d7a1fa457794fc0594d209de7725990c2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b4a89e321856ca4fb3eb57e86d2cbbdbfba995271fe2fbe4f367dec7a8c7d0d4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b4a89e321856ca4fb3eb57e86d2cbbdbfba995271fe2fbe4f367dec7a8c7d0d4.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d293f38acbbb26c8b7615cf4714b773e7200fc3d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b4a89e321856ca4fb3eb57e86d2cbbdbfba995271fe2fbe4f367dec7a8c7d0d4.md @@ -0,0 +1,54 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 80-1 +• Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 80-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 2 of 2 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- 80993-CIV-MARRA/ +ORDER +Upon Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Enlargement to Time to File Memorandum in +Opposition to Motions to Compel Plaintiffs to Respond to Defendant's First Request to Produce and +First Set of Interrogatories, et al., and good cause being shown, it is hereby +ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is granted. Plaintiffs shall have an enlargement of time of +until April 29, 2009, to respond to the Defendant's Motions to Compel, et al. +DONE AND ORDERED in +in Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this +day of +_ 2009. +DISTRICT COURT JUDGE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b4a89e321856ca4fb3eb57e86d2cbbdbfba995271fe2fbe4f367dec7a8c7d0d4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b4a89e321856ca4fb3eb57e86d2cbbdbfba995271fe2fbe4f367dec7a8c7d0d4.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..92109c352ebc1d7568de9ce24a3c58e7ff59dd32 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b4a89e321856ca4fb3eb57e86d2cbbdbfba995271fe2fbe4f367dec7a8c7d0d4.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b4a89e321856ca4fb3eb57e86d2cbbdbfba995271fe2fbe4f367dec7a8c7d0d4", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b292db6c0ae45049a6b04bb889eacef591b40a34945d107f55dbf742b912df45", + "output_sha256": "0d2846d4835774a6fc946474297279ad2f7dfe31223f982e532f432bfb2262e9", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b4b584e048bab46192925dd5a9b3574257188c7f83e64163bbdee13c4349e8d1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b4b584e048bab46192925dd5a9b3574257188c7f83e64163bbdee13c4349e8d1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5b485b31e35cc957645526d6e23b6f77d5bccac0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b4b584e048bab46192925dd5a9b3574257188c7f83e64163bbdee13c4349e8d1.md @@ -0,0 +1,281 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 1 of 11 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL +ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS +Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, files this Reply Memorandum in Support of +Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents, as follows: +I. +Introduction +Defendant relies upon generalization s regarding the nature of the case and the allegations in +the pleadings in justifying his assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege in response to each and +every interrogatory and document request propounded by Plaintiffs. This blanket assertion of the +privilege is insufficient to deny Plaintiffs all discovery in these cases. Defendant otherwise fails to +set forth any basis for denying Plaintiffs any and all answers to its written discovery under the +psychotherapist-patient privilege, the Federal Rules of Evidence, on grounds of relevance, third +party privacy rights, or other grounds. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request an Order +compelling answers to interrogatories and production of documents. +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 2 of 11 +IL. +Argument in Reply +A. +Defendant Has Made a Blanket +Assertion of the Privilege Against +Self-Incrimination That Is Insufficient +Defendant Cannot Rely on its Blanket Objections +to Interrogatories on Fifth Amendment Grounds +Defendant Epstein insists that he has not asserted a "blanket privilege" to discovery under the +Fifth Amendment, even though he has repeated the identical objection to each of Plaintiff's +discovery request on this ground. The federal courts have noted that "[t]he term "blanket assertion' +is not limited to the situation where the defendant makes a single response to numerous questions." +United States v. Buaiz, 2008 WL 5050102 (E.D. Tenn. 2008). Rather, as here, where the defendant +refuses to answer on fifth amendment grounds each and every question, such repeated assertions are +fairly characterized as a "blanket assertion". Id.; Capitol Products Corp. v. Hernon, 457 F.2d 541 +(8th Cir. 1972). +Accordingly, it is not sufficient to support the invocation of the Fifth Amendment with +nothing more than sweeping generalizations applicable to all questions that were asked in discovery. +See United States v. Pierce, 561 F.2d 735 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 923 (1978) ("a +blanket refusal to answer any question is unacceptable"). +Defendant Epstein's Response does not set forth reasonable cause for a concern of selfincrimination in response to specific interrogatories. It is particularly deficient with regard to +interrogatory, nos. 1-2 (identity of employees who worked or came to Palm Beach residence), no. 7 +(Defendant's presence in Florida), no. 8 (identity of health care providers), no. 9 (persons providing +transport services), no. 11 (Epstein's telephone numbers) and no. 12 (employees" telephone +numbers). Epstein's references to allegations of sexual abuse, exploitation and battery in the +Complaints in this and other civil actions against him, along with the alleged plan and scheme of +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 3 of 11 +recruiting girls to come to Epstein's Palm Beach mansion to give him "massages", fall well short of +demonstrating that any interrogatory asked of Epstein that is relevant and within the broad scope of +Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) would realistically and necessarily furnish a link in the chain of evidence +needed to prove a crime against him. +Epstein alternatively points out that there is a "narrow exception" which allows a blanket +assertion of the privilege where the trial court determines it to be legitimate based on the court's +knowledge of the case and the expected testimony. United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 +(Sth Cir. 1980); United States v. Tsui, 646 F.2d 365 (9th Cir. 1981). This is not a case, however, +where this narrow exception should apply. In Tsui, the Court allowed a blanket assertion of the +privilege only because it was clear that the witness would only be questioned about the real estate +transactions that were at the heart of his criminal liability concerns, and the proponent of the +testimony argued only that the witness did not have a reasonable fear of prosecution. Id. at 368. +Such unusual circumstances are not present in the instant cases. Because a blanket assertion of the +Fifth Amendment privilege is not legitimate in these cases, the Court must make a "particularized +inquiry", and "only as to genuinely threatening questions should [the witness's] silence be +sustained." Goodwin, 625 F.2d at 701 (quoting United States v. Melchor Moreno, 536 F.2d 1042, +1049 (Sth Cir. 1976)). +Defendant further asserts that Plaintiff's interrogatories requesting that he identify employees +may lead to evidence tending to incriminate him because one of his employees, +, is +identified in the Complaint. (Defendant Memorandum (DE 56), p. 18). This does not, however, +support a blanket refusal to answer on Fifth Amendment grounds. It does not demonstrate how +answers to these interrogatories, seeking the identities of all employees who were assigned or came +to the Palm Beach residence, could realistically furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 4 of 11 +prosecute Epstein. +Similarly, the allegations of the Complaints alone do not reveal the danger of selfincrimination from answers to interrogatories seeking information on when Epstein was in the State +of Florida, who provided transportation services to Epstein, his telephone numbers, his employees' +telephone numbers, and his health care providers.' Discovery requests that seek background +information or information on events and experiences of the witness for which he cannot realistically +or genuinely be expected to be charged with a crime are not subject to Fifth Amendment protection. +See Krause v. +, 390 F.Supp 1070, 1071-72 (N.D. Ohio 1974) (allowing questions to be asked +regarding personal backgrounds and experiences excluding the event at issue in the pending criminal +indictment). +2. +Defendant Has Not Demonstrated That the Act of +Producing Documents in Response to Specific Requests +Would be Sufficiently Testimonial and Incriminating +Defendant Epstein makes a general assertion that a response to any of Plaintiff's document +requests would entail testimonial self-incrimination. (Defendant's Response (DE 56), pp. 22-23). +Whether the act of producing a particular document would be sufficiently testimonial and +incriminatory to support the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is a "fact +dependent inquiry." United States v. Wujkowski, 929 F.2d 981, 985 (4th Cir. 1991). It is the burden +of the party asserting the privilege to "explain how the act of producing documents would pose a real +danger of incrimination." Bear Sterns & Co. v. Wyler, 182 F.Supp. 2d 679, 681 (N.D. III. 2002). +Defendant's reliance on United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), is inadequate. In +Hubbell, it was apparent from the breadth of the description of documents demanded in the +government's subpoena that "the prosecutor needed respondent's assistance both to identify +' See Interrogatory nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, 12. +-4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 5 of 11 +potential sources of information and to produce those sources." Id. at 41. In Bear Sterns, the Court +explained that the facts of Hubbel! were unique and do not support a blanket, all-encompassing +assertion by a witness or party that the production of documents would be testimonial and +incriminating: +To begin with, in Hubell, the incriminatory nature of the production +of the document sought was obvious. The respondent was already +incarcerated as a result of one investigation and he was the target of a +second. Indeed, the second investigation was directed at whether the +respondent was in compliance with a plea agreement-resulting from +testimony that he had Whitewater information that he had not +provided-it would be an admission that he failed to comply with the +specifically found that respondent's acknowledgment of the existence +of certain records sought in the government's subpoena would be +directly incriminating. Hubbell, 167 F.3d at 582. +Id. at 683. +As noted by the Court in Bear Sterns, a determination that the production of documents +would be testimonial cannot be premised on the witness's say so: +A witness is not exonerated from answering merely because he +declares that in so doing he would incriminate himself; his assertion +does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination. +Id. at 684. In Bear Sterns, the Court found that the defendant failed to meet his burden in asserting +the privilege against self-incrimination in response to a request for production that included wire +transfer records, telephone records, bank records, and records pertaining to specific investment +firms. Id. Plaintiffs seek in their document requests, among other things, telephone records, travel +records, correspondence and communications, and personal calendars and diaries. The act of +producing such records is not a crime. See id. ("[a]s the plaintiff notes, it is not a crime to make a +- 5- + + +Case 9:08-cV-80380-KAM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 6 of 11 +wire transfer, use the phone, or possess corporate records"). Defendant Epstein has failed to meet +his burden of demonstrating that the document requests made by Plaintiffs in these cases would pose +a real danger of incrimination. As in Bear Sterns, the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of +Documents should accordingly be granted. Id. +B. +Defendant Epstein Fails to Demonstrate Why His +Invocation of the Fifth Amendment Would Not +Warrant an Adverse Interest In These Civil Cases +Defendant Epstein does not dispute the general rule that an adverse inference may be drawn +in a civil case from a defendant's refusal to testify or respond to discovery by invoking the privilege +against self incrimination. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318-20 (1976). He instead asserts +that there is a "recognized exception" that applies in a case where the adverse inference is the sole +basis for the plaintiff's prima facie case or will cause the automatic entry of summary judgment. +(Defendant's Response, (DE 56), pp. 14-15); Federal Trade Comm'n v. Transnet Wireless Corp., +506 F.Supp. 2d 1247, 1252 n. 4 (S.D. Fla. 2007). This exception plainly would not apply here. +There are witnesses other than Defendant to the acts and conduct alleged in these cases, including +Plaintiffs and other victims. See Transnet Wireless, 506 F.Supp. 2d at 1252 n. 4 (holding that the +Court "will draw adverse inferences where appropriate" in reviewing a motion for summary +judgment, "in light of the myriad evidence presented by plaintiff"). +In any event, it would be premature at this stage of the case for the Court to foreclose the use +of an adverse inference from the Defendant's invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination. +This issue would arise either in a motion for summary judgment or a motion in limine. Accordingly, +based on the foregoing, Defendant's self-serving assertion in his discovery responses concerning the +drawing of an adverse inference is improper, and should be rejected and stricken. +C. Plaintiff Is Entitled to Discovery of Health Care +Information Requested In Interrogatory No. 8 +- 6 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 7 of 11 +Defendant Epstein argues that Plaintiff' s Interrogatory no. 8 is overbroad because it seeks +information over a ten year period. As to Defendant Epstein's psychological condition, particularly +any problem of a sexual nature, ten years is more than reasonable. Any psychosexual condition has +likely existed for most or all of Defendant Epstein's adult life. +Defendant Epstein next asserts Florida's psychotherapist-patient privilege under Florida +Statute §90.503(2). As set forth in Plaintiff's Motion, the allegations of child sexual abuse in this +case bring into play the exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege of Florida Statute §39.204. +Defendant asserts that this Court is required to hold an in camera inspection of documents to +determine, as to each document, whether Florida Statute §39.204 is applicable. See Doherty v. John +Doe No. 22, 957 So.2d 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Plaintiff agrees that such an in camera +inspection would be appropriate to evaluate whether the documents relate to allegations of child +sexual abuse. In this regard, any notes or records relating to Epstein's sexual interests or tendencies +produced in an in camera inspection would be relevant and should be turned over to Plaintiff as +falling within the exception of $39.204. +D. +Third Party Privacy Rights Are +Not a Basis to Deny Discovery +The right to privacy discussed in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 454 (1972), has nothing +to do with the discovery issues in this case. Eisenstadt concerns the distribution of a contraceptive +device. Yet Defendant relies entirely on Eisenstadt in contending that third party privacy rights +provide a basis for Defendant to object to discovery in this case. The vague argument and +unsupported assertion raised by Defendant in this case, "that the privacy rights of third parties are +implicated", is frivolous and must be rejected. +E. +Plaintiff Is Entitled In Discovery to Documents +Relating to Plea Agreements and Criminal Proceedings +- 7- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 8 of 11 +Defendant asserts that Plaintiff should not be entitled to receive any documents responsive to +her Request nos. 1-4 for the sole reason that these documents would not themselves be admissible +under Fed.R.Evid. 408 and 410. It is well established that broad discovery under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 +should not, without more, be limited on the basis of admissibility at trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(1946 +Advisory Committee Note). (Rule 26(b) "may cover not only evidence for use at the trial but also +inquiry into matters in themselves inadmissible as evidence but which will lead to the discovery of +such evidence. The purpose of discovery is to allow a broad search for facts, the names of +witnesses, or any other matters which may aid a party in the preparation or presentation of his +case"). Accordingly, the fact alone that plea agreements and related documents may not be +admissible at trial is not a basis to deny their production in discovery.? In Cupac, Inc. v. Mid-West +Agency, Inc., 100 F.R.D. 440 (S.D. Ohio 1983), the Court held on these grounds that a party could +obtain discovery relating to a criminal plea, including the answers to questions asked by the +prosecutor, even though this information would be inadmissible under Fed.R.Evid. 410. Any +concerns regarding the disclosure of documents responsive to request nos. 1-4 could be addressed in +an appropriate protective order. Plaintiffs and their counsel, however, should have these documents +in discovery. +F. An In Camera Hearing May Be Appropriate To Determine +Whether Defendant Properly Claims Privilege In +Response To Interrogatories And Document Reguests +Given the fact intensive nature of the inquiry into whether a defendant has met his burden in +asserting a privilege against self-incrimination, some courts have conducted in camera, ex parte +hearings to determine whether assertions of the privilege are valid in each instance. See United +* Plaintiff further notes that her document request no. 4 seeks documents obtained in discovery and +investigation of the criminal cases, not documents pertaining to the plea agreement. Accordingly, +Rules 408 and 410 could not serve as a basis to object to these requests. +- 8 - + + +Case 9:08-cV-80380-KAM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 9 of 11 +States v. Duncan, 704 F.Supp 820 (N.D. III. 1989); see also United States v. Wujkowski, 929 F.2d +981, 986 (4th Cir. 1991) (*[wle hold only that the district court must undertake a more careful +examination of the documents in question and provide a basis for its findings"). To the extent that +this Court is in doubt as to whether to uphold the Defendant's privilege claim as to any particular +document request or interrogatory, then an in camera hearing would be appropriate. +Ill. Conclusion +Based on the foregoing, and for the reasons stated in Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Answers +to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, +Plaintiff requests that Defendant Epstein be ordered to answer interrogatories and produce +responsive documents. +Dated: April 20, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By:_ +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiff +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +-9- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 10 of 11 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on April 20 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day +to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices +of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who +are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 10 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 11 of 11 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 11 - diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b4b584e048bab46192925dd5a9b3574257188c7f83e64163bbdee13c4349e8d1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b4b584e048bab46192925dd5a9b3574257188c7f83e64163bbdee13c4349e8d1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dfb9170907efe678457e7f609616592caf408f76 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b4b584e048bab46192925dd5a9b3574257188c7f83e64163bbdee13c4349e8d1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -136, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b4b584e048bab46192925dd5a9b3574257188c7f83e64163bbdee13c4349e8d1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 13, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "259db0891c4b5492d5ce79bdcfafa746e586f8cf1ffd5dabb7b0fa122b174b63", + "output_sha256": "19b5817363b458392af2dbac3e9c41cb28ac69c0b55508db63b9218247c6bee3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b4c0cb8cd7b7bc6c64649a7be0605269401f656347d72c0d0bd968c98f41a866.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b4c0cb8cd7b7bc6c64649a7be0605269401f656347d72c0d0bd968c98f41a866.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..35202bc75c631abe0d6ecd4a307b2f7268ca9973 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b4c0cb8cd7b7bc6c64649a7be0605269401f656347d72c0d0bd968c98f41a866.md @@ -0,0 +1,5981 @@ +Filing # 131673974 E-Filed 07/29/2021 02:32:06 PM +Plaintiff, +v. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Defendants. +CASE NO.: 2019-CA-014681 +DIVISION: +AG +COPY +MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DAVE ARONBERG'S +AMENDED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES +Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, +(hereinafter the "State Attorney"), by and through counsel below, hereby submits the following +Memorandum of Law in Support of his Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees, filed November 9, +2020, ("Amended Motion"), and in support thereof states as follows: +TIMELINE & BACKGROUND +On November |4, 2019, Plaintiff filed its original Complaint that sought to create +a private right of action under Fla. Stat. § 905.27, in the interest of "furthering justice", to compel +disclosure of the testimony, minutes, and other evidence presented in 2006 to the Palm Beach +County grand jury, as to Jeffrey Epstein, (the "Requested Materials"). +2. +On November 26, 2019, the State Attorney and his office received an engagement +letter and attorney-client contract from the undersigned counsel and his law firm and later executed +said contract. [Def.Ex.1]. +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL,| +ABRUZZO, CLERK, 07/29/2021 02:32:06 PM + + +3. +On December 6, 2019, the State Attorney filed his Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's +Complaint. Notably, this filing put Plaintiff on notice that "Despite Plaintiff's allegations to the +contrary, Defendant Aronberg is not in custody or control of the records sought and is therefore +not a proper party to this action." On December 13, 2019, the Clerk also filed a Motion to Dismiss. +4. +On January 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint, which in addition +to its original claim under § 905.27 Fla. Stat., ("Count I|"), added a claim for Declaratory Relief, +("Count I"), that sought an order declaring that the State Attorney and the Clerk disclose the +Requested Materials so Plaintiff could use those materials for the purpose of informing the public. +5. +On January 24, 2019, the State Attorney and the Clerk each filed an Answer to +Count I of the First Amended Complaint and a Motion to Dismiss Count II (Answer/Motion to +Dismiss). This filing by the State Attorney again notified Plaintiff that: +It is significant to emphasize that despite Plaintiff's allegations to the contrary, +Defendant Aronberg and the Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial +Circuit are not in custody or control of the records sought herein, and therefore +Defendant Aronberg is not a proper party to this action. In fact, Defendant, Sharon +R. Bock, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida, admits that it is +the custodian in possession of the documents that are the subject of this action. +[See, Aronberg Answer/Motion to Dismiss Count II, p. 12] +On June 3, 2020, Chief Judge Marx held a hearing on the State Attorney's and +Clerk's Motions to Dismiss Count II. [Def.Ex.2]. +7.1 +On June 8, 2020, the Court entered its Order Granting Defendants' Motions to +Dismiss Count Il of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint with Prejudice ("Order"). [Def.Ex.3]. +Immediately following the Court's Order, on June 8, 2020, the State Attorney, +through the undersigned counsel, served Plaintiff with a demand pursuant to § 57.105 Fla. Stat., +to voluntarily dismiss/withdraw the First Amended Complaint and the claims against the State +Attorney, along with a Motion for Attorneys' Fees ("§ 57.105 Demand"). [Def.Ex.4]. As a result +2 + + +of the Order, only Count I of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint remained, which sought +Declaratory Relief under § 86.011, Fla. Stat. +In serving his § 57.105 Demand on Plaintiff, the State Attorney properly put +Plaintiff on notice that he would seek sanctions by filing the § 57.105 Motion for Attorneys' Fees +if Plaintiff failed to dismiss the remainder of its First Amended Complaint within 21 days of service +of the § 57.105 Demand +10. +Likewise, the State Attorney's § 57.105 Demand specifically informed Plaintiff +that: +First and foremost, the [First Amended] Complaint is not supported by the material +facts necessary to establish the claims asserted because neither Defendant +Aronberg, nor The Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit is +in custody or control of the 2006 grand jury materials sought therein. Simply put, +the declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff seeks records from my client that are +impossible for him or his office to produce. Accordingly, Defendant Aronberg is +not a proper party to this action because no matter what, he and his office do not +have possession, custody, or control of the Requested Materials. +Moreover, even if the Plaintiff were to prevail in the declaratory action, Mr. +Aronberg would be unable to comply with any court order granting disclosure of +the requested documents because neither Mr. Aronberg nor The Office of the State +Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit have possession, custody, or control of +the 2006 Epstein grand jury records. +11. On June 23, 2020, Plaintiff's counsel sent a response to the § 57.105 Demand +refusing to withdraw the remainder of the First Amended Complaint as to the State Attorney. +[Def.Ex.5|≤ +12. y After receiving Plaintiff's June 23, 2020, response refusing to withdraw the +remainder of the First Amended Complaint and waiting the prerequisite "21 days after service of +the motion" the State Attorney's § 57.105 Motion for Attorneys' Fees was filed with this Court on +July 1, 2020, (hereinafter "First Motion for Attorneys' Fees"). [Def.Ex.6]. +3 + + +13. Thereafter, on August 18, 2020, the State Attorney filed his Motion for Summary +Judgment, which included the Affidavit of the State Attorney ("Affidavit"), [Def.Ex.7], and +proceeded, on October 21, 2020, to file a Motion to Set Hearing on the State Attorney's Motion +for Summary Judgment after it became clear that there would be no resolution of this matter +without the Court's intervention. +14. +Nonetheless, later the same day, October 21, 2020, rather than setting and +participating in a hearing on the merits as to State Attorney's Motion for Summary Judgment, +Plaintiff filed its Notice of Dropping the State Attorney from the instant case, pursuant to Rule +1.250(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. [Def.Ex.8]. +15. +As the filing of Plaintiff's Notice of Dropping the State Attorney operates as an +adjudication on the merits as to the State Attorney, the Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees, +("Amended Motion"), was filed November 9, 2020 to include the entirety of the State Attorney's +legal fees up to that date. [Def.Ex.9]. +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +I. +LEGAL STANDARD +"The central purpose of § 57.105, Fla. Stat., is, and always has been, to deter meritless +filings and thus streamline the administration and procedure of the courts. Thus, the post-1999 +version of § 57.105 has expanded the circumstances where fees should be awarded and the purpose +is to defer meritless filings." +v. Bailynson, 268 So. 3d 762, 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); See +Bionetics Corp. v. Kenniasty, 69 So. 3d 943, 948 (Fla. 2011). Accordingly, § 57.105, Fla. Stat. +provides the following language authorizing the award of attorneys' fees as sanctions in actions +such as the present litigation: +(1) +Upon the court's initiative or motion of any party, the court shall award a +reasonable attorney's fee, including prejudgment interest, to be paid to the +4 + + +prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party's attorney +on any claim or defense at any time during a civil proceeding or action in which +the court finds that the losing party or the losing party's attorney knew or should +have known that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any +time before trial: +Was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the +claim or defense; or +(b) Would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to +those material facts. +Fla. Stat. § 57.105 (1). +Hence, in addition to a motion by any party, "Section 57.105(1) clearly and explicitly +confers upon the trial court the authority to award attorney's fees to the prevailing party upon the +court's initiative, if the court finds that the losing party ... knew or should have known that a claim +or defense when initially presented to the court or at any time before trial... [w/as not supported +by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense" or would not be supported by the +application of then-existing law to those material facts. Koch v. L +1, 47 So. 3d 320, 324 (Fla. 2d +DCA 2010). +Moreover, "[u]nder [§ 57.105,) Fla, Stat.] the legislature has expressed its unequivocal +intent that where a party files a meritless claim, suit or appeal, the party who is wrongfully required +to expend funds for attorneys' fees is entitled to recoup those fees." +County Conservation +Alliance v. Martin County, 73 So. 3d 856, 857 (Fla. Ist DCA 2011) (finding that "Courts are not +at liberty to disregard the legislative mandate that courts shall impose sanctions in cases without +foundation in material fact or law. The word "shall" in § 57.105, Fla. Stat., evidences the legislative +intent to impose a mandatory penalty to discourage baseless claims, by placing a price tag on +losing parties who engage in these activities. Section 57.105 expressly states courts "shall" assess +attorney's fees for bringing, or failing to dismiss, baseless claims or defenses."). +5 + + +Additionally, "[sJection 57.105 does not require a finding of frivolousness to justify +sanctions, but only a finding that the claim lacked a basis in fact or law" and "does not require a +party to show complete absence of a justiciable issue of fact or law." +County Conservation +Alliance v. +County, 73 So. 3d 856, 865 (Fla. Ist DCA 2011). However, "[w]here there is +an arguable basis in law and fact for a party's claim, a trial court may not sanction that party under +section 57.105." Minto PBLH, LLC v. 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., 228 So. 3d 147, 149 (Fla. 4th +DCA 2017). +Finally, in determining an award of sanctions under § 57.105, the trial court's findings +"must be based on substantial competent evidence" and the trial court "must make an inquiry into +what the losing party knew or should have known during the fact-establishment process, both +before and after the suit was filed." See Trust Mortg., LLC c. Ferlanti, 193 So. 3d 997, 1001 (Fla. +4th DCA 2016); See also Chue v. Lehman, 21 So. 3d 890, 891-92 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). +THE STATE ATTORNEY'S AMENDED MOTION IS NEITHER IN VIOLATION +OF THE 21-DAY SAFE HARBOR PROVISION IN FLA. STAT. § 57.105(4), NOR +WAS THE AMENDED MOTION MOOT UPON FILING. +A. +The Amended Motion does not violate the 21-day safe harbor provision +because Plaintiff dropped the State Attorney from the action prior to the filing +of the Amended Motion. +"Section 51.J05(4), Florida Statutes creates an opportunity to avoid the sanction of +attorney's fees by creating a safe period for withdrawal or amendment of meritless allegations and +claims." Davis v. Bailynson, 268 So. 3d 762, 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). Specifically, the relevant +portion of the Statute states: +1 motion by a party seeking sanctions under this section must be served but may +lot be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of th +motion, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not +withdrawn or appropriately corrected. +Fla. Stat. § 57.105(4). Likewise, "It]he primary purpose of the safe harbor provision of § +6 + + +57.105(4), Fla. Stat., is to provide the recipient of a motion for an award of costs and attorney's +fees with notice and the opportunity to withdraw or abandon a frivolous claim before sanctions are +sought." MC Liberty Express, Inc. v. All Points Servs., 252 So. 3d 397, 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). +Here, Plaintiff contends that the State Attorney "did not serve his Amended Motion at any +time before filing it, and thus failed to comply with the 21-day notice provision...." [Def.Ex.10, +p. 6]. Plaintiff claims that for this reason alone the Amended Motion should be denied and cites +in support of their argument Lago v. Kame By Design, LLC, 120 So. 3d 73, 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) +(holding that "if a party files a subsequent or amended motion for sanctions under section 57.105 +and raises an argument that was not raised in the original motion for section 57.105 sanctions, the +subsequent motion must independently comply with the twenty-one-day 'safe harbor' provision +of Section 57.105(4)."). +Despite Plaintiff's assertion, the instant case is distinguishable from Lago, as the rule set +forth therein does not apply based on the facts and timeline of this action. In Lago, the plaintiff +served its § 57.105 demand and accompanying motion for attorneys' fees on June 30, 2011. After +waiting for the requisite 21-day safe harbor period to pass, the plaintiff filed its motion for +attorneys' fees with the court on July 29, 2011. The plaintiff then filed an amended motion for +attorneys' fees with the court on September 20, 2011. The court entered an order granting the +plaintiff's motion for § 57.105 attorneys' fees on October 25, 2011. The defendant filed a motion +for rehearing and on September 5, 2012, the court reheard the argument for attorneys' fees, +ultimately upholding its October 25, 2011 order. Significantly, during the September 5, 2012 +rehearing, the defendant withdrew its offending motion that triggered the plaintiff's § 57.105 +7 + + +demand and motion for attorneys' fees. Eventually, on August 7, 2013, the trial court's order was +remanded by the 4th DCA based on the rule set forth above.' +Thus, in Lago, because the case was still active when the plaintiff's amended motion for +attorneys' fees was filed and was not served on the defendant in compliance with the 21-day safe +harbor provision before it was filed with the court, pursuant to § 57.105, the defendant was entitled +to notice and an opportunity to change its position and withdraw its offending motion before being +sanctioned. +The timeline of events in the instant action stands in stark contrast to that of Lago and +accordingly necessitates a different result. Here, Plaintiff was served with the State Attorney's § +57.105 Demand and its accompanying First Motion for Attorneys' Fees on June 8, 2020. On June +23, 2020, Plaintiff's counsel sent a letter in response indicating Plaintiff's refusal to drop the Count +I of the First Amended Complaint against the State Attorney. After waiting for the requisite 21- +day safe harbor period to pass, the State Attorney's First Motion for Attorneys' Fees was properly +filed with the Court. Over 4-months later, after settlement negotiations failed and after the State +Attorney's Motion for Summary Judgment was filed, Plaintiff dropped the State Attorney as a +party. [Def.Ex.8]. Significantly, only after Plaintiff dropped the State Attorney as a party, and +thus had no ability to change its position, was the Amended Motion filed. Based on this fact +pattern, the Lago rule does not apply here. +Despite Plaintiff's decision to drop the State Attorney as a party, the Florida Rules of Civil +Procedure and the courts of Florida are clear. Because Rule 1.250 specifies that a party is dropped +"in the manner provided for voluntary dismissal in Rule 1.420(a)(1)," dropping a party therefore +' Notably, the court in Lago v. Kame By Design, LLC, 120 So. 3d 73, 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), despite finding that the +plaintiff's amended motion for attorneys" fees was improper, the trial court was instructed to rule as to the plaintiff's +original motion for attorneys' fees as it was properly served and filed pursuant to § 57.105, Fla. Stat. +8 + + +"operates as an adjudication on the merits." See, Siboni v. L +, 52 So. 3d 779, 781 (Fla. 5th +DCA 2010); Rule 1.420(a)(I) Fla. R. Civ. P. Notably, Plaintiff admits that "the entire action, +which necessarily included Count I [of the First Amended Complaint], was dismissed as to [the +State Attorney] on October 21, 2020. [Def.Ex.10, p.7]. Nonetheless, as a result of dropping the +State Attorney from the case, Plaintiff not only effectively made an admission that its allegations +against the State Attorney have no basis in fact or law, but also concluded the case as to the State +Attorney and thereby became the losing party in this action. +Consequently, unlike the fact scenario and timeline in Lago, because Plaintiff concluded +the instant litigation by dropping the State Attorney from the action before the filing of the +Amended Motion, it was impossible to give Plaintiff an opportunity to respond and withdraw its +Count I of the First Amended Complaint since Plaintiff had already done so, and therefore there +can be no violation of the 21-day safe harbor provision set forth in Fla. Stat. § 57.105(4). +Based on the foregoing, the State Attorney's Amended Motion does not violate the 21-day +safe harbor provision because Plaintiff dropped him from the action prior to the filing of the +Amended Motion, and therefore Plaintiff was not prejudiced by the filing of the Amended Motion. +Accordingly, as further set forth below, Plaintiff has exposed itself to § 57.105 attorneys' fees as +sanctions for failing to drop the State Attorney as a party within the 21-day safe harbor period. +B. +The State Attorney's Amended Motion was not moot upon filing, but rather +was properly filed at the conclusion of the litigation to fully incorporate the +entirety of the State Attorney's legal fees to date. +Oddly, Plaintiff also contends that because the State Attorney was dropped from the action +nineteen days before the State Attorney's Amended Motion was filed, the Amended Motion is +somehow moot. [Def.Ex.10]. Not only does Plaintiff fail to provide any authority in support of +this position, taking such a position lacks any logical reasoning or common sense. To be clear, the + + +State Attorney's First Motion for Attorneys' Fees was properly served and later filed pursuant to +the statutory instructions set forth in § 57.105. When Plaintiff failed to withdraw its remaining +claim against the State Attorney within the 21-day safe harbor period it exposed itself to sanctions +under the Statute despite eventually dropping the State Attorney more than 4-months after the § +57.105 Demand was made. As set forth at length above, Plaintiff's dropping of the State Attorney +as a party acted as an adjudication on the merits against Plaintiff. Thus, at that time the safe harbor +provision of § 57.105(4) no longer applied to Plaintiff because it acquiesced to the State Attorney's +demand, albeit late, no longer had any opportunity to respond, and was unable to change its +position or react to the Amended Motion as the State Attorney was no longer an active party in the +lawsuit. +Furthermore, the Amended Motion was not moot at the time of filing because when it was +filed it incorporated the entirety of the State Attorney's fees from the time of serving the § 57.105 +Demand through the time that the State Attorney was dropped from the case and the action +concluded. There is nothing improper about the Amended Motion or any argument or authority +offered by Plaintiff that would make the Amended Motion moot. Likewise, amended motions for +attorneys' fees are filed consistently as a matter of course to include the entirety of fees in a lawsuit. +Here, the State Attorney's total legal fees were able to be calculated and submitted at the time of +filing the Amended Motion. +The State Attorney's First Motion for Attorneys' Fees is not insufficient and +was properly filed in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 57.105. +Plaintiff argues that the State Attorney's First Motion for Attorneys' Fees "was insufficient +under Fla. Stat. § 57.105 when filed [because] it set forth no substantive arguments as to why +Count I of the Amended Complaint was [un]supportable based on material facts in the record or +the application of existing law to those facts." [Def.Ex.10, p. 8]. Despite Plaintiff's contention, +10 + + +Fla. Stat. § 57.105 has no such requirement regarding the contents of a motion for attorneys' fees +served in conjunction with a § 57.105 demand. In fact, regarding § 57.105 motions for attorneys' +fees the Statute is limited to the following language regarding the safe harbor provision: +A motion by a party seeking sanctions under this section must be served but may +not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the +motion, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not +withdrawn or appropriately corrected. +Fla. Stat. § 57.105(4). Moreover, the State Attorney's June 8, 2020 § 57.105 Demand specifically +sets forth the reasons why Count I of the First Amended Complaint had no basis in fact or law. +Likewise, the State Attorney's First Motion for Attorneys' Fees specifically states that: +[O]n June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served with a copy of this Motion, together with a +letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with subsection (4) of the above +Sritu to the ailing orishis More Tsaid mecca Dendanis attray advised +prior to the filing of this Motion. +Plaintiff of the facts which establish that the [First Amended] Complaint is without +support of the facts or the law. +[Def.Ex.6]. Accordingly, the State Attorney properly put Plaintiff on notice that he would seek +attorneys' fees as sanctions under § 57.105 if the First Amended Complaint was not withdrawn +during the 21-day safe harbor period. Hence, regardless of the length or breadth of the First Motion +for Attorneys' Fees, it was filed properly within the statutory procedures set forth in § 57.105 and +cannot be considered insufficient despite Plaintiff's contention. +In addition, Plaintiff asserts that "[a] motion for sanctions must be supported by the record +evidence at the time it is filed" [and] "[bJecause the First Motion was not so supported, it fails +under the [S]tatute." [Def.Ex.10, p. 8]. In support of this argument, Plaintiff asserts that there was +no record evidence supporting the State Attorney's statement from the § 57.105 Demand that it +was impossible for him to provide the Requested Materials because he has no possession, custody, +or control of them. +11 + + +Despite Plaintiff's argument here, Plaintiff has failed to provide any supporting authority +whatsoever and there is no statutory requirement or language in § 57.105 that supporting record +evidence must exist to properly serve a § 57.105 demand and motion for attorneys' fees. "The +central purpose of § 57.105, Fla. Stat., is, and always has been, to deter meritless filings and thus +streamline the administration and procedure of the courts." +v. Bailynson, 268 So. 3d 762, +769 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). In this vein, a § 57.105 demand and accompanying motion for attorneys' +fees can be filed at any time after a lawsuit is initiated, hence even directly in response to the filing +of a complaint, regardless of whether any record evidence exists at the time in support of the § +57.105 demand. In fact, § 57.105(1) specifically states in pertinent part that: +[T]he court shall award a reasonable attorney's fee ... on any claim or defense at +any time during a civil proceeding or action in which the court finds that the losing +party or the losing party's attorney knew or should have known that a claim or +defense when initially presented to the court or at any time before trial: +(a) +Was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the +claim or defense; or +(b) Would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to +those material facts. +Fla. Stat. § 57.105(1). +Consequently, the foregoing indicates that the State Attorney's First Motion for +Attorney's Fees, as served and filed, is sufficient under § 57.105 to seek sanctions from +Plaintiff for its failure to drop the State Attorney from the instant lawsuit within the 21-day +safe harbor provision after being notified why its First Amended Complaint had no basis +in fact or law. Furthermore, as set forth at length above, despite Plaintiff's contention, the +State Attorney had no obligation to serve his Amended Motion prior to filing it with the +Court as Plaintiff had already dropped him from the case when it was filed. +12 + + +I1I. +THE COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD SHOWS +THAT THERE IS NO ARGUABLE BASIS IN LAW OR FACT FOR THE ISSUES +RAISED IN PLAINTIFF'S COUNT I, WHICH NOT ONLY LACK A GOOD +FAITH ARGUMENT FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF EXISTING LAW OR +ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW LAW WITH A REASONABLE EXPECTATION +OF SUCCESS, BUT ALSO ARE NEITHER NOVEL OR COMPLEX. +In determining an award of sanctions under § 57.105, the trial court's findings "must be +based on substantial competent evidence" and the trial court "must make an inquiry into what the +losing party knew or should have known during the fact-establishment process, both before and +after the suit was filed." See Trust Mortg., LLC c. Ferlanti, 193 So. 3d 997, 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA +2016); See also Chue v. Lehman, 21 So. 3d 890, 891-92 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). +Here Plaintiff relies on § 57.105(3)(a), which sets forth a scenario where sanctions are +improper under the Statute: +3) Notwithstanding subsections (I) and (2), monetary sanctions may not be +awarded: +(a) Under paragraph (1)(b) if the court determines that the claim or +defense was initially presented to the court as a good faith argument for the +extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of +new law, as it applied to the material facts, with a reasonable expectation +of success. +Fla. Stat. § 57.105(3)(a). +In support of its position, Plaintiff unpersuasively relies on the court's determination in MC +Liberty Express, Inc. 4, All Points Servs., Inc., 252 So. 3d 397, 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (finding +that "[w]here a party reasonably believes the factual basis for its claim exists, it is entitled to +proceed with its claims and seck to prove those facts. If attempts to prove those facts are fruitless, +that is still not cause for sanctions where the party's initial belief was well founded." Likewise, +Plaintiff asserts that "even in absence of existing supportive law, if the claim at issue was presented +as a good-faith argument for the extension or modification of existing law or the establishment of +new law, with a reasonable expectation of success, the Court cannot sanction the party or its +13 + + +attorney." See Key Biscayne Gateway Partners, Ltd. v. Village Council for Village of Key +Biscayne, 240 So. 3d 84, 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). +A. +The defense to the issuance of sanctions under § 57.105(3)(a) does not protect +Plaintiff because as applied to the material facts, Plaintiff has failed to provide +a good faith argument with a reasonable expectation of success. +Notably, Plaintiff's arguments exclude the limitation that the § 57.105(3)(a) defense only +applies to demands made under § 57.105(1)(b). Accordingly, Plaintiff's attempt to prevent an +award of sanctions here only applies to whether Plaintiff or Plaintiff's attorney "knew or should +have known" that the First Amended Complaint "when initially presented to the court or at any +time before trial ... (b) would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those +material facts necessary to establish their claim." [See, § 57.J0S(1)(b)]. +Despite Plaintiff's argument that sanctions pursuant to § 57.105(1)(b) are unjustified based +on the defense provided under § 57.105(3)(a), Plaintiff's argument fails as there is no arguable +basis in law that the State Attorney provide the Requested Materials. In determining an award of +sanctions under § 57.105, the trial court "must make an inquiry into what the losing party knew or +should have known during the fact-establishment process, both before and after the suit was filed." +See Trust Mortg., LLC c. Ferlanti, 193 So. 3d 997, 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); See also Chue v. +Lehman, 21 So. 3d 890, 891-92 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Here, Plaintiff's fact-establishment process +began before either of its original Complaint or First Amended Complaint were filed. Notably, +both pleadings revolved around Plaintiff's arguments for a private right of action under Fla. Stat. +§ 905.27 and whether The Palm Beach Post had constitutional and statutory standing to overcome +grand jury secrecy provisions "in furtherance of justice." +14 + + +As Plaintiff researched § 905, Fla. Stat. it would seem reasonable that Plaintiff would have +encountered § 905.17, Fla. Stat. during its fact-establishment process. Notably, regarding the +disclosure of grand jury materials, § 905.17(1) states: +The notes, records, and transcriptions are confidential and exempt from the +provisions of s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution and shall be +released by the clerk only on request by a grand jury for use by the grand jury or +on order of the court pursuant to s. 905.21. +Accordingly, based on the clear, unambiguous statutory language set forth in § +57.105.17(1), only the Clerk, not the State Attorney, may release grand jury l +terials pursuant to +an order of the court. Thus, it is apparent that the State Attorney and his office lack the legal +authority to obtain and deliver the Requested Materials demanded by Plaintiff in Count I of the +First Amended Complaint. +Regardless of whether Plaintiff actually knew of the controlling provision set forth in § +905.17(1) during its fact-establishment process, Plaintiff was not only on constructive notice of +said statutory provision, Plaintiff was specifically informed of this provision in several instances +prior to the State Attorney being dropped as a party. Nonetheless, based on Plaintiff's own +research, statutory constructive notice, the State Attorney's affidavit, all of the pleadings and +correspondence in this matter as well as through the State Attorney's office press release and social +media accounts, and Chief Judge Marx's statements during the June 3, 2020 hearing, Plaintiff +should have known that Count I of the Amended Complaint "would not be supported by the +application of then-existing law to [the] material facts" in this action. See § 57.105(1)(b). +B. +Sanctions against Plaintiff are appropriate under § 57.105(1)(a) as Plaintiff +knew or should have known that Count I was not supported by the material +facts necessary to establish the claim or defense. +Even if Plaintiff were somehow successful in defending against sanctions based on a good +faith argument for a reasonable expectation of success pursuant to § 57.105(1)(b), sanctions would + + +still be appropriate against Plaintiff pursuant to § 57.105(a) regardless of Plaintiff's alleged "good +faith belief" or "reasonable expectation of success." Section 57.105(1)(a) states that "the court +shall award a reasonable attorney's fee ... on any claim or defense at any time during a civil +proceeding or action in which the court finds that the losing party or the losing party's attorney +knew or should have known that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any +time before trial ... (a) was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or +defense." +As to § 57.105(1)(a), the material facts showing that Plaintiff's claim has no reasonable +expectation of success have been open, obvious, and apparent to everyone involved in this matter +from the start. Specifically, the State Attorney's position has been consistent: neither he nor his +office has possession, custody, or control of the Requested Materials and therefore the declaratory +relief sought by Plaintiff seeks materials that are impossible for the State Attorney or his office to +produce and he is not a proper party to this action. |Def.Ex.7, 49 3-4]. Again, these material facts +negating Plaintiff's claim against the State Attorney were not only set forth in the June 8, 2020, § +57.105 Demand Letter, but have been the basis for the State Attorney's defense in every pleading, +filing, and/or correspondence in this matter. +Plaintiff should have known from the initiation of the case that the First Amended +Complaint was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish their claim for declaratory +relief; and, at the very least, Plaintiff should have known that its First Amended Complaint was +not supported by the material facts after Judge Marx's statements during the June 3, 2020 hearing +on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Count II. During that hearing, Chief Judge Marx +drew a bright line as to when Plaintiff knew or should have known that Count I of the Amended +Complaint had no basis in fact or law since the relief sought thereby is impossible for the State +16 + + +Attorney to perform. Specifically, Chief Judge Marx made the following statements putting +Plaintiff on notice if they weren't already: +"I must look at the four corners of the motion, which alleges that the State Attorney, +Dave Aronberg, and the clerk and comptroller, Sharon Bock, actually have custody +and control of these grand jury proceeding. Whether that is true or not is not for +bin count. O de, not for becaus. inke al smoly at they don orave of th +and custody of the records." [June 8, 2020 Hearing Transcript, p. 3:18 - 4:1]- +"I think we can all agree ... that the state attorney doesn't have these records." [June +8, 2020 Hearing Transcript, p. 5:17-19]. +"T'm asking you, how are the clerk and the state attorney the proper defendants?" +[June 8, 2020 Hearing Transcript, p. 8:4-6]. +"I'm puzzled by the procedural posturing of this case naming the state attorney. +And, you know, I'm further stymied by the fact that you allege in your complaint +that they have - particularly David Aronberg the State Attorney - that he has these +records." [June 8, 2020 Hearing Transcript, p. 8:8-14]. +, let's run this all the way out. Let's say you win and you get a judgment +against the State Attorney Dave Aronberg. What's he supposed to do with it? He +can't release the grand jury testimony. He has no authority whatsoever to do that." +[June 8, 2020 Hearing Transcript, p. 8:18-22]. +"And the only thing we're here today about is why should the clerk and the state +attorney have to defend a civil action when it's a [im]possibility of performance? +They - even if you were to win and get a judgment against them, they cannot give +you what they don't have." [June 8, 2020 Hearing Transcript, p. 10:21 - 11:1]. +"I'm simply saying why should these two entities have to defend this lawsuit when +even down the road if [you] win they can't give you what they don't have?" [June +8, 2020 Hearing Transcript, p. 11:12-15]. +*And, you know, really, I want you to boil it down for me as to this - let's take it +all the way down the road. You win. You get a judgment against the clerk and the +state attorney. I know there's other reasons why you might have filed it this way. +But I'm just simply puzzled because I do hear what the clerk and the state attorney +are saying, and that is, performance is impossible. They don't have the records and +cannot - absolutely. There's not even an inch of wiggle room - that they could +release the records even if you got a judgment. It is solely a determination for the +court. I, frankly, think, you know, there's ways to get to your records. There's ways +to get confidential records. But it isn't by suing the state attorney and the clerk." +[June 8, 2020 Hearing Transcript, p. 16:12 - 17:3]. +17 + + +"Even assuming arguendo that they have the records - we know they don't - you +were to get a judgment against them, how would you expect them to perform?" +[June 8, 2020 Hearing Transcript, p. 17:6-9]. +"What do you mean? What do you mean? They're not trying to block it. They're +saying that despite the fact - let's just talk about the clerk, because we all know the +state attorney doesn't have it." [June 8, 2020 Hearing Transcript, p. 17:23 - 18:2]. +In fact, during the Motion to Dismiss hearing, Plaintiff's counsel, Ms. Boyagian, +acknowledged on the record the State Attorney's assertion that he does not have possession, +custody, or control of the Requested Materials: +"My understanding is that the state attorney has asserted that he does not have +possession. It's not my understanding that the clerk has taken that position. So the +clerk may indeed be the - someone who does have possession, custody, and +control." [June 8, 2020 Hearing Transcript, p. 9:1-6]. +"Two points, your Honor: One is that, again, the clefk did not assert in her papers +that she does not have control. That is a position that the State Attorney's Office +has asserted." [June 8, 2020 Hearing Transcript, p. 17:10 - 13]. +Consequently, following the June 3/2020 Motion to Dismiss Hearing, at the very least, +Plaintiff knew or should have known under § 57.105(1)(a) that Count I of the Amended Complaint +"was not supported by the material facts necessary" to establish their claim. See Fla. Stat. § +57.105(1)(a). In fact, later the same day that Chief Judge Marx entered her Order Granting +Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Count II with Prejudice, the State Attorney's § 57.105 Demand +and accompanying First Motion for Attorneys' Fees was served on Plaintiff explaining the +impossibility of the State Attorney being able to provide the Requested Materials. Accordingly, +the foregoing not only shows that § 57.105 sanctions are justified against Plaintiff, but also that +there is no arguable basis in fact that the State Attorney provide the Requested Materials. +c. +Plaintiff's Count I is neither novel nor complex as it merely seeks declaratory +relief and because the State Attorney's lack of possession, custody, or control +of the Requested Materials creates an impossibility of performance. +Plaintiff also argues that "Where an issue is novel and complex, sanctions under Section +18 + + +57.105(a) may not be imposed." Grove Key Marina, LLC v. Casamayor, 166 So. 3d 879 (Fla. 3d +DCA 2015). However, despite Plaintiff's reliance on Casamayor, there is nothing in the court's +opinion that stands for the proposition that Plaintiff asserts. Nonetheless, the Fist District Court +of Appeal in +County Conservation Alliance v. +County, 73 So. 3d 856, 864 (Fla. Ist +DCA 2011), stated that "[w]ere we to determine that complex cases are immune from sanctions +under section 57.105, we would be abdicating our duty and violating Article II, section 3 of the +Florida Constitution." Moreover, while Plaintiff's Count II may fall into the category of being +"novel" since it sought a private right of action under § 905.27; however, Plaintiff's Count I does +not rise to such a level as it merely seeks declaratory relief. Regardless, Plaintiff's arguments in +support of Count I have no good faith basis or reasonable expectation of success as further set forth +below. +Here, it is apparent that Plaintiff's Count I for declaratory relief is neither novel or complex. +All of the available facts since the initiation of the case and thereafter have stood in stark contrast +to Plaintiff's alleged "well-founded belief and "good faith" argument in support of Count I. +Oddly, in arguing for novelty and complexity, Plaintiff heavily relies on its Count Il for a private +right of action under § 905.27, Fla. Stat. and whether The Palm Beach Post had constitutional and +statutory standing to overcome grand jury secrecy provisions "in furtherance of justice." See, § +905.27.- Notably, Chief Judge Marx's June 8, 2020 Order Dismissing Count II with Prejudice +already dispensed of any further argument on this matter, but nonetheless Plaintiff seems +compelled to continually attempt to raise the issue. Nonetheless, based on the dismissal with +2 Although Plaintiff makes an attempt to continually argue Count II after it was dismissed with prejudice it is +significent to hot hay a cion as fact a cory of bity sinteria for a 7. l tea action a cause i s +not supported by law, the sanction must be ordered." +_v. Bailynson, 268 So. 3d 762, 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). +19 + + +prejudice of Count II, the only matter remaining before the Court is Plaintiff's Count I for +declaratory relief. +Here, Plaintiff's argument for novelty and complexity fails as to Count I, regardless of +Plaintiff's reliance on "Constitutional provisions and interpretive case law, along with Fla. Stat. § +905.27" +... "to propose a good faith interpretation of existing law in support of its declaratory relief +claim in Count I." [Def.Ex. 10, p. 10]. The simple fact of the matter is that Count I is neither novel +or complex because Count I merely seeks declaratory relief and the State Atforney's lack of +possession, custody, or control creates an impossibility of performance as to Count I, which greatly +simplifies the determination of whether the State Attorney is liable here. +Additionally, Plaintiff was on notice and should have known that the State Attorney had +no possession, custody, or control of the Requested Materials as of November 26, 2019, at the +earliest, when the State Attorney's Motion to Dismiss was filed in response to Plaintiff's original +Complaint. That filing specifically stated that "despite Plaintiff's allegations to the contrary, +Defendant Aronberg is not in custody of control of the records sought and is therefore not a proper +party to this action." Beyond this initial notice, as set forth above, based on Plaintiff's own +research, statutory constructive notice, the State Attorney's affidavit, all the pleadings and +correspondence in this matter as well as through the State Attorney's office press release and social +in accounts, and Chief Judge Marx's extremely significant satemens, Plaini should hav +known that Count I of the Amended Complaint "(a) was not supported by the material facts +necessary to establish the claim or defense; and/or (b) would not be supported by the application +of then-existing law to those material facts." See § 57.105(1)(a) and (b). Finally, it is important +to note that in Plaintiff's Count I for declaratory relief, the court's role is not to create an +"extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of a new law," but rather +20 + + +is to provide an interpretation of existing law that clears up any ambiguity. Here, § 905.17(1) is +abundantly clear that only the Clerk can release grand jury materials pursuant to a court order; and, +it is likewise clear that not only has the State Attorney never had possession, custody, or control +of the Requested Materials, but he also lacks any legal authority to obtain and deliver the +Requested Materials. +Furthermore, as set forth in detail above and despite Plaintiff's contentions, there is no +arguable "good faith" basis in law and/or fact, under § 57.105(1)(a) or (b), or any reasonable +expectation of success as to Plaintiff's Count I; and therefore, sanctions against Plaintiff are +appropriate under § 57.105. See, Minto PBLH, LLC v. 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., 228 So. 3d +147, 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). Moreover, under no set of facts did Plaintiff have a reasonable +expectation of success against the State Attorney in obtaining the sought after documents because +at no time did the State Attorney have possession, custody, or control over said documents. In +fact, Plaintiff acknowledged, admitted, and acquiesced to the impossibility of the State Attorney +providing the Requested Materials when Plaintiff dropped the State Attorney from the action on +October 21, 2020. +IV. THE RECORD EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT PLAINTIFF KNEW OR SHOULD +HAVE KNOWN THE STATE ATTORNEY WAS NOT A PROPER PARTY, THAT +THERE WAS NO BASIS IN FACT OR LAW AS TO COUNT I, AND THAT THERE +WAS NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF SUCCESS. +Based on the foregoing arguments and record evidence set forth at length above, it is +apparent that at no time did the State Attorney have possession, custody, or control of the +Requested Materials and has no legal authority to produce or disclose the Requested Materials. +These facts were constantly and continually communicated to Plaintiff via the State Attorney and +even through Chief Judge Marx. +Further, there is no rule or authority mandating that record +evidence eixist in support of a § 57.105 demand when it is made. Thus, the State Attorney is +21 + + +rendered an improper party in this action based on the foregoing and the impossibility of the State +Attorney producing or having the legal authority to produce the Requested Materials. +CONCLUSION +As set forth at length above, Defendant, Dave Aronberg, as State Attorney of Palm Beach +County, Florida, respectfully requests that the Court enter an order granting the State Attorney's +Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees in its entirety and grant such other and further re +as the +Court deems necessary or proper. +|SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +/s/ Douglas A. Wyler +Arthur L. Jacobs, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 10249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-1 +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +(904) 261-3693 +(904) 261-7879 Fax +Primary: jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 29th day of July, 2021, a copy of the foregoing has been +OT A CER +electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein. +/s/ Douglas A. Wyler +22 + + +Def.Ex.#1 +Def.Ex.#1 + + += ASSOCIATES, P.A +ARTHUR I. +JACOBS SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC. +A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OF PROFESSIOMAL ASSOCIATIONS +ATTORNEYS AT LAW +GATEWAY TO AMELIA +96/687 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE Z0I.F +FEHNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA 32034 +TELEPHONE (904) 261-3693 +FAX NO. (904) 281-7879 +RICHARD _l. SCHOLZ, P.A. +RICHARIO J. SCHOLZ +DOUGLAS A, WYLER, P.A. +DOUGLAS A WYLER +November 26, 2019 +Office of the State Attomey +15th Judicial Circuit +Attn: +Jeanne Howard +401 North Dixie Highway +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Re: +CA Florida Holdings, LL.C v. Dave Aronberg et al. +Case No.: 2019-CA-014681 +COPY +Dear Mrs. Howard: +The purpose of this letter is to confirm that +Scholz & Wyler, LLC will represent you regarding the +above-referenced matter. +Our fees will be contingent upon our success in this matter. You will not be liable or required to pay any +monies to our office unless we are successful in our representation of you regarding the above-referenced +litigation and receive a court order awarding attorneys' fees. +paralegal time. +Furthermore, the attorneys' fees paid to our finn shall be calculated by the above listed hourly rates +multiplied by the number of hours expended in defending this action or the total fee mandated and awardec +by the court order herein, whichever is greater. +ly signing below; you agree to the terms as set forth above. Please retum a signed and dated copy of thi +etter to our office. If you have any questions or concers, please contact our office. On behalf of th +firm, we are proud to represent you in this matter. +Sincerely, +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. +Stronal +6/4/220 +Date + + +Def.Ex.#2 +Def.Ex.#2 + + +COPY +In the Matter Of: +50-2019-CA-014681 +CQPY +June 03, 2020 +NOT A CERTIF +, ESQUIRE + + + + +June 03, 2020 +® +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT +CARUN CIVIL DIVISION O +50-2019-CA-014681 +"AG" +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER +OF THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff/Petitioner +-VS- +DAVE ARONBERG, +SHARON R. BOCK, +Defendant/Respondents +COPY +HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE KRISTA MARX +(ZOOM CONFERENCE) +Wednesday, June 3, 2020 +10:08 +a.m. +-10:28 a.m. +NOT +REMOTE ZOOM CONFERENCE +Port Saint Lucie, Florida +Stenographically Reported By: +SONJA M. +• Court Reporter +ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +June 03, 2022 +APPEARANCES : +On behalf of the Plaintiff/Petitioner: +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +1840 Century Park +East +os Angeles, California 9006' +310.586.7700 +boyajian@gtlaw.com +BY: NINA D. BOYAJIAN, ESQUIRE +n behalf of the Defendant/Respondent: +SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +961 Steway Boulevard +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +904.261.3693 +COPY +doug.wyler@comcast.net +BY: DOUGLAS A. WYLER, ESQUIRE +On behalf of the Defendant/Respondent: +CLERK & COMPTROLLER, +PALM BEACH COUNTY : +P.O. Box 229 +West Palm Beach, +Florida 33401 +561.355.2983 +nfingerhut@mypalmbeachclerk.com +BY: NICOLE R FINGERHUT, +ESQUIRE +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +NOT +23 +24 +25 +- +-- +→ ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +• 25 +June 03, 2020 +PROCEEDINGS +***** +THE COURT: We are here today for a very +limited purpose. I'm sure the attorneys are aware of +that, but I just don't want there to be any +confusion. We are here on Defendant Dave Aronberg +and Defendant Sharon Bock for the Comptroller and the +State Attorney's motion to dismiss Count II. +You're all acutely aware as the lawyers that +this is a question of law. So we're not going to be +diving into facts and the Court will not be deciding +the merits of this motion this morning. We are +simply here for the sole purpose of that motion to +dismiss. So I just wanted to make sure that we all +stay on track and we're all on that same page. +So, +joyagian, I'll send it to you first, +• I -- of course, we all know that the Law 101, +I must look at the four corners of the motion, which +alleges that the State Attorney, David Aronberg, and +the clerk and comptroller, Sharon Bock, actually have +custody and control of these grand jury proceeding. +Whether that is true or not is not for this +court to determine because I'm looking simply at the +four corners of the complaint. But, not for nothing, +I think we all know that they don't have control and +→ ESQUIRE +PEPOSITION SOLUTIONS + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +.25.. +June 03, 2020 +custody of the records. But I'm going to assume that +it's correct because that's what has been alleged. +So what I first want to hear from is the +attorney for Florida Holdings with regard to, +assuming arguendo, that Florida Statute 905.27 does +create a cause of action, what relief is it that +you're seeking from -- in Count II, specifically. +Not the dec action. We're not here on that today -- +what is it you hope to get, a judgment? +MS. BOYAGIAN: Thank you, your Honor. Good +morning, and thank you for the priyilege of appearing +before this court. +The relief we are seeking is disclosure of the +grand jury records, pursuant to the Furtherance of +Justice Exception to 905.27. And under the First +Amendment. +The press, as your Honor is aware, has a right +of access under the First Amendment as a surrogate of +the public- +THE COURT: Let me just stop you for a minute. +Ia Like you to answer my specific question. +So I am not particularly convinced -- and I'd +like for you to address that. So we're not going to +dive into facts or the press's standing because +that's not something we're here to discuss today.. +2 ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +June 03, 2020 +And I have read the voluminous paperwork -- +I've received paperwork as -- and -- five-minute ago +from some of the other parties. But I deeply +appreciate the fact that you sent this to me so much +in advance and I have been able to spend some time +with, as I said, the voluminous paperwork that was +provided. • +But as you know, +- we are here fox such an +extremely limited issue today, and that their motion +to dismiss where they state "you're suing the wrong +people"; that the court has these records. +And so, more importantly, I want you to address +whether Section 905.27 gives you a private cause of +action against the state attorney and the clerk. +Again, I'm going to assume the facts are true +that are asserted in the motion. Whether they are or +not -- because I think we can all agree we're not for +sure if theyyever -- that the state attorney doesn't +have these records. So what is it you're seeking in +Count II +-- not the dec action. I know you want the +records. +I've got that. But in Count II, +specifically, what do you -- what's the relief you're +seeking and, more importantly, how under this statute +do you get to assert a private action -- a private +cause of action against the state attorney and the . +→ ESQUIRE +PEPOSITION SOLUTIONS + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20• +21 +22 +23 +24 +.25. +June 03, 2020 +clerk? +MS. BOYAGIAN: Your Honor, we are aware, of +course, that there is no expressed private right of +action, 905.27. But that does not end the inquiry. +As the Florida Supreme Court stated: +"Where a statute like 905.27 +forbids an act which is to Plaintiff's +injury, the party injured should have +an action." +And that's the +Piezo case in the volume +of materials that we sent you/ +There's no question here that the denial of the +FIRST AMENDMENT right to the press is an injury which +gives rise to a right of action. +Stated another way, looking at the analysis +that the Fischer Metcalf Court looked at, there are +three factors in determining whether there is a +private right, of action where a statute does not +expressly provide for one. +One is whether the Plaintiff is part of the +Class for which the statute is intended to protect; +second is a legislative history; and the third is the +underlying purposes of the statutory scheme. +The first factor I already addressed, that the +press is part of the class that the statute is +→ ESQUIRE +: + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +•12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +:25 +June 03, 2020, +intended to benefit, being the surrogate of the +public and exercising its first amendment right. +The second issue of legislative history and the +purpose -- statutory purpose are somewhat related. +We were unable to find much legislative history on +this issue of a private right of action under the +statute. +There is nothing that says we intend to create +a private action, but there's certainly nothing that +says we do not want to create a private right of +action. +What we do have is that in 1994, the same time +that 905.27 was reenacted, a statute that pertains to +the secrecy of State Grand Jury -- statewide grand +juries was also enacted. That provision, which is +905.395, has no exceptions for -- for revealing these +records. By contrast, the legislature intentionally +enacted 905.27 with the Furtherance of Justice +Exception. +If the public through the press can't bring a +private right of action to enforce that exception or +to seek relief under that exception, that +intentionally placed exception of furthering justice +is essentially rendered hollow -- +(Speaking simultaneously.) +ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +June 03, 2020 +THE COURT: Okay. Pause for a minute. +I don't think anybody is saying that there +isn't a cause of action or that the press doesn't +have standing. That's not what I'm asking you. I'm +asking you, how are the clerk and the state attorney +the proper defendants? +So, you know, nowhere have I said there isn't a +cause of action. Ciearly there is. I'm puzzled by +the procedural posturing of this case naming the +state attorney. +And, you know, I'm further stymied by the fact +that you allege in your complaint that they have -- +particularly David Aronberg the State Attorney -- +that he has these records. +But I'm going to assume that's true. So I'm +not telling you, you don't have a cause of action. +I'm just saying, okay, let's run this all the way +out. Let's say you win and you get a judgment +against the state Attorney Dave Aronberg. +What's he supposed to do with it? He can't +release the grand jury testimony. He has no +authority whatsoever to do that. +MS. BOYAGIAN: Well, your Honor, as you stated, +this is a motion to dismiss stage, and we are +entitled to discovery on the issue of possession, +→ ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +.25 +June 03, 2020 +custody, and control. My understanding is that the +state attorney has asserted that he does not have +possession. It's not my understanding that the clerk +has taken that position. So the clerk may indeed be +the -- someone who does have possession, custody, and +control. +In any event, we would +submit that the state +attorney, even it does not have actual possession at +this time, it might be able to have the power to +control or direct the entity or persons who do have +control and possession to release those -- to effect +the judgment. +THE COURT: So let me ask you this: So the +clerk is the keeper of the record. But even if you +got a judgment against her -- let's say you asserted +this cause of action and let's say you win and you +get a judgment against the clerk. The clerk cannot +release +• grand jury testimony to you. Only the court +can. +So really -- all I'm saying to you is I do not +understand the way this case was filed or why these +are the defendants because it's impossible for them +to perform. +I mean, I'm going to assume, based on your +motion, again, that they do have the records. But we +2 ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +June 03, 2020 +10 +all know -- everyone in the room knows they do not -- +that only the court -- they're -- they're with a +court interpreting. And only the court can release +the records. +So if you get a judgment against either the +state attorney or the clerk, they cannot -- I mean, I +guess what you're saying to me is, well, we want to +do discovery and we want them to say unequiyocally "I +have these records" or "I don't have (them." +And -- I mean, the law is abundantly clear. +You cannot do it without a court determining whether, +in the furtherance of justice, the release is +appropriate. +MS. BOYAGIAN: And that is a determination +we're asking your Honor to make, and we're asking for +an order from your dourt. +THE COURT: +When we get to the merits of the +case, sure it, is. But, again, you're asking me to +make that determination and for me to make a +determination of whether the grand jury records +Should be released. And the only thing we're here +today about is why should the clerk and the state +attorney have to defend a civil action when it's a +possibility of performance? They -- even if you were +to win and get a judgment against them, they cannot +→ ESQUIRE +POSITION SOLUTION! + + +June 03, 2020 +11 +1 +2 +3 +give you what they don't have. +So -- I mean, it's as simply as this: Are +you "- you just want to engage in some discovery for +them to absolutely assert, particularly, the state +5 +6 +7 +8 +attorney, "I don't have these records"; look to the +rules that say the moment the grand jury's over, +they're sealed and they're turned over and they +cannot be released without court order? +So I'm not addressing the merits or whether you +10 +have an exception or you're able to argue that +11 +there's an exception in the furtherance of justice. +12 +We're not getting there today, +I'm simply saying why +13 +should these two entities have to defend this lawsuit +14 +when even down the road if they win they can't give +15 +you what they don't have? +16 +MS. BOYAGIAN: +/ As your Honor stated, I'm not • +17 +sure that's the case with the clerk. That was not in +18 +their -- that issue was not stated in their papers. +19 +THE COURT: Let me ask you this, then: Do you +20 +think, +if you got a judgment and I or the court +21, +doesn't make the determination that the grand jury +22 +records should be released, that the clerk would be +23 +able to perform? +24 +Would they be able to say "here you go"? I +25 +mean, could the clerk just make that unilateral +ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +June 03, 2022 +decision "I'm going to release the records, sealed +confidential records"? +Does she have any authority to do that? +MS. BOYAGIAN: My understanding, your Honor, is +that 905.27 requires a court order before the records +are unsealed. +THE COURT: Exactly. Exactly. +All right. Let me hear from Mr. Aronberg's +attorney, Mr. Wyler. +MR. WYLER: Thank you, your Honor. May it +please the Court -- +THE COURT: Good morning, +Sir. +MR. WYLER: Good morning. +Your Honor, I just wanted to let you know that +I spoke with counsel for the clerk, Ms. Fingerhut, a +couple of days before this hearing, and we decided +that I would just make the presentation for both of +of us, being that our arguments overlap except for +the fact of who this claim -- whether they have the +records or not, which, of course, we've said we don't +have custody of the records. +But, nonetheless, our arguments overlap. The +Plaintiff is attempting to assert a cause of action +under Section 905.27. That statute settled testimony +•not to be disclosed exceptions. So it's just +→ ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +June 03, 2020 +explaining exceptions to the disclosure of the grand +jury testimony. +Our position is that it doesn't set forth a +cause of action and that it's impossible for us to +perform what they're asking. +I know you said you didn't really want to get +into the Furthering Justice Exception, but I know +that's what they're using as their basis to get to +these. +But it's our position that the clear +unambiguous statutory language, it shows that this +disclosure only applies to a civil or criminal case, +and that within that civil or criminal -- +(Speaking simultaneously.) +THE COURT: Again, sir -- I'm sorry. As I told +Plaintiff's counsel +MR. WYLER: +- can only be used in the defense +for .- +THE COURT: okay. We're not there. We're not +discussing the merits of the case, and -- I'm not +ready to cross that bridge. I'm here for a very, +very limited hearing today. +So just as I stopped Plaintiff's counsel from +arguing the merits of the case and whether or not the +Furtherance of Justice Exception will apply in this +• instance, we're not even there yet: +ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +• 12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18. +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +June 03, 2020 +14 +I'm only here for the purpose of determining +whether or not the clerk and state attorney should be +dismissed. And I am bound by the four corners of the +document, which assert that you do have control and +custody over it. +So if you'll fashion your argument with regard +to that limited purpose, I would appreciate it. +MR. WYLER: No problem, your Honor. +apologize. +Within the four corners of their complaint, our +position is that they failed to state a cause of +action under 905.27. It does not provide for -- it +doesn't list that there's no element that they have +adequately pled to assert a cause of action under +that. There's -- and the only thing they're asking +for is records that we don't have. +There's really not much more to it, your Honor. +And we would ask that you would grant our motion to +dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. +THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Fingerhut, are you still +on the phone? +MS. FINGERHUT: Yes, your Honor. +THE COURT: Is there anything you wish to add? +MS. FINGERHUT: We agree with the state +ESQUIRE + + +O +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +' 20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +June 03, 2020 +15 +attorney's position, and we also agree with what the +Court has said, that the plain language of the +statute, a cause of action doesn't exist. And we +really cannot -- we'll be defending something without +the four corners. We're simply involved in this +action because the clerk is the custodian of the +records. +THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, +am. +•. Boyagian, back to you. +MS. BOYAGIAN: Your Honor./ +I'd like to note +that in the Butterworth case in which the Supreme +Court limited the application 905.27 by saying that a +witness can reveal her own testimony and prohibiting +that they violate the First Amendment -- +THE COURT: Say that again, please. +MS. BOYAGIAN: In the Supreme Court case, the +Butterworth case, in which the Supreme Court ruled +that 905.27 can't restrict a Grand Jury witness from +revealing her own testimony, that would be a +víolation of First Amendment, in that case, the state +attorney was, in fact, a party. +THE COURT: Well, I assume the state attorney +that was present -- I mean, I don't find that that's +close to what we're talking about here, and that's +whether or not -- I mean, as we know; this was in +→ ESQUIRE + + +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +June 03, 2020 +2006. Certainly Dave Aronberg wasn't even the state +attorney then. But this is about the release of +records. +I want to give you ample opportunity -- and +again, I sincerely appreciate that all of the case +law and the way that it was presented to the Court in +such a timely fashion. I really do. And I did spend +some time with it. But I want to give you whatever +opportunity you want to take to convince me that it +is in -- as to Count 2, again. Not the dec action -- +whether these would be the appropriate defendants. +And, you know, really I want you to boil it +down for me as to this ^ let's take it all the way +down the road. You win. +You get a judgment against +the clerk and the state attorney. +I know there's other reasons why you might have +filed it this way. But I'm just simply puzzled +because I do hear what the clerk and the state +attorney are saying, and that is, performance is +impossible. They don't have the records and +cannot -- absolutely. There's not even an inch of +wiggle room -- that they could release the records +even if you got a judgment. It is solely a +determination for the court. +I, frankly, think, you know, there's ways to +→ ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +June 03, 2020 +17 +get to your records. There's ways to get +confidential records. But it isn't by suing the +state attorney and the clerk. +So I just want to hear your last final argument +on how Count II, the appropriate defendants are the +clerk and the state attorney. Even assuming arguendo +they have the records -- we know they don't. you +were to get a judgment against them, how would you. +expect them to perform? +MS. BOYAGIAN: Iwo points, your Honor: One is +that, again, the clerk did not assert in her papers +that she does not have control, That is a position +that the State Attorney's Office has asserted. It is +our allegation, and as your Honor noted, allegations +must be accepted/as true -- as true at this stage of +the proceedings. +Second, it is also our understanding that the +state attorney and the clerk intend to block access +to these records. So our allegation is that they do +have possession, custody, or control, which the clerk +has not denied; and second, that they are trying to +block access to the records -- +THE COURT: What do you mean? What do you +mean? +They're not trying to block it. They're +'saying that despite the fact • let's just talk about +→ ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +June 03, 2020 +18 +the clerk, because we all know the state attorney +doesn't have it. +So the clerk is the custodian of records. +That's her main job. There's no doubt about it. +We +all know that. But we also know, unequivocally -- +unequivocally, only the court can make the +determination of whether the moving party has +satisfied that there is an exception that these +should be released. +So, again, I ask you -- she is, in fact, the +custodian of the records -- is it your opinion that +if you got a judgment saying clerk and comptroller +gets a judgment against them, that she can release +the records without the court -- without the court +weighing in, without the court making that +determination as required by law? +MS. BOYAGIAN: No, your Honor. We are asking +your Honor to order the clerk to do that under your +discretion. +THE COURT: All right. +Mr. -- Ms. Fingerhut, you wish to be heard on +that? +MS. FINGERHUT: Your Honor, our position is +that we're not trying to block access to the +records.-- +→ ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +(Speaking simultaneously.) +THE COURT: Can you hear? Can the attorneys +June 03, 2020 +19 +hear? +MS. FINGERHUT: +-- custodian the records and +that he cannot release the records without court -- +THE COURT: Exactly. +okay. All right. Anything further, +MI. Wyler? +MR. WYLER: No, your Honor. I concur with the +attorneys for the clerk's office that it's impossible +for us to release these records. +There's no intent +to hide them or block anything from the Plaintiff. +THE COURT: Okay. Anything further, +Ms. Fingerhut? +MS. FINGERHUT: +THE COURT: +No, your Honor. +And, +Ms. Boyagian, anything +further, +BOYAGIAN: Nothing further, your Honor. +THE COURT: Okay. I will get an order out +quickly. Thank you, folks so much. And I'll see you +on the next round. Thanks a lot. +MS. BOYAGIAN: Thank you, your Honor. +MR. WYLER: +Thank you, your Honor. +(The proceedings concluded at 10:28 a.m.) +ESQUIRE + + +CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER +June 03, 2020 +20 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +I, Sonja M. Reed, Court Reporter, certify that +I was authorized to and did stenographically report the +foregoing proceedings and that the transcript, pages 1 +through 19, is a true and complete record of my +stenographic notes. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +IOT A +22 +NOT A +23 +24 +. 25 +Dated this 3rd day of +June, +2020. +sonja +M. +Reed +Court Reporter +→ ESQUIRE + + +Def.Ex.#3 +Def.Ex.#3 + + +CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION AG +CASE NO. 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff/Petitioner +VS. +DAVE ARONBERG, +SHARON R BOCK, +Defendant/Respondents. +ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS COUNT ILOE +PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE +THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Dave Aronberg, as State Attorney of Palm +Beach County's ("State Attorney") and Sharon R. Bock, as Clerk & Comptroller of Palm Beach +County's, ("Clerk") respective Motions to Dismiss Count If of CA Florida Holdings, LLC, +Publisher of the Palm Beach Post's ("The Post") First Amended Complaint (DE### 22, 24). This +case is assigned to Division AG, which is curently presided over by the Honorable Donald +Hafele. However, the undersigned, as Chief Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, presided +over the June 3, 2020 hearing on the State Attorney and Clerk's Motions as the Motions +implicate records of the Palm Beach County grand jury, over which the Chief Judge presides. +See § 905.01, Fla. Stat. (2019). After careful consideration of the pleadings and the arguments +presented at the hearing, the Court grants the Motions for the following reasons. +Background +The Post is a media outlet which has heavily reported on the 2006 Palm Beach County criminal +prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. Through the instant civil lawsuit, The Post seeks "immediate +access to the testimony, minutes, and other evidence presented in 2006 to the Palm Beach +County grand jury" in Mr. Epstein's case and alleges that both the State Attorey and Clerk are +"in possession and/or control of [those ] documents." (DE # 17, First Amended Complaint at 911 +3,4, and 77). Specifically, The Post seeks declaratory judgment as to its rights to obtain the +grand jury testimony in Mr. Epstein's case from the State Attomey and Clerk (Count I) as well as + + + +judgment against the State Attormey and the Clerk pursuant to section 905.27, Florida Statutes, +which sets forth the parameters of grand jury secrecy in Florida. (Count II). Both the State +Attorney and the Clerk move to dismiss Count Il of The Post's First Amended Complaint, +arguing that that section 905.27 does not create a private cause of action. (DE##-22, 24). The +Court agrees. +Analysis +"In reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept the +allegations of the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." +Almarante v. Art Institute of Fort Lauderdale, Inc., 921 So. 2d 703, 704-05 (Fla, 4th DCA +2006). The motion should only be granted if the moving party demonstrates that the plaintiff +cannot provide any facts that would support a cause of action. Id. It follows that if the cause of +action alleged is nonexistent under Florida law, dismissal is warranted. Cummings v. Dawson, +444 So. 2d 565, 566 (Fla. Ist DCA 1984) (affinning dismissal of cause of action not recognized +by Florida law). +Section 905.27, Florida Statutes (2019), is titled "Testimony not to be disclosed, exceptions," +and states: +(1) A grand juror, state attorey, assistant state attorney, reporter, stenographer, +interpreter, or any other person appearing before the grand jury shall not disclose the +testimony of a witness examined before the grand jury or other evidence received by it +except when required by a court to disclose the testimony for the purpose of: +a. Ascertaining whether it is consistent with the testimony given by the witness before +the court; +b. Determining whether the witness is guilty of perjury; or +c. Furthering justice. +(2) It is unlawful for any person knowingly to publish, broadcast, disclose, divulge, or +connunicate to any other person, or knowingly to cause or permit to be published, +broadcast, disclosed, divulged, or communicated to any other person, in any manner +whatsoever, any testimony of a witness examined before the grand jury, or the content, +gist, or import thereof, except when such testimony is or has been disclosed in a cout +proceeding. When a court orders the disclosure of such testimony pursuant to subsection +(1) for, use in a criminal case, it may be disclosed to the prosecuting attorey of the court +in which such criminal case is pending, and by the prosecuting attorney to his or her +assistants, legal associates, and employees, and to the defendant and the defendant's + + + +attomey, and by the latter to his or her legal associates and employees. When such +disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection (I) for use in a civil case, it may be +disclosed to all parties to the case and to their attormeys and by the latter to their legal +associates and employees. However, the grand jury testimony afforded such persons by +the court can only be used in the defense or prosecution of the civil or criminal case and +for no other purpose whatsoever. +(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the attomey-client relationship. A client shall have +the right to communicate to his or her attorney any testimony given by the client to the +grand jury, any matters involving the client discussed in the client's presence before the +grand jury, and any evidence involving the client received by or proffered to the grand jury +in the client's presence. +(4) Persons convicted of violating this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first +degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.083, or by fine not exceeding $5,000, or both. +(5) A violation of this section shall constitute criminal contempt of court. +§ 905.27, Fla. Stat. (20 19). +As the State Attorney and Clerk argue and The Post concedes, section 905.27 +makes no express provision for a civil suit or civil liability. Nonetheless, The Post maintains that +it is entitled to seek the grand jury records via à private cause of action pursuant to the "furthering +justice" exception to grand juy secrecy contained in subsection 905.27(1)(c). Therefore, the +limited question for this Cout's consideration is whether a cause of action under section 905.27 +should be judicially implied. See Murthy v. N. Sinha Corp, 644 So. 2d 983, 985 (Fla. 1994). +In advocating that it +Ly maintain a cause of action against the State Attorney and Clerk +under section 905.27, The Post urges the Court to examine three factors "(1) whether the +plaintiff is one of the class for whose special benefit the statute was enacted; (2) whether there +is any indication, either explicit or implicit, of a legislative intent to create or deny such a +remedy, and (3) whether judicial implication is consistent with the underlying purposes of the +legislative scheme." (Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant, Dave Aronberg, As State Attomey of +Palm Beach County, Florida's Motion to Dismiss Count Il of the First Amended Complaint at +page 13 (citing Fischer v. Metcalf, 543 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)). Within these three +factors, The Post recognizes that there is no indication of legislative intent to create a cause of +action, but leans heavily on the benefit factor, arguing that the "furthering justice" exception to + + + +grand jury secrecy outlined in section 905.27(1)(c) was meant to benefit the public at large, for +which the press acts as a surrogate. The Post's arguments are unpersuasive as to the discrete +issue of whether a private cause of action lies in section 905.27. +To begin with, The Post's reliance on the benefit factor is misplaced. Per the Florida +Supreme Court's 1994 opinion in Murthy, "the question of whether a statute establishes a duty to +take precautions to protect or benefit a particular class of persons is no longer determinative on +the question of whether a cause of action should be recognized." Sorenson v. Prof! +Compounding Pharmacists of W. Pa., Inc., 191 So. 3d 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (citing Murthy, +644 So. 2d at 985). Instead, "whether a statutory cause of action should be judicially implied is a +question of legislative intent." Horowitz v. Plantation Gen. Hosp. Ltd. P'ship, 959 So. 2d 176, +182 (Fla. 2007). See also QBE Ins. Corp. v. Chalfonte Condo. Apartment Ass'n, Inc., 94 So. 3d +541, 551 (Fla. 2012) ("Since Murthy, we have reaffirmed the principle that whether a statutory +cause of action should be judicially implied is a question of legislative intent."); Universal Prop. +& Cas. Ins. Co. v. Loftus, 276 So. 3d 849, 851 (Fla. Ath DCA 2019). +As is always the case when a court undertakes a legislative intent analysis, the plain +language of the statute is the starting, and often ending, point. See Horowitz, 959 So. 2d at 182. +"When the statute is clear and unambiguous, courts will not look behind the statute's plain +language for legislative intent or resoft to rules of statutory construction to ascertain intent." +Loftus, 276 So. 3d at 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019))(quoting Daniels v. Fla. Dep't of Health, 898 So. +2d 61, 64 (Fla. 2005)), "However, a single part of a statute should not be read in isolation." Id. +"Instead, "all parts of a statute must be read together in order to achieve a consistent whole."" Id. +(quoting Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., 604 So. 2d 452, 455 (Fla. +1992)) +As The Post acknowledges, "there is a dearth of legislative history surrounding Section +905.27 and the The Palm Beach Post was unable to locate any documents capturing any +legislative intent regarding the possibility of a private right of action." (Plaintiff's Opposition to +Defendant, Dave Aronberg, As State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida's Motion to +Dismiss Count Il of the First Amended Complaint at page 14). While the lack of any legislative + + + +history indicating an intent to create a private right of action is telling, it is not dispositive as the +plain language of the section 905.27 is clear an unambiguous and, therefore, controls. Horowitz, +959 So, 2d at 182. +Examining the plain language of section 905.27 in its entirety, which requires the Court to +look at more than just the "furthering justice" provision of section 905.27(1)(c) relied on by The +Post, it is clear that the intent of the Legislature in passing section 905.27 was to limit, not +facilitate, disclosure of grand jury records. In no uncertain terms, the Legislature provided that +no "person appearing before the grand jury" may "disclose" testimony or evidence presented +except when "required by a court" under certain limited circumstances. § 905.27(1), Fla. Stat. In +solidifying that its intent was to prohibit disclosure without court permission, the Legislature +provided that disclosure without a court order is a criminal offense. § 905.27(4), Fla. Stat. +Therefore, to the extent section 905.27 could be read as imposing a duty on the State Attomey +and Clerk, the duty imposed is one of secrecy, not disclosure. +In sum, there is nothing in the text of section 90527 from which one can deduce that the +Legislature contemplated a member of the media, or anyone else for that matter, having a private +cause of action to compel the State Attomey and Clerk to disclose grand jury records. Indeed, +to the contrary, section 905.27 prohibits the State Attorney and the Clerk (assuming that, as +pleaded by The Post, they have the documents) from disclosing the documents without first +being ordered to do so by the cout [I Reading section 905.27 as creating a private cause of +action against the State Attorey and Clerk is, therefore, not only unsupported by the language of +section 905.27, but is actually paradoxical to its plain language of the statute. As such, this Court +lacks the power to construe the unambiguous language of section 905.27 in a way that would +extend its express terms and create a cause of action where none exists. "To do so would be an +abrogation of legislative power." Horowitz, 959 So. 2d 176, 182 (quoting Holly v. Auld, 450 Se. +2d 217, 219 (Fla. 1984)). +Conclusion +Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Count Il of The Post's First Amended Complaint +must be dismissed with prejudice as it pursues a nonexistent cause of action under section + + + +905.27. In arriving at this conclusion, the Court does not suggest The Post has no available +mechanism to obtain a cout order granting it access to the grand jury proceedings. The Court +also does not render any opinion as to whether releasing these records is appropriate for the +purpose of "furthering justice" within the meaning of section 905.27. Rather, the Court's +dismissal of Count Il is necessitated by precedent and the simple fact that a civil lawsuit against +the State Attorney and Clerk under section 905.27 is not the proper mechanism for The Post to +pursue its goal. +Therefore, it is hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Dave Aronberg, as State Attomey of Palm Beach +County's and Sharon R. Bock, as Clerk & Comptroller of Palm Beach County's, respective +Motions to Dismiss Count II of CA Florida Holdings, LLC, Publisher of the Palm Beach Post's +First Amended Complaint are GRANTED and Count Il of Plaintiff's first Amended Complaint is +hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. +DONE AND ORDERED, in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this 8th day +of June, 2020. +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +Krista Marx +Chief Judge +06/08/2020 +Il The Court notes that, if there was a court order directing the State Attorney or the Clerk to +lisclose records and the State Attorney or the Clerk refused, the remedy for disobeying a court orde +contempt or, in some instances, a mandamus proceedings - not a civil lawsui +COPIES TO: +DOUGLAS A. WYLER +No Address Available +961687 GATEWAY BLVD +SUITE 201-1 +FERNANDINA BEACH, FL + +No E-mail Address Available +doug.wyler@comcast.net +..÷. + + +32034 +MICHAEL GRYGIEL +54 STATE STREET +6TH FLOOR +ALBANY, NY 12207 +MICHAELJ. GRYGIEL +NICOLE R. FINGERHUT +No Address Available +POST OFFICE BOX 229 +WEST PALM BEACH, FL +33401 +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +STEPHEN A. +MENDELSOHN, ESQ +No Address Available +1840 CENTURY PARK +EAST +SUITE 1900 +LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 +5100 TOWN CENTER CIR +SUITE 400 +BOCA RATON, FL 33486 +GRYGIELM@CTLAW.COM +grygielm@gtlaw.com +CLERK_E- +SERVICE@MYPALMBEACH +CLERK.COM +nfingerhut@mypalmbeachc.lerk +com +boyajiann@gtlaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com +No E-mail Address Available +flservice@gtlaw.com +NOT A CERTIFI + + + +Def.Ex.#4 +Def.Ex.#4 + + +G ASSOCIATES, P.A. +ARTHUR L +SCHOLZ. & WYLER, LIC. +A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS +ATTORNEYS AT LAW +GATEWAY TO AMELIA +96I687 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE 201.1 +FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA 32034 +TELEPHONE (904) 261-3693 +FAX NO. (904) 261-7079 +RICHARD J. SCHOLZ, P.A. +RICHARD J. SCHOLZ +DOUGLAS A, WYLER, P.A. +DOUGLAS A. WYLER +June 8, 2020 +VIA ELECTRONIC & U.S. MAIL +Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. +Greenburg Traurig, P.A. +5100 Town Center Circle, Suite 400 +Boca Raton, FL 33486 +COPY. +RE: CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronberg et al. +Palm Beach County, Case No.: 2019-CA-014681 +Dear Mr. Mendelsohn: +As you are aware our firm represents the interests of Dave Aronberg, as State Attorney of Palm Beach +County, Florida, in the above referenced matter. The purpose of this letter is to demand the voluntary +dismissal of your First Amended Complaint, (the "Complaint"), dated January 17, 2020. This demand +is made pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes. +As you know, Section 57.105 provides: +(1) Upon the court's initiative or motion of any party, the court shall award a +reasonable attorney's fee, including prejudgment interest, to be paid to the +prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party's attorney +on any claim or defense at any time during a civil proceeding or action in which +the court finds that the losing party or the losing party's attorney knew or should +have known that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any +time before trial: +a. / Was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or +defense; or +b. Would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those +material facts. + + +First and foremost, the Complaint is not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the +claims asserted because neither Defendant Aronberg, nor The Office of the State Attorney for the +Fifteenth Judicial Circuit is in custody or control of the 2006 grand jury materials sought therein. +Simply put, the declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff, seeks records from my client that are +impossible for him or his office to produce. Accordingly, Defendant Aronberg is not a proper party to +this action because no matter what, he and his office do not have possession, custody, or control of the +requested materials. +In addition to the foregoing material facts that negate the claims asserted in the Complaint, your claims +are also not supported by the application of current law. Specifically, your action for declaratory relief +fails based on the clear, unambiguous statutory language found in Section 905.27(2), Florida Statutes, +which states: +When such disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection (J) for use in a civil +case, it may be disclosed to all parties to the case and to their attorneys and by the latter +to their legal associates and employees. However, the grand jury testimony afforded +such persons by the court can only be used in the defense or prosecution of the civil or +criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever. +Moreover, even if the Plaintiff were to prevail in the declaratory action, Mr. Aronberg would be unable +to comply with any court order granting disclosure of the requested documents because neither Mr +Aronberg nor The Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit have possession, +custody, or control of the 2006 Epstein grand jury records. +Please govern yourself accordingly, +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. +NOT +Encl.: Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees + + +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Beach County, Florida. +Defendants. +COPY +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES +Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and +through the undersigned attorneys, moves the Court, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, +to award him reasonable attorneys' fees for the defense of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, +• (the "Complaint"), and as grounds therefor, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served +a copy of this Motion, together with a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with +subsection (4) of the above Statute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior +to the filing of this Motion. In said letter, Defendant's attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which +establish that the Complaint is without support of the facts or the law. +WHEREFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach +County, Florida, respectfully requests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff's +attorneys to pay said Defendant's attorneys' fees incurred herein after service of this Motion. + + +I hereby certify that on this +day_ +_, 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed +via the Florida E-File Portal for electronic service on the parties of record herein. +SCHOLZ & WYLER, LL.C +/s/ Douglas A. Wyler +Arthur I. +Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 108249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 +Douglas A. Wyler, Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Blyd., Suite 201-1 +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +(904) 261-3693 +(904) 261-7879 + + +Def.Ex.#5 +Def.Ex.#5 + + +GT GreenbergTraurig +tephen A. Mendelsol +el 561.955.762 +ax 561.659.911 +tendelsohns@gtlaw.co +Douglas A. Wyler +Jacob Scholz & Wyler, LLC +961687 Gateway Blvd. +Suite 201-1 +Fernandina Beach, FI. 32034 +Re: CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronberg et al. +Case No. 2019-CA-014681 +COPY. +Dear Mr. Wyler: +We are in receipt of your letter of June 8, 2020 with your proposed Fla. Stat. section 57.105 motion. +In your letter and your proposed motion, you assert that CA Florida Holdings, LLC, and the law +firm of Greenberg Traurig, P.A. should be liable for the attorneys' fees to be incurred by State +Attorney Aronberg after the date of your letter. Your letter cites to Fla. Stat. sections 57.105(1) +(a) and (b) for support. As shown below, there is no basis for a Fla. Stat. section 57.105 motion, +and we expect that if the State Attorney were to make such a motion, the court should deny it. +Your letter omits a citation to section 57.105(3). Subsection 57.105(3)(a) provides that sanctions +may not be awarded where there is a "good faith argument for the extension, modification or +reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law, as it is applied to the material facts, with +a reasonable expectation of success." We have such a good faith argument. +Contrary to your analysis of Fla. Stat. section 905.27, there are actually three instances where a +court may order the release of grand jury materials. As we argue, the court may order release "in +furtherance of justice." There are few cases in Florida reviewing this provision and its scope. It is +an open and valid question as to whether the court may order release of grand jury transcripts to +the media, under both the statute and the First Amendment to the US Constitution in furtherance +of justice, The statutory language you cite refers to instances where a person is seeking grand jury +terials for use in a civil or in a criminal case. In these limited situations, the statute allows for +such uses and for no other reason. However, the statute does not state, as you assert, that where +the media seeks grand jury materials based upon its constitutional standing, which the Circuit +Court acknowledged at the June 2, 2020 hearing includes The Palm Beach Post, that the statutory +5100 Town Center Circle | Suite 400 | Boca Raton, Florida 33486 | T +1 561.955.7600 | F +1 561.338.7099 +Albany. Amsterdam, Atlanta, Austin. Berlin" Boca Raton, Boston, Chicago. Dallas. Delaware, Denver. Fort Landerdale. Houston. Las Vegas. London' Los Angeles. +Mexico City" Miami. Milan. Minneapolis. Nashville. New Jersey. New York. Northern Virginia. Orange Coasty. Orlando. Phladelphia, Phoenix, Sacramento. +San Francisco, Seoul Shanghai. Silicon Valley: Tallahassee. Tampa. Tel Aviv Tokyo: Warsaw, Washington, D.C. West Palm Bench. Westchester County. + + +Page 2 +use limitation you cite applies. No reported Florida case has addressed this issue and there is a +good faith basis for our view of Fla. Stat. section 905.27 +Your letter also argues that sanctions are applicable because the State Attorney has alleged that it +does not possess the Jeffrey Epstein grand jury transcripts. This allegation is also contained in the +State Attorney's Answer. Assuming that the State Attorney does not currently have physical +possession of the Epstein grand jury materials, which has yet to be demonstrated, this does not end +the matter. The State Attorney was named as a party not simply as a custodian of grand jury +records. The State Attorney was named in his official capacity as his office has as its primary +interest the protection of its grand jury system." [Italics in original.] In re Grand Jury Proceedings, +832 F. 3d 554, 559 (11" Circuit 1987). In that case, the US petitioned a state judge to order the +State Attorney to turn over grand jury transcripts. The State Attorney argued against their release +citing to Fla, Stat. section 905.27. Later, a federal grand jury subpoenaed the Broward County +State Attorney for delivery of state grand jury testimony. The Broward State Attorney advised the +federal court that it would produce the transcripts, thereby demonstrating that while it may not +have physical possession of the materials, he had legal authority to obtain and deliver them, It +should also be noted that the State Attorney moved to quash the subpoena arguing that it was +unlawful under Florida law and Fla. Stat. section 905.27. This case indicates that where one seeks +grand jury materials, the relevant State Attorney is a necessary party in order to protect the grand +jury that the Office of State Attorney supervised and to make arguments, if need be, against release +of the grand jury materials. These are some of the same reasons why the State Attorney was named +in this case. +Also, assuming the State Attorney does not have physical possession of the grand jury materials, +there is nothing in Florida law that prohibits the State Attorney from requesting that the Clerk +provide copies to the State Attorney. Chapter 905, Fla. Stats, does not contain a prohibition against +a State Attorney demand that the Clerk grant his office access to grand jury materials, even after a +criminal case has concluded. Upon information and belief, the Clerk's office maintains a log that +tracks release of grand jury materials to the State Attorney upon its request. Please confirm +whether the State Attorney has accessed grand jury materials from the Clerk's office in other +instances or that it has never done so. If the Clerk has such a log, then its contents should be +discoverable, or subject to Florida Public records laws. + + +Correspondence to Douglas A: Wyler +Page 3 +For these reasons, we decline your Fla. Stat. section 57.105 demand that the case be dismissed +against the Office of the State Attorney. We expect that your demand will be withdrawn. +Thank you, +Very truly yours, +Is/Stephen Mendelsohn +Stephen Mendelsohn +SAM:Is +ACTIVE 51081659v1 + + +Def.Ex.#6 +Def.Ex.#6 + + +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +alm Beach County, Florida; SHARON +OCK. as Clerk and Comptroller of Pal +Defendants. +COPY +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES +Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and +through the undersigned attorneys, moves the Court, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, +to award him reasonable attorneys' fees for the defense of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, +(the "Complaint"), and as grounds therefor, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served +a copy of this Motion, together with a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with +subsection (4) of the above Statute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior +to the filing of this Motion. In said letter, Defendant's attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which +establish that the Complaint is without support of the facts or the law. +WHEREFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach +County, Florida, respectfully requests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff's +attorneys to pay said Defendant's attorneys' fees incurred herein after service of this Motion. + + +I hereby certify that on this Ist day July, 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed via +the Florida E-File Portal for electronic service on the parties of record herein. +SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +/s/ Douglas A. Wyler +Arthur I., +Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 108249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 +Douglas A. Wyler, Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-1 +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +(904) 261-3693 +(904) 261-7879 + + +Def.Ex.#7 +Def.Ex.#7 + + +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +v. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Defendants. +AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID ARONBERG +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +COPY +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +Before me, the undersigned authority personally appeáred DAVID ARONBERG, being first duly sworn, +states: +1. +My name is David (Dave) Aronberg, and I am the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial +Circuit/Palm Beach County, Florida, since 2013, and a Defendant in the above-captioned matter. +2. +Plaintiff is seeking declaratory relief, pursuant to Fla. Stat. 905.21(1)(c) and the Court's +inherent authority, allowing Plaintiff access to the testimony, minutes, and other evidence presented in 2006 +to the Palm Beach County grand jury, (the "Requested Materials"), and to use those materials for the +purpose of informing the public. +Despite Plaintiff's above-described action for declaratory relief, neither myself nor the +Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, ("SAO"), is in control, custody, or possession +of the Requested Materials. +4. +As such, the declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff seeks materials that are impossible +for me or my office to produce. +5. +To be clear, neither myself nor the SAO has the legal authority to obtain and deliver the +Requested Materials. +б. +I have repeatedly made these facts evident to the Plaintiff and the public through not only +the pleadings and correspondence in this matter, but also through an office press release and my public +- social media accounts. + + +7. +Despite the contentions of Plaintiff, neither myself nor the SAO has the authority to +demand that the Clerk grant the SAO access to grand jury materials after a criminal case has concluded. +8. Moreover, during my administration, neither myself nor my office has accessed grand jury +materials from the Clerk's office in this or any other instance. +As provided in section 905.17(1), Florida Statutes (2020), the Clerk has sole custody and +possession of the Requested Materials, which can only be released by the Clerk pursuant to an order of the +Court. +FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. +By: +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +Swarm to and subscribed before me this 30 day of July, 2020, by DAVID ARONBERG, who is +C personally known'to me or has shown +as personal identification. +Notary's Stamp or Segue +LATOSHA LOWE-GOODE +Cormission # GG 967313 +Expinas May 20, 2024 +Barded Thew Buduat Matery Barname + + +Def.Ex.#8 +Def.Ex.#8 + + +Plaintiff, +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +DIVISION: AG +v. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida, +COPY +Defendants: +PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS, LLC'S +NOTICE OF DROPPING STATE ATTORNEY, DAVE ARONBERG +Plaintiff, CA HOLDINGS, LLC, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1250(b), hereby notifies the parties that +it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the above case. +NOT A +Respectfully submitted, +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +Attorneys for CA Florida Holdings, LLC, Publisher +of The Palm Beach Post +Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. +401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 2000 +Boca Raton, Florida 33486 +Telephone: (561) 955-7629 +Facsimile: (561) 338-7099 +By: Is/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +Florida Bar No. 849324 +FLService@gtlaw.com + + +54 State St., 6th Floor +Albany, New York 12207 +Telephone: (518) 689-1400 +Facsimile: (518) 689-1499 +grygielm@gtlaw.com +By: Is/ Nina D. Bovajian +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +Admitted Pro Hac Vice +840 Century Park East, Suite 190 +Los Angeles California 90067 +Telephone: (310) 586-7700 +Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 +boyajiann@gtlaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 21" day of October, 2020, a true and correct copy of the +foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the State of Florida e-filing system, which +will send a notice of electronic service for all parties of record herein +NOT A +ACTIVE 53317341v1 +/s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +2 + + +Def.Ex.#9 +. " +Def.Ex.#9 + + +• IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R +BOCK. as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida. +Defendants. +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +COPY +DEFENDANT DAVE ARONBERG'S AMENDED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES +Defendant, DA VE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and +through the undersigned counsel, hereby moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 1.525, Fla. +R. Civ. P. to enter an award of attorneys' fees in his favor against Plaintiff, CA FLORIDA +HOLDINGS, LLC, publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, and in support thereof states the +following: +BASIS FOR AWARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES +On November 14, 2019, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, publisher of the PALM +BEACH POST (*Plaintiff") filed a complaint against DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida (the "State Attorney" or "Defendant Aronberg") and SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida (the "Clerk"). The basis of the +action was asking the Court to order the State Attorney and the Clerk to disclose the 2006 Jeffrey +Epstein grand jury materials, (the "Requested Materials"), pursuant to § 905.27(1) Fla. Stat. + + +2. +On December 6, 2019, the State Attorney filed his Motion to Dismiss, then on +December 13, 2019, the Clerk also filed a Motion to Dismiss. In response, Plaintiff filed its First +Amended Complaint on January 17, 2020, which in addition to its original claim under § 905.27 +Fla, Stat. (Count II) added a claim for Declaratory Relief (Count I) that sought an order declaring +that the State Attorney and the Clerk disclose the Requested Materials to Plaintiff for the purpose +of informing the public. +On January 24, 2019, both the State Attorney and the Clerk filed their Answer to +the First Amended Complaint and Motion to Dismiss Count II (Answer/Motion to Dismiss). +Notably, the State Attorney's Answer/Motion to Dismiss asserted its right to attorneys' fees for +defending the action and requested such relief from the Court. +On June 8, 2020, the Court entered its Order Granting Defendants Motions to +Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint with Prejudice ("Order").. +Immediately following the Court's Order, on June 8, 2020, the State Attorney, +through the undersigned counsel, served Plaintiff with a demand pursuant to § 57.105 Fla. Stat., +to voluntary dismiss/withdraw the First Amended Complaint and the claims against the State +Attorney, along with a Motion for Attorneys' Fees ("57.105 Demand"). See, Exhibit "A". +Specifically, because of the Court's Order only Count I of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint +remained, which sought Declaratory Relief under § 86.011, Fla. Stat. +Here, in properly serving his 57.105 Demand on Plaintiff, the State Attorney also +properly put Plaintiff on notice that he would seek sanctions by filing the 57.105 Motion for +Attorneys' Fees if Plaintiff failed to dismiss the remainder of its First Amended Complaint within +21 days of service of the 57.105 Demand and Motion for Attorneys' Fees. +2 + + +7. +On June 23, 2020, Plaintiff's counsel sent a response to the 57.105 Demand +refusing to withdraw the remainder of the First Amended Complaint. See, Exhibit "B". +8. +§ 57.105, Florida Statutes states the following: +Accordingly, after receiving Plaintiff's June 23, 2020, response refusing to +withdraw the remainder of the First Amended Complaint and waiting the prerequisite "21 days +after service of the motion" the State Attorney's Motion for Attorneys' Fees was filed with this +Court on July 1, 2020. See, Exhibit "C". +10. +Thereafter, on August 18, 2020, the State Attorney filed his Motion for Summary +Judgment ("Motion"') and proceeded, on October 21, 2020, to file a Motion to Set Hearing on the +State Attorney's Motion ("Motion to Set") after it became clear that there would be no resolution +of this matter without the Court's intervention. +11. Nonetheless, later the same day, rather than setting and participating in a hearing +on the merits as to State Attorney's Motion, Plaintiff filed its Notice of Dropping the State Attorney +("Notice") from the instant case. See, Exhibit "D". As a consequence of filing its Notice, Plaintiff +has effectively made an admission that its allegations against the State Attorney have no basis in +fact or law. +"An essential distinction between a notice of dropping a party and a voluntary +dismissal is that the former concludes the action as to the dropped party while the latter is generally +utilized to conclude the action in its entirety." Carter v. Lake County, 840 So. 2d 1153, 1155 (Fla. +Sth DCA 2003). +3 + + +13. +Specifically, Plaintiff's Notice states: "Plaintiff, [sic], pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. +1.250(b), hereby notifies the parties that it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the +above case." +14. +Rule 1.250(b), Fla. R. Civ. P. states: +(b) Dropping Parties. Parties may be dropped by an adverse party in the manner +pendens without the necessity of a court order. Parties may be dropped by order o +such emis are jiative or the motion of any party at any stage of the action o +15. Rule 1.420(a)(1), Fla. R. Civ. P., Voluntary Dismissal states: +(1) By Parties. Except in actions in which property has been seized or is in the +custody of the court, an action, a claim, or any part of an action or claim may be +dismissed by plaintiff without order of court (A) before trial by serving, or during +trial by stating on the record, a notice of dismissal at any time before a hearing on +motion for summary judgment, or if none is served or if the motion is denied, before +retirement of the jury in a case tried before a jury or before submission of a nonjury +case to the court for decision, or (B) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by +all current parties to the action. Unless otherwise stated in the notice or stipulation, +the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an +adjudication on the merits when served by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in +any court an action based on or including the same claim. +16. Notably, "[RJule 1.250(b) expressly incorporates the procedural aspects of Florida +Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(1) governing voluntary dismissal by providing that parties may +be dropped tin the manner provided for voluntary dismissal in rule 1.420(a)(1) subject to the +exception stated in that rule. "Siboni v. +1. 52 So. 3d 779, 780 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). +17. +Likewise, because Rule 1.250(b) specifies that a party is dropped "in the manner +provided for voluntary dismissal in Rule 1.420(a)(1), the Siboni court concluded that "the manner" +includes the same entitlement to costs and attorney's fees which would have been enjoyed had the +dismissal occurred entirely under Rule 1.420(a)(I). Id. at 781. +4 + + +Accordingly, the Siboni court held that a "party dropped from litigation under rule +1.250(b) is subject to the time limitation contained in rule 1.525 governing service of a motion +seeking a judgment for costs and attorney's fees." Id. +19. +Although Plaintiff filed its Notice the claims asserted by Plaintiff have been, since +the filing of its initial complaint, completely without support of the facts or the law. At their very +core, all of Plaintiff's claims are based on the presumption that the State Attorney has the authority +to disclose the Requested Materials. Nonetheless, Section 905.17(1), Florida Statutes makes clear +that Plaintiff's Requested Materials can only be released by the Clerk pursuant to a court order. +The stenographic records, notes, and transcriptions de by the court reporter or +stenographer shall be filed with the clerk who shall keep them in a sealed container +not subject to public inspection. The notes, records, and transcriptions are +confidential and exempt from the provisions of's. 179.0Z(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of +the State Constitution and shall be released by the clerk only on request by a grand +jury for use by the grand jury or on order of the court pursuant to s. 905.27. +Section 905.17(1), Florida Statutes (2020). +20. The State Attorney has no objection to the Clerk producing and disclosing the +Requested Materials should the Court grant an order to that effect, however, it is impossible for +the State Attorney to comply with the relief sought by Plaintiff in its remaining claim for +declaratory relief as he does not possess or control the Requested Materials and is statutorily barred +from any disclosure. +21. +Although the State Attorney was prepared to make his argument to the Court, +Plaintiff decided instead to drop him as a party. Despite Plaintiff's decision, the Florida Rules of +Civil Procedure and the above authorities make clear that because Rule 1.250 specifies that a party +is dropped "in the manner provided for voluntary dismissal in Rule 1.420(a)(1)," it therefore +"operates as an adjudication on the merits." See, Siboni v. +52 So. 3d 779, 781 (Fla. 5th +DCA 2010); Rule 1.420(a)(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. +5 + + +22. +Consequently, the filing of Plaintiff's Notice triggered Rule 1.525, Fla. R. Civ. P. +and therefore: +Under [§ 57.105], the legislature has expressed its unequivocal intent that where a +party files a meritless claim, suit or appeal, the party who is wrongfully required to +expend funds for attorneys' fees is entitled to recoup those fees +I County Conservation Alliance v. +County, 73 So. 3d 856, 857 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) +(finding that "Courts are not at liberty to disregard the legislative mandate that courts shall impose +sanctions in cases without foundation in material fact or law. The word "shall in § 57.105, Fla. +Stat., evidences the legislative intent to impose a mandatory penalty to discourage baseless claims, +by placing a price tag on losing parties who engage in these activities. Section 57.105 expressly +states courts "shall" assess attorney's fees for bringing, or failing to dismiss, baseless claims or +defenses."). +23. +In fact, "Section 57.105(1) cleatly and explicitly confers upon the trial court the +authority to award attorney's fees to the prevailing party upon the court's initiative, if 'the court +finds that the losing party ... knew or should have known that a claim or defense when initially +presented to the court or at any time before trial... [was not supported by the material facts +necessary to establish the claim of defense." +47 So. 3d 320, 324 (Fla. 2d DCA +2010). +24. +‹The simple fact of the matter is that Plaintiff failed to withdraw its Amended +Complaint against the State Attorney within the 21-day period provided for in section 57.105(4), +and therefore the State Attorney was permitted to file his 57.105 Motion for Attorneys' Fees as +sanctions. +25. +Furthermore, based on the impossible nature of Plaintiff's demand of the State +Attorney, it was proper to demand withdrawal of Plaintiff's remaining claim for declaratory relief +6 + + +and serve the 57.105 Motion for Attorneys' Fees due to Plaintiff's claim lacking any basis in fact +or law. Again, neither the State Attorney nor his office has possession, custody or control of the +Requested Materials. Likewise, the State Attorney has no objection, and never has had any +objection, to the Clerk releasing the records sought by Plaintiff, as disclosure of the Requested +Materials sought by Plaintiff lies solely within the providence of the Clerk pursuant to an order of +the Court. +26. +Consequently, the State Attorney is entitled to recover all of his reasonable +attorneys' fees in defending this suit by virtue of 57.105, Florida Statutes. +REASONABLENESS AND AMOUNT OF ATTORNEYS' FEES +27. +From the service of the 57.105 Demand to the date of this motion, the attorneys for +the State Attorney have rendered 42.2 hours of legal services for a total amount of $18,275.00 in +defending this action. See time sheets detailing: the amount of hours by each timekeeper, the +timekeeper's hourly rate, and a description of the tasks done during those times, on attached +Exhibit "E". Of that amount, the undersigned has been paid $0.00 as the engagement with the +State Attorney is on a pure contingency fee basis. The undersigned expects to incur an additional +4.0 hours at $425.00 an hour in preparing for and attending the hearing on attorneys' fees. Thus, +the total amount of hourly attorneys' fees the State Attorney is seeking is 46.2 hours for a total of +$19,975.00. As further set forth below, the State Attorney also seeks a multiplier of 2.0, which +when applied makes the grand total attorneys' fees as sanctions sought herein $39,950.00. +28. +An Affidavit of Attorneys' Fees is attached hereto as Exhibit "F", which details +and breaks down the attorneys' fees sought herein. +7 + + +29. +The State Attorney would offer the following facts and arguments as they relate to +the factors promulgated in Rule 4-1.5 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and Florida Patient's +Compensation Fund v. +, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985): +Factor +(A) the time and labor +required, the novelty, +Facts and Arguments +The time involved by counsel was substantial, consuming nearly +75 hours of legal work. Moreover, the issues in controversy were +novel and complex in that Plaintiff sought to create a new private +red on til ogli seto +properly +(B) the likelihood that the +Because of the amount of time involved in this litigation and +acceptance of the +considering the relative small size of the firm representing the State +particular employment +Attorney, the undersigned attorneys were forced to turn away or +will preclude other +delay representing other clients especially during critical stages of +employment by the lawyer +the litigation, due to time required in the instant matter. +(C) the fee, or rate of fee, +The base fees consisting of $425.00/hour for Mr. Wyler's services +customarily charged in the +and $475.00/hour for Mr. +• services are reasonable for +locality for legal services +lawyers in their fespective communities possessing equal +of a comparable or similar +experience and skill. +nature +(D) the significance of, or +amount involved in, the +subject matter of the +representation, and the +results obtained +The outcome of this case is of great public significance to the State +of Florida as it pertains to the disclosure of grand jury records and +the role of the State Attorney concerning such disclosure. Here, +the results obtained were the maximum sought by Detendant +Aronberg as he was dismissed from the case, albeit not within the +time constraints of the safe-harbor provision within § 57.105, Fla. +(E) the time limitations +imposed by the client or +by the circumstances and, +well as matters before the Florida Legislature. +8 + + +(G) the experience, +reputation, diligence, and +This representation required experience in a field available to few +expertise, or efficiency of +effort reflected in the +actual providing of such +services +The fee arrangement herein was entirely contingent, wherein +fixed or contingent, and, if | obtaining a fee was conditioned upon prevailing and obtaining an +JUSTIFICATION FOR MULTIPLIER +30. +Defendant Aronberg was able to proceed with this litigation only if counsel would +receive a court order awarding contingency based attorneys' fees upon achievement of a successful +outcome in this case. See, Exhibit "G". Given this and the fact that counsel risked a total of 74.8 +hours of work for no pay, of which 39.4 hours is subject to the 57.105 Demand, Defendant +Aronberg submits that multiplier of 2.0 would be appropriate in this case. Based upon the hours +expended, the hourly rates and a 2.0 multiplier, Defendant Aronberg respectfully requests an award +of attorneys' fees as sanctions as stated herein. +31. +‹ With regard to the application of a multiplier, the court must analyze the three +factors set forth in Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla, 1990): +(1) whether the relevant market requires a contingency fee multiplier to obtain +ompetent counsel; (2) whether the attorney was able to mitigate the risk +payment in any way; and (3) whether any of the factors set forth in +are +applicable, especially the amount involved, the results obtained, and the type of fee +arrangement between the attorney and his client. +See, Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Pulloquinga, 183 So. 3d 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). +9 + + +32. +Here, as to the first factor there was no other counsel in the relevant market who +would agree to represent Defendant Aronberg under the contingency fee agreement needed due to +the financial situation of the Office of the State Attorney as a public entity funded entirely by the +taxpayers of the State of Florida. Although "Risk Mitigation" within the Florida Department of +Financial Services and the Office of the Attorney General indeed represent the State Attorney in +some instances, this case was not picked up by either and Defendant Aronberg was left needing +representation by other, private counsel. Although the undersigned counsel and his law firm are +General Counsel for the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys' Association, Inc., ("EPAA") the instant +matter did not fall within the scope of representation for the FPAA and required a separate +engagement between Defendant Aronberg and the undersigned counsel. Accordingly, the +undersigned counsel and his law firm agreed to represent Defendant Aronberg on a contingency +fee basis and to try the case to final judgment considering that there was no other counsel willing +to represent Defendant Aronberg on such terms. +33. +With respect to the other factors to be considered in applying a multiplier as set +forth in Quanstrom, here Defendant Arenberg was unable to mitigate against non-payment of fees +because as a purely taxpayer funded entity, the Office of State Attorney had no other means by +which to pay the undersigned counsel. Additionally, Defendant Aronberg meets each of the +individual Rowe factors as set forth in the table located above on pages 8-9. Accordingly, based +on the foregoing the application of a multiplier herein is proper. In this vein, the | | court set +guidelines for the size of a multiplier, as follows: +10 + + +be 2; and, when success was unlikely at the time the case was initiated, the +multiplier should be in the range of 2.5 to 3. +Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. +, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). +34. +Additionally, the Quanstrom court confirmed and modified the +approach, as +follows: +However, we find that the multiplier in +should be modified as follows: If the +of the case, it may apply a multiplier of 2.0 to 2.5. Accordingly, our Rowe decision +is modified to allow a multiplier from 1 to 2.5. +Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828, 834 (Fla. 1990). Thus, based +upon all of the foregoing factors, Defendant Aronberg respectfully submits that a multiplier of 2.0 +is appropriate for this representation. +CERTIFICATION OF GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE +The undersigned certifies that a good faith effort was made to resolve the issues raised in +this motion by agreement of the parties. The parties were unable to resolve by agreement the +issues of entitlement to fees or the amount of fees. +WHEREFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach +County, Florida, prays that this Honorable Court will enter an Order awarding Defendant Aronberg +his reasonable attorneys' fees with a multiplier of 2.0 against the Plaintiff, CA FLORIDA +HOLDINGS, LLC, publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, in the amount of $39,950.00.. +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 9th day of November, 2020, a copy of the foregoing +Defendant, Dave Aronberg's Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees has been electronically filed +with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein. +11 + + +[SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +Is/ Douglas A. Wyler +Arthur 1. +1, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 10249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-l +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +Primary: jacobsseholzlaw@comcast.net +NOT A CERTIFIED +12 + + + + + + +Friday, September 18, 2020 at 11:09:24 Eastern Daylight Time +Subject: +SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT; CASE NO. 2019-CA-014681; CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC V. +DAVE ARONBERG ET AL. +Date: +From: +• To: +Monday, June 8, 2020 at 3:58:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time +Douglas Wyler +'mendelsohns@gtlaw.com, smithl@gtlaw.com, fservice@gtlaw.com, BoyajianN@gtlaw.com, +riveraal@gtlaw.com, GRYGIELM@gtlaw.com +Attachments: 2020-06-08 Aronberg 57.105 Demand and Motion for Attorneys' Fees.pdf +Please see attached and below in this matter. +Court: +Case No: +Plaintiff: +Defendant: +Title of Documents +Served: +Sender's Name and +Telephone Number: +Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, +Florida +Case No. 2020-CA-014681 +CA Florida Holdings, LLC +Dave Aronberg +• Fla. Stat. § 57.105 Demand Letter +• Defendant, Dave Aronberg's Motion for Attorneys' Fees +Douglas Wyler +(904) 261-3693 +Sincerely, +Doug Wyler, Esq, +• Scholz & Wyler, LLC +961687 Gateway Blvd., STE 201-I +Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 +904-261-3693 +904-261-7879 (fax) +doug.wyler@comcast.net +Please be advised that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential attorney-client +communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or +entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or +retransmit this communication but destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or +copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. + + + +« ASSOCIATES, P.A. +ARTHUR I. +SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC. +A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS +ATTORNEYS AT LAW +GATEWAY TO AMELIA +96I687 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE 201. +FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA 32034 +TELEPHONE (904) 261-3693 +FAX NO. (904) 261-7879 +RICHARD J. SCHOLZ, P.A. +RICHARD J. SCHOLZ +DOUGLASA. WYLER, P.A. +DOUGLAS A. WYLER +June 8, 2020. +VIA ELECTRONIC & U.S. MAIL +Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. +Greenburg Traurig, P.A. +5100 Town Center Circle, Suite 400 +Boca Raton, FL 33486 +COPY +RE: CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronberg et al. +Palm Beach County, Case No.: 2019-CA-014681 +Dear Mr. Mendelsohn: +As you are aware our firm represents the interests of Dave Aronberg, as State Attorney of Palm Beach +County, Florida, in the above referenced matter. The purpose of this letter is to demand the voluntary +dismissal of your First Amended Complaint, (the "Complaint"), dated January 17, 2020. This demand +is made pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes. +As you know, Section 57,105 provides: +(1) Upon the court's initiativé or motion of any party, the court shall award a +reasonable attorney's fee, including prejudgment interest, to be paid to the +prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party's attorney +on any claim or defense at any time during a civil proceeding or action in which +the court finds that the losing party or the losing party's attorney knew or should +have known that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any +time before trial: +. Was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or +defense; or +b. Would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those +material facts. +Today, Judge Marx granted, with prejudice, Defendant Aronberg's Motion to Dismiss Count Il of the +Plaintiff's Complaint. Pursuant to the Court's ruling, the Plaintiff's only remaining cause of action +consists of Count I, for Declaratory Relief. Accordingly, we believe that the Complaint filed hereir +and its sole remaining Count for Declaratory Relief is not supported by the material facts necessary to +establish the claims asserted, and that your claims are not supported by the application of current law +to said material facts. + + +First and foremost, the Complaint is not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the +claims asserted because neither Defendant Aronberg, nor The Office of the State Attorney for the +Fifteenth Judicial Circuit is in custody or control of the 2006 grand jury materials sought therein. +Simply put, the declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff, seeks records from my client that are +impossible for him or his office to produce. Accordingly, Defendant Aronberg is not a proper party to +this action because no matter what, he and his office do not have possession, custody, or control of the +requested materials. +In addition to the foregoing material facts that negate the claims asserted in the Complaint, your claims +are also not supported by the application of current law. Specifically, your action for deelaratory relief +fails based on the clear, unambiguous statutory language found in Section 905.27(2), Florida Statutes, +which states: +When such disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection (l) for use in a civil +case, it may be disclosed to all parties to the case and to their attorneys and by the latter +to their legal associates and employees. However, the grand jury testimony afforded +such persons by the court can only be used in the defense or prosecution of the civil or +criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever. +Moreover, even if the Plaintiff were to prevail in the declaratory action, Mr. Aronberg would be unable +to comply with any court order granting disclosure of the requested documents because neither Mr. +Aronberg nor The Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit have possession, +custody, or control of the 2006 Epstein grand jury records. +ased on the foregoing, if the Complaint is not dismissed within 21 days of the service of this letter +the enclosed Motion for Attorney's Fees will be filed and we will seck as sanctions, from your clien +and your firm, recovery of the legal expenses incurred in defending this frivolous action. +Please govern yourself accordingly; +A h +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. +NOT +Encl.: Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees + + +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R +3OCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Paln +Beach County, Florida. +Defendants. +COPY +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +DEFENDANT. DAVE ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES +Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and +through the undersigned attorneys, moves the Court, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, +to award him reasonable attorneys' fees for the defense of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, +• (the "Complaint"), and as grounds therefor, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served +a copy of this Marion, opener win a later from the underiend atomes in cordance wit +subsection (4) of the above Statute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior +to the filing of this Motion. In said letter, Defendant's attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which +establish that the Complaint is without support of the facts or the law. +WHEREFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach +County, Florida, respectfully requests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff's +attorneys to pay said Defendant's attorneys' fees incurred herein after service of this Motion. + + +I hereby certify that on this.. +day +_, 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed +via the Florida E-File Portal for electronic service on the parties of record herein. +İ SCHOLZ & WYLER, LIC +Is/ Douglas A. Wyler +Arthur i. +→, Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 108249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 +Douglas A. Wyler, Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Biyd., Suite 201-1 +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +(904) 261-3693 +(904) 261-787 + + + + + + +GT GreenbergTraurig +Fax 561.659.9119 +Douglas A. Wyler +Jacob Scholz & Wyler, LLC +61687 Gateway Blvd +suite 201-1 +Fernandina Beach, Fl. 32034 +Re: CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronberg et al. +Case No. 2019-CA-014681 +COPY +Dear Mr. Wyler: +We are in receipt of your letter of June 8, 2020 with your proposed Fla. Stat. section 57.105 motion. +In your letter and your proposed motion, you assert that CA Florida Holdings, LLC and the law +firm of Greenberg Traurig, P.A. should be liable for the attorneys' fees to be incurred by State +Attorney Aronberg after the date of your letter. Your letter cites to Fla. Stat. sections 57.105(1) +(a) and (b) for support. As shown below, there is no basis for a Fla. Stat. section 57.105 motion, +and we expect that if the State Attorney were to make such a motion, the court should deny it. +Your letter omits a citation to section 57.105(3). Subsection 57.105(3)(a) provides that sanctions +may not be awarded where there is a good faith argument for the extension, modification or +reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law, as it is applied to the material facts, with +a reasonable expectation of success." We have such a good faith argument. +Contrary to your analysis of Fla. Stat. section 905.27, there are actually three instances where a +court may order the release of grand jury materials. As we argue, the court may order release "in +furtherance of justice." There are few cases in Florida reviewing this provision and its scope. It is +an open and valid question as to whether the court may order release of grand jury transcripts to +the media, under both the statute and the First Amendment to the US Constitution in furtherance +of justice. The statutory language you cite refers to instances where a person is seeking grand jury +materials for use in a civil or in a criminal case. In these limited situations, the statute allows for +such uses and for no other reason. However, the statute does not state, as you assert, that where +the media seeks grand jury materials based upon its constitutional standing, which the Circuit +Court acknowledged at the June 2, 2020 hearing includes The Palm Beach Post, that the statutory +5100 Town Center Circle | Suite 400 | Boca Raton, Florida 33486 | T +1 561.955,7600 | F+1 561.338.7099 +Albany, Amsterdam. Atlanta. Austin. Berlin: Boca Raton. Boston. Chicago, Dallas, Delaware, Denser. Fort Lauderdale. Houston. Las Vegas. London' Los Angeles. +Mexico City" Miami, Milan" Minneapolis, Nashville. New Jersey. New York. Northern Virginia. Orange County: Orlando. Philadelphia. Phoenix. Sacramento, +San Francisen. Seoul. Shanghai. Silicon Valley: Tallahassec, Tampa. Tel Aviv: Tokyo: Warsaw, Washington, D.C. West Palm Beach. Westchester County: + + +Page 2 +use limitation you cite applies. No reported Florida case has addressed this issue and there is a +good faith basis for our view of Fla. Stat. section 905.27 +Your letter also argues that sanctions are applicable because the State Attorney has alleged that it +does not possess the Jeffrey Epstein grand jury transcripts. This allegation is also contained in the +State Attorney's Answer. Assuming that the State Attorney does not currently have physical +possession of the Epstein grand jury materials, which has yet to be demonstrated, this does not end +the matter. The State Attorney was named as a party not simply as a custodian of grand jury +records. The State Attorney was named in his official capacity as his office has as its primary +interest the protection of its grand jury system." [Italics in original.] In re Grand Jury Proceedings, +832 F. 3d 554, 559 (11" Circuit 1987). In that case, the US petitioned a state judge to order the +State Attorney to turn over grand jury transcripts. The State Attorney argued against their release +citing to Fla. Stat. section 905.27. Later, a federal grand jury subpoenaed the Broward County +State Attorney for delivery of state grand jury testimony. The Broward State Attorney advised the +federal court that it would produce the transcripts, thereby demonstrating that while it may not +have physical possession of the materials, he had legal authority to obtain and deliver them. It +should also be noted that the State Attorney moved to quash the subpoena arguing that it was +unlawful under Florida law and Fla. Stat. section 905,27, This case indicates that where one seeks +grand jury materials, the relevant State Attorney is a necessary party in order to protect the grand +jury that the Office of State Attorney supervised and to make arguments, if need be, against release +of the grand jury materials. These are some of the same reasons why the State Attorney was named +in this case. +Also, assuming the State Attorney does not have physical possession of the grand jury materials, +there is nothing in Florida law that prohibits the State Attorney from requesting that the Clerk +provide copies to the State Attorney. Chapter 905, Fla. Stats, does not contain a prohibition against +a State Attorney demand that the Clerk grant his office access to grand jury materials, even after a +criminal case has concluded. Upon information and belief, the Clerk's office maintains a log that +tracks release of grand jury materials to the State Attorney upon its request. Please confirm +whether the State Attomey has accessed grand jury materials from the Clerk's office in other +instances or that it has never done so. If the Clerk has such a log, then its contents should be +discoverable, or subject to Florida Public records laws. +Greenberg Traurig. P.A. | Attorneys at Law +www.gllaw.com + + +Page 3 +For these reasons, we decline your Fla. Stat. section 57.105 demand that the case be dismissed +against the Office of the State Attorney. We expect that your demand will be withdrawn. +Thank you, +Very truly yours, +/s/Stephen Mendelsohn +Stephen Mendelsohn +SAM:Is +ACTIVE 51081659v1 +www.gtiaw.com + + + + + + +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Beach County, Florida. +Defendants. +COPY +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES +Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and +through the undersigned attorneys, moves the Court, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, +to award him reasonable attorneys' fees for the defense of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, +(the "Complaint"), and as grounds therefor, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served +a copy of this Motion, together with a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with +subsection (4) of the above Statute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior +to the filing of this Motion. In said letter, Defendant's attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which +establish that the Complaint is without support of the facts or the law. +WHEREFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach +County, Florida, respectfully requests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff's +attorneys to pay said Defendant's attorneys' fees incurred herein after service of this Motion. + + +I hereby certify that on this Ist day July, 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed via +the Florida E-File Portal for electronic service on the parties of record herein. +SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +Is/ Douglas A. Wyler +Arthur I. J +Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 108249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 002126Y +Douglas A. Wyler, Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-1 +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +(904) 261-3693 +(904) 261-7879 + + + + + + +Plaintiff, +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASENO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +DIVISION: AG +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON F +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida, +COPY +Defendants. +PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS, LLC'S +NOTICE OF DROPPING STATE ATTORNEY, DAVE ARONBERG +Plaintiff, CA HOLDINGS, LLC, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1250(b), hereby notifies the parties that +it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the above case. +NOT A +Respectfully submitted, +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +Altorneys for CA Florida Holdings, LLC, Publisher +of The Palm Beach Post +Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. +401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 2000 +Boca Raton, Florida 33486 +Telephone: (561) 955-762 +acsimile: (561) 338-709 +By: Is/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +Florida Bar No. 849324 +FL.Servicer@gtlaw.com + + +54 State St., 6th Floor +Albany, New York 12207 +Telephone: (518) 689-1400 +Facsimile: (518) 689-1499 +grygielm@gtlaw.com +By: Is/ Nina D. Boyajian +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +Admitted Pro Hac Vice +1840 Century Park East, Suite 190( +Los Angeles California 90067 +Telephone: (310) 586-7700 +Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 +boyajiann@gtlaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 21" day of October, 2020, a true and correct copy of the +foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the State of Florida e-filing system, which +will send a notice of electronic service for all parties of record herein +NOT A +ACTIVE +53317341v7 +/s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +2 + + + + + + +Scholz & Wyler, LLC +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201l +Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 +United States +904-261-3693 +Scholz & Wyler, LLC +Dave Aronberg +Balance +Invoice # +00307 +Invoice Date +November 6, 2020 +Payment Terms +Due Date +Aronberg (SAO15) adv. CA Florida Holdings, LLC +Time Entries +Date +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/02/2019 +EE +DW +DW +DW +DW +AU +AUJ +DW +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +AL +12/03/2019 +12/03/2019 +AU +DW +DW +DW +Activity +Review +Review +Teleconference +Draft +Review +Review +Meeting +Meeting +Teleconference +Research & +Preparation +| Draft +: Teleconference +Review +Teleconference +Meeting +Meeting +Draft +Teleconference +Description +Initial review of summons and complaint. +Reviewed motion for pro hac vice and Judge. +Hafele' order granting +Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit +Drafted engagement letter and sent to client +Reviewed 15th circuit local rules +Initial review of complaint +Meeting w/ DAW to discuss lawsuit and strategy +Meeting w/ All to discuss lawsuit and strategy +Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit +Research and prep for Motion to dismiss +1st Draft motion to dismiss +Teleconference w/ Client, re: draft motion to +dismiss +Reviewed 1st Draft MT Dismiss +Teleconference w/ client, re: draft motion to +dismiss +Meeting w/ DAW, re: mation to dismiss +Meeting w/ AW, re: MTDismiss +Completed final rat of motion to disis, lied with +Spoke w/ client, re: final draft of motion to dismiss +Rate +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425,00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +Hours +1.5 +0.2 +0,5 +1.0 +1.0 +0.5 +0.5 +0.5 +2.0% +1.0 +0.5 +0.3 +0.5 +0.2 +0.2 +0.7 +0.5 +Line Total +$637.50 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$237.50 +$237.50 +$850.00 +$425.00 +$142.50 +$237.50 +$95.00 +. $85.00 +$297.50 + + +12/13/2019 +01/16/2020 +01/16/2020 +01/17/2020 +01/17/2020 +01/17/2020 +01/20/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/22/2020 +01/22/2020 +01/23/2020 +01/24/2020 +01/24/2020 +01/24/2020 +01/27/2020 +02/03/2020 +02/03/2020 +03/13/2020 +03/13/2020 +03/18/2020 +03/18/2020 +03/18/2020 +03/19/2020 +03/20/2020 +DW +AlJ +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +AlJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +ALJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +AN +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +Teleconference +Review +Review +Review +Review +Review +Review +Teleconference +Review +Review +Ice +Research & Draft +Teleconference +Various +Draft +Review +Review +Review +Teleconference +[Review +Review +Teleconference +Review +E-mail +E-mait +[Review +Spoke with Clerk's attorney, re: response +Reviewed final draft MTDismiss +Reviewed Clerk's MTDismiss +Reviewed Clerk's Motion to Dismiss +Reviewed Order Setting Hearing on Defendants' +MTDismiss +Reviewed motion for pro hac vice +Reviewed Pt's Amended Complaint +Spoke with client, re: Amended Complaint +Reviewed Pl's notice of filing +Reviewed Pt's Am. Compl +Reviewed Judge Marx's Order Cancelling +MTDismiss Hearing +Reviewed Pl's Objection to Defendants' MTDismiss +Spoke with client, re: Amended complaint +Meeting w/ DAW, re: response to Am. Compl +Meeting w/ All, re: response to Am. Compl. +Reviewed Order granting pro hac vice admission +Researched and drafted response to Amended +Complaint +Spoke with Clerk's attorey, re: response to +amended complaint +Completed Answer/MTDismiss Amended +Complaint; filed with Court; sent copy to Client +Drafted and filed Notice of Unavailability +Reviewed final Answer/MTDismiss +Reviewed Clerk's Answer/Dismiss +Reviewed Order setting hearing on Defs +MTDismiss +Spoke w/ client, re: order setting MTDismiss +hearing for March 24, 2020 +Reviewed PT's Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss +& Clerk's MTDismiss +Reviewed Pl's Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss +3 Clerk's MTDismiss +Reviewed email from Pl's counsel, re: motion to +continue hearing +Reviewed Pl's unopposed motion for continuance +Emails w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Pl's request to +continue hearing +Reviewed Courts agreed order continuing hearing +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +^ $425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425,00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +0.5 +0.2 +02 +0.5 +0.1 +0.1 +1.0 +03 +0.1 +0.2 +0.5 +0.2 +0.1 +1.0 +0.2 +1.0 +0.4 +0.2 +0.3 +0.1 +0.5 +1.5 +0.7 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1 +0.1 +$95.00 +$95.00 +$425.00 +$142.50 +$95.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$170.00 +$95.00 +$637.50 +$332.50 + + +05/22/2020 +05/22/2020 +05/27/2020 +05/27/2020 +05/28/2020 +05/29/2020 +06/01/2020 +06/02/2020 +06/02/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/10/2020 +DW +DW +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +ALJ +DW +DW +DW +ALL +DW +AlJ +DW +DW +Review +Teleconterence +Review +Review +Teleconference +Review +Teleconference +E-mail +Preparation +E-mail +Various +E-mail +Attend Hearing +Teleconference +E-mail +E-mail +Attend Hearing +Review +Review +Meeting +Meeting +Review +| Various +Various +Reviewed order rescheduling hearing on Defs' +MTDismiss +poke w/ client, re: order rescheduling MTDismis +earing for June 3, 202 +Reviewed Order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing +Reviewed order setting Zoom hearing, re: +MTDismiss +Spoke w/ client, re: hearing will be via Zoom +Reviewed Clark's filing: change of atty of record +Spoke with Clerk's new counsel, Nicole Fingerhut +Reviewed Pl's email, re: cases and authorities for +MTDismiss hearing; responded +Began oral argument prep for 6/8 MTDismiss +hearing +Reviewed email from Judge Marx's JA and +responded +Reviewed Pr's 500+ page binder, re: MTDismiss & +prepped for hearing +Drafted and sent email to client, re: MTD hearing +tomorrow +Pooped for and attended Mr iries hearing via. +Spoke w/ Client, ror debrief MT Dismiss hearing +Emailed courtesy copies of Aronberg's Answer and +MDismiss to Judge Marx +Reviewed response from Client and replied +Attended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom +Reviewed order granting Dismiss w/ prejudice +Reviewed Court's Order Granting Defendants +MTDismiss Count Il w/ Prejudice +Shared order w/ Client and spoke wi, re: result anc +Man going forward, re: 57.10€ +Researched § 57.105 Fla. Stat.; drafted 57.10 +demand letter and proposed motion for attorneys +ses/sanctions; Served Pts counsel with deman +etter and proposed motion +Meting w/ DAW, re: Order & 57.105 +Meeting w/ All, re: Order & 57.105 +Santed 57,105 demand and proposed moion for. +Reviewed notice of change of attorney, re: Clerk +alled and spoke w/ new counsel Cynthia Guerra +Reviewed Pl's letter refusing to voluntarily dismiss +amended complaint despite 57.105 demand; called +and spoke w/ client, re: Pt's refusal & next steps +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +0.1 +0.3 +0.1 +0.2 +0.2 +0.1 +1.0 +0.1 +3.0 +0.1 +1.5 +0.5 +0.1 +0.1 +$47.50 +$425.00 +$1,275.00 +$637.50 +$475.00 +$142.50 +0.5 +0.5 +2.0 +0.3 +0.3 +0.2 +0.3 +1.0 +$850.00 +$142.50 +$95.00 +$425.00 + + +07/01/2020 +07/02/2020 +07/08/2020 +07/08/2020 +07/10/2020 +07/10/2020 +07/10/2020 +07/13/2020 +07/13/2020 +07/27/2020 +07/27/2020 +07/28/2020 +07/29/2020 +07/29/2020 +07/30/2020 +07/30/2020 +08/05/2020 +08/07/2020 +08/10/2020 +08/17/2020 +08/17/2020 +08/18/2020 +08/27/2020 +08/01/2020 +DW +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +E-mail +Review +Various +E-mail +Teleconference +Teleconference +Teleconference +Review +Teleconference +Draft +Draft +Research & +Preparation +Various +Draft +Draft +Draft +Teleconference +Various +Review +Teleconference +Sent client copy of Pr's letter refusing to dismiss +complaint +Reviewed Pt's letter refusing to dismiss Count 1/Am. +Compl. +Spoke w/ client, re: filing of 57.105 motion for +fees/sanctions; filed motion for attorneys' fees +based on Pr's failure to voluntarily dismiss +amended complaint count 1 +Email to client, re: affidavit and summary judgment +Discussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion fo +Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence +Discussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for +Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence +Created 1st draft of Aronberg Affidavit; shared wi +Reviewed draft affidavit and discussed w/ DAW +Discussed draft affidavit w/ AlJ +Reviewed Pl's Request to Produce, re: Clerk +Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Request to Produce +Reviewed Pt's Amended Request to Produce, re: +Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Amended Request to +Produce +Revised Aronberg affidavit +Finalized Aronberg Affidavit and sent to client +Research and prep for Motion for Summary +Judgment +Received executed Aronberg Affidavit +Began drafting Motion for Summary Judgment +Continued drafting Motion for Summary Judgment +Sent responsive email to Pl's counsel +Discussed draft MSJ w/ AL +Reviewed draft MSJ and met w/ DAW to discuss +Finalized Motion for Summary Judgment; filed w/ +court along with Aronberg affidavit +Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: request to produce +Reviewed Pl's email and accepted conference call +nivite for 9/2/20 +Reviewed Clerk's response to request for +production +Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: dispute as to whether +MSJ should be heard before 57.105 fee motion or +vis versa - call was unsuccessful +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +S425.00 +$425.00 +0.1 +0.1 +0.5 +0.1 +0.7 +0.7 +1.0 +0.3 +0.2 +0.2 +0.1 +0.1 +0.5 +0.5 +1.0 +0.1 +2.0 +1.0 +0.1 +0.1 +0.5 +2.0 +0,1 +0.1 +02 +0.5 +$47.50 +$297.50 +$332.50 +$425.00 +$142.50 +$425.00 +$850.00 +$425.00 +$42.50| +$237.50 +$850.00 +.$85.00 + + +09/16/2020 +0S/17/2020 +09/17/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/22/2020 +10/02/2020 +10/02/2020 +10/02/2020 +10/02/2020 +10/12/2020 +10/13/2020 +10/13/2020 +10/13/2020 +10/13/2020 +10/14/2020 +10/14/2020 +10/14/2020 +10/15/2020. +TAN +DW +DW +AlJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +AN +DW +DW +DW +DW +AlJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +Meeting +Meeting +E-mail +Meeting +Meeting +Various +E-mail +E-mail +E-mail +E-mail +Research & +Analyze +Draft +Various +Draft +Telephone +Telephone +Attend Hearing +Various +Discussed w/ DAW phone call w/ Pr's counsel +Discussed w/ All phone call w/ PT's counsel +leviewed email from Pt's counsel requeste +ronberg to withdraw sanctions motion wil +prejudice +Discussed w/ All filing motion for CMC +Discussed w/ DAW filing motion for CMC +Drafted and filed motion to set case management +conference; re: MSJ 1st or Fee hearing 1st +Responded to P's 9/16/20 email and refused to +withdraw 57.105 motion; provided copy of motion to +set CMC and available dates for hearing +Reviewed Pr's email insisting that 57.105 motion be +withdrawn +Replied to Pl's counsel that the 57.105 motion for +sanctions will not be withdrawn and asking for +response, re: CMC +Sent client copy of email exchange w/ Pl's counsel; +called and spoke w/ Client +Drafted and filed Notice of Hearing on 10/15/2Q; set +up Court Call; spoke w/ client, re; hearing date +Reviewed Pl's Memo of Law opposing Aronberg's +57.105 motion for lees/sanctions. +Reviewed Pl's Response to Aronberg's request to +schedule 57.105 motion for fees after MSJ +Reviewed Pls Memo of Law opposing 57.105 +motion +Reviewed P's Response to Aronberg's request to +schedule 57.105 motion after MSJ +Research caselaw & statutes, re: response to Pl's +Memo of Law +Continued researching caselaw, re: response to +Pl's memo of law +Created 1st draft of Response to Pl's Memo of Law +and shared w/ Client +meused w A casalam and dral response lo +Reviewed draft MSJ, discussed draft w/ DAW and +caselaw +Finalized and filed Response to Pi's Memo of Law +Spoke w/ client, re: memo of law +Spoke w/ client again, re: response to memo of law +Attended hearing, re: Motion to Set CMC; calloc +lient to discuss +Reviewed email and letter from Pl, re: settlement. +Sent copy to Client and called to discuss. +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425,00 +3425.000 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +.$425.00 +$425.00 +0.1 +0.1 +01 +0,5 +0.7 +0.7 +0.5 +0.5 +0.4 +1.0 +1.0 +4.0 +0.5 +0.7 +1.0 +0.2 +0.1 +1.5 +0.5 +$47.50 +$297.50 +$297.50 +$237.50 +$190.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$1,700.00 +$332.50 +$425.00 +$637.50 + + +10/16/2020 +10/16/2020 +10/16/2020 +10/16/2020 +10/16/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/22/2020 +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AU +DW +DW +DW +AlJ +DW +DW +Telephone +Telephone +Various +Various +Meeting. +Various +Telephone +Telephone +Meeting +Meeting +Various +Telephone +Telephone +Meeting +Meeting +Various +Telephone +Telephone +Telephone +Meeting +Meeting +Various +Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: settlement +Spoke w/ client, re: Pl's settlement proposal +Attended hearing, re: motion to set CMC; +discussed w/ client +Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ DAW and +then w/ Client +Discussed Pl's settlement proposal vl AlJ +Drafted and shared proposed order w/ Pt's counsel +Spoke w/ PI's counsel, re: settlement +Spoke w/ client, re: Pt's settlement proposal +Discussed P's settlement proposal wi AlJ +Discussed PI's settlement proposal w/ DAW +Uploaded proposed order, re: CMC for Judge +Hafele +Spoke w/ client, re: Pt's settlement proposal +Spoke w/ Pr's counsel, re: settlement +Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ DAW +Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ AW +Reviewed email from Pl, re: settlement; sent copy +to Client and called to discuss +Spoke w/ client, re: settlement +Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: settlement +Spoke w/ client, re: settlement +Discussed Pls settlement proposal w/ AlJ +Discussed P's settlement proposal w/ DAW +Drafted and filed Motion to Set Hearing on +Aronberg MSJ; drafted proposed order granting +motion to set; checked court availability; emailed +Pr's counsel, re: choose date for hearing +Reviewed Order, re: CMC unnecessary +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Sent email w/ Aronberg statement to media +Discussed media response w/ DAW +Discussed media response w/ AL +Reviewed Pl's Notice of Dropping Aronberg as +party; spoke w/ Client and Ald, re: notice and next +steps +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +0.1 +0.2 +1.0 +0.4 +0.2 +0.5 +0.2 +0.5 +0,2 +0.2 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1 +0.2 +0.2 +0.5 +0.4 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2 +1,0 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1 +0.1 +0.3 +03 +0.5 +- $47500 +$190.00 +$95.00 +$95.00 +$170.00 +$95.00 +$425.00 +$142.50 + + +10/22/2020 +Various +Reviewed Pt's Notice of Dropping Aronberg as +party; spoke w/ Client and DAW, re: notice and next +$475.00 +0.5 +Totals: +74.8 +Time Entry Sub-Total: +Sub-Total: +Total: +Amount Pald: +Balance Due: +NOT A CERTIFIED COP +$237.50 +$0.00 + + + + + + +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +v. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Bo, a er and Compar er or in. +Beach County, Florida. +Defendants. +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +COPY +AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEYS FEES +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF NASSAU +BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority appeared Douglas A. Wyler, Esq., who, after +being first duly sworn, deposes and says: +Affiant is a partner of JACOBS, SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC, counsel for +Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, ("Aronberg"), +as well as general counsel to the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, (*FPAA"), and makes +this Affidavit of his own personal knowledge. +2. +Affiant is licensed to practice law in the State of Florida, is an active member of +the Florida Bar in good standing and has engaged in the practice of law in the State of Florida since +2015. +3. +As detailed herein, the services rendered by Affiant and his firm pertain to Affiant's +demand letter and motion for attorneys' fees sent to Plaintiff's counsel pursuant to § 57.105, +Florida Statutes, on June 8, 2020, in defending against Count I of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint + + +and Plaintiff's October 21, 2020 Notice of Dropping State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the +above-captioned lawsuit. See, Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto. +The total time Affiant's law firm has expended services rendered to date is 74.8 +hours, however, from the date of Defendant Aronberg's 57.105 demand, Affiant's law firm has +expended a total of 42.2 hours. Of the 42.2 hours expended since Defendant Aronberg's 57.105 +demand was served, the Affiant +5. +Of the 42.2 hours expended since Defendant Aronberg's 57.105 demand was +served, the total time Affiant has expended services rendered to date is 35.4 hours at the rate of +$425.00 per hour. Likewise, the total time Affiant's law partner, Arthur I. +, has expended +services rendered to date is 6.8 hours at the rate of $475.00 per hour. +6. +Accordingly, since Defendant Aronberg's 57.105 demand was served, Defendant +Aronberg's counsel, +1, SCHOLZ & WYLER, LDC, has rendered services in the amount +of $18,275.00, in conjunction with the defense of the instant action pursuant to § 57.105, Florida +Statutes. See, Exhibit "C" attached fiereto. +Affiant expectsto incur an additional 4.0 hours at $425.00 an hour in preparing for +and attending the hearing on attorneys' fees. Thus, the total amount of hourly attorneys" fees the +State Attomey is seeking is 46.2 hours for a total of $19,975.00. Additionally, the State Attorney +seeks a multiplier of 2.0, which when applied makes the grand total attorneys' fees sought herein +$39,950.00. +Dated this 9th day of November, 2020. +FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. +Douglas A/ Wyler, Esq., Fla. Bar, No. 119979 + + +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF NASSAU +The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 9th day of November, 2020, +by Douglas +A. Wyler, Esquire, who is personally known to me and who did take an oath. +Or r +TARAN R +Notary Public - State of Florida +Commission # GG 354341 +My Comm. Expires Aug 17, 2023 +Bonded through Hatlonal Notary Assn. +Taran R. Jackson +Name typed, printed or stamped +NOT A +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 9th day of November, 2020, a copy of the foregoing has +been electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein. +JACOBS SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +Is/ Douglas A. Wyler +Arthur I. +, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 10249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-I +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +(904) 261-3693 +(904) 261-7879 Fax +Primary: jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net +Attorneys for Defendant, Dave Aromberg + + + +NOT A CERTIFIED COPY. + + + +Friday, September 18, 2020 at 11:09:24 Eastern Daylight Time +Subject: +SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT; CASE NO. 2019-CA-014681; CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC V. +Date: +From: +To: +DAVE ARONBERG ET AL. +Monday, June 8, 2020 at 3:58:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time +Douglas Wyler +'mendelsohns@gtlaw.com', smithl@gtlaw.com, flservice@gtlaw.com, BoyajianN@gtlaw.com, +riveraal@gtlaw.com, GRYGIELM@gtlaw.com +Attachments: 2020-06-08 Aronberg 57.105 Demand and Motion for Attorneys' Fees.pdf +Court: +Case No: +Plaintiff:, +Defendant: +Title of Documents +Served: +Sender's Name and +Telephone Number: +Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County +Case: No. 2020-CA-014681 +CA Florida Holdings, ULC +• Fla. Stat. § 57.105 Demand Letter +• Defendant, Dave Aronberg's Motion for Attorneys' Fees +Douglas Wyler +(904) 261-3693 +Sincerely, +Doug Wyler, Esq. +Scholz & Wyler, LIC +961687 Gateway Blvd., STE 201-1 +Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 +904-261-3693 +904-261-7879 (fax) +Please be advised that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential attorney-client +communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or +entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or +retransmit this communication but destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or +copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. +10, + + + +LAW OFFICES O +' ASSOCIATES, PA +ARTHUR I| +ScHOLZ & WYLER, LLC. +LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS +ATTORNEYS AT LAW +GATEWAY TO AMELIA +901687 GATEWAY OLVD, SUITE ZOI-: +FEENANDINA BEACE, FLORIDA 32034 +TELEPHONE (904) 261-3693 +TAX NO. (004) 261-7879 +RICHARD J. SCHOLZ, P.A. +RICHARO J. SCHOLZ +DOUGLAS A, WYLER, P.A. +DOUGLAS A, WYLEM +June 8, 2020 +VIA ELECTRONIC & U.S. MAIL +Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. +Greenburg Traurig, P.A. +$100 Town Center Circle, Suite 400 +Boca Raton, FL 33486 +RE: +COPY +CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronberg et al. +Palm Beach County, Case No.: 2019-CA-014681 +Dear Mr. Mendelsohn: +As you are aware our firm represents the interests of Dave Aronberg, as State Attorney of Palm Beach +County, Florida, in the above referenced matter. The purpose of this letter is to demand the voluntary +dismissal of your First Amended Complaint, (the "Complaint"), dated January 17, 2020. This demand +is made pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes. +As you know, Section 57.105 provides: +(1) Upon the court's initiative or motion of any party, the court shail award a +prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party's attorney +the court finds that the losing party or the losing party's attorney knew or should +have known that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any +time before trial: +' Was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or +defense; or +b. +Would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those +material facts. +Today, Judge Marx granted, with prejudice, Defendant Aronberg's Motion to Dismiss Count Il of the +Plaintiff's Complaint. Pursuant to the Court's ruling, the Plaintiff's only remaining cause of action +consists of Count I, for Declaratory Relief. Accordingly, we believe that the Complaint filed herein +and its sole remaining Count for Declaratory Relief is not supported by the material facts necessary to +establish the claims asserted, and that your claims are not supported by the application of current law +to said material facts. + + +First and foremost, the Complaint is not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the +claims asserted because neither Defendant Aronberg, nor The Office of the State Attorney for the +Fifteenth Judicial Circuit is in custody or control of the 2006 grand jury materials sought therein. +Simply put, the declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff, seeks records from my client that are +impossible for him or his office to produce. Accordingly, Defendant Aronberg is not a proper party to +this action because no matter what, he and his office do not have possession, custody, or control of the +requested materials. +In 'addition to the foregoing material facts that negate the claims asserted in the Complaint, your claims +are also not supported by the application of current law. Specifically, your action for declaratory relief +fails based on the clear, unambiguous statutory language found in Section 905.27(2), Florida Statutes, +which states: +When such disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection (I) for use in a civil +case, it may be disclosed to all parties to the case and to their attorneys and by the latter +to their legal associates and employees. However, the grand jury testimony afforded +such persons by the court can only be used in the defense or prosecution of the civil or +criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever. +Moreover, even if the Plaintiff were to prevail in the declaratory action, Mr. Aronberg would be unable +to comply with any court order granting disclosure of the requested documents because neither Mr. +Aronberg nor The Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit have possession, +Based on the foregoing, if the Complaint is not dismissed within 21 days of the service of this letter, +the enclosed Motion for Attorney's Fees will be filed and we will seek as sanctions, from your client +and your firm, recovery of the legal expenses incurred in defending this frivolous action. +Please govem yourself accordingly +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. +Encl.: Defendant's Motion for Attorneys" Fees + + +A FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +'ublisher of the PALM BEACH POST +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +each County, Florid +Defendants. +COPY +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES +Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and +through the undersigned attorneys, moves the Court, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, +to award him reasonable attorneys' fees for the defense of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, +(the "Complaint"), and as grounds therefor, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served +a copy of this Motion, together with a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with +subsection (4) of the above Statute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior +to the filing of this Motion. In said letter, Defendant's attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which +establish that the Complaint is without support of the facts or the law. +WHEREFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach +County, Florida, respectfully requests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff's +attorneys to pay said Defendant's attorneys" fees incurred herein after service of this Motion. + + +I hereby certify that on this _ +_day +— 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed +via the Florida E-File Portal for electronic service on the parties of record herein. +SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +Is/ Douglas A. Wyler +Arthur i.J +, Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 108249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 +Douglas A. Wyler, Esquir +Fla. Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-I +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +(904) 261-3693 +(904) 261-7879 +Attorneys for Defendant +NOT A CERTIF + + + + + + +Plaintiff, +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASENO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +DIVISION: AG +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +'alm Beach County, Florida; SHARON I +OCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palr +Beach County, Florida, +COPY +Defendants. +PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS, LLC'S +NOTICE OF DROPPING STATE ATTORNEY, DAVE ARONBERG +Plaintiff, CA HOLDINGS, LLC, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1250(b), hereby notifies the parties that +it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the above case. +CE +NOT A +Respectfully submitted, +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +Altorneys for CA Florida Holdings, LLC, Publisher +of The Palm Beach Post +Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. +401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 2000 +Boca Raton, Florida 33486 +Telephone: (561) 955-7629 +Facsimile: (561) 338-7099 +By: Is/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +Florida Bar No. 849324 +smithh@gtlaw.com +FL.Service@gtlaw.com + + +54 State St., 6th Floor +Albany, New York 12207 +Telephone: (518) 689-1400 +Facsimile: (518) 689-1499 +grygielm@gtlaw.com +By: Is/ Nina D. Bovajian +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 +Los Angeles California 90067 +Telephone: (310) 586-7700 +Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 +bovajiann@gtlaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 21" day of October, 2020, a true and correct copy of the +foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the State of Florida e-filing system, which +will send a notice of electronic service for all parties of record herein +/s/ Stephen A. Mende/sohn +OT A +2 + + + + + + +Scholz & Wyler, LL +51687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201 +Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 +United States +904-261-3693 +Scholz & Wyler, LLC +Dave Aronberg +Balance +Invoice# +Invoice Date +Payment Terms +Due Date +00307 +November 6, 2020 +Aronberg (SAO15) adv. CA Florida Holdings, LLC +Time Entries +Date +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/02/20197 +12/03/2019 +12/03/2019 +EE +DW +Activity +Review +DW +Review +DW +DW +DW +Teleconference +Draft +Review +Review +AW +DW +Meeting +Meeting +Teleconference +DW +Research 8 +Preparation +DW +Draft +DW +Teleconference +AL +Review +AU +Teleconference +Al. Meeting +DW +Meeting +ow +Draft +DW +Teleconference +Description +Initial review of summons and complaint, +Reviewed motion for pro hac vice and Judge +Hafela' order granting +Teleconference wl Client, re: response to lawsuit +Drafted engagement letter and sent to client +Reviewed 15th cireuit local rules +Initial review of complaint +Meeting w/ DAW to discuss lawsuit and strategy +Meeting w/ AlL to discuss lawsuit and strategy +Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit +Research and prep for Motion to dismiss +1st Draft molion to dismiss . +demonterence w/ Chan, re: drat malian to +Reviewed 1st Draft MTDismiss +Teleconference wi client, re: drall motion to +dismiss +Meeting wi DAW, re: motion to dismiss +Meeting w/ All, re: MTDismiss +Coupled final drat of motion to dismis lied with +Spoke wi client, re: final draft of mation to dismiss +Rate +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$125.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +Hours +1.5 +02 +0.5 +03 +1.0 | +1.0 +0.5 +0.5 +2.0 +1.0 +0.5 +0.3 +0.5 +02 +0.2 +0.7 +0.5 +Line Total +$637.50 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$237.50 +$237.50 +$850.00 +$425.00 +$142.50 +- $237.50 +$95.00 +$297.50 + + +12/13/2019 +01/16/2020 +01/16/2020 +01/17/2020 +01/17/2020 +01/17/2020 +01/20/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/22/2020 +01/22/2020 +01/23/2020 +01/24/2020 +01/24/2020 +01/24/2020 +01/27/2020 +02/03/2020 +02/03/2020 +03/13/2020 +03/13/2020 +03/18/2020 +03/18/2020 +03/18/2020 +03/19/2020 +03/20/2020 +DW +ALJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AU +DW +DW +DW +ALJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +Teleconferance +Review +Review +Review +Review +Review +Review +Teleconference +Review +Review +Review +Review +Teleconference +Meeting +Meeting +Review +Research & Draft +Teleconference +DW +AU +IDW +Teleconference +DW +Review +DW +E-mall +DW +E-mail +DW - +Review +Spoke with Clerk's attorney, re: response +Reviewed final draft MTDismiss +Reviewed Clerk's MTDismiss +Reviewed Clerk's Motion to Dismiss +Reviewed Order Setting Hearing on Defendants' +MTDismiss +Reviewed motion for pro hac vice +Reviewed Pr's Amended Complaint +Spoke with client, re: Amended Complaint +Reviewed Pl's notice of filing +Reviewed Pt's Am. Compl +Reviewed Judge Marx's Order Cancelling +MTDismiss Hearing +Reviewed P's Objection to Defendants' MTDismiss +Spoke with client, re: Amended complaint +Meeting w/ DAW, re: response to Am. Compl. +Meeting w/ All, re: response to Am. Compl +Reviewed Order granting pro hac vice admission +Researched and drafted response to Amended +Complaint +Spoke with Clerk's attorney, fe: response to +amended complaint +Completed Answer/MTDismiss Amended +Complaint; filed with Court; sent copy to Client +Drafled and filed Notice of Unavailability +Reviewed final Answer/MTDismiss +Reviewed Clerk's Answer/T Dismiss +Reviewed Order setting hearing on Defs' +MTDismiss +Spoke w/ client, re: order setting MTDismiss +hearing for March 24, 2020 +Reviewed Pl's Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss +& Clerk's MTDismiss +Reviewed Pt's Opposition to Aronberg MDismiss +& Clerk's MTDismiss +leviewed email from Pl's counsel, re: mation t +ontinue hearing +Reviewed P's unopposed motion for continuance +Emails w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Pl's request to +continue hearing +Reviowed Court's agreed order continuing hearing +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +0.5 +0.2 +0.5 +0.1 +0.1 +1.0 +0.5 +0.1 +- 0,3 +0.1 +0.2 +0,5 +0.2 +0.1 +1.0 +0.2 +1.0 +0.1 +0.5 +1.5 +0.7 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1 +0.1 +$95.00 +$95.00 +$425.00 +$142.50 +$95.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$170.00 +$95.00 +$637.50 +$332.50 + + +05/22/2020 +05/22/2020 +05/27/2020 +05/27/2020 +05/28/2020 +05/29/2020 +06/01/2020 +06/02/2020 +06/02/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/08/2020 +08/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/10/2020 +DW +AU +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +Review +Teleconference +Review +Review +Teleconference +Review +Teleconference +E-mail +Preparation +E-mail +Various +E-mail +Attend Hearing +Teleconference +E-mail +E-mail +Attend Hearing +Review +Review +Various +Various +AL Meeting +DW +Meeting +Review +DW +Various +DW +Various +Reviewed order rescheduling hearing on Defs +MTDismiss +Spoke wi client, re: order reschedufing MTDismiss +hearing for June 3, 2020 +Reviewed Order rescheduling Dismiss hearing +Reviewed order setting Zoom hearing, re: +MTDismiss +Spoke w/ client, re: hearing will be via Zoom +Roviewed Clerk's filing: change of atty of record +Spoke with Clerk's new counsel, Nicole Fingerhut +Reviewed Pr's email, re: cases and authorities for +MTDismiss hearing: responded +Began oral argument prep for 6/8 MTDismiss +hearing +Presponded email rom Judge Mars A and +Reviewed P's 500+ page inder, re: MTDismiss & +prepped for hearing +Drafted and sent email to client, re: MTD hearing +tomorrow +Prepped for and attended MTDismiss hearing via +Zoom +Spoke w/ Client, rer debrief MTDismiss hearing +Emailed courtesy copies of Aronberg's Answer and +MDismiss to Judge Marx +Reviewed response from Client and replied +Afterided MT Dismiss hearing via Zoom +Reviewed order granting MTDismiss wl prejudice +Reviewed Court's Order Granting Defendants +MTDismiss Count It w/ Prejudice +Shared order w/ Client and spoke w/, re; result and +plan going forward, re: 57.105 +Researched § 57.105 Fla. Stat.: drafted 57.105 +demand letter and proposed motion for attorneys +fees/sanctions; Served Pis counsel with demand +letter and proposed mation. +Meeting w/ DAW, re: Order & 57.105 +Meeting w/ All, re: Onder & 57.105 +Reviewed 57.105 demand and proposed motion for +sanction +Reviewed notice of change of attorney, re: Clerk; +called and spoke w/ new counsel Cynthia Guerra +Reviewed Pl's letter refusing to voluntarily dismiss +amended complaint despite 57.105 demand; called +and spoke w/ client, re: Pl's refusal & next steps +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$125.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +0.1 +03 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1 +0.2 +1.0 +0.1 +3.0 +0.1 +1.5 +0.5 +0.1 +0.1 +0.5 +0.5 +20 +0.3 +0.3 +0.2 +03 +1.0 +$47.50 +$425.00 +$1.275.00 +$637.50 +$475.00 +$142.50 +$850.00 +$142.50 +$95.00 +$425.00 + + +07/01/2020 +07/02/2020 +07/08/2020 +07/08/2020 +07/10/2020 +07/10/2020 +07/10/2020 +07/13/2020 +07/13/2020 +07/27/2020 +07/27/2020 +07/28/2020 +07/29/2020 +07/29/2020 +07/30/2020 +07/30/2020 +08/05/2020 +08/07/2020 +08/10/2020 +08/17/2020 +08/17/2020 +08/18/2026 +08/27/2020 +09/01/2020 +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AlJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +E-mail +Review +Various +E-mail +Teleconference +Teleconference +Sent cllent copy of Pl's letter refusing to dismiss +complaint +Spoke w/ client, re: filing of 57.105 motion for +fees/sanctions; filed motion for attorneys' fees +based on Pt's failure to voluntarily dismiss +amended complaint count 1 +Email to client, re: affidavit and summary judgment +Jiscussed w/ Client drafting and filing Mation for +summary Judgment and MSJ evidence +Teleconference +Review +Teleconference +Draft +Draft +Research & +Preparation +Various +Draft +Draft +Review +E-mail +| Draft +Teleconference +Various +Review +Teleconference +Created 1st drait of Aromberg Affidavit; shared w/ +client +Reviewed draft affidavit and discussed w/ DAW +•Discussed draft affidavit wi All +Reviewed PI's Request to Produce, re: Clerk +Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Request to Produce +Reviewed Pl's Amended Request to Produce, re: +Clerk +Spoke w/ Clerk's counsell, re: Amended Request to +Produce +Revised Aronberg affidavit +Finalized Aronberg Affidavit and sent to client +Research and prep forMation for Summary +Judgment +Received executed Aronberg Alfidavit +Began drafting Mation for Summary Judgment +Continued drafting Motion for Summary Judgment +Reviewed email from Plaintiff attempting to sel +hearing on 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions +Sent responsive email to Pt's counsel +Discussed draft MSJ w/ AlJ +Reviewed draft MSJ and met w DAW to discuss +inalized Mation for Summary Judgment; filed w +ourt along with Aronberg affidav +Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: request to produce +Reviewed P's email and accepted conference call +invite for 9/2/20 +Reviewed Clerk's response to request for +production +Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: dispute as to whether +MSJ should be heard before 57.105 fee motion or +vis versa - call was unsuccessful +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$125.00 +$425.00 +0.1 +0.1 +0.5 +0.1 +0.7 +0.7 +1.0 +03 +0.1 +0.1 +0.5 +1.0 +0.1 +2.0 +1.0 +0.1 +02 +0.5 +2.0 +0.1 +0.1 +02 +0.5 +$47.50 +$297.50 +$332.50 +$425.00 +$142.50 +342.50 +$425.00 +$850.00 +$425.00 +$237.50 +$850.00 + + +• +09/16/2020 +09/17/2020 +09/17/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/22/2020 +10/02/2020 +10/02/2020 +10/02/2020 +10/02/2020 +10/12/2020 +10/13/2020 +10/13/2020 +10/13/2020 +10/13/2020 +10/14/2020 +10/14/2020 +10/14/2020 +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +ALJ +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +Meeting +Meeting +E-mail +Meeting +Meeting +Various +¡E-mail +E-mail +E-mail +E-mail +Various +Review +Review +Review +Review +Research +Research & +Analyze +Draft +Meeting +Various +(Draft +Telephone +Telephone +Attend Hearing +Various +Discussed w/ DAW phone call wi PI's counsel +Discussed w/ All phone call wr Pts counsel +Reviewed email from Pl's counsel requested +Aronberg to withdraw sanctions mation w/o +prejudice +Discussed w: All filing motion for CMC +Discussed w/ DAW filing motion for CMC +Drafted and filed motion to set case management +conference; re: MSJ 1st or Fee hearing 1st +Respondod to Pt's 9/16/20 email and refused to +withdraw 57.105 motion; provided copy of motion to +set CMC and available dates for hearing +Reviewed Pl's email insisting that 57.105 motion be +withdrawn +Replied to Pl's counsel that the 57.105 motion for +sanctions will not be withdrawn and asking for +response, re: CMC +Sent client copy of email exchange w/ Pl's counsel; +called and spoke wi Client +rafted and filed Notice of Hearing on 10/15/20; se +up Court Call; spoke w/ client, re: hearing dat +Reviewed Pl's Memo of Law opposing Aronberg's +57.105 motion for fees/sanctions +Reviewed Pl's Response to Aronberg's request to +schedule 57.105 motion for fees after MS. +Reviewed Pr's Memo of Law opposing 57.105 +motion +Reviewed Pl's Response to Aronberg's request to +schedule 57.105 motion after MSJ +Research caselaw & statutes, re: response to PI's +Memo of Law +Continued researching caselaw, re: response t +*I's memo of lav +Created 1st draft of Response to PI's Memo of Law +and shared w/ Client +Discussed w/ All caselaw and draft response to +memo +Reviewed draft MSJ, discussed draft w/ DAW and +caselaw +Finalizod and filed Response to Pt's Memo of Law +Spoke w/ client, re: memo of law +Spoke wi client again, re: response to memo of law +Attended hearing, re: Motion to Set CMC; called +client to discuss +eviewed email and letter from Pl, re: settlemen +ent copy to Client and called to discuss +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +. $425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +0.2 +0.2 +0.1 +0.5 +0.1 +0.1 +0.5 +0.7 +0.7 +0.5 +0.5 +0.4 +1.0 +1.0 +4.0 +0.5 +0.7 +02 +0.1 +0.5 +$95.00 +$47.50 +$297.50 +$297.50 +$237.50 +$190.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$1,700.00 +$332.50 +$425.00 +$637.50 + + +10/16/2020 +10/16/2020 +10/16/2020 +10/16/2020 +10/16/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/22/2020 +DW +DW +AU +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AL +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +Telephone +Telephone +Various +Various +Meeting +Various +Telephone +Telephone +Meeting +Meeting +Various +Telephone +Telephone +Meeting +Meeting +Various +Telephone +Telephone +Telephone +Meeting +Meeting +| Various +Review +Telephone +Telephone +Telephone +Telephone +Telephone +E-mail +Meeting +Meeting +Various +Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: settlement +Spoke w/ client, re: PI's setllement proposal +Attended hearing, re: motion to set CMC; +discussed w/ client +Discussed PI's settlement proposal w! DAW and +then w/ Client +Discussed Pts settlement proposal wi AlJ +Drafted and shared proposed order w/ Pl's counsel +Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: settlement +Spoke w/ client, re: Pl's settlement proposal +Discussed Pr's settlement proposal w/ AlJ +Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ DAW +Uploaded proposed order, re: CMC for Judge +Hafele +Spoke w client, re: Pt's settlement proposal +Spoke w/ Pr's counsel, re: settiement +Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ DAW +• Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w AL +Reviewed email from Pl, re: sottlement; sent copy +to Client and called to discuss +Spoke w/ client, re: settlement +Spoike w/ Pr's counsel, re: settlement +Spoke w/ client, ro: sottlement +Discussed Pts settlement proposal w/ AL +Discussed Pr's settlement proposal wi DAW +Dratted and filed Motion to Set Hearing on +Aronberg MSJ; drafted proposed order granting +mation to set; checked court availability; emailed +Pis counsel, re: choose date for hearing +Revlewed Order, re: CMC unnecessary +Spoke w client, re: media response +Spoke w/ client, ro: media response +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Sent email w/ Aronberg statement to media +Discussed media response w/ DAW +Discussed media response w/ AlJ +Reviewed Pt's Notice of Dropping Aronberg as +party; spoke w/ Client and Ald, re: notice and next +steps +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +0.1 +1.0 +0.4 +02 +0.5 +0.2 +0.5 +02 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1 +02 +0.5 +0.4 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2 +0.2 +1.0 +0.2 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1| +03 +03 +0.5 +$475.00 +$190.00 +$95.00 +$95.00 +$170.00 +$95.00 +$425.00 +$142.50 + + +10/22/2020 +AU +Various +Reviewed Pl's Notice of Dropping Aronberg as +party: spoke w/ Client and DAW, re: notice and next +steps +$475.00 +0.5 +Totals: +74.8 +Time Entry Sub-Total: +Sub-Total: +Total: +Amount Paid: +Balance Due: +$237.50 +$0.00 +NOT A CERTIFIED CO + + + + + + +& ASSOCIATCA, PA +ARTHUR I.. +ScHoLz & WYLER, LLO. +-BILITY COMPANY OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS +ATTORNEYS AT LAW +GATEWAY TO AMELIA +98/687 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE 20I-1 +FEINANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA 92034 +- +TELEPHONE (904) 201-3693 +FAX NO. (904) 281-7879 +RICHARD _I. SCHOLI, P.A, +RICHARD J. SCHOLZ +DOUGLAS A, WYLER, P.A. +DOUGLAS A WYLER +November 26, 2019 +Office of the State Attorney +15th Judicial Circuit +Attn: Jeanne Howard +401 North Dixie Highway +•West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Re: +CA Florida Holdings, LIC v. Dave Aronberg et al. +Case No.: 2019-CA-014681 +COPY +Dear Mrs. Howard: +The purpose of this letter is to confirm that. +Scholz & Wyler, LLC will represent you regarding the +above-referenced matter. +Our fees will be contingent upon our success in this matter. You will not be liable or required to pay any +nonies to our office unless we are successful in our representation of you regarding the above-reference +litigation and receive a court order awarding attorneys' fees. +Accordingly, should we be successful in this matter, you agree to be billed for the time incurred in defending +partners, 5425,0 hour for ayapa, es. i our for outy aesary, and insur for senior. +paralegal time. +Furthermore, the attomeys" fees paid to our fir shall be calculated by the above listed hourly rates +multiplied by the number of hours expended in defending this action or the total fee mandated and awarded +by the court order herein, whichever is greater. +firm, we are proud to represent you in this matter. +Sincerely, +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. +6/4/2020 +Date +- + + +Def.Ex.#10 +Def.Ex.#10 + + +Filing # 130757887 E-Filed 07/15/2021 04:41:24 PM +Plaintiff, +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +DIVISION: AG +v. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida, +Defendants. +COPY +RESPONSE AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS, LLC IN +OPPOSITION TO STATE ATTORNEY DAVE ARONBERG'S AMENDED MOTION +FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES UNDER FLA. STAT. $ 57.105 +Plaintiff, CA Florida Holdings, LLC ("Plaintiff"), publisher of The Palm Beach Post, +submits this Response and Memorandum of Law in Opposition to State Attorney Dave Aronberg's +("'Aronberg") November 9, 2020 Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees under Fla. Stat. § 57.105 +[DE 50] ("Amended Motion").' Forthe reasons set forth below, the Amended Motion should be +denied, with prejudice. +INTRODUCTION +Aronberg's Amended Motion for sanctions is legally and factually insufficient to meet the +strict standards of Fla. Stat. § 57.105. First, the Amended Motion fails as a matter of law because +Aronberg did not comply with the required 21-day notice period (safe harbor provision) set forth +I While the Amended Motion references Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.525 in the introductory paragraph, that +Or bose hals ave lini by which as no at if provide judam to is cos rosy tes, +the Amended Motion is based upon, and seeks relief of sanctions under, Fla. Stat. § 57.105. +1 + + +in Fla. Stat. § 57.105(4) prior to filing his November 9, 2020 Amended Motion, which was +materially different than, and raised new arguments and cited record evidence not included in his +first Motion for Attorneys' Fees ("First Motion"') served on June 8, 2020 and filed on July 1, 2020 +[DE 35]. Unlike his First Motion, which was served via email upon Plaintiff's counsel 21 days +before filing, Aronberg's Amended Motion was never served via any method of delivery before it +was filed on November 9, 2020. Thus, Aronberg precluded Plaintiff from taking advantage of the +statutory 21-day safe harbor provision to voluntarily dismiss its then-pending claim as to Aronberg +before filing his Amended Motion seeking sanctions. Moreover, Aronberg filed his November 9, +2020 Amended Motion nineteen days after Plaintiff had already dismissed him from the action by +filing a notice dropping Aronberg as a party on October 21, 2020 [DE 48]. Thus, at the time the +Amended Motion was filed, it was moot. +As to the merits, the Amended Motion fails under Fla. Stat. § 57.105 because the claim at +issue, Count I of Plaintiff's First +unded Complaint, is exactly the type of claim specifically +excepted from sanctions under Section 57.105(3)(a), as the Plaintiff's claim was presented to the +Court as a good faith argument for the interpretation of existing law or, at least, the establishment +of new law, as it applied to the material facts, with a reasonable expectation of success. +Further, Aronberg, in his official capacity as the State Attorney, was a proper party +defendant. Sanctions are inappropriate under Fla. Stat. § 57.105. +BACKGROUND +On January 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint [DE 17] ("Complaint") +against the State Attorney, Aronberg, and the Clerk of Court, Sharon Bock (now +Abruzzo), +for declaratory relief (Count I) and relief under Fla. Stat. § 905.27 (Count II, seeking to obtain +2 + + +access to records from the grand jury proceeding and criminal prosecution of the late Jeffrey +Epstein, a convicted sex offender, by former State Attorney Barry Krischer.? +On January 24, 2020, Aronberg filed an Answer to Count I and a Motion to Dismiss Count +II [DE 22]. The Clerk of Court also filed an Answer to Count I and Motion to Dismiss Count I! +[DE 24]. In his Answer to Count I of the Complaint, Aronberg admitted that Plaintiff The Palm +Beach Post sought but Defendants "have refused to provide access to testimony, minutes, and +other evidence presented in 2006" in the grand jury proceeding. Aronberg Answer, 1. 72 [DE 22]. +On June 8, 2020, the Court entered an Order Granting the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss +Count Il of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint With Prejudice [DE 33]. The Order specifically +did not address the merits of Count I. +On July 1, 2020, Aronberg filed his First Motion seeking sanctions against Plaintiff under +Fla. Stat. § 57.105. On June 8, 2020, prior to filing his First Motion, Aronberg's attorney (Douglas +A. Wyler, Esq.) served via email to Plaintiff's counsel an unfiled copy of the First Motion with an +enclosure letter. The enclosure letter was not filed along with the First Motion [DE 35], which has +no exhibits. The enclosure letter accompanying the First Motion (but not the First Motion itself) +alleged in conclusory fashion that Aronberg did not have possession, custody, or control of the +grand jury documents sought by Plaintiff. See [DE 45] at Ex. A. Importantly, however, there was +no evidence in the record to confirm this allegation, and the First Motion did not refute or even +2 While much of the Epstein saga is a matter of public record, the public still does not know how +former State Attorney Krischer used the grand jury process - and the secrecy that comes with it - +to shield Epstein and his equally powerful and corrupt accomplices from the public and to justify +Epstein's lenient treatment. Access to the Epstein grand jury materials will reveal how the +instrumentality of the grand jury was used in this case, which directiy implicates the integrity of +this State's criminal justice process and is unquestionably a matter of vital public concern. +3 Aronberg later attached the June 8, 2020 enclosure letter as Exhibit A to his October 14, 2020 +esponse to Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the State Attorney's Fla. Stat +ection 57.105 Motion ("Aronberg's October 14, 2020 Reply") [DE 45 +3 + + +address the State Attorney's ability to object to or impede attempts by the Plaintiff (or any other +third party) to seek grand jury documents, whether through the Clerk of Court or other means. +At the time of Aronberg's First Motion for sanctions, which he expressly admitted was a +"place-marker" motion to the extent he ultimately prevailed on the merits,* no motions for +summary judgment had been filed and Aronberg had not served any affidavits) or identified any +evidence relating to this matter or any allegations in the Complaint. +On or about August 18, 2020, Aronberg filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 38) +and an affidavit by Aronberg [DE 39] averring that he did not have possession or control over the +Epstein grand jury materials and had no authority to demand that the Clerk of Court provide access +to the materials. This was the first record evidence relating to Aronberg's lack of possession or +control of the grand jury materials sought by The Palm Beach Post. Notably, Aronberg's affidavit +still did not refute or address the State Attorncy's ability to object to or otherwise impede an +attempt by Plaintiff to seek grand jury documents. +On October 21, 2020, Aronberg filed a motion to set a hearing on his Motion for Summary +Judgment [DE 47]. On that same date, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Dropping Party as to Aronberg, +dismissing him from the case [DE 48]. +On November 9, 2020, Aronberg filed his Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees [DE 50], +seeking sanctions under Fla. Stat. § 57.105 against Plaintiff relating to all fees and costs incurred +by Aronberg after June 8, 2020. The Amended Motion, unlike his First "place-marker" Motion +filed on July I, referenced Aronberg's August 18 Motion for Summary Judgment and exhibits. +Importantly, neither Aronberg nor his attorney served a copy of the Amended Motion upon +Plaintiff or its counsel at any time prior to filing the Amended Motion on November 9. +4 See Aronberg's October 14, 2020 Reply [DE 45], at 5, 13. +4 + + +The evidentiary hearing on Aronberg's Amended Motion for sanctions is set on the Court's +ten-week docket between July 26 and October 1, 2021 [DE 56]. +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +I. +LEGAL STANDARD +Under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, the Court may award reasonable attorneys fees +only if it finds that a party or its attorney knew or should have known that a claim or defense when +initially presented to the Court or at any time before trial was not supported by material facts +necessary to establish the claim or defense, or would not be supported by the application of thenexisting law to those material facts. To award sanctions, "the trial court must find that there were +no justiciable issues of law or fact and that the losing party's attorney did not act in good faith +based on the representations of his or her client." Siegel v. Rowe, 71 So. 3d 205, 211 (Fla. 2d DCA +2011) (quotation omitted). +Indeed, "[w]here there is an arguable basis in law and fact for a party's claim, a trial court +may not sanction that party under section 57,105." Minto PBLH, LLC v. 1000 Friends of Florida, +Inc., 228 So. 3d 147, 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (citing Kowallek v. Rehm, 189 So.3d 262, 263-64 +(Fla. 4th DCA 2016)) (emphasis added). Courts must apply Section 57.105 "with restraint to +ensure that it serves its intended purpose of discouraging baseless claims without casting a chilling +effect on use of the courts." MacAlister v. Bevis Consir., Inc., 164 So.3d 773, 776 (Fla. 2d DCA +2015). +Taking into account the amendments that broadened the statute after 1999, "Florida courts +have continued to caution that section 57.105 must be carefully applied to ensure that it serves the +purpose for which it was intended - to deter frivolous pleadings." MC Liberty Express, Inc. v. All +Points Servs., Inc., 252 So. 3d 397, 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) ("Thus, an award of fees under section +57.105 requires more than the moving party succeeding in obtaining a dismissal of the action or +5 + + +the entry of a summary judgment in its favor, ... and a party does not need to have conclusive +evidence to prove its case at the time of filing in order to avoid sanctions. Where a party reasonably +believes the factual basis for its claim exists, it is entitled to proceed with its claims and seek to +prove those facts. If attempts to prove those facts are fruitless, that is still not cause for sanctions +where the party's initial belief was well-founded.") (internal citations omitted). Thus, a voluntary +dismissal does not automatically equate to sanctionable conduct. +Before awarding sanctions, the trial court must make "explicit findings" that "the action +was 'frivolous or so devoid of merit both on the facts and the law as to be completely untenable.' +... This burden is a heavy one." Id. (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). Additionally, +the trial court's findings "must be based on substantial competent evidence presented to the court +at the hearing on attorney's fees or otherwise before the court and in the trial court record." Trust +Mortg., LLC v. Ferlanti, 193 So. 3d 997, 100k (Fla, 4th DCA 2016). The trial court "must make +an inquiry into what the losing party knew or should have known during the fact-establishment +process, both before and after suit was filed," See Chue v. Lehman, 21 So. 3d 890, 891-92 (Fla. +4th DCA 2009). +IL. +ARONBERG'S AMENDED MOTION MUST BE DENIED FOR FAILURE TO +COMPLY WITH THE 21-DAY SAFE HARBOR PROVISION IN FLA. STAT. § +57.105(4) AND BECAUSE THE AMENDED MOTION WAS MOOT WHEN IT +WAS FILED +A, +ARONBERG FAILED TO SERVE 21 DAYS PRIOR TO FILING THE AMENDED +MOTION ASSERTING NEW ARGUMENTS, IN VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. § +57.105(4). +Aronberg did not serve his Amended Motion at any time before filing it, and thus failed to +comply with the 21-day notice provision set forth in Fla. Stat. § 57.105(4). The Amended Motion +must be denied outright for that reason alone. Because Aronberg's Amended Motion raised +. arguments not raised in his First Motion, and cited evidence not in the record at the time the First +6 + + +Motion was filed, Aronberg was required to independently comply with the 21-day safe harbor +provision of Section 57.105(4). Lago v. Kame By Design, LLC, 120 So. 3d 73, 75 (Fla. 4th DCA +2013) ("We hold that if a party files a subsequent or amended motion for sanctions under section +57.105 and raises an argument that was not raised in the original motion for section 57.105 +sanctions, the subsequent motion must independently comply with the twenty-one-day "safe +harbor' provision of section 57.105(4)."). His failure to do so requires denial of the Amended +Motion. See id. +As the Fourth District Court of Appeal noted in Lago, "Itlo hold otherwise would allow a +party to raise a new ground for sanctions in a subsequent motion under section 57.105 without +giving the other-side the opportunity to withdraw the offending claim or defense within twentyone days after receiving notice of the new ground for sanctions." Id. Because Aronberg's +barebones First Motion did not include the substantive arguments or cite any evidence now raised +in the Amended Motion, Aronberg was required to serve the Amended Motion at least 21 days +before filing same, in order to give The Palm Beach Post the opportunity to withdraw the count +that remained against Aronberg (Count I). The Amended Motion was filed in violation of Fla. Stat. +§ 57.105(4) and must be denied. +B. THE AMENDED MOTION WAS MOOT UPON FILING. +On November 9, 2020, Aronberg filed the Amended Motion seeking sanctions against +Plaintiff relating to Count I of the Complaint against him. However, the entire action, which +necessarily included Count I, was dismissed as to Aronberg on October 21, 2020, nineteen days +before Aronberg filed his Amended Motion. The Amended Motion was therefore moot at the time +it was filed on November 9, 2020 and must be denied. +7 + + +c. +ARONBERG'S SELF-DESCRIBED "PLACE-MARKER" FIRST MOTION FOR +SANCTIONS WAS INSUFFICIENT AND DID NOT ABSOLVE ARONBERG OF THE +REQUIREMENT TO SERVE THE AMENDED MOTION PRIOR TO FILING. +Aronberg specifically admitted that his First Motion for sanctions under Fla. Stat. § 57.105 +was filed as a "place-marker" to "notify Plaintiff of the State Attorney's intention to seek sanctions +should he prevail on the merits at a future substantive hearing." See Aronberg's October 14, 2020 +Reply [DE 45], at 5, 13 ("The 57.105 Motion was filed ... to further put the Plaintiff on notice +that the State Attorney would seek sanctions should he prevail on the merits of the lawsuit."). +The First Motion for sanctions was insufficient under Fla. Stat. § 57.105 when filed - it set +forth no substantive arguments as to why Count I of the Amended Complaint was insupportable +based on material facts in the record or the application of existing law to those facts. Rather, at the +time the First Motion was filed, there was no evidence in the record supporting the statement by +Aronberg's counsel that it was impossible for him of the State Attorney's Office to provide the +documents sought in the Complaint. +Essentially, what Aronberg argued in his "place-marker" First Motion is that if he prevailed +in defending the lawsuit, his attorneys' fees should be awarded as sanctions against Plaintiff in his +favor. There is no such mechanism as a "place-marker" motion for sanctions. Otherwise, any +defendant could file a threadbare and conclusory "place-marker" notice of his intent to seek fees +if he ultimately prevails, and then seek fees based on later-filed evidence and arguments. A motion +for sanctions must be supported by the record evidence at the time it is filed. Because the First +Motion was not so supported, it fails under the statute. Further, as explained above, service of the +First Motion did not absolve Aronberg of his obligation to serve the Amended Motion on Plaintiff +'Aronberg's "place-marker" First Motion appeared to be based erroneously on a prevailing party +tandard (see Reply, at 5, 13), which is not the applicable standard for imposing sanctions expressly +set forth in Fla. Stat. § 57.105. +8 + + +through counsel prior to filing the Amended Motion. The First Motion cannot be a "place-marker" +for the mandated service of the Amended Motion. +Ill. +THE ISSUES RAISED IN COUNT I OF THE COMPLAINT WERE NOVEL AND +COMPLEX AND PRESENTED A GOOD FAITH ARGUMENT FOR THE +INTERPRETATION OF EXISTING LAW OR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW LAW +Both counts of the Complaint raised novel and complex issues and were presented to the +Court as a good faith argument for the interpretation of existing law, or at the very least, the +establishment of new law, based on the material facts. +Where an issue is novel and complex, sanctions under Section 57.105(a) may not be +imposed. Grove Key Marina, LLC v. Casamayor, 166 So. 3d 879 (Fla, 3d DCA 2015). Sanctions +are plainly inappropriate under the statute where, as here, a good faith basis exists for a proposed +interpretation of the law applied to the material facts. See Fla. Stat. § 57.105(1). Moreover, even +in the absence of existing supportive law, if the claim at issue was presented as a good-faith +argument for the extension or modification of existing law or the establishment of new law, with +a reasonable expectation of success, the Court cannot sanction the party or its attorney. See Key +Biscayne Gateway Partners, Ltd. v. Village Council for Village of Key Biscayne, 240 So. 3d 84, +87 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (reversing order of sanctions under 57.105 as good faith argument was +presented for extension of existing law with reasonable expectation of success). +Indeed, Fla. Stat. § 57.105(3)(a) mandates that monetary sanctions shall not be awarded +if the court determines that the claim or defense was initially +presented to the court as a good faith argument for the extension. +modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new +law, as it applied to the material facts, with a reasonable expectation +of success. [Emphasis added.] +The claims in the Complaint presented a case of first impression. Indeed, in the motions and orders +in this action, neither this Court nor the State Attorney or the Clerk cited to any case that previously +resolved the issues presented relating to the media's implied private right of action under Fla. Stat. +9 + + +§ 905.27 (as alleged in Count II) or for declaratory relief to obtain grand jury materials (as alleged +in Count I). The November 9, 2020 Amended Motion appears to relate only to Count I of the +Complaint (although, as set forth above, no count was pending against Aronberg as of October 21, +2020). While Count II alleged that The Palm Beach Post has constitutional and statutory standing +to overcome grand jury secrecy provisions "in furtherance of justice," Count I, in contrast, did not +allege a Section 905.27 private right of action. Instead, Count I sought declaratory relief under the +U.S. Constitution's First Amendment and the Florida Constitution's analogous provisions. +The Constitutional provisions and interpretive case law, along +Fla. Stat. § 905.27, +provided ample grounds for this Court to direct the release of the Epstein grand jury materials to +The Palm Beach Post as a surrogate for the public, or require the Court to conduct an in camera +examination of the same, to balance the public's right to know through a free media with Florida's +qualified statutory interest in grand jury secrecy, as sought in Count I. Plaintiff relied upon such +authorities in its prior filings and arguments in this matter to propose a good faith interpretation of +existing law in support of its declaratory relief claim in Count I. See, e.g., First Amended +Complaint [DE 17], at 15-19; Plaintiff's Opposition to Aronberg's Motion to Dismiss Count II of +the First Amended Complaint [DE 26], at 10-20; Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition +to Aronberg's First Motion [DE 43], at 5-7. At the very least, Plaintiff provided a good-faith +argument for the extension or modification of existing law or the establishment of new law, and +thus sanctions are not appropriate under Fla. Stat. § 57.105(3)(a). +& As to Count II, Plaintiff presented various reasoned arguments why Section 905.27 creates a +private right of action in favor of the media on both constitutional and statutory grounds. See +Plaintiff's Opposition to Aronberg's Motion to Dismiss Count Il of the First Amended Complaint, • +at pp. 10-15. + + +Moreover, the material facts in the record at all times supported Plaintiff's claim against +Aronberg. When Count I was filed, and throughout the litigation prior to Aronberg's dismissal, +Plaintiff had a good faith basis for understanding that the State Attorney's Office had either access +to, control over, or the ability to impinge, prevent, or thwart Plaintiff's attempts to obtain public +access to the Epstein grand jury materials. See, e.g., Ferlanti, 193 So. 3d at 1000 (reversing trial +court's award of 57.105 fees for naming husband as defendant in mortgage foreclosure proceeding, +even though husband was never a signatory to mortgage or note and plaintiff made no such +allegations, but there was at least some triable set of facts under which defendant could have been +liable). The Amended Motion for sanctions should be denied based on the explicit provisions of +Fla. Stat. §§ 57.105(1)(a)-(b) and (3). +Iv. STATE ATTORNEY ARONBERG WAS A PROPER PARTY +While Aronberg alleged in the enclosure letter to his First Motion that his office did not +have physical possession of the Epstein grand jury materials, he nevertheless argued in that same +letter, relying on Section 905.27, that the Clerk should not produce them. By taking a position +against disclosure, Aronberg, in effect, asserted his right to the secrecy of the Epstein grand jury +materials. Stated another way, Aronberg claimed the statutory right for the State Attorney's Office +to prevent access to the Epstein grand jury materials, a position which actually supported the +propriety of naming him, in his official capacity, as a party defendant in this action. +As State Altorney, Aronberg was not named in this action solely as a custodian of the grand +jury records. Rather, he was a defendant in his official capacity as his office has "as its primary +interest the protection of its grand jury system." In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 832 F. 2d 554, 559 +(11th Cir. 1987) (italics in original). In that case, the federal government petitioned a Florida State +Attorney to turn over state grand jury transcripts. In opposition, the Broward State Attorney argued +against their release, citing to Section 905.27. Later, a federal grand jury served a subpoena upon +11 + + +the same State Attorney seeking grand jury transcripts. The State Attorney advised the federal +court that he would produce the transcripts, thereby demonstrating that irrespective of physical +possession, he had legal authority to obtain and deliver them pursuant to the subpoena. For these +same reasons, State Attorney Aronberg, in his official capacity, was a necessary party, at the very +least as a nominal defendant. +Further, even assuming the State Attorney did not have physical possession, Florida law +does not prohibit his office from requesting the Epstein grand jury materials from the Clerk. +Indeed, as the State Attorney is well aware, Florida Statutes Chapter 905 does not bar any State +Attorney from accessing grand jury materials, even after a defendant has been convicted and +sentenced. +CONCLUSIÓN +Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff, CA Florida Holdings, LLC, respectfully requests that the +Court deny State Attorney Dave Aronberg's Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees in its entirety, +and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary or proper. +Respectfully submitted, +NOT +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +Attorneys for CA Florida Holdings, LLC, +Publisher of The Palm Beach Post +Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. +401 East Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 2000 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 3330 +Telephone: (954) 768-822: +Facsimile: (561) 338-7099 +By: /s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +Florida Bar No. 849324 +Fl.Service@gtlaw.com +'By: Is/ Michael. Grygiel +12 + + +MICHAEL J. GRYGIEL +54 State St., 6th Floor +Albany, New York 12207 +Telephone: (518) 689-1400 +Facsimile: (518) 689-1499 +grygielm@gtlaw.com +By: Is/ Nina D. Boyajian +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +1840 Century Park East, Ste. 1900 +Los Angeles, California 90067 +Telephone: (310) 586-7700 +Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 +boyajiann/@gtlaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 15"h day of July, 2021, a true and correct copy of the +foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the State of Florida e-filing system, +which will send a notice of electronic service for all parties of record herein. +Is/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn. +NOT A +13 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b4c0cb8cd7b7bc6c64649a7be0605269401f656347d72c0d0bd968c98f41a866.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b4c0cb8cd7b7bc6c64649a7be0605269401f656347d72c0d0bd968c98f41a866.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9b4fd5ec3cbd34b0bd8f839550f5a6428fab9d13 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b4c0cb8cd7b7bc6c64649a7be0605269401f656347d72c0d0bd968c98f41a866.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -10342, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b4c0cb8cd7b7bc6c64649a7be0605269401f656347d72c0d0bd968c98f41a866", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 179, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "8341390c010327fa31cc3df7793dcf65c230946a33ab92e26fc224cad5d08fbf", + "output_sha256": "83d5961e4055af17bbe506ebf2c0ead13204647d3696aafcb9b2704d609ac105", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b53f57cdd420cf98a4c0b8bf389747274d7356ebcd854f5269f084543d9c5d50.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b53f57cdd420cf98a4c0b8bf389747274d7356ebcd854f5269f084543d9c5d50.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..af2edb84e454d8c116d919b89e9762aef0bb6157 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b53f57cdd420cf98a4c0b8bf389747274d7356ebcd854f5269f084543d9c5d50.md @@ -0,0 +1,216 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 444 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2010 Page 1 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092, +PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 3's MOTION FOR +SANCTIONS, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, +AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 3, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files this Motion +for Sanctions, Motion for Protective Order, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, and states as +follows: +Plaintiffs in these cases have previously brought to this Court's attention Jeffrey +Epstein's pattern of intimidating and harassing his victims, as well as the Plaintiffs' fear of +Jeffrey Epstein. See, e.g., Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Motion for No- +Contact Order (D.E. 113); Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7's Response to Defendant's Motion to +Compel and/or Identify Plaintiffs in the Style of this Case (D.E. 144); Plaintiffs Jane Does' 2-7 +Motion for Protective Order and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (D.E. 223); Plaintiffs Jane +Doe Nos. 2-8's Motion for Protective Order as to Jeffrey Epstein's Attendance at Deposition of +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 444 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2010 Page 2 of 8 +Plaintiffs, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (D.E. 292); Affidavit of Dr. Kliman (D.E. 223, +Exh. A); Jane Doe No. 4's Motion for Sanctions and Motion for Protective Order (D.E. 306); +Order, dated October 23, 2009 (D.E. 369) (forbidding Epstein from attending Jane Doe No. 4's +deposition); Omnibus Order (forbidding Epstein's attorneys from repetitive and abusive +questioning during Plaintiffs' depositions) (D.E. 433). +Jane Doe No. 4 previously brought to this Court's attention that Epstein attended +her deposition in violation of this Court's No-Contact Order (D.E. 238), a nearly identical No- +Contact Order entered by the Court in Epstein's criminal prosecution, and a stipulation between +the parties that Epstein would not appear at her deposition. +3. +Yet again, on November 24, 2009, Defendant Epstein flagrantly violated multiple +Orders of this Court when he deliberately presented himself at the location of Jane Doe No. 3's +medical examination pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 (the "IME"). At that time, he terrorized Jane +Doe No. 3 by crossing paths with her in a place and at a time when he must have known that his +presence was forbidden by Court Order. +4. +Epstein's counsel served the Notice of Jane Doe No. 3's IME on October 30, +2009. The Notice included the date and location of Jane Doe No. 3's IME, 250 S. Australian +Avenue, West Palm Beach. The Notice stated that the IME would start at 9 am and last until +approximately 5:30 p.m. +A Court Order required the Plaintiff to submit to eight hours of +evaluation. Jane Doe No. 3 was the fifth plaintiff to undergo her IME. All of the previous IMEs +lasted until later than 6:15 p.m. Therefore, Epstein and his counsel knew where Jane Doe No. 3 +would be on November 24, 2009, and that she would be there between 9:00 am and sometime +around 6:15 p.m. Epstein, therefore, must have known that there was a fair chance he would +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 444 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2010 Page 3 of 8 +encounter Jane Doe No. 3 on November 24, 2009, at the address where his attorney had +scheduled the IME. +5. +On November 5, 2009, this Court entered a Joint Agreed Order, which stated that +"Defendant Jeffrey Epstein will not attend the IMEs or make himself seen by Plaintiffs on the +date of their IMEs." (D.E. 401) (emphasis added). It was Epstein's responsibility to ensure his +compliance with this Order. The Order further provided that the IMEs of Jane Doe Nos. 2-8 +would take place at a "mutually agreeable location," and not at the office of Epstein's counsel. +6. +Pursuant to the November 5, 2009 Order, Jane Doe No. 3 appeared at her IME. +During a brief recess in the IME, Jane Doe No. 3 and her attorney were outside the office +building where the IME was taking place, 250 S. Australian Ave., West Palm Beach.' As in the +other Plaintiffs' IMEs that took place over a two-week period, Jane Doe No. 3 took a short break +approximately every two hours when it was time to change the videotape in the camera recording +the IME.? It was during the last break of the day that Defendant Epstein crossed paths with Jane +Doe No. 3, in violation of multiple Court Orders. +7. +While Jane Doe No. 3 and her counsel, Jessica Arbour, were sitting on a bench +just outside the foyer of the office building, Defendant Epstein exited the building. When he +encountered Jane Doe No. 3 and her attorney, he made no attempt to stop, change his direction, +or return to the building without Jane Doe No. 3 seeing him, despite having ample opportunity to +avoid them. See Affidavit of Jessica Arbour, attached as Exhibit "A". +' This is the same building where Defendant Epstein crossed paths with Jane Doe No. 4 on the +date of her deposition. (See D.E. 306). +" At the beginning of each IME, the Defendant's expert advised all of the Plaintiffs, including +Jane Doe No. 3, that she was allowed to take "smoke breaks" any time she would like. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 444 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2010 Page 4 of 8 +8. +Epstein crossed in front of Jane Doe No. 3, approximately 5-7 feet from her. Jane +Doe No. 3 immediately reacted in a terrified, emotional manner that included screaming and +crying. Her attorney physically removed her from Defendant Epstein's vicinity and into the +safety of the building's lobby. Jane Doe No. 3's reaction was so emotional that the security +guard on duty and several onlookers appeared quite concerned. (See Exh. "A" 19l 7-11). +9. +Epstein does not dispute that he encountered Jane Doe No. 3 and her attorney. +See Exhibit B. He does not dispute that he recognized them. +10. +Jane Doe No. 3 was eventually calmed enough to be taken back to the office +where her IME was being conducted, but was too distraught to continue her IME. At that point, +Jane Doe No. 3's counsel terminated the IME. +11. At no time were Plaintiff or her counsel made aware that Defendant Epstein +would be in the building when any of the Plaintiffs would be present for their IMEs. Indeed, +Plaintiffs reasonably expected that this Court's prior orders and the threat of sanctions would be +a sufficient deterrent to keep Epstein away. +12. +Defendant Epstein's ostensible full-time employer, the Florida Science +Foundation, is no longer located in the building where the IMEs took place. The company was +administratively dissolved several months ago, approximately the same time that his courtordered work-release program with the foundation ended. As a result, it would appear that +Epstein had no legitimate purpose in the building at 250 S. Australian Ave. on November 24, +2009. Indeed, he was dressed in an oversized sweatsuit that would not be appropriate for any +professional environment. (Arbour Aff., Exh. "A", 914). The reason for his presence in the +building has never been explained to Jane Doe No. 3's counsel. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 444 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2010 Page 5 of 8 +13. +In addition to violating the Agreed Order (D.E. 401), Epstein's conduct recklessly +or intentionally violated (i) this Court's No-Contact Order dated July 31, 2009 (D.E. 238), in +which he was specifically instructed to have no "direct or indirect contact" with Jane Doe No. 3 +or any other plaintiff; and (2) the July 31, 2008, no-contact Order entered by the Court in his +criminal matter arising from the sexual assaults of numerous underage girls, including Jane Doe +No. 3. The July 31, 2009 Order mirrored the June 30, 2008 criminal sentence entered by Palm +Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillio, wherein she instructed Jeffrey Epstein that he +shall have "no direct or indirect contact" with the Plaintiffs. (D.E. 238). +14. Jane Doe No. 3 agrees to attend the remaining two hours of her IME in order to +comply fully with this Court's Order on the IME length. However, a protective order +specifically barring the continuation of the IME from occurring anywhere not previously agreed +upon by Plaintiff's counsel is necessary to ensure that Defendant Epstein will not be given +another opportunity to traumatize Jane Doe No. 3. Given the violation of the prior Orders as +well as a prior similar incident at the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4, a more drastic measure is +now necessary to protect Jane Doe No. 3 from Epstein. +15. Furthermore, Jane Doe No. 3 seeks sanctions against Defendant Epstein for the +violation of not one, but three court orders designed to protect Plaintiffs from the exact conduct +in which Defendant Epstein engaged. This Court has authority to sanction a party for civil +contempt for violating the terms of a court order. See Sizzler Family Steak Houses v. Western +Sizzlin Steak House, Inc., 793 F.2d 1529, 1534-35 (11th Cir. 1986) (attorneys' fees may be +awarded for civil contempt in failure to comply with court order). Additionally, sanctions for +violation of multiple court orders are an appropriate exercise of judicial oversight. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 444 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2010 Page 6 of 8 +16. +Given Jeffrey Epstein's violation of this Court's No-Contact Order and the +Agreed Order, appropriate sanctions and other relief are necessary to compensate Plaintiff Jane +Doe No. 3. +17. +Prior to filing this Motion, Plaintiff's counsel conferred with Jeffrey Epstein's +counsel in an attempt to reach an agreement as to the relief requested. No agreement was +reached +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 3, respectfully requests (I) an award of sanctions, +including attorneys' fees and costs reasonably and necessarily incurred by Plaintiff due to +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's violation of the Court's No-Contact Order (D.E. 238) and Agreed +Order (D.E. 401); (2) an Order requiring that the remaining two hours of Jane Doe No. 3's IME +take place at a mutually agreeable location in a city other than West Palm Beach, with Defendant +Epstein responsible for all costs above and beyond those originally contemplated by this Court in +its Nov. 5 Order; and (3) all other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1.A.3 +Undersigned counsel has conferred with Defendant's counsel in a good faith effort to +resolve the issues raised in this motion, and has been unable to do so. +Dated: January 4, 2010 +Respectfully submitted, +By:_ +s/ Adam D. Horowitz +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 444 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2010 Page 7 of 8 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on January 4, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via +transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized +manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic +Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 444 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2010 Page 8 of 8 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +bedwards@rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b53f57cdd420cf98a4c0b8bf389747274d7356ebcd854f5269f084543d9c5d50.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b53f57cdd420cf98a4c0b8bf389747274d7356ebcd854f5269f084543d9c5d50.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1decf3ac9f7c3b06a076ddfe0081c93daaeea8c8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b53f57cdd420cf98a4c0b8bf389747274d7356ebcd854f5269f084543d9c5d50.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -98, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b53f57cdd420cf98a4c0b8bf389747274d7356ebcd854f5269f084543d9c5d50", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "21aa838137c98da1aa558c5ccee0176a41999a1ad15a17a4b8a034453b96e419", + "output_sha256": "4878681f8e0ca76fd2b360e162d088b1d82b97c74a62deabe47b6e27584aef61", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5488215404c4dbe283500d7a54cdcc3ecf362e06c1f21321cfa853b7720b93c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5488215404c4dbe283500d7a54cdcc3ecf362e06c1f21321cfa853b7720b93c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a3b3dec0ba7509480503bfdf80f1998fa19bdc83 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5488215404c4dbe283500d7a54cdcc3ecf362e06c1f21321cfa853b7720b93c.md @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +Filing # 105196817 E-Filed 03/20/2020 09:30:05 AM +N THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN ANI +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +Division: AG +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, ? +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of) +Palm Beach County, Florida, SHARON R. ) +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +) +Beach County, Florida, +) +) +Defendants. +COPY +AGREED ORDER ON UNOPPOSED MOTION TO +CONTINUE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 24.2020 +THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the parties' Unopposed Motion to Continue +Hearing Scheduled for March 24, 2020, and the Court have been advised of an agreement between +the counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: +The Unopposed Motion to Continue Hearing Scheduled for March 24, 2020 is +granted. +The hearing scheduled for March 24, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. is hereby removed from +the calendar and is te-scheduled for MAY 6, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. +DONE AND ORDERED IN West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this_19th +day of March, 2020. +Justmany +Krista Marx, Circuit Judge +ACTIVE 48560476V1 +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, 03/20/2020 09:30:05 AM + + +Copies furnished to: +Stephen Mendelsohn, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, 5100 Town Center Circle, Suite 400, Boca Raton, Florida +33486; mendelsohns@gtlaw.com +Michael J. Grygiel, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, 54 State Street, 6* Floor, Albany, New York 12207, +grygielm@gtlaw.com: +Nina D. Boyajian, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900, Los Angeles, CA +90067; bovallann@gtlaw.com: riveraal@gtlaw.com; +Arthur I. +, Esq., +] Scholz & Wyler, LLC, 961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-1, Fernandina +Beach, FL 32034; jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net +Hampton C. Peterson, Esq., General Counsel for Sharon R. Bock, Clerk & Comptroller, P.O. Box +229, West Palm Beach, FL 33402; Clerk E-service/@mvpalmbeachclerk.com: +NOT A CERTIF +TIFD +ACTIVE 49580476v1 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5488215404c4dbe283500d7a54cdcc3ecf362e06c1f21321cfa853b7720b93c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5488215404c4dbe283500d7a54cdcc3ecf362e06c1f21321cfa853b7720b93c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..552d6a4c08ef79ade9593db2bdb720f6489193e0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5488215404c4dbe283500d7a54cdcc3ecf362e06c1f21321cfa853b7720b93c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b5488215404c4dbe283500d7a54cdcc3ecf362e06c1f21321cfa853b7720b93c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ccfcd48369c86fa891011d6c87648fb1202cb569374a1a447b34c261543e873d", + "output_sha256": "dc8e227fec974e2dbb4f5b361d5cc8338524a121584facfb2cabcac9e0151b1e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b54c46c6ea2e57a8e377663481894fa7e194c0085f4d785cef5f2ade22ba4323.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b54c46c6ea2e57a8e377663481894fa7e194c0085f4d785cef5f2ade22ba4323.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d96a7dd225509abde6e8e04b92abc8bb847cd9dc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b54c46c6ea2e57a8e377663481894fa7e194c0085f4d785cef5f2ade22ba4323.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 489-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2010 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092, +ORDER +Upon Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Jane Doe Nos. 2-7's Sworn +Statements to FBI Investigators, and good cause being shown, it is hereby +ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is Granted. Pursuant to the Federal Privacy +Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a (b)(11), the Records Custodian of the Federal Bureau of +Investigation is ordered to comply with the subpoena dated March 12, 2010 and is +directed to produce the sworn statements of Jane Doe Nos. 2-7 taken during its +investigation of Jeffrey Epstein within 7 days, and any other materials responsive to the +subpoena. +Florida, this +DONE AND ORDERED in +I, at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +day of +_ 2010. +DISTRICT COURT JUDGE +Copies furnished to: +Counsel of record + diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b54c46c6ea2e57a8e377663481894fa7e194c0085f4d785cef5f2ade22ba4323.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b54c46c6ea2e57a8e377663481894fa7e194c0085f4d785cef5f2ade22ba4323.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ea422e85c84f440b9f6192a4475c2d662323ca0e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b54c46c6ea2e57a8e377663481894fa7e194c0085f4d785cef5f2ade22ba4323.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -23, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b54c46c6ea2e57a8e377663481894fa7e194c0085f4d785cef5f2ade22ba4323", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "431c2f5201c058d156f828d6e3aa15a6e353a87ae979c3fdbcdaac15e15a0777", + "output_sha256": "6e84c636a3b27728f2127f19973b2166d4629ec4ff958639088c881d5159003a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b54c81ee7288f208c2af8b6f9e61e9f2b49d0d404e64d59eeeea6ac015844c83.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b54c81ee7288f208c2af8b6f9e61e9f2b49d0d404e64d59eeeea6ac015844c83.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a1c821b7ec17ba6dc4c08615e3a113699914a55f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b54c81ee7288f208c2af8b6f9e61e9f2b49d0d404e64d59eeeea6ac015844c83.md @@ -0,0 +1,1058 @@ +Filed 10/17/19 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +CASE NO. +JANE DOE 17, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE AND +RICHARD D. KAHN, AS JOINT +PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF +THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +NINE EAST 71st STREET CORPORATION, +LAUREL, INC., FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, +INC., NES, LLC, MAPLE, INC., LSJE, LLC, +HBRK ASSOCIATES, INC., NAUTILUS, INC., +CYPRESS, INC. and JEGE, INC. +Defendants. +COMPLAINT +Plaintiff, JANE DOE 17, by and through the undersigned counsel, in support of her +claims against Defendants, alleges and states as follows: +This action is brought, inter alia, pursuant to common law, statutory law and 18 +U.S.C. §1591- §1595. Therefore, jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1331 and the damages +sought exceed the jurisdictional requirements of this Court. +2. +Plaintiff files this complaint under a pseudonym in order to protect her identity +because the Complaint makes allegations of a sensitive sexual nature the disclosure of which, in +association with her name, would cause further harm to her. +Plaintiff is currently a resident and domiciled in the State of Florida and over the +age of 18. + + + +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 1 Filed 10/17/19 Page 2 of 34 +4. At all times material, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") was a citizen of the United +States and resident of the U.S. Virgin Islands. Epstein was a man of extreme wealth who +frequently travelled between and regularly stayed in his numerous residences, including in New +York (within the Southern District of New York) at 9 East 71" Street, New York, NY 10021; in +Palm Beach, Florida at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida 33480; in New Mexico at 49 +Zorro Ranch Road, Stanley, New Mexico 87056, in Paris, France at 22 Avenue Foch, Paris, +France 75116, and in the United States Virgin Islands at Little St. James Island No. 6B USVI +00802. +5. +At all times material to this cause of action Epstein was an adult male born on +January 20, 1953, who died on August 10, 2019. +6. +Defendant, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as Joint Personal +Representatives of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein") was opened +and domiciled in the United States Virgin Islands, St. +Division, and is the legal entity +responsible for intentional, criminal, or tortious conduct committed by Epstein as described in +this Complaint. +7. At all times material hereto, Defendant Nine East 71 Street, Corporation ("Nine +East"), was a domestic business corporation conducting business in New York with its principal +place of business located at 575 Lexington Avenue, Fourth Floor, New York 10022. +8. +At all times material hereto, Defendant Laurel, Inc. ("Laurel") was and is a U.S. +Virgin Islands corporation conducting business in multiple locations including New York and +Florida. + + + +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 1 Filed 10/17/19 Page 3 of 34 +9. +At all times material hereto, Defendant Financial Trust Company, Inc. (Financial +Trust"), was and is a U.S. Virgin Islands corporation conducting business in multiple locations +including New York +10. +At all times material hereto, Defendant NES, LLC, ("NES"), was and is a +domestic limited liability company registered in and conducting business in multiple locations +including New York. +11. +At all times material hereto, Defendant Maple, Inc., ("Maple"), was and is a U.S. +Virgin Islands corporation conducting business in New York. +12. +At all times material hereto, LSJE., LLC, ("LSJ"), was and is a U. S. Virgin +Islands corporation conducting business in the United States Virgin Islands conducting business +in New York. +13. At all times material hereto, Defendant HBRK Associates, Inc., ("HBRK"), was +and is a domestic business corporation registered in and conducting business in multiple +locations including New York with a Registered Agent located at 1365 York Avenue, Apartment +28, New York 10021. +14. At all times material hereto, Defendant Nautilus, Inc., ("Nautilus"), was and is a +U.S. Virgin Islands corporation conducting business in New York. +15. +At all times material hereto, Defendant Cypress, Inc., ("Cypress"), was and is a +U.S. Virgin Islands corporation conducting business in New York and New Mexico. +16. +At all times material hereto, Defendant JEGE, Inc., ("JEGE"), is a U.S. Virgin +Islands corporation conducting business throughout the United States of America, including but +not limited to, Florida, New York and the United States Virgin Islands. + + + +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 1 Filed 10/17/19 Page 4 of 34 +17. Corporate Defendants Nine East, Laurel, Financial Trust, NES, Maple, LSJE, +HBRK, JEGE, Nautilus, and Cypress, referred to as "Corporate Defendants," each performed +business, in whole or in part, in New York. +18. +Plaintiff intends to amend this complaint to add or substitute additional parties as +discovery reveals the identities of other tortious corporate or individual actors. +19. Epstein, the leader of a complex commercial sex trafficking and abuse ring, was +an officer, director, or employee of many corporate entities registered in various states +throughout the United States, one or more of which may also be legally responsible for the +crimes and torts he committed against young females, including Plaintiff. +20. +Additionally, individuals who worked at the residences where sexual criminal acts +were committed, or friends or acquaintances who assisted Epstein in committing such violations +or those of his wealthy, famous, or socially powerful friends with whom Epstein caused Plaintiff +to be sexually abused by, or those who were employed through, or worked for, numerous other +corporate entities whose participation caused or contributed to causing the sexual violations that +caused harm to Plaintiff, may additionally be added as defendants. +21. A substantial part of the acts, events, and omissions giving rise to this cause of +action occurred in the Southern District of New York; venue is proper in this District. 28 U.S.C. +§1391(b)(2). +22. +At all times material to this cause of action, Epstein (legally represented now +through Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as Joint Personal Representatives of the Estate +of Jeffrey E. Epstein (referred to herein as "Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein") and Corporate +Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff to treat her in a non-negligent manner and not to commit, or +conspire to commit, or cause to be committed intentional, criminal, fraudulent, or tortious acts + + + +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 1 Filed 10/17/19 Page 5 of 34 +against Plaintiff, including any acts that would cause Plaintiff to be harmed through conduct +committed against her in violation of Common law battery, New York Penal Law §130.20; or +New York Penal Law §130.35; or New York Penal Law §130.50; or New York Penal Law +$130.52; or New York Penal Law §130.66; or any violation of 18 U.S.C. $1591-§1595. +FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS +23. At all times material to this cause of action, Epstein was an adult male over 45 +years old. Epstein was a tremendously wealthy individual, widely recognized as a billionaire, +who used his wealth, power, resources, and connections to commit illegal sexual crimes in +violation of federal and state laws and who employed or conspired with other individuals and +corporate entities to assist him in committing those crimes or torts or who facilitated or enabled +those acts to occur. +24. Epstein displayed his enormous wealth, power, and influence to his employees; to +the employees of the corporate or company entities who worked at his direction, to the victims +procured for sexual purposes; and to the public, in order to advance, carry out, and conceal his +crimes and torts. +25. At all relevant times, Epstein had access to numerous mansions, as well as a fleet +of airplanes, motor vehicles, boats and one or more helicopters. For example, he regularly +traveled by private jet aboard a Boeing aircraft (of make and model B-727-31H with tail number +N908JE) or a Gulfstream aircraft (of' make and model G-1159B with tail number N909JE). +26. +Epstein also inhabited and frequently travelled between numerous properties and +homes, each of which he admitted to being owned or controlled by him, including a Manhattan +townhome located at 9 East 71" Street, New York, New York 10021 valued conservatively by +Epstein's own admission at $55,931,000.00 (but valued by the US Attorney's office for this + + + +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 1 Filed 10/17/19 Page 6 of 34 +District at $77,000,000); a ranch located at 49 Zorro Ranch Road, Stanley, New Mexico 87056 +valued conservatively by Epstein's own admission at $17,246,208.00; a home located at 358 El +Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida 33480 valued conservatively by Epstein's own admission at +$12,380,209.00; an apartment located at 22 Avenue Foch, Paris, France 75116 valued +conservatively by Epstein's own admission at $8,672,820.00; an Island located at Great St. +James Island No. 6A USVI 00802 (parcels A, B, and C); and an Island Little St. James Island +No. 6B USVI 00802 (parcels A, B, and C). See Jeffrey Epstein "Asset Summary - June 30, +2019" filed in Case No. 1:19-cr-00490-RMB on July 15, 2019 attached hereto as Exhibit A. +27. +Epstein controlled or was affiliated with the corporation or business entities that +owned, managed, or maintained each of the real properties listed in the preceding paragraph and +enumerated in Exhibit A. +28. +The allegations herein concern Epstein's tortious conduct committed against +Plaintiff while at the residences owned by Defendant Nine East in New York, Defendant Laurel +in Florida, Defendant Cypress in New Mexico and Defendants LSJE and Nautilus in the U.S. +Virgin Islands. Many such acts were facilitated by Defendant NES or Defendant HBRK or +Defendant JEGE. +29. +Epstein had a compulsive sexual preference for young females, as young as 14 +years old, and acted on that sexual preference for decades. +30. +Epstein enjoyed sexual contact with young females, including minor children, and +also took pleasure corrupting vulnerable and innocent young females, including minor children, +into engaging in sexual acts with him. + + + +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 1 Filed 10/17/19 Page 7 of 34 +31. +Epstein directed a complex system of individuals, including employees and +associates of Defendant entities, to work in concert and at his direction, for the purpose of +harming young females through sexual exploitation, abuse and trafficking. +32. +It was widely known among individuals regularly in Epstein's presence that he +obtained pleasure from corrupting and inducing vulnerable young females into engaging in +uncomfortable and unwanted sexual acts for his own gratification. +33. +Epstein's illegal sexual activities were investigated by law enforcement on at least +two occasions, once in 2005-2008 by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of +Florida, and more recently by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. +34. +On July 2, 2019 the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of +New York filed a sealed Two Count Indictment including One Count of Sex Trafficking +Conspiracy and One Count of Sex Trafficking for violations of 18 U.S.C. §1591, in part due to +Epstein's criminal activities against children in the New York Mansion located at 9 East 71$ +Street. +35. +In addition to the allegations in the criminal indictment referenced above, Epstein +also utilized a similar, if not the same; scheme many years before the time period that was +charged and many years after as well as in additional locations nationally and internationally. +36. +Corporate Defendants enabled Epstein to receive daily massages from young +females, often minors, who were not experienced in massage. Rather than receive regular body +massages, Epstein was predictably sexually abusing young females, including Plaintiff, in +violation of New York Penal Law $130. + + + +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 1 Filed 10/17/19 Page 8 of 34 +37. +Additionally, employees of the various Corporate Defendants performed actions +or failed to perform actions that further placed victims, including Plaintiff, in danger of being +sexually abused by Epstein, and assisted in the concealment of his sexually abusive acts. +38. +Defendants employed many recruiters of young females, or directed employees of +his related companies, to recruit young females In order to grow the enterprise and satisfy his +insatiable sexual desire, Epstein and those working at his direction enabled victims themselves to +elevate their status within the enterprise to that of a paid recruiter of other victims, an elevation +only made possible through the assistance of Defendants. +39. +Recruiters were taught by Epstein or by employees of Corporate Defendants to +inform targeted young female victims that Epstein possessed extraordinary wealth, power, +resources, and influence; that he was a philanthropist who would help female victims advance +their education, careers, and lives; and that she only needed to provide Epstein with body +massages in order to avail herself of his nearly unlimited assistance and influence. +40. +Epstein and Corporate Defendants and their many employees fulfilled Epstein's +compulsive need for sex with young females by preying on their personal, psychological, +financial, and related vulnerabilities. Epstein and Defendants' tactics included promising the +victims money, shelter, transportation, gifts, employment, admission into educational +institutions, education tuition, professional licensure, protection, healthcare and other things of +value. +41. +Epstein's sexual attraction to young, often underage, females dated back to at +least the mid-nineties and the number of victims increased substantially with the necessary +assistance from Defendants and Defendants' employees. + + + +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 1 Filed 10/17/19 Page 9 of 34 +42. +Defendants, at the direction of Epstein or in furtherance of his demands, and with +help from assistants, associates and underlings, and even other victims, recruited or procured +dozens if not hundreds of young females, including minors, for the purpose of Epstein's sexual +gratification. +43. +Epstein, and employees of certain Corporate Defendants, including at least +Defendant HBRK, +specifically targeted underprivileged, emotionally vulnerable and/or +economically disadvantaged young females to sexually molest and abuse. +44. +Additionally, Epstein and Corporate Defendants, through employees, informed +young females, including Plaintiff that Epstein was wealthy, well-connected, and had the power +and ability to impact the life of any young female recruited or obtained to provide a massage. +45. +Each of the Corporate Defendants committed acts of negligence that allowed for +Epstein to commit acts in violation of New York Penal Law §130. +46. +Each of the Defendants committed acts against Plaintiff in violation of 18 U.S.C. +§1591 - $1595. +JANE DOE 17 +47. +Consistent with Epstein's foregoing plan, scheme/enterprise, the Plaintiff was +recruited to provide Epstein with massages for monetary compensation. These massages +provided to Epstein by Plaintiff progressed to instances of inappropriate sexual contact with the +Plaintiff by Epstein in touching, inappropriate vaginal penetration, and outright rape. Plaintiff +was sexually assaulted, violated, and otherwise degraded, injured, victimized, and subjected to +outrageous, reckless abuse and insult. +48. +In this regard, the Defendants willingly participated, contributed, cooperated, and +assisted the inappropriate and illegal scheme by facilitating such scheme by and through the + + + +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 1 Filed 10/17/19 Page 10 of 34 +employees of the Corporate Defendants such that the Corporate Defendants were acting jointly +and in concert with the illegal scheme with the goal designed to produce corrupt sexual +gratification for Epstein and degradation for the targets and victims of the corrupt scheme set in +motion with the active involvement of the Corporate Defendants and their employees. +49. +Epstein's abuse of the Plaintiff was not incidental or fleeting but rather was born +out of a pathological desire to achieve, corrupt and deviate sexual gratification through the +subjugation and abuse of Epstein's targeted victims. The actions on behalf of the Corporate +Defendants by and through its employees enhanced, facilitated, and promoted the deviate sexual +acts of Epstein and contributed a corrupting influence which ensnared unsuspecting women and +girls in its reach. +50. +Epstein, by acting singularly and in concert with the Corporate Defendants, +devised a sophisticated plan and a modus operandi which subtly and pervasively over time +connived to influence the victims and subjects of the corrupt and deviant sexual scheme to +influence the will to resist the temptations both actual and promised on behalf of the scheme and +thereby manipulate the victims into acceptance of the scheme as being one that was acceptable +and appropriate by virtue of communications and representations made on behalf of Epstein by +the Corporate Defendants and in fact Epstein himself. The scheme utilized a gradual wearing +down of the victim's will to resist and did so by virtue of offering positive and negative rewards +for compliance with the scheme's overall deviant methodology and goals. +51. +Once Epstein and the Corporate Defendants" victims were entrapped and the +scheme's methodologies enabled, Epstein and the corporate defendants through its employees +utilized techniques to further inhibit, indoctrinate, and threaten Epstein's victims such that +compliance with the deviant scheme's goals could be further obtained. + + + +Filed 10/17/19 Page 11 of 34 +52. +The deviant scheme was perpetuated over years by the actions of Epstein and the +Corporate Defendants such that victims were caught up in the scheme, pressure, threats, and +indoctrination techniques utilized to bring the victims to heel. +53. +For victims young, vulnerable, and struggling financially, the scheme's +methodology was particularly effective. +54. +As part and parcel of the scheme's goals, Epstein's colleagues and acquaintances +were involved in the scheme and benefited from the scheme by virtue of receiving sexual favors +and inappropriate, illegal, and otherwise commercial sexual services provided by Epstein's +victims such that the corrupt intent of this scheme involved males other than Epstein himself. +As a direct and proximate result of the methodology of the deviant scheme and the goals of +sexual exploitation of the women recruited and victimized, Plaintiff was subject to unwanted +touching of her breasts and genitals, other sensitive areas of her body, required to perform acts +of a sexual nature against her will and subjected to genital penetration and otherwise sexually +degraded, abused, insulted, coerced, and injured, experience resulting in confusion, emotional +distress, mental pain and suffering, shame, humiliation, loss of the enjoyment of life, +inconvenience, and other injuries to body, mind and soul. +55. +Epstein and the Corporate Defendants by and through their employees and agents +substantially contributed to proximately cause injury to the Plaintiff as aforementioned. +56. +Over a course of years, Epstein and the Corporate Defendants, by and through its +employees and agents, facilitated the multiple rapes conducted on the Plaintiff in addition to +other deviant sexual acts against her will. Furthermore, the plaintiff's virginity was forcefully +taken from her against her will. + + + +Filed 10/17/19 Page 12 of 34 +57. +This fraudulent scheme of Epstein's constituted acts of coercion from beginning +to end, from 2001 through mid-2006, inasmuch as the scheme was designed to and in fact, +caused Plaintiff to believe that her failure to perform any sex act required by Epstein would +result in serious financial, reputational, physical and emotional harm to her. +COUNT! +(BATTERY AGAINST DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN AS JOINT +PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN) +58. +The Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +59. +Epstein committed a harmful or offensive touching against Plaintiff. +60. +As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's battery, the Plaintiff has in the past +suffered and in the future will continue to suffer physical injury, pain, emotional distress, +psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of +dignity, invasion of her privacy and a loss of her capacity to enjoy life, as well as other damages. +Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses and Plaintiff will in the future suffer +additional medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are permanent in nature and +Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein for +compensatory and general damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages and such other and further +relief as this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues +triable as of right by a jury. +COUNT !! +(BATTERY/VIOLATION OF SECTION 130 AGAINST DARREN K. INDYKE AND +RICHARD D. KAHN AS JOINT PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE +OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN) + + + +Filed 10/17/19 Page 13 of 34 +61. +The Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +62. +The intentional acts of Epstein against Plaintiff constitute a sexual offense as +defined in New York Penal Law §130, including but not limited to the following: +a. Sexual misconduct as defined in $130.20 inasmuch as Epstein engaged in +sexual intercourse with Plaintiff without Plaintiff's consent; +b. Rape in the first degree as defined in §130.35 inasmuch as Epstein engaged in +sexual intercourse with Plaintiff by forcible compulsion; +c. Criminal sexual act in the first degree as defined in $130.50 inasmuch as +Epstein engaged in oral sexual conduct with Plaintiff by forcible compulsion; +d. Forcible touching as defined in §130.52 inasmuch as Epstein, intentionally +nd for no legitimate purpose, engaged the forcible sexual touching o +'laintiff for the purpose of degrading or abusing her or for the purpose o +gratifying his own sexual desire; and, +e. Aggravated sexual abuse in the third degree as defined in §130.66 inasmuch +as Epstein inserted a foreign object in the vagina of Plaintiff by forcible +compulsion. +63. +As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's violations of New York Penal Law +§130, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and in the future will continue to suffer physical injury, +pain, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss +of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy and a loss of her capacity to enjoy life, as +well as other damages. Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses and Plaintiff will +in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are permanent +in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein for +compensatory and general damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages and such other and further +relief as this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues +triable as of right by a jury. + + + +Filed 10/17/19 Page 14 of 34 +COUNT III +(CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN AS +JOINT PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. +EPSTEIN PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1595) +64. +Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +65. +Epstein, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United +States, in interstate and foreign commerce, and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, +knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized, +solicited, threatened, forced, or coerced Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. +66. +Such actions were undertaken knowing that his use of force, threats of force, +fraud, coercion, and/or combinations of such means would be used, and were in fact, used, in +order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In doing so, Epstein violated 18 +U.S.C. $1591. +67. +Furthermore, Epstein attempted to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so doing, violated +18 U.S.C. § 1594(a). +68. +Epstein conspired with each member of the enterprise, and with other persons +known and unknown, to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so doing, violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c). +69. +By virtue of Epstein's violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, +Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as Joint Personal Representatives of the +Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein") is subject to civil causes of action +under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 by Plaintiff, who is a victim of the violations. +70. +Certain property of Epstein's was essential to the commission of the federal +crimes and torts described herein, including the Palm Beach, Florida estate located at 358 El +Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida 33480, the use of multiple private aircraft including a Boeing + + + +Filed 10/17/19 Page 15 of 34 +aircraft (of make and model B-727-31H with tail number N908JE) and a Gulfstream aircraft (of +make and model G-1159B with tail number N909JE). Such real property and aircraft, along with +other of Epstein's property, were used as means and instruments of Epstein's tortious and +criminal offenses and, as such, are subject to forfeiture. +71. +Additionally, Epstein's New York townhouse, located at 9 East 71st Street, New +York, New York, in the Southern District of New York, Epstein's private island located in the +United States Virgin Islands and Epstein's New Mexico estate, were used as means and +instruments of Epstein's tortious and criminal offenses as they relate to Plaintiff and, as such, are +subject to forfeiture. +72. +As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's commission of the aforementioned +criminal offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 1591, 1593A, and 1594, and the associated civil +remedies provided in § 1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue to suffer injury +and pain, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, +confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of enjoyment of life, invasion +of privacy, and other damages associated with Epstein's actions. Plaintiff will incur further +medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are permanent in nature and Plaintiff will +continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to these losses, Plaintiff has incurred +attorneys' fees and will be required do so in the future for which Epstein is liable pursuant to 18 +U.S.C. 81595. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein for +compensatory and general damages, attorney's fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1595, punitive +damages, forfeiture of Epstein's assets and such other and further relief as this Court deems just +and proper. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. + + + +Filed 10/17/19 Page 16 of 34 +COUNT IV +(CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST NINE EAST 7IST STREET, CORPORATION +PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. $1595) +73. +Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +74. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, within the special +maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in interstate and foreign commerce, +and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, +transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized, solicited by any means Plaintiff from +2001 through 2006. +75. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, knew that means of +fraud or coercion, and/or combinations of such means, would be used, and were in fact used, in +order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In doing so, Defendant corporation +violated 18 U.S.C. $1591. +76. +Furthermore, Defendant corporation attempted to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so +doing, violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(a). +77. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, conspired with other +members of the enterprise, and with other persons and companies, known and unknown, to +violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c). +78. +By virtue of its violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, Defendant is +subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 by Plaintiff, who is a victim of their +violations. +79. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, participated in a +venture with Epstein's enterprise by knowingly recruiting, transporting, soliciting, obtaining, and + + + +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 1 Filed 10/17/19 Page 17 of 34 +maintaining Plaintiff knowing that fraud or coercion would be used to cause Plaintiff to commit +a commercial sex act. +80. +As a direct and proximate result of Defendant corporation's commission of the +aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, and the +associated civil remedies provided in §1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue +to suffer injury and pain, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental +anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of +enjoyment of life, invasion of privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's actions. +81. +Plaintiff will incur further medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are +permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to +these losses, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees and will continue to do so in the future for +which Defendant is liable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $1595. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Nine East 71st Street, Corporation for +compensatory and general damages, attorney's fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1595, forfeiture of +Defendant's assets, punitive damages and such other and further relief as this Court deems just +and proper. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. +COUNT V +(CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LAUREL, INC. PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. $1595) +82. +83. +Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, within the special +maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in interstate and foreign commerce, +and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, + + + +Case 1:19-cV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 1 Filed 10/17/19 Page 18 of 34 +transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized, solicited by any means Plaintiff from +2001 through 2006. +84. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, knew that means of +fraud or coercion, and/or combinations of such means, would be used, and were in fact used, in +order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In doing so, Defendant corporation +violated 18 U.S.C. §1591. +85. +Furthermore, Defendant corporation attempted to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so +doing, violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(a). +86. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, conspired with other +members of the enterprise, and with other persons and companies, known and unknown, to +violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c). +87. +By virtue of its violations of 18 U.S.C. §$ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, Defendant is +subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 by Plaintiff, who is a victim of their +violations. +88. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, participated in a +venture with Epstein's enterprise by knowingly recruiting, transporting, soliciting, obtaining, and +maintaining Plaintiff knowing that fraud or coercion would be used to cause Plaintiff to commit +a commercial sex act. +89. +As a direct and proximate result of Defendant corporation's commission of the +aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, and the +associated civil remedies provided in §1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue +to suffer injury and pain, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental + + + +Case 1:19-cV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 1 Filed 10/17/19 Page 19 of 34 +anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of +enjoyment of life, invasion of privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's actions. +90. +Plaintiff will incur further medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are +permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to +these losses, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees and will continue to do so in the future for +which Defendant is liable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $1595. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Laurel, Inc. for compensatory and +general damages, attorney's fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1595, forfeiture of Defendant's assets, +punitive damages and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff +hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. +COUNT VI +(CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, INC. +PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1595) +91. +Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +92. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, within the special +maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in interstate and foreign commerce, +and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, +transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized, solicited by any means Plaintiff. +93. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, knew that means of +fraud or coercion, and/or combinations of such means, would be used, and were in fact used, in +order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In doing so, Defendant corporation +violated 18 U.S.C. $1591. +94. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel knowingly benefitted, +financially and by receiving things of value, from participating in a venture (the Epstein sex + + + +Filed 10/17/19 Page 20 of 34 +trafficking venture enterprise) which had engaged in acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1592 and +1595(a), knowing that the venture had engaged in such violations. In so doing, Defendant +corporation violated 18 U.S.C. § 1593A. +95. +Furthermore, Defendant corporation attempted to violate 18 U.S.C. §1591. In so +doing, violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(a). +96. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, conspired with other +members of the enterprise, and with other persons and companies, known and unknown, to +violate 18 U.S.C. §1591. In so doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. §1594(c). +97. +By virtue of their violations of 18 U.S.C. $§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, Defendant is +subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. §1595 by Plaintiff, who is a victim of their +violations. +98. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, participated in a +venture with Epstein's enterprise by knowingly recruiting, transporting, soliciting, obtaining, and +maintaining Plaintiff knowing that fraud or coercion would be used to cause Plaintiff to commit +a commercial sex act. +99. +As a direct and proximate result of Defendant corporation's commission of the +aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, and the +associated civil remedies provided in §1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue +to suffer injury and pain, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental +anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of +enjoyment of life, invasion of privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's actions. +100. +Plaintiff will incur further medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are +permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to + + + +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 1 Filed 10/17/19 Page 21 of 34 +these losses, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees and will continue to do so in the future for +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, Financial Trust Company, +Inc., For compensatory and general damages, attorney's fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1595, +forfeiture of Defendant's assets, punitive damages and such other and further relief as this Court +deems just and proper. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a +jury. +COUNT VI +(CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST NES, LLC PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. $1595) +101. +Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +102. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, within the special +maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in interstate and foreign commerce, +and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, +transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized, solicited by any means Plaintiff. +103. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, knew that means of +fraud or coercion, and/or combinations of such means, would be used, and were in fact used, in +order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In doing so, Defendant corporation +violated 18 U.S.C. $1591. +104. +Furthermore, Defendant corporation attempted to violate 18 U.S.C. §1591. In so +doing, violated 18 U.S.C. $1594(a). +105. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, conspired with other +members of the enterprise, and with other persons and companies, known and unknown, to +violate 18 U.S.C. §1591. In so doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. §1594(c). + + + +Filed 10/17/19 Page 22 of 34 +106. +By virtue of their violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, Defendant is +subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. §1595 by Plaintiff, who is a victim of their +violations. +107. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, participated in a +venture with Epstein's enterprise by knowingly recruiting, transporting, soliciting, obtaining, and +maintaining Plaintiff knowing that fraud or coercion would be used to cause Plaintiff to commit +a commercial sex act. +108. +As a direct and proximate result of Defendant corporation's commission of the +aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. $§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, and the +associated civil remedies provided in §1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue +to suffer injury and pain, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental +anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of +enjoyment of life, invasion of privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's actions. +109. +Plaintiff will incur further medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are +permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to +these losses, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees and will continue to do so in the future for +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, NES, Inc., for +compensatory and general damages, attorney's fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1595, forfeiture of +Defendant's assets, punitive damages and such other and further relief as this Court deems just +and proper. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. + + + +Filed 10/17/19 Page 23 of 34 +COUNT VIII +(CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST MAPLE, INC. PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. $1595) +110. +Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +111. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, within the special +maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in interstate and foreign commerce, +and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, +transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized, solicited by any means Plaintiff from +2001 through 2006. +112. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, knew that means of +fraud or coercion, and/or combinations of such means, would be used, and were in fact used, in +order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In doing so, Defendant corporation +violated 18 U.S.C. §1591. +113. +Furthermore, Defendant corporation attempted to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so +doing, violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(a). +114. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, conspired with other +members of the enterprise, and with other persons and companies, known and unknown, to +violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c). +115. +By virtue of its violations of 18 U.S.C. §$ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, Defendant is +subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 by Plaintiff, who is a victim of their +violations. +116. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, participated in a +venture with Epstein's enterprise by knowingly recruiting, transporting, soliciting, obtaining, and + + + +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 1 Filed 10/17/19 Page 24 of 34 +maintaining Plaintiff knowing that fraud or coercion would be used to cause Plaintiff to commit +a commercial sex act. +117. +As a direct and proximate result of Defendant corporation's commission of the +aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, and the +associated civil remedies provided in §1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue +to suffer injury and pain, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental +anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of +enjoyment of life, invasion of privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's actions. +118. +Plaintiff will incur further medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are +permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to +these losses, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees and will continue to do so in the future for +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Maple, Inc. for compensatory and +general damages, attorney's fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $1595, forfeiture of Defendant's assets, +punitive damages and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff +hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. +COUNT IX +(CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LSJE, LLC PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. $1595) +119. +Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +120. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, within the special +maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in interstate and foreign commerce, +and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, + + + +Case 1:19-cV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 1 Filed 10/17/19 Page 25 of 34 +transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized, solicited by any means Plaintiff from +2001 through 2006. +121. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, knew that means of +fraud or coercion, and/or combinations of such means, would be used, and were in fact used, in +order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In doing so, Defendant corporation +violated 18 U.S.C. §1591. +122. +Furthermore, Defendant corporation attempted to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so +doing, violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(a). +123. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, conspired with other +members of the enterprise, and with other persons and companies, known and unknown, to +violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c). +124. By virtue of its violations of 18 U.S.C. §$ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, Defendant is +subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 by Plaintiff, who is a victim of their +violations. +125. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, participated in a +venture with Epstein's enterprise by knowingly recruiting, transporting, soliciting, obtaining, and +maintaining Plaintiff knowing that fraud or coercion would be used to cause Plaintiff to commit +a commercial sex act. +126. +As a direct and proximate result of Defendant corporation's commission of the +aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, and the +associated civil remedies provided in §1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue +to suffer injury and pain, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental + + + +Filed 10/17/19 Page 26 of 34 +anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of +enjoyment of life, invasion of privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's actions. +127. +Plaintiff will incur further medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are +permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to +these losses, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees and will continue to do so in the future for +which Defendant is liable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $1595. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against LSJE, LLC for compensatory and +general damages, attorney's fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1595, forfeiture of Defendant's assets, +punitive damages and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff +hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. +COUNT X +(CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST HBRK ASSOCIATES, INC. +PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. $1595) +128. +Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +129. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, within the special +maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in interstate and foreign commerce, +and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, +transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized, solicited by any means Plaintiff. +130. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, knew that means of +fraud or coercion, and/or combinations of such means, would be used, and were in fact used, in +order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In doing so, Defendant corporation +violated 18 U.S.C. $1591. +131. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel knowingly benefitted, +financially and by receiving things of value, from participating in a venture (the Epstein sex + + + +Filed 10/17/19 Page 27 of 34 +trafficking venture enterprise) which had engaged in acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1592 and +1595(a), knowing that the venture had engaged in such violations. In so doing, Defendant +corporation violated 18 U.S.C. §1593A. +132. +Furthermore, Defendant corporation attempted to violate 18 U.S.C. §1591. In so +doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. §1594(a). +133. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, conspired with other +members of the enterprise, and with other persons and companies, known and unknown, to +violate 18 U.S.C. §1591. In so doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. §1594(c). +134. +By virtue of their violations of 18 U.S.C. $§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, Defendant is +subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. §1595 by Plaintiff, who is a victim of their +violations. +135. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, participated in a +venture with Epstein's enterprise by knowingly recruiting, transporting, soliciting, obtaining, and +maintaining Plaintiff knowing that fraud or coercion would be used to cause Plaintiff to commit +a commercial sex act. +136. +As a direct and proximate result of Defendant corporation's commission of the +aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, and the +associated civil remedies provided in §1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue +to suffer injury and pain, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental +anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of +enjoyment of life, invasion of privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's actions. +137. +Plaintiff will incur further medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are +permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to + + + +Case 1:19-cV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 1 Filed 10/17/19 Page 28 of 34 +these losses, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees and will continue to do so in the future for +138. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, HBRK +Associates, Inc., for compensatory and general damages, attorney's fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. +§1595, forfeiture of Defendant's assets, punitive damages and such other and further relief as this +Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of +right by a jury. +COUNT XI +(CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST NAUTILUS, INC. PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. $1595) +139. +Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +140. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, within the special +maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in interstate and foreign commerce, +and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, +transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized, solicited by any means Plaintiff. +141. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, knew that means of +fraud or coercion, and/or combinations of such means, would be used, and were in fact used, in +order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In doing so, Defendant corporation +violated 18 U.S.C. $1591. +142. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel knowingly benefitted, +financially and by receiving things of value, from participating in a venture (the Epstein sex +trafficking venture enterprise) which had engaged in acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1592 and +1595(a), knowing that the venture had engaged in such violations. In so doing, Defendant +corporation violated 18 U.S.C. §1593A. + + + +Filed 10/17/19 Page 29 of 34 +143. +Furthermore, Defendant corporation attempted to violate 18 U.S.C. §1591. In so +doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. §1594(a). +144. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, conspired with other +members of the enterprise, and with other persons and companies, known and unknown, to +violate 18 U.S.C. §1591. In so doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. §1594(c). +145. +By virtue of their violations of 18 U.S.C. §$ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, Defendant is +subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. §1595 by Plaintiff, who is a victim of their +violations. +146. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, participated in a +venture with Epstein's enterprise by knowingly recruiting, transporting, soliciting, obtaining, and +maintaining Plaintiff knowing that fraud or coercion would be used to cause Plaintiff to commit +a commercial sex act. +147. +As a direct and proximate result of Defendant corporation's commission of the +aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, and the +associated civil remedies provided in §1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue +to suffer injury and pain, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental +anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of +enjoyment of life, invasion of privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's actions. +148. +Plaintiff will incur further medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are +permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to +these losses, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees and will continue to do so in the future for + + + +Filed 10/17/19 Page 30 of 34 +149. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, Nautilus, Inc., for +compensatory and general damages, attorney's fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1595, forfeiture of +Defendant's assets, punitive damages and such other and further relief as this Court deems just +and proper. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. +COUNT XII +(CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CYPRESS, INC. PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1595) +150. +Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +151. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, within the special +maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in interstate and foreign commerce, +and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, +transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized, solicited by any means Plaintiff. +152. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, knew that means of +fraud or coercion, and/or combinations of such means, would be used, and were in fact used, in +order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In doing so, Defendant corporation +violated 18 U.S.C. §1591. +153. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel knowingly benefitted, +financially and by receiving things of value, from participating in a venture (the Epstein sex +trafficking venture enterprise) which had engaged in acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1592 and +1595(a), knowing that the venture had engaged in such violations. In so doing, Defendant +corporation violated 18 U.S.C. §1593A. +154. +Furthermore, Defendant corporation attempted to violate 18 U.S.C. §1591. In so +doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. §1594(a). + + + +Filed 10/17/19 Page 31 of 34 +155. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, conspired with other +members of the enterprise, and with other persons and companies, known and unknown, to +violate 18 U.S.C. §1591. In so doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. §1594(c). +156. +By virtue of their violations of 18 U.S.C. §$ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, Defendant is +subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. §1595 by Plaintiff, who is a victim of their +violations. +157. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, participated in a +venture with Epstein's enterprise by knowingly recruiting, transporting, soliciting, obtaining, and +maintaining Plaintiff knowing that fraud or coercion would be used to cause Plaintiff to commit +a commercial sex act. +158. +As a direct and proximate result of Defendant corporation's commission of the +aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, and the +associated civil remedies provided in §1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue +to suffer injury and pain, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental +anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of +enjoyment of life, invasion of privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's actions. +159. +Plaintiff will incur further medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are +permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to +these losses, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees and will continue to do so in the future for +160. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, Cypress, Inc., for +compensatory and general damages, attorney's fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1595, forfeiture of + + + +Filed 10/17/19 Page 32 of 34 +Defendant's assets, punitive damages and such other and further relief as this Court deems just +and proper. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. +COUNT XIII +(CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST JEGE, INC. PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. $1595) +161. +Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 above. +162. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, within the special +maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in interstate and foreign commerce, +and/or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, +transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized, solicited by any means Plaintiff from +2001 through 2006. +163. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, knew that means of +fraud or coercion, and/or combinations of such means, would be used, and were in fact used, in +order to cause Plaintiff to engage in commercial sex acts. In doing so, Defendant corporation +violated 18 U.S.C. $1591. +164. +Furthermore, Defendant corporation attempted to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so +doing, violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(a). +165. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, conspired with other +members of the enterprise, and with other persons and companies, known and unknown, to +violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591. In so doing, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c). +166. +By virtue of its violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, Defendant is +subject to civil causes of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 by Plaintiff, who is a victim of their +violations. + + + +Filed 10/17/19 Page 33 of 34 +167. +Defendant, by and through its management and personnel, participated in a +venture with Epstein's enterprise by knowingly recruiting, transporting, soliciting, obtaining, and +maintaining Plaintiff knowing that fraud or coercion would be used to cause Plaintiff to commit +a commercial sex act. +168. +As a direct and proximate result of Defendant corporation's commission of the +aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1593A, and 1594, and the +associated civil remedies provided in $1595, Plaintiff has in the past suffered and will continue +to suffer injury and pain, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental +anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of +enjoyment of life, invasion of privacy, and other damages associated with Defendant's actions. +169. +Plaintiff will incur further medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are +permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer from them in the future. In addition to +these losses, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees and will continue to do so in the future for +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against JEGE, INC. for compensatory and +general damages, attorney's fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1595, forfeiture of Defendant's assets, +punitive damages and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff +hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. +Dated: +October 17, 2019 +By: +Respectfully Submitted, +/s/ Andrew S. Buzin +Andrew S. Buzin +BUZIN LAW, P.C. +111 Broadway, Suite 1204 +New York, NY 10006 +Tel: (646) 470-4878 + + + +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 1 Filed 10/17/19 Page 34 of 34 +By: +Fax: (347) 736-9490 +Email: abuzin@buzinlaw.com +Attorney for Plaintiff +/s/ David H. Brodie +David H. Brodie, Esq., FBN 0813168 +Laura J. Starr, Esq., FBN 0491888 +WEISMAN, BRODIE, STARR +& MARGOLIES, P.A. +1301 N. Federal Highway +Lake Worth, FL 33460 +Telephone: (561) 588-9500 +Facsimile: (561) 588-9500 +Email: dbrodie@yourfloridacounsel.com +Email: Istarr@yourfloridacounsel.com +Attorneys for Plaintiff +(SEEKING ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b54c81ee7288f208c2af8b6f9e61e9f2b49d0d404e64d59eeeea6ac015844c83.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b54c81ee7288f208c2af8b6f9e61e9f2b49d0d404e64d59eeeea6ac015844c83.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..99d9f57890f41c0174232ed29549042b4f1b17d1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b54c81ee7288f208c2af8b6f9e61e9f2b49d0d404e64d59eeeea6ac015844c83.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -1892, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b54c81ee7288f208c2af8b6f9e61e9f2b49d0d404e64d59eeeea6ac015844c83", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 70, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "cfae43fd078de5c0bcd70a28c9363e64ad003d290cc34138380a2fe5c6ffcecf", + "output_sha256": "d51a0ad9568116f34c8439306fa44bc91fbac52c4595d3dd8b6a69c1d522809e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b550257a6d6d9082ed2474cb685602ba4f3beefc99cd5e89f83ef9459787e59b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b550257a6d6d9082ed2474cb685602ba4f3beefc99cd5e89f83ef9459787e59b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..750961668661726066f5cbcd669afa5576dde9ae --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b550257a6d6d9082ed2474cb685602ba4f3beefc99cd5e89f83ef9459787e59b.md @@ -0,0 +1,241 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 1 of 9 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +NO. 09-80469-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE II, +V. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN and +Defendants. +ORDER AND OPINION +THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Dismiss +Plaintiff's Complaint (DE 13), filed May 6, 2009. The motion is now fully briefed and ripe for +review. The Court has carefully reviewed the motion, amended response, and reply, and is +otherwise fully advised in the premises. +Background +Complaint, are as follows: +On March 24, 2009, Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and +, alleging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2255. (DE 1). The facts, as alleged in the +During the events giving rise to this claim, Plaintiff was a minor but has now reached +majority. Compl. 9|4. Defendant Epstein has a history of enticing young women, who are +minors, and soliciting them to engage in prostitution for his own sexual gratification. Compl. 1 +8. Epstein conspired with two persons he employed for this purpose, +and +Defendant +and others, to solicit young women of the type Epstein preferred, +1 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 2 of 9 +blonde, attractive in appearance, and younger than 18 years of age, to provide sexual gratification +for him by engaging in acts of prostitution. Compl. 19. Defendants Epstein and +entered +into a criminal conspiracy to solicit young women for acts of prostitution, including Plaintiff, in +Palm Beach County. Compl. 1 10. +From about June, 2003 until about February 2005, Defendants persuaded, induced, or +enticed Plaintiff to come to Epstein's home and provide Epstein with "massages." The +"massages" escalated into sexual encounters between Epstein and Plaintiff designed to fulfill his +unnatural sexual desires for young women or even younger girls who were minors. Compl. 9 11. +These acts included Epstein's request that he wanted the encounter to be like a "porn video." +Compl. 1 11. Epstein would script lines for Plaintiff to say, including calling out his name and +requesting that he perform a certain sexual act "harder," while he touched Plaintiff's vagina with +a vibrator or with his fingers; alternatively he would masturbate in the presence of Plaintiff after +demanding her to disrobe and walk in from of him in provocative sexual poses. Compl. 9 11. +Epstein would pay Plaintiff a fee of $200 on each occasion after he ejaculated while masturbating +in the presence of Plaintiff. Compl. 1 11. Epstein touched Plaintiff's vagina, or penetrated +Plaintiff's vagina, using his fingers and/or a vibrator on multiple occasions, during the time that +Plaintiff was a minor, causing personal injury to her. Compl. 9| 12. +In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), Defendants knowingly persuaded, induced, or enticed +Plaintiff to engage in acts of prostitution, when Plaintiff was under the age of 18. Plaintiff can +document the following dates when the acts recurred based on payments received: 06/16/03, +07/02/03, 04/09/04, 06/07/04, 07/30/04, 08/30/04, 10/12/04, 10/30/04, and 11/09/04. Compl. 1 +13. In addition, Plaintiff believes that there were as many as 10 to 20 other occasions during this +2 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 3 of 9 +time frame that Epstein solicited and procured her to perform prostitution services, all during the +time that she was a minor. Compl. '| 13. +Epstein has made an agreement with the United States Attorney's Office to not contest +liability for claims brought exclusively pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, in exchange for avoiding +federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), which provides a sentence of 10 years for each +violation of the law. Compl. 1 15. +Defendant argues in his motion that the case should be dismissed because (1) Plaintifi +previously filed a case in state court based on the same set of facts as in this case; (2) Plaintiff +can seek damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 of a minimum of $50,000 per victim; (3) Plaintiff has +failed to allege a violation of the requisite predicate act as identified in 18 U.S.C. § 2255; and (4) +Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 2255. +Plaintiff responds that the Court should deny the motion because she is entitled to pursue +separate state and federal claims in their respective courts, the damages issues are not appropriate +for a motion to dismiss, and the pleadings at issue provide Defendant with sufficient notice of the +underlying factual bases for the claims. +Standard of Review +In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a +court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most +favorable to the plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007). To satisfy the +pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain a short and +plain statement showing an entitlement to relief, and the statement must "give the defendant fair +notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz v. +3 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 4 of 9 +Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. +Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007); Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346 (2005). +This is a liberal pleading requirement, one that does not require a plaintiff to plead with +particularity every element of a cause of action. Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 +F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir. 2001). Instead, the complaint need only "contain either direct or +inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under +some viable legal theory." Id. (internal citation and quotation omitted). "A complaint need not +specify in detail the precise theory giving rise to recovery. All that is required is that the +defendant be on notice as to the claim being asserted against him and the grounds on which it +rests." +v. United Food and Comm'l Workers Int'l Union, 866 F.2d 1380, 1384 (11th Cir. +1989). +"While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed +factual allegations, [ ] a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his "entitlement to relief" +requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause +of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1964-65 (citations omitted). +"Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the +assumption that all of the complaint's allegations are true." Id. at 1965. Plaintiff must plead +enough facts to state a plausible basis for the claim. Id. +Discussion +First, Defendant argues in his motion that this case should be dismissed because Plaintiff +previously filed a case in state court based on the same set of facts as in this case. Plaintiff filed +the instant case alleging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and filed the state case alleging sexual +4 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 5 of 9 +battery and civil conspiracy. Defendant argues that the state court would have concurrent +jurisdiction over Plaintiff's 18 U.S.C. § 2255 claim and that exceptional circumstances exist +requiring dismissal of the federal action in favor of the first filed state action. See American +Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882 (11" Cir. 1990). +The exceptional circumstances test is set forth in Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. +Mercury Constr., 460 U.S. 1 (1983). As the Eleventh Circuit explained in American Bankers +Ins., 891 F.2d at 884: +In Colorado River | Water Conserv. Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976)] +the Supreme Court announced that a federal court may dismiss an action because +of parallel state court litigation only under "exceptional" circumstances. 424 U.S. +at 818. Indeed, "[o]nly the clearest of justifications will warrant dismissal." Id. at +819. The Court set out four factors to be considered in determining whether +dismissal on the grounds of exceptional circumstances is appropriate: (1) whether +one of the courts has assumed jurisdiction over property; (2) the inconvenience of +the federal forum; (3) the potential for piecemeal litigation; and (4) the order in +which the forums obtained jurisdiction. Id. at 818. In Moses H. Cone, the Court +reaffirmed its view that only exceptional circumstances will warrant dismissal of +federal cases in favor of a concurrent state suit. 460 U.S. at 14. The Moses H. +Cone decision also repeated the four Colorado River factors and added two more: +(5) whether state or federal law will be applied; and (6) the adequacy of the state +court to protect the parties' rights. Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 23, 26; Noonan +South [Inc. v. County of Volusia, 841 F.2d 380, 381 (11th Cir. 1988)]. The test +for determining when exceptional circumstances exist, therefore, involves the +careful balancing of six factors. The weight to be given any one factor may vary +greatly depending on the case; however, the balance is "heavily weighted" in +favor of the federal court exercising jurisdiction. Id. at 16. +Here, the first factor is inapplicable because neither the federal court nor the state court +has assumed jurisdiction over any property. The second factor, the inconvenience of the federal +forum, focuses primarily on the "physical proximity of the federal forum to the evidence and +witnesses." American Bankers Ins., 891 F.2d at 885, quoting Evanston Insurance Co. v. Jimco, +Inc., 844 F.2d 1185, 1191 (5th Cir. 1988). This factor does not weigh in favor of dismissal of the +5 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 6 of 9 +state court proceeding. +The focus of the third factor is avoiding piecemeal litigation. Plaintiff has brought claims +under federal law in the federal court action and under state law in the state court action. The +fact that the state court may have concurrent jurisdiction over an 18 U.S.C. § 2255 claim, and the +fact that Plaintiff could have chosen to bring her 18 U.S.C. § 2255 claim as part of her state court +action do not preclude her from filing a claim in federal court. Although many of the same facts +are involved in both cases, Plaintiff has brought different causes of action in each forum and has +not brought any federal claims in her state court case. By litigating cases involving many of the +same facts simultaneously in both federal and state court, Plaintiff risks the potential application +of res judicata principles to claims in the forum which is the last to decide the case. See Jang v. +United Technologies Corp., 206 F.3d 1147 (11" Cir. 2000) (plaintiff may not split causes of +action to bring state claims in one suit and then file a second suit with federal causes of action); +Aquatherm Industries, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Co., 84 F.3d 1388 (11" Cir. 1996) (holding +that a Federal Lanham Act claim was barred in federal court after the plaintiff elected to bring +only its state law claims in the initial state court litigation where both state and federal claims +relied upon the same essential facts); Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979) +(explaining that the purpose of the doctrine is to protect an adverse party "from the expense and +vexation attending multiple lawsuits [and] conserves judicial resources."). The presence of that +risk, which Plaintiff has apparently chosen to take, does not preclude Plaintiff from proceeding in +both fora on the separate claims. +6 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 7 of 9 +The fourth factor, the order in which jurisdiction was obtained, "should not be measured +exclusively by which complaint was filed first, but rather in terms of how much progress has +been made in the two actions." American Bankers Ins., 891 F.2d at 885, guoting Moses H. Cone, +460 U.S. at 21. Here, the state action was filed first and Defendant Epstein has responded to the +complaint in both cases. Even assuming that the state court litigation has progressed further than +the federal litigation, this factor does not weigh heavily in favor of dismissal, considering the +overall analysis of the other five factors. +The fifth factor, whether federal or state law will be applied, does not point toward +dismissal, as the federal case raises only federal causes of action. Finally, the sixth factor, the +adequacy of the state court to protect the parties' rights, is in equipoise. There is no reason to +defer to the state court pursuant to this factor. +"A federal court cannot properly decline to exercise its statutory jurisdiction, however, +simply because judicial economy might be served by deferring to a state court. Federal courts +have a 'virtually unflagging obligation' to exercise the jurisdiction given them." American +Bankers Ins., 891 F.2d at 886., quoting Colorado River Water Conserv. Dist. v. United States, +424 U.S. 800, 816 (1976). This is especially true here because this case asserts a federal cause of +action and the state case does not. Defendant has failed to demonstrate that "exceptional +circumstances" require dismissal of this case in deference to the pending state court proceeding. +American Bankers Ins., 891 F.2d at 886. +Defendant also contends that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege a violation of the +requisite predicate act as identified in 18 U.S.C. § 2255. The Complaint alleges a violation of 18 +U.S.C. § 2422(b), which is one of the statutes listed in § 2255 as a basis for liability under that +7 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 8 of 9 +statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Section 2422(b) states as follows: +b) Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign +commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United +States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has +not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for +which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, +shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life. +The Complaint sufficiently alleges that Defendant Epstein knowingly persuaded, induced, or +enticed Plaintiff to engage in acts of prostitution, when Plaintiff was under the age of 18. Comp. +14, 11, 12, 13. However, the Complaint does not allege that Defendant used the mail or any +facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce. Plaintiff asserts in her response that the +telephone system is clearly a facility of interstate commerce and states that she is prepared to +allege that Defendants Epstein and +used an instrumentality of interstate commerce, +namely +cellular telephone, to solicit Plaintiff. Plaintiff shall be permitted to amend her +complaint accordingly. +Lastly, Epstein asserts that Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for conspiracy to +violate 18 U.S.C. § 2255 for the same reason she failed to state a cause of action under 18 U.S.C. +§ 2255 against Epstein individually. As explained supra, Plaintiff shall be permitted to amend +her complaint to allege that Defendant used the mail or any facility or means of interstate or +foreign commerce to violate § 2255.' +' Defendant also contends that an alleged victim of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2255 is +only entitled to one award of the statutory minimum amount of damages, regardless of the +number of incidents or acts that took place which constituted violations of the act. Because +Plaintiff has only asserted one cause of action in her complaint, it is not necessary to decide this +question at the present time because the issue is one of damages and not whether a cause of +action has been stated. The Court will reserve ruling on this question and decide it when it is +presented in a more appropriate context either in this case or in any of the related cases. +8 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 9 of 9 +Based on the foregoing, it is hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to +Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (DE 13) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as +follows: Plaintiff's claim is dismissed without prejudice to amend to allege that Defendants) +used the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to violate 18 U.S.C. § +2255. Except as to the question of whether Plaintiff is limited to one award of statutory +damages, on which the Court reserves ruling, the remainder of Defendant's Motion is denied. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +Florida, this 11" day of August, 2009. +Copies furnished to: +all counsel of record +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b550257a6d6d9082ed2474cb685602ba4f3beefc99cd5e89f83ef9459787e59b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b550257a6d6d9082ed2474cb685602ba4f3beefc99cd5e89f83ef9459787e59b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b5c5eb4501daab6fefd31812dbf7fefec5916fd1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b550257a6d6d9082ed2474cb685602ba4f3beefc99cd5e89f83ef9459787e59b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -108, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b550257a6d6d9082ed2474cb685602ba4f3beefc99cd5e89f83ef9459787e59b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "1c5a60e7679708edc4c5fdd90a6bec7e3cceb215d07a066dcf25a1b55bc4a64a", + "output_sha256": "00188946827435f7870f516713be8e4972a7c4afb5b6a9a21328c504d547e1dc", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b56bd1995d191400f54e5a697d961098e5d84a344e0e7d47009a8826fe91b800.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b56bd1995d191400f54e5a697d961098e5d84a344e0e7d47009a8826fe91b800.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..110a40c51991be1ab97789a9dd8ea3fc75266eae --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b56bd1995d191400f54e5a697d961098e5d84a344e0e7d47009a8826fe91b800.md @@ -0,0 +1,239 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2009 Page 1 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +25 Wet Flagler Stre, Sute 800, Miami, FL. 3130, Miami 3053582800 Fax 305.358 2382. • Port Lauderdale 54469.4346 T + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2009 Page 2 of 8 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA1 +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +-2. +25 West Flagler Stret, Suite 80, Miami, F1. 3130, Mam 305382800 Far 30653582382 • Port lauderdale 95.463.4346 T + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2009 Page 3 of 8 +JANE DOE NO. II, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +/ +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFES JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102's REPLY TO +DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE +UNDER SEAL RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY +OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO UNSEAL THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT +Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 (together, "Plaintifffs"), by and through +their undersigned attorneys, reply to Defendant's Response [D.E. 152] to Plaintiffs' Motion for +-3- +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2009 Page 4 of 8 +Leave to File Under Seal Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay or, in the +Alternative, to Unseal the Non-Prosecution Agreement (the "NPA") and state as follows: +Based on the Court's comments and counsel's arguments during the June 12, 2009 hearing +on Defendant's Motion to Stay and/or Continue Action For Time Certain Based on Parallel Civil +and Criminal Proceedings with Incorporated Memorandum of Law [D.E. 65], and the recent ruling +from Judge Colbath in the related state court cases, Plaintiffs believe that the issues raised in +Defendant's Motion to Stay are moot. +Dated: June 29, 2009. +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and +Jane Doe No. 102 +By: +s/Katherine W. Ezel! +Robert C. Josefsberg +Fla. Bar No. 040856 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Katherine W. Ezell +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +kezell@podhurst.com +City National Bank Building +25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +Telephone: (305) 358-2800 +Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL 33130, Miami 305.258.2800 Fax 305.358.282 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 T + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2009 Page 5 of 8 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 29" day of June, 2009, we electronically filed the +foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List +either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other +authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically +Notices of Electronic Filing. +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and +Jane Doe No. 102 +By: +s/Katherine W. Ezell +Robert C. Josefsberg +Fla. Bar No. 040856 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Katherine W. Ezell +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +kezell@podhurst.com +City National Bank Building +25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +Facephile: (305) 358-2820 +-5- +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 33130, Miami 05.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954463.4346 T + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2009 Page 6 of 8 +SERVICE LIST +JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Robert Critton, Esq. +Michael J. Pike, Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman LLP +515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 842-2820/Fax: (561) 515-3148 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +mpike@bclelaw.com +Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Jack Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 659-8300/Fax: (561) 835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 202-6360/Fax: (561) 828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Co-Defendant, +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack P. +Esq. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: (561) 686-6300/Fax: (561) 383-9456 +isx@searcylaw.com +iph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in related Case No. 08-80811 +-6- +25 West Flagler Stret, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 330, Mitami 305.258.2800 Fax 305.35.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 94.463.4346 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2009 Page 7 of 8 +Adam Horowitz, Esq. +Stuart Mermelstein, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: (305) 931-2200/Fax: (305) 931-0877 +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +smermeistein@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, +08-80993, 08-80994 +Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq. +Theodore Jon Lcopold, Esq. +Leopold Kuvin, P.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +Phone: (561) 515-1400/Fax: (561) 515-1401 +skuvin@leopoldkuvin.com +tleopold@leopoidkuvin.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804 +Richard Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 10* Ave North, Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Phone: (561) 582-7600/Fax: (561) 588-8819 +lawyerwillits@aol.com +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811 +Brad +Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-4252 +Phone: (954) 522-3456/Fax: (954) 527-8663 +bedwards@rra-law.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 +-7- +25 West Flagler Strect, Suite 800, Miami, FT. 3130, Miami 305 358.2800 Fax 306-358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 | + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2009 Page 8 of 8 +Isidro Manuel +ESq: +Elkins & Boehringer +224 Datura Avenue, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 832-8033/Fax: (561) 832-7137 +isidrogarcia(@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469 +-8- +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954163.1346 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b56bd1995d191400f54e5a697d961098e5d84a344e0e7d47009a8826fe91b800.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b56bd1995d191400f54e5a697d961098e5d84a344e0e7d47009a8826fe91b800.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..98746d01dee26f10e1ca47f83ee67f27290248b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b56bd1995d191400f54e5a697d961098e5d84a344e0e7d47009a8826fe91b800.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -409, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b56bd1995d191400f54e5a697d961098e5d84a344e0e7d47009a8826fe91b800", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "40bb7533904f9eb377f934216688a7af67aa618d2eaed4053116fe8e1ca7a4dc", + "output_sha256": "38adfa0c3e58cdb83f52b4a2bd475be0ad7c9831038f573bf8ff7790a8747908", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b56e4710aef8fcc3ebe08ee2ea2eedf53489c8d9ddfb798d3bde107f2f60293d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b56e4710aef8fcc3ebe08ee2ea2eedf53489c8d9ddfb798d3bde107f2f60293d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b21073c7ba67222f10069e315c6c6d081082e271 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b56e4710aef8fcc3ebe08ee2ea2eedf53489c8d9ddfb798d3bde107f2f60293d.md @@ -0,0 +1,93 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 25 +Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2009 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 9:09-CV-80591-KAM +Jane Doe 101, +Plaintiff, +VS. +Jeffrey Epstein, +Defendant. +/ +MOTION FOR LIMITED APPEARANCE, CONSENT TO +DESIGNATION AND REQUEST TO ELECTRONICALLY RECEIVE +NOTICES OF ELECTRONIC FILINGS +In accordance with Local Rule 4.B of the Special Rules Governing the Admission and +Practice of Attorneys of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the +undersigned respectfully moves for the admission of Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C., of the law firm of +Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Citigroup Center, 153 East 53rd Street, New York, New York 10022- +4611, Telephone: 212-446-4970), for purposes of limited appearance as co-counsel on behalf of +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein herein, in the above-styled case only, and pursuant to Rule 2B, +Southern District of Florida, CM/ECF Administrative Procedures, to permit Jay P. Lefkowitz, +P.C. to receive electronic filings in this case, and in support thereof states as follows: +Jay P. Lefkowitz is not admitted to practice in the Southern District of Florida and +is a member in good standing of the bars of the State of New York and District of Columbia, and +is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of +Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Second Circuit, Fourth Circuit, Fifth Circuit, +Eighth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, and Eleventh Circuit, the United States District Courts for the + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2009 Page 2 of 3 +District of Columbia, Southern District of New York, Eastern District of Michigan, Eastern +District of Wisconsin, and District of Colorado, and the United States Tax Court. +2. +Movant, Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esquire, of the law firm of Burman Critton Luttier +& Coleman, P.A. (515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Telephone: +561-842-2820), is a member in good standing of The Florida Bar and the United States District +Court for the Southern District of Florida, maintains an office in this State for the practice of law, +and is authorized to file through the Court's electronic filing system. Movant consents to be +designated as a member of the Bar of this Court with whom the Court and opposing counsel may +readily communicate regarding the conduct of the case, upon whom filings shall be served, who +shall be required to electronically file all documents and things that may be filed electronically, +and who shall be responsible for filing documents in compliance with the CM/ECF +Administrative Procedures. See Section 2B of the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. +3. +In accordance with the local rules of this Court, Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. has made +payment of this Court's $75 admission fee. A certification in accordance with Rule 4B is +attached hereto. +Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C., by and through designated counsel and pursuant to +Section 2B, Southern District of Florida, CM/ECF Administrative Procedures, hereby requests +the Court to provide Notice of Electronic Filings to Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. at email address: +jay.lefkowitz@kirkland.com. +WHEREFORE, Robert D. Critton, Jr. moves this Court to enter an Order permitting Jay +P. Lefkowitz, P.C. to appear before this Court on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein for all purposes +relating to the proceedings in the above-styled matter and directing the Clerk to provide notice of +electronic filings to Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2009 Page 3 of 3 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Limited +Appearance, Consent to Designation and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic +Filings was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the +foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following +Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 21" day of May, 2009 +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +305 358-2800 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiff +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +ROBERTO. CRITTON, JR, ESO. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b56e4710aef8fcc3ebe08ee2ea2eedf53489c8d9ddfb798d3bde107f2f60293d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b56e4710aef8fcc3ebe08ee2ea2eedf53489c8d9ddfb798d3bde107f2f60293d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c2da37af24d833f19a8d36a147c2cb212033c928 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b56e4710aef8fcc3ebe08ee2ea2eedf53489c8d9ddfb798d3bde107f2f60293d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b56e4710aef8fcc3ebe08ee2ea2eedf53489c8d9ddfb798d3bde107f2f60293d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4fed9e1468e06fc81dd0b4c2c8414afd9964e6f9c490d8b8e1f335da162bbcec", + "output_sha256": "994549b4f70e43caf6496f3757c385a523152fbc8a94f7c1bc36503e1250ada7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b585fcd15547e3c58c4adebe2220a5fc58b1d752c57a409b176d4c2433006fc6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b585fcd15547e3c58c4adebe2220a5fc58b1d752c57a409b176d4c2433006fc6.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..70875c242bd8102d794c90ccee5fb4124401f772 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b585fcd15547e3c58c4adebe2220a5fc58b1d752c57a409b176d4c2433006fc6.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 383-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/ i +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +JOINT AGREED ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR IMEs, +PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS AND DEFENDANT'S +REPLY +This matter came before the Court on Defendant, Epstein, and Plaintiffs Jane Doe +Nos. 2-8" Joint Agreed Order on Defendant's Motion for IME, Plaintiffs' Response, and +Defendant's Reply, and the Court having considered Motions, Response and Reply, it is +HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: +Pursuant to Federal Rule 35, Defendant filed various Motions for IMEs of +Plaintiffs at DEs 303-304, 308-309, 310-311, 317-318, 319-320 and 328-329, with +attached Affidavits from Dr. Ryon | +Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Response is +docketed at DE 345. Defendant's Reply is docketed at DE 362. Based upon the +agreement set forth herein, the above Motions, Response, and Reply are moot. +On October 28, 2009, the Court entered an Omnibus Order (DE 377), +relative to Plaintiffs' sexual history. Questions that involve Plaintiffs' sexual histories at +EXHIBI +"A" + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 383-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 2 of 2 +the IMEs will be permitted and governed by the Omnibus Order at DE 377. Information +provided by the Plaintiffs shall remain confidential and used for litigation purposes only. +3. +The parties further agree that the Defendant may conduct an Independent +IME pursuant to rule 35 of Jane Doe Nos. 2-8. The IME may be videotaped. A live +video-feed of the IME shall be available to counsel in an adjacent room. All videotaping +expensing shall be shared equally by the Plaintiff and Defendant. +4. +Absent further court order, each IME shall last no longer than eight (8) +hours, including all testing and interviewing. +5. +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein will not attend the IMEs or make himself seen +by Plaintiffs on the date of their IMEs. +6. +The IME shall not take place at Epstein's counsel's office but will take +place at a mutually agreeable location in Palm Beach County, Florida. The fees for an +additional room for the video feed will be split equally among Plaintiffs and Defendant. +DONE and ORDERED this +_ day of +, 2009. +Linnea R. | +Magistrate Judge +Courtesy Copies: +Counsel of Record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b585fcd15547e3c58c4adebe2220a5fc58b1d752c57a409b176d4c2433006fc6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b585fcd15547e3c58c4adebe2220a5fc58b1d752c57a409b176d4c2433006fc6.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..44b3bd1b9bb2f94143e71e4ec66278cc530b034d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b585fcd15547e3c58c4adebe2220a5fc58b1d752c57a409b176d4c2433006fc6.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b585fcd15547e3c58c4adebe2220a5fc58b1d752c57a409b176d4c2433006fc6", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0a18ed0b1c79d0bb2b1bff8e9d6a9e46d8045caa8c39389db8e78cc6305cbc7c", + "output_sha256": "b35e3224a230f8b5ea4539f08b847cc3d9ee0bd09ca71ec85de84ec265d85907", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5a5cc76562f4f926da74c6cfd3024f63bfb73a1f8a77fa531c54fb1c65ec421.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5a5cc76562f4f926da74c6cfd3024f63bfb73a1f8a77fa531c54fb1c65ec421.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e709d3ace6d7d60351a897b7c0f3110c2ec08eec --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5a5cc76562f4f926da74c6cfd3024f63bfb73a1f8a77fa531c54fb1c65ec421.md @@ -0,0 +1,121 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE +TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 3, ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), by and through her undersigned counsel, +files this Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and states as follows: +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein is alleged to have sexually abused Jane Doe when she was +a minor. The Complaint is in two Counts: Count I is labeled "Sexual Assault", and alleges an +intentional tort based on the actions of Jeffrey Epstein; Count Il alleges the tort of intentional +infliction of emotional distress based on the same factual allegations. Defendant Epstein has moved +to dismiss only Count I of the Complaint, contending that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. +Simultaneously herewith, Plaintiff intends to file an Amended Complaint which substantially revises +Count I and moots the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.' +'The Amended Complaint also adds as Count III a federal claim against Defendant Epstein under 18 +courts of the Eleventh Circuit that a motion to dismiss is not a "responsive pleading" and does not +affect a plaintiff's right to amend the pleading once as a matter of course. +Regents, 477 F.3d 1282, 1291 (11th Cir. 2007). +HeRmaN & MerMElsteIN, P. A. +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 2 of 5 +2. +In any event, the Complaint sufficiently alleged a claim for sexual assault and battery. +The gravamen of the claims in Count I is set forth in paragraph 16 of the Complaint: "Epstein +tortiously assaulted Jane Doe sexually. Epstein's acts were intentional, unlawful, offensive and +harmful." +3. +Count I does not purport to be brought under the criminal statutes? Whether a +Complaint states a claim for relief is not based on labels or conclusions; rather it is determined by +the factual allegations, which "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." +Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombley, 127 5. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). Here, the factual allegations +establish an intentional tort claim for sexual assault and battery.? See Paul v. Holbrook, 696 So.2d +1311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) ("[a] battery consists of the infliction of a harmful or offensive contact +upon another with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is +imminent"); Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Services, Inc., 57 F.Supp. 2d 1327, 1358-59 (M.D. Fla. +1999) (allegation that defendant attempted to put his hands down plaintiff's dress, and that there was +an actual and intentional touching, sufficient to state a claim for battery); Hogan v. Tavzel, 660 +So.2d 350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (tortfeasor may be liable for battery for infecting another with a +sexually transmitted disease); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts Assault, $ 21 (1965) (stating +that an assault occurs when a person "acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the +'Chapter 800 of the Florida Statutes is mentioned in the Complaint (918) because conduct against a +person in violation of the criminal laws of the State generally give rise to a civil claim for intentional +tort. Count I does not purport to bring a separate civil claim for violation of a strictly criminal +statute. +3 Assault and battery are closely related common law intentional torts that are commonly alleged +together. See Herzfeld v. Herzfeld, 781 So.2d 1070 (Fla.2001) (noting that plaintiff alleged +intentional tort of "assault and battery" based on allegations of sexual abuse). +v. Atlantic +Federal Savings & Loan, 454 So.2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (holding that a cause of action for +assault and battery cannot be based entirely on an omission). +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 3 of 5 +person of the other, or an imminent apprehension of such contact, and the other is thereby put in +such imminent apprehension"). +4. +Epstein's conduct as alleged in this case of masterbating during the massage, +directing the Plaintiff to remove her clothes, and touching the Plaintiff, constitutes the intentional +tort of assault and battery. Accordingly, even if the Complaint had not been amended, it sufficiently +alleges facts establishing an assault and battery. +Based on the foregoing, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is moot, and, in any event, not well +founded, and therefore should be denied. +Dated: September 22, 2008. +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Jeffrey M. Herman +Jeffrey M. Herman (FL Bar No. 521647) +jherman@hermanlaw.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@hermanlaw.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 4 of 5 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on September 22, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via +transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized +manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic +Filing. +Is/ Jeffrey M. Herman +Herman & MermelsteIn, P. A. +- 4 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 5 of 5 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/, +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Michael R. Tein, Esq. +tein@lewistein.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Michael Pike, Esq. +mpike@bclclaw.com +Is/ Jeffrey M. Herman +Herman & Mermelstein, P. A. +- 5- \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5a5cc76562f4f926da74c6cfd3024f63bfb73a1f8a77fa531c54fb1c65ec421.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5a5cc76562f4f926da74c6cfd3024f63bfb73a1f8a77fa531c54fb1c65ec421.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4c8a157d15a90beb718031fa64bdbd6b8ba9b393 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5a5cc76562f4f926da74c6cfd3024f63bfb73a1f8a77fa531c54fb1c65ec421.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -151, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b5a5cc76562f4f926da74c6cfd3024f63bfb73a1f8a77fa531c54fb1c65ec421", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "92abfefdb5957a83b210fa979ae8db0fe5a6d2c0001424d9c5fdc9a7f8eb7608", + "output_sha256": "47d5b0dac0b9cada1c212924a548334c46e88d0f42cbb5fc6bac7912359bbdc2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5ce1b9af92ea5f955147d6bc9f34ed22c031dd0c9ca7638a150425052f8f2eb.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5ce1b9af92ea5f955147d6bc9f34ed22c031dd0c9ca7638a150425052f8f2eb.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c88a5a4bd290e266f5d147518051bc67b76553d9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5ce1b9af92ea5f955147d6bc9f34ed22c031dd0c9ca7638a150425052f8f2eb.md @@ -0,0 +1,148 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 114-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 1 of 4 +PodhurstOrseck +TRIAL & APPELLATE LAWYERS +Aaron S. Podhurst +Robert C. Josefsberg +Joel D. +Steven C. Marks +Victor M. +Jr. +Katherine W. Azel! +Stephen F. Rosenthal +Ricardo M. Martinez-Cid +Ramon A. Rasco +Alexander T. Rundlet +John Gravante, III +Carolina Maharbiz +Robert Orseck (1934-1978) +Walter H. Beckham, Jr. +Karen Podhurst Dern +Of Counsel +May 15,2009. +Robert D. Critton, Ji., Esq. +Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-2918 +Jack Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Re: +Preservation of Evidence Relevant to Actions for Civil Remedies +Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 +Gentlemen: +As you know, we represent a number of the young wornen on the list of names provided +to Messrs. Goldberger and Tein by the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the Jeffrey Epstein Non- +Prosecution Agreement and Addendum. In order to be crystal clear as to whom we represent, we +nave attached a list of our present clients. By this letter, we want to ensure that discoverable +information relating to each of their civil actions is being properly preserved, as is required under +Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. You are required to take the necessary steps to +preserve all paper documents, tangible objects (including, but not limited to, film, videos, DVDs, +photographs, whether in hard copy, negatives or digital images), and electronically stored +information related to any threatened action by my clients, whether found inside or outside of the +United States, including any information held by third partics. Although we may bring a motion +for an order preserving documents and other data from destruction or alteration, your client's +obligation to preserve documents and other data discovery in this case arises independently from +any order on such motion. +As you know, the Non-Prosecution Agreement also requires your client "to maintain [his] +evidence, specifically evidence requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that +have been issued, and including certain computer equipment, inviolate until all of the terms of + +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 33130 +Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 +"B" +www.podhurst.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 114-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 2 of 4 +this agreement have been satisfied." We will seek information related to Mr. Epstein's sexual +exploitation of our clients in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2421, 2422, 2423, 2251, 2252, and/or +2252A, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Your client reasonably should have known of +potential criminal prosecution and/or civil litigation since, at least, October 25, 2005. This duty +to preserve evidence extends to evidence beyond that which was seized from Mr. Epstein's +residence on October 25, 2005. It also extends to evidence that was seized on October 25, 2005 +and later returned to him if it may be relevant and discoverable in any of these civil actions. +Because of the nature of these violations, we consider electronically stored information to +be a critical and irreplaceable source of discovery and/or evidence in this matter. You should +anticipate that much of the information subject to disclosure or responsive to discovery in this +cause is stored on your current and former computer systems and other media and devices +(including handheld devices, personal digital assistants, voice-messaging systems, online +repositories and cell phones). Electronically stored information should be afforded the broadest +possible meaning and includes (by way of example and not as an exclusive list) potentially +relevant information electronically, magnetically, optically or otherivise stored as: +1. +2. +3. +4. +5. +6. +7. +8. +9. +10. +11. +12. +13. +14. +15. +16. +17. +Digital communication (e.g., e-mail, voice mail, instant messaging); +E-mail Server Stores (e.g., Lotus Domino NSF or Microsoft Exchange .EDB) +Word-processed documents (e.g., Word or WordPerfect files and drafts); +Spreadsheets and tables (e.g., Excel or Lotus 123 worksheets); +Accounting Application Data (e.g., QuickBooks, Money, Peachtree data); +Image and Facsimile Files (e.g., PDF, TIFF, JPG, GIF images); +Sound Recordings (e.g.,. WAV and .MP3 files); +Video and Animation (e.g., AVI and .MOV files); +Databases (e.g., Access, Oracle, SQL Server data, SAP); +Contact and Relationship Management Data (é.g., Outlook, ACTI); +Calendar and Diary Application Data (e.g., Outlook PST, blog entries); +Online Access Data (e.g., Temporary Internet Files, History, Cookies); +Presentations (e.g., PowerPoint, Corel Presentations); +Network Access and Server Activity Logs; +Project Management Application Data; +Computer Aided Design/Drawing Files; and +Backup and archival files (e.g., Veritas, Zip, GHO). +Blectronically stored information resides not only in areas of electronic, magnetic, and +optical storage media reasonably accessible to you and your client, but also in areas you may +deem not reasonably accessible. You are obliged to preserve potentially relevant evidence from +both sources of electronically stored information, even if you do not anticipate producing such +clectronically stored information. Similarly, you and your client are obligated to preserve all +potentially relevant evidence even if you do not intend to produce such evidence because you +anticipate raising your client's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. +The laws and rules prohibiting destruction of evidence apply to electronically stored +information in the same manner that they apply to other evidence. Because of its format, + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 114-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 3 of 4 +electronically stored information is easily deleted, modified or corrupted. Accordingly, your +client must take every reasonable step to preserve this information until the final resolution of +this matter. Adequate preservation of electronically stored information requires more than +simply refiaining from efforts to destroy or dispose of such evidence. You must intervene to +prevent loss due to routine operations or malfeasance and you must employ proper techniques +and protocols to preserve electronically stored information. Booting a drive, examining its +contents, or running any application may irretrievably alter the evidence it contains and constitute +unlawful spoliation of evidence. Preservation requires preemptive immediate intervention. +With regard to electronically stored information created subsequent to the date of delivery +of this letter, relevant evidence should not be destroyed, and your client is to take appropriate +steps required to avoid destruction of such evidence. +Please forward a copy of this letter to all persons and entities with custodial responsibility +for the evidence referred to in this letter. +Failure to abide by this request could result in penalties and/or sanctions against your +client and could form the basis of legal claims for spoliation. +If this correspondence is in any way unclear, please contact us immediately. We look +forward to receiving written confirmation from you that you have taken the necessary steps to +fulfill these preservation obligations by Thursday, May 21, 2009 in order to alleviate the need for +us to seek a court order. +Sincerely, +pu +Cc: +Roy Black, Esq. +Jay Lefkowitz, Esq. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 114-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 4 of 4 +List of Clients Represented by Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +as of May 15, 2009' +We will supplement this list as necessary. diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5ce1b9af92ea5f955147d6bc9f34ed22c031dd0c9ca7638a150425052f8f2eb.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5ce1b9af92ea5f955147d6bc9f34ed22c031dd0c9ca7638a150425052f8f2eb.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5adcf2108ef679e57ead92b8884f15fb53ae7681 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5ce1b9af92ea5f955147d6bc9f34ed22c031dd0c9ca7638a150425052f8f2eb.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -55, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b5ce1b9af92ea5f955147d6bc9f34ed22c031dd0c9ca7638a150425052f8f2eb", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "5398d2dd669c537514ce9ad48c1baddd7698387f158345522556a1ca95f89fa6", + "output_sha256": "6d13a468dc4d8f05dda5e0410a6b77144071ee0c2722a916724a756845012bda", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5ce6dd45494e2849ed3d61dd54839e835cf4d10067b3be851d8398089e7bf6a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5ce6dd45494e2849ed3d61dd54839e835cf4d10067b3be851d8398089e7bf6a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fdfe71645ac8780775722d1f82c4e3fe9786fff1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5ce6dd45494e2849ed3d61dd54839e835cf4d10067b3be851d8398089e7bf6a.md @@ -0,0 +1,885 @@ +Filing # 195384819 E-Filed 04/03/2024 12:30:07 PM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-AG +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida, +Defendants. +COPY +MOTION OF DEFENDANT CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC FOR LEAVE TO +AMEND ITS COMPLAINT +Defendant CA Florida Holdings, LLC, publisher of The Palm Beach Post, for its Motion +for Leave to Amend its Complaint pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.190(a) alleges: +The Palm Beach Post ("PBP") is a daily community newspaper with offices in West +Palm Beach, Florida. +2. +Since November 2019, PBP has sought to obtain an order allowing the release of +the 2006 Jeffrey Epstein grand jury transcripts. +3. 1 +PBP successfully obtained appellate reversal of a final judgment that held the courts +lack inherent authority to order release of grand jury transcripts. CA Fla. Holdings, LLC v. +Aronberg, 360 So. 3d 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). +4. +As a result of PBP's litigation, on February 29, 2024, Florida's Governor signed +bill HB 117 that amended Fla. Stat. section 905.27. A copy of the amended section 905.27, which +is to take effect on July 1, 2024, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. +*** FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL +ABRUZZO, CLERK. 04/03/2024 12:30:07 PM *** + + +5. +The amendments to section 905.27 were intended to remove any impediments to +release of the Jeffrey Epstein grand jury materials. By its terms, and as this Court acknowledged +in its February 29, 2024 Order, the amended statute provides a remedial process for PBP and the +public to obtain disclosure of the Epstein grand jury materials. +6. +Due to the amendments to section 905.27, and the significant effect they have upon +PBP's current litigation, PBP requests that it be granted leave to file a Second Amended +Complaint. A copy of the proposed pleading is attached as Exhibit B. +If granted leave to amend, the pleadings will conform to the amendments to section +905.27. +8. +Also, due to the dismissal of the State Attorney, the style of the case should be +amended to delete the State Attorney as a party. References to the current State Attorney in the +body of the proposed Second Amended Complaint have been removed. +9. +As the prior Clerk of the Court has retired, the style should be amended to substitute +the current Clerk, +10. +Abruzzo. +Because this Court authorized PBP in its February 29, 2024, Order to move for +reconsideration once the amendments to section 905.27 become effective on July 1, 2024, there is +no prejudice if leave to amend is granted. The Clerk has publicly stated his support for the section +905.27 +dments, and he has personally advocated for the release of the Epstein grand jury +materials, The intervenors have also stated that the Epstein grand jury materials should be +released. +WHEREFORE, PBP respectfully requests that this Court grant its motion for leave to +amend its complaint, permit PBP to file a Second Amended Complaint, and grant such other relief +the Court deems just and proper. +2 + + +NOT A CER +3 +Respectfully submitted, +/s/Stephen A. Mendelsohn +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN +Florida Bar No. 849324 +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Tel.: 954.768.8225 +mendelsohns@gtlaw.com +smithl@gtlaw.com +MICHAEL J. GRYGIEL +(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) +GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP +54 State Street, 6th Floor +Albany, NY 12207 +Tel.: 518,689.1400 +grygielm@gtlaw.com +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) +GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP +1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 +Los Angeles, CA 90067 +Tel.: 310.586.7700 +boyajiann@gtlaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff CA Florida Holdings, +LLC, Publisher of The Palm Beach Post + + +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +1 HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been +electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein on +April 3, 2024. +Is/Stephen A.Mendelsohn +NOT A CERTIFIED COPY +4 +ACTIVE 696020069v6 + + +NOT A CERTII +A + + +CHAPTER 2024-7 +Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 117 +In act relating to disclosure of grand jury testimony; amending s. 905.27 +'.S.: revising the list of persons prohibited from disclosing the testimon +of a witness examined before a grand jury or other evidence it receives +creating an exception for a request by the media or an interested person to +the prohibited publishing, broadcasting, disclosing, divulging, or communicating of any testimony of a witness examined before the grand jury, or +the content, gist, or import thereof; providing criminal penalties; provid +ing construction; making technical changes; reenacting s. 905.17(1) and +(2), F.S., relating to who may be present during a session of a grand jury, to +incorporate the amendment made to s. 905.27, F.S., in references thereto; +providing an effective date. +Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: +Section 1. Section 905.27, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: +905.27 Testimony not to be disclosed; exceptions.— +including a grand juror, a state attorney, an assistant state attorney, a +reporter, a stenographer, or an interpreter, as well as the custodian of a +grand jury record, may not or any other person appearing before the grand +jury shall not disclose the testimony of a witness examined before the grand +jury or other evidence received by it except when required by a court to +disclose the testimony for the purpose of: +323E +(a) Ascertaining whether it is consistent with the testimony given by the +witness before the court; +(b) Determining whether the witness is guilty of perjury; or +) Furthering Justice, which can encompass furthering a public intere +hen the disclosure is requested pursuant to paragraph (2K +(2) It is unlawful for any person knowingly to publish, broadcast, +disclose, divulge, or communicate to any other person, or knowingly to +cause or permit to be published, broadcast, disclosed, divulged, or communicated to any other person, in any manner whatsoever, any testimony of a +witness examined before the grand jury, or the content, gist, or import +thereof, except when such testimony is or has been disclosed in any of the +following circumstances: a court proeeeding. +(a) When a court orders the disclosure of such testimony pursuant to +subsection (1) for use in a criminal case, it may be disclosed to the +prosecuting attorney of the court in which such criminal case is pending, +and by the prosecuting attorney to his or her assistants, legal associates, and +1 +CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. + + +LAWS OF FLORIDA +employees, and to the defendant and the defendant's attorney, and by the +latter to his or her legal associates and employees. However, the grand jury +testimony afforded such persons by the court can only be used in the defense +or prosecution of the criminal case and for no other purpose. +(b) When a court orders the such disclosure of such testimony is ordered +by a court pursuant to subsection (1) for use in a civil case, it may be +disclosed to all parties to the case and to their attorneys and by the latter to +their legal associates and employees. However, the grand jury testimony +afforded such persons by the court can only be used in the defense or +prosecution of the civil er criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever. +When a court orders the disclosure of such testimony pursuant to +subsection (1) in response to a request by the media or an interested person, +regardless of whether that purpose is for use in a criminal or civil case, it +may be disclosed so long as the subject of the grand jury inquiry is deceased, +the grand jury inquiry related to criminal or sexual activity between the +subject of the grand jury investigation and a person who was a minor at the +time of the alleged criminal or sexual activity, the testimony was previously +disclosed by a court order, and the state attorney is provided notice of the +request. This paragraph does not limit the court's ability to limit the +disclosure of testimony, including, but not limited to, redaction. +Nothing in This section does not shall affect the attorney-client +relationship. A client has shall have the right to communicate to his or her +attorney any testimony given by the client to the grand jury, any matters +involving the client discussed in the client's presence before the grand jury, +and any evidence involving the client received by or proffered to the grand +jury in the client's presence.. +(4) +A person who violates Persons convicted of violating this section +commits shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as +provided in s. 775.083, or by fine not exceeding $5,000, or both. +(5) A violation of this section constitutes shall constitute criminal +contempt of court. +Section 2. +For the purpose of incorporating the amendment made by this +act to section 905.27, Florida Statutes, in references thereto, subsections (1) +and (2) of section 905.17, Florida Statutes, are reenacted to read: +905.17 Who may be present during session of grand jury.— +(1) No person shall be present at the sessions of the grand jury except th +ritness under examination, one attorney representing the witness for th +and purpose of advising and consulting with the witness, the state attorney +ler or his assistant state attorneys, designated assistants as provide +for in s. 27.18, the court reporter or stenographer, and the interpreter. The +tenegraphic ershal, befied and the riptions made bether a porter +CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. + + +LAWS OF FLORIDA +container not subject to public inspection. The notes, records, and transcriptions are confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) and s. +24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution and shall be released by the clerk only +on request by a grand jury for use by the grand jury or on order of the court +pursuant to s. 905.27. +(2) +The witness may be represented before the grand jury by one +attorney. This provision is permissive only and does not create a right to +counsel for the grand jury witness. The attorney for the witness shall not be +permitted to address the grand jurors, raise objections, make arguments, oi +otherwise disrupt proceedings before the grand jury. The attorney for the +witness shall be permitted to advise and counsel the witness and shall be +subject to the provisions of s. 905.27 in the same manner as all who appear +before the grand jury. An attorney or law firm may not represent more than +one person or entity in an investigation before the same grand jury or +successive grand juries in the same investigation. +Section 3. This act shall take effect July 1, 202 +Approved by the Governor February 29, 2024. +Filed in Office Secretary of State February 29, 2024. +NOT A CERTIF +CODING: +Words +stricken +are deletions; words underlined are additions. + + + +$D COPY +NOT A CERTI + + +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-01468-XXXX-MB +Div.: AG +V. +ABRUZZO, as Clerk and +Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida, +Defendant. +COPY +SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT +CA Florida Holdings, LLC, publisher of The Palm Beach Post, for its Second Amended +Complaint against +Abruzzo, the Clerk of the Court and Comptroller for Palm Beach +County, Florida, in his official capacity ("Court Clerk"), alleges as follows: +JURISDICTION +This is an action within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Circuit Court pursuant to +Fla. Stat. Sections 26.012(2)(a) and 86.011 et seq. +PARTIES +2. +The Palm Beach Post is a daily community newspaper published by Plaintiff CA +Florida Holdings, LL.C, with offices located at 2751 S. Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida. +Defendant +Abruzzo is the duly elected Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida. He is sued herein in his official capacity as his office is in possession +and/or control of documents that are the subject of this action. + + +INTRODUCTION +In what is now widely if belatedly recognized as a colossal miscarriage of justice - +which led to the further needless victimization of countless young girls and women - a wealthy, +politically connected, and powerful financier was not held accountable for, nor even forced to +confront, allegations of serious sex trafficking crimes. While it is clear that Jeffrey Epstein's 2008 +deal with the State of Florida was not consistent with the evidence gathered against him, what +remains shrouded in mystery is how that evidence was presented - and the extent to which it was +presented - to the grand jury that returned an indictment far more limited in scope than expected +and deserved. +5. +Through this action, The Palm Beach Post seeks public access to the testimony, +minutes, and other evidence presented in 2006 to the Palm Beach County grand jury empaneled +during the first Epstein sex abuse investigation Typically, access to such materials is limited, for +example, in order to prevent the flight of those whose indictment may be contemplated and their +ability to conceal or destroy evidence; to ensure jurors' candor in deliberations; and to protect an +accused who is later exonerated. However, these factors are inapplicable here. Also, Florida law +expressly authorizes the disclosure of grand jury proceedings under certain circumstances, +including, as here, in furthering justice, which can encompass furthering a public interest. Fla. Stat. +§ 905.27(1) (c). +It can no longer credibly be maintained that continued blanket secrecy over the +proceedings that led to the egregiously flawed 2006 Epstein indictment is warranted under the law. +To the contrary, transparency is required to promote public understanding of the criminal justice +system and public confidence in the fair administration of justice. As detailed below, Epstein was +accused of sexually abusing and trafficking dozens of women and girls in south Florida (among +other locations) over a period of several years while exploiting his wealth and political connections +2 + + +to obstruct the administration of justice at every turn. Public disclosure of the Epstein grand jury +proceedings will shed light on the extent to which those in our government entrusted with the +solemn responsibility of enforcing our criminal laws equally as to all citizens fulfilled their duties +in this instance. Justice will be furthered where it is either (1) demonstrated that Epstein was treated +like others accused of similar heinous crimes, or (2) as appears more likely to be the case, those +who chose to give Epstein favorable - "unusual," in the words of the Town of Palm Beach Police +Chief - treatment, are exposed and held accountable. From what limited information is now in the +public domain, the State Attorney's referral of Epstein's case to the grand jury - which would be +out of the ordinary for this type of case - gives rise to a strong inference of favoritism and +corresponding disregard for the rights of the minor victims of Epstein's sex trafficking. Access to +the grand jury materials will allow the public to determine whether the grand jury process, and the +secrecy that comes with it, was used to further justice of, instead, operated to shield Epstein and +his co-conspirators from the consequences of their criminal activities. Accordingly, Fla. Stat. +Section 905.27 authorizes the disclosure of Epstein's 2006 grand jury proceedings. +FACTUAL BACKGROUND +The following facts were gathered, in large part, from documents obtained by The +Palm Beach Post through various Florida Public Records Law requests, documents unsealed or +publicly available in other related judicial proceedings, and information and documents in the +public record. +A. +First Epstein Sex Crimes Investigation, Indictment, and Plea Agreement: +2005—2008. +The investigation into Epstein's sex crimes began more than fourteen years ago, +when a 14-year-old girl's stepmother reported to police in the Town of Palm Beach, Florida, that +Epstein and others who worked for him arranged for her to give Epstein a "massage." Epstein +3 + + +required the girl to strip, exposed himself, and masturbated while touching her. The girl was paid +$300. Epstein was 52 years old at the time. +9. +Following this initial report in 2005, the Town of Palm Beach Police, and later, in +2006, the FBI, investigated Epstein. Interviews under oath with five additional alleged victims and +seventeen witnesses revealed that the events described by the 14-year-old girl occurred, with +disturbingly similar details, with each of the other victims. +10. +Both the victim/witness interviews, as well as evidence retrieved following a search +of Epstein's home, showed that some of the girls involved were under the age of 18. The police +search of Epstein's residence also found two hidden cameras and, throughout the house, large +numbers of nude photos of girls, including victims whom the police had not interviewed in the +course of their investigation. +11. +In March 2006, a State grand jury was scheduled at which all of the victims were +expected to testify. The proceeding was postponed, however, due to meetings between the State +Attorney's office and Epstein's prominent criminal defense lawyer and personal friend, Alan +Dershowitz. +12. +to begin receiving evidence. +Another grand jury was convened in April 2006, but canceled the day before it was +(1) Police Chief Reiter's Letter to the State Attorney. +43. +On May 1, 2006, Town of Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter wrote a +"personal and confidential" letter to then Palm Beach County State Attorney, Barry Krischer, +stating: +I must renew my prior observation to you that I continue to find your office's +treatment of [the Epstein] cases highly unusual. It is regrettable that I am forced to +communicate in this manner, but my most recent telephone calls to you and those +of the lead detective to your assigned attorneys have been unanswered and +messages remain unreturned. After giving this much thought and consideration, / +4 + + +must urge you to examine the unusual course that your office's handling of this +matter has taken and consider if good and sufficient reason exists to require your +disqualification from the prosecution of these cases. (Emphasis supplied) +14. +Chief Reiter's letter to State Attorney Krischer enclosed the Town of Palm Beach +Police Department's probable cause affidavits charging Epstein and two of his assistants with +multiple counts of unlawful sex acts with a minor and one count of sexual abuse, and requested +that either an arrest warrant be issued for Epstein or the State Attorney directly initiate the charges +against him, which would be public. +15. +(2) The July 2006 State Grand Jury Presentation +Instead, State Attorney Krischer elected to refer the case to a grand jury, which is +mandatory for capital cases but rarely used for all other crimes. According to an official +spokesperson, this was the first time that a sex crimes case was presented to a grand jury in Palm +Beach County. +16. +In July 2006, after State Attorney Krischer presented testimony and evidence from +one victim, the grand jury returned an indictment on a sole count of solicitation of prostitution. +There is no mention in the indictment of the vietim being a minor. +On information and belief, a second of Epstein's victims was supposed to testify +before the grand jury, but was unable to attend because of a school exam. +18. +No reasonable explanation has been provided as to why the numerous other known +victims were not presented as witnesses and crime victims to the grand jury convened in July 2006. +Nor has any reasonable explanation been provided as to why State Attorney Krischer, who was +initially eager to investigate and prosecute Epstein for his crimes, over time lost the desire to do +SO. +19. +On information and belief, during the grand jury appearance of the single victim +who testified, the State Attorney presented evidence that vilified the victim and attacked her +5 + + +credibility, including soliciting testimony regarding underage drinking and questionable personal +behavior that was unrelated to the charges against Epstein. Further upon information and belief, +this information was initially brought to the attention of the State Attorney's office by Epstein's +defense counsel. +20. +(3) The FBI's Investigation and Epstein's Non-Prosecution +Agreement With Federal Authorities. +On information and belief, following the deficient July 2006 indictment, and with +Chief Reiter's encouragement, the FBI began its own investigation of Epstein. +21. +Records unsealed in 2015 revealed that the FBI compiled reports on "34 confirmed +minors" that were victims of Epstein's sexual predations. Based on evidence gathered by the FBI, +a 53-page indictment was prepared by the U.S. Attorney's Office in June 2007. However, at the +request of Epstein's lawyers, the indictment was never presented to a federal grand jury. +22. +Instead, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Alexander Acosta, +negotiated a plea deal with Epstein's team of lawyers to grant immunity to Epstein (along with +four named co-conspirators and any unnamed potential co-conspirators) from all federal criminal +charges. +23. +Throughout the remainder of 2007 and through the first half of 2008, Epstein's +lawyers and the U.S. Attorney continued negotiating the plea arrangement. Upon information and +belief, Epstein's lawyers insisted that (1) the victims not be notified, (2) the deal be kept +confidential and under seal, and (3) all grand jury subpoenas (including one that had already been +issued for Epstein's computers) be withdrawn. +24. +On June 30, 2008, Epstein pled guilty to State charges: one count of solicitation of +prostitution and one count of solicitation of prostitution with a minor under the age of 18. He was +6 + + +sentenced to 18 months in jail, followed by a year of community control or house arrest, and was +adjudicated as a convicted sex offender required to register twice a year in Florida. +25. +The plea deal, called a non-prosecution agreement ("NPA"), allowed Epstein to +receive immunity from federal sex-trafficking charges that could have sent him to prison for life. +On information and belief, based on public records, former State Attorney Krischer communicated +with then U.S. Attorney Acosta concerning the NPA's negotiation with Epstein's lawyers. +26. +Indeed, Epstein was not incarcerated in a Florida prison for the State crimes for +which he was convicted. Instead, he was placed in a private wing of the Palm Beach County +Stockade, where, after 3 12 months, he was allowed to leave the jail on "work release" for up to +12 hours a day, 6 days a week. His private driver provided his transportation to and from "work." +27. +Epstein was released five months early. +28. +Upon information and belief, Epstein violated the terms of his probation, but was +not prosecuted. +29. +(4) The Crime Victims' Rights Act Litigation. +Epstein's victims only learned after the fact about his plea in State court and filed +an emergency petition to force federal prosecutors to comply with the Crime Victims' Rights Act +(18 U.S.C. § 3771, CVRA'), which mandates certain rights for crime victims, including the right +to be informed about plea agreements and the right to appear at sentencing. U.S. District Judge +Kenneth A. Marra recently ruled that federal prosecutors violated the CVRA by failing to notify +Epstein's victims before allowing him to plead guilty to only the two State offenses. +30. +The prosecution's failure to keep the victims apprised, among other things, also +contravenes the Florida Constitution, Article 1, § 16(b) and Fla. Stat. § 960.001. +31. +Following publicity exposing the extraordinary leniency of the plea deal, dozens of +civil suits were brought against Epstein, most of which Epstein's lawyers settled out-of-court. +7 + + +32. +In 2010, Epstein was registered as a "level three" (i.e., high risk of repeat offense) +sex offender in New York, a lifelong designation. In 2011, the New York County District +Attorney's office unsuccessfully sought to lower his registration to low-risk "level one." +33. +Upon information and belief, during the course of the Town of Palm Beach and FBI +investigations, Epstein retained private investigators to follow, harass, and photograph his victims +and their families, as well as Chief Reiter and the Town of Palm Beach detective who investigated +the case against Epstein. +34. +Upon information and belief, Epstein's victims were threatened against cooperating +with law enforcement and told that they would be compensated only if they did not cooperate with +law enforcement. +B. +Second Epstein Sex Crimes Investigation, Indictment, Suicide: 2019. +35. On July 6, 2019, Epstein was arrested on federal sex trafficking charges. +36. +Upon information and belief, the United States government's investigation of new +allegations and charges stemmed, in part, from continued press investigations into and reporting +on the mishandling of the 2006 charges and the civil suits that followed. +37. +In a July 8, 2019, letter to the federal district court by the U.S. Attorney for the +Southern District of New York, Epstein was described as "a serial sexual predator who preyed on +dozens of minor girls over a period of years." The letter emphasized that "the Government has real +concerns — grounded in past experience with this defendant - that if allowed to remain out on bail, +the defendant could attempt to pressure and intimidate witnesses and potential witnesses in this +case, including victims and their families, and otherwise attempt to obstruct justice." It also +described the results of the FBI's search of Epstein's Manhattan townhouse: evidence of sex +trafficking in the form of "hundreds - and perhaps thousands - of sexually suggestive photographs +of fully- or partially-nude females," including underage females. In a locked safe, compact discs +8 + + +were found with handwritten labels including the descriptions: "Young [Name] + [Name]," "Misc +nudes 1," and "Girl pies nude." +38. +On July 8, 2019, prosecutors with the Public Corruption Unit of the U.S. Attorney's +office for the Southern District of New York charged Epstein with sex trafficking and conspiracy +to traffic minors for sex. The grand jury indictment alleges that "dozens" of underage girls were +brought into Epstein's mansions for sexual encounters. A few days later, owing to public outery +over the NPA with Epstein entered into by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, +Alexander Acosta, who by then was serving as U.S. Secretary of Labor in the Trump +Kabor in the Trump +administration, resigned from office. +39. +Epstein was denied bail and was placed into pretrial detention at the federal +Metropolitan Correction Center in lower Manhattan, +40. +On or about August 6, 2019, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis ordered a state criminal +probe into the actions of the Palm Beach Sheriff and former State Attorney Krischer for their +handling of the Epstein underage sex trafficking case. +On August 10, 2019, Epstein was found dead in his cell at the Metropolitan +Correctional Center. His cause of death was determined to be suicide. +The August 27, 2019, SDNY Hearing: Epstein's Victims Speak. +42. +On account of his death, prosecutors sought to dismiss the indictment against +Epstein, while maintaining that they would continue to investigate his co-conspirators. +43. +United States Senior District Judge Richard M. Berman ordered a hearing on +August 27, 2019, on the prosecutors' decision to dismiss the indictment and allowed victims to +speak at the hearing. +9 + + +44. +In the course of the hearing, more than two dozen victims delivered their personal +stories of pain, frustration, and sexual abuse at the hands of Epstein. Several victims spoke of +violent rape by Epstein. Many more victims were present in the courtroom but did not testify. +45. +While some questioned the reasoning behind the court's decision to give the victims +voice after Epstein's death, District Judge Berman noted that "a public hearing is [the] preferred +vehicle of resolution," emphasizing that "public hearings are exactly what judges do. Hearings +promote transparency and they provide the court with insights and information which the court +may not otherwise be aware of." Indeed, even Epstein's defense lawyer noted at the hearing that +the court "is the institution that most people have confidence in, in these very troubled times." +46. +At the August 27th hearing, the girls, now women, spoke about their "exploitation +and coercion," and to the fact that many of them "were in very vulnerable situations and in extreme +poverty, circumstances where [they] didn't have anyone on [their] side, to speak on [their] +behalf.... +." One victim lamented that "as a victim, [she] never got to see what the agreement was +or why the special treatment got approved" in the Florida case years earlier. Another noted how +"completely different" the investigators leading to the 2019 federal indictment were from the +prosecutors in the Florida case, both in their treatment of her and their investigation of her +victimization by Epstein. +47. +A former federal judge in attendance at the August 27th hearing emphasized that +"transparency is one of the overriding objectives in our criminal justice system." +48. +Nearly all of the victims expressed the conviction that the secrecy that shielded +Epstein has caused them "irreparable harm" and that an opportunity to address his criminal +wrongdoings, and those of the individuals who enabled his sexual racketeering, would allow for +at least some measure of justice to be served after his death. Indeed, one victim stated: "Any efforts +10 + + +made to protect Epstein's name and legacy send a message to the victims that he wins and that he +is untouchable." Another victim expressed fear that this is a world "where there are predators in +power, a world where people can avoid justice if their pockets run deep enough." In short, the +"unusual" treatment Epstein received in Florida in 2006 based on his wealth, social status, and +connections severely eroded the public's faith in the integrity and impartiality of the criminal +justice system. +D. +The Palm Beach Post's Standing and the Public Interest. +(1) The Palm Beach Post Has Reported Extensively On +Epstein's Crimes For Nearly 15 Years. +49. +Plaintiff, The Palm Beach Post, is a community newspaper serving readers in Palm +Beach County and the Treasure Coast vicinity. +50. +The Palm Beach Post has been a Pulitzer Prize winner and nominated as a finalist +three other times. +51. +Beginning in 2004, The Palm Beach Post has extensively investigated and reported +on the allegations against, the law enforcement investigation of, and the crimes committed by, +Epstein and his co-conspirators. The Newspaper's reportage has included publication of the +following articles: +• "Then Who Had Everything: Jeffrey Epstein Craved Big Homes, Elite Friends +and, Investigators Say, Underage Girls.," published on August 14, 2006, reporting that: +Haley Robson, a local community college student, admitted in a sworn statement to +police that "she had taken at least six girls to visit Epstein, all between the ages of 14 +and 16;" Palm Beach Police "interviewed five alleged victims and 17 witnesses;" +*Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor, traveled to West Palm Beach with information +about the girls," including social media discussions about "their use of alcohol and +marijuana;" after meeting with Epstein's legal team, "prosecutors postponed their +decision to take the case to a grand jury;" Palm Beach Police subsequently "received +complaints that two of the victims or their families had been harassed or threatened;" +"relations between police and prosecutors were fraying" as the investigation continued; +and "one girl who was subpoenaed - the one who said she had sexual intercourse with +Epstein - never showed up" to testify before the grand jury. +11 + + +• "Trump Snags Gosman Estate for S41 Million" published on November 16, 2004, +reporting on the bidding war between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein for the +purchase of a "43,000-square-foot, seven-bedroom estate on 6 oceanfront acres along +the storied 'Raider's Row' " in Palm Beach. +• "Indictment: Billionaire Solicited 3 Times" published on July 25, 2006, reporting that +"Billionaire money manager and Palm Beach part-time resident Jeffrey Epstein +solicited or procured prostitutes three or more times between Aug. 1 and Oct. 31 of last +year, according to an indictment charging him with felony solicitation of prostitution." +The article further reported that "Epstein's case is unusual in that suspected prostitution +johns are usually charged with a misdemeanor, and even a felony charge is typically +made in a criminal information - an alternative to an indictment charging a person with +the commission of a crime." +• "After Long Probe, Billionaire Faces Solicitation Charge" published on July 26, 2006, +reporting that "Palm Beach police thought there was probable cause to charge Epstein +with unlawful sex acts with a minor and lewd and lascivious molestation." The article +further reported that "Police Chief Michael Reiter was so angry with State Attorney +Barry Krischer's handling of the case that he wrote a memo suggesting the county's +top prosecutor disqualify himself," and identified a 20-year-old on-the-record female +source who said "she gave Epstein a ssage in thé nude, then brought him six girls, +ages 14 to 16, for massage and sex-tinged sessions at his home." +• "Police Say Lawyer Tried to Discredit Teenage Girls" published on July 29, 2006, +reporting that "[f]amed Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz met with the Palm +Beach County State Attorney's Office and provided damaging information about +teenage girls who say they gave his client, Palm Beach billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, +sexually charged massages" and that "[t]he state attorney's office said it presented the +Epstein case to a county grand jury this month rather than directly charging Epstein +because of concerns about the girls' credibility." +• "Expert: Ignorance of Age Isn't Defense In Sex Cases" published on August 5, 2006, +reporting that "[lather than file charges, the state attorney's office presented the case +to a county grand jury" which "indicted Epstein last week on a single, less serious +charge of felony solicitation of prostitution," and that "It]he case raised eyebrows +because the state attorney's office rarely, if ever, kicks such charges to a grand jury." +• "Epstein Camp Calls Female Accusers Liars" published on August 8, 2006, reporting +that "[a] state attorney's spokesman would say only that the office refers cases to the +grand jury when there are issues with the viability of the evidence or witnesses' +credibility." +• "Palm Beach Chief Focus of Fire In Epstein Case" published on August 14, 2006, +reporting that Chief Reiter "pressed for Epstein to be charged with the more serious +crimes of sexual activity with minors" and "slammed State Attorney Barry Krischer in +blunt language seldom used by one law enforcement official with another because of +what he perceived as that office's mishandling of the case." +12 + + +• "Delays In Epstein Case Unusual, Lawyers Say" published on March 13, 2007, +reporting that "[n]early eight months after Palm Beach tycoon Jeffrey Epstein was +charged with felony solicitation of prostitution, there has been no discernible progress +in his case." +• "Woman Sues Billionaire Investor, Says They Had Sex When She Was 16" published +on October 18, 2007, reporting on a lawsuit brought in New York State court against +Epstein "by a young woman who says he had sex with her when she was 16 and had +sought his help becoming a model." +• "Palm Beacher Pleads In Sex Case" published on July 1, 2008, reporting that "Epstein, +55, pleaded guilty ... to felony solicitation of prostitution and procuring a person under +the age of 18 for prostitution," resulting in "a lifelong obligation to register as a sex +offender," and that "[a]s part of the plea deal, federal investigators agreed to drop their +investigation of Epstein, which they had taken to a grand jury." +• "Jeffrey Epstein: Scientist, Stuntman, 'Sex Slave' Visit Jailed Tycoon" published on +August 13, 2008, reporting that "[dJuring his first month of confinement" Epstein was +visited by +, who allegedly escorted victims upon their arrival at his Palm +Beach waterfront home to an upstairs room, where she prepared the massage table and +provided the oils for their encounters" with Epstein, and by +*a +young woman whom Epstein purportedly described as his Yugoslavian sex slave. +• "Billionaire Sex Offender Leaves Jail Six Days a Week For Work" published on July +1, 2008, reporting that Epstein "is allowed to leave the Palm Beach County Stockade +six days a week on a work-release program." +• "Women Want Epstein Sex Plea Deal Unsealed" published on June 10, 2009, reporting +that attorneys for women suing Epstein in various courts "want his [non-prosecution] +agreement [NPA] with federal prosecutors unsealed" and were moving to unseal the +agreement in Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, and that "Epstein now faces +at least a dozen civit lawsuits in federal and state courts filed by young women who +said they had sex with him and now are seeking damages." On that date, The Palm +Beach Post moved to intervene in the matter for the purpose of obtaining public access +to the NPA, which was ordered disclosed by this Court on June 25, 2009. +• +Epstein's Secret Pact With Feds Reveals 'Highly Unusual' Terms" published on +September 19, 2009, reporting that, owing to Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, +Yfederal prosecutors backed down and agreed to recall grand jury subpoenas if Epstein +pleaded guilty to prostitution-related felonies in state court" and "also agreed not to +charge any of Epstein's possible co-conspirators: +1, Lesley +Groff and +" The article further reported that, according to an +attorney representing three of Epstein's victims, "none of the 30 to 40 wom[e]n +identified as victims in the federal investigation" were informed ahead of time about +the NPA. +13 + + +• "Judge Rules Epstein Attorneys Can Subpoena Abortion Records" published on +January 27, 2010, reporting that "a judge ...gave lawyers representing multimillionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein the right to subpoena abortion records from +women who are seeking millions in damages from the part-time Palm Beach resident." +• "Epstein Journal's Findings Could Resurrect Abuse Case" published on March 20, +2010, reporting that "[a] purloined journal that is said to contain the names of +"hundreds' of victims of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein could be used to reopen +the investigation into the multi-millionaire's appetite for teenage girls." +• "Epstein Paid Three Women $5.5 Million to End Underage Sex Lawsuits" published +on October 4, 2017, reporting that, according to court documents, Epstein "shelled out +$5.5 million to settle lawsuits with three of more than two dozen teens who sued him." +• "Judge Rules Feds' Agreement With Jeffrey Epstein Pact Violated Teen Victims' +Rights" published on February 22, 2019, reporting on a ruling by U.S. District Judge +Kenneth Marra that "Federal prosecutors violated the rights of Jeffrey Epstein's +teenage victims [under the Crime Victims' Rights Act] by failing to reveal they had +dropped plans to prosecute the billionaire on dozens of federal charges in connection +with the girls' claims that he paid them for sex at his Palm Beach mansion." +• "Epstein Indicted On Sex Charges/Part-Time Palm Beacher Pleads Not Guilty to Sex +Trafficking, Conspiracy Charges In Federal Court In Manhattan" published on July 9, +2019, reporting on Epstein's appearance in U.S. District Court for the Southern District +of New York in which he "pleaded not guilty to charges accusing him of creating a vast +network of girls as young as 14 that he exploited for his sexual pleasure at his homes +in Palm Beach and +Inhattan. +A true and correct copy of the above news articles, in either the computerized format in which they +are maintained in The Palm Beach Post's electronic archives or the news print edition in which +originally published, is annexed hereto as Exhibit 1. +52. +Since the filing of the initial Complaint in this matter, The Palm Beach Post-along +with media worldwide - has continued to report on Epstein's crimes and the ongoing official +proceedings resulting from those crimes. +(2) The Palm Beach Post's Standing and the Public Interest. +53. The press has a constitutional right of access to criminal proceedings, see, e.g., +Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 573 (1980), including pre-trial criminal +proceedings. +v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796 (11th Cir. 1983). Indeed, "the integrity of the +14 + + +judicial process, which public scrutiny is supposed to safeguard, is just as much at issue in +proceedings of this kind [pre- and post-trial] as at trial." Id. at 801; see also Miami Herald Publ +Co. v. +426 So. 2d 1, 6-7 (Fla. 1982) (identifying the news media as a "public surrogate" in +matters concerning the closure of judicial proceedings). The press also has a First Amendment +interest in receiving information from willing speakers. See Va. Pharmacy Bd. v. Va. Consumer +Council, 425 U.S. 748, 756-57 (1976) ("Where a speaker exists ... the protection afforded [by +the First Amendment] is to the communication, to its source and to its recipients both."); Pittman +1, 267 F.3d 1269, 1283 n.12 (11th Cir. 2001) ("The Supreme Court has récognized that the +First Amendment offers protection to both speakers and those wishing to receive speech."); see +also Stephens v. Cty. of Albemarle, Va., 524 F.3d 485, 492 (4th Cir, 2008) (providing that a plaintiff +has "standing to assert a right to receive speech" by "Show[ing) that there exists a speaker willing +to convey the information to her"). +54. Because of the unique role performed by the press as a "public surrogate" (I +426 So. 2d at 6-7) in protecting the right offaccess and its interest in reporting information about +criminal proceedings, news organizations "presumptively have a right to access judicial records," +Comm'r, Ala. Dep't of Cortex. Advance Local Media, LLC, 918 F.3d 1161, 1166 (11th Cir. 2019), +and "standing to question the validity of an order restricting publicity because its ability to gather +news is directly impaired or curtailed." l +426 So. 2d at 4; see also Carlson v. United States, +837 F.3d 753, 757-58 (7th Cir. 2016) ("[a]s a member of the public, [the Reporters Committee] +has standing to assert [its] claim" to grand jury materials because such materials are "public records +to which the public may seek access, even if that effort is ultimately unsuccessful"). +55. +Here, the continued denial of access to information The Palm Beach Post seeks on +behalf of its journalists and the public it serves "unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." +15 + + +Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State of Florida, 210 So. 3d 1243, 1263 (Fla. 2017); see also +Zerilli v. +656 F.2d 705, 711 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (noting that "the press" function as a vital +source of information is weakened whenever the ability of journalists to gather information is +impaired," as it is by Attorney General's refusal to disclose unredacted report and underlying grand +jury materials). +56. +The Palm Beach Post has the right to maintain this private right of action because +the furtherance of justice, an express legislative exception to grand jury seerecy, is intended for +the public benefit, and The Palm Beach Post seeks access on behalf of the public. Fla. Stat. +§ 905.27(1)(c). It is further expressed in Fla. Stat. § 905.27 that the legislature in amending Fla. +Stat. § 905.27(1)(c) and (2)(c) in 2024, intended for this to disclose the Jeffiey Epstein grand jury +materials. In other words, the legislature cleared all arguments against release of the Jeffrey Epstein +grand jury materials. +(3) The Court's Jurisdiction To Declare Rights And +Construe Statutes. +57. +This Court has jurisdiction to declare rights, status, and other equitable or legal +relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. Florida Stat. Section 86.011. +58. +Florida law specifically provides that a declaration may be sought from the Court +concerning a petitioner's rights under a statute. Florida Stat. Section 86.021 (Any person... whose +rights, status, or other equitable or legal relations are affected by a statute, or any regulation made +under statutory authority,.... may have determined any question of construction or validity arising +under such statute,.. or any part thereof, and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other equitable +or legal relations thereunder."). +59. +The Court's exercise of its power to declare rights "is to be liberally administered +and construed." Florida Stat. Section 86.101. +16 + + +COUNT! +(Declaratory Relief - Florida Stat. Sections 86.011 et seq.) +60. +The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 59 are incorporated by reference +as if fully set forth herein. +61. +This is an action for Declaratory Relief pursuant to Chapter 86, Florida Statutes, +and other supplemental relief. +62. +The Palm Beach Post respectfully requests that the Court deelare pursuant to Fla. +Stat. Sections 905.27(1) and (2)(c) that it is entitled access to the testimony, minutes, and other +evidence presented in 2006 to the Palm Beach County grand jury because such disclosure and +access would be furthering justice in the public interest. Fla. Stat. § 905.27(1)(c). +63. +The Palm Beach Post has sought access to the testimony, minutes, and other +evidence presented in 2006 to the Palm Beach County grand jury. A good-faith dispute exists. +64. +Through this Complaint, The Palm Beach Post presently has a justiciable question +concerning its rights to obtain the 2006 grand jury materials pursuant to Fla. Stat. Sections +905.27(1) (c) and (2)(c). +65. +In an appeal from the final judgment entered on December 21, 2022 in this case, +the Fourth Distrior Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision that Florida courts lack +authority to order the release of grand jury materials. Rejecting the trial court's determination, the +appellate court held that trial courts have inherent authority over grand juries and have the right to +order release of grand jury materials if such would further justice as defined in Fla. Stat. section +905.27. CA Fla. Holdings, LLC v. Aronberg, 360 So. 3d 1149 (Fla. 4"* DCA 2023). Therefore, this +court has inherent authority to release the Epstein grand jury materials in addition to the statutory +authority granted by the 2024 amendments to Fla. Stat. section 905.27. +17 + + +66. +A bona fide, actual, present, and practical need for the declaration exists in order to +further justice in the public interest by the release of the 2006 Epstein grand jury materials. +WHEREFORE, The Palm Beach Post respectfully requests that the Court determine the +rights and obligations of the parties by declaring that pursuant to Fla. Stat. Sections 905.27(1)(c) +and (2)(c). The Palm Beach Post and the public may gain access to the testimony. +COUNT HI +67. +(Florida Stat. Section 905.27) +The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 66 are incorporated by reference +as if fully set forth herein. +68. +Based on information learned by The Palm Beach Post through its Florida Public +Records Law requests, law enforcement sources with direet knowledge of the grand jury evidence +and proceedings, judicial documents obtained from independent but related court proceedings, and +documents otherwise available in the public record, the 2006 State Attorney for Palm Beach +County, Barry Krischer, presented truncated evidence of Epstein's criminal wrongdoing to the +2006 grand jury in a manner that precluded Epstein's indictment for the serious crimes he +committed, including sex trafficking and sexual assault. +69. Pursuant to Florida Stat. Section 905.27, as amended in 2024, in order to further +justice for Epstein's victims and the public, and to provide public disclosure to illuminate whether +Epstein received unjustifiably lenient treatment based on the available evidence, The Palm Beach +Post requests that it and the public be granted immediate access to the testimony, minutes, and +other evidence presented in 2006 to the Palm Beach County grand jury. +70. +In 2024, the Florida legislature amended Fla. Stat. Sections 905.27 (1)(c) and (2)(c) +for the express purpose of removing all legal impediments to the release of the Jeffrey Epstein +18 + + +grand jury materials. Therefore, other than for limited redactions to protect witness and vietim +identities, Fla. Stat. Sections 905.27 (1)(c) and (2)(c) compel disclosure of the Epstein 2006 grand +jury materials. +WHEREFORE, The Palm Beach Post respectfully requests that this Court, pursuant to Fla. +Stat. Sections 905.27(1)(c) and (2)(c), as amended, order the Clerk of the Court to provide copies +of the testimony, minutes, and other evidence presented in 2006 to the Palm Beach County grand +jury during the first Epstein sex abuse investigation so that, following an in camera inspection, +these materials are immediately disclosed to the newspaper, and grant any other and further +equitable or legal relief the Court deems just and proper. +Dated: +- 2024 +Respectfully submitted, +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +Attorneys for CA Florida Holdings, LL.C, +Publisher of The Palm Beach Post +Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. +5100 Town Center Circle, Suite 400 +Boca Raton, Florida 33486 +Telephone: (561) 955-7629 +Facsimile: (561) 338-7099 +NOT A +By: Is/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN +Florida Bar No. 849324 +mendelsohns@gtlaw.com +FLService@gtlaw.com +By: Is/ Michael J Grygiel +MICHAEL J GRYGIEL +(Pro Hac Vice application forthcoming) +54 State Street, 6th Floor +Albany, New York 12207 +Telephone: (518) 689-1400 +Facsimile: (518) 689-1499 +grygielm@gtlaw.com +19 + + +Nina D. Boyajian +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +(Pro Hac Vice application forthcoming) +1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 +Los Angeles CA 90067 +Telephone: (310) 586 - 7700 +Facsimile: (310) 586 - 7800 +boyajiann@gtlaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com +NOT A CERTIFIED COPY +20 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5ce6dd45494e2849ed3d61dd54839e835cf4d10067b3be851d8398089e7bf6a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5ce6dd45494e2849ed3d61dd54839e835cf4d10067b3be851d8398089e7bf6a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..34ad163b4cf3216cad2a7b88aa9905783695b7ac --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5ce6dd45494e2849ed3d61dd54839e835cf4d10067b3be851d8398089e7bf6a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -791, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b5ce6dd45494e2849ed3d61dd54839e835cf4d10067b3be851d8398089e7bf6a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 35, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "16d1d2abfb8963b9977980ada107504cf4b87fa701b8616ca3ddc1b78170957f", + "output_sha256": "cafde4cc231f77b7b2171ffccd962d1841d28c2472e1e06261810086120a8ee8", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5cec98f7b2103f0e5d7c4b731ed751be542fabf89a521f44ee03a7d857054e9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5cec98f7b2103f0e5d7c4b731ed751be542fabf89a521f44ee03a7d857054e9.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8f172952918a3e0a339ae43b96760b98ef9352f6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5cec98f7b2103f0e5d7c4b731ed751be542fabf89a521f44ee03a7d857054e9.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 115-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 Page 1 of 1 +May 29, 2009 +Page 2 +Written Consent to Amendment +I hereby consent to Defendant EPSTEIN's request to amend his affirmative +defenses as set forth in his proposed Defendant EPSTEIN's First Amended Answer & +Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint in each of Plaintiffs, +Jane Doe No.2, Jane Doe No.3, Jane Doe No.4, and Jane Doe No.5; and as set forth in +Defendant EPSTEIN's First Amended Answer & Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's +(First) Amended Compaint in Jane Doe No.6, and Jane Doe No.7. +Counsel for each of the Plaintiffs +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd. +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80119 +Jane Doe No. 3 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80232 +Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80380 +Jane Doe No. 5 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80381 +Jane Doe No. 6 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80994 +Jane Doe No. 7 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80993 +Dated: +June 5, 2009 + diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5cec98f7b2103f0e5d7c4b731ed751be542fabf89a521f44ee03a7d857054e9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5cec98f7b2103f0e5d7c4b731ed751be542fabf89a521f44ee03a7d857054e9.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2b07a00bd19acf393d64289e697fe8ae07a0da32 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5cec98f7b2103f0e5d7c4b731ed751be542fabf89a521f44ee03a7d857054e9.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -21, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b5cec98f7b2103f0e5d7c4b731ed751be542fabf89a521f44ee03a7d857054e9", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "32ffb97f52fd1991b858af76709a453c580a4ab4fe1547dfa6f6d9f018d7d13a", + "output_sha256": "0dc55eb5196e29e6e9093eeaccf3b458add46b67ecce63b3f0c20c05e66cfa45", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5d9f8703849295423b26974d0fa2c7e0de271e0dd659a0a60625002aa4bfd2b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5d9f8703849295423b26974d0fa2c7e0de271e0dd659a0a60625002aa4bfd2b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..12e52b0faf9fd831b7539e0252d039b8d9711f58 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5d9f8703849295423b26974d0fa2c7e0de271e0dd659a0a60625002aa4bfd2b.md @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@ +COM +ABRUZZO +CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER +PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +MAM BEACH COUNTY +RECEIPT + +Printed On: +03/23/2022 08:56 + +Receipt Number: 4396042 - Date 03/23/2022 Time 8:56AM +Received of: +BRIGID CECH SAMOLE +333 S.E. 2ND AVENUE SUITE 4400 +Miami, FL 33131 +Cashier Name: +Cashier Location: +Receipt ID: +Division: +SChaney +Main Branch Circuit Civil/Probate/ +Marriage License + +Balance Owed: +Total Amount Paid: +Remaining Balance: +243.50 +243.50 +0.00 +AG: Circuit Civil Central - AG(Civil) +Case# 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB -- PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST +Item +Balance +Paid +Fees +Case Total +243.50 +243.50 +243.50 +243.50 +Bal Remaining +0.00 +0.00 +Type +Payments +Ref# +96326101-8C37-426F-AF50- +0A6740E58D69 +Amount +PAYIT MISC +Total Received +Total Paid +243.50 +243.50 +243.50 +How was your service today? Please Visit www.mypalmbeachclerk.com/survey or send your +feedback to clerkweb@mypalmbeachclerk.com +For office locations and information about Clerk & Comptroller services: +Visit www.mypalmbeachclerk.com or call (561) 355-2996. diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5d9f8703849295423b26974d0fa2c7e0de271e0dd659a0a60625002aa4bfd2b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5d9f8703849295423b26974d0fa2c7e0de271e0dd659a0a60625002aa4bfd2b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..edbf104a97e40808b336716fd81ae2a025627187 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5d9f8703849295423b26974d0fa2c7e0de271e0dd659a0a60625002aa4bfd2b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -38, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b5d9f8703849295423b26974d0fa2c7e0de271e0dd659a0a60625002aa4bfd2b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "fb1d5da92a15dd88814fb2a623832162ca8ace4d6bfb9c7a32e500fb7b0aa5e5", + "output_sha256": "0681ad81b59e15e310de44b0acb59f82ef59653dba24971e219152c2ce41f564", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5f0253ec7b7c6688f823f5bb969a1910f74dc7dc3d40b5477cc6116c58c146b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5f0253ec7b7c6688f823f5bb969a1910f74dc7dc3d40b5477cc6116c58c146b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..701a7bee8cafe407b58db53faa557399bc17a194 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5f0253ec7b7c6688f823f5bb969a1910f74dc7dc3d40b5477cc6116c58c146b.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 432 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/03/2009 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +ORDER +THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Third Party Witness, Igor Zinoview's, Motion +for Protective Order (D.E. #402). For the following reasons, Third Party Witness Zinoview's +Motion for Protective Order is denied. +By this Motion Third Party Witness Zinoview, who has been employed by Defendant +Epstein as a driver and bodyguard since 2005, seeks an order preventing the taking of his +deposition on the basis that his employment with Epstein post-dates the facts giving rise +to these cases and that "at not time has he discussed with Mr. Epstein any issues involving +Mr. Epstein's criminal case or any the cases or issues involved with civil Plaintiffs." + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 432 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/03/2009 Page 2 of 3 +Zinoview's Mtn., p. 1-3. +For "good cause" shown the Court may issue a protective order preventing or +delaying a deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); see McCarthy v. Barnett Bank of Poly County, +876 F.2d 89, 91 (11th Cir. 1989). An order completely prohibiting a deposition from going +forward, however, is rare, and only resorted to in extraordinary circumstances. Salter v. +Upjohn Co., 593 F.2d 649, 651 (5" Cir. 1979)(noting that it is very unusual for trial court to +prohibit the taking of a deposition altogether, and absent extraordinary circumstances, such +order would likely be in error); Jennings v. Family Management, 201 F.R.D. 272 (D.D.C. +2001)(stating that a "complete prohibition of a deposition is an extraordinary measure +which should be resorted to only in rare occasions."). In this instance the Court agrees with +Plaintiff that neither Zinoview's conclusory affidavit in which he denies any knowledge of +the facts giving rise to these cases, nor his Motion provide anything even approaching the +"extraordinary circumstances" necessary to justify a complete prohibition of his deposition. +Nor, does the Court find any basis to limit the questions that may be asked Zinoview at +deposition. At the deposition Zinoview's counsel is free to invoke any privileges afforded +him by the applicable procedural rules. In accordance with the above and foregoing, it is +hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Third Party Witness, Igor Zinoview's, Motion for +Protective Order (D.E. #402) is DENIED. +DONE AND ORDERED this December 3rd, 2009, in +, at West Palm +Beach, Florida. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 432 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/03/2009 Page 3 of 3 +Lincoinson +LINNEA R. JOHNSON +UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE +CC: +The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra +All Counsel of Record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5f0253ec7b7c6688f823f5bb969a1910f74dc7dc3d40b5477cc6116c58c146b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5f0253ec7b7c6688f823f5bb969a1910f74dc7dc3d40b5477cc6116c58c146b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d162ab02ddb64c515d02c8b14131be38472d200a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5f0253ec7b7c6688f823f5bb969a1910f74dc7dc3d40b5477cc6116c58c146b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b5f0253ec7b7c6688f823f5bb969a1910f74dc7dc3d40b5477cc6116c58c146b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c8867b08857304dfd4240cfdd4402deac2e2663447165504943e0d2ec2a5e7bc", + "output_sha256": "4369825763edc5925569d7b722ce855ef1a6f1b6119381d9183978cacda96aa9", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5f36cd57be5825deeebb5309d6091d6e4da7f3879d460cbabfdedd967721e96.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5f36cd57be5825deeebb5309d6091d6e4da7f3879d460cbabfdedd967721e96.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..69a60e8138a9a39d6101aae20fa73c7d8bc50966 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5f36cd57be5825deeebb5309d6091d6e4da7f3879d460cbabfdedd967721e96.md @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 34 +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2009 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 09-80656-MARRA/ +JANE DOE No. 102, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant, ; +J +DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION +OF TIME IN WHICH SERVE RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO COMPLAINT +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Epstein") by and through his undersigned +attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time in which to respond to +Complaint dated, May 1, 2009. Defendant seeks an extension until July 5, 2009, to file +his response. As good cause in support of granting the motion, Defendant states: +1. On May 1, 2009 Plaintiff filed a Complaint [DE 1]. Defendant's response would +be due on June 22, 2009, as previously agreed upon. +2. There are several other cases filed with this Court in which Jeffrey Epstein is +named a Defendant. In those cases, the undersigned has been preparing responses to +Motions for Protective Order and handling other matters associated therewith. +3. The requested extension is fair in reasonable under the circumstances as it will +provide time to allow the Defendant, EPSTEIN, to fully and adequately respond. +4. As certified below, counsel for Defendant conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, and +Plaintiff's counsel is in agreement with the requested extension. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 34 +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2009 Page 2 of 3 +Doe 102 v. Epstein +Page 2 +WHEREFORE Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter an order +granting an extension until July 5, 2009, to file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint. +Local Rule 7.1 Statement +Counsel for the movant conferred by telephone and correspondence with +couns for to Plaint and cane or aft fif formen win no requated +extension until July 5, 2009 for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. +Robert D. Ckitton, Esq. +Attorney for Defendant +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the +manner specified by CM/ECF on this to day of June, 2009 +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Suite 1400 +Miami, FL 33130 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +305 358-2800 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +jagesq@bellsouth.net +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Counsel for Plaintiff +ROBERT D/CRITTON, JR., ESO. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2009 Page 3 of 3 +Doe 102 v. Epstein +Page 3 +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5f36cd57be5825deeebb5309d6091d6e4da7f3879d460cbabfdedd967721e96.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5f36cd57be5825deeebb5309d6091d6e4da7f3879d460cbabfdedd967721e96.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ce5605515c2a54f53e85a581b4151f7278e63f04 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b5f36cd57be5825deeebb5309d6091d6e4da7f3879d460cbabfdedd967721e96.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b5f36cd57be5825deeebb5309d6091d6e4da7f3879d460cbabfdedd967721e96", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "103f288e9afd16867161eea10897637dd19cb9d82f922e88de51229d9d8594f3", + "output_sha256": "1ff23c4ecc086806ee26dd978f21dd13b05cd8ee91c71b7bb31532c65f510ef6", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b63f6ae9c77f35698cb1552940cc4bec8b2336b2b70eb5edf2efcc54229a1420.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b63f6ae9c77f35698cb1552940cc4bec8b2336b2b70eb5edf2efcc54229a1420.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..84e31d4c8cc62f00413c050ad5e232dfccb3fed8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b63f6ae9c77f35698cb1552940cc4bec8b2336b2b70eb5edf2efcc54229a1420.md @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 358-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2009 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/J +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +ORDER +This matter came before the Court on Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S +Unopposed Motion For Extension of Time in Which to File a Response to Plaintiffs Jane +Does 2-8' Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Net Worth Discovery and +Incorporated Memorandum of Law, having considered Defendant's Unopposed Motion +and Plaintiffs counsel being in agreement with the requested extension, it is HEREBY +ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: +Defendant's Unopposed Motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall file a Response +to Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-8° Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Net Worth +Discovery and Incorporated Memorandum of Law on or before November 2, 2009. +DONE and ORDERED this +day of +, 2009 +Kenneth A. Marra +United States District Judge +Courtesy Copies all counsel diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b63f6ae9c77f35698cb1552940cc4bec8b2336b2b70eb5edf2efcc54229a1420.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b63f6ae9c77f35698cb1552940cc4bec8b2336b2b70eb5edf2efcc54229a1420.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..01b910873d089bd08d4bbe585b8ad9555b1b3aa9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b63f6ae9c77f35698cb1552940cc4bec8b2336b2b70eb5edf2efcc54229a1420.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b63f6ae9c77f35698cb1552940cc4bec8b2336b2b70eb5edf2efcc54229a1420", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b701aca6860492cd07262b8e3fb790740bce28feb7c3669bff788c7f06a9328c", + "output_sha256": "e1ba8340839f2a2312fdf0ec89b73baaf8e30055459fbf3f0022e639c068db41", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b6522d406fc2eb817c09fbc78b967a743ffa99b97f11cedcaaed3ad114c9f41d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b6522d406fc2eb817c09fbc78b967a743ffa99b97f11cedcaaed3ad114c9f41d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..de913034383026604476d3ea5477fb9b03c5f2d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b6522d406fc2eb817c09fbc78b967a743ffa99b97f11cedcaaed3ad114c9f41d.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 67 Filed 07/10/20 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE 1000, +Plaintiff, +-against- +DARREN IL INDYKE and RICHARD +D. KAHN, et al., +Case No. 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF +Defendant. +NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS +TO: +ATTORNEY SERVICES CLERK AND ALL OTHER PARTIES +I have cases pending +I have no cases pending +Pursuant to Local Rule 1.3 of this Court, please take notice of the following attorney information change (s) for: +Valerie Sirota +FILL IN ATTORNEY NAME +_ My State Bar Number is 4916599 +My SDNY Bar Number is: VS6041 +1am, +• +An attorney +A Government Agency attorney +A Pro Hac Vice attorney +FIRM INFORMATION (Include full name of firm (OLD AND NEW), address, telephone number and fax number): +OLD FIRM: +FIRM NAME:_ Troutman Sanders LLP +FIRM ADDRESS: 875 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 +FIRM TELEPHONE NUMBER: (212) 704-6000 +FIRM FAX NUMBER: (212) 704-6288 +NEW FIRM: +FIRM NAME:_ Troutman Pepper +Sanders LLP +FIRM ADDRESS: 875 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 +FIRM TELEPHONE NUMBER:_(212) 704-6000 +FIRM FAX NUMBER: (212) 704-6288 +I will continue to be counsel of record on the above-entitled case at my new firm/agency. +I am no longer counsel of record on the above-entitled case. An order withdrawing my appearance +was entered on +by Judge +Dated: July 10, 2020 +s/Valerie Sirota +ATTORNEY'S SIGNATURE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b6522d406fc2eb817c09fbc78b967a743ffa99b97f11cedcaaed3ad114c9f41d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b6522d406fc2eb817c09fbc78b967a743ffa99b97f11cedcaaed3ad114c9f41d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..048c7d11b801d4689bebb8d0a13be42dea5efe92 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b6522d406fc2eb817c09fbc78b967a743ffa99b97f11cedcaaed3ad114c9f41d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b6522d406fc2eb817c09fbc78b967a743ffa99b97f11cedcaaed3ad114c9f41d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8f74457e9f5284917c50705b7f2003cc9190da582fb38254bb7e6c792414d185", + "output_sha256": "766a4a5ba4b468fe55f62d6602e5dc5c4c29cfab438fae44463545025a4957dd", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b675c6735afe3d7312d3e83d957b5d7c135bb8b4ff1308a925375bad62335d6b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b675c6735afe3d7312d3e83d957b5d7c135bb8b4ff1308a925375bad62335d6b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..afb2dd991ff464b60aba53f24ab762d596f6c513 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b675c6735afe3d7312d3e83d957b5d7c135bb8b4ff1308a925375bad62335d6b.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +'Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 46 +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 9:09-CV-80591-KAM +Jane Doe 101, +Plaintiff, +VS. +Jeffrey Epstein, +Defendant. +ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LIMITED APPEARANCE OF +JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, P.C., +CONSENT TO DESIGNATION AND REQUEST TO ELECTRONICALLY +RECEIVE NOTICES OF ELECTRONIC FILINGS +THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on the Motion for Limited Appearance of +Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. and Consent to Designation, requesting, pursuant to Rule 4B of the +Special Rules Governing the Admission and Practice of Attorneys in the United States District +Court for the Southern District of Florida, permission for a limited appearance of Jay P. +Lefkowitz, P.C. PnE is . +• in this matter and request to electronically receive notice of electronic filings. +This Court having considered the motion and all other relevant factors, it is hereby +ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: +The Motion for Limited Appearance, Consent to Designation and Request to +Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filings is GRANTED. Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. is +granted to appear and participate in this action on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. The Clerk shall +provide electronic notification of all electronic filings to Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. at +jay.lefkowitz@kirkland.com. + + +'Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 Page 2 of 2 +Case No. 9:09-CV-80591-KAM +DONE AND ORDERED in +day of June, 2009 +lat West Palm Beach Florida this _7 c +United States District Judge +Copies furnished to: +All Counsel of Record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b675c6735afe3d7312d3e83d957b5d7c135bb8b4ff1308a925375bad62335d6b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b675c6735afe3d7312d3e83d957b5d7c135bb8b4ff1308a925375bad62335d6b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6e9437b7addbe7601f388b7ce1f5de5c7af4888f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b675c6735afe3d7312d3e83d957b5d7c135bb8b4ff1308a925375bad62335d6b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b675c6735afe3d7312d3e83d957b5d7c135bb8b4ff1308a925375bad62335d6b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "178ceecd1e247aa308a6ac54ac1bf11210ad684211c237fb24a4b63b685483e1", + "output_sha256": "31e755f25167bac4f2a0983471c8b213ef70e1444e3f22b048a504faa923a38d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b699608374286d6f381cbadc3d73942a52561878c4484098502d9a70f6bd0b06.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b699608374286d6f381cbadc3d73942a52561878c4484098502d9a70f6bd0b06.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b0a0af13cb18dbd8fe4ba8d0a872b961db5e2023 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b699608374286d6f381cbadc3d73942a52561878c4484098502d9a70f6bd0b06.md @@ -0,0 +1,155 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 508-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2010 Page 1 of 2 +AO 88A (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +for the +Southern District of Florida +Plaintif +V. +Defendant +Civil Action No. 08-CIV-80119-Marra/| +(If the action is pending in another district, state where: +SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION +To: Cassandra +& Testimony: YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at a +leposition to be taken in this civil action. If you are an organization that is not a party in this case, you must designat +one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on your behalf +about the following matters, or those set forth in an attachment: +Place: Prose Court Reporting, 250 Australian Avenue South, +Date and Time: +Suite 1500, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +02/23/2010 2:00 pm +The deposition will be recorded by this method: VIDEO +• Production: You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents, +electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the +* 40, +2/3/10 +6:00P. is +The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rule +15 (d) and (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, are +attached. +Date: +02/03/2010 +CLERK OF COURT +OR +Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk +Alloney's signature +The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) +Defendant +, who issues or requests this subpoena, are: +Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esq., BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP, 303 Banyan Bivd., Suite #400, West Palm +Beach, FL 33401, Tel: (561) 842-2820, Fax: (561)844-6929. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 508-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2010 Page 2 of 2 +AO 88A (Rev, 06/09) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 3) +Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), and (e) (Effective 12/1/07) +(c) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena. +(d) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena. +(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or +(1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. +attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take +These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically +reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a +stored information: +person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this +(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce +duty and impose an appropriate sanction — which may include lost +documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary +earnings and reasonable attorney's fees - on a party or attorney +course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to +who fails to comply. +the categories in the demand. +(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. +(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not +Specified. If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing +documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or +to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the +place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear +for a deposition, hearing, or trial. +(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or +tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or +attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to +inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or +to inspecting the premises — or to producing electronically stored +information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be +served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 +days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the +following rules apply: +(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving +party may move the issuing court for an order compelling production +or inspection. +(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and +the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's +officer from significant expense resulting from compliance. +(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. +(A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must +quash or modify a subpoena that: +(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; +(ii) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer +to travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is +employed, or regularly transacts business in person - except that, +subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), the person may be commanded to +attend a trial by traveling from any such place within the state where +the trial is held; +(il) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if +no exception or waiver applies; or +(iv) subjects a person to undue burden. +(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by +a subpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the +subpoena if it requires: +(1) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, +development, or commercial information; +(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that +does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from +the expert's study that was not requested by a party; or +(ili) a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to incur +substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial. +(C) Speciying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances +described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or +modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under +specified conditions if the serving party: +(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that +cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and +(ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably +compensated. +electronically stored information, the person responding must +produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or +in a reasonably usable form or forms. +(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One +Form. The person responding need not produce the same +electronically stored information in more than one form. +(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person +responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored +information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably +accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel +discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show +that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue +burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless +order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows +good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The +court may specify conditions for the discovery. +(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection. +(A) İnformation Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed +information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to +protection as trial-preparation material must: +(i) expressly make the claim; and +(ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, +communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without +revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the +parties to assess the claim. +(B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a +subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trialpreparation material, the person making the claim may notify any +party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. +After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or +destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use +or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take +reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it +before being notified; and may promptly present the information to +the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person +who produced the information must preserve the information until +the claim is resolved. +(e) Contempt. The issuing court may hold in contempt a person +who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the +subpoena. A nonparty's failure to obey must be excused if the +subpoena purports to require the nonparty to attend or produce at a +place outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii). diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b699608374286d6f381cbadc3d73942a52561878c4484098502d9a70f6bd0b06.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b699608374286d6f381cbadc3d73942a52561878c4484098502d9a70f6bd0b06.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3d4fa7d78774f56b739884bd2f5cb2e0d70a7cec --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b699608374286d6f381cbadc3d73942a52561878c4484098502d9a70f6bd0b06.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -26, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b699608374286d6f381cbadc3d73942a52561878c4484098502d9a70f6bd0b06", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "6978df560de80861759853268593ccb64bace0c8722761e02e643b92dca2d6cf", + "output_sha256": "d873a11bbfc6e18324c8c3da1ad2a0074381ecd601f3a8b450c98e31155bc49f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b6ca24ff8f229ee493201dc47e649ac09aa5d57075f1d27b5a5a1cbcd4d1e95a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b6ca24ff8f229ee493201dc47e649ac09aa5d57075f1d27b5a5a1cbcd4d1e95a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c60a42ca2d332d97343e00e59ed8eac364138346 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b6ca24ff8f229ee493201dc47e649ac09aa5d57075f1d27b5a5a1cbcd4d1e95a.md @@ -0,0 +1,1298 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 1 of 45 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80804-CIV-MARRA/ +Sealed +JANE DOE, a/k/a +JANE DOE NO. 1, +Plaintiff, +FILED UNDER SEAL* +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +and +Defendants. +LEI +- D.C. +JUL 2 5 2008 +STEVEN M. LARIMORE +CLERK U.S. DIST C1 +S.D. OF FLA, MIAMI +DEFENDANTS JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND +MOTION FOR STAY +" This motion is filed under seal because the deferred-prosecution agreement between the United +States Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein, discussed herein, contains a confidentiality clause. +Mils Tein. +3059 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 340, COCONUT GROVE. FLORIDA 33133 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 2 of 45 +Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and +respectfully move for a +mandatory stay of this action under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3509(k), +Section 1595(b)(1), and alternatively, under this Court's discretionary authority to +stay civil litigation, based on the existence of a pending federal criminal action. +Introduction +This lawsuit arises from a pending federal criminal action concerning, +among other things, an alleged assault of the plaintiff. According to her complaint, +the plaintift, while a minor, was "recruited ... to give Epstein a massage for +monetary compensation," and was "paid ... $300." Am. Compl., 99 13-15.' A +federal statute directly on point provides that when a civil suit alleging damages to +a minor victim arises out of the same occurrence as a "criminal action," the civil +suit "shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the criminal action." 18 U.S.C. § +'Jane Doe, alk/a Jane Doe No.1, is the same plaintif who previously filed an original civil +action in this Court, grounded upon diversity jurisdiction, through her father, based on the same +allegations in this complaint. See Jane Doe No. I, et al. v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08-80069- +CIV-MARRA (WPB) (S.D. Fla., filed 1/24/08). Shortly after that lawsuit was filed by her +father, her mother moved for leave to intervene and to stay, alleging that her father's attorney +had filed the lawsuit without her consent. Id. at DE 4 (1/29/08) (motion to stay), 1| 4 ("Jane +Doe's Father filed this lawsuit against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein without the knowledge, +consultation or consent of Jane Doe No. 1."). On February 20, Jane Doe No. 1 was deposed in +State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, 50 2006 CF009454A XXXMB (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct.), the +parallel state-court criminal action (referred to infra at 2, as the "Florida Criminal Action'). +During that deposition, the plaintiff made numerous admissions that completely undermined the +allegations against Epstein that she had pled in her complaint. Two days later, her lawyer filed a +notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice in this Court. See Doe No. I v. Epstein, Case No. +08-CV-80069-KAM (DE 9). Less than three weeks later, on March 6, the plaintiff re-filed the +instant lawsuit in Florida state court. +.Tein" + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 3 of 45 +3509(k) (emphasis added).? Accordingly, a stay of this case is mandatory until the +criminal action arising from the same allegations is no longer pending. +The Pending Federal Criminal Action +In 2006, a Florida state grand jury indicted Jeffrey Epstein on allegations +similar to those in the instant action (State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. +2006 CF 09454A, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County) (the "Florida +Criminal Action"). Shortly thereafter, the United States Attorney's Office for the +Southern District of Florida (the "USAO") began a federal grand-jury investigation +into allegations arising out of the same incidents alleged in the instant action (Grand +Jury No. 07-103 (WPB), United States District Court for the Southern District of +Florida) ("the Federal Criminal Action"). +In September 2007, the USAO and Mr. Epstein entered into a highly unusual +and unprecedented deferred-prosecution agreement (the "Agreement"), in which the +USAO agreed to defer (not dismiss or close) the Federal Criminal Action on the +condition that Mr. Epstein continue to comply with numerous obligations, the first of +2 The full text of the mandatory-stay provision reads: +If, at any time that a cause of action for recovery of compensation for damage or +injury to the person of a child exists, a criminal action is pending which arises out +of the same occurrence and in which the child is the victim, the civil action shall +18 U.S.C. § 3509(k). +2 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 4 of 45 +which was pleading guilty to certain state charges in the Florida Criminal Action. +The Agreement itself uses the term "deferred' (rather than "dismissed" or "closed") +to describe the status of the Federal Criminal Action: +THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States +Attorney for the Southern District of Florida prosecution in this +District, for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by +the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following +conditions and the requirements of this Agreement.... +Agreement, at 2. +By no stretch did the USAO finalize, close, complete, dismiss or abandon +the Federal Criminal Action. Indeed, as the lead federal prosecutor recently +explained, the USAO merely "agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of +prosecution by the State of Florida ...." See In re: Jane Doe, Case No. 08- +80736-CIV-Marra +(S.D. Fla.) (DE 14), Decl. of AUSA Villafana, +07/09/08, 1 5, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (emphasis added). Under the +Agreement, the USAO presently retains the continuing right to indict Mr. Epstein - +- or to unseal "any" already-existing federal "charges" that may already have been +handed up by the federal grand jury and sealed - - should he breach any of its +provisions. Agreement, at 2. +The period of the deferral continues until three months after Mr. Epstein +completes service of his sentence in the Florida Criminal Action. Id. Indeed, the +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 5 of 45 +final three months of the Agreement's term constitute an extended period during +which the USAO expressly retains the ability to evaluate whether Epstein +committed any breaches of his numerous obligations under the agreement while he +was serving his state sentence, and, if it so determines, reserves the right to indict +(or unseal an existing indictment against) Mr. Epstein - - even after he has +completed serving his entire state sentence. +The Agreement further provides that upon Epstein's execution of a plea +agreement in the State Criminal Case, the Federal Criminal Action "will be +suspended" and all pending grand-jury subpoenas "will be held in abeyance unless +and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement." Agreement, at 5 +(emphasis added). The Agreement directs the USAO and Epstein to "maintain +their evidence, specifically evidence requested by or directly related to the grand +jury subpoenas that have been issued," and to maintain such evidence "inviolate." +Id. (emphasis added). It also expressly provides that the grand-jury subpoenas +continue to remain "outstanding" until "the successful completion of the terms of +this agreement." Id. (emphasis added). +Further, it includes a promise not to prosecute movant/defendant +,, only if "Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of th[e] +agreement." Id. +4 +Tein. + + +Case 9:08-cV-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 6 of 45 +Finally, the Agreement provides that the USAO's declination of prosecution +for certain enumerated offenses and dismissal of any existing (sealed) charges will +not occur until 90 days following the completion of his state sentence: +If the United States Attorney should determine, based on +reliable evidence, that, during the period of the Agreement, Epstein +willfully violated any of the conditions of this Agreement, then the +United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the +expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide +Epstein with timely notice specifying the condition(s) of the +Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate its prosecution or +any offense within sixty (60) days' of [sic] giving notice of the +violation. Any notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph +shall be provided within 60 days of the United States learning of facts +which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of the +Agreement. +After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the +Agreement, no prosecution for the oftenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of +this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of +the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the +United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the +Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and +the charges against Epstein, if any, will be dismissed. +Agreement, at 2. +Consistent with the Agreement and its position that the Federal Criminal +Action continues to remain pending, the USAO recently sent letters to attorneys for +people that the USAO has designated as "victims." In those letters, the USAO +asked, "[I]f you do file a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and Mr. Epstein denies that +your client is a victim of an enumerated offense, please provide notice of that +5 +Tein " + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 7 of 45 +denial to the undersigned [AUSA]." See Decl. of AUSA Villafana, Exhs. 6 & 7, at +2 (July 9, 2008). The clear implication of the USAO's request (by which the +USAO appears to involve itself in the instant litigation, despite advising the +recipients that it cannot "take part in or otherwise assist in civil litigation," id. at 2), +is that the USAO believes that such denial might breach the Agreement. +Accordingly, the Federal Criminal Action remains "pending." +Discussion +Section 3509(k) Imposes a Mandatory Stay. +The language of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3509(k) is clear and +mandatory: a parallel "civil action shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the +criminal action." 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) (emphasis added). The word "shall" means +that the statute's command is mandatory and not subject to a Court's discretion. +See, e.g., +V. +531 U.S. 230, 241 (2001) (noting Congress' "use of a +mandatory 'shall' to impose discretionless obligations") (emphasis added); +Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35 (1998) +(explaining that "the mandatory "shall' ... normally creates an obligation +impervious to judicial discretion") (emphasis added). Cf. +V. +, 530 +U.S. 327, 350 (2000) (construing the litigation-stay provision of the Prison +Litigation Reform Act, holding, "Through the PLRA, Congress clearly intended to +make operation of the automatic stay mandatory, precluding courts from +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 8 of 45 +exercising their equitable powers to enjoin the stay. And we conclude that this +provision does not violate separation of powers principles.") (emphasis added). +One District Court within the Eleventh Circuit recently construed "the plain +language of § 3509(k)" as "requir|ing) a stay in a case ... where ... a parallel +criminal action [is] pending." Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WL 950623, +at *2 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2005) (Francis II) (emphasis added). Accord Doe v. +Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WL 517847, at *1-2 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2005) +(Francis D) (staying federal civil action in favor of "a criminal case currently +pending in state court in Bay County, Florida, arising from the same facts and +involving the same parties as the Instant action," noting that "the language of 18 +U.S.C. § 3509(k) is clear that a stay is required in a case such as this where a +parallel criminal action is pending which arises from the same occurrence +involving minor victims") (emphasis added). There is no contrary opinion from +any court. +In determining that the federal stay provision is mandatory, the Francis I/ +court expressed that there was apparently no case law supporting, or even +"discussing the [avoidance] of a stay [under the command of] § 3509(k)." Francis +II, 2005 WL 950623, at *2. Deferring to the statute as written, the Francis II court +rejected the plaintiffs' argument that some of the alleged victims had already +reached their majority. See id. The court similarly rejected the plaintiffs' +7 +3059 GHAND AVENUE, SUITE 340, COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 9 of 45 +argument that it would be in the victims' best interests to avoid a stay so as to +counteract the victims' "ongoing and increasing mental harm due to the 'frustrating +delay in both the criminal case and [the civil] case.'" Id. +II. Section 3509(k) Applies to Investigations, Not Just Indictments. +While there is no unsealed indicted criminal case against Mr. Epstein, the +government's criminal investigation against him remains open. Section 3509(k) +clearly applies to stay civil cases during the pendency, not only of indicted +criminal cases, but also of pre-indictment criminal investigations. +The term "criminal action" is not expressly defined in § 3509(k). It is +defined, however, by a closely related statute. Title 18, U.S.C. § 1595 provides a +civil remedy for "forced labor" and "sex trafficking" violations, but stays such +actions "during the pendency of any criminal action arising out of the same +occurrence in which the claimant is the victim.""3 In enacting § 1595, Congress +' The full text of that statute provides: +§ 1595. Civil remedy +(a) An individual who is a victim of a violation of section 1589, +1590, or 1591 of this chapter may bring a civil action against +the perpetrator in an appropriate district court of the United +States and may recover damages and reasonable attorneys +fees. +(b) +(1) +Any civil action filed under this section shall be +stayed during the pendency of any criminal action +arising out of the same occurrence in which the +8 +Tein r + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 10 of 45 +specifically intended that the term "criminal action" would be applied extremely +broadly. Accordingly, Congress took pains to ensure that courts would give it the +broadest possible construction and, for that reason, specified in the definition +provision that "criminal action" also "includes investigation." +18 U.S.C. +§ 1595(b)(2). The only reported decision addressing this provision interpreted it +according to its plain language. See Ara v. Khan, No. CV 07-1251, 2007 WL +1726456, *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2007) (ordering "all proceedings in this case +stayed pending the conclusion of the government's criminal investigation of the +defendants and of any resulting criminal prosecution") (emphasis added). +Given that the USAO's Agreement with Epstein indicates that: +• +the grand-jury's subpoenas remain "outstanding" (Agreement, at 5); +• +• +the subpoenas are "h[e]ld ... in abeyance" (id.); +the subpoenas are not "withdrawn" (id.); +• +the parties must "maintain their evidence" (id.) (which would be +entirely unnecessary if the investigation against Epstein were closed); +(2) In this subsection, a "criminal action" includes +nvestigation and prosecution and is pending unt +inal adiudication in the trial cou +18 U.S.C. § 1595. +* The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit routinely relies on Black's Law +Dictionary for the definition of statutory terms, including in criminal cases. See e.g., United +lates v. Young. 528 F.3d 1294, 1297 n.3 (11th Cir. 2008) (definitions of criminal "complaint +nd "indictment"): United States i +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 11 of 45 +• +"any" existing "charges" will not "be dismissed" until after Epstein +has "timely fulfilled] all the terms and conditions of the Agreement" +(id. at 2); and +• +"prosecution in this District ... shall be deferred' (id.) (but not closed +or dismissed) - - +then the only reasonable conclusion is that the Federal Criminal Action remains +"pending." +The ordinary meaning of the adjective "pending" is "[r]emaining undecided; +awaiting decision ..." Black's Law Dictionary 1154 (8th ed. 2004). * See also +v. Klitzkie, 281 F.3d 920, 928 (9th Cir. 2002) (relying on Black's Law +Dictionary, in the context of a criminal case, for the definition of "pending" as +"awaiting decision"); Swartz v. Meyers, 204 F.3d 417, 421 (3d Cir. 2000) (relying +on Black's Law Dictionary for the definition of "pending," expressly because +"pending' is not defined in the statute"). Any common-sense reading of the +Agreement and the USAO's recent sworn construction of it, is consonant with the +Federal Criminal Action's "remaining undecided" and "awaiting decision." See +Unified Gov't of Athens-Clarke County v. Athens Newspapers, LLC, No. +S07G1133, +_S.E.2d_, 2008 WL 2579238, *3 (Ga. June 30, 2008) (reviewing a +public-records request against Georgia's "pending investigation" exception to its +open-records law, and holding that "a seemingly inactive investigation which has +10 += Tein». + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 12 of 45 +not yet resulted in a prosecution logically "remains undecided," and is therefore +"pending," until it "is concluded and the file closed") (emphasis added). +Ill. Section 3509(k) Applies Even After a Plaintiff Turns 18. +The parallel stay provision in § 1595, discussed supra at 8-9, mandates, +without exception, that any civil action brought under that section for violation of +§ 1591 (prohibiting transportation of minors for prostitution) "shall be stayed +during the pendency of any criminal action arising out of the same occurrence in +which the claimant is the victim." 18 U.S.C. § 1591(b)(1). Whether the § 1595 +plaintiff has turned 18 does not vitiate the efficacy of this mandatory stay. +An example illustrates why the stay provided in § 3509(k) has the same +broad scope as the stay provided in § 1591(b)(1). As discussed above, § 3509(k) +stays any civil suit for injury to a minor, arising out of the same occurrence as a +pending criminal action. One type of civil suit falling within § 3509(k)'s ambit is a +suit seeking redress for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). Section 2423(a) - - just +like § 1591 - - prohibits transportation of minors for prostitution. The elements of +both statutes are identical. There would simply be no legitimate basis for Congress +to differentiate between the consequences attached to violating these two sections. +Thus, just as Congress mandated under § 1595(b)(1) that civil discovery shall be +stayed when there is an ongoing federal investigation under § 1591 (even after the +11 += Tein» + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 13 of 45 +victim turns 18), the identical treatment should apply under § 3509(k) to civil +actions brought for the identical violation of § 2423(a). +Logic compels a rule requiring continued application of the § 3509(k) stay to +a putative victim who has since turned 18. Consider again the example of +§ 2243(a). Assume that the USAO is investigating a § 2243(a) violator with two +alleged victims; one who is now 17, and one who has turned 19. Assume further +that both decide to sue the alleged offender while the USAO is still in the process +of conducting its criminal investigation. Why would Congress prohibit the +defendant from conducting civil discovery in the 17-year-old's lawsuit, but permit +him to conduct full discovery in the 19-year-old's lawsuit, including taking the +depositions of both the 19- and the 17-year-old, the federal investigating agents +and all the grand-jury witnesses? This could not have been Congress' intent. +The legislative history to a statute resembling § 1595 is also instructive. +When Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 2255, it provided a civil remedy to any +"minor ... victim" of enumerated federal sex offenses. See Child Abuse Victims' +Rights Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-500, 100 Stat. 1783, § 703 (1986). In 2006, +Congress amended the statute to clarify that the civil cause of action was available +not just while the victim was a minor, but even after she or he turned 18. See Pub. +L. 109-248, 120 Stat. 650, § 707 (b)(1)(A) (amending § 2255 to permit suit by +adults who were victims of enumerated federal offenses when they were minors, +12 +«Tein". + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 14 of 45 +by deleting "Any minor who is [a victim]" and adding "Any person, who, while a +minor, was [a victim]"). Meanwhile, the stay provisions of § 3509(k) remained +unchanged. There is no reason to think that Congress would afford prosecutors +protection for their investigations while the victims were minors, but completely +eliminate those protections the moment one of the victims turned 18. +The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this +position, and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Francis II, +2005 WL 950623, at *2. The plaintiffs there argued that "the stay should be lifted +due to the fact that the minor Plaintiffs have now reached the age of majority +during the pendency of the state criminal case." Id. The court found this +argument "unavailing ... given the victims' minor status at the time of the events +giving rise to the underlying claims." Id. The court specifically held that "because +the victims were minors at the time of the Defendants' actions alleged in both +[the civil and criminal] cases, § 3509(k) applies." Id. (emphasis added). +The United States Department of Justice has itself emphatically embraced +the interpretation of § 3509(k) as applying to stay all civil actions relating to sex +offenses against minors, pending the completion of a parallel criminal action, +without regard to whether the plaintiff has turned 18 during her civil lawsuit: +The subsection should stay all pending civil actions in the wake of a +criminal prosecution. Notably, in the context of 18 USC § 2255 ("civil +remedy for personal injuries"), all civil actions are stayed pending the +13 +- Tein" + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 15 of 45 +completion of a criminal action. See also 18 USC § 3509(k). +H.R. Rep. 108-264(II), 108th Cong., Ist Sess. (2003), reprinted at 2003 WL +22272907, at *16-17 ("agency view" by the Department of Justice on bill later +codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1595). +The Department specifically argued to Congress in the clearest terms: "We +believe that prosecutions should take priority over civil redress and that +prosecutions should be complete prior to going forward with civil suits." Id. at 17 +(emphasis added). Nowhere did the Department suggest that pending prosecutions +warrant less protection (i.e., should be "hinder[ed]") simply because a particular +civil plaintiff happens to reach his or her 18th birthday. +Finally, it would be incongruous for the plaintiff to claim that § 3509(k) is +no longer applicable to her because she is no longer a minor, but, at the very same +time, claim that she is entitled to file this lawsuit under a fictitious name "to protect +her identity because the Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexual assault +and abuse that she suffered while a minor." Am. Compl., 9 2 (emphasis added). +IV. A Stay is Mandatory Despite Resulting "Delay" to Civil Lawsuits. +Inherent in any § 3509(k) stay is delay to the progress (discovery, trial, +appeal) of all related civil lawsuits. Congress recognized this in enacting the stay +provision, which necessarily prioritized the interests of completing a criminal +investigation and prosecution over the interests of a particular plaintiff in seeking +14 +Teinr. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 16 of 45 +personal pecuniary damages. +Based on this reasoning, the Francis II court +specifically refused to provide any relief to plaintiffs "simply because the state +[criminal] matter is not progressing as fast as they would hope." The court made +this determination despite the plaintiffs' complaints about the "frustrating delay" +and that "the state criminal case 'has languished for almost two years with no end +in sight,"" finding that this "is a matter to be addressed in state [criminal] court." +Id. Accordingly, the anticipated delay in this case, attendant to the term of the +deferred-prosecution agreement, does not change the clear command of § 3509(k). +According to her own pleadings, the plaintiff waited three years before filing +this lawsuit, Am. Compl. 9 9, and so cannot rightfully claim prejudice from +additional temporary delay. +V. Section 3509 Aside, a Discretionary Stay is Warranted. +Even, arguendo, were this Court not to apply the mandate of § 3509, a +discretionary stay should still be entered during the pendency of the Federal +Criminal Action. SEC v. Healthsouth Corp., 261 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1326 (N.D. +Ala. 2003) (No question exists that this court has the power to stay a civil +proceeding due to an active, parallel criminal investigation."). Other federal +statutes support such a stay -- particularly when the criminal action may be +adversely affected by the civil litigation. +For example, under 18 U.S.C. +§ 2712(e)(1), "the court shall stay any action commenced [against the United +15 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 17 of 45 +States] if the court determines that civil discovery will adversely affect the ability +of the Government to conduct a related investigation or prosecution of a related +criminal case." Allowing this lawsuit to progress while Epstein remains subject to +the Federal Criminal Action will prejudice him irrevocably and irreparably. As +provided below, there are several adverse effects to allowing this case to proceed +while the Federal Criminal Action remains pending. +In this lawsuit, Epstein has a right to defend himself. In the Federal +Criminal Action, Epstein has a right against self-incrimination. Hoffman v. United +States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951) (holding that the privilege applies in "instances +where the witness has reasonable cause to apprehend danger" of criminal +liability"). Without a stay, Epstein will be immediately forced to abandon one of +these rights. +Should he choose his Fifth Amendment rights, he will expose himself to an +adverse inference at the summary-judgment stage and at trial. See generally, +Wehling v. Columbia Broad. Sys, 611 F.2d 1026, 1027 (5th Cir. 1980) (observing +that "invocation of the privilege would be subject to the drawing of an adverse +inference by the trier of fact"). On the other hand, should Epstein choose his right +to defend himself in this lawsuit, the USAO will be able to use his responses at +every stage of the discovery and trial process (e.g., his Answer, responses to +document requests, responses to requests for admissions, sworn answers to +16 +Lewis Tein» +3059 GRAND AVENUE, SUSTE 340, COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 18 of 45 +interrogatories, answers to deposition questions, and trial testimony) to his +detriment in the Federal Criminal Action. S +In this lawsuit, even before civil discovery begins, under the Initial +Disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and S.D. Fla. Local Rule 26.1, Epstein +"must" disclose the identities of all the witnesses he would call in his defense to +the Federal Criminal Action (Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i)), copies of "all documents" he +"may use to support [his] defenses" (Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii)), as well as the identity +of "any" expert witness he "may use at trial," along with mandatory disclosure of +"a written report" containing "a complete statement of all opinions the [expert] will +express and the basis and reasons for them" (Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B)(i)). +In contrast, in the pending Federal Criminal Action, which is governed +exclusively by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the USAO would not be +entitled to compel pre-trial production of any of this information. See Fed. R. Cr. +P. 16(b)(1)(A), (C), and 16(b)(2); United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, +1355-56 (11th Cir. 1991) (explaining act-of-production privilege). +" This could give the USAO a tremendous advantage in prosecuting Epstein in the Federal +17 +Tein». + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 19 of 45 +Thus, absent a stay of this civil action, the USAO would receive +fundamentally unfair access to defense information and highly prejudicial advance +insight into criminal defense strategy. See Comment, 98 Harv. L. Rev. at 1030 +("To the extent that a prosecutor acquires evidence that was elicited from the +accused in a parallel civil proceeding, the criminal process becomes less +adversarial."). +Without a stay in place, discovery will proceed, including against third +parties. Mr. Epstein will have no alternative but to issue subpoenas seeking +evidence from state and federal law-enforcement officers. For example, Epstein is +clearly entitled to discover evidence of prior statements (including inconsistent +statements) given by witnesses whom law-enforcement has previously interviewed. +See, e.g., Cox v. Treadway, 75 F.3d 230 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that district court +properly admitted testimony of prosecutor about prior inconsistent statements that +witness made to the prosecutor). Likewise, Epstein may be entitled to discovery of +relevant evidence that is in the present possession of the grand jury or other lawenforcement agencies. See, e.g., Simpson v. Hines, 729 F. Supp. 526, 527 (E.D. +Tex. 1989) ("The grand jury has concluded its deliberations .... The need for +secrecy of these specific tapes no longer outweighs other concerns."); Golden +Quality Ice Cream Co., Inc. v. Deerfield Specialty Papers, Inc., 87 F.R.D. 53, 59 +(E.D. Pa. 1980) ("[Jhere, as here, the grand jury has completed its work and all +18 +Is Teinr + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 20 of 45 +that is sought are those documents turned over to the grand jury by the +corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . • +militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of +Calif. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). +In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we +anticipate that it will be the government, not Mr. Epstein, who will object to +discovery in this civil case, until the final conclusion of the Federal Criminal +Action. +19 +A Tein". + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 21 of 45 +Conclusion +Because this lawsuit arises from the same allegations as the Federal Criminal +Action, this Court should stay this lawsuit until that action is no longer pending. +By: +Respectfully submitted, +TEIN, P.L. +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 +Tel: 305 442 1101 +Fax: 305 442 6744 +Uilh-Tei +GUY A. +Fla. Bar No. 623740 +MICHAEL R. TEIN +Fla. Bar No. 993522 +tein@lewistein.com +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Tel. 561 659 8300 +Fax. 561 835 8691 +By: +Jack A. Goldberger +Fla. Bar No. 262013 +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +20 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM +Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 22 of 45 +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1.D.3 +Counsel for defendant has conferred in good faith with counsel for the +plaintiff, who opposes the relief requested in this motion. +With Te: +Michael R. Tein +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document is being served this day, +July 25, 2008, on counsel of record identified on the service list by U.S. Mail. +Wilh. Tei +Michael R. Tein +21 +3059 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 340. COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33|33 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 23 of 45 +Service List +Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. +Ricci-Leopold, P.A +2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +Fax: 561 697 2383 +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Douglas M. McIntosh, Esq. +Jason A. +, Esq. +Mclntosh, Sawran, Peltz & Cartaya, P.A. +Centurion Tower +1601 Forum Place, Suite 1110 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Fax. 561 682-3206 +Counsel for Defendant +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Fax. 561 828 0983 +Counsel for Defendant +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +Michael J. Pike, Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & +Coleman, LLP +15 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 40( +Nest Palm Beach, Florida 3340 +Fax. 561 515 3148 +Co-Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein +22 +[Tein. +3059 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 340, COCONUT GROVe, FLORIDA 33133 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 24 of 45 + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 25 of 45 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/J +FILED by ROD.C. +JUL 0 9 2008 +IN RE: JANE DOE, +Petitioner. +DECLARATION OF A. +VILLAFAÑA +IN SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES' RESPONSE +TO VICTIM'S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT +OF CRIME VICTIM RIGHTS ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 +1. +1, A. +Villafaña, do hereby declare that I am a member in good standing +of the Bar of the State of Florida. I graduated from the University of California at Berkeley +School of Law (Boalt +in 1993. After serving as a judicial clerk to the Hon. David F. +Levi in Sacramento, California, I was admitted to practice in California in 1995. I also am +admitted to practice in all courts of the states of Minnesota and Florida, the Eighth, Eleventh, +and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District +of Florida, the District of Minnesota, and the Northern District of California. My har +admission status in California and Minnesota is currently inactive. I am currently employed +as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of Florida and was so +employed during all of the events described herein. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 26 of 45 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 Page 2 of 21 +2. +1 am the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to the investigation of +Jeffrey Epstein. The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). +The federal investigation was initiated in 2006 at the request of the Palm Beach Police +Department ("PBPD"*) into allegations that Jeffrey Epstein and his personal assistants had +used facilities of interstate commerce to induce young girls between the ages of thirteen and +seventeen to engage in prostitution, amongst other offenses. +3. +Throughout the investigation, when a victim was identified, victim notification +letters were provided to her both from your Affiant and from the FBI's Victim-Witness +Specialist. Attached hereto are copies of the letters provided to +three +clients, T.M., C. W., and S.R.' Your Affiant's letter to C. W. was provided by the FBI. (Ex. +1). Your Affiant's letter to T.M. was hand-delivered by myself to T.M. at the time that she +was interviewed (Ex. 2)? Both C. W. and T.M. also received letters from the FBI's Victim- +Witness Specialist, which were sent on January 10, 2008 (Exs. 3 & 4). S.R. was identified +via the FBI's investigation in 2007, but she initially refused to speak with investigators. +S.R.'s status as a victim of a federal offense was confirmed when she was interviewed by +'Attorney | +| filed his Motion on behalf of "Jane Doe," without identifying which of +his clients is the purported victim. Accordingly, I will address facts related to C.W., T.M., and S.R. +All three of those clients were victims of Jeffrey Epstein's while they were minors beginning when +they were fifteen years old +¿Please note that the dates on the U.S. Attorney's Office letters to C. W. and T.M. are not the +dates that the letters were actually delivered. Letters to all known victims were prepared early in the +investigation and delivered as each victim was contacted +-2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 27 of 45 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 Page 3 of 21 +federal agents on May 28, 2008. The FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist sent a letter to S.R +on May 30, 2008 (Ex. 5). +4. +Throughout the investigation, the FBI agents, the FBl's Victim-Witness +Specialist, and your Affiant had contact with C. W. and S.R. Attorney +other client, +T.M., was represented by counsel and, accordingly, all contact with T.M. was made through +that attorney. That attorney was James Eisenberg, and his fees were paid by Jeffrey Epstein, +the target of the investigation.? +5. +In the summer of 2007, Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the +Southern Distriet of Florida ("the Office") entered into negotiations to resolve the +investigation. At that time, Mr. Epstein had been charged by the State of Florida with +solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes § 796.07. Mr. Epstein's attorneys +sought a global resolution of the matter. The United States subsequently agreed to defer +federal prosecution in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, so long as certain basic +preconditions were met. One of the key objectives for the Government was to preserve a +federal remedy for the young girls whom Epstein had sexually exploited. Thus, one +condition of that agreement, notice of which was provided to the victims on July 9, 2008. is +the following: +"Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense +enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same +rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein +'The undersigned does not know when Mr. +I began representing T.M. or whether +T.M. ever formally terminated Mr. Eisenberg's representation. +-3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 28 of 45 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 Page 4 of 21 +had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes +of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's +attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an +Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial +authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining +which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is +the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position +as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no +less." +6. An agreement was reached in September 2007. The Agreement contained an +express confidentiality provision. +7. Although individual victims were not consulted regarding the agreement, +several had expressed concerns regarding the exposure of their identities at trial and they +desired a prompt resolution of the matter. At the time the agreement was signed in +September 2007, T.M. was openly hostile to the prosecution of Epstein. The FBI attempted +1o interview S.R. in October 2007, at which time she refused to provide any information +regarding Jeffrey Epstein. None of Attorney +clients had expressed a desire to be +consulted prior to the resolution of the federal investigation. +8. +As explained above, one of the terms of the agreement deferring prosecution +1o the State of Florida was securing a federal remedy for the victims. In October 2007, +shortly after the agreement was signed, four victims were contacted and these provisions +were discussed. One of those victims was C. W. who at the time was not represented, and she +was given notice of the agreement. Notice was also provided of an expected change of plea +in October 2007. When Epstein's attorneys learned that some of the victims had been +-4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 29 of 45 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 Page 5 of 21 +notified, they complained that the victims were receiving an incentive to overstate their +involvement with Mr. Epstein in order to increase their damages claims. While your Affiant +knew that the victims' statements had been taken and corroborated with independent +evidence well before they were informed of the potential for damages, the agents and I +concluded that informing additional victims could compromise the witnesses' credibility at +trial if Epstein reneged on the agreement. +9. +Afler C. W. had been notified of the terms of the agreement, but before Epstein +performed his obligations, C. W. contacted the FBI because Epstein's counsel was attempting +1o take her deposition and private investigators were harassing her. Your Affiant secured pro +bono counsel to represent C. W. and several other identified victims. Pro bono counsel was +able to assist C.W. in avoiding the improper deposition. That pro bono counsel did not +express to your Affiant that C. W. was dissatisfied with the resolution of the matter. +10. In mid-June 2008, Attorney L +contacted your Affiant to inform me that +he represented C.W. and S.R. and asked to meet to provide me with information regarding +Epstein. I invited Attorney +to send to me any information that he wanted me to +consider. Nothing was provided. I also advised Attorney +that he should consider +contacting the State Attorney's Office, if he so wished. I understand that no contact with that +office was made. Attorney +had alluded to T.M., so 1 advised him that, to iny +knowledge, T.M. was still represented by Attorney James Eisenberg +-5. + + +Case 9:08-CV-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 30 of 45 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 Page 6 of 21 +11. On Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximate 4:15 p.m., your Affiant received a +copy of the proposed state plea agreement and learned that the plea was scheduled for 8:30 +a.m., Monday, June 30, 2008. Your Affiant and the Palm Beach Police Department +attempted to provide notification to victims in the short time that Epstein's counsel had given +us. Although all known victims were not notified, your Affiant specifically called attorney +to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. Your Affiant believes that +it was during this conversation that Attorney +notified me that he represented T.M., +and I assumed that he would pass on the notice to her, as well. Attorney +informed +your Affiant that he could not attend but that someone would be present at the hearing. Your +Affiant attended the hearing, but none of Attorney +clients was present. +12. On today's date, your Affiant provided the attached victim notifications to +C. W. and S.R. via their attorney, +(Exs. 6 & 7). A notification was not +provided to T.M. because the U.S. Attorney's modification limited Epstein's liability to +victims whom the United States was prepared to name in an indictment. In light of T.M.'s +prior statements to law enforcement, your Affiant could not in good faith include T.M. as a +victim in an indictment and, accordingly, could not include her in the list provided to +Epstein's counsel. +13. +Furthermore, with respect to the Certification of Emergency, Attorney +did not ever contact me prior to the filing of that Certification to demand the relief that he +requests in his Emergency Petition. On the afternoon of July 7, 2008, after your Affiant had +-6. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 31 of 45 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 Page 7 of 21 +already received the Certification of Emergency and Emergency Petition, I received a letter +from Attorney +that had been sent, via Certified Mail, on July 3, 2008. While that +letter urges the Attorney General and the United States Attorney to consider "vigorous +enforcement" of federal laws with respect to Jeffrey Epstein, it contains no demand for the +relief requested in the Emergency Petition. +14. +1 declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the +foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. +Executed this 9th +_ day of July, 2008. +A laare +-7- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 32 of 45 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/20Q +U.S. Department of Justice +United States Attorney +Southern District of Florida +500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 3340/ +(561) 820-8711 +Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 +June 7, 2007 +DELIVERY BY HAND +Miss O +Re: +Crime Victims' and Witnesses Rights +Dear Miss W +Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004, as a victim and/or witness of a foderal offense, +you have a number of rights. Those rights are: +(1) +(2) +(3) +(4) +(5) +(6) +(7) +(8) +The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. +The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding +involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. +The right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court +determines that your testimony may be materially altered if you are present for other +portions of a proceeding. +The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court +involving release, plea, or sentencing +The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case. +The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. +The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. +The right to be treated with fairess and with respect for the victim's dignity and +prvacy +Members of the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal investigative agencies, +including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, must use their best efforts to make sure that these +rights are protected. If you have any concerns in this regard, please feel free to contact me at 56l +209-1047, or Special Agent Nesbilt Kuyrkendail from the Federal Bureau of Investigation at 561 +822-5946. You also can contact the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime in +Washington, D.C. at 202-307-5983. That Office has a website at www.ovc.gov. +You can seck the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights listed above and, if you +believe that the rights set forth above are being violated, you have the right to petition the Court for +relief. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 33 of 45 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 Page 9 of 21 +MIss CU +JUNE 7, 2007 +PAGE 2 +In addition to these rights, you are entitled to counseling and medical services, and protection +from intimidation and harassment. If the Court determines that you are a victim, you also may be +entitled to restitution from the perpetrator. A list of counseling and medical service providers can +be provided to you, if you so desire. If you or your family is subjected to any intimidation or +harassment, please contact Special Agent Kuyrkendall or myself immediately. Il is possible that +someone working on behalf of the targets of the investigation may contact you. Such contact does +no! violatesbe law." However, if you are contacted, you have the choice of speaking to that person +or refusing to"do so. If you refuse and feel that you are being threatened or harassed, then please +contact Special Agent Kuykendall or myself. +You also are entitled to notification of upcoming case events. At this time, your case is under +investigation! If anyone is charged in connection with the investigation, you will be notified. +Sincerely. +R. Alexander Acosta +United States Allorney +By: +Villafaña +Assistant United States Attomey +cc: +Special Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, F.B.I. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 34 of 45 +U.S. Department of Justice +United States Attorney +Southern District of Florida +500 South Australian /re., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(56l) 820-8711 +Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 +August 11, 2006 +DELIVERY BY HAND +Miss T +Re: +Crime Victims' and Witnesses' Rights +Dear Miss M +Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004, as a victim and/or witness of a federal offense, +you have a number of rights. Those rights are: +(1) +(2) +(3) +(4) +(5) +(6) +(7) +(8) +The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. +The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding +involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused +The right not to be excluded from any public court proceding, unless the court +determines that your testimony may be materially altered if you are present for other +portions of a proceeding. +The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court +involving release, plea, or sentencing +The reisonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case. +The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. +The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. +The right to be treated with fairess and with respeet for the victim's dignity and +privacy. +Members of the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal investigative agencies, +822-5946. You also can contact the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime in +Washington, D.C. at 202-307-5983. That Office has a website at www.ovc.gov. +You can seek the advice of an altorney with respect to the rights listed above and, if you +believe that the rights set forth above are being violated, you have the right to petition the Court for +relict. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 35 of 45 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 Page 11 of 21 +MISS TE +AUGUST 11, 2006 +PAGE 2 +•MA +In addition to these rights, you are entitled to counseling and medical services, and 1. +from intimidation and harassment. If the Court determines that you are a victim, you «l.. +entitled to restitution from the perpetrator. A list of counseling and medical service pre: +be provided to you, if you so desire. If you or your family is subjected to any intr • +harassment, please contact Special Agent Kuyrkendall or myself immediately. It is p • +someone working on behalf of the targets of the investigation may contact you. Such cir' +not violate the law. However, if you are contacted, you have the choice of speaking to air +or refusing to do so. If you refuse and feel that you are being threatened or harassed, for +contact Special Agent Kuyrkendall or myself. +You also are entitled to notification of upcoming case events. At this time, your e.. : +investigation. If anyone is charged in connection with the investigation, you will be n. +Sincerely. +R. Alexander Acosta +United States Attorney +By: +Villafaña +Assistant United States Attorey +CC: +Special Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, F.B.I. +".". + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 36 of 45 +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAМ +Entered on FLSD Docket 0Z41542008. Page.12 of 21 +U.S. Department of Justice +Federal Bureau of Investigation +FBI - West Palm Beach +Suite 500 +505 South Flagler Drive +West Paim Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (581) 833-7517 +Fax: (561) 833-7970 +January 10, 2008 +Re: Case Number: +Dear C +This case is currently under Investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your +continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation. +As a crime victim, you have the following rights under 18 United States Code 5 3771: (1) The right to +be reasonably protected from the accused; (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any +public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, Involving the crime or of any release or escape of the +accused; (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after +receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially aftered If +the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding; (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public +proceeding in the district court involving release, piea, sentencing. or any parole proceeding: (5) The +reasonable right to confer with the attomey for the Govemment in the case; (6) The right to full and timely +restitution as provided in law; (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay: (B) The right to be +treated with faimess and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. +We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights +pertain to events occurring after the arrest or indictment of an individual for the crime, and it will become the +responsibility of the prosecuting Unted States Attomey's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights. You +may also seek the advice of a private attomey with respect to these rights. +The Victim Notification System (VNS) is designed to provide you with direct information regarding the +case as it proceeds through the criminal justice system. You may obtain current information about this matter +on the Internet at WWW.Notify. USDOJ.GOV or from the VNS Call Center at 1-866-DOJ-4YOU (1-866-365- +496B) (TDD/TTY: 1-866-228-4619) (International: 1-502-213-2767), In addition, you may use the Call +Center or Intemet to update your contact information and/or change your decision about participation in the +notification program. If you update your information to include a current emall addresa, VNS will send +formation to that address. You will need the tollowing Victim identification Number (VIN) *1941737' and +Personal Identification Number (PIN) '5502' anytime you contact the Call Center and the first time you log on t +VNS on the Internet. In addition, the first time you access the VNS Intamet site, you will be prompted to enter +your last name (or business name) Bs currently contained in VNS. The name you should enter is W +NO. 08-80756- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 37 of 45 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/45/2008 Page 43 8f 21 +If you have additional questions which involve this matter, please contact the office listed above. When +you call, please provide the file number located at the top of this letter. Please remamber, your participation +in the notification part of this program is voluntary. In order to continue to receive notifications, it is your +responsibility to keep your contact information ourrent. +Sincerely. +Victm Specialist + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 38 of 45 +Entered on FLSD Docket 0745/2006»x Page 44of 21 +U.S. Department of Justice +Federal Bureau of Investigation +FBI - West Palm Beach +Sutte 500 +505 South Flagler Drive +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 833-7517 +Fax: (561) 833-7970 +January 10, 2008 +James Elsenberg +One Cleariake Center Ste 704 Australian South +West Palm Beach, Fl. 33401 +Re: +Dear James Elsanberg: +You have roquested to recelve notifications for 1 +This case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your +continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation. +As a crime victim, you have the following rights under 18 United States Code § 3771: (1) The right to +be reasonably protected from the accused: (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any +public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the +accused; (3) The right not to be excluded from any such publie court proceeding, unless the court, aftar • +receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if +the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding: (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public +proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding; (5) The +reasonable right to confer with the atlomey for the Government in the case; (5) The right to full and timely +restitution as provided in law; (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonsble delay: (8) The right to be +treated with faimess and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. +We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights +portain to events occurring after the arrest or indictment of an individual for the crime, and it willi become the +responsiblity of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights. You +may also seek the advice of a private attomay with respect to these rights. +The Victim Notification System (VNS) is designed to provide you with direct Information regarding the +case as it proceeds through the criminal justice system. You may obtain current information about this matter +on the Internet at WWW.Notlfy.USDOJ.GOV or from the VNS Call Center at 1-886-DOJ-4YOU (1-866-365- +4968) (TDD/TTY: 1-866-228-4618) (International: 1-502-213-2767). In addition, you may use the Call +Center or Internet to update your contact information and/or change your decision about participation in the +notification program. If you update your information to Include a current email address, VNS will send +information to that address. You will need the following Victim Identification Number (VIN) "1941741" and +Personal Identification Number (PIN) 7760" anytime you contact the Call Center and the first time you log on to +VNS on the Internet. In addition, the first time you access the VNS Internet site, you will be prompted to enter +your last name (or business name) as currently contained in VNS. The name you should enter is Eisenberg. +TOASE +NO. 08-80T36-CMARR + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 39 of 45 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07745/200831 Page 45 of 21 +If you have additional questions which involve this matter, please contact the office listed above. When +you call. please provide the file number located at the top of this letter. Please remember, your participation +in the notification part of this program is voluntary. In order to continue to receive notifications, it is your +responsibility to keep your contact information current. +Sincerely. +Quike 2mizo +Victim Specialist + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 40 of 45 +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM| +Entered on FLSD Docket 074512001 +U.S. Department of Justice +Federal Bureau of Investigation +FBI - West Palm Beach +Suite 500 +505 South Flagler Drive +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 833-7517 +Fax: (561) 833-7970 +May 30, 2008 +Re: 1 +Dear S +Your name was referred to the FBl's Victim Assistance Program as being a possible victim of a federal +crime. We appreciate your assistance and cooperation while we are investigating this case. We would like to +make you aware of the victim services that may be available to you and to answer any questions you may have +regarding the criminal justice process throughout the investigation. Our program is part of the FBl's effort to +ensure the victims are treated with respect and are provided information about their rights under federal law +These rights include notification of the status of the case. The enclosed brochures provide information about +the FBl's Victim Assistance Program, resources and instructions for accessing the Victim Notification System +(VNS). VNS is designed to provide you with information regarding the status of your case +This case Is currently under Investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your +continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation. +As a crime victim, you have the following rights under 18 United States Code § 3771: (1) The right lo +be reasonably protected from the accused: (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any +public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, invoiving the crime or of any release or escape of the +accused: (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after +receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if +the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding: (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public +proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding; (5) The +reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Govemment in the case; (6) The right to full and timely +restitution as provided in law; (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; (8) The right to be +treated with faimess and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. +We will make our bes! efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights +pertain to events occurring after the arrest or indictment of an individual for the crime, and it will become the +responsibility of the prosecuting Unitad States Attorney's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights. You +may also seek the advice of a private attorney with respect to these rights. +The Victim Notification System (VNS) Is designed to provide you with direct information regarding the +case as it proceeds through the criminal justice system. +You may obtain current information about this matter +on the Internet at WWW. Notify. USDOJ. GOV or from the VNS Call Center at 1-866-DOJ-4YOU (1-866-365- +4968) (TDD/TTY: 1-866-228-4619) (interational: 1-502-213-2767). In addition, you may use the Call +Center or internet to update your contact information and/or change your decision about participation in the +notification program. if you update your information to include a current email address, VNS will send +information to that address. You wili need the following Victim Identification Number (VIN) '2074381' and +Personai Identification Number (PIN) '1816' anytime you contact the Call Center and the first time you log or. to +VNS on the Internet. In addition, the first time you access the VNS Internet sile, you will be prompted to enter +your last name (or business name) as currentiy contained in VNS. The name you should enter is R + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 41 of 45 +Case 9:08-ev-80736-KAM Document 14 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07446/2008x Page 47 of 21 +If you have additional questions which involve this matter, please contact the office listed above. When +you call, please provide the file number located at the top of this letter. Please remember, your participation +in the notification part of this program is voluntary. In order to continue to receive notifications, it is your +responsibility to keep your contact information current. +Sincerely. +Alica to +Victim Specialist +TOTAL P.B7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 Page 42 of 45 +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM + +U.S. Department of Justice +EXHIB +NO.E-80:36-CV-MARRA + +6 +United States Attorney +Southern District of Florida +500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 +Wesi Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 +July 9, 2008 +VIA FACSIMILE +Brad +, Esq. +The Law Offices of Brad +20281 +Street, Suite 202 +Hollywood, Florida 33020. +& Associates, LL.C +Re: +Jeffrey Epstein/CL +IDENTIFIED VICTIM +: NOTIFICATION OF +Dear Mr. +By virtue of this letter, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District +of Florida asks that you provide the following notice to your client, Ca +•WL +On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter referred to as "Epstein) entered a plea +of guilty to violations of Florida Statutes Sections 796.07 (felony solicitation of prostitution) +and 796.03 (procurement of minors to engage in prostitution), in the 15th Judicial Circuit in +and for Palm Beach County (Case Nos. 2006-cf-009454AXXXMB and 2008-cf- +009381AXXXMB) and was sentenced to a term of twelve months' imprisonment to be +followed by an additional six months' imprisonment, followed by twelve months of +Community Control 1, with conditions of community confinement imposed by the Court +In light of the entry of the guilty plea and sentence, the United States has agreed lo +defer federal prosecution in favor of this state plea and sentence, subject to certain +conditions. +One such condition to which Epstein has agreed is the following: +"Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense +enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same +rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 _Page 43 of 45 + +BRAD +, ESQ +NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIM G +JuL.y9,2008 +PAGE 2 Or 2 +had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes +of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's +attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an +Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial +authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining +which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is +the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position +as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no +less." +Through this letter, this Office hereby provides Notice that your client, CroW. +is an individual whom the United States was prepared to name as a victim of'an enumerated +offense. +Should your client decide to file a claim against Jeffrey Epstein, his attorney, Jack +Goldberger, asks that you contact him at Atterbury Goldberger and Weiss, 250 Australian +Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, (561) 659-8300. +Please understand that neither the U.S. Attorney's Office nor the Federal Bureau of +Investigation can take part in or otherwise assist in civil litigation; however, if you do file a +claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and Mr. Epstein denies that your client is a victim of an +enumerated offense, please provide notice of that denial to the undersigned. +Please thank your client for all of her assistance during the course of this examination +and express the heartfelt regards of myself and Special Agents Kuyrkendall and Richards for +the health and well-being of Ms. W +By: +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Alani latera +VILLAFANA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY +Cc: +Jack Goldberger, Esq + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM +Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 +• Page 44 of 45 + +U.S. Department of Justice + +CASE +NO.08-80736-CY-MARRA + +7 +United States Attorney +Southern District of Florida +500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 +July 9, 2008 +VIA FACSIMILE +Brad +Esq. +The Law Offices of Brad +2028 +Street, Suite 202 +Hollywood, Florida 33020. +& Associates, LLC +Re: +Jeffrey Epstein/S +IDENTIFIED VICTIM +_NOTIFICATION OF +Dear Mr. +By virtue of this letter, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District +of Florida asks that you provide the following notice to your client, So R +On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein (hereina fter referred to as "Epstein) entered a plea +of guilty to violations of Florida Statutes Sections 796.07 (felony solicitation of prostitution) +and 796.03 (procurement of minors to engage in prostitution), in the 15th Judicial Circuit in +and for Palm Beach County (Case Nos. 2006-cf-009454AXXXMB and 2008-cf- +009381AXXXMB) and was sentenced to a term of twelve months' imprisonment to be +followed by an additional six months' imprisonment, followed by twelve months of +Community Control 1, with conditions of community confinement imposed by the Court. +In light of the entry of the guilty plea and sentence, the United States has agreed to +defer federal prosecution in favor of this state plea and sentence, subject to certain +conditions. +One such condition to which Epstein has agreed is the following: +"Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense +enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same +rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2008 _Page 45 of 45 + +BRAD +5. ESQ. +NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIM SC +JuLy 9,2008 + +had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes +of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's +attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an +Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial +authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining +which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is +the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position +as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no +less." +Through this letter, this Office hereby provides Notice that your client, St +Ra is an individual whom the United States was prepared to name as a victim of an +enumerated offense. +Should your client decide to file a claim against Jeffrey Epstein, his attorney, Jack +Goldberger, asks that you contact him at Atterbury Goldberger and Weiss, 250 Australian +Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, (561) 659-8300. +Please understand that neither the U.S. Attorney's Office nor the Federal Bureau of +Investigation can take part in or otherwise assist in civil litigation; however, if you do file a +claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and Mr. Epstein denies that your client is a victim of an +enumerated offense, please provide notice of that denial to the undersigned +Please thank your client for all of her assistance during the course of'this examination +and express the heartfelt regards of myself and Special Agents Kuyrkendall and Richards for +the health and well-being of Ms. Re +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +By: +A. I VILLAFAÑA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY +cc: +Jack Goldberger, Esq. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b6ca24ff8f229ee493201dc47e649ac09aa5d57075f1d27b5a5a1cbcd4d1e95a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b6ca24ff8f229ee493201dc47e649ac09aa5d57075f1d27b5a5a1cbcd4d1e95a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a43f25c36656c0c3fa94c561dbdded14dc578e59 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b6ca24ff8f229ee493201dc47e649ac09aa5d57075f1d27b5a5a1cbcd4d1e95a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -2640, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b6ca24ff8f229ee493201dc47e649ac09aa5d57075f1d27b5a5a1cbcd4d1e95a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 58, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "1a326da61e159abc9345e85b6c8793a90a1fb71f99e1eeba42711c87de23297b", + "output_sha256": "1b4a0ca76ed53dd31bb35063f7fd64eee72d7f2bb0e64413cd99c11c69e3694e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b6ee80bda04a16f969f1d4aad404271d47131002addd3632c5505043e62e7ea8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b6ee80bda04a16f969f1d4aad404271d47131002addd3632c5505043e62e7ea8.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..75198125a72441bafb6ec2e7d3f9b7731bbdc983 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b6ee80bda04a16f969f1d4aad404271d47131002addd3632c5505043e62e7ea8.md @@ -0,0 +1,152 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 9-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2008 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY M. HERMAN +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE +) SS: +) +Jeffrey M. Herman, deposes and states as follows: +1. +I am the attorney of record for Jane Doe No. 2, and have knowledge of the status and +history of this case. +The Complaint filed in this action alleges that Defendant Epstein is a financier and +money manager to billionaires, who himself is a man of tremendous wealth, power and influence. It +alleges that Defendant Epstein preys on young teenage girls by inducing them to give him massages +for compensation in his Palm Beach mansion, and then sexually assaulting them. +Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2 seeks damages for sexual assault against Defendant Epstein. +This case was filed on February 6, 2008. On that day, I attended a press conference in West Palm +Beach, Florida concerning the filing of this suit. Accusations relating to Mr. Epstein's sexual +misconduct with underage girls has been reported extensively in the press, since 2006. The filing of +Jane Doe No. 2's case received extensive press coverage, as did a prior related case filed on January + +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 9-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2008 Page 2 of 5 +24, 2008 making similar allegations. Jack A. Goldberger, Esq., Mr. Epstein's attorney, attended a +press conference in January, 2008 on Mr. Epstein's behalf, which concerned the filing of the first +civil case. +4. +In March, 2008, I advised Mr. Goldberger in writing that I represent the woman who +is Jane Doe No. 2. A redacted copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Mr. Goldberger +is attorney of record for Mr. Epstein in a criminal case pending against Mr. Epstein in Palm Beach +County. I subsequently wrote to Mr. Goldberger again and asked for his consent to conducting a +single deposition of Jane Doe No. 2 to be used in both criminal and civil matters. A redacted copy of +this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". Mr. Goldberger was also asked if he would accept +service on behalf of Mr. Epstein, but he failed to respond. +5. +Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff's process server made numerous attempts to serve Mr. +Epstein with the Summons and Complaint at his New York residence, without success. It is my +understanding that Defendant Epstein's principal residence is an approximate 45,000 square foot +luxury townhouse in Manhattan. He also has an estate home in Palm Beach, an island in St. +and a residence in New Mexico. I was later provided with information that Mr. Epstein was out of +the country in and about April, 2008, in the State of Israel. I was further advised that he returned to +the United States in late April - early May, 2008. In response to this information my firm instructed +the New York process server to step up efforts to serve process on Defendant Epstein. Service was +finally obtained on May 7, 2008 at Defendant Epstein's New York residence, on the fifth attempt to +serve Defendant Epstein in a span of 14 days. +6. +It was not until June 6, 2008, when the Clerk denied Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of +Default, that I became aware that the Clerk had an issue with service of process in this action. In two +HERMAN & MErMELstEIN, P. A. +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 9-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2008 Page 3 of 5 +other related cases, Clerk's defaults were entered based on the same service. At every step, my firm +has acted promptly and diligently to comply with the rules of the court, attempt to properly effect +service, and move this case forward expeditiously. +FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. +Dated: June JO, 2008. +FFREY M. HERMAN +BEFORE ME, personally appeared JEFFREY M. HERMAN who after being first +duly sworn, deposes and states that he has executed the foregoing Affidavit, and that it is correct to +the best of his knowledge and belief. +THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT was sworn to and subscribed before me this 10_ day +of pere +, 2008. +Back so bacch +NOTARY PUBLIC, +STATE OF FLORIDA +Ronald M. +COMMISSION #DD767302 +F EXPIRES:MAR. 11, 2012 +wwW.AARONNOTARY.com +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 9-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2008 Page 4 of 5 +HermaN & MERMELSTEIN Pa +ATTORNEYS AT LAW +Jeffrey M. Herman +Tel 305.931.2200 +Fax 305.931.0877 +jherman@hermanlaw.com +18205 Biscayne Blvd. +Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +March 13, 2008 +Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail +Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Re: State of Florida v. Jeffrey E. Epstein +Case No.: 2006CF009454AXX +Dear Mr. Goldberger: +Please be advised we represent & +intended for her to our office. +Thank you for your attention to this matter. +Sincerely, +Please direct all communications +effrey M. Herman +JMH/Ir + +A + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 9-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2008 Page 5 of 5 +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN PA +ATTORNEYS AT LAW +Jeffrey M. Herman +Tel 305.931.2200 +Fax 305.931.0877 +jherman@hermanlaw.com +18205 Biscayne Blvd. +Suite 2218 +Miami, Fiorida 33160 +March 20, 2008 +Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail +Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Re: +State of Florida v. Jeffrey E. Epstein +Case No.: 2006CF009454AXX +Dear Mr. Goldberger: +As you know, we represent +in all matters pertaining to Jeffrey +Epstein. If you plan on schedulingd +for deposition please contact us to schedule to +a date convenient for +and myself. In addition, we would like to conduct a single +deposition to be used for both the criminal and the civil matters. Please let us know if you +will agree to this or if we should seek court approval for same. Of course, we understand that +the for attorney's Office will need to agree to this as well, and we have not yet contacted +sincerel +Jeffrey M. Herman +JMH/Ir +cc: Lanna Leigh Belohlavek, Asst. State Attorney +[ + +B \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b6ee80bda04a16f969f1d4aad404271d47131002addd3632c5505043e62e7ea8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b6ee80bda04a16f969f1d4aad404271d47131002addd3632c5505043e62e7ea8.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2ef94bc4e42376336f1fd006d979e7d09a68a88c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b6ee80bda04a16f969f1d4aad404271d47131002addd3632c5505043e62e7ea8.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -172, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b6ee80bda04a16f969f1d4aad404271d47131002addd3632c5505043e62e7ea8", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2335f75f84e01758c5ccfbb9bbb988b46410e7be8bc84ccf36371927e806d019", + "output_sha256": "2b566a26131b8205e6708c39726bca99cc5ebd6a76d370e69bdd2565a7e12de8", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b70c670d3fd2f3210db488a1220f064530352633d373597cb05efa179d5b7ea0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b70c670d3fd2f3210db488a1220f064530352633d373597cb05efa179d5b7ea0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1604d1db9ab57fd0b1fa0315b96cc466838dc0c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b70c670d3fd2f3210db488a1220f064530352633d373597cb05efa179d5b7ea0.md @@ -0,0 +1,348 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009 Page 1 of 11 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 2 +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +MOTION TO COMPEL AND/OR IDENTIFY JANE DOE IN THE STYLE OF THIS +CASE AND MOTION TO IDENTIFY JANE DOE IN THIRD-PARTY +SUBPOENAS FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY, OR ALTERNATIVELY, +MOTION TO DISMISS SUA SPONTE, WITH INCORPORATED +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein" or "Defendant"), by and +through his undersigned attorneys, hereby requests that this Court enter an order +identifying in the style of this case the complete legal name of the Plaintiff, JANE +DOE, to substitute her complete legal name in this case in place of "JANE DOE" +and, equally important, allowing Defendant to identify her in various subpoenas +that Epstein must serve so Epstein can defend this case or, alternatively, Motion +to Dismiss Entire Action Sua Sponte. In support, Mr. Epstein states as follows: +I. Motion And Incorporated Memorandum Of Law +a. +Background +On February 6, 2008, Plaintiff, a 21-year-old female, filed this action +1. +against Epstein. +On February 27, 2009, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009 Page 2 of 11 +Complaint against Epstein, which alleges three causes of action against him: +Count I - Sexual Assault and Battery; Count II - Intentional Infliction of Emotional +Distress; and Count III - Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in violation +of 18 U.S.C. §2422. +3. +The Second Amended Complaint appears to raise both Federal +and Florida State substantive issues (DE 56). +4. +Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that she is entitled to money +damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. §2422 and 2255 (in the wherefore clause) and +by virtue her claims that Epstein sexually battered her and caused her emotional +distress. Plaintiff alleges separate counts against Mr. Epstein, on which he must +conduct discovery to defend this case. +5. +In particular, JANE DOE claims, in Count I for sexual battery, that +she has and will suffer ". +..severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including +mental, psychological and emotional damages." 1121, 2nd Am. Comp., DE 56. +In Count II for Sexual Battery, plaintiff claims entitlement to recover for ".. +severe mental anguish and pain" 1127, 2nd Am. Comp., DE 56. In Count I for +Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422, +plaintiff claims entitlement to recover for "...personal injury, including mental, +psychological and emotional damages" 1733, 2nd Am. Comp., DE 56. Plaintiff +also claims entitlement to "punitive damages" and "actual and compensatory +damages". DE. 56. See also Exhibit "A", Interrogatory Response Number 9. +6. +Epstein has a constitutional due process right to defend himself and +to seek the production of information that will assist in his defense of the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009 Page 3 of 11 +allegations in the 2nd Amended Complaint. In this case, Plaintiff's counsel +objected to Epstein serving subpoenas on Plaintiff's treating physicians and other +third parties. Thus, this motion seeks to identify JANE DOE in the style of this +case, to identify JANE DOE in various third-party subpoenas for discovery +purposes and, alternatively, to dismiss this entire action sua sponte. The +undersigned's experience in "Jane Doe" lawsuits is that once a Plaintiff is +identified, other individuals come forward in the discovery phase with information +which often directly contradicts allegations as to the events and damages. For +instance, witnesses may testify that Plaintiff was paid by others for similar sexual +acts she claims Mr. Epstein forced upon her or that she willingly participated in +certain acts) that would negate or lessen her damages. This goes directly to +Plaintiff's damage claim. +7. +Likewise, subpoenas must be issued to third-party treaters and +current and former employers, and those subpoenas will seek to obtain records +related directly to Plaintiff's claims and her damages (i.e., her claim for severe +and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and emotional +damages" and loss of self-esteem and dignity as referenced above). Cherenfant +v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., 2004 WL 5315889 (S.D. Fla. 2004)(order allowing +discovery of medical records consistent with Plaintiff's allegations in complaint). +This too goes directly to Plaintiff's damage claims. Medical providers, employers, +co-employees, +etc.have +• direct and relevant personal knowledge and +observations regarding damages, i.e., emotional state, activities, self-esteem, +etc.... +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009 Page 4 of 11 +8. +Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26 allows for broad discovery. Epstein is not +required to rely solely on Plaintiff's discovery responses in defending this case, +nor is Epstein required by any statute or law to rely only upon what Plaintiff +produces in discovery or may obtain from her own medical treaters through her +counsel, and to then provide to Epstein only after Plaintiff has reviewed same. +In certain related state court actions involving Epstein, the undersigned offered to +serve certain subpoenas on the medical treaters and other third-parties with full +name, date of birth and Plaintiff's social security number (last four digits), but +agreed that the subpoenas filed with the clerk would be redacted. Several +attorneys agreed to this procedure in those cases. In Federal Court, subpoenas +are not filed with the clerk. Thus, in this matter, the undersigned offered to serve +the third-party subpoenas with plaintiff's full name, date of birth and social +security number (last four digits) and would agree to redact any identifying +information on any documents filed with this court if that ultimately became +necessary. As discussed below, Plaintiff's counsel did not agree. Further, +Plaintiff's counsel claims a HIPPA complaint protective order is necessary. Such +is not the case when a Plaintiff places her mental, emotional, psychological and +physical condition at issue. Moreover, when an order from the court is attached +to the Subpoena, treaters and other third parties produce the records and show +up to the depositions with the records requested because the deponent knows +what to bring by virtue of knowing the identity of the Plaintiff. +9. +Epstein's counsel intends to serve and depose witnesses duces +tecum. If Epstein is not permitted to identify JANE DOE, how will any deponent + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009 Page 5 of 11 +know who the parties are and what to bring to the deposition pursuant to the +duces tecum? Further, how will Epstein be able to defend the claims. Just like +the Plaintiff, Epstein is entitled to due process. +10. +While it is within the sound discretion of this court to allow a party to +proceed anonymously, Plaintiff should not attempt to utilize that discretion as a +shield from legitimate and necessary discovery. Epstein has a fundamental due +process right to conduct discovery. +b. +Motion To Identify JANE DOE In Style Of This Case +11. As discussed below, Epstein has fundamental due process right to +defend himself in this civil litigation. While JANE DOE travels under a +pseudonym, various newspaper articles identifying Epstein have been released +discussing the alleged claims against him. Allowing JANE DOE to litigate this +matter under a pseudonym is preventing Epstein from defending this suit +including, but not limited to, preventing him from locating individuals that may +have information about this lawsuit and information about JANE DOE that may +discredit her allegations and/or lessen the monetary damages she seeks to +recover. It is the undersigned's experience that once identified, witnesses begin +to come forward. See supra. +12. +In Doe v. Lepley, 185 F.R.D. 605 (D. Ct. NV 1999), a sexual +harassment case, the court reasoned that there is no express or implied right to +bring an action anonymously. Id. at 606. Moreover, Fed. R. Civ. P 10(a) +requires that the complaint include the names of the parties. Id. When Plaintiffs +are permitted to proceed anonymously, the court must employ a balancing test to +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009 Page 6 of 11 +decide if the plaintiff has a substantial privacy interest that outweighs the +presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. Id., citing, Doe v. +951 +F.2d 320, 323 (11"" Cir. 1992)(requiring complaint to include the names of the +parties serves more than administrative convenience, it protects the public's +legitimate interests in knowing all the facts involved, including the identity of the +parties - thus denying request to proceed anonymously). The factors include: +a. +whether the plaintiff is challenging governmental activity; +b. +whether the party defending the suit would be prejudiced; +c. +whether the plaintiff is required to disclose information of +utmost intimacy; +whether the plaintiff is compelled to admit an intention to +engage in illegal conduct, thereby risking criminal +prosecution; +whether the Plaintiff would risk suffering injury if identified; +f. +whether the interests of children are at stake; and +whether there are less drastic means of protecting the +legitimate interests of either party. +Doe v. +951 F.2d at 323. +Plaintiff does not fall under any of the factors. Moreover, even if she did +meet one of the factors, "It]he fact that [a] Doe [Plaintiff] may suffer some +personal embarrassment, standing alone, does not require the granting of a +request to proceed under a pseudonym." Id; see also Doe v. Rostker, 89 F.R.D. +159 (N.D. Calif. 1981). Any substantial privacy interests JANE DOE has must +outweigh the customary and constitutionally embedded presumption of openness +to judicial proceedings. Doe v. +951 F.2d at 323; Doe v. Bergstron, 2009 +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009 Page 7 of 11 +WL 528623 (C.A.9(Or.))(denying request to proceed anonymously in civil action +by Plaintiff where Plaintiff's arrest, prosecution and acquittal were matters of +public record). +In Sweetland v. State, 535 So.2d 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), the court +reasoned that the purpose of discovery is to eliminate the likelihood of surprise +and to insure a fair opportunity to prepare for trial. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure +1.280(b)(1); see also Surf Drugs, Inc., v. Vermette, 236 So.2d 108, 111 (Fla. +1970)(stating that the rules of discovery should be afforded broad and liberal +treatment to effectuate their purpose), citing, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, +501, 507 (1947). +14. Next, the right to go to court to resolve disputes is a fundamental right. +D.R. Lakes, Inc. v. Brandsmart U.S.A. of West Palm Beach, 819 So.2d 971 (Fla. 4** +DCA 2002). All litigants are afforded an equal opportunity. Lingle v. Dion, 776 +So.2d 1073 (Fla. 4*" DCA 2001). The Florida Constitution establishes the right +commonly known as access to courts. Mitchell v. Moore, 786 So.2d 521 (Fla. +2001). Courts shall be open to any person for the redress of any injury and justice +shall be administered without sale, denial or delay. Art. I, §21, Fla. Const.; 10A Fla. +Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, §360. +15. +If Jane Doe's name is not disclosed and identified, Mr. Epstein will not +be afforded his fundamental right to fairly litigate this dispute and prepare for trial. +Accordingly, Epstein requests that JANE DOE be identified by her legal name in the +pleadings. + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009 Page 8 of 11 +c. +Motion To Identify JANE DOE In Third-Party Subpoenas +16. +While discovery in this matter is underway; Epstein is effectively +being denied due process rights by Plaintiff's counsel from conducting broad, +open and liberal discovery in that Plaintiff's counsel has objected to, among other +things, Epstein identifying JANE DOE in various third-party subpoenas to her +medical providers and other third parties. +17. The undersigned must serve subpoenas on medical doctors to +obtain medical information on JANE DOE's alleged psychological and physical +damages as same goes to the heart of Epstein's defenses and Plaintiff's +damages. Plaintiff is claiming emotional/psychological damages. See Exhibit +"A", Interrogatory Response Number 9. Therefore, Epstein is entitled to know +her psychological condition(s) before and after the alleged incidents) she +references in the Second Amended Complaint. In particular, JANE DOE alleges +specific disorders as a result of Epstein's alleged conduct - anxiety, depression, +low self-esteem, guilt, distrustfulness, suicidal thoughts, difficulty trusting men, +irritability, anger, feeling helpless, powerless, escapism lack of confidence, loss +of innocence, etc... (Emphasis Added). Id. +Epstein is also entitled to know, +among other things, whether she had any physical complaints or whether there +was ever any evidence of physical battery on JANE DOE's body from the acts +she complains of in the 2nd Amended Complaint. The need to serve third-party +subpoenas on medical doctors is a basic discovery need related to the claims +alleged by JANE DOE for which Plaintiff's counsel refuses to compromise. Balas +v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 5"* DCA 1997), rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla. +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009 Page 9 of 11 +1998) (discoverability of Plaintiff's history of sexual activity is relevant to +damages); United States v. Bear Stops, 997 F.2d 451 (8"" Cir. 1993)(deals with +"admissibility of other acts of sexual abuse by individuals other than the +defendant to explain why a victim of abuse exhibited behavioral manifestations of +a sexually abused child.") If Plaintiff saw a psychologist or other physician +during or after the time periods she claims she was assaulted by Epstein but +either did not discuss or did discuss the incidents (or lack thereof) would be +directly relevant to her damage claims. +Plaintiff seeks physical and +emotional/mental personal injury type damages, and the Epstein must conduct +his own discovery thereon. See supra. No valid discovery objections or +exemptions exist preventing necessary and reasonable discovery. To hold +otherwise prevents Mr. Epstein from preparing and defending this matter. +In defending this lawsuit, Mr. Epstein should be permitted broad +discovery, whether admissible at trial or not. Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26 provides, in +pertinent part, that parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not +privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action." +Plaintiff's counsel's refusal to identify JANE DOE in the third-party subpoenas +referenced above is prejudicing Mr. Epstein by virtue of preventing discovery all +together, which is in complete contradiction of the discovery rules and Epstein's +substantive due process rights. +19. +In addition, subpoenas must also be served upon various local and +state institutions in order to determine what crimes, if any, JANE DOE has +committed (i.e., +crimes that involve dishonesty and/or false statement). +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009 Page 10 of 11 +Obviously, this goes directly to the heart of JANE DOE's damages she claims +(emotional distress, psychological trauma, loss of self-esteem, anxiety, +depression, low self-esteem, guilt, distrustfulness, suicidal thoughts, difficulty +trusting men, irritability, anger, feeling helpless, powerless, escapism lack of +confidence, loss of innocence - caused by Epstein or other events in her life) for +which a jury is entitled to hear about at trial, and certified records must be +obtained from the clerk should JANE DOE answer certain questions regarding +her crimes incorrectly. +20. At this time, the undersigned is aware that Jane Doe has +information regarding a certain burglary. If Jane Doe was involved in crimes, +Epstein is entitled to obtain certified copies of those crimes and other crimes +Plaintiff may have committed for purposes of discovery and impeachment. To +hold otherwise would not only prevent broad discovery but would ultimately result +in reversible error at any trial. +Il. Conclusion +21. Epstein requests the following relief: +a. +That JANE DOE be identified by her legal name in the style of +this case; +That Epstein be granted leave to identify JANE DOE by her +legal name in Third-Party Subpoenas (but not file them in Court +or, if required, in a redacted form); and +c. +That, on an alternative basis, this court dismiss this action Sua +Sponte until such time as JANE DOE identifies herself in the +style of this matter. Doe v. Rostker, 89 F.R.D.at 163. +WHEREFORE, Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein, respectfully requests that this +Court enter said order granting the relief requested above, and for such other +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009 Page 11 of 11 +Robert D. Ckitton, Jr. +Attorney for Defendant Epstein +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically +filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the +following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this_5 day of +May, 2009: +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein) +11 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b70c670d3fd2f3210db488a1220f064530352633d373597cb05efa179d5b7ea0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b70c670d3fd2f3210db488a1220f064530352633d373597cb05efa179d5b7ea0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..27c10202d6dc20d9bd8b60e57032241a59e48a60 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b70c670d3fd2f3210db488a1220f064530352633d373597cb05efa179d5b7ea0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -132, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b70c670d3fd2f3210db488a1220f064530352633d373597cb05efa179d5b7ea0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 11, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e5c974563a90670eb41a17533a0c46c933a53fcef40f8747913a2cc5dccb6a71", + "output_sha256": "c6eec6ef2e2796158376b9c8040377338d9b1226132667168fd2290b687008ff", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b74e4b5e682137d26cfed26ca9981e0a5b7df8746382dfa24c970b1914513a5b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b74e4b5e682137d26cfed26ca9981e0a5b7df8746382dfa24c970b1914513a5b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fff682fee848e65a275dcc667c6bb8e6d5bbb1da --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b74e4b5e682137d26cfed26ca9981e0a5b7df8746382dfa24c970b1914513a5b.md @@ -0,0 +1,774 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 390-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2009 Page 1 of 16 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2009 Page 1 of +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-| +JANE DOE NO. 2, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS +TO PLAINTIFF'S NET WORTH INTERROGATORIES +DATED JUNE 29, 2009 +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned +attorneys, +serves his answers and objections to Plaintiff's Net Worth +Interrogatories, dated June 29, 2009 and states: +Interrogatory No. 1: +State the fair market value of all assets in +which Defendant has an ownership interest. +Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 1: Defendant is +asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain +U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for +production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide +answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition +without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing +my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the +Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant +also objects as the +interrogatory is unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, +proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to +lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time + +212l09 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 390-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2009 Page 2 of 16 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2009 Page 2 of +16 +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein +Page 2 +period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for a +time period from January 1, 2002 to present. The information sought is also +privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA +and, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410. +Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to +identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal +investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to +be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith +assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for +all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This +interrogatory, if answered, would require testimonial communications from +Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive +his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject +Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential +to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or +witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against +him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional +privilege. +To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information +be provided, +should not be provided without limitations including +confidentiality), and should only be provided at the very end of litigation but +before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that +punitive damages can be awarded. +Interrogatory No. 2: +Identify all financial statements or other +documents from which net worth Interrogatory No. 1 was calculated. +Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 2: Defendant is +asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain +U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for +production +based +on +advice from my counsel that | cannot provide +answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition +without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing +my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the +Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant +also objects as the interrogatory is unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, +proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 390-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2009 Page 3 of 16 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2009 Page 3 of +16 +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein +Page 3 +lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time +period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for a +time period from January 1, 2002 to present. The information sought is also +privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA +and, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410. +Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to +identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal +investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to +be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith +assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for +all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This +interrogatory, if answered, would require testimonial communications from +Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive +his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject +Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential +to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or +witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against +him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional +privilege. +To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information +be provided, it +should not be provided without limitations including +confidentiality), and should only be provided at the very end of litigation but +before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that +punitive damages can be awarded. +Interrogatory No. 3: +State gross liabilities, expenses, and other +offsets to net worth, and identify all documents from which such items were +calculated or determined. +Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 3: Defendant is +asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain +U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for +production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide +answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition +without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing +my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the +Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant +also objects as the interrogatory is unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 390-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2009 Page 4 of 16 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2009 Page 4 of +16 +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein +Page 4 +proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to +lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time +period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiffs interrogatory seeks information for a +time period from January 1, 2002 to present. The information sought is also +privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA +and, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410. +Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to +identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal +investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to +be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith +assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for +all citizens, including. those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This +interrogatory, if answered, would require testimonial communications from +Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive +his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject +matter. Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential +to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or +witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against +him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional +To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information +be provided, it should not be provided without limitations (including +confidentiality), and should only be provided at the very end of litigation but +before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that +punitive damages can be awarded. +Interrogatory No. 4: +List all real property, by legal description and/or +street address, in which Defendant holds an ownership interest, and state for +each the title holder of the property shown in the public records, and identify the +nature and extent of Defendant's ownership. +Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 4: Defendant is +asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain +U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for +production based on +advice from +my counsel that | cannot provide +answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition +without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing +my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the +Constitution. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 390-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2009 Page 5 of 16 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2009 Page 5 of +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epste. +Page 5 +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant +also objects as the interrogatory is unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, +proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to +lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time +period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiffs interrogatory seeks information for a +time period from January 1, 2002 to present. The information sought is also +privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA +and, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410. +Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to +identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal +investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to +be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith +assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for +all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This +interrogatory, if answered, would require testimonial communications from +Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive +his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject +Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential +to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or +witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against +him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional +To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information +be provided, it +should not be provided without limitations including +confidentiality, and should only be provided at the very end of litigation but +before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that +punitive damages can be awarded. +Interrogatory No. 5: +List all corporations, partnerships and other +business entities in which Defendant has an ownership interest or had no +ownership in the past five (5) years. As to each entity, list the address ano +nature of the business, and the Defendant's ownership interest +Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 5: Defendant is +asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain +U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for +production based +on advice +from my counsel that | cannot provide +answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition +without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing +my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 390-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2009 Page 6 of 16 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2009 Page 6 of +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epste... +16 +Page 6 +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the +Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant +also objects as the interrogatory is unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, +proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to +lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time +period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for +the past five (5) years. The information sought is also privileged and confidential, +and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA and, Fed. Rule of Evidence +410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410. +Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to +identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal +investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to +be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith +assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for +all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. +This +interrogatory, if answered, would require testimonial communications from +Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive +his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject +matter. Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential +to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or +witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against +him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional +privilege. +To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information +be provided, it should not be provided without limitations (including +confidentiality), and should only be provided at the very end of litigation but +before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that +punitive damages can be awarded. +Interrogatory No. 6: +Identify all firms or companies which have +performed property appraisals of Defendant's assets in the past five (5) years. +Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 6: Defendant is +asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain +U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for +production +advice from my counsel that I cannot provide +answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition +without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing +my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 390-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2009 Page 7 of 16 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 333-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2009 Page 7 of +16 +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epste... +Page 7 +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the +Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant +also objects as the interrogatory is unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, +proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to +lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time +period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for +the past five (5) years. The information sought is also privileged and confidential, +and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA and, Fed. Rule of Evidence +410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410. +Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to +identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal +investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to +be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith +assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for +all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This +interrogatory, if answered, would require testimonial communications from +Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive +his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject +matter. +Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential +to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or +witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against +him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional +privilege. +To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information +be provided, it +should not be provided without limitations (including +confidentiality), and should only be provided at the very end of litigation but +before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that +punitive damages can be awarded. +Interrogatory No. 7: +List all cars, boats, airplanes and other modes +of transportation in which Defendant has an ownership interest. As to each, list +the year, make and model, the appraised value, and the percent of Defendant's +ownership interest. +Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 7: Defendant is +asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain +U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for +production +based +on +advice from my counsel that | cannot provide +answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 390-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2009 Page 8 of 16 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 333-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2009 Page 8 of +16 +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epste... +Page 8 +without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing +my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the +Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant +also objects as the interrogatory is unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, +proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to +lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time +period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for a +time period from January 1, 2002 to present. The information sought is also +privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA +and, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410. +Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to +identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal +investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to +be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith +assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for +all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This +interrogatory, if answered, would require testimonial communications from +Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive +his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject +matter. +Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential +to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or +witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against +him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional +privilege. +To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information +be provided, it should not be provided without limitations (including +confidentiality), and should only be provided at the very end of litigation but +before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that +Interrogatory No. 8: +Identify all persons, firms and companies which +have performed tax or accounting related functions for Defendant in the past ten +(10) years. +Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 8: Defendant is +asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain +J.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 390-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2009 Page 9 of 16 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2009 Page 9 of +16 +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstb... +Page 9 +production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide +answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition +without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing +my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the +Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant +also objects as the interrogatory is unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, +proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to +lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time +period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for +the past ten (10) years. +The information sought is also privileged and +confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA and, Fed. Rule of +Evidence 410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410. +Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to +identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal +investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to +be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith +assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for +all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This +interrogatory, if answered, would require testimonial communications from +Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive +his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject +Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential +to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or +witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against +him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional +privilege. +To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information +be provided, +punitive damages can be awarded. +Interrogatory No. 9: +Identify all employees of Defendant whose +duties or functions include accounting, bookkeeping or financial planning. +Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 9: Defendant is +asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 390-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2009 Page 10 of +Ehtered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2009 Page 10 of +16 +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epsté... +Page 10 +U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for +production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide +answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition +without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing +my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the +Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant +also objects as the interrogatory is unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, +proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to +lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time +period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for a +time period from January 1, 2002 to present. The information sought is also +privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA +and, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410. +Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to +identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal +investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to +be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith +assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for +all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This +interrogatory, +if answered, would require testimonial communications from +Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive +his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject +Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential +to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or +witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against +him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional +privilege. +To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information +be provided, it should not be provided without limitations (including +confidentiality), and should only be provided at the very end of litigation but +before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that +punitive damages can be awarded. +Interrogatory No. 10: +Identify any and all transfers of assets or +property made by you or for which you signed any document or otherwise +authorized, from January 1, 2006 to present. + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2009 Page 11 of +Ehtered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2009 Page 11 of +16 +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epste... +Page 11 +Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 10: Defendant is +asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain +U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for +production based +on advice from my counsel that i cannot provide +answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition +without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing +my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the +Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant +also objects as the interrogatory is unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, +proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to +lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time +period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for a +time period from January 1, 2006 to present. The information sought is also +privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA +and, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410. +Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to +identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal +investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to +be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith +assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for +all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This +interrogatory, if answered, would require testimonial communications from +Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive +his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject +matter. +Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential +to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or +witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against +him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional +privilege. +To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information +it should not be provided without limitations (including +confidentiality), and should only be provided at the very end of litigation but +before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 390-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2009 Page 12 of +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2009 Page 12 of +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epst... +Page 12 +Interrogatory No. 11: +Identify all foreign firms, companies and trusts +in which you have an ownership interest. +Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 11: : Defendant is +asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain +U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for +production based on advice from my counsel that | cannot provide +answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition +without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing +my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the +Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant +also objects as the interrogatory is unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, +proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to +lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time +period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for a +time period from January 1, 2002 to present. The information sought is also +privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA +and, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410. +Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to +identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal +investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to +be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith +assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for +all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This +interrogatory, if answered, would require testimonial communications from +Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive +his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject +matter. Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential +to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or +witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against +him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional +privilege. +To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information +be provided, it +should not be provided without limitations including +confidentiality), and should only be provided at the very end of litigation but +before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that +punitive damages can be awarded. + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2009 Page 13 of +Eitered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2009 Page 13 of +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epste +16 +Page 13 +Interrogatory No. 12: +Identify all firms or institutions in which +Defendant has maintained an investment, brokerage, savings and/or trust +account in the past five (5) years. +Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 12: Defendant is +asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain +U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for +production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide +answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition +without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing +my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the +Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant +also objects as the interrogatory is unreasonable, +overbroad, confidential, +proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to +lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time +period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiffs interrogatory seeks information for +the past five (5) years. The information sought is also privileged and confidential, +and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA and, Fed. Rule of Evidence +410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410. +Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to +identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal +investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to +be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith +assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for +all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. +interrogatory, if answered, would require testimonial communications from +Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive +his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject +matter. Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential +to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or +witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against +him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional +privilege. +To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information +be provided, it should not be provided without limitations (including +confidentiality), and should only be provided at the very end of litigation but + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2009 Page 14 of +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2009 Page 14 of +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epste +Page 14 +before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that +punitive damages can be awarded. +Interrogatory No. 13: +Identify all current employment and other +sources of income from 2008 to present. +Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 13: Defendant is +asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain +U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for +production based on advice from my counsel that | cannot provide +answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition +without waiving my Fifth Amendment and 1 must accept this advice or risk losing +my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would +be unreasonable and would therefore violate the +Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant +also objects as the interrogatory is +unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, +proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to +lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time +period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information from +2008 to present. The information sought is also privileged and confidential, and +inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA and, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 +and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410. +Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to +identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal +investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to +be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith +assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for +all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This +interrogatory, +if answered, would require testimonial communications from +Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive +his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject +matter. Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential +to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or +witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against +him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional. +privilege. +To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information +be provided, +it +should +not be provided without +limitations (including + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 390-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2009 Page 15 of +Eftered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2009 Page 15 of +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epst.... +Page 15 +confidentiality), and should only be provided at the very end of litigation but +before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that +punitive damages can be awarded. +FERY'E. +EPSTEIN +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OFPALM BEACH +I hereby certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to +administer oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeared JEffREY +E: EPSTEIN +NITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesai +his 2L day of August +-. 2009. +NAME +lessica ladwel +(SEAL) +Expires:_ +04/19/2013 +PRINT JESSICA (ASWELL +Notary Public/State of Florida +Commission #: 80853529 +My Commission +JESSICA CADWELI +MY COMMISSION & DD 85352 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2009 Page 16 of +Ehtered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2009 Page 16 of +16 +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epste... +Page 16 +Certificate of Service +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregping has been sent +via U.S. Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this If day of August +2009. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +jherman@hermanlaw.com +Irivera@hermanlaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +SVest Palm Beach, FL 3401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-842-2820 +Fax: 561-515-3148 +(Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b74e4b5e682137d26cfed26ca9981e0a5b7df8746382dfa24c970b1914513a5b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b74e4b5e682137d26cfed26ca9981e0a5b7df8746382dfa24c970b1914513a5b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7134cbee6b2198aae278294d11d083b6800a9759 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b74e4b5e682137d26cfed26ca9981e0a5b7df8746382dfa24c970b1914513a5b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -889, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b74e4b5e682137d26cfed26ca9981e0a5b7df8746382dfa24c970b1914513a5b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 18, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "719a67c096a5187ffd5b19b743278bd31295b6d835f0c95bf6aa9db607176e31", + "output_sha256": "e39daef911468ba3dfdc7cb18d0daaaa0326d25e453831b1faf550bac67a0120", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b76e81bdef3ce9e6ae93793d37c85c623770a07276b69f6e08dbbd6013ad01fb.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b76e81bdef3ce9e6ae93793d37c85c623770a07276b69f6e08dbbd6013ad01fb.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bb994593b1e366ee8c1f95160ebeea5729b2c96d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b76e81bdef3ce9e6ae93793d37c85c623770a07276b69f6e08dbbd6013ad01fb.md @@ -0,0 +1,246 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 167-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 1 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA1 +/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA +25 West Flagler Stret, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 3730, Miami 305.258.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 9544634346 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 167-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 2 of 8 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRAJ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/ +25 WestFlagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, F1. 3130, Miami 305.359 2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Laudendal 951.463.4346 T + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 167-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 3 of 8 +JANE DOE NO. II, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFES JANE DOE NO.101 AND JANE DOE 102'S MOTION FOR +ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE THEIR REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR +AN ORDER FOR THE PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE (D.E. 114) +Plaintiffs, Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 ("Plaintiff"), move this Court for an order +enlarging the time in which they must reply to Plaintiffs' Motion For an Order For The Preservation +of Evidence (D.E. 114). The grounds for this motion are as follows: +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 167-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 4 of 8 +Due to travel and court commitments, undersigned counsel needs an additional seven +(7) days to reply. +2. +This motion is not made for the purpose of delay and should be granted in the interest +of equity and fairness. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe 102, request an enlargement of +time up to and including June 26, 2009, to file their reply to the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order for +the Preservation of Evidence (D.E. 114). +CERTIFICATE OF HAVING CONFERRED WITH OPPOSING +COUNSEL PURSUANT TO S.D.L.R. 7.1.A.3 +Robert C. Josefsberg, one of the undersigned counsel for the Plaintiff hereby certifies that +he has conferred with one of the attorneys for the Defendant, Robert Critton, Esq., about the matters +raised in this Motion. Mr. Critton advised that the Defendant does not oppose the Motion or the +relief sought herein. +DATED this 19"h day of June, 2009. +Respectfully submitted, +By: Robert C. Josefsberg +Robert C. Josefsberg, +Bar No. 040856 +Katherine W. Ezell, Bar No. 114771 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, Florida 33130 +(305) 358-2800 +(305) 358-2382 (fax) +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Attorneys for Plaintiff +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 167-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 5 of 8 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 19* day of June, 2009, we electronically filed the +foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List +either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other +authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically +Notices of Electronic Filing. +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiff +By: +s/Robert C. Josefsberg +Robert C. Josefsberg +Fla. Br No. 040856 +josefsberg @podhurst.com +Katherine W. Ezell +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +kezell@podhurst.com +City National Bank Building +25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +Telephone: (305) 358-280 +'acsimile: (305) 358-238 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL 3130, Miami 305.358 2800 Fax 305.258.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 9544634346 T + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 167-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 6 of 8 +SERVICE LIST +JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/. +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Robert Critton, Esq. +Michael J. Pike, Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman LLP +515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 842-2820 +Fax: (561) 515-3148 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +mpike@bclclaw.com +Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Jack Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 659-8300 +Fax: (561) 835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 202-6360 +Fax: (561) 828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Co-Defendant, +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack P. Esq. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: (561) 686-6300 +Fax: (561) 383-9456 +jsx@searcylaw.com +iph@searcylaw.com +25 West Flagler Street Suite 800, Miami, FL. 3130, Miami 30.258.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Rort Lauderdale 9514634346 T + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 167-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 7 of 8 +Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. +Adam Horowitz, Esq. +Stuart Mermelstein, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +ahorowitz/@sexabuseattorney.com +smermelstein@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, +08-80993, 08-80994 +Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq. +Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq. +Leopold Kuvin, P.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +Phone: (561) 515-1400 +Fax: (561) 515-1401 +skuvin@leopoldkuvin.com +tleopold@leopoldkuvin.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804 +Richard Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 10* Ave North, Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Phone: (561) 582-7600 +Fax: (561) 588-8819 +lawyerwillits@aol.com +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811 +Brad +Esq. +Law Office of Brad +& Associates, LLC +2028 +Street, Suite 202 +Hollywood, FL 33020 +Phone: (954) 414-8033 +Fax: (954) 924-1530 +bedwards@rra-law.com +be@bradedwardslaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 +25 West Flagler Stret, Suite 800, Miami, FL. Miami Miami 305 Pax Fax 305.358.2322 • Fort Lauderdale T + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 167-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 8 of 8 +Isidro Manuel +Esq. +Elkins & Boehringer +224 Datura Avenue, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 832-8033 +Fax: (561) 832-7137 +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469 +25 West Flagler Stret, Suite 300, Miami, FL 3130, Miami 306.358.2800 Fax 305358.2282 • Fort Lauderdale 951. 4634346 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b76e81bdef3ce9e6ae93793d37c85c623770a07276b69f6e08dbbd6013ad01fb.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b76e81bdef3ce9e6ae93793d37c85c623770a07276b69f6e08dbbd6013ad01fb.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7bdeee3f7ce7cef5d59150d5c57b92cc94a48a98 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b76e81bdef3ce9e6ae93793d37c85c623770a07276b69f6e08dbbd6013ad01fb.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -431, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b76e81bdef3ce9e6ae93793d37c85c623770a07276b69f6e08dbbd6013ad01fb", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f6de0b529a06c3163faf3bb79f7ee78257074a9050f96c369e5d5ef20bd0174e", + "output_sha256": "6f8800e2f6b7d3244bddeb8ce4d8d2cd291c716e0aeac71f6aaea85747bc265f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b789aa096065be775d149724957f405819220cd1b7dd5b627ab1b46e361d72a0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b789aa096065be775d149724957f405819220cd1b7dd5b627ab1b46e361d72a0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..176fa8ce3b651531c7f0de72cdedef6338f18d19 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b789aa096065be775d149724957f405819220cd1b7dd5b627ab1b46e361d72a0.md @@ -0,0 +1,479 @@ +MAN +D A +E +from +DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA +FOURTH DISTRICT +This cause having been brought to the Court by appeal, and after due +consideration the Court having issued its opinion; +YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that such further proceedings bé had in said +cause as may be in accordance with the opinion of this Court, and with the rules of +procedure and laws of the State of Florida. +WITNESS the Honorable Mark W. Klingensmith, Chief Judge of the District Court +of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, and seal of the said Court at West +Palm Beach, Florida on this day. +DATE: +CASE NO.: +COUNTY OF ORIGIN: +T.C. CASE NO.: +May 26, 2023 +22-0293 +Palm Beach +502019CA014681XXXXMB +STYLE: ( +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, +LLC, Publisher of THE +PALM BEACH POST +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State +Attorney of Palm Beach County, +Florida, et al. +SLRECE +Lown +Weisshlun +LONN WEISSBLUM, Clerk +Fourth District Court of Appeal +ATE +QF +FLORIDA +Served: +cc: Amy +Borman +Douglas Wyler +Katherine +Clemente +Stephen A. Mendelsohn +Brigid Finerty Cech Samole Collin D. +Jennifer Fleming Printz +Jessica Neer McDonald +Michael J. Grygiel +Nina D. Boyajian +Clerk Palm Beach +kr +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL +ABRUZZO, CLERK 05/26/2023 04:31:39 PM + + +DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA +FOURTH DISTRICT +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Appellant, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, +and +ABRUZZO, as Clerk of the Circuit Court, +and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida, +Appellees. +No. 4D22-293 +(May 10, 2023] +Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm +Beach County; Donald W. Hafele, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2019-CA- +014681-XXXX-MB. +Stephen A. Mendelsohn of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, +Brigid F. Cech Samole of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Miami, and Katherine +M. Clemente of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, New York, for appellant. +Nina D. Boyajian of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Los Angeles, California, +Pro Hac Vice, for appellant. +Michael . Grygiel of Greenberg Traurig, LuP, Albany, New York, Pro +Hac Vice, tor appellant. +Collin Doern +Jennifer Fleming Printz, and Amy +Borman, West Palm Beach, for appellee +Abruzzo, as Clerk of the +Circuit Court and Comptroller, Palm Beach County, Florida. +PER CURIAM. +CA Florida Holdings, LLC, the publisher of the Palm Beach Post ("the +Pos g) and aly a rine dingement deny the the osts guest for acces ost +argues the final judgment should be reversed for three reasons: (1) section +905.27, Florida Statutes (2019), provides a private right of action for +disclosure of grand jury materials; (2) the circuit court has the inherent +power to regulate the use of grand juries; and (3) grand jury secrecy is not + + +absolute. +We agree with the Post in part, and reverse and remand the +case. +• The Trial Court Proceedings +The Post filed a complaint against the state attorney and the clerk, +requesting disclosure of the grand jury materials under section 905.27, +Florida Statutes (2019). Both defendants moved to dismiss. In response, +the Post filed an amended complaint, adding a count for declaratory relief. +Both defendants answered the amended complaint as to the declaratory +relief count and moved to dismiss the count requesting grand jury +materials under section 905.27. The state attorney denied "possession +and/or control of documents." The clerk admitted it "[was] in possession +and/or control of documents." +The Chief Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit heard the motions to +dismiss. The Chief Judge stated: "I don't think anybody is saying that +there isn't a cause of action [under section 905.27] or that the press +doesn't have standing." Counsel for both the clerk and state attorney +indicated they did not seek to "block access" to the records. The trial court +granted the motions to dismiss, ruling section 905.27 did not provide a +private cause of action. +Specifically, the order stated: "[T]he [clourt does not suggest The Post +has no available mechanism to obtain a court order granting it access to +the grand jury proceedings. The [clourt also does not render any opinion +as to whether releasing these records is appropriate for the purpose of +furthering justice' within the meaning of section 905.27." The Post +dropped the state attorney as a defendant. The clerk remained a nominal +defendant as the records custodian. +The Post moved for summary judgment, asserting the grand jury +materials should be released under the First Amendment of the U.S. +Constitution in conjunction with section 905.27, which allows for the +release of grand jury materials "in ... furtherance of justice." The Post +also argued the trial court had inherent authority over the grand jury to +order the disclosure. Prior to the hearing, the clerk filed an extensive +opposition, +citing +Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial +Administration 2.420. The Post filed a reply. The clerk did not cross-move +for summary judgment. +The then-assigned trial court held a hearing and ultimately issued a +final judgment dismissing the Post's complaint, finding the court's +2 + + +inherent authority was constrained by section 905.27. Further, the trial +court found it had "limited authority to order the release of grand jury +records" regardless of "how palatable and persuasive [the Post's] +arguments may be." +Rather than evaluate the Post's motion for summary judgment under +section 905.27, the trial court ruled "the proper procedure for obtaining +disclosure of confidential court records is set forth in Florida Rule of +General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420(j)." The trial court +found its "inherent authority" did not "permit it to broaden" section +905.27's purported limits. The trial court interpreted the statute to require +a pending civil or criminal action in which the movant is a party before the +"in furtherance of justice" provision could be invoked. +The trial court agreed "the established matters surrounding Mr. +Epstein's conduct, the circumstances of his resolution of the 2006 state +charges and potential federal charges, and his 2008 guilty plea and +incarceration are matters of public interest, and disclosure of the Materials +may arguably fall within the concept of furthering justice' in the broadest, +social sense of the phrase." +From this order, the Post appeals and reiterates its trial court +arguments. The clerk maintains a neutral position. ' No one opposes the +requested disclosure. +• Standard of Review +We review de novo a final summary judgment. Cleveland v. Westport +Recovery Corp., 331 So. 3d 728, 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). +• Florida +Rule of +General Practice and Judicial +Administration 2.420 +At the outset we hold the trial court's reliance on Florida Rule of +General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420 was misplaced. First, +the Post did not request the materials pursuant to rule 2.420. That rule +was simply not raised in the pleadings. And second, the clerk, who +injected rule 2.420 into the proceedings, advised this court in oral +argument that the rule is inapplicable because this case does not involve +an ongoing criminal or civil matter. +' The Post, the circuit court clerk, and this Court all agree the only reason for the +clerk's continued participation is solely as custodian of the grand jury materials. +3 + + +In short, the trial court erred in analyzing the disclosure issue under +rule 2.420. This alone requires reversal and remand for an analysis under +section 905.27. +Section 905.27 +"There is a tradition in the United States, a tradition that is 'older than +our Nation itself,' that proceedings before a grand jury shall generally +remain secret." +In re Petition of Craig, 131 F.3d 99, 101 (2d Cir. 1997) +(citations omitted). +courts. They also are codified in [Federal Rule of Criminal +Procedure 6(e)(3)]. By this rule, district courts, as part of their +supervisory authority over the grand juries that they have +empaneled, are explicitly given the discretion to determine +whether, if one or more of the listed exceptions to grand jury +secrecy apply, disclosure of records is appropriate. +•.. [T]his court has recognized that there are certain 'special +circumstances' in which release of grand jury records is +appropriate even outside of the boundaries of the rule. +Id. at 102 (citations omitted). +In Craig, the Second Circuit held the district court had authority to +release grand jury materials based on special circumstances that went +beyond the six exceptions listed in Rule 6. Similarly, in In re +Hastings, 735 F.2d 1261, 1268-69 (11th Cir. 1984), the Eleventh +Circuit affirmed the district court's disclosure of grand jury proceedings +even +(though not specifically authorized by Rule 6. And the U.S. +Supreme Court has held section 905.27 cannot prevent a grand jury +witness from disclosing his/ her own testimony because it would violate +the witness's First Amendment rights. Butterworth v. +1, 494 U.S. +624 (1990). +We extract from these decisions the court's inherent authority to +disclose grand jury materials despite the traditional rule of secrecy. In +fact, this is contemplated and supported by section 905.27's language. +Craig also provides helpful instruction on what a trial court should +consider when faced with this issue. +4 + + +Mindful that there is no talismanic formula or rigid set of +prerequisites, we offer the following non-exhaustive list of +factors that +a trial court might want to consider when +confronted with these highly discretionary and fact-sensitive +'special circumstances' motions: (i) the identity of the party +seeking disclosure; (ii) whether the defendant to the grand +jury proceeding or the government opposes the disclosure; (ili) +why disclosure is being sought in the particular case; (iv) what +specific information is being sought for disclosure; (v) how +long ago the grand jury proceedings took place; (vi) the current +status of the principals of the grand jury proceedings and that +of their families; (vii) the extent to which the desired material— +either permissibly or impermissibly-has been previousl +nade public; (viii) whether witnesses to the grand jur +proceedings who might be affected by disclosure are still alive; +and (ix) the additional need for maintaining secrecy in the +particular case in question. +Craig, 131 F. 3d at 106. +With this foundation, we begin our analysis of section 905.27. That +statute's pertinent subsections provide: +(1) A grand juror, state attorney, assistant state attorney, +disclose the testimony for the purpose of: +(a) Ascertaining whether it is consistent with the testimony +given by the witness before the court; +(b) Determining whether the witness is guilty of perjury; or +(c) Furthering justice. +(2) It is unlawful for any person knowingly to publish, +broadcast, disclose, divulge, or communicate to any other +person, or knowingly to cause or permit to be published, +examined before the grand jury, or the content, gist, or import +5 + + +thereof, except when such testimony is or has been disclosed +in a court proceeding. When a court orders the disclosure of +such testimony pursuant to subsection (1) for use in a +criminal case, it may be disclosed to the prosecuting attorney +of the court in which such criminal case is pending, and by +the prosecuting attorney to his or her assistants, legal +associates, and employees, and to the defendant and the +defendant's attorney, and by the latter to his or her legal +associates and employees. When such disclosure is ordered +by a court pursuant to subsection (1) for use in a civil case, it +may be disclosed to all parties to the case and to their +attorneys and by the latter to their legal associates and +employees. However, the grand jury testimony afforded such +persons by the court can only be used in the defense or +prosecution of the civil or criminal case and for no other +purpose whatsoever. +§ 905.27, Fla. Stat. (2019). +We disagree with the trial court's restrictive reading of section 905.27. +We read subsection (1) to prohibit identified people from disclosing grand +jury witness testimony and evidence, unless required to be disclosed by a +court. The statute articulates three exceptions to the prohibition. Its very +language contemplates the trial court's ability to order disclosure: "except +when required by a court to disclose ...." § 905.27(1), Fla. Stat. (2019). +Although section 905.27 addresses grand jury proceeding secrecy and +non-disclosure, it also specifically recognizes a court's inherent authority +to order disclosure. Here, the Post requested disclosure to further justice +in this high-profile criminal investigation into the late Jeffrey Epstein. The +Post did so by tracing the investigation's controversial history and ultimate +disposition of the charges against him. The trial court was required +therefore to determine whether the disclosure will in fact further justice +under section 905.27. +Courts have inherent authority to "do all things that are reasonably +necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of it +jurisdiction, subject to existing laws and constitutional provisions." +v. Palm Beach County, 361 So. 2d 135, 137 (Fla. 1978). Here, the trial +court did not exercise its inherent authority as contemplated by section +905.27(1). +Yet, we do know the trial court has already noted: +6 + + +(T)he established matters surrounding [Epstein's] conduct, +the circumstances of his resolution of the 2006 state charges +and potential federal changes, and his 2008 guilty plea and +incarceration are matters of public interest, and disclosure of +the Materials may arguably fall within the concept of +"furthering justice" in the broadest, social sense of the phrase. +• • • • +It may well be that the disclosure of [Epstein's] grand jury +records could reveal that fair treatment did not occur and that +[Epstein] might have escaped appropriate punishment +through some failing of our justice system. +Y +We are not unmindful of section 905.27's subsection (2), which the trial +court read to limit any disclosure under subsection (1). But we also +disagree with the trial court's reading of subsection (2). +We read subsection (2) to accomplish two things. First, it prohibits +disclosure by others than those listed in subsection (1) unless disclosure +has been ordered. And second, it directs to whom disclosure can be made +in pending criminal and civil proceedings. +For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand the case for further +proceedings consistent with this opinion. Upon remand, the trial court +shall conduct an in-camera inspection of the material sought and using +the guidance provided by Craig, decide whether the material's disclosure +furthers justice. If so, the court has the inherent authority to disclose any +material that furthers justice. In doing so, the trial court shall take steps +necessary to protect the identity of the victims, witnesses, and those who +have not been criminally charged. If the court determines disclosure of +any of the material will not further justice, the court can, in its discretion, +deny disclosure of that material. +Because our decision could have far-reaching consequences, we certify +the following question to be of great public importance: +DOES A CIRCUIT COURT HAVE INHERENT AUTHORITY TO +DISCLOSE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE TO FURTHER JUSTICE +UNDER SECTION 905.27? +Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. +MAY, J., concurs. +CIKLIN, J., concurs specially with opinion. +7 + + +KUNTZ, J., concurs specially with opinion. +CIKLIN, J., concurring specially. +I write to concur with the majority opinion insofar as it instructs the +circuit court to forthwith implement a procedure necessary to provide a +means for the circuit court to review the Palm Beach Post's request for +access to the subject grand jury proceedings. But contrary to the majority +opinion, I tend to agree with both the circuit court and the clerk of the +circuit court that section 905.27, Florida Statutes (2019), has no bearing +on the issue before us. Specifically, section 905.27 provides very narrow +substantive rights to those indicted for crimes to obtain grand/jury +materials for use in their civil and criminal cases. § 905,27(1-(2), Fla. Stat. +(2019). Like Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration +2.420, section 905.27 assumes an ongoing civil or criminal case, and that +is not the posture of this case, rendering both provisions equally +inapplicable. +But-under the jurisprudence of this state that does not end our +inquiry because the Florida judiciary has inherent authority over all of its +grand jury records and does not need legislative authority to do its +business. +Florida's judicial system and all Florida grand juries enjoy an +inseparable relationship that goes back more than 120 years. The Florida +Supreme Court has deseribed it as a "blood kinship." In re Grand Jury +Investigation, 287 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 1973). +Because Florida grand juries are an integral part of the Florida judicial +system, I would hold that under the Florida Constitution, the Florida +judiciary has the inherent power, authority, and control over all Florida +grand jury proceedings—which are indisputably court proceedingsincluding the release of its records and materials. +Subject to the +rulemaking power of the Florida Supreme Court, this inherent authority +includes the overall regulation and control of all grand juries as integral to +"a judicial proceeding in a court of justice ... an appendage or adjunct to +the circuit court." In re Grand Jury, 287 So. 2d at 46 (quoting Craft v. +State, 29 So. 418, 419 (Fla. 1900)). +I also concur with my colleagues' decision to certify the question of great +public importance raised in this case to the Florida Supreme Court. The +question of a circuit court's inherent authority to order disclosure of grand +jury records is a matter of first impression. See Duggan v. Tomlinson, 174 +So. 2d 393, 393 (Fla. 1965) (recognizing that, pursuant to provisions of the +8 + + +Florida Constitution, the Florida Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review +any decision of a district court of appeal that passes upon a question of +great public interest, especially as to "decisions ... of first impression"). +Additionally, our decision could have far-reaching consequences, as it has +the potential of resulting in numerous requests by the press or the public +for disclosure of grand jury records. See Young V. State, 678 So. 2d 427, +429 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (certifying a question of great public importance +where the issue "arises frequently and affects numerous criminal +defendants within this district and throughout the state"). Thus, I too +would certify a question of great public importance but would slightly +broaden it as follows: +WHAT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, IF ANY, SHOULD BE +ENACTED UNDER THE RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY OF THE +FLORIDA SUPREME COURT OR THE AUTHORITY VESTED +TO THE CIRCUIT COURTS BY THE FLORIDA SUPREME +COURT TO PROPERLY CONSIDER AND DECIDE A REQUEST +TO DISCLOSE PORTIONS OF FLÓRIDA GRAND JURY +RECORDS? +KuNTZ, J., concurring specially. +I agree that the circuit court erred when it relied on Rule 2.420 to deny +the appellant's request to unseal the grand jury records, particularly +because the operative pleading did not ask the court to do so. I also agree +that controlling authority gives a circuit judge discretion to order the +release of grand jury materials when justice requires. So I concur in the +court's opinion. +I do so even though, generally, "It)he proceedings of a grand jury are to +be kept secret." Clein v. State, 52 So. 2d 117, 120 (Fla. 1950). For that +reason, the legislature "closed" grand jury proceedings to the public. Palm +Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. Burk, 471 So. 2d 571, 582-83 n.9 (Fla. 4th DCA +1985)(C.J., Anstead, dissenting); see also Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. U. +Doe, 460 So. 2d 406, 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). The legislature also created +a system to peer into these secret proceedings when certain conditions are +satisfied. Minton v. State, 113 So. 2d 361, 363 (Fla. 1959) (referencing +section 905.27, Florida Statutes). +This Court has agreed that section 905.27 governs the release of grand +jury materials. See Barber v. Interim Rep. of the Grand Jury Spring Term +1995, 689 So. 2d 1182, 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); James v. Wille, 480 So. +2d 253, 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Our sister courts and the Florida +Supreme Court reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., Minton, 113 So. +9 + + +2d at 363; Tallahassee Democrat, Inc. v. O'Grady, 421 So. 2d 58, 59 (Fla. +1st DCA 1982); Jackman v. State, 140 So. 2d 627, 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). +Those cases hold that section 905.27 allows the release of grand jury +materials in the furtherance of justice. See also Keen v. State, 639 So. 2d +597, 600 (Fla. 1994); Minton, 113 So. 2d at 363; State ex rel. +Dewell, 167 So. 687, 689 (Fla. 1936); James, 480 So. 2d at 254; State v. +Gillespie, 227 So. 2d 550, 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); State v. Drayton, 226 +So. 2d 469, 474-75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). +Notwithstanding those cases, it is unclear whether the actual text of +the statute allows release of grand jury materials outside of a civil or +criminal case. See § 905.27, Fla. Stat. The statute's text allows disclosure +in limited situations and to limited persons, and only when a court orders +disclosure of the material. Id. There are three exceptions. Section +905.27(1)(a) allows the named persons to disclose grand jury testimony +when ordered by a court to do so for the purpose of "[a]scertaining whether +it is consistent with the testimony given by the witness before the court." +Section 905.27(1)(b) allows a court to order disclosure of grand jury +testimony when necessary to determine "whether the witness is guilty of +perjury." Finally, section 905.27(1)(C) states that a court can permit the +disclosure of grand jury testimony when the court determines that +disclosure would further justice. +Most cases focus on the third exception, disclosure in the furtherance +of justice. +Section 905.27(2)-which appears to limit the disclosure to +pending civil and criminal proceedings—is ignored.2 In other cases, the +entire statute is ignored. Keen, 639 So. 2d at 600. +Why portions of section 905.27 are ignored is unclear. In a different +context, the Florida Supreme Court noted that the legislature controls the +publication of grand jury materials. Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Marko, 352 +So. 2d 518, 520-21 (Fla. 1977) ("It is undoubtedly for this reason that the +legislature has now afforded an opportunity to prevent the publication of +unfavorable material through the repression of matter that is 'improper +and unlawful.*). If the legislative system for preventing publication of a +grand jury report controls, why can we disregard the legislature's system +for releasing grand jury materials? It seems to me that "[t]he legislature +' It was argued in at least one case that grand jury materials can only be releaser +22 (plan i DA 1969)i The case, St resee on dha g. unds. 226 So. 2d 21. +10 + + +has chosen ... (the system] and it is not our prerogative to select another +alternative." Id. at 520 n.5. +The language of the statute should control for another reason. The +Florida Constitution provides broad access to public records. But it +includes a provision that any laws or rules of court "in effect on July 1, +1993 that limit public access to records or meetings shall remain in force, +and such laws apply to records of the legislative and judicial branches, +until they are repealed." Art. I, § 24(d), Fla. Const. If a class of documents +was not made confidential by statute or rule on that date, they would not +be confidential unless later classified as confidential by a supermajority of +the legislature. Id. § 24(c). But the legislature had provided for the +confidentiality of grand jury proceedings on that date. § 905.24, Fla. Stat. +The statute makes grand jury proceedings confidential, and the statute is +where we should turn to determine the exceptions. § 905/27, Fla. Stat. +In conclusion, controlling authority holds that a court may disclose +grand jury materials under the furthering justice provision of section +905.27(1). That compels me to join the majority's opinion and decision to +certify a question to the Florida Supreme Court. While I join the majority +opinion in full, I do not agree that the majority opinion is instructing the +circuit court to implement a procedure to provide a means to review the +pending request to access the grand jury materials. We are judges, not +kings, and on a clean slate, I would stick to the language of the statute. +* +* +Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. +NOT +11 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b789aa096065be775d149724957f405819220cd1b7dd5b627ab1b46e361d72a0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b789aa096065be775d149724957f405819220cd1b7dd5b627ab1b46e361d72a0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..43c05d05990ecd61c2e1b57ae782794d3b9457f5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b789aa096065be775d149724957f405819220cd1b7dd5b627ab1b46e361d72a0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -147, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b789aa096065be775d149724957f405819220cd1b7dd5b627ab1b46e361d72a0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 13, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "275c7616d7991d7d8bb29b99ce68376911e494d6ac04b52223726783804f8e36", + "output_sha256": "a4869d8b2a1ba7b558dcc9c86fc959d8dba351701768a6d8ea568d0e244400f6", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b79d50d33f739ae44c9acb3fa50fa10ea19eff598d4e099f6838be83d6604fe1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b79d50d33f739ae44c9acb3fa50fa10ea19eff598d4e099f6838be83d6604fe1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..577a911905dcd875ccd8074dafe604e847aa3752 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b79d50d33f739ae44c9acb3fa50fa10ea19eff598d4e099f6838be83d6604fe1.md @@ -0,0 +1,138 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff +CASENO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08080119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, +08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +NON-PARTY, JEAN LUC BRUHNEL'S RESPONSETO PLAINTIFF +JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR +AN ORDER TO COMPEL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Non-party Jean Luc Bruhnel hereby files his Response to Plaintiff, Jane Doe's Motion +for an Order to Show Cause and for an Order to Compel and Incorporated Memorandum of Law +which was filed on March 10, 2010. (DE#483). Plaintiff's counsel seeks to compel Mr. Bruhnel, +| citizen who is not a party to the instant action, to sit for a deposition that was canceled +and for which he has never been re-noticed. This motion is premature at best, and frivolous. +While visiting New York, Mr. Bruhnel was served with a Subpoena and Notice of +Videotape Deposition in this matter.' As a courtesy, undersigned counsel for Mr. Bruhnel +' Please see Exhibit A, annexed hereto and incorporated by reference. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 2 of 6 +agreed to produce Mr. Bruhnel for deposition in Florida on November 3, 2010 for the +convenience of the parties because Mr. Bruhnel had plans to travel to Florida at that time. The +videotape deposition was accordingly canceled. Two new deposition notices were then e-mailed +to counsel for Bruhnel, both of which emanated from related cases in Florida Circuit Court, with +no additional notice emanating from the instant matter before this Court. ^ That scheduled +deposition was then canceled by agreement of the parties, who mutually agreed that plaintiff's +counsel's secretary would call counsel for Mr. Bruhnel to reset the deposition. +Neither plaintiff's counsel nor his secretary called to reschedule the deposition until +January, 2010. In the intervening time, all depositions in the myriad related matters had been +canceled, upon information and belief, due to the scandal involving plaintiff's counsel's previous +law partner. Further, Mr. Bruhnel had left the United States with no firm plan to return, which +was conveyed to plaintiff's counsel during a telephone conversation in January. +Mr. Bruhnel's counsel attempted to secure firm dates on which Mr. Bruhnel would be +traveling to the United States, but was unable to do so. Undersigned counsel accordingly +informed planitiff's counsel that she could not secure any firm dates. When plaintiff's counsel +insisted that Mr. Bruhnel provide deposition dates, plaintiff's counsel was informed that Mr. +Bruhnel could not be compelled to return to the United States. Undersigned counsel told +plaintiff's counsel that there were appropriate mechanisms through which he could secure Mr. +2 Please see Exhibit B, annexed hereto and incorporated by reference. +-2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 3 of 6 +Bruhnel's testimony abroad pursuant to Florida, Federal and International law. Indeed, +undersigned counsel directed plaintiff's counsel to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the +Hague Convention, each of which provide specific mechanisms for the securing of testimony +abroad. +Plaintiff's counsel has never served Mr. Bruhnel or undersigned counsel with a re-notice +for deposition since the cancellation of the prior scheduled depositions, and has never attempted +to avail himself of proper legal procedures to secure Mr. Bruhnel's testimony abroad. Further, +contrary to plaintiff's counsel's Certification to this court, plaintiff's counsel never conferred +with undersigned counsel for Mr. Bruhnel regarding the instant Order to Show Cause and for an +Order to Compel. +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +As stated above, the previously scheduled depositions were canceled by agreement of the +parties herein and Mr. Bruhnel has never been re-noticed for deposition. The motion currently +before the court is therefore premature and frivolous. Regardless, it is respectfully noted that the +Court lacks authority to compel Mr. Bruhnel to return to the United States for deposition. +Indeed, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically decline to confer upon the Court the +power to compel foreign nationals to appear before it. See Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 45, 28 USC +$ 1783. +The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the Hague Convention, however, have each +-3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 4 of 6 +adopted procedural rules to facilitate the deposition of a non-party foreign national. Indeed, The +Uniform Foreign Depositions Act, as adopted by Florida in section 92.251 ("UFDL") provides +a road map for litigants seeking to secure evidence from foreign non-party witnesses, stating: +(2) Whenever any mandate, writ or commission is issued out of any court of record in any +other state, territory, district, or foreign jurisdiction, or whenever upon notice or +agreement it is required to take the testimony of a witness or witnesses in this state, +witnesses may be compelled to appear and testify in the same manner and by the same +process and proceeding as may be employed for the purposes of taking testimony in +proceedings pending in this state. +§ 92.251 Florida statutes. +Thus, whenever a Florida litigant desires to depose a witness residing in another state, +that litigant must first secure the appointment of a commissioner from the court where the +litigation originates. See Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 507 So.2d 1180 (Fla 2" DCA 1987), at 1183. +The foreign litigant may then apply to the court having personal jurisdiction over the witness for +the process necessary to secure the attendance of the witness. Id. (citing Travelers Indem. Co. v. +. 388 So.2d 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)). See Greenlight Financial Services, Inc. v. Union +America Mortg., Inc., 971 So.2d 983 (Fla. 3" DCA 2008). This may be done through mechanisms +provided via The Hague Convention, to which France is a signatory. Given that several cases are +currently pending in Florida Circuit Court that are related to the instant matter, plaintiff may +avail herself of this mechanism to secure Mr. Bruhnel's testimony, but has chosen not to. +Accordingly, there has been no malfeasance herein by Mr. Bruhnel or his counsel, only +nonfeasance by plaintiff's counsel. +-4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 5 of 6 +Plaintiff's counsel has misrepresented to this court that he spoke to Mr. Bruhnel's +counsel about this motion prior to filing it with the Court. Undersigned counsel for Mr. Bruhnel +was never notified in any manner that any such motion was being prepared or filed. +Plaintiff's counsel has further misrepresented to this Court that undersigned counsel for +Mr. Bruhnel stated that Mr. Bruhnel, "has been out of this country since prior to the New Year +with no plans to return." In fact, undersigned counsel has consistently told Plaintiff's counsel +that she was unaware of Mr. Bruhnel's travel schedule and that she did not know when Mr. +Bruhnel planned to return to this country. +WHEREFORE, JEAN LUC BRUHNEL, a non-party to the instant matter, and +undersigned counsel for Mr. Bruhnel, respectfully request that the Court DENY plaintiff's +Motion for an Order to Show Cause and an Order to Compel in its entirety. Mr. Bruhnel and +undersigned counsel further respectfully request that the Court impose sanctions and attorney's +fees incurred in the defense of Plaintiff's frivolous motion, and for whatever further relief this +Court deems appropriate. +Dated: March 12, 2010 +Respectfully submitted, +TAMA BETH KUDMAN, P.A. +Attorney for Non-Party Witness, Jean Luc Bruhnel +777 South Flagler Drive +Suite 800 - West Tower +-5- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 138 +Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 6 of 6 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 515-6032 +Fax: +(561) 828-0210 +E-mail: Tama@tkudmanlaw.com +By: s/ Tama Beth Kudman +TAMA BETH KUDMAN +Fla. Bar No.: 0637432 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on March 12, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document +with the clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day on all parties identified via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated +by CM/ECF. +-6- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b79d50d33f739ae44c9acb3fa50fa10ea19eff598d4e099f6838be83d6604fe1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b79d50d33f739ae44c9acb3fa50fa10ea19eff598d4e099f6838be83d6604fe1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8e30c516443e155be78b2b3a5c6ef424f1bca538 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b79d50d33f739ae44c9acb3fa50fa10ea19eff598d4e099f6838be83d6604fe1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -73, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b79d50d33f739ae44c9acb3fa50fa10ea19eff598d4e099f6838be83d6604fe1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "162751ed170bb1576ac7bf78e2bfe3dab4326c7a1498950eb5c30ceeb1ec74fa", + "output_sha256": "0be0d72c163557bcc034380ab8bbd7e2b4446434390a33c67c7d88698055d00e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7aa431d6f453a851eccf76b2e27988f89b2f37941f947b1b99148baf16e0399.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7aa431d6f453a851eccf76b2e27988f89b2f37941f947b1b99148baf16e0399.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6f7fba1f39f63c77bc455507dab73f0e97123921 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7aa431d6f453a851eccf76b2e27988f89b2f37941f947b1b99148baf16e0399.md @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-9 +Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 3 +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE +CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE +REMEDIES +CASE NO: +08-80736-Ciy-Marra/ + + + +07/09/2008 +15:15 +FAX + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM +USAO WPB CONFR +0030 +Document 48-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 • Page 2 of 3 +U.S. Department of Justice +Federal Bureau of Investigetion +FBI - West Palm Beach +Suite 500 +505 South Flagler Drive +West Pelm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 833-7517 +Fax: (561) 833-7970 +May 30, 2008 +Re: +Dear S +Your name was referred to the FB's Victim Assistance Program as being a possible victim of a federal +crime. We appreciate your assistance and cooperation while we are investigating this case. We would like to +make you aware of the victim services that may be available to you and to answer any questions you may have +regarding the criminal justice process throughout the investigation. Our program is part of the FBl's effort to +ensure the victims are treated with respect and are provided information about their rights under federal law. +These rights include notification of the status of the case. The enclosed brochures provide information about +the FBl's Victim Assistance Program, resources and instructions for accessing the Victim Notification System +(VNS). VNS is designed to provide you with information regarding the status of your case. +This case Is currently under Investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your +continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation. +As a crime victim, you have the following rights under 18 United States Code § 3771: (1) The right to +be reasonably protected from the accused: (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any +public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the +accused; (3) The right not to be axcluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after +receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if +the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding; (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any puble +proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding; (5) The +reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Goverment in the case; (6) The right to full and timely +restitution as provided in law; (7) The right to proceedings free from unroasonable delay. (8) The right to be +treated with faimess and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. +We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights +pertain to events occurring after the arrest or indictment of an individual for the crime, and it will become the +responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights. You +may also seek the advice of a private attorney with respect to these rights. +The Victim Notification System (VNS) is designed to provide you with direct information regarding the +case as it proceeds through the criminal justice system. You may obtain current information about this matter +on the internet at WWW.Notify. USDOJ.GOV or from the VNS Call Center at 1-866-DOJ-4YOU (1-866-355- +4968) (TDD/TTY: 1-866-228-4619) (Intemational: 1-502-213-2767). In addition, you may use the Call +Center or Internet to update your contact information and/or change your decision about participation in the +notification program. if you update your information to include a current email address, VS will send +information to that address. You will need the following Victim Identification Number (VIN) 2074381' and +Personal Identification Number (PIN) '1816' anytime you contact the Call Center and the first time you log on to +VNS on the Internet. In addition, the first time you access the VNS Interet site, you will be prompted to enter +your last name (or business name) as currently contained in VNS. The name you should enter is f + + +07/Case 9:08 CV-80738-RE ocument 4859 Eered n +on FLSD Doeket 03/21/2011 Page 3 of 3 +r.b1/0r +If you have additional questions which involve this matter, please contact the office listed above. When +you call, please provide the file number located at the top of this letter. Please remember, your participation +in the notification part of this program is voluntary. In order to continue lo raceive notifications, it is your +responsibility to keep your contact information current. +Sincerely, +Twiler ! +Victim Specialist +TOTAL P.B7 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7aa431d6f453a851eccf76b2e27988f89b2f37941f947b1b99148baf16e0399.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7aa431d6f453a851eccf76b2e27988f89b2f37941f947b1b99148baf16e0399.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..88047d26718d6b019495ff774dbc98915aa6f57f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7aa431d6f453a851eccf76b2e27988f89b2f37941f947b1b99148baf16e0399.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -55, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b7aa431d6f453a851eccf76b2e27988f89b2f37941f947b1b99148baf16e0399", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "fc75eef83c7500985d20f15a4a72950a558c63397bf747b9735d40e25d4053e1", + "output_sha256": "9e20fec6691cc9b50ce0143fe40b9f90eec830e8036470b246bf7d29adfa23e7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7af204d7ac26bc180088dd028066d67691f9586c49c312d03b72c474a089bf4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7af204d7ac26bc180088dd028066d67691f9586c49c312d03b72c474a089bf4.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4a9822bb5347bb76a1a935cc5213d289a3612307 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7af204d7ac26bc180088dd028066d67691f9586c49c312d03b72c474a089bf4.md @@ -0,0 +1,281 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 1 of 11 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL +ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS +Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, files this Reply Memorandum in Support of +Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents, as follows: +I. +Introduction +Defendant relies upon generalization s regarding the nature of the case and the allegations in +the pleadings in justifying his assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege in response to each and +every interrogatory and document request propounded by Plaintiffs. This blanket assertion of the +privilege is insufficient to deny Plaintiffs all discovery in these cases. Defendant otherwise fails to +set forth any basis for denying Plaintiffs any and all answers to its written discovery under the +psychotherapist-patient privilege, the Federal Rules of Evidence, on grounds of relevance, third +party privacy rights, or other grounds. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request an Order +compelling answers to interrogatories and production of documents. +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 2 of 11 +Il. +Argument in Reply +A. +Defendant Has Made a Blanket +Assertion of the Privilege Against +Self-Incrimination That Is Insufficient +Defendant Cannot Rely on its Blanket Objections +to Interrogatories on Fifth Amendment Grounds +Defendant Epstein insists that he has not asserted a "blanket privilege" to discovery under the +Fifth Amendment, even though he has repeated the identical objection to each of Plaintiff's +discovery request on this ground. The federal courts have noted that "[t]he term "blanket assertion' +is not limited to the situation where the defendant makes a single response to numerous questions." +United States v. Buaiz, 2008 WL 5050102 (E.D. Tenn. 2008). Rather, as here, where the defendant +refuses to answer on fifth amendment grounds each and every question, such repeated assertions are +fairly characterized as a "blanket assertion". Id.; Capitol Products Corp. v. Hernon, 457 F.2d 541 +(8th Cir. 1972). +Accordingly, it is not sufficient to support the invocation of the Fifth Amendment with +nothing more than sweeping generalizations applicable to all questions that were asked in discovery. +See United States v. Pierce, 561 F.2d 735 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 923 (1978) (*a +blanket refusal to answer any question is unacceptable"). +Defendant Epstein's Response does not set forth reasonable cause for a concern of selfincrimination in response to specific interrogatories. It is particularly deficient with regard to +interrogatory, nos. 1-2 (identity of employees who worked or came to Palm Beach residence), no. 7 +(Defendant's presence in Florida), no. 8 (identity of health care providers), no. 9 (persons providing +transport services), no. 11 (Epstein's telephone numbers) and no. 12 (employees" telephone +numbers). Epstein's references to allegations of sexual abuse, exploitation and battery in the +Complaints in this and other civil actions against him, along with the alleged plan and scheme of +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 3 of 11 +recruiting girls to come to Epstein's Palm Beach mansion to give him "massages", fall well short of +demonstrating that any interrogatory asked of Epstein that is relevant and within the broad scope of +Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) would realistically and necessarily furnish a link in the chain of evidence +needed to prove a crime against him. +Epstein alternatively points out that there is a "narrow exception" which allows a blanket +assertion of the privilege where the trial court determines it to be legitimate based on the court's +knowledge of the case and the expected testimony. United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 +(Sth Cir. 1980); United States v. Tsui, 646 F.2d 365 (9th Cir. 1981). This is not a case, however, +where this narrow exception should apply. In Tsui, the Court allowed a blanket assertion of the +privilege only because it was clear that the witness would only be questioned about the real estate +transactions that were at the heart of his criminal liability concerns, and the proponent of the +testimony argued only that the witness did not have a reasonable fear of prosecution. Id. at 368. +Such unusual circumstances are not present in the instant cases. Because a blanket assertion of the +Fifth Amendment privilege is not legitimate in these cases, the Court must make a "particularized +inquiry", and "only as to genuinely threatening questions should [the witness's] silence be +sustained." Goodwin, 625 F.2d at 701 (quoting United States v. Melchor Moreno, 536 F.2d 1042, +1049 (5th Cir. 1976)). +Defendant further asserts that Plaintiff's interrogatories requesting that he identify employees +may lead to evidence tending to incriminate him because one of his employees, +, is +identified in the Complaint. (Defendant Memorandum (DE 56), p. 18). This does not, however, +support a blanket refusal to answer on Fifth Amendment grounds. It does not demonstrate how +answers to these interrogatories, seeking the identities of all employees who were assigned or came +to the Palm Beach residence, could realistically furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 4 of 11 +prosecute Epstein. +Similarly, the allegations of the Complaints alone do not reveal the danger of selfincrimination from answers to interrogatories seeking information on when Epstein was in the State +of Florida, who provided transportation services to Epstein, his telephone numbers, his employees' +telephone numbers, and his health care providers.' Discovery requests that seek background +information or information on events and experiences of the witness for which he cannot realistically +or genuinely be expected to be charged with a crime are not subject to Fifth Amendment protection. +See Krause v. +, 390 F.Supp 1070, 1071-72 (N.D. Ohio 1974) (allowing questions to be asked +regarding personal backgrounds and experiences excluding the event at issue in the pending criminal +indictment). +2. +Defendant Has Not Demonstrated That the Act of +Producing Documents in Response to Specific Requests +Would be Sufficiently Testimonial and Incriminating +Defendant Epstein makes a general assertion that a response to any of Plaintiff's document +requests would entail testimonial self-incrimination. (Defendant's Response (DE 56), pp. 22-23). +Whether the act of producing a particular document would be sufficiently testimonial and +incriminatory to support the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is a "fact +dependent inquiry." United States v. Wujkowski, 929 F.2d 981, 985 (4th Cir. 1991). It is the burden +of the party asserting the privilege to "explain how the act of producing documents would pose a real +danger of incrimination." Bear Sterns & Co. v. Wyler, 182 F.Supp. 2d 679, 681 (N.D. III. 2002). +Defendant's reliance on United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), is inadequate. In +Hubbell, it was apparent from the breadth of the description of documents demanded in the +government's subpoena that "the prosecutor needed respondent's assistance both to identify +' See Interrogatory nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, 12. +-4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 5 of 11 +potential sources of information and to produce those sources." Id. at 41. In Bear Sterns, the Court +explained that the facts of Hubbel! were unique and do not support a blanket, all-encompassing +assertion by a witness or party that the production of documents would be testimonial and +incriminating: +To begin with, in Hubell, the incriminatory nature of the production +of the document sought was obvious. The respondent was already +incarcerated as a result of one investigation and he was the target of a +second. Indeed, the second investigation was directed at whether the +respondent was in compliance with a plea agreement-resulting from +testimony that he had Whitewater information that he had not +provided-it would be an admission that he failed to comply with the +specifically found that respondent's acknowledgment of the existence +of certain records sought in the government's subpoena would be +directly incriminating. Hubbell, 167 F.3d at 582. +Id. at 683. +As noted by the Court in Bear Sterns, a determination that the production of documents +would be testimonial cannot be premised on the witness's say so: +A witness is not exonerated from answering merely because he +declares that in so doing he would incriminate himself; his assertion +does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination. +Id. at 684. In Bear Sterns, the Court found that the defendant failed to meet his burden in asserting +the privilege against self-incrimination in response to a request for production that included wire +transfer records, telephone records, bank records, and records pertaining to specific investment +firms. Id. Plaintiffs seek in their document requests, among other things, telephone records, travel +records, correspondence and communications, and personal calendars and diaries. The act of +producing such records is not a crime. See id. ("[a]s the plaintiff notes, it is not a crime to make a +- 5- + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 6 of 11 +wire transfer, use the phone, or possess corporate records"). Defendant Epstein has failed to meet +his burden of demonstrating that the document requests made by Plaintiffs in these cases would pose +a real danger of incrimination. As in Bear Sterns, the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of +Documents should accordingly be granted. Id. +B. +Defendant Epstein Fails to Demonstrate Why His +Invocation of the Fifth Amendment Would Not +Warrant an Adverse Interest In These Civil Cases +Defendant Epstein does not dispute the general rule that an adverse inference may be drawn +in a civil case from a defendant's refusal to testify or respond to discovery by invoking the privilege +against self incrimination. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318-20 (1976). He instead asserts +that there is a "recognized exception" that applies in a case where the adverse inference is the sole +basis for the plaintiff's prima facie case or will cause the automatic entry of summary judgment. +(Defendant's Response, (DE 56), pp. 14-15); Federal Trade Comm'n v. Transnet Wireless Corp., +506 F.Supp. 2d 1247, 1252 n. 4 (S.D. Fla. 2007). This exception plainly would not apply here. +There are witnesses other than Defendant to the acts and conduct alleged in these cases, including +Plaintiffs and other victims. See Transnet Wireless, 506 F.Supp. 2d at 1252 n. 4 (holding that the +Court "will draw adverse inferences where appropriate" in reviewing a motion for summary +judgment, "in light of the myriad evidence presented by plaintiff"). +In any event, it would be premature at this stage of the case for the Court to foreclose the use +of an adverse inference from the Defendant's invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination. +This issue would arise either in a motion for summary judgment or a motion in limine. Accordingly, +based on the foregoing, Defendant's self-serving assertion in his discovery responses concerning the +drawing of an adverse inference is improper, and should be rejected and stricken. +C. Plaintiff Is Entitled to Discovery of Health Care +Information Requested In Interrogatory No. 8 +- 6 - + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 7 of 11 +Defendant Epstein argues that Plaintiff' s Interrogatory no. 8 is overbroad because it seeks +information over a ten year period. As to Defendant Epstein's psychological condition, particularly +any problem of a sexual nature, ten years is more than reasonable. Any psychosexual condition has +likely existed for most or all of Defendant Epstein's adult life. +Defendant Epstein next asserts Florida's psychotherapist-patient privilege under Florida +Statute §90.503(2). As set forth in Plaintiff's Motion, the allegations of child sexual abuse in this +case bring into play the exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege of Florida Statute §39.204. +Defendant asserts that this Court is required to hold an in camera inspection of documents to +determine, as to each document, whether Florida Statute §39.204 is applicable. See Doherty v. John +Doe No. 22, 957 So.2d 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Plaintiff agrees that such an in camera +inspection would be appropriate to evaluate whether the documents relate to allegations of child +sexual abuse. In this regard, any notes or records relating to Epstein's sexual interests or tendencies +produced in an in camera inspection would be relevant and should be turned over to Plaintiff as +falling within the exception of $39.204. +D. +Third Party Privacy Rights Are +Not a Basis to Deny Discovery +The right to privacy discussed in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 454 (1972), has nothing +to do with the discovery issues in this case. Eisenstadt concerns the distribution of a contraceptive +device. Yet Defendant relies entirely on Eisenstadt in contending that third party privacy rights +provide a basis for Defendant to object to discovery in this case. The vague argument and +unsupported assertion raised by Defendant in this case, "that the privacy rights of third parties are +implicated", is frivolous and must be rejected. +E. +Plaintiff Is Entitled In Discovery to Documents +Relating to Plea Agreements and Criminal Proceedings +- 7- + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 8 of 11 +Defendant asserts that Plaintiff should not be entitled to receive any documents responsive to +her Request nos. 1-4 for the sole reason that these documents would not themselves be admissible +under Fed.R.Evid. 408 and 410. It is well established that broad discovery under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 +should not, without more, be limited on the basis of admissibility at trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(1946 +Advisory Committee Note). (Rule 26(b) "may cover not only evidence for use at the trial but also +inquiry into matters in themselves inadmissible as evidence but which will lead to the discovery of +such evidence. The purpose of discovery is to allow a broad search for facts, the names of +witnesses, or any other matters which may aid a party in the preparation or presentation of his +case"). Accordingly, the fact alone that plea agreements and related documents may not be +admissible at trial is not a basis to deny their production in discovery.? In Cupac, Inc. v. Mid-West +Agency, Inc., 100 F.R.D. 440 (S.D. Ohio 1983), the Court held on these grounds that a party could +obtain discovery relating to a criminal plea, including the answers to questions asked by the +prosecutor, even though this information would be inadmissible under Fed.R.Evid. 410. Any +concerns regarding the disclosure of documents responsive to request nos. 1-4 could be addressed in +an appropriate protective order. Plaintiffs and their counsel, however, should have these documents +in discovery. +F. An In Camera Hearing May Be Appropriate To Determine +Whether Defendant Properly Claims Privilege In +Response To Interrogatories And Document Reguests +Given the fact intensive nature of the inquiry into whether a defendant has met his burden in +asserting a privilege against self-incrimination, some courts have conducted in camera, ex parte +hearings to determine whether assertions of the privilege are valid in each instance. See United +* Plaintiff further notes that her document request no. 4 seeks documents obtained in discovery and +investigation of the criminal cases, not documents pertaining to the plea agreement. Accordingly, +Rules 408 and 410 could not serve as a basis to object to these requests. +- 8 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 9 of 11 +States v. Duncan, 704 F.Supp 820 (N.D. III. 1989); see also United States v. Wujkowski, 929 F.2d +981, 986 (4th Cir. 1991) ("[wle hold only that the district court must undertake a more careful +examination of the documents in question and provide a basis for its findings"). To the extent that +this Court is in doubt as to whether to uphold the Defendant's privilege claim as to any particular +document request or interrogatory, then an in camera hearing would be appropriate. +Ill. Conclusion +Based on the foregoing, and for the reasons stated in Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Answers +to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, +Plaintiff requests that Defendant Epstein be ordered to answer interrogatories and produce +responsive documents. +Dated: April 20, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By:_ +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiff +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +-9- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 10 of 11 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on April 20 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day +to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices +of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who +are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 10 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 11 of 11 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 11 - diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7af204d7ac26bc180088dd028066d67691f9586c49c312d03b72c474a089bf4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7af204d7ac26bc180088dd028066d67691f9586c49c312d03b72c474a089bf4.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e7ee93a1ccd447e7140b931c487942fb24a7a9c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7af204d7ac26bc180088dd028066d67691f9586c49c312d03b72c474a089bf4.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -136, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b7af204d7ac26bc180088dd028066d67691f9586c49c312d03b72c474a089bf4", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 13, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4f1878f8c06f83f8b89bee75e399a5839c98ba2fab723d0a3af9ff9996f50e72", + "output_sha256": "ca9ecfc98b4368191749baf124eefd7a1b018722ac990daa940f20e00b228e69", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7d75ea14b3f00ef6648bca229d3caa87377ddce3474ab6d5ce190e831f155f3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7d75ea14b3f00ef6648bca229d3caa87377ddce3474ab6d5ce190e831f155f3.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b09511ca1740e843996fcdec7cd474ee6b5b42f3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7d75ea14b3f00ef6648bca229d3caa87377ddce3474ab6d5ce190e831f155f3.md @@ -0,0 +1,264 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 254 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009 Page 1 of 9 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRAI. +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRAJ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 254 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009 Page 2 of 9 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRAJ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRAJ +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 254 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009 Page 3 of 9 +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFF, C.M.A.!'S, RESPONSE AND INCORPORATED MOTION FOR +PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT, JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN'S +EMERGENCY MOTION FOR INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF WITH +INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW (DE 228) +Plaintiff, C.M.A., by and through her undersigned attorneys, hereby files her +Response and Incorporated Motion For Protective Order Regarding Defendant, +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN's, Emergency Motion For Independent Examination of Plaintiff +With Incorporated Memorandum of Law (DE 228), and in support there of states as +follows: +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 254 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009 Page 4 of 9 +Defendant, JEFFERY E. EPSTEIN, filed on July 29, 2009 his Emergency +Motion for Independent Examination of Plaintiff with Incorporated Memorandum of Law +(DE 228). +2. +After several pages of leveling inaccurate and irrelevant arguments +regarding Plaintiff's alleged strategy to stall discovery in this case, the Defendant's +requested relief finally materializes late in his "emergency" motion in that he seeks to +have Plaintiff submit to a 6-8 hour compulsory examination with his retained +psychiatrist, Ryan +M.D. +3. +Defendant has unilaterally selected August 20, 2009 for this examination. +4. +Plaintiff has been hospitalized for the last two weeks suffering from +serious illnesses, including undergoing extensive thoracic surgery. It is not expected +that Plaintiff will be released from the hospital before August 24, 2009, and potentially +later. There is also the possibility that Plaintiff will need to be admitted to an in-patient +nursing home/rehabilitation hospital following her discharge from the acute care setting +in which she is currently residing to convalesce from her illnesses and resulting surgery. +Needless to say, it is not expected that Plaintiff will be out of the hospital +by August 20, let alone be in any condition that would permit the type of examination +requested by Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks the entry of a protective order +preventing the examination with Dr. +from going forward until after Plaintiff is +discharged from the hospital and/or any nursing home/rehabilitation hospital. The +" Although styled as an "emergency" motion, there is no indication whatsoever as to how or why +Defendant's request for an examination of Plaintiff is an emergency. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 254 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009 Page 5 of 9 +undersigned will keep counsel for EPSTEIN informed as to Plaintiff's expected +discharge date in order to facilitate rescheduling the examination. +Ominously, Defendant seeks to first take the deposition of Plaintiff so that +his examiner can have the benefit of Plaintiff's answers before the examination takes +place. (DE 228, paragraph 5). Plaintiff, the victim of repeated sexual offenses at the +hands of the Defendant over a prolonged period of time while she was a minor, would +then again be subjected to a "full medical and psychiatric history, including chief +complaint, history of present illness, specific complaints of symptoms or injury, medical +history, past psychiatric history, family history, abuse history, birth history, childhood +history, school history, occupational history, violence history, legal history, relationship +history, substance abuse history, sexual history, review of symptoms, activities of daily +living, mental status examination, diagnosis using DSM-IV axes" during Defendant's +proposed examination by Dr. +(DE 228, Exhibit "D", paragraph 10). +7. +As if that were not overkill enough, it has also requested, apparently by Dr. +himself, that Plaintiff fill out certain questionnaires in advance of her proposed +examination. (See letter from Michael Pike dated July 31, attached as Exhibit "1"). Dr. +| is requesting that Plaintiff fill out a 10 page "Life History Questionnaire" (apparently +for use with his patients as it references the confidential nature of the personal data +requested therein) and a 14 page "Patient Questionnaire (for Forensic Examination)." +Both questionnaires request information regarding past medical history, psychiatric +history, social history, work history, etc. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 254 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009 Page 6 of 9 +8. +Defendant cannot seriously be suggesting that he anticipates having +Plaintiff answer the same questions about the same subject matter three separate times +(first in a deposition, then in Dr. +questionnaires, then in Dr. +examination). +Such a procedure would only serve to embarrass, humiliate, intimidate, and further +victimize Plaintiff. Additionally, Defendant no doubt hopes to create inconsistent +statements by the Plaintiff in having her answer the same questions multiple times. The +desire to create inconsistent statements is, of course, not an appropriate goal for a +mental examination. +When the Defendant's proposed examination goes forward at some time +to be determined later, Plaintiff moves for the entry of a protective order limiting the time +permitted for the examination and any testing to 6 hours. Trenary v. Busch +Entertainment Corp., 2006 WL 3333621 (M.D. Fla.)(limiting a psychiatric evaluation to +four (4) hours) and Tracey v. Sarasota County, 2006 WL 1678908 (M.D. Fla.)(limiting +mental evaluation to (4) hours). +10. Plaintiff also requests the entry of an order limiting the scope of the +examination. Plaintiff should be required to answer sensitive and highly personal +questions, if at all, only one time. Defendant can choose to delve into Plaintiffs medical, +psychiatric, sexual and sexual abuse history and the like either in his deposition of +Plaintiff or through Dr. +examination, but certainly not both. Accordingly, Plaintiff +requests the entry of an order preventing duplicative questioning during same regarding +personal and highly sensitive topics such as medical history, psychiatric history, sexual +history, social history, sexual abuse history, substance abuse history, etc. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 254 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009 Page 7 of 9 +11. Lastly, Dr. +proposes that only he and Plaintiff be in the examination +room. (DE 228, Exhibit "D", paragraph 9). Given the nature of Plaintiff's allegations and +the proposed scope of the examination, Plaintiff is entitled to have in the room present +with her a representative from the undersigned's office to ensure that Plaintiff's rights +are appropriately safeguarded. The mere presence of a representative from the +undersigned's office would in no way interfere with Dr. L +ability to conduct his +examination. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, C.M.A., respectfully requests that this Court enter an +order: +1) Prohibiting the proposed examination from going forward until after Plaintiff is +discharged from the hospital and/or any nursing home/rehabilitation hospital; +2) Limiting the time for conducting the examination, including any testing, to a +maximum of 6 hours; +3) Limiting the scope +of same to preclude Plaintiff from being subjected to +repeated questioning on multiple occasions regarding personal and highly +sensitive areas of inquiry including Plaintiff's medical history, psychiatric +history, sexual history, social history, sexual abuse history, substance abuse +history, etc.; and +4) Authorizing the presence of a representative from the undersigned's office to +with Plaintiff in the examination room. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 254 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009 Page 8 of 9 +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1 +Counsel for the movant has conferred via e-mail with counsel for the Defendant +regarding his position on the instant motion and has been informed that counsel for +Defendant is not in agreement with any of the relief requested herein. +Is/ Jack P. +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 7, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified below via +transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. +Is/Jack P. +Jack Scarola +Florida Bar No.: 169440 +Jack P. +Florida Bar No.: 0547808 +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: +(561) 686-6300 +Fax: +(561) 383-9424 +Attorneys for Plaintiff +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 254 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009 Page 9 of 9 +COUNSEL LIST +Richard H. Willits, Esquire +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 10th Avenue North, Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Phone: +(561) 582-7600 +Fax: +(561) 588-8819 +Robert Critton, Esquire +Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman LLP +515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33414 +Phone: +(561) 842-2820 +Fax: +(561) 844-6929 +Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: +(561) 863-9100 +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esquire +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 South Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: +(561) 202-6360 +Fax: +(561) 828-0983 +9 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7d75ea14b3f00ef6648bca229d3caa87377ddce3474ab6d5ce190e831f155f3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7d75ea14b3f00ef6648bca229d3caa87377ddce3474ab6d5ce190e831f155f3.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..980ca7d205e5a2c438fddb84e21763102162ee29 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7d75ea14b3f00ef6648bca229d3caa87377ddce3474ab6d5ce190e831f155f3.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -108, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b7d75ea14b3f00ef6648bca229d3caa87377ddce3474ab6d5ce190e831f155f3", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "af355aa9a025a47254e860dfee10a0fa99897ba3feeed34c7f60f5e671322db7", + "output_sha256": "2d7b7bcb21ca8e8361b6a6b47e99d1e42b303500d293361f63f870fcb4a49b6d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7d8b118ed652fdae63f0e5dc11fc7f7a218fe2671150e53cff01bcd9a4f3ddb.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7d8b118ed652fdae63f0e5dc11fc7f7a218fe2671150e53cff01bcd9a4f3ddb.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0341a9d33ebbf5f289d8e791e220272356db7a9d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7d8b118ed652fdae63f0e5dc11fc7f7a218fe2671150e53cff01bcd9a4f3ddb.md @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 468 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/11/2010 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +ORDER +THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's "Motion for an +Extension Directed to the Court Pursuant to Rule 4, Review and Appeal - Southern District, In +Connection with this Court's Order Dated February 4, 2010 (DE 462)." See DE 464. In his Motion, +February 4, 2010 +Defendant seeks additional time to file an appeal of Magistrate Judge +Order compelling production of certain documents within 14 days from the date of that Order. Upon +consideration of the motion, response (DE 465), and reply (DE 466), it is hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion for an Extension (DE 462) is +GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: +(1) The deadline for Defendant to file an appeal of Magistrate Judge +February 4, +2010 Order is extended to Friday, February 26, 2010. +_(2) In the event that Magistrate Judge +February 4, 2010 Order is affirmed on + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 468 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/11/2010 Page 2 of 2 +appeal, Defendant will have three (3) business days from the date of this Court's order to produce +the documents at issue. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +Florida, this 11" day of February, 2010. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies to: +all counsel of record +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7d8b118ed652fdae63f0e5dc11fc7f7a218fe2671150e53cff01bcd9a4f3ddb.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7d8b118ed652fdae63f0e5dc11fc7f7a218fe2671150e53cff01bcd9a4f3ddb.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0ad08b036f174b2b2d76240769a1ea94ab67bfa1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7d8b118ed652fdae63f0e5dc11fc7f7a218fe2671150e53cff01bcd9a4f3ddb.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b7d8b118ed652fdae63f0e5dc11fc7f7a218fe2671150e53cff01bcd9a4f3ddb", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "968a34ed2453d10336bb375bb11e18efd0eaf8e8e7531d1b88e92ffdcdab6da7", + "output_sha256": "251375992eb3bbcbf5b9d2e7a51f944d089cce141b127e39bf1c52a430786f87", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7fc2e4cbffc62af3ab31fe196bdaa9f10f52d2e855f038b9619b583dc8f0f0b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7fc2e4cbffc62af3ab31fe196bdaa9f10f52d2e855f038b9619b583dc8f0f0b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bdb915bc23353d7681feff971eec4660c7547d65 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7fc2e4cbffc62af3ab31fe196bdaa9f10f52d2e855f038b9619b583dc8f0f0b.md @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 526-1 | +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092, +AFFIDAVIT OF JESSICA ARBOUR +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE +) +) SS: +) +Jessica Arbour deposes and states as follows: +My name is Jessica Arbour. I am an attorney at Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A., +the law firm representing Jane Doe Nos. 2-7. +On or about March 12, 2010, I spoke with FBI Paralegal Specialist Deborah +Moore at the FBI's North Miami Beach office. I informed her that I wanted to get copies of the +sworn statements our clients gave to FBI investigators during the federal investigation of Jeffrey +Epstein, and that I needed instructions from her as to the proper procedure. +Ms. Moore informed me that it was a three-step process: First, I should serve the +FBI with a subpoena listing the specific statements I wanted. Second, I should provide them + +/ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 526-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 2 of 2 +with a "compliance letter" that stated the reasons I was requesting the information in order to +comply with the Privacy Act. Third, I would need to provide either a signed, notarized +authorization from each of my clients waiving their rights under the Privacy Act or an Order +from this Court ordering the FBI to comply with the subpoena. +4. +On March 12, 2010, Plaintiffs served a subpoena duces tecum, attached to the +original Motion as Exhibit 1, for our clients' statements. +5. On March 16, 2010, I received a letter from FBI General Counsel +Navas +confirming that the FBI had received my subpoena and that they would await an Order from this +Court or the signed authorizations from each of the Plaintiffs before producing the requested +documents. I had previously informed him that I would seek an Order from this Court. +6. +Given that discovery deadlines are approaching, a Motion was filed with this +Court seeking a single Court Order applicable to all of the statements because Plaintiff's counsel +believes that is the most efficient and timely means of obtaining the Plaintiffs' statements. +FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. +Dated: April I2. 2010 +Jessica Arbour +BEFORE ME, personally appeared Jessica D. Arbour who after being first duly sworn, +deposes and states that he has executed the foregoing Affidavit, and that it is correct to the best +of his knowledge and belief. +THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT was sworn to and subscribed before me this 12 +_ day of +apsil +-, 2010. +Lisa +E COMMISSION # DD878095 +7 EXPIRES: APR. 11,2013 +www.AARONNOTARY.com +In Been +NOTARY PUBLIC, +STATE OF FLORIDA +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7fc2e4cbffc62af3ab31fe196bdaa9f10f52d2e855f038b9619b583dc8f0f0b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7fc2e4cbffc62af3ab31fe196bdaa9f10f52d2e855f038b9619b583dc8f0f0b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9674d8dc80570348530679d370052d17ce843fd0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b7fc2e4cbffc62af3ab31fe196bdaa9f10f52d2e855f038b9619b583dc8f0f0b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -31, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b7fc2e4cbffc62af3ab31fe196bdaa9f10f52d2e855f038b9619b583dc8f0f0b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "47ad2d80816b759796fb734ff9f8580c09cc3c48f341405278b637c5c85818dc", + "output_sha256": "499150af3aa26055782b0fcf598122b8472b539452ca75676dbf79bf2b31a6c2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b82521e9e5ac11772dc51b8e2ae9e4f91b902237d85165c1e26b428ff21a47e8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b82521e9e5ac11772dc51b8e2ae9e4f91b902237d85165c1e26b428ff21a47e8.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eadd3509be789901b7bc5065fdfc8eac7ae197b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b82521e9e5ac11772dc51b8e2ae9e4f91b902237d85165c1e26b428ff21a47e8.md @@ -0,0 +1,203 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 1 of 7 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +1 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 2 of 7 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRAJ +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80993-MARRA/ +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80811 -MARRAJ +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80893-MARRA/| +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 08-CV- 80469-MARRA/ +2 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 3 of 7 +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al., +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80591-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80656-MARRA1 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +/ +PLAINTIFFS JANE DOES' 2-7 NOTICE OF JOINDER IN PLAINTIFFS' +JANE DOES 101 AND 102'S MOTION FOR NO-CONTACT ORDER +Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 join in Plaintiffs Jane Does 101 and 102's Motion for No- +Contact Order, filed May 22, 2009, and state as follows: +Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 incorporate and adopt the facts set forth in the pending +Motion for No-Contact Order. Additionally, Plaintiffs offer additional facts in support of the +Motion for a No-Contact Order, as set forth below. +2. +Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 were all identified on the +victims list provided to Defendant Epstein's counsel in connection with the Non-prosecution +Agreement, and each has been identified as victims to Defendant Epstein in their pending +3 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 4 of 7 +actions. In June 2008, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Pucillo ordered Defendant Epstein "not +to have any contact, direct or indirect," with any of his victims. Judge Pucillo clarified that +forbidden "indirect" contact included, but was not limited to, text messages, emails, telephone +calls, or messages through third parties. As detailed herein, Jane Does 4 and 7 have been +contacted on multiple occasions by at least one person representing that she is cooperating with +and communicating on behalf of Defendant Epstein. In these contacts, the Plaintiffs/victims +were threatened and harassed. +3. +As with other Plaintiffs, Jane Does 4 and 7 were first introduced to Defendant +Epstein by Hayley +, who was a high school friend.' +4. +had had contact with these Plaintiffs on several occasions in which she +represented to Plaintiffs Jane Doe 4 and 7 that she is cooperating with Defendant Epstein's +attorneys and that she is being financially supported by Defendant Epstein. Moreover, +has told these Plaintiffs specifically that she is communicating on behalf of Defendant Epstein. +5. +During these contacts, +made disparaging comments to the Plaintiffs and +also sent disturbing text messages to Jane Doe No. 4. In one text, +specifically stated, "I +just met with my lawyer today and I'm finally done with the Epstein case. LOL. I knew you were +suing Jeffrey all along and I've learned so much about you in the meantime. LOL." Jane Doe 4 +understood this to mean that +had exchanged private information about Jane Doe 4 with +Defendant Epstein and his attorneys. Since February, 2009, Jane Doe 4 has continued to receive +text messages from +that are sometimes harassing and other times seek information about +Jane Doe 4's private life, her lawsuit against Defendant Epstein, and/or her lawyer's strategy. +was +named in at least one civil case against Mr. Epstein as a co-defendant. See +Jane Doe v. Epstein, case no. 50-2008-CA-0065996, Palm Beach County Circuit Court. +brought multiple underage girls to Epstein in addition to Jane Does 4 and 7. +4 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 5 of 7 +6. +On one occasion, +approached Jane Doe 7 and disclosed that she was +cooperating with Defendant Epstein's defense, and that she ( +agreed that she would +testify against Jane Doe 7 and the other plaintiffs to make sure that none of the Plaintiffs ever +received any money from Defendant Epstein, making clear that her testimony would not be +truthful to achieve this end. She also made disparaging comments to Jane Doe 7, accusing her of +ruining Defendant Epstein's reputation. +7. +The very possibility of any contact with Epstein or his agents, including | +causes anxiety and distress particularly to Jane Doe 4 and 7, as well as the other Plaintiffs. A nocontact order should prevent further harassment of the Plaintiffs by Epstein and his agents, +including, but not limited to, Hayley +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7, respectfully join Plaintiffs Jane Does 101 and +102 in moving this Court to enter an order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for a No Contact Order +prohibiting the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, from any contact or communication with Plaintiffs, +either directly or indirectly, except through Plaintiffs' attorneys of record for the duration of the +Order. +Dated: June 8, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By:_ +_s/ Adam D. Horowitz. +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +5 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 6 of 7 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +THEREBY CERTIFY that on June 8, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via +transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized +manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic +Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +6 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 7 of 7 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +bedwards@rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +/s/ Adam D. Horowitz +7 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b82521e9e5ac11772dc51b8e2ae9e4f91b902237d85165c1e26b428ff21a47e8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b82521e9e5ac11772dc51b8e2ae9e4f91b902237d85165c1e26b428ff21a47e8.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c9cfea8b3fa2c2f8a3d4b037c9b10d1253e96759 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b82521e9e5ac11772dc51b8e2ae9e4f91b902237d85165c1e26b428ff21a47e8.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -86, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b82521e9e5ac11772dc51b8e2ae9e4f91b902237d85165c1e26b428ff21a47e8", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "cd49ea956d87ac973ceb8a1a567b8f4328b9364a2b6cc52f6a017747a472085e", + "output_sha256": "fbbe11ad3cdeadff40f56eacbd32212652dc28cf7e291844a68a35e926a2e2dd", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b82d2946e753b37598651d082459662efcb89f1c86f4239c615c0e514aeee504.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b82d2946e753b37598651d082459662efcb89f1c86f4239c615c0e514aeee504.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5ee0838156df776443e153e3d5f4c5e7f7411a8f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b82d2946e753b37598651d082459662efcb89f1c86f4239c615c0e514aeee504.md @@ -0,0 +1,441 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 1 of 15 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 2, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +_' +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Motion To Stay And Or Continue Action For Time Certain Based On +Parallel Civil And Criminal Proceedings With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN") by and through his +undersigned attorneys, hereby moves this Court for the entry of an order staying or continuing +this action for a time certain (i.e., until late 2010 when the NPA expires), pursuant to the +application of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the fact that a parallel +proceeding is ongoing and being investigated. In support of his motion, EPSTEIN states: +I. +Introduction +At the outset, EPSTEIN notes this Court's prior Order, (DE 33), in which this Court +denied a motion for stay brought by Defendant's prior counsel. In that instance, Defendant's +counsel requested a mandatory stay under 18 U.S.C.A. §3509(k) which the court denied. In +denying the request for the stay, this Court stated that a discretionary stay was not appropriate at +the time the order was entered but also stated, in part, that "Any such issues shall be resolved as +they arise in the course of litigation." As discussed herein, "special circumstances" now exist +which, in the "interests of justice," merit the entry of a stay of this civil action until the criminal + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 2 of 15 +Page 2 +matter in the 15" Judicial Circuit is "closed" in accordance with the United States Attorney's +Office ("USAO"") Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") and until the NPA expires. +Moreover, EPSTEIN was indicted by a grand jury in or around July 2006. See Exhibit +"A". The Non-Prosecution Agreement is part of the record in connection with that indictment, +which is signed by the State Attorney of the 15'* Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, +Florida ("SAO"). In fact, the NPA acknowledges the investigation performed by the SAO. +Further, the USAO was present at the Plea hearing whereby the NPA was made part of the +record. Thus, there is no question that a parallel criminal matter exists in that the SAO's case +remains open and the NPA lives along side it, which places EPSTEIN under great scrutiny by the +USAO. The NPA actually places an affirmative duty upon EPSTEIN to undertake discussions +with the SAO to ensure compliance with the NPA. That check and balance, therefore, remains in +the hands of the SAO, which has a parallel criminal proceeding. Here, the threat of prosecution +is real, substantial, and present should the USAO determine that EPSTEIN somehow violated the +NPA. As discussed below, because the NPA fails to define what constitutes a breach, the USAO +has apparently taken it upon itself to determine whether a breach has occurred and whether to +seek criminal prosecution. In fact, the USAO has already attempted to claim violations of the +NA due to, among other things, EPSTEIN defending the civil actions against him. Clearly, it is +NOT simply EPSTEIN's choice as to whether he violates the NPA - that discretion apparently +lies with the USAO. For this reason alone, a stay is required until the NPA expires. +The difference between this Motion and the prior motion to stay in is due to the ripeness +of the issues discussed herein. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 3 of 15 +Page 3 +II. THE NPA +By its terms, the NPA took effect on June 30, 2008 and expires by those same terms in +late 2010 so long as EPSTEIN complies with the terms and conditions - violations of which +remain undefined. The NPA, which remains under seal, outlines various obligations on the part +of EPSTEIN including, but not limited to, pleading guilty to the Indictment and Information +before the 15"* Judicial Circuit, recommendations for his sentencing before the 15" Judicial +Circuit, waiver of challenges to the Information filed by the SAO, waiver of right to appeal his +conviction, agreement not be afforded benefits for gain time, and the agreement to not prosecute +others listed thereon so long as EPSTEIN does not breach and fulfills the requirements of the +NPA. +What the NPA does not outline or define is what constitutes a breach or what act or +omission constitutes a breach thereof. Therefore, the USAO apparently believes it has the +discretion to make that unwritten and undefined determination, which places an unreasonable +burden upon EPSTEIN in defending the civil claims in that he has no idea what the USAO will +define as a breach in the event he does not assert his 5' Amendment Rights. As an example, the +USAO has already claimed that EPSTEIN violated the NPA by: +investigating the Plaintiffs (by and though his attorneys) whom brought civil suits +against him for purposes of defending those civil actions; +contesting damages in this action and in the other civil actions; +making statements to the press about this Plaintiff or other Plaintiffs by and +though his attorneys; and + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 4 of 15 +Page 4 +4. +using the word "jail" instead of "imprisonment" in the plea agreement with SA's +office. +See Exhibit "B" Goldberger Affidavit - EPSTEIN's criminal counsel. +These allegations are silly, unfounded and alleged violations which are not defined as +violations under the NPA but arrived at by the USAO. Thus, EPSTEIN is left with "Morton's +Fork" in his side - the undesirable choice of taking the 5* Amendment and having a judgment +(summary or otherwise) entered against him in the civil action or the undesirable choice of +subjecting himself to discovery in the civil action before the NPA expires and, thus, face the +possibility of criminal prosecution by the USAO based upon some illusory breach deemed by the +USAO by way of information obtained through civil discovery proceedings. This is inherently +unfair, the danger is clear, and the playing field is not level in light of the NPA language or lack +thereof. +As a result, the threat of criminal prosecution against EPSTEIN by the USAO continues +presently and through late 2010. +Justice Requires The Entry of A Stay Because Defendant Is Being +Forced To Choose Between Waiving His 5" Amendment Privilege Or Risk +Losing This Civil Case And Forfeiting Other Constitutional Guarantees Of +Due Process And Effective Assistance Of Counsel +Once the NPA expires, EPSTEIN fully intends to testify to all relevant and nonobjectionable inquiries made to him in discovery be it a deposition, in interrogatories or in +production requests. (Emphasis Added) However, the current circumstances are such that by +testifying or responding to discovery, EPSTEIN will be required to waive his constitutional +privileges, thereby subjecting himself to criminal prosecution and scrutiny by the USAO as a +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 5 of 15 +Page 5 +result of matters alleged in this civil action (and others before this Court and in the State of +Florida 15* Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach County). +The special circumstances of this action are such that a stay or continuance for a time +certain is NOT prejudicial and is required to be entered so that: +(1) EPSTEIN is not required to waive his Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination under the United States Constitution resulting in severe prejudice to EPSTEIN in +pending criminal matters; and +(2) EPSTEIN is not forced to choose between waiving his Fifth Amendment right against +self-incrimination or losing the civil case. +Here, in asserting his Fifth Amendment Privilege, the Plaintiff is afforded an opportunity +rarely given - that is, to put on only her evidence without any counterevidence from Defendant +resulting in a judgment of liability against EPSTEIN. This is inherently unfair and precisely the +special circumstances where "in the interests of justice" a stay is required. Ventura v. Brosky, +2006 WL 3392207 (S.D. Fla. 2006), citing, United States v. Lot 5, Fox Grove, 23 F.3d 359 (11"h +Cir. 1994). In Ventura, a stay was entered where a Defendant was confronted with issue of +waiving his 5*" Amendment Privilege or to loose a civil case by way of motion for summary +judgment. Id. Here, EPSTEIN is not requesting a mandatory stay. EPSTEIN only asks that this +court recognize that "special circumstances" exists in this matter and enter a stay in the 'interests +of justice" and only for a specified period of time (i.e., after the NPA expires). See also +Securities and Exchange Commission, 755 F.Supp. 1018, 1019 (S.D. Fla. 1990)(Defendant was +in precarious position while being subject to criminal investigation and reasoning that +compelling Defendant to speak by ordering an accounting of alleged illicit funds would directly +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 6 of 15 +Page 6 +impinge his right against self-incrimination). The court found it appropriate to grant the request +for stay. (Emphasis Added). +Citing to U.S. v. Lot 5. Fox Grove, supra, the Southern District Court, Florida, in +Ventura v. Brosky, 2006 WL 3392207 (S.D. Fla. 2006), stated - +The Eleventh Circuit has also created a test for these circumstances, stating that +where there exists a concurrent civil and criminal proceeding, a court must stay +a civil proceeding pending resolution of a related criminal prosecution when +"special circumstances" so require in the "interests of justice." +(Bold emphasis added). See also United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 & n. 27, 90 S.Ct. 763, +769-70 & n.27 (1970). The Ventura Court went on to state that "situations where a defendant in +both criminal and civil proceedings must choose whether to waive his privilege against selfincrimination or to lose the civil case in summary or default judgment proceedings have met this +test's burden and warrant a stay." Id. The Ventura court granted the stay. Here, the 15** Judicial +Circuit action lives along with the NPA. +In making a decision to enter such a stay, the court may consider the following factors: +(1) the interests of the Plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with litigation, or any +aspect of it, and the potential prejudice of Plaintiff to the delay; +(2) +the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on the +defendant; +(3) +the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use +of judicial resources; +(4) +the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and +(5) +the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation. +See U.S. v. Pinnacle Quest International, 2008 WL 4274498 (N.D. Fla. 2008). +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 7 of 15 +Page 7 +First, in applying the above factors, the Plaintiff in the instant matter will not be +prejudiced simply by claiming a delay in time. Second, the burden is far greater on EPSTEIN if +he is forced to waive his 5 Amendment Privilege or remain silent and have a judgment entered +against him or choose to testify and face criminal prosecution. Third, efficient use of judicial +resources would be rendered upon a stay by way of preventing an appeal if such a stay is not +entered. The Court has broad discretion to enter such a stay. Fourth, the interests of the +individuals outlined in the NPA will be served because EPSTEIN's fulfillment of NPA alleged +obligations is determinative upon whether the USAO prosecutes those individuals or whether the +claims will be dropped upon the expiration of the NPA. Finally, the interest of the public in the +pending civil and criminal cases will not be prejudiced as EPSTEIN is already serving his term +whereby a plea was entered in the 15 Judicial Circuit action. +a. +Application of the 5" Amendment +Next, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination "permits a person not to +answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or +informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. +Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11" Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz. v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.C. +316, 322 (1973). See also Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 21, 121 S.Ct. 1252 (2001)(The Fifth +Amendment privilege is also available to those who claim innocence. +One of the Fifth +Amendment's "basic functions ... is to protect innocent men ... 'who otherwise might be +ensnared by ambiguous circumstances."); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the +Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process +Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "li]t would be incongruous to have different standards +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 8 of 15 +Page 8 +determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending +on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441, +444-45, 92 S.Ct. 1653 (1972)(The Fifth Amendment privilege "can be asserted in any +proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory; and it +protects against any disclosures which the witness reasonably believes could be used in a +criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used. This Court has been +zealous to safeguard the values which underlie the privilege." (Emphasis added)). +The United States Supreme Court made it clear that the scope of the Fifth Amendment +Privilege includes the circumstances as here "the act of producing documents in response to a +subpoena (or production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, +530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 +(1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, +§138 (6" Ed.). The privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted during discovery when a +litigant has "reasonable grounds to believe that the response would furnish a link in the chain of +evidence needed to prove a crime against a litigant." A witness, including a civil defendant, is +entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege whenever there is a realistic possibility that the +answer to a question could be used in anyway to convict the witness of a crime or could aid in +the development of other incriminating evidence that can be used at trial. Id; Pillsbury Company +v. Conboy, 495 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608 (1983). +Certainly, if the USAO decides to prosecute EPSTEIN for an alleged violation of the +NPA, it would undoubtedly be able to use information obtained during discovery against him or +use that information to aid in the development of other evidence against him at a criminal trial. +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 9 of 15 +Page 9 +The USAO is already claiming violations of the NPA based upon EPSTEIN defending the civil +actions and, at the same time, while EPSTEIN asserts the 5' Amendment. Imagine, because that +is all we can do based on the lack of wording in the NPA, what violations the USAO will assert +if EPSTEIN is forced to waive his 5th Amendment privilege to defend himself in this and the +other civil actions. +The Fifth Amendment provides, in relevant part, that "No person ... shall be compelled +in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself." Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, +486, 71 S.Ct. 814 (1951), citing +v. United States, 1944, 322 U.S. 487, 489, 64 S.Ct. +1082, 1083, 88 L.Ed. 1408." The Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination is +"accorded liberal construction in favor of the right it was intended to secure." "The immediate +and potential evils of compulsory self-disclosure transcend any difficulties that the exercise of +the privilege may impose on society in the detection and prosecution of a crime." Id., at 490; +and In re +Financial Svcs. of Fla., Inc., 259 B.R. 391, 399 (M.D. Fla. 2000). The privilege +not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a criminal +statute but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed +to prosecute the claimant for a crime. Id, citing Blau v. United States, 1950, 340 U.S. 159, 71 +S.Ct. 223. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination "permits a person not to +answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or +informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. +Price, 778 F.2d at 669, citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.C. 316, 322 (1973). As +EPSTEIN is here, "the claimant must be "confronted by substantial and 'real,' and not merely +trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." See generally, United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 10 of 15 +Page 10 +U.S. 115, 128, 100 S.Ct. 948, 956, 63 L.Ed.2d 250 (1980)). See also, United States v. Neff, 615 +F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 925, 100 S.Ct. 3018, 65 L.Ed.2d 1117 +(1980)(Information is protected by the privilege not only if it would support a criminal +conviction, but even if "the responses would merely "provide a lead or clue' to evidence having a +tendency to incriminate."). EPSTEIN falls under each of the above category of cases. +The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the scope of the Fifth Amendment +Privilege also encompasses the circumstance where "the act of producing documents in response +to a subpoena (or production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. +Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. +391 (1976). In explaining the application of the privilege, the Supreme Court stated: +We have held that "the act of production" itself may implicitly communicate +"statements of fact." By "producing documents in compliance with a subpoena, +the witness would admit that the papers existed, were in his possession or control, +and were authentic." Moreover, as was true in this case, when the custodian of +documents responds to a subpoena, he may be compelled to take the witness stand +and answer questions designed to determine whether he has produced everything +demanded by the subpoena. The answers to those questions, as well as the act of +production itself, may certainly communicate information about the existence, +custody, and authenticity of the documents. Whether the constitutional privilege +protects the answers to such questions, or protects the act of production itself, is a +question that is distinct from the question whether the unprotected contents of the +documents themselves are incriminating. +"The issue presented in those cases was whether the act of producing subpoenaed +documents, not itself the making of a statement, might nonetheless have some +protected testimonial aspects. The Court concluded that the act of production coul +constitute protected testimonial communication because it might entail implici +atements of fact: by producing documents in compliance with a subpoena, t +itness would admit that the papers existed, were in his possession or control. al +were authentic. United States v. Doe, 465 U.S., at 613, and n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1237; +Fisher, 425 U.S., at 409-410, 96 S.Ct. 1569; id., at 428, 432, 96 S.Ct. 1569 +(concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States, [487 U.S.,] at 104, 108 S.Ct. +2284; L ia.,] at 122, 108 S.Ct. 2284 (dissenting opinion). Thus, the Court made +clear that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies to acts +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 11 of 15 +Page 11 +that imply assertions of fact."... An examination of the Court's application of these +principles in other cases indicates the Court's recognition that, in order to be +testimonial, an accused's communication must itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate +a factual assertion or disclose information. Only then is a person compelled to be a +'witness' against himself." Doe v. United States, 487 U.S., at 209-210, 108 S.Ct. +2341 (footnote omitted). +Finally, the phrase "in any criminal case" in the text of the Fifth Amendment might +have been read to limit its coverage to compelled testimony that is used against the +defendant in the trial itself. It has, however, long been settled that its protection +encompasses compelled statements that lead to the discovery of incriminating +evidence even though the statements themselves are not incriminating and are not +introduced into evidence. Thus, a half century ago we held that a trial judge had +erroneously rejected a defendant's claim of privilege on the ground that his answer +to the pending question would not itself constitute evidence of the charged offense. +As we explained: +"The privilege afforded not only extends to answers that would in themselves +support a conviction under a federal criminal statute but likewise embraces those +which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the +claimant for a federal crime." Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486. 71 +S.Ct. 814, 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951). +Compelled testimony that communicates information that may "lead to +incriminating evidence" is privileged even if the information itself is not +inculpatory. Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 208, n. 6, 108 S.Ct. 2341, 101 +L.Ed.2d 184 (1988). It's the Fifth Amendment's protection against the +prosecutor's use of incriminating information derived directly or indirectly from +the compelled testimony of the respondent that is of primary relevance in this case. +The privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted during discovery when a litigant +has "reasonable grounds to believe that the response would furnish a link in the chain of +evidence needed to prove a crime against a litigant." A witness, including a civil defendant, is +entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege whenever there is a realistic possibility that the +answer to a question could be used in anyway to convict the witness of a crime or could aid in +the development of other incriminating evidence that can be used at trial. Id; Pillsbury Company + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 12 of 15 +Page 12 +y. Conboy, 495 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608 (1983). See also, Hubbell, supra, as to what is +encompassed by the phrase "in any criminal case" contained in the Fifth Amendment. +As noted, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is broad. Hoffman; +In re +Financial Svcs., supra. To deny a witness the right to invoke the privilege, the judge +must be perfectly clear, from a careful consideration of all the circumstances in the case, that the +witness is mistaken, and that the answers cannot possibly have such tendency to incriminate. Id. +at 488, 399. Recognizing the breadth and magnitude of this constitutional privilege, the United +States Supreme Court in discussing how a court is to analyze the application of the privilege +stated - +... It is for the court to say whether his silence is justified, Rogers v. United States, +1951, 340 U.S. 367, 71 S.Ct. 438, and to require him to answer if 'it clearly appears +to the court that he is mistaken.' Temple v. Commonwealth, 1880, 75 Va. 892, 899. +However, if the witness, upon interposing his claim, were required to prove the +hazard in the sense in which a claim is usually required to be established in court, he +would be compelled to surrender the very protection which the privilege is designed +to guarantee. To sustain the privilege, it need only be evident from the implications +of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the +question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because +injurious disclosure could result. The trial judge in appraising the claim "must be +governed as much by his personal perception of the peculiarities of the case as by the +facts actually in evidence.' +Hoffman, supra at 486-487. +Hoffman and its progeny establish that "in view of the liberal construction of the +provision [protecting against self-incrimination], after a witness has asserted the privilege, he +should be compelled to provide the requested information only if it "clearly appears" to the court +that the witness was mistaken in his invocation of the privilege." (Emphasis added). In re +Financial Svcs., supra at 399, citing Hoffman, at 486. +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 13 of 15 +Page 13 +In the instant case, the privilege applies as Defendant EPSTEIN "has reasonable cause to +apprehend danger from a direct answer." The risk of incrimination resulting from being subject +to discovery or to testify in his own defense while the NPA exists is "substantial and real" and +"not trifling or imaginary haphazards of communication." See generally, In re +* Financial +Svcs., supra at 400. Based on the nature of Plaintiff's claims, along with the ongoing scrutiny +of the USAO in the criminal matters, EPSTEIN has "reasonable grounds to believe that his +responses to the discovery would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prove a crime +against him. Finally, in order to preserve the privilege, the privilege must be asserted or one +risks the loss or waiver of this liberty ensuring protection. See generally, U.S. v. +E, 846 +F.2d 678, 690 (11" Cir. 1988)("First, it ignores the settled principle which requires a witness to +assert his Fifth Amendment rights. A witness who testifies at any proceeding, instead of asserting +his Fifth Amendment rights, loses the privilege. .. A civil deponent cannot choose to answer +questions with the expectation of later asserting the Fifth Amendment."). +Also applicable in upholding the assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege is the +guarantee of effective assistance of counsel by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. +See Yarborough v. Gentry, 124 S.Ct. 1, 540 U.S. 1, 157 L.Ed.2d 1 (2003)(Sixth Amendment +guarantees criminal defendants effective assistance of counsel.), on remand 381 F.3d 1219. The +United States Constitutional guarantees are applicable to the states through the Fourteenth +Amendment. Obviously, EPSTEIN's assertion of his constitutional privileges and protections is +on the advice of counsel. Again, EPSTEIN continues to face criminal prosecution by the USAO +until the expiration of the NPA; under the constitutional guarantee of effective assistance of +13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 14 of 15 +Page 14 +counsel, he is entitled to follow the recommended advice of his criminal defense attorney. See +Goldberger Affidavit attached hereto. +EPSTEIN's invocation of his constitutional protections of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth +Amendments must be upheld for the reasons set forth herein; otherwise such constitutional +protections would be rendered meaningless. Already and recently, Defendant EPSTEIN in his +Response and Objections to discovery, attached hereto as Exhibit "C", has been required to +assert, on advice of counsel, his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, along +with his constitutional rights afforded under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United +States Constitution. Thus, EPSTEIN's entitlement to a stay is ripe for determination. +Based upon the foregoing, a stay is warranted in this action as the Defendant is being +forced to choose between the assertion of his Fifth Amendment right or losing this case by +judgment (summary or otherwise) or waiver of his 5" Amendment right and face potential +criminal prosecution. +By: _ +Certificate of Service +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent via U.S. +Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this 25t* day of March, 2009. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Jack Alan Goldberger +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 2218 +Suite 1400 +Miami, FL 33160 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +305-931-2200 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Irivera@hermanlaw.com +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 +Epstein +14 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 15 of 15 +Page 15 +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-842-2820 +Fax: 561-515-3148 +(Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +15 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b82d2946e753b37598651d082459662efcb89f1c86f4239c615c0e514aeee504.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b82d2946e753b37598651d082459662efcb89f1c86f4239c615c0e514aeee504.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed0a4a23caac642381dee1c6a30200607583f09b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b82d2946e753b37598651d082459662efcb89f1c86f4239c615c0e514aeee504.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -186, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b82d2946e753b37598651d082459662efcb89f1c86f4239c615c0e514aeee504", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 18, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "d5bcfad0e15a89ba0c5e388b0a4d5786e68b9fc3bcc6b1d527363b26def6da7f", + "output_sha256": "37f135c90550b00e758683baf3cd40cb1946d8ee685ead7d3906ef96470561f9", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b83936da3bd1668470a1036e612d2741093d27983562aac04d46315444f81c91.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b83936da3bd1668470a1036e612d2741093d27983562aac04d46315444f81c91.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..68e3712ce048dd2573622cdb45d8443a18dd36d1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b83936da3bd1668470a1036e612d2741093d27983562aac04d46315444f81c91.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 11-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80802-MARRA/JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 8, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +ORDER +Upon Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Consolidate for Discovery Purposes, and good cause +being shown, it is hereby +ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is granted. This matter shall be consolidated with Jane +Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case no. 08-CV-80119-Marra/l +and consolidated cases, for +discovery purposes only. The consolidated caption shall be amended to include Jane Doe No. 8 v. +Jeffrey Epstein, case no. 09-CV-80802-MARRA/JOHNSON. +DONE AND ORDERED in| +in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, +this +day of +, 2009. +DISTRICT COURT JUDGE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b83936da3bd1668470a1036e612d2741093d27983562aac04d46315444f81c91.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b83936da3bd1668470a1036e612d2741093d27983562aac04d46315444f81c91.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..40ea2e7bc713575718cc0d175b85a2fc6ab9ca96 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b83936da3bd1668470a1036e612d2741093d27983562aac04d46315444f81c91.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b83936da3bd1668470a1036e612d2741093d27983562aac04d46315444f81c91", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e4f9d2461de84f39c735a6c13b9960ed15045bcff77d3e54fddf2c03c5f1e07b", + "output_sha256": "c31115429bbdbec12a673a9c5e2c6b3e031ff22289f0d6843e23d705e110fe06", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b857ec22dff70e4d382c444fa763b3087a52e2a160669dff50e7a449d91bbfb6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b857ec22dff70e4d382c444fa763b3087a52e2a160669dff50e7a449d91bbfb6.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..929627f66a110ff746f76d72b76034e702e87e5d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b857ec22dff70e4d382c444fa763b3087a52e2a160669dff50e7a449d91bbfb6.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 15 Filed 09/04/20 Page 1 of 1 +The Clerk of Court of the Southern District of New York is directed to docket the within +ORDER in each of the following actions: +VE v. Nine East 71st Street et al., No. 1:19-cv-07625 (AJN) (DF) +Doe 1 et al. v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-7675 (GBD) (DF) +Katlyn Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-07771 (PKC) (DF) +Priscilla Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-07772 (ALC) (DF) +Lisa Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-ev-07773 (ER) (DF) +Jane Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-08673 (KPF) (DF) +Doe 17 v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-09610 (PAE) (DF) +v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-10475 (LGS) (DF) +v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-10476 (PGG) (DF) +v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-10479 (ALC) (DF) +Jane Doe 1000 v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-10577 (LGS) (DF) +Jane Doe 15 v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-10653 (PAE) (DF) +Mary Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-10758 (PAE) (DF) +v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-10788 (GHW) (DF) +Anastasia Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-11869 (AJN) (DF) +Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 1:20-cv-02365 (LJL) (DF) +Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 1:20-cv-2365 (LJL) (DF) +DEBRA FREEMAN, United States Magistrate Judge: +This Court, at the joint request of the parties in each of the above-referenced cases, +having issued stays of the proceedings in those cases so that the plaintiffs may pursue the +potential settlement of their claims through the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program, it is +hereby ORDERED that the parties to each of the referenced cases shall provide this Court with a +status report by October 1, 2020, and then, if the matter remains unresolved, by the first day of +each month thereafter (or, if the first of the month falls on a weekend or Court holiday, then by +the next business day). +Dated: New York, New York +September 4, 2020 +SO ORDERED +Ale Im +DEBRA FREEMAN +United States Magistrate Judge +Copies to: +All counsel in the above-referenced cases (via ECF) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b857ec22dff70e4d382c444fa763b3087a52e2a160669dff50e7a449d91bbfb6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b857ec22dff70e4d382c444fa763b3087a52e2a160669dff50e7a449d91bbfb6.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a434d7a635adaaa421907a1d26460d0f81dc69aa --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b857ec22dff70e4d382c444fa763b3087a52e2a160669dff50e7a449d91bbfb6.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b857ec22dff70e4d382c444fa763b3087a52e2a160669dff50e7a449d91bbfb6", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "aca1235a00040a1daca1af7c98a7869a45ce7aa83873e315e0a0c0f19fe32ec5", + "output_sha256": "b0c2ca796a8ac86726444db24473aee5e354a207e4fe962aaff1ab8896b69afb", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b85dc68559804e4304ee3ddf8f51caf8701ef306c5deb9ca0b715e559f2a1c89.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b85dc68559804e4304ee3ddf8f51caf8701ef306c5deb9ca0b715e559f2a1c89.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..43192885ef1cb17f1778418ac1e68cbd2de9469f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b85dc68559804e4304ee3ddf8f51caf8701ef306c5deb9ca0b715e559f2a1c89.md @@ -0,0 +1,521 @@ +Case 9:08-CV-80994-KAM Document 25-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 8f8 +Westlaw. +703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 +(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) +Page 1 +District Court of Appeal of Florida, +Fifth District. +Kimberly BALAS and Teresa Shumate, Petitioners, +V. +Marjorie A. RUZZO, and Exec.., Inc., etc., Re- +spondents. +No. 97-82. +307Ak31 k. Relevancy and Materiality. +Most Cited Cases +Party may be permitted to discover evidence that +would be inadmissible at trial, if it would lead to +discovery of relevant evidence. West's F.S.A. RCP +Rule 1.280(b)(1). +[3] Pretrial Procedure 307A €m36.1 +Oct. 10, 1997. +307A Pretrial Procedure +307 AIl Depositions and Discovery +Plaintiffs brought action against alleged house of 1998). 307AII(A) Discovery in General +prostitution for, inter alia, coercion of prostitution. +307 Ak36 Particular Subjects of Disclos- ure +The Circuit Court, Brevard County, ! +Pound, +307Ak36.1 k. In General. Most Cited +J., granted in part defendants' motion to compel disari. The District Court of Appeal, W. Sharp, J., held +that evidence of plaintiffs' past prostitution and +their revenues relating to such activities was discoverable. +Petition denied. +Harris, J., concurred specially and filed opinion. +West Headnotes +[1] Pretrial Procedure 307A €31 +Cases +Evidence of plaintiffs' past prostitution and their +revenues relating to such activities, including activities with alleged house of prostitution against +which they had filed suit, was discoverable, where +plaintiffs brought action not only for coercion of +prostitution, but also for battery, false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of +emotional distress, violation of their civil rights, +and racketeering. Violent Crime Control and Law +Enforcement Act of 1994, § 40302, 42 U.S.C.A. § +13981; West's F.S.A. §§ 772.014, 796.09; West's +F.S.A. RCP Rule 1.280(b)(1). +*1076 Richard E. +and Heather Fisher Lindsay, of Spriggs +Tallahassee, for Petitioners. +307A Pretrial Procedure +307AII Depositions and Discovery +307AII(A) Discovery in General +307Ak31 k. Relevancy and Materiality. +Most Cited Cases +Discovery in civil cases must be relevant to subject +matter of case and must be admissible or reasonbly calculated to lead to admissible evidence +Nest's F.S.A: RCP Rule 1.280(b)(1) +[2] Pretrial Procedure 307A €m 31 +307A Pretrial Procedure +307 AlI Depositions and Discovery +307AII(A) Discovery in General +Mark S. Peters of Amari, Theriac & Eisenmenger, +P.A., Cocoa, for Respondents. +W. SHARP, Judge. +Balas and Shumate petition this court for a writ of +certiorari to review certain portions of the lower +@ 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. + +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&ifm=NotSet&mt.. 3/26/2009 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 3 8f8 +Page 2 +703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L.. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 +(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) +compelled to disclose intimate details of their sexual history. We decline to issue the writ of certiorari. +Balas and Shumate filed suit against Ruzzo and Ex- +ec, Inc., doing business as "The Boardroom." Ac- +cording to Balas and Shumate, The Boardroom operates ostensibly as *1077 a leisure spa but actually +is a house of prostitution. Balas worked at The +Boardroom from December 1993 until February +1996; Shumate worked there from October 1992 +until March 1996. Ruzzo, the sole officer and +shareholder of Exec, Inc., collected about fifty to +sixty percent of each employees' earnings from performing sexual acts. +According to Balas and Shumate, Ruzzo exerted +mental and emotional control over her employees +and thus she was able to exploit them as prostitutes. +Ruzzo required her employees to pay her substantial sums of money to attend "metaphysical workshops" conducted by Ruzzo or persons associated +with her. At the work place, the employees were required to participate in religious and quasi-religious +"circles," rituals and incantations. These practices +titioners against their will. Count IV alleges that respondents' actions constituted an invasion of petitioners' privacy. Count V is a claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Count VI alleges a civil rights action-that respondents have violated petitioners' right to be free from crimes of violence motivated by gender within the meaning of +42 U.S.C. section 13981. Finally, count VII seeks +civil remedies for criminal practices or racketeering +pursuant to section 772.104, Florida Statutes. The +petitioners claim that they suffered emotional pain, +anguish, humiliation, insult, indignity, loss of selfesteem, inconvenience, hurt and emotional distress. +They seek an award of general and punitive damages, among other relief. +The discovery to which the petitioners are being required to respond is as follows: +their submission to these searches and that they +might be arrested on felony charges if they refused +to submit to the searches. +Balas and Shumate's second amended complaint +against Ruzzo contains seven counts. Count I is an +action for coercion of prostitution pursuant to section 796.09, Florida Statutes. Petitioners allege the +requirement that they perform sexual acts to retain +their employment constitutes inducement and coercion to engage in prostitution. Count Il is a claim +for battery for the unwanted and offensive touching +of the petitioners' bodies. Count IIl is a claim for +false imprisonment for physically confining the pe- +Interrogatory 8: Please advise how long have you +been engaged in prostitution.... +Il. +Interrogatory 22: State with specificity the manner in which the acts as described in your Complaint have materially affected how you interact +with your husband, boyfriend, fiancée' [sic] or +any other individual of the opposite sex. +III. +Request for Production 30: A copy of any photographs, movies or videotapes in which you perormed sexual acts and/or simulated sexual act +1 exchange for money or other consideratio +IV. +Interrogatory 16: Please list the names, addresses, +telephone numbers and rates of pay for all employers for which you worked, including the +@ 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMIE&ifm=NotSet&mt... 3/26/2009 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Patfe 3 8f8 +703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 +(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) +nature of the work, during the five years immediately preceding the date of employment with the +Boardroom and from the date of your termination +with the Boardroom to the present, providing the +names of your immediate supervisors at each +place of employment and the reason for your +leaving each place of employment. +Page 3 +V. +Interrogatory 26: Please state your total income +while employed at the Boardroom, and state the +source of that income including any income from +other employment or *1078 income earned from +prostitution other than at the Boardroom. +VI. +Request for Production 34: Business records from +any selfemployment or owned business ventures +in the last 5 years, including any records or list of +customers, +"special customer lists" or "sugar +daddy's list." +[1][2] Discovery in civil cases must be relevant to +the subject matter of the case and must be admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible +evidence. See Allstate Insurance Co. V. Langston, +655 So.2d 91 (Fla. 1995); Amente v. +So.2d 1030 (Fla. 1995); +ers, Inc., 690 So.2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). The +concept of relevancy is broader in the discovery +context than in the trial context and a party may be +permitted to discover evidence that would be inadmissible at trial, if it would lead to the discovery of +relevant evidence. Allstate; Amente. Florida Rule of +Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(1) delineates the proper +scope of discovery: +In General. Parties may obtain discovery regardnature, custody, condition, and location of any +books, documents, or other tangible things and +the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. It is not ground +for objection that the information sought will be +inadmissible at the trial if the information sought +appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. +Nonetheless, the discovery of certain kinds of information may cause material injury of an irreparable nature. This includes the "cat-out-of-the-bag" +material that could be used to injure another person +or party outside the context of the litigation, material protected by privilege, trade secrets or work +product. Discovery was never intended to be used +as a tactical tool to harass, embarrass or annoy +one's adversary. Rather, pretrial discovery was implemented to simplify the issues in a case, to eliminate the elements of surprise, to encourage the settlement of cases, to avoid the cost of litigation, and +to achieve a balanced search for the truth to ensure +a fair trial. Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d 517 (Fla. 1996). +Here the petitioners argue that the information +sought to be discovered regarding prostitution and +their sexual activities was propounded solely to embarrass them and to invade their right to privacy. +The petitioners also claim that this information is +privileged under section 796.09 and is not calculated to lead to evidence which would be admissible at trial. +Section 796.09 provides a person with a civil cause +of action for compensatory and punitive damages +against anyone who coerces that person into prostitution, who coerces that person to remain in prostitution, or who uses coercion to collect or receive +to my anton about with plant te +seeking discovery or the claim or defense of any +other party, including the existence, description, +© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&ifm=NotSet&mt. 3/26/2009 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 PagE 4 8f8 +703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 +(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) +ness for the plaintiffs cannot be used against the +plaintiffs or witness in any other investigation or +proceeding, except one for perjury. +Section 796.09(5) specifically provides that it is not +a defense that the plaintiff was paid or otherwise +compensated for prostitution, that the plaintiff had +engaged in prostitution prior to any involvement +with the defendant or that the plaintiff made no attempt to escape from the defendant. Section +796.09(6) provides that convictions for prostitution +or prostitution-related offenses are inadmissible for +the purpose of attacking the plaintiffs' credibility. +This legislation was the result of the Florida Su- +preme Court Gender Bias Study Commission, +which conducted an extensive investigation of prostitution in this state. The Commission's activities +included interviews with law enforcement and corrections personnel,*1079 judges, public defenders, +prosecutors, drug rehabilitation counselors, social +workers, medical personnel, prostitutes, clients and +. The Commission found +prostitution to be +prevalent and uniform throughout the state and law +enforcement largely unable to deter it under prevailing social attitudes and judicial +practices. The +Commission further found that prostitutes are often +victims of economic, physical, and +psychological +coercion, that most persons do not chose to become +prostitutes, but do so to survive, and that ninety +percent of street prostitutes, +both adult and children, are controlled by pimps who use a variety of +coercive methods to maintain this control. The +Commission determined that clients and pimps are +rarely prosecuted and, when prosecuted, receive +light sentences; whereas prostitutes, who are mainly +frequently prosecuted and receive +harsher treatment in the courts. The Commission +Page 4 +cest to the judicial system without for having to ac +arrested. +Under section 796.09, the petitioners' prior involvement in prostitution and their earnings from prostitution would be irrelevant. Hence discovery should +not be permitted because such information would +not be admissible at trial nor would it be reasonably +calculated to lead to evidence ultimately admissible +at trial. Even though the scope of discovery is generally quite broad, section 796.09 is designed to encourage prostitutes to sue their pimps. Thus the +usually broad scope of discovery may be constricted so that prostitutes will not be embarrassed, harassed or hindered in their actions. +[3] Had the petitioners brought their lawsuit against +Ruzzo and The Boardroom only under section +796.09, evidence of petitioners past prostitution, +including with the Boardroom, and their earnings +relating to such activities, may not have been discoverable. However, the petitioners filed a multicount complaint for compensatory and punitive +damages, alleging +numerous causes of +against the respondents. +These other causes carry +no such protection from discovery. Since the information sought by discovery may be relevant or +may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in +one or more of these other causes of action or to +determination of damages, we cannot conclude that +the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in granting this discovery. See +v. TIB Bank of the Keys, 687 So.2d 895 (Fla. 3d +DCA 1997) (by alleging fraud as well as breach of +contract, purchaser placed at issue her reliance on +venders' assertions, the veracity of financial documents she submitted to the vender, and the state of +her mental health, including memory problems she +was experiencing at the time of the alleged tortious +conduct, thus deposition questions concerning her +state of mind were relevant). +Petition for Writ of Certiorari DENIED. +THOMPSON, J., concurs. +HARRIS, +concurs specially with opin +ion.HARRIS, Judge, concurring specially: +© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&ifm=NotSet&mt.. 3/26/2009 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80994-KAM Document 25-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Plife 5 8f 8 +703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 +(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) +There is a temptation in cases such as this to inquire +which, the pot or the kettle, is imbued with the +darker hue. Indeed that may ultimately be the question uppermost in the jurors' minds. But the issue +presently before us is simply whether the pot, in order to establish the parties' comparative complexion, may discover the historical condition and the +inherent characteristics of the kettle. +We are here involved with parties that the limited +record before us indicates were co-conspirators in a +joint effort to violate Florida's laws against prostitution. The defendants are the owner/operators of a +"social club" whose primary service is prostitution; +the plaintiffs are employees of the club who +provide such services. The employees are suing the +owner/operators for, among other counts, taking advantage of their vulnerabilities ("coercing" them to +be prostitutes) through manipulation and exploitation. In order to prepare a defense to the action, defendants have filed certain interrogatories for the +employees to answer. These interrogatories*1080 +request such information as how long the employees have been engaged in prostitution; how the employees have been affected by the defendants' conduct; copies of photographs, movies, and videotapes in which the employees have performed sexual acts or simulated sexual acts; the names of previous employers and previous rates of pay; and a +statement of income received from defendants. +These interrogatories survived the employees' objections. I agree certiorari should be denied. +The employees' primary cause of action is based on +section 796.09(l), Florida Statutes, which provides: +(1) A person has a cause of action for compensatory +and punitive damages against: +{a) A person who coerces that person into prostitution; +(b) A person who coerces that person to remain in +prostitution, or +(e) A person who uses coercion to collect or receive +Page 5 +any part of that person's earnings derived from +prostitution. +The employees resist discovery of their past prostitution or their past or present earning experience on +the basis of subparagraph 5 of section 796.09: +5) It does not constitute a defense to a complaint +under this section that: +1) The plaintiff was paid or otherwise compensate +for acts of prostitution +b) The plaintiff engaged in acts of prostitution prior to any involvement with the defendant... +But the question before us is not whether prior acts +of prostitution (or the receipts of earnings therefrom) which might be revealed by answering the interrogatories could be used as a defense to the complaint, but rather whether evidence of such conduct +or such earnings would be relevant in determining +whether the employees were, in fact, "coerced" into +prostitution, into remaining prostitutes, or into sharing the proceeds of their services with defendants. +The relevancy of this information depends, of +course, on what constitutes coercion. +If we apply the definition of "coercion" which is +commonly accepted, then the relevancy of the requested information is apparent and this appeal has +no merit at all. Webster defines "coercion" as: (1) +to restrain or dominate by force, (2) to compel an +act or choice, or (3) to enforce or bring about by +force or threat. In sexual battery cases, the legislature has adopted the common meaning of the +word "coercion" and has even placed limits on it. It +has provided that consent will not be recognized if +ence if the victim reasonably believes the perpetratcoerced by a threat of retaliation against the victim +or another if the victim reasonably believes that the +erpetrator has the ability to execute the threat +le future. And in sexual battery cases, the 1 +gislature has vitiated what might otherwise be con- +© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&ifm=NotSet&mt... 3/26/2009 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80994-KAM Document 25-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 PålE & 8f8 +703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 +(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) +sidered as consensual if one exploits a known physical or mental weakness of the victim to achieve his +or her goal or takes advantage of one who is physically helpless or involuntarily intoxicated.FN3 +Therefore, even in sexual battery cases, before coercion or exploitation will vitiate consent, the free +will of the victim must be overcome by force or +threat or some unfortunate circumstance suffered +by the victim. +FN1. Section 794.011(4)(b), Florida Statutes. +FN2. Section 794.011(4)(c), Florida Statutes. +FN3. Section 794.011(4)(a),(d),(e), and (f), +Florida Statutes. +But then we get to the definition of "coercion" contained in section 796.09(3): +3) As used in this section, the term "coercion" +means any practice of dominion, restraint, or inducement for the purpose of or with the reasonably foreseeable effect of causing another person +to engage in or remain in prostitution or to relinquish earnings derived from prostitution, and includes, but is not limited to: +{a) Physical force or threats of physical force. +{b) Physical or mental torture. +(c) Kidnapping. +*1081 (d) Blackmail. +(e) Extortion or claims of indebtedness. +(f) Threats of legal complaint or report of delinquency. +(g) Threat to interfere with parental rights of responsibilities, whether by judicial or administrative action or otherwise. +(h) Promise of legal benefit. +Page 6 +]) Promise of greater financial rewards. +j) Promise of marriage. +(k) Restraint of Speech or communications with +others. +1) Exploitation of a condition of developmental +disability, cognitive limitation, affective disorder, +or substance dependency. +"m) Exploitation of victimization by sexual abuse. +in) Exploitation of pornographic performance. +"o) Exploitation of human needs for food, shelter, +safety, or affection. +The definition urged by the employees herein is the +"promise of a greater financial reward." Whether +the requested information is relevant to the issue of +coercion in this case will depend on what the legislature intended by subsection (I) in the meaning of +"coercion." +I agree with Judge Altenbernd's thoughtful analysis +in State v. Brigham, 694 So.2d 793 (1997): +There can be no dispute that the legislature's unusual definition of "percent" is not a common dietionary definition. This is perhaps an appropriate +case in which to remind ourselves of Learned +Hand's famous observation that a "mature and developed jurisprudence" does not "make a fortress +out of the dictionary." +But even so, one would expect some nexus between +from a prit Dane the oles should nevertees +© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&ifm=NotSet&mt.. 3/26/2009 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Påge 7 8f8 +703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 +(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) +before a definition is construed so as to expand the +meaning of a well-known word to include its antonym ..., the intention of the legislature to that effect must be clear." As Judge +observed in +Catron v. Roger Bohn, D.C., P.A., 580 So.2d 814, +818 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991): +It is our primary duty to give effect to legislative +intent and, if a literal interpretation of a statute +leads to unreasonable results, then we should exercise our power to interpret reason and logic to it. +****** +Unfortunately, it is apparent that in enacting this legislation, the legislature has, without redefining +the terms for the purposes of this legislation, often used terms with commonly accepted meanings for purposes at great variance from those +commonly accepted meanings. +the pucas the enclace did because he on +(coercion) as so defined can be interpreted two +ways-one consistent with the commonly accepted +meaning and one at variance-we should not accept +the "antonym" unless such +legislative intent is +clear. A free will decision, even if based on a hope +of financial gain, is the opposite of a coerced decision. +The employees urge that the mere promise of a +greater reward brings them within the act. But if the +mere promise of a greater reward is sufficient to establish coercion, then anyone who makes a voluntary and reasoned exercise of free will motivated by +the hope of economic gain has been coerced. This +Page 7 +of an opportunity to make a decision with the coercion of that decision. But subsection (I) can also +mean *1082 that the promise of a greater reward is +coercion only if such promised reward is sufficient +to overcome one's natural revulsion to selling one's +body for money. If there is no such revulsion, there +can be no coercion. Becoming a prostitute only because one likes the hours and wages or "because it +beats the heck out of working for a living" simply +should not meet the test of section 796.09(1). +At oral argument herein, it was suggested without +contradiction, that at least one of the employees has +a college degree and gave up a well-paying, legitimate job in order to engage in this profession for +the greater reward. Section 796.09 does not appear +to be a general prostitute's relief act. It is based on a +report by the Gender Bias Study Commission which +recommended the equalization of treatment in relation to the prostitute, the client and the "pimp." It is +based on the premise that prostitutes are generally +victims of economic, physical, and psychological +coercion and choose prostitution in order to survive. Further, the Commission was concerned that +90 percent of the street prostitutes are controlled by +"pimps" who use a variety of coercive methods to +maintain control. It seems clear that the legislature +was not intending to depart from the precepts of the +commonly understood meaning of "coercion" and +to redefine it to include both free will decisions and +compelled decisions.. The interpretation urged by +the employees seems at variance with the stated +goal of the legislature and the Gender Bias Commission. +Since there is no cause of action provided for one +who makes a reasoned and +voluntary exercise of +solely for financial rewards (assuming "coercion" is +given the definition more consistent with its comancial gain. The employees herein assert that since +they were offered "a greater financial reward" for +© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&ifm=NotSet&mt.. 3/26/2009 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Palf€ 8 8f 8 +703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 +(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) +This is a case of first impression based on a relatively new statute. As indicated, the legislative history of the new law suggests that the statute is designed to assist those who were forced to enter +prostitution in order to keep a roof over their heads +or food on their table. It does not appear to be intended to aid those who voluntarily enter the profession in order to drive a Mercedes instead of a +even beginning employees of the defendants (those +who do not have an established clientele) bring in +$700 a day and can keep 50% of their earnings. +Based on a five-day work week, this would reflect +an income of $87,500 a year even with a two week +vacation. And the employees herein are not beginners. +There is no indication that the legislature intended +to legalize prostitution or to make it a respectable +profession. It merely intended to place the prostitute on the same footing with the client and the +"pimp." If a prostitute voluntarily makes the decision to participate, free from force, intimidation, +or disadvantageous circumstance, then he or she is +on the same footing as the other participants and +should be treated the same. +Although it might well serve a legitimate public +purpose to permit the cannibalistic demise of such +enterprises (and I am not unsympathetic with this +view), that does not appear to be the policy behind +the current statute. Therefore, in cases where coercion is not present (and this may or may not be +one), the court should continue its tradition of not +interceding in civil conflicts involving transactions +that are either illegal or are against public policy. +See Wechsler v. Novak, 157 Fla. 703, 26 So.2d 884 +V. Ratiner, 462 So.2d 1157, 1160 +(Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 472 So.2d 1182 +(Fla. 1985) ("An action may lie for interference with +an unenforceable contract and even perhaps a voidable contract. No such cause of action lies for interrence with a contract void as against public polic +ectoria yers ilegal personal injury soniciatio +Page 8 +in the hospital] and which makes one who is a party +thereto, as the appellant in the instant case, guilty of +a criminal act for entering into such an agree- ment.") +We are not asked in this proceeding to rule on the +admissibility of the discovered information as evidence at the trial of this cause. We are to determine +only if the information might lead to admissible +evidence. Even *1083 though we deny the Writ ] +suggest we certify the following question: +DOES ONE, FREE FROM FORCE, INTIMIDA +TION, OR DISADVANTAGEOUS CIRCUM- +STANCE, WHO MAKES A REASONED DE- +CISION TO BECOME OR REMAIN A PROSTI- +TUTE OR TO SHARE THE PROCEEDS +THEREOF BECAUSE OF A PROMISE OF A +GREATER FINANCIAL REWARD HAVE A +CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER SECTION +796.09(1), FLORIDA STATUTES? +ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING, FOR CLARI- +FICATION, FOR CERTIFICATION, AND FOR RE- +HEARING EN BANC +W. SHARP, Judge. +Petitioners Balas and Shumate have filed motions +for rehearing, clarification and certification. +deny the motions in full except for one regard. We +delete the sentence in the last full paragraph of the +opinion which reads: "These other causes of action +carry no such protection from discovery." +Motion for Clarification GRANTED as stated +above; Motion for Rehearing and Certification +DENIED. +HARRIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. +Fla.App. 5 Dist.,1997. +Balas v. Ruzzo +703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. +L. Weekly D169 +END OF DOCUMENT +@ 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&ifm=NotSet&mt... 3/26/2009 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b85dc68559804e4304ee3ddf8f51caf8701ef306c5deb9ca0b715e559f2a1c89.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b85dc68559804e4304ee3ddf8f51caf8701ef306c5deb9ca0b715e559f2a1c89.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f925a9aff9962c3533bd61ccad24c556723f87d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b85dc68559804e4304ee3ddf8f51caf8701ef306c5deb9ca0b715e559f2a1c89.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -673, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b85dc68559804e4304ee3ddf8f51caf8701ef306c5deb9ca0b715e559f2a1c89", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 141, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "4449276764bacf5485888358e9c1b306bc1b723d25ac0bd16277b39551b25389", + "output_sha256": "7e5d9723b8caf0714a151baa8f482dda2a6fb7644e4aebda15c33778a9ef974a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b892e160d679015fb3b776ad2abe64e4a3074b0785989caf14cbc88a937fd922.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b892e160d679015fb3b776ad2abe64e4a3074b0785989caf14cbc88a937fd922.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b0651dacbe620a0f48aab365497762a5452da0f3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b892e160d679015fb3b776ad2abe64e4a3074b0785989caf14cbc88a937fd922.md @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 7-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80381-CIV-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +[PROPOSED| ORDER +Upon Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment Upon Default and Order Setting Hearing on Damages, +and good cause being shown it is hereby +ORDERED that +A hearing before a jury to assess damages shall be held on +Upon determination by the jury of the amount of damages, judgment shall be entered +for the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, for the amounts assessed by the jury and +for costs of suit, without further hearing or order of this Court. +DONE AND ORDERED in +in Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this +_day of +- 2008. +DISTRICT COURT JUDGE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b892e160d679015fb3b776ad2abe64e4a3074b0785989caf14cbc88a937fd922.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b892e160d679015fb3b776ad2abe64e4a3074b0785989caf14cbc88a937fd922.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..775f734a63494d4d561a727dec94bfc6991148f7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b892e160d679015fb3b776ad2abe64e4a3074b0785989caf14cbc88a937fd922.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b892e160d679015fb3b776ad2abe64e4a3074b0785989caf14cbc88a937fd922", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0b312a04e5a106401a1a7a8c9de9d8f3155224cd2b2534959971431f9a651a7e", + "output_sha256": "84f203a9829a6e3d8068de7976441c6c41fee0fb4c227c3eaeabc527b030e7b6", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8a1ccc607b018bacfa683719c8dda8d93cc0b68dae7a0378a05294a42dd5b1b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8a1ccc607b018bacfa683719c8dda8d93cc0b68dae7a0378a05294a42dd5b1b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..24741c01d431d4340a3945cfd36dc0f7ea8336c8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8a1ccc607b018bacfa683719c8dda8d93cc0b68dae7a0378a05294a42dd5b1b.md @@ -0,0 +1,110 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2013 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Petitioners, +VS. +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, +Respondent. +RESPONDENT'S FOURTH MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME +TO FILE DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE +Respondent, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Fourth Motion for +Enlargement of Time to File Declaration in Support of Deliberative Process Privilege, and states: +1. On September 23, 2013, this Court granted the government's motion for enlargement +of time to file declaration in support of invocation of the deliberative process privilege. The +Court granted the government until Friday, October 4, 2013, to file the declaration. D.E. 240. +2. The undersigned had prepared a draft declaration for review by Department of Justice +components, including the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG)), and Office of +Professional Responsibility (OPR), and also provided the OPR documents for which the +deliberative process privilege had been invoked. The draft and documents were being reviewed +in preparation for final approval by the ODAG, and filing by October 4, 2013. +3. On October 1, 2013, the federal government shutdown commenced. Due to the lapse +in appropriations, many officials at OPR and the ODAG were furloughed. At mid-week, the +undersigned found out that the ODAG official he was working with had been furloughed, as well +as the OPR official who had been the main point of contact for obtaining the declaration. The + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2013 Page 2 of 4 +undersigned has located senior level officials at ODAG and OPR, who have not been furloughed, +to seek their assistance in obtaining the declaration. +4. The undersigned has briefed the ODAG official on the privilege issue, the CVRA +litigation, and the documents which are the subject of the privilege assertion. Because the +process is essentially starting over, the government needs an additional two weeks, up to and +including October 18, 2013, to file the declaration invoking the deliberative process privilege. +This additional time will permit the ODAG to fully review the matter, pose any questions to the +undersigned, and make its determination. +S. Accordingly, the government respectfully requests an enlargement of time of fourteen +days, up to and including October 18, 2013, to file its declaration from the DOJ in support of the +deliberative process privilege. +CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE +On October 4, 2013, the undersigned contacted petitioners' counsel regarding the instant +motion. Petitioners' counsel graciously did not oppose this motion. At present, petitioners' +reply in support of their renewed motion for an order directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to +withhold relevant evidence is due on October 15, 2013, ten days after the filing of the +government's declaration. D.E. 240. In the event the Court grant's the government's motion, +the government respectfully requests that petitioners' date for filing their reply be enlarged to +October 28, 2013. +DATED: October 4, 2013 +By: +Respectfully submitted, +WILFREDO A. FERRER +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +s/ Dexter A. Lee +DEXTER A. LEE +Assistant U.S. Attorney +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2013 Page 3 of 4 +Fla. Bar No. 0936693 +99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 300 +Miami, Florida 33132 +(305) 961-9320 +Fax: (305) 530-7139 +E-mail: dexter.lee@usdoj.gov +ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 4, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. +s/ Dexter A. Lee +DEXTER A. LEE +Assistant U.S. Attorney +SERVICE LIST +Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, +Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/ +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +J. +Esq. +, Jaffe, Weissing, +Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +(954) 524-2820 +Fax: (954) 524-2822 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +Paul G. Cassell +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 +(801) 585-5202 +Fax: (801) 585-6833 +E-mail: casselp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe #2 +Roy Black +Jackie Perczek +Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2013 Page 4 of 4 +201 South Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1300 +Miami, Florida 33131 +(305) 371-6421 +Fax: (305) 358-2006 +E-mail: rblack@royblack.com +jperczek@royblack.com +Attorneys for Intervenors +4 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8a1ccc607b018bacfa683719c8dda8d93cc0b68dae7a0378a05294a42dd5b1b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8a1ccc607b018bacfa683719c8dda8d93cc0b68dae7a0378a05294a42dd5b1b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..edc7740c2c792de2277c2caf22846a738c868eed --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8a1ccc607b018bacfa683719c8dda8d93cc0b68dae7a0378a05294a42dd5b1b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b8a1ccc607b018bacfa683719c8dda8d93cc0b68dae7a0378a05294a42dd5b1b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "5b7e27878e20e6e9cd2f3f64afd628e2fb189797e5ea4b6ccc6a5c7c9e1e9009", + "output_sha256": "6eb838a8dae6d8699e350d69241930370a55e0798864831cd366775d4cc54cc6", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8a410bd8482c09c9369317a394055a30144b6b45c04cf9e99af9cb5ca451799.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8a410bd8482c09c9369317a394055a30144b6b45c04cf9e99af9cb5ca451799.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..42a5dc85d5d2dac2ea1dd4ceb421dc475282854f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8a410bd8482c09c9369317a394055a30144b6b45c04cf9e99af9cb5ca451799.md @@ -0,0 +1,1064 @@ +IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, +FOURTH DISTRICT +DCA NO.4D2024-0681 +L.T. NO.50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST +Appellants), +VS. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida and SHARON +R. BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida +Appellee(s). +RECORD ON +APPEAL +APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION) +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +boyajiann@gtlaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com +MICHAEL J. GRYGIEL +grygielm@gtlaw.com +COLLIN DOERN +cdjackson@mypalmbeachclerk.com +JESSICA NEER MCDONALD +jessica@neermcd.com + +REBOBRIBEAEREAUNTY. FL +ABRUZZO. CLERK 04/17/2024 03:04:47 PM + + +STEPHEN ARTHUR MENDELSOHN +mendelsohns@gtlaw.com +hasenh@gtlaw.com +FLService@gtlaw.com +DOUGLAS ARTHUR WYLER +doug@jswflorida.com +NOT A CERTIFIED COPY + +RECORDS ON APPEAL + + +Wednesday, April 17, 2024 +Case Description: CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLE PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEAC +Date +Instrument +04/17/24 PROGRESS DOCKET +11/14/19 CIVIL COVER SHEET +11/14/19 COMPLAINT: F/B PLT +11/15/19 VERIFIED MOTION: FOR ADMISSION OF MICHAEL G +11/19/19 ORDER: HAFELE DTD 11/19/19: MOTION TO APP +12/06/19 MOTION TO DISMISS: F/B DFT DAVE ARONBERG AS +12/13/19 MOTION TO DISMISS: F/B DFT SHARON R BOCK AS +01/16/20 ORDER SETTING HEARING: KMARZ DTD 1/16/20 O +01/16/20 VERIFIED MOTION: AS TO PRO HAC VICE OF NINA +01/17/20 COMPLAINT: FIRST AMENDED E B PLT +01/17/20 NOTICE OF FILING: FIRST +DED COMPLAINT F +01/21/20 ORDER: KMARX DTD 1/21/20 CANCELLING HEARIN +01/21/20 OBJECTION: PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDA +01/22/20 ORDER GRANTING: DHAEFELE DTD 1/22/20 MOTION +01/24/20 ANSWER: TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTI +01/24/20 ANSWER: TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTI +02/03/20 ORDER SETTING HEARING: MARTZ DTD 2/3/20: 3 +03/12/20 NOTICE: OPPOSITION TO DFT DAVE ARONBEG STAT +03/12/20 NOTICE: OPPOSITION TO DFT SHARON R. BOCK CL +03/18/20 MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE CIVIL: PLAINTIFF'S U +03/20/20 ORDER OF CONTINUANCE: MARX +DTD 03/19 +04/21/20 ORDER RESETTING: ON MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT +05/22/20 ORDER SETTING HEARING: MARX DTD 05/22/20 +05/27/20 NOTICE -NAME/ADDRESS CHANGE: CHANGE OF ATTY +06/08/20 ORDER GRANTING: MARX; DFTS MOTIONS TO D +06/10/20 NOTICE -NAME/ADDRESS CHANGE: AND DIRECTIONS +07/01/20 MOTION: DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG'S MOTION F +08/18/20 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: DEFENDANT DAVE +08/18/20 AFFIDAVIT: AFFIDAVIT_OF DAVID ARONBERG +09/18/20 MOTION: MOTION TO SET CASE MANAGEMENT CONFE +10/02/20 MEMORANDUM OF LAW: IN OPPOSITION TO THE STA +10/14/20 RESPONSE TO:: PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW +10/21/20 ORDER: HAFELE DTD 10/21/20: CASE MANAGEMEN +10/21/20 MOTION: MOTION TO SET HEARING ON DEFENDANT, +10/21/20 NOTICE OF DROPPING PARTY: AS TO DFT DAVE AR +10/29/20 MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DIRECT THE CL +Pages +0008-0013 +0014-0015 +0016-0105 +0106-0111 +0114-0116 +0117-0120 +0121-0122 +0123-0127 +0128-0221 +0222-0317 +0318-0319 +0323-0324 +0325-0337 +0338-0351 +0352-0353 +0393-0395 +0396-0397 +0400-0403 +0404-0404 +0405-0411 +0412-0412 +0413-0414 +0415-0423 +0424-0425 +0426-0459 +0460-0473 +0474-0498 +0499-0499 +0500-0501 +0502-0503 +0504-0507 + + + +Wednesday, April 17, 2024 +Case Description: CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS 1IC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEAC +11/09/20 MOTION: DEFENDANT DAVE ARONBERG'S AMENDED M +11/09/20 AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY FEES: AFFIDAVIT OF AT +11/19/20 AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY FEES: VERIFIED AFFIDA +01/28/21 NOTICE: OF CHANGE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD AND +01/28/21 ORDER SETTING HEARING: HAFELE DTD 01/28/202 +03/25/21 NOTICE -NAME/ADDRESS CHANGE: CHANGELOF COUN +04/22/21 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: AND INCORPORAT +04/22/21 APPENDIX: TO MOTION PLTS' MOTION FOR SUMMAR +05/24/21 MOTION: PLAINTIFF CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC +05/25/21 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE CIVIL: AS COUNSEL FOR +05/25/21 RESPONSE TO:: PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SCHEDULE +0508-0566 +0567-0586 +0587-0590 +0591-0592 +0593-0595 +0596-0596 +0597-0631 +0632-1341 +1342-1345 +1346-1348 +1349-1352 +06/11/21 AGREED ORDER: HAFELE; ON PLF'S MOTION TO S +07/15/21 MEMORANDUM OF LAW: AND RESPONSE IN OPPOSITI +1355-1367 +07/23/21 AFFIDAVIT: OF DAVID ARONBERG +1368-1369 +07/23/21 TRANSCRIPT: OF HEARING ON 6-3-20 +1370-1391 +07/23/21 MEMORANDUM OF LAWSIN SUPPORT OF DAVE ARONB +1392-1413 +07/26/21 ORDER SETTING HEARING; D HAFELE DTD. 7/26 +1414-1417 +07/26/21 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE CIVIL: F/B ATTY WHETST +1418-1420 +07/26/21 ORDER RESETTING: DHAFELE DTD 7/26/21 HEARI +1421-1424 +07/29/21 MEMORANDUM OF LAW: IN SUPPORTOF DEFENDANT D +1425-1571 +08/05/21 MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE CIVIL: JOINT MOTION +1572-1574 +08/09/21 ORDER: HAFELE DTD 8/5/21: JOINT MOTION TO +1575-1577 +08/12/21 MEMORANDUM OF LAW: AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF LA 1578-1915 +10/01/21 RESPONSE TO:: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMAR +1916-1942 +10/05/21 ORDER: HAFELE: CONFIRMING HEARING ON PLAINT +1943-1946 +10/13/21 REPLY/RESPONSE: IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOYIO +1947-1957 +12/20/21 FINAL JUDGMENT: D HAFELE DTD 12/20/2021 +1958-1971 +01/03/22 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE CIVIL: AND DESIGNATION +01/03/22 MOTION: CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTR +01/19/22 MOTION: CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTR +01/26/22 NOTICE: CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTR +01/27/22 NOTICE OF APPEAL CIVIL: ORDER RENDERED ON 1 +02/24/22 REPLY/RESPONSE: [AMENDED] AND MEMORANDUM OF +1975-1979 +1980-1987 +1988-1989 +1990-2010 +2011-2029 +03/30/22 MOTION TO WITHDRAW: F/B DFT +ABRUZZO +03/30/22 EXHIBIT: F/B DFT +ABRUZZO AS CLERK AN +04/13/22 NOTICE: DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG'S NOTICE O +04/13/22 AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY FEES: AMENDED & SUPPL +2033-2034 +2035-2036 +2037-2118 + + + +Wednesday, April 17, 2024 +Case Description: CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS 1IC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEAC +04/14/22 AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY FEES: AMENDED AND SUP +05/25/22 ORDER SETTING HEARING: D. HAFELE DTD 05/25/ +06/07/22 ORD SUBSTITUTION COUNSEL: HAFELE; COLIN D. +07/01/22 ORDER SETTING HEARING: HAFELE: (RESETTING) +07/22/22 MOTION: AGREED MOTION OF PLAINTIFF CA FLORI +09/08/22 CLERK'S NOTE: EVIDENTIARY HEARING 9/07|22 +2119-2122 +2123-2126 +2127-2129 +2130-2132 +2133-2152 +2153-2155 +09/26/22 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME: TO SUBMIT WRI +09/28/22 AGREED ORDER: DELGADO: ON JOINT MOTION FOR +10/04/22 EXHIBIT LIST +10/04/22 TRANSCRIPT: HEARING PROCEEDINGS DTD SEPTE +10/06/22 NOTICE: CLOSING ARGUMENT OF DEFENDANT, DAVE +10/06/22 NOTICE: WRITTEN CLOSING ARGUMENT OF CA FLOR +02/01/23 ORDER DENYING: L DELGADO DTD 1/31/23 +02/01/23 MOTION: TO ALTER OR AMEND ORDER DENYING THE +02/16/23 RESPONSE TO:: IN OPPOSITION TO STATE ATTY D +03/01/23 NOTICE OF APPEAL CIVIL: ORDER RENDERED ON 1 +03/06/23 ORDER: DELGADO DTD 3/6/23: MOTION TO ALTER +03/10/23 NOTICE OF APPEAL CIVIL: ORDER RENDERED ON 3 +05/11/23 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE CIVIL: F/B ATTY JACK S +06/09/23 ORDER: DELGADO; DIRECTING CLERK TO COURT TO +06/29/23 ORDER: DELGADO DTD 6/29/23: DIRECTING TRA +02/23/24 MOTION: THE ASSOCIATED PRESS' MOTION FOR LI +02/28/24 AGREED ORDER: L DELGADO _ DTD. 2/28/24 GRANT +02/29/24 ORDER: L. DELGADO DTD 2/29/2024 ON GRAND JU +03/01/24 MOTION: THE MCCLATCHY COMPANY, LLC'S MOTION +03/04/24 NOTICE: THE MCCLATCHY COMPANY, LLC'S NOTICE +03/05/24 AGREED ORDER: DELGADO DTD 3/5/24: MOTION +03/14/24 NOTICE OF APPEAL CIVIL: ORDER RENDERED ON 2 +04/17/24 CERTIFICATE +2159-2159 +2160-2161 +2162-2440 +2441-2469 +2470-2574 +2575-2576 +2577-2578 +2579-2585 +2586-2589 +2590-2591 +2592-2595 +2596-2597 +2598-2600 +2601-2604 +2605-2608 +2609-2609 +2610-2614 +2615-2617 +2618-2619 +2620-2620 +2621-2629 +4262-4262 + + + +Wednesday, April 17, 2024 +Case Description: CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEAC +arty +OIN +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +Description +J18 AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID ARONBERG +Pages +2630-2631 +J20 MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF PLAINTIFF CA HOLDI +J21 DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG'S RESPONSE TO +J13 HEARING TRANSCRIPT +J19 DEFENDANT DAVE ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR SU +J17 DEFENDANT DAVE ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR AT +J10 DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG AS STATE ATTOR +J23 PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS, LLC'S NOTICE OF +J15 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DIS +J11 DEFENDANT ARONBERG TWITTER POST +J12 SAO15 PRESS RELEASE +J22 LETTER TO D. WYLER FROM S MENDELSOHN +J14 EMAIL TO S. MENDELSOHN FROM D WYLER +J05 LETTER TO J. HOWARD FROM D. WYLER +J04 SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT +J08 ORDER DENYING THE STATE'S MOTION FOR AN +J06 MOTION TO DISMISS +JO3 LETTER TO MUSGRAVE FROM N. CRUZ +JO2 LETTER TO J. PACENTI FROM N. CRUZ +J07 MOTION FOR AN ORDER UNSEALING GRAND JUR +J01 LETTER TO D. ARONBERG FROM S. MENDELSOH +J09 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (PART II) +J09 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (PART I) +J30 FINAL JUDGMENT +J32 +SCHOLZ & WYLER INVOICE +J26 AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES +J31 AMENDED RESPONSE AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW +J28 MOTION OF PLALINTIFF CA FLORIDA HOLDING +J25 DEFENDANT DAVE ARONBERG'S AMENDED MOTIO +J37 LETTER FROM M GRYGIEL TO D. ARONBERG +J34 DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG'S NOTICE OF DR +J36 JAMES V WILLE, 480 SO.2D. 253 (1985) +J33 AMENDED & SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF AT +J35 AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF +2635-2641 +2642-2655 +2656-2680 +2681-2685 +2686-2694 +2695-2696 +2697-2709 +2710-2711 +2719-2720 +2721-2721 +2722-2723 +2724-2728 +2729-2729 +2730-2821 +2822-2828 +2829-2831 +2835-2835 +2836-2841 +2842-2844 +2845-2938 +2939-2964 +2965-2978 +2979-2987 +2988-3007 +3008-3026 +3027-3061 +3062-3120 +3121-3123 +3124-3125 +3126-3128 +3129-3210 +3211-3214 + + + +Wednesday, April 17, 2024 +Case Description: CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEAC +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +J29 AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT O +J29 AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT O +J27 APPENDIX TO MOTION OF PLT CA FLORIDA H +J27 APPENDIX TO MOTION OF PLT CA FLORIDA HO +I APPENDIX TO MOTION OF PLT CA FLORIDA HO +3215-3374 +3375-3552 +3553-3725 +3726-3900 +3901-4086 +4087-4261 +NOT A CERTIFIED + + + +Case Description: CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH +# +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +21 +20 +22 +23 +24 +25 +26 +27 +28 +29 +30 +31 +32 +33 +34 +35 +Effective Date Count Description +11/14/2019 +CIVIL COVER SHEET +11/14/2019 +SUMMONS ISSUED +11/14/2019 +SUMMONS ISSUED +11/14/2019 +COMPLAINT +11/15/2019 +DIVISION ASSIGNMENT +11/15/2019 +PAID ON RECEIPT +11/15/2019 +VERIFIED MOTION +11/15/2019 +PAID < AMOUNT> ON RECEIPT. «NUMBER› +11/19/2019 +ORDER +11/25/2019 +SERVICE RETURNED (NUMBERED) +11/25/2019 +SERVICE RETURNED (NUMBERED) +12/6/2019 +MOTION TO DISMISS +12/13/2019 +MOTION TO DISMISS +1/16/2020 +ORDER SETTING HEARING +1/16/2020 +VERIFIED MOTION +1/17/2020 +PAID ON RECEIPT +1/17/2020 +COMPLAINT +1/17/2020 +NOTICE OF FILING +1/21/2020 +ORDER +1/21/2020 +OBJECTION +1/22/2020 +ORDER GRANTING +1/24/2020 +ANSWER +1/24/2020 +NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY +1/24/2020 +ANSWER +2/3/2020 +ORDER SETTING HEARING +3/12/2020 +NOTICE +3/12/2020 +NOTICE +3/18/2020 +MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE CIVIL +3/20/2020 +ORDER OF CONTINUANCE +4/21/2020 +ORDER RESETTING +5/22/2020 +ORDER SETTING HEARING +5/27/2020 +NOTICE -NAME/ADDRESS CHANGE +6/8/2020 +ORDER GRANTING +6/10/2020 +NOTICE -NAME/ADDRESS CHANGE +7/1/2020 +MOTION + + + +Case Description: CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH +# +36 +37 +38 +39 +40 +41 +42 +43 +44 +45 +46 +47 +48 +49 +50 +51 +52 +53 +54 +55 +56 +57 +58 +59 +60 +61 +62 +63 +64 +66 +67 +68 +65 +69 +70 +Effective Date Count Description +7/10/2020 +REQUEST TO PRODUCE +7/24/2020 +REQUEST TO PRODUCE +8/18/2020 +MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT +8/18/2020 +AFFIDAVIT +9/2/2020 +RESPONSE TO REQ TO PRODUCE +9/18/2020 +MOTION +9/22/2020 +NOTICE OF HEARING +10/2/2020 +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +10/2/2020 +RESPONSE TO: +10/14/2020 +RESPONSE TO: +10/21/2020 +ORDER +10/21/2020 +MOTION +10/21/2020 +NOTICE OF DROPPING PARTY +10/29/2020 +MOTION +11/9/2020 +MOTION +11/9/2020 +AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY FEES +11/19/2020 +AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY FEES +12/3/2020 +NOTICE OF NON JURY TRIAL +12/10/2020 +NOTICE OF NON JURY TRIAL +1/28/2021 +NOTICE +1/28/2021 +ORDER SETTING HEARING +3/25/2021 +NOTICE -NAME/ADDRESS CHANGE +4/22/2021 +MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT +4/22/2021 +APPENDIX +5/24/2021 +MOTION +5/25/2021 +NOTICE OF APPEARANCE CIVIL +5/25/2021 +RESPONSE TO: +6/11/2021 +AGREED ORDER +7/15/2021 +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +7/23/2021 +AFFIDAVIT +7/23/2021 +TRANSCRIPT +7/23/2021 +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +7/26/2021 +ORDER SETTING HEARING +7/26/2021 +NOTICE OF APPEARANCE CIVIL +7/26/2021 +ORDER RESETTING + + + +Case Description: CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH +# +71 +72 +73 +74 +75 +76 +77 +78 +79 +80 +81 +82 +89 +83 +84 +85 +86 +87 +88 +90 +91 +92 +93 +94 +95 +96 +99 +100 +97 +98 +101 +102 +103 +104 +105 +Effective Date Count Description +7/29/2021 +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +8/5/2021 +MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE CIVIL +8/9/2021 +ORDER +8/12/2021 +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +10/1/2021 +RESPONSE TO: +10/5/2021 +ORDER +10/13/2021 +REPLY/RESPONSE +12/20/2021 +FINAL JUDGMENT +12/20/2021 +DISPOSED AFTER OTHER +1/3/2022 +NOTICE OF APPEARANCE CIVIL +1/3/2022 +MOTION +1/19/2022 +MOTION +1/26/2022 +NOTICE +1/27/2022 +NOTICE OF APPEAL CIVIL +1/27/2022 +PAID ON RECEIPT +1/27/2022 +AUTOMATIC RECEIPT APPELLATE FILING +1/27/2022 +ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASE +1/27/2022 +TRUE COPY +1/28/2022 +TRUE COPY +2/24/2022 +REPLY/RESPONSE +3/22/2022 +INDEX TO RECORD ON APPEAL +3/22/2022 +INVOICE +3/23/2022 +PAID ON RECEIPT +3/25/2022 +AUTOMATIC RECEIPT APPELLATE FILING +3/30/2022 +MOTION TO WITHDRAW +3/30/2022 + +4/13/2022 +NOTICE +4/13/2022 +AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY FEES +4/14/2022 +NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY +4/14/2022 +AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY FEES +4/20/2022 +NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY +4/28/2022 +NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY +5/25/2022 +ORDER SETTING HEARING +5/31/2022 +NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY +6/2/2022 +NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY + + + +Case Description: CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH +# +106 +107 +108 +109 +110 +111 +112 +113 +114 +115 +116 +117 +118 +119 +120 +121 +122 +123 +124 +125 +126 +127 +128 +129 +130 +131 +132 +133 +134 +135 +136 +137 +138 +139 +140 +Effective Date Count Description +6/7/2022 +ORD SUBSTITUTION COUNSEL +7/1/2022 +ORDER SETTING HEARING +7/22/2022 +MOTION +9/1/2022 +EVIDENCE/EXHIBIT LIST FILED +9/8/2022 +CLERK'S NOTE +9/26/2022 +MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME +9/28/2022 +AGREED ORDER +10/4/2022 + +10/4/2022 +TRANSCRIPT +10/6/2022 +NOTICE +10/6/2022 +NOTICE +2/1/2023 +ORDER DENYING +2/1/2023 +MOTION +2/16/2023 +RESPONSE TOy +3/1/2023 +NOTICE OF APPEAL CIVIL +3/1/2023 +PAID ON RECEIPT +3/1/2023 +AUTOMATIC RECEIPT APPELLATE FILING +3/3/2023 +ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASE +3/6/2023 +TRUE COPY +3/6/2023 +ORDER +3/10/2023 +NOTICE OF APPEAL CIVIL +3/10/2023 +PAID ON RECEIPT +3/20/2023 +TRUE COPY +3/27|2023 +EXHIBIT CHECK OUT RECEIPT +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE + + + +Case Description: CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH +# +141 +142 +143 +144 +145 +146 +147 +148 +149 +150 +151 +152 +153 +154 +155 +156 +157 +158 +159 +160 +161 +162 +163 +164 +165 +166 +167 +168 +169 +170 +171 +172 +173 +174 +175 +Effective Date Count Description +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27|2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/27/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/28/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/28/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/28/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/28/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/28/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +3/28/2023 +JOINT EVIDENCE +4/5/2023 +INDEX TO RECORD ON APPEAL +4/5/2023 +INVOICE +4/14/2023 +PAID ON RECEIPT +4/17/2023 +AUTOMATIC RECEIPT APPELLATE FILING + + + +Case Description: CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH +# +176 +177 +178 +179 +188 +180 +181 +182 +183 +184 +185 +186 +187 +189 +190 +191 +192 +193 +194 +195 +196 +Effective Date Count Description +4/20/2023 +EXHIBIT CHECK IN RECEIPT +5/2/2023 +TRUE COPY +5/11/2023 +NOTICE OF APPEARANCE CIVIL +5/26/2023 +MANDATE REVERSED/REMANDED +5/26/2023 +ADDITIONAL COMMENTS +6/9/2023 +ORDER +6/29/2023 +ORDER +2/23/2024 +MOTION +2/28/2024 +AGREED ORDER +2/29/2024 +ORDER +3/1/2024 +MOTION +3/4/2024 +NOTICE +3/5/2024 +AGREED ORDER +3/14/2024 +NOTICE OF APPEAL CIVIL +3/14/2024 +PAID ON RECEIPT +3/14/2024 +OPINION +3/15/2024 +AUTOMATIC RECEIPT APPELLATE FILING +3/15/2024 +ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASE +3/15/2024 +TRUE COPY +4/3/2024 +MOTION +4/4/2024 +NOT +MANDATE-AFFIRMED + + + +CLE +MIM BEACH COUNT +ABRUZZO +HE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER +PALM BEACH COUNTY +CERTIFICATE OF THE CLERK +County Civil Division +West Palm Beach, F53406 +P: (561) 355-2500 | F: (561) 355-6211 +4th DCA NO.: 4D2024-0681 +ABRUZZO, Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller, in +and for Palm Beach County, State of Florida, do hereby certify that the +foregoing pages of: +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST +VS +DAVE ARONBERG +CASE NO: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +contains true and correct transcripts and copies of all such papers and +proceedings in said cause as appears from the records and files of my +office that have been directed to be included in said RECORD by the +directions furnished to me, with all redactions required by law, rule or +administrative order. +IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto my hand affixed the seal +of the court, this +17th of April, 2024 +RK +Of +By: +MIM BEÁCH COUNT +Bit solde +ABRUZZO +CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & +COMPTROLLER +Palm Beach County, FL. +Brent Robbins +Deputy Clerk +Main Courthouse +205 N. Dixie Hwy. +West Palm Beach, FL +North County Courthouse +3188 PGA Blvd. +Palm Beach Gardens, FL +Midwestern Service Center +200 Civic Center Way, Suite 500 +palm B004262 +West County Courthouse +2950 State Road 15, Room S-100 +Belle Glade, FL +South County Courthouse +200 W. Atlantic Ave. +Delray Beach, FL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8a410bd8482c09c9369317a394055a30144b6b45c04cf9e99af9cb5ca451799.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8a410bd8482c09c9369317a394055a30144b6b45c04cf9e99af9cb5ca451799.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..62f1f3b806149b2e7afd9bc0b3f8b05e70318116 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8a410bd8482c09c9369317a394055a30144b6b45c04cf9e99af9cb5ca451799.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -1162, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b8a410bd8482c09c9369317a394055a30144b6b45c04cf9e99af9cb5ca451799", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 30, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "58f8894f4c37647d8fe73da8deace9f9924e31128bf5ba207f04c9dbf77000f4", + "output_sha256": "302dbe7c1853bb46170ff430fad769fa036265222df76dfbc7639eaff616e5f5", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8a63623957121b23a70d15ee3ea1bf1f52565ec1e1d159cad6202836e893750.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8a63623957121b23a70d15ee3ea1bf1f52565ec1e1d159cad6202836e893750.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b22064c25baeaa7119b773ad74ce817ef4223acf --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8a63623957121b23a70d15ee3ea1bf1f52565ec1e1d159cad6202836e893750.md @@ -0,0 +1,217 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 1 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRAJ +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 2 of 8 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA1 +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80993-MARRA/ +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80811 -MARRAJ +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80893-MARRA/ +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 08-CV- 80469-MARRA /C +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 3 of 8 +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al., +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80591-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80656-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFFS JANE DOES' 2-7 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE +ORDER AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-7 ("Plaintiffs" or individually, "Plaintiff"), by and through +undersigned counsel, hereby file Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order, pursuant to +S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1, and state as follows: +1. +Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 are proceeding with a Jane Doe pseudonym as this case +involves facts of the utmost intimacy and there is a genuine risk of psychological harm if their +identities are disclosed. See Exhibit "A" (Declaration of Gilbert Kliman, M.D.) (See also DE +144, Jane Does' 2-7 Response to Defendant's Motion to Compel Identity, et al.). +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 4 of 8 +2. +Despite the obvious need for Plaintiffs to have their identities protected, +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein has employed investigators who have made repeated contacts with exboyfriends, former employers, and others who know nothing of the underlying facts of the case. +These investigators have contacted such nonparties asking them for extensive personal +information about a Plaintiff, such as names and contact information of former boyfriends and +other friends and acquaintances in the Plaintiff's community. +3. +The Defendant's repeated contacts with these nonparties is harassing and +designed to intimidate the Plaintiffs. The purpose and intent of these contacts is to brand the +Plaintiffs as alleged sexual abuse victims to their families, friends and communities. +4. +A Motion is pending in which this Court is being asked to determine whether and +how Defendant may obtain discovery from nonparties. (DE 91, 144). Defendant's investigative +efforts improperly circumvent the issues in the pending Motion, and only serve to highlight the +need for this Court to implement appropriate protective measures to prevent Defendant from +harassing, intimidating, and intruding unnecessarily into the personal lives of the Plaintiffs. +5. +While it is not unusual for a defendant to use appropriate means to obtain records +from former employers and others referenced in a plaintiff's discovery responses, it is not +customary for a defendant to retain private investigators to make personal contact with these +individuals. Indeed, this practice is particularly inappropriate in a sexual abuse case where these +nonparties are unaware of the underlying abuse. Plaintiffs have a well-grounded fear that the +investigators will use the opportunity of their contacts with these nonparties to "out" the +Plaintiffs' as alleged childhood sexual abuse victims of Jeffrey Epstein. (See Kliman Decl., Exh. +"A" hereto). +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 5 of 8 +6. +As an example of the investigators' intimidation tactics, three of Defendant's +investigators recently called the former employer of Jane Doe 4 on repeated occasions over a +two-day period, asking personal questions about her, including the name and telephone number +of her ex-boyfriend. See Exhibit "B", Declaration of Jane Doe 4. +7. +Similarly, one of Defendant's investigators contacted the former employer of Jane +Doe 6. See Exhibit "C", Declaration of Jane Doe 6. +8. +There is no basis for Defendant or his multiple investigators to make repeated +personal contacts with former employers and ex-boyfriends to ask personal questions about a +Plaintiff. It is apparent that these contacts are not designed to obtain relevant information, but +rather are intended to intimidate the Plaintiffs and to reveal that they are childhood sexual abuse +victims. +9. +Accordingly, Plaintiffs request the entry of a protective order that would prevent +Defendant, his attorneys and investigators from making ex parte contacts concerning this +litigation with nonparties who have no knowledge that a Plaintiff was a childhood sexual abuse +victim of Jeffrey Epstein. +10. This Court has discretion to enter a protective order designed to protect a party +from, among other things, annoyance or embarrassment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). As set forth above, +given the investigators' conduct, a protective order is appropriate to prevent unnecessary +intrusion into the Plaintiffs' personal lives and divulgation of Plaintiffs in their communities as +childhood sexual abuse victims. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7, respectfully request that this Court grant +Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order, as follows: (i) order Defendant, his attorneys and +investigators to cease making ex parte contacts with nonparties identified in plaintiffs" discovery +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 6 of 8 +responses, such as, for example, former employers; (ii) order Defendant, his attorneys and +investigators to cease making ex parte contacts with nonparties found during the course of +discovery or investigation who know the Plaintiff or live in her community, such as, for example, +current and former boyfriends and family friends of the Plaintiffs; (il) order Defendant, his +attorneys and investigators to cease making ex parte contacts with nonparties who otherwise +know one of the Plaintiffs personally but who are unaware that she is an alleged victim of +childhood sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein; and (iv) grant all such other relief this Court deems +just and appropriate. +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1.A.3 +Undersigned counsel has conferred with Defendant's counsel in a good faith effort to +resolve the issues raised in this motion, and has been unable to do so, as Defendant's counsel has +advised that Defendant opposes this motion. +Dated: July 29, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By:_ +s/ Adam D. Horowitz +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 7 of 8 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on July 29, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served +this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission +of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for +those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 8 of 8 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +bedwards@rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike @bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +8 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8a63623957121b23a70d15ee3ea1bf1f52565ec1e1d159cad6202836e893750.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8a63623957121b23a70d15ee3ea1bf1f52565ec1e1d159cad6202836e893750.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..008a04ec92c6e09b0527efedc73ea87d9afc5deb --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8a63623957121b23a70d15ee3ea1bf1f52565ec1e1d159cad6202836e893750.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -98, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b8a63623957121b23a70d15ee3ea1bf1f52565ec1e1d159cad6202836e893750", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "af5da917a8a3be14db00644276b3e2deff82c74843c3c7f40d8d33164b2209cd", + "output_sha256": "5947bca6fbee027940e955be03ed13dbb2f7a0d8fd853d2ccbd853d4dc164ee3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8c9637f99e945f3393285c6c067fe3c2b1db9e88e9e671a943486dfb7e04988.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8c9637f99e945f3393285c6c067fe3c2b1db9e88e9e671a943486dfb7e04988.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d9fc7f4c6a053deac45003c780fdeed0cc11da30 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8c9637f99e945f3393285c6c067fe3c2b1db9e88e9e671a943486dfb7e04988.md @@ -0,0 +1,177 @@ +Document 326-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2009 Page 1 of 3 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 + +1 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6- +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +• 13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT • +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CRIMINAL DIVISION +STATE OF FLORIDA +VS +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO. +06 CF9454AMB +0 8 +9381CFAMB +PLEA CONFERENCE +PRESIDING: HONORABLE DEBORAH DALE PUCILLO +APPEARANCES: +ON BEHALF OF THE STATE: +BARRY B. KRISCHER, ESQUIRE +State Attorney +401 North Dixie Highway +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +By: LANNA BELOHLAVEK, BSQUIRE +Assistant State Attorney +ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT: +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & NEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +'By: JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE +CERTIFIED COPY +June 30, 2008 +Palm Beach County Courthouse +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Beginning at 8:40 o'clock, a.m. +PHYLLIS A. DAMES, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER +"2" + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 326-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2009 Page 2 of 3 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 + +20 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +regularly congregate? +MS. BELOHLAVEK: +"I personally do not +know. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +THE COURT: Neither do I, which is +why I'm asking. +Has that been +investigated? +MR. GOLDBERGER: We have done our due +diligence, for what it's worth, there is a +residential street. There are not children +congregating on that street. We think the +address applies, if it doesn't, we fully +recognize that he can't live there. +THE COURT: Okay. Dis, you shall +not have any contact with the victim, are +there more than one victim? +MS. BELOHLAVEK: There's several:. +THE COURT: Several, all of the +victims. So this should be plural. I'm +making that plural. You are not to have +any contact direct or indirect, and in this +day and age I find it necessary to go over +exactly what. we mean by indirect. By +indirect, we mean no text messages, no +e-mail, no Face Book, no My Space, no +telephone calls, no voice mails, no +PHYLLIS A. DAMES, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 326-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2009 Page 3 of 3 +Document 322-4 "Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 3 of 3 +21 +1 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +U +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +' 19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +messages through carrier pigeon, no +messages through third parties, no hey +would you tell so and so for me, no having +a friend, acquaintance or stranger approach +any of these victims with a message of any +sort from you, is that clear? +THE DEFENDANT: Yes, +THE COURT: And then it states, +unless approved by the victim, the +therapist and the sentencing court. Okay. +THE DEFENDANT: I understand. +THE COURT: And the sentencing court. +So, if there is a desire which, I would +think would be a bit strange to have +contact with any of the victims the court +must approve it. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Correct. +• THE COURT: If the victim was under +the age of 18, which was the case, you +shall not until you have successfully +attended and completed the sex offender +program. So, is this sex offender program +becoming a condition of probation? +MS. BELOHLAVEK: That is not. I +don't believe I circled that one. +PHYLLIS A. DAMES, OFFICIAL, COURT REPORTER \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8c9637f99e945f3393285c6c067fe3c2b1db9e88e9e671a943486dfb7e04988.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8c9637f99e945f3393285c6c067fe3c2b1db9e88e9e671a943486dfb7e04988.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..33c31c0833a2f9292d03ef227c34532986f568fc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8c9637f99e945f3393285c6c067fe3c2b1db9e88e9e671a943486dfb7e04988.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -181, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b8c9637f99e945f3393285c6c067fe3c2b1db9e88e9e671a943486dfb7e04988", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "bf4727c546080fbd8482c84137755a8bae6e2c4723b68b7cc142c880571d272e", + "output_sha256": "a635602dce78566263ad2275516f7078bfe476297d58c1a0e79a6dc13acbe054", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8cf01ba721ef02c521d271e6aec5557e4919fb1ae90fa1910ea9b06e60bdfc3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8cf01ba721ef02c521d271e6aec5557e4919fb1ae90fa1910ea9b06e60bdfc3.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..034cc8b8fd01bcd098a20fcc22cc991d24813237 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8cf01ba721ef02c521d271e6aec5557e4919fb1ae90fa1910ea9b06e60bdfc3.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 442-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2009 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092, +JANE DOE NOS.' 2, 3, and 5-8 OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM +DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2009 ISSUED TO PRESIDENTAL WOMEN'S CENTER +Plaintiffs, Jane Doe Nos. 2, 3, and 5-8, by and through their undersigned counsel, and +pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 45, hereby object to the Subpoena Duces +Tecum issued by Jeffrey Epstein to the records custodian of Presidential Women's Center dated +November 13, 2009 on the basis that said subpoena is not reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence and constitutes an invasion of the privacy rights of the +plaintiffs. There is no evidence or other indication whatsoever to indicate that Jane Doe Nos. 2, +3, and 5-8 have had an abortion at Presidential Women's Center, 100 Northpoint Parkway, West +Palm Beach, Florida 33401 or otherwise been seen or treated at that facility. Accordingly, this +subpoena seeking records relating to these Plaintiffs is a pure "shot in the dark" attempt to obtain +discovery, rather than the reasonably calculated discovery effort as required by the Federal Rules +of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to this objection, Plaintiffs Nos. 2, 3, and 5-8 request that non-party +1 + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 442-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2009 Page 2 of 2 +Presidential Women's Center not answer any questions or produce any records in response to the +Subpoena Duces Tecum in the absence of a Court Order requiring such disclosure. +Dated: November 25, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By:_ +s/ Adam D. Horowitz. +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 2-8 +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent to the following +via e-mail transmission, this 25th day of November, 2009: +Louis Silber, Esq. +Attorney for Presidential Women's Center +Isilber@svdlaw.net +Robert D. Critton, Jr, Esq. +rcrit@bclclaw.com +Michael James Pike, Esq. +MPike@bclclaw.com +s/ Adam D. Horowitz +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8cf01ba721ef02c521d271e6aec5557e4919fb1ae90fa1910ea9b06e60bdfc3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8cf01ba721ef02c521d271e6aec5557e4919fb1ae90fa1910ea9b06e60bdfc3.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9e2e3deae516bdc49650424a7d118e45f53acead --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8cf01ba721ef02c521d271e6aec5557e4919fb1ae90fa1910ea9b06e60bdfc3.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -35, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b8cf01ba721ef02c521d271e6aec5557e4919fb1ae90fa1910ea9b06e60bdfc3", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e22e111f64ce805f5982657899a20bab37879a56c2563a5810aecdbc5493d1cf", + "output_sha256": "a918b56c507a6e90a3d39e67f5f1bd30cdaff6a0fa023eb13b96c0c89889901f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8e9a77b4a34a4126bda594f659e13983f4c6d72617e1743e4ff762288e83676.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8e9a77b4a34a4126bda594f659e13983f4c6d72617e1743e4ff762288e83676.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8b61ff45669e757e1ef42c73040b9a01551a2206 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8e9a77b4a34a4126bda594f659e13983f4c6d72617e1743e4ff762288e83676.md @@ -0,0 +1,212 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 13 Filed 10/24/19 Page 1 of 9 +CASE NO. 19-cv-9610 +JANE DOE 17, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE AND +RICHARD D. KAHN, AS JOINT +PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF +THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +NINE EAST 71st STREET CORPORATION, +LAUREL, INC., FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, +INC., NES, LLC, MAPLE, INC., LSJE, LLC, +HBRK ASSOCIATES, INC., NAUTILUS, INC., +CYPRESS, INC. and JEGE, INC. +Defendants. +UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ADMIT COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE +PURSUANT TO RULE 1.3(c) of the Local Rules of the United States District Courts for +the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, I, Andrew S. Buzin, a member in good standing +of the bar of this Court, hereby move for an Order allowing the admission pro hac vice of: +David C. Appleby, Esq. FBN 500089 +100 S.E. 2nd Street, Suite 4500 +Miami, FL 33131 +Ph: (305) 371-3111 +Fax: (305) 577-8375 +dappleby@goldfarbpa.com +Attorney for Plaintiff, Jane Doe 17 +Mr. Appleby is a member in good standing of the Florida Bar. There are no pending +disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Appleby in any State or Federal court. +I have consulted with counsel for Defendants, Bennet Moskowitz, Esq., of Troutman +Sanders LLP, who has advised that Defendants do not oppose this Motion. + + + +Case 1:19-cV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 13 Filed 10/24/19 Page 2 of 9 +Dated: +New York, New York +October 24, 2019 +By: +Respectfully Submitted, +/s/ Andrew S. Buzin +Andrew S. Buzin +BUZIN LAW, P.C +111 Broadway, Suite 1204 +New York, NY 10006 +Tel: (646) 470-4878 +Fax: (347) 736-9490 +abuzin@buzinlaw.com +Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jane Doe 17 + + + +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 13 Filed 10/24/19 Page 3 of 9 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on October 24, 2019, I caused true and correct copies of the foregoing +Motion to Unopposed Motion To Admit Counsel Pro Hac Vice, Affidavit of David C. Appleby, +Esq. in Support of Motion to Admit Counsel Pro Hac Vice, and Order for Admission Pro Hac +Vice on Written Motion to be served by electronic mail on defense counsel listed below: +Bennet J. Moskowitz +Troutman Sanders +875 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +Direct: 212.704.6087 +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +By: +ANDREW S. BUZN +abuzin@buzinlaw.com + + + +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 13 Filed 10/24/19 Page 4 of 9 +CASE NO. 19-cv-9610 +JANE DOE 17, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE AND +RICHARD D. KAHN, AS JOINT +PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF +THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +NINE EAST 71st STREET CORPORATION, +LAUREL, INC., FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, +INC., NES, LLC, MAPLE, INC., LSJE, LLC, +HBRK ASSOCIATES, INC., NAUTILUS, INC., +CYPRESS, INC. and JEGE, INC. +Defendants. +DECLARATION OF DAVID C. APPLEBY, ESQ. +IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ADMIT COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE +1, David C. Appleby, Esq., declare under penalty of perjury as follows: +Pursuant to Rule 1.3 of the Local Rules of the United States Courts for the Southern +and Eastern Districts of New York, I hereby seek admission from this Court to practice Pro Hac +Vice to appear as counsel for Plaintiff JANE DOE 17 in the above-captioned action. +I am in good standing of the bar of the State of Florida and there are no pending +disciplinary proceedings against me in any state or federal court. I have never been convicted of a +felony. I have never been censured, suspended, disbarred or denied admission or readmission by +any court. I have attached the affidavit pursuant to Local Rule 1.3. +3. +I have consulted with counsel for Defendants, Bennet Moskowitz, Esq., of +Troutman Sanders LLP, who has advised that Defendants do not oppose this Motion. + + + +Case 1:19-cV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 13 Filed 10/24/19 Page 5 of 9 +Dated: Lake Worth, Florida +October 24, 2019 +Respectfully submitted, +DAVID C. APPLEBY, P.A. +Is/ David C. Appleby +David C. Appleby, Esq. FBN 500089 +100 S.E. 2ºd Street, Suite 4500 +Miami, FL 33131 +Ph: (305) 371-3111 +Fax: (305) 577-8375 +dappleby@goldfarbpa.com +Attorney for Plaintiff, Jane Doe 17 + + + +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 13 | +Filed 10/24/19 + +CASE NO. +JANE DOE 17, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE AND +RICHARD D. KAHN, AS JOINT +PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF +THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +NINE EAST 71st STREET CORPORATION, +LAUREL, INC., FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, +INC., NES, LLC, MAPLE, INC., LSJE, LLC, +HBRK ASSOCIATES, INC., NAUTILUS, INC., +CYPRESS, INC. and JEGE, INC. +Defendants. +AFFIDAVIT +1, DAVID C. APPLEBY, hereby declare as follows: +1. +I make this Affidavit in connection with my Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice +in the above-captioned matter as co-counsel for Plaintiff, Jane Doe 17. +I am an associate at the law firm of Alan Goldfarb, P.A. +3. +4. +5. +I am a member in good standing of the bar of the State of Florida (Exhibit "A"). +I have never been convicted of a felony. +I have never been censured, suspended, disbarred, or denied admission or +readmission by any court. +6. +There are no pending disciplinary proceedings against me in any state or Federal +Court. + + + +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 13 Filed 10/24/19 Page 7 of 9 +FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. +DAVID C. APPLEBY +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE +The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 17" day of October, 2019, +by DAVID C. APPLEBY, who is personally known to me +Anit, Valdes Gomez, Notary Public +ANAL VALDES GOMEZ +MY COMMISSION # GG 237341 +EXPIRES: November 11, 2022 +Bonded Thru Notary Public Underwrite + + + +Case 1:19-cv-09610 PAE-DCF Document 13 : Filed 10/24/19 + +Supreme Court of Florida +Certificate of Good Standing +I JOHN A. TOMASINO, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of Florida, do +hereby certify that +DAVID CHARLES APPLEBY +was admitted as an attorney and counselor entitled to practice law in all the +Courts of the State of Florida on October 17, 1985, is presently in good +standing, and that the private and professional character of the attorney +appear to be good. +COURT +SUPR +WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the +Supreme Court of Florida at Tallahassee, +the Capital, this October 24, 2019. +92 +Clerk of the Supreme Court of Florida. +0 +F + + +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 13 +Filed 10/24/19 Page 9 of 9 +CASE NO. 1:19-cv-09610-PAE +JANE DOE 17, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE AND +RICHARD D. KAHN, AS JOINT +PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF +THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +NINE EAST 71st STREET CORPORATION, +LAUREL, INC., FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, +INC., NES, LLC, MAPLE, INC., LSJE, LLC, +HBRK ASSOCIATES, INC., NAUTILUS, INC., +CYPRESS, INC. and JEGE, INC. +Defendants. +Upon motion, for an order permitting him to appear and practice pro hac vice in the +within action on behalf of Plaintiff, Jane Doe 17, it is hereby +ORDERED that the Motion for David C. Appleby to Appear Pro Hac Vice be +GRANTED. +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +Dated: October +_ 2019 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8e9a77b4a34a4126bda594f659e13983f4c6d72617e1743e4ff762288e83676.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8e9a77b4a34a4126bda594f659e13983f4c6d72617e1743e4ff762288e83676.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..07edc79b603e2218368d3dc1d993b034a05f89f6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8e9a77b4a34a4126bda594f659e13983f4c6d72617e1743e4ff762288e83676.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -455, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b8e9a77b4a34a4126bda594f659e13983f4c6d72617e1743e4ff762288e83676", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 20, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "8be1a7d7db5ff6a1ddfe94fd06991567ee3fc45462265ad71514b8790a2bd40c", + "output_sha256": "6a4e782b5aa0a3f4496ccd731037a9ad868d8d4b795ff04c9f77cf5bf8b5b86c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8f786eed63454d7f6670648f26fba68ec66a0f73a6c3b7d1bfabe38eaa2e4bd.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8f786eed63454d7f6670648f26fba68ec66a0f73a6c3b7d1bfabe38eaa2e4bd.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..656ae4b9df6666c5ac843e3a2dc31e9ebf9df92f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8f786eed63454d7f6670648f26fba68ec66a0f73a6c3b7d1bfabe38eaa2e4bd.md @@ -0,0 +1,204 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 386 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 1 of 7 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/ +Vs. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +/ +Related Cases: +08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, +08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROVIDE RECENTLY- +OBTAINED DEPOSITION TESTIMONY AND AFFIDAVIT DEMONSTRATING +FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS BY EPSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR +APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE CHARGE OF PROPERTY OF EPSTEIN +AND INCORPORATED SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM +Plaintiff, Jane Doe, hereby moves for leave to provide to the Court the recentlyobtained deposition testimony of Larry Visoski (Exhibit A) and related affidavit of +forensic accountant Ronald E. Wise (Exhibit B) in support of her pending Motion for +Appointment of a Receiver to Take Charge of Property of Epstein [DE 165]. These +materials demonstrate that Epstein is engaging in fraudulent transfers, by hiding assets +in the name of Visoski (his personal pilot). Because these materials are highly relevant +to Jane Doe's pending motion, the Court should grant Jane Doe leave to provide them +to the Court and should consider them when ruling on Jane Doe's Motion. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 386 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 2 of 7 +FACTUAL BACKGROUND +1. +On June 19, 2009, Jane Doe filed a Motion for (among other things) +Appointment of a Receiver to Take Charge of the Property of Epstein and to post a $15 +million bond to secure a potential judgment [DE 165 in case no. 9:08-CV-80119-KAM]. +The motion argued that a receiver was appropriate in view of Jane Doe's evidence that +Epstein was fraudulently transfers assets to defeat any judgment that she might obtain, +including, in particular, Epstein's decision to invoke Fifth Amendment privilege rather +than answer questions about fraudulent transfers. +2. On July 13, 2009, Epstein filed his Response to the Motion [DE 198]. +Epstein's main argument was that Jane Doe lacked sufficient proof of his fraudulent +transfers and, without proof, could not rely on an adverse inference from his invocation. +See [DE 198 at p. 10] ("As belabored throughout this memorandum, Jane Doe cites no +independent evidence that Epstein is fraudulently transferring assets."). +3. +On July 20, 2009, Jane Doe filed a motion seeking leave to file +supplemental information in support of her claims of Epstein's financial sophistication +[DE 213]. (On August 5, 2009, Epstein objected to this supplemental information, +primarily on grounds that the information was not newly-discovered [DE 244]). +Meanwhile, on July 23, 2009, Jane Doe filed her reply to Epstein's +response to her motion [DE 217]. Jane Doe explained that Epstein had failed to contest +any of her allegations that he was fraudulently transferring assets and that, in any event, +she had sufficient circumstantial evidence of Epstein's fraud to justify appointment of a +receiver with control of Epstein's assets. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 386 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 3 of 7 +5. On October 15, 2009, Jane Doe's counsel took the deposition of Larry +Visoski, Epstein's personal pilot. See Ex. A to this Motion. In the deposition, Visoski +admitted many facts relevant to the fraudulent transfer issue, including: +• Vistein Boling 12 tid per airs around pio side a violet a +p. 20, 45); +• Visoski transported Epstein and girls under the age of 18 on the plane (id. at pp. +94-99); +• Visoski was unaware of the fact that a +F-150 Truck, which he had +purchased for Jeffrey Epstein, was titled in his name (Ex. A, Visoski Depo. at p. +202); +• registered last soar efied at 9, chased a 568,000 Land Rover and +• Jeffrey Epstein also purchased a Mercedes-Benz 2005 by wiring funds to Visoski +and then placing the car in Visoski's name (id. at 199); +• Jeffrey Epstein also bought a Jaguar X-Type 2005 so that he (Epstein) would +have another car around Palm Beach available for his friends to use and then +placed the car in Visoski's name (id. at 200); +• Visoski very recently placed an advertisement in his name to sell Jeffrey +Epstein's Ferrari for $159,000 (id. at 208); and +Visoski's curiosity was "piqued" by all these registrations but he never aske +pstein any questions about them (id. at 201 +6. +Ronald Wise is an experienced forensic accountant recently retained by +Jane Doe. He has recently reviewed public records related to the vehicle transfers +discussed by Visoski. The cars in question are not titled in Epstein's name. Based on +his training and experience and his review of the records, Mr. Wise has concluded that +these asset transfers are fraudulent, in that they were made without receiving anything +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 386 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 4 of 7 +in return for value and that they appear to be done to conceal the identity of ownership. +See Exhibit B to this Motion. +LEGAL MEMORANDUM +7. +Jane Doe should be granted leave to file the Visoski deposition and Wise +affidavit in support of her motion for appointment of a receiver. Both relate to very +recently-discovered information and could not have been filed earlier. Both are also +highly relevant to the pending motion, as they provide concrete evidence of a pattern of +fraudulent asset transfers by Epstein designed to keep Jane Doe from satisfying any +judgment that she might obtain against Epstein. +Epstein will not be prejudiced by the Court reviewing this information. +Jane Doe has no objection to Epstein filing any substantive response to the materials +he might like to make as part of his response to this motion. (Jane Doe would then file +a reply to any response) Epstein is also free to seek leave to supplement his +previously-filed Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Injunction Motion [DE 198]; +Jane Doe has no objection to Epstein supplementing his response with additional legal +arguments, provided that the response is filed within the Court's ordinary timelines and +does not delay action on her motion for appointment of a receiver. +In addition, Epstein will also not be prejudiced by the Court considering +these materials as he has already been given the opportunity to explain whether he was +making fraudulent asset transfers. Rather than discuss these transfers, however, +Epstein asserted that he would incriminate himself if he answered such questions. For +example, Epstein was asked the following requests for admissions: +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 386 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 5 of 7 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +• Since being incarcerated you have, directly or indirectly (through the +services or assistance of other persons), conveyed money or assets in an +attempt to insulate or protect your money or assets from being captured in +any civil lawsuits filed against you. Requests For Admissions #6. +• You are moving significant financial assets overseas, outside of the direct +territorial reach of the U.S. and Florida Courts. RFA's #21. +• You are making asset transfers with the intent to defeat any judgment that +might be entered against you in this or similar cases. RFA's #22. +See [DE165 at 9] Epstein refused to answer each of these requests on Fifth +Amendment grounds. Having been given a full opportunity to provide any explanation +he might like about his asset transfers - and having stonewalled Jane Doe through his +Fifth Amendment invocations - Epstein can hardly complain now that Jane Doe has +begun to uncover the specifics of his fraud and is submitting that evidence to this Court. +CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH CONFERENCE +Counsel for Epstein has been contacted and is unwilling to agree to this motion. +CONCLUSION +For all these reasons, the Court should grant Jane Doe leave to supplement the +support for the facts underlying her Motion for Appointment of a Receiver [DE 165] with +the Visoski deposition and Wise affidavit, exhibits A and B to this motion. +DATED October 30, 2009 +Respectfully Submitted, +Is/l +J. +ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER +Las Olas City Centre +401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 522-3456 +Facsimile (954) 527-8663 +5 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 386 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 6 of 7 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +E-mail: bedwards@rra-law.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: +801-585-5202 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: +cassellp@law.utah.edu +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 30, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the +manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by +CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to +receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing. +S/ +J. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 386 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 7 of 7 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/] +SERVICE LIST +Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein +United States District Court - Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Isidro Manual i +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +iph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@bclclaw.com +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerswillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Adam D. Horowitz +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +William J. Berger +wberger@rra-law.com +7 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8f786eed63454d7f6670648f26fba68ec66a0f73a6c3b7d1bfabe38eaa2e4bd.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8f786eed63454d7f6670648f26fba68ec66a0f73a6c3b7d1bfabe38eaa2e4bd.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..acd6083214e20a83f7b777517dba04113797b2e7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8f786eed63454d7f6670648f26fba68ec66a0f73a6c3b7d1bfabe38eaa2e4bd.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -174, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b8f786eed63454d7f6670648f26fba68ec66a0f73a6c3b7d1bfabe38eaa2e4bd", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "6773d7083d1d79ceb89d58913f0a8277895a2780f3fe5d0270d7a7c7bf3dd626", + "output_sha256": "2389e66891acb3f8bbec73aff542847febf5b5a774e05a637d98f2af2f3025ac", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8ffc7a5fb18baf33ed3b4ef24de2b3b87af62a3a9ce1b6cc02341c5fe72ae04.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8ffc7a5fb18baf33ed3b4ef24de2b3b87af62a3a9ce1b6cc02341c5fe72ae04.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ccfabbc260b802ac9e22e731a153c69c9112af0c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8ffc7a5fb18baf33ed3b4ef24de2b3b87af62a3a9ce1b6cc02341c5fe72ae04.md @@ -0,0 +1,88 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 70-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 1 of 3 +•. +•. +AFFIDAVIT OF JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +) SS +) +BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared +having personal knowledge and being duly sworn, deposes and says: +I, Jack A. Goldberger, have personal knowledge of the matters set +forth herein. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida since +1978. I am a partner with the law firm of Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., +located at One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1400, 250 Australian Avenue South, West +Palm Beach, FL 33401. +2. +My practice includes and specializes in the defense of criminal +matters. I am board certified in criminal law. I have been and currently am the +criminal defense attorney for JEFFREY EPSTEIN. +3. +I represented Mr. EPSTEIN in the negotiation of and entering into a +Non-Prosecution Agreement with the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for +the Federal Southern District of Florida. The terms and conditions of the Non- +Prosecution Agreement also entailed the entering of a Plea Agreement with the +State Attorney's Office, Palm Beach County, State of Florida. (The Non- +Prosecution Agreement shall hereinafter be referred to as the "NPA"). +By its terms, the NPA took effect on June 30, 2008. Also, pursuant +to the terms of the NPA, any criminal prosecution against EPSTEIN is deferred +as long as the terms and conditions of the NPA are fulfilled by EPSTEIN. + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 70-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 2 of 3 +5. +The criminal matters against EPSTEIN remain ongoing until the +NPA expires by its terms in late 2010, and as long as the USAO determines +EPSTEIN has complied with those terms and conditions. The threat of criminal +prosecution against EPSTEIN by USAO in the Southern District of Florida +continues presently and through late 2010. +6. +Pursuant to the terms of the NPA, the USAO possesses the right to +declare that the agreement has been breached, give EPSTEIN's counsel notice, +and attempt to move forward with a prosecution. As of the date of this Affidavit, +the USAO has taken the position on a number of occasions that it might consider +the following actions by EPSTEIN to be a breach of the NPA. +• Investigation by EPSTEIN (by and through his attorneys) of this Plaintiff +and the other Plaintiffs in other pending civil cases for purposes of +defending the civil actions; +• EPSTEIN's contesting damages in this action and other civil actions. +• EPSTEIN or his legal representatives making statements to the press +about this Plaintiff or the other Plaintiffs. +• Using the word "jail" instead of "imprisonment" in the plea agreement with +the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office. +7. +EPSTEIN, through counsel, submitted a Freedom of Information +Act request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for documents relating to +this and the other cases; the FBI denied the request stating the materials are at +this time exempt from disclosure because they are in an investigative file, i.e. the +matter is still an ongoing criminal investigation. +Page - 2 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 70-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 3 of 3 +The NPA expires in late 2010. +FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT, +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +I hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to +administer oaths +acknowledgments, personally +appeared +Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire, known to me to be the person described in and who +executed the foregoing Affidavit, who acknowledged before me that he/she +executed the same, that ! relied upon the following form of identification of the +above named person: Awon Personally +_, and that an oath was/was +not taken. +this 4 day or an an fal 20 he county and Sal as adoreat. +tary Public State of Flork +LE Ros +Petri +NAME: +KIn E RiSIN +NOTARY PUBLIC/STATE OF FLORIDA +COMMISSION NO.: DD 489790 +MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: +11|13/2009 +Page - 3 - diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8ffc7a5fb18baf33ed3b4ef24de2b3b87af62a3a9ce1b6cc02341c5fe72ae04.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8ffc7a5fb18baf33ed3b4ef24de2b3b87af62a3a9ce1b6cc02341c5fe72ae04.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..77aad916c2309dee31f12aadfdf8f733f037ae8d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b8ffc7a5fb18baf33ed3b4ef24de2b3b87af62a3a9ce1b6cc02341c5fe72ae04.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -47, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b8ffc7a5fb18baf33ed3b4ef24de2b3b87af62a3a9ce1b6cc02341c5fe72ae04", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "1b12a2e54da268a3aba7e91338a1c59874571161eba7047c01750e2ed1cab6d1", + "output_sha256": "01776d8290700959f0a3e7d11378f49683e82e523d828369494289a6bb39aa3d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b90d0b7901a7bc3f92bc835a9cfcfe31f837a1275bed0ce422a9d56747dd59b1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b90d0b7901a7bc3f92bc835a9cfcfe31f837a1275bed0ce422a9d56747dd59b1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0209635e398c836d21cee853686e5aef5d88e11c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b90d0b7901a7bc3f92bc835a9cfcfe31f837a1275bed0ce422a9d56747dd59b1.md @@ -0,0 +1,272 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 322-4 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 1 of 5 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16% +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION +CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA +WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA +JANE DOE, et al., +Plaintiffs, +JUNE 12, 2009 +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING +BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH A. MARRA, +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +APPEARANCES: +FOR THE PLAINTIFES: +ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQ. +Mermelstein & Horowitz +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Miami, FL 33160 +305.931.2200 +For Jane Doe +HI J. H +1. ESQ. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Jane Doe 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 +954.522.3456 +ISIDRO M. L +1. ESQ. +• Elkins Boehringer +224 Datura Avenue +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Jane DOE II +561.832.8033 +RICHARD H. WILLITS, ESQ. +2290 10th Avenue North +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +For C.M.A. +561.582.7600 +"4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 322-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 2 of 5 +26 +1 +THE COURT: That's not my concern. So, again, I just +2 +want to make sure that if the cases go forward and if +3 +Mr. Epstein defends the case as someone ordinarily would defend +4 +a case that's being prosecuted against him or her, that that in +5 +and of itself is not going to cause him to be subject to +6 +criminal prosecution. +7 +MR. JOSEFSBERG: I agree, Your Honor. +8 +THE COURT: Any other plaintiff's coursel want to +9 chime in? +10 +MR. WILLITS: Richard Willits on behalf of C.M.A.. I +11| +would join, to weigh in on what Mr. Josefsberg said. +12 +MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, I could not hear. +13 +THE COURT: We'll get him to a microphone. +14 +Mr. Willits is speaking. +15 +MR. WILLITS: On behalf of my client, C.M.A., we join +16 +in what MI. Josefsberg said, and we also want to point out +17. +something to the court. +18 +First, we want to make a representation to the Court, +19 we have no intention of complaining to the U.S. Attorney's +20 +21 +22 +Office, never had that intention, don't have that intention in +the future, but, of course, subject to what occurs in the +future. +23 +I want to point out to the Court that Mr. Epstein went +24 +25 +into this situation with his eyes wide open, represented by +counsel, knowing that civil suits had to be coming. If he + + +Case 9.08-cv-80119-KAM Document 322-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 3 of 5 +27 +1 +2 +didn't know it, his lawyers knew it. +He appears to be having second thoughts now about he +3 +could have negotiated this way or he could have negotiated that +4 +way with the U.S. Attorney's Office. And they want to impose +5 +their second thoughts on the innocent plaintiffs. We don't +6 +think that's fair. We think it's in the nature of invited +7 +error, if there was any error whatsoever. +8 +9 +Thank you. +THE COURT: You agree he should be able to take the +10 +ordinary steps that a defendant in a civil action can take and +11 not be concerned about having to be prosecuted? +12 +MR. WILLITS: Of course. And we say the same thing +13 +Mr. Josefsberg said. It's all subject to your rulings and the +14 +direction of this Court as to what is proper and what is not +15฿ +proper. And we're prepared to abide by the rulings of this +16 +Court, and we have no intention of running to the State's +17 Attorney. +18 +19 +20 +THE COURT: The U.S. Attorney? +MR. WILLITS: I'm sorry. The U.S. Attorney. +THE COURT: MI. +1. +21 +MR. +: Thank you, Your Honor. +22 +If I may briefly, I think perhaps defense counsel +23 +forgot about this, but on pages 17 and 19 of my memorandum of +24 law in opposition to the motion to dismiss, I did make +25 reference to the non-prosecution agreement, and I did say that + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 322-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 4 of38 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +it, it doesn't relate to our clients. +THE COURT: Okay. But, again, you're in agreement +with everyone else so far that's spoken on behalf of a +plaintiff that defending the case in the normal course of +conducting discovery and filing motions would not be a breach? +MR. HOROWITZ: Subject to your rulings, of course, +yes. +8 +THE COURT: Thank you. +9 +Anyone else have anything to say from the plaintiffs? +10 +Ms. Villafana, if you would be so kind as to maybe +11 +help us out. I appreciate the fact that you're here, and I +12| know you're not a party to these cases and under no obligation +13 +to respond to my inquiries. But as I indicated, it would be +14| +helpful for me to understand the Government's position. +15 +MS. VILLAFANA: Thank you, Your Honor. And we, of +16 +course, are always happy to try to help the Court as much as +17 +possible. But we are not a party to any of these lawsuits, and +18| in some ways we are at a disadvantage because we don't have +19 access. My access is limited to what's on Pacer. So I don't" +20 +really know what positions Mr. Epstein may have taken either in +21 +correspondence or in discovery responses that aren't filed in +22 +the case file. +23 +But your first order was really just what do you think +24 +about a stay, and then the second order related to this hearing +25 +and asked a much more specific question, which is whether we + + +Case 9.08-cv-80119-KAM Document 322-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 5 of 5 +34 +1 +we had filed that response. And what we said in the response +2 +to the motion to stay is that the reason why he wants to stay +3 +the litigation is so that the non-prosecution agreement +- 4 +terminates based on a period of time, as he puts it. And then +5 +afterwards he would be able to come in here and make all of +6 +these arguments that clearly violate the non-prosecution +7 +agreement but we would be without remedy. +8 +THE COURT: But you're not taking the position that +9 +10 +other than possibly doing something in litigation which is a +violation of an express provision of the non-prosecution +11 +agreement, any other discovery, motion practice, investigations +12 +that someone would ordinarily do in the course of defending a +13 +civil case would constitute a violation of the agreement? +14 +MS. VILLAFANA: No, Your Honor. I mean, civil +15 +16 +litigation is civil litigation, and being able to take +discovery is part of what civil litigation is about. And while +17 +there may be, for example, if someone were to try to subpoena +18| the Government, we would obviously resist under statutory +19| reasons, all that sort of stuff. But, no, MI. Epstein is +entitled to take the deposition of a plaintiff and to subpoena +21 records, etc. +22 +THE COURT: And even if he seeks discovery from a +23 +Government agency, you have the right to resist it under the +24 +rules of procedure but that would not constitute a violation, +25 +again unless there's a provision in the prosecution agreement \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b90d0b7901a7bc3f92bc835a9cfcfe31f837a1275bed0ce422a9d56747dd59b1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b90d0b7901a7bc3f92bc835a9cfcfe31f837a1275bed0ce422a9d56747dd59b1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c62c21348f8389eb8860867bedf006e2da750211 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b90d0b7901a7bc3f92bc835a9cfcfe31f837a1275bed0ce422a9d56747dd59b1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -331, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b90d0b7901a7bc3f92bc835a9cfcfe31f837a1275bed0ce422a9d56747dd59b1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "16ff713df46b3398a0922c231ec716ca3d1f6576eefc2871cf5fceb54e8bc825", + "output_sha256": "28078df9291ccf892ec2fd042221d6630eed17b49d3f0c4658e225da1c0d5058", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b90f642ce5ade8885216cac0c9bf041ce75f92574130f8b96540847099cb3bbc.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b90f642ce5ade8885216cac0c9bf041ce75f92574130f8b96540847099cb3bbc.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b9ce72e23a728912fab25d771fce2cd00a039037 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b90f642ce5ade8885216cac0c9bf041ce75f92574130f8b96540847099cb3bbc.md @@ -0,0 +1,189 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 1 of 7 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA-L +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR +PROTECTIVE ORDER AGAINST PIECEMEAL DEPOSITIONS OF +JANE DOE NO.3, MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR PURPOSES +OF DISCOVERY, AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN +SUPPORT +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, serves his +Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order Against Piecemeal Depositions of Jane Doe +No.3, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum +of Law (hereinafter, the Motion"), with incorporated memorandum of law. In support, +Defendant states: +RESPONSE WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW AS TO +DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE. NO. 3 AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE +a. The Depositions +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 3, filed this federal lawsuit against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. In +other separate matters, Plaintiffs, Jane Does, Nos. 2, 4-7, filed their own separate lawsuits against +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. Plaintiff's counsel represents all Jane Does in cases Jane Doe Nos. 2 +through 7 before this court. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 2 of 7 +Page 2 +Plaintiff, Jane Doe. No. 3, served answers to interrogatories wherein she lists certain +witness that may have knowledge regarding the facts and allegations alleged in her complaint +including, but not limited to, Jane Doe No. 2. See Exhibit "A", Answer to Interrogatories, No. +5, in redacted form. An unredacted copy of the responses will be provided to the court upon the +court's request and/or in camera. In particular, the response to interrogatory number 5 states that +Jane Doe numbers 2 and 3 accompanied each other to Defendant's estate. Plaintiff admits this +much in her Motion. Defendant seeks to take the deposition of Jane Doe. No. 3 as a witness in +that matter (or any other matter she has knowledge of) and as a party in her own case, which she +is an unidentified Plaintiff traveling under Jane Doe. No. 3. +In an attempt to resolve this matter by letter correspondence, Defendant agreed and +offered only to take the deposition of Jane Doe. No. 3 as a witness in all Jane Doe 2-7 cases only +one time and separately one time as a Party Plaintiff in this matter in which Jane Doe No. 3 filed +against Jeffrey Epstein. While this is a reasonable compromise in that Defendant has agreed not +to take her deposition three (3) times as Plaintiff suspected, Plaintiff's counsel refused to agree. +Plaintiff cannot file a lawsuit and then expect this court to protect her from being deposed as a +party for the time period proscribed under the federal rules while at the same time asking this +court to limit or prevent her deposition testimony as a witness in the instant matter or other Jane +Doe matters where she has been identified as a witness. +It is well settled that a Defendant may take the deposition of a party and/or a witness +before trial. Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ. P., Rule 30, Fed.R. Civ.,P. and Leve v. General Motors Corp., +43 F.R.D. 508 (S.D.N.Y. 2967). Jane Doe. Nos. 2-7 commenced separate civil actions upon the +filing of same against Jeffrey Epstein. Therefore, Defendant is entitled to depose Jane Doe Nos. +2 - 7 in their own cases at least one time for the proscribed time periods and then as a witness in + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 3 of 7 +Page 3 +the instant matter or any matter they have knowledge of as reflected in the interrogatory +responses or the pleadings. Therefore, Defendant has a right to depose each party-plaintiff +separately and then as a witness at least once. Deposing Jane Doe No. 3 as a witness in the +companion matters is necessary as that deposition will be tailored toward facts known by Jane +Doe. No. 3 as those facts pertain to Jane Doe. Nos. 2, 4-7 claims in their complaints as opposed +to the facts alleged by Jane Doe. No. 3 in this individual action. +Plaintiff's attorneys claim that sitting for more than one deposition will be traumatizing +does not modify the rules and/or the law with regard to the right to take party and witness +depositions. Plaintiff offers no expert medical or psychological support, by an affidavit of an +expert or the Plaintiff herself, to support her position. In almost all instances, none of the +Plaintiff's sought or received any psychological counseling until the concept of a lawsuit and +money was introduced. A party may, by oral questions take the deposition of any person, +without leave of court. Rule 30, Fed.R. Civ.,P. Conducting these depositions separately will +allow for the proper preparation as to each deponent's knowledge as that knowledge pertains to +the specific case at hand (i.e., whether the deponent is a witness and/or a party plaintiff). Again, +Defendant is willing to conduct one (1) deposition in connection with each matter before this +court wherein a party to one matter is listed as a "witness" in another. That is, if Jane Doe No. 3 +has knowledge as a witness to one or more matters, one "witness" deposition will be held. +However, Defendant is also permitted to separately take a party-plaintiff deposition of any partyplaintiff that happens to be a witness of and/or have knowledge of any other party-plaintiff's +deposition. As such, only two depositions will occur. +There is no legal basis supporting Plaintiff's proposition that Defendant not be allowed to +take the deposition of Jane Doe. No. 3 as a witness in the other matters and as a party-plaintiff in + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 4 of 7 +Page 4 +Jane Doe. No.3's separately filed action. In fact, Plaintiff's theory flies in the face of the Federal +Rules. +Despite Plaintiff's contention, Defendant is not attempting to depose or call a witness +for a second deposition without leave of court. Quite the opposite, Plaintiff is simply doing what +the rules allow for - the taking of a deposition of a party and a witness. +b. Consolidation For Discovery Is Not Practical +Next, if this case is consolidated for discovery purposes and depositions are limited only +to one (I) deposition for a party plaintiff and for a witness that happens to be a party plaintiff in +another matter, then confusion will result and motions in limine will undoubtedly be filed at a +later date preventing the use of certain testimony at particular hearings and ultimately at trial. +Further, since there remain separate party-plaintiffs, admissions or answers to discovery by one +party, arguably, cannot be used by the Defendant in a consolidated discovery matter against +another party-plaintiff. As such, consolidation in the instant matter is not warranted in that not +all common issues of fact are present and the parties are not identical. Kelly v. Kelly, 911 +F.Supp. 66 (N.D. NY 1996)(consolidation refused because it would only serve purpose of +convenience of some witnesses, actions did not share all witnesses and parties were not +identical); Borough of Olyphant v. PPL Corporation et al., 153 Fed.Appx. 80, 2005 WL 2673489 +(C.A.3 (P.A.));L +• Motor Credit Company v. Chiorazzo, 529 F.Supp.2d 535 (D. N.J. 2008). +Under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 42, the decision to consolidate cases for discovery +is not mandatory but that decision remains within the sound discretion of the court. In this +instance, various Jane Does seek to consolidate the cases for discovery purposes. Very clearly, +the facts and circumstances, as pled and as is reflected in answers to interrogatories, are different +for each individual, i.e. the dates, the ages, the events, their experiences, witnesses, medical +and/or psychological treatment, etc. Each of the Plaintiffs alleged incident history and post + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 5 of 7 +Page 5 +incident history and background is unique to those individuals. While the Jane Doe Plaintiffs +may wish to serve a "standard" set of interrogatories, request for production, or any other type of +discovery, the Defendant's discovery to the individual Plaintiffs, and certainly their responses, is +unique to that individual. There will be multiple instances where the discovery is applicable only +to a specific Jane Doe and not all, such as, physicians, psychologists, parents, siblings, friends, +employers, teachers, individuals with whom the Plaintiff has had relationships - many of these +depositions will go to damage related issues wherein the Plaintiffs seek millions of dollars in the +form of compensation. +There are some instances where the deposition of a particular individual may be +applicable to all cases, and defense counsel will suggest, as he did in correspondence directed to +Plaintiff's counsel that that particular deposition be used in all cases. However, in a vast +majority of the instances where discovery, deposition and/or paper discovery is being utilized, +including subpoena which will be sent to many different sources for each of the six Jane Does, +consolidation serves no purpose. +Even if this court consolidated the matters requested by Plaintiff, the undersigned would +still be entitled to additional time to depose any party-plaintiff that is also listed or who has +knowledge of any aspect of any other party-plaintiff's claim against Jeffrey Epstein. In addition, +this Court has before it each of the cases filed by certain Plaintiffs against Jeffrey Epstein. +Therefore, there is no chance of "conflicting results" as to rulings made by the same court and +the same judge. As such, no true need exists for consolidation. Under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 42, +consolidation for discovery is not required, but remains within the sound discretion of the court. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 6 of 7 +Page 6 +I. Conclusion +In sum, if Jane Doe No. 3 has knowledge as a witness to one or more matters, one +"witness" deposition will be held as to her witness knowledge. However, Defendant is also +permitted to separately take Jane Doe. No. 3's deposition as a party-plaintiff. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court deny the Motion, enter an order +allowing for the relief requested herein and for such other relet as this court deems just and +proper. +By: +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +lay on all counsel c +MECE on this A day die ted on die following Service List in the manner specified by +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #3 +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Có-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 7 of 7 +Page 7 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +Ale +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b90f642ce5ade8885216cac0c9bf041ce75f92574130f8b96540847099cb3bbc.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b90f642ce5ade8885216cac0c9bf041ce75f92574130f8b96540847099cb3bbc.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4172d72d1acd1e828bcbdf0e62258a9c87dd0199 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b90f642ce5ade8885216cac0c9bf041ce75f92574130f8b96540847099cb3bbc.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -86, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b90f642ce5ade8885216cac0c9bf041ce75f92574130f8b96540847099cb3bbc", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4841988c8a12fc721b3ffc705a484dab7443fa2f7d15f4da56597ccf343af128", + "output_sha256": "b99d6145119154063ec8dd7c36521a0a6854a103ba9004f74edf1a92be0bf8b3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b93ce7cdf43eb9551ceb6096688ae567ca8740e0d92b16be7109aa642e8b009b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b93ce7cdf43eb9551ceb6096688ae567ca8740e0d92b16be7109aa642e8b009b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dd9b6fc1b991ce9c8454b3fb4b1712696f1e282a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b93ce7cdf43eb9551ceb6096688ae567ca8740e0d92b16be7109aa642e8b009b.md @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 59-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 2 +34 +IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM +BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 502008CA025129XXXXMB AI +A.C., +V. +Plaintift, +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and +Defendants. +ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO +FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO PLAINTIFF AND TO OVERRULE +PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS, & FOR DEFENDANT'S EXPENSES, +INCLUDING ATTORNEYS' FEES +THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion To +Compel Responses To First Request To Produce To Plaintiff And To Overrule +Plaintiff's Objections, & For Defendant's Expenses, Including Attorneys' Fees +and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being fully advised in these +premises, it is hereby +ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion is hereby granted/ +denieda +to +# 17 + 7/18 +→ and desced +as to #22 as phrased. +Responses to +be fter semed w/in 10 dap. +DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach County Courthouse, West Palm +Beach, Florida, this 23 day of _ +FUB +< 200€ +Edward A. +Garrison +Circuit Judge +Copies furnished: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ., and MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESO. 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, +FL 33401; JACK SCAROLA, ESQ., AND JACK P. +ESQ., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & +Shipley, P.A., 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409, and JACK A. +Austrian ReSus a Fis, PA, One Clearake Centre, Suite 1400, 250%, +Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +EXHIBIT" B +COVERNEDI +2/23/094 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 59-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 2 +35 +A.C., +IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM +BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 502008CA025129XXXXMB Al +Plaintiff +V. +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and +Defendants. +ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO +INTERROGATORIES AND TO OVERRULE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS, & FOR +DEFENDANT'S EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEYS' FEES +THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion To +Compel Answers To Interrogatories And To Overrule Plaintiff's Objections, & For +Defendant's Expenses, Including Attorneys' Fees, and the Court having heard +argument of counsel and being fully advised in these premises, it is hereby +ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion is hereby granted/ +denled +as to #5, 12$18, denied as +to #2. +Responses to be soned win +10 dap. +DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach County Courthouse, West Palm +Beach, Florida, this 23 day of . +Edward A. Garrison +Circuit Judge +Copies furnished: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESO., and MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESO, 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, +, ESQ., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & +TENG, DE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b93ce7cdf43eb9551ceb6096688ae567ca8740e0d92b16be7109aa642e8b009b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b93ce7cdf43eb9551ceb6096688ae567ca8740e0d92b16be7109aa642e8b009b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f3a69873a15b480a60929da541487768808ad734 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b93ce7cdf43eb9551ceb6096688ae567ca8740e0d92b16be7109aa642e8b009b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b93ce7cdf43eb9551ceb6096688ae567ca8740e0d92b16be7109aa642e8b009b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "947582d1d2a5ee6876b7dff8cf4921487ff073d71442acc7657b3e8913096710", + "output_sha256": "f675612594e6f0511d62eb58afb91bf46bd9044883771203c813008d966e1bf3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b93f0ca0b781bba65079e04fb7e7c861d1e8dea0aa1cfb64e1a2feef7827ced4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b93f0ca0b781bba65079e04fb7e7c861d1e8dea0aa1cfb64e1a2feef7827ced4.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bb709d6ab76ad62bc46eab1908a334a37b4542f6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b93f0ca0b781bba65079e04fb7e7c861d1e8dea0aa1cfb64e1a2feef7827ced4.md @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 76 +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +troutman.com +Filed 06/19/20 Page 1 of 2 +troutman™ +sanders +Bennet J. Moskowitz +D: 212-704-6000 +bennet.moskowitz(@troutman.com +June 19, 2020 +VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING +Hon. Debra C. Freeman +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl Street +New York, New York 10007 +Re: +Jane Doe, 1:19-cV-8673 (KPF) (DCF) +Dear Judge Freeman: +We write on behalf of both parties in the above-referenced action pursuant to the Court's +Order dated June 15, 2020 (ECF No. 73). The parties have conferred and agreed on the +following discovery schedule, without prejudice to their respective rights to object to or seek any +and all discovery. +Substantial completion of document production: +• July 3, 2020 +• Proposed depositions to take place on the following dates: +June 30, 2020 +July 2, 2020 +July 7, 2020 +July 9, 2020 +July 13, 2020 +July 15, 2020 +July 17, 2020 +July 20, 2020 +July 22, 2020 +• July 23, 2020 +• July 27, 2020 +• Plaintiff's Rule 35 examination to take place: +• July 24, 2020 +42545161v2 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 76 +Filed 06/19/20 Page 2 of 2 +June 19, 2020 +Page 2 +troutman™ +sanders +Respectfully submitted, +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) +42545161v2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b93f0ca0b781bba65079e04fb7e7c861d1e8dea0aa1cfb64e1a2feef7827ced4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b93f0ca0b781bba65079e04fb7e7c861d1e8dea0aa1cfb64e1a2feef7827ced4.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f19bc4cdacc223e4e11380448f86089c7a7b86f4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b93f0ca0b781bba65079e04fb7e7c861d1e8dea0aa1cfb64e1a2feef7827ced4.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b93f0ca0b781bba65079e04fb7e7c861d1e8dea0aa1cfb64e1a2feef7827ced4", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2b248940f52d6cafc8ceb22609f971e53501eb7c351b81a00300e64f1f7263ed", + "output_sha256": "434fe1087c6b911236e9771b3b7244a60bd7ea12ec504af23f702d9a9324f431", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b972230772d7fdb6dad57dca548602d1a0fd9d1cc295d60cf5c2bfaba281c9c1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b972230772d7fdb6dad57dca548602d1a0fd9d1cc295d60cf5c2bfaba281c9c1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c922d4b6f5b6f0e208e679880d60c29780c3e0a7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b972230772d7fdb6dad57dca548602d1a0fd9d1cc295d60cf5c2bfaba281c9c1.md @@ -0,0 +1,749 @@ +Case908-88808999RAMAMD@urent 9146-1EnteredarFLSD0k9133A122989 Page 191 ½a +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/H1 +C.M. A., +V. +Plaintiff, +Defendants, +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Motion To Stay And Or Continue Action For Time Certain Based On +Parallel Civil And Criminal Proceedings With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN") by and through his +undersigned attorneys, hereby moves this Court for the entry of an order staying or continuing +this action for a time certain (i.e., until late 2010 when the NPA expires), pursuant to the +application of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the fact that a parallel +proceeding is ongoing and being investigated. In support of his motion, EPSTEIN states: +I. +Introduction +At the outset, EPSTEIN notes this Court's prior Order, dated December 16, 2008, +(Document 28), in which this Court denied a motion for stay brought by Defendant's prior +counsel. In that instance, Defendant's counsel requested a mandatory stay under 18 U.S.C.A. +§3509(k) which the court denied. In denying the request for the stay, this Court stated that a +discretionary stay was not appropriate at the time the order was entered but also stated, in part, +that "Any such issues shall be resolved as they arise in the course of litigation.". As discussed +herein, "special circumstances" now exist which, in the "interests of justice," merit the entry of a +stay of this civil action until the criminal matter in the 15th Judicial Circuit is "closed" in + + +Cas8@108:08808909EAMAMD@0umen$148-1Entere@F4SBD9k919331122089 Rage28124 +Page 2 +accordance with the United States Attorney's Office ("USAO") Non-Prosecution Agreement +("NPA") and until the NPA expires. +Moreover, EPSTEIN was indicted by a grand jury in or around July 2006. See Exhibit +"A". The Non-Prosecution Agreement is part of the record in connection with that indictment, +which is signed by the State Attorney of the 15" Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, +Florida ("SAO"). In fact, the NPA acknowledges the investigation performed by the SAO. +Further, the USAO was present at the Plea hearing whereby the NPA was made part of the +record. Thus, there is no question that a parallel criminal matter exists in that the SAO's case +remains open and the NPA lives along side it, which places EPSTEIN under great scrutiny by the +USAO. The NPA actually places an affirmative duty upon EPSTEIN to undertake discussions +with the SAO to ensure compliance with the NPA. That check and balance, therefore, remains in +the hands of the SAO, which has a parallel criminal proceeding. Here, the threat of prosecution +is real, substantial, and present should the USAO determine that EPSTEIN somehow violated the +NPA. As discussed below, because the NPA fails to define what constitutes a breach, the USAO +has apparently taken it upon itself to determine whether a breach has occurred and whether to +seek criminal prosecution. In fact, the USAO has already attempted to claim violations of the +NPA due to, among other things, EPSTEIN defending the civil actions against him. Clearly, it is +NOT simply EPSTEIN's choice as to whether he violates the NPA - that discretion apparently +lies with the USAO. For this reason alone, a stay is required until the NPA expires. +The difference between this Motion and the prior motion to stay is solely due to the +ripeness of the issues discussed herein. +2 + + +Cas@a9:08:08-80809KAMAMD@aumentr546-1Emtered@nF4SBD0k9t@33422099 Bage 3 0f 27 +Page 3 +II. +THE NPA +By its terms, the NPA took effect on June 30, 2008 and expires by those same terms in +late 2010 so long as EPSTEIN complies with the terms and conditions - violations of which +remain undefined. The NPA, which remains under seal, outlines various obligations on the part +of EPSTEIN including, but not limited to, pleading guilty to the Indictment and Information +before the 15" Judicial Circuit, recommendations for his sentencing before the 15"* Judicial +Circuit, waiver of challenges to the Information filed by the SAO, waiver of right to appeal his +conviction, agreement not be afforded benefits for gain time, and the agreement to not prosecute +others listed thereon so long as EPSTEIN does not breach and fulfills the requirements of the +NPA. +What the NPA does not outline or define is what constitutes a breach or what act or +omission constitutes a breach thereof. Therefore, the USAO apparently believes it has the +discretion to make that unwritten and undefined determination, which places an unreasonable +burden upon EPSTEIN in defending the civil claims in that he has no idea what the USAO will +define as a breach in the event he does not assert his 5t* Amendment Rights. As an example, the +USAO has already claimed that EPSTEIN violated the NPA by: +1. +investigating the Plaintiffs (by and though his attorneys) whom brought civil suits +against him for purposes of defending those civil actions; +contesting damages in this action and in the other civil actions; +making statements to the press about this Plaintiff or other Plaintiffs by and +though his attorneys; and +3 + + +Case 8:08:08-808309KAMAMD@oument 5146-1EmteredanFESS Dockete 3/84/20009 Page 4 of 15l +Page 4 +4. +using the word "jail" instead of "imprisonment" in the plea agreement with SA's +office. +See Exhibit "B" Goldberger Affidavit - EPSTEIN's criminal counsel. +These allegations are silly, unfounded and alleged violations which are not defined as +violations under the NPA but arrived at by the USAO. Thus, EPSTEIN is left with "Morton's +Fork" in his side - the undesirable choice of taking the 5th Amendment and having a judgment +(summary or otherwise) entered against him in the civil action or the undesirable choice of +subjecting himself to discovery in the civil action before the NPA expires and, thus, face the +possibility of criminal prosecution by the USAO based upon some illusory breach deemed by the +USAO by way of information obtained through civil discovery proceedings. This is inherently +unfair, the danger is clear, and the playing field is not level in light of the NPA language or lack +thereof. +As a result, the threat of criminal prosecution against EPSTEIN by the USAO continues +presently and through late 2010. +III. Justice Requires The Entry of A Stay Because Defendant Is Being +Forced To Choose Between Waiving His 5'h +Amendment Privilege Or Risk +Losing This Civil Case And Forfeiting Other Constitutional Guarantees Of +Due Process And Effective Assistance Of Counsel +Once the NPA expires, EPSTEIN fully intends to testify to all relevant and nonobjectionable inquiries made to him in discovery be it a deposition, in interrogatories or in +production requests. (Emphasis Added) However, the current circumstances are such that by +testifying or responding to discovery, EPSTEIN will be required to waive his constitutional +privileges, thereby subjecting himself to criminal prosecution and scrutiny by the USAO as a +4 + + +Page 5 +result of matters alleged in this civil action (and others before this Court and in the State of +Florida 15'" Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach County). +The special circumstances of this action are such that a stay or continuance for a time +certain is NOT prejudicial and is required to be entered so that: +(1) EPSTEIN is not required to waive his Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination under the United States Constitution resulting in severe prejudice to EPSTEIN in +pending criminal matters; and +(2) EPSTEIN is not forced to choose between waiving his Fifth Amendment right against +self-incrimination or losing the civil case. +Here, in asserting his Fifth Amendment Privilege, the Plaintiff is afforded an opportunity +rarely given - that is, to put on only her evidence without any counterevidence from Defendant +resulting in a judgment of liability against EPSTEIN. This is inherently unfair and precisely the +special circumstances where "in the interests of justice" a stay is required. Ventura v. Brosky, +2006 WL 3392207 (S.D. Fla. 2006), citing, United States v. Lot 5, Fox Grove, 23 F.3d 359 (11"h +Cir. 1994). In Ventura, a stay was entered where a Defendant was confronted with issue of +waiving his 5t Amendment Privilege or to loose a civil case by way of motion for summary +judgment. Id. Here, EPSTEIN is not requesting a mandatory stay. EPSTEIN only asks that this +court recognize that "special circumstances" exists in this matter and enter a stay in the "interests +of justice" and only for a specified period of time (i.e., after the NPA expires). See also +Securities and Exchange Commission, 755 F.Supp. 1018, 1019 (S.D. Fla. 1990) (Defendant was +in precarious position while being subject to criminal investigation and reasoning that +compelling Defendant to speak by ordering an accounting of alleged illicit funds would directly +5 + + +Case.9:08-08-808bbKAMAM Document $40-1 Enleme00FESDDDckRŁ0334/22099 Page 6 of 25 +Page 6 +impinge his right against self-incrimination). The court found it appropriate to grant the request +for stay. (Emphasis Added). +Citing to U.S. v. Lot 5, Fox Grove, supra, the Southern District Court, Florida, in +Ventura v. Brosky, 2006 WL 3392207 (S.D. Fla. 2006), stated - +The Eleventh Circuit has also created a test for these circumstances, stating that +where there exists a concurrent civil and criminal proceeding, a court must stay +a civil proceeding pending resolution of a related criminal prosecution when +"special circumstances" so require in the "interests of justice." +(Bold emphasis added). See also United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 & n. 27, 90 S.Ct. 763, +769-70 & n.27 (1970). The Ventura Court went on to state that "situations where a defendant in +both criminal and civil proceedings must choose whether to waive his privilege against selfincrimination or to lose the civil case in summary or default judgment proceedings have met this +test's burden and warrant a stay." Id. The Ventura court granted the stay. Here, the 15t* Judicial +Circuit action lives along with the NPA. +In making a decision to enter such a stay, the court may consider the following factors: +(I) the interests of the Plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with litigation, or any +aspect of it, and the potential prejudice of Plaintiff to the delay; +(2) +the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on the +defendant; +(3) +of judicial resources; +(4) +(5) +the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use +the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and +the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation. +6 + + +Page 7 +See U.S. v. Pinnacle Quest International, 2008 WL 4274498 (N.D. Fla. 2008). +First, in applying the above factors, the Plaintiff in the instant matter will not be +prejudiced simply by claiming a delay in time. Second, the burden is far greater on the +EPSTEIN if he is forced to waive his 5" Amendment Privilege or remain silent and have a +judgment entered against him or choose to testify and face criminal prosecution. Third, efficient +use of judicial resources would be rendered upon a stay by way of preventing an appeal if such a +stay is not entered. The Court has broad discretion to enter such a stay. Fourth, the interests of +the individuals outlined in the NPA will be served because EPSTEIN's fulfillment of NPA +alleged obligations is determinative upon whether the USAO prosecutes those individuals or +whether the claims will be dropped upon the expiration of the NPA. Finally, the interest of the +public in the pending civil and criminal cases will not be prejudiced as EPSTEIN is already +serving his term whereby a plea was entered in the 15 Judicial Circuit action. +a. +Application of the 5"h Amendment +Next, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination "permits a person not to +answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or +informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. +Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11" Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.C. +316, 322 (1973). See also Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 21, 121 S.Ct. 1252 (2001)(The Fifth +Amendment privilege is also available to those who claim innocence. One of the Fifth +Amendment's "basic functions ... is to protect innocent men ... 'who otherwise might be +ensnared by ambiguous circumstances."); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the +Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process +7 + + +Cas@a9:08:08-80809KAMAMD@aumentr#40-1Emtered@0F4S8D0eket@33422099 Bage 8 0f 27 +Page 8 +Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards +determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending +on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441, +444-45, 92 S.Ct. 1653 (1972)(The Fifth Amendment privilege "can be asserted in any +proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory; and it +protects against any disclosures which the witness reasonably believes could be used in a +criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used. This Court has been +zealous to safeguard the values which underlie the privilege." (Emphasis added)). +The United States Supreme Court made it clear that the scope of the Fifth Amendment +Privilege includes the circumstances as here "the act of producing documents in response to a +subpoena (or production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, +530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 +(1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, +§138 (6" Ed.). The privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted during discovery when a +litigant has "reasonable grounds to believe that the response would furnish a link in the chain of +evidence needed to prove a crime against a litigant." A witness, including a civil defendant, is +entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege whenever there is a realistic possibility that the +answer to a question could be used in anyway to convict the witness of a crime or could aid in +the development of other incriminating evidence that can be used at trial. Id; Pillsbury Company +v. Conboy, 495 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608 (1983). +Certainly, if the USAO decides to prosecute EPSTEIN for an alleged violation of the +NPA, it would undoubtedly be able to use information obtained during discovery against him or +8 + + +Casa9:09:08-8080bKAМAм Document $ 46-1 EmteredønıFLSDDDckRt0324/80099 Page 9 of 25 +Page 9 +use that information to aid in the development of other evidence against him at a criminal trial. +The USAO is already claiming violations of the NPA based upon EPSTEIN defending the civil +actions and, at the same time, while EPSTEIN asserts the s" Amendment. Imagine, because that +is all we can do based on the lack of wording in the NPA, what violations the USAO will assert +if EPSTEIN is forced to waive his 5" Amendment privilege to defend himself in this and the +other civil actions. +The Fifth Amendment provides, in relevant part, that "No person ... shall be compelled +in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself." Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, +486, 71 S.Ct. 814 (1951), citing +_v. United States, 1944, 322 U.S. 487, 489, 64 S.Ct. +1082, 1083, 88 L.Ed. 1408." The Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination is +"accorded liberal construction in favor of the right it was intended to secure." 'The immediate +and potential evils of compulsory self-disclosure transcend any difficulties that the exercise of +the privilege may impose on society in the detection and prosecution of a crime." Id., at 490; +and In re +Financial Svcs. of Fla., Inc., 259 B.R. 391, 399 (M.D. Fla. 2000). The privilege +not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a criminal +statute but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed +to prosecute the claimant for a crime. Id, citing Blau v. United States, 1950, 340 U.S. 159, 71 +S.Ct. 223. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination "permits a person not to +answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or +informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. +Price, 778 F.2d at 669, citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.C. 316, 322 (1973). As +EPSTEIN is here, "the claimant must be 'confronted by substantial and 'real,' and not merely +9 + + +Case 08008088095AMANDamen₺5146-1EntendenLLDakek030841200909 Ragge 10095f154 +Page 10 +trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination.'"' See generally, United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 +U.S. 115, 128, 100 S.Ct. 948, 956, 63 L.Ed.2d 250 (1980)). See also, United States v. Neff, 615 +F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 925, 100 S.Ct. 3018, 65 L.Ed.2d 1117 +(1980)(Information is protected by the privilege not only if it would support a criminal +conviction, but even if "the responses would merely "provide a lead or clue' to evidence having a +tendency to incriminate."). EPSTEIN falls under each of the above category of cases. +The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the scope of the Fifth Amendment +Privilege also encompasses the circumstance where "the act of producing documents in response +to a subpoena (or production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States. V. +Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. +391 (1976). In explaining the application of the privilege, the Supreme Court stated: +We have held that "the act of production" itself may implicitly communicate +"statements of fact." By "producing documents in compliance with a subpoena, +the witness would admit that the papers existed, were in his possession or control, +and were authentic." Moreover, as was true in this case, when the custodian of +documents responds to a subpoena, he may be compelled to take the witness stand +and answer questions designed to determine whether he has produced everything +demanded by the subpoena. The answers to those questions, as well as the act of +production itself, may certainly communicate information about the existence, +custody, and authenticity of the documents. Whether the constitutional privilege +protects the answers to such questions, or protects the act of production itself, is a +question that is distinct from the question whether the unprotected contents of the +documents themselves are incriminating. +"The issue presented in those cases was whether the act of producing subpoenaed +documents, not itself the making of a statement, might nonetheless have some +rotected testimonial aspects. The Court concluded that the act of production coul +onstitute protected testimonial communication because it might entail implici +statements of fact: by producing documents in compliance with a subpoena, the +witness would admit that the papers existed, were in his possession or control, and +were authentic. United States v. Doe, 465 U.S., at 613, and n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1237; +Fisher, 425 U.S., at 409-410, 96 S.Ct. 1569; id. at 428, 432, 96 S.Ct. 1569 +10 + + +Case9:08:08-808008AMAMDrumentrAd-1Enered 00 FL SB Docket0334/22099 Page 11 07 25 +Page 11 +(concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States, [487 U.S..] at 104, 108 S.Ct. +2284; [id.] at 122, 108 S.Ct. 2284 (dissenting opinion). Thus, the Court made +clear that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies to acts +that imply assertions of fact." +... An examination of the Court's application of these +principles in other cases indicates the Court's recognition that, in order to be +testimonial, an accused's communication must itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate +a factual assertion or disclose information. Only then is a person compelled to be a +'witness' against himself." Doe v. United States, 487 U.S., at 209-210, 108 S.Ct. +2341 (footnote omitted). +Finally, the phrase "in any criminal case" in the text of the Fifth Amendment might +have been read to limit its coverage to compelled testimony that is used against the +defendant in the trial itself. It has, however, long been settled that its protection +encompasses compelled statements that lead to the discovery of incriminating +evidence even though the statements themselves are not incriminating and are not +introduced into evidence. Thus, a half century ago we held that a trial judge had +erroneously rejected a defendant's claim of privilege on the ground that his answer +to the pending question would not itself constitute evidence of the charged offense. +As we explained: +"The privilege afforded not only extends to answers that would in themselves +support a conviction under a federal criminal statute but likewise embraces those +which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the +claimant for a federal crime." Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 +S.Ct. 814, 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951). +Compelled testimony that communicates information that may "lead to +incriminating evidence" is privileged even if the information itself is not +inculpatory. Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 208, n. 6, 108 S.Ct. 2341, 101 +L.Ed.2d 184 (1988) It's the Fifth Amendment's protection against the +prosecutor's use of incriminating information derived directly or indirectly from +the compelled testimony of the respondent that is of primary relevance in this case. +The privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted during discovery when a litigant +has "reasonable grounds to believe that the response would furnish a link in the chain of +evidence needed to prove a crime against a litigant." A witness, including a civil defendant, is +entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege whenever there is a realistic possibility that the +answer to a question could be used in anyway to convict the witness of a crime or could aid in +11 + + +Casa9:08.08-8080bKAMAM Document 546-1 Eatereddo FESDIDDoket 00624/20009 Page 12 of 26 +Page 12 +the development of other incriminating evidence that can be used at trial. Id; Pillsbury Company +y. Conboy, 495 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608 (1983). See also, Hubbell, supra, as to what is +encompassed by the phrase "in any criminal case" contained in the Fifth Amendment. +As noted, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is broad. Hoffman; +In re ! ||| Financial Svcs., supra. To deny a witness the right to invoke the privilege, the judge +must be perfectly clear, from a careful consideration of all the circumstances in the case, that the +witness is mistaken, and that the answers cannot possibly have such tendency to incriminate. Id +at 488, 399. Recognizing the breadth and magnitude of this constitutional privilege, the United +States Supreme Court in discussing how a court is to analyze the application of the privilege +stated - +... It is for the court to say whether his silence is justified, Rogers v. United States, +1951, 340 U.S. 367, 71 S.Ct. 438, and to require him to answer if 'it clearly appears +to the court that he is mistaken.? Temple v. Commonwealth, 1880, 75 Va. 892, 899. +However, if the witness, upon interposing his claim, were required to prove the +hazard in the sense in which a claim is usually required to be established in court, he +would be compelled to surrender the very protection which the privilege is designed +to guarantee. To sustain the privilege, it need only be evident from the implications +of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the +question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because +injurious disclosure could result. The trial judge in appraising the claim "must be +governed as much by his personal perception of the peculiarities of the case as by the +facts actually in evidence? +Hoffman, supra at 486-487. +Hoffman and its progeny establish that "in view of the liberal construction of the +provision [protecting against self-incrimination], after a witness has asserted the privilege, he +should be compelled to provide the requested information only if it "clearly appears" to the court +12 + + +Caseai08:08808109/AMAMD@voment 5146-1Enteredean F4SD Dokat&3/BA/20009 Pagee 130ff 151 +Page 13 +that the witness was mistaken in his invocation of the privilege." (Emphasis added). In re +Financial Svcs., supra at 399, citing Hoffman, at 486. +In the instant case, the privilege applies as Defendant EPSTEIN "has reasonable cause to +apprehend danger from a direct answer." The risk of incrimination resulting from being subject +to discovery or to testify in his own defense while the NPA exists is "substantial and real" and +"not trifling or imaginary haphazards of communication." See generally, In re ] +Financial +Svcs., supra at 400. Based on the nature of Plaintiff's claims, along with the ongoing scrutiny +of the USAO in the criminal matters, EPSTEIN has "reasonable grounds to believe that his +responses to the discovery would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prove a crime +against him. Finally, in order to preserve the privilege, the privilege must be asserted or one +risks the loss or waiver of this liberty ensuring protection. See generally, U.S. v. +846 +F.2d 678, 690 (11" Cir. 1988)("First, it ignores the settled principle which requires a witness to +assert his Fifth Amendment rights. A witness who testifies at any proceeding, instead of asserting +his Fifth Amendment rights, loses the privilege. ... A civil deponent cannot choose to answer +questions with the expectation of later asserting the Fifth Amendment."). +Also applicable in upholding the assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege is the +guarantee of effective assistance of counsel by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. +See Yarborough v. Gentry, 124 S.Ct. 1, 540 U.S. 1, 157 L.Ed.2d 1 (2003)(Sixth Amendment +guarantees criminal defendants effective assistance of counsel.), on remand 381 F.3d 1219. The +United States Constitutional guarantees are applicable to the states through the Fourteenth +Amendment. Obviously, EPSTEIN's assertion of his constitutional privileges and protections is +on the advice of counsel. Again, EPSTEIN continues to face criminal prosecution by the USAO +13 + + +Casea:08:00808109/AMAMD@ument 5146-1Enteredan F4S D@okate3/84/40009 Page 1410f151 +Page 14 +until the expiration of the NPA; under the constitutional guarantee of effective assistance of +counsel, he is entitled to follow the recommended advice of his criminal defense attorney. See +Goldberger Affidavit attached hereto. +EPSTEIN's invocation of his constitutional protections of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth +Amendments must be upheld for the reasons set forth herein; otherwise such constitutional +protections would be rendered meaningless. Already and recently, Defendant EPSTEIN in his +Response and Objections to discovery, attached hereto as Exhibit "C", has been required to +assert, on advice of counsel, his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, along +with his constitutional rights afforded under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United +States Constitution. Thus, EPSTEIN's entitlement to a stay is ripe for determination. +Based upon the foregoing, a stay is warranted in this action as the Defendant is being +forced to choose between the assertion of his Fifth Amendment right or losing this case by +judgment (summary or otherwise) or waiver of his 5'" Amendment right and face potential +criminal prosecution. +OBERT D. CRITTON, +lorida Bar No. 224162'19., ESC +rerit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +14 + + +Case 8:08:088083095AMAMD @omen 5146-1Enteredar FUSS Dookete 3/84 20099 Page 15 0f 151 +Page 15 +day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by +CM/ECF on this 24" day of March, 2009 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 10* Avenue North +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Jack P.. Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-202-6360 +561-686-6300 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +jsx@searcylaw.com +iph@searcylaw.com +Counse +Jefendant +Co-Counsel for Plaintiff +ROBERTS. CRITTON, +Florida Bar No. 224(62 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein) + + +• Casese 0808 80809 KAlAM Document 51621 EnterestionFitS Docket 03121/2009 Page 160ff 124 +INDICTMENT +A TRUE BILL 06-94.54 IF +IN THE NAME OF AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA S +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL +CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA +For Palm Beach County, at the Spring Term thereof, in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Six, to-wit: +The Grand Jurors of the State of Florida, inquiring in and for the body of said County of Palm Beach, upon their +oaths do present that JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN in the County of Palm Beach aforesaid, in the Circuit and State +aforesaid, +COUNT ONE +FELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION +on or about or between the 1st day of August in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Four and October 31, +2005, did solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution lewdness, or assignation, contrary to +Florida Statute 796.07(1) on three or more occasions between August 01, 2004 and October 31, 2005, +contrary to Florida Statute 796.07(2)(f) and (4)(c). (3 DEG FEL)(LEVEL 1) +against the form of the statute, to the evil example of all others, and against the peace and dignity of the State +of Florida. +I hereby certify that I have advised the Grand Jury returning this indictment as authorized and required by law. +• Assistant State Atforey of the +Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of the State +of Florida, prosecuting for the said +State +GRAND JURY FOREPERSON +JATE +leffrey E. Epstein, Race: +ЕНІВІТ"Д", +Sex: Male, DOB: January 20, 1953, SS#: 090-44-3348; Issue Warrant + + +, Cases#: 088Ve808199KA/AM Dooument 54631 EnterestionFuS Decket OAMROD Page170/124 +*. +AFFIDAVIT OF JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared +having personal knowledge and being duly sworn, deposes and says: +1. +1, Jack A. Goldberger, have personal knowledge of the matters set +forth herein. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida since +1978. I am a partner with the law firm of Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., +located at One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1400, 250 Australian Avenue South, West +Palm Beach, FL 33401. +2. +My practice includes and specializes in the defense of criminal +matters. I am board certified in criminal law. I have been and currently am the +criminal defense attorney for JEFFREY EPSTEIN. +I represented Mr. EPSTEIN in the negotiation of and entering into a +Non-Prosecution Agreement with the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for +the Federal Southern District of Florida. The terms and conditions of the Non- +Prosecution Agreement also entailed the entering of a Plea Agreement with the +State Attorney's Office, Palm Beach County, State of Florida. (The Non- +Prosecution Agreement shall hereinafter be referred to as the "NPA"). +4. +By its terms, the NPA took effect on June 30, 2008. Also, pursuant +to the terms of the NPA, any criminal prosecution against EPSTEIN is deferred +as long as the terms and conditions of the NPA are fulfilled by EPSTEIN. +EXHIBT "B" + + +Case 8:98g4808b9KA0AM Dacument5rt3 Entered om FISD Docket 03/24/2009 PRggel8 of 34 +The criminal matters against EPSTEIN remain ongoing until the +NPA expires by its terms in late 2010, and as long as the USAO determines +EPSTEIN has complied with those terms and conditions. The threat of criminal +prosecution against EPSTEIN by USAO in the Southern District of Florida +continues presently and through late 2010. +6. +Pursuant to the terms of the NPA, the USAO possesses the right to +declare that the agreement has been breached, give EPSTEIN's counsel notice, +and attempt to move forward with a prosecution. As of the date of this Affidavit, +the USAO has taken the position on a number of occasions that it might consider +the following actions by EPSTEIN to be a breach of the NPA. +• Investigation by EPSTEIN (by and through his attorneys) of this Plaintiff +and the other Plaintiffs in other pending civil cases for purposes of +defending the civil actions; +• EPSTEIN's contesting damages in this action and other civil actions. +• EPSTEIN or his legal representatives making statements to the press +about this Plaintiff or the other Plaintiffs. +• Using the word "jail" instead of "imprisonment" in the plea agreement with +the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office. +7. +EPSTEIN, through counsel, submitted a Freedom of Information +Act request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for documents relating to +this and the other cases; the FBI denied the request stating the materials are at +this time exempt from disclosure because they are in an investigative file, i.e. the +matter is still an ongoing criminal investigation. +Page - 2 - + + +•...Cases:080808099KALAM Document 51631 Enterestiom FUSD Daoket: OB/PAIROND 19013011324 +8. +The NPA expires in late 2010. +FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT, +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +I hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to +administer oaths +and take acknowledgments, +personally +appeared +Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire, known to me to be the person described in and who +executed the foregoing Affidavit, who acknowledged before me that he/she +executed the same, that! relled upon the following form of identification of the +_, and that an oath was/was +not taken. +this +MINE and and official anthe County and State last aforesaid +February +(SEAG) +NatE RoBin: Suare of Floris +LE Rosin +My Commission DD489790 +Expires 11/13/2009 +NAME: +NOTARY PUBLIC/STATE OF FLORIDA +COMMISSION NO.: DD 489790 +MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: +11/13/2009 +Page - 3 - + + +•Casess:0808v 808199KALAM Document 51641 Enterestion FILSD Daakes: 0862412000 Pagez0041524 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRAJ.| +C.M. A., +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN and +Defendants, +DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS +TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, +hereby responds to Plaintiff's First Request For Production To Defendant, served +January 8, 2009 and states: +Request No. 1: Any and all evidence required to be maintained by Epstein +and the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, specifically evidence +requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that have been issued in +connection with the investigation referenced in the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and +including certain computer equipment. +Response: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant +documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the +present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this + +C" +JEDE + + +Casese: 0896v 8080994A AM Document 54641 Enter 0#430200401032412009 PAge24024 +Page 2 +lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without +waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and +confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution +agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the +request may include information subject to work product or an attorney-client privilege. +Request No. 2: Any and all documents reflecting or relating to the identity of, +the scheduling of, and/or the payment of any female compensated by or on behalf of +Epstein for providing any service to Epstein that required, contemplated, or included in +the provisions of such service, any physical contact between Epstein and the female, +any act or prostitution, any illicit sexual conduct, the exposure of breast, buttocks or +genitalia, or any commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. §1591 (c)(1). +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant +documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the +present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this +lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the + + +• Cases:08084 8080994ALAM Document 54641 EaterestonFUSED 00ket033211RDO Page 2201124 +Page 3 +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without +waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and +confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution +agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further +Defendants objects to the production as overly broad and seeking information that is +neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be +reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Plaintiff in +this instance has alleged in her complaint that she was sexually abused by the +Defendant on one occasion sometime in the year 2004. The documents requested +herein have no time period provided, and therefore the information sought is grossly +overbroad. +Request No. 3: Any and all documents reflecting or relating to the identity of +and/or the nature and extent of any other person's participation in the communication +with and/or the scheduling of and/or the payment of any person who participated in any +conduct described in Request #2. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant +documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the +present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this + + +•Case≤9@803808099KA$AM Dooumeeh54641 Entered FtSD06k#09?12299 Page 2305524 +Page 4 +lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without +waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and +confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution +agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further +Defendants objects to the production as overly broad and seeking information that is +neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be +reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Plaintiff in +this instance has alleged in her complaint that she was sexually abused by the +Defendant on one occasion sometime in the year 2004. The documents requested +herein have no time period provided, and therefore the information sought is grossly +overbroad. +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by U.S. mail to +the following addressees, on this _6th day of _February. 2009 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 10" Avenue North +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 + + +:::Casas:0803 B0809SKARAM Documesh 54641 Enteredon FLO Docket 03623122093 1 34001524 +Page 5 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack P. +Esq. +Searcy +Denney +Scarola Barnhart +Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-686-6300 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +isx@searcylaw.com +iph@searcylaw.com +Co-Counsel for Plaintiff +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendants Jeffrey Epstein +and +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +& 250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +Respectfully submitted, +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bciclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b972230772d7fdb6dad57dca548602d1a0fd9d1cc295d60cf5c2bfaba281c9c1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b972230772d7fdb6dad57dca548602d1a0fd9d1cc295d60cf5c2bfaba281c9c1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6ccf78bccb049c5409afae881dcf0e6895082ac1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b972230772d7fdb6dad57dca548602d1a0fd9d1cc295d60cf5c2bfaba281c9c1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -770, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b972230772d7fdb6dad57dca548602d1a0fd9d1cc295d60cf5c2bfaba281c9c1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 29, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "90a3b4d84c97410370817cc3031b4f81474864091c63323bade3fb88cf05875c", + "output_sha256": "f5d6deec057cc06026345fff61b0fcf3aaf8426190f4162c5b2e81b6ccbd8ae0", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b97fbb540221e168eec11af1f3f7f24a3a568e225c01b7eae3b4751ad9983ac9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b97fbb540221e168eec11af1f3f7f24a3a568e225c01b7eae3b4751ad9983ac9.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7c4381ed3a681f2a312a0d7656882a31f6263c85 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b97fbb540221e168eec11af1f3f7f24a3a568e225c01b7eae3b4751ad9983ac9.md @@ -0,0 +1,10046 @@ +Filing # 201688170 E-Filed 07/01/2024 01:52:43 PM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT +OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +Case No. 50-2019-CA-014681-AG +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +vS. +ABRUZZO, as Clerk and Comptroller +of Palm Beach County, Florida, +COPY +Defendants. +ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFE'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION +OF THE TRIAL COURT'S FEBRUARY 29, 2024 ORDER +AND CANCELING JULY 8, 2024 HEARING +THIS CAUSE, having come before the Court on The Palm Beach Post's Motion for +Reconsideration of The Trial Court's February 29, 2024 Order, filed on June 12, 2024, and the +Court, having considered the Motion, being advised of the arguments of the parties, and being +otherwise advised of the premises, the Court Grants the Motion for Reconsideration and adjudicates +the following: +Procedural History +In 2019, The Palm Beach Post commenced this action seeking a declaration authorizing +the release of testimony and related evidence presented to the Palm Beach County grand jury in +2006 during the first Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") sex abuse investigation. +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, +ABRUZZO, CLERK, 07/01/2024 01:52:43 PM + + +On December 21, 2021, the trial court entered a Final Judgment dismissing The Palm +Beach Post's First Amended Complaint on the grounds that the Court lacked the statutory +authority, under Florida Statute 905.27, to order the release of the Epstein grand jury materials. +On May 10, 2023, the Fourth District Court of Appeal remanded the case to the Circuit +Court to conduct an in camera inspection of the Epstein grand jury materials to determine whether +public disclosure would be "furthering justice" as defined by Florida Statute 905.27. +The Court ultimately determined the request did not further justice under the law as it +existed at the time. The Court stated that it must follow the law and cannot create new law. Law +making is a process that belongs exclusively to the people of Florida when they speak through +their legislature and the executive branches. This concept is rudimentary and basic civics. The +Courts interpret law - THE COURTS DO NOT MAKE LAW. +It is also important to note, that without an amendment to the statute, Grand Jury +proceedings are generally always kept secret and are closed to the public. This is generally to +protect jurors, witnesses, those accused, and the integrity of the case. Secrecy allows people to +serve as jurors and witnesses to testify without fear of outside influence or retaliation. In some +cases, it also ensures the protection of an innocent suspect's reputation. Secrecy also makes it less +likely that a defendant will abscond after learning they are being investigated. While those do not +apply to Epstein, the law at the time did not carve out an exception. +During this time, among others, the Clerk of Court, Mr. +Abruzzo, a former state +legislator with vast experience in the legislative process, advocated to state legislators to amend +the law. Their efforts were successful. Florida's Legislature unanimously passed Bill HB 117. + + +Once the bill passed both of the legislative houses, the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis +very quickly signed CS/HB117 amending Florida Statute 905.27 effective July 1, 2024. This +amendment significantly modified the definition of "furthering justice" to expressly include +furthering a public interest when the disclosure is requested pursuant to paragraph 905.27(2)(c). +It cannot be understated that the amendment to the law very clearly allows what previously was +not legally permissible. +The Court's Order denying the release of the records also gave leave of Court for The Palm +Beach Post to file a motion for reconsideration after July 1, 2024 - under the new statute. +On June 12, 2024, The Palm Beach Post moved for reconsideration of the Trial Court's +order based on the Florida Statute 905.27, as amended on July V, 2024. +It cannot be disputed that the 2024 amendments to Florida Statute 905.27 were intended to +remove the prior statutory hurdles to disclosure of the Epstein grand jury materials. In fact, the +Court notes the bill was often called the "Epstein Grand Jury Bill" recognizing the prior statutory +construction did not allow release of these records. +In the official press release, Gov. DeSantis explained his reasons for signing of CS/HB 117 +into law. Gov. DeSantis stated, "The public deserves to know who participated in the Jeffery +Epstein sex trafficking. Nobody should be protected from facing justice due to their wealth, or +status, and those who harm children should be exposed and punished to the fullest extent of the +law." + + +Conclusions of Fact and Law +Florida Statute 905.27(2)(c) now reads as follows: +When a court orders the disclosure of such testimony pursuant to subsection (1) in +response to a request by the media or an interested person, regardless of whether +that purpose is for use in a criminal or civil case, it may be disclosed so long as the +subject of the grand jury inquiry is deceased, the grand jury inquiry related to +criminal or sexual activity between the subject of the grand jury investigation and +a person who was a minor at the time of the alleged criminal or sexual activity, the +testimony was previously disclosed by a court order, and the state attefney is +provided notice of the request. This paragraph does not limit the court's ability to +limit the disclosure of testimony, including, but not limited to, redaction. +With that new legal mechanism in place, the Court makes the Fellowing Findings. +The Court finds that the request involves a matter of public interest. The criminal +prosecutions of the most infamous pedophile in American history began in Palm Beach County - +with much controversy. For almost 20 years, the story of how Jeffrey Epstein victimized some of +Palm Beach County's most vulnerable has been the subject of much anger and has at times +diminished the public's perception of the criminal justice system. +Adding to the public interest, Epstein is indeed notorious and infamous and is widely +reported to have flaunted his wealth while cavorting with politicians, billionaires, and even British +Royalty. It is understandable that given those reports the public has a great curiosity about what +was widely reported by news agency as "special treatment" regarding his prosecution. This matter +is clearly the subject of public interest. +The Court finds that this request is made by the news media, specifically The Palm Beach +Post. The Palm Beach Post is a daily newspaper that was founded in 1916 as a local publication +in West Palm Beach. For decades, the Palm Beach Post was printed and published daily in Palm +Beach County. The Court finds that despite its many changes, The Palm Beach Post has a long and +rich history documenting our local community. Many local residents still rely on The Palm Beach + + +Post to obtain information on national, state, and local events. The Palm Beach Post remains a +newspaper of record in our county. +The Court finds Epstein is also widely reported to have been deceased since August 10, +2019, under controversial and "newsworthy" circumstances, while under "supervision" at +Metropolitan Correctional Center in the state of New York. This adds to the public interest. +Having reviewed the testimony, the Court also finds the testimony relates to sexual activity +between Epstein and child victims of sex trafficking. Again, it is widely accepted that Epstein is +a notorious and serial pedophile. The testimony taken by the Grand Jury concerns activity ranging +from grossly unacceptable to rape - all of the conduct at issue is sexually deviant, disgusting, and +criminal. +The details in the record will be outrageous to decent people. It is also important to note +that some of the testimony in the records of Epstein's pedophilia involved other people, but there +is nothing in this record that was outside the knowledge of law enforcement or Prosecutors +- there is no new information +Tragically, the record reveals that Epstein used children to find more victims. The record +also shows that some of the children knew the type of people they could be exposed to and the +infamous nature of such "notable" people. +The Court also notes the testimony was previously disclosed to law enforcement agencies. +Furthermore, the State Attorney was properly noticed and long ago withdrew any objections to +release the records and early on even did his best to disclose the information in his office's +possession without delay via an internet portal. As a result, he was eventually dropped as a named +party in this action after much inconvenience and expense. + + +IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, +The Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. +IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDED, +The hearing scheduled for July 8, 2024 is moot and is canceled. +IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDED, +The Palm Beach Post's petition to release the Grand Jury proceedings regarding Jeffery +COPY +Epstein under Florida Statute 905.27 as amended July 1, 2024 is also GRANTED +With only a few redactions made by the Court to protect the identity of the minors, +The Court hereby authorizes the Clerk of Courtte release the redacted Clerks Notes and transcripts +of the testimony in their entirety (attached as Exhibit "A"). The Court is not aware of anything +more to review and disclose. +DONE and ORDERED at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. +NOT +502019CA014881XXXXMB, T022524IRCUIT +Luis Delgado, +Circult Judge +502019CA014681XXXXMB +07/01/2024 +Luis Delgado +Circuit Judge + + +Exhibit A Composite: +COPY +Clerk +Notes and Transcript +NOT A CERTIF + + +ELECTRONIC COURT REPORTING WITNESS LOG +STATE V. +CRIMES +DATE +ST +AGAINST CHILDREN INV +WITNESS +DIRECT +or +DES +7/19/04 17 +7/19/06 #I +ESPD +DET, JOE LEMBAY +GRES FARKINSON +9:14:18 +1:11:15 +7/19/06 77 +7/19/0677 +7/19/0L 17 +7/19/06.177 +JENSEN BAO INVO +(ToNy) RosS +2:21:04 +x34:39 +1:56:3 +CASE NO. +TIGATION +CROSS +REDIRECT +RE-CROSS +Page +ANNA BELANLAVER +REDIRECT +RE-CROSS +CONTINUED CONTINUED +_of / +END +TTL +10:00:28 +11:38:08 +2:20:47 +/1:31: 32) +:: +10:00:00 +11:54:42 +12:14:56 +10:58:28 +CONTINUING INVESTIGATION REVIEW OF GRUNTI +TRy DIRECTVES DATED 4/25/061 +7/19/04 T7 +• TENSEN POSS +1:17:22 +CASA: AlARyANN DUSSAN +1:34:51| +11:34:14 +B: Bench Conference +*: Motion to Strike +Forms/Witness Log - 2005 + + +Page o +Heard lure +ins againt Childrenuestation +77: Hanna Berkank +он. record +It direct det Que Pacany +whex weame wunned in case +kai care caneto P.B.P.D. +what +thanglet was quines on +kad sex Yot +white +2:14:12 +7:14:18 +15:05 +15.24 +16:04 +16:43 +1T: 16 +17.37 +18 +• 09 +18.56 +19:45 +20:25 +721:04 +22.20 +22.29 +23.30 +24:0Z +25:20 +26: 42 +29:15 +29: +, 23 +30:02 +30:18 +31:13 +pard: mutalk +tald: +aara songto the nause +man identified as z +враині, поучи +sua she was our is +E birthdate +WAs 14 +Zue 05 +нак +spot +said we would meet yoffrey +Segore E aust. lady came to back door +ast lady walked urt up the vate + + +Pagea +9:3219 +33:10 +33:15 +34:05 +7/18/06 +i duest (esrot...), +lady told wit to keep tra = parties ox +sexey layed a sir ox has selly +se reys abscription +hesitant +35:09 +35:38 +дам оди a mussage. +36 .08 +36:20 +asst. lady asked wit to wadise; +COPY +37:36 +wits bare butty truck feis bather +38:11 # Gifgrey axteed to use vipe +on wits vagine +38.37# ubrator dariptions +39.10 +ajgrey on his cage +40:13 # where did ox tray use vibrates +40:36* lyr maserien +42:00 +42:12 +незучец даже кС # 300. +43.19 +was scare ausu teleg del. about viratos +43.58 +who was acurans +44:19 +al sorentoo mave # 300 +44:57 +what. happened. +46:17 +dea +É art des cuesed abeut daing it aqux +47:08 +we did not go back +47:22* +made controlled mul to +48:22* +told. +49:15 + + +Bacon 1/19/06 +9:50.13 whylied.toaoet.prmcpal +50:53 unit principal called wits stepmother +52:00 +52:38 +tied mean she was dealing drugs +snaked pat +52:58. +has Myspace site act. +53:55 document skaoreto wit +54:40 survey addressed +55.11. +55:47 +dea shoplifting +56:02 +patt. menne: as $250, +"57.03 +query Il; +57.55 +query & +58:24 +58:45 +59:02 +59:17 +0:00:00 +Jury ll: +Jury Il +pecoEd +C +1:00. 24 +1'00.28 +01:30 +02:43 +what Yound is fortuns house cariace +coveralled phone calls made lu +03:17 +03.42.. nail ald cures were +07.05 9/21/05 trash pulla tom afreys house +05.03* wanataund xtrash sulled +05.20 +marke as guela +05:43 +10/3/05 trach pulled for sojoys nause + + +idirect det. Recarey) cont... +D:07:50 +whentalkente +08:48* +what +oxid +09.23 +10:27 +Befreys arats, neme sara +met peaple that led het to Poffrey +11:50 +11:56 +who +13:10 +14:05 +14:37 +15:30 +16:28 +17:13 +18:05 +18 +30 +19:20 +took to si seys house +said sike was like Heid Flice +was paid $200 eventime se troughe a gue +spe statement team +what adduional thinas dia +said happered +now manitemes +нашликак и xtenDaa +where 1,D +sirl , +sad the une to yorrens house +hundreas ax une +как +descried yust tie the wext to +nouse +21:03 +23:30* +24:04 +doseried staquasion ax sex adts +26:00* +placed +: +e unverted nos sens in ver vaçena +27:43 +uxkeed +ukat ope dia w/ all trat sone +28:10* whois +28:54 +29:24 +aard she was taken to Pogrys house +max in at the teine + + +Pay 5 +0:30.47 +said sex ada became mou mudlued +31:05* did +31:55* dea any giotel Cosen thn were under 18 +32:43 +now much wa +1-- +dem tund Rucien as ten tOrpedo +where. was im rund +43.20 +43:59 +44:24 +qur +45:03 +45:35 +15.56 +qury Q +47.02 +swent єсспраньх) +47.18 Juryl; did girl say no when feffrey parte ate ner +49:10 +Query 2: who was penetrated by stray + + +Pages 7/19/06 +dived (cont...) +050:00 +50:44 +51:04 +51:50 +Jury Q: +qury Q: +qury l: +52:12 +52:29 +query d: +58.48 +Gury l: +53:20 +query l +53: +52 +54:52 +55. +12 +55.47 +pury +Jury l +Hey Al: +lopoteine a +56:40 +57:32 +58.13 +query Il +fury l: +1:58.28 +CERTIFIED COP +1.11.10 +нес +1:11:15 +„tarkinsen) PBPD +16.02 +cohere went en la. +- address +16:41# +now house was entered +18:46 det. Recarey read seatch wartant aloud to +19:38 +residence description +20:43 +wet deps dawn pan stand +20.46 +wit descrikes diagram + + +Page 1 +123:22 +23:31 +24:10 +25:46 +25.58 +21:20 +28:42 +29: 00 +29:45 +29:53 +30:40 +131.32 +1:32:07 +1:32:08 +32:10: +33:08 +34.03 +1:32:06 +1,34.24 +3548 +36:36 +37: 45 +38:08 +38:39 +39:20 +ridirect (cont...) +Yound mussage table. +dils +any murrag abs found where measagetable was +wit. retakes xanua. +TT I +qury a : +Jury ll: +Jury C: +их неска +TIFIED +ridirect +Hearer, cont... +who wasn none when warrant seved +where wastarin torpedo ound +word +tect +when were to forens home not time. +vas 1642112 +it descries what ane went to lotup house +fetyrey gave ner # 200. + + +Pages 1/19/06 +ri direct (cord...) +1:40.15 +now manatemes went to te greys 1 +40.48* nou musaçes progueasa +41:20* lauttime engaged in intecouse - now old was at +42:47 Teld Fezgrey she was 17 +43.10 Refyrey punitate her uagina a) his peris +14.27 Jeffee, gave her duzal camera, O +44.56* nadia wios m roon i them oneteme +45.46 Ginr asked unt to tenci padas reade +47:07 * daos wit mane yegren to te charged +47:30* does Yater know abone butuatien +47:58 Hou muck soray did wit get duting alt tatre +48:59 Juky Il: naw ald was wut wrux pertratox occurua +50:34 +at ask do trey to stap +52:07 +qury Q +5218 +52.32 +qUey +quin +52: 55 +Jure +53.29 +1:54.42 +155.32 +1:56.34 +57:40 +59:08 +2:01:05 +02:03 +y lecard +on recttd +ni direct: (qu(ory) Rea +axe date ate +) +imatiiator +paliu repert on +Heixking +was reported mcan, ох... +wit has kosked at +Haxpace. com) site +what is +wet тапке + + +Раде а 7/19/06 +2:02:49 +Okatas a +shauneto unt +03:36 +nat wex arrested +04:39* +wet roads or expurt C-aland +07:26 +mate ragerences to martingto he Tenans +08.29 +Tuey l: +08:57 +09:05 Dry A: whet was date that she goid she +wanted to ne arous +Quey I: +?10:10 +10:29 +11:02 +12:30 +13. +20 +13:54 +14:15 +14:34 +214:56 +Gary a: +query l +qury Q: +query al +at record +record +CERTIFIED +2.51.45 +51:46 +25234 +whea +: what airaney +record +:17.17 +'17:22 +Inted 4/25/06 - ASA: Harmlax Nucan +on reesed +i direct (Senan Pers) and. state all, investigate + + +Page ro ++7 direct (cont...) +1:18:00 +18:20 +reme of che Mete i tote Mendel +19:24 +is pattime chug... +21:16 +Killer +28:32 +22:00 +el. for lutel strid as chug +Nourdell started career on... +23: 00 +24:10 +27.52 +5/26/06 Chalkout antead +29: 02 +ded compute check an age. Chalkes saut date +29:55# ran computer checkerras 11116/05-5/27/06 +31:09 +33.38 +there of 25 cars arang, petied - 17 spen s cload +34 +04 +wendel Marewe +Hem played 3/20/06 legal +ron 5/24 +34:47 +8 caves derma peresa nauded ly Mansall +35:38 +ацка ximular pedems +36:17 +36:47 +37. +. 38 +38:00 +38:49 +1:39 +5/ +Yeky l: who signed certifient fot Chate Me mand +41x recod + + +1 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +NOT A +22 +23 +24 +25 +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS +(IN RE: +JEFFREY EPSTEIN) +FIED COPY +ON BEHALE OF +THE STATE: +BARRY KRISCHER, ESQUIRE +State Attorney +401 North Dixie +Highway +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +By: +LANNA BELOHLAVEK, ESQUIRE +and +MARY ANN DUGGAN, ESQUIRE +Assistant State +Attorneys +Wednesday, July 19, 2006 +Grand Jury +Palm Beach County Courthouse +9:14 a.m. to 12:52 p.m. + + +2 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +INDEX +PAGE +WITNESS: +JOE RECAREY +3 +6 +10 +7 +JOE RECAREY (Recalled) +1150 +8 +GREGORY PARKINSON +9 +JOE RECAREY (Recalled) +10 +11 +JENSEN +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +•NOT A CERTIFIED COPY +121 +140 +22 +23 +24 +25 + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +3 +BE IT REMEMBERED that the following +proceedings were had at the Palm Beach County +Courthouse, located in the City of West Palm +Beach, State of Florida on Wednesday, July 19, +2006 beginning at 9:14 a.m. with appearances as +hereinbefore noted, to wit: +THEREUPON: +MS. DUGGAN: Everybody ready? +(WITNESS JOE RECAREX) +Would yol raise your +right hand. Do you +• swear or affirm that +the testimony you're/about to give today +will be the truth, the whole truth, and +ut the truth, so help you God? +THE WITNESS: I do. +MS. DUGGAN: Please have +seat. +THE WITNESS: Thank you. +EXAMINATION +BY MS. +BELOHLAVEK: +Q. Good morning. +A. Good morning. +Q. Detective Recarey, could you introduce +yourself, please? +My name is Detective +Joe Recarey with Palm +Beach Police Department. + + +4 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +2. Okay. What is your position there? +A. I am a detective in the special +investigations unit. +2. What do you investigate in special +investigations? +A. Long term investigations, +financial crimes, +collar crimes, just about any -- any kind +crimes. +a Okay ones that are cospa or a one +ones that are going. +period of time though, usually? +A. Correct, long periød +2. Not a murder that +happened last night? +A. Right. +e. okay. Did you become involved in +an +investigation +under case number 0500368? +That +correct. +When did you become involved in this? +.A. +Sep -- in September of 2005. +19 +Okay. +Was there another detective +20 1 4 +nvestigating this case before then? +21 +That is correct. +Her name was +Michele +22 +Pagan. +23 +Q. Okay. And she, at some point, turned it +24 +over to you? +25 +Correct. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 % +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +5 +l. Have you familiarized yourself, either +speaking with Detective Pagan or going through her +reports, as to what was done when she was the +detective on the case? +A. Yes, I have. +l. Okay. How did this case come to the +attention of the Palm Beach Police Department? +A. On March 14, 2005 a phone call +was received +from +daughter. +2. Okay. And l +name is +l. Okay.r. +And who was her daughter? +Her stepdaughter is +What did +think was going on? +, A. +What had occurred was that +had gotten +into a fight at +School. And +subsequent, after the fight, they discovered $300 +in her purse. +When questioning the $300, she had told 'em +that she had received it from a man in Palm Beach. +Q. Okay. Did l +also overhear a +conversation where they were talking about sex? + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +6 +That +might have accepted money for having +sex with the man? +A. Um, yes, that is correct. She had some +kind of sexual activity with a man in Palm Beach. +l. And was paid for it? +A. Correct. +l. Okay. Was Detective Pagan able to +find out +the circumstances about why the fight +Poccurred? +A. It was rumored that she hate laldot with a +man in Palm Beach, in -- at +School. +l. She, being • +l. Okay. +A. corre +e. And she heard the rumor that she was a +prostitute, and that's what started the fight? +\correct. +Who did she have the fight with? +A. A girl by the name of +Where -- the fight occurred at +school? +A. Yes. +Q. Who +actually found the money in +purse? + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +7 +A. The Freshman Assistant Principal. +l. Okay. How much money was in the purse? +A. 300. +l. Was Detective Pagan able to interview +? +A. Yes. +l. Where did that occur? +A. That occurred at the Palm Beach Police +Department. +l. Okay. Did M +initiall +- was +initially honest with Detective +Pagan? +Originally she did +not tell everything that +occurred. It was through a subsequent interview +that the -- further information was +developed. +0. What did +tell Detective Pagan +initially? +Initially, that she had gone to the house +with algirl by the name of +to pick up +monies that were owed to her. +When she -- Detective Pagan further +questioned her, she explained that -- that she was +taken to the house to provide a massage to a +wealthy man in Palm Beach. +Q. Okay. She initially denied that though, +and said there was no act on her part between this + + +8 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +man and herself? +A. Correct. +l. Okay. But she ultimately told them that +she went for a massage? +A. Correct. +l. To give him a massage? +A. Correct. +e. Okay. Did M +Pagan that -- what I +discuss with +Detective +had tolet her about going +to the house? +Like, did you know! +was going to bring +you here to do a massage and that you were going +to get money? +A. Yes. +l. What did +say +explained to her? +A. Originally -- let me - if I can read this. +Originally, the first interview was done, +18 +I'm +socry, +at +School. +19 +She was going to the house to provide the +20 \ +Crassage. It was offered to her by +21 +provide the massage to this man who was later +to +22 +identified as Jeffrey Epstein. +23 +l. Okay. Did D +admit to Detective Pagan +24 +knowing that +worked for this man in +25 +exchange for doing sexual favors? + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +23 +24 +25 +9 +A. Yes. +Q. Did she say that she was offered the +opportunity to do those, and that's why she went +there? +A. Yes. +l. Okay. Did Detective Pagan ask +if she +ever discussed with +about letting this man +know her age? +A. Um, it was discussed in +thie eide over that +if she -- she would asked her age, to say that she +was 18. +e. Okay. And M +and +agreed that she +was going to do that, +asked? +A. Yes. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: At this point we're +going to ask +to testify. Okay? +THE WITNESS: Okay. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: +Please hang around. +You're going to testify again in a little +bit. +THE WITNESS: Yes. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: +Thank you. +(Witness +excused.) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +22 +23 +24 +25 +10 +(WITNESS +MS. DUGGAN: Come on in. We're going +to have you sit over here. +Could you raise your right hand for +me? +Do you swear or affirm that the +testimony you're +about to give today will +be the truth, the whole truth +and nothing +but the truth, so help you ded? +Y +THE WITNESS: I do. +MS. DUGGAN: +When you're here +testifying everything's recorded with a +microphone system, so you have to - you +can put your hand down -- you have to +answer +as you did, verbally, or - you +can't shake your head, because that won't +be recorded in the system that's going on. +Yso you have to say yes or no, you can't +shake your head. +And one important thing is, you're +here today before the grand jury, and it is +a crime to lie to the grand jury. And in +our terms we call it perjury, but in +regular peoples' terms it's lying +to the +grand jury. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +11 +So there's one important rule here +today. You must tell them the truth, +100 percent the truth. There is -- cause +you cannot -- there's no penalty for +telling the truth. +It's the opposite. If it can +be +shown -- proven that you lied to the grand +jury, there is a crime of perjury. +Do you understand that? +THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm +MS. DUGGAN: +Is that a yes? +THE WITNESS: +MS. DUGGAN: +Okay. +So move up to the +microphone a little bit. And be sure that +you speak yes or no, and so that even +the +folks in the top of this room can hear your +answers. Okay? +THE WITNESS: Okay. +EXAMINATION +BY MS. BELOHLAVEK: +Q. All right. Could you tell us who you +are? +A. I'm +Q. How old are you, +A. 16. +l. What's your birthday? + + +12 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +21 +'NO +22 +23 +24 +25 +2005? +, 1990. +2. How old were you in February of 2005? +A. I was 14 still. +l. 14 or 15? +A. I was 14 still. +Well, this happened when I +was 14, so. +2. You turned -- +A. 15, in +I of that year. +l. And you just turned 16? +A. Yeah. +COPY +Q. Okay. So you were just +short of 15? +A. Mm-hmm. +l. All right. +anére do you live? +A. I live in +e. Whererdo you go to school? +A. I'm gong to +be starting school at +School. +e. +Lokay. +That's +school -- +Mm-hmm. +-- out in -- +In -- +Q. Go ahead. +-- +Okay. +Where +did you go +to high +school in + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +13 +2. Where is that? +A. In l +l. On what road? +A. I-- +1? +A. Yeah, probably. +e. What grade were you in in 2005 men you +were at +School?/ +A. I was in 9th grade. +l. Did you know someone +named +A. Yes. +2. How did you know +? +A. I used to date her cousin. +e. A11 gight. +How old's +A. At theftime I think she was 18 or 19. +think. +1? +I +Who was her cousin that you dated? +#. +Was +going to school at +did you know her from outside the school? +A. I knew her from outside the school. +Q. How much contact did you have with +A. I met her about -- I met her the night +before I went to Jeffrey's house. +OI + + +14 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 \ +Gou. +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +l. Okay. Tell us about the night when you met +1? +A. Um, I was with my boyfriend +at my +house. And her -- or his aunt lives like four +streets down from mine. So we went to say hi to +his aunt and stuff, and +And I was introduced -- +was there. +l. Had you met her before that +night? +A. Um, at like a family football t +they had a family get-together +for a football +Like, +game, and she was there. +A. But I just said hi to her. +2. All right! +A. Like, I +never knew, like, who she was. +e. Not a +Lot -- not a lot of conversations +-- +Yeah. +OI -- +It was just kind of like, hi, nice to +meet +That night you go down there, you +meet her. +What happens? +A. Yeah. And then it was just kind of like a +regular night, and we were hanging out, watching +IV. And then, like, it was like 11:30-ish or 10, + + +15 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +something like that. And she was like, what are +you doing tomorrow? +And I -- I said, nothing. +And then she was like, +well, do you want +to make, like, $200? +And I was like, yeah, sure. +And then -- and she was like, well, +you're +going to have to, like, meet my friend +Jeftrey. +And he lives in a big humongous mansion. And, +like, he lives on the water and +all +this stuff. +And then I was like +• Jike, that's really +cool. +And then shers like, but you have to give +him a massage fol Like 40 minutes. And that's all +And you get, like, $200 for it. +you have to do. +And it's +really easy. +And I was like, okay. Like, whatever. +is just a massage. +19 +• And then +• was like -- he was wondering +20 1 +Chat happened. And then we were just -- told him. +21 +And he was, like, arguing with +•. And then +22 +him and I +went to the bathroom for like a +23 +couple minutes to argue. +24 +And +had, like, her boyfriend there. +25 +So me +and him were stuck in, like, the living room + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +16 +watching IV, listening to them argue for a couple +minutes. And then they came back out. +Then we went outside and I +had called +Jeffrey on the phone. And Jeffrey's +assistant +lady; I don't remember her name; she answered the +phone. And she said that she had somebody that +could give Jeffrey a massage tomorrow. +And the lady asked how old +was +And who +I was -- like, what my name was +But +said that, like, +had to be 18. +So she told the lady I was +18 +and that I went to +1, and I was a Senior and everything. +And so the little assistant lady said, +like, okay, that" +'s fine. +Come in tomorrow. +so then § went home. I .. +Okay. +Let me stop you there. Couple +things +Lokay. +Do you know if +and +were -- what +they were arguing about? +Yeah. Because M +didn't want me to go. +Because I guess +: he knew about -- like my -- his +cousin kind of did that already. And -- +Q. Did that concern you, that I +didn't want +you to go and you were agreeing to go anyway? + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +17 +A. Well, yeah. +Cause -- well, he was -- I was +like -- I guess cause I was 14 and he was, like, +16 and stuff. And he was just like, don't go. +Don't go. Don't go. +And I was like, well, it's $200. And I was +14, and I was like, $200. So I didn't really care +what he said. +l. Okay. And from listening to +end of +that phone conversation, the pepson at +• Jeffrey's. +house was trying to verify that +you +were at least +18? +A. Mm-hmm. +l. Okay. Is that +& yes? +A. Yes. +sorty. +a. okay but, like, astor. +she hung up the +phone with the lady she explained to me that -- +what +, we went back inside the house and she +explained to me that I was going to have to, like, +tell the lady - like, make up a lie about my +whole life. Like, that I went -- I'm graduating +from +already, that I'm 18 and all this +stuff. +And that I've known +for a long time. +Like, just to make it 1ook like I was older. +And so I agreed to do all that stuff. And + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +18 +then I went home for the night. +And then the next morning +and another +lady -- like, another teenager girl; I don't +remember her name; she was +in the truck with her. +And, like, we were leaving my house, and -- but my +dad saw. And he -- I told him we were going to +the mall in Palm Beach. +And my dad's like, okay. +problem. And since it was +cousin, he didn't care that +He +an't have a +01 m +was going with +But he met -- +like we were leaving and my +dad was coming in the +office, they were, like, +pulling into my driveway. And he saw +, and +asked my dad for $5 for gas. So my dad +said, +like, +yeah, +sure, $5, whatever. And then we +left. +And then when we got to, um, Jeffrey's +house, um -- +Q. Do you know Jeffrey's full name? +A. Jeffrey Epstein or Epstein or -- whatever. +Q. Where was the house? +A. Um, I -- it's in Palm Beach, whatever. +But then when we pull up in the driveway, +nobody was +there. Like, +like, he's not + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +19 +home. +So we walked up anyways. We all got out of +the car. And there was like a gate that you have +to walk into to go to the back door. +And there +was like a security guard or whatever. And he has +like a little office or -- in the back. +And he saw us so he came up to the +gate. +And he asked us what we were there +And +said, Jeffrey. +And so the guy was +like, +uh, +okay. And he +opened the gate. +All three of us ment +in, like, to the back +door towards the kitchen. +Cause I guess +the +kitchen's right there when you open the door. +so we were sitting, like, in a bar like +this, and we +were waiting for about 15 minutes. +And then Jeffrey and the assistant walked in +through the back door also. And that's when I +first met Jeffrey. And we shook hands. And then +the lady also introduced herself too. And then +the lady was talking to +and the other girl +for a couple seconds. +And then Jeffrey said, who's going to go +first or whatever. +And +and the other girl's like, I + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +20 +don't care. +And then Jeffrey's like, how about you? +Pointing to me. +And I was like, okay. +And then I was, like, looking back at l +and laughing. And then she was just like scooted +her hand to go. And she was laughing took +And I +was like, okay. +so than we -- in the store f +was like a +little hallway, not really, but +It' +'s like a +stairway to go upstairs. +/And we were walking up +there. And the assistant +Lady walked me up there +and as Jeffrey was talking to them after. +And then she was pointing out like all +these pictupes and all this stuff and then leading +me up to Tike, a bathroom. It was, like, really +big though. +And, like, there was two closets. +LAnd then she went into the one closet and +pulled out the massage table and set it out in +front of, like, this | +And then she put, +like, a -- a little blanket or whatever over the +massage table. +And then she opened up a drawer. And there +was like a whole bunch of different, like, lotions +for getting massages. And she just picked, like, + + +21 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +a couple of 'em out and just set 'em on the vanity +table. There was a big, big mirror on the other +wall opposite to the massage table. +And then -- and then +she told me to get +un -- well, not undressed, but, like, put -- keep +your bra and your panties on. +And I was like, +okay. +And then she said -- +l. Had +ro1a you about tadore? +A. No. I thought, like,, +it +was +going to be a +massage, like, you keep your clothing on. +And that -- when I +got in the room, that's +when the lady, liken explained what I would have +to do. Just to get undressed and keep my bra and +my panties on; +And then -- +And did you do that? +Mm-hmm. +2. +Is that a yes? +19 +And then to stay in the room for +20 1 +Couple seconds, and then Jeffrey would be coming +21 +in the room any minute. +22 +And then Jeffrey did come in the room. And +23 +24 +he said, hi, and he shook my hand again. But then +he went out of the room and he got undressed, but +25 +he had a towel on. And then he came into the room + + +22 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +again and laid belly-down on the massage +table. +Q. Okay. Stop a minute. +What did this man look like? This Jeffrey +Epstein? +A. Old. +Q. How old? +A. Um, he looked like 50-ish maybe. +A. 40. +e. How was he dressed when you initially met +him? +A. Like he was going golfing. He just had, +like, a polo I-shirt on and +khaki pants. +l. Okay. +And how were you met (sic) when you +first went to, +his -- dressed when you first went +to his house? +Um, +was wearing a regular I-shirt, my +Hollister shirt, and just some jeans. +Okay. +What kind of underwear did you have +19 +20 1 +Oon? +21 +A. A thong. +22 +Q. And the bra, what type of bra? +23 +A. It was a bra. +24 +Q. Okay. No special -- +25 +A. Uh-uh. + + +23 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +-- certain type. But thong underwear. +Were you uncomfortable getting down to your +bra and underwear? +A. Uh-huh. Like, at -- I was kind of +hesitant. I was, like, sitting in the room for -- +until Jeffrey came in, like, thinking like, to +myself, well, like, what's going on? +Like, I don't know. I was +kind +hesitant. But then I just didn't dare +cause I +wanted $200, cause I wanted +to spend it. +So I +just didn't care. I just +l. Okay. All right +So he comes out and he's +in a towel. Start from there. +A. And then her like, laid on the massage +table, got of his stomach. And then he told me, +like, to grabyany of the three lotions +that +she +had put down on the table. And so I just grabbed +one +of +'em. +19 +And then I just gave -- like, I sat -- +20 1 +first I wasn't sitting on the table, because he +21 +was sitting on the table and it was kind of +22 +like -- I just stood up. And then I started to +23 +give him a massage. And then he's making +24 +conversation, asking me exactly what I +was +25 +going to tell me to do. Like, if -- what high + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +24 +school do you go to, and all this stuff, +SO. +I. Did he ask you how old you were? +A. Uh-huh. And I -- +Q. And what did you tell him? +A. I told him I was 18. +And, um, he asked me, like, what do I like +to do for my spare time. +And I said, I dance, and all +stuff. +And just asking me small talk. +And then he's like, oh, +well, you don't +have to stand up, you can sit on +the table. +And so I sat on the table and I was giving +him a massage. AndI +think the massage -- it was +a couple minutes, +like 15 or 20 minutes. And this +whole time we. +were just conversating about +anything +And he was telling me how he had another +house +in New York, and just a whole bunch of stuff +that I was, like, amused by. And then after like +20 minutes of giving him a massage, or 30 minutes +or something -- it was around that time, he asked +me if I wanted to make an extra hundred dollars. +And all -- that he'd have to use -- +Q. Before we get there, let me just ask you a +couple things. You said that the assistant had + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +25 +you undress? +A. Mm-hmm. +Q. Is that yes? +A. Yeah. +l. Do you remember telling Detective Pagan +that it was Jeffrey Epstein that asked you to +undress? +A. No. I'm, like, positive it +was +'t Jeffrey. +cause he didn't come in the roomtill after I was +already in my underwear and my bra. +l. Okay. So if that's, +in her report, that's +incorrect? +A. Yes. +Q. All right. +When +you talk about getting on +the table, do ygu recall telling Detective pagan +that you were actually straddling him and your -- +That's -- yeah. That's what -- when I got +omtheytable. Like, after he -- after a couple +minutes. +l. Okay. And you were straddling him with +your bare buttocks to his bare buttocks? +A. Yeah. Well, kind of. +There +was towel +that -- like, it was kind of covering his butt but +not really covering his butt. It was like not +really covering his butt. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +26 +But I was laying, like, on his lower back +near his butt. But, like, I wasn't on his butt. +l. So, if she wrote, you stated you exposed -- +your bare buttocks were touching his bare +buttocks -- +A. That'd be kind of correct. +A. And then - yeah. I guess. +COPY +l. All right. +A. You could say that. +e. So how long did that +on when you are +sitting on top of him? +A. The -- until, +like, the massage part was +over. And then he, like, asked, well, would you +like to make an extra hundred dollars? +And then +I +said, sure. +And then he's like, but I, um, have to -- +Like, you're not going to be giving the massage +anymore, it's going to be something different. +And I was like, well, what is it? +And then he's like, um, can I use a +vibrator on you? +And I said, um, okay. +And then -- so then he got up and he went +into the -- his, like, other room for a couple + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +27 +seconds; like literally a couple seconds; and then +came back in the room. +And next to the little vanity, big mirror, +and all this big table there was, like, on the +floor, there was just like the vibrator. +what -- it looked like a vibrator to me. +9. What did it look like? +A. It was, like, purple. +And +it +was like - +it was kind of like a massager but +het really. +Like, it looked like a massager, +but it wasn't +really a massager. And +2. What was it shaped +like. +A. Um, like ciroular in the top, and then it +was like a handle +• on the bottom. +Q. Okay? +ALL right. +And then, +um, after he grabbed that he laid +back +on the +table, and -- except this time he was +ophisyback. +And I was partially on the table, +Like, half of my butt cheek and my leg was on the +table, and the one leg was on the floor. And, +like, sometimes I'd put it on the +I. Like, +cause the +was right here and the table was +right there, so it was kind of close. +And I -- he told me to keep giving him a +massage, +but to give a massage on his chest. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +201 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +28 +Q. So you're sitting on the table now and he's +standing up? +A. No, no, no. He was laying back on the +table, but like I was kind of on the table. Like, +half my butt and my leg was on the table, and the +other half was, like, par -- like, on the +Like, I was holding -- +A. Uh-huh. +A. And, um, then I was. +Toying a massage on his +chest and he was stilh talking +for a couple +minutes. And then he +the vibrator. +And, +like, that was +for Like 10 minutes maybe or so, I +think. And then +e. Now, +he +-- I have to be detailed here. +Where was he using the vibrator? +Man I say -- along my vagina. +A. I don't know what else to say. +Q. All right. Go ahead. +A. Okay. And then -- and then after -- for a +couple minutes that's what he was doing. And then +he jerked off for like a couple minutes. +Like, I was still on the table. And + + +29 +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +22 +23 +24 +25 +told me that if -- if you -- like, if he does +that, then you have to get more money, because +that's like -- he gives you extra money if he +jerks off anyways. Cause I guess it's some -- +like his (indiscernible) or whatever. And -- +Q. And m +W had told you that before? +A. Mm-hmm. She -- I -- she told me that, +like, the night that I, like, had +this +whole +conversation with her, and she told me +about it. +e. Okay. So she just didn't tell you you were +going for a massage, she told you that there - +you might have to take your/clothes off? +A. No. She didn't +tell me that I would had to +take my clothes offy but she said that if he jerks +off in front of you, then you can get more money. +So when he offered you the extra +hundred dollars, you had a pretty good idea what +was coming next? +Yeah. +A. And, um -- +Q. And when you say "jerked off" what do you +mean? +A. He put his hand on his penis, and started +going up and down kind of +fast. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +30 +l. Okay. Could you see his penis at that +point? +A. Uh-huh. +l. Is that a yes? +A. Yes. +Q. All right. Go ahead. +That went on for how long? +A. A couple seconds maybe. +11ks, 40 seconds And then - prian aren +that, like, the massage was +over. +And he went into the +out of the door +back to wherever he goes. +couldn't see where he +was going cause the door was +this way and he +walked out. +And I quess he had like a - his +money behind the door, cause it only took a couple +of seconds fof him to come back in the room. +And then he opened his money, like, his +wad, and gave me three hundred dollar bills. And +told me, thank you. And I -- +And then he's like -- there was a note pad +there next to the lIl! +-- and told me to write my +name and my number; cause I had a cell phone at +the time. And he told me to write my cell phone +number down, and how he could get hold of me and +all this +stuff. + + +31 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +So I wrote my number down, and wrote my +name. And then after that he just left the room +and told me I could get dressed again and that it +was done. I was over. +l. Did you actually see him ejaculate? +A. NO. +e. okay. Did he not ejaculate or you didn't +see that? +A. If he did, I didn't see. C +Q. Okay. Do you recall +telling +¡ Detective +Pagan it happened in a different sequence? +A. No. +l. And that he masturbated first before he put +the vibrator on +your vagina? +A. Mmm, maybe. This was like two and a half +years ago, so +Okay. +that could have happened. +19 +Q. Do you recall not telling her about the +20 J +ibrator at all -- +21 +A. Yeah. +22 +l. -- the first time you talked to her? +23 +A. Yeah I remember that. Because I was +24 +scared. +25 +Okay. +Why were you scared about that and + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +32 +not scared about telling her that he ejaculated in +front of you -- or masturbated in front of you? +Cause that's his body, and the vibrator's +on my body. +e. So you didn't want to admit that you had +allowed him to touch you? +A. Uh-huh. +e. You left your number +SO +he could contact +you again? +A. Yes. +l. Okay. +when he +left the room, +what +happened? +You got +dressed. +Did he take you +downstairs, +you go downstairs by yourself? +I just went downstairs by myself. +• Q. +Who was down there? +Was +still down +there? +A. Uh-huh. The -- +was there, and the +other girl was there. And the assistant lady, she +might have been there, but I don't know. I can't +remember. +But then +after that, we left. Like, they +didn't do anything. They didn't -- she got money + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +33 +but she didn't do anything. +-- who? Who is "she"? +did. +Okay. Do you know how much money +• 2. +got? +A. I think it was $300 too. +l. Okay. +A. Or maybe 200. +A. No. At the time I -- +thought maybe she +did something with somebody else in the house. +But then I was, like, thinking there was only +Jeffrey and the lady there. +Like, I didn't think +anything of it. +And I- +But oid you learn that she got money for +bringing +you +there? +Yeah. I kind of figured that when I got +back home. Like, I was thinking about it for a +while. And I realized, well, it's probably cause +she brought me. +l. Okay. Did you discuss with +what +happened up in that room? +Then when we got in the -- the, um -- +back in her truck, um, at first we were all like, +ult, +let's go. +Let's go spend our money. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +34 +Then she was like, +, what happened? +What +did you do? How much money did you get? +And I was like, I got +$300. And I was +like, kind -- I was excited. +$300. +And then she was like, you got 300? +What +did you have to do with him? +And then she told -- or I told +him +OI +her what I did. +And then she's like, L, +yeah +Um, I've +done that too, blah, blah. +And like, you could +she was -- then she +told me, like, what - +it's - you get that +what +-- like if you do this +if you do this, and +then get +that. And she wàs telling me, 1ike, all this +stuff. +And then I was, like, laughing about it. +Cause I was like, yeah, thanks, you know, for +telling me that I'd have to get in my bra. +And she's like, I, sorry. And she's +laughing, And then the other girl starts laughing +too. +And then we all laughed together. +And then +-- then we went to T.J. Maxx and +she got a purse. And I didn't spend any of my +money. I kept it in my -- I wanted to spend it, +but I didn't want to spend it at T.J.Maxx. +I + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +35 +wanted to go to the mall or something. So then I +kept it in my -- my house. Like, my purse and +stuff. And -- +e. Let me stop you there. +When you're in the car back with I +going back, did you and m +again so you could earn more money? +discuss doing this +A. Yeah. +A. I think -- +l. Um -- +A. -- we had. She- +No didn't plan a -- like +any certain date, she +was +just like -- we didn't, +like, plan this +or +" like, again, we didn't plan, +plan it. Iwas just like -- she was Like, +well, if you ever need money again you can always +call me and you can come with me. +LAnd I said, okay. +9. You don't recall telling Detective Pagan +that you made plans to do this every Saturday so +you could get rich? +plan, plan. +yeah. •yeah. +Well, it wasn't like a +It was kind of like an imaginary kind +of - every Saturday. Like -- +okay. + + +36 +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. -- it wasn't for sure. +l. Did you go back to Jeffrey Epstein's house +to give him other massages? +A. I did not. +l. Okay. +A. When I was on the phone with the detective, +we pretended for • +M; cause she was on +the other +line; we pretended that I was going +but -- just so she could say something.' +ning +never did. +go back, +But I +l. Okay. So you did a controlled phone call +A. Uh-huh. +make admissions? +A. Yes. +Yeah! +All right. Was there another reason +have found out about it or were talking about you? +A. Yeah. Um, that's what I was going to get +to. +At school, um, I had, like, my best friend. +And I told her in dance class; cause that's my + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +201 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +37 +first period, that was my first period class. +And, like, right when I got back to school I had +the $300 on -- in my purse with me. +And I told her, like, if you ever want to +make $300, you can come with me, and +will +take you. +And I didn't say her name, I said like, +my friend will take you. And all you have +is give him a massage and stuff. +to do +And +D toid her +what I did. +I didn't tell her everything, I didn't tell +her the -- the vibrator party +just left that +out. But I told her everything else. +And, um, she kind of laughed and giggled. +And she's like, +'I'll keep that in mind. +And then, +um +who was this person that you told? +and +-- well, she was +in +the conversation, but she's, like, didn't say +anything to anybody. +1? +I. She didn't -- she didn't +say anything at first until everybody else found +out. +And then -- well, after I told +rest of the day goes by. And she was telling +, the + + +38 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +people, and, like, telling everybody in school. +And then I was like -- I saw her in my gym +class that same day and I just confronted her. +I was like, well, why are you telling +people? And that's kind of my business. And I +kind of told you to be nice and not to, like, go +around telling people. You're supposed to be my +best friend. And then she just laughed +about it. +so then we got in an altercation in the gym room. +l. Was that a fight? +A. Yes. +l. You had a fight? +A. I - we got ánte a fight. +And, um, that's +when I had to go to the Principal's office. +And +I told why she got in the fight +with me. +Andy! told her why she -- why we got in +And I kind of -- we -- at first we both +17 +a fight. +18 +kind +of Tied about why, cause -- or I did. +And then -- and then I was -- just told the +2 rincipal aho wos apreading tumors about me. +21 +And then +aNd, I guess, +told the +22 +Principal why, like, for real. +23 +And so then the Principal, when I had to go +24 +in the room, she was like, let +me +see in your +25 +purse. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +39 +And I said, why? +And she's like -- asked me if I had any +money. +And I said, no, I don't have any money on +me. +And then she said, like, you don't have to +lie. You're not going to be in trouble, Give me +your purse. +found the $300. And she asked me how I got it. +And I say, I work at +the time I really did work at +cause at +And, um -- +e. Why did you lie to the Assistant Principal? +A. Cause? +didn't think it was, like, any of +nex business, like, why we were arguing or +anything. +And I thought, why would I tell on myself +'m -- if she doesn't really know anything yet? +But then she really did know, +cause +told her. +And then she -- after she +showed -- like, +after she took my purse and she looked at the +$300, and she -- she didn't believe what I said, +like, at all. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +22 +23 +24 +25 +40 +And I just kept lying and, like, saying, +no, I got it from l +• My work, my work. +And then she said, you don't have to lie. +I know -- I know what happened. +And she called my step mom. And my step +mom came to the school. And my step mom said, +like, you didn't get $300 from your pay check. +You're lying. And then that's when +that's +when, like, I don't know, everything kind of came +out. +And then I -- +e. You didn't tell Jour parents at first so +did you lie to them too? +A. I said I was doing drugs, and I was dealing +them. Like, I made up any kind of lie. I didn't +want to tell yem what happened. +Did there come a time when Detective Pagan +got +some messages on your phone? +From +-- +From +-- +1? +Yeah. I +She -- +Well, after that whole +thing, my cell phone was taken away. So, yeah, +she had my cell phone from that day until she -- +until I moved to + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +41 +And she -- like, my mom, I think she still +has it, or the Court or whatever has my cell +phone. +l. You talked about telling your mom you were +doing drugs -- or selling drugs? +A. Yeah. I just -- +e. Which one? +A. My - just -- both. I just kind of +-- my +dad's arguing with me, and I just kind +of told +'em, well, I'm a drug dealer. +l. Okay. So you -- you ye had a problems with +drugs though, haven't your +A. I did. +Not a problem, I experimented. +e. Didn't +your parents actually send you away +to a rehabilitation center because of it? +Io afamily help center +-- +Okay. +e. +-- to be specific or whatever. +It was because of that, but it was also +because I had +lot of family, like, getting-along +problems. Like, I argued with my parents a lot. +Were you +doing drugs during the time that +you went to +Jeffrey Epstein's house? +UM, +no. +Well, the only -- the only drug + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +22 +23 +24 +25 +42 +that I did that time was pot. Like, I smoked it +sometimes. I didn't do, like, drug drugs, like +bad kind of drugs. +Q. Do you still do pot? +A. No. +Q. Do you have a MySpace.com account? +A. Yes. I have a MySpace. +l. On there you talk about doing drugs? +A. No, I don't talk about it +There's like a -- like, +• little thing +where it says create, liker +your own thingy. +And it asks questions, like a -- a +survey; +that's the word I'm looking for; a survey about - +like, they just ask questions. +And it says, have +you ever done drugs? +And I said, yeah. +Have you +-- it says, +have you ever done +drugs. +Okay. +It asks a lot of questions about +A. Yes. But I also did delete that Myspace +and I did a good one. I -- +A. I delete -- cause my parents found out. +Q. So you had one that wasn't real good? + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +43 +A. Yes. +2. That you'd lied about your +were you 18 on? +A. No. I didn't say I was 18. +l. This your account? +A. No. +l. Here with, M +Lives in +age +on, +said +Female, 18 yeara +All mines have, like, cool things in the +back. Like, mine -- I would never make an ugly +one. +do have more fun. +Yeah. +e. You're +Yeah. +But -- and I have that ex -- like, +those exact +'same things on my old one. +had, like, not in -- what it says about +me,lin that little sentence -- +Okay. +A. -- that's not -- I didn't make that. +Q. So when you're talking about that survey +you answered, it says your +=- your choice of +alcohol. +And +you put beer? +Yeah. + + +44 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +e. Do you drink beer? +A. At parties. +l. Okay. It says you have four piercings? +A. Not anymore. Now I only -- well, I used +to +have my belly button pierced. +l. It takes -- you have to be 18 in the state +of Florida to have body piercings other than your +ears? How -- +A. My dad -- +2. How did you get those? +11 +A. My dad took me to get +my +belly button +12 +pierced for my 14th binthday. +Cause, like, +13 +everybody was getting one, +so I begged for it. +14 +And then fiust got my nose pierced, so. +15 +e. Did you have to provide identification fOX +16 +your noser just prove you were 18? +17 +No, my dad -- my dad let me. +18 +Your dad, okay. +19 +So you didn't have false identification at +20 % +Chat time? +21 +A. No. +22 +Q. Okay. So you said yes to +drinking and +23 +smoking? +Smoking pot? +24 +A. Yeah. +25 +Q. There's a question, do you shoplift? + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +45 +Do you recall what you put for that? +A. I did. +2. What -- you did shoplift? +A. Like, yeah, a couple times. +l. Did you recall putting, lots of times, +on +your site? +A. Maybe. +This was a long time ago, so. +e. Okay. You reported income de 6250,000 -- +A. As a joke. +Q. -- on that site? +A. Yeah. It's a joke. +Like, all my friends do that, cause it's +kind of funny and random and stupid. +Q. Okay! +Soit's not that you're making money +elsewhere +No. +It -- +- doing similar activity? +-- was just kind of stupid. +It's like a joke. +Q. Okay. Did you ever make arrangements with +to go back to Jeffrey Epstein's house in +April of 2005? +A. Not when I was with her. +Maybe on +phone conversation, like, with + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +22 +23 +24 +25 +46 +that detective, but not ever when I was +with her. +l. Did you ever talk to +about going back +in April of 2005? +A. I really don't think so. +All right. At this point I'm going to ask +the grand jurors if they have any questions for +you. +A. Okay. +e. +Okay? +A JUROR: Where do +you live now? +THE WITNESS: +live in +A JUROR: +Where? +THE WIGNESS: +JUROR: Did you say that before you +lived, ap in 1 +? +THE WITNESS: Yes. I moved to +in July, with my mother. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Your mother -- your +stepmother and father sent you up there to +get away from the activities down here? +THE WITNESS: No. I moved with my +mom. +When I was with my dad, like, after +this all happened, my mom and my dad were + + +47 +1 +arguing. And I didn't like my dad anymore. +2 +I -- I just felt like living back with mom. +3 +So then I moved with my mom. +4 +And that's when +I went to the family +5 +6 +7 +center; like, +is what it's +called. And then after that, my mom had +planned on moving to +she's +been +8 +9 +planning for, like, 2 years +before any of +this ever happened. And they finally found +10 +a house in • +So +we moved, +and I +11 +moved with them. +12 +A JUROR: +Do +you have any idea deep +13 +14 +15 +16 +down inside of +you that you -- what your +doing is wrong? +LIGNITNESS: Yeah. I did +(JUROR +1, do you? +17 +18 +19 +• NOT A +22 +23 +Have you -- +THE WITNESS: +I -- +A JUROR: +Have you set the goals of +to not do it anymore? +THE WITNESS: Yes. I don't -- +haven't talked to any of those people since +that day. +24 +25 +A JUROR: And you're well aware +that -- what you're doing to your own + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +22 +23 +24 +25 +48 +reputation. +THE WITNESS: Yes. +I do. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: You aware that you +committed a crime? +THE WITNESS: Now I am. I didn't +know it was a crime when I was doing it. +Like, +I -- I don't know. +NoW I -- I +guess it's prostitution +or something +that. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: +A JUROR: +One +more. +You said, you worked at +You were 14, you were working at +Any other questions? +THE WITNESS: Yeah, in +That's when they, like, first let you work, +when you're 14. +A JUROR: Okay. Now you're work -- +you're living back now with your father in +the meantime? +THE WITNESS: (No audible response). +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Anybody else in the +front row? +Second row. Yes, sir. +A JUROR: Um, you kept saying + + +49 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Jeffrey's assistant. Do you know her name? +THE WITNESS: No. I know that she +was blond haired, and she was tall and +skinny. I don't remember her name. +A JUROR: Okay. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Yes, +sir. +In the +back row. +A JUROR: Yes. +Miss I +• did tolerer go back +to Mr. Epstein's on +your own? +THE WITNESS/ +No. sir, I didn't. +A JUROR:/ +Did)he ever contact you +with your cell phone? +He never called you? +THE WITNESS: No. Because I got my +phone +taken away. Like -- +A JUROR: Did you -- +THE WITNESS: -- right when +I was in +trouble. +A JUROR: -- ever feel that his +behavior was a little strange? +THE WITNESS: That's what we all +joked about in the car. +A JUROR: Yeah, but did it ever occur +to you that he could have hacked +you up? + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +22 +23 +24 +25 +50 +THE WITNESS: +I -- now I think about +it. And a lot of things could have +happened. I thought about it a lot. +And a lot -- +A JUROR: Should give it a little +further thought. +THE WITNESS: +_- different things +could have happened. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: +Apy other questions +for Miss +1? +All right. +THE WITNESS: +Thank you very much. +thank you. +(Witness +;excused.) +(WIINESS JOE RECAREY RECALLED) +MS DUGGAN: I'11 go ahead. +And fox the record, this is Detective +Joe Recarey. +I don't need to re-swear you in. +We'll just remind you, you're under oath. +THE WITNESS: +Okay. +MS. DUGGAN: Okay. +CONTINUED EXAMINATION +BY MS. BELOHLAVEK: +Detective Recarey, let's go back to the +investigation +before you took over; it's +still + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +51 +Detective Pagan. There's mention in her report of +trash pulls. +What's a trash pull? +A. A trash pull is when you make arrangements +with the supervisor of sanitation to have the +trash man go onto the property, remove the trash, +and place it in the empty well of the trash truck. +And you follow 'em to a different focation, then +you retrieve the bags from the truck. +Q. How is it that you can +take things off +someone's property without +>a search warrant in +that way? Is it permissiblé because it's been +discarded? +It's discarded. It's trash. +It was in the truck. +We just take +possession offit from the truck. +Okay. April 1, +2005, +was there a trash +putl at Jeffrey Epstein's house? +Correct. +l. Okay. Do you know what was found when they +examined the trash from his home? +A. Several messages with phone numbers written +on it with girls' names, and different messages. +Q. Did any of the messages that you've had a +chance to 1o0k at talk about any of the girls you + + +52 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +found out through your investigation +• had gone to +Jeffrey Epstein's house? +A. That is correct. The names and phone +numbers were of girls that have gone to the house +and left little messages. +I have girls for him. +You know, for a good time call me type of, +, thing. +l. Okay. Was there a message indicating +that +had an appointment in April? +A. Yes. +l. And what time did +have +an appointment +in April? +A. 11 a.m. +Do you know if Detective Pagan had +taken voice +ils from +was confirming meeting with +Right. +phone where +-- +to go there at 11:00? +^A. +There were controlled phone calls +between +-- +was making phone calls to +for us, as part of the investigation. +made +the appointment to bring +over at 1l a.m. for +April 1. +e. But +never went there? +A. No. +Now were there any messages + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +53 +indicating that someone named +or someone +named +has appointments to go to Mr. Epstein's +house? +A. Yes. There was several mentions of +and me +l. Were you able to identify who +and +were? +A. Yes, I did. Later on in the investigation +vo discovered that '.. +was actually +I, another +School +student who still attends. +And +was the +other girl that was frequenting Epstein's house. +l. How old was 1 +at that time? +A. I believe +she was 16. +e. And how +old was +1? +Through the investigation I +found out +she +started going to the house when she +was 16yor had just turned 16. +@. And how long of a time did she continue to +go there? +A. Till she turned 18. +Q. Okay. Was there a trash pull on +September 21st of 2005? +I guess this is after you've taken over the +investigation. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +54 +Correct. +Was there a trash pull that day? +A. Yes. +l. Did you find anything interesting in that +trash pull? +A. Um, I'm trying to get to -- +e. Maybe page 21, 25 of your roport! +Page 24. +Q. September 21st. +A. Okay. +l. What did you find in that trash pull? +A. I had notes with the name +phone number. +As well as +call +And -- +I, with her +i for a good time +Were you able to identify +1? +> Yes. +Who is +is l +And what about +1? +Were you able to +identify I +A. Yes. Through the investigation I was able +to find out that M +is actually + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +55 +Can you spell +1? +l. And how old was she at the time? +A. 17. +2005? +l. Okay. Another trash pull on October 3, +A. Correct. +2. Anything interesting found +pull? +Chat trash +October 3rd. +what page are you on +Q. Page 26. Page 26 +a report dictated by +Officer Crowell. +A. Curtis +crowell, correct. +e. okay Cy +That's, why. +In there he indicates that in the trash +Pu31 they located a hard plastic or clear acrylic +tick which was shaped with small ridges. This +device is commonly used as a sexual toy which is +inserted into the vagina or anus for stimulation. +Was that type of item actually found? +A. Um, the device was actually found. But +later on in the search warrant it was discovered +that it was +actually the handle of the -- + + +56 +1 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +201 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +For the silverware? +A. -- for forks -- for forks and knives. +Q. Okay. So it wasn't something we would call +a vibrator or a dildo? +A. NO. +Q. Okay. It appeared that way to him, +but you +were able to confirm later it was +not?' +A. Right. +All right. You are aware, +from your +investigation and talking to Detective Pagan, that +said she was initiated into going +to Jeffrey Epstein's house by someone named +A. correct +l. Were you ever able to talk to +1? +Yes, I did. +When was that? +October 3, 2005. +Where did that take place? +Sergeant Frick and I went to her house out +in +, knocked on the door, and asked her +to come back to the station for further +questioning reference this investigation. +Q. How old was I + + +57 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +had just graduated from high school, +from +School. +l. Okay. Was she a minor at the time or an +adult? Do you recall? +A. Well, in the -- at the time she would have +been a -- an adult. +Q. When -- +A. At the time of the interview. +2. When you talked to her. +Okay +Did she talk to you that day at her house? +A. No, she came back withus to the police +department for further questioning. +l. She was uncomfontable talking at her house? +She told you she wanted to do it elsewhere? +Um, no +We just -- I wanted +to go over +documents that I didn't have with me, with +her -- +Okay. +•A. +- at the -- +19 +20 1 +department? +So when did she come to the police +21 +A. That same day. +22 +2. What did +tell you? +23 +A. During a sworn taped statement she stated +24 +that she became in contact with Mr. Jeffrey +25 +Epstein when she was 17, when she was approached + + +58 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +by a friend with an opportunity to make money. +She was taken to the Epstein's residence. She was +told that she would have to provide a massage, and +make $200. +She was taken to the house, +she was +introduced to his -- Epstein's assistant by the +name of sarah. Sarah then would escort pen +upstairs, prepare the room for the massage by +putting out the ointments and the different oils. +Mr. Epstein came into the foom. He +demanded she remove her clothing. She did so. +She started giving the massage, rubbing his back, +his calves and thighs. +• He turned onto his back, +asked her to rub his chest. As he did so he tried +to touch heft touch her buttocks. She pulled +away, she +said I'm uncomfortable with you touching +17 +me. +• give you the massage but I'm +18 +uncomfortable with you touching me. +19 +20 1 +Encomfortable. +It was at which time he said, I know you're +If you bring me girls I will pay +21 +you to bring me girls. +22 +Q. So he didn't make her do anything she was +23 +uncomfortable with? +24 +A. Right. +25 +How did she indicate that she first + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +59 +met anybody that knew Jeffrey Epstein? +She was approached by one of her friends in +by the name of +I, unknown last +name. I was never -- +Q. You never -- +A. -- able to identify -- +Q. -- determine -- +A. -- who +was, who actually +took her to +Epstein's house and introduced pèr into the +household. +l. Okay. Were you abse +approximate date when she met this +determine the +who took +her to Epstein's houser +A. Sometime +2. Okay/ +when she turned 17, she told me. +So she was 17 when she first went +there? +Mm-hmm. +YAll right. When he talked to her about +bringing other girls to him, since she's +uncomfortable, what was her response to him? +She agreed to bring the girls to him. And +he told her, the younger, the better. +She brought a 23-year old to massage him, +and he told her that she was too old and he wanted +someone younger. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +60 +Knowing that she went to +School, he recommended that she ask her +friends. +e. Who did +house? +Um, +During the statement she gave me +approximately six names that she can remember that +she took to the house that all went to +School. +• tell you she +to the +and the 14 +year old victim, +Did you ask +if she told these people +what to expect when she took them to Jeffrey +Epstein's house? +She explained that all the girls knew what +was tolbe expected. The more you did, the more +money you made. +She explained that there was +going to be a massage or some possible touching, +and you would have to provide the massage either +topless or naked. +e. And she told you that she told +that? +A. She said that she told all the girls that. +Okay. During your conversations with + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +201 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +61 +I, did she refer to herself as somebody +famous? +A. On the ride back, back to her house, she +had stated that she was the -- she was like Heidi +Fleiss, the Hollywood Madam that provided girls to +clients. +e. +Did +-- you may have told me +this +earlier, and I apologize if I didn't +hear it -- +Y +did limo +undress when she provided the massage? +A. Yes. +She provided the +ssage naked, under +the direction of -- +2. Not just down to her underwear? +A. No. I believe +it was +naked. +Did +was there ever any indication +of a vibrator +No. +Nike +described, with +But she -- she was +aware of the +vibrator. +e. +LErom +Vibrator slash, massager. +Okay. +Was a +paid money, did she tell you, for +bringing these other girls? +A. Yes. +Q. How much money? +She was paid approximately $200 for every + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +62 +girl she brought. +l. Just one time per girl or every time she +brought a girl did she get another $200? +A. Every time she brought a girl she got $200. +l. Even if it was the same girl over and over? +A. Correct. +All right. You found the card +that says, +for a good time call +you +wexe able to +identify her as +A. Correct. +Q. Did you get a +statement from +A. Yes, I dia. At +that time l +already attending +ellege, she had started +? +was +she stated that nothing inappropriate had +occurred originally, and then explained that, you +know, he had -- Epstein had tried to touch her on +several occasions. +Q. Did she change her statement at some point +to you? +Well, originally she +started off saying +that nothing had -- nothing inappropriate had +occurred. Further questioning, she had changed, +that there +was additional things that had + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +63 +happened. +l. Okay. What did she say the additional +things were that happened? +A. There was attempted touching. He had +caressed her buttocks cheeks. +All the while he had -- he had introduced +the vibrator, but did not -- she did +not allow +a +vibrator to be used on her. +She described the vibrator having a huge +head on the tip of the vibrator, +white in color. +Q. Now was this -- it progressed in the first +time she was there to just massage to touching to +vibrator, or were there numerous times she went to +his house? +Numerõus times that she went to his house. +This all progressed as more times she came to the +house, +more things started to occur. +LHow many times did she go to Jeffrey +Epstein's house? +A. Off the top of my head, I -- she stated +that she had been there many times. +Q. All right. +The last known time that she +told you about was when? +A. Was in October. +The last time Mr. Epstein +was in +town, +October 3rd or 4th of 2005. + + +64 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Okay. Do you know of any of the girls that +say they went to his house after 2005? +A. No. I don't believe Mr. Epstein has been +back. He learned of the investigation in October. +l. Okay. Was she paid by Jeffrey Epstein? +A. Yes. +Q. Do you know how much she was +A. She was paid between 200 and +5300. +l. Each time? +U' +A. Each time that she went. +l. Did she get any other compensation other +than money from him? +A. She also received +a +rental car, +which as of +this date I think that she's still driving it, +Irom Dollar Rent, +a Car. +okay. +Were you able to confirm through the +rental car that it was rented by Mr. Epstein or +someone in his +-- +It was +-- employ? +-- rented by -- it was rented by Mr. -- his +houseman, Janusz Banasiak, with a credit card of +Mr. Epstein's. +Were you able to get a +statement +from the person you identified as +? + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +65 +A. That is correct. +I. When did that occur? +A. On October 10th I had made telephone +contact with her; she was up in +Florida. And I had explained to her that I was +conducting this investigation. +Miss Bie +began to cry. +Explained that +she +had been to the house hundreds +of times. +Started +going there at the age of 16, when +she was still +attending +Sehool. Where +she +was offered to -- $200 fot 30 minutes of work. +Q. How was she introduced to him? +A. She was taken +to him by a friend of hers +who also had gone +School, +okay. +A., +She was taken to the house. She would have +to perform this massage naked. +e. +She knew that before she went? +A. That was explained to her by +l. Okay. What did she describe about that +first visit +to Jeffrey Epstein's house? +A. She recalled that the appointment was set +up for that same day. They contacted +Mr. Epstein's +assistant, Sarah; later identified + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +66 +as +: where the appointment was made. +She was taken. She remembered it was on the +weekends because she only worked on the weekends, +as she was still going to high school. +She was taken upstairs to the +bedroom. She could observe in the spiral, +staircase up to the bedroom area there were +The house. +Q. Adult women? +A. I believe so. +2. Okay. +She goes upstairs, what happens +upstairs? +She's taken into the room. +The room is set +up, the massage +tables are set up, ointments are +put out by saran +Kellen. +Epstein +enters the room +and introduces himself to her. +He lays on the +massage table and asks her to get comfortable. +¿She stated that she couldn't remember if +she provided the massage naked, but knows that she +removed -- she had -- I'm sorry -- she had rubbed +his legs, thighs, and feet. +All during this time Epstein turned on to +his back so that she could rub his chest, and he +started to masturbate. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +201 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +67 +A. Which was another thing, one of the other +girls -- every time there was a massage, Epstein +would masturbate himself. +l. Was she able to see his penis or was +it +under the towel he had come out in? +A. He had exposed his penis to her. +Removed +the towel which made it visible. +e. How long did that go on? +A. She had been to his house ones! +in a 2-year +period that she stated, hundreds of +times. +l. I meant the masturbation? +Okay. +|. It was foryseveral minutes. +Did he +touch her at all that +first +time? +her, if +Um, +I beljeve he did use the vibrator on +I'm going to direct you to page 39, second +fyl1 paragraph halfway down. +Okay. +I believe your report says Epstein touched +her breast? +A. Yes. +So at that point he touched her +breast. +Do you recall -- +Right. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 % +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +68 +Q. -- if the vibrator was +uses +that first time +or if it was just the touching -- +A. Yes. +Q. -- of her breast? +A. No. He did touch her breasts as he +masturbated. +Q. Was she paid money for that +visite +A. $200. +a. Dra she go back to no mrs! +A. Yes, she did. +l. And I guess you'vertold +us, for about +2 years she went backe +Is that a yes? +A. Yes. +correct +e. She +estimates over a hundred times? +She does. +e. +Did the situation with +progress? +• A. +,It +did. During the time frame that she was +attending there, over the 2-year period, she +stated that every time she went there it didn't +have to be involving the massage or any kind of +sexual encounter. At times that she would go, she +would end up just having dinner or talking with +Epstein. +At one point Epstein introduced his other + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +69 +assistant, +She explained that he had brought her from +Yugoslavia to the United States to be his sex +slave. +l. Were you ever able to confirm that? +A. I know that she is here on a visa, +a +modeling visa. +l. You don't know the purpose +she +here, +other than you were able to confirm the visa? +A. Yes. +A. She's here for a +visa +2. What did +describe as the progression +of sex acts? +A. He introduced Nada into their routine. +e. so it bécame a threesome at some point? +Right. +Lokay. +He had asked B +to perform oral +sex on +Nada. +originally had refused. He enticed +her by giving her additional monies to perform +this act for 5 minutes. +l. How much additional money? +A. 200 -- $200 extra. +l. And then she agreed? + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +22 +23 +24 +25 +70 +A. At which point she agreed. +l. Okay. Was it always just the masturbating +in front of le +and sex acts with Nada, or were +there additional sex acts with Jeff Epstein? +A. It was explained that at one point towards +the end, prior to mon +turning 18 or +just after, +it was -- it had been previously spoken that there +would be no vaginal penetration by Mr +Epstein. +She had stated that Mr. Epstein had a +deformed penis and did not want to have any kind +of intercourse with him. +It was after ond of the -- where they had +They introduced the sex toys +purchased sex toys. +with Nada and min +as Epstein would watch on and +masturbate to +At one point he grabbed +and placed her +head onto the head -- on the massage table and +inserted his penis in her vagina. +Okay. You said they introduced sex toys, +Who purchased sex toys? +A. Nada. +Q. Was l +with her when they were purchased? +A. It is -- yes. +l. Okay. +A. It was for Epstein's -- + + +71 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +So +and Nada went to purchase the sex +toys? +A. For Epstein's birthday. Correct. +l. Okay. And during the time that he +penetrated her vagina she was either 17 or 18, +you're not clear -- clear which? +A. Right. +l. Okay. +Because after that she stopped going to his res -- +his house. +2. How many -- okay. +hundred times, ast one +indicate how much money she made during this +2-year period that she was going to see him? +Well she received between 200 and a +thousand dollars. +Each time? +LEach time that she went. +The day that he forcibly entered himself +19 +20 1 6 +into her, he paid her a thousand dollars. +21 +Also, she had received a rental car from +22 +Dollar Rental Car, a blue Dodge Neon, that the +23 +previous houseman had rented for her. +24 +Q. Did she ever make a report of sexual +25 +battery after what she told you about him + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +72 +inserting his penis inside her? +A. What do you mean, sexual battery? +Q. Did she -- at that time that he forced his +penis inside her, you said? +, at that -- +l. Did she make -- +A. -- the day that that occurred? +No. +e. - did she make -- did spè dall +and say -- +A. No, the day it occurred. +No, she did not. +e. That day she took a +thousand dollars. +Let's say it's only $200 for a hundred +times; she's - welte +talking a +lot of money she +got, +at a minimum, plus a car? +Is that ayyes? +yes. +Okay. Did you ask her what she did with +that money? +I did ask her. And she didn't want to tell +me. +Q. What'd she say? +A. She said that that was too personal. +Q. After you -- she's just described all these +sex acts to you. +Okay. Did you interview somebody named + + +73 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +1? +A. Yes, I did. +e. Who is +? +A. Um - - +l. Page 51. +A. Thank you. +okay, November 4th. She provided d sworn +taped statement that she had been take +i to +Epstein's house by the -- a friend crom +School, 1 +e. This same person that took +1? +A. Correct. +provide the massage and would be paid 300 for the +massage. +How old was she at the time? +117, I believe. +19 +l. Okay. What did she describe happening when +20 1L +One went there the first time? +21 +A. She was taken to the house and introduced +22 +to Epstein's assistant. Pretty much -- +23 +Q. Which one, Nada -- +24 +A. -- consistent -- +25 +- - Or +Sarah? + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +74 +Sarah. +A. It was pretty much consistent with all the +girls. They would be introduced to the assistant, +who would then lead her upstairs and prepare the +room for the massage in the +bathroom area. +She would lay -- put a blanket over +the massage +tables and provide the ointments tha +Epstein +would like to have used. +She rubbed his calves +and his back area and +was paid $300 for her services. +e. Was that a one-timeything with I +or did she go back? +A. She stated she had gone back four of five +times. +Similar acts each time she went back? +Correct. +\Similar amounts of money each time? +It -- it started to escalate. +I mean, each +time that she went, further things started to +happen. It was the same monies though provided. +Q. Okay. So the sex acts became more +involved? +A. Correct. +She was what, you said 17? + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +201 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +75 +Correct. +Q. Did she tell Jeff Epstein that she was 17? +A. May have, I believe so. +Q. Take +minute and look at your report and +see if you can find that there. +A. Okay. +She was 16 when she first went to +the house. +Okay. She was 16. +But does +ever tell +him she's 16 or 17? +A. No. +they were under 18? +a. Did any of the ost +ever tell him that +well, he knew +Fat they went to +School +l. That was not my question to you. +Okay. +Did any of the girls ever tell Jeff Epstein +that they were under 18? +Not to my knowledge. +l. And some of them affirmatively lied and +said they were 18 when they were not, didn't they? +A. Correct. +l. But he was aware that they were going to +high school? +A. Correct. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 \ +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +76 +l. Okay. How much money did +make? +A. $300 for each massage. +l. Was she ever given anything other than cash +money? +A. She was also given a Western Union wire +from New York, for a Christmas bonus. +l. How much was the Christmas bonus +A. $200. +Or a lie. at some purpose ver +someone named Alfredo Rodriguez +A. Correct. +Q. Who is he? +A. He's a former houseman of Jeffrey Epstein. +l. What did he describe his duties when +he was +at -- employed by Mr. Epstein? +He +wasybasically everything. He was +i the +butler, +the driver, in charge of his security. He +was basically the -- everything for the house. +l. Okay. Do it all. He did anything, +(indiscernible) +wanted to? +A. Right. +Did he -- did Alfredo Rodriguez give +you any information regarding your investigation? +He explained that he knew something was +amiss +during his employ with Mr. Epstein. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +77 +He would see girls as young as his daughter +come in and say that they're his masseuses. +And when asked, how young? +He said, very young. Too young to be a +masseuse. +l. Did he give you any other information? +A. He also stated that he had kept +a folder +for his protection. +Some notes that were made +during his employ with Mr. Epstein. +l. What -- so he kept like +a journal? +A. Basically, yes. +Like a +folder with +different sheets of papers inside. +l. And he would write notes himself or he +would put notes +in that journal? +A. He would put notes inside. +Okay. +Notes that were given to him on Epstein's +stationary. +19 +e. Was there any note that he provided to you +20 1 +On that folder that indicated something -- any +21 +22 +type of relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and +any of the girls we've discussed? +23 +A. Yes. +He provided two sheets. +One was to +24 +extend the rental car for +, as the contract +25 +was up the 2nd of February. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +78 +l. The 2nd of February what year? +A. I was unable to determine that. +I researched the information through Dollar +Rent A Car and they +were unable to locate +the car +that he rented. +l. Okay. But did M confirm that she had +gotten a car? +A. Yes. +A. She even explained -- described the car as +a blue Dodge Neon, four door +She explained the +whole car to me. +Additionally there was +another notation +Of -- to take a packet of roses at 9 p.m. to +for +And give the +after her +performance, +as +and had a +flowers +to +she was +in +that +Te. +night. +Okay. And do you know when that was? +It was while Me +was still in +I. It was during his employ, +prior to Janusz. +Q. Do you know if that was when +when she was 17 or when she was 18? +A. When +she was 17. +was 16 or + + +79 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +l. Okay. Did you -- any of these girls we've +talked about, any of them a licensed massage +therapist? +A. No. No formal training in any massages. +l. Did you ever speak to licensed massage +therapists that provided services to Jeffrey +Epstein. +A. Through the trash pulls we did locate two +girls that were licensed masseuses that I +interviewed. +e. Who were they? +A. One was +• and the other one +was +okay. +Did your talk to +A. Yes, +did. +e. What did she tell you? +She had been going to Epstein's house for +quite +some time. However, +she was not a +masseuse +19 +at that time when she first started going to his +20% +bouse. He also provided her a vehicle to get to +21 +his house, because her scooter had broken down. +22 +She was -- +23 +Q. She started going to his house in a similar +24 +capacity as +these other girls? +25 +That is correct. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +80 +l. Okay. But she later became a massage +therapist? +A. Yes. +2. What kind of relationship did +and Jeffrey Epstein have? +She stated that it was a consensual sexual +encounters that they've had. +l. How old was she at the time? +e. Was she -- did she describe being paid +money for -- +A. Paid money. +Q. -- the services +sne +provided? +A. And additionally, I believe he paid her +tuition at +e. Is that where she got her massage therapy +training? +No. +She got into the +Okay. +All right. What -- you mentioned a +• She's a +licensed massage +therapist? +A. That is correct. +Q. Did she provide massage services +to Jeff +Epstein? + + +81 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +A. Yes. +Q. What kind of services did she provide? +A. She does a Swedish deep tissue massage. +l. Did the massages by +go +beyond a normal massage to the other acts we've +heard about today? +A. No. No, her job was strictly to come in, +provide the massage. She got paid +hundred +dollars and she left. +l. Okay. So the licensed +Ossage therapist +gets a hundred dollars, the other girls get much +more? +A. Right. +e. okay. +these girls +When you were -- you've met most of +Was there anything different about +that you noticed that made her +stand apart +from the other girls that were going? +^A. +was not the petite little girl. +19 +Sheywas a bigger girl, with plenty of tattoos on +20 % +her forearms, very visible on her neck. Very +21 +visible tattoos. +22 +l. If you were to say Mr. Epstein had a type, +23 +she would not fit that type? +24 +25 +• absolutely. +l. Were you ever able to find any intelligence + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +201 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +82 +from the Palm Beach County Police Department that +confirmed any of these girls being in his +house, +other than girls saying so? +A. Through physical surveillance. +I had researched all the intelligence that +the police have gathered during the past couple +years. And in 2004 Mr. Rodriguez, the former +houseman, had called the police because +he had +seen a suspicious vehicle that hè did not +recognize in the driveway of Mr. +Ep +house. +Mr. Rodriguez was pulling in from Publix +and didn't recognize the vehicle, so he left and +drove straight to the police department and +notified 'em there was a strange vehicle in the +driveway. +ween hat veniole was approached by the +police officers they found +sitting in +this +- the car with her friend. +Does it identify who the friend is? +A. Uh -- +2. And when you 1ook at that report, what is +the date that +was there in 2004? +A. November 28, 2004. +And at which point her cell phone rang. +And the officer felt that it must have been her + + +83 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +mother because she says, I can't talk, I'm in +school. +l. Okay. Did the officer note why +was there? +A. She stated that she was there to pick up +monies that were owed to her. That she +is a +massage therapist for Mr. Epstein. +l. Okay. The girls you talked to, +how did +they all typically tend to know each +other, of +those that do? Were they all +in school together? +A. They were all -- they all knew each other +from +›School. +All except l +of school? ( +a. Because glites - knox l +correct. +She knew +from outside +because she +was +dating +cousin. +Okay. At some point did you obtain a +19 +featch warrant tor Jeffrey Epstein's home? +20 1 +A. Correct. +I did. +21 +Q. When was that? +22 +A. That was +in October. +23 +Q- Page 42. +24 +A. October 12, 2005 -- oops, I'm sorry. +That +25 +was +the +nope, that was in +another interview. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +84 +October 20th? +october 20th. +You got the warrant on October 18th and +executed it on October 20th? +Correct. +Okay. +Who was present with you when you +executed that warrant? +A. Various members of the police +Good +department. +Detective Crowel1, Sergeant Exipt, botective Dix, +Detective Dawson, Detective +Sandman, myself, crime +Scene Manager Greg +Parkinson +A. There was a lotlof people in the -- from +the police department. +e. A11 +• figh +And Greg Parkinson is outside? +Yés. +Okay. During the execution of that warrant +there was an item found that's identified as a +twin torpedo? +Q. What is that item? +A. That is a -- +it is known as a dildo. +A sexual toy that you buy -- +A. A sexual toy. +Where was +that found? + + +85 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. That was found in the bedroom of -- I want +to say Nada's bedroom. +Q. Okay. Is that the bedroom that the girls +were taken to when they performed the messages, +as +described by -- to you? +A. The main -- the main massages occurred in +Epstein's +bedroom/bathroom area +l. Not Nada's -- +A. No. +e. +-- bedroom/bathroom area? +A. No. +2. Okay. So that wast +Tobina in a assferent +place? +A. Correct +e. Was Ewere there sexual devices, dildos, +vibrators found, anything, that matched the +descriptions as given by the girls? Either a +purpleyvibrator or a +vibrator with a large +head? +No. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: At this point, +Detective Recarey, I'm going to see if the +grand jurors have any questions for you. +THE WITNESS: Okay. +A JUROR: I'd like to ask you a + + +86 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +22 +23 +24 +25 +question first. +act under the law? +What constitutes a sexual +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Sexual activity +means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by +or union with the sexual organ of another; +anal or vaginal penetration of another by +any other object; of the handling of the +fondling of the sexual organ o +Ranother +for +the purpose of masturbation. However, the +term does not include +acts for bona fide +medical purposes. +You'll all get a copy of this. +Yes, ma'am? +A JUROR: +Do you know the location of +Jeffpey 5p +at present? +You say that he hasn't been back +since October. +THE WITNESS: He has various homes. +One in New York. +He has a ranch in New +Mexico. He has a private island right +outside st. l +Has a home in Paris +and one in England. +A JUROR: So can you get in touch +with him? You would have a way to do that? +THE WITNESS: He has various counsels + + +87 +1 +representing him. +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +A JUROR: Was M the only one of +these girls that he actually had +intercourse with? +THE WITNESS: No. +A JUROR: Okay. +8 +9 +THE WITNESS: There wai +a total of +five victims altogether.( +But as far as intercourse you mean? +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +A JUROR: Mm-hmm. +THE WITNESS: +›As far as penile +intercourse? +A JUROR: +Right. +16 +17 +18 +Okay. +19 +• NOT A +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Yes, sir. +A JUROR: As far as MoM +I, it does +not appear from what I'm hearing, it's not +like +I was the center focal point who +coordinated all this for Epstein. +22 +23 +24 +25 +It seemed like Epstein had multiple +sources to have access to some of these +young girls. Is that correct? +THE WITNESS: All these girls were in + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +NOT +22 +23 +24 +25 +88 +a tight clique together. +being the +first one from that clique to go to the +house. +A JUROR: Okay. +THE WITNESS: Basically was the -- +she brought l +brought +brought +-- +A JUROR: Right. +THE WITNESS: +so spindelike a +trickling effect. +A JUROR: Right +So this -- I mean, +it just kind of seems like this little +micro-economy got spawned here. +And it does not -- I mean, do any of +these girls provide those types of services +sot money fox anyone else? Do they do +this -- +THE WITNESS: No. +A JUROR: +-- on a common basis or -- +THE WITNESS: +NO. +A JUROR: -- does it just so happen +that Epstein is the source by which they're +attracted to here? +THE WITNESS: Epstein was the source. +A JUROR: Okay. + + +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +22 +23 +24 +25 +89 +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Do you know +present occupation, Detective? +THE WITNESS: She is a -- an exotic +dancer. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: A stripper? +THE WITNESS: A stripper. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Okay. +A JUROR: Who is that +THE WITNESS: +MS. BELOHLAVEK: +Yes, sir? +A JUROR: +When +Jeffrey entered I +did she ask him to stop at all? +THE WITNESS: +She screamed no. +THE WITNESS: -- said no. +He apologized. Offered her a +thousand dollars. +Subsequently then -- +A JUROR: So he stopped. +THE WITNESS: After that, yes. +A JUROR: Okay. +And the second question. You had +made comment that Dollar Rental Car wasn't +able to find the -- + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +22 +23 +24 +25 +90 +THE WITNESS: +The Dollar -- +A JUROR: -- car rental. +Have you been able to confirm the +actual -- +THE WITNESS: Subpoenas have been +issued to Dollar Rent A Car. +I have their techs +researching it. +They were acquired by another +company, so +some of the business records were not up to +par. +so they're -- they'te hopefully -- I +keep reminding them +A JUROR: +There's more than one car +Y +then that - +THE WITNESS: That's correct. +They still rent -- they rented the +which -- I believe +she's still driving it. +A JUROR: Okay. +A JUROR: How many of the girls had +relationships with him over a year while +they were still in high school? +THE WITNESS: I'm sorry? +A JUROR: How many of the girls +had -- were seeing him for more than a year + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +22 +23 +24 +25 +91 +while -- and he knew they were +still in +high school? +THE WITNESS: I know that all of them +were in high +school when they first started +seeing him. +being 16. +The age of graduation is 18. +I would +say they all, because they all met him +through +School. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Thé question is the +length period. This doesnit +-- it's +one +time. +Like with +it was numerous -- +hundreds of time for 2 years. +THE WITNESS: Over 2 years. +MS BELOHLAVEK: +1, 15 or +more +times. +THE WITNESS: Right. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: So this is +longstanding with -- +THE WITNESS: Right. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: +-- many of these +girls? +THE WITNESS: Yes. +A JUROR: Can you name the two girls +that the vaginal penetration took place + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +NOT +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +92 +with? +THE WITNESS: It would be +and m +A JUROR: And how many then would, in +your opinion, defined by the sexual act -- +how many other girls would fall under that +category? Can you give me some type of +count? +was the -- that age +MS. BELOHLAVEK: +There's the +masturbation in front +of how many girls? +THE WITNESS: +There was -- +all of +AMS, +BELOHLAVEK: Most -- +PHE WITNESS: +-- them. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: -- of the girls. +THE WITNESS: I would say all of +them. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Okay. +THE WITNESS: Except for maybe the +legitimate masseuse, +MS. BELOHLAVEK: But the only one +that was under 16 at the time was I +THE WITNESS: Right. +She was 14. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +22 +23 +24 +25 +93 +Correct. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Okay. +A JUROR: Other than I +stepmother coming to the police, she +obviously found out from the Principal. +But the other girls, none of their parents +knew about it or intervened +in +any way? +THE WITNESS: It wasn't +ntil +parents discovered what she was doing. It +was at that time that she had stopped. +And to this day she still gets phone +calls. She had to change her cell phone +number, they have changed the -- changed +the house +number, from +and +Epstein +A JUROR: Cause here these girls are +bringing home this money, they're obviously +shopping, bringing home items; and none of +the parents got involved in any way? +THE WITNESS: A lot of these parents, +they had no idea what was going on. +A JUROR: I can't believe that. +I +mean -- +MS. BELOHLAVEK: You have to ask +questions. +Not comments. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +22 +23 +24 +25 +94 +Yes, 1 +Do you have your hand +up? +A JUROR: Let's see, you mentioned +was from +THE WITNESS: +, yes. +A JUROR: +was from +THE WITNESS: No. +Actua +these -- +all the girls lived in the +area, +area. +A SOROR: Okay. +Any suspicion that +there perhaps were +other groups of girls +from other D +schools or other areas that +he would bring into that - his home? +THE WITNESS: +Not that I'm aware +of. +The common link here was +School. +And there was actually comments made +from people that says that there's nobody +in +School that does +not know about Jeffrey Epstein. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Yes, sir? +A JUROR: The girl that brought these +girls got $200, was that I +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Yes. +She was one of + + +95 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +22 +23 +24 +25 +the girls. +A JUROR: Then +-- +MS. BELOHLAVEK: There was another +girl that brought them. +A JUROR: Okay. Then after he got +some of their cell phone numbers, did he +make his own appointments, +did he still +pay +1? +THE WITNESS: +A JUROR: Okay. +THE WITNESS:/ +And +eventually they did +cut out +and would contact these girls +directly. +A JUROR: +• +that's -- okay. +MS BELOHLAVEK: Did Jeffrey Epstein +make +thre +appointments or was it done +through +THE WITNESS: Through +his -- his assistant. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: So we don't have any +of the girls actually making an appointment +with Jeffrey Epstein himself? +THE WITNESS: Correct. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: +Were you able to +talk with + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +22 +23 +24 +25 +96 +THE WITNESS: +NO. +The Defense did +not allow. +A JUROR: +I So +claimed to make it +clear to Epstein that for the 2 years she +was going she was in high school. +She -- +he knew that? +THE WITNESS: He knew that based +the sending the flowers to her +lechool for +her high school play that she was in. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: +Anyone else? +A JUROR: What +what year, when she +received the flowers, +what class was +she +in? Was it d Senior? A Junior? +THE WITNESS: I want to say Senior, +but Im +Not a hundred percent positive on +that +A JUROR: Why I ask that is that, you +Kknow, usually a senior can be 18 years old, +whereas a Junior is, you know, that was -- +THE WITNESS: Right. +A JUROR: That would give him some +knowledge of knowing how old she was. +A JUROR: The two girls that received +rental cars, their parents never asked them + + +97 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +22 +23 +24 +25 +where they got these cars that they were +driving? +THE WITNESS: The one girl, +M, who's still driving the car; she's +attending college at +Her parents live up here in -- in +I area. +when she does frequent he parents, +the car is a friend's cartor is borrowed. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Yes, sir? +A JUROR: (Indiscernible) confirm, I +believe it was. +had indicated that the +conversation with Jeffrey Epstein was +that -- to make sure that the girls were +young. +THE WITNESS: The younger the better. +A JUROR: And the younger the better, +Kright? +That was a -- +THE WITNESS: Younger the better was +the quote. +A JUROR: And in that conversation, +was that in reference to specifically your +friends from your school or -- +THE WITNESS: That came later. +Because she brought a 23-year old to + + +98 +1 +provide a massage, and he told her she was +2 +too old. +3 +A JUROR: Right. Okay. +4 +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Okay. +5 +A JUROR: Can I ask you a legal +6 +question? +7 +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Mm-hmm. +8 +9 +10 +A JUROR: Is there (inaud +MS. BELOHLAVEK: +Bat we can +discuss that when the detective's not here. +11 +Yes, sir? +12 +13 +A JUROR: / +Areyall these girls +available to be called if the case went to +14 +court? +15 +• WITNESS: If we went to trial? +16 +17 +18 +19 +• NOT A +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Any other questions? +Yes, sir. +A JUROR: Have you been able to +verify Mr. Epstein's age? +THE WITNESS: Mr. Epstein was born in +22 +23 +24 +25 +1951, I believe. +51 or 53. +January of +1953. January 20, 1953. Which would have +made him 52, 53 years of age. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: And 51 -- 50, 51 + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +22 +23 +24 +25 +99 +during the times +of these events? +THE WITNESS: Correct. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Okay. All right. +Thank you very much. +A JUROR: One more. +THE WITNESS: I think there's another +question. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Oops +A JUROR: Is there any ether evidence +that the girls were in his Kouse besides +the one tape, besides what they're saying? +THE WITNESS: +He did have two +cameras, two covert hidden cameras inside +his house for security purposes. +locate +that computer. +reviewed the images in the +We did +computer, +and within that computer there +Yare photographs of girls that I had +previous interviewed that appears to be +them. +However, because it's so grainy, so +snowy, a positive rec -- a positive +identification is -- you know, it's hard +to -- unless you show it to the girl, is +this you? + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +22 +23 +24 +25 +100 +Which I haven't done, because I -- +too much information was being leaked back +to him. So that's why I pretty much +stopped giving them information as +i far +as +this investigation. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: So you can't say +specifically then the pictures are of the +girls involved? +positively. I can say that this girl +just like Mom. +appeared to be like +Same hairstyle^ +same mannerisms of walking, +same clothes that -- typical that I've seen +her wear; but I can't say for a hundred +percent that this is her. +(Votio appears to be her. The samo +body style, face, that type of -- +MS. BELOHLAVEK: And the girls are +still in touch with him, telling him about +your investigation. +THE WITNESS: I know for a fact that +- - +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Or telling Sarah or +Nada. +THE WITNESS: +Right. I know that + + +101 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +22 +23 +24 +25 +has called. And other girls that +I've interviewed or approached to be +interviewed have called him. +And - - +MS. BELOHLAVEK: And there are other +girls that refuse to talk to you? +THE WITNESS: Right. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: I love +Jeteney, +I'm +not testifying against him. +THE WITNESS: Right. +A JUROR: One question. Didn't you +say that the place in palm Beach has the +residence under suryeillance? +THE WITNESS: When the -- when I took +over +the +intestigation I had our TAC team +conduct physical surveillance. And they +observed +these girls coming to the +residence in their vehicles, in their dad's +Yeax, in their mom's cars, coming to the +house seeing Epstein. The -- +A JUROR: So you do have witnesses +that can put these girls in -- +THE WITNESS: Absolutely. +A JUROR: -- that particular -- +THE WITNESS: Absolutely. +A JUROR: There's one other thing. + + +102 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +22 +23 +24 +25 +forgot. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: In or at his home. +Not in sex acts +though. +THE WITNESS: No, not in sex +acts. +They were conducting surveillance from the +outside. +A JUROR: I know. Did youdo +any +telephone research or was every +done +over cell phones? +THE WITNESS: +Everything was done +over cell phones. +MS. BELOHDAVBKY +All right. +Thank you +very much Detective +Recarey. +excused.) +ZINESS GREGORY PARKINSOMY +MS. DUGGAN: Okay. Would you raise +right hand? +THE WITNESS: +MS. DUGGAN: Do you swear or affirm +the testimony you're about to give today +will be the truth, the whole truth, and +nothing but the truth, so help you got? +THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. +EXAMINATION + + +103 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +BY MS. BELOHLAVEK: +l. Okay. Would you introduce yourself to the +grand jurors, please? +A. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. +My name is Gregory Parkinson. +Q. How -- how long have you been +employed as a +law enforcement officer? +A. I have been in business 40 +yeane +now. +I +started on October 25th of 1966. +e. And where were you working then? +A. I worked for the West Palm Beach Police +Department, where I served for 34 years, until I +retired on July 3rdrok +the year 2000. +I had the 1th of July off and went to work +the next day as +an investigator for the State +Attorney's Office where I worked for 3 years. +I left on February 14th of 2003, had the +weekend off, and then took over a management +19 +position with the Town of Palm Beach Police +20 % Loopartment, where I am still currently employed. +21 +What +is your position with Palm Beach +22 +Police Department? +23 +A. I hold the rank of police officer, but I +24 +also hold the title of civilian where I am in +25 +charge of the crime scene investigation unit, the + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +104 +photography unit, the evidence holding unit, and +the fingerprint unit. +Q. In your capacity as the crime scene head +did you take part in the search warrant executed +on Jeffrey Epstein's house on August -- +october 20, 2005? +A. Yes, I did. +l. Tell us how you go about executing a +search +warrant in general. +Once the warrant is signed and brought back +to headquarters, I am not aware +of this at that +time. +on this morning, +which was a Thursday +morning, when I went +to the morning briefing, at +that time I wast +informed that a search warrant +would be executed and that it would be at a +residence. +My responsibility is to then assemble a +team of evidence specialists and crime scene +processors that will respond to this unannounced +scene. +We don't even know where we're going until +we are in a -- what looks like a funeral +procession or a parade; all the cars are ready to +go. +We follow the lead car. And only then, when +we arrive, do we know the location. + + +105 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +e. Why is that done? +A. It's -- it's an issue of security, it's an +issue of privacy, and it's an issue of officer +safety, so that there is a guarantee that there +can be no leak of any information, even as simple +as an address, from my office. +1 +And we prefer to operate in that manner. +So we don't know until we get there +going to be going into, so that we know the volume +of bags, the volume of boxes, +the volume of gloves +or masks or processing gowns or lab coats; whether +we would need head cover to protect -- or to +prevent contamination' of a scene or shoe covers, +which will also +prevent contamination of the +scene. +We don't need to know a lot about the +scene, +Twe +only need to know what type of evidence +we're going to be looking for, and the potential +20 T Leblume or size of the area. +Knowing this, we are then prepared to go to +the scene and do whatever's necessary to fulfill +the requirements of the search warrant, and that +is searching for specific items. +Mr. +Parkinson, so that would -- in addition + + +106 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +to officer safety; so that someone's not waiting +there to ambush you; also, nobody at the place to +be searched knows you're coming so they can just +dispose of things? +A. That is correct. +Q. Okay. On this +date, October 20th, where +did you go? +A. I went to a residence located +of Palm Beach, Palm Beach Countya Florida. +an address of 358 El Brillo. +the +island +With +The 300 block is the block just immediately +west of the Intracoastal +Waterway. +e. East of the intracoastal Waterway? +It is on the east side of the Intracoastal +Waterway. +In +fact, this particular residence +on the Intradoastal Waterway. +окау. +Describe to us how the house +is +is +enter +19 +The residence had staff or personnel +20% present at the time of our arrival. Detective +21 +Recarey went in ahead of me. +22 +And understanding that once you enter the +23 +property there is a heightened danger factor with +24 +persons or personnel on the scene. +And the first +25 +thing that must be done, for everyone's safety, is + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +201 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +107 +to go in and not search +for items, but clear the +residence of living human beings, so that there +can be no access to weapons or any endangerment +• to +them. This was done. And I took part in the +search of the second floor on the west end of the +residence. +All the living persons -- and thére were +no +dead persons there -- so all of the persons, +non-police persons, were escorted out to the south +side of the residence into a patio/area. +Q. Were they allowed +• to +take any items out of +the home with them? +NO. +Nor did the +police 1o0k, touch, or +move anything; other than opening doors, closets, +to make surenthere were no other persons +inside. +It was not a search in the sense of the +search warrant at this time. It was a search of +the +residence to clear it and neutralize any +èlement of danger. +This was done. +This was accomplished. +At this time officer -- Detective Recarey +would read out loud, word for word, the search +warrant to those persons that were removed from +the house. +My responsibility at this time was to video + + +108 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +and audio record the reading of that search +warrant to these persons. +That I did. And +recorded it until the conclusion of the reading of +the search warrant. +l. Okay. Were you requested by myself to +prepare a diagram of the upper floor of the home +searched? +A. Yes, I was. +a mat roos are on chat war or +A. There are several rooms that +are located on +the second floor. It is basically an I-shaped +appearance where the main body of the house is +aligned east and west +There is an I-shaped short +leg which protrudes tó the north. That actually +sits -- that l-deg sits over a three car garage. +Y +The seçond floor contains a -- on the west +end, a large +north +and +bedroom, which is aligned +south. +And then off of the south side +19 +there is a large +bedroom and large closet. +20 coming back through the bedroom to the north side +21 +there is another bathroom. +22 +And these are quite large bathrooms. +23 +They're not like our -- +24 +25 +-- you know, not like my house. + + +109 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +l. Is this the diagram you prepared? +A. Yes, it is. +l. Okay. Can I ask you +step down and -- +A. Yes. +l. -- indicate to the grand jurors what the +upstairs 100ks like, what rooms we're seeing here. +A. Io orient you -- bear in mind you're +looking at the second floor here, +and +this +is +a +spiral staircase which goes from the second floor +down to the first floor. +And this, coincidentally, +is a double door +main entrance to the front of the +• house. And once +inside -- oops. +A JUROR: +Broke the stairway. +A. I didi. +broke the stairway. +once entering the front door and coming up +the stairway you entered a landing. Once inside +18 +the +landing, it is basically a very long hallway. +19 +This hallway has a double door set here and a +20 % +double door set here. They open inward on the +21 +east side; they open inward on the west side. +22 +Once coming through this hallway you then +23 +reach a normal size door which gives you access to +24 +the +bedroom. Which, this is the +25 +bedroom. +This is the large bathroom on the south + + +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +110 +side. And this is the large +walk-in closet of +which there are two doors that you can enter and +walk in all the way through and back out to the +other. +And, again, moving back through the +bedroom, past the hallway you then enter another +large bathroom which has a sink, closets, and +large bathtub. +And it was right in here, what looked very +similar to a dentist's chair, +without the big +light. It has all kinds +of tubes and things on +it. I don't know • +And that wast +Liy what that thing would do. +Krelated to the +investigation? +A. No. +It +there, like +was just part of the furniture +- similar to, a bed was here and a +credenza +over here. +Are there toilet facilities here or is it +just sinks in these bathrooms? +A. I believe that there were toilets also +there in the +l. All right. Did you find a massage table? +A. Yes. +There was massage table in this +clos -- bathroom. +How about massage oils? Were there + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 % +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +111 +massage oils up in that bathroom? +A. I believe there were. I know that we got +some kind of a jar of material out of this +bedroom, one of -- out of the dresser. +e. What about out of the actual room where the +massage table was? +A. That, I'm not sure. +I was involved in the actual search and +photography of that. +other investigators would +have to comment on it. +2. Okay. Do you have the +reports -- +A. Yes, I do. +-- from those +Investigators? +A. I - well, Thave the evidence sheets -- +-- +of where things were found. +Okay. +Could you see if there were any +massage oils found within the same room where the +massage table was. +A. I don't have a listing of that in the +packet that I have here. +Okay. And items that would be taken into +custody by the police department would be itemized +on the property receipt like that? +That's +true. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +112 +Q. Okay. But -- and so there was a massage +oil found by the +bedroom, this room? +A. Yes. And I actually had that pointed out +to me by Detective Recarey. And it was called a +bottle -- or a Joy Jelly. And it was from the +bedroom on the -- in the credenza which was +right here. +Q. Okay. You can have a seat +ag +A. Thank you. +e. Thank you. +You've had a chance +• go over those +receipts of all the property that was contained? +A. Yes. +e. Did any of age officers find a purple +vibrator in the home? +I haveyItem 24, which -- which may be that. +I have not actually seen it, but it's called a +twin torpedo. +All right. +The twin torpedo was not found +the +bedroom though, wasn't it found in +the other bedroom? +I think Detective Recarey testified it was +found in Ghislaine Max -- or Nada's bedroom? +A. I don't know. I don't have a listing right +here on this particular document as to where it + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +22 +23 +24 +25 +113 +was found on the evidence sheet. That would be +covered in Detective Recarey's report. +l. Nothing listed as a purple vibrator though? +A. Not on the sheets that I have. +0. What about a +vibrator? +A. I don't remember seeing a +vibrator. +That may have been something that was recovered by +them and photographed by CSI Pavlich +9. eut you ava une propertyre pro in this. +case, and it's not listed? +A. I don't see it listed here. +No. +l. Okay. +ELOHLAVEK: +At this point I'm +going to see if the grand jurors have any +further +questions for you. +THE WITNESS: I'm at your service. +Yes, sir? +A JUROR: +Do you have any sexual +toys, +other than the double-headed torpedo +on your list of -- +THE WITNESS: Not on the list that I +have here, sir. +A JUROR: That's the only sexual toy +you have? +THE WITNESS: Pardon? + + +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +22 +23 +24 +25 +114 +A JUROR: That's the only sexual toy +you have that was confiscated in this -- +search? +THE WITNESS: I believe, to my +knowledge, it is. I haven't seen the +or purple, so I can't -- +A JUROR: Or any other type d +toy, period. +sexual +have not seen those. +A JUROR: Okay +THE WITNESS: +But that is not +uncommon either, because of the nature of +this investigation. +Detective Recarey would be the one +that has the knowledge on +. all those +specific items. +Other than filming the room itself -- +or I'm sorry -- the residence itself prior +to the search, recording the reading of the +search warrant. And then, folks, also +after the search I go through and re-video +to show that the police did not do any +damage. And then the door is finally +locked and secured. + + +115 +1 +So there would be areas, while I was +2 +in it I photographed it from a video +3 +standpoint, I would not have direct +4 +knowledge of the -- some of the items that +5 +were found, but Detective Recarey would. +6 +MS. BELOHLAVEK: And you obtained +7 +copies of all the evidence sheets of +8 +9 +evidence checked +in; correct? +THE WITNESS: As -gI think so. +10 +MS. BELOHLAVEK: +Yes +11 +THE WITNESS: +res +12 +MS BELOHLAVEKY +And only that twin +13 +14 +torpedo is the only +sexual item listed? +THE WIINESS: As best I can tell you. +15 +16 +corrett +MS. BELOHLAVEK: +Okay. +17 +18 +19 +NOT A +the +Yes, sir? +THE WITNESS: Yes, sir? +A JUROR: Is that report just from +I bedroom or from all the bedrooms +on the second floor? +22 +23 +THE WITNESS: Actually, it represents +the entire residence, plus the two -- the +24 +25 +servants quarters, barracks; and on the +southwest corner, the fitness and exercise + + +116 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +22 +23 +24 +25 +room. I believe this encompasses +-- +A JUROR: +Can you -- +THE WITNESS: +-- everything. +A JUROR: Can you point out on that +what -- the room was that this woman Nadia +was in? +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Are you fámiliar +with which bedroom was Nadia! +THE WITNESS: I am no +MS. BELOHLAVEK: +Detective Carey -- +Recarey, we can -- +THE WITNESS: +Right. +ELOHLAVEK: -- bring him back to +show that! okay. +COME WEINESS: Right. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Any other questions? +Yes, sir. In the back. +A JUROR: Was the suspect at the +house at the time that you +served the +warrant, sir? +THE WITNESS: No, sir. +He was not. +A JUROR: Thank you. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Yes, sir? +A JUROR: +Do your warrant s have +anything listed for like computer equipment + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +NOT +22 +23 +24 +25 +117 +or things like that or is it -- +THE WITNESS: It did. +A JUROR: It did? +THE WITNESS: +And we did take computer equipment. +A JUROR: And is -- +can you +• say +what's on it or -- +THE WITNESS: That was +handled by the +special investigations unit +And while +I saw +actually +physically saw the computers, and saw them +disconnected and removed, I never saw +anything that was on those computers. +A JUROR: +And did they confiscate +passports +or anything from anyone in the +home +THE WITNESS: No, sir. Not +passports. +And there +were weapons in the house, +rifles -- +A JUROR: And they left them. +THE WITNESS: -- that -- yes, +siI. +They were left behind because that +was never part of what we were looking for, +so those were all left behind. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +22 +23 +24 +25 +118 +MS. BELOHLAVEK: +Yes, sir? +THE WITNESS: Yes, sir? +A JUROR: Could you tell us, the +people that -- that you found there, who +they were? +THE WITNESS: Do I know who they +were? +A JUROR: The people +reah. +Who +they were. +THE WITNESS: I understand one was +the property management +-- manager. I +think he was either Germanic or possibly +Polish, he has +an Eastern European accent. +A JUROR: +That was the only person? +THE WITNESS: No. There were, I +think, three other people. +A JUROR: Who were they? +THE WITNESS: I don't know who they +were, sir. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: We can ask Detective +Recarey. +THE WITNESS: Right. +Detective +Recarey would know who they were. +A JUROR: Do you know that the +gentlemen that owned the house was out -- + + +119 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +did they tell you he was out of town? +THE WITNESS: +Yes. i +We knew he was +out of town. Yes. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: All right. +Thank +you. +THE WITNESS: +Thank you all very +much. +(Witness excused.) +CONTINUED EXAMINATION +BY MS. BELOHLAVEK: +e. You're still under +Toatn. +Who was in the home +when the search warrant +was executed? +several designers from New York city, and +Janusz Banasiak, his current houseman. +Okay. +And where were those people located +18 +inthe mansion? +19 +A. In the kitchen area. +And there were some +20 1 +What were in the main living zoom area. +21 +Q. Downstairs -- +22 +A. Downstairs, first £100r. +23 +Computers were seized? +24 +A. One computer +-- two computers were seized. +25 +One was the +covert cameras, +and the other one was + + +120 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +Mr. Banasiak's personal computer. +Q. On either the cameras or the personal +computer, did you find any evidence documenting +the sexual activity of these girls +(indiscernible)? +A. No. +1 +l. You spoke earlier about a twin torpedo that +was found in Nada's bedroom? +A. Correct. +l. Using the diagram prepared by Investigator +Parkinson, can you indicate where -- which bedroom +that was in the house? +It would have been down towards this +bedroom here, I believe. +Q. And where +was the massage table? +The massage -- well, each +room has various +massage tables. +And this was -- this was the +master bedroom with his +bath. And there +wasymassage tables here, here, and -- as well +19 +20 1l +photographs all through here. +21 +Okay. And the massage table the girls +22 +23 +described, was it in this room? +Correct. It was in the +bathroom +24 +here. +25 +Okay. +And other than the twin torpedo, + + +121 +1 +there were no other sexual toys found in the +2 +3 +house, other than the jelly from bedside? +A. The Joy Jelly. That's it. +4 +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Any other questions +5 +for Detective Recarey? +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +A JUROR: What is Jeffrey Epstein's +occupation? Just for the recordk +THE WITNESS: He is a +investor. +He +invests billionaires' montes. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: +All fight. +11 +Thank you very much. +12 +A JUROR: +Is +he +a +one +more. +13 +14 +MS. BELOHLAVEK: +A JUROR: +Sorry. +Is he a United States +15 +citizen +16 +THE WITNESS: Yes. +17 +18 +19 +NOT A +A JUROR: Born here? +THE WITNESS: +Yes, +sir. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: +All right. +Thank you, Detective Recarey. +(Witness +excused.) +22 +(WITNESS +23 +MS. BELOHLAVEK: I'm going to ask you +24 +25 +to stand up for a second and raise your +right hand. + + +122 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +Do you swear to tell the truth, the +whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so +help you God? +THE WITNESS: Yes. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Okay. Go ahead and +have a seat. +EXAMINATION +BY MS. BELOHLAVEK: +You're +1? +COPY +l. All right. l +Im going to request +that you do one thing while you're here - or two. +Tell the truth, +number one. +And number two, any questions you're asked, +make sure you +T answer yes or no. Not uh-huh or +uh-uh. +IE doesn't come out real clear. +Okay. +Lokay. Okay is good too. +20 1 Q +• All right. How old are you, +ntroduce yourself. What's +your name? +21 +22 +e. +23 +24 +Q. How old are you? +25 +18. + + +123 +1 +2 +2. When's your birthday? +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +l. Where do you live? +A. In +-. +l. How long have you lived there? +A. Probably about 15 years or so. +e. Who do you live with? +A. My father and his girlfriend +e. Where did you go to l +school? +school +l. Are you still in high school? +A. No. +l. Did you graduate? +A. I got a GED. +l. And when did you do that? +A. February. +All right. Of this year, 2006? +Lyes. +19 +Okay. +20 1 +Grigh schoo2? +21 +12th. +What grade were you in when you left +22 +Q. Do you know someone named +23 +A. Yes. +24 +Q. HOw +do you know +•? +25 +I met her through school and mutual + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +124 +friends. +e. How old is mi +in relation to you? +Are you the same age? Older? Younger? +A. I believe she's about +a year older than +me -- +l. Okay. +A. - if not the same age. +I. Was she in school with you? +A. Yes. +Osy. +Q. Was she a Senior when you +Core a senior? +A. I think she was one grade ahead of me. +l. Okay. What kind ofyrelationship did you +have with +A. Um, we wete friends, you could say. +You know somebody named +Jeffrey +Epstein? +- 2. +LHow did you go about meeting Jeffrey +Ep +introduced us. +Q. Did she take you over there one day or did +she talk to you about going there before you went? +She talked to me a little bit about it +beforehand, and then she went with me. +Okay. Let's talk about that conversation + + +125 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +between you and +•. What was it about? +A. She said that there was a man that lived in +Palm Beach. And that he was looking for young +girls to -- really, all she said beforehand was +that it would be a massage. +Q. Did she describe to you how you would have +to dress to do the massage? +A. She said to dress very girly +that +was +really all that she said beforeband. +e. Did she talk about how young he wanted the +girls? +A. No. +l. Did she ever talk about if you were asked +your age what you would say? +A. No. +okay. +linen did you first go to Jeffrey +Epstein's home? +.A. +LUm, I'm really not +sure. +19 +Okay. Approximate time. +Were you in your +20 1 +Lenior yeax at school or was it your Junior year +21 +at school? +22 +A. My Junior year. +23 +2. So you would have been -- how old were you +24 +in your Senior year? +25 +I -- well +-- + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +126 +Q. You turned 18 -- +A. -- I turned 18 -- +l. - in your Senior year? +-- in my Senior year, yes. +So I was 16 and 17 in my junior year. +Q. During the time that you went to Jeffrey +Epstein's home were you 16 or 17? +A. I believe 16 the first time, +2. And then your birthday's in +1? +A. Yes. +e. 2004 you turned 17/ +and then 2005 you're 17 +when you go there? +A. Yes. +l. Okay. +you went there +Um +I know this is difficult. They've heard +other things, so don't be embarrassed. They just +need you to be honest. +A. I came in, and he asked me to take off my +shirt. And I gave him a back massage. And that +Was +more or less +all that it was the first time. +Q. Okay. Did you take off your shirt when he +asked you to? + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +127 +2. Was that only item of clothing you took off +that time? +A. Yes. +l. Did he give you money for giving him a back +massage that first time? +A. Yes. +e. How much? +A. $200. +were 16. After that you were +17 +A. I may have already been 17. +I'm not a +hundred percent sure. +l. Okay. You may have been 17 even the first +time? +A. Riane f +Okay +How did it come about that you went +back to his house? +asked me if it would be okay if I -- +* she gave them my phone number. +And I said, yes. +Q. How were you contacted about going back +again? +Um, one of two girls that lived at the +house would call me. One was Nadia, and the +other, +I +can't remember her name. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +22 +23 +24 +25 +128 +Q. Was it Sarah? +A. Sarah. Yes. +l. Okay. And they would call your cell phone? +A. Yes. +Q. How many times do you think you went back +to Jeffrey Epstein's home? +A. Maybe 10 or so. +l. Do you recall telling the dete +ctive you +thought maybe 15 times? +O +A. Possibly. I'm +l. Numerous times? +A. Yes. +l. Okay. The first, time was just +a massage, +and you got the $2ap? +A. Yes. G +e. Did it progress +to something other than +just massaging him? +•A. +e. +LYes. +Tell us about what it progressed to? +He asked me to be completely naked while +doing it. +l. Did you do that? +A. Yes. +He asked me to touch him. But I said no. +On -- + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +129 +l. Did he make do you things you didn't want +to do? +A. NO. +Q. Go ahead. What happened? +A. On one occasion, the last time I went +there, he engaged intercourse. +l. Okay. How old were you then? +A. It was the day before my 26th Birthday. +e. Okay. Prior to the actuat datercourse +latorcourse what +happened? +Were there any sexual acts +either +performed on you, you performing on him, or him +performing on himself? +He would touch himself. +e. How would he do that? +A. What do +you mean? +Q. I mean what -- what part of his body was he +touching? +CHis penis. +Okay. +Was he masturbating? +e. okay. +Was that a regular occurrence? +A. Yes. +Q. And he never asked you to do more than +that, just -- did -- did you watch? Did he ask +you to watch or he just did it while you were + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +201 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +130 +massaging him? +A. He just did it. +l. Okay. When you were massaging him, did he +say anything to you or make any comments? +A. Um, polite conversation. +l. Okay. What kinds of things was he asking +you? +A. Just about school, and what +do when I got older. +0. He knew you were in schoole +going to +A. Yes. +A. Yes. +A. Yes. C +e. when +was that? +A., +The first time that I was there I +told him +how old +I was. +Okay. +Did he have a problem with that? +He did not seem to. +Q: Okay. Let's go to the last time; whether +it's 10 or 15 times; when you had -- he penetrated +your vagina with his penis? +A. Yes. +l. How did that come about? + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +22 +23 +24 +25 +131 +A. He told me to lay down, cause he was going +to crack my back, which he had done before. +he just sort of did it. +And +l. I know this is difficult. You don't want +to be testifying about this, do you? +A. No. Not at all. +1 +l. Okay. How much money were you paid during +the times that he masturbated in front +of you? +d. It started at 200 the figst couple times, +and then he changed it to 300. +Q. What about the final +time when there was +the actual penetration? +A. 300. +that. +I. Why did you stop going there? +A. Well, I didn't really want to go after +And they didn't call anymore after that, +SO. +vO +Okay. +So it was +a combination of both? +Q. If they had called? +A. Possibly, but I doubt it. +Q. Okay. Did you receive anything other from +Mr. Epstein than the cash involved? +I mean did he +give you a +car or do anything else? +He gave me a digital camera. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +132 +And for my birthday he gave me, like, +couple bras and panties. +e. Okay. And was that your 18th birthday? +A. Yes. +e. And he gave that to you too? +So you were still seeing him on your 18th +birthday? +A. It was the -- like -- +the day were you end +l. Okay. Was anybody else present during the +massages you were giving +to Mr. Epstein or when he +was +masturbating? +A. One time Nadia was in the room. +Q. Which time was that? What -- what +activities were +going on during the time that she +was +in the +room? +..A. +Um, well, him and her had intercourse while +he asked me to watch. +e. When was that? +A. One of the last couple times. +Q. How long did that go on? +A. It was an hour. I was there for an hour +every time. +2. Were you asked to participate in any way in + + +133 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +the sexual exchange going on between them? +Um, he asked me to touch her breasts, but +nothing more than that. +l. And did do you that? +A. Yes. +l. Okay. And did either of them +• touch you at +all during that time? +No. +l. Just one second. +You appear uncomfortable +COPY +testifying here +today. Yes? +A. Yes. +l. This morning +here, what did you ask me? +A. If there +TEEI +when we +first met when you got +was any possible way I could not +testify. +R. +Were you told you wouldn't have to testify? +That was my understanding. +I expressed that I did not want to. +19 +And I +20 1 6. +was told that I would be contacted later on with +21 +more information on that and other subjects. +22 +l. Were you ever contacted? +23 +A. NO. +24 +e. Till you got the subpoena +from me? +25 + + +134 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +l. Okay. Do you want Mr. Epstein to be +charged with any crimes in relation to what went +on between he and you? +A. Honestly, I don't really know. +Q. Okay. You expressed concerns about your +father -- +A. Yes. +Q. -- finding out about your act +ities. +Does +he know what you were doing? +A. He has very minimal information. +Q. And when did he get that +information? +A. 2 days ago, when I +got +the subpoena. +l. Okay. So itts not something you've +confided in him about? +A. No. +e. Do you want to testify at a trial? +No. +- 2. +Do you know how much money you've probably +19 +20 1 +Jolloverall during this tine? +21 +Was +your dad aware you were getting the +22 +money or were you hiding it from him? +23 +A. I guess you could say I hid it from him, +24 +because I did not make it a point for him to know. +25 +Okay. You understand that you in effect + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +22 +23 +24 +25 +135 +were committing prostitution yourself? +A. I -- +A JUROR: Can she speak up, please? +2. Can you speak up? +A. Yes. +Q. Okay. Is that an activity you have +stopped? +A. Yes. +point if +the grand jurors have any questions for you, +okay? +Do you need a minute? +A. I'm fine. +MS. +BBLOALAVEK: +Any questions for +Miss +JUROR: I didn't quite hear. +During the time you were a Junior, did +(Mr. Epstein actually have -- penetrate you +while you were a Junior? +THE WITNESS: While I was a Junior in +high school, no. +A JUROR: Then how old were you? +Again, I -- +THE WITNESS: I was +still 17 at the +time. + + +136 +1 +A JUROR: You were +still 17? +2 +THE WITNESS: Yes. +3 +4 +5 +MS. BELOHLAVEK: The day before your +18th birthday? +THE WITNESS: Yes. +6 +7 +8 +A JUROR: Did you -- do you have -- +still have contact with Mr. Epstein? +THE WITNESS: +No. +9 +A JUROR: +Does he +do you have the +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +same cell phone? +THE WITNESS:/ +I've had three +different numbers since then. +A JUROR: +And +you do know that +since +you're 18, +now, +she's not -- that you could +THE WITNESS: +18 +19 +• NOT A +22 +to. +23 +24 +25 +A JUROR: What? +THE WITNESS: Yes. +A JUROR: And you still say you would +not testify against Mr. Epstein? +THE WITNESS: No. I would not like +A JUROR: Would you? +THE WITNESS: I suppose if I had +another subpoena to where -- that -- going + + +137 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +22 +23 +24 +25 +to jail; yes, I would. +A JUROR: The lady back there. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Any other questions +for Miss m +1? +Yes, L +A JUROR: You did not want to have +intercourse with him? +THE WITNESS: No. +A JUROR: Did you ask ain +to stop? +THE WITNESS: +No. +A JUROR: And why +THE WITNESS: +I'm not really sure. +A JUROR: +Do you think he took +advantage of your youth? +THE WITNESS: Maybe. +But it was also stupid of me to put +myself in that situation. +A JUROR: Perhaps you were too young +to be up against a man of that age who had +more control over you and that you knew. +THE WITNESS: Yes. +A JUROR: Do you feel it's wrong of +him to take advantage of your youth? +THE WITNESS: +Yes, I do. +A JUROR: And did he take away from + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +NOT +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +138 +your person, your being, your spirit? +THE WITNESS: +A JUROR: And would you testify +against him for what he has done and the +wrong he has done? +THE WITNESS: No. Because I would +like to put it behind me for the most +I was successful until about +days ago. +MS. BELOHLAVER: Yes, ma'am? +A JUROR: Yes. +So +thé reason that +you don't want to testify is more just +because of personal embarrassment? +THE WITNESS: Yes. +A JUROR: Okay. +MS BELOHLAVER: Yes, Sir? +• JUROR: Jeffrey knew or you hac +said that you did tell him you were only +part. +XiT? +age +THE WITNESS: Yes. +He was -- +A JUROR: And he was aware of that? +THE WITNESS: He was well aware of my +from the very beginning. +A JUROR: If you had a daughter, +would you want her to testify or tell you? + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +22 +23 +24 +25 +139 +THE WITNESS: I don't really know. +A JUROR: Would it mean anything +special to you if you could be the person +that's strong enough to stand up to put him +away so he will never ever do this to +somebody else? +could you be strong enough to do that +or want to do that? +THE WITNESS: +I wish that I could say +that I could, but f +really +don't think that +I can. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: +Any other questions +for Miss +A JUROR: Yeah. +C +MS. BELOHLAVEK: +A JUROR: The pursuit, this idea +Yabout testifying, would you do it -- 1 +mean, would you testify if you were +subpoenaed, and would you tell the truth? +THE WITNESS: If I did not have a +choice whether or not to testify, obviously +I would have to. +Yes, I would tell the truth, because +if I'm going to have to do it, I might as + + +140 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +• NOT A +22 +hand. +23 +24 +25 +well do it right. +A JUROR: I think, for your +character -- for your own well-being -- +MS. BELOHLAVEK: You have +to ask +questions, not comment. +A JUROR: Okay. To testify would be +the right thing to do and the legad thing +to do. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: +We need a question. +A JUROR: World you do it under those +circumstances?, +THE WITNESS: +Like I said, if it was +between testifying and going to jail, I +would testify. Which is why I'm here +today. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Al1 right. +Thank you, Miss I +(Witness excused.) +(WITNESS JENSEN +• BELOHLAVEK: Raise your right +Do you swear to tell the truth, the +whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so +help you God? + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 % +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +141 +THE WITNESS: +I do. +EXAMINATION +BY MS. BELOHLAVEK: +l. Can you introduce yourself, Mr. +? +A. Yes. My name is Jensen +I am the +chief investigator with the State Attorneys Office +in Palm Beach County. +e. How long have you been in that position? +A. I have been the chief investigator for +3 years, and I have been employed by the State +Attorneys Office for approximately 13 years. +l. And what did you do before that? +A. I worked for the +West Palm Beach Police +Department from 197Q until 1993 when I started +with the State +Attorneys Office. +e. You have reviewed some documents regarding +several witnesses in this case? +Yes, +Okay. I want to take you back to +• was testifying about some +drug use. +Isn't, in fact, there a police report +regarding drinking and drug use by +A. There's a police incident report from +Sheriff Department in + + +142 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +Q. Okay. And in that case there was some boys +drinking, but it never indicates +she was drinking? +A. I believe so. +Yes, +A. She was caught with the boys and they were +drinking. +Q. Okay. Is there another +-- I +believe it's +Exhibit B that you reviewed? +A. Yes, +1 . +l. Did +disappear +from her home +that caused concern to her mother? +Your -A +her +mother reported her as +missing to the police. +Q. And was +- where did her mother think she +was? +She was in a known drug area, she believed. +aQ. +When they finally located +her, I guess +day after she took off -- +2030 +21 +A. Yes. +Q. -- did she indicate that she had been +22 +drinking and doing drugs that previous night? +23 +A. She has stated she had been drinking and +24 +doing the -- and doing drugs the night before. +25 +And she got scared and called her parents. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +143 +l. Okay. There are police reports from +activity in +I'm going to refer you to Exhibit C. +A. Yes, L +l. On March 31st of 2006, was there a police +report regarding +A. Yes, i +She was reported as missing +on +that date also. +a oray, out it was nor casten do reported +her missing? +A. That's correct. +I. Did you say how Jong she had been gone? +Out the night +before, +and then came home at +5:30 -- +A. I bettere that's what it was. +-in the morning? +I believe so. +Yes, +And how did she and her +sister come home in +the morning to get into the house? +A. They had returned and were inside the +residence when the police arrived. +And they were packing their clothes, +and +they were going to move out of the residence. +Were observations made as +• to +their -- she and her sister's physical demeanor at + + +144 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +the time? +A. There was indications that they had been +doing alcohol and drugs. And I believe the father +had also reported that when they were dropped off +that he believed the person that dropped +'em off +was a young drug dealer from the area. +l. And were they taken to school and were +they -- did they have to come pick +up +• from +school? +A. Uh, yes. They were taken back to school. +And then they received a police call from the +school security, the policeman that's assigned +•to +the school, and asked that they come retrieve +their -- her, because +she appeared to be +intoxicated at that time. +l. +And thete was actually a witness that +testified about +taking two and a half Xanax +bars? +201 Olot of Maron. +I believe, yes, that's what it was. +21 +Q. And Xanax +is a controlled substance? +On the +22 +A. Yes, 1 +23 +l. And it would be a felony to possess that? +24 +A. Yes, i +25 +If you are caught with it, did not have a + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +22 +23 +24 +25 +145 +prescription or anything, you could be arrested +and charged with a felony. +l. Okay. You've reviewed +MySpace.com -- +A. Yes. +Q. -- website information? +A. Yes. I have looked at it. +Q. Does she misrepresent her age +there? +A. I believe there were fous darierent +occasions. On March the 5th she reported her age +as 18. On the same date in another entry she +reported her age as 17^ +On March the 28th of 2006 +she reports her age asi +being 16. And then again +on April the 5th she teports her age as being 15. +Q. And on +there does she +also talk about doing +drugs and drinking alcohol? +Yes, +1. She does. +• 2. +What about shoplifting? Does she report +shels ever shoplifted? +She admits to that. +Lots of shoplifting. +That's +-- specific. +l. Her web name, what does she have as her web +name on the website? +Exhibit H, I believe. +A. I believe it's called + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +201 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +146 +Q. And does her website also include pictures +of her in skimpy attire, drinking alcohol, and +sexually provocative photos? +A. Yes, L +Q. I'm going to show you these photos. Are +these photos of l +that were on her website? +A. Yes, L +been +arrested? +A. Yes, +e. When was that ashes?' +A. September the +15th +of 2005 +she had charges +filed against hef for possession of marijuana, +and +possession +Of. +drug paraphernalia. +And that was during the time that she was +seeing Mr. Epstein -- +-- the suspect in this matter? +A. I can't answer that. +What about theft allegations, has +she admitted to stealing also? +She was employed by +in November of 2006 she was accused by her +employer, +and she admitted to it. +And + + +147 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +l. She also had some MySpace.com website? +A. Yes, I +l. On there does she go through and write out +about a falsification of records and lies to +people that she has done? +A. Yes. That is included in some of the +documents that I reviewed. +2. Exhibit C, could you read what +she wrote on +August 5, 2005? +A. Hey. Wow, not living with my parents +anymore is the shit. For aN +of you who are not +aware, I moved to • +So far everything +is going +well. welf +and I am getting along; +not like everyone predicted. +when you guys live together, all that +time together will be horrible. +And that's in +quotations. +The complete opposite of the matter +ofa fact. +19 +I went job hunting the second day that we +20 1 6 +ere here, but all I did was get applications. +21 +The day after that I was, like, fucking -- fuck +22 +this, and I didn't return -- turn them in. I just +23 +got so tired. Yesterday is when I took them. +24 +I ended up getting a job at +25 +I only get paid $6.40 an hour, but + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +148 +hopefully that will change soon. +I also get a +discount at all the +• and +I like my boss so far. I mean, he only met +me twice, but she's real cool. +Mill is trying to get a job at an +He +likes music, so I think he's going -- it's going +to fit for him -- a good fit for him +really +hope he gets it. The boss guy called him back to +set up an interview the day he +came +in with the +application, I think that's +a good sign. It +starts at 4 p.m. +He's at the mall right now. I got to call +him and ask him how it went in the -- in a little +while. Its +onl +3:45 right now. +oh, itywas so funny. I used him as one of +my references for my +; which I interpreted +being +I; and the lady called me back +andytold me that +gave me such a +outstanding reference that she did not need to +call anyone else back. He got me the job just +like that. He made me sound so fucking good -- so +fucking great. +I lied and said that he was the old store +manager for +1l. She bought it. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 1 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +149 +There's a notation, S-T-R 8. +I'm not +exactly sure what that makes reference to. +No complaints from me. +Okay, well I got to +go smoke some resin, considering I have a limited +supply of Mary J and have to conserve. +I miss everyone back home. +I love you +guys. Don't forget about +me. +l. In Exhibit C, does +she make +ferences to +being famous? +There is -- yes. +She would like to be +famous or known to be famøus +l. And how does she indicate she would like to +be famous? +There is +a +petátion on one of her blogs, +that she says +she would like to meet Bill Clinton +this week, because someone -- and this is in +quotes now +-- "Someone could be so famous for +sucking his dick; that's how +famous +I could be." +End)of quote. +l. Okay. And then there's a lot of other +stuff where +she talks about accepted use of +marijuana? +Referred to as weed, yes. +l. Right. +And pictures on her website of her smoking + + +150 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +weed and drinking beer? +A. That's correct. +l. Holding a bong-type pipe? +A. Correct. +l. Okay. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: +Any questions for +MI. +22 +23 +24 +25 +Okay. +a sunor men you made to asia +drugs, does that means smoking dope? +I mean, what does +that mean? +Drinking? I don't +you know, does it +encompass -» +THE WITNESS: My interpretation is +that'd e +ither be smoking marijuana or doing +hard drugs, cocaine or something like that. +If it was drinking I would refer to +as drinking alcohol. But when they +refer to doing drugs, it's either smoking +marijuana or talking a hard drug such and +cocaine or something. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Do you know what -- +A JUROR: Thank you, sir. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Do you know what +smoking resin means? + + +151 +1 +THE WITNESS: I have not heard that +2 +resin used before. That's +something new to +3 +me. +4 +MS. BELOHLAVEK: other +questions? +5 +Yes, L +6 +A JUROR: +What was the date when +she +7 +was talking about being famous? Do you +8 +know? +9 +10 +THE WITNESS: Yeah. +11 +I'm going through that exhibit now to +12 +find the exact location. +13 +LELOHLAVEK: On the first page. +14 +Log-in +• daten +11-- +15 +PREMITNESS: 11/7/2005. +16 +uros Thank you. +17 +18 +19 +•NOT A +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Any other questions? +yes, +? +A JUROR: The -- the one girl who had +you mentioned that she +moved to m +had run away or was missing several times. +22 +Was that while she was here or after she +23 +moved to m +that she started being -- +24 +she was missing? +25 +Her parents didn't know where she + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +22 +23 +24 +25 +152 +was. +THE WITNESS: That was in both +and in +A JUROR: Do you typically find that +teenagers that have MySpaces tend to tell +the truth on those websites +or tend to try +to sound adventurous or -- what is +their accuracy to their statements? +THE WITNESS: This would be a +personal observation on +my part; and I +would say, no. +I would think it would be -- it would +be more that it +wasn't the truth. And +that's just my personal observation. +have no +data to support that or not, that's +just +a personal observation. +Yes sir? +A JUROR: Are there +any kind of +school reports, psychological reports, +arrest records that would, you know, +indicate behavior like this from this girl +from her early age? +THE WITNESS: Those are the only +police reports that I have, is the one from +Georgia and the ones from Florida. If + + +153 +1 +there's others, I haven't been made +2 +available to those. +3 +A JUROR: Okay. +4 +THE WITNESS: And the psychological +5 +6 +report, I wouldn't - +MS BELOHLAVEK: The report -- Palm +7 +Beach County Sheriff's report on +8 +9 +1, Exhibit C -- +THE WITNESS: Okay./ +10 +11 +MS. BELOHLAVEK: +with her father? +did they speak +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +Second page +of that report. +And did he indicate, +has been +to a facifity for drug use? +THE WINESS: There was a reference +t +I. I'm assuming that -- +17 +18 +19 +• NOT A +MS. BELOHLAVEK: For drug use? +THE WITNESS: Yes. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: And does it say that +- +has been using -- as told by the +father, using narcotics +since the age of +22 +14? +23 +THE WITNESS: +24 +25 +L? +A JUROR: + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +22 +23 +24 +25 +154 +Since she was in the family center or +drug rehab, whatever it was, how has her +behavior been or what has her drug activity +been? +THE WITNESS: I have no direct +knowledge of that. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: +The most redent +report is dated when? +THE WITNESS: Palm Beach County. +Palm Beach County +report +is dated March the +31st of 2006. +ELOHLAVEK: And that was +-- +she's back in Palm Beach County. +THE WITNESS: Yes. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Because the +incidents in +{November -- +were all in +THE WITNESS: +November. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: -- 2005, or +January 2006? +THE WITNESS: That's +•correct. +A JUROR: When -- when was she in the +rehabilitation? +What's +the date that +she +was in? + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +22 +23 +24 +25 +155 +THE WITNESS: This was after -- well +it's noted in the Palm Beach County report, +the police report, that she had been +„to +for drug treatment. It -- +MS. BELOHLAVEK: So previous to her +taking the Xanax bars? +THE WITNESS: Correct. But +there's +no exact date described in +the +report. +A JUROR: So I guess I was going to +ask, in the last year or +indiscernible) +since March, how has her +behavior -- +MS. BELOHLAVEK: +Do you have +knowledge of that Mr. +THE WITNESS: No, I do not. +A DUROR: Recent -- is she still +curtently involved in (indiscernible) -- +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Do you have any +knowledge about that? +THE WITNESS: +NOr +I do not. +A JUROR: What are Xanax bars? +MS. BELOHLAVEK: We can find that out +for you. +A JUROR: Okay. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: And you'll know + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +22 +23 +24 +25 +156 +after lunch. +Any other questions? +All right. +How about we take a lunch +break till 1:30? +•, wait. +A JUROR: I had one question. +Would anybody else here like +to bring +back? +A JUROR: No. +A JUROR: No. +A JUROR: +No +A JUROR: +A JUROR: +A JUROR: +excuse me. +The only reason I have +is that -- +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Let's not do this in +Front +of the witness, okay? +A JUROR: +Okay. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: Thank you, Mr. +(Witness excused.) +(WITNESS JENSEN L +RECALLED) +CONTINUED EXAMINATION +BY MS. BELOHLAVEK: +Q. Jurors +asked you a question earlier about, +what is Xanax? + + +157 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +•NOT A +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. Yes. And during -- +I. Were you able to find that out? +A. Yes. +During our break I went back and I +researched it. +And using what is referred to as a PDR, +which is a Physicians Desk Reference; and it +identifies and gives drugs and everything like +that. They identify, Xanax is authanguilizer used +in the short term relief of symptoms of anxiety or +the treatment of anxiety disorders. +Q. Okay. And possession of that without a +prescription, someone could be charged with a +felony? +A. That As +correct. +MS. BELOHLAVEK: A11 right. +Thank you very much. +(Witness excused.) +(Proceeding concluded 12:52 p.m.) + + +158 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +CERTIFICATE +THE STATE OF FLORIDA, +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH. +I, CATHERINE P. DORE, R.P.R. and +Official Court Reporter for the Fifteenth Judicial +Circuit, Criminal Division, in and for falm Beach +County, Florida; do hereby certify +tha +I was +authorized to and did transcribe the foregoing +proceedings at the time and place aforesaid; and +that the preceding pages pumbered from 1 +to 157, +inclusive, represent a true and accurate +transcription of thé +audio recording of said +proceedings. +IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto +affixed my official signature this 17th day of +July,. +2023. +20 +*NOT +22 +23 +24 +25 +Pattern 4 Dore +CATHERINE P. DORE, R.P.R. +and Official Court Reporter \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b97fbb540221e168eec11af1f3f7f24a3a568e225c01b7eae3b4751ad9983ac9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b97fbb540221e168eec11af1f3f7f24a3a568e225c01b7eae3b4751ad9983ac9.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f1d731e636dd58c68e5e6d3654f4104a30d50d72 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b97fbb540221e168eec11af1f3f7f24a3a568e225c01b7eae3b4751ad9983ac9.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -3110, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b97fbb540221e168eec11af1f3f7f24a3a568e225c01b7eae3b4751ad9983ac9", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 177, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "2f530b19253ff2556af1a3d4b07e03195bf62c183ffc139d3b1656a74da1ff10", + "output_sha256": "b8a2d45fc0a761514915ab24ba85153f110fe17d44c8cc479fa06b203bff64dd", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b98938e14d0c575e52a6963c3a314f4b490538859c0a4147c68a302912563e87.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b98938e14d0c575e52a6963c3a314f4b490538859c0a4147c68a302912563e87.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ab918925d1ad00428e4f0ba289fd19ea66bf41da --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b98938e14d0c575e52a6963c3a314f4b490538859c0a4147c68a302912563e87.md @@ -0,0 +1,137 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 125-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 1 of 7 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON +vS. +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON +EXIST A + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 125-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 2 of 7 +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/JOHNSON +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 125-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 3 of 7 +JANE DOE, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/. +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. II, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469-MARRA/ +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRAJ +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 125-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 4 of 7 +Defendant. +ORDER +THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. +102's Motion for an Order for the Preservation of Evidence and Incorporated Memorandum of +Law (DE #114), filed May 26, 2009, and this court's order (DE #192). The parties having +agreed and the Court having carefully considered the motion and being otherwise fully advised +in the premises. +It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Motion (DE # 114) is GRANTED as +follows: +A.l Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and such employees and agents (currently under his control) +and his attorneys are directed to take every reasonable step to preserve any evidence, resulting +from the October 25, 2005 search of his home as set forth in this Court's order (DE #151-2; DE +#20 in Case 9:08 -CV-80804-KAM) previously entered. +A.2 Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and such employees and agents (currently under his control) +and his attorneys are directed to take every reasonable step to preserve any evidence relevant to +these cases that have been filed in federal court or that may lead to the discovery of admissible +evidence relevant to these cases which includes, documents, data, and tangible things, including, +writings; records; files; correspondence; digital or chemical process photographs (including +negatives); reports; memoranda; calendars; diaries; minutes; electronic messages; voicemail; e- +mail; telephone message records or logs; computer and network activity logs; hard drives; + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 125-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 5 of 7 +backup data; removable computer storage media, such as tapes, disks, and cards; printouts; +document image files; web pages; databases; spreadsheets; software; books; ledgers; journals; +orders; invoices; bills; vouchers; checks; statements; worksheets; summaries; compilations; +computations; charts; diagrams; graphic presentations; drawings; films; charts; video, +phonographic, tape, or digital recordings or transcripts thereof; drafts; jottings; and notes. +Information that serves to identify, locate, or link such material, such as file inventories, file +folders, and indices, is also included. Specifically, Defendant must preserve the following +evidence as defined herein: records of phone communications; records of domestic and +international travel, including travel in Defendant's private airplanes; former and current +employee records; tax returns; any document evidencing payment by Defendant of U.S. currency +and/or merchandise to each person on the list provided by the United States Attorney's Office +("USAO list"); any evidence stored in Defendant's storage unit; all photographs of the interior +and exterior of Defendant's Palm Beach residence as it appeared in 1998 through October 2005; +any diary, log, memo pad, calendar, or other writing which reflected the date that each person on +the USAO list visited Defendant's residence; any diary or document wherein each person on the +USAO list wrote regarding any visits) to Defendant's residence; all documents sent by the Palm +Beach Police Department ("PBPD"), the FBI, the USAO, or the Palm Beach State Attorney's +Office ("PBSAO") to the defendant; and all computers used by Defendant and/or such agents +and employees (currently under his control) to the extent the computers have evidence relating to +these cases. The time period for the preservation of evidence shall be 1998 - 2002 as it relates to +Jane Doe 102; and 2002 through October 25, 2005 as it relates to other persons on the USAO +list. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 125-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 6 of 7 +"Evidence" is defined as any document or information that is in the possession, custody +or control of the defendant as of the date of this order and that is relevant to these cases or that +may lead to the discovery of evidence relevant to these cases. The duty to preserve evidence +extends to documents, data, and tangible things in the possession, custody, and/or control of +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and such employees or agents (currently under his control) or +attorneys who possess materials reasonably anticipated to be subject to discovery in these +actions. Counsel for the Defendant shall be directly responsible only to the extent they are in +possession or control of evidence. Counsel shall provide a copy of this Order to the Defendant +and to those employees or agents whom defense counsel knows or has reason to believe may +have evidence. +C. +"Preservation" is to be interpreted broadly to accomplish the goal of maintaining the +integrity of all documents, data, and tangible things reasonably anticipated to be subject to +discovery in these actions under Rules 26, 45, and 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. +D. +If an objection or privilege is raised, the parties may raise the issue with this Court in +a timely fashion and shall preserve the evidence in question pending resolution by the Court. +An agreement to preserve evidence and this Order is not a waiver of any existing or future right +to object to production or any constitutional or evidentiary basis. +E. +The parties, without leave of Court, may agree in writing that certain documents or +categories of evidence need not be preserved as otherwise required by this Order. If such +agreement is reached, such agreement is effective upon signing and without further order of this +Court. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 125-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 7 of 7 +F. +If this Court determines that evidence has been wrongfully destroyed or lost in +violation of this Order, it may impose appropriate sanctions based upon motion and an +evidentiary hearing, if necessary. +G. +Each party shall bear its own costs for complying with this Order. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, +this +-of +- 2009. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Court Judge +Copies to: +All counsel of record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b98938e14d0c575e52a6963c3a314f4b490538859c0a4147c68a302912563e87.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b98938e14d0c575e52a6963c3a314f4b490538859c0a4147c68a302912563e87.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3fc7260700714779634a12c574102e877f9de08f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b98938e14d0c575e52a6963c3a314f4b490538859c0a4147c68a302912563e87.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -433, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b98938e14d0c575e52a6963c3a314f4b490538859c0a4147c68a302912563e87", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "d004212c30c633eefbd73c8ab6c3cc7bb5eaf8f03083bc31871f91c7d6c9ad6b", + "output_sha256": "e80b99058b47b109046fca16bc7d416fdc723756c2430170cdb5b7f7a128dcc2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b99455114abf97a34c40f1ced31b177239c8ee82af29a6a8200bf29ffa79976b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b99455114abf97a34c40f1ced31b177239c8ee82af29a6a8200bf29ffa79976b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..05117224e19c8f9c47b653e62f4f419d57805501 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b99455114abf97a34c40f1ced31b177239c8ee82af29a6a8200bf29ffa79976b.md @@ -0,0 +1,2375 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 1 of 64 +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/_ +JANE DOE No. 1 and JANE DOE No. 2 +V. +UNITED STATES +AFFIDAVIT OF +J. +_ ESQ. REGARDING NEED FOR +PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS +,, Esq., do hereby declare that I am a member in good standing of the Bar +of the State of Florida. Along with co-counsel, I represent Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 +(as referred to as "the victims") in the above-listed action to enforce their rights under the Crime +Victims Rights Act (CVRA). I also represented them (and several other victims) in civil suits +against Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing them. I am also familiar with the criminal justice +system, having served as state prosecutor in the Broward County State Attorney's Office. +2. This affidavit covers factual issues regarding the Government's assertions of privilege to +more than 13,000 pages of documents it has produced for in camera inspection in this case. This +affidavit provides factual information demonstrating that the Government's assertions of +privilege are not well founded. It further demonstrates that the victims have a compelling and +substantial need for the information requested and have no other way of obtaining the +information. +Background Regarding Unsuccessful Efforts to Reach Stipulated Facts with the +Government +3. On July 7, 2008, I filed a petition to enforce the CVRA rights of Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe +No. 2 with regard to sex offenses committed against them by Jeffrey Epstein while they were +minors. The course of the proceedings since then is well-known to the Court. For purposes of +this affidavit regarding privileges, it is enough to briefly recount the efforts of the victims to +reach a stipulated set of facts with the Government - efforts that the Government has blocked. +4. The Court first held a hearing on victims' petition on July 11, 2008. The Court discussed a +need to "hav[e] a complete record, and this is going to be an issue that's ... going to go to the +Eleventh Circuit, [so it] may be better to have a complete record as to what your position is and +the government's is as to what actions were taken." Tr. at 25-26. The Court concluded the +hearing with the following instructions: "So I'll let both of you confer about whether there is a +need for any additional evidence to be presented." Tr. at 32. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 2 of 64 +5. The victims and the U.S. Attorney's Office then attempted to reach a stipulated set of facts +underlying the case. The U.S. Attorney's Office offered a very abbreviated set of proposed facts, +and the victims responded with a detailed set of proposed facts. Rather than respond to the +victims' specific facts, however, the U.S. Attorney's Office suddenly reversed course. On July +29, 2008, it filed a Notice to Court Regarding Absence of Need for Evidentiary Hearing (DE 17). +The U.S. Attorney's Office took the following position: "After consideration, the Government +believes that an evidentiary hearing is not necessary" (DE 17 at 1). The Office asserted that the +Court need only take judicial notice of the fact that no indictment had been filed against Epstein +to resolve the case. +6. On August 1, 2008, the victims filed a response to the Government's "Notice," giving a +proposed statement of facts surrounding the case. DE 19 at 5. The victims' response also +requested that the Court direct the Government to confer with the victims regarding the +undisputed facts of the case, and produce the non-prosecution agreement and other information +about the case. Id. at 14. On August 14, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the case regarding +the confidentiality of the non-prosecution agreement. The Court ultimately ordered production +of the agreement to the victims. +7. After the U.S. Attorney's Office made the non-prosecution agreement available to the +victims, the victims reviewed it and pursued further discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office. +Ultimately, however, the U.S. Attorney's Office declined to reach a stipulated set of facts with +the victims and declined to provide further information about the case. +8. With negotiations at an impasse, the victims attempted to learn the facts of the case in other +ways. In approximately May 2009, counsel for the victims propounded discovery requests in +both state and federal civil cases against Epstein, seeking to obtain correspondence between +Epstein and prosecutors regarding his plea agreement - information that the U.S. Attorney's +Office was unwilling to provide to the victims and information that was highly relevant both to +the victims' civil suit and their CVRA enforcement action. Epstein refused to produce that +information, and (as the Court is aware) extended litigation to obtain the materials followed. The +Court rejected all of Epstein's objections to producing the materials. +9. On June 30, 2010, counsel for Epstein sent to counsel for the victims approximately 358 +pages of e-mail correspondence between criminal defense counsel and the U.S. Attorney's Office +regarding the plea agreement that had been negotiated between them. See DE48-Attachment +1/Exhibit A. These e-mails began to disclose for the first time the extreme steps that had been +taken by the U.S. Attorney's Office to avoid prosecuting Epstein and to avoid having the victims +in the case learn about the non-prosecution agreement that had been reached between Epstein +and the Government. While the Court ordered that all of the correspondence be turned over to +the victims, Epstein chose to disobey that order and instead only produced the correspondence +authored by the Government and redacted all correspondence authored by him or his attorneys. +10. In mid-July 2010, Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 settled their civil lawsuits against +Epstein. Then, armed with the new information, they turned to moving forward in the CVRA +case. On September 13, 2010, the victims informed the Court that they were preparing new +filings in the case. +11. On October 12, 2010, the Court entered an order directing the victims to provide a status +report on the case by October 27, 2010. That same day, counsel for the victims again contacted +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 3 of 64 +the U.S. Attorney's Office about the possibility of reaching a stipulated set of facts in the case. +That same day, the U.S. Attorney's Office responded: "We don't have any problem with +agreeing that a factual assertion is correct if we agree that is what occurred" (DE 41 at 2). +12. On October 23, 2010, the victims e-mailed to the U.S. Attorney's Office a detailed proposed +statement of facts, with many of the facts now documented by the correspondence between the +U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein's counsel. The victims requested that the U.S. Attorney's +Office identify which facts it would agree to. In a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office, the victims +stated: +If you believe that any of the facts they propose are incorrect, Jane Doe No. 1 and +Jane Doe No. 2 would reiterate their long-standing request that you work with us +to arrive at a mutually-agreed statement of facts. As you know, in the summer of +2008 Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 were working with you on a stipulation +of facts when you reversed course and took that position that no recitation of the +facts was necessary (see doc. No. 19 at 2).... I hope that your e-mail means that +you will at least look at our facts and propose any modifications that you deem +appropriate. Having that evidence quickly available to the Court could well help +move this case to a conclusion. +That same day, the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed to forward the proposed statement of facts to +the appropriate Assistant U.S. Attorney for review (DE 41 at 2-3). +13. On October 26, 2010, rather than stipulate to undisputed facts, the U.S. Attorney's Office +contacted the victims' attorneys and asked them to delay the filing of their motion for a twoweek period of time so that negotiations could be held between the Office and the victims in an +attempt to narrow the range of disputes in the case and to hopefully reach a settlement resolution +without the need for further litigation. Negotiations between the victims and the U.S. Attorney's +Office then followed over the next two days. However, at 6:11 p.m. on October 27, 2010 - the +date on which the victims' pleading was due - the U.S. Attorney's Office informed the victims +that it did not believe that it had time to review the victims' proposed statement of facts and +advise which were accurate and which were inaccurate. The Office further advised the victims +that it believed that the victims did not have a right to confer with their Office under the CVRA +in this case because in its view the case is "civil" litigation rather than "criminal" litigation (doc. +No. 41 at 3).' +14. As a result, purely as an accommodation to the U.S. Attorney's Office, on October 27, 2010, +the victims filed a report with the Court in which they agreed to delay filing their motion and +accompanying facts for up to two-weeks to see if negotiations can resolve (or narrow) the +disputes with the U.S. Attorney's Office (DE 41 at 4). Discussions with the U.S. Attorney's +Office dragged on, including a personal meeting between Jane Doe No. 1 and the U.S. Attorney +in December 2010. +'In seeming contradiction to this position, on March 17, 2011, the U.S. Attorney's Office +tormed the victims that it would not be making any initial disclosures to the victims as require +r civil cases by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). The U.S. Attorney's Office did not explain why the +believe that this rule of civil procedure is inapplicable if they think this case is properly viewed +as a "civil" case. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 4 of 64 +15. After further discussions failed to produce any agreement or other visible progress, the +victims informed the U.S. Attorney's Office that they would file their "summary judgment" +motion with the Court on March 18, 2011 and requested further cooperation from the Office on +the facts. +16. Ultimately, after months of discussion, the U.S. Attorney's Office informed counsel for the +victims that - contrary to promises made earlier to stipulate to undisputed facts - no such +stipulation would be forthcoming. Instead, on March 15, 2011, the U.S. Attorney for the +Southern District of Florida, Wifredo A. Ferrer, sent a letter to the victims declining to reach any +agreement on the facts: l +Because, as a matter of law, the CVRA is inapplicable to this matter in which no +federal criminal charges were ever filed, your requests for the government's +agreement on a set of proposed stipulated facts is unnecessary and premature. +That is, because whether the rights in 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) attach prior to the filing +of a charge in a federal court is a matter of statutory interpretation, resolution of +that question is not dependent upon the existence of any certain set of facts, other +than whether a charging document was ever filed against Jeffrey Epstein in the +United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. And while this +Office remains willing to cooperate, cooperation does not mean agreeing to facts +that are not relevant to the resolution of the legal dispute at issue.... +Letter from Wifredo A. Ferrer to Paul G. Cassell (March 15, 2011). +17. Accordingly, unable to work with the Government to reach a resolution of the facts, on +March 21, 2011, the victims filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, alleging 53 undisputed facts +along with some evidentiary support for each of the facts. DE 48. The victims also filed a +motion to have their facts accepted because of the Government's failure to contest their facts. +DE 49. The victims also filed a motion to have the Court direct the Government to not withhold +relevant evidence. DE 50. +18. Following a hearing on the motions, on September 26, 2011, the Court rejected the +Government's argument that the CVRA was inapplicable in this case because the Government +had never filed charges against Epstein. DE 99. The Court, however, rejected the victims" +argument that it should accept their facts because of the Government's failure to contest the +facts. DE 99 at 11. Instead, the Court directed that discovery could proceed in the form of +requests for admission and document production requests. Id. at 11. The Court reserved ruling +on the victims' motion that the Government should be directed not to withhold evidence. +19. In light of the Court's order, on October 3, 2011, the victims filed requests for production +with the Government. The requests included 25 specific requests, each of which linked very +directly to the facts that the victims were attempting to prove in this case. +20. On November 7, 2011, the day when the Government's responses were due, rather than +produce even a single page of discovery, the Government filed a motion to dismiss the victims' +petitions. DE 119. On that same day, the Government filed a motion to stay discovery. DE 121. +The victims filed a response, arguing that the Government's motion was a stall tactic. DE 129. +The victims also filed a motion to compel production of all of their discovery requests. DE 130. +The Government filed a reply, arguing that it was not stalling. Indeed, the Government told the +Court that "the United States has agreed to provide some information to [the victims] even +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 5 of 64 +during the pendency of the stay [of discovery] and is undertaking a search for that information." +DE 140 at 4. Contrary to that representation, however, over the next seventeen months, the +Government did not produce any information to the victims, despite the victims reminding the +Government of that statement made to the court. +21. Ultimately, after some additional motions and rulings, on June 19, 2013, the Court denied +the Government's motion to dismiss and lifted any stay of discovery. DE 189. That same day, +the Court entered an order granting the victims" motion to compel and directing the Government +to produce (1) all correspondence between it and Epstein; (2) all communications between the +Government and outside entities; and (3) every other document requested by the victims. DE +190 at 2. With respect to the third item, the Court allowed the Government to assert privilege by +producing the items in question for in camera inspection and filing a contemporaneous privilege +log. Id. The Court required that the privilege log must "clearly identify|] each document|] by +author(s), addressee(s), recipients), date, and general subject matter ...." DE 190 at 2. +22. On July 19 and July 27, 2013, the Government made its production. With regard to item (1) +- correspondence with Epstein, the Government withheld the correspondence pending a ruling +from the Eleventh Circuit on Epstein's motion to stay production of these materials. With regard +to the other items, the Government produced 14,825 pages of documents to the Court for in +camera inspection, but turned over only 1,357 pages to the victims. Thus, the Government +asserted privilege to more than 90% of the documents in question. The documents that the +Government produced were almost worthless to the victims, as they included such things that the +victims' +own letters to the Government ( +0001-04), court pleadings filed by the victims +themselves or other victims, by Epstein, or by news media organizations (e.g., +00142-88, +00229-31, 281-311, 00668-69), public court rulings on Epstein related matters (e.g., +0008- +10, 0012-14. 0036-86, 00190-228), public newspaper articles (e.g., +0011, 0030, 0032-33), +and similar materials already available to the victims. It also included roughly four hundred +pages of notices sent to the various other victims in this case - notices that were substantively +indistinguishable from the notices the victims themselves in this case had already received. +Almost without exception, the documents the Government produced do not go to the disputed +issues in this case. +23. The Government made one last production of materials in this case on August 6, 2013. This +involved roughly 1,500 pages of documents that were largely meaningless in the context of the +contested issues in the case. They included public documents in the case such the crime victims' +own pleadings, see, e.g., +000671-000711 (copy of the victims' redacted summary +judgment motion). Curiously, while the Government has produced these documents that would +likely fall into an "irrelevant" category of documents, they have simultaneously refused +production of hundreds of other documents that are responsive to our requests on the basis of +relevance. +24. The victims have tried to obtain information on all relevant subjects through requests for +admission. The Government, however, has refused to admit many of the victims" central +allegations in this case. A copy of the victims' requests for admissions and the Government's +responses is attached to this affidavit so that the Court can see that the victims have diligently +tried to pursue this avenue for developing the facts in this case. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 6 of 64 +25. The victims have also tried to obtain information on subjects related to their suit by +voluntary requests for interview with persons who are no longer employed by the Justice +Department. For example, I have sent letters to both Bruce Reinhart and Alex Acosta, who both +have information about the Epstein case, requesting an opportunity to discuss the case with them. +Both of them have ignored my letters. +The Need for the Materials Requested by the Victims +26. The documents that the victims requested that the Government produce to them on October +3, 2011, are all highly relevant to their CVRA enforcement action. We would not have requested +them otherwise. The victims also have no other means of obtaining the requested material. This +section of the affidavit explains why the materials are needed by the victims. For the +convenience of the Court, the affidavit will proceed on a section-by-section basis concerning the +need for the materials. Also for the convenience of the Court, a copy of the October 3, 2011, +request for production is attached to this Affidavit. Also attached is the victims' supplemental +discovery request of June 24, 2013. As the Court will note from reviewing the requests for +production, most of the requests specifically recount the allegations that the requested documents +would support, in an effort to eliminate any dispute from the Government that the documents +were not relevant to the case. Many of the requests for production link directly to specific +paragraphs in the victims' previously-filed summary judgment motion. Accordingly, the victims +have a very specific need for these documents to support the allegations in the summary +judgment motion found at DE 48 at 3-23. +27. The Court has previously concluded that the victims' proof of their claims is, at this point in +the case, inadequate. Instead, the Court has ruled: "Whether the evidentiary proofs will entitle +[the victims] to that relief [of setting aside the non-prosecution agreement] is a question properly +reserved for determination upon a fully developed evidentiary record." DE 189 at 11-12. The +Court has further indicated that it will be considering an "estoppel" argument raised by the +Government as a defense in this case. DE 189 at 12 n.6. The Court has noted that this argument +"implicates a fact-sensitive equitable defense which must be considered in the historical factual +context of the entire interface between Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial authorities and the +federal offense +victims - including an assessment of the allegation of a deliberate conspiracy +between Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the pendency of +negotiations between Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and presentation of +the non-prosecution agreement to them as a fait accompli." DE 189 at 12 n.6 (emphasis added). +The victims have a compelling need for information about the Government's actions to show +what the "entire interface" was and to respond to the Government's estoppel arguments, as well +as other defenses that it appears to be preparing to raise. See, e.g., DE 62 (52-page response +from the Government to the victim's summary judgment motion, raising numerous factuallybased and other arguments against the victim's position). +28. Request for Production ("RFP") No. 1 requests information regarding the Epstein +investigation. These documents are needed to support the victims' allegations that the +Government had a viable criminal case for many federal sex offenses that it could have pursued +against Epstein. See, e.g., DE 48 at 3-7. +29. RFP No. 2 requests information regarding crime victim notifications in this case. These +documents are needed to support the victims' allegations that their rights under the CVRA, their +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 7 of 64 +right to notice and to confer with the Government, were violated in this case. In particular, these +documents are needed to demonstrate that the victims were not properly notified about the nonprosecution agreement (NPA) entered into by the Government and Jeffrey Epstein and that the +Government did not confer with the victims about the agreement. See, e.g., DE 48 at 11-17. +30. RFP No. 3 requests information about the NPA, including in particular its confidentiality +provision. These documents are needed to demonstrate that the confidentiality provision +precluded disclosing the agreement to Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, as well as to other +victims. See, e.g., DE 48 at 10-17. These documents are further needed to demonstrate that +Jeffrey Epstein specifically orchestrated the secrecy of the agreement, thereby deliberately +causing the Government's CVRA violation in this case. See, e.g., DE 48 at 13. +31. RFP No. 4 requests documents relating to negotiations between the Government and Jeffrey +Epstein concerning the court and/or location in which Jeffrey Epstein would enter any guilty plea +(including in particular any negotiations concerning concluding the plea in Miami or another +location outside of West Palm Beach). These documents are relevant to the victims allegations +that the Government was interested in finding a place to conclude any plea agreement that would +effectively keep Epstein's victims (most of whom resided in or about West Palm Beach) from +learning what was happening through the press. See, e.g., DE 48 at 7-8. +32. RFP No. 5 requests documents pertaining to negotiations between the Government and +Jeffrey Epstein regarding any legal representation of the vietims in civil cases against Epstein. +These documents are needed to prove the victims' allegation that part of the plea negotiations +with Epstein involved Epstein's efforts to make sure that the victims would be represented in +civil cases against Epstein by someone who was not an experienced personal injury lawyer or by +someone familiar to Epstein or his legal team. See, e.g., DE 48 at 9. +33. RFP No. 6 requests documents concerning the Government's and/or Epstein awareness or +discussion of possible public criticism and/or victim objections to the non-prosecution agreement +that they negotiated. The documents are needed to prove the victims' allegations that the +Government wanted the non-prosecution agreement with Epstein concealed from public view +because of the intense public criticism that would have resulted had the agreement been +disclosed and/or the possibility that victims would have objected in court and convinced the +judge not to accept the agreement. See, e.g., DE 48 at 7-8, 11. They are also relevant to bias and +motive by the authors or subjects of other documents in this case. +34. RFP No. 7 requests documents regarding the Government's awareness of its potential +CVRA obligations in this case and regarding any discussions between the Government and +Epstein concerning these CVRA obligations in this case. These documents are needed to prove +the victims' allegations that the Government was aware that it potentially had obligations under +the CVRA to notify the victims about the non-prosecution agreement and any related state court +plea agreement. See, e.g., DE 48 at 12-13. +35. RFP No. 8 requests documents regarding Epstein's lobbying efforts to persuade the +Government to give him a more favorable plea arrangement and/or non-prosecution agreement, +including efforts on his behalf by former President Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and Harvard +Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. These materials are needed to prove the victims allegation +that, after Epstein signed the non-prosecution agreement, his performance was delayed while he +used his significant social and political connections to lobby the Justice Department to obtain a +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 8 of 64 +more favorable plea deal. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16-18. These materials also are needed to establish +the course of the proceedings in this case, which is necessary in light of the Government's letters +to the victims (discussed in the next paragraph) concerning the status of the case. +36. RFP No. 9 requests documents regarding the letters sent to the victims by the FBI on +January 10, 2008, Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 advising them that "this case is currently +under investigation." These documents are needed to show that these letters were inaccurate or, +at the very least, highly misleading, because they conveyed the impression that no plea +arrangement (for example, a non-prosecution agreement) had been negotiated between Epstein +and the Government. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16. These documents are also needed to respond to the +Government's "estoppel" defense, as noted in the Court's order DE 189 at 12 n.6. +37. RFP No. 10 requests documents regarding the victims' allegations that the FBI was led to +believe that their investigation of Epstein was going to produce a federal criminal prosecution +and that the FBI was also misled by the U.S. Attorney's office about the status of the case. The +Government has argued that these documents are not relevant to the case, because the only issue +is whether the Government misled the victims. But the Government fails to recognize that the +victims received information about the case through the FBI. These documents are therefore +needed to demonstrate that the victims received inaccurate information about the status of the +case - inaccurate information caused by the U.S. Attorney's Office's negotiations with Epstein. +If the FBI agents were not accurately informed about the progress of the cases, then they could +not have accurately informed the victims about the progress of the case - a central point in the +victims' argument. Moreover, these documents would show a common scheme or plan - +something made admissible in a trial by operation of Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Of course, if the U.S. +Attorney's Office was misleading the FBI about the NPA, it would have been part of the same +scheme or plan to mislead the victims as well. The documents are also needed to support specific +allegations in the victims' summary judgment motion. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16-17. +38. RFP No. 11 requests documents regarding various meetings that the Government (including +FBI agents) had with the victims. These documents are needed to prove that during those +meetings the Government did not disclose to the victims (or to their attorneys) that a nonprosecution agreement had been negotiated with Epstein, and even signed with Epstein, that +related to their cases, allegations that the victims have advanced in their summary judgment +motion. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16-18. +39. RFP No. 12 requests all documents connected with a request from the U.S. Attorney's +Office to me ( +J. +) to write a letter concerning the need for filing federal charges +against Epstein and follow-up to that letter. These documents are needed to show that this +request was made to me without disclosing the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. +Thus, just as Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 were deceived about the NPA, I was deceived +as well. See, e.g., DE 48 at 18-19. It is also needed to contradict the Government's apparent +position that it disclosed the "existence' of the NPA to me and to the victims. See, e..g., Gov't +Answers to RFA I[ 13(d) ("The government admits that, when Epstein was pleading guilty to the +state charges discussed in the non-prosecution agreement, the USAO and Epstein's defense +attorneys sought to keep the document memorializing the non-prosecution agreement +confidential, but denies that they sought at that time to keep the existence of the non-prosecution +agreement confidential."). +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 9 of 64 +40. RFP No. 13 requests documents regarding how, on or about June 27, 2008, the Government +learned that Epstein would be entering his plea to state charges on or about June 30, 2008. The +documents are needed to describe the course of proceedings in this case and to prove both the +Government's and Epstein's awareness that he would be entering a guilty plea (and thus +blocking prosecution of other crimes) without the victims' full knowledge of what was +happening. See, e.g., DE 48 at 19-20. +41. RFP No. 14 requests documents relating to the Government and Epstein working together +to keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement secret, including declining comment +about the existence of such an agreement when asked about it when his guilty plea in state court +became public knowledge. These documents are needed to prove the victims' allegations that +the Government concealed the NPA from them, see, e.g., DE 48 at 14-18, and to contradict what +appears to be the Government's position, namely that the victims were aware of the NPA shortly +after it was negotiated, see, e.g., Gov't Answers to RFA I 13(b) (claiming that "the USAO had +communicated with Jane Doe #1 about the non-prosecution agreement prior to Epstein's June 30, +2008 guilty plea."). These documents are also necessary to contradict the Government's +apparent claim that the NPA did not bar discussions with crime victims. See, e.g., Gov't +Answers to RFA 1 13(d) (Government denying request that it admit that "Epstein's defense +attorneys had negotiated for a confidentiality provision in the non-prosecution agreement that +barred conferring with victims about the agreement"). +42. RFP No. 15 requests documents pertaining to the feasibility of notifying the victims about +the NPA, along with information concerning how the victims came to receive a "corrected" +notification letter on about September 3, 2008 - months after Epstein had pled guilty. These +documents are needed to demonstrate that the Government had no valid reason for failing to +provide notice to the victims. It is also needed to demonstrate why the victims at first received +inaccurate information about the NPA, as well as Jeffrey Epstein's involvement in that +inaccurate notice. See, e.g., DE 48 at 15-16. +43. RFP No. 16 requests documents regarding Bruce Reinhart, a senior prosecutor who was +present in the U.S. Attorney's Office during the time that the Office negotiated the NPA with +Epstein, blocking his prosecution for federal crimes in the Southern District of Florida. In RFP +No. 16, the victims have sought documents showing that Reinhart learned confidential, nonpublic information about Epstein matter. The Court will recall that Reinhart has filed a sworn +affidavit with this Court, in which he flatly declared that while he was a prosecutor in the Office: +"I never learned any confidential, non-public information about the Epstein matter." DE 79-1 at +3 (9l 12). When Reinhart made that statement, it seemed improbable to me, because Reinhart was +in close contact with other prosecutors in the Office and would seem likely that he would have +discussed the high-profile Epstein case with them. Additionally, I learned through public record +that while still a prosecutor at the Office Mr. Reinhart established his criminal defense office at +the exact address (and exact Suite number) as Jeffrey Epstein's personal business address. +However, I did not have any direct way of contradicting Reinhart's sworn statement. Since then, +however, in answering the victims' Requests for Admissions, the Government has admitted that +it possesses information that Reinhart learned confidential, non-public information about the +Epstein case and that he discussed the Epstein case with other prosecutors. Gov't Answers to +RFA's Il 15(a) & (b). Of course, this means that the Government has documents that Reinhart +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 10 of +filed a false affidavit with this Court. This gives rise to the reasonable inference that, if Reinhart +was willing to provide false information about this subject, he may have additional information +about the case that is being concealed as well. +44. Materials about Reinhart are also needed to support the victims" summary judgment motion. +See, e.g., DE 48 at 22-23 (raising allegations about Reinhart). +45. Reinhart's affidavit with the Court also states: "Because I did not have any, I did not share +non-public confidential information about the Epstein investigation with any of Epstein's +attorneys." DE 79-1 at 4 (I 17). Because the Government has information demonstrating that +the first part of this statement is false, it may well be that the second part of the statement is false +as well. Given that Mr. Reinhart established a business address identical to Epstein's business +address, at a time while he was still working at the US Attorney's Office, and that Mr. Reinhart +ultimately represented several of Epstein's co-conspirators, jet pilots, and staff, during the civil +litigation, any involvement Mr. Reinhart had with the Epstein case while working at the Office is +highly relevant. +46. The Government has further admitted that it possesses documents reflecting contacts +between Bruce Reinhart and persons/entities affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein before Reinhart left +his job at the U.S. Attorney's Office. Gov't Answers to RFA's # 16. As stated above, Reinhart +left the U.S. Attorney's Office to start a private firm that was located in the same address as +Epstein's personal business where he was daily. This would appear to be a violation of the +Florida rules of ethics for attorneys. +47. Information about Reinhart's connections to Epstein is critical to the victims' allegations in +this case. If Reinhart was helping Epstein gain insight into the prosecutions efforts, that would +provide a motive for Reinhart (and other prosecutors) not to properly notify the victims and not +to confer with them. +Also, if Epstein was improperly receiving information about the +prosecution efforts against him (or lack thereof), that could be highly relevant to the remedies +stage of this case, in which the victims will ask (among other things) to have the NPA agreement +invalidated. Epstein has already indicated that he will raise a double jeopardy argument against +that effort. However, double jeopardy considerations do not apply in situations where the +defendant was not truly in jeopardy of prosecution. In addition, the Court may wish to consider, +in crafting a remedy, Epstein's culpability for the violations of the NPA. Evidence that Epstein +was improperly obtaining information about the prosecution efforts against him would be highly +relevant to that culpability assessment. It is also relevant to the estoppel defense that the +Government (and perhaps Epstein as well) intend to raise. +48. Evidence concerning Reinhart's connections, including improper connections, to Epstein is +also relevant to bias and motive in this case. It would show, for example, the Reinhart had a +reason to encourage others in the U.S. Attorney's Office to give Epstein a more lenient deal than +the one he was entitled to. +49. RFP No. 16 requested information not only about improper connections between Epstein +and Reinhart, but more broadly about such connections with any other prosecutors. Of course, if +the Government possesses such information, it would be highly relevant to the victims' +allegations for the reasons just discussed. In its answers to the victims' Requests for Admission, +the Government admits that it has information about a personal or business relationship between +Jeffrey Epstein and another prosecutor involved in the Epstein case, Matthew Menchel. Answers +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 11 of +to Requests for Admission at 9| 20. The Government should be required to disclose all of those +documents so that the victims can determine whether there was anything improper about those +relationships. In my experience, it is highly unusual for federal prosecutors to work on a case +prosecuting someone (such as Jeffrey Epstein) and then, shortly thereafter, leave the employment +of the federal government and enter into a business relationship with the person who was being +prosecuted. +sundertaken by The ustic Departments mince of Proficational to consistiny rosecution +Washington, D.C. The investigation was undertaken at the request of the victims, who asked the +Justice Department to determine whether "improper influences" were brought to bear during the +negotiations involving the possible prosecution (and ultimately the non-prosecution) of Jeffrey +Epstein. It is apparent from the privilege logs that the Government has produced that OPR +generated a great deal of correspondence (at least 46 pages) regarding this request. See +013909 to P-013955. Of course, improper influences being brought to bear on the Epstein +prosecution would support the victims" allegations that they were not being properly notified. +Moreover, OPR may well have investigated the specific allegations that are at issue in this case - +or directed others to undertake such an investigation. Here again, this information would be +critical to supporting the victims' case. In fact, because OPR has presumably investigated many +of the precise actions and actors, about which the victims complain in this litigation, and have +already gathered many of the documents needed, the production of the OPR case file could +probably short-cut this litigation and discovery process. +51. There is no other way to obtain this information from OPR. On May 6, 2011, nearly half a +year after the victims' +request of December 10, 2010, for an investigation, OPR sent a letter to +my co-counsel, Professor Paul Cassell, in which it stated that it "regret[ted] it could not be of +assistance" in providing information about the allegations. +52. RFP No. 18 asks for information about why the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern +District of Florida was "conflicted out" of handling various issues related to the Epstein case. +production of documents, and in follow-up correspondence, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the +Southern District of Florida has indicated that there are no responsive documents being held by +the U.S. Attorney's Office in the other district that is handling conflict matters. (It appears that +this other office is the Middle District of Florida.) This appears to be improbable, because the +conflict matters would presumably generate many documents covered by the victims' discovery +requests, including the OPR investigative file. Accordingly, the conflict matter is highly relevant +to determining whether the U.S. Attorney's Office has provided complete production to the +victims. A conflict of interest would also be highly relevant to the motivations of the +Government attorneys throughout the handling of the Epstein case. +53. RFP No. 19 asks for information supporting allegations made in March 2011, by former +U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta. He sent a three-page letter to the news media in which he +claimed that when Government attorneys began investigating Epstein, Epstein launched "a +yearlong assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors." This information is needed to explain +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 12 of +why the U.S. Attorney's Office would have withheld notifications from the victims about the +NPA. If the prosecutors were being assaulted, as Acosta has said they were, then they would +have reason to disregard their obligations to crime victims. In addition, this would show +improper behavior by Epstein, which would be relevant at the remedies stage of this case in +determining the scope of any remedy. These allegations would also bear strongly on motive and +54. RFP No. 20 requests documents between the Government and state and local prosecutors +and police agencies (including The Palm Beach Police Department) regarding the nonprosecution agreement. Because this involves information outside of the Department, it is the +victims understanding that the Government has already turned over all of this information to +them, as the Court has directed. See DE 190 at 2 (requiring production of information with +persons or entities outside the federal government). For the sake of completeness, however, it is +worth noting that this information is needed to demonstrate that the victims were not properly +informed that Epstein's plea to state charges would trigger the NPA and preclude prosecution for +crimes committed against them. +55. RFP No. 21 requests correspondence regarding the NPA. Here again, the victims +understand that the Government is prepared to produce all of this information to them (once the +stay pending action by the Eleventh Circuit is lifted). Again, for the sake of completeness, it is +worth noting that this correspondence is needed to demonstrate the victims' claims that the +Government was concealing the existence of the NPA from them and that this was done at +Epstein's behest. The Court has specifically noted that the victims have a need for information +that will allow them to argue to the Court in support of their "allegation of a deliberate +conspiracy between Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the +pendency of negotiations between Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and +presentation of the non-prosecution agreement to them as a fait accompli." DE 189 at 12 n.6 +56. RFP No. 22 requests information about any considerations that Epstein provided, or offered +to provide, to any individual within the Government. Here again, the victims understand that this +information is being provided to them. It is again worth noting, however, that this information is +highly relevant to explaining why the U.S. Attorney's Office would not have properly notified +the victims about what was happening in their case, an allegation that is at the center of the +victims' summary judgment motion. See, e.g., DE 48 at 11 (noting allegation that Epstein +pushed the U.S. Attorney's Office to keep the NPA secret from public view to avoid public +criticism). +Au will regite in Doe No and san Do Not in +ad with entities outside the federal government. Here again, it is my understanding that thes +materials have already been ordered produced. See DE 190 at 2 (requiring production o +corales, this intormation is egantide vant federal goethe course of the Epstein +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 13 of +investigation and why the victims were not properly notified about event during that +investigation. +59. RFP No. 25 requests all initial productions that are required under the Federal Rules of Civil +Procedure. This is a protective request to ensure that, should it be determined that the Civil Rules +apply, they then receive all materials to which they are entitled. +60. In June 2013, the victims sent a supplemental request for production, asking the Government +to provide any information concerning any investigation that the Department undertook +concerning the treatment of the victims during the investigation in this case, including any FBI, +grand jury, OPR or other investigation in the Southern District of Florida, Middle District of +Florida, or elsewhere. Here again, this information is critically needed, as it would go directly to +proving the victims' allegations that their rights were violated during the investigation of +Epstein. This information would also go directly to defeating the Government's "estoppel" +argument. This information would also show motive and bias. +Inadequate Privilege Log +61. The Government has produced a privilege log that violates the Court's order in this case. I +have been greatly hampered in responding to the Government's assertions of privilege because +of that inadequate log. Indeed, in many cases, it is impossible to determine whether the +Government's assertions of privilege are even plausible because of the inadequacy of the log. +62. The Court has directed the Government to produce a privilege log that "clearly identiflies] +each document] [as to which privilege is asserted] by author(s), addressee(s), recipients), date, +and general subject matter ...." DE 190 at 2. Many of the entries in the privilege log fail to +meet this requirement. +63. A good illustration of the inadequacies of the privilege log comes from the very first entry in +the log, covering Box No. 1 (P-000001 through P-000039), some 39 pages of documents. DE +212-1. Yet the only description of these 39 pages is: "File folder entitled 'CORR RE GJ +SUBPOENAS' containing correspondence related to various grand jury subpoenas and attorney +(Villafaña) handwritten notes." +64. Another good illustration of the inadequacies of the privilege log is provided on page 20 of +the first privilege log, with regard to Box No. 3 (P-012362 through P-012451). The Government +asserts privilege here regarding 90 pages of documents. Yet the only description of these 90 +pages is: "File folder entitled 'Key Documents' containing correspondence between AUSA and +case agent regarding indictment prep questions, victim identification information, corrections to +draft indictment, indictment preparation timeline, key grand jury materials." +65. There are many other illustrations of the inadequacies of the privilege log which the Court +will see when it examines it. I have also filed contemporaneously a response to the +government's privilege log, which identifies many situations of an inadequate privilege log, as +well as other responses that are needed to respond to the Government's privilege log. +66. The Government has never contacted me or co-counsel about any burdens associated with +producing a privilege log that complied with the Court's directives. At all times relevant to this +case, I would have been willing to work with Government counsel to minimize any excessive +burden from producing an adequate privilege log. The requests for production that 1 sent to the +Government specifically invited discussion to avoid any excessive burden. +Failure to Prove Factual Underpinnings of Privilege Claim +13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 14 of +67. Many of the Government's privilege assertions require factual premises - such as the +existence of an attorney-client relationship and the rendition of legal services within that +relationship. Yet the Government has not provided the factual underpinnings for any of its +privilege assertions. +68. An illustration of this problem is found on page 1 of the supplemental privilege log (DE +216-1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013284). The entry here reads: "7/10/08 +emails between J. Sloman and A. L +Villafaña, K. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to +Goldberger's letter re victim notification." The log then indicates that the Government is +asserting attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, and deliberative process privilege. +The Government, however, does not provide any document for any of the factual underpinnings +of any of these claims. For example, with regard to the attorney-client claim, the Government +does not explain who the attorney is and who the client is. With regard to the work product +claim, the Government does not explain what litigation this document contemplated. And with +regard to deliberative process, the Government does not explain what deliberative process was +involved. +69. There are many other illustrations of the Government's failure to prove the factual +underpinnings of privilege assertions, which the Court will see when it examines the privilege +log and the victims responsive log. +Waiver of Confidentiality +70. Some of the privileges that the Government has asserted have been waived. Of course, a +requirement of a privilege is that confidentiality be maintained. Some of the materials have been +circulated outside of any confidential circle, thereby waiving privilege. +71. An illustration of waiver found on page 1 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with +regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013282 to 83). The entry here reads: "7/08/08 email from +A. +Villafaña to A. Acosta, J. Sloman, Ki. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to +Goldberger's letter re victim notification." The log then indicates that the Government is +asserting attorney-client privilege regarding these emails. But the emails were not internal to the +U.S. Attorney's Office, but were also sent to the "FBI." (This is another illustration of the +inadequacies of the privilege log, because who in the FBI the materials were sent to is not +disclosed.) But the FBI is a law enforcement investigative agency, not an agency that provides +legal advice. Accordingly, any attorney-client privilege would be waived by dissemination of +this e-mail outside the U.S. Attorney's Office. +72. Another illustration of waiver is found on page 3 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216- +1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013504 to P-013507). The entry here reads: "File +folder labeled "Mtg w/ Ken Starr, RAA, JS, Drew' containing handwritten notes by A. +Villafaña." Kenn Starr, of course, is a defense attorney who represented defendant Epstein. +Recording information provided by a defense attorney is not part of any governmental attorneyclient privilege. +73. Another illustration of waiver is found on page 7 of the supplemental privilege log (DE +216-1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013644 through P-013653). The entry here +reads: "File folder entitled "Notes Re Plea Negotiations" containing 9/17/07 e-mail from A. +Villafaña to J. Richards, N. Kuyrkendall re status update; undated and typed handwritten +notes by A. +Villafaña re items to be completed on case, strength of case, victim interviews, +14 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 15 of +summary of evidence, guidelines calculations." The Government is asserting attorney-client +privilege regarding this e-mail. I understand the reference to "Richards' and "Kuyrkendall" to be +references to FBI agents - not attorneys in the U.S. Attorney's Office. Accordingly, the +attorney-client privilege would not extend to this e-mail. +The Government's Fiduciary Duty to Crime Victims Bars Any Privilege +74. I am familiar with the caselaw recited in our pleadings regarding a "fiduciary exception" +(also known as the "Garner exception" in some settings) to privileges. In this case, the +Government had a fiduciary obligation to protect the CVRA rights of Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane +Doe No. 2. Specifically, because they were recognized "victims" under the CVRA, the +Government had obligations to provide them rights under the CVRA, including the right to +confer, the right to notice, and the right to be treated with fairness. Because of this fiduciary +duty, an exception applies to many of the Government privilege claims regarding interactions +with the victims. +75. The fiduciary duty of the Government to the victims in this case is clear. In 2007, the FBI +determined that both Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 were victims of sexual assaults by +Epstein while they were minors beginning when they were approximately fourteen years of age +and approximately thirteen years of age respectively. These sexual assaults involved use of +means of interstate commerce (i.e., a telephone) and travel in interstate commerce. Both Jane +Does were initially identified through the Palm Beach Police Department's investigation of +Epstein. +76. Confirming the fact that the Government had identified Jane Doe No. 1 as a victim in this +case, on about June 7, 2007, FBI agents hand-delivered to Jane Doe No. 1 a standard CVRA +victim notification letter. The notification promises that the Justice Department would make its +"best efforts" to protect Jane Doe No. I's rights, including "[t]he reasonable right to confer with +the attorney for the United States in the case" and "to be reasonably heard at any public +proceeding in the district court involving ... plea ...." The notification further explained that +"[a]t this time, your case is under investigation." +77. Similarly, on about August 11, 2007, FBI agents hand-delivered to Jane Doe No. 2 a standard +CVRA victim notification letter. The notification promises that the Justice Department would +make its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe No. I's rights, including "It]he reasonable right to +confer with the attorney for the United States in the case" and "to be reasonably heard at any +public proceeding in the district court involving ... plea...." The notification further explained +that "[alt this time, your case is under investigation." +78. Early in the investigation, the FBI agents and the Assistant U.S. Attorney had several +meetings with Jane Doe No. I. Jane Doe No. 2 was represented by counsel that was paid for by +Epstein and, accordingly, all contact was made through that attorney. These meetings occurred +be. us ohe er 2ad abigations to pthe the improighs un agreement was signed between +Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, Jane Doe No. 1 was +contacted to be advised regarding the investigation. On October 26, 2007, Special Agents E. +Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards met in person with Jane Doe No. 1 because she was +recognized as a "victim' of Epstein's crime. +15 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 16 of +80. In all of these dealings between the Government and the victims, as well as other dealings of +a similar nature, the Government had a fiduciary obligation to protect the interests of the victims +under the Crime Victims Rights Act. Accordingly, the Government is precluded from raising +any privilege claim to which a fiduciary exception applies or, at the very least, any privilege +assertion would be outweighed by the victims' compelling need for the material. +81. An illustration of a situation where the fiduciary duty exception applies is found on page 1 of +the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013282 to +83). The entry here reads: "7/08/08 email from A. +_ Villafaña to A. Acosta, J. Sloman, K. +Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger's letter re victim notification." +In +responding to defense attorney Goldberger's letter about victim notification, the U.S. Attorney's +Office had a statutory duty under the CVRA to protect the victims' interests. Accordingly, the +Office cannot assert privilege when questions about whether it fulfilled its obligations to the +victims have arisen in this case or, at the very least, any privilege assertion would be outweighed +by the victims' compelling need for the materials. +82. Another illustration of a situation where the fiduciary duty exception applies is found on +page 16 of the first privilege log (DE 212-1), with regard to Box #2 P-010526 to P-010641. The +entry reads: "File folder entitled 'Rsrch re Crime Victims Rights' containing attorney research, +handwritten notes, draft victim notification letter, and draft correspondence to Jay Lefkowitz." +Here again, the materials at issue go to the heart of this case - what kind of notifications were +made to the victims and how did the defense attorneys shape and limit those notifications. +Moreover, in evaluating victims' +rights issues and determining what kind of letter to send, the +Government was fulfilling legal duties that it owed to the victims. Accordingly, the Office +cannot now assert privilege when questions about whether it fulfilled its obligations to the +victims have arisen in this case. +Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not Covered +83. I am familiar with the cases cited in our brief regarding an exception to various privileges +when the communications concern crime, fraud, or government misconduct. Many of the +important documents about the treatment of the victims to which the Government is asserting +privilege would fall within that exception. +84. With regard to fraud and government misconduct, a number of the documents in the +Government's privilege log concern concealment from the victims of the existence of a nonprosecution agreement between the Government and Epstein. I have reviewed a copy of the nonprosecution agreement signed on about September 24, 2007, by Epstein and his attorneys and a +representative of the U.S. Attorney's Office. The text of that agreement bars disclosure of the +agreement to the victims. +85. On about January 10, 2008, my clients Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 received letters +from the FBI advising them that "It]his case is currently under investigation. This can be a +lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough +investigation." The statement in the notification letter was deceptive, because it did not reveal +that the case had previously been resolved by the non-prosecution agreement entered into by +Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office discussed previously. Moreover, the FBI did not notify +Jane Doe No. 1 or Jane Doe No. 2 that a plea agreement had been reached previously, and that +part of the agreement was a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the +16 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 17 of +Southern District of Florida and that the Non-Prosecution Agreement would resolve the federal +case completely. (Whether the FBI itself had been properly informed of the non-prosecution +agreement is also unclear. We are not alleging misconduct by the FBI, but rather that the FBI +was not properly informed about the case or, in any event, was acting at the direction of the U.S. +Attorney's Office.) +86. In about April 2008, Jane Doe No. 1 contacted the FBI because Epstein's counsel was +attempting to take her deposition and private investigators were harassing her. Assistant U.S. +Attorney A. +Villafaña secured pro bono counsel to represent Jane Doe No. 1 and several +other identified victims in connection with the criminal investigation. Pro bono counsel was able +to assist Jane Doe No. 1 in avoiding the improper deposition. AUSA Villafaña secured pro bono +counsel by contacting Meg Garvin, Esq. of the the National Crime Victims' Law Center in +Portland, Oregon, which is based in the | +& Clark College of Law. During the call, Ms. +Garvin was not advised that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached in this matter. +87. On May 30, 2008, another one of my clients who was recognized as an Epstein victim by the +U.S. Attorney's Office, received letters from the FBI advising her that "It]his case is currently +under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while +we conduct a thorough investigation." The statement in the notification letter was deceptive +because it did not reveal that the case had been resolved by the non-prosecution agreement +entered into by Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office in September 2007. +88. In mid-June 2008, I contacted AUSA Villafaña to inform her that I represented Jane Doe No. +1 and, later, Jane Doe No. 2. I asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes +committed by Epstein, hoping to secure a significant federal indictment against Epstein. AUSA +Villataña and I discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed. At the end of the call, +AUSA Villafaña asked me to send any information that I wanted considered by the U.S +Attorney's Office in determining whether to file federal charges. I was not informed that +previously, in September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office had reached an agreement not to file +federal charges. I was also not informed that any resolution of the criminal matter was imminent +at that time. Presumably the reason the U.S. Attorney's Office withheld this information from +me was because of the confidentiality provision that existed in the non-prosecution agreement. +At this point it is clear that AUSA Villafana was restricted in what she was being permitted to +tell me. +89. On July 3, 2008, I sent to AUSA Villafaña a letter. In the letter, I indicated my client's +desire that federal charges be filed against defendant Epstein. In particular, I wrote on behalf of +my clients: "We urge the Attorney General and our United States Attorney to consider the +fundamental import of the vigorous enforcement of our Federal laws. We urge you to move +forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes +Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take the steps necessary to protect our +children from this very dangerous sexual predator." When I wrote this letter, I was still unaware +that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached with Epstein - a fact that continued to be +concealed from me (and the victims) by the U.S. Attorney's Office. I only learned of this fact +later on. +90. As alleged in the preceding paragraphs, and elsewhere in this affidavit and in this case, +deliberate concealment from crime victims and their legal counsel of the existence of a signed +17 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 18 of +non-prosecution agreement would be a fraud and government misconduct. Documents relating +to that fraud and misconduct would then fall outside of many of the privileges being asserted. +91. An illustration of a document to which the crime-fraud-misconduct exception applies on this +basis is found on page 3 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box +#3 P-013342 to P-013350. The entry reads: "File folder entitled '12/05/07 Starr to Acosta' +containing drafts of 11/30/07 letters from A. Acosta to K. Starr and from J. Sloman to J. +Lefkowitz re performance and victim notification with handwritten notes and edits by A. +Villafaña." Again, these materials are central to the dispute in this case, as they involve +discussions between the U.S. Attorney's Office and defense attorneys about notifications to +related to the deceptive notifications that the Government made to the victims a few weeks later. +92. Another illustration of a document to which the crime-fraud-misconduct exception applies is +found on page 1 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-I), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P- +013282 to P-013283. The entry reads: "7/9/08 Email from A. +Villafaña to A. Acosta, J. +Sloman, K. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger letter re victim notification." +These communications would presumably reflect efforts by the government prosecutors and +Epstein's defense attorneys (e.g., Goldberger) to keep the non-prosecution agreement secret. +93. Another illustration of where the crime-fraud-misconduct exception would apply is to +information that the Government possesses that Bruce Reinhart learned private, non-public +information about the Epstein case. +This would show (at the very least) misconduct by Bruce +Reinhart in later representing Epstein-related entities. Because the Government's (inadequate) +privilege log does not reveal which entries relate to Reinhart, it is not possible to point the Court +to the specific documents that demonstrate this misconduct. These documents, however, are +covered by the crime-fraud-misconduct exception. +94. Another illustration of where the crime-fraud-misconduct exception could potentially apply +is with regard to information that the Government possesses that Matthew Menchel has a +personal or business relationship with defendant Jeffrey Epstein. Gov't Answers to RFA's $ 20. +This could potentially show misconduct by Menchel, and also potentially a motive to violate the +victims' rights as explained previously. The Government's privilege log has numerous entries +showing that Menchal was substantially and personally involved in making decisions related to +the Epstein prosecution. See, e.g., page 19 of the first privilege log (DE 212-1), with regard to +Box #3 P-011923 to P-011966. The victims have information suggesting that immediately after +leaving his employment with the U.S. Attorney's Office, Menchel was associated with Epsteincontrolled entities or had some business relationship with him. The documents that the +Government possesses showing a personal or business relationship between one of its +prosecutors and the man he was charged with prosecuting should be produced. +95. The Government has admitted that its internal affairs component - the Office of Professional +Responsibility - has collected information about possible improper behavior during the +investigation of the Epstein matter. Gov't Answers to RFA 922 (government admits that "The +Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and/or other Government entities +have collected information about ... other government attorney's [apart from Bruce Reinhart's] +possible improper behavior in the Epstein matter"). The fact that the Government's own +investigating agencies have collected such information demonstrates that there is a prima facie +18 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 19 of +case of improper behavior, which is enough to trigger the crime-fraud-misconduct exception to +various privileges. +Factual Materials Not Privileged +96. As noted in the accompanying legal memorandum, factual materials are generally not +covered by the privileges at issue in this case. Many of the materials to which the Government is +asserting privilege are factual materials. +Assertions of Attorney-Client Privilege +97. The Government has asserted attorney client privilege regarding many documents. Yet with +regard to most of these assertions, it is impossible to determine who is the attorney, who is the +client, whether professional legal services are being rendered, and whether the communications +were confidential to those involved in the delivery of legal services. Accordingly, it is very +difficult for me to respond to many of the assertions of attorney client privilege and, in any +event, the Government has failed to carry its burden of showing that the privilege applies. +98. An illustration of documents at to which attorney-client privilege appears to have been +improperly asserted or inadequately described is found at page 7 of the first privilege log (DE +216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013811 to P-013833. The entry for these twenty-two +pages of documents reads: "File folder entitled 'Information Packet Drafts' containing several +drafts of Informations, and complete draft Information packet." It is impossible from this +description to see how the attorney-client privilege applies to these documents. I could provide +many other illustrations of the problem. +99. The Government's attorney-client privilege claim directly covers situations where it was in a +fiduciary relationship with the victims and therefore is limited in now asserting privilege. For +example, page 3 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1) contains an entry concerning +Suppl. Box #3 P-013342 through P-013350, which involves "File folder entitled 12/05/07 Starr +to Acosta' containing drafts of 11/30/07 letters from A. Acost to K. Starr and from J. Sloman to +J. Lefkowitz re performance and victim notification with handwritten notes and edits by A. +Villafaña." This information goes very directly to the issues involved in this case, as it +goes directly to "victim notification." Yet the Government has asserted an attorney-client +privilege to prevent the victims from learning what is in these documents. The fiduciary +exception to the attorney-client privilege applies in this situation, and limits the government's +ability to invoke a privilege. This also appears to be shared communications between the +Government and Epstein's attorneys, and it is unclear how the attorney-client privilege could +ethically apply to such documents. +100. As one example of why the victims have established a compelling need for the materials +described in the preceding paragraph (and other materials like them) is the fact that the Court has +indicated that it will be considering an "estoppel" argument raised by the Government as a +defense in this case. DE 189 at 12 n.6. The Court has noted that this argument "implicates a +fact-sensitive equitable defense which must be considered in the historical factual context of the +entire interface between Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial authorities and the federal offense +victims - including an assessment of the allegation of a deliberate conspiracy between Epstein +and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the pendency of negotiations between +Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and presentation of the non-prosecution +agreement to them as a fait accompli." DE 189 at 12 n.6 (emphasis added). The materials to +19 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 20 of +which the Government is asserting attorney-client privilege go directly to that "interface" +between the victims, the Government, and Epstein. The vietims have a compelling need for this +information and the fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege applies to permit the +Court to provide these documents to the victims. +101. The Government has not explained any harm that would come from releasing the +documents covered by attorney client privilege to the victims. If the Government raises any such +harm, I respectfully request an opportunity to provide additional information on that alleged +harm. +Deliberative Process Privilege +102. Some of the correspondence that is being withheld by the Government under the +deliberative process privilege concerns an investigation that the Justice Department's Office of +Professional Responsibility (OPR) opened with regard to the Epstein case. This investigation +was undertaken at the request of the victims in this case. On December 10, 2010, co-counsel, +Professor Paul Cassell of the University of Utah College of Law, and I met with the U.S. +Attorney for the Southern District of Florida regarding this case in the U.S. Attorney's Office in +Miami, Florida. At on that date, Professor Cassell presented a letter to the U.S. Attorney, Mr. +Ferrer, asking him to personally investigate what happened during the Epstein prosecution and +how the victims were treated during that investigation. Based on the privilege log that has been +provided, as well as subsequent correspondence sent to Professor Cassell, that request for +investigation was turned over to OPR in Washington, D.C. +103. The ultimate outcome of the OPR investigation is unclear. What is clear is that many +documents are being withheld about that investigation - documents that would go to the central +issues in this case. Approximately three whole pages of the privilege log - pages 12 through 14 +of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1) - relate to the OPR investigation of how the +Epstein case was handled and how the victims were treated. +104. A deliberative process privilege claim can only be asserted with regard to the process of +reaching a decision, not the ultimate decision itself. The Government here has apparently +asserted a deliberative process claim over not only the OPR process, but also over the OPR +decision. +It is not clear which document embodies the final OPR decision (or, given the +inadequacies of the Government's privilege log, whether that final decision has been produced). +Given the limited descriptions of the documents that have been provided, it appears that the OPR +decision may be reflected in a document found on page 13 of the supplemental privilege log (DE +216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013940 to P-013942. The description there reads: "Draft +Letter, marked 'Confidential: To Be Opened by Addressee Only,' Robin C. Ashton to Wifredo +A. Ferrer, with handwritten corrections." No date is provided regarding this letter. Nor is there +any indication as to whether the letter was or was not circulated to other persons. It is also +noteworthy that this letter is described as a "draft" letter. Nowhere in the privilege log is the +final version of the letter indicated, raising questions about what was "draft" and what was +"final." If this is the final embodiment of OPR's conclusions, then this letter would not be +protected by a "deliberative process" privilege, because the deliberations would have come to an +end. (It is also worth noting that because OPR is an agency that investigates misconduct by +federal prosecutors, it would not be providing attorney-client advice to prosecutors and its +20 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 21 of +documents would not be attorney-client privileged with regard to, for example, the U.S. +Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida.) +105. The fact that OPR has investigated many of the exact claims raised by Jane Does 1 and 2, +and were able to gather documents unobstructed by the Government in order to reach its +conclusion likely means that production of the OPR file to the victims in this case could +significantly shorteut this discovery process and the litigation. Additionally, if OPR "needed" +the documents to investigate and make findings regarding the victims" claims, then logically the +victims share that "need" and have no other means through which to obtain the documents. The +Government has not explained any harm that would come from releasing the documents covered +by deliberative process privilege to the victims. If the Government raises any such harm, I +respectfully request an opportunity to provide additional information on that alleged harm. +Investigative Privilege +106. The investigative privilege is a qualified privilege, which balances the need of particular +litigate for access to information against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing +process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 +F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: +(1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by +discouraging citizens from giving the government information; (2) the impact +upon persons who have given information of having their identities disclosed; (3) +the degree to which governmental self-evaluation and consequent program +improvement will be chilled by disclosure; (4) whether the information sought is +factual data or evaluative summary; (5) whether the party seeking the discovery is +an actual or potential defendant in any criminal proceeding either pending or +reasonably likely to follow from the incident in question; (6) whether the police +investigation has been completed; (7) whether any intradepartmental disciplinary +proceedings have arisen or may arise from the investigation; (8) whether the +plaintiff's suit is non-frivolous and brought in good faith; (9) whether the +information sought is available through other discovery or from other sources; +and (10) the importance of the information sought to the plaintiff's case. +On the facts of this case, these factors weigh in favor of disclosing the information the victims +have requested. +107. With regard to factor (I) (the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental +processes by discouraging citizens from giving the government information), I represented four +victims of Epstein's sex offenses in Federal Court - Jane Doe No. 1, Jane Doe No. 2, and a +victim I will refer to as "S.R." and "M.J.", and other victims of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse as well. +If further information is disclosed about this case, that will not discourage them from providing +information, but rather will encourage them. I have also talked personally to attorneys for a +number of other victims in this case. I have been told that many of these other victims hope that +Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 are successful in their case. +108. With regard to factor (2) (the impact upon persons who have given information of having +their identities disclosed), Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 are not asking for information that +would identify any particular victim. Accordingly, there will be no effect on other victims. +Additionally, I am aware of the true names of many of Epstein's victims and that information has +21 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 22 of +not been disseminated to the public where those individual victims did not wish for their +identities to be disseminated. +109. With regard to factor (3) (the degree to which governmental self-evaluation and consequent +program improvement will be chilled by disclosure), this is a lawsuit to force the compliance by +the Government with its CVRA obligations. Accordingly, the Government's "program" of +providing victims' rights will be directly improved if the victims are able to enforce their rights +in this lawsuit. +110. With regard to factor (4) (whether the information sought is factual data or evaluative +summary), many of the items that the victims seeks are factual summaries. An example of this is +found at page 18 of the first privilege log (DE 212-1), with regard to Box #3 P-011778 to P- +011788. The entry reads: "File folder entitled '6/12/09 Victim Notif. Log' containing chart with +victim contact information and attorney notes regarding dates and type of contacts." This would +include, for example, dates of contacts with Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, which would be +purely factual information. +111. +With regard to factor (5) (whether the party seeking the discovery is an actual or potential +defendant in any criminal proceeding either pending or reasonably likely to follow from the +incident in question), Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 are plainly victims of a crime, not +criminal defendants. Indeed, as the Court is aware, it is the criminal defendant (Jeffrey Epstein) +who has undertaken several "limited" intervention efforts to try and block disclosure of +information to the victims. +112. +With regard to factor (6) (whether the police investigation has been completed), the +investigation of Epstein was completed years ago and the Government has not produced in its +privilege log any information indicating recent investigative activity. +With regard to factor (7) (whether any intradepartmental disciplinary proceedings have +arisen or may arise from the investigation), it appears than OPR investigation has arisen as a +direct result of the victims' efforts in this case. However, it does not appear that release of any +information to the victims would hamper any disciplinary proceedings. Indeed, to the extent that +the victims are able to obtain information about this case and find information about misconduct, +then they can provide that information to Government and other disciplinary entities as +appropriate. +114. With regard to factor (8) (whether the plaintiff's suit is non-frivolous and brought in good +faith), it should be clear at this juncture of a five-year long case that the victims have a +substantial claim that is brought in good faith. +115. With regard to factor (9) (whether the information sought is available through other +diner very or obin the isures, a recue id this pher thiebated it the lies informatino +internal to the Justice Department. +116. With regard to factor (10) (the importance of the information sought to the plaintiff's case), +the information that the victims are seeking is highly important to their case. Indeed, without +adequate proof, the Court has indicated that it may have to deny the victims' petition. DE 99 at +11. Throughout this affidavit, I have provided numerous examples and explanations of why the +victims need the information that they are requesting. The documents to which the Government +22 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 23 of +is asserting investigative privilege, for example, bear directly on the Government's alleged +"estoppel" defense, which the victims need a complete evidentiary record to dispute. +Work-Product Doctrine +117. A work product claim can be defeated by a showing of substantial need and undue hardship +to obtain the materials in other ways. In this affidavit, I have tried to articulate the specific and +compelling need for all of the materials that victims are seeking. I will not repeat all of those +assertions here, but simply note that I stand ready to provide any additional information that the +Court may require to determine the compelling need that the victims have for the materials they +have requested as well as the undue hardship (if not actual impossibility) of obtaining the +materials in other ways. Any balancing of considerations tips decisively in the victims favor. +118. As one example, the victims have a compelling need for the materials that OPR collected as +part of its investigation. Because Justice Department attorneys are generally required to talk to +OPR investigators, OPR was apparently able to investigate the claims of misconduct related to +the Epstein case by getting statements from the attorney's involved. These interviews appear to +be recorded in materials found at page 14 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with +re paro Pu. Bon sm 130 entry, tes a 1s apa nty stal statements from out or +Department prosecutors about how the Epstein case was handled and whether any misconduct +occurred during the handling of the case. Those are central issues in this case. There is no other +way for the victims to obtain information about these subjects, because the Justice Department +has declined to provide information on this subject. +119. The victims have established a substantial need for the materials they are requesting in the +previous paragraphs of this affidavit that review, request-by-request, their document production +requests numbers 1 through 25 and supplemental request number 1. +As another example of why the victims have established a compelling need for the +materials is the fact that the Court has indicated that it will be considering an "estoppel" +argument raised by the Government as a defense in this case. DE 189 at 12 n.6. The Court has +noted that this argument "implicates a fact-sensitive equitable defense which must be considered +in the historical factual context of the entire interface between Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial +authorities and the federal offense victims - including an assessment of the allegation of a +deliberate conspiracy between Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on +the pendency of negotiations between Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and +presentation of the non-prosecution agreement to them as a fait accompli." DE 189 at 12 n.6 +(emphasis added). The materials to which the Government is asserting work product protection +go directly to that "interface" between the victims, the Government, and Epstein. The victims +have no other way of showing what that interface is. The Government will not be harmed if the +materials are provided to the victims. +Grand Jury Information +121. The victims' legal pleading has explained why the Government has not properly asserted +any grand jury secrecy to the documents at issue. In addition, many of the Government's grand +jury privilege assertions appear to broadly cover both grand jury and non-grand jury information. +Even if the Court allows the Government to assert some form of grand jury privilege, it should +require the Government to sever grand jury materials from non-grand jury materials. +23 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 24 of +122. An illustration of this problem comes from page 12 of the first privilege log (DE 212-1), +with regard to Box #2 P-008616 to P-008686. The entry reads: "File folder entitled "FBI +Summary Charts' containing chart prepared at direction of AUSA, containing victims names, +identifying information, summary of activity, and other information relevant to indictment." +This does not appear to be a document that was ever presented to the grand jury or that directly +discloses grand jury proceedings. Moreover, to the extent that it involves some kind of limited +disclosure of grand jury proceedings, that limited disclosure could be redacted and the other +information provided to the victims. +123. It does not appear that any of the alleged grand jury materials that the Government is +asserting privilege involve on-going grand jury issues. Moreover, it does not appear that +disclosing any of the materials would "tip off" a potential target to a Government investigation. +Of course, Jeffrey Epstein (and his associates) are well aware of the Government's investigation +into their crimes against young girls for sexual purposes. +124. The Government has not explained any harm that would come from releasing the +documents to the victims. If the Government raises any such harm, I respectfully request an +opportunity to provide additional information on that alleged harm. +125. Jane Doe No. I and Jan DoeN. 2 hds notic victidential or identifying information +about any other victims. To clarify that fact, on July 31, 2013, I sent a letter to the Government +stating, in part, that "to avoid any interference with any privacy rights of victims who are not +parties to this litigation, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 are not seeking any identifying +information about other victims. In any of the documents that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have +requested the Government produce, the Government should not produce the names of other +victims or other identifying information (e.g., address or telephone number) but should instead +redact that information." +***** +I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is +true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. +Executed this 16th day of August, 2013. +, ESQ. +Attachments: +1. October 3, 2011, request for production; +2. June 24, 2013, supplemental request for production; and +3. Victims' Requests for Admissions and Government Answers +24 + + +Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 25 of + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 26 of +64 +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/, +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Plaintiffs +V. +UNITED STATES, +Defendants +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION +TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THEIR +PENDING ACTION CONCERN THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT +COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims"), by and through undersigned +counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter "the Government") to produce the +original or best copy of the items listed herein below for inspection and/or copying, pursuant to +the Court's Order (DE #99) directing discovery in this case. +BACKGROUND +As the Government will recall, the victims have asked the Government to stipulate to +undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their +Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on +Appropriate Remedies (DE 48) (the victims' "summary judgment motion") along with a Motion +to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts +(DE 49). +On September 26, 2011, the Court denied the victims" motion to have their facts accepted +(DE 99 at 11). At the same time, however, the Court has ordered discovery to develop the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 27 of +factual record concerning the summary judgment motion (DE 99 at 11). The Court reserved +ruling on the victims' motion for an order directing the Government not to suppress relevant +evidence (DE 99 at 11). +On September 28, 2011, the victims requested that the Government voluntarily provide +documents concerning this case. The Government declined to provide even a single document. +Accordingly, the victims now seek the following information relevant to their pending summary +judgment motion. +DISCOVERY REQUESTED +The numbered discovery requests below should all be construed in light of the definitions of +terms provided at the end of the requests. +1. In the victims' currently-pending summary judgment motion, the victims contend that the +Government conducted an extensive criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's sexual +exploitation of young girls, including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 between 2001 and 2008. +The victims also contend that the FBI and other federal agencies established that Epstein +operated a large criminal enterprise that used paid employees and underlings to repeatedly find +and bring minor girls to him. In deferring ruling on the victims' summary judgment motion, the +Court noted that the victims had alleged that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office's +"investigation developed a strong case for a federal prosecution against Epstein based on +'overwhelming' evidence." DE 99 at 2. The Court, however, also noted that this was an +allegation that needed "further factual development." DE 99 at 2 n.2. Please provide all +documents, correspondence, and other information that supports these victims" allegations, +including: +(a) the FBI case file on the Epstein case; +(b) all documents, correspondence, witness statements, FBI 302s, and other +similar information, that the Government collected as part of its case against +and/or investigation of Epstein, including any information provided to Epstein +or receive from Epstein as part of "discovery" or exchange of information +concerning the case; +(c) all documents, correspondence, witness statements, and other similar +information that the Government received from any federal, state, local, or +other law enforcement agency regarding sex offenses committed against +children by Jeffrey Epstein; +(d) the 82-page prosecution memorandum (a/k/a "pros memo") outlining +numerous federal sexual offenses committed by Epstein (and any attachments +to that memorandum) and the 53-page draft indictment for numerous federal + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 28 of +offenses that the Government developed in this case and any similar successor +or predecessor document; and +(e) Any other prosecution memorandum regarding Jeffrey Epstein (and any +documents attached to that memorandum) and all draft federal indictments +that were prepared regarding Epstein. Please also provide all documents, +correspondence, and +other information regarding these prosecution +memoranda and the draft federal indictments. +2. Throughout their pending summary judgment motion, the victims contend that they +received only limited notifications from the Government (and, in particular, the U.S. Attorney's +Office acting through FBI agents) about the plea negotiations that occurred with Jeffrey Epstein +and the non-prosecution agreement that was ultimately reached. Please provide all documents, +correspondence and other information regarding victim notifications in this case, including (but +not limited to): +a) All crime victims notifications (and draft notifications) sent to Jane Doe #1 and +Jane Doe #2 and the other identified victims of Epstein's offenses; +b) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding negotiations +between the Government and Epstein's defense attorneys concerning the extent +and nature of notifications to be made to Epstein's victims; +c) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding discussions +between the Government, the FBI, the Palm Beach Police Department, the Palm +Beach County State Attorney's Office, and Epstein's defense attorneys +concerning the extent and nature of notifications to be made to Epstein's victims; +d) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding "marching +orders" that were given to FBI agents regarding the information that they could +provide to the victims about the negotiations and the non-prosecution agreement; +e) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding information that +could be given to attorneys for the victims about the non-prosecution agreement, +including information about what could be told to Brad +(counsel for Jane +Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) about the non-prosecution agreement; +f) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding Epstein's +awareness that his victims (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) would not be +notified of the non-prosecution agreement (and its ultimate presentation in court) +or given a chance to confer regarding the plea negotiations he was conducting +with the Government. +3. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that the Government +negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein and that among the subjects covered in that +non-prosecution agreement was a confidentiality provision that precluded disclosing the +agreement to them and to other victims. Please provide all draft plea agreements (both state and +federal) and non-prosecution agreements prepared either by attorneys for the Government or by +attorneys for Epstein, as well as any correspondence, documents or other information pertaining +to these agreements and to any confidentiality provision in these agreements. Please indicate +that date on which each of these proposed agreements was drafted and by whom. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 29 of +4. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that the Government was +interested in finding a place to conclude any plea agreement that would effectively keep +Epstein's victims (most of whom resided in or about West Palm Beach) from learning what was +happening through the press. +Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other +information pertaining to negotiations between the Government and Jeffrey Epstein concerning +the court and/or location in which Jeffrey Epstein would enter any guilty plea (including in +particular any negotiations concerning concluding the plea in Miami or other location outside of +West Palm Beach). +5. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that part of the plea +negotiations with Epstein involved Epstein's efforts to make sure that the vietims would be +represented in civil cases against Epstein by someone who was not an experienced personal +injury lawyer. Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information pertaining +to negotiations between the Government and Jeffrey Epstein regarding any legal representation +of the victims in civil cases against Epstein, including any negotiations about what kinds of +representation should be provided in a plea agreement or non-prosecution agreement. +6. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment that the Government wanted the +non-prosecution agreement with Epstein concealed from public view because of the intense +public criticism that would have resulted had the agreement been disclosed and/or the possibility +that victims would have objected in court and convicted the judge not to accept the agreement. +Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information concerning the +Government's and/or Epstein awareness or discussion of this possible public criticism and/or +victim objections. +7. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that the Government was +aware that it potentially had obligations under the CVRA to notify the victims about the nonprosecution agreement and any related state court plea agreement. Please provide all +correspondence, documents, and other information regarding the Government's awareness of its +potential CVRA obligations in this case and regarding any discussions between the Government +and Epstein concerning these CVRA obligations in this case. This should include any objections +raised by Epstein to any notification of the victims (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) and +any Government response to these objections. This should also include any correspondence and +information about whether the CVRA applied to the victims. +8. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that, after Epstein signed +the non-prosecution agreement, his performance was delayed while he used his significant social +and political connections to lobby the Justice Department to obtain a more favorable plea deal +(including lobbying components of the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., including the +Child Exploitation Obscenity Section). Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other +information regarding Epstein's lobbying efforts to persuade the Government to give him a more +favorable plea arrangement and/or non-prosecution agreement, including efforts by former +President Bill Clinton, Andrew Albert Christian Edward (a/k/a Prince Andrew, +of York), +Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, Ken Starr, Lillian | +. Jay Lefkowitz, and Roy +Black on his behalf. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 30 of +9. On January 10, 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 received letters from the FBI +advising them that "this case is currently under investigation." Please provide all documents, +correspondence, and other information relating to those representations being made by the FBI to +Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, including all information about whether the FBI was aware of the +non-prosecution agreement at that time and about whether Epstein was aware of the notifications +being made to the victims. +10. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that the FBI was led +to believe that their investigation of Epstein was going to produce a federal criminal prosecution +and that the FBI was also misled by the U.S. Attorney's office about the status of the case. +Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information relating to these +allegations, including: +) All documents, correspondence, and other information relating to discussion +etween the U.S. Attornev's Office and the FBI concerning the status of th +investigation and the plea discussions with Epstein, as well as what kind of +charges would appropriately be filed against Epstein; +b) All documents, correspondence, and other information relating to the U.S. +Attorney's Office's representations to the FBI and any other state or local law +enforcement agency about how this case was being handled; and +c) All documents, correspondence, and other information relating to whether the FBI +would support the position of the U.S. Attorney's Office that it has not violated +the rights of Epstein's victims in this case. +11. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that they had +various meetings with Government prosecutors and/or agents (including FBI agents). Related to +these meetings, they also allege that in mid-June 2008, their attorney +J. +discussed with an AUSA involved in the case the need for filing federal charges and that the +AUSA asked the attorney to send a letter about why such charges should be filed without +disclosing the existence of a previously-signed non-prosecution agreement. The victims further +allege that on about July 3, 2008, their attorney sent a letter urging the filing of federal charges +against Epstein. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information regarding +these meetings with the victims and their legal counsel, including meetings with the victims on +October 26, 2007, and January 31, 2008, and the contact with their legal counsel in mid-June +2008. Please also provide all documents, correspondence, and other information related to +contacts between the Government and the National Crime Victim's Law Institute (NCVLI) +concerning possible legal representation or other assistance to the victims by NCVLI. +12. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims allege that in mid-June 2008, +their attorney ( +J. +) discussed with an AUSA involved in the case the need for +filing federal charges and that the AUSA asked the attorney to send a letter about why such +charges should be filed without disclosing the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. The +victims further allege that on about July 3, 2008, their attorney sent a letter urging the filing of +federal charges against Epstein. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other +information regarding these contacts, including e-mails and correspondence generated as a result +of the attorney's inquiry and any action that was taken in response to the letter that he sent. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 31 of +13. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims allege that on or about June 27, +2008, the Government learned that Epstein would be entering his plea to state charges on about +June 30, 2008. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and information regarding: +a) How the Government Office learned that the plea was going to be entered; +b) How the Government notified victims about the entry of the guilty plea; and +c) The contents of the notifications given to the victims about the entry of the guilty, +including whether the victims were informed about the non-prosecution +agreement and about whether the entry of this plea would preclude prosecution of +crimes Epstein had committed against them. +14. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that the +Government and Epstein worked together to keep the existence of the non-prosecution +agreement secret, including declining comment about the existence of such an agreement when +asked about it when his guilty plea in state court became public knowledge. Please provide all +documents, correspondence, and information about the Government's and Epstein's efforts to +keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement secret, including all e-mails and +correspondence about "declining comment" or similar devices to keep the non-prosecution +agreement secret. +15. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims allege that at all materials times, +it would have been practical and feasible for the Government to have kept the victims informed +about the discussions concerning the non-prosecution agreement. The victims further allege that +on about July 9, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office provided notice to Jane Doe #1 of some of the +terms of the agreement between it and Jeffrey Epstein. The victims also received a "corrected" +notification letter on about September 3, 2008. Please provide all documents, correspondence, +and other information about these notifications, including: +a) any information about whether these notifications should or should not include +some mention of the non-prosecution agreement; +b) any information about the contents of these notifications; +c) any communications between the Government and Epstein's counsel regarding +what the notifications should contain, including any communication on or about +July 9, 2008, objecting to parts of the draft; +d) Any communications between the Government and Epstein's counsel about +which parts of the non-prosecution agreement were operative (including whether +Part 3 was operative; +e) Any communications between the Government and Epstein's counsel regarding +the September 3, 2008, corrected notification letter; and +f) any documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the practicality +and feasibility of providing notice to the victims of the existence of the +agreement, which shall include any correspondence related to meeting with the +victims or notifying them in any way of the non-prosecution agreement. +16. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims allege that one of the senior +prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office joined Epstein's payroll shortly after important +decisions were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability - and improperly represented people +close to Epstein. In light of this fact, the peculiar nature of the non-prosecution agreement + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 32 of +reached in this case, and other information in the possession of the victims, it is also possible that +other improper relationships exist between Government agents and Epstein. Please provide any +documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the possibility of any improper +relationship, including: +a) Attorney Bruce Reinhart's involvement in and/or awareness of any aspect of the +Government's criminal investigation and/or possible prosecution/non-prosecution +of Epstein; +b) Attorney Bruce Reinhart's involvement in and/or awareness of the Government's +interest in any witness, subject, or target of the Epstein investigation, including +Ghislaine Maxwell, +• Lesley Groff, +Louella Ruboyo, Larry +1. Larry Visoki, David Rogers, William +Hammond, and Robert Roxburgh; +c) All documents, correspondence, and other information reflecting telephone calls +(including telephone logs and telephone billing statements) made by or received +by Reinhart from Jeffrey Epstein, the Florida Science Foundation, Jack +Goldberger, Alan Dersowitz, Roy Black, Ken Starr, Lillian +and any +other person involved with the criminal defense of Jeffrey Epstein, including +telephone calls to and from Jack Goldberger and the Florida Science Foundation; +d) All documents, correspondence, and other information (including, for example, e- +mails) that were sent to, copied to. or sent by Reinhart in which the word +"Epstein," " +"Ruboyo," " +" "Visoki," "Rogers," "Hammond," +Roxburgh," "Villafana, +"Florida +Science Foundation," +"Starr," "Black, +"Goldberger," "Jeffrey," "Australian," ' +' "358 El Brillo Way" +appears and which are connected to or related to Jeffrey Epstein, Jack Goldberger, +or the Jeffrey Epstein investigation or prosecution; +e) All documents, correspondence, and other information (including for example e- +mails) of a similar nature that indicate that any other Government prosecutor has +represented (or discussed representing) a person or entity related to Jeffrey +Epstein or has received business or funds from a person or entity related to Jeffrey +Epstein; +f) All documents, correspondence, and other information that indicate or suggest +that any Government prosecutor or investigator (including state and local +prosecutor or investigator has had any form of business, social, personal, or other +relationship with Jeffrey Epstein or a person or entity related to Jeffrey Epstein; +and +g) All documents, correspondence, and other information that indicate or suggest +that any Government prosecutor or investigator (including state and local +prosecutor or investigator) would receive anything of value, directly or indirectly +from Jeffrey Epstein or a person or entity related to Jeffrey Epstein (including any +charitable contributions to be made by Epstein to any entity). +17. In December 2010, the victims sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern +District of Florida, requesting that the Office investigate whether "improper influences" were +brought to bear during the negotiations involving the possible prosecution (and ultimately the +non-prosecution) of Jeffrey Epstein. That letter led to a reference of the matter to the Office of + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 33 of +Professional Responsibility (OPR) in the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., which began +some kind of an inquiry/investigation. Please provide: +a) All documents, correspondence, and other information collected by the Office of +Professional Responsibility (OPR) and any other component of the Justice +Department (including the FBI) in response to the victims' letter; +b) All documents, correspondence, witness statements, and other information +collected as part of OPR's inquiry/investigation; +c) All documents, correspondence, witness statements and other information +collected as part of any criminal inquiry/investigation that was initiated as a result +of that letter, including any inquiry/investigation into criminal conflict of interest +violations (such as 18 U.S.C. § 205 and § 207) +d) All documents, correspondence, witness statements, and other information +collected by any federal investigative agency that was triggered by OPR's +inquiry/investigation, including any FBI inquiry/investigation regarding any +improper influences or criminal or ethical violations that may have been +committed by government attorneys during the handling of the Epstein +investigation and/or prosecution; +e) Any documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the accuracy or +inaccuracy of Bruce Reinhart's sworn statements (found in DE 79-1 at p. 31) that +he "did not participate in any way in the Office's investigation of Epstein;" that he +information about the Epstein matter;" +f) Any documents, correspondence, +or other information regarding the +circumstances that lead OPR to send a letter to the victims on May 6, 2011, +indicating that they would not provide any further assistance to the victims in +connection with their allegations that improper influences were brought to bear on +the Epstein case; +g) Any document, correspondence, e-mail, memoranda, or other information +prepared by OPR, the FBI, or other Justice Department Component as a result of +or following up on the victims' December 2010 letter concerning the Epstein +case: and +h) Any documents, correspondence, or other information that OPR has collected or +obtained regarding the Epstein investigation and/or prosecution. +18. At a couple points during the prosecution of this action, including in approximately +December 2010 and most recently after the August 2011 hearing, the Justice Department in +Washington, D.C., discussed or determined that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern +District of Florida (USAO SDFL) was "conflicted out", or may be conflicted out, of handling +various issues related to the Epstein case because it suffered from a conflict of interest. The +Justice Department accordingly sent various issues related to the Epstein case (and, on +information and belief, issues related to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) to the Department of +Justice and to a United States Attorney's Office in another District. Please provide all +documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the potential conflicts of interest +that the Justice Department discussed or determined existed for the USAO SDFL, as well as any +referral that was made to Main Justice or to any other District, including any documents that + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 34 of +were transmitted to any other District regarding the conflict and regarding what was to be +investigated. +19. In March 2011, former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta sent a three-page letter to the +news media in which he claimed that when Government attorneys began investigating Epstein, +Epstein launched "a yearlong assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors." Shortly thereafter, +Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorney Roy Black sent a responsive letter to Alexander Acost's letter +to the news media in which he claimed that he did not pry into the personal lives of prosecutors +but merely pointed out misconduct and over-reaching by certain people involved in the Epstein +investigation. Please provide all documents, correspondence and other information that supports +or contradicts Acosta's allegations in his letter, including any information that the Justice +Department received from Epstein attacking the prosecutors and investigators working on the +case. Please also provides all documents, correspondence, information about misconduct and +over-reaching that was provided by Black and that the Government found that supported or +contradicted such allegations. +20. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that Epstein's guilty +plea to state charges was intended to be the consummation of a non-prosecution agreement that +barred prosecution of federal offenses committed against them. They have further alleged that +Epstein entered such a guilty plea on or about June 30, 2008. Please provide all documents, +correspondence, and other information between the Government and state and local prosecutors +and police agencies (including The Palm Beach Police Department and Palm Beach State +Attorney's Office) regarding the Epstein investigation and ultimate Epstein plea. +21. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that correspondence +in the possession of the Government will support their claims. Please provide all documents, +correspondence, and other information between Government attorneys/officials (including both +federal and state prosecutors) and attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein (or non-attorney acting on +and other in malian bees to +Epstein's behalf) relating to (1) negotiations involving the possible prosecution (and ultimately +the non-prosecution) by federal or state agencies for sex offenses, including sex offenses +committed against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, (2) Epstein's entry of state guilty pleas for +related sex offenses; (3) a non-prosecution agreement entered into between Epstein and the +Government that barred his prosecution for offenses committed against Jane Doe #1 and Jane +Doe #2; (4) the fulfillment of Epstein's and/or the Government's obligations under the nonprosecution agreement and/or the state guilty pleas Epstein entered; (5) any work release or other +conditional release of Epstein from confinement; (6) any designation of Epstein as a sex offender +or restrictions on him contacting victims of his offenses (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe +#2); and (7) any termination of supervision or parole of Epstein. This information should include +unredacted e-mails, letters, and correspondence of any type between government prosecutors +working on the case (including, but not limited to, federal prosecutors Alexander Acosta, Jeffrey +H. Sloman, Matt Menchel, Andy Lourie, Ann +Villafana, Dexter Lee, and Bruce Reinhart +and state prosecutors Dahlia Weiss, Lana Belolovek, and others involved in the Epstein +investigation) and defense attorneys representing Epstein (including, but not limited to, Roy +Black, Jay Lefkowitz, Jack Goldberger, +Weinberg, Gerald Lefcourt, Michael Tien, Guy +1 Lilly Ann | +_. Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz) and agents acting in support of Epstein +(including, but not limited to former President Bill Clinton and Andrew Albert Christian Edward + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 35 of +(a/k/a Prince Andrew, [ +of York). This should also include letters of recommendation or +similar communications submitted to any Government official vouching for or providing support +for Jeffrey Epstein. +22. As you know, throughout their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have +alleged that they were not properly notified of plea negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein and were +denied their right to confer by the Government and that instead the Government gave Epstein +generous concessions through the plea negotiations. Please provide any documents, +correspondence and other information that reflects or discusses any consideration of any type +that Epstein had previously provided or offered to provide to the Government (or any individual +within the Government, in either his official or private capacity) or any person previously +employed by the Government and involved in the Epstein investigation or prosecution. The +documents, correspondence, and other information should include any information discussing: +(a) Any donation or offer to donate, directly or indirectly, either funds, services, +or any other valuable consideration to any person or entity; +(b) Any offer to assist, directly or indirectly, any person to obtain employment, +business opportunities, business clients, real estate, office properties; +(c) Any offer to assist the Government or law enforcement agencies in the +investigation or prosecution of any federal or state criminal offense; +(d) Any consideration that Epstein had provided to Government or law +enforcement agencies in the past; and +(e) Any other consideration of any type that Epstein offered to provide or had +provided in the past that could provide a basis for the Government extending +Epstein a more generous or lenient plea bargain or non-prosecution agreement +than would be received by any other similarly situated child abuse suspect. +23. The Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1), requires the Government to use +its "best efforts" to protect the rights of crime victims. +Please provide all documents, +correspondence, and other information that will assist Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in protecting +their rights under the CVRA, including all documents, correspondence, and other information +that the Government previously identified as being helpful to the victims but refused to provide +based on its legal interpretation (now rejected by the Court) that the CVRA did not apply to this +case because no indictment was filed. +24. In the course of its investigation of Epstein and negotiations with Epstein, the +Government (i.e., federal investigators and prosecutors) shared documents, correspondence, anc +information with other persons outside the federal government, including state and local +prosecuting and law enforcement agencies, prosecuting and law enforcement agencies in other +countries, Epstein's legal counsel, legal counsel for crime victims, and other entities. Please +provide all documents, correspondence, and other information that the Government shared with +any entity or person outside the federal government, including all correspondence (including e- +mails) with those entities or persons. +25. After the victims had made extensive efforts to try and reach a stipulated set of facts in +this case, in March 2011 the Government refused to negotiate about such facts. Accordingly, at +that time the victims filed various motions to obtain evidence in this case and, at the same time, + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 36 of +the victims voluntarily made all initial disclosures on their part that are required by Federal Rule +of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1). Please provide all initial disclosures required by the Federal Rules +of Civil Procedure, including all disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). +DEFINITIONS +For the purpose of construing the foregoing discvery requests, the following terms are +defined: +The term "documents" means and includes, without limitation, all writings of any kind, +including the originals and all non-identical copies or drafts, whether different from the original +by reason of any notation made on such copy or draft or otherwise including, without limitation, +correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, statistics, letters, e-mails, electronic computer files, +telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports, studies, checks, statements, receipts, returns, summaries, +pamphlets, books, prospectuses, interoffice communications, offers, notations of any sort of +conversation, telephone calls, meetings or other communications, bulletins, printed matter, +computer print-outs, teletypes, facsimiles, invoices, work sheets and all drafts, alterations, +modifications, changes, and amendments of any of the foregoing, graphic or aural writs, records +or representations of any kind including, without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs, +microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings, motion pictures; and electronic, mechanical or +electric records or representations of any kind including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes and +disc recordings, and writings and printed material of every kind. +The term "correspondence" means any tangible object that conveys information or +memorializes information that was conveyed in tangible or oral form including, but not limited +to, writings, letters, memoranda, reports, notes, e-mails, telephone logs, telephone billing +information, telephone recordings, and interoffice communications. +The term "Epstein's victims" means any person that the Government identified as a +possible victim of a sex offense committed by Jeffrey Epstein, including Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe +#2, all victims identified in attachment to the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein, +and another person that the Government investigated as a possible victim of Epstein's sex +offenses. +The term "Government" means the federal government, including all employees of and +components of the United States Department of Justice (such as, the Office of the Attorney +General, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Divisions, the Office of +Professional Responsibility, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, the U.S. Attorney's +Offices for the Southern District and Middle District of Florida, and the Federal Bureau of +Investigation) and other federal government agencies with law enforcement responsibilities +related to the Epstein case (such as the Internal Revenue Service). This request for production +seeks all documents, correspondence, and other information held by all of these entities, +including all employees of and components of the Justice Department that worked on or were in +any way involved the Epstein investigation and/or that possess information relevant to the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 37 of +The term "including" means containing within the request, but not limiting the request. +The term "witness statement" means any document or other recording in any form +(including oral form) reflecting, recording, or otherwise memorializing a statement made or +information conveyed by a potential witness, including for example FBI 302's. The term +includes information collected by any law enforcement, prosecuting or government agency, +including all federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies located in Washington, D.C., or +Florida. +NO GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPTS SOUGHT +If any of the foregoing requests cover grand jury transcripts, do not provide the grand +Jury transcript. If any of the foregoing requests include documents that quote directly from a +grand jury transcript, please redact that particular quotation. +PRIVILEGE LOG +If you believe that any document, correspondence, or other information requested in this +request is subject to a privilege and if you intend to assert that privilege, please provide a +"privilege log" consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g), including a description a document that is +consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g)(3)(B). Your privilege log should include the type of +document, general subject matter of the document, date of the document, and author and +REDUCING UNDUE BURDEN +If you believe that complying with any of the foregoing requests would be unduly +burdensome, please contact victims counsel - +I1. +- to discuss ways to reduce +any such burden. +DATED: October 3, 2011 +Respectfully Submitted, +s/ +JAFFE, WEISSING, +, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 524-2820 +Florida Ba So.: 4-2852 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 38 of +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +The foregoing document was served on October 3, 2011, on the following via US Mail and +E-Mail Transmission: +Dexter Lee +A. +Villafaña +Assistant U.S. Attorneys +500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Fax: (561) 820-8777 +E-mail: Dexter.Lee@usdoj.gov +E-mail: +Attornevs for the Government +Roy Black, Esq. +Jackie Perczek, Esq. +Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1300 +Miami, FL 33131 +RBlack@royblack.com +Attorneys for Proposed Intervenors Roy Black et al. +Respectfully Submitted, +JAFFE, WEISSING, +1. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. + + +Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 39 of + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 40 of +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Plaintiffs +V. +UNITED STATES, +Defendants +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST +FOR PRODUCTION TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING NEW INFORMATION +CONCERNING INVESTIGATION OF HANDLING OF EPSTEIN NON- +PROSECUTION AGREEMENT +COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims), by and through undersigned +counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter "the Government") to produce the +original or best copy of the items listed herein below for inspection and/or copying, pursuant to +the Court's Order (DE 99) directing discovery in this case, the Court's Order denying the +Government's motion to dismiss and lifting stay of discovery (DE 189), and the Court's +Omnibus Order (DE 190): +BACKGROUND +As the Government will recall, the victims have repeatedly asked the Government to +stipulate to undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the +victims filed their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and +Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (DE 48) (the victims" "summary judgment +motion") along with a Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's +Failure to Contest Any of the Facts (DE 49). + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 41 of +On September 26, 2011, the Court denied the victims' motion to have their facts accepted +(DE 99 at 11). At the same time, however, the Court has ordered discovery to develop the +factual record concerning the summary judgment motion (DE 99 at 11). The Court reserved +ruling on the victims' motion for an order directing the Government not to suppress relevant +evidence (DE 99 at 11). +On September 28, 2011, the victims requested that the Government voluntarily provide +documents concerning this case. The Government declined to provide even a single document. +On October 3, 2011, the victims sent requests for production of documents relevant to +this case. +On November 8, 2011, the same day that the production of this discovery was due, rather +than produce a single item of discovery or stipulate to a single fact, the Government filed a +motion to dismiss the victims" case. The Government also filed an accompanying motion for a +stay in this case. +On November 8, 2011, the Government filed an ex parte, sealed motion to stay further +discovery in this case. (DE 121). On November 9, 2011, the Court granted an ex parte, sealed +order to stay. (DE 123). +On December 5, 2011, the victims filed a response to Government's motion to stay. The +victims strenuously objected to the Government's approach, alleging specifically that "delay +appears to be the Government's motivation for filing the motion to dismiss." DE 129 at 2. The +victims went on to recount the fact that the Government had waited three years to file a motion to +dismiss, concluding that "as a practical matter, the Government's motion has had the desired +effect of delay: While its motion remains pending, the victims have been effectively denied any +ability to obtain discovery from the Government." DE 129 at 2-3. The victims also filed a + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 42 of +protection motion to compel (DE 130) asking that the Court direct the Government to produce +the requested materials. +On January 24, 2012, the Government filed a reply in support of its motion to stay. DE +140. In that reply, the Government represented that it would voluntarily be providing +information to the victims: "[T]he United States has agreed to provide some information to [the +victims] even during the pendency of the stay and is undertaking a search for that +information." DE 140 at 4. Contrary to that representation, however, over the next seventeen +months, the Government did not provide any information to the victims. +A year after the Government's motion to dismiss, on December 6, 2012, the victims filed +a Motion for a Prompt Ruling Denying the Government's Motion for a Stay (DE 179). The +motion explained that it had been more than a year since the Government had filed its motion for +a stay and that the Government's refusal to produce any information continues to effective block +the vietims from learning what happened during the Government's plea negotiations with the +man who sexually abused them. The Government filed a response in opposition to that motion +(DE 182). +On February 25, 2013, counsel for the victims sent a request to the Government that, in +view of that fact that its requested stay had never been granted, it should begin fulfilling its +court-ordered discovery obligations: +The victims believe that in view of fact that it has been more than fifteen +months since the Government filed its motion for a stay of discovery and yet the +Court has not granted that motion, the Court's discovery order is in effect and +controlling. Accordingly, the victims respectfully request that by March 8, 2013, +the Government produce all of the materials which is covered by the victims' +Marie, 2013, the vice the may before to set troduce honora cal be +order the Government to follow its obligations. +If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to set up a time +where we can talk to you over the phone about all this. We are happy to work + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 43 of +with you to try and minimize any unnecessary burden from your discovery +obligations. +E-mail from Paul G. Cassell & +to Dexter Lee, et al., Counsel for the +Government (February 25, 2013). +The Government ignored the e-mail and did not respond in any way. +Accordingly, in view of the Government recalcitrance and refusal to even discuss its +discovery obligations, on March 14, 2013, the victims filed a motion to compel production of +discovery materials. The Government did not respond to this motion. +On June 1, 2013, the Court denied the Government's motion to dismiss. DE 189. That +denial also lifted stay of discovery proceedings. DE 189 at 14 ("The stay of discovery pending +ruling on the Government's motion to dismiss entered on November 8, 2011 [DE# 123] is also +lifted."). The Court also entered an Omnibus Order (DE 190) that, among other things, granted +the victim motion to compel (DE 130). +SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY REQUEST +The victims now request one specific item of supplemental discovery relating to information +that, in large measure, has come into existence since they filed the first request for production of +documents on October 3, 2011: +Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have asked the Government to investigate their allegations that +the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida entered into a non-prosecution +agreement with Jeffrey Epstein for sexual offenses committed against them and other victims +based on considerations apart from the merits of the criminal case and also that violations of +criminal law, rules of ethics, Justice Department policies (including policies on crime +victims' rights), and the Crime Victims Rights Act occurred during the negotiations leading +up to and surrounding the entry of the non-prosecution agreement. Please provide any +information that the Government has developed concerning or relating to those allegations +and the handling of the negotiations and consummation of the non-prosecution agreement, +including any information developed by the Justice Department's Office of Professional +Responsibility (OPR), the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other federal investigative +entity, and any grand jury investigating these (or releated) allegations, including any grand +jury meeting in the Southern District of Florida, the Middle District of Florida, the District of + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 44 of +New Jersey, and/or the District of Columbia. For this one discovery request only, please +include all relevant grand jury transcripts and evidence collected by the grand jury. +DEFINITIONS +For the purpose of construing the foregoing discovery requests, the following terms are +defined: +The term "documents" means and includes, without limitation, all writings of any kind, +including the originals and all non-identical copies or drafts, whether different from the original +by reason of any notation made on such copy or draft or otherwise including, without limitation, +correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, statistics, letters, e-mails, electronic computer files, +telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports, studies, checks, statements, receipts, returns, summaries, +pamphlets, books, prospectuses, interoffice communications, offers, notations of any sort of +conversation, telephone calls, meetings or other communications, bulletins, printed matter, +computer print-outs, teletypes, facsimiles, invoices, work sheets and all drafts, alterations, +modifications, changes, and amendments of any of the foregoing, graphic or aural writs, records +or representations of any kind including, without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs, +microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings, motion pictures; and electronic, mechanical or +electric records or representations of any kind including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes and +dise recordings, and writings and printed material of every kind. +The term "correspondence" means any tangible object that conveys information or +memorializes information that was conveyed in tangible or oral form including, but not limited +to, writings, letters, memoranda, reports, notes, e-mails, telephone logs, telephone billing +information, telephone recordings, and interoffice communications. +The term "Epstein's victims" means any person that the Government identified as a +possible victim of a sex offense committed by Jeffrey Epstein, including Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe +#2, all victims identified in attachment to the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein, +and another person that the Government investigated as a possible victim of Epstein's sex +offenses. +The term "Government" means the federal government, including all employees of and +components of the United States Department of Justice (such as, the Office of the Attorney +General, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Divisions, the Office of +rotessional Responsibility, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, the U.S. Attorney': +Offices for the Southern District and Middle District of Florida, and the Federal Bureau of +Investigation) and other federal government agencies with law enforcement responsibilities +related to the Epstein case (such as the Internal Revenue Service). This request for production +seeks all documents, correspondence, and other information held by all of these entities, +including all employees of and components of the Justice Department that worked on or were in +any way involved the Epstein investigation and/or that possess information relevant to the +The term "including" means containing within the request, but not limiting the request. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 45 of +The term "witness statement" means any document or other recording in any form +(including oral form) reflecting, recording, or otherwise memorializing a statement made or +information conveyed by a potential witness, including for example FBI 302's. The term +includes information collected by any law enforcement, prosecuting or government agency, +including all federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies located in Washington, D.C., or +PRIVILEGE LOG +If you believe that any document, correspondence, or other information requested in this +request is subject to a privilege and if you intend to assert that privilege, please provide a +"privilege log" consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g), including a description a document that is +consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g)(3)(B). Your privilege log should include the type of +document, general subject matter of the document, date of the document, and author and +addressee of the document or correspondence. +REDUCING UNDUE BURDEN +If you believe that complying with any of the foregoing requests would be unduly +urdensome, please contact victims counsel - +IJ. +- to discuss ways to reduce +ny such burden +DATED: June 24, 2013 +Respectfully Submitted, +JAFFE, WEISSING, +1. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 524-2820 +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +SUniversily Collage of Law at the +332 S. 1400 E. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 46 of +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 + + +Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 47 of + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 48 of +64 +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Plaintiffs +V. +UNITED STATES, +Defendants +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS +TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING QUESTIONS RELEVANT TO THEIR +PENDING ACTION CONCERNING THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT +COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims"), by and through undersigned +counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter "the Government") to admit or +deny the following facts: +BACKGROUND +As the Government will recall, the victims have asked the Government to stipulate to +undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their +Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on +Appropriate Remedies (DE 48) (the victims" "summary judgment motion") along with a Motion +to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts +(DE 49). +On September 26, 2011, the Court denied the victims' motion to have their facts accepted +(DE 99 at 11). At the same time, however, the Court has ordered discovery to develop the +factual record concerning the summary judgment motion (DE 99 at 11). The Court reserved + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 49 of +ruling on the victims' motion for an order directing the Government not to suppress relevant +evidence (DE 99 at 11). The Court allowed the victims to propound requests for admission to +the Government. +DISCOVERY REQUESTED +The numbered requests for admissions below should all be construed in light of the +definitions of terms provided at the end of the requests. Where the request for admission has +separate, lettered sub-parts, please admit or deny each separate sub-part: +1. The FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's +investigation into Jeffrey Epstein developed a case for a federal prosecution against +Epstein for many federal sex offenses. +1. The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for +the Southern District of Florida (*USAO") conducted an investigation +into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and +information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against +Epstein for many federal sex offenses. Except as otherwise admitted +matter calling for an admission. Nonetheless, the government denies the assertion that +the government has declined the request of Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 to stipulate to +undisputed facts in this case. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 50 of +2. Regarding notifications provided to victims of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse: +The U.S. Attorney's Office negotiated with Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorneys +concerning the notifications to be provided to victims of Epstein's abuse; +(b) +2. (a) The government admits that, after Epstein's attorneys learned of +the notification that the government planned to provide to Jane +Doe : +#2, who claimed that she was not a victim, Epstein's +attorneys contacted the USAO and objected to the procedures for +notification and the legal bases therefor. The government further +admits that +the USAO considered +those objections when +evaluating what notification to provide to victims. Except as +otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. +2(a). +It is not standard practice for the U.S. Attorney's Office to negotiate with defense +attorneys about the extent of notifications provided to crime victims; +(b) Admitted. +(c) +As a result of those negotiations or requests received from Epstein, the U.S. +Attorney's Office stopped making notifications to some crime victims; + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 51 of +(d) +The language used in the notifications to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were +affected by the negotiations with Epstein's defense lawyers; +(d) The government admits that, after the USAO received objections to victim +notifications from Epstein's counsel and reevaluated its victim notification +obligations, the USAO altered the language that was ultimately contained in +the July 9, 2008 notification letter to Jane Doe #1 in care of +Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 2(d). +(e) +At least in part as a result of the negotiations, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were +not told that the U.S. Attorney's Office had entered into a non-prosecution +agreement with Epstein until after the agreement was executed. +(e) The government admits that, at least in part as a result of objections lodged +by Epstein's lawyers to victim notifications, the USAO reevaluated its +obligations to provide notifications to victims, and Jane Doe #1 was thus not +told that the USAO had entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein +until after the agreement was signed. The government further admits that Jane +Doe #2 was not told that the USAO had entered into a non-prosecution +agreement with Epstein until after the agreement was signed, but denies that +the USAO did not inform Jane Doe #2 as a result of any negotiations involving +Epstein or any objections lodged by Epstein's lawyers; the USAO did not +consider Jane Doe #2 a victim after she informed the USAO and the FBI that +she was not a victim of any offense committed by Epstein, and, as a result, the +USAO did not consider informing Jane Doe #2 about the non-prosecution +agreement. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies +Request No. 2(e). +3. Because of a confidentiality provision in the non-prosecution agreement signed by the +3. Denied. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 52 of +4. During its negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorneys, the U.S. Attorney's +Office was aware that publicly disclosing the non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey +Epstein would likely have led to public criticism of the agreement. +4. Denied. +S. During negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein regarding the non-prosecution agreement, it was +the position of at least one experienced attorney within the U.S. Attorney's Office that the +Crime Victims' Rights Act required notifications to the victims in this case. + +6. The Justice Department possesses documents, correspondence or other information +reflecting contacts with the Department between May 2007 and September 2008 on +behalf of Jeffrey Epstein by: +(a) President Bill Clinton; Denied. +(b) Andrew Albert Christian Edward (a/k/a Prince Andrew, | +(c) Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz; Admitted +of York); Denied. +(d) Ken Starr; Admitted. +(e) Lillian +Admitted to the extent that the reference to "Lillian +meant to refer to Lilly Ann +(f) Jay Lefkowitz; Admitted and +' was +(g) Roy Black. Admitted + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 53 of +7. On about January 10, 2008, when Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were sent letters advising +them that "this case is currently under investigation," the U.S. Attorney's Office had +already entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. +7. The government admits that, on about January 10, 2008, when Jane +Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were sent letters advising them that "this case +is currently under investigation," the U.S. Attorney's Office had +already signed a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, but +that, on that date, the non-prosecution agreement nonetheless +remained in a state of some flux and was subject to being set aside as +Epstein was challenging the propriety of the non-prosecution +agreement and seeking further review from the Department of +Justice. +8. In September 2007 when the U.S. Attorney's entered into the non-prosecution agreement +with Epstein, it did not inform FBI agents of the details of the disposition of the case ir +the way that it ordinarily informed them of dispositions of other cases. +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied +9. With regard to the non-prosecution agreement between Epstein and the Government: +(a) +Epstein insisted on, and the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed to, a provision in the +non-prosecution agreement that made the agreement secret; +(a) The government admits that, at Epstein's insistence, the USAO +Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 9(a). +(b) +• particular, the agreement stated: " The parties anticipate that this agreement wi +ot be made part of any public record: +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 54 of +(c) +(d) +By entering into such a confidentiality agreement, the U.S. Attorney's Office put +itself in a position that conferring with the crime victims (including Jane Doe #1 +and Jane Doe #2) about the non-prosecution agreement would violate certain +terms of the agreement; +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied +Even notifying the victims about the agreement would have violated the +confidentiality provision; and +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied +(e) +From September 24, 2007 through June 2008, the U.S Attorney's Office did not +notify Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 of the existence of the non-prosecution +agreement. +(e) The government admits that, during the period from September 24, 2007 +through June 2008, the USAO did not notify Jane Doe #2 of the existence of +non-prosecution agreement during the period from September 24, 2007 +through June 2008. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government +10. With regard to contact between the Government and the victims: +(a) +On about October 26, 2007, FBI agents met with Jane Doe #1; +only that meeting. +(b) +The agents explained that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges involving +another victim, he would be required to register as a sex offender, and he had +made certain concessions related to the payment of damages to the victims, +including Jane Doe #1; + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 55 of +(b) The government admits that, on or about October 26, 2007, FBI agents +explained to Jane Doe #1 that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges for +procuring minors to engage in prostitution; that Epstein would be required to +register as a sex offender; that Jane Doe #1 would be entitled to seek damages +from Epstein; and that, if she desired, Jane Doe #1 would be entitled to use the +services of an attorney at no expense to her in seeking those damages from +Epstein. The government denies that the FBI agents explained that the state +charges "involv[ed] another victim." +(C) +During this meeting, the agents did not explain that an agreement had already +been signed that precluded any prosecution of Epstein for federal crimes +committed against Jane Doe #1; +(c) The government denies that the FBI agents did not explain to Jane Doe #1 that +an agreement had already been signed; denies that the FBI agents did not explain to +Jane Doe #1 that the agreement resolved the investigation of the federal case +involving Jane Doe #1; and denies that the FBI agents did not explain to Jane Doe +#1 other terms of that agreement Except as otherwise admitted above, the +government denies Request No. 10(c). +(d) +The agents could not have revealed this part of the non-prosecution agreement +without violating the terms of the non-prosecution agreement; +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied +(e) +The agents themselves had not been informed of the existence of the provision in +the non-prosecution agreement barring Epstein's prosecution for various federal +crimes or sex offenses at that time; +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied +(f) +Because the non-prosecution agreement had already been reached with Epstein, +he agents made no attempt to secure Jane Doe #l's view on the proposer +esolution of the case: and +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied +(g) +The agents never explained that the non-prosecution agreement would ultimately +bring to an end the federal investigation in the case. +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 56 of +11. On about November 29, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent a draft of a crime victim +notification letter to Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The notification +letter would have explained: "I am writing to inform you that the federal investigation of +Jeffrey Epstein has been completed, and Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office have +reached an agreement containing the following terms ...." Because of concerns from +Epstein's attorneys, the U.S. Attorney's Office never sent the proposed victim +notification letter to the victims. +11. The government admits that, on or about November 28, 2007, A. +Villafaña of the USAO sent a draft of a crime victim notification letter to Jay +Lefkowitz, counsel for Jeffrey Epstein, and that the draft notification letter +stated, in part: "1 am writing to inform you that the federal investigation of +Jeffrey Epstein has been completed, and Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's +Office have reached an agreement containing the following terms.... Th +government further admits that, in part as a result of objections lodged bi +Epstein's lawyers, the USAO reevaluated its obligations to provide notifications +to victims, and, as a result of that reevaluation and other considerations and +developments, the USAO never sent victims the draft notification letter that was +sent to Jay Lefkowitz on or about November 28, 2007. Except as otherwise +admitted above, the government denies Request No. 11. +12. On July 3, 2008, when +J. +was working on a letter to the U.S. Attorney's +Office concerning the need to federally prosecute Epstein for sex offenses committed +against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, the U.S. Attorney's Office had already entered into +a binding non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. +12. The government admits that, prior to July 3, 2008, the USAO had already +entered a binding non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. The +on that letter on July 3, 2008. Except as athervise admitted abover tod +government denies Request No. 12. +13. When Jeffrey Epstein pled guilty to state charges on June 30, 2008, +(a) +Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 had not been informed by the U.S. Attorney's +Office of the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 57 of +13. (a) The government admits that, when Epstein pled guilty to state charges on +June 30, 2008, Jane Doe #2 had not been informed by the USAO of the +existence of the non-prosecution agreement. The government further admits +that, although the USAO, through FBI agents, had notified Jane Doe #1 of the +existence of the non-prosecution agreement prior to Epstein's June 30, 2008 +guilty plea, no employee of the USAO had personally notified Jane Doe #1 at +that time of the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. Except as +otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 13(a). +(b) +The U.S. Attorney's Office had not conferred with either Jane Doe #1 or Jane Doe +#2 about the non-prosecution agreement; +(b) The government denies that, by the time of Epstein's June 30, 2008 guilty plea, +an attorney for the government working at the USAO had not already +conferred with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 about their opinions regarding +how the federal investigation and potential prosecution of Epstein should +proceed. The government admits that the USAO had not conferred with Jane +Doe #2 about the non-prosecution agreement prior to Epstein's June 30, 2008 +guilty plea. The government further admits that, although the USAO had +communicated with Jane Doe #1 about the non-prosecution agreement through +FBI agents prior to Epstein's June 30, 2008 guilty plea, no employee of the +USAO had personally conferred with Jane Doe #1 about the non-prosecution +agreement prior to Epstein's guilty plea. Except as otherwise admitted above, +the government denies Request No. 13(b). +(c) +Epstein's defense attorneys were aware that the U.S. Attorney's Office had not +conferred with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 about the agreement; and +Request No. 13(c). Except as otherwise admitted above and in the responses to + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 58 of +Epstein's defense attorneys had negotiated for a confidentiality provision in the +non-prosecution agreement that barred conferring with victims about the +agreement. +(d) The government admits that Epstein's attorneys negotiated with the USAO +for a provision in the non-prosecution agreement that ultimately provided as +follows: "The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any +public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act +request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, +it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure." Except as +otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 13(d). +14. When Epstein was pleading guilty to the state charges discussed in the non-prosecution +agreement, both the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein's defense attorneys were working +to keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement confidential. +14. The government admits that, when Epstein was pleading guilty to the state +charges discussed in the non-prosecution agreement, the USAO and Epstein's +defense attorneys sought to keep the document memorializing the nonprosecution agreement confidential, but denies that they sought at that time to +keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement confidential. Except as +15. Defense attorney Bruce E. Reinhart: +(a) +learned confidential, non-public information about the Epstein matter; +15. (a) The government admits that, while Bruce E. Reinhart was an Assistant U.S. +Attorney, he learned confidential, non-public information about the Epstein +matter. +(b) +discussed the Epstein matter with an attorney working on the case for the U.S. +Attorney's Office; and +b) The goner, men scisses the phie Brute inhart er an Aani as +ttorney working on the Epstein matter + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 59 of +(c) +was involved in decision-making with regard to the Epstein matter. +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied +16. The Government possesses information (including telephone logs and emails) reflecting +contacts between Bruce E. Reinhart and persons/entities affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein +(including Jeffrey Epstein, the Florida Science Foundation, Jack Goldberger. Harvard +Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, Roy Black, Ken Starr, Lily Ann +Reinhart left the employment of the U.S. Attorney's Office. +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted. +17. The Government possesses information (including telephone logs or emails) reflecting +contacts between Bruce E. Reinhart and persons working at or for the Department of +Justice or United States Attorney's Office that related to Jeffrey Epstein or the +investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and other potential co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein. +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted. +18. The government possesses, or has knowledge or information (including telephone logs or +photographs or emails) reflecting improper communication or influence made or +attempted with the Government, +, on Jeffrey Epstein's behalf by: +(a) +Guy +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied. +(b) LilyAnn +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied. +19. The government possesses, or has knowledge or information (including telephone logs, +photographs, emails or statements) of other credible sources) about a personal or +business relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and U.S. Attorneys and/or Assistant US +Attorneys. +19. To the extent that Request No. 19 is directed to the business or personal +relationships of the 93 U.S. Attorneys and over 5,400 Assistant U.S. Attorneys +serving across this country, or the countless individuals who have formerly +served as U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S. Attorneys throughout this nation +he government objects to Request No. 19 as overly broad and burdensome and +not calculated to lead to or involve information relevant to the instant matter. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 60 of +The government denies possessing or having any knowledge or information +about a personal or business relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and either the +U.S. Attorney or any Assistant U.S. Attorney serving in the Southern District of +Florida. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. +19. +20. The government possesses, or has knowledge or information (including telephone logs, +photographs, emails or statements) of other credible sources) about a personal or +business relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Matthew Menchel. +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted. +21. The government possesses, or has knowledge or information (including telephone logs, +photographs, emails or statements) of other credible sources) about a personal or +business relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Alex Acosta. +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied +22. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and/or other Government +entities have collected information about: +(a) +Bruce Reinhart's possible involvement in the Epstein matter; +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted +(b) +Other government attorney's possible improper behavior in the Epstein matter; +and +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted +(c) +A conflict of interest regarding the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern +District of Florida handling issues relating to the Epstein matter. +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 61 of +23. The non-prosecution agreement signed by the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein +currently blocks the U.S. Attorney's Office from prosecuting sex offenses committed by +Epstein against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in the Southern District of Florida. +23. The government admits that the non-prosecution agreement signed by the +USAO and Jeffrey Epstein currently blocks the USAO from prosecuting sex +offenses committed by Epstein against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in the +Southern District of Florida from in or around 2001 through in or around +September 2007, provided that those offenses are set out on pages 1 and 2 of the +non-prosecution agreement, were the subject of the joint investigation by the +FBI and the USAO, or arose from the federal grand jury investigation. Except as +otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 23. +24. The Justice Department possesses information that Epstein, himself or through his +attorney's or acquaintances, has provided or offered to provide to the federal government +(or an individual within the Government, in his official or private capacity) valuable +24. Admitted; Jeffrey Epstein provided valuable consideration to the federal +government through the non-prosecution agreement he entered with the USAO. +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied +26. The Government possesses evidence, not covered by grand jury secrecy rules, that +eveals that districts outside the Southern District of Florida share jurisdiction and venu +ith the Southern District of Florida over potential federal criminal charges based on th +alleged sexual acts committed by Epstein against Jane Doe #1 and/or Jane Doe #2. +26. The government objects to Request No. 26 because it seeks information +protected from disclosure by the law enforcement investigative privilege. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 62 of +DEFINITIONS +For the purpose of construing the foregoing discovery requests, the following terms are +defined: +The term "documents" means and includes, without limitation, all writings of any kind, +including the originals and all non-identical copies or drafts, whether different from the original +by reason of any notation made on such copy or draft or otherwise including, without limitation, +correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, statistics, letters, e-mails, electronic computer files, +telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports, studies, checks, statements, receipts, returns, summaries, +amphlets, books, prospectuses, interottice communications, ofters, notations of any sort o +onversation, telephone calls, meetings or other communications, bulletins, printed matte +computer print-outs, teletypes, facsimiles, invoices, work sheets and all drafts, alterations, +modifications, changes, and amendments of any of the foregoing, graphic or aural writs, records +or representations of any kind including, without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs, +microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings, motion pictures; and electronic, mechanical or +electric records or representations of any kind including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes and +disc recordings, and writings and printed material of every kind. +The term "correspondence" means any tangible object that conveys information or +memorializes information that was conveyed in tangible or oral form including, but not limited +to, writings, letters, memoranda, reports, notes, e-mails, telephone logs, telephone billing +information, telephone recordings, and interoffice communications. +The term "Epstein's victims" means any person that the Government identified as a +possible victim of a sex offense committed by Jeffrey Epstein, including Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe +#2, all victims identified in attachment to the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein, +and another person that the Government investigated as a possible victim of Epstein's sex +offenses. +The term "Government" means the federal government, including all employees of and +components of the United States Department of Justice (such as, the Office of the Attorney +General, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Divisions, the Office of +rofessional Responsibility, +The term "including" means containing within the request, but not limiting the request. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 63 of +The term "U.S. Attorney's Office" means the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern +District of Florida and includes all branch offices within the Southern District of Florida. +PRIVILEGE LOG +If you believe that any request for admission is subject to a privilege and if you intend to +assert that privilege, please provide a "privilege log" consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g), +including a description a document that is consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g)(3)(B). Your +privilege log should include a specific identification of the privilege being asserted and the basis +for the privilege. +DATED: December 1, 2011 +Respectfully Submitted, +S/ +JAFFE, WEISSING, +FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 524-2820 +Florida Ba No: 42752 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +The foregoing document was served on December 1, 2011, on the following persons via US Mail +and electronic mail to: +Dexter A. Lee +A. +Villafaña + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 265-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2014 Page 64 of +Assistant U.S. Attorneys +500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Fax: (561) 820-8777 +E-mail: dexter.lee @ usdoi gov +E-mail: +Attorneys for the Government \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b99455114abf97a34c40f1ced31b177239c8ee82af29a6a8200bf29ffa79976b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b99455114abf97a34c40f1ced31b177239c8ee82af29a6a8200bf29ffa79976b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0503b91d84883c11260cd8ff00c2212bbaecad32 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b99455114abf97a34c40f1ced31b177239c8ee82af29a6a8200bf29ffa79976b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -1816, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b99455114abf97a34c40f1ced31b177239c8ee82af29a6a8200bf29ffa79976b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 82, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "f7758e7f13f3ffe0e8277d3169b0ef0653ca5d530a2dcc472be4bf78906567ae", + "output_sha256": "fb032b61471202aa80a38ed313891473c0f502bb7242f0a871f2d96bf3f902ae", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9957071900dfcb41fddfb80744679003ea6e0007168f7269af9311a915c45a2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9957071900dfcb41fddfb80744679003ea6e0007168f7269af9311a915c45a2.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5c1fffb8a62a6a165bb99c5f29bfe1d0a393c59 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9957071900dfcb41fddfb80744679003ea6e0007168f7269af9311a915c45a2.md @@ -0,0 +1,260 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 147 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 1 of 9 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRAJ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 147 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 2 of 9 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +• Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/ m +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 147 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 3 of 9 +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80469-MARRA +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +/ +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO +STRIKE CASES FROM CURRENT TRIAL DOCKET AND MOTION TO CONTINUE +CASE AND/OR ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO MODIFY TRIAL AND SCHEDULING +ORDER DEADLINES +The Plaintiff, C.M.A., by and through undersigned counsel, files this Response to +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Strike Cases From Current Trial Docket And +Motion to Continue Case And/Or Alternative Motion to Modify Trial and Scheduling +Order (D.E. 104), and further states as follows: + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 147 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 4 of 9 +1. +Defendant EPSTEIN seeks to have this case (and others that are +presently pending) stricken from the trial docket, or continued for at least an additional +three months or have the existing pretrial deadlines extended. In light of Plaintiff's filing +of her Conditional Notice of Intent to Exclusively Rely on Statutory Damages Provided +by 18 U.S.C. §2255 (D.E. 113) on June 5, 2009, Plaintiff agrees to a modification of the +pretrial schedule as outlined in Defendant EPSTEIN's Motion to Strike (D.E. 104); to wit, +extending discovery for an additional three months from the currently set deadline of +August 28, 2009, extending the current deadline of October 15, 2009 by two months to +file substantive pretrial motions, extending the current deadline of December 21, 2009 +by one month to mediate this matter, and extending the deadline of June 29, 2009 by +one month to exchange expert witness reports.' +2. +EPSTEIN's requests to have this case stricken from the trial docket, or in +the alternative, continued for three months, however, are not warranted under the +circumstances and would unreasonably and unnecessarily delay the resolution of this +case. The filing of the instant motion marks the third different way EPSTEIN has sought +to delay the trial on this matter. First, it was Defendant's Motion for Stay (D.E. 33), +which was denied by the Court on December 17, 2008. Next, it was Defendant's +second Motion for Stay (D.E. 51), which is presently pending before the Court. Third, +and unfortunately, probably not the last, is Defendant's latest attempt to delay the trial of +this case. +With regards to the last requested modification of the pretrial order, EPSTEIN requests "an additiona +nonth to complete the remaining deadlines under each of the Court's Trial Orders." Given that each o + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 147 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 5 of 9 +3. +In order to justify his latest attempt to delay the trial of this case, EPSTEIN +argues that Plaintiff's conduct has prevented him from "conducting any meaningful +discovery, including the taking of C.M.A.'s supervisors, co-workers, acquaintances, +friends, and other third parties."(D.E. 104, pg. 7). The sworn affidavit by counsel for +Defendant, Michael Pike, Esq. repeats the same allegation ("As a result, the +undersigned has not had an opportunity to depose any individuals that may have +information about the allegations made by Plaintiffs."(D.E. 042-2, paragraph 4). +4, Defendant's Motion and affidavit are simply not supported by the history of +this case. First, this case was filed in state court on February 21, 2008. Defendant +EPSTEIN was served with a summons and complaint on July 2, 2008. For reasons that +are known only to himself and his counsel in this case, EPSTEIN waited a full six +months before propounding any discovery of any kind upon Plaintiff. EPSTEIN filed his +first set of interrogatories on January 16, 2009, and his first set of requests to produce +on January 16, 2009. EPSTEIN's choice to wait a half a year before engaging in formal +discovery is not the Plaintiff's fault, nor can he now be allowed to argue that the current +trial setting is unworkable because of his failures. +5. +Second, Plaintiff provided answers to Defendant's first set of +interrogatories on February 18, 2009 (Attached as Exhibit "1"). Plaintiff's answers to +interrogatories identifies thirty six (36) people, other than herself and EPSTEIN, who +have or may have knowledge regarding the subject matter of the instant law suit. This +list of individuals includes Plaintiff's relatives, mental health providers, a former +boyfriend, her friends, other victims of EPSTEIN, members of law enforcement who +investigated EPSTEIN, and former employees and/or associates of EPSTEIN. Armed + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 147 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 6 of 9 +with the identities of these crucial fact witnesses for almost the last four (4) months, +EPSTEIN had not set a single one of them for deposition as of the time he filed the +instant motion. Defendant's claims that he has been absolutely prevented from +engaging in any discovery as a result of Plaintiff's "delay tactics" are absolutely belied +by the fact that he actually has much of the information he complains Plaintiff is +concealing from him, but has chosen to do nothing with it over the last four months. +6. +Plaintiff also filed on February 2, 2009 her Initial Disclosure which likewise +identified multiple individuals who had or may have knowledge regarding the subject +matter of the instant suit (Attached as Exhibit "2"). Defendant failed to set any of those +indentified individuals for deposition either. +7. +Once again, Defendant cannot bury his head in the sand by failing to take +available discovery and then turn around and complain that he cannot get ready for trial +scheduled in February of 2010. +8. +Third, EPSTEIN inappropriately characterizes Plaintiff's assertions of the +protections afforded to her under the applicable rules of procedure and case law with +respect to unreasonably invasive and irrelevant discovery propounded by EPSTEIN as +an attempt to conceal evidence from EPSTEIN and delay the discovery of same. +Defendant's allegations in this regard are flat out wrong. Plaintiff, just like EPSTEIN, +has certain rights and privileges with respect to the scope of permissible discovery. +Plaintiff has every right to avail herself of the protections available to her under the rules +of discovery without fear of claims from EPSTEIN that she is concealing or delaying +anything. Indeed, it is ironic that EPSTEIN takes issue with a litigant invoking the +protections available to her with regards to inappropriate and unreasonable discovery + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 147 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 7 of 9 +when he himself has failed to respond to any discovery propounded to him by Plaintiff, +but instead has invoked his 5" Amendment privilege. +9. +Fourth, in the event that the Court rules that Plaintiff can recover the +statutory damage floor established in 18 U.S.C. §2255 for each proven incident of +abuse committed by EPSTEIN upon her, the discovery which EPSTEIN presently seeks +will not be relevant or material in any way given Plaintiff's Conditional Notice of Intent to +Exclusively Rely on Statutory Damages Provided by 18 U.S.C. §2255. +10. +Defendant asserts as justification for continuing this case what can fairly +be characterized as routine and ordinary discovery disputes. Nothing contained in +either his motion or supporting affidavit rises to the level of "exceptional circumstances" +required by Local Rule 7.6 to continue a trial setting. Any issues related to discovery +can certainly be cured by extending the trial deadlines as proposed by EPSTEIN. +Delaying the trial of this case is simply not necessary nor justified. + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 147 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 8 of 9 +WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this +Court enter an order denying Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Strike Cases From +Current Trial Docket And Motion to Continue Case And/Or Alternative Motion to Modify +Trial and Scheduling Order. +Respectfully submitted, +Is/Jack P. +JACK SCAROLA +Florida Bar No. 169440 +JACK P. +Florida Bar No.: 0547808 +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: +(561) 686-6300 +Fax: +(561) 383-9456 +Attorneys for Plaintiff +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 8th, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified above via +transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. +Is/Jack P. +JACK SCAROLA +Florida Bar No. 169440 +JACK P. +Florida Bar No.: 0547808 +2139 Palm Bea hakes Bouleva & Shipley, P.A. +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: +(561) 686-6300 +Fax: +(561) 383-9456 +Attorneys for Plaintiff + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 147 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 9 of 9 +COUNSEL LIST +Robert Critton, Esquire +Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman LLP +515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33414 +Phone: +Fax: +(561) 842-2820 +(561) 844-6929 +Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue S. +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: +(561) 863-9100 +Richard H. Willits, Esquire +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 10th Avenue North +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Phone: +(561) 582-7600 +Fax: +(561) 588-8819 +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esquire +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 South Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: +(561)-202-6360 +Fax: +(561)-828-0983 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9957071900dfcb41fddfb80744679003ea6e0007168f7269af9311a915c45a2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9957071900dfcb41fddfb80744679003ea6e0007168f7269af9311a915c45a2.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e8a706b36f1a2e99015ec19aa1b547aca1157d28 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9957071900dfcb41fddfb80744679003ea6e0007168f7269af9311a915c45a2.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -108, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b9957071900dfcb41fddfb80744679003ea6e0007168f7269af9311a915c45a2", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8bea3e20a6e57781ef9b2dee67827c6f5ee82cd9f271d96dfa84d08c90e2bed5", + "output_sha256": "b481e084e8af799b819ac8738a3f9ef4a9648dae4ae9e1a88b9a3d2e305c31c0", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b99b1b6fc6f2db6bde4ef3695d7e188e2596c85aa676573a026a140cc57b13d9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b99b1b6fc6f2db6bde4ef3695d7e188e2596c85aa676573a026a140cc57b13d9.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cb970507258500fe4e76f1d893bc9483b4bd58c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b99b1b6fc6f2db6bde4ef3695d7e188e2596c85aa676573a026a140cc57b13d9.md @@ -0,0 +1,254 @@ +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 548 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2010 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +/ +EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO JANE DOE'S RESPONSE TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR +PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING THE DEPOSITION OF STORY COWLES +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSETIN ("Epstein"), submits his Reply to Plaintiff, Jane Doe's +Response to Epstein's Motion for Protective Order Regarding the Deposition of Story Cowles +("Response") [DE #540], and states: +On April 29, 2010, Epstein filed his Motion for Protective Order Regarding the +Deposition of Story Cowles ("Motion") [DE #536] seeking to prohibit the deposition of Story +Cowles. +2. +Jane Doe filed her Response [DE #540] to said Motion on May 7, 2010. +Jane Doe's Response, and the affidavit of her counsel, +attached +as Exhibit A to said Response, is replete with unsupported factual assertions, conjecture, +misrepresentations and patently false statements. + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 548 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2010 Page 2 of 6 +The thrust of Jane Doe's Response is that she should be able to depose Story +Cowles ("Cowles") because: (1) Cowles visited Epstein in jail with a "third party visitors," such +as +and +which eliminated any confidentiality; (2) Epstein may +have discussed transfer of assets with Cowles; (3) Cowles may have discussed the cases against +Epstein with +; (4) Cowles has observed and communicated with visitors coming to +and from Epstein's home; and (5) Epstein may have discussed plans to flee the jurisdiction with +Cowles. None of the foregoing assertions are supported by any credible evidence. +5. +First, there is nothing to suggest that Cowles visited Mr. Epstein in jail with +let alone had privileged communications in their presence. See +Exhibit I to Jane Doe's Response. Jane Doe make this untenable conclusion because of a +visitor's log which indicates that +visited Mr. Epstein on some +of the same days Cowles visited Mr. Epstein. A cursory review of the Exhibit I will show that +Cowles often visited Mr. Epstein on multiple occasions in a single day. There is nothing to even +indicate that +was at the jail at the same time as Cowles. Indeed, +are listed on a separate visitor's log which does not indicate the +time they arrived and does not contain the names of any attorneys or paralegals. +6. +Nevertheless, +filed an affidavit affirmatively stating that "Many times, +Story Cowles was visiting Epstein while another third party visitor was present, such as +Epstein's co-conspirators +and +" despite the fact he was not there +and there exists absolutely no evidence to support such a statement. See +Affidavit +attached as Exhibit A to Response (* +Aff.") 13. Describing +assertion as a +misrepresentation is generous. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 548 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2010 Page 3 of 6 +7. +Next, Jane Doe asserts Epstein "likely discussed" hiding his assets and "moving +them to the Channel Islands" with Cowles, "as Jane Does [sic] has heard." See Response at 2. +Similarly, Jane Doe contends that Epstein "may have discussed" plans to flee the jurisdiction. +Id. at 4. Jane Doe advances absolutely no support for this statement nor did she file an affidavit +attesting to what she "has heard" regarding alleged asset transfers. This is nothing more than +pure conjecture. +Jane Doe also asserts that Cowles has recently been running errands for Epstein +and that she "understands" Cowles is at Epstein's home nearly every day. See Response at 3. +Jane Doe goes on to speculate that "[c]ertainly, in this capacity, Cowles has personally observed, +and communicated with, the visitors that come and go from Epstein's home, all potential +witnesses." Id. Not unlike the other assertions in her Response, Jane Doe cites no evidence to +support her conclusions. Accordingly, the Court should disregard these unsupported statements +in determining Epstein's Motion. See Frasher v. Fox Distributing of S.W. Fla., Inc., 813 So. 2d +1017, 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that an affidavit "must not be based on hearsay or the +plaintiff's subjective beliefs but rather on the plaintiff's personal knowledge of the defendant's +actions," citing Unique Caterers, Inc. v. Rudy's Farm Co., 338 So. 2d 1067, 1071 (Fla. 1976)). +9. +Other false, speculative and/or unsupported statements in Brad +affidavit +include: +a. Cowles visited Epstein in jail by stating that he was either a "Paralegal," +and "Attorney" or "Public Defender." See +Aff. 14. While a few +of the 159 entries in the visitor's log have Cowles' name followed by +"attorney" or "public defender," there is no evidence that Cowles ever +made any such representations to jail officials." Indeed, the visitor's log +also lists Epstein's attorneys Jack Goldberger and +Weinberg as +"PD" (presumably public defender) on the same page where they are +listed as attorneys. See Exhibit I to Motion, Part 2 of 3, 8/21/08 Entries. +It was obviously a mistake. If +• was intending to imply that +3 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 548 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2010 Page 4 of 6 +Cowles made misrepresentations to jail officials, any such implication is +belied by the facts. +b. On information and belief, Cowles was made to sign a confidentiality +agreement with Epstein. +See +Aff. 115. What information? +cites none. +C. +Cowles is at Epstein's house almost every day of the week with +or Epstein or both and knows of and interacted with the visitors to +Epstein's house. | +See +Aff. 1916, 18. Has +personally +been conducting surveillance Mr. Epstein's house? Has he personally +observed Cowles "interacting" with visitors to Epstein's house? If not, +how can +swear to such a statement? +d. +sole employment is working for Epstein, Cowles is her +boyfriend that has spent nights with her, gone to parties with her, talked +privately with her and +and he has even taken a trip +around the world with +See +Aff. 917. Again, +make these sworn assertions without any substantiation. +10. +The Court should disregard +affidavit in determining Epstein's Motion. +The assertions in his affidavit are just as unsupported and speculative as the statements in Jane +Doe's Response. Jane Doe and +use these groundless statements to create the false +impression that Cowles has discoverable information. Yet, as demonstrated herein, +fails to cite any evidence to support his assertions. +11. +In addition, Jane Doe maintains that Cowles should be required make the +representation that he has not discussed the cases against Epstein with +"under oath +at a deposition." See Response at 3. Yet Cowles submitted an affidavit under oath on that very +subject. Requiring him to appear at a deposition to confirm what he has already attested to under +oath, in his affidavit, would be a waste of the parties' time. +12. +Last, +tries to justify going back on his agreement not to depose Mr. +Cowles by stating he "did not know Mr. Cowles full role or involvement with Jeffrey Epstein." +However, it is obvious that +knew of the relationship between Cowles and +4 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 548 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2010 Page 5 of 6 +as he was seeking to depose Cowles, in part, to discover +whereabouts. See +Aff. 116-8. He also states that if "l +testified truthfully and completely then +there would be no need for Mr. Cowles testimony." Id. 19. Given that +is a +defendant in companion cases, it should hardly have been a surprise to +would invoke her Constitutional Rights under the Fifth Amendment. Ultimately, +is +attempting to make excuses for going back on his word not to depose Cowles. The Court should +not condone such double dealing. +13. +For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Epstein's Motion and prohibit +the deposition of Cowles. +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by +CM/ECF on this 17th day of May, 2010: +Respectfully submitted, +By: Is/ Jack Alan Goldberger. +- +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Florida Bar No. 262013 +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palın Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesg @bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/, +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Brad +,, Esq. +, Jaffe, Weissing, +Fistos & +5 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 548 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2010 Page 6 of 6 +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +Lehrman, PL +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +425 N. Andrews Avenue +Suite 2218 +Suite 2 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Phone: 954-524-2820 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +Fax: 954-524-2822 +ssm@)sexabuseattorney.com +brad@pathtojustice.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- +Counsel for Plaintiffs +80893 +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08- +80232, +08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +80994 +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +801-585-5202 +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +801-585-6833 Fax +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Miami, FL 33130 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +305 358-2800 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +riosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiff +Isidro M. +Esq. +Law Firm, P.A +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- +80469 +6 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b99b1b6fc6f2db6bde4ef3695d7e188e2596c85aa676573a026a140cc57b13d9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b99b1b6fc6f2db6bde4ef3695d7e188e2596c85aa676573a026a140cc57b13d9.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4a818528f7f50bda157d6a7ca5f11a311e1a5fcf --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b99b1b6fc6f2db6bde4ef3695d7e188e2596c85aa676573a026a140cc57b13d9.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b99b1b6fc6f2db6bde4ef3695d7e188e2596c85aa676573a026a140cc57b13d9", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "5e067ac4e3cc3d1ceab2f5a7d698ce2105e5e0bab25948bc0403a2f62ebdb6a9", + "output_sha256": "ed72aef3f7d3366d47fa0d7e2b08eb3e20907a6cdbf3c95d7a284d378a4388a7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b99daad6eab6cca299203cd9ce3709c5217045ff3e1743f0e6e4a866195f3f87.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b99daad6eab6cca299203cd9ce3709c5217045ff3e1743f0e6e4a866195f3f87.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..032b01b1c989807ef04692ca21bba0ac9384ea5f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b99daad6eab6cca299203cd9ce3709c5217045ff3e1743f0e6e4a866195f3f87.md @@ -0,0 +1,208 @@ +Filing # 166969369 E-Filed 02/16/2023 03:08:58 PM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-AG +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida, +Defendants. +COPY +RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO STATE ATTORNEY DAVE ARONBERG'S +MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND ORDER DENYING THE AMENDED MOTION +FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES UNDER FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 57.105 +Plaintiff, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, the Publisher of The Palm Beach Post ("The +Post"), submits this Response and Memorandum in Opposition to State Attorney Dave Aronberg's +("State Attorney" or "Mr. Aronberg") February 1, 2023 Motion to Alter or Amend Order Denying +the Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees under Florida Statutes Section 57.105 ("Motion to +Alter"). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Alter should be denied. +INTRODUCTION +The State Attorney's Motion to alter should be denied. There is no reason to alter or amend +the Court's January 31, 2023 Order Denying the Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees Under +Florida Statutes Section 57.105 (the "Order"). The Court correctly determined that the State +Attorney sought relief at the September 6 and 8, 2022 evidentiary hearing (the "Hearing") based +upon both his July 1, 2020 self-described "place-marker" Motion for Section 57.105 Attorneys' +Fees (the "First Motion"), which he expressly incorporated into his November 9, 2020 Amended +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, +ABRUZZO, CLERK, 02/16/2023 03:08:58 PM + + +Motion for Section 57.105 Attorneys' Fees (the "Amended Motion"), as well as the Amended +Motion. The Court's Order properly disposed of both motions, even though the State Attorney +had fused them together such that the Amended Motion superseded his First Motion. As the docket +reflected two motions, it was appropriate for the Order to expressly dispose of both motions. Thus, +the Court correctly held: "Accordingly, the July 1, 2020 Motion for Attorneys' Fees is DENIED." +ARGUMENT +The July 1, 2020 Motion for Attorneys' Fees—which the State Attorney himself referred +to as a "place-marker" motion- +-was expressly incorporated into and superseded by the State +Attorney's Amended Motion for Fees filed on November 9, 2020. The State Attorney's filings +made clear that the State Attorney always intended to file an amended motion supplementing his +self-described "place-marker" First Motion. The Amended Motion (an 11-page motion with +exhibits, totaling 59 pages) expressly incorporated the State Attorney's barebones argument from +his one-page First Motion and its accompanying two-page enclosure letter into the Amended +Motion. See Amended Motion, at 2-3. and Ex. "A". The Amended Motion also sought fees +including those for the time period covered by the First Motion. See id. at 7 and Ex. "F". Further, +the State Attorney incorrectly argued that his Amended Motion related back to the First Motion +such that the notice defects of the Amended Motion could be cured by utilizing the First Motion's +57.105 notice. +See, e.g., Hrg. Tr. at 15:2-11, 18:2-12. The Amended Motion was the only motion +that the State Attorney set for hearing, and reset several times, before (and after) the December 20, +2021 Final Judgment. See Hrg. Tr. at 128: 1-4. These and other facts set forth herein demonstrate +that the "place-marker" First Motion was superseded by the Amended Motion and the State +Attorney abandoned the First Motion upon the filing of his Amended Motion. See, e.g., Gannon +v. Cuckler, 281 So. 3d 587, 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) ("When a party files an amended brief in this +2 + + +court, we regard the amended filing as a new and separate document and disregard the old one."); +Hayes v. State, 59 So. 3d 384, 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) ("The amended motion superseded the +original one."). Once incorporating the arguments contained in the First Motion with the new +arguments set forth in the Amended Motion, the State Attorney was required to provide a new safe +harbor notice, and his failure to do so was fatal to "both" motions. Thus, it was entirely correct +for the Court to deny both motions as it did in the Order. +Despite the State Attorney's statement in the Motion to Alter that his Fitst Motion "was +never heard by the Court," the arguments set forth in the First Motion (and carried over into the +Amended Motion) were argued by the parties, heard by the Court at the Hearing, and addressed in +the parties' written closing arguments. Even though it was never properly noticed for hearing by +the State Attorney, during the Hearing on September 6, 2022, the State Attorney's counsel argued +that the First Motion be considered, as a part of his Amended Motion, and in the alternative to his +Amended Motion. See Hrg. Tr. at 18: 2-12 ("And we would ask Your Honor, in the alternative, +.... that you would rule on our original motion for attorneys' fees if it came down to it because, in +the end, the arguments are the same, land the real difference in the filing of the amended motion +for attorneys' fees is that it included the final tabulation of my firm's fees, as well as affidavits .. +• of fees and an affidavit of reasonable fees from our expert."); see also State Attorney Aronberg's +Written Closing Argument at 2. And over the objection of The Post, the Court heard the matters +raised in the First Motion, incorporated into the Amended Motion. Thus, the State Attorney +conceded that the arguments contained in the First Motion were included in the Amended Motion +argued by the parties and denied by the Court. +To protect its rights, The Post, over objection, defended against the issues raised by the +"place-marker" First Motion and the Amended Motion at the Hearing. See generally Hrg. Tr. at +3 + + +26-31; see also Hrg. Tr. at 28:15 - 29:7 ("So the first place-marker motion, Exhibit 14, it's - the +motion itself is one page. There's an enclosure letter that came with it, and it's two pages. So three +pages total. The motion itself says nothing except we're going to prevail, and this is your notice, +we want fees. But the enclosure letter says, along the lines I believe Mr. Wyler said this in his +opening, that the defendant Aronberg nor the office of the state attorney is in custody or control of +the 2006 grand jury materials sought therein. However, the first motion completely failed to +address the main reason why the state attorney was a party to the lawsuit, because it could +object to the clerk providing the grand jury records....") (emphasis added). +While The Post raised procedural arguments precluding the First Motion, The Post, by +necessity, defended against the merits of the First Motion during the Hearing and in its Written +Closing Argument. See Hrg. Tr. at 26-31; Written Closing Argument of The Palm Beach Post at +5-9, 10-17; id. at 8 ("The barebones "place-cker motion fails to meet the high burden of section +57.105. The Court must look at the substance, or lack thereof, of that motion, as of that moment +in the timeline, to determine whether atthat time the State Attorney met his burden of showing the +claim was frivolous or, in other words, that the Post knew or should have known at that time there +was no longer any justiciable claim. ... There was only one purported basis for sanctions stated +in the first "place-marker" motion (technically, in the enclosure letter to that one-page motion) +regarding the declaratory relief claim in Count I-the argument that the State Attorney did not +have possession or custody of the Epstein grand jury materials. Did that argument alone end the +matter as to the State Attorney? No. Did that argument alone make the State Attorney's joinder +in this case so frivolous as to be completely untenable? Absolutely not.") (internal citations +omitted). +4 + + +The Post also noted and argued that the "place-marker" First Motion was filed months +before Mr. Aronberg's fundamental change of his legal position such that he no longer objected to +the Clerk's production of Epstein grand jury records if ordered by the Court, as Mr. Aronberg first +stated in a reply brief in support of his First Motion on October 14, 2020. See Written Closing +Argument of The Palm Beach Post at 9; Hrg. Tr. at 29:14 - 31:6 ("So clearly there's new stuff in +the amended motion for fees. But Mr. Wyler said they said the same arguments. That's not -- That's +not true. The amended motion clearly makes new arguments not in the first place-marker motion. +It also references new documents, like the state attorney's motion for summary judgment and Mr. +Aronberg's affidavit, both which were filed in August of 2020... Importantly, the amended +motion also raises new positions. ... As you will see in the evidence, the position that the state +attorney had, [']no objection['], or, [']never had any objection to the clerk producing grand jury +materials[' J was new, and you'll hear from Greenberg Traurig attorney Stephen Mendelsohn that +this is exactly the position that the Post was trying to get and Mr. Mendelsohn was trying to get +from the state attorney. And you'll hear, in a June 23rd, 2020, letter Mr. Mendelsohn wrote to the +state attorney, he said the state attorney is named here because they are a party that is tasked with +protection of the grand jury system. You have the right to object to the release of grand jury +materials. That's why you're here. And, once we had this notice right here of saying they don't +object, we dismissed him. So he first said on the record, on October 14th, I have no objection to +the production of the Epstein grand jury materials. We dismissed him October 21"!."). +Faced with the denial of his only pending motion for fees (the Amended Motion), the State +Attorney's Motion to Alter is an improper attempt to use a procedural sleight of hand to reargue +his superseded First Motion. The State Attorney never considered the First Motion as anything +other than a "place-marker" that was intended to be and was superseded by the Amended Motion. +5 + + +And once that happened, the State Attorney's failure to provide the requisite safe harbor notice +mandated that both motions be denied. The State Attorney now seeks to reargue matters expressly +argued during the Hearing, which in any event were barred by the failure to provide the required +safe harbor. The Court should deny the State Attorney's attempt to reargue the Hearing and obtain +a second bite at the apple. +The State Attorneys' Motion to Alter is an attempt to have it both ways. The State +Attorney's filings and arguments to the Court demonstrate that he considered his 57.105 motions +to be unitary, such that the First Motion became part of and was superseded by the Amended +Motion. Now, faced with an Order that denied his motions because of his failure to comply with +the notice requirements of 57.105, he argues that his First Motion is somehow a separate and +distinct motion from his Amended Motion. This Court should reject the State Attorneys' new +attempt to split his motions. The Order is correct and need not be amended or altered. +CONCLUSION +Based on the foregoing, the State Attorney's Motion to Alter or Amend the Order should +be denied. +C +NOT +Respectfully submitted, +/s/ Lauren Whetstone +LAUREN WHETSTONE +Florida Bar No. 45192 +MARK F. BIDEAU +Florida Bar No. 564044 +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 300 East +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Tel.: 561.650.7900 +whetstonel@gtlaw.com +bideaum@gtlaw.com +sandra.famadas@gtlaw.com +thomasd@gtlaw.com +FLService@gtlaw.com +6 + + +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN +Florida Bar No. 849324 +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Tel.: 954.768.8225 +mendelsohns@gtlaw.com +smithl@gtlaw.com +MICHAEL J. GRYGIEL +(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +54 State Street, 6th Floor +Albany, NY 12207 +Tel.: 518.689.1400 +grygielm@gtlaw.com +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 +Los Angeles, CA 90067 +Tel.: 310.586.7700 +boyajiann@gtlaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff CA Florida Holdings, +LLC, Publisher of The Palm Beach Post +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY +that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been +electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein on +February 16, 2023. +/s/ +Lauren Whetstone +Lauren Whetstone, Esq. +7 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b99daad6eab6cca299203cd9ce3709c5217045ff3e1743f0e6e4a866195f3f87.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b99daad6eab6cca299203cd9ce3709c5217045ff3e1743f0e6e4a866195f3f87.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..148c95fb3df1a2690032a7bf8c67e16c6d202c6d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b99daad6eab6cca299203cd9ce3709c5217045ff3e1743f0e6e4a866195f3f87.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -84, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b99daad6eab6cca299203cd9ce3709c5217045ff3e1743f0e6e4a866195f3f87", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 7, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "1d94f1e4cbcba708c61a5a261703c134653c523e0e1181fef1461bed5aa565ff", + "output_sha256": "878711fae1aa86c645a7ee565fa418f7cf8731c37796e824a6269563883b15d3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9a113d9d2c69f89becb2e7999e54aeae68a6f7fd02e791d47be5373e0374c05.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9a113d9d2c69f89becb2e7999e54aeae68a6f7fd02e791d47be5373e0374c05.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4011d341b91387ed2d701e864c5d6f007788dc65 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9a113d9d2c69f89becb2e7999e54aeae68a6f7fd02e791d47be5373e0374c05.md @@ -0,0 +1,256 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 1 of 10 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 2 of 10 +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 6. +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 3 of 10 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +C.M.A., +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/_ +Vs. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +DOE II, +CASE NO: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/ +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendants. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 4 of 10 +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO PLAINTEF'S +FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT +Plaintiff Jane Doe, hereby moves this Court for an order compelling defendant, +Jeffrey Epstein, to answer her first requests for admissions or, in the alternative, to +prove that his invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege is proper. +Jane Doe has propounded 23 requests for admission to Epstein, including such +straightforward requests as: +• Your net worth is greater than $1 billion. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 5 of 10 +• You own or control, directly or indirectly, real estate property in foreign +countries. +• You are moving significant financial assets overseas, outside of the direct +territorial reach of the U.S. and Florida Courts. +• You currently have the ability to post a bond of $15 million to satisfy a +judgment in this case without financial or other difficulty. +In response to each and every one of these questions, Epstein has given the +following response. +In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as +specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding +this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot +provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under +the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +States Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +This Court should order Epstein to answer all of the requests for admission or, in +the alternative, prove that his Fifth Amendment invocations are valid. It is for the court, +not the claimant, to determine whether the hazard of incrimination is justified. United +States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991). "A court must make a +particularized inquiry, deciding, in connection with each specific area that the +questioning party wishes to explore, whether or not the privilege is well-founded." Id. +Typically this is done in an in camera proceeding wherein the person asserting the +privilege is given the opportunity "to substantiate his claims of the privilege and the +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 6 of 10 +district court is able to consider the questions asked and the documents requested by +the summons." Id +Here Epstein has made boilerplate invocation of the Fifth Amendment to each +and every question propounded by Jane Doe, including for example a request that he +admit that his net worth is more than $500 million. It is not apparent how admitting his +net worth is incriminating in the circumstances of this case. In any event, the Fifth +Amendment does not operate in this fashion. It is Epstein's obligation to explain his +claims on a "question-by-question basis." Id. +The only issue before the Court is Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege. Epstein +has only asserted a Fifth Amendment objection to production. As a result, any other +objections to production are deemed waived. See Local Rule 26.1G.3.(a) ("Any ground +[for an objection] not stated in an objection within the time provided by the Federal +Rules of Civil Procedure, or any extensions thereof, shall be waived."). +SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION +For the convenience of the court - and in compliance with Local Rule 26.1 H +(party filing motion to compel shall list specific requests in succession) - Jane Doe's +requests for admission are as follows: +1. Your net worth is greater than $10 million. +2. Your net worth is greater than $50 million. +3. Your net worth is greater than $100 million. +4. Your net worth is greater than $500 million. +5. Your net worth is greater than $1 billion. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 7 of 10 +6. Since being incarcerated you have, directly or indirectly (through the services +or assistance of other persons), conveyed money or assets in an attempt to insulate or +protect your money or assets from being captured in any civil lawsuits filed against you. +7. You own or control, directly or indirectly, real estate property in the Caribbean. +8. You own or control, directly or indirectly, real estate property in foreign +countries. +9. In the last 2 years you have transferred assets and/or money and/or financial +instruments to countries outside the United States. +10. You have provided financial support to the modeling agency MC2. +11. You have committed sexual assault against Plaintiff, a minor. +12. You committed battery against Plaintiff. +13. You digitally penetrated Plaintiff when she was a minor. +14. You offered Plaintiff more money contingent upon her having sex with your +or giving you oral sex. +15. You intended to harm Plaintiff when you committed these sexual acts +against her. +16. You knew Plaintiff was under the age of 16 when you sexually touched and +fondled her. +17. You intend to hire investigators to intimidate and harass Plaintiff during this +litigation. +18. You were engaged in the act of trafficking minors across state or country +borders for the purposes of sex or prostitution between 2000 and the present. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 8 of 10 +19. You coerced Plaintiff into being a prostitute and remaining in prostitution. +20. You are guilty of the following offenses against Jane Doe: +A. Procuring a minor for the purpose of prostitution as defined in F.S. 796.03; +B. Battery as defined by Florida Statutes. +C. Sexual Battery. +21. You are moving significant financial assets overseas, outside of the direct +territorial reach of the U.S. and Florida Courts. +22. You are making asset transfers with the intent to defeat any judgment that +might be entered against you in this or similar cases. +23. You currently have the ability to post a bond of $15 million to satisfy a +judgment in this case without financial or other difficulty. +CONCLUSION +For all these reasons, the Court should compel Epstein to answer the requests +for admission or provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment invocation +with regard to each request. Counsel for Jane Doe have conferred with opposing +counsel on the issues raised in this motion, and no resolution was possible. +DATED July 10, 2009 +Respectfully Submitted, +S/ +ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER +Las Olas City Centre +401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 522-3456 +Facsimile (954) 527-8663 +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +E-mail: bedwards@rra-law.com +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 9 of 10 +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: +801-585-6833 +E-Mail: +cassellp@law.utah.edu +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +1 HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 10, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the +manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by +CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to +receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing. +J. +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 10 of 10 +SERVICE LIST +Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Isidro Manual +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +iph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@bclclaw.com +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerswillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Adam D. Horowitz +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +William J. Berger +wberger@rra-law.com +10 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9a113d9d2c69f89becb2e7999e54aeae68a6f7fd02e791d47be5373e0374c05.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9a113d9d2c69f89becb2e7999e54aeae68a6f7fd02e791d47be5373e0374c05.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1c8a52a92eed433c663db32ce5b02e063bf829b2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9a113d9d2c69f89becb2e7999e54aeae68a6f7fd02e791d47be5373e0374c05.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -406, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b9a113d9d2c69f89becb2e7999e54aeae68a6f7fd02e791d47be5373e0374c05", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 11, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "20866bc82abb33775daa9e290388becc92e29e0866eaee4c3f13b4786660e26e", + "output_sha256": "b13789d7260a0d7296e09965ba2996245f6f1925171671a940715707a82f39c8", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9b292c2f6cd56dba945397fab94697f52558590a2b8bc353b155d3c99a6aae0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9b292c2f6cd56dba945397fab94697f52558590a2b8bc353b155d3c99a6aae0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f21bca548a4773690102895db4bbd9bee19f9390 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9b292c2f6cd56dba945397fab94697f52558590a2b8bc353b155d3c99a6aae0.md @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 67-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 2 +34 +IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM +BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 502008CA025129XXXXMB Al +A.C., +V. +Plaintift, +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and +Defendants. +ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO +FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO PLAINTIFF AND TO OVERRULE +PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS, & FOR DEFENDANT'S EXPENSES, +INCLUDING ATTORNEYS' FEES +THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion To +Compel Responses To First Request To Produce To Plaintiff And To Overrule +Plaintiff's Objections, & For Defendant's Expenses, Including Attorneys' Fees +and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being fully advised in these +premises, it is hereby +ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion is hereby granted/ +denied as +to +# 17 + 7/18 +→ and desced +as to #22 as phrased. +Responses to +be fter semed w/in 10 dap. +DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach County Courthouse, West Palm +Beach, Florida, this 23 day of _ +FUB +< 200€ +Edward A. +Garrison +Circuit Judge +Copies furnished: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ., and MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESO., 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, +FL 33401; JACK SCAROLA, ESQ., AND JACK P. +Shipley, P.A., 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., +ESQ., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & +West Palm Beach, FL 33409, and JACK A. +Austrian ReSus a Fis, PA, One Clearake Centre, Suite 1400, 250%, +Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +EXHIBIT" B +CEVENGDI +2/23/094 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 67-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 2 +35 +A.C., +IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM +BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 502008CA025129XXXXMB Al +Plaintiff +V. +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and +Defendants. +ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO +INTERROGATORIES AND TO OVERRULE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS, & FOR +DEFENDANT'S EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEYS' FEES +THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion To +Compel Answers To Interrogatories And To Overrule Plaintiff's Objections, & For +Defendant's Expenses, Including Attorneys' Fees, and the Court having heard +argument of counsel and being fully advised in these premises, it is hereby +ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion is hereby granted/ +denled +as to #5, 12$18, denied as +to #2. +Responses to be soned win +10 dap. +DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach County Courthouse, West Palm +Beach, Florida, this 23 day of . +Edward A. Garrison +Circuit Judge +Copies furnished: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ., and MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESO. 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, +, ESQ., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9b292c2f6cd56dba945397fab94697f52558590a2b8bc353b155d3c99a6aae0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9b292c2f6cd56dba945397fab94697f52558590a2b8bc353b155d3c99a6aae0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a0579ce575c4fd5ad5acc0766e86b01f98331244 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9b292c2f6cd56dba945397fab94697f52558590a2b8bc353b155d3c99a6aae0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b9b292c2f6cd56dba945397fab94697f52558590a2b8bc353b155d3c99a6aae0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8c22d6b2a1f00df23e64c3a15dd0f4a96fd01faf009a50686099db8a2bba534a", + "output_sha256": "c7a61e26e4a1afa8f0fd025dab12ae79965055a9ee2d2daf539863f5ea636200", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9daed3ff1311e419ffcd54d35c44cf0a14136db3035ab1fd50b7ce64c1a2a7b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9daed3ff1311e419ffcd54d35c44cf0a14136db3035ab1fd50b7ce64c1a2a7b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6b9907742515bc739018adfa65b0daa4d5ebc03b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9daed3ff1311e419ffcd54d35c44cf0a14136db3035ab1fd50b7ce64c1a2a7b.md @@ -0,0 +1,169 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2008 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +NO. 08-80381-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO SET ASIDE +CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT +THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Set +Aside Clerk's Default (DE 9), filed June 13, 2008. The motion is now fully briefed and is ripe +for review. The Court has carefully considered the motion and is otherwise fully advised in the +premises. +On April 14, 2008, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 5 ("Plaintiff") filed the instant action against +Jeffrey Epstein ("Defendant"), alleging claims of sexual assault and intentional infliction of +emotional distress. (DE 1.) Plaintiff's process server attempted to deliver a copy of the +summons and complaint to Defendant personally on April 23, April 24, and May 1, 2008, at his +residence in New York City. (DE 4.) None of these attempts were successful. On May 7, 2008, +the process server left a copy of the summons and complaint with "John +' Assistant & +House Staff Employee who refused true name." (DE 4.) The process server also mailed a copy +of the summons and complaint to Defendant on May 12, 2008, via first class mail. (DE 4.) The +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2008 Page 2 of 6 +envelope was marked "personal and confidential" and did not indicate that the envelope was +from an attorney or related to a legal action. (DE 4.) +Standard of Review +Rule 55(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a "court may set aside an +entry of default for good cause." Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). The Court is vested with considerable +discretion in ruling on a motion to set aside an entry of default, and the Court's decision will only +be reviewed for abuse of discretion. +v. US, 734 F.2d 735, 739 (11" Cir. 1984); Baez v. +S.S. Kresge Co., 518 F.2d 349, 350 (5 Cir. 1975).' "[D]efaults are seen with disfavor because +of the strong policy of determining cases on their merits." Florida Physicians Insurance Co. v. +Ehlers, 8 F.3d 780, 783 (11" Cir. 1993). To obtain relief under Rule 55(c), the movant must only +make a "bare minimum showing" to support her claim for relief. +v. Harrell, 858 F.2d 667, +669 (11" Cir. 1988). +In evaluating whether a movant has demonstrated "good cause," courts have considered +several potential factors: whether the default was culpable or willful; whether setting the default +aside would be prejudicial to the opposing party; whether the defaulting party presents a +meritorious defense; whether public interests have been implicated; whether the defaulting party +has suffered significant financial losses; and whether the defaulting party acted promptly to +correct the default. Compania Interamericana Export-Import, S.A. v. Compania Dominicana de +Aviacion, 88 F.3d 948, 951 (11" Cir. 1996). These factors are simply guidelines and are not +"talismanic." Id. While willfulness, prejudice, and a meritorious defense are the most often +'In Bonner v. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 & 1209 (11" Cir. 1981) (en banc), +the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent the decisions of the Fifth Circuit rendered +prior to October 1, 1981. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2008 Page 3 of 6 +considered factors, "the failure of a district court to expressly consider them does not necessarily +constitute an abuse of discretion." KPS & Associates, Inc. v. Designs by FMC, Inc., 318 F.3d 1, +12 (1" Cir. 2003). +Discussion +Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that an individual may be served +by "following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general +jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made." Fed. R. Civ. +P. 4(e)(1). Alternatively, service may be made by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint +at the individual's place of abode "with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides +there." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(B). +Plaintiff claims that service in this case is valid pursuant to either Fed. R. Civ. P. +4(e)(2)(B) or Florida law. Like the Federal Rules, Florida law requires that process be left at the +individual's usual place of abode "with any person residing therein who is 15 years of age or +older." Fla. Stat. § 48.031(1)(a). The affidavit of service (DE 4) states that the summons and +complaint were left with "John +at Defendant's usual place of'abode. From this +declaration, the Court cannot determine whether "John +resides at the Manhattan +apartment. Further, Defendant has submitted the affidavit of Richard Barnett, who avers that he +received copies of the summons and complaint on May 7, 2008, from the process server. (DE 9 +Ex. A.) Because Plaintiff has provided no indication to suggest that "John +resides at the +apartment, the Court concludes that Plaintiff did not effect valid service on Defendant under Fed. +R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(B) or Fla. Stat. § 48.031(1)(a). +The Court does not believe that Plaintiff's request for discovery on the issue of service is +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2008 Page 4 of 6 +necessary, because service of process was made pursuant to New York law. Under New York +law, personal service may be made on an individual by +delivering the summons within the state to a person of suitable age and +discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of +abode of the person to be served and by either mailing the summons to the +person to be served at his or her last known residence or by mailing the +summons by first class mail to the person to be served at his or her actual +place of business in an envelope bearing the legend "personal and +confidential" and not indicating on the outside thereof, by return address +or otherwise, that the communication is from an attorney or concerns an +action against the person to be served, such delivery and mailing to be +effected within twenty days of each other. +N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 308(2) (McKinney 2008) (emphasis added). New York law does not require +the person receiving the summons and complaint at the individual's place of abode to reside at +that location. See, e.g., Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Co. v. Morse, 779 F. Supp. 347, 350 +(S.D.N.Y. 1991); Al Fayed v. Barak, 833 N.Y.S. 2d 500, 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). +In this case, the affidavit of service states that "John +was a person of suitable age +and discretion who accepted a copy of the summons and complaint at Defendant's actual +apartment. (DE 4.) Thus, under New York law, delivery of the summons and complaint to +"John +was appropriate. Because the summons and complaint were mailed to Defendant +and delivered to his residence within twenty days of each other, Plaintiff took all necessary steps +to serve Defendant under New York law. +As Defendant recognizes, New York law also requires that proof of service be "filed with +the clerk of the court designated in the summons within twenty days of either such delivery or +mailing, whichever is effected later." N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 308(2). Here, Plaintiff is in compliance +with this requirement as well: delivery was made on May 7, 2008, and proof of service was filed +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2008 Page 5 of 6 +with the Clerk of the Court on May 22, 2008. (DE 4.) Thus, service was deemed complete as of +June 2, 2008, under New York law. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 308(2) (stating "service shall be +complete ten days after" filing of proof of service). +Nevertheless, Defendant's analysis is not entirely correct. In calculating when +Defendant's response was due, the Court turns to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a), which states that a +defendant must serve an answer within twenty days of being served with the summons and +complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). Under this rule, Defendant was required to respond to +the Complaint within twenty days from the receipt of the summons; the rule does not suggest a +longer period of time is available when substituted service is used to serve a defendant. While +Rule 4(e)(1) allows Plaintiff to serve process on Defendant in the method permitted by New +York, Rule 4(e)(1) does not alter the twenty day period specified by Rule 12(a). In other words, +under Rules 4(e)(1) and 12(a), the Court is not bound by New York's proof of service filing +requirement nor New York's "completion" date in determining when Defendant's answer needed +to be filed. Beller & +v. Tyler, 120 F.3d 21, 25-26 (2d Cir. 1997) (reconciling the deadlines +imposed by Rule 12(a) and N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 308). Instead, once Defendant received a copy of the +summons and complaint, Defendant had twenty days to respond. Id. ("[A] defendant has twenty +days from the receipt of the summons to file an answer .... This is so even if ... the defendant +is served pursuant to a state law method of service and the state law provides a longer time in +which to answer."). Thus, Defendant's response was due on May 27, 2007.? +"In Tyler, the court acknowledged that, because service was made in part by mail, the +defendant may have the benefit of three extra days to respond per Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e). Tyler, 120 +F.3d at 26. In this case, Plaintiff's server mailed the summons and complaint on May 12, 2008. +Thus, under this scheme, Defendant would have had until June 4, 2008, to respond. Either way, +Defendant failed to appear int his case until June 13, 2008. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2008 Page 6 of 6 +The Court is forced to conclude that Defendant, at this juncture, has not demonstrated +"good cause" to vacate the default. Defendant incorrectly argued that he timely responded to the +Complaint. Since he was mistaken in his position, he limited his argument to this point of law +and did not address the other requirements for setting aside a default, where a defendant's +appearance is, in fact, untimely. See, e.g.. United Coin Meter Co., Inc. v. Seaboard Coastline +RR, 705 F.2d 839, 845 (6" Cir. 1983). Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that +Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default (DE 11) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. +Because Defendant did not address his motion to the issue of "good cause," and because it is the +policy of this Court to rule on the merits of a case whenever possible, see, e.g.. +IT Media, +Inc. v. Intelligentz Corp., No. 07-80535-CIV, 2008 WL 162754 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2008), the +Court grants Defendant leave to file a second motion to vacate the default. Defendant shall have +ten (10) days from the date of entry of this Order to file a second motion to vacate the Clerk's +entry of default. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +Florida, this 16" day of July, 2008. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies furnished to: +all counsel of record +Jeffrey Epstein, pro se +6 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9daed3ff1311e419ffcd54d35c44cf0a14136db3035ab1fd50b7ce64c1a2a7b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9daed3ff1311e419ffcd54d35c44cf0a14136db3035ab1fd50b7ce64c1a2a7b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1e27342d616261491e07054ed85d3d1e4e6b2fcb --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9daed3ff1311e419ffcd54d35c44cf0a14136db3035ab1fd50b7ce64c1a2a7b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b9daed3ff1311e419ffcd54d35c44cf0a14136db3035ab1fd50b7ce64c1a2a7b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "664cb2284ff32f167d3a21f7ecf23dfc8822ac4fb647115d3c8946809c1210c3", + "output_sha256": "de043a3860830b9cc4fbec56a0acd5579b14aad34f138266511040ffbc2b43f4", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9e77e1ebafe0b664f1ed92bb6330a3251e7eb3e453a7f19373ad7211eaf6d5b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9e77e1ebafe0b664f1ed92bb6330a3251e7eb3e453a7f19373ad7211eaf6d5b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..12dd2ef649d1eb7353d98364187c3fc96346fa75 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9e77e1ebafe0b664f1ed92bb6330a3251e7eb3e453a7f19373ad7211eaf6d5b.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 28 +Filed 11/21/19 + +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +troutman.com +troutman™ +sanders +Bennet J. Moskowitz +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +November 20, 2019 +ECF +Hon. Paul A. Engelmayer +Thurgood Marshall +United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 +Re: +Jane Doe 17 v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as Joint Personal +Representatives of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, et al., 1:19-cV-09610 (PAE) +Dear Judge Engelmayer: +We represent Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of +Jeffrey E. Epstein (named herein as "Joint Personal Representative[s] of the Estate of Jeffrey E. +Epstein"), Nine East 71st Street, Corporation, Financial Trust Company, Inc., NES, LLC, Laurel, +Inc., Maple, Inc., LSJE, LLC, HBRK Associates, Inc., Nautilus, Inc., Cypress, Inc., and JEGE, +Inc. (together, "Defendants") in the referenced action. We write to respectfully request that the +Court vacate its Order dated November 8, 2019 (ECF #25) granting Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed +Anonymously (the "Motion") (ECF #24) filed earlier that day. The basis for this request is that +Your Honor's Order dated November 5, 2019 (ECF #21) provides Defendants through +December 21, 2019 to respond to Plaintiff's Motion. +Defendants did not have an opportunity to respond to Plaintiff's Motion. Defendants do not +object to Plaintiff proceeding anonymously to prevent the disclosure of her identity to the +general public. However, Defendants seek the opportunity to be heard so the relief granted on +Plaintiff's Motion ensures Plaintiff may protect her anonymity without jeopardizing Defendants' +fundamental right to fully and fairly defend against this action. +Plaintiffs' counsel does not consent to this request. +Thank you for your attention to this matter. + + +Case 1:19-cV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 28 Filed 11/21/19 Page 2 of 2 +November 20, 2019 +Page 2 +troutman" +sanders +Respectfully submitted, +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +11/21/19 +The Court vacates its November 8, 2019 Order, Dkt. 25, granting plaintiff's motion to proceed +anonymously, as having been issued prematurely. Since issuing that Order, the Court has +referred this litigation to the Hon. Debra C. Freeman, Magistrate Judge, for general pretrial +purposes. See Dkt. 26. Accordingly, all further applications for non-dispositive pretrial relief +should be directed to Judge Freeman. +SO ORDERED. +United States District Judge +40665813v1 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9e77e1ebafe0b664f1ed92bb6330a3251e7eb3e453a7f19373ad7211eaf6d5b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9e77e1ebafe0b664f1ed92bb6330a3251e7eb3e453a7f19373ad7211eaf6d5b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f7fd0065c99c44e6d6531ad8f97e326f94ba6eac --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9e77e1ebafe0b664f1ed92bb6330a3251e7eb3e453a7f19373ad7211eaf6d5b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -35, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b9e77e1ebafe0b664f1ed92bb6330a3251e7eb3e453a7f19373ad7211eaf6d5b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "d598246d651e43ae57cd2ecc0b009adbcb7cfbd964cc472756c9fac0fad76037", + "output_sha256": "9ed04972791dbbf3be28562594bd856a9a3a43af33d89420970eee444ebdfcf2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9eb11f328b1e5fb2ffa8e6816e33029c3b1d7b18be33386dfee806457ce8715.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9eb11f328b1e5fb2ffa8e6816e33029c3b1d7b18be33386dfee806457ce8715.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..761b192132960601525db9053aa84d99f00ad5d9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9eb11f328b1e5fb2ffa8e6816e33029c3b1d7b18be33386dfee806457ce8715.md @@ -0,0 +1,341 @@ +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 291-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 1 of 9 +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +Case No: DA 502001DK0 10235 XXXXMB +OBE +Petitioner, +34S Besion scar vinyura +Respondent. +cp-. +: +PETITION FOR INJUNCTION FOR PROTECTION AGAINST DATING VIOLENCE +I, (full legal name) +following statements are true: +being swom, certify that the +SECTION I. +PETITIONER (This section is about you. It must be completed.) +Petitioner currently lives at: (address, city, state, zin code) +Date of Birth of Petitioner: 4f +[V if applies] +/ Petitioner seeks an injunction for protection on behalf of +Petitioner is the parent or legal guardian of (full legal name +a minor child who is living at home +(iT one only +Filing Fees +- +a. Petitioner is paying the filing fee and sheriff's (or other authorized law enforcement +agency's) service fees. +- +b. Petitioner does not have enough money to pay the filing fee or service fees and is filing +an Affidavit and Motion for Waiver of Fees for Petition for Injunction for Protection, +@O Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.980(a), and a Family Law +Financial Affidavit, ®O Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure Form 12.902(b) or (c). +Petitioner asks that he/she not have to pay the fees necessary to process the petition and serve +the injunction and any motions or orders needed to enforce the injunction, subject to later +Petitioner's attorney's name, address, and telephone number is: +(If you do not have an attorney, write "none.") +Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.980(o), Petition for Injunction for Pratection Against Dating Violence (05/03) +Page l of 5 +"C" + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 2 of 9 +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CaN No: DA 302001 DR 0 0235 XXXXTB +OBS +Petitioner, +nor presion score Vinyura +Respondent. +PETITION FOR INJUNCTION FOR PROTECTION AGAINST DATING VIOLENCE +1, full legal name) a +, being sworn, certify that the +following statements are true: +SECTION I. +PETITIONER (This section is about you. It must be completed.) +Petitioner currently lives at: faddress, city, state, zip code) +Date of Birth of Petitioner: 4 +[V if applies] +_ Petitioner seeks an injunction for protection on behalf o +Petitioner is the parent or legal guardian of (full legal name) +a minor child who is living at home. +Filing Fees +- +a. Petitioner is paying the filing fee and sheriff's (or other authorized law enforcement +agency's) service fees. +b. Petitioner does not have enough money to pay the filing fee or service fees and is filing +an Affidavit and Motion for Waiver of Fees for Petition for Injunction for Protection, +eO Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.980(a), and a Family Law +Financial Affidavit, *O Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure Form 12.902(b) or (c). +Petitioner asks that he/she not have to pay the fees necessary to process the petition and serve +the injunction and any motions or orders needed to enforce the injunction, subject to later +order(s) of the Court about the payment of such fees. +Petitioner's attorney's name, address, and telephone number is: +(If you do not have an attorney, write "none.") +Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.980(o). Petition for Injunction for Prolection Against Dating Violence (05/03) + +Don +C" + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 291-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 3 of 9 +SECTION II. RESPONDENT (This section is about the person you want to be protected from. +It must be completed.) +Respondent currently lives at: (address, city, state, and zip code) +t6i Bet Royal Palm Beach +FL +33411 +Respondent's Driver's License number is: (if known) +2. +Petitioner has known Respondent since (dare) January 1, 2002 +3. +Respondent's last known place of employment: un nolon +Employment address: N/A +Working hours: NA +4. +Physical description of Respondent: +Race: +Sex: Male V Female +Date of Birth: 41/05 | 1980 +5. +7. +istinguishing marks and/or scars: 1Cct +00 | +Vehicle: (make/model) N/A. +Color: NIA +Tag Number:_ +Other names Respondent goes by (aliases or nicknames): NA +Respondent's attorney's name, address, and telephone number is: None +(If you do not know whether Respondent has an attorney, write "unknown." If Respondent +does not have an attorney, write "none.") +If Respondent is a minor, the address of Respondent's parent or legal guardian is: None +SECTION III. CASE HISTORY AND REASON FOR SEEKING PETITION (This section +must be completed.) +Describe the nature of the relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent (include the +length of time of the relationship, the romantic or intimate nature of the relationship, the +frequency or type of interaction, and any other facts that characterize the relationship) +January 12002 relation ship begar +July 15, 200z relutionsnin became intimate +May ,2004 verbany arusive rciation shio +phusically abusve velationship +2. +• Check here if you are attaching additional pages to continue these facts. +Have the Petitioner and Respondent been involved in a dating relationship within the past +six months? +Yes +No +Florida Supreme Cour Approved Family Law Form 12.980(0), Petige 2o i junction for Protection Against Dating Violence (05103) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 291-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 4 of 9 +Has Petitioner ever received or tried to get an injunction for protection against domestic +violence, dating yiolence or repeat violence against Respondent in this or any other court? +( ) Yes +(VNo If yes, what happened in that case? (include case number, if known) +4. +Has Respondent ever received or tried to get an injunction for protection against domestic +violence, dating violence or repeat violence against Petitioner in this or any other court? +() Yes (No If yes, what happened in that case? (include case number, if known) +Describe any other court case that is either going on now or that happened in the past +between Petitioner and Respondent (include case number, if known): None. +6. +Respondent has directed an incident of "violence," meaning assault, aggravated assault, +battery, aggravated battery, sexual assault, sexual battery, stalking, aggravated stalking. +kidnaping, or false imprisonment, or any criminal offense resulting in physical injury or +death against Petitioner or a member of Petitioner's immediate family. The incident +(including date and location) is described below. +On (date) 9|20|04, at (location) +Respondent and were laying in sedunen " guyfriena +sulled mycciloone prosion sialed asa siut, +whore, kun thut las cheatingon him Presion +started charing me into the noatress ananan +unen went to qat my purse ne inraume against +ine wall and sicirted uciuns a me then Preston +ausnea me out tne door ana when i asKEd fOr +ne rest ot my belongings he 10ia me towalt, woenne +ume buck no spilled badr allever me anctnew +clarets inmy face ana ne slamed me into ine grour +not up went to mucar and ne followed me +• Check here if you are attaching additional pages to continue these facts. +Other prior incidents (including dates and location) are described heley +On (date) ALQUSt, 200LL, at (location) +Respondent We were acquing and Presion +ma en the arduna asas or meas +ane on ine arauna +Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.980(o), Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Dating Violence (05/03) +Page 3 or 5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 291-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 5 of 9 +DATE 9|21|04 +PETITIONER'S NAME +DA +CONTINUATION SHEET +Please DO NOT write on back or margins of petition or any papers. +cainura from 9201041 shut my cur door +and ne opened it and sput in my fake and +continued to callme a unore, slut and +kunt 1 snut the door and ne openedit +açain and got in my face, grabed my +arms very hard to make him let go i sit nis +arm and he bit me back on myfinger and +cut it open ne las bring sonarate nus +repeatidly narrassed me since last nignts. +incodent. 'his morning wnen i woke up +mysip was swollen and my neck and +jaw were in pain + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 6 of 9 +8. +• Check here if you are attaching additional pages to continue these facts. +Petitioner genuinely fears dating violence by Respondent. Explain: +1 min fear percusa he nas violent +9. +Additional Information +[ all that apply] +- a. Respondent owns, has, and/or is known to have guns or other weapons. +Describe weapon(s): +_b. This or prior acts of dating violence have been previously reported to: (person or agency) +Roy pam Beach PiD, and family and friends. +SECTION IV. INJUNCTION (This section must be completed.) +Petitioner asks the Court to enter an injunction prohibiting Respondent from committing any +acts of violence against Petitioner and: +a. prohibiting Respondent from going to or within 500 feet of any place Petitioner lives; +b. prohibiting Respondent from going to or within 500 feet of Petitioner's place(s) of +employment or the school that Petitioner attends: the address of Petitioner's place(s) of +employment and/or school is: +c. prohibiting Respondent from contacting Petitioner by telephone, mail, by e-mail, in +writing, through another person, or in any other manner; +d. ordering Respondent not to use or possess any guns or firearms; +[V all that apply] +e. prohibiting Respondent from going to or within 500 feet of the following places) +Petitioner or Petitioner's immedjate family must go to often: SEmAi0048 D +semingle pairsen +keenelle Dark - Forest Hee Poür +(Practice) +ШРВ +f. prohibiting Respondent from knowingly and intentionally going to or within 100 feet of +Petitioner's motor vehicle; and any other terms the Court deems necessary for the safety of +Petitioner and Petitioner's immediate family. +I UNDERSTAND THAT BY FILING THIS PETITION, I AM ASKING THE COURT +TOLD BE NOTIFIED OF THE HEARING, AND THAT I MUST APPEAR AT THE +HEARING. +Florida Supreme Court Approved Farily Law Form 12.980(o), Petition for Injunction for Prolection Against Dating Violence (05/03) + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 291-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 7 of 9 +I UNDERSTAND THAT I AM SWEARING OR AFFIRMING UNDER OATH TO +THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE CLAIMS MADE IN THIS PETITION AND THAT THE +PUNISHMENT FOR KNOWINGLY MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT INCLUDES FINES +AND/OR IMPRISONMENT. +Dated: 9-21-04 +signature of Petitioner +Printed Name: +Address: +City, State, Zip: +Telephone Number: +Fax Number: +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +Sworn to or affirmed and signed before me on lept. 21,04 by +NOTARY PUBLIC or DEPUTY CLERK +Belinda DaSilva +rity, or stamp commissioned name of notary += +Personally known +Produced identification +Type of identification produced +Florida Supreme Cour Approved Family Low Form 12980(0), Perlie Sol rinetion for Protection Against Dating Viience (05103) + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 8 of 9 +Ra +SPONDENT DESCRIPTION SHEET +SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT +Case No.: 502004DR012235XXXXMB +Division: FB +| | DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - F.S. 741.30 +| | REPEAT VIOLENCE - F.S. 784.046 +[X] DATING VIOLENCE - F.S. 784.046 +[ ] SEXUAL VIOLENCE - F.S. 784.046 +Respondent's Name: PRESTON SCOTT VINYARD +Nickname/Alias: +Address. +PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33411 +Residence Telephone Number: 798-6685 +Respondent's Other Address: +Place of Employment: UNKNOWN +Place of Employment Telephone Number: +D.O.B.: APRIL 05, 1980 +Hair: DIRTY BLOND +Race: +Eyes: GREY +Sex: MALE +D.L.# +Other: TATOO- CROSS, WARLOCK ON BACK AND ARM +Service Preference: [] Work +Best Time to Serve: EVENING +[X] Home +[] Respondent has weapon +Weapon Description: +Weapon(s) Location: +Respondent's vehicle: +Make: +Model: +Color: +Tag # +[] Respondent is currently in jail +Date Arrested: +Height: 5'6" +Weight: 176 LBS. +Year: +Petitioner's Name: +Petitioner's D.O.B.: +Petitioner's Sex: FEMALE +Petitioner's Race: HISPANIC +Petitioner's Home Phone: (561) 798-3650 + + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 9 of 9 +CASE NUMBER: 502004 DR 0127 35XXX ISION: +PETITIONER NAME: +INTERPRETER NEEDED IN COURT? This information MUST be completed. +Respondent: Yes V No +Petitioner: _ +YesNo What Language? +ADDITIONAL INFORMATION +The following information is necessary for service/enforcement of your injunction by law +enforcement. Please answer all questions: +Petitioner's Date of Birth +*** Petitioner's Race:# +Petitione's Sex: / Female L Male *** Petitioner's Home Phonett: +Petitioner's Cell Phone# +*** Petitioner's Work Phone +Petitioner's Driver's License # +*********************** +Petitioner's vehicle tag#: +******** +************1 +RESPONDENT NAME: PrEston scott Vinyardl +Does Respondent have children in his/her care? ) yes (V no. How many children? +Is the Respondent wanted by the police? () yes +no. For what? +If Respondent has weapons, where are weapons located? N|A +Is Respondent in jall? yes ( no +*** +Respondent's vehicle year: N/A +*** +Respondent resides in +_PCIm BrakCounty +Date of arrest: +Respondent's Phone #: 798-6685 +Respondent's Other address?: +Respondent's Hangouts (name and/or address):_ +Respondent's close relatives (names/addresses/phone #s: MOlner wayBrice. +CICIe +Royal Palm Beach +Best place to serve respondent: (home" work** (check only one, please) +Best time to serve respondent: eVening. +860.45 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9eb11f328b1e5fb2ffa8e6816e33029c3b1d7b18be33386dfee806457ce8715.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9eb11f328b1e5fb2ffa8e6816e33029c3b1d7b18be33386dfee806457ce8715.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7810032a01346bf9d515c5b853c680a8c215c9f2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9eb11f328b1e5fb2ffa8e6816e33029c3b1d7b18be33386dfee806457ce8715.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -294, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b9eb11f328b1e5fb2ffa8e6816e33029c3b1d7b18be33386dfee806457ce8715", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 13, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e352d6827ef3453ae5990c9e874eab96ca3bcf131ea8aacd128622c0b26ca3e2", + "output_sha256": "1d742fbb03367d4cbcf0aab711cc66b5f9475b797f25a4f19e1a6728cf769aaa", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9fa84ac5da2119601cd43bd9c188b987a49911275c40dad0d287e773bd7e88f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9fa84ac5da2119601cd43bd9c188b987a49911275c40dad0d287e773bd7e88f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9afdf15047608f639eff5676cbde008d03a47242 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9fa84ac5da2119601cd43bd9c188b987a49911275c40dad0d287e773bd7e88f.md @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-11869-MKV-DCF | +Document 17 Filed 02/11/20 Page 1 of 2 +The Clerk of Court of the Southern District of New York is directed to docket the within ORDER +in each of the following actions: +VE v. Nine East 7Ist Street et al., No. 1:19-cv-07625 (AJN) (DF) +USDC SDNY +DOCUMENT +ELECTRONICALLY FILED +DOC#:. +DATE FILED: 2/11/2020 +Katlyn Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-07771 (PKC) (DF) +Priscilla Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-07772 (ALC) (DF) +Lisa Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-07773 (ER) (DF) +Jane Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-08673 (KPF) (DF) +v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-10475 (LGS) (DF) +v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-10476 (PGG) (DF) +v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-10479 (ALC) (DF) +Jane Doe 1000 v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-10577 (LGS) (DF) +Jane Doe 15 v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-Cv-10653 (PAE) (DF) +Mary Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-10758 (PAE) (DF) +| v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-10788 (GHW) (DF) +Anastasia Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-11869 (AJN) (DF) +DEBRA FREEMAN, United States Magistrate Judge: +The Court having held a case management conference on February 11, 2020, with +counsel for all parties in the above-referenced cases, it is hereby ORDERED, as stated at the +conference, that: +To the extent not already made, the parties shall make initial disclosures under +Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than February 25, 2020. +The parties shall serve their initial document requests and interrogatories no later +than March 10, 2020. In their initial interrogatories, the parties may, as reasonable, seek +information outside the scope of Local Civil Rule 33.3(a). +3. +Any motions to amend the pleadings or to join any additional parties shall be filed +no later than April 30, 2020. ++ +All fact discovery shall be completed no later than June 10, 2020. + + +Case 1:19-CV-11869-MKV-DCF Document 17 Filed 02/11/20 Page 2 of 2 +5. +Expert discovery shall be conducted on the following schedule: +a. +Plaintiffs' expert reports shall be served no later than June 10, 2020. +Defendants' rebuttal reports shall be served no later than July 10, 2020. +c. +Expert discovery shall be completed no later than July 31, 2020. +6. +The parties may stipulate to modify interim deadlines in this Scheduling Order, +without seeking prior leave of Court. +7. +The parties to the above-referenced cases shall submit joint status reports to the +Court, regarding discovery and the progress of settlement discussions, no later than April 30, +2020. +Dated: New York, New York +February 11, 2020 +SO ORDERED +DEBRA FREEMAN +United States Magistrate Judge +Copies to: +All counsel in the above-referenced cases (via ECF) +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9fa84ac5da2119601cd43bd9c188b987a49911275c40dad0d287e773bd7e88f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9fa84ac5da2119601cd43bd9c188b987a49911275c40dad0d287e773bd7e88f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7e251c723780670b6c6f0dc5f47336e430eb4570 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/b9fa84ac5da2119601cd43bd9c188b987a49911275c40dad0d287e773bd7e88f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "b9fa84ac5da2119601cd43bd9c188b987a49911275c40dad0d287e773bd7e88f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "3582bda16349c46f250137b2d4fda57c9e628af414244e97bfb9f8256a530f5c", + "output_sha256": "6fb9e4999d6426f7cdd703456ed0d84b2129d91901081340dc90b568563e4301", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ba0c8d5e3031ed88066be69234634f278bb8b52779df47a25c24c667754fe42a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ba0c8d5e3031ed88066be69234634f278bb8b52779df47a25c24c667754fe42a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a7278237e6a050ee3aeacce76b018cf2a6b56d00 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ba0c8d5e3031ed88066be69234634f278bb8b52779df47a25c24c667754fe42a.md @@ -0,0 +1,650 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 301-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2009 Page 1 of 14 +CURRICULUM VITAE +Ryan C. W. +M.D. + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2009 Page 2 of 14 +Updated 06/17/09 +TABLE OF CONTENTS +PRESENT POSITION +EDUCATION +MEDICAL LICENSE +CERTIFICATION +ADDITIONAL TRAINING +SOCIETY MEMBERSHIPS, PAST AND PRESENT +COMMITTEES +HONORS +PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES +REVIEWER +BOOK REVIEWS +PUBLICATIONS +ABSTRACTS +PRESENTATIONS AT NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS +AND INVITATIONAL ACADEMIC LECTURES +MEDIA +2 +2 +2 +3 +3 +3 +4 +4 +5 +5 +5 +7 +9 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2009 Page 3 of 14 +NAME: +DATE OF BIRTH: +PLACE OF BIRTH: +MARITAL STATUS: +PRESENT POSITION: +07/2008 - +Present +Ryan Chaloner Winton F +May 10, 1976 +Titusville, Florida +Single +M.D. +03/01/2008 - +07/31/2011 +03/03/09 - +06/30/12 +EDUCATION: +1995 - 1999 +Psychiatrist +Richard C. W. I +MD, PA +2500 West Lake Mary Blvd; Ste 219 +Lake Mary, FL 32746 +Ph: 407-322-8199 +Affiliate Instructor +University of South Florida +Department of Psychiatry +Assistant Professor of Psychiatry +University of Central Florida College of Medicine +Department of Medical Education +1999 - 2003 +2003-2004 +2004-2007 +2007 - 2008 +University +Baltimore, Maryland +Double Major - Biology and Psychology +B.A. Degree, graduated Phi Beta Kappa with honors +Georgetown University School of Medicine +Washington, DC +M.D. Degree +Internal Medicine Internship +Sinai Hospital of Baltimore/Johns +Baltimore, Maryland +Residency +Hospital +Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences +Baltimore, Maryland +Fellow in Forensic Psychiatry +Case Western Reserve University +Cleveland, Ohio +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 301-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2009 Page 4 of 14 +MEDICAL LICENSE: +2004 +2007 +2007 +CERTIFICATION: +2008 +ADDITIONAL TRAINING: +2006 +2007 +2008 +Maryland - D62746 - Inactive +Ohio - 89483 - Inactive +Florida - ME99792 +Diplomate, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, #58286 +Amendian airy Dee Car and the Law, Chicago IL +Forensic Psychiatry Review Course +American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Miami Beach, FL +Florida Forensic Examiner Training +University of South Florida College of Behavioral and Community +Sciences, Ft. Lauderdale, FL +SOCIETY MEMBERSHIPS, PAST AND PRESENT: +Member, Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine +Member, American Psychiatric Association +Member, Maryland Psychiatric Society +Member, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law +Member, American Medical Association +Member, Ohio Psychiatric Association +Member, Florida Psychiatric Society +Member, Southern Psychiatric Association +Member, The American College of Psychiatrists +COMMITTEES: +Public Relations Committee, Maryland Psychiatric Society +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 301-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2009 Page 5 of 14 +2007 - present +2007 - present +2007 - 2009 +2008 - 2009 +Legislative Committee, Maryland Psychiatric Society +Disaster Committee, Maryland Psychiatric Society +Resident and Fellows Committee, Maryland Psychiatry Society +Psychopharmacology Committee, American Academy of +Psychiatry and the Law +Research Committee, American Academy of Psychiatry and the +Law +Corresponding Committee on Graduate Education, American +Psychiatric Association +Member, New Member Task Force, Southern Psychiatric +Association +HONORS: +1999 +2004 +Phi Beta Kappa, Johns +University +"Superior" performance rating, 1st-year residency, by Sinai +Hospital Department of Medicine's Clinical Competency and +Evaluation Committee +2005 +2005 +Dorfman Award, presented by The Academy of Psychosomatic +Medicine for best review article of the year for Definition, +Diagnosis, and Forensic Implications of Postconcussional +Syndrome. Psychosomatics, 46(3):195-202, May-June 2005. +Rappeport Fellowship, American Academy of Psychiatry and the +Law +PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES: +2008 +2009 +Written testimony on Elder Abuse in support of bills +HB873/SB501 +criminal Law - Crimes Against the Elderly o +Persons with a +Disability - Penalties, presented to Marylan +House Judiciary +Committee for Delegate +Kramer, +District 19 +County, Maryland. Hearing March 4 +Central Florida Psychiatric Society representative to Florida +Psychiatric Society's Council Meeting, January 10. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 301-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2009 Page 6 of 14 +2009 +Testified before the Florida Senate Banking and Insurance +Committee (SB 354) on Mental Health Parity. March 17. +REVIEWER: +-Archives of Internal Medicine +-Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness +Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience +-Nature Clinical Practice Neurology +-Neurology India +-Psychosomatics +-Social Science & Medicine +World Journal of Surgical Oncology +BOOK REVIEWS: +1. Clark MR and Treisman GJ: Pain and Depression: An Interdisciplinary, Patient- +Centered Approach. Psychosomatics, July-August 2006, 47(4) 365-366. +PUBLICATIONS: +1. | RCW, Dunlap PK, +CA, Blakey RE, MIl +• J: Thyroid +disease and abnormal thyroid function tests in patients with eating disorders +and depression. The Journal of the Florida Medical Association, Inc. 82(3)187-192, +2. +RCW._ +|| RCW: Anxiety and Endocrine Disease. In Popkin, MK, Seminars in +Clinical Neuropsychiatry 4(2)72-83, 1998. +row, Mill DE, +| RCW: Suicide Risk Assessment: A Review of Risk +Factors for Suicide in 100 Patients Who Made Severe Suicide Attempts. +Psychosomatics 40:(1)18-27, 1999. +4. +RCW, L +|I RCW: Fee-Splitting: Ethical Implications and Principles for +Practice Management. Transference 20(2)14, 1999. +5. +|| Rcw, +RCW: Long-term Psychological and Neurological Complications +of Lindane Poisoning. Psychosomatics 40(6)513-517, 1999. +6. +| RcW, ||| RCW: False Allegations: The Role of the Forensic Psychiatrist. +Journal of Psychiatric Practice 7(5)343-346, September 2001. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 301-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2009 Page 7 of 14 +7. +8. +9. +ROW, +RCW: Principles of Physician Recruiting. In Handbook of Mental +Health Administration and Management; Reid WH and Silver S (ed.): Brunner- +Routledge, New York, NY; Chapter 34:440-448, 2003. +ROW, I +RCW, Chapman M: Identifying Geriatric Patients at Risk for Suicide +and Depression. Clinical Geriatrics 11(10)36-44, October 2003. +IRCW, +RCW: Establishing Liaison Before Disaster Strikes. +http://www.psych.org/disasterpsych/pdfs/apadisasterhandbk.pdf; Chapter 2:12-19. +2004. +10. l +RCW, +RCW, Chapman MJ: Emotional and Psychiatric Effects of Weapons +of Mass Destruction in First Responders. In: Bioterrorism: Psychological and Public +Health Interventions; Ursano RJ, Norwood AE & Fullerton CS (eds). Cambridge +University Press: Cambridge; Chapter 14:250-273; 2004. +11. +RCW, Appleby B, +RCW: Atypical Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome +Presenting as Fever of Unknown Origin in the Elderly. Southern Medical Journal +1(98) 114-117, January 2005. +12. +RCW, +]RCW, Chapman MJ: Exploitation of the Elderly: Undue Influence as +a Form of Elder Abuse. Clinical Geriatrics 13(2)28-36, February 2005. +13. +RCW, +RCW, Chapman MJ: Definition, Diagnosis, and Forensic +Implicationsof Postconcussional Syndrome. Psychosomatics, 46(3)195-202, May- +June 2005. +14. +RCW, +RCW: Abuse of Supraphysiologic Doses of Anabolic Steroids. +Southern Medical Journal, 98(5)550-555, May 2005. +15. +RCW, +RCW, Chapman MJ: Psychiatric Complications of Anabolic Steroid +Abuse. Psychosomatics, 46(4)285-290, July-August 2005. +16. +RCW, +RCW, Chapman MJ: Medical and Psychiatric Casualties caused by +Conventional and Radiological (Dirty) Bombs. General Hospital Psychiatry, +28(3):242-248, May-June 2006. +17. RCW, RCW, Chapman MJ: Postconcussional Syndrome: A Work in +Progress (Response to Dr. +Letter to the Editor. Psychosomatics, 47(3):272, +May-June 2006. +18. | +RCW, +RCW, Chapman MJ: Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome in the +Elderly: Diagnostic Criteria, Incidence, Risk Factors, Pathophysiology, and +Treatment. (CME article) Clinical Geriatrics, 14(5):39-46, 2006. +19. +RCW, +]RCW, Chapman MJ: Effects of Terrorist Attacks on the Elderly, +Part I: Medical and Psychiatric Complications of Bombings and Biological, +Chemical, and Nuclear Attacks. Clinical Geriatrics, 14(8):26-35, 2006. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 301-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2009 Page 8 of 14 +20. +| I RCW. +RCW, Chapman MJ: Effects of Terrorist Attacks on the Elderly, +Part 2: Posttraumatic Stress, Acute Stress, and Affective Disorders. Clinical +Geriatrics, 14(9):17-24, 2006. +21._ +lI RCW +I RCW: Malingering of PTSD: forensic and diagnostic +considerations, characteristics of malingerers and clinical presentations. +General Hospital Psychiatry, 28(6):525-535, 2006. +22. || RCW, ||| RCW: A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of +Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues. Mayo Clinic +Proceedings, 82(4):457-471, 2007. +23. BI RCW, +RCW: Detection of Malingered PTSD: An Overview of Clinical, +Psychometric, and Physiological Assessment: Where Do We Stand? Journal of +Forensic Sciences, 52(3):717-725, 2007. +24. l +RCW, Macvaugh GS III, Merideth P +J: Commentary: Delving +Further Into Liability for Psychotherapy Supervision. The Journal of the American +Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 35(2): 196-9, 2007. +25. +LI RCW, +| RCW, Chapman MJ: Psychiatric Effects of Terrorism: Medical and +Societal Implications of Recent Attacks. In: Focus on Terrorism, Vol. 9; Linden EV +(ed), Nova Science:New York; Chapter 11, Publication date: 3d Quarter, 2007. +26. +1 RcW, +• RCW: The 1995 Kikwit Ebola outbreak - Model of virus properties +on system capacity and function: A lesson for future viral epidemics. Americar +ournal of Disaster Medicine. 215):270-276, 2007 +27. +I Rcw, RCW, Chapman MJ: Central Serotonin Syndrome: Part 1- +Causative Agents, Presentation, and Differential Diagnosis. Clinical Geriatrics, +15(12):18-25, 2007. +28. +I RCW. +RCW, Chapman MJ: Central Serotonin Syndrome: Part II - +Pathophysiology, Drug Interactions, and Treatment. Clinical Geriatrics, 16(1):24- +28, 2008 +29. +| RCW, Resnick PJ: Psychotherapy Malpractice: New Pitfalls. Journal of +Psychiatric Practice, 14(2):119-121, 2008 +30. +RCW, +RCW, Chapman MJ: Violence in Older Persons: Part I - +Occurrence in Forensic/Criminal Situations, Partner Relationships, and Sexual +Offenses. Clinical Geriatrics, 16(5):27-32, 2008 +31. +|| Rcw, ||| RCW, Chapman MJ: Violence in Older Persons: Part I| - +Occurrence in Hospitals and Pharmacological/Behavioral Treatment of Agitation, +Aggression and Violence. Clinical Geriatrics, 16(6):28-32, 2008. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 301-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2009 Page 9 of 14 +32. L +RcW, I +RCW, Chapman MJ. The 1995 Kikwit Ebola outbreak: lessons +hospitals and physicians can apply to future viral epidemics. Gen Hosp +Psychiatry. 2008 Sep-Oct;30(5):446-52. Epub 2008 Jul 23 +33. +RCW, +SH: Drug Diversion Program Rights. Legal Digest. The +Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 36(4):579-580, 2008 +34. 1 +RCW, Chapman MJ: Nursing Home Violence: Occurrence, Risks, +and Interventions. Annals of Long-Term Care, 17(1):25-31, 2009 +35. Paul RK, Lockey C, +RCW, Bursztajn H: Practice Management: Managing Risks +When Practicing in Three-Party Care Settings. Psychiatrictimes.com, 26(2), Feb. 3, +2009. +36. +RCW, RCW, Chapman MJ: Letter to the Editor response re: Nursing Home +/iolence: Occurrence, Risks, and Interventions) Annals of Long-Term Care +7(1):25-31, 2009), Annals of Long-Term Care, 17(4):17-21, 2009 +37. RcW, +RCW, Myers W, Chapman M: Testamentary Capacity: History, +Physicians' Role, Requirements, and Why Wills are Challenged. Clinical Geriatrics, +in press. +* Boldface indicates Ryan C. W. MD +ABSTRACTS: +]RCW, Hazard SC, Rcw, +CA, Blakey RE, +Disease in Eating Disordered and Depressed Patients. +J: Thyroid +- 146th Annual Meeting, American Psychiatric Association, May 25, 1993, San +Francisco, CA, P.1.57 (Poster Session). +RcW, +DE, RCW: Suicide Risk Assessment: A Review of Risk +Factors for Suicide in 100 Patients Who Made Severe Suicide Attempts: +Evaluation of Suicide Risk in a Time of Managed Care. +- Psychiatric Practice and Managed Care, American Psychiatric Association, Vol. 5, +No. 5, P 12, Sept-Oct 1999. +3. +RCW, Gould N, McCann U, McKibben J: The Role of Morphine in the +Development of Acute Stress Disorder and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in +Patients with Severe Burn Injury. +- 41" Annual Meeting, American Burn Association. San Antonio, TX, Mar 25, 2009. +8 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2009 Page 10 of +4. Gould N, McCann U, McKibben J. |I RCW: Peri-traumatic Heart Rate as a +Predictor of Acute Stress Disorder and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder in +Patients with Burn Injury. +- 41" Annual Meeting, American Burn Association. San Antonio, TX, Mar 25, 2009. +* Boldface indicates Ryan C. W. +I, MD +PRESENTATIONS AT NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS AND INVITATIONAL +ACADEMIC LECTURES: +1. +|I RCW, Hazard SC, Dunlap PK, +HI RcW, CA, Blakey RE,L +J: +Thyroid disease and abnormal function tests in patients with eating disorders +and depression. Poster Session - American Psychiatric Association Annual +Meeting, San Francisco, CA, May 25, 1993 +2. +i RCW, +| RCW: Management of Hostage Situations. Psychiatric Responses +to Trauma, U.S. State Department Conference on International Terrorism, hosted by +Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Washington, D.C.., April 28, 1999 +3. +I RCW, +RCW: Terrorism: Its Aftermath and Long-term Effects on +Survivors - A Consultation-Liaison Perspective -- Part I. Psychiatric Responses +to Trauma, U.S. State Department Conference on International Terrorism, hosted by +Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Washington, D.C., April 28, 1999 +4. +IRCW +RCW: Terrorism: Its Aftermath and Long-term Effects on +Survivors - A Consultation-Liaison Perspective - Part II. Psychiatric Responses +to Trauma, U.S. State Department Conference on International Terrorism, hosted by +Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Washington, D.C., April 28, 1999 +5. +RCW, +DE: Impact of Managed Care on Suicide Risk +Assessment. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 1999 Annual Meeting. +Baltimore, MD, October 15, 1999 +| RCW, +RCW: Ethical Issues in Managed Care. American Psychiatric +Association, 1999 Ethics Workshop, Washington, DC, November 3, 1999 +7. +RCW: Terrorism, Bioterrorism and Disaster - Aftermath and +Long-term Effects on Survivors. Cycle of Violence: Assessment and Management +of Aggression - A Mardi Gras Symposium, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, +February 26, 2000 +8. +RcW, +| RCW: Bioterrorism - Dealing with Medical and Psychiatric +Consequences of Victims and Responders. Cycle of Violence: Assessment an +Management of Aggression - A Mardi Gras Symposium, Tulane University, Nev +Orleans, LA, February 26, 2000 +9. +RCW, L +| RCW: Psychiatric Consequences of Terrorism, Bioterrorism and +9 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2009 Page 11 of +Disaster. Rocky Mountain Emotional Trauma Symposium, Pathways Treatment +Center, Kalispell, MT, June 29, 2000 +10. | RCW, +RCW: Suicide in an Era of HMO's and Managed Care. Rocky +Mountain Emotional Trauma Symposium, Pathways Treatment Center, Kalispell, MT, +June 30, 2000 +11. +RCW, L +RCW: Psychological Response to Disasters and Terrorism. +International Society of Political Psychology, 23rd Annual Scientific Meeting, Seattle, +WA, July 4, 2000 +12. +RCW, +RCW: Biological Warfare - Attack Scenarios, Response to +Terrorist Attacks, and Sources of Conflict. American Academy of Psychiatry and +the Law, Pre-AAPL meeting, Ireland, September 16-26, 2000 +13. +IRCW, I +]RCW, Chapman M: Workplace Violence. American Academy of +Psychiatry and the Law, Pre-AAPL meeting, Ireland, September 16-26, 2000 +14. +RCW, +RCW: Biological Warfare: Attack Scenarios and Public Health +Issues. Grand Rounds, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, +December 8, 2000 +15. +RCW, +]RCW: Bioterrorism: A Short History of Biowarfare & Analysis of +the Threat. Grand Rounds, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, August 15, 2001 +16. +RCW, +RCW: Situational Suicide. Halifax Medical Center, Daytona Beach, +FL, September 13, 2001 +17. RCW. +RCW: Domestic Violence: The Physician's Role. Halifax Medical +Center, Daytona Beach, FL, September 14, 2001 +18. +RCW, +RCW: Terrorism, Bioterrorism and Assault with Anthrax as a +Biological Weapon. +-Florida Psychiatric Society, Fall Meeting, Coconut Grove, FL, November 4, 2001 +-Grand Rounds, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, +January 30, 2002 +19. 1 +RCW, +RCW: Smallpox. Grand Rounds, Louisiana State University Health +Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, January 30, 2002 +RCW: Psychopharmacology - Forensic Risk and Clinical +Practice: Things the clinician must know. Apopka Community Health Center, +Apopka, FL, March 13, 2002 +21. ROW, +RCW: Overview of Terrorism and Bioterrorism. Orlando Police +Academy, Orlando Police Department, Orlando, FL, August 2, 2002 +10 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2009 Page 12 of +22. | RCW, +RCW: Workplace Violence, School Shootings and Occupations +at Risk: Analysis of current data and psychological profiles. Orlando Police +Academy, Orlando Police Department, Orlando, FL, August 2, 2002 +23. +I RCW.L +| RCW: Smallpox as a Biological Weapon. Orlando Police +Academy, Orlando Police Department, Orlando, FL, August 2, 2002 +24. RCW, +| RCW: Smallpox as an Agent for Biological Warfare. Southern +Psychiatric Association Annual Meeting, Loews Ventana Canyon Resort, Tucson, +AZ, October 3, 2002 +25. RCW. | RCW: Domestic Violence: The Physician's Role. Mandatory +Madness, Halifax Medical Center, Daytona USA, Daytona Beach, FL, December 14, +2002 +26. | RcW,| | RCW, Chapman MJ: Workplace Violence, School Shootings and +Orlando Police Department, Orlando, FL +rando Police department, Orlando, FL, Fedany 11, 2ychological profiles. +27. +| RCW, +RCW: Medical and Psychological Sequelae of Bombings: +Implications for First Responders and Critical Government Staff. Orlando Police +Department, Orlando, FL, February 11, 2003 +28. +RCW, +RCW: Domestic Violence: The Physician's Role. Florida +Psychiatric Society Spring Meeting, Orlando, FL, April 5, 2003 +29. +RCW: Terrorist Bombings: Medical and Psychiatric Impact. +Southern Psychiatric Association's Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN, October 11, 2003 +30. +RCW, +|| RCW: Terrorism, Bombings, and Psychiatric Casualties. +University of Florida, Department of Psychiatry, Visiting Professor Program, +November 7, 2003 +31. +RCW, ||||| RCW: Domestic Violence: The Physician's Role. Tampa Bay +Psychiatric Society, Tampa, FL, sponsored by Pfizer, January 29, 2004 +32. +RCW: Smallpox as an Agent for Biological Warfare. Orlando +Police Academy, Orlando Police Department, Orlando, FL, August 13, 2004 +33. +RCW +| RCW: Medical and Psychiatric Casualties of Terrorist Bombings. +Orlando Police Academy, Orlando Police Department, Orlando, FL, August 13, 2004 +34. +RCW, +|| RCW: Medical and Psychological Consequences of Bombings. +Grand Rounds, Tulane University, Department of Psychiatry, New Orleans, LA, +January 28, 2005 +35. +MI Rcw, | RCW: Psychological Sequelae of Weapons of Mass Destruction +on First Responders. South Central Center for Public Health +11 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2009 Page 13 of +Preparedness/Alabama Department of Public Health, +AL, Satellite +Conference, May 6, 2005 +36. H +RCW, I +RCW: Medical and Psychological Aspects of Terrorist +Bombings. Grand Rounds, Sinai Hospital, Department of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, +June 2, 2005 +37. L +IRCW, +RCW: Managed Care Disrupting the Physician-Patient +Relationship: The New Realities. (Abbreviated version) Forensic Psychiatry +Fellows and Residents, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, January 24, 2006 +38. 4 +RCW, +RCW, Chapman MJ: Managed Care Disrupting the Physician- +Patient Relationship: The New Realities. Presidential Address. Southern +Psychiatric Association, Baltimore, MD, September 30, 2006. +39. +RCW, +RCW: When the System is Overwhelmed: Protecting the +Provider during Biodisaster. Satellite Conference, University of Alabama +Birmingham South Central Center for Public Health Preparedness/Alabama +Department of Public Health/Tulane University School of Public Health, +AL, February 27, 2007. +40. +RCW: Testamentary Capacity from Isaac Ray to Anna Nicole +| Grand +Rounds, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, +March 28, 2008 +41. +RCW, +RCW, Rundell JR, Winstead DK: Psychiatrists' Role in Disaster +Management: Lessons Learned. Course 14, American Psychiatric Association, +Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, May 3, 2008. +42. +RCW: Violence in the Elderly: Forensic and Treatment Concerns. Forensic +Forum, Florida Psychiatric Society, ChampionsGate, FL, September 20, 2008. +43. +RCW: Testamentary Capacity: From Isaac Ray to Anna Nicole +Southern Psychiatric Association, September 25, 2008. +44. +RCW: Testamentary Capacity: From Isaac Ray to Anna Nicole +Forensic Psychiatry Program, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, January 29, +2009. +45. RCW, L +RCW: Domestic Violence as Portrayed in Film - A Realistic +Appraisal? Florida Psychiatric Society, St. Petersburg Beach, FL, March 20, 2009. +* Boldface indicates Ryan C. W. +L MD +12 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 301-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2009 Page 14 of +MEDIA: +1. Time Magazine, Definition, Diagnosis, and Forensic Implications of +Postconcussional Syndrome, May 16, 2005 +2. Reach MD Radio, Pedophilia. April 25, 2007 +3. MD Consult. Doug +1. Joint telephone interview with Richard C. W. +Pedophilia. May 2, 2007 +MD, +4. The Korean Broadcasting System, KBS Special, Pedophilia. March 11, 2008. +5. Tony Pipitone, WKMG-TV Channel 6, Mothers Who Kill Their Children. October +28,2008. +6. J. L. +Orlando Medical News. Cyberchondriacs. November 13, 2008. +7. Fox 35 News, Orlando. Forensic Implications of | +Anthony case. December +11,2008. +8. Fox 35 News, Orlando. The +Anthony Case: DNA Evidence. December 12, +2008. +9. Jessica +, WKMG-TV Channel 6. The +Anthony Case: Baker Act +and Stressors. January 23, 2009. +10. Nam Nae Won and Jihyun Song. Korea Educational Broadcasting System. +Pedophilia. March 30, 2009. +11. Keith Landry, Fox 35 News, Orlando. Effects of Stress and Financial Strain. +June 15, 2009. +12. Heidi Hatch, Fox 35 News, Orlando. Effects of Stress on Families. June 16, 2009. +13 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ba0c8d5e3031ed88066be69234634f278bb8b52779df47a25c24c667754fe42a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ba0c8d5e3031ed88066be69234634f278bb8b52779df47a25c24c667754fe42a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..77f426b9c23e534b54171ee1b1f90fceb15853f6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ba0c8d5e3031ed88066be69234634f278bb8b52779df47a25c24c667754fe42a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -445, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ba0c8d5e3031ed88066be69234634f278bb8b52779df47a25c24c667754fe42a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 15, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "7db3b6350dc8e8445102617795c7fde2c7f2c128396d5a361cca50c8fc99d560", + "output_sha256": "f3bb1d30644c0a33ce72d1b54dad4229121f6a18f6955cc8beebc3917bbea06e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ba2a532e6f91d0ebe514235fd9553a6c4445df14d9fde8479b4390bf9b3a33ea.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ba2a532e6f91d0ebe514235fd9553a6c4445df14d9fde8479b4390bf9b3a33ea.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cfea86d04a8bb8b27ce6ca9f80252a9db79272cd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ba2a532e6f91d0ebe514235fd9553a6c4445df14d9fde8479b4390bf9b3a33ea.md @@ -0,0 +1,281 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 1 of 11 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80381-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL +ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS +Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, files this Reply Memorandum in Support of +Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents, as follows: +I. +Introduction +Defendant relies upon generalization s regarding the nature of the case and the allegations in +the pleadings in justifying his assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege in response to each and +every interrogatory and document request propounded by Plaintiffs. This blanket assertion of the +privilege is insufficient to deny Plaintiffs all discovery in these cases. Defendant otherwise fails to +set forth any basis for denying Plaintiffs any and all answers to its written discovery under the +psychotherapist-patient privilege, the Federal Rules of Evidence, on grounds of relevance, third +party privacy rights, or other grounds. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request an Order +compelling answers to interrogatories and production of documents. +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 2 of 11 +IL. +Argument in Reply +A. +Defendant Has Made a Blanket +Assertion of the Privilege Against +Self-Incrimination That Is Insufficient +Defendant Cannot Rely on its Blanket Objections +to Interrogatories on Fifth Amendment Grounds +Defendant Epstein insists that he has not asserted a "blanket privilege" to discovery under the +Fifth Amendment, even though he has repeated the identical objection to each of Plaintiff's +discovery request on this ground. The federal courts have noted that "[t]he term "blanket assertion' +is not limited to the situation where the defendant makes a single response to numerous questions." +United States v. Buaiz, 2008 WL 5050102 (E.D. Tenn. 2008). Rather, as here, where the defendant +refuses to answer on fifth amendment grounds each and every question, such repeated assertions are +fairly characterized as a "blanket assertion". Id.; Capitol Products Corp. v. Hernon, 457 F.2d 541 +(8th Cir. 1972). +Accordingly, it is not sufficient to support the invocation of the Fifth Amendment with +nothing more than sweeping generalizations applicable to all questions that were asked in discovery. +See United States v. Pierce, 561 F.2d 735 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 923 (1978) (*a +blanket refusal to answer any question is unacceptable"). +Defendant Epstein's Response does not set forth reasonable cause for a concern of selfincrimination in response to specific interrogatories. It is particularly deficient with regard to +interrogatory, nos. 1-2 (identity of employees who worked or came to Palm Beach residence), no. 7 +(Defendant's presence in Florida), no. 8 (identity of health care providers), no. 9 (persons providing +transport services), no. 11 (Epstein's telephone numbers) and no. 12 (employees" telephone +numbers). Epstein's references to allegations of sexual abuse, exploitation and battery in the +Complaints in this and other civil actions against him, along with the alleged plan and scheme of +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 3 of 11 +recruiting girls to come to Epstein's Palm Beach mansion to give him "massages", fall well short of +demonstrating that any interrogatory asked of Epstein that is relevant and within the broad scope of +Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) would realistically and necessarily furnish a link in the chain of evidence +needed to prove a crime against him. +Epstein alternatively points out that there is a "narrow exception" which allows a blanket +assertion of the privilege where the trial court determines it to be legitimate based on the court's +knowledge of the case and the expected testimony. United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 +(Sth Cir. 1980); United States v. Tsui, 646 F.2d 365 (9th Cir. 1981). This is not a case, however, +where this narrow exception should apply. In Tsui, the Court allowed a blanket assertion of the +privilege only because it was clear that the witness would only be questioned about the real estate +transactions that were at the heart of his criminal liability concerns, and the proponent of the +testimony argued only that the witness did not have a reasonable fear of prosecution. Id. at 368. +Such unusual circumstances are not present in the instant cases. Because a blanket assertion of the +Fifth Amendment privilege is not legitimate in these cases, the Court must make a "particularized +inquiry", and "only as to genuinely threatening questions should [the witness's] silence be +sustained." Goodwin, 625 F.2d at 701 (quoting United States v. Melchor Moreno, 536 F.2d 1042, +1049 (Sth Cir. 1976)). +Defendant further asserts that Plaintiff's interrogatories requesting that he identify employees +may lead to evidence tending to incriminate him because one of his employees, +, is +identified in the Complaint. (Defendant Memorandum (DE 56), p. 18). This does not, however, +support a blanket refusal to answer on Fifth Amendment grounds. It does not demonstrate how +answers to these interrogatories, seeking the identities of all employees who were assigned or came +to the Palm Beach residence, could realistically furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 4 of 11 +prosecute Epstein. +Similarly, the allegations of the Complaints alone do not reveal the danger of selfincrimination from answers to interrogatories seeking information on when Epstein was in the State +of Florida, who provided transportation services to Epstein, his telephone numbers, his employees' +telephone numbers, and his health care providers.' Discovery requests that seek background +information or information on events and experiences of the witness for which he cannot realistically +or genuinely be expected to be charged with a crime are not subject to Fifth Amendment protection. +See Krause v. +, 390 F.Supp 1070, 1071-72 (N.D. Ohio 1974) (allowing questions to be asked +regarding personal backgrounds and experiences excluding the event at issue in the pending criminal +indictment). +2. +Defendant Has Not Demonstrated That the Act of +Producing Documents in Response to Specific Requests +Would be Sufficiently Testimonial and Incriminating +Defendant Epstein makes a general assertion that a response to any of Plaintiff's document +requests would entail testimonial self-incrimination. (Defendant's Response (DE 56), pp. 22-23). +Whether the act of producing a particular document would be sufficiently testimonial and +incriminatory to support the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is a "fact +dependent inquiry." United States v. Wujkowski, 929 F.2d 981, 985 (4th Cir. 1991). It is the burden +of the party asserting the privilege to "explain how the act of producing documents would pose a real +danger of incrimination." Bear Sterns & Co. v. Wyler, 182 F.Supp. 2d 679, 681 (N.D. III. 2002). +Defendant's reliance on United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), is inadequate. In +Hubbell, it was apparent from the breadth of the description of documents demanded in the +government's subpoena that "the prosecutor needed respondent's assistance both to identify +' See Interrogatory nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, 12. +-4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 5 of 11 +potential sources of information and to produce those sources." Id. at 41. In Bear Sterns, the Court +explained that the facts of Hubbel! were unique and do not support a blanket, all-encompassing +assertion by a witness or party that the production of documents would be testimonial and +incriminating: +To begin with, in Hubell, the incriminatory nature of the production +of the document sought was obvious. The respondent was already +incarcerated as a result of one investigation and he was the target of a +second. Indeed, the second investigation was directed at whether the +respondent was in compliance with a plea agreement-resulting from +testimony that he had Whitewater information that he had not +provided-it would be an admission that he failed to comply with the +specifically found that respondent's acknowledgment of the existence +of certain records sought in the government's subpoena would be +directly incriminating. Hubbell, 167 F.3d at 582. +Id. at 683. +As noted by the Court in Bear Sterns, a determination that the production of documents +would be testimonial cannot be premised on the witness's say so: +A witness is not exonerated from answering merely because he +declares that in so doing he would incriminate himself; his assertion +does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination. +Id. at 684. In Bear Sterns, the Court found that the defendant failed to meet his burden in asserting +the privilege against self-incrimination in response to a request for production that included wire +transfer records, telephone records, bank records, and records pertaining to specific investment +firms. Id. Plaintiffs seek in their document requests, among other things, telephone records, travel +records, correspondence and communications, and personal calendars and diaries. The act of +producing such records is not a crime. See id. ("[a]s the plaintiff notes, it is not a crime to make a +- 5- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 6 of 11 +wire transfer, use the phone, or possess corporate records"). Defendant Epstein has failed to meet +his burden of demonstrating that the document requests made by Plaintiffs in these cases would pose +a real danger of incrimination. As in Bear Sterns, the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of +Documents should accordingly be granted. Id. +B. +Defendant Epstein Fails to Demonstrate Why His +Invocation of the Fifth Amendment Would Not +Warrant an Adverse Interest In These Civil Cases +Defendant Epstein does not dispute the general rule that an adverse inference may be drawn +in a civil case from a defendant's refusal to testify or respond to discovery by invoking the privilege +against self incrimination. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318-20 (1976). He instead asserts +that there is a "recognized exception" that applies in a case where the adverse inference is the sole +basis for the plaintiff's prima facie case or will cause the automatic entry of summary judgment. +(Defendant's Response, (DE 56), pp. 14-15); Federal Trade Comm'n v. Transnet Wireless Corp., +506 F.Supp. 2d 1247, 1252 n. 4 (S.D. Fla. 2007). This exception plainly would not apply here. +There are witnesses other than Defendant to the acts and conduct alleged in these cases, including +Plaintiffs and other victims. See Transnet Wireless, 506 F.Supp. 2d at 1252 n. 4 (holding that the +Court "will draw adverse inferences where appropriate" in reviewing a motion for summary +judgment, "in light of the myriad evidence presented by plaintiff"). +In any event, it would be premature at this stage of the case for the Court to foreclose the use +of an adverse inference from the Defendant's invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination. +This issue would arise either in a motion for summary judgment or a motion in limine. Accordingly, +based on the foregoing, Defendant's self-serving assertion in his discovery responses concerning the +drawing of an adverse inference is improper, and should be rejected and stricken. +C. Plaintiff Is Entitled to Discovery of Health Care +Information Requested In Interrogatory No. 8 +- 6 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 7 of 11 +Defendant Epstein argues that Plaintiff' s Interrogatory no. 8 is overbroad because it seeks +information over a ten year period. As to Defendant Epstein's psychological condition, particularly +any problem of a sexual nature, ten years is more than reasonable. Any psychosexual condition has +likely existed for most or all of Defendant Epstein's adult life. +Defendant Epstein next asserts Florida's psychotherapist-patient privilege under Florida +Statute §90.503(2). As set forth in Plaintiff's Motion, the allegations of child sexual abuse in this +case bring into play the exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege of Florida Statute §39.204. +Defendant asserts that this Court is required to hold an in camera inspection of documents to +determine, as to each document, whether Florida Statute §39.204 is applicable. See Doherty v. John +Doe No. 22, 957 So.2d 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Plaintiff agrees that such an in camera +inspection would be appropriate to evaluate whether the documents relate to allegations of child +sexual abuse. In this regard, any notes or records relating to Epstein's sexual interests or tendencies +produced in an in camera inspection would be relevant and should be turned over to Plaintiff as +falling within the exception of $39.204. +D. +Third Party Privacy Rights Are +Not a Basis to Deny Discovery +The right to privacy discussed in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 454 (1972), has nothing +to do with the discovery issues in this case. Eisenstadt concerns the distribution of a contraceptive +device. Yet Defendant relies entirely on Eisenstadt in contending that third party privacy rights +provide a basis for Defendant to object to discovery in this case. The vague argument and +unsupported assertion raised by Defendant in this case, "that the privacy rights of third parties are +implicated", is frivolous and must be rejected. +E. +Plaintiff Is Entitled In Discovery to Documents +Relating to Plea Agreements and Criminal Proceedings +- 7- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 8 of 11 +Defendant asserts that Plaintiff should not be entitled to receive any documents responsive to +her Request nos. 1-4 for the sole reason that these documents would not themselves be admissible +under Fed.R.Evid. 408 and 410. It is well established that broad discovery under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 +should not, without more, be limited on the basis of admissibility at trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(1946 +Advisory Committee Note). (Rule 26(b) "may cover not only evidence for use at the trial but also +inquiry into matters in themselves inadmissible as evidence but which will lead to the discovery of +such evidence. The purpose of discovery is to allow a broad search for facts, the names of +witnesses, or any other matters which may aid a party in the preparation or presentation of his +case"). Accordingly, the fact alone that plea agreements and related documents may not be +admissible at trial is not a basis to deny their production in discovery.? In Cupac, Inc. v. Mid-West +Agency, Inc., 100 F.R.D. 440 (S.D. Ohio 1983), the Court held on these grounds that a party could +obtain discovery relating to a criminal plea, including the answers to questions asked by the +prosecutor, even though this information would be inadmissible under Fed.R.Evid. 410. Any +concerns regarding the disclosure of documents responsive to request nos. 1-4 could be addressed in +an appropriate protective order. Plaintiffs and their counsel, however, should have these documents +in discovery. +F. An In Camera Hearing May Be Appropriate To Determine +Whether Defendant Properly Claims Privilege In +Response To Interrogatories And Document Reguests +Given the fact intensive nature of the inquiry into whether a defendant has met his burden in +asserting a privilege against self-incrimination, some courts have conducted in camera, ex parte +hearings to determine whether assertions of the privilege are valid in each instance. See United +* Plaintiff further notes that her document request no. 4 seeks documents obtained in discovery and +investigation of the criminal cases, not documents pertaining to the plea agreement. Accordingly, +Rules 408 and 410 could not serve as a basis to object to these requests. +- 8 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 9 of 11 +States v. Duncan, 704 F.Supp 820 (N.D. III. 1989); see also United States v. Wujkowski, 929 F.2d +981, 986 (4th Cir. 1991) (*[wle hold only that the district court must undertake a more careful +examination of the documents in question and provide a basis for its findings"). To the extent that +this Court is in doubt as to whether to uphold the Defendant's privilege claim as to any particular +document request or interrogatory, then an in camera hearing would be appropriate. +Ill. Conclusion +Based on the foregoing, and for the reasons stated in Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Answers +to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, +Plaintiff requests that Defendant Epstein be ordered to answer interrogatories and produce +responsive documents. +Dated: April 20, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By:_ +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiff +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +-9- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 10 of 11 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on April 20 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day +to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices +of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who +are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 10 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 11 of 11 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 11 - diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ba2a532e6f91d0ebe514235fd9553a6c4445df14d9fde8479b4390bf9b3a33ea.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ba2a532e6f91d0ebe514235fd9553a6c4445df14d9fde8479b4390bf9b3a33ea.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f0d9f8eb11c1e013b386fff1977bed0458a7a94e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ba2a532e6f91d0ebe514235fd9553a6c4445df14d9fde8479b4390bf9b3a33ea.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -136, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ba2a532e6f91d0ebe514235fd9553a6c4445df14d9fde8479b4390bf9b3a33ea", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 13, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ef2bd21c711acc91b3042e551eb25b308c04b4afe4cb049417a2ce53a9505d69", + "output_sha256": "b2020e8d66faba455a03b3f683017c4b09cab504d4ca1ae9c047fff8709dca82", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ba8b363d13e2be2caec7c932b7094cb0c59f2035e3699515f76404a415c382c2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ba8b363d13e2be2caec7c932b7094cb0c59f2035e3699515f76404a415c382c2.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..68fdf0adb72f37a9696b484d3b3f4ea581afeb31 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ba8b363d13e2be2caec7c932b7094cb0c59f2035e3699515f76404a415c382c2.md @@ -0,0 +1,203 @@ +Items Checked In +by:: GARRETT, SONJA +April 20, 2023 14:20 +/CLERK/CENTRAL/EVIDENCE/STORAGE/AULTC/ROW06/COLUMN01/SHELF03/POSITION7/BOX4838 +Item: +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J01 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96232000 LETTER TO D. ARONBERG +FROM S. MENDELSOHN +Received From: +APPEALS/ +APPEALS/ +APPEALS/ +CLERGER +CLERGER +CLERGER +N. CRUZ +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J03 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96232568 LETTER TO J. MUSGRAVE +FROM N. CRUZ +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J04 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +APPEALS/ +CLERGER +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96232587 SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J05 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +APPEALS/ +CLERGER +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96232597 LETTER TO J. HOWARD +FROM D. WYLER +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J06 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +APPEALS, +(CLERGER +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96232621 MOTION TO DISMISS +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB JO7 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLG +APPEALS/ +CLERGER +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96232626 MOTION FOR AN ORDER +UNSEALING GRAND JURY TESTIMONY +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J08 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +APPEALSI +CLERGER +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96232771 ORDER DENYING THE +STATE'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER UNSEALING GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WITHOUT +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J09 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +APPEALS/ +CLERGER +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96233133 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J10 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +APPEALS/ +CLERGER +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96233147 DEFENDANT, DAVE +ARONBERG, AS STATE ATTORNEY OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA'S ANSWER TO +FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT 11 +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J11 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +APPEALS/ +CLERGER +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96233207 DEFENDANT ARONBERG +TWITTER POST +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J12 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +APPEALS/| +(CLERGER +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96233230 SAO15 PRESS RELEASE +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J13 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +APPEALSI +CLERGER +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96233241 HEARING TRANSCRIPT +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J14 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +APPEALSI +CLERGER +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96233252 EMAIL TO S.MENDELSOHN +FROM D.WYLER +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J15 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96233271 ORDER GRANTING +DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS COUNT II OF THE PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED +COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB 316 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96233302 LETTER TO D. WYLER FROM +S. MENDELSOHN +APPEALS APREU 2023 4: 00 aR +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J17 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +APPEALS/MAB© SERGEABRUZZO +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96233324 DEFENDANT DAVE +Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller +ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES +CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J18 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +APPEALŠ/ +CLERGER +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96233361 AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J19 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96233376 DEFENDANT DAVE +ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY FINAL JUDGMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN +APPEALS/ CLERGER +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J20 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96233496 MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF +PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS, LLC IN OPPOSITION TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S FLA. STST. +APPEALS/ +CLERGER + +D. Dautt + + +items Checked In +by: GARRETT, SONJA +April 20, 2023 14:20 +/CLERK/CENTRAL/EVIDENCE/STORAGE/VAULTC/ROW06/COLUMN01/SHELF03/POSITION7/BOX4838 +Received From: +APPEALS/ +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J21 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE.CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96234910 DEFENDANT, DAVE +ARONBERG'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO THE +STATE ATTORNEY'S FL.STAT.SECTION57.105 MOTION +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J22 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96234956 LETTER TO D.WYLER FROM +CLERGER +APPEALS/ +CLERGER +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J23 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96234983 PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS, +LLC'S NOTICE OF DROPPING STATE ATTORNEY, DAVE ARONBERG +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J24 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235024 +SCHOLZ & WYLER +APPEALS/ +CLERGER +APPEALS/MARIE CLERGER +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J25 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235036 DEFENDANT DAVE +ARONBERG'S AMENDED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J26 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235080 AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY'S +APPEALS/MARIE CLERGER +APPEALS/ +CLERGER +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J27 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235127 APPENDIX TO MOTION OF +PLAINTIFF CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND INCORPORATED +MEMORANDUM OF LAW (REDACTED) +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J28 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235199 MOTION OF PLAINTIFF CA +FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND INCORPORATED +APPEALSI +CLERGER +APPEALS/| +CLERGER +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J29 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +APPEALS/| +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235230 AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF +LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DAVE ARONBERG'S AMENDED MOTION FOR +ATTORNEYS' FEES +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J30 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235274 FINAL JUDGMENT +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J31 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +APPEALS/ +APPEALS/| +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235368 AMENDED RESPONSE AND +MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS, LLC IN OPPOSITION TO STATE +ATTORNEY DAVE ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES UNDER FLORIDA +STATUTES SECTION 57.105 +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J32 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +APPEALS/L +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235442 JACOB SCHOLZ & WYLER +INVOICE +0-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J33 JOINT ARONBERG, DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLO +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235586 AMENDED & SUPPLEMENTA +AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEYS' FEES & COSTS +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J34 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235661 DEFENDANT, DAVE +ARONBERG'S NOTICE OF DROPPING CLAIM FOR ATTORNEY FEE MULTIPLIER +0-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J36 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LL +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235757 JAMES V. WILLE, 480 SO.21 +CLERGER +I CLERGER +CLERGER +]CLERGER +APPEALS/ +CLERGER +APPEALS/ CLERGER +APPEALS/ +CLERGER +0-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J37 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLO +UBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235786 LETTER FROM M. GRYGIEL +TO D. ARONBERG +APPEALS/ +CLERGER + +D. Pauto + + +Items Checked In +by: GARRETT, SONJA +April 20, 2023 14:28 +/CLERK/CENTRAL/EVIDENCE/STORAGE/VAULTC/ROW06/COLUMN01/SHELF03/POSITION7/BOX4838 +Item: +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB J35 JOINT ARONBERG,DAVE,CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST Evidence # 96235723 AMENDED AND +SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES & COSTS +Received From: +APPEALS/L +CLERGER +NOT A CERTIFIED COPY +Page 1 +of 1 +1. Dairo \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ba8b363d13e2be2caec7c932b7094cb0c59f2035e3699515f76404a415c382c2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ba8b363d13e2be2caec7c932b7094cb0c59f2035e3699515f76404a415c382c2.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e37dad8fecf0ddbac2c67263c6f23a473da1b16d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ba8b363d13e2be2caec7c932b7094cb0c59f2035e3699515f76404a415c382c2.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -143, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ba8b363d13e2be2caec7c932b7094cb0c59f2035e3699515f76404a415c382c2", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "58900b890cec334edcaf442b74402c49b8fb5194df11f57ec723f79ad0ae07fe", + "output_sha256": "3d3d0053c5beebf94c2e3d4883fff0047e99df773f6c666cd9706d556ce90945", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ba8ce55fab77868952bbc4800e4cba39a89fbaa8b29ed87ee6863fba92889364.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ba8ce55fab77868952bbc4800e4cba39a89fbaa8b29ed87ee6863fba92889364.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..112fa9d863e80779cedbaedbc07c48dd7e0e9e36 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ba8ce55fab77868952bbc4800e4cba39a89fbaa8b29ed87ee6863fba92889364.md @@ -0,0 +1,469 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 1 of 17 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119- +MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232- +MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380- +MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381- +MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 2 of 17 +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994- +MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993- +MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 3 of 17 +JANE DOE, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. II, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469- +MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591- +MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656- +MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM +Document 123 +Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 4 of 17 +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102's REPLY IN +SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY AND RESPONSE IN +OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL AND/OR IDENTIFY JANE DOE NO. +101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102 IN THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS FOR PURPOSES +OF DISCOVERY +Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 (together, "Plaintiffs"), by and +through their undersigned attorneys, hereby file their Reply in Support of Motion to +Proceed Anonymously and Response in Opposition to Motion to Compel and/or Identify +Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of +Discovery, and, as grounds, state as follows: +Exposure of Plaintiffs to the public disclosure of their identity and the +resultant shame and humiliation accompanying their sexual exploitation is wholly +unnecessary and premature, and may cause further damage. Plaintiffs respectfully assert +that this Court should first decide the threshold issues of retroactivity and calculation of +damages. Plaintiffs, and all other victims of Defendant who have filed an action against +Defendant in federal court, will have to litigate these two following threshold issues +being reviewed by the Court in the C.M.A. action against Defendant (Case No. 08-CV- +80811-MARRA/ +): 1) whether the most recent version of the statute, which +provides for a minimum recovery of $150,000 (instead of the previous minimum of +' Plaintiffs respectfully file this Reply in the consolidated action, as the issue at hand pertains to discovery +issues. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 5 of 17 +$50,000) applies to cases arising from incidents predating the 2006 amendment to the +statute; and 2) whether the applicable minimum amount is recoverable per incident and/or +per count, or per victim. Defendant has attempted to force settlements on any victims as +possible without considering the possibility that the minimum amount recoverable under +18 U.S.C. § 2255 is $150,000 per count and/or per incident. Much of this Court's +caseload will be alleviated once the Court resolves these issues related to the minimum +recovery; at that point, many of Defendant's victims will likely agree to settle for the +minimum statutory damages to which they are entitled, thus obviating Defendant's +specified need to destroy his vietims" anonymity and expose them to further harm and +humiliation. +2. +This Court has discretion to deny Defendant's Motion to Compel and/or +Identify Plaintiffs in Third Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery. See Doe v. +Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 184 (5th Cir. Aug. 10, 1981)' ("Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) vests in the +trial court discretion over litigants' requests for protection from 'annoyance, +embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense' in the discovery process.") +(internal quotation omitted). As more fully discussed in Plaintiffs' Response to +Defendant's Motion to Stay, which is adopted and incorporated herein, Defendant waived +his right to contest liability in actions filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Thus, third +party discovery is relevant only if Plaintiffs seek recovery of damages in excess of the +statutory minimum. Additionally, if and when the parties are ready to proceed with +discovery from non-party sources, the Court can put numerous measures in place to +maximize Plaintiffs' anonymity. At the outset, Defendant can obtain records from +" In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this circuit adopted as +binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down before October 1, 1981. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 6 of 17 +various non-party sources through Plaintiffs' counsel, who can demonstrate and certify +that they have obtained the very records being sought, or through an independent special +I, who could be given releases by Plaintiffs to obtain such records on behalf of +Defendant to eliminate any question of authenticity or completeness. If Defendant +nevertheless insists on conducting his own third-party discovery (needlessly increasing +the cost of litigating these actions and causing unnecessary delay), subpoenas seeking +documents from sources such as health care providers or employers should not disclose +the type of action or identify Defendant. Because of the highly-publicized nature of +Defendant's crimes as well as his designation as a sexual offender, the mere mention of +Defendant's name in any subpoena or deposition notice will automatically expose the +subject Plaintiff as one of Defendant's victims and may result in unnecessary public +humiliation. Similarly, records custodian depositions do not require the disclosure of the +nature of the action and/or the identity of the defendant in the action.? +Defendant's only purpose in opposing Plaintiffs' motions is harassment. +Defendant's intentions are clear. He seeks to destroy these young women by outing them +as being among his many victims, a pattern of behavior consistent with his status as a +designated sex offender. Defendant openly admits to his desire to reveal the victims' +names in newspapers so that individuals in their community can come forward to assault +their credibility and tarnish their reputations (and, as a result, their dignity). See +Defendant's Response in Opposition to Motion to Proceed Anonymously (DE# 5) at I 6 +("[O]nce the Plaintiff is identified, other individuals come forward in the discovery phase +with information which often directly contradicts allegations as to the events and +" Depending upon claims of Plaintiffs, certain documents will be relevant. At this point, however, +Plaintiffs do not waive their privilege to prevent the release of each of their names under the doctor-patient +relationship. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 7 of 17 +damages. For instance, witnesses may testify that Plaintiff was paid by others for similar +sexual acts she claims Mr. Epstein forced upon her or that she willingly participated in +certain acts(s) that would negate or lessen her damages"). Each of Defendant's victims +whom undersigned counsel represents continues to experience trauma and humiliation +associated with sexual abuse. See Ellen Bass & Laura +, The Courage to Heal: A +Guide for Women Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse 3 (4th ed. 2008) (*The long-term +effects of child sexual abuse can be so pervasive that it's sometimes hard to pinpoint +exactly how the abuse affected you. It can permeate everything: your sense of self, +intimate relationships, sexuality, parenting, working, even your sanity.")* The U.S. +Supreme Court in Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 597 (1977), discussed the grave +nature of the crimes at issue in the cases against Defendant, stating: +[Rape] is highly reprehensible, both in a moral sense and in its almost total +contempt for the personal integrity and autonomy of the female victim ... Short of +homicide, it is the "ultimate violation of self" +Defendant committed crimes constituting the "ultimate violation of self" against minors. +Because of the disdainful nature of these types of crimes, courts, including the Eleventh +Circuit, "have carved out a limited number of exceptions to the general requirement of +disclosure, which permit plaintiffs to proceed anonymously." Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. +for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 685 (11th Cir. 2001) (internal citation omitted). "The +* Although some Plaintiffs no longer live in the Palm Beach area, this should not undermine Plaintiffs' +need for anonymity. As the Court in Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193, 197 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (internal +citation omitted), points out, "[I]t is now possible to determine whether a given individual is a party to a +lawsuit in federal court anywhere in the country by the simplest of computer searches, to access the docket +sheet of any such case electronically, and ... that entire case files will be accessible over the Internet." +Given the ease with which the public could access court files in these cases, it is reasonable that Plaintiffs' +fears extend beyond ostracism in the Palm Beach community. The Palm Beach Post is available online all +over the world. In addition, many of Plaintiffs' family members remain in the Palm Beach area and remain +unaware of their daughter/granddaughter/niece's involvement in Defendant's sordid child sex exploitation +enterprise. Furthermore, Plaintiffs are exposed to harassment through social networking sites such as +Facebook and MySpace as well as other forms of online harrassment. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 8 of 17 +ultimate test for permitting a plaintiff to proceed anonymously is whether the plaintiff has +a substantial privacy right which outweighs the customary and constitutionally-embedded +presumption of openness in judicial proceedings." Id. (internal quotation and citation +omitted). +Cases regarding sexual assault are the paradigmatic examples of the type +of highly sensitive and personal matter that warrant a grant of anonymity. See Doe No. 2 +v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193, 195-98 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (adult plaintiff, who, many years later, +alleged that he was sexually abused by rabbi at private Jewish school when he was a +child, was entitled to proceed anonymously because he feared retaliation and ostracism +from his community; Doe v. +1. 202 F.R.D. 173, 176 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (sexual assault +victim granted use of pseudonym); Doe v. +105 F. Supp. 2d 40, 44 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) +(victim of assault, molestation, and sexual abuse granted anonymity because victim +otherwise psychologically and emotionally unable to proceed with action); Roe v. Borup, +500 F. Supp. 127, 130 (E.D. Wis. 1980) ("It is beyond argument that [a suit involving +charges of sexual abuse of a child] is a highly sensitive issue"; thus, plaintiffs were +entitled to use fictitious names in prosecuting the suit); see also Doe v. Blue Cross & +Blue Shield United of Wis., 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997) ("[F]ictitious names are +allowed when necessary to protect the privacy of children, rape victims, and other +particularly vulnerable parties or witnesses."). The intensely personal nature of sexual +exploitation creates an unusual case, and, in such a case, the general policy of full +disclosure should give way to a policy of protecting privacy in a very private matter. +This protection is especially necessary when the Court is dealing with young women who +recently were sexually abused as minors. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 9 of 17 +5. +Defendant is using the threat of publicity to attempt to intimidate victims +to cause them not to file suit or to settle their claims for the absolute minimum in order +for them to avoid being held up to public ridicule and hostility. His intention to attack the +victims is at the heart of the protection afforded by numerous rape shield statutes, of +which Defendant and his counsel are surely aware. In 1994, Congress amended the +Federal Rules of Evidence to promote the strong social policy of protecting a victim's +privacy and encouraging victims of crime to come forward. 'The reason for extending +Rule 412 to civil cases is equally obvious. The need to protect alleged victims against +invasions of privacy, potential embarrassment, and unwarranted sexual stereotyping, and +the wish to encourage victims to come forward when they have been sexually molested +do not disappear because the context has shifted from a criminal prosecution to a claim +for damages or injunctive relief." Fed. R. Evid. 412 advisory committee's note. Rule +412 now provides that, in civil trials in federal court involving alleged sexual misconduct, +evidence that the victim engaged in other sexual behavior or evidence offered to prove +any alleged victim's sexual predisposition can be admitted only in unusual circumstances, +none of which apply to Plaintiffs' cases. Fed. R. Evid. 412 (a), (b). "The rule aims to +safeguard the alleged victim against the invasion of privacy, potential embarrassment and +sexual stereotyping that is associated with public disclosure of intimate sexual details and +the infusion of sexual innuendo into the factfinding process. By affording victims +protection in most instances, the rule also encourages victims of sexual misconduct to +institute and to participate in legal proceedings against alleged offenders." Fed. R. Evid. +412 advisory committee's note; see also Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145, 149-50 (1991) +(Rape shield statutes represent the valid legislative determination that victims of rape and + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 10 of 17 +attempted rape "deserve heightened protection against surprise, harassment, and +unnecessary invasions of privacy."); United States v. Elbert, 561 F.3d 771, 776-77 (8th +Cir. 2009) (evidence that child plaintiffs had previously engaged in prostitution was +rightfully excluded in federal sex trafficking suit); Stephens v. +, 13 F.3d 998, 1010 +(7th Cir. 1994) (Cummings, C.J., dissenting) ("The Indiana rape shield statute furthers +laudable and pragmatic goals. It protects victims from needless exposure of their sexual +past conduct; [and] ensures that the focus of rape trials remains the guilt or innocence of ' +the accused rather than the sexual history of the complainant."); United States v. Kasto, +584 F.2d 268, 271-72 n.3 (8th Cir. 1978) (*[U]nchastity of a victim has no relevance +whatsoever to [the victim's] credibility as a witness. Such a proposition would +'necessarily imply the absurd (corollary) that the extramarital sexual history of a female +witness would be admissible to impeach her credibility in any case in which she +testified."") (internal citation omitted). Procedural protections such as the rape shield +statutes reduce the embarrassment and anguish of trial, encouraging victims to report +sexual offenses and offendors. "Without the protection provided by rape shield statutes, +victims may find trial an ordeal not worth enduring." Stephens, 13 F.3d at 1010 +(Cummings, C.J., dissenting) (quoting 124 Cong. Rec. H11944 (1978) (statement of Rep. +Elizabeth Holtzman)); see Fed. R. Evid. 412 advisory committee's note ("Too often in +this country victims of rape are humiliated and harassed when they report and prosecute +the rape... [RJape trials become inquisitions into the victim's morality, not trials of the +defendant's innocence or guilt ...."). Indeed, "many [victims] find the trial almost as +degrading as the rape itself." Fed. R. Evid. 412 advisory committee's note. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 11 of 17 +6. +In addition, Congress enacted the Child Victims' and Child Witnesses' +Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3509) in an effort to provide protection for victims who, while +minors, were victims of physical abuse, sexual abuse, or sexual exploitation, or who have +witnessed a crime committed upon another. One of the primary protections provided by +the statute is the restriction on the disclosure of the name of, or other information +concerning, the victim. See 18 U.S.C. § 3509(d)(3) (2008). Further, pursuant to 18 +U.S.C. § 3509(d)(2), "[a]ll papers to be filed in court that disclose the name of or any +other information concerning a child shall be filed under seal without necessity of +obtaining a court order." +7. +Indeed, numerous states, including Florida and New York, have enacted +laws to protect the anonymity of sexual assault victims. See Fla. Stat. §$ 794.024, +794.026 (2008); N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 50-b (McKinney 2009). In 1994, the Florida +Legislature passed The Crime Victims Protection Act. The legislative stated purpose for +passage of the Act was "to protect the identity of victims of sexual crimes." Fla. AGO +2003-56, 2003 WL 22971082 (Dec. 15, 2003) ("IT]he Legislature intended to make the +identity of a victim of a sexual crime confidential in a court record or proceeding.") +Under Florida Section 794.024 of the Florida Statutes, court records that identify the +name and/or address of a victim of a sexual crime are presumed to be confidential and +exempt from public access. Id. That statute further imposes criminal and civil liability +for the disclosure or communication of information identifying the victim of a sexual +crime. Fla. AGO 2003-56, 2003 WL 22971082 (citing Fla. Stat. §§ 794.024, 794.026 +(2008)). Similarly, upon approving New York's rape shield law, then Governor Mario +stated, "[S]exual assault victims have unfortunately had to endure a terrible + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 12 of 17 +invasion of their physical privacy. They have a right to expect that this violation will not +be compounded by a further invasion of their privacy." 1991 N.Y. Sess. Laws page nos. +2211-12, quoted in Kolko, 242 F.R.D. at 196 (internal citations omitted). +Finally, Defendant should be estopped from outing his victims. Plaintiffs +attempted to utilize the process established by the Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") +with the reasonable expectation that a specific purpose of the NPA was to allow +Defendant's victims to maintain anonymity, only to be subjected to deliberate and +unreasonable delays and Defendant's failure to engage in meaningful, good faith +settlement discussions. This left Plaintiffs no choice but to file suit. Under these +circumstances, Defendant should be estopped from seeking to lift anonymity. +9. +Many of Defendant's victims are awaiting this Court's decision regarding +whether they will be allowed to proceed anonymously before making the difficult +decision as to whether to pursue their claims against Defendant. All of Defendant's +victims and any future victims of sexual exploitation must know that they can protect +what remains of their personal dignity when appealing to the Federal Courts for justice. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully move this Court to grant Plaintiffs' Motion +to Proceed Anonymously and to deny Defendant's Motion to Compel and/or Identify +Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of +Discovery. +Date: May 29, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. +101 and Jane Doe No. 102 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 13 of 17 +By: +s/Katherine W. Ezell +Robert C. Josefsberg +Fla. Bar No. 040856 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Katherine W. Ezell +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +kezell@podhurst.com +City National Bank Building +25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +Telephone: (305) 358-2800 +Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 14 of 17 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this 29th day of May, 2009, we electronically +filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify +that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on +the attached Service List either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated +by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not +authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. +101 and Jane Doe No. 102 +By: +s/Katherine W. Ezell +Robert C. Josefsberg +Fla. Bar No. 040856 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Katherine W. Ezell +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +kezell@podhurst.com +City National Bank Building +25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +Telephone: (305) 358-2800 +Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80380-KAM Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 15 of 17 +SERVICE LIST +JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Robert Critton, Esq. +Michael J. Pike, Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman LLP +515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 842-2820 +Fax: (561) 515-3148 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +mpike@bclclaw.com +Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Jack Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 659-8300 +Fax: (561) 835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A +250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 202-6360 +Fax: (561) 828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Co-Defendant, +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: (561) 686-6300 +Fax: (561) 383-9456 +jsx@searcylaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 16 of 17 +Adam Horowitz, Esq. +Stuart Mermelstein, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +smermelstein@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Case Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,08-80232, 08-80380, 08- +80381, 08-80993, 08-80994 +Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq. +Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq. +Leopold Kuvin, P.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +Phone: (561) 515-1400 +Fax: (561) 515-1401 +skuvin@leopoldkuvin.com +tleopold@leopoldkuvin.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804 +Richard Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A +2290 10" Ave North, Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Phone: (561) 582-7600 +Fax: (561) 588-8819 +lawyerwillits@aol.com +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80871 +Brad +Esq. +Law Office of Brad +& Associates, LLC +2028 +Street, Suite 202 +Hollywood, FL 33020 +Phone: (954) 414-8033 +Fax: (954) 924-1530 +bedwards @ira-law.com +be@bradedwardslaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 +Isidro Manuel +Esq. +Elkins & Boehringer + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 17 of 17 +224 Datura Avenue, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 832-8033 +Fax: (561) 832-7137 +isidrogarcia @ bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ba8ce55fab77868952bbc4800e4cba39a89fbaa8b29ed87ee6863fba92889364.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ba8ce55fab77868952bbc4800e4cba39a89fbaa8b29ed87ee6863fba92889364.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..70c95138128d0ae325c6af1488681c308828d170 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ba8ce55fab77868952bbc4800e4cba39a89fbaa8b29ed87ee6863fba92889364.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -326, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ba8ce55fab77868952bbc4800e4cba39a89fbaa8b29ed87ee6863fba92889364", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 18, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "7174feda0a836fa0f9c8e645e2d356181d5b8b90c2942c1ae6d66f4665f1457a", + "output_sha256": "2b4621d193f751fc8c44d8c8cf2ca38a8278439e551070bb4127a4c8f57f8bae", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bac0d91c6f3872f3121d3094eeb5864513ae16322448b836b2b88e2e13a2fe65.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bac0d91c6f3872f3121d3094eeb5864513ae16322448b836b2b88e2e13a2fe65.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b865b48efcf8a917a81b83eaa24a7dc171561784 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bac0d91c6f3872f3121d3094eeb5864513ae16322448b836b2b88e2e13a2fe65.md @@ -0,0 +1,75 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 94 +Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80232-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS CO-COUNSEL +TEIN, P.L. hereby moves for leave to withdraw as co-counsel for +defendant Jeffrey Epstein, stating as follows: +1. On December 30, 2008, +Tein filed its notice of withdrawal as +counsel for Mr. Epstein [DE 47], noting that two other law firms who previously +entered their appearance on Mr. Epstein's behalf would remain as co-counsel. +2. +We have since learned through discussions with the Clerk of Court +that absent a formal order of withdrawal by this Court, +Tein will continue to +be listed as counsel for Mr. Epstein on the CM/ECF. +Accordingly, +Tein respectfully requests that this Court enter an +order allowing it to withdraw as counsel for Mr. Epstein. +Teinr + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 2 of 3 +CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/ +Respectfully submitted, +TEIN, P.L. +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 +Tel: 305 442 1101 +Fax: 305 442 6744 +By: Is/ Michael R. Tein +GUY A. +Fla. Bar No. 623740 +MICHAEL R. TEIN +Fla. Bar No. 993522 +tein@lewistein.com +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 19, 2009, I electronically filed the +foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system. I further +certify that plaintiff's attorneys are CM/ECF participants, as indicated by the +CM/ECF Attorney Listings for this case. +/s/ Michael R. Tein +Michael R. Tein +2 +s leine. +NEIS ATE + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 94 +Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 3 of 3 +CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA +Service List +Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbery, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +Michael J. Pike, Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +3 +Tein n \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bac0d91c6f3872f3121d3094eeb5864513ae16322448b836b2b88e2e13a2fe65.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bac0d91c6f3872f3121d3094eeb5864513ae16322448b836b2b88e2e13a2fe65.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e12e4860138f01af6186bfbc3f7fc9af9989c557 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bac0d91c6f3872f3121d3094eeb5864513ae16322448b836b2b88e2e13a2fe65.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -214, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bac0d91c6f3872f3121d3094eeb5864513ae16322448b836b2b88e2e13a2fe65", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4cecc37cb676ccd6c3d45e6e57ba64c606352058461db6f2b588284ef39389c5", + "output_sha256": "f1ee6ab05c19263e8459fd164d53a7bf164418236a9c893f5084784469ec036c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bae2c7d39de31bcb1825990e1081380dca48a1f07893f8fa351f691edfae4a8a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bae2c7d39de31bcb1825990e1081380dca48a1f07893f8fa351f691edfae4a8a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3744724a1f4cfb87d019a4b9d3dea569cc4bf6d4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bae2c7d39de31bcb1825990e1081380dca48a1f07893f8fa351f691edfae4a8a.md @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2009 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80802-MARRA-_ +JANE DOE NO. 8 +v. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +• Plaintiff, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION +OF TIME IN WHICH SERVE RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO COMPLAINT +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, +respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time in which to respond to Complaint dated +May 28, 2009 [DE9]. Defendant seeks an extension until July 14, 2009, to file his response. As +good cause in support of granting the motion, Defendant states: +1. On May 28, 2009 Plaintiff filed a Complaint [DE 1]. Defendant's response would be due +on July 7, 2009. +2. There are several other cases filed with this Court in which Jeffrey Epstein is named a +Defendant. In those cases, the undersigned has been preparing responses to Motions for +Protective Order and handling other matters associated therewith. +3. The requested extension is fair and reasonable under the circumstances as it will provide +time to allow the Defendant, EPSTEIN to fully and adequately respond. +4. As certified below, counsel for Defendant conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, and +Plaintiff's counsel is in agreement with the requested extension. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2009 Page 2 of 3 +Jane Doe No. 8 v. Epstein +Page 2 +WHEREFORE Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order granting an +extension until July 14, 2009, to file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint. +Local Rule 7.1 Statement +Counsel for the movant conferred by telephone and correspondence with counsel for the +2009 for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's Complain +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +Attorney for Defendant +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by +CM/ECF on this 1" day of July, 2009: +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 . +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +Irivera@hermanlaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #8 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesg@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2009 Page 3 of 3 +Jane Doe No. 8 v. Epstein +Page 3 +Respectfully submitted, +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER +& COLEMAN, LLP +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 842-2820 +By: +obert D. Crítton, Jr. +Florida Bar #224162 +Michael J. Pike +Florida Bar #617296 +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +rcrit@bclclaw.com +mpike@bclclaw.com diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bae2c7d39de31bcb1825990e1081380dca48a1f07893f8fa351f691edfae4a8a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bae2c7d39de31bcb1825990e1081380dca48a1f07893f8fa351f691edfae4a8a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..33ce83f1ca4aef8fdbb4493ca131f94236d271bc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bae2c7d39de31bcb1825990e1081380dca48a1f07893f8fa351f691edfae4a8a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bae2c7d39de31bcb1825990e1081380dca48a1f07893f8fa351f691edfae4a8a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "1d6f08687b0af6adc4b2392afc3ad48cc89c439d7085a7e41fbb0e5640822531", + "output_sha256": "44852ecb467b2caae6a41dc3778a5c43f8c7a2cdfc4fd154f7974b1f9efeb7f8", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb08df7838a65274bcbbeedddcbf8780c0bd05fbcd4553e8d1712220061f39c6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb08df7838a65274bcbbeedddcbf8780c0bd05fbcd4553e8d1712220061f39c6.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b621ce76b4a2ca83d8f5acf05f0c2a4bf2a0eb90 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb08df7838a65274bcbbeedddcbf8780c0bd05fbcd4553e8d1712220061f39c6.md @@ -0,0 +1,137 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 90 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff +CASENO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08080119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, +08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +NON-PARTY, JEAN LUC BRUHNEL'S RESPONSETO PLAINTIFF +JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR +AN ORDER TO COMPEL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Non-party Jean Luc Bruhnel hereby files his Response to Plaintiff, Jane Doe's Motion +for an Order to Show Cause and for an Order to Compel and Incorporated Memorandum of Law +which was filed on March 10, 2010. (DE#483). Plaintiff's counsel seeks to compel Mr. Bruhnel, +| citizen who is not a party to the instant action, to sit for a deposition that was canceled +and for which he has never been re-noticed. This motion is premature at best, and frivolous. +While visiting New York, Mr. Bruhnel was served with a Subpoena and Notice of +Videotape Deposition in this matter.' As a courtesy, undersigned counsel for Mr. Bruhnel +' Please see Exhibit A, annexed hereto and incorporated by reference. + + +Case 9:08-cV-80994-KAM Document 90 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 2 of 6 +agreed to produce Mr. Bruhnel for deposition in Florida on November 3, 2010 for the +convenience of the parties because Mr. Bruhnel had plans to travel to Florida at that time. The +videotape deposition was accordingly canceled. Two new deposition notices were then e-mailed +to counsel for Bruhnel, both of which emanated from related cases in Florida Circuit Court, with +no additional notice emanating from the instant matter before this Court. ^ That scheduled +deposition was then canceled by agreement of the parties, who mutually agreed that plaintiff's +counsel's secretary would call counsel for Mr. Bruhnel to reset the deposition. +Neither plaintiff's counsel nor his secretary called to reschedule the deposition until +January, 2010. In the intervening time, all depositions in the myriad related matters had been +canceled, upon information and belief, due to the scandal involving plaintiff's counsel's previous +law partner. Further, Mr. Bruhnel had left the United States with no firm plan to return, which +was conveyed to plaintiff's counsel during a telephone conversation in January. +Mr. Bruhnel's counsel attempted to secure firm dates on which Mr. Bruhnel would be +traveling to the United States, but was unable to do so. Undersigned counsel accordingly +informed planitiff's counsel that she could not secure any firm dates. When plaintiff's counsel +insisted that Mr. Bruhnel provide deposition dates, plaintiff's counsel was informed that Mr. +Bruhnel could not be compelled to return to the United States. Undersigned counsel told +plaintiff's counsel that there were appropriate mechanisms through which he could secure Mr. +2 Please see Exhibit B, annexed hereto and incorporated by reference. +-2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 90 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 3 of 6 +Bruhnel's testimony abroad pursuant to Florida, Federal and International law. Indeed, +undersigned counsel directed plaintiff's counsel to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the +Hague Convention, each of which provide specific mechanisms for the securing of testimony +abroad. +Plaintiff's counsel has never served Mr. Bruhnel or undersigned counsel with a re-notice +for deposition since the cancellation of the prior scheduled depositions, and has never attempted +to avail himself of proper legal procedures to secure Mr. Bruhnel's testimony abroad. Further, +contrary to plaintiff's counsel's Certification to this court, plaintiff's counsel never conferred +with undersigned counsel for Mr. Bruhnel regarding the instant Order to Show Cause and for an +Order to Compel. +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +As stated above, the previously scheduled depositions were canceled by agreement of the +parties herein and Mr. Bruhnel has never been re-noticed for deposition. The motion currently +before the court is therefore premature and frivolous. Regardless, it is respectfully noted that the +Court lacks authority to compel Mr. Bruhnel to return to the United States for deposition. +Indeed, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically decline to confer upon the Court the +power to compel foreign nationals to appear before it. See Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 45, 28 USC +$ 1783. +The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the Hague Convention, however, have each +-3- + + +Case 9:08-cV-80994-KAM Document 90 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 4 of 6 +adopted procedural rules to facilitate the deposition of a non-party foreign national. Indeed, The +Uniform Foreign Depositions Act, as adopted by Florida in section 92.251 ("UFDL") provides +a road map for litigants seeking to secure evidence from foreign non-party witnesses, stating: +(2) Whenever any mandate, writ or commission is issued out of any court of record in any +other state, territory, district, or foreign jurisdiction, or whenever upon notice or +agreement it is required to take the testimony of a witness or witnesses in this state, +witnesses may be compelled to appear and testify in the same manner and by the same +process and proceeding as may be employed for the purposes of taking testimony in +proceedings pending in this state. +§ 92.251 Florida statutes. +Thus, whenever a Florida litigant desires to depose a witness residing in another state, +that litigant must first secure the appointment of a commissioner from the court where the +litigation originates. See Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 507 So.2d 1180 (Fla 2" DCA 1987), at 1183. +The foreign litigant may then apply to the court having personal jurisdiction over the witness for +the process necessary to secure the attendance of the witness. Id. (citing Travelers Indem. Co. v. +. 388 So.2d 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)). See Greenlight Financial Services, Inc. v. Union +America Mortg., Inc., 971 So.2d 983 (Fla. 3" DCA 2008). This may be done through mechanisms +provided via The Hague Convention, to which France is a signatory. Given that several cases are +currently pending in Florida Circuit Court that are related to the instant matter, plaintiff may +avail herself of this mechanism to secure Mr. Bruhnel's testimony, but has chosen not to. +Accordingly, there has been no malfeasance herein by Mr. Bruhnel or his counsel, only +nonfeasance by plaintiff's counsel. +-4- + + +Case 9:08-cV-80994-KAM Document 90 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 5 of 6 +Plaintiff's counsel has misrepresented to this court that he spoke to Mr. Bruhnel's +counsel about this motion prior to filing it with the Court. Undersigned counsel for Mr. Bruhnel +was never notified in any manner that any such motion was being prepared or filed. +Plaintiff's counsel has further misrepresented to this Court that undersigned counsel for +Mr. Bruhnel stated that Mr. Bruhnel, "has been out of this country since prior to the New Year +with no plans to return." In fact, undersigned counsel has consistently told Plaintiff's counsel +that she was unaware of Mr. Bruhnel's travel schedule and that she did not know when Mr. +Bruhnel planned to return to this country. +WHEREFORE, JEAN LUC BRUHNEL, a non-party to the instant matter, and +undersigned counsel for Mr. Bruhnel, respectfully request that the Court DENY plaintiff's +Motion for an Order to Show Cause and an Order to Compel in its entirety. Mr. Bruhnel and +undersigned counsel further respectfully request that the Court impose sanctions and attorney's +fees incurred in the defense of Plaintiff's frivolous motion, and for whatever further relief this +Court deems appropriate. +Dated: March 12, 2010 +Respectfully submitted, +TAMA BETH KUDMAN, P.A. +Attorney for Non-Party Witness, Jean Luc Bruhnel +777 South Flagler Drive +Suite 800 - West Tower +-5- + + +Case 9:08-cV-80994-KAM Document 90 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 6 of 6 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 515-6032 +Fax: +(561) 828-0210 +E-mail: Tama@tkudmanlaw.com +By: s/ Tama Beth Kudman +TAMA BETH KUDMAN +Fla. Bar No.: 0637432 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on March 12, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document +with the clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day on all parties identified via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated +by CM/ECF. +-6- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb08df7838a65274bcbbeedddcbf8780c0bd05fbcd4553e8d1712220061f39c6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb08df7838a65274bcbbeedddcbf8780c0bd05fbcd4553e8d1712220061f39c6.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..441d8e70ade5a1400a69e3bb90b1b9b1c431e5bf --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb08df7838a65274bcbbeedddcbf8780c0bd05fbcd4553e8d1712220061f39c6.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bb08df7838a65274bcbbeedddcbf8780c0bd05fbcd4553e8d1712220061f39c6", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8d39a06fa721f7781a952b62bb537febe0b1f4d6527408d21c670fcdb5f36630", + "output_sha256": "c68950b03bd8a717142575424764a61b1b45a5355080817d43c05274b41335e6", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb21e9fa031ddd5ad233564ec3957f5bac214e3a6c06e1bff3302b11f63e1462.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb21e9fa031ddd5ad233564ec3957f5bac214e3a6c06e1bff3302b11f63e1462.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8bb8caef2e8ef078204b19c3cb7f8ae6071b6a9f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb21e9fa031ddd5ad233564ec3957f5bac214e3a6c06e1bff3302b11f63e1462.md @@ -0,0 +1,134 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 557 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2010 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/L +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +vS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80802, +09-81092 +DEFENDANT'S AGREED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME +TO FILE REPLY TO JANE DOE AND DOES 2 -8' MEMORANDUM RESPONSE +TO DEFENDANT'S RULE 4 APPEAL (DEs 551 & 552) +Defendant, +Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Epstein") by and through his +undersigned attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time in which to +Reply to Jane Doe's and Does 2-8° Memorandum Response to Defendant's Consolidated +Rule 4 Appeal dated May 28, 2010. Defendant seeks an extension until June 14, 2010, to +file his Reply and Plaintiffs' are in agreement with the requested extension. As good +cause in support of granting the motion, Defendant states: +1. Defendant filed his Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision on May 12, 2010 (DE +545). +2. Plaintiffs filed their Memorandum Response to Defendant's Rule 4 Appeal on +May 28, 2010 (Des 551 & 552). + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 557 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2010 Page 2 of 4 +3. As this Court is aware, the undersigned represents the Defendant in nine (9) other +related cases before this Court and three (3) cases in State Court, as well as a newly filed +case before Judge Gold. Defendant has filed numerous Motions, Responses and Replies +in all of these cases, and has filed numerous pre-trial motions before this Court in order to +comply with this Court's trial orders and deadlines. Further, Defendant has and +continues to prepare for and take numerous depositions in each of these cases. +4. The undersigned will be out of town from June 4, 2010 and will return to the +office on June 8, 2010. This is and has been a prearranged family vacation. +5. The requested extension is fair in reasonable under the circumstances as it will +provide time to allow the Defendant, EPSTEIN, to fully and adequately Reply to the +opposition motions. +6. Initially, counsel for Does 2-8 agreed to an extension up to June 17, 2010. +However, counsel for Jane Doe objected. Therefore, counsel for Jane Doe agreed to an +extension up to June 14, 2010. In good faith, the undersigned agreed to file the +consolidated Reply as to Jane Doe and Does 2-8 on June 14, 2010. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court enter an Order granting the +Defendant an extension until June 14, 2010 in which to Reply to Jane Doe and Does 2-8' +opposition motions. +Local Rule 7.1 Certification +Counsel for the movant conferred by electronic mail with counsel for the +Plaintiffs and Counsel for the Plaintiffs is in agreement with the requested extension until +June 14, 2010. +Is/ Michael J. Pike +Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Michael J. Pike + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 557 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2010 Page 3 of 4 +Attorneys for Defendant Epstein +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is +being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in +the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 3l' day of June, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: Is/ Michael J. Pike +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR, ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Certificate of Service +lane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstei +ase No. 08-CV-80119-MARRAJNTI +Brad +|. Esq. +, Jaffe, Weissing, +& Lehrman, PL +425 N. Andrews Avenue +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Phone: 954-524-2820 +1, Fistos + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 557 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2010 Page 4 of 4 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz/@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +08-80994 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Fax: 954-524-2822 +brad@pathtojustice.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80893 +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +801-585-5202 +801-585-6833 Fax +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Isidro M. lll, Esq. +I Law Firm, P.A. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80469 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb21e9fa031ddd5ad233564ec3957f5bac214e3a6c06e1bff3302b11f63e1462.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb21e9fa031ddd5ad233564ec3957f5bac214e3a6c06e1bff3302b11f63e1462.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f8ece3731b2a31bdeda29435f2cc4e9c5ef6a836 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb21e9fa031ddd5ad233564ec3957f5bac214e3a6c06e1bff3302b11f63e1462.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bb21e9fa031ddd5ad233564ec3957f5bac214e3a6c06e1bff3302b11f63e1462", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "721104d099ad6ca952db26f5e623f30d0c4bf4aac2044e97c82f9292ab7ec77b", + "output_sha256": "cd606410e98995848804e737361c4a196e5aadeb913796bfbabac77a947c3517", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb2c6690c79c3e4ff641b7bf1743416a6382e374066b04d3410c90cf1cd7c731.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb2c6690c79c3e4ff641b7bf1743416a6382e374066b04d3410c90cf1cd7c731.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bedda446b1e741003936f9c027ff04cd743d1e5a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb2c6690c79c3e4ff641b7bf1743416a6382e374066b04d3410c90cf1cd7c731.md @@ -0,0 +1,113 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2009 Page 1 of 5 +JANE DOE NO. 2, +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRAJ_ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2009 Page 2 of 5 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 7, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- 80993-CIV-MARRA/ +PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME +TO FILE RESPONSE TO MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF +TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST REQUEST TO +PRODUCE AND FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, ET AL. +Plaintiffs, by and through undersigned counsel, file this Motion for Enlargement to Time to +File Responses to Motions to Compel Plaintiffs to Respond to Defendant's First Request to Produce +and First Set of Interrogatories, et al., pursuant to S.D. Fla.L.R. 7.1 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), and states +as follows: +On April 2, 2009, Defendant Epstein filed two Motions to Compel in each of the +above-captioned cases: (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Defendant's First Request to +Produce and to Overrule Objections, and for an Award of Defendant's Reasonable Expenses; and (2) +Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Answer Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, and to Overrule +Objections, and for an Award of Defendant's Reasonable Expenses. Plaintiffs' responses to these +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2009 Page 3 of 5 +Motions are due on April 29, 2009. +2. +Plaintiffs move for an enlargement of time to prepare and file their response to the +Motions because of demands on Plaintiffs' counsel in this case and in other cases and matters. This +includes an appellate brief presently due on May 1, 2009, in Doe v. School Bd. of Broward County +and Scavella, case no. 09-10394-E, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals; and post-judgment motions +and briefs in Elk v. United States, case no. 05-186L, Court of Federal Claims. +3. +Plaintiffs request an enlargement of time until May 6, 2009. +4. +Pursuant to S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1(A), Plaintiffs' counsel has conferred with counsel for +Defendant regarding the relief sought in this Motion, who has advised Plaintiffs' counsel that +Defendant has no objection to the enlargement of time requested. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request an enlargement of time to file their response to +the Motions to Compel et al., until and including May 6, 2009. +Dated: April 29, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2009 Page 4 of 5 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on April 29, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of +Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those +parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2009 Page 5 of 5 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Is/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 5- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb2c6690c79c3e4ff641b7bf1743416a6382e374066b04d3410c90cf1cd7c731.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb2c6690c79c3e4ff641b7bf1743416a6382e374066b04d3410c90cf1cd7c731.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..47f6b1c1d8c15de630dc8c67336b3ccb430b8038 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb2c6690c79c3e4ff641b7bf1743416a6382e374066b04d3410c90cf1cd7c731.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bb2c6690c79c3e4ff641b7bf1743416a6382e374066b04d3410c90cf1cd7c731", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "70cd05e99539c2870ac638dd74d1674da066ae4e19db27921b5bb3b7de7f7e19", + "output_sha256": "a19a6f5ec92b6bb6f1419cda85d820560e1779a616c8fefde40b3873408bc2f2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb3182dca5a72d54f8431b115406279847dcfdd3c775e0a992eca329b3faa935.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb3182dca5a72d54f8431b115406279847dcfdd3c775e0a992eca329b3faa935.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2e2101fbe6d1f30c3a4266cea45898b741573578 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb3182dca5a72d54f8431b115406279847dcfdd3c775e0a992eca329b3faa935.md @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ +Case 19194088675RPDØE Drumm86 Filedo20 payage ato 2 +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +troutman" +sanders +troutman.com +Bennet J. Moskowitz +D: 212-704-6000 +bennet.moskowitz(@troutman.com +June 19, 2020 +VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING +The proposed schedule is adopted, except that, as stated at +the telephone conference held on 6/24/20, counsel are +directed to work together in good faith to conserve +resources, and may have until 8/14/20 to complete the +depositions contemplated by this schedule. The deadlines +for the completion of expert discovery are extended as +follows: Plaintiff's expert reports shall be served no later +than August 14, 2020; Defendants rebuttal reports shall be +served no later than September 14, 202; expert discovery +shall be completed no later than October 5, 2020. +Hon. Debra C. Freeman +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl Street +New York, New York 10007 +Dated: 6/24/2020 +SO ORDERED +Re: +Jane Doe, 1:19-CV-8673 (KPF) (DCF) +DEBRA FREEMAN +United States Magistrate Judge +Dear Judge Freeman: +We write on behalf of both parties in the above-referenced action pursuant to the Court's +Order dated June 15, 2020 (ECF No. 73). The parties have conferred and agreed on the +following discovery schedule, without prejudice to their respective rights to object to or seek any +and all discovery. +• +Substantial completion of document production: +• July 3, 2020 +• Proposed depositions to take place on the following dates: +June 30, 2020 +July 2, 2020 +July 7, 2020 +July 9, 2020 +July 13, 2020 +July 15, 2020 +July 17, 2020 +July 20, 2020 +July 22, 2020 +• July 23, 2020 +• July 27, 2020 +• Plaintiff's Rule 35 examination to take place: +• July 24, 2020 +42545161v2 + + +Case: 1994088675RPDØE Domen Filed 0120 payage atof 2 +June 19, 2020 +Page 2 +troutman" +sanders +Respectfully submitted, +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) +42545161v2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb3182dca5a72d54f8431b115406279847dcfdd3c775e0a992eca329b3faa935.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb3182dca5a72d54f8431b115406279847dcfdd3c775e0a992eca329b3faa935.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..71831e109cec8b6d7cd1138a755df5b2f54063fc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb3182dca5a72d54f8431b115406279847dcfdd3c775e0a992eca329b3faa935.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bb3182dca5a72d54f8431b115406279847dcfdd3c775e0a992eca329b3faa935", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "76e81b0868fee0cc7a96b923a7f6dda3a93ce0bd92a6a1bc93a6ab71cab58ac7", + "output_sha256": "a0b2a4b2604c0ec5e5b0712d872ea73189806c0bd4f75689e5f96450f5b3c798", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb3ec6eba788c7cf5bf15e0bc6a89e0b3bb13bb74cef03b3248309f9afad1cc6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb3ec6eba788c7cf5bf15e0bc6a89e0b3bb13bb74cef03b3248309f9afad1cc6.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b6f2fa3b975b1d159b06097f1df168c83eaf9e71 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb3ec6eba788c7cf5bf15e0bc6a89e0b3bb13bb74cef03b3248309f9afad1cc6.md @@ -0,0 +1,543 @@ +Filed 09/18/19 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in +their capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +Defendants. +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 +MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION +FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYM +Roberta A. Kaplan +Julie E. Fink +Jenna M. Dabbs +Justin Horton +Alexandra K. Conlon (admission pending) +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP +350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 +New York, New York 10118 +Telephone: (212) 763-0883 +Facsimile: (212) 564-0883 +Attorneys for Plaintiff Jane Doe + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 4 Filed 09/18/19 Page 2 of 18 +TABLE OF CONTENTS +PRELIMINARY STATEMENT +1 +STATEMENT OF FACTS +3 +ARGUMENT. +6 +A. +B. +C. +D. +The Risks to Plaintiff Favor Allowing Her to Proceed Under A Pseudonym +...8 +Public Policy and the Public Interest Favor Protecting Plaintiff's Privacy. +10 +Allowing Plaintiff to Proceed Pseudonymously Will Not Prejudice Defendant... 11 +Plaintiff Jane Doe Has Diligently Worked to Keep Her Identity Confidential And +There is No Alternative Mechanism For Protecting Her Confidentiality. +...... 12 +CONCLUSION +. 13 + + +Filed 09/18/19 Page 3 of 18 +TABLE OF AUTHORITIES +PAGE(S) +CASES +Doe 1 v. United States, +359 F. Supp. 3d 1201 (S.D. Fla. 2019) .... +Doe #/ V. Syracuse Univ., +No. 18-cv-496, 2018 WL 7079489 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 10, 2018).. +Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, +242 F.R.D. 193 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). +Doe v. Colgate Univ., +No. 15-cv-1069, 2016 WL 1448829 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2016) +Doe v. Epstein, +No. 08-cv-80119 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2009), ECF No. 253 +Doe v. Epstein, +No. 08-cv-80893 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2008), ECF No. 15. +Doe v. Fedcap. Rehab. Services, Inc., +No. 17-cv-8220, 2018 WL 2021588 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2018) +Doe v. Greiner, +662 F. Supp. 2d 355 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).... +Doe v. Indyke, +No. 19-cv-7772 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2019), ECF No.1 +Doe v. Skyline Automobiles Inc., +375 F. Supp. 3d 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2019).. +Doe v. +105 F. Supp. 2d 40 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) +Doe v. Solera Capital LLC, +No. 18-cv-1769, 2019 WL 1437520 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019). +Doe v. Szul Jewelry, Inc., +No. 0604277/2007, 2008 WL 2157893 (N.Y. Cty. Sup. Ct. May 8, 2008). +Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., +214 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2000). +4,5 +11 +8, 10,12 +8,9 +• 1,7 +1,8 +13 +8 +4 +8 +. 12 +9,12 +7 +9-10 +ii + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 4 Filed 09/18/19 Page 4 of 18 +E. W. v. N.Y. Blood Ctr., +213 F.R.D. 108 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) +Jane Doe I et al. v. Epstein et al., +No. 19-cv-7675 (S.D.N.Y). +Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein et al., +No. 17-cv-616 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2017), ECF No. 28 +Jane Doe No. 103 v. Epstein, +No. 10-cv-80309 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 9, 2010), ECF No. 5 +Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, | +and L.M., +No. 50-2009-CA-040800 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Palm Beach Cty. Dec. 7, 2009), ECF No. 5 +Katlyn Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn et al., +No. 19-cv-07772 (S.D.N.Y.). +L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, +No. 06-cv-2042, 2007 WL 662463 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2007) +Lisa Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn et al., +No. 19-cv-07773 (S.D.N.Y.). +Priscilla Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahnet al., +No. 19-cv-07772 (S.D.N.Y.)... +Roe v. Wade, +410 U.S. 113 (1973). +Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, +537 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2008).. +United States v. Epstein, +No. 19-cr-490 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2019), ECF No. 2 +United States v. Epstein, +No. 19-cT-490 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 12, 2019), ECF No. 11 +United States v. Epstein, +No. 19-cT-490 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 12, 2019), ECF No. 53 +United States v. Epstein, +No. 19-cr-490 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2019), ECF No. 32 +VE v. Nine East 7Ist Street et al., +No. 19-cv-7625 (S.D.N.Y.)... +11,12 +..5 +• 1,7 +1,8 +.. 4 +5 +9 +5 +..5 +6 +- passim +..2 +. 5 +... 7 +5,9 +. 5 +ili + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 4 Filed 09/18/19 Page 5 of 18 +N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 50-b (McKinney 2019) +STATUTES +RULES +10 +Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) .. +6 +iv + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 4 Filed 09/18/19 Page 6 of 18 +Plaintiff Jane Doe ("Plaintiff"), by her undersigned attorneys, respectfully submits this +memorandum of law in support of her motion for leave to proceed under a pseudonym, until +such time as the Court may order her name to be disclosed.' +PRELIMINARY STATEMENT +It can be unimaginably difficult for any person to publicly allege that they were sexually +abused as a child. For Jeffrey Epstein's victims, the burden is extraordinary. Epstein's criminal +sexual assault of young girls has become a public spectacle garnering an extraordinary amount +of public attention since Epstein's arrest on July 6, 2019, and his untimely death on +August 10, 2019. And even before his most recent arrest, Epstein and his associates—many of +whom are named in various civil complaints—used their vast resources and connections to +harass and retaliate against any women who came forward to share their stories or seek help +through courts. +It is therefore not surprising that countless Epstein victims kept silent for decades. For +those brave women who did come forward, courts have routinely allowed them to do so +pseudonymously, ensuring that they could vindicate their rights without public prying or fear of +retaliation. See, e.g., Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein et al., No. 17-cv-616 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2017), ECF +No. 28; Jane Doe No. 103 v. Epstein, 10-cv-80309 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 9, 2010), ECF No. 5; Doe v. +Epstein, No. 08-cv-80119-KAM (S.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2009), ECF No. 253; Doe v. Epstein, No. 08- +cv-80893 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2008), ECF No. 15 at 2-3. +Plaintiff Jane Doe is one of Epstein's many victims. She kept Epstein's abuse a secret for +most of her life until she recently agreed to confidentially assist the United States Attorney's +' Plaintiff understands that at some point issues may arise regarding how to proceed with discovery of her claim. At +that time, counsel for Plaintiff intend to meet and confer about these issues with counsel for Defendants and will +bring disputes (if any) to the Court for resolution as appropriate. +1 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 4 Filed 09/18/19 Page 7 of 18 +Office for the Southern District of New York in its investigation of Epstein's crimes. Plaintiff +was identified as "Minor Victim-1" in the indictment in United States v. Epstein, No. 19-cr-490 +(S.D.N.Y) (the "Indictment"), which details Epstein's assault of her and others beginning when +she was only fourteen years old. See Indictment, United States v. Epstein, No. 19-CT-490 +(S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2019), ECF No. 2. Plaintiff expects to continue to cooperate in the +Government's stated ongoing investigation of Epstein's co-conspirators, see Statement of +Manhattan U.S. Attorney on the Death of Defendant Jeffrey Epstein (Aug. 10, 2019), +https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/statement-manhattan-us-attorney-death-defendant-jefffreyepstein ("[O]ur investigation of the conduct charged in the Indictment—-which included a +conspiracy count - remains ongoing."), and through this action seeks damages for the immense +injuries she has and continues to suffer. +The potential harm to Plaintiff if her identity were made public is manifest. Litigation +will expose some of the most intimate and humiliating moments of Plaintiff's life, furthering her +ongoing psychological harm and injuring her family and her young child, who is unaware of the +abuse Plaintiff suffered. The public scrutiny and attention paid to her would be profound and +exacerbate the harm. And the risk to her of retaliation—-not to mention the risk of potential +interference with the Government's investigation remains notwithstanding Epstein's death. +While in some cases the public interest or matters of fairness counsel against permitting +anonymity, none of those concerns are present here. There is no public interest in revealing the +identity of one of Epstein's many victims; to the contrary, allowing Plaintiff to proceed +pseudonymously fosters the public interest in having victims come forward. Further, revealing +Plaintiff's identity could interfere with the Government's ongoing investigation of Epstein's +associates. Likewise, there is no harm to Epstein's estate in allowing her to proceed +2 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 4 Filed 09/18/19 Page 8 of 18 +anonymously. The Court can establish procedures by which the estate will have the information +necessary to defend the case, while avoiding public harassment of Plaintiff. +Accordingly, and for all the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff Jane Doe respectfully +requests that this Court permit her to proceed in this case under a pseudonym. +STATEMENT OF FACTS +Jeffrey Epstein was a wealthy pedophile who, with the assistance of others, committed +sexual assaults on countless young girls for decades. Plaintiff Jane Doe is one of Epstein's +victims. As set out in detail in her Complaint, Plaintiff met Epstein when she was only fourteen +years old, and Epstein sexually assaulted and abused her for the next three years. His conduct +caused her severe emotional and economic injuries, including post-traumatic stress disorder, +which she still suffers today. +Epstein, by contrast, spent most of his life engaging in criminal sexual assault of minors +like Plaintiff, with near-total impunity. Using his wealth and connections, and with the +assistance of his co-conspirators and associates, Epstein avoided meaningful prosecution for his +crimes until July 2019. He largely did so by harassing his victims and the lawyers who +attempted to hold him accountable. According to Alexander Acosta, the former United States +Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, after the FBI opened its first investigation into +Epstein in 2006, Epstein's associates, whom Acosta described as "an army," ran "a year-long +assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors" that included "investigat[ing] individual +prosecutors and their families." See +& Lee Aitken, Jeffrey Epstein: How the +Hedge Fund Mogul Pedophile Got Off Easy, DAILY BEAST (Mar. 25, 2011), +https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffirey-epstein-how-the-hedge-fund-mogul-pedophile-got-off- +3 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 4 Filed 09/18/19 Page 9 of 18 +easy (reprinting letter Acosta "released exclusively to The Daily Beast").? Epstein likewise +attacked his victims' lawyers. In 2009, he brought a frivolous lawsuit against +a lawyer for several victims. See Complaint, Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, +, and L.M., No. 50-2009-CA-040800 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Palm Beach Cty. Dec. 7, 2009), ECF +No. 5. Epstein later "admitted to wrongfully suing" +and stated through counsel that +"[t]he lawsuit that I filed was my unreasonable attempt to damage [Mr. +I business +reputation and stop Mr. +from pursuing cases against me." Patricia Mazzei, Jeffrey +Epstein Settles Lawsuit, Avoiding Testimony From Accusers in Sex Case, NY TIMES (Dec. 4, +2018), https://nyti.ms/2zK/Gro. +On July 6, 2019, Epstein was arrested after landing in his private jet at Teterboro Airport +in New Jersey. On July 8, 2019, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New +York unsealed an indictment charging Epstein with federal sex-trafficking crimes. Plaintiff +features prominently in the Indictment, identified as "Minor Victim-l." See Indictment at 9. +Plaintiff steadfastly maintained the confidentiality of her participation in the criminal +investigation because of her very reasonable fear of the harms that would result if her identity +were made public. +Before Epstein's untimely death, Judge Richard Berman, hearing the criminal case, +recognized the risks to victims posed by Epstein and his associates. In support of Epstein's pre- +2 The result, as we now know, was that despite the fact that federal prosecutors had already "drafted an 82-page +prosecution memorandum and a 53-page indictment outlining numerous federal sexual offenses committed by +Epstein," Doe / v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1205 (S.D. Fla. 2019), the United States Attorney offered +Epstein "a remarkable deal," that allowed him to sign a non-prosecution agreement that was unlawfully hidden from +Epstein's victims, see Julie K. +_. Perversion of Justice: Undermining the Case, MIAMI HERALD (Nov. 28, +2018), https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article214210674.html (describing how "despite ample physical +evidence and multiple witnesses corroborating the girls' stories, federal prosecutors and Epstein's lawyers quietly +put together a remarkable deal for Epstein"); see also Doe 1, 359 F. Supp. 3d at 1221 (finding violation of the Crime +Victim Rights Act). Epstein was able to plead to lesser offenses and serve a lenient sentence that allowed him to +spend most of his waking hours outside of jail, where he allegedly continued to sexually assault young girls. See, +e.g., Complaint, Doe v. Indyke, No. 19-cv-7772 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2019), ECF No. 1 at 19-20. +4 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 4 Filed 09/18/19 Page 10 of 18 +trial detention, the Government had cited "extensive allegations of obstruction and tampering in +connection with civil lawsuits brought against [Epstein]," and a 2006 Palm Beach police report +describing how "the parent of one of [Epstein's] victims was driven off the road by a private +investigator." Gov't Letter in Further Supp. of Detention Mem., United States v. Epstein, No. +19-cr-490 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 12, 2019), ECF No. 11 at 11; see also id., ECF No. 11-2 (redacted copy +of 2006 Palm Beach police report). In his decision remanding Epstein to pre-trial detention, +Judge Berman relied on this evidence and discussed at length how "Mr. Epstein or his +representatives have intimidated, threatened, and/or made payments to potential witnesses." +Decision and Order Remanding Def., id., (July 18, 2019), ECF No. 32 at 15, 15-18. +On August 11, 2019, Epstein died by suicide at the Metropolitan Correctional Facility. +See Statement of Manhattan U.S. Attorney on the Death of Defendant Jeffrey Epstein (Aug. 10, +2019), https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/statement-manhattan-us-attorney-death-defendantjeffrey-epstein. Following his death, media attention to Epstein and his associates went into +overdrive. Numerous other victims have now filed suit-many using a pseudonym to protect +their identity. See Lisa Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn et al., No. 19-cv-07773 +(S.D.N.Y.); Priscilla Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn et al., No. 19-cv-07772 +(S.D.N.Y.); Katlyn Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn et al., No. 19-cv-07771 +(S.D.N.Y.); VE v. Nine East 71" Street et al., No. 19-cv-7625 (S.D.N.Y.); Jane Doe I et al. v. +Epstein et al., No. 19-cv-07675 (S.D.N.Y). And the Government has publicly stated its intention +3 The same police report documented "further information regarding victim and witness threats and intimidation +reported against an individual who was directly in contact with an assistant of [Epstein], followed "immediately" by +a call to that same individual from a phone number associated with [Epstein's] businesses and associates." Id. ECF +No. 11 at 11. A second Palm Beach police report, also attached in full to the Government's pretrial detention +memorandum, stated that "one victim reported that "she was personally contacted through a source that has +maintained contact with Epstein,' who 'assured [the vietim] that she would receive monetary compensation for her +assistance in not cooperating with law enforcement." Indeed, the victim reported having been told: "Those who help +him will be compensated and those who hurt him will be dealt with."" Id.; see also id., ECF No. 11-3 (second Palm +Beach police report). +5 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 4 Filed 09/18/19 Page 11 of 18 +to continue investigating Epstein's associates, many of whom have reportedly retained criminal +defense lawyers and/or have been named as co-defendants in separate lawsuits. +ARGUMENT +While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) provides that the "title of the complaint must +name all the parties," courts have long understood this instruction as compatible with their +discretion to permit a party with special privacy concerns to proceed under a pseudonym. See +generally, e.g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). In deciding whether a plaintiff may be +allowed to maintain an action under a pseudonym, courts balance the plaintiff's interest in +anonymity against the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the defendant. Sealed +Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 189 (2d Cir. 2008). This is a "factor-driven +balancing inquiry [that] requires a district court to exercise its discretion in the course of +weighing competing interests." Id. at 190. +The Second Circuit has set forth a list of ten non-exhaustive factors that courts may +consider in determining whether to permit a plaintiff to proceed pseudonymously: +(1) whether the litigation involves matters that are highly sensitive +and of a personal nature; +(2) whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or +mental harm to the party seeking to proceed anonymously or even +more critically, to innocent non-parties; +3) whether identification presents other harms and the likely +everity of those harms, including whether the injury litigater +against would be incurred as a result of the disclosure of the +plaintiff's identity; +(4) whether the plaintiff is particularly vulnerable to the possible +harms of disclosure, particularly in light of the plaintiff's age; +(5) whether the suit is challenging the actions of the government or +that of private parties; +6 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 4 Filed 09/18/19 Page 12 of 18 +(6) whether the defendant is prejudiced by allowing the plaintiff to +press his claims anonymously, whether the nature of that prejudice +(if any) differs at any particular stage of the litigation, and whether +any prejudice can be mitigated by the district court; +(7) whether the plaintiff's identity has thus far been kept +confidential; +(8) whether the public's interest in the litigation is furthered by +requiring the plaintiff to disclose his identity; +(9) whether, because of the purely legal nature of the issues +presented or otherwise, there is an atypically weak public interest +in knowing the litigants' identities; and +(10) whether there are any alternative mechanisms for protecting +the confidentiality of the plaintiff. +Id. (internal quotation marks, citations, brackets, and ellipses omitted); see also Doe v. Szul +Jewelry, Inc., No. 0604277/2007, 2008 WL 2157893, at *5-6 (N.Y. Cty. Sup. Ct. May 8, 2008) +(applying substantially identical test under New York state law). Courts are "not required to list +each of the factors or use any particular formulation as long as it is clear that the court balanced +the interests at stake in reaching its conclusion." Sealed Plaintiff, 537 F.3d at 191 n.4. +Here, all of the relevant factors strongly weigh in favor of granting Plaintiff's motion to +file this case using a pseudonym. Indeed, for similar reasons to those discussed below, numerous +courts have permitted Epstein's victims to proceed under pseudonyms in prior cases. See Order, +Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-cv-80119 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2009), ECF No. 253 (consolidating 11 Doe +cases against Epstein and every plaintiff to proceed anonymously in the style of the case); see +also Hr'g Tr., United States v. Epstein, No. 19-cr-490 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2019), ECF No. 53 +(allowing eight of Epstein's victims to present testimony under protective pseudonyms after +Epstein's death in connection with criminal case); Joint Rule 26(f) Report, Jane Doe 43 v. +Epstein et al., No. 17-cv-616 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2017), ECF No. 28 at 4 (Rule 26 Report noting +7 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 4 Filed 09/18/19 Page 13 of 18 +that "[d]ue to the nature of the claim, the Plaintiff has proceeded anonymously through a +pseudonym"); Order, Jane Doe No. 103 v. Epstein, No. 10-cv-80309 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 9, 2010), +ECF No. 5 (granting motion to proceed anonymously). These courts have recognized that, +throughout their litigation again Epstein, these women "will be required to disclose highly +sensitive and intimate information," and disclosure of their real names "will cause ... much +additional embarrassment, humiliation, and psychological trauma," as well as "adverse +professional and economic consequences." See Order, Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-cv-80893 (S.D. +Fla. Oct. 6, 2008), ECF No. 15 at 2-3. +Like her fellow victims, Plaintiff Jane Doe should be permitted to proceed +pseudonymously here. +A. The Risks to Plaintiff Favor Allowing Her to Proceed Under A Pseudonym +The first four factors set out by the Second Circuit in Sealed Plaintiff concern the +plaintiff's privacy and the potential harm to the plaintiff if her identity is disclosed. See 537 F.3d +at 190. Each of these factors counsels strongly in favor of allowing Plaintiff to proceed +pseudonymously. +Sexual assault claims are inherently "highly sensitive and of a personal nature." See id. +Accordingly, courts have recognized that "sexual assault victims are a paradigmatic example of +those entitled to a grant of anonymity." Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193, 195 (E.D.N.Y. +2006); see also Doe v. Skyline Automobiles Inc., 375 F. Supp. 3d 401, 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) +(finding allegations of sexual assault and ongoing sexual harassment were "highly sensitive and +of an extremely personal nature"); Doe v. Colgate Univ., No. 15-cv-1069, 2016 WL 1448829, at +*3 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2016); Doe v. Greiner, 662 F. Supp. 2d 355, 363 n.8 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) +(noting that "the identity of a minor who was the victim of a sex assault" is among the +8 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 4 Filed 09/18/19 Page 14 of 18 +"exceptional circumstances" justifying anonymity in court materials). For that reason alone, +permitting Plaintiff to proceed pseudonymously is warranted. +All of these potential harms are compounded in this case due to the great deal of public +attention surrounding Epstein's arrest and untimely death. See John Allsop, After Jeffrey +Epstein's Death, Conspiracies-and Journalism-Flourish, CoLUM. JOURNALISM REV.: THe +MEDIA TODAY (Aug. 12, 2019), https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/jeffrey_epstein_suicide_ +conspiracies.php; see also Doe v. Colgate Univ., 2016 WL 1448829, at *2 (recognizing that +"significant media attention" poses "the risk of further reputational harm" to plaintiffs). The +public identification of Jane Doe would undoubtedly lead to media scrutiny. That attention +would not only exacerbate Plaintiff's psychological injury but also is likely to lead to harassment +and cause further harm to her family and friends. Plaintiff has a legitimate fear that her public +identification could put her job, relationships, and well-being at risk. +In this case, identifying Plaintiff also "poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental +harm." Sealed Plaintiff, 537 F.3d at 190. Although Epstein is deceased, a number of his +associates are the subjects of potential criminal investigation and civil lawsuits. Many of these +same individuals have already proven that they will intimidate and attempt to silence any of his +identifiable victims. See Decision and Order Remanding Def., United States v. Epstein, No. 19- +cr-490 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2019), ECF No. 32 at 15, 15-18. This well-established history of +retaliation justifies permitting Plaintiff to proceed pseudonymously. See, e.g., Doe v. Solera +Capital LLC, No. 18-cv-1769, 2019 WL 1437520, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019) ("[C]ourts +have allowed plaintiffs to proceed anonymously where disclosure of their identities created a risk +of harm from third parties unaffiliated with the case."); L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, No. 06-cv-2042, +2007 WL 662463, at *16 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2007); see also Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced +9 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 4 Filed 09/18/19 Page 15 of 18 +Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1070 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that plaintiffs may proceed +anonymously "to protect themselves from retaliation by third parties"). +B. +Public Policy and the Public Interest Favor Protecting Plaintiff's Privacy +Under Sealed Plaintiff, courts balance the plaintiff's interest in privacy with the public's +countervailing interest in the litigation. 537 F.3d at 190. +Here, there simply is no public interest served by revealing the identity of one of +Epstein's many victims. To the contrary, the public interest would be best served by permitting +Plaintiff to seek justice under a protective pseudonym. New York State has a strong public +policy interest in protecting the privacy interests of victims of sexual abuse, as demonstrated by +Section 50-b of the Civil Rights Law, which protects sex-abuse survivors from undesired +identification in a range of public administrative contexts, including certain court proceedings. +See N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 50-b (McKinney 2019) (shielding sex-abuse victims from +identification in, among other things, any "police report, court file, or other document"). +Moreover, in addition to the public's general interest in protecting the well-being of victims, "the +public generally has a strong interest in protecting the identities of sexual assault victims so that +other victims will not be deterred from reporting such crimes." See Kolko, 242 F.R.D. at 195-96. +In consideration of that strong public policy, federal courts have permitted victims of sexual +assault to proceed anonymously in similar cases. +Allowing Plaintiff to proceed pseudonymously would also avoid unnecessary +interference with the federal government's ongoing criminal investigation into Epstein's +network. This Court's decision to permit Plaintiff to proceed under a protective pseudonym +would thus not only protect her privacy and security but advance an important public interest in +facilitating the orderly administration of criminal justice. +10 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 4 Filed 09/18/19 Page 16 of 18 +C. Allowing Plaintiff to Proceed Pseudonymously Will Not Prejudice Defendant +In considering whether to permit a plaintiff to proceed anonymously, courts also balance +the harm to the plaintiff with the potential prejudice to the defendant. See Sealed Plaintiff, 537 +F.3d at 189. The relevant considerations are the damage to the defendant's reputation caused by +responding to anonymous allegations, difficulties in conducting discovery, and the fundamental +fairness of proceeding in such a manner. E.W. v. N.Y. Blood Ctr., 213 F.R.D. 108, 112 +(E.D.N.Y. 2009). None of these factors counsels against allowing Plaintiff to proceed +pseudonymously here. +As an initial matter, Epstein's reputation as a perpetrator of child sexual abuse is well +established. He was a registered sex offender in New York as of 2010, see +Romero and +Nicholas Kulish, Jeffrey Epstein Registered as a Sex Offender in 2 States. In New Mexico, He +Didn't Have To., N.Y. TImes (July 11, 2019), https://nyti.ms/2NS8DIQ, and the details of his +crimes have been widely publicized. Indeed, rather than avoid this publicity during his lifetime, +Epstein essentially admitted that he had committed the same type of conduct underlying +Plaintiff's complaint. See James Stewart, The Day Jeffrey Epstein Told Me He Had Dirt on +Powerful People, N.Y. Times (Aug. 12, 2019), https://nyti.ms/2OSplcF (describing how Epstein +told reporter that "criminalizing sex with teenage girls was a cultural aberration and that at times +in history it was perfectly acceptable"). This case, more than any, is one in which "any +reputational harm to defendants has already been inflicted." Doe #1 v. Syracuse Univ., No. 18- +cv-496, 2018 WL 7079489, at*8 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 10, 2018). +Permitting Plaintiff to proceed under a protective pseudonym also will not inhibit +Epstein's estate from conducting discovery and reasonably defending this case. Plaintiff's +counsel expects to make reasonable accommodations to facilitate the fair and orderly resolution +11 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 4 Filed 09/18/19 Page 17 of 18 +of this case, including providing Plaintiff's name to Defendant's counsel under conditions that +will reasonably protect the safety of Plaintiff, her family, and potential witnesses. Where a +defendant's counsel is made aware of plaintiff's identity, there is no "prejudice to [defendant's] +ability to conduct discovery or try the matter if plaintiff were to proceed under a pseudonym." +See E.W., 213 F.R.D. at 112; see also Kolko, 242 F.R.D. at 198 (finding that where defendants +know plaintiff's identity, "defendants will not be hampered or inconvenienced merely by +plaintiff's anonymity in court papers"). As in other cases in which courts have permitted +plaintiffs to proceed under a protective pseudonym, the requested order "may not and will not +hinder defendant's ability to pursue his legal defense in any way." Doe v. +105 F. Supp. +2d 40, 45 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) (no prejudice to defendant where plaintiff's anonymity did not +interfere with ability to take depositions, obtain documents, or limit defendant's trial rights or +public's access rights). +D. +Plaintiff Jane Doe Has Diligently Worked to Keep Her Identity Confidential +And There is No Alternative Mechanism For Protecting Her Confidentiality +Importantly, Plaintiff has worked diligently to safeguard her identity. She has never +spoken to the press or publicly identified herself in any way associated with her allegations. In +the related criminal case, federal prosecutors have carefully protected her identity. These efforts +underscore the strength of her petition to proceed pseudonymously in her civil action. See, e.g., +Solera Capital, 2019 WL 1437520, at *7 (finding that "the fact that Doe's anonymity to the +public has been preserved to date" counsels in favor of proceeding pseudonymously). This is not +a case where Plaintiff has sought some perceived advantage by broadcasting her identity in +public while attempting to shield it in court. Cf. Doe v. Fedcap. Rehab. Services, Inc., No. 17- +cv-8220, 2018 WL 2021588, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2018) (vacating grant of pseudonymity +after plaintiff voluntarily participated in major news story using their real name). +12 + + +Filed 09/18/19 Page 18 of 18 +Moreover, allowing Plaintiff to proceed pseudonymously here is the only mechanism +available to continue to protect her identity. See Sealed Plaintiff, 537 F.3d at 190. Given the +certain prospect of intensive media scrutiny of this case, anything less than full protection of +Plaintiff's name will subject her to immediate and irreversible identification and all of its +negative consequences described above. +CONCLUSION +For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant +Plaintiff's motion and allow her to file her complaint using a pseudonym. +Dated: September 18, 2019 +Respectfully submitted, +Roli +Roberta A. Kaplan +Julie E. Fink +Jenna M. Dabbs +Justin Horton +Alexandra K. Conlon (admission pending) +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP +350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 +New York, New York 10118 +Telephone: (212) 763-0883 +Facsimile: (212) 564-0883 +rkaplan(@kaplanhecker.com +jfink@kaplanhecker.com +jdabbs@kaplanhecker.com +jhorton@kaplanhecker.com +aconlon@kaplanhecker.com +Attorneys for Plaintiff Jane Doe +13 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb3ec6eba788c7cf5bf15e0bc6a89e0b3bb13bb74cef03b3248309f9afad1cc6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb3ec6eba788c7cf5bf15e0bc6a89e0b3bb13bb74cef03b3248309f9afad1cc6.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dd374aae07c571220890aaef6b95b59fd9c7c59a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb3ec6eba788c7cf5bf15e0bc6a89e0b3bb13bb74cef03b3248309f9afad1cc6.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -347, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bb3ec6eba788c7cf5bf15e0bc6a89e0b3bb13bb74cef03b3248309f9afad1cc6", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 22, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0a222aa321a9a7930d8629b358bf6d58416bafc67087c570fd4f9f898ac2fec7", + "output_sha256": "428728ce7832d33be67f3f7f0a699c9ca1bc4dcdf9f9b660ac77b71e9423fcf8", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb3f128930d0c972cc681ffe8a1f05a7b26deb9e81bac2a74369f28442f5ad2a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb3f128930d0c972cc681ffe8a1f05a7b26deb9e81bac2a74369f28442f5ad2a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2b8214e279a072e5cede121d6441a232d7a89a4f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb3f128930d0c972cc681ffe8a1f05a7b26deb9e81bac2a74369f28442f5ad2a.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DECLARATION OF JEFFREY M. HERMAN REGARDING SERVICE +OF PROCESS AND THIS COURT'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE +Jeffrey M. Herman, deposes and states as follows: +I am counsel for Plaintiff in this action. After the parties' briefed the issue of service +of process on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, this Court found valid service under New York law and +entered an Order to Show Cause Why Default Should Not be Entered Against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein, dated July 16, 2008. +I submit this Declaration to correct what appears to be a factual error in the Court's +Order to Show Cause. I do so even though this error is in Plaintiff's favor. +3. +In the Order to Show Cause, this Court finds that "It]he process server also mailed a +copy of the summons and complaint to Defendant on May 5, 2008, via first class mail. (DE 4)." It is +my understanding that the Affidavit of Service (DE 4) crosses out language regarding mail to the +Defendant, and that the process server in this case did not mail a copy of the Summons and +Complaint to the Defendant's New York address. In none of the papers Plaintiff filed in this matter +is it asserted that the Summons and Complaint was mailed, nor did Plaintiff claim that service was +valid under New York law. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 2 of 2 +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/_ +Under penalties of perjury, I declare the foregoing to be true and correct. +Dated: July 21, 2008. +s/ Jeffrey M. Herman +Jeffrey M. Herman +Herman & Mermelstein, P. A. +2 +www.hermanlaw.com diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb3f128930d0c972cc681ffe8a1f05a7b26deb9e81bac2a74369f28442f5ad2a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb3f128930d0c972cc681ffe8a1f05a7b26deb9e81bac2a74369f28442f5ad2a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d90a7d624ea61cfde015c0b64fb4127c9a95bb09 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb3f128930d0c972cc681ffe8a1f05a7b26deb9e81bac2a74369f28442f5ad2a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bb3f128930d0c972cc681ffe8a1f05a7b26deb9e81bac2a74369f28442f5ad2a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "790a6a49d2b85e7284233653e8ee79d766c4115cfeb287845a70afd58f58a989", + "output_sha256": "ac133badaa671faf6916899c67457fbdee764add3f38dfe73bef7e5cee943521", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb46da2df1d5f852894e7e0a576fee767f818025b087b6d435510d06e6fb2ae6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb46da2df1d5f852894e7e0a576fee767f818025b087b6d435510d06e6fb2ae6.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..80a24fd8284ac68d6ef521c632967eb98cba492e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb46da2df1d5f852894e7e0a576fee767f818025b087b6d435510d06e6fb2ae6.md @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 359-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2009 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRAL +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +ORDER +This matter came before the Court on Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S, Notice +of Withdrawal of Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-8' Appeal (DE +292) as Untimely (DE 334) and Plaintiffs' Notice of Withdrawal of their Response in +Opposition to the Motion to Strike (DE 340). Having considered Defendant's Notice of +Withdrawal and Plaintiffs' Notice of Withdrawal, and both counsel being in agreement +with the requested, it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: +Defendant shall serve his Response in Opposition to the Rule 4 Appeal filed by +Jane Does 2-8 on or before November 3, 2009. +DONE and ORDERED this +_day of +_ 2009. +Kenneth A. Marra +United States District Judge +Courtesy Copies: +Counsel of Record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb46da2df1d5f852894e7e0a576fee767f818025b087b6d435510d06e6fb2ae6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb46da2df1d5f852894e7e0a576fee767f818025b087b6d435510d06e6fb2ae6.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..79766db6ef85110720e4f733c905a3654e6282bf --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb46da2df1d5f852894e7e0a576fee767f818025b087b6d435510d06e6fb2ae6.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bb46da2df1d5f852894e7e0a576fee767f818025b087b6d435510d06e6fb2ae6", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f5b8e0712d539ea1e2d9fd63d542feafd450ef35db9eff7f02e2f7bf73084d1e", + "output_sha256": "4db2cd6be4921bfe2515d3e8f71fa11494a9053d91a3b5ed6db080153ed11f07", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb88a9730bc142f8f4c1ca2e18cdd7c1ed4c99bfe94b2e69acd850dc6ff99bc5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb88a9730bc142f8f4c1ca2e18cdd7c1ed4c99bfe94b2e69acd850dc6ff99bc5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1b30342947cd9af2262172e61250d571ce47298e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb88a9730bc142f8f4c1ca2e18cdd7c1ed4c99bfe94b2e69acd850dc6ff99bc5.md @@ -0,0 +1,248 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 1 of 10 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 2 of 10 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 7, +CASE NO.: 08- 80993-CIV-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO +COMPEL RESPONSE TO FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE, OVERRULE +OBJECTIONS AND FOR AN AWARD OF REASONABLE EXPENSES +Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-7, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby file this +Memorandum in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Compel Response to First Request to +Produce, Overrule Objections, and for an Award of Reasonable Expenses, and state as follows: +I. +Introduction +Defendant Epstein served a Request for Production, which includes (Request #s 10, 11, +17 and 18) requests that seek to unearth all recordings and depictions of every instance of sexual +conduct and activity which each Jane Doe might have engaged and documents evidencing the +names and contact information of each sexual partner over the past nine years. +Plaintiffs +properly objected to these Requests, in that discovery on the sexual history of a childhood abuse +victim is substantially limited in federal court; "courts should presumptively issue protective +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 3 of 10 +orders barring discovery unless the party seeking discovery makes a showing that the evidence +sought to be discovered would be relevant under the facts and theories of the particular case and +cannot be obtained except through discovery." See Fed. R. Evid. 412, Advisory Committee +Notes to 1994 Amendments, subdivision (c). Defendant has made no such showing in his +Motion to Compel to overcome this presumption. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Compel +must be denied in its entirety. +Defendant also seeks in Request #1 "all tax returns and supporting documentation" dating +back to 2002. Plaintiffs properly objected to this harassing and burdensome request, which is not +reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence in the present sexual abuse case, particularly +since Plaintiffs are not making a lost wages or lost income claim. Plaintiffs have already +disclosed their entire employment history and the request at issue is far broader than necessary to +determine Plaintiffs' employment or earnings history. +Il. +Argument +Initially, it must be brought to the Court's attention that Epstein's request for depictions +or recordings of the plaintiff engaged in sexual or simulated sexual activity since the year 2000 +includes materials which are unlawful for anyone to possess, particularly a registered sex +offender such as Epstein. The notion that a registered sex offender is seeking child pornography +should disturb this Court as much as it irks the Plaintiffs. +Epstein incorrectly argues that Fed.R.Evid 412 is strictly an evidentiary rule and that +Rule 26(b) must be read exclusively to determine whether information about an abuse victim's +sexual history is discoverable. The Rule 412 Advisory Committee Notes, however, instruct that +Rule 412 affects not only the admissibility of evidence at trial, but must also "inform the +discovery process." Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D. Haw. 1996). The +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 4 of 10 +Committee Notes state, in relevant part, as follows: +Courts should presumptively issue protective orders barring +discovery unless the party seeking discovery makes a showing that +the evidence sought to be discovered would be relevant under the +facts and theories of the particular case and cannot be obtained +except through discovery. +Nowhere in Defendant's Motion is it explained how or why this presumption should be +overcome. It is well established under Fed.R.Evid. 412 that a victim's past sexual behavior is +wholly irrelevant to the credibility of her testimony, and that her prior and subsequent sexual +activity with third parties has no bearing on the issue of whether she consented to or complied +with the sexual acts charged. See United States v. +472 F.2d 909, 919 (5th Cir. 1973); +Virgin Islands v. +634 F.Supp. 933, 936-37 (D. V.I. 1986) (policy of rule disallowing +evidence to show character of assault victim; Dept. of Professional Regulation v. Wise, 575 +So.2d 713 (Fla. Ist DCA 1991) (holding that evidence of sexual relations with a person other +than an accused is not relevant). One commentator has noted that once the identity of persons +and similarity of circumstances are removed, "probative value all but disappears." See Ordover, +Admissibility of Patterns of Similar Sexual Conduct: The Unlamented Death of Character for +Chastity, 63 Cornell L. Rev. 96, 106 (1977). The discovery at issue is not limited to sexual +contact involving similar circumstances, and is therefore lacking in probative value. Defendant +fails in his Motion to demonstrate otherwise. +Defendant's argument that Rule 412 is merely an evidentiary rule that should be +disregarded in discovery disputes has been routinely rejected in federal courts. See, e.g., Barta v. +City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D. Haw. 1996) (granting protective order +pursuant to Rule 412 to prevent a sexual battery and harassment victim from having to disclose +off-duty sexual contacts with persons other than defendant in discovery); Herron v. Eastern +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 5 of 10 +Industries, Inc., 2007 WL 2781211 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2007); Gibbons v. Food Lion, Inc., 1999 +WL 33226474 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 1999); P.J. Herchenroeder v. John | +| Univ. Applied +Physical Lab, 171 F.RD. 179 (D. Md. 1997) (looking at both Rule 26 and Rule 412 in resolving +discovery motion); +v. Zabihi, 166 F.R.D. 500 (D. N.M. 1996) (explaining that +"[a]lthough the present motion arises in the context of discovery under Rule 26, the Court must +remain mindful of Rule 412 and its implications); Stalnaker v. Kmart Corp., 1996 WL 397563 +(D. Kan. 1996) (noting that Rule 412 "is applicable and has significance in deciding certain +discovery motions*). +As the above-referenced cases make abundantly clear, childhood sexual abuse cases are +not garden-variety litigation subject to traditional broad discovery concerning a victim's sexual +history. +Rule 412 is designed to protect victims of sexual misconduct from undue +embarrassment and intrusion into their private affairs. See Fed R.Evid. 412. The committee +notes explain that the Rule is also intended to prevent "sexual stereotyping that is associated with +public disclosure of intimate sexual details and the infusion of sexual innuendo into the +factfinding process." Rule 412, Advisory Committee Notes to 1994 Amendments. Common +sense dictates that requiring a sexual abuse victim to disclose the intimate details and recordings +sought by Epstein during the discovery process - which then would presumably lead to +additional discovery of the victim's other sexual partners - would be at least as embarrassing and +intrusive during the discovery process as it would be if the victim were questioned about these +facts at trial, if not more. Thus, in order to carry out its purpose, Rule 412 "must inform the +discovery process" and the Court "must impose certain restriction on discovery to preclude +inquiry into areas which will clearly fail to satisfy the balancing test" set forth in Rule 412. See +Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. at 135. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 6 of 10 +In Barta, the Court confronted this issue in the context of a discovery motion in a civil +case. 169 F.R.D. at 133. A former employee brought a sexual harassment and battery claim +against her former employer and individual employees. Id. The defendants asked questions at +deposition which delved into the plaintiff's sexual conduct outside the workplace. Id. at 134. The +Court did not allow these questions and wait until trial to determine admissibility. Id. at 135. +Instead, the Court sustained the plaintiff's objections. Id. The Court based its decision on +Fed.R.Evid. 412. Id. Although noting that Rule 412 controls the admissibility of evidence, the +Court explained that it must also apply Rule 412 to "impose certain restrictions on discovery to +preclude inquiry into areas which will clearly satisfy the balancing test of 412(b)(2)..." Id. +Thus, the Court concluded that the defendants should not be permitted to inquire into the +plaintiff's conduct while she was off-duty, outside the workplace, and which did not involve the +same defendants. The same rationale should apply here. The Defendant should not be permitted +to seek intimate details and recordings of Plaintiff's sexual conduct throughout her life. +Defendant attached three Florida state court orders to its Motion, two of which are trial +court decisions. These cases do not serve as precedent for this Court, and in any event, they are +not persuasive. Unlike state courts, federal courts must focus on the interplay between +Fed.R.Evid. 412 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b), and in this regard must be concerned with +embarrassment to the victim and protection of her privacy. Indeed, it does not appear that an +analogous argument was made in any of the state court cases relied upon by Defendant. +Furthermore, the discovery in Balas v. Russo, 703 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) was far +narrower than that which is at issue here. It was limited to asking plaintiffs for their employment +history (which admittedly included prostitution), employment records, electronic recording of the +conduct which was the subject of the complaint, and a description of her damages. 703 So.2d +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 7 of 10 +1077-78. At no time were the plaintiffs in Balas asked to disclose their entire sexually history +beginning at age 10. Id. Thus, the three state court cases cited in the Motion are not helpful to +the Defendant, and should not deflect attention from the burden placed on the party in federal +court seeking discovery of a victim's other sexual contacts. +With regard to Request #1 for "all tax returns and supporting documentation", the +Defendant has not (and cannot) show how these documents are conceivably relevant. Plaintiffs +are not making a claim for lost income or wages. See Exhibit "A". Moreover, Plaintiffs have +disclosed their entire employment history and agreed to execute authorizations allowing +Defendant to obtain their employment personnel records. Given the nature of the claim +involving sexual assault, it is inconceivable how the tax returns, W-2s, and 1099s, and all other +"supporting documentation" could be relevant. Cases in which the plaintiff has been ordered to +produce tax returns is limited to situations involving +transactions or in which the plaintiff is +seeking to recover lost wages, lost profits, royalty payments, or similar relief. See Bellose v. +Universal Tile Restoration, 2008 WL 2620735 (S.D. Fla. June 30, 2008); United States v. +Certain Real Property ,444 F.Supp.2d 1258 (S.D. Fla. 2006). The instant case involving sexual +assault is readily distinguishable and the mere filing of a lawsuit does not place all of one's +income and earnings at issue. Further, if it is Plaintiff's employment history or earnings that +Defendants are seeking to discover, a request for all "supporting documentation" pertaining to +their tax returns is overbroad and far more burdensome than necessary to acquire this +information. +Finally, Defendant's request for attorney's fees and costs is completely unwarranted. The +present motion and response involve good-faith, timely and well-founded objections by Plaintiffs +to over-reaching and harassing discovery efforts. Accordingly, Defendant's request for award of +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 8 of 10 +reasonable expenses should be denied. +Conclusion +Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request that Defendant's Motion to +Compel Response to First Request to Produce, Overrule Objections, and for an Award of +Reasonable Expenses be denied in their entirety. +Dated: May 6, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Adam D. Horowitz +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 9 of 10 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on May 6, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served +this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission +of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for +those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 10 of 10 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +10 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb88a9730bc142f8f4c1ca2e18cdd7c1ed4c99bfe94b2e69acd850dc6ff99bc5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb88a9730bc142f8f4c1ca2e18cdd7c1ed4c99bfe94b2e69acd850dc6ff99bc5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5852c328b822f2a6c9fd7d68d48dacca95809984 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb88a9730bc142f8f4c1ca2e18cdd7c1ed4c99bfe94b2e69acd850dc6ff99bc5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -120, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bb88a9730bc142f8f4c1ca2e18cdd7c1ed4c99bfe94b2e69acd850dc6ff99bc5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 10, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4d88347a54afd120d4a11140f552b6784ca510ee87b216c48319cec445b1b492", + "output_sha256": "e36b7bd1bde7870c060ff7b09d5b1da8018bbdb5f1ea9681a25c100299ef35c5", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb9e3bf73d9feead3290245b264b697be5fa6835b0540c85e540f34b2f831a99.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb9e3bf73d9feead3290245b264b697be5fa6835b0540c85e540f34b2f831a99.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..674cba6fc7fc0200790d7f41f1c2940ff4093d5e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb9e3bf73d9feead3290245b264b697be5fa6835b0540c85e540f34b2f831a99.md @@ -0,0 +1,136 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 530 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2010 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/J +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME +TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY DEADLINES AS TO +JANE DOE (08-80893) +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, and Plaintiff, +JANE DOE, by and through her undersigned attorney respectfully moves this Court for an +extension of time to complete discovery deadlines, and as good cause in support of granting the +motion, states as follows: +This case is currently set on a two week trial docket commencing on July 19, +2010. +The majority of the depositions have been completed, however, a number of +witness depositions have yet to occur, including expert witnesses. +The scheduling of depositions in this matter has become much more difficult +since the case was consolidated on May 14, 2009, due to the number of attorneys involved and + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 530 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2010 Page 2 of 4 +Page 2 +the fact that witnesses, plaintiffs and the defendant may only be deposed once. (See Order +Consolidating Cases for Purpose of Discovery and Procedural Motions That Relate to Multiple +Cases). Additionally, many of the witnesses retained their own counsel, and the depositions +need to be coordinated with those attorneys' schedules. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant request that this Court enter an order +granting the Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Deadline. +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1 +Counsel for the parties conferred via e-mail and are in agreement with moving the above +dates. +By: /s/ Robert D. Critton_ +ROBERT D. CRITTON, ESQ. +Florida Bar # 224162 +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by +CM/ECF on this 23" day of April, 2010. +Respectfully submitted, +By: Is/ Robert D. Critton +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 530 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2010 Page 3 of 4 +Page 3 +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Brad +Esquire +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +, Jafte, Weissing, +Fistos & +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +Lehrman, PL +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +425 N. Andrews Avenue +Suite 2218 +Suite 2 +Miami, FL 33160 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +305-931-2200 +Phone: 954-524-2820 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +Fax: 954-524-2822 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +brad@pathtojustice.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08- +80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, +08-80993, 08- Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +80994 +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +801-585-5202 +250 Australian Avenue South +801-585-6833 Fax +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 530 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2010 Page 4 of 4 +Page 4 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +305 358-2800 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. +09-80591 and 09-80656 +Isidro M. +Esq. +Law Firm, P.A. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- +80469 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb9e3bf73d9feead3290245b264b697be5fa6835b0540c85e540f34b2f831a99.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb9e3bf73d9feead3290245b264b697be5fa6835b0540c85e540f34b2f831a99.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ebc5ff40ed12b07ec9dd75126960e78afc63f90f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bb9e3bf73d9feead3290245b264b697be5fa6835b0540c85e540f34b2f831a99.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -133, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bb9e3bf73d9feead3290245b264b697be5fa6835b0540c85e540f34b2f831a99", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0f73fdaf1d6e9d126ce98ea069b3c6f07f88c95b928a567f0d5e9cd800cf4919", + "output_sha256": "f8242c01f1ed48d9d3e872666ff501d3c71989a739cfe953df52c89cb0419796", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bba56a8923bf3081d34e86626d6ea41ce63000873415cf76990b6ce2aab2c286.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bba56a8923bf3081d34e86626d6ea41ce63000873415cf76990b6ce2aab2c286.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dc73a35780202a76606f0f8f5a29c62c25c1644c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bba56a8923bf3081d34e86626d6ea41ce63000873415cf76990b6ce2aab2c286.md @@ -0,0 +1,137 @@ +Case 9:08 cv 89232 508 cReen 68: 571er008 9{A A 97/1299 Page 1 of 2 +LRJ +U.S. District Court +Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) +CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:08-cv-80232-KAM +Internal Use Only +Doe No. 3 v. Epstein +Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra +Case: 2:08-cv-80119-KAM +Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury +Plaintiff +Jane Doe No. 3 +Date Filed: 03/05/2008 +Jury Demand: Plaintit +Nature of Suit: 360 P.I.: Othe +Jurisdiction: Diversity +represented by Adam D. Horowitz +Herman &Mermelstein, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd. +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +Email: ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +LEAD ATTORNEY +ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED +Jeffrey Mare Herman +Herman &Mermelstein +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 931-0877 +Email: jherman@hermanlaw.com +LEAD ATTORNEY +ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED +Stuart S. Mermelstein +Herman &Mermelstein +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 931-0877 +Email: Irivera@hermanlaw.com +LEAD ATTORNEY +ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED +V. +Defendant +Jeffrey Epstein +represented by Jack Alan Goldberger +250 Australian Avenue Socis, P.A. +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 835-8691 +Email: jagesq@bellsouth.net +ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED +Michael +_Tein +059 Grand Avenu +Suite 340 + + +Case 9:08 cv 89232 508 cReen A6: 571е792008 A AA $7/1@29 Page 2 0f2 +Coconut Grove, FL 33133 +305-442-1101 +Fax: 442-6744 +Email: tein@lewistein.com +ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED +Date Filed +03/05/2008 +03/05/2008 +03/11/2008 +# +05/22/2008 +05/29/2008 +06/13/2008 +06/13/2008 +06/20/2008 +06/20/2008 +06/24/2008 +07/01/2008 +07/08/2008 +07/10/2008 +07/10/2008 +07/10/2008 +07/16/2008 +Docket Text +1 +COMPLAINT against Jeffrey Epstein. Filing fee $350. Receipt No. 542467, +filed by Jane Doe No. 3.(caw) (Entered: 03/05/2008) +2 +Summons Issued as to Jeffrey Epstein. (caw) (Entered: 03/05/2008) +3 +ORDER requiring counsel to conter, file joint scheduling report and file joint +discovery report;Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 03/11/2008.(bs) +(Entered: 03/11/2008) +4 +AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Complaint served on Jeffrey Epstein +on May 7, 2008, filed by Jane Doe No. 3. (Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: +05/22/2008) +5 Plaintiff's MOTION for Entry of Default by Clerk Against Defendant by Jane +Doe No. 3. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A and B, # 2 Text of Proposed Order +Default Order)(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 05/29/2008) +NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jack Alan Goldberger on behalf of Jeffrey +Epstein (Goldberger, Jack) (Entered: 06/13/2008) +RESPONSE to Motion re 1 Plaintiff's MOTION for Entry of Default by Clerk +Against Defendant Jane Doe No. 3 filed by Jeffrey Epstein. Replies due by +6/23/2008. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit of Richard Barnett) (Goldberger, Jack) +(Entered: 06/13/2008) +8 +Defendant's MOTION to Stay by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 7/10/2008 +(Goldberger, Jack) (Entered: 06/20/2008) +2 +Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer Or Otherwise +Respond To Complaint by Jeffrey Epstein. (Goldberger, Jack) (Entered: +06/20/2008) +MEMORANDUM in Support re 1 Plaintiff's MOTION for Entry of Default by +Clerk Against Defendant filed by Jane Doe No. 3. (Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: +06/24/2008) +NOTICE by Jeffrey Epstein Concerning Motion To Stay [DE 8] (Attachments: # +1 Exhibit "A" Final Disposition Sheets)(Goldberger, Jack) (Entered: 07/01/2008) +12 +VOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Micha +Tein on behalf of Jeffrey +pstein (Tein, Michael) (Entered: 07/08/2008 +13 Plaintif's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 8 Defendant's +MOTION to Stay by Jane Doe No. 3. (Attachments: #1 Text of Propose +Order)(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 07710/2008 +14 Sealed Document. (yc) (Entered: 07/10/2008) +15 +Sealed Document. (yc) (Entered: 07/10/2008) +07/16/2008 +17 +: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why default should not be entered against +e adant. Show Cause Response due by 7/28/2008. Signed by Judge Kennet +7/16/08. (ir) (Entered: 07/16/200: diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bba56a8923bf3081d34e86626d6ea41ce63000873415cf76990b6ce2aab2c286.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bba56a8923bf3081d34e86626d6ea41ce63000873415cf76990b6ce2aab2c286.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6e6f5953f93e047047850b136ad2f13ee869ee13 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bba56a8923bf3081d34e86626d6ea41ce63000873415cf76990b6ce2aab2c286.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bba56a8923bf3081d34e86626d6ea41ce63000873415cf76990b6ce2aab2c286", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "58ab5a0ff55eb058fc8ef69da8925166ebb4a29c33cbad1fdcf1ad02efe550c3", + "output_sha256": "b3cb3035bbbc6e3f5f24c4b5f3b8469171e8a0d6a5fe51d62798b699590ad87b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bbe13697ef716ae03ecf58290f464b0baeebf0547286debfd9e62ba87b9ffb3e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bbe13697ef716ae03ecf58290f464b0baeebf0547286debfd9e62ba87b9ffb3e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f01e742585f68afbf151e6c14fe0c4f128f3d45a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bbe13697ef716ae03ecf58290f464b0baeebf0547286debfd9e62ba87b9ffb3e.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 56-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2009 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 09-80469-Cr-Marra +JANE DOE II, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +and +Defendants. +ORDER +THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant +Motion to Adopt Co- +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Dismiss and Reply. The Court has reviewed the motion and +the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Accordingly, it is hereby +ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant +Motion to Adopt is GRANTED +and +is given leave to adopt as her own: (1) co-defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to +Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and Supporting Memorandum and Exhibits (DE 13); and (2) codefendant Jeffrey Epstein's Reply in Opposition to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Epstein's +Motion to Dismiss (DE 31). +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Florida, Palm Beach County, +Florida, this +day of August 2009. +Kenneth A. Marra +United States District Judge +Copies furnished to: +All counsel of record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bbe13697ef716ae03ecf58290f464b0baeebf0547286debfd9e62ba87b9ffb3e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bbe13697ef716ae03ecf58290f464b0baeebf0547286debfd9e62ba87b9ffb3e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..68d90021b2f71f6a891e2f1ee8a1e5b2adc4438d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bbe13697ef716ae03ecf58290f464b0baeebf0547286debfd9e62ba87b9ffb3e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -14, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bbe13697ef716ae03ecf58290f464b0baeebf0547286debfd9e62ba87b9ffb3e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "7467aed74153a65ad963ed157bf067a5d00cd153839944afea76b57bd3a7a6ed", + "output_sha256": "5be1185e4e95ea38bb8f7a7bccb5cf353b9af448e8afeecc13f789f98b676a4a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bbeff4cd5113a6e5abafe4b88604346b65bb9d11c5c1ce48f56252343417aa69.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bbeff4cd5113a6e5abafe4b88604346b65bb9d11c5c1ce48f56252343417aa69.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..695a107283ed7cbe88db8b9e69ba5436bd6adbf8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bbeff4cd5113a6e5abafe4b88604346b65bb9d11c5c1ce48f56252343417aa69.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 96 +Sanders LLP +Troutman Pepper +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +troutman.com +Filed 11/02/20 Page 1 of 1 +troutman™ +pepper +Bennet J. Moskowitz +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +November 2, 2020 +VIA ECF +Hon. Debra C. Freeman +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +New York, NY 10007 +Re: +Jane Doe v. Darren Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in their capacities as +the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, et al., +No. 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF; Status Report +Dear Judge Freeman: +Pursuant to the Court's September 4, 2020 Order (ECF No. 94), Plaintiff and +Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey +E. Epstein, jointly submit this status report. +Plaintiff has submitted her claim to the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program +and received a compensation amount. Plaintiff has not yet accepted the compensation +award. +The parties respectfully request that this case remain stayed at this time. +Respectfully submitted, +/s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) +111059831v1 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bbeff4cd5113a6e5abafe4b88604346b65bb9d11c5c1ce48f56252343417aa69.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bbeff4cd5113a6e5abafe4b88604346b65bb9d11c5c1ce48f56252343417aa69.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1eacc17567d41bfcc63b8bbc2362e14bd5fd9290 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bbeff4cd5113a6e5abafe4b88604346b65bb9d11c5c1ce48f56252343417aa69.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bbeff4cd5113a6e5abafe4b88604346b65bb9d11c5c1ce48f56252343417aa69", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f924d0d99503c5c8fc8c3af24ebd0c9d328671d4e907c3fe7a934fdbef16efa1", + "output_sha256": "4d22d6e6cc981f548fdf48e26b50dbb27e5dac77f62a975571e9d0effa24cd5b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bbf174341083a02472612c84c3a13cb17e723f0134b3e41b5eba8bba0759961e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bbf174341083a02472612c84c3a13cb17e723f0134b3e41b5eba8bba0759961e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aa87505eec59b095d295e2bed8e734838e5a9dcd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bbf174341083a02472612c84c3a13cb17e723f0134b3e41b5eba8bba0759961e.md @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2008 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +EPSTEIN'S NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF +MOTION [DE 9) TO SET ASIDE CLERK'S DEFAULT +COMES NOW the Defendant, Jeffrey Esptein, by and through his undersigned +attorney and files this Notice of Withdrawal Of Reply In Support Of Motion [DE 9] To Set Aside +Clerk's Default which was filed on July 8, 2008, and as grounds state as follows: +1. +The above reply has already been filed by co-counsel [DE 17]. +IHEREBY CERTIFY that on July 8, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +day on all counsel of record identified on the following service list via transmission of Notices of +Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Tel. 561 659 8300 +Fax. 561 835 8691 +By: /s/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger +Fla. Bar No. 262013 +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2008 Page 2 of 2 +SERVICE LIST +Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. +182 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bbf174341083a02472612c84c3a13cb17e723f0134b3e41b5eba8bba0759961e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bbf174341083a02472612c84c3a13cb17e723f0134b3e41b5eba8bba0759961e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b6d65c0bfd67b54921f56c140d6154a8a2d7f61b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bbf174341083a02472612c84c3a13cb17e723f0134b3e41b5eba8bba0759961e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bbf174341083a02472612c84c3a13cb17e723f0134b3e41b5eba8bba0759961e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "70400a55ab46e705926c525051cf656fffabc26d7f7e94a7360e6954806a8b93", + "output_sha256": "b861201446ad0071e1eb14e99aa54fdad5bac7d2d7df5d4bb0005c46a985a506", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc166a7b973e8aeee176991f706341260fb69dfb56862ea0f8359d9e79950d2d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc166a7b973e8aeee176991f706341260fb69dfb56862ea0f8359d9e79950d2d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a6deb613a375d1cfd4cdcee0c1523d58ae1f8da9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc166a7b973e8aeee176991f706341260fb69dfb56862ea0f8359d9e79950d2d.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 265-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2009 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION DIRECTED +TO THE COURT IN CONNECTION WITH THIS COURT'S ORDER DATED +AUGUST 4, 2009 [DE, 242] +This matter came before the Court on Defendant's, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Motion +For Extension Directed to the Court In Connection With This Court's Order [DE 242] +Dated August 4, 2009, stating that the Defendant may provide a Supplementary Response +Brief relative to production requests numbers 10, 11, 18, 19 and 21. Having considered +Defendant's motion it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the motion is +GRANTED as follows: +The Defendant shall file with the clerk of Court his supplementary response brief +relative to production requests numbers 10, 11, 18, 19 and 21 on or before August 31, +2009. +DONE and ORDERED this +_day of +2009. +Kenneth A. Marra +United States District Judge +Courtesy Copies: +Counsel of Record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc166a7b973e8aeee176991f706341260fb69dfb56862ea0f8359d9e79950d2d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc166a7b973e8aeee176991f706341260fb69dfb56862ea0f8359d9e79950d2d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cf71b64fef292cc9128a3eeea334980fddfe06f3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc166a7b973e8aeee176991f706341260fb69dfb56862ea0f8359d9e79950d2d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bc166a7b973e8aeee176991f706341260fb69dfb56862ea0f8359d9e79950d2d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "917e9dd26783adca83fb9c9220bbf9cb617069a80757aeb106894d1d554bbbec", + "output_sha256": "00794bc8bd4d9b0728d3c9a44618ddc1d876afb3d6f1ee50f4076599d2549ad6", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc183ecb3bc161755d1664f39bed5935157838356a07e784d4d721656c6baf64.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc183ecb3bc161755d1664f39bed5935157838356a07e784d4d721656c6baf64.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a4222d3a2481f246687be9a9c3b29e433bc0b9bb --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc183ecb3bc161755d1664f39bed5935157838356a07e784d4d721656c6baf64.md @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2010 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 10-80309-CIV-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 103, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendants. +ORDER REQUIRING COUNSEL TO CONFER, FILE JOINT SCHEDULING REPORT +AND FILE JOINT DISCOVERY REPORT +THIS ORDER has been entered upon the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff's counsel is +hereby ORDERED to forward to all defendants, upon receipt of either an answer or a motion +pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), a copy of this order. +It is further ORDERED: +1. Every motion when filed shall be accompanied by a proposed order, except that +motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment need not be accompanied by a proposed +order. +2. Pretrial discovery in this case shall be conducted in accord with Local Rule 26.1 and +Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. +3. Pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless this action is +excluded under Rule 26(a)(B), the parties must confer within twenty-one (21) days after the last +responding party either files an answer or a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), whichever +is earlier, to consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for a +prompt settlement or resolution of the case, to make or arrange for the disclosures required by +Rule 26(a)(1), and to develop a proposed discovery plan that indicates the parties' views and + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2010 Page 2 of 2 +proposals concerning the matters listed in Rule 26(f). +4. The parties are jointly responsible for submitting a written report of this conference +outlining the proposed discovery plan within 14 days after the conference. +5. Counsel for the parties shall hold a scheduling conference either at the same time as +the discovery conference described in Rule 26(f) or within fourteen (14) calendar days thereafter. +See Local Rule 16.I(B). +6. Within fourteen (14) days of the scheduling conference, counsel shall file a joint +scheduling report pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(B)(2)&(3). This report shall indicate the +proposed month and year for the trial plus the estimated number of trial days required, as well +as an indication of whether the trial is to be a jury trial or bench trial. +7. The parties may submit a single report combining the discovery plan report and the +scheduling conference report. +8. Failure of counsel or unrepresented parties to file a discovery plan report or joint +scheduling report may result in dismissal, default, and the imposition of other sanctions including +attorney's fees and costs. +DONE AND SIGNED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, +this 29# day of April, 2010. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies furnished to: +All counsel +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc183ecb3bc161755d1664f39bed5935157838356a07e784d4d721656c6baf64.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc183ecb3bc161755d1664f39bed5935157838356a07e784d4d721656c6baf64.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d38c48dd941829354a3bb4e48a99300afa2e4791 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc183ecb3bc161755d1664f39bed5935157838356a07e784d4d721656c6baf64.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bc183ecb3bc161755d1664f39bed5935157838356a07e784d4d721656c6baf64", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b4ceeff45333a50f30b4adf803ece7b92363193da0ab6976b9e2b5d443ecdf08", + "output_sha256": "a12726afb086eea9c22a15c9551aa9298365ea4afe051400b167d88c8b0f86ce", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc3ac98c4cf564ea2d289b1bcb1577717786f3b5a11fbb5b66924ff5b89b6722.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc3ac98c4cf564ea2d289b1bcb1577717786f3b5a11fbb5b66924ff5b89b6722.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4ea761d26c8e5bf7e1e0ab984852d1caf67d9f96 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc3ac98c4cf564ea2d289b1bcb1577717786f3b5a11fbb5b66924ff5b89b6722.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 18 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2010 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 10-80309-CIV-ZLOCH +JANE DOE NO. 103, +Plaintiff, +VS. +ORDER OF TRANSFER +JEFFERY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +GOOD CAUSE appearing therefor pursuant to Internal Operating +Procedure of the United States District Court for the Southern +District of Florida 2.15.00 (C) and subject to consent hereinbelow, +it is +ORDERED that the above-numbered cause be and the same is +hereby transferred to the calendar of Judge KENNETH A. MARRA for +all further proceedings. +this +DATED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, +23%% day of April, 2010. +Malim 222 +WILLIAM J. ZLOCH +United States District Judge +After reviewing the court file in the above-numbered cause, +the undersigned hereby accepts the transfer of said case. +Therefore, it is + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2010 Page 2 of 2 +ORDERED that all pleadings hereinafter filed shall bear the +following case number: +Case No. 10-80309-CIV-MARRA thereby +indicating the Judge to whom all pleadings should be routed or +otherwise brought for attention. +THE FOREGOING transfer is herewith accepted this 21" +day of April, 2010. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies furnished: +The Honorable William J. Zloch +All Counsel of Record +Edward Sieber, Case Assignment Administrator +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc3ac98c4cf564ea2d289b1bcb1577717786f3b5a11fbb5b66924ff5b89b6722.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc3ac98c4cf564ea2d289b1bcb1577717786f3b5a11fbb5b66924ff5b89b6722.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1bf6fe22cfb31343c8c60510c6cec422cab12bc8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc3ac98c4cf564ea2d289b1bcb1577717786f3b5a11fbb5b66924ff5b89b6722.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bc3ac98c4cf564ea2d289b1bcb1577717786f3b5a11fbb5b66924ff5b89b6722", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "610a686fb0646b131cb382ba5a21bdc031435b7951b434fa11e0e4dbdc68a015", + "output_sha256": "cfeabc3b21adb89990b28fbb0a4803260dc39818b2194e3603729ebf98f33b6e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc4f342bba50883cb9ca220f82c93864e2cdce9755cc05d56456346873f16ed3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc4f342bba50883cb9ca220f82c93864e2cdce9755cc05d56456346873f16ed3.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e51c82b65dfe9647624e44167f791d058a21b1c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc4f342bba50883cb9ca220f82c93864e2cdce9755cc05d56456346873f16ed3.md @@ -0,0 +1,998 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 45 Filed 09/03/21 Page 1 of 22 +In re: +DOE, +JANE, +- against - +INDYKE, +DARREN K. et al, +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +Plaintiff, +Defendants. +: +Docket #1:20-cv-02365- +: LJL-DCF +: +: +: New York, New York +August 26, 2021 +: +TELEPHONE CONFERENCE +PROCEEDINGS BEFORE +THE HONORABLE JUDGE DEBRA C. FREEMAN, +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAGISTRATE JUDGE +APPEARANCES: +For Plaintiff: +For Defendants: +KAISER SAURBORN & MAIR, P.C. +BY: DANIEL J. KAISER, ESQ. +30 Broad Street, Suite 37th Floor +New York, NY 10004 +TROUTMAN PEPPER +SANDERS LLP +BY: BENNET J. MOSKOWITZ, ESQ. +875 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +212-704-6087 +Transcription Service: Carole Ludwig, Transcription Services +155 East Fourth Street #30 +New York, New York 10009 +Phone: +(212) 420-0771 +Email: Transcription420@aol.com +Proceedings conducted telephonically and recorded by +electronic sound +recording; +Transcript produced by transcription service. + + + +Witness +None + +Number +None +INDEX +EXAMINATIONS +Direct +CrosS +EXHIBITS +Description +Re- +Direct +Re- +Cross +ID +In +Voir +Dire + + +Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 45 Filed 09/03/21 Page 3 of 22 +1 +3 +2 +HONORABLE DEBRA C. FREEMAN (THE COURT): This is +3 Judge Freeman. +This should be Jane Doe versus Indyke et +4 al. It is 20-civ-2365, a case before Judge Liman and +5 myself. +6 +Could I have your appearances, please, for the +7 record, starting on plaintiff's side? +8 +MR. DANIEL J. KAISER: Daniel Kaiser of Kaiser +9 Saurborn & Mair, your Honor, representing Jane Doe. +10 +THE COURT: Okay. And on defendants' side? +11 +MR. BENNET MOSKOWITZ: Good morning, your Honor. +12 +Bennet Moskowitz, Iroutman Pepper, representing the co- +13 +executors. And I just discovered there was a kind of a +14 +clerical error with the Proposed Scheduling Order filed last +15 +16 +week. So I just wanted to put a note down that, when your +Honor pleases, I'd like to just note that for the record so we +17 +can correct it. +18 +19 +THE COURT: That's fine. Is there anyone else +currently on this call? Do I have my clerk on? Donna, are +20 you there? +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +THE CLERK: I'm here, Judge. +THE COURT: Okay. Is there anyone else +on the +line? +THE DEPUTY CLERK: It's Aisha. +I'm on, too. +THE COURT: +, my deputy's on, as well. + + +Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 45 Filed 09/03/21 Page 4 of 22 +1 +4 +2 +MR. JAMES +: Good morning, your Honor. This is +3 James +; I'm the reporter with ABC News, in listen-only +4 mode. +5 +THE COURT: Okay. Anyone else on the line? +6 +MALE: A reporter from the New York Post. +7 +THE COURT: I'm sorry, say it again, please? +8 +MALE: A reporter from the New York Post on +9 +listen-only mode. +10 +THE COURT: Okay. All right. I have a few things +11 +in front of me. First of all, I have the need to set a +12 +Scheduling Order. I also have a motion for plaintiff for +13 +leave to proceed anonymously. I also have a pro hac vice +14 +application. That pro hac application I have granted; it +15 +just probably has not hit the docket yet. But that one is +resolved. I've also granted the motion to seal some papers +17 +that were submitted in connection with the motion to +18 +proceed anonymously. So that's also newly hitting the +19 +docket, my granting of that application. +20 +With respect to a Scheduling Order, I'm wondering, +21 +rather than to have a Scheduling Order that has everything +22 +just based on a certain number of days after there is an +23 +answer, waiting to see if there is an answer or if there is +24 +a motion, if there is an answer, then I would propose to +25 +set a schedule that has actual firm dates in it for things + + +Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 45 Filed 09/03/21 Page 5 of 22 +1 +5 +2 so that we don't have this wait with the date that is 100 +3 days after this or 120 days after that or whatever. If +4 there is as motion, I think we ought to have a discussion +5 about whether discovery should proceed in light of the +6 motion and if so, to what extent. There is not automatic +7 stay of discovery when a motion to dismiss is filed. But +8 there can at times -- it can at times make sense to stay +9 discovery in whole or in part. The default is that +10 discovery would go forward, but I think it would be worth +11 +taking a look at any schedule in light of any motion that's +12 +pending, to see what the basis of the motion is and to see +13 +what sort of discovery would make sense. +14 +So I'm thinking of potentially - well, actually, +15 +I think what I'd like to do is find out from defendants, do +16 you intend to file a motion? +17 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: We do, your Honor. Essentially, +18 +there are statute of limitations issues, number one; and, +19 +number two, there's a request for punitive damages, which +20 +your Honor likely recalls that that's an issue that's been +21| +ruled on in several cases already. So those are at least +22 +the two grounds that I'm currently aware of that we plan to +23 +move on. +24 +THE COURT: Have the rulings on the punitive +25 +damages point been consistent? + + +Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 45 Filed 09/03/21 Page 6 of 22 +1 +6 +2 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: They have, your Honor. And to put +3 a finer point on it, it's somewhat different here due to +4 +the fact that the plaintiff, as far as I'm aware, is +5 couching the claim solely as Trafficking Victim Protection +6 Act claims. +However, there was a ruling in at least one +7 prior case on that. But punitive damages generally, yes, +8 have been repeatedly dismissed on motions to dismiss +9 insofar as they've been asserted against the Epstein +10 +estate. +11 +THE COURT: And assuming you file this motion, +12 +would you be looking for any stay of discovery in whole or +13 in part? +14 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Well, your Honor, our position is +15 +not that we would necessarily file a formal motion to stay; +16 but consistent with prior positions, what I would say is +17 this, which is that it would be a shame for discovery to go +18 +forward at full speed and potentially spin out of control +19 +if -- and I don't know this yet and this is something that +20 +21 +is up to plaintiff to tell us whenever they please -- or +not -- but if there's any prospect of discussing +22 +exploration of a resolution outside of litigation -- and I +23 +guess what I'd say to that, your Honor, since we haven't +24 +spoken a bit of a while for -- based on our track record, +25 +is, you know, as a general matter, the estate is in favor + + +Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 45 Filed 09/03/21 Page 7 of 22 +1 +7 +2 of alternative dispute resolutions and settlements. And, +3 of course, that's why we had the very successful Epstein +4 Victims' Compensation Program. And as the Court may be +5 aware, the program's independent administrator recently +6 actually announced that the program has essentially +7 finished the front-end stage and is proceeding to wind +8 down. It's awarded nearly 125 million to approximately 150 +9 eligible claimants. And that was roughly one year after it +10 launched. You may recall that was back in June of 2020. +11 Ninety-two percent of eligible claimants accepted their +12 +offers, and at the time of the announcement the program had +13 +already paid out over 121 million to those claimants. +14 +I can't go into on the estate side who or why +15 +certain resolutions did not happen via the program; +16 +however, again we are open as a general principle to +17 +exploring with any claimants who wish to do so whether +18 +there's a potential for resolution outside of litigation. +19 +And that's true in this case as with any of the others that +20 +21 +22 +23 +remain. +MR. KAISER: If I may, your Honor? +THE COURT: +Sure. +Who's this, please? +MR. KAISER: Dan Kaiser. +Just on those points -- +24 +I don't want to get into a lot of detail -- but the +25 +victims' compensation fund was not successful, which + + +Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 45 Filed 09/03/21 Page 8 of 22 +1 +8 +2 [indiscernible] like, you know, it's not necessarily +3 relevant, although I had explicit discussions with the +4 +administrator, and she was very explicit with me on the +5 phone how politics, you know, restrained her and entered +6 into what she did or didn't do with my client. So -- and I +7 don't want to get into the details about that, but she was +8 very, very openly acknowledged of that. And we're very +9 happy to have settlement discussions. We've never +10 disguised that. +We've been open to it. If the other side +11 +wants to, for example, engage a mediator to see whether it +12 +can be resolved, then we're happy to explore that. And if +13 +they're saying that the continuance at this point of +14 +discovery would interfere with that process, I'm happy to +15 +preliminarily have discussions about resolution to see if +16 it could happen without the need for discovery. I won't +17 +get into the statute of limitations issues -- I'm not sure +18 +what the merits of that are, but we'll deal with them at +19 +another time. But, again, your Honor, I'm happy to have +20 +those discussions; and if they're going to be had, +21 particularly in this case and the context and posture of +22 +it, it should happen sooner rather than later. +23 +THE COURT: Sure. +Just a quick question about the +24 +statute of limitations issues, if that defense is +25 +successful, would it resolve the entire case or only part + + +Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 45 Filed 09/03/21 Page 9 of 22 +9 +1 +2 of the case? +3 +MR. KAISER: Well, I don't -- +4 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: I believe -- +5 +THE COURT: Mr. Moskowitz? +6 +MR. KAISER: Go ahead. I'm sorry. +Go ahead. +7 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: No apologies. I didn't know if +8 that question was more for me, your Honor -- +9 +THE COURT: This is Mr. Moskowitz? +10 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yeah. I believe it's partial. I +11 +don't believe it's a total dismissal. +12 +THE COURT: All right. So based on what I have +13 +heard, my view is that, assuming the motion is made -- and +14 +I accept that it likely will be -- that discovery should +15 +still go forward, but it should go forward in part because +16 +the case would not be fully resolved, anyway, even if the +17 +motion were granted. And so there's no reason to let +18 +discovery be stalled. But because of the parties' +19 +expressed interest on both sides in pursuing settlement and +20 +possibly because of the motion, discovery should be +21 +scheduled with an eye toward what is practical. So perhaps +22 +there should be some time built in on the front end where +23 +you can talk settlement; or perhaps it should be structured +24 +so that certain things are done first that you know you +25 +would likely have to do anyway but are not the most + + +1 + +10 +2 burdensome things and some other things that you might have +3 to do down the road that perhaps are more burdensome, we +4 have it on a schedule, you know when you're going to do it +5 if you have to, but perhaps you kick it a little bit +6 further down so that you don't spend unnecessary time, +7 money and effort on discovery that may not be needed. +8 +With respect to settlement, you have a number of +9 options. One option is that you talk between you without +10 +the aid of a third-party mediator or other dispute- +11 +resolution professional. You just talk between counsel as +12 +counsel and you see what you can do to try to negotiate a +13 +resolution. I have great confidence in lawyers' skills in +14 +advancing the ball in settlement. Here there were some +15 +unusual circumstances where this program was set up and +16 +obviously a lot of claims were put there instead of put +17 +before counsel to try to work something out. But at this +18 +stage of the game it seems to me the first thing you should +19 +do is have good-faith conversations between you and see +20 +where you are. +21 +If that is not successful, you have a number of +22 +options with respect to mediation. You could go to the +23 +court's mediation program -- and I'm happy to send you +24 +there. You can come before me, and I'm happy to host you. +25 +Or you could retain a private mediator of your choice + + +1 + +11 +2 through whatever organizational or whatever individual +3 you're both comfortable with. And I'm happy to have you do +4 that, +as well, if that's something you should talk about. +5 But I do think that, if you're going to talk, the time to +6 talk is in fact sooner rather than later because I don't +7 want to see discovery stalled longer than necessary if the +8 case is not going to be resolved. So if you build in some +9 time at the front end of the discovery schedule to talk +10 +settlement, that means you should be talking settlement. +11 +So I'm going to send you back to talk between +12 +counsel about how you want to proceed with this. I will +13 +tell you that, if I have a conference before me on +14 +settlement, I will require counsel to tell me that they've +15 +16 +tried as hard as they can on their own and they really do +need help, you know, that you're at impasse, you can't +17 +think of anything else to do, you know, all the skills that +18 +you have in settlement have been exhausted and you just +19 have no other idea how to proceed other than to ask for +20 +outside help. And then I am happy to try to help you break +21 +through whatever log jam you've got. I think even if +22 +that's not a requirement for the mediation program or for +23 +an outside mediator, it doesn't hurt to try on your own +24 +first and get as far as you can and see whether you really +25 +need the help or if so, to figure out exactly what the gap + + +1 + +12 +2 between the parties' positions is and just how much work +3 has to be done to get there. +4 +So what I'm thinking is this. Let me send you +5 back to the well. Propose a discovery plan that, A, has in +6 mind +that a motion +is coming and that the parties are +7 interested in talking settlement; and, B, has firm dates in +8 it instead of 30 days after this and 20 days after that and +9 so on. I will tell you what I would generally put in a +10 +scheduling order, and you can modify it as you think would +11 be appropriate. And if I think it's reasonable, I'11 +12 +approve it. I would want a date for initial disclosures. +13 +Usually that comes pretty quickly. Usually it's within a +14 +couple of weeks after I issue my Scheduling Order. +15 +Then once you get the information on the initial +16 +disclosures, assuming there's information that still hasn't +17 +already been informally exchanged, I'd want a date for +18 +service of initial document requests and interrogatories, +19 +just to make sure that ball is rolling. I will let you go +20 +outside Local Rule 33.3A, go straight to B with respect to +21 +the kinds of interrogatories you serve, to save some time +22 +because A is a lot like the initial disclosures under 26A, +23 +and it seems to me that it doesn't make sense to object +24 +just because interrogatories go outside that rule when you +25 +can just serve a second set and be there anyway. I'm not + + + +1 +13 +2 talking about contention interrogatories. +Save those for +3 further down the pike. +I'm not talking about +interrogatories that are abusive or call for long, +5 narrative responses. Use your judgment, please. +6 +With +respect to motions to amend or for joinder, +7 as soon as you reasonably have the idea as to whether +8 you've got the right claims and the right parties, let's +9 get that closed down so that something doesn't happen late +10 +in the case that throws a monkey wrench into everything. +11 | +I'm looking for a deadline, a proposed deadline for motions +12 +to amend or joinder. If there's not going to be an +13 +objection by your adversary, I'm not going to require the +14 +motion. So you've got to back up whatever deadline it is +15 +in your head, think about drafting a proposed amended +16 +pleading, sending it to your adversary saying would you +17 +oppose this if I were to move to amend. It doesn't have to +18 +be consent; it just has to be I wouldn't object to it, I +19 +wouldn't oppose it. If there's not going to be an +20 +opposition, let me know, and I'll just accept the amended +21 +pleading for filing. If there is going to be an objection, +22 +I want a deadline in the Scheduling Order for motions to +23 +amend or for joinder. If you miss that deadline that's in +24 +the Order, be aware it is an important deadline because if +25 +you miss it, you're going to be in Rule 16 land with having + + +1 + +14 +2 to show good cause why you couldn't meet a date in a +3 Scheduling Order, and that liberal amendment standard of +4 Rule 15 can go out the window if you can't show good cause +5 for missing the deadline. So give me a deadline for +6 motions to amend or joinder. If you think there might +7 really be an amendment and you're worried about the +8 deadline, put your hand in the air and ask to have it +9 extended before that date comes. Don't find yourself with +10 +a problem under Rule 16. Obviously, if something comes up +11 +late in the game that was honestly something that couldn't +12 +13 +have been anticipated, you'll have good cause for a late +motion to amend; but, you know, don't risk it if you can +14 +possibly avoid that. +15 +And then a deadline for the close of fact +16 +discovery, I'm going to try not to micromanage you other +17 +than getting that ball rolling on document requests and +18 +interrogatories. I'm not going to require you to set firm +19 +dates for depositions or the like unless you start running +20 into problems and there's no other way to do it than to +21 have court-ordered dates. I don't anticipate that. +22 +With respect to any experts, generally what I +23 +would do is I would say if you've got the affirmative +24 +burden of proof on an issue, get your expert reports out +25 +within 30 days of the close of fact discovery, rebuttal + + +1 + +15 +2 reports 30 days after that, and then you'll have a small +3 window +for expert depositions. If there's something +4 +unusual going on here, if you think that schedule does not +5 work, talk about it. But that's what I would ordinarily +6 do. +7 +And that's all I've got on that. Does that sound +8 reasonable for you to go back and talk and see what you can +9 come up with? +10 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Bennet Moskowitz. Yes, your +11 +12 +13 +Honor. And if I could, before we close as far as +discussion, I did want to address that clerical issue +because, notwithstanding that we're not going to -- the +14 +Court's not going to enter the proposal that was already +15 +submitted, I do want to correct it for the docket. +16 +THE COURT: Sure. I have it in front of me. What +17 +was it? +18 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes. It has the wrong signature +19 +page. It looks like a signature page from another action +20 +21 +22 +against the estate. +THE COURT: +, dear. +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Apologies if that was on our end. +23 +I'm not even certain yet. We certainly filed the -- +24 +THE COURT: That's what happens when there are too +25 +many cases. All right, no problem. + + +Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 45 Filed 09/03/21 Page 16 of 22 +1 +16 +2 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: We tried to reduce the number. +So +3 I would like to -- I don't know if the Court can remove +4 that from the docket or -- I just don't want to have it +5 hanging there. +You know, obviously, the other attorney +6 from +the other case shouldn't be reflected on this docket. +7 +THE COURT: We can figure out something. If you +8 want to just send a -- put a letter on the docket saying +9 that it's withdrawn. I mean, it won't disappear from the +10 +docket. I mean, it's not something that would ordinarily +11 +get sealed. But you can write a letter and just indicate +12 that there's an error if you want to have the docket +13 reflect that. +14 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Sure. +15 +THE COURT: Right? I mean, for anyone on the call +16 +who's listening in on mute who's a member of the press, +17 +there's as document on the docket that has the wrong +18 +signature page. So please ignore it. +19 +Anyway, just put some letter on the docket about +20 it, and I'll deal with it when I get that letter from you. +21 +22 +Honor. +23 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Understood. Thank you, your +THE COURT: Okay. +That -- +24 +25 +MR. KAISER: Your Honor -- +THE COURT: Yes. + + +Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 45 Filed 09/03/21 Page 17 of 22 +1 +17 +2 +MR. KAISER: I'm sorry, your Honor. It's Dan +3 Kaiser. +Just +one point of clarification. To the motion to +4 proceed anonymously still needs to be ruled upon, correct? +5 +THE COURT: Yes. Yes. I was just going to turn +6 to that. +7 +MR. KAISER: Okay. Yes. Okay. +8 +THE COURT: Anything else about scheduling? +9 +By the way, you have some other things in the +10 +11 +Proposed Scheduling Order like a date to provide HIPAA +releases. +That's fine. If you want to add some things +in +12 +there that you think are worth having in there that you +13 +want to have, you know, the power of the court behind to +14 +make sure things happen by a certain date, you can. Those +15 +things that I outlined for you are the things that I +16 +require to be in a Scheduling Order, initial disclosures, +17 +date to serve initial document requests and +18 +interrogatories, deadline for amendment of pleadings and +19 +joinder, +deadline for fact discovery, and then the schedule +20 +for expert discovery. If there's something else in there +21 that you think would be helpful, you know, you can add it +22 +in there by agreement. +23 +And also, you can stipulate to modify an interim +24 +dates in my Scheduling Order that you want if it all wraps +25 +up at the same point in time. I want to see it end the + + +1 + +18 +2 same way. If you agree that fact discovery can slide into +3 the period for expert discovery and you're in agreement it +4 can get done, it's okay. If you agree that you can move +5 some other date in there because you're talking settlement +6 but you're still looking at the same end date, you don't +7 need leave of Court to do that; you can just stipulate to +8 that. If it's the amendment deadline, let me know that +9 you're stipulating so that we don't have any confusion +10 there about what rule you're under if there's a motion that +11 +comes in late. Okay? +12 +All right -- +13 +MR. KAISER: Yes, your Honor. +14 +THE COURT: -- with respect to the motion to +15 +16 +proceed anonymously, I've looked at the motion, I've looked +at what was put on the docket for the Court's view in +17 +unredacted form, I've looked at the reply. My inclination +18 +19 +20 +at this point is to grant the motion to proceed +anonymously. It may be revisited at a later date, but I +think at this juncture that is the better course, and so +21 I'm going to allow this case, like the other cases in the +22 +court, to proceed with plaintiff as Jane Doe. So I'm going +23 +to grant that. +24 +25 +Is there anything else? +You know what, let me give you one other thing to + + +Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 45 l + +1 +19 +2 do, which is after -- I'm sorry, which is to put in the +3 Proposed Scheduling Order a date by which you'll send me a +4 joint status report on how things are going, both with +5 respect to the status of discovery and the status of your +6 settlement talks. +Just figure out what would be a logical +7 point in time to report back to me, and put in the date so +8 that I don't lose track of the case. +9 +With respect to a status report on the settlement, +10 +this is going to be a publicly filed document, so I really +11 don't want you to put your confidential settlement +12 discussions in the letter -- that's not the purpose of it, +13 +and I don't really think that belongs on the public docket. +14 +So what I mean by a status letter on settlement is the +15 +following. I've taken to saying this a lot in cases these +16 +days when I ask for status reports on settlement. From +17 +best to worst, the best kind of status letter you can put +18 +on the docket to the worst kind of status letter you can +19 +put on the docket, the best is, "We have a resolution in +20 +principle, Judge." That's obviously great. Next best is, +21 +"We are talking seriously. Because of that -- and we think +22 +we're optimistic -- we'd like a little bit more time to get +23 +back to you. We think maybe we need a little bit of +24 +discovery; but, you know, we think this is going well." +25 And then propose how you want to proceed from there. "We'd + + +1 + +20 +2 like some further extensions on deadlines in light of +3 this," or, "We'd like another status report letter date," +4 or something. Next is, "We've been talking seriously, and +5 we're having difficulty. We really would like to try the +6 assistance of a mediator, you or the mediation program or +7 outside mediator," or whatever it is you want to propose; +8 you let me know. Next is, "We've been talking seriously. +9 We're not getting anywhere. We don't think we're going to +10 get anywhere. +We think this case has to be litigated. We +1l think there's absolutely no hope." If I see a letter like +12 that, I'll probably have another call with you and say, +13 +"Are you sure there's nothing that can help you, because I +14 +know both sides are interested." And I'm usually more +15 +optimistic than the parties when I get a letter like that. +16 +The worst letter you can put on the docket is, "Even though +17 I know you're interested in settlement, we've done nothing +18 +on this front. We haven't been talking. We haven't +19 +advanced the ball at all since the last time we had a +20 +conference two months ago. It's been completely stagnant +21 +on that front." If you're interested in settlement, pursue +22 +it; try to make progress and give me an actual progress +23 +report. Okay? +24 +25 +MR. KAISER: +Yes, your Honor. +MR. MOSKOWITZ: +Understood. + + +1 + +21 +2 +THE COURT: Anything else for today? +3 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Thank you, your Honor. +4 +MR. KAISER: Nothing for plaintiffs. Nothing from +5 plaintiffs, your Honor. +6 +THE COURT: So get me a modified proposed +7 schedule. +I'll let you get the motion filed and take a +8 +look at that motion. It's supposed to come in, what, +9 September 7 -- was that the day? What was the date I gave +10 you for a motion? +I don't remember. Sixth, I think it +11 was -- +12 +13 +MR. KAISER: Correct, September 6. +THE COURT: September 6. So how about you get me +14 +a Proposed Scheduling Order in light of that motion by +15 +September 10? +16 +17 +18 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Sure. +MR. KAISER: That works, your Honor. +19 +THE COURT: Okay. All right, I'll 1o0k for +something on the docket by then. +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +26 +Thank you, all. +(Whereupon, +the matter is recessed.) + + +Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 45 Filed 09/03/21 Page 22 of 22 +1 +22 +2 +3 +CERTIFICATE +4 +5 +I, Carole Ludwig, certify that the foregoing +6 transcript of proceedings in the case of Doe v. Indyke et +7 al, Docket #20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF, was prepared using digital +8 transcription software and is a true and accurate record of +9 the proceedings. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +signature Carole Ludwig +Carole Ludwig +16 +17 +18 +Date: +September 3, 2021 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc4f342bba50883cb9ca220f82c93864e2cdce9755cc05d56456346873f16ed3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc4f342bba50883cb9ca220f82c93864e2cdce9755cc05d56456346873f16ed3.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0fe3cc23dd84a70ed7d7c8f7f57176aa5d0120f2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc4f342bba50883cb9ca220f82c93864e2cdce9755cc05d56456346873f16ed3.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -1197, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bc4f342bba50883cb9ca220f82c93864e2cdce9755cc05d56456346873f16ed3", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 35, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "fd5bdfd3567e2860b536cb2fb6fcd214851ffd015de71ae0ecda55806b76bd0b", + "output_sha256": "df2c7b422e2eca0c89cdd446d8621b65785b790e125148feeebe883e8ffde8df", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc55cf6a04cf4608fa35250dd0b06f29a9afca5b58d10bffa718271d0f33c082.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc55cf6a04cf4608fa35250dd0b06f29a9afca5b58d10bffa718271d0f33c082.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67537bbaf67dcb90c2cf95c341685ca3a4a41ee1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc55cf6a04cf4608fa35250dd0b06f29a9afca5b58d10bffa718271d0f33c082.md @@ -0,0 +1,127 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 232 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2009 Page 1 of 7 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 232 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2009 Page 2 of 7 +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA +Defendant. +/ +JANE DOE NO. 7, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRAJ_ +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 232 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2009 Page 3 of 7 +JANE DOE, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/ +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. II, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469-MARRA/ +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/ +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 232 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2009 Page 4 of 7 +Defendant. +ORDER +THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. +102's Motion for an Order for the Preservation of Evidence and Incorporated Memorandum of +Law (DE 114), filed May 26, 2009, and the Court's Order (DE 192), entered July 6, 2009. The +parties are in agreement as to a substantial part of the language in their proposed orders, and the +Court has carefully considered the motion, the proposed orders, and is otherwise fully advised in +the premises. +It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Motion (DE 114) is GRANTED as +follows: +A. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and his employees, his agents, and his attorneys are +directed to take every reasonable step to preserve all evidence relevant to these cases +that have been filed in federal court or that may lead to the discovery of admissible +evidence relevant to these cases, which includes evidence related to the October 25, +2005 search, documents, data, and tangible things, including writings; records; files; +correspondence; digital or chemical process photographs (including negatives); +reports; memoranda; calendars; diaries; minutes; electronic messages; voicemail; e- +mail; telephone message records or logs; computer and network activity logs; hard +drives; backup data; removable computer storage media, such as tapes, disks, and +cards; printouts; document image files; web pages; databases; spreadsheets; software; + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 232 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2009 Page 5 of 7 +books; ledgers; journals; orders; invoices; bills; vouchers; checks; statements; +worksheets; summaries; compilations; computations; charts; diagrams; graphic +presentations; drawings; +films; charts; video, phonographic, tape, or digital +recordings or transcripts thereof; drafts; jottings; and notes. Information that serves +to identify, locate, or link such material, such as file inventories, file folders, indices, +and metadata, is also included. Specifically, Defendant must preserve the following +evidence: records of phone communications; records of domestic and international +travel, including travel in Defendant's private airplanes; former and current employee +records; tax returns; medical bills; bills regarding any other expenses related in any +way to these Plaintiffs; all documents evidencing payment by Defendant of U.S. +currency and/or merchandise to each person on the list of victims provided by the +United States Attorney's Office ("USAO list"); any evidence stored in Defendant's +storage unit; all photographs of the interior and exterior of Defendant's Palm Beach +mansion as it appeared in 1998 through October 2005; any diary, log, memo pad, +calendar, or other writing reflecting the date that each person on the USAO list +visited Defendant's mansion; any diary or document wherein each victim on the +USAO list wrote regarding any visits) to Defendant's mansions; all documents sent +to or by the Palm Beach Police Department ("PBPD"), the FBI, the USAO, or the +Palm Beach State Attorney's Office ("PBSAO") to or by the Defendant; and all +computers used by Defendant and/or his agents and/or employees during 1998 +through and including October 25, 2005, the date of the search warrant. +B. The duty to preserve evidence extends to documents, data, and tangible things in the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 232 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2009 Page 6 of 7 +possession, custody, and/or control of the parties to this action and any employees, +agents, or attorneys who possess materials reasonably anticipated to be subject to +discovery in these actions. Counsel shall be directly responsible only to the extent +they are in possession or control of evidence. Counsel shall provide a copy of this +Order to Defendant and those employees or agents whom defense counsel knows, or +has reason to know, may have evidence. +C. "Preservation" is to be interpreted broadly to accomplish the goal of maintaining the +integrity of all documents, data, and tangible things reasonably anticipated to be +subject to discovery in these actions under Rules 26, 45, and 56(e) of the Federal +Rules of Civil Procedure. +D. If an objection or privilege is raised, the parties may raise the issue with this Court in +a timely fashion and shall preserve the evidence in question pending resolution by the +Court. An agreement to preserve evidence and this Order is not a waiver of any right +to object to production. +E. The parties, without leave of Court, may agree in writing that certain documents or +categories of evidence need not be preserved as otherwise required by this Order. If +such agreement is reached, such agreement is effective upon signing and without +further order of this Court. +F. +If this Court determines that evidence has been destroyed or lost in violation of this +Order, it may impose appropriate sanctions based upon motion and an evidentiary +hearing, if necessary. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 232 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2009 Page 7 of 7 +G. Each party shall bear its own costs for complying with this Order. +DONE AND ORDERED in +Florida, this 30" of July, 2009. +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Court Judge +Copies to: +All counsel of record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc55cf6a04cf4608fa35250dd0b06f29a9afca5b58d10bffa718271d0f33c082.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc55cf6a04cf4608fa35250dd0b06f29a9afca5b58d10bffa718271d0f33c082.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d45017b8e429c5fc75f6a783d01854f8f8adc55e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc55cf6a04cf4608fa35250dd0b06f29a9afca5b58d10bffa718271d0f33c082.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -437, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bc55cf6a04cf4608fa35250dd0b06f29a9afca5b58d10bffa718271d0f33c082", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "fe48df0510958f6e69ff68e57d3da1078c33540df7bd11f1591713c332cb271a", + "output_sha256": "64f5f15cfc41c142715a18ef6184c1bb2b4786895da014ec7b8ec027526245da", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc770bc6aba2540d1d3fe127ad1e98c1498fe51e408f54716a68b37879e21237.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc770bc6aba2540d1d3fe127ad1e98c1498fe51e408f54716a68b37879e21237.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed857cc71e4dd2161bf7f859479e4ab7e558c163 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc770bc6aba2540d1d3fe127ad1e98c1498fe51e408f54716a68b37879e21237.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +Case 1:19-Cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 80-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 1 of 2 + + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 80-3 Filed 06/22/20 Page 2 of 2 +BSF +BOIES +| SCHILLER +FLEXNER +Telephone: (954) 356-0011 +Email: smccawley@bsfllp.com +November 22, 2019 +VIA EMAIL +Bennet J. Moskowitz +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +Bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +Re: +The Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein +Dear Mr. Moskowitz: +Pursuant to Judge Freeman's directive to engage in good faith discussions about the +claims resolution program that Defendants have proposed, we ask that you provide answers to +two questions: +1. What is the total value of Epstein's Estate? +2. How much of Epstein's Estate will be set aside for compensating victims through +the proposed claims resolution program? +We require the above information in order to assess whether such a program is in our clients' +best interest. Please respond to this letter by December 3, 2019. We appreciate that the +answers to these questions may change over time, and expect that you will supplement any +information you provide if and when the facts change. +We also anticipate having further questions about the claims resolution program after +receiving this preliminary information, and look forward to a productive dialogue going +forward. +cc: +David Brodie (via email) +Andrew Buzin (via email) +Kate Doniger (via email) +Brad +(via email) +Julie Fink (via email) +Arick Fudali (via email) +Alan Goldfarb (via email) +Sincerely, +/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley +Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. +Brittany +(via email) +Daniel J. Kaiser (via email) +Roberta Kaplan (via email) +Jordan Merson (via email) +Laura Starr (via email) +Mariann Wang (via email) +BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP +401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 | (t) 954 356 0011 | (f) 954 356 0022 | www.bsfllp.com diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc770bc6aba2540d1d3fe127ad1e98c1498fe51e408f54716a68b37879e21237.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc770bc6aba2540d1d3fe127ad1e98c1498fe51e408f54716a68b37879e21237.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6389e69c602a7f3a3184d04475791ad67e90888d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc770bc6aba2540d1d3fe127ad1e98c1498fe51e408f54716a68b37879e21237.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -33, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bc770bc6aba2540d1d3fe127ad1e98c1498fe51e408f54716a68b37879e21237", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "388681b913bc100a8b462e2489c46ada8e27bae4867b7a26bcba40a6fff14e77", + "output_sha256": "acac7f400ec513227e49cc62b8b6d87e57465286945aa840d17f2004ffc0c560", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc7b8bd107385e07851ddb926d68cc071e643d780e14e01f58cdac527dffa952.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc7b8bd107385e07851ddb926d68cc071e643d780e14e01f58cdac527dffa952.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..71866c9aa3590fc9d126b2f189c20236dea9fdfd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc7b8bd107385e07851ddb926d68cc071e643d780e14e01f58cdac527dffa952.md @@ -0,0 +1,202 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 1 of 7 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/] +1 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 2 of 7 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRAJ +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80993-MARRA/ +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80811 -MARRAJ +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80893-MARRA/| +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 08-CV- 80469-MARRA/ +2 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 3 of 7 +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al., +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80591-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80656-MARRA1 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +/ +PLAINTIFFS JANE DOES' 2-7 NOTICE OF JOINDER IN PLAINTIFFS' +JANE DOES 101 AND 102'S MOTION FOR NO-CONTACT ORDER +Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 join in Plaintiffs Jane Does 101 and 102's Motion for No- +Contact Order, filed May 22, 2009, and state as follows: +Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 incorporate and adopt the facts set forth in the pending +Motion for No-Contact Order. Additionally, Plaintiffs offer additional facts in support of the +Motion for a No-Contact Order, as set forth below. +2. +Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 were all identified on the +victims list provided to Defendant Epstein's counsel in connection with the Non-prosecution +Agreement, and each has been identified as victims to Defendant Epstein in their pending +3 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 4 of 7 +actions. In June 2008, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Pucillo ordered Defendant Epstein "not +to have any contact, direct or indirect," with any of his victims. Judge Pucillo clarified that +forbidden "indirect" contact included, but was not limited to, text messages, emails, telephone +calls, or messages through third parties. As detailed herein, Jane Does 4 and 7 have been +contacted on multiple occasions by at least one person representing that she is cooperating with +and communicating on behalf of Defendant Epstein. In these contacts, the Plaintiffs/victims +were threatened and harassed. +3. +As with other Plaintiffs, Jane Does 4 and 7 were first introduced to Defendant +Epstein by Hayley +, who was a high school friend.' +4. +had had contact with these Plaintiffs on several occasions in which she +represented to Plaintiffs Jane Doe 4 and 7 that she is cooperating with Defendant Epstein's +attorneys and that she is being financially supported by Defendant Epstein. Moreover, +has told these Plaintiffs specifically that she is communicating on behalf of Defendant Epstein. +5. +During these contacts, +made disparaging comments to the Plaintiffs and +also sent disturbing text messages to Jane Doe No. 4. In one text, +specifically stated, "I +just met with my lawyer today and I'm finally done with the Epstein case. LOL. I knew you were +suing Jeffrey all along and I've learned so much about you in the meantime. LOL." Jane Doe 4 +understood this to mean that +had exchanged private information about Jane Doe 4 with +Defendant Epstein and his attorneys. Since February, 2009, Jane Doe 4 has continued to receive +text messages from +that are sometimes harassing and other times seek information about +Jane Doe 4's private life, her lawsuit against Defendant Epstein, and/or her lawyer's strategy. +was named in at least one civil case against Mr. Epstein as a co-defendant. See +Jane Doe v. Epstein, case no. 50-2008-CA-0065996, Palm Beach County Circuit Court. +brought multiple underage girls to Epstein in addition to Jane Does 4 and 7. +4 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 5 of 7 +6. +On one occasion, +approached Jane Doe 7 and disclosed that she was +cooperating with Defendant Epstein's defense, and that she ( +agreed that she would +testify against Jane Doe 7 and the other plaintiffs to make sure that none of the Plaintiffs ever +received any money from Defendant Epstein, making clear that her testimony would not be +truthful to achieve this end. She also made disparaging comments to Jane Doe 7, accusing her of +ruining Defendant Epstein's reputation. +7. +The very possibility of any contact with Epstein or his agents, including | +causes anxiety and distress particularly to Jane Doe 4 and 7, as well as the other Plaintiffs. A nocontact order should prevent further harassment of the Plaintiffs by Epstein and his agents, +including, but not limited to, Hayley +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7, respectfully join Plaintiffs Jane Does 101 and +102 in moving this Court to enter an order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for a No Contact Order +prohibiting the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, from any contact or communication with Plaintiffs, +either directly or indirectly, except through Plaintiffs' attorneys of record for the duration of the +Order. +Dated: June 8, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By:_ +_s/ Adam D. Horowitz. +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +5 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 6 of 7 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +THEREBY CERTIFY that on June 8, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via +transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized +manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic +Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +6 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 7 of 7 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +bedwards@rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +/s/ Adam D. Horowitz +7 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc7b8bd107385e07851ddb926d68cc071e643d780e14e01f58cdac527dffa952.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc7b8bd107385e07851ddb926d68cc071e643d780e14e01f58cdac527dffa952.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e530824af7918b1c61315df5666e3a8fe7274283 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc7b8bd107385e07851ddb926d68cc071e643d780e14e01f58cdac527dffa952.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -86, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bc7b8bd107385e07851ddb926d68cc071e643d780e14e01f58cdac527dffa952", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "6eff6326db721fa15192f189c04d1e0f202ce37d5ecdd0f057ee58d9578dae96", + "output_sha256": "34136194a8030dfc640e246e567a498d9b4995df39c2b60fb359891f873b7192", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc8453f59f1279f44257bea771b6de56c80c6545e159c2e090f3f49471cd7a8c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc8453f59f1279f44257bea771b6de56c80c6545e159c2e090f3f49471cd7a8c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e0965024d4b3ebef585e33846b3c82446ca6d78f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc8453f59f1279f44257bea771b6de56c80c6545e159c2e090f3f49471cd7a8c.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 73 Filed 08/21/20 Page 1 of 1 +PANISH +SHEA & +BOYLE +LLP +August 21, 2020 +VIA ECE +Hon. Debra C. Freeman +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl Street +New York, NY 10007 +Re: Doe v. Indyke, et al., 1:20-cv-000484-JGK-DCF +Dear Judge Freeman: +We are writing on behalf of our client, plaintiff Jane Doe, in the above-referenced +oppositions shall be filed on or before August 27, 2020 and replies shall be filed on or before +September 4, 2020. Additionally, the parties agree that the motion to stay does not affect any +other deadlines set by the Court's August 14, 2020 Scheduling Order, without prejudice to the +parties' respective rights and legal positions. +Respectfully submitted, +PANISH SHEA & BOYLE +Is/ Robert Glassman +Robert Glassman +11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 - Los Angeles, California 90025 - 310.477.1700 phone - 310.477.1699 fax - www.psblaw.com diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc8453f59f1279f44257bea771b6de56c80c6545e159c2e090f3f49471cd7a8c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc8453f59f1279f44257bea771b6de56c80c6545e159c2e090f3f49471cd7a8c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..723c58b9a86ae25d87134e01bf2ce0ecfc1ac57b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc8453f59f1279f44257bea771b6de56c80c6545e159c2e090f3f49471cd7a8c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bc8453f59f1279f44257bea771b6de56c80c6545e159c2e090f3f49471cd7a8c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0ecf94f309d06bbbeb1a475b124c9b86d0f733f6237462b393722c23c2f6a8e3", + "output_sha256": "c2c5530f8c9060a03fed80184130e0afa9f1c396b04f60b8c9f8daee5172e1f7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc8c4e2e25dcb738e02a9307c9f1eecdbe639e65d08806349df5d3f20bc6ecb7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc8c4e2e25dcb738e02a9307c9f1eecdbe639e65d08806349df5d3f20bc6ecb7.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ab9769834373492eea79a7cce551ebafbbfd8f44 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc8c4e2e25dcb738e02a9307c9f1eecdbe639e65d08806349df5d3f20bc6ecb7.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 50 Filed 10/09/20 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE 17, +Plaintifj. +V. +DARREN | INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN, +AS JOINT PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF +THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, NINE +EAST 7Ist STREET CORPORATION, LAUREL, +INC., FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, INC., +NES. LL.C, MAPLE. INC., ISJE, LLC, HBRK +ASSOCIATES, INC., NAUTILUS, INC., +CYPRESS. INC. and JEGE, INC +Case No. 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF +STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL +WITH PREJUDICE +Defendants. +IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties that the abovecaptioned action is voluntarily dismissed in its entirety with prejudice and without costs pursuant +to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. +Dated: New York, New York +October 7, 2020 +WEISMANN, BRODIE, STARR +& MARGOLIES. +TROUTMAN PEPPER +SANDERS LLP +By: +David H. Brodie, +Laura J. Starr, Esq +1301 N. Federal Highway +Lake Worth, FL 33460 +Telephone: (561) 588-9500 +dbrodie@yourfloridacounsel.com +Bennet J. Moskowitz. +875 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +(212) 704-6000 +Bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +Allorneys for Plaintiff +Allorneys for Defendants +The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to close this case. +SO ORDERED. +an A +United States District Judge +October 9. 2020 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc8c4e2e25dcb738e02a9307c9f1eecdbe639e65d08806349df5d3f20bc6ecb7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc8c4e2e25dcb738e02a9307c9f1eecdbe639e65d08806349df5d3f20bc6ecb7.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f2b3989504c87708e3e9b5740907be50ec3863f8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc8c4e2e25dcb738e02a9307c9f1eecdbe639e65d08806349df5d3f20bc6ecb7.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -14, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bc8c4e2e25dcb738e02a9307c9f1eecdbe639e65d08806349df5d3f20bc6ecb7", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "51e82e076155bb4ee9d0b783f77a53b01724e82d8674df23d8e644fe28ab19a6", + "output_sha256": "fb2e1406561418a862f1b1afab755b75c735d3e35e3c85642dd739f407ff8d6c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc9c5aa54bf26afef319a78233a7408f4db98e001c7f9f715e8ff5d4644ddbbf.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc9c5aa54bf26afef319a78233a7408f4db98e001c7f9f715e8ff5d4644ddbbf.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b82fcbdc6f8bb36c19b842332a02dcc50704cda1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc9c5aa54bf26afef319a78233a7408f4db98e001c7f9f715e8ff5d4644ddbbf.md @@ -0,0 +1,102 @@ +Filing # 168136854 E-Filed 03/06/2023 04:21:44 PM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION: AG +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff/Petitioner +'AVE ARONBERG, +SHARON R BOCK, +Defendant/Respondents. +ORDER ON STATE ATTORNEY DAVE ARONBERG'S MOTION TO ALTER OR +COPY +AMEND ORDER DENYING THE AMENDED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES +UNDER FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 57.105 +THIS CAUSE was brought to the attention of THE HoNORABLe LuIs DELGADO upon +State Attorney Dave Aronberg's Motion to Alter or Amend Order Denying the Amended Motion +for Attorneys' Fees under Florida Statutes Section 57.105. +The Court having carefully considered the Motion, it is hereby +ORDERED and ADJUDGED the Motion is hereby denied. +DONE and ORDERED at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida +502019CA014681X +OMB, 93052023 IRCUIT +Luis Delgado.. +Circuit Judge +502019CA014681XXXXMB +Luis Delgado +Circuit Judge +03/06/2023 +Copies furnished: +Name +COLLIN D. +CYNTHIA M +GUERRA +Address +Email +n/a +P.O. BOX 229 WEST clerk_e-service@mypalmbeachclerk.com, +PALM BEACH, FL +eservice@mypalmbeachclerk.com, +33401 +cdjackson@mypalmbeachclerk.com +n/a +Clerk_e-service@mypalmbeachclerk.com +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, I +ABRUZZO, CLERK, 03/06/2023 04:21:44 PM + + +NameR +Address +961687 GATEWAY +DOUGLAS A. +WYLER +BLVD SUITE 201-1 +FERNANDINA +BEACH, FL 32034 +JESSICA NEER +MCDONALD +POST OFFICE BOX +229 WEST PALM +BEACH, FL 33401 +777 S FLAGLER DR +LAUREN R. +WHETSTONE +STE 300 E WEST +PALM BEACH, FL +33401 +MARK F BIDEAU +n/a +54 STATE STREET +MICHAEL GRYGIEL 6TH FLOOR +ALBANY, NY 12207 +MICHAEL J. +GRYGIEL +NINA D. BOYAJIAN n/a +n/a +1840 CENTURY +PARK EAST SUITE +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +1900 LOS ANGELES, +CA 90067 A +5100 TOWN CENTER +STEPHEN A. +CIR SUITE 400 +MENDELSOHN, ESQ BOCA RATON, FL +33486 +Email +doug@jswflorida.com, +doug.wyler@comcast.net +CLERK_E- +SERVICE@MYPALMBEACHCLERK.COM, +jnmedonald@mypalmbeachclerk.com +WHETSTONEL@GTLAW.COM, +flservice@gtlaw.com, +sandra.famadas@gtlaw.com +bideaum@gtlaw.com, thomasd@gtlaw.com, +FLService@gtlaw.com +GRYGIELM@GTLAW.COM +grygielm@gtlaw.com +boyafiann@gtlaw.com, riveraal@gtlaw.com +mendelsohns@gtlaw.com, +flservice@gtlaw.com +NOT diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc9c5aa54bf26afef319a78233a7408f4db98e001c7f9f715e8ff5d4644ddbbf.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc9c5aa54bf26afef319a78233a7408f4db98e001c7f9f715e8ff5d4644ddbbf.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a37e9ec2e7b30c524eb4fc4bfa3982a6d0e3a8a1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bc9c5aa54bf26afef319a78233a7408f4db98e001c7f9f715e8ff5d4644ddbbf.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bc9c5aa54bf26afef319a78233a7408f4db98e001c7f9f715e8ff5d4644ddbbf", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "24b332e60f4cf23e469eb02ba51591e9aa98e55792d0afbade80f1f0a4de7a2a", + "output_sha256": "b09a4dccff92f0ce9713a4e4c44a9e58a7d2e307eda8b25be46fdae4b16a3f45", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bca20b512881a4fb2b63529718dc70270ed6f5897cb7d62842c78c6787e1083e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bca20b512881a4fb2b63529718dc70270ed6f5897cb7d62842c78c6787e1083e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2c1bd8fad50d06d93e1638e1c591c8ddbeaf4a68 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bca20b512881a4fb2b63529718dc70270ed6f5897cb7d62842c78c6787e1083e.md @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ +Case 19194v0037KLDDEF Daman Fiiead0915120 pagage aro 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE 1000, +Plaintiff. +Case No. 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN +in their capacities as the executors of the ESTATE +OF JEFFREY EDWARD EPSTEIN, +Defendants. +JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED| ORDER STAYING ACTION +DF +WHEREAS independent claims administration experts have designed and are +implementing the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (the "Program") to resolve sexual +abuse claims against decedent Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Decedent") in a non-adversarial alternative to +litigation; and +WHEREAS Plaintiff Jane Doe 1000 ("Plaintiff," and together with Defendants, Darren K. +Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, the "Parties"), +seeks to participate in the Program; and +WHEREAS the Parties seek to preserve their resources and judicial economy by staying +this action for sixty (60) days while Plaintiff participates in the Program; and +WHEREAS should Plaintiff resolve her claims against Decedent via the Program, +Plaintiff will promptly discontinue this action with prejudice. +IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned counsel +for the Parties, that: +The captioned action is hereby stayed, both as to discovery and to the resolution of +any pending motions, for sixty (60) days from the date of entry of this Order. +42498352vl + + +Case 19194005771DE Damn Filer 089/151220 payage Bro 2 +2. +After the expiration of the stay, if any, the Parties will confer on a schedule for the +remaining discovery in this action. +Dated: June 12, 2020 +New York, New York +Respectfully submitted, +BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP +By:_Is/ Sigrid McCawley +Sigrid McCawley +401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Suite 1200 +Fort Lauderdale, FL, 33301 +(954) 377 4223 +smccawley@bsfllp.com +Attorneys for Plaintiff +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP +Date: +June 15, 2020 +New York, New York +By:_ Is/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +875 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +(212) 704-6000 +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +Attorneys for Defendants +he parties are directed to submit a joint status report +o later than 8/14/2020 +Ale Ame +HON. DEBRA €. FREEMAN +United States Magistrate Judge +2 +42498352v1 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bca20b512881a4fb2b63529718dc70270ed6f5897cb7d62842c78c6787e1083e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bca20b512881a4fb2b63529718dc70270ed6f5897cb7d62842c78c6787e1083e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6b745dc1e3a4ede4bcc2954f3553ffe8e3a9f720 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bca20b512881a4fb2b63529718dc70270ed6f5897cb7d62842c78c6787e1083e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bca20b512881a4fb2b63529718dc70270ed6f5897cb7d62842c78c6787e1083e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "7b0e4dc2bcfc92be30102f4fd8d98254beb960b26c0eb794eafde830efa070d0", + "output_sha256": "4e7d50e798ef1490b131f859c774e2de1d62c80aeb382fb29f8745de8fbebdb5", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bcb2a4f4fd9c9892a601df2d042de9db37301f1566b65384f809502d2bb27a0f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bcb2a4f4fd9c9892a601df2d042de9db37301f1566b65384f809502d2bb27a0f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8c63e97060199c6d2c0c43897a64d15e4a1d124f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bcb2a4f4fd9c9892a601df2d042de9db37301f1566b65384f809502d2bb27a0f.md @@ -0,0 +1,114 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 471 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2010 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO ATTEND MEDIATION +AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF +(AS TO JANE DOE v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 08-CIV-80893) +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, +moves this Court for an order allowing him to attend mediation in the above-styled matter +and as grounds set forth would state: +The Court entered a no contact order which may apply to Jane Doe, DE +238. +Plaintiff's counsel and Plaintiff, Jane Doe have no objection to Mr. +Epstein attending mediation and trial. +3. +Therefore, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, in an abundance of caution requests +that the court enter the attached proposed Agreed Order which shall not preclude him +from attending Jane Doe's mediation or the trial of this case. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 471 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2010 Page 2 of 3 +Rule 7.1 Certification +Defense counsel has spoken with Plaintiff's counsel and he has no objection to +the entry of the proposed order. +By: Is/ Michael J. Pike_ +Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Michael J. Pike +Attorneys for Defendant Epstein +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document is being served this day on all +counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by +electronic mail (e-mail) on this 19" day of February, 2010. +Respectfully submitted, +By: Is/ Michael J. Pike +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 471 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2010 Page 3 of 3 +Certificate of Service +ane woe No.zv.J +*ase No. CDC 80119-MARR Spin +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +MI, Jaffe, Weissing, L +¡, Fistos +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +& Lehrman, PL +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +425 N. Andrews Avenue +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2 +Suite 2218 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: 954-524-2820 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 954-524-2822 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +brad@pathtojustice.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +08-80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +Pro Hac Vice +08-80994 +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +801-585-5202 +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +801-585-6833 Fax +250 Australian Avenue South +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Suite 1400 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Estein +Isidro M. +Esq. +| Law Firm, P.A. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +isidrogarcia.@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80469 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bcb2a4f4fd9c9892a601df2d042de9db37301f1566b65384f809502d2bb27a0f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bcb2a4f4fd9c9892a601df2d042de9db37301f1566b65384f809502d2bb27a0f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f6745f281b6cafc5866f7dd083a2440f6d62b106 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bcb2a4f4fd9c9892a601df2d042de9db37301f1566b65384f809502d2bb27a0f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bcb2a4f4fd9c9892a601df2d042de9db37301f1566b65384f809502d2bb27a0f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "30307c022f7e90e9d81a1e0d7f4f3936a67dd3f6367f7ce6ac69d9ebec7eff15", + "output_sha256": "6d728c151ba48ed47f0d8ccc7ce6e8a951ac28a4812609fdc2e2068c23b0224b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bced2afaaeb0d2a9407fa3877158831e2535ad59b8ec98245bbc50564cd2431f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bced2afaaeb0d2a9407fa3877158831e2535ad59b8ec98245bbc50564cd2431f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0147de7818845ff7c9c5e6b8c42a4f40ddd1dab3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bced2afaaeb0d2a9407fa3877158831e2535ad59b8ec98245bbc50564cd2431f.md @@ -0,0 +1,1600 @@ +Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 1 of 50 +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +V +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +FILED by ——_ D.C. +AUG 0 4 2009 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 2 of 50 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA +/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRAJ +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 3 of 50 +DOE II, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ +PLAINTIFF, C.M.A.'S, EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER +REGARDING THE DEPOSITIONS OF SUSAN POPE AND DR. SERGE THYS AND +INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Plaintiff, C.M.A., by and through her undersigned attorneys, hereby files her +Emergency Motion for Protective Order Regarding the Depositions of Susan Pope and +Dr. Serge Thys and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, and in support there of states +as follows: +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 4 of 50 +1. This is an action to recover money damages against Defendant, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for acts of sexual abuse and prostitution committed upon the thenminor, C.M.A. +2. On Friday, July 31, 2009, Defendant unilaterally scheduled the deposition +of Susan Pope for Thursday, August 6, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., and the deposition of Dr. +Serge Thys on August 31, 2009, at 3:15 p.m. (Attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and " i +1 Pope is a mental health therapist and Dr. Thys is a psychiatrist. +3. +Plaintiff has plead thirty separate counts against EPSTEIN for separate +incidences of abuse committed by EPSTEIN against Plaintiff pursuant to 18 U.S.C. +§2255. 18 U.S.C. §2255, entitled "Civil remedy for personal injuries", creates a private +right of action for minor children who were the victims of certain enumerated sex +offenses. 18 U.S.C. §2255 also creates a statutory floor for the amount of damages a +victim can recover for a violation of same. Plaintiff has also alleged a single count of +Sexual Battery against EPSTEIN. +4. +There presently exists between the Plaintiff and EPSTEIN a disagreement +as to whether the statutory damage floor established in 18 U.S.C. §2255 is recoverable +for each commission of an enumerated sex offenses listed in 18 U.S.C. §2255, or +whether the statutory damage floor can only be enforced once, regardless of how many +times a defendant perpetrates an enumerated sex offense against a minor victim. +This disagreement between the parties is properly the subject of +Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint For Failure to State a Cause +'Although Defendant's Certificate of Service states that the Notices were sent via email and U.S. Mail on July 30, +they were not e-mailed to undersigned until the following day, July 31". +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 5 of 50 +of Action, and Motion For More Definite Statement; Motion to Strike, and Supporting +Memorandum of Law (Attached hereto as Exhibit "C") which is currently pending before +this Court. +In the event that the Court rules that Plaintiff can recover the statutory +damage floor established in 18 U.S.C. §2255 for each proven incident of abuse +committed by EPSTEIN upon her, Plaintiff intends to rely exclusively on the statutory +damages, rather than those damages which are available at common law. (See +Plaintiff, C.M.A.'s Conditional Notice of Intent to Exclusively Rely on Statutory Damages +Provided by 18 U.S.C. §2255 attached hereto as Exhibit "D"). If however, the Court +rules that the statutory floor applies only one time, regardless of the number of times +EPSTEIN committed an enumerated sexual offense against her, Plaintiff will be +pursuing all damages available to her at both common law and by statute. +7. Given Plaintiff's intent to rely exclusively on the statutory damages +available to her under 18 U.S.C. §2255 as outline above, Plaintiff will not be presenting +any evidence of the extent of her physical, emotional, or pecuniary injuries, beyond +evidence that she was the victim of sexual contact to which she was legally incapable of +consenting by virtue of her age (including, pain and suffering, emotional distress, +psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, +loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, and loss of the capacity to enjoy life). +Accordingly, any testimony and/or discovery regarding those types of damages would +not be relevant to any material issue pending in this case. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 6 of 50 +8. Presently pending before the Court is Defendant EPSTEIN's Motion to +Compel Plaintiff C.M.A. to Respond to Defendant's First Request to Produce and +Answer Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, and to Overrule Objections, and For an +Award of Defendant's Reasonable Expenses (Attached hereto as Exhibit "E"). +EPSTEIN is seeking from Plaintiff the production of certain treatment records of hers +from the Susan Pope/Parent-Child Center, Inc., Dr. Serge Thys, a psychiatrist, +Dominique Hyppolite/School District of Palm Beach County, Good Samaritan Hospital, +St. Mary's Hospital, Florida Atlantic University and Gloria C. Hakkarainen, M.D. +9. +Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff, +Motion for Protective Order Regarding Treatment Records From Parent-Child Center, +Inc. (Susan Pope), Dr. Serge Thys, Records of Dominique Hyppolite/School District of +Palm Beach County, Good Samaritan Hospital, St. Mary's Hospital, Florida Atlantic +University and Gloria C. Hakkareinen, M.D., With Incorporated Memorandum of Law +(DE 207) (Attached hereto as Exhibit "F"). +10. Rather than allow the Court to rule on the pending motions regarding +whether C.M.A, as a victim of repeated sexual offenses at the hands of EPSTEIN, +should be subjected to further humiliation, embarrassment, and victimization, EPSTEIN +has apparently decided to forge ahead without waiting for the Court's rulings regarding +the scope of permissible discovery in this case. +11. +Neither the testimony of Susan Pope/Parent-Child Center, Inc. or Dr. +Serge Thys will have any relevance whatsoever in the event that Plaintiff pursues only +those statutory damages available to her under 18 U.S.C. §2255. To the contrary, the +6 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 7 of 50 +testimony from these providers regarding the confidential and private treatment would +only serve to further humiliate, embarrass, and victimize C.M.A. +12. +Furthermore, C.M.A., the information sought by the Defendant is protected +by the psychotherapist-patient privilege pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in +Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1923 (1996)("All agree that a psychotherapist +privilege covers confidential communications made to licensed psychiatrists and +psychologists. +We have no hesitation in concluding in this case that the federal +privilege should also extend to confidential communications made to licensed social +workers in the course of psychotherapy.") Ordinarily, a plaintiff does not place her +mental condition in controversy merely by requesting damages for mental anguish or +"garden variety" emotional distress. In order to place a party's mental condition in +controversy the party must allege a specific mental or psychiatric disorder or intend to +offer expert testimony to support their claim of emotional distress. Turner v Imperial +Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89 (S.D.Cal. 1995). The evidence sought is also protected under +the substantive privacy rights recognized in Florida Statute §$90.503. +13. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully moves for the entry of a protective order +pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(c) preventing the depositions of Susan Pope and Dr. +Serge Thys. More particularly, Plaintiff requests the entry of an order precluding the +depositions of Susan Pope and Dr. Serge Thys until such time as the Court rules on the +issue regarding whether the statutory damage floor as contained in 18 U.S.C. §2255 +applies to each proven commission of an enumerated sexual offense by EPSTEIN +against CMA. Should the Court rule that 18 U.S.C. §2255 provides a per incident +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 8 of 50 +damage floor, the testimony would have absolutely no relevance whatsoever. In the +event that the Court rules that the damage floor applies only once, the parties can then +further brief the Court as to whether C.M.A has placed her mental condition "in +controversy" such that it operates as a waiver of the psychotherapist-patient privilege. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, C.M.A., respectfully requests that this Court enter a +protective order preventing the depositions of Susan Pope and Dr. Serge until such time +as the Court decides whether the statutory damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 are +available to a victim of an enumerated sexual offense on a per incident basis. +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1 +Counsel for the movant has conferred via e-mail with counsel for the Defendant +regarding his position on Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Protective Order Regarding +the Depositions of Susan Pope and Dr. Serge and Incorporated Memorandum of Law +and has advised the undersigned that he objects to the relief requested herein. +Is/ Jack P. +8 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 9 of 50 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 4rd day of August, 2009, I filed the foregoing +with the Clerk of the Court and send copies to all counsel of record via e-mail. +Jack Scafola +Florida Bar No.: 169440 +Jack P. +Florida Bar No.: 0547808 +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +(561) 686-6300 +(561) 383-9424 +Attorneys for Plaintiff +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 10 of 50 +COUNSEL LIST +Richard H. Willits, Esquire +Richard H. Willits, P.A +2290 10th Avenue North, Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Phone: +(561) 582-7600 +(561) 588-8819 +Robert Critton, Esquire +Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman LLP +515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33414 +Phone: +(561) 842-2820 +(561) 844-6929 +Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: +(561) 863-9100 +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esquire +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 South Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: +(561) 202-6360 +(561) 828-0983 +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245| +Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 11 of 50 +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80811-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN and +Defendants, +NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION +duces tecum oSE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney wil take the deposition +DEPONENT +Susan Pope +2001 W. Blue Heron Blvd. +Riviera Beach, FL 33401 +DATE & TIME LOCATION OF DEPOSITION +Thursday +Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman LLP +August 6, 2009| +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +10:00 a.m. +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +upon oral examination, before U.S. Legal Support, a Notary Public, or any other officer +authorized by law to take depositions in the State of Florida. The oral examination is +being taken for the purpose of discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are +permitted under the applicable Statutes of Rules of Court. +Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Attorney for Defendant Epstein +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing document is being served +this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List via email and U.S. +Mail on this 30# day of July, 2009 + +A + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 12 of 50 +Page 2 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 10* Avenue North +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-686-6300 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +isx@searcylaw.com +iph@searcylaw.com +Co-Counsel for Plaintiff +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +Respectfully submitted, +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +crit@ bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 13 of 50 +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80811-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN and +Defendants, +NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney will take the deposition +duces tecum of: +DEPONENT +Dr. Serge Thys +2151 45 Street +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +DATE & TIME LOCATION OF DEPOSITION +Monday +Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman LLP +August 31, 2009 303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 +3:15 p.m +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +upon oral examination, before U.S. Legal Support, a Notary Public, or any other officer +authorized by law to take depositions in the State of Florida. The oral examination is +being taken for the purpose of discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are +permitted under the applicable Statutes of Rules of Court. +Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Attorney for Defendant Epstein +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing document is being served +this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List via email and U.S. +Mail on this 30* day of July, 2009 + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 14 of 50 +Page 2 +Richard Horace Willits, Esa +Richard H. Willits, P.A +2290 10"* Avenue North +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Jack P., Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & 250 S. Australian Avenue +Shipley, P.A. +Suite 1400 +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-202-6360 +561-686-6300 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +isx@searcylaw.com +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +iph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +Co-Counsel for Plaintiff +Respectfully submitted, +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESO. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 15 of 50 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 47 +Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 1 of 21 +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON +C.M. A., +V. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN and +Defendants, +/ +DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST +AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION, +AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT; MOTION TO STRIKE. +AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ('EPSTEIN), by and through his undersigned +counsel, moves to dismiss Count I through XXXI of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint +for failure to state a cause of action, and for more definite statement, or to strike, as +specified herein. Rule 12(b)(6), (e) and (f), Fed. R.Civ.P. (2008); Local Gen. Rule 7.1 +(S.D. Fla. 2008). In support of dismissal, Defendant states: +The First Amended Complaint attempts to allege 32 counts. Counts | through +XXX are purportedly brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 - Civil Remedies for +Personal Injuries; Count XXXI is entitled "Sexual Battery," and Count XXXII is entitled +"Conspiracy to Commit Tortious Assault only against Defendant, +." Under +the heading "Factual Allegations" of the First Amended Complaint, +, Plaintiff also +references numerous federal and state criminal statutes, but fails to allege whether or +not she is attempting to assert claims based on these statutes. (1115, 1st Am. Comp.). + +C + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 16 of 50 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 2 of 21 +Page 2 +Dismissal is required on the following grounds: (1) A review of the complaint +allegations establishes that Plaintiff has failed to state the 30 causes of action under 18 +U.S.C.A. 2255. As discussed more fully below herein, this statute does not allow for the +Plaintiff to allege 30 separate causes of action; rather, the statute allows for the Plaintiff +to attempt to assert one claim. In addition, Plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of the +requisite predicate act as identified in 18 U.S.C. §2255 in order to state a cause of +action. Thus, Counts I through XXX against EPSTEIN are required to be dismissed. +Rule 12(b)(6), Fla. R.Civ.P. +(2) Count XXXI - Sexual Battery is also required to be dismissed for failure to state +a cause of action as Plaintiff has failed to allege the requisite elements of such claim. +The count fails to sufficiently allege whether it is being brought pursuant to common or +statutory law. Further, in Count XXXI, Plaintiff reincorporates in their entirety Counts I +through XXX; such pleading is improper and requires dismissal under the applicable +Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. +Supporting Memorandum of Law +L. Motion To Dismiss Standard +As established by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly, 127 +S.Ct. 1955 (2007), a motion to dismiss should be granted if the plaintiff does not plead +"enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id, at 1974. +Although the complaint need not provide detailed factual allegations, the basis for relief +in the complaint must state "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic +recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id, at 1965. Further, "factual +allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level ... on the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 17 of 50 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 3 of 21 +Page 3 +assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Id +On a motion to dismiss, the well pleaded allegations of plaintiff's complaint are taken as +true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. M.T.V. v. DeKalb County +Sch. Dist., 446 F.3d 1153, 1156 (11th Cir.2006). +Significantly, the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly abrogated the +often cited observation that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a +claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in +support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Id, (abrogating and quoting Conley +V. +355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The Supreme +Court rejected the notion that "a wholly conclusory statement of claim [can] survive a +motion to dismiss whenever the pleadings le[ave] open the possibility that a plaintiff +might later establish some 'set of [undisclosed] facts' to support recovery." Id. As +explained by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp., supra at 1664-65: +While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not +need detailed factual allegations, ibid.; Sanjuan v. American Bd. of +Psychiatry and Neurology, Inc., 40 F.3d 247, 251 (C.A.7 1994), a plaintiff's +obligation to provide the "grounds" of his "entitle[ment] to relief" requires +more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements +of a cause of action will not do, see Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286. +106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) (on a motion to dismiss, courts "are +not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual +allegation"). Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief +above the speculative level, see 5 C +Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed.2004) (hereinafter +Federal Practice an +(T]he pleading must contain something more ... than ... +a statement of facts +that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action), on +the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if +doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A... 534 U.S. 506, 508, +n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. +490 U.S. 319, +327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not +countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 18 of 50 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 4 of 21 +Page 4 +factual allegations"); Scheuer v. +416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, +40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it +appears "that a recovery is very remote and unlikely"). +In discussing Twombly, the Eleventh Circuit in +v. Fla. International Univ.., +495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11" Cir. 2007), noted - "The Supreme Court's most recent +formulation of the pleading specificity standard is that 'stating such a claim requires a +complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest' the required element." +In order to sufficiently allege the claim, the complaint is required to identify "facts that +are suggestive enough to render [the element] plausible." +495 F.3d at 1296 +(quoting Twombly. 127 S.Ct. at 1965). +l. Standard for More Definite Statement, Pleading, & Motion to Strike +Pursuant to Rule 12(e), a party may move for more definite statement of a +pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed where the pleading "is so vague or +ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably frame a response." The motion is required +to point out the defects and the desired details. Id. As to the general rules and form of +pleading, Rules 8 and 10, a claim for relief must contain "a short plain statement of the +claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief;" Rule 8(a)(3); and may contain +alternative claims within a count or as many separate claims. Rule 10(d)(2) and (3). +Pursuant to Rule 12(f) - Motion to Strike, "the court may strike from a pleading an +insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." +III. Counts I through XXX, 18 U.S.C. §2255, are required to be dismissed. +A. 18 U.S.C. §2255 creates a single civil remedy or cause of action on behalf of a minor +plaintiff against a defendant. The civil remedy afforded is not on a "per violation" basis. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 19 of 50 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Dockef 03/12/2009 Page 5 of 21 +Page 5 +Contrary to Plaintiff's attempted assertion of 30 separate counts pursuant to 18 +U.S.C.A. §2255 - Civil Remedy for Personal Injuries, this statute creates a single federal +cause of action or "civil remedy" for a minor victim of sexual, abuse, molestation and +exploitation. Under the plain meaning of the statutory text, §2255 does not create +separate causes of action on behalf of a minor against a defendant on a "per violation" +basis. No where in the statutory text is there any reference to the civil remedy afforded +by this statute as being on a "per violation" basis. 18 U.S.C. 2255(a) creates a civil +remedy for "a minor who is a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, +2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal +injury as a result of such violation ...." See +| v. Husband, 428 F.Supp.2d 432 +(E.D. Va. 2006); +v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2006); Doe v. +Liberatore, 478 F.Supp.2d 742, 754 (M.D. Pa. 2007); and the recent cases in front of +this court on Defendant's Motions to Dismiss and For More Definite Statement - Doe +No. 2 v. Epstein, 2009 WL 383332 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2009); Doe No. 3 v. Epstein, +2009 WL 383330 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2009); Doe No. 4 v. Epstein, 2009 WL 383286 +(S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2009); and Doe No. 5 v. Epstein, 2009 WL 383383 (S.D. Fla. Feb. +12, 2009). +There is no reported case supporting Plaintiffs tortured and nonsensical +interpretation of §2255. In all of these cases (cited above), each of the Plaintiffs brought +a single count or cause of action attempting to allege numerous violations of the +"predicate acts" specifically identified in §2255. "18 U.S.C. §2255 gives victims of +sexual conduct who are minors a private right of action." +V. +, 492 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 20 of 50 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 6 of 21 +Page 6 +F.Supp.2d 1186, 1188 (N.D. Cal. 2007), (emphasis added). 18 U.S.C.A. §2255 "merely +provides a cause of action for damages in 'any appropriate United States District +Court." Id, at 1189. See also Tilton v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 554 F.3d +1371 (11" Cir. Jan. 15, 2009)(District Court granted plaintiff "the minimum 'actual +damages' prescribed by §2255(a)," wherein plaintiff alleged that defendants had +violated three of the statutory predicate acts). +In improperly attempting to bring 30 separate counts pursuant to §2255, Plaintiff's +complaint alleges in part that "beginning in approximately late May or early June of +2002, and continuing until approximately August of 2003, the Defendant coerced and +enticed the impressionable, vulnerable, and economically deprived then minor Plaintiff +to commit various acts of sexual misconduct. These acts occurred, on average, one to +three times per week from late may or early June of 2002 until August 2003. At a bare +minimum these acts occurred twice a month from June 2002 until August of 2003." Am. +Complaint, 913. Plaintiff then claims the identical damages in each of the 30 §2255 +counts. See 11125, 31, 37, 43, 49, 55, 61, 67, 73, 79, 85, 91, 97, 103, 109, 115, 121, +127, 133, 139, 145, 151, 157, 163, 169, 175, 181, 187, 193, and 199. As well, in Count +XXXI, entitled "Sexual Battery," Plaintiff claims the identical "actual damages" in that she +realleges and incorporates each and every of the 199 allegations in the 30 prior counts. +It is well settled that in interpreting a statute, the court's inquiry begins with the +plain and unambiguous language of the statutory text. CBS, Inc. v. Prime Time 24 +Venture, 245 F.3d 1217 (11' Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Castroneves, 2009 WL 528251, *3 +(S.D. Fla. 2009), citing Reeves v. Astrue, 526 F.3d 732, 734 (11" Cir. 2008); and | + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 21 of 50 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Dockef 03/12/2009 Page 7 of 21 +Page 7 +V. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d at 610 ("When interpreting a statute, [a court's] inquiry +begins with the text."). "The Court must first look to the plain meaning of the words, and +scrutinize the statute's 'language, structure, and purpose." Id. In addition, in construing +a statute, a court is to presume that the legislature said what it means and means what +it said, and not add language or give some absurd or strained interpretation. As stated +in CBS, Inc., supra at 1228 - "Those who ask courts to give effect to perceived +legislative intent by interpreting statutory language contrary to its plain and +unambiguous meaning are in effect asking courts to alter that language, and "Iclourts +have no authority to alter statutory language.... We cannot add to the terms of [the] +provision what Congress left out.' Merritt, 120 F.3d at 1187." See also Dodd v. U.S., +125 S.Ct. 2478 (2005); 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes §124. +Title 18 of the U.S.C. is entitled "Crimes and Criminal Procedure." §2255 is +contained in "Part I. Crimes, Chap. 110. Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of +Children." 18 U.S.C. §2255 (2003), is entitled Civil remedy for personal injuries, and +provides: +(a) Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, +2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers +personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in any appropriate United +States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such minor sustains +and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any minor as +described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained +damages of no less than $50,000 in value. +(b) Any action commenced under this section shall be barred unless the complaint +is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues or in the case of a +person under a legal disability, not later than three years after the disability. +Reading the entire statute in context, no where is there any language indicating +that a minor plaintiff has a private right of action against a defendant "per violation." + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 22 of 50 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 8 of 21 +Page 8 +Under the statutory rules of construction, had the legislature intended to give a plaintiff +multiple causes of action against a defendant on a per violation basis, the statute would +have included such language. Had Congress wanted to create such a remedy as +Plaintiff attempts to bring, it could have easily included language of "per violation" after +the presumptive damages amount in subsection (a). By its own terms, the statute +provides for the recovery of "actual damages the minor sustains and the cost of the suit, +including attorney's fees." There is absolutely no language that allows for a plaintiff to +multiply the specified or presumptive damages recoverable on a "per violation" basis. +The Plaintiff's position on §2255 puts a strained interpretation with an absurd result. +The absurdity of Plaintiff's position is further evidenced by Count XXXI - "Sexual +Battery" where Plaintiff reincorporates each of the 30 counts and seeks the identical +"actual damages." +In +, supra, the defendants sought to dismiss plaintiffs' 18 U.S.C. +§2255 action based on forum non conveniens. The Northern District of California Court, +relying on the rules of statutory construction, rejected plaintiffs' argument that Congress +had intended to abrogate the forum non conveniens doctrine in a §2255 action; the +District Court noted that the statute does not contain a mandatory venue provision. Had +Congress wanted to get rid of the forum non-conveniens doctrine, it would have said so +in the statute. Also, in +v. Husband, 428 F.Supp. 432; and 376 F.Supp.2d 603, the +plaintiff invoked "the accompanying civil remedy for these criminal violations, stating that +she has sustained and continues to sustain physical and mental damages, humiliation, +and embarrassment as a result of Defendant's criminal acts." In other words, she + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 23 of 50 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 9 of 21 +Page 9 +brought a single cause of action, based on allegations of multiple violations of the §2255 +predicate acts. Furthermore, the court refused to add a venue interpretation that simply +was not written into the statutory text. See other §2255 cases cited herein. +For an example of a statute wherein the legislature included the language "for +each violation" in assessing a "civil penalty," see 18 U.S.C. §216, entitled "Penalties and +injunctions," of Chapter 11 - "Bribery, Graft, and Conflict of Interests," also contained in +Title 18 - "Crimes and Criminal Procedure." Subsection (b) of §216 gives the United +States Attorney General the power to bring a "civil action ... against any person who +engages in conduct constituting an offense under" specified sections of the bribery, +graft, and conflicts of interest statutes. The statute further provides in relevant part that +"upon proof of such conduct by a preponderance of the evidence, such person shall be +subject to a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for each violation or the amount of +compensation which the person received or offered for the prohibited conduct, which +ever amount is greater." As noted, 18 U.S.C. §2255 does not include such language. +Accordingly, Plaintiff's multiple counts brought pursuant to §2255 are required to +be dismissed for failure to state multiple causes of action. +B. Also requiring dismissal Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege +the requisite §2255 predicate acts. +Also requiring dismissal of Plaintiff's purported §2255 claims) is Plaintiff's failure +to sufficiently allege any violation of a requisite predicate act as specifically identified in +subsection (a) of the statute quoted above. Relevant to Plaintiff's complaint, 18 U.S.C. +2255(a) creates a civil remedy for "a minor who is a victim of a violation of section +2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 24 of 50 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 10 of 21 +Page 10 +and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation ...." See cases cited above +herein. Plaintiff has failed to plead any factual allegations whatsoever pertaining to +violations of the specified "predicate acts." In paragraph 15, Plaintiff makes reference +by citation only to the following federal statutes - "18 U.S.C. §§2241, 2242, 2243, 2421, +and 2423." See endnote following the Certificate of Service herein for the complete +statutory text.' +First, Plaintiff's reliance on 18 U.S.C. §2241 in its entirety as a predicate act is +improper; it is a violation of subsection §2241(c) that is a designated predicate act. A +reading of the text of the other referenced federal statutes shows that no where in +Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are there any allegations setting forth the requisite +elements of the cited predicate act. Further, any attempted reliance by Plaintiff on other +federal or state statutes not specifically identified in 18 U.S.C. §2255 is improper and +fails to state a cause of action. See 115 of Am. Complaint wherein Plaintiff references +by citation additional Florida State statutes and thereafter incorporates such reference +into her §2255 claim(s). See +v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d, and 428 Supp.2d, +supra, requiring allegations/evidence to establish predicate act under 18 U.S.C. §2255 +in order to be afforded civil remedy. +Plaintiff appears to be relying solely on an "agreement with the Federal +Government" as a basis for imposing liability under 18 U.S.C. §2255. See 1117, 18, +and 19 of 151 Am. Complaint. There is nothing in Plaintiff's allegations that would allow +for a §2255 claim to go forward without specifying the statutory predicate act and factual +allegations pertaining to a violation of the requisite predicate acts). Accordingly, under + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 25 of 50 +Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 11 of 21 +Page 11 +the standard of pleading as established in Iwombly, supra, Plaintiff has failed to +sufficiently allege the requisite elements of a §2255 claim, thus requiring dismissal; for +failure to state a cause of action. +C. 18 U.S.C. $2255 does not allow for the recovery of punitive damages. +Thus, Plaintiff's request for punitive damages under §2255 is required to be +dismissed or stricken. +In each of the improperly asserted Counts I through XXX, Plaintiff also seeks +punitive damages. A plain reading of 18 U.S.C. §2255, quoted above herein, +establishes that the statute does not allow for the recovery of punitive damages. Had +Congress wanted to allow for such a recovery, it could have easily written such +language into the damages provision of the statute. The legislative body chose not to +write a punitive damages component into §2255 as it has done in other statutes +affording civil remedies. In relevant part, §2255 reads - Any minor who is a victim of a +violation of section ... of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such +violation may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the +actual damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including a +reasonable attorney's fee. Any minor as described in the preceding sentence shall be +deemed to have sustained damages of no less than $50,000 in value." See discussion +of rules of statutory construction in part III.A. herein. See subsection (f)(2) of 18 U.S.C. +§2252A, entitled Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child +pornography, also contained in Chapter 110, Part I, Crimes, within which specific +reference is made to "compensatory and punitive damages" in setting forth the relief +which may be afforded to a plaintiff in bringing a civil action under §2252A(f). + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 26 of 50 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 12 of 21 +Page 12 +Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages are required to be dismissed with +prejudice or stricken. +D. In the alternative, pursuant to constitutional law principles of statutory +interpretation, 18 U.S.C. §2255 is required to be interpreted as creating a +single "civil remedy" or cause of action on behalf of a minor plaintiff +against a defendant. The "civil remedy" afforded is not on a "per violation" +basis. +As set forth above, it is Defendant's position that the text of 18 U.S.C. §2255 +does not allow a Plaintiff, such as C.M.A., to pursue the civil remedy and the damages +afforded under the statute on a "per violation" basis. See part III.A. above. In the +alternative, simply for the sake of argument, if one were to assume that the language of +§2255 were vague or ambiguous, under the constitutional based protections of due +process, judicial restraint, and the rule of lenity applied in construing a statute, +Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail over Plaintiff's view. +See United States v. +128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the +United States Supreme Court in +, supra, at 2025: +... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to be interpreted in +favor of the defendants subjected to them. See United States v. Gradwell, +243 U.S. 476, 485, 37 S.Ct. 407, 61 L.Ed. 857 (1917); McBoyle v. United +States, 283 U.S. 25, 27, 51 S.Ct. 340, 75 L.Ed. 816 (1931); United States v. +Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347-349, 92 S.Ct. 515, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971). This +venerable rule not only vindicates the fundamental principle that no citizen +should be held accountable for a violation of a statute whose commands are +uncertain, or subjected to punishment that is not clearly prescribed. It also +places the weight of inertia upon the party that can best induce Congress to +speak more clearly and keeps courts from making criminal law in Congress's +stead +In +the Court was faced with the interpretation of the term "proceeds" in +the federal money laundering statute, 18 U.S.C. §1956. "The federal money-laundering + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 27 of 50 +Case 9:08-Cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 13 of 21 +Page 13 +statute prohibits a number of activities involving criminal 'proceeds." Id, at 2023. Noting +that the term "proceeds" was not defined in the statute, the Supreme Court stated the +well settled principle that "when a term is undefined, we give it its ordinary meaning." Id, +at 2024. Under the ordinary meaning principle, the government's position was that +proceeds meant "receipts," while the defendant's position was that proceeds meant +"profits." The Supreme Court recognized that under either of the proffered "ordinary +meanings," the provisions of the federal money-laundering statute were still coherent, +not redundant, and the statute was not rendered "utterly absurd." Under such a +situation, citing to a long line of cases and the established rule of lenity, "the tie must go +to the defendant." Id, at 2025. See portion of Court's opinion quoted above. "Because +the 'profits' definition of 'proceeds' is always more defendant friendly that the 'receipts' +definition, the rule of lenity dictates that it should be adopted." Id. +Plaintiff's position would subject Defendant EPSTEIN to a punishment that is not +clearly prescribed - an unwritten multiplier of the "actual damages" or the presumptive +damages. The rule of lenity requires that Defendant's interpretation of the remedy +afforded under §2255 be adopted. +In addition, under the Due Process Clause's basic principle of fair warning - +crime a criminal statute must give fair warning of the conduct that it makes a +.... As was said in United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617, 1 +S.Ct. 808, 812, 98 L.Ed. 989, +'The constitutional requirement of definiteness is violated by a criminal +statute that fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice tha +his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute. The underlying +principle is that no man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct +which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed.' + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 28 of 50 +Case 9:08-cV-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 14 of 21 +Page 14 +Thus we have struck down a [state] criminal statute under the Due Process +Clause where it was not 'sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject +to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties.' +Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 +L.Ed. 322. We have recognized in such cases that 'a statute which either +forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common +intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its +application violates the first essential of due process of law,' ibid., and that +"No one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to +the meaning of penal statutes. All are entitled to be informed as to what the +State commands or forbids.' Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 453, 59 +S.Ct. 618, 619, 83 L.Ed. 888. +Thus, applying these well-entrenched constitutional principles of statutory interpretation +and application, Plaintiff's 30 separate counts brought under 18 U.S.C. §2255 are +required to be dismissed. +IV. Count XXXI - "Sexual Battery" is required to be dismissed for failure to +state a cause of action. In the alternative, Plaintiff should be required to more +definitely state whether she is attempting to allege a claim under Florida +common or statutory law, or some federal law, and further allege the required +elements and factual allegations. +In Count XXXI, although entitled "Sexual Battery," Plaintiff improperly realleges +and incorporates each and every allegation and each and every count (30) which she +previously attempted to allege, resulting in a count that is 204 paragraphs long and +includes reference to Federal and Florida statutory law, while also including language +sounding in common law. The count is such a hodgepodge of legal allegations that +Plaintiff fails to state a legally recognizable or viable cause of action. +In 915, Plaintiff alleges that "the acts referenced in paragraphs 9 through 14, +committed by Defendant against the then minor Plaintiff, C.M.A., were committed in +violation of numerous criminal State and Federal statutes ..., including but not limited +to, those crimes designated in 18 U.S.C. §§2241, 2242, 2243, 2421, and 2423, criminal + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 29 of 50 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 15 of 21 +Page 15 +offenses outlined in Chapter 800 of the Federal Codes, as well as those designated in +Florida Statutes §796.03, §796.07, §796.045, §796.04, §39.01; and §827.04." In 7203 +Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant's "tortious commission of sexual battery upon +C.M.A. were (sic) done willfully and maliciously." +Supporting Defendant's position that Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action +in Count XXXI, 18 U.S.C. §§2241(c), not §2241 in its entirety, as discussed above, is +one of the predicate acts, along with 2242, 2243, 2421, and 2423, designated in the +federal civil remedy statute - 18 U.S.C. §2255. Plaintiff attempted and failed to allege +such a claim in the previous counts. Defendant can find no criminal offenses in any +"Chapter 800 of the Federal Codes" which give rise to a civil cause of action. +The same is true for Plaintiff's reference to the Florida Statutes. Not one of the +statutes referenced creates a private cause of action or affords a civil remedy on behalf +of the alleged victim of the criminal offense.' (Except for Florida Statute §39.01, all of +the statutes referenced by Plaintiff are contained Title XLVI. Crimes of the Florida +Statutes). The referenced criminal statutes set forth acts subject to criminal prosecution +and the criminal penalties therefor, if proven. See generally, Am. Home Assurance Co. +y. Plaza Materials Corp., 908 So.2d 360, 374 (Fla. 2005)("not every statutory violation +carries a civil remedy"); Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Ferre, 636 F.Supp. 970 (S.D. Fla. +1985)(violation of Florida's criminal extortion statute does not give rise to civil cause of +' Florida Statutes §§796.03 - Procuring person under age 18 for prostitution; 796.04 - +borome effective unto oct. 204) Set training praties: 907 Prohibiting not +become effective until Oct. 1 +prostitution, etc.; evidence; penalties; definitions; and §39.01, entitled "Definitions," is +contained in Title V - Judicial Branch, Chapter 39 - "Proceedings relating to Children." + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 30 of 50 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 16 of 21 +Page 16 +action for damages); Mantooth v. Richards, 557 So.2d 646 (Fla. 4" DCA 1990), per +curiam, (Dismissal of plaintiffs civil complaint affirmed where parental kidnapping +statutes concerned only criminal violations and did not create a civil remedy). +As well, the Count XXXI allegations make absolutely no reference to any +viable common law cause of action; Defendant should not be required to guess or +speculate as to the nature of Plaintiff's cause of action. Even if Defendant were to +speculate as to the supposed cause of action, these causes of action (common law or +otherwise) have not been sufficiently alleged. On its face, in accordance with the +pleading requirements annunciated in Twombly, supra, Count XXXI is completely +lacking as to any common law elements or the underlying factual allegations to support +each element, and thus, Count XXXI is required to be dismissed for failure to state a +cause of action. +In the alternative, Plaintiff should be required to more definitely state whether her +claim is being brought pursuant to federal or Florida statutory law, specifically identify +the statute it is being brought under, or whether her claim is being asserted under +common law. Once Plaintiff identifies the nature of her claim, she is required to +sufficiently allege in accordance with Iwombly, the requisite elements of the identified +claim, along with sufficient factual allegations supporting the elements. +Conclusion +Pursuant to applicable law, Counts I through XXXI of Plaintiff's First Amended +Complaint are required to be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. 18 U.S.C. +does not allow for the Plaintiff C.M.A. to allege separate causes of action against + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 31 of 50 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 17 of 21 +Page 17 +Defendant EPSTEIN, but rather allows Plaintiff to attempt to assert a single civil remedy +if she can prove a violation of any of the statutory enumerated predicate acts. Further, +Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege a requisite predicate act under §2255. In +addition, §2255 does not allow for recovery of punitive damages. Count XXXI is also +subject to dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action, as Plaintiff has +tailed to allege a legally viable or recognizable cause of action. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court grant his motion to dismiss +Counts I through XXXI, or alternative motion for more definite statement, and motion to +strike. +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +day of March, 2009: +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +2290 10" Avenue North +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 404 +Suite 1400 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-582-7600 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. +jagesg@bellsouth.net +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Counsel for Defendants Jeffrey Epstein +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack P. +1. Esq. +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Searcy +Denney Scarola Barnhart & Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +Shipley, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevaro +Suite 1400 +Nest Palm Beach, FL 33409 +West Palm beach, FL 33401 +561-686-6300 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +Fax: 561-828-0983 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 32 of 50 +Ducument 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 18 of 21 +Page 18 +isx@searcylaw.com +iph@searcylaw.com +Co-Counsel for Plaintiff +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +Respectfully submitted, +ROBERT D./CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +'ENDNOTE: +U.S.C.A. - Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure, +Chapter 109A. Sexual Abuse +§2241. Aggravated Sexual Abuse. +(c) With children.--Whoever crosses a State line with intent to engage in a sexual act +with a person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or in the special maritime and +territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, +institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a +contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly +engages in a sexual act with another person who has not attained the age of 12 years, +or knowingly engages in a sexual act under the circumstances described in subsections +(a) and (b) with another person who has attained the age of 12 years but has not + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 33 of 50 +Case 9:08-Cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 19 of 21 +Page 19 +attained the age of 16 years (and is at least 4 years younger than the person so +engaging), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not +less than 30 years or for life. If the defendant has previously been convicted of another +Federal offense under this subsection, or of a State offense that would have been an +offense under either such provision had the offense occurred in a Federal prison, unless +the death penalty is imposed, the defendant shall be sentenced to life in prison. +§ 2242. Sexual abuse +Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in +a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in +custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any +Federal department or agency, knowingly-- +(1) causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that +other person in fear (other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that +any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping); or +(2) engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is-- +(A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or +(B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating +unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act; +or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years +or for life. +§ 2243. Sexual abuse of a minor or +(a) Of a minor.--Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the +United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which +persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with +the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with +another person who-- +(1) has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years; and +(2) is at least four years younger than the person so engaging; +or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, +or both. +(b) Of a +-Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United +States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are +held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of +any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another +person who is-- + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 34 of 50 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 20 of 21 +Page 20 +(1) in official detention; and +(2) under the custodial, supervisory, or disciplinary authority of the person so +engaging; +or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, +or both. +(c) Defenses.-(1) In a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section, it is a defense, +which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that the +defendant reasonably believed that the other person had attained the age of 16 years. +(2) In a prosecution under this section, it is a defense, which the defendant must +establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that the persons engaging in the sexual +act were at that time married to each other. +(d) State of mind proof requirement.--In a prosecution under subsection (a) of this +section, the Government need not prove that the defendant knew.-- +(1) the age of the other person engaging in the sexual act; or +(2) that the requisite age difference existed between the persons so engaging. +Chapter 117 Transportation for Illegal Sexual Activity and Related Crimes +§ 2421. Transportation generally +Whoever knowingly transports any individual in interstate or foreign commerce, or in +any Territory or Possession of the United States, with intent that such individual engage +in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a +criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not +more than 10 years, or both. +§ 2423. Transportation of minors +(a) Transportation with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity.--A person who +knowingly transports an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate +or foreign commerce, or in any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United +States, with intent that the individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for +which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title +and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life. +(b) Travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct.--A person who travels in +interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an +alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign +commerce, for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person +shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 35 of 50 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 21 of 21 +Page 21 +(c) Engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places.--Any United States citizen or +alien admitted for permanent residence who travels in foreign commerce, and engages +in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or +imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. +(d) Ancillary offenses.--Whoever, for the purpose of commercial advantage or private +financial gain, arranges, induces, procures, or facilitates the travel of a person knowing +that such a person is traveling in interstate commerce or foreign commerce for the +purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct shall be fined under this title, imprisoned +not more than 30 years, or both. +(e) Attempt and conspiracy.-Whoever attempts or conspires to violate subsection (a), +(b), (c), or (d) shall be punishable in the same manner as a completed violation of that +subsection. +(f) Definition.--As used in this section, the term "illicit sexual conduct" means (1) a +sexual act (as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age that would +be in violation of chapter 109A if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime and +territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or (2) any commercial sex act (as defined in +section 1591) with a person under 18 years of age. +(g) Defense.--In a prosecution under this section based on illicit sexual conduct as +defined in subsection (f)(2), it is a defense, which the defendant must establish by a +preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant reasonably believed that the person +with whom the defendant engaged in the commercial sex act had attained the age of 18 +years. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245| +Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 36 of 50 + +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN and +Defendants. +PLAINTIFF, C.M.A.'S, CONDITIONAL NOTICE OF INTENT TO EXCLUSIVELY RELY +ON STATUTORY DAMAGES PROVIDED BY 18 U.S.C. §2255 +Plaintiff, C.M.A., by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files her +Conditional Notice of Intent to Exclusively Rely on Statutory Damages Provided by 18 +U.S.C. §2255, and in support thereof states as follows: +1. This is an action to recover money damages against Defendant, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for acts of sexual abuse and prostitution committed upon the thenminor, C.M.A. +2. +Plaintiff has plead thirty separate counts against EPSTEIN for separate +incidences of abuse committed by EPSTEIN against Plaintiff pursuant to 18 U.S.C. +§2255. 18 U.S.C. §2255, entitled "Civil remedy for personal injuries", creates a private +right of action for minor children who were the victim of certain enumerated sex +offenses. 18 U.S.C. §2255 also creates a statutory floor for the amount of damages a + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 37 of 50 +Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 2 of 4 +victim can recover for a violation of same. Plaintiff has also alleged a single count of +Sexual Battery against EPSTEIN as well. +There presently exists between the Plaintiff and EPSTEIN a disagreement +as to whether the statutory damage floor established in 18 U.S.C. §2255 is recoverable +for each commission of an enumerated sex offense listed in 18 U.S.C. §2255, or +whether the statutory damage floor can only be enforced once, regardless of how many +times a defendant perpetrates an enumerated sex offense against a minor victim. +4. +This disagreement between the parties is properly the subject of +Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint For Failure to State a Cause +of Action, and Motion For More Definite Statement; Motion to Strike, and Supporting +Memorandum of Law (D.E. 47) which is currently pending before this Court. +5. +In the event that the Court rules that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the +statutory damages created by 18 U.S.C. §2255 for each violation', Plaintiff will be +pursuing only those statutory damages, and will not pursue damages available at +common law. +Should the Court rule however, that the statutory damage floor can only +be applied once, Plaintiff will be pursuing any and all damages available to her, whether +they be pursuant to statute or by common law. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 38 of 50 + +Respectfully submitted, +Ls/Jack P +JACK SCAROLA +Florida Bar No. 169440 +JACKP. +Florida Bar No.: 0547808 +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: +(561) 686-6300 +(561) 383-9456 +Attorneys for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 5th, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached +counsel list via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. +Istlack P. +JACK SCAROLA +Florida Bar No. 169440 +JACKP +Florida Bar No.: 0547808 +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: +(561) 686-6300 +(561) 383-9456 +Attorneys for Plaintiff, C.M.A. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 39 of 50 + +COUNSEL LIST +Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue S. +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: +(561) 863-9100 +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esquire +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 South Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: +(561)-202-6360 +(561)-828-0983 +Robert Critton, Esquire +Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman LLP +515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33414 +Phone: +(561)-842-2820 +(561)-844-6929 +Richard H. Willits, Esquire +Richard H. Wilits, P.A. +2290 10th Avenue North +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Phone: +(561)-582-7600 +(561)-588-8819 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 40 of 50 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009; Page 1 of 18 +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80811-MARRA] +C.M. A., +V. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN and +Defendants, +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF C.M.A. TO RESPOND TO +DEFENDANT'S FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE AND ANSWER DEFENDANTS +FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, AND TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS, AND FOR +AN AWARD OF DEFENDANT'S REASONABLE EXPENSES +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, +moves this Court for an order compelling Plaintiff, C.M.A. to respond to Defendant's +First Request To Produce and to answer Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, and to +overrule her objections asserted in Plaintiff's Response To Defendant's First Request +To Produce, dated February 13, 2009, and in Plaintiff's Notice of Serving Answers To +Interrogatories, dated February 18, 2009. Defendant further seeks an award of his +reasonable expenses, including expenses, associated with the making of this motion. +Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P. (2008); Local Gen. Rules 7.1 and 26.1 H (S.D. Fla. 2008). In +support of his motion, Defendant states: +Prior to the filing of this motion, on April 1, 2009, Defendant's counsel +communicated by telephone with Plaintiff's counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the +discovery issues herein. This motion addresses those discovery items which remain at + +E + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 41 of 50 +Document 54 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 18 +Page 2 +issue. Also, rather than file 2 separate motions to compel, Defendant filed one +addressing the production requests and interrogatories because the discovery issues +overlap. +Motion To Compel Responses to Production Requests Nos. 1, 2,4, 5, and 19, +and Answers to Interrogatories Nos. 2, 18, and 23. +Production Request No. 1 +1. +Individual and/or joint income tax returns and supporting documentation +including W-2 and 1099 forms for 2002-2007 and, as well as all records or +documentation relative to the Plaintiff's earnings for the current year. +Response: +Objection. Irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery +of admissible information. +Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery +Plaintiff's tax returns and supporting documentation are relevant to Plaintiff's +damages claims and, thus, discoverable. Plaintiff's complaint alleges in part that +"beginning +in approximately late May or early June of 2002, and continuing until +approximately August of 2003, the Defendant coerced and enticed the impressionable, +vulnerable, and economically deprived then minor Plaintiff to commit various acts of +sexual misconduct." +1st Am. Complaint, T13. (Plaintiff also refused to answer +Interrogatory no. 2 which sought her employment history for the past ten years asserting +the same general objection). +Such information is both relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. +It is well settled that relevant information is +discoverable, even if not admissible at trial, so long as the discovery is reasonably +calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 26(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.; + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 42 of 50 +Case 9:08-cV-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 3 of 18 +Page 3 +Donahay v. Palm Beach Tours & trans., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007). +Discoverability of such information is governed by Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P., pursuant to +which the scope of discovery is broad. Donahay, supra, at 686, and cases cited therein. +"Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to +the claims or defense of any party involved in the pending action." Id. +Plaintiff's tax returns, along with the requested supporting documentation, for the +six year period, and documents relevant to her current earnings, are relevant to +Plaintiff's damages claims detailed below herein. Such information would show +Plaintiff's employment and earning history, as well as provide evidence as to how +Plaintiff has been able to function in her daily life before, during and after the alleged +incidents. Was she self-sufficient? Was she able to get out of bed each morning and +support herself? What type of job did she hold? One's ability to earn a living and be +has +not +only a financial component, but +'also an +self-supporting +emotional/psychological/mental component. +C.M.A.'s First Amended Complaint' attempts to allege 32 counts: Counts I +through XXX are purportedly brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 - Civil Remedies for +Personal Injuries; Count XXXI is entitled "Sexual Battery," and Count XXXII is entitled +"Conspiracy to Commit Tortious Assault only against Defendant, +In her answers to interrogatory nos. 9 and 10, which seek information about +C.M.A.'s damages claims, Plaintiff answered that: +'Defendant's Motion To Dismiss directed to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint is pending. + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 43 of 50 +Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 4 of 18 +Page 4 +I have bi-polar disorder and manic depression. I lost my self-esteem. I began +cutting myself on my arms and legs and developed drug problems. Permanent +injuries are psychological. (Interrog. No. 9). +I am claiming compensation for mental anguish, mental pain, psychic trauma, +and loss of enjoyment of life. These damages will be evaluated by a jury who +will provide their own methods of computation in an amount of at least the +statutory minimum established by 18 U.S.C.A. §2255. (Interrog. No. 10). +In her 1s' Amended Complaint, relevant to her damages claims, Plaintiff alleges: +...C.M.A., has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, +pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, +humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her +privacy and other damages +.... The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and +psychological expenses... and will in the future suffer additional medical and +psychological expenses. The Plaintiff C.M.A. has suffered loss of income, a +loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of capacity to enjoy +life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, C.M.A., will +continue to suffer these losses in the future. +(181 Am. Complaint, Counts I - XXX (18 U.S.C. §2255), 11125, 31, 37, 43, 49, 55, +61, 67, 73, 79, 85, 91, 97, 103, 109, 115, 121, 127, 133, 139, 145, 151, 157, +163, 169, 175, 181, 187, 193; Count XXXI (Sexual Battery), 1199.) +In each of her "Wherefore" clauses, Plaintiff seeks "compensatory damages of at +least the minimum provided by law." 18 U.S.C. §2255, pursuant to which Plaintiff +attempts to bring certain of her claims, allows for recovery of "actual damages." See fn. +2 herein for applicable statutory text.? +As discussed above, the tax returns, and supporting documentation, will provide +direct evidence as to Plaintiff's claimed damages. Such information does not only go to +2 Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, +deemed to have sustained damages of no less than $50,000 in value. [Emphasis added.] + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 44 of 50 +Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 5 of 18 +Page 5 +compensatory or actual damages or loss of income/loss of capacity to earn income type +damages, but also her emotional/psychological/mental health type damages. In the +telephone communication between counsel for the respective parties, Plaintiff's counsel +indicated that Plaintiff was not seeking loss of income/earning capacity type damages; +(Defendant is not aware that there has been any formal withdrawal of such damages +claimed); notwithstanding, the information sought is still relevant and discoverable +based on the additional damages claimed by Plaintiff. The time period will allow +Defendant to compare how Plaintiff was doing in her life prior to, during, and after the +alleged incident. Again, the type of jobs Plaintiff has been able to hold and her earnings +and ability to support herself clearly have not only a financial component, but an +emotional/psychological/mental health component as well. Accordingly, Plaintiff's +objection is required to be overruled, and Defendant is entitled to the documents +requested. +Production Request No. 2 +2. +All bills/expenses from any medical doctor, chiropractor, psychologists, +psychiatrists, mental health counselors (including any members of the healing arts and +related 1 +i.e. drugs, prescriptions, etc.) you claim you incurred as a result of the +injuries which are or may be the subject matter of this lawsuit +Response: +None in our possession. These will be provided upon receipt. Discovery is ongoing. +Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery +Plaintiff makes no objection to the documents requested, but has failed to +produce any documents responsive to this request. Clearly, the documents are relevant +and discoverable as they go to proof of Plaintiff's claimed injuries. In the April 1, 2009, + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 45 of 50 +Case 9:08-cV-80811-KAM Document 54 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 6 of 18 +Page 6 +telephone communication Plaintiff's counsel indicated that Plaintiff was still not in +possession of such documents. The First Request for Production was served on +Plaintiff on January 16, 2009. In her answer to interrogatory no. 11, (Notice of Serving +Answers, dated February 18, 2009, identifies a psychiatrist and a counselor/therapist +from whom she claims she is receiving "treatment or examination for the injuries for +which [she] seeks damages." See Exhibit A hereto for copy C.M.A.'s answer to +interrogatory no. 11. Regarding the date of treatment from the psychiatrist - she +asserts "I would defer to the Doctor's records." She claims the treatment from the +counselor/therapist has been "since high school" and "ongoing." Defendant is entitled to +the documents sought and Plaintiff is in control of and has the ability to obtain the +requested medical bills and expenses she claims were incurred as result of her injuries +claimed in this action. Plaintiff should be required to immediately produce the requested +documents to Defendant. +Production Request No. 4 +All reports, evaluations, recommendations and/or analysis submitted by +any expert which relate to or cover the incident which is the subject matter of this +lawsuit and/or any injuries, damages or losses you allege were caused by the incident +Response: +Any reports generated by any retained experts not yet disclosed are protected by the +work product privilege. Notwithstanding same, none. +Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery +Plaintiff, through counsel, in the April 1, 2009, telephone communication, +indicated that she does not have any responsive documents and stands by her +objection. Rule 26 provides in relevant part - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 46 of 50 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 7 of 18 +Page 7 +2) Disclosure of Expert Testimony. +(A) In General. In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), a party must +disclose to the other parties the Identity of any witness it may use at trial to present +evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705. +(B) Written Report. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, this +disclosure must be accompanied by a written report-prepared and signed by the witness--if +the witness is one retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the +case or one whose duties as the party's employee regularly involve giving expert testimony. +The report must contain: +(i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and +reasons for them; +(il) the data or other information considered by the witness in forming them; +(il) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them; +(iv) the witness's qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the +previous 10 years; +(v) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous four years, the witness +testified as an expert at trial or by deposition; and +(vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the +case. +(C) Time to Disclose Expert Testimony. A party must make these disclosures at the +times and in the sequence that the court orders. Absent a stipulation or a court order, the +disclosures must be made: +(i) at least 90 days before the date set for trial or for the case to be ready for trial; or +(il) if the evidence is intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same +subject matter identified by another party under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), within 30 days after the +other party's disclosure. +* +* +* +(e) Supplementing Disclosures and Responses. +(1) In General. A party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a)-or who has +responded to an interrogatory, request for production, or request for admission--must +supplement or correct its disclosure or response: +(A) in a timely manner if the party leams that in some material respect the +disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 47 of 50 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 8 of 18 +Page 8 +information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the +discovery process or in writing; or +(B) as ordered by the court. +(2) Expert Witness. For an expert whose report must be disclosed under Rule +26(a)(2)(B), the party's duty to supplement extends both to information included in +the report and to information given during the expert's deposition. Any additions or +changes to this information must be disclosed by the time the party's pretrial disclosures +under Rule 26(a)(3) are due. +Accordingly, Defendant requests that should Plaintiff be in possession of any +such reports, evaluations, recommendations and/or analysis prepared by an expert +expected to testify at trial or deposition, or to be used by an expert expected to testify at +trial or deposition, that such documents be produced as required by Rule 26, +Fed.R.Clv.P. quoted above. +Production Request No. 5 +All medical reports and/or records from doctors, physicians, (including +psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors), hospitals, drug or alcohol +facilities or any other person or entity who has rendered treatment to or examined you +for any reason after the incidents) which is the subject matter of this lawsuit. +Response: +None in our possession. Discovery is ongoing. +Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery +Once again, Plaintiff should be required to immediately produce the requested +documents. +In support of ordering immediate production, Defendant realleges and +incorporates his "Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement To Discovery" to request no. 5 +above herein. + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 48 of 50 +Document 54 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 9 of 18 +C.M.A. v. Epstein, et ai. +Page 9 +Interrogatory No. 2 +2. +List the names, business addresses, telephone and cell phone numbers, +dates of employment, immediate supervisor (name and address) and rates of pay +regarding all employers, including self-employment, for whom you have worked in the +past 10 years; this includes listing all sources of income you have received. Answer this +question by year, i.e. 1998 - 2009. +Answer: +Objection. Irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of +admissible evidence. +Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery +Such information is clearly relevant to the damages and injuries claimed by +Plaintiff in this action. +Plaintiff's complaint alleges in part that "beginning in +approximately late May or early June of 2002, and continuing until approximately +August of 2003, the Defendant coerced and enticed the impressionable, vulnerable, and +economically deprived then minor Plaintiff to commit various acts of sexual misconduct." +18 Am. Complaint, T13. (See discussion of Production Request no. 1 above herein). +Such information is both relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. It is well settled that relevant information is +discoverable, even if not admissible at trial, so long as the discovery is reasonably +calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 26(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.; +Donahay v. Palm Beach Tours & trans.. Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007). +Discoverability of such information is governed by Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P., pursuant to +which the scope of discovery is broad. Donahay, supra, at 686, and cases cited therein. +"Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to +the claims or defense of any party involved in the pending action." Id + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 49 of 50 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 + +Page 10 +Plaintiff's employment and earnings history prior to and after the alleged +incidents are relevant to her claimed damages and injuries. Such information would not +only evidence Plaintiff's employment and earning history, but also provide evidence as +to how Plaintiff has been able to function in her daily life before, during and after the +alleged incidents. Was she self-sufficient? Was she able to get out of bed each +morning and support herself? What type of job did she hold? One's ability to earn a +living and be self-supporting has not only a financial component, but also an +emotional/psychological/mental component. +C.M.A.'s First Amended Complaint attempts to allege 32 counts. Counts I +through XXX are purportedly brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 - Civil Remedies for +Personal Injuries; Count XXXI is entitled "Sexual Battery," and Count XXXIi is entitled +"Conspiracy to Commit Tortious Assault only against Defendant, +In her answers to interrogatory nos. 9 and 10, which seek information about +C.M.A.'s damages claims, Plaintiff answered that: +I have bi-polar disorder and manic depression. I lost my self-esteem. I began +cutting myself on my arms and legs and developed drug problems. Permanent +injuries are psychological. (Interrog. No. 9). +I am claiming compensation for mental anguish, mental pain, psychic trauma, +and loss of enjoyment of life. These damages will be evaluated by a jury who +will provide their own methods of computation in an amount of at least the +statutory minimum established by 18 U.S.C.A. §2255. (Interrog. No. 10). +In her 15 Amended Complaint, relevant to her damages claims, Plaintif alleges: +... C.M.A., has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, +pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, +humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her +privacy and other damages +• The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and +psychological expenses... and will in the future suffer additional medical and +psychological expenses. The Plaintiff C.M.A. has suffered loss of income, a + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 50 of 50 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 11 of 18 +Page 11 +loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of capacity to enjoy +These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, C.M.A., Will +continue to suffer these losses in the future. +(15t Am. Complaint, Counts I - XXX (18 U.S.C. §2255), 11125, 31, 37, 43, 49, 55, +61, 67, 73, 79, 85, 91, 97, 103, 109, 115, 121, 127, 133, 139, 145, 151, 157, +163, 169, 175, 181, 187, 193; Count XXXI (Sexual Battery), 1199.) +In each of her "Wherefore" clauses, Plaintiff seeks "compensatory damages of at +least the minimum provided by law." 18 U.S.C. §2255, pursuant to which Plaintiff +attempts to bring certain of her claims, allows for recovery of "actual damages." See fn. +2 herein for applicable statutory text. +As discussed above, C.M.A.'s employment and earnings history will provide direct +evidence as to Plaintiff's claimed damages. Such information does not only go to +compensatory or actual damages or loss of income/loss of capacity to earn income type +damages, but also her emotional/psychological/mental health type damages. In the +telephone communication between counsel for the respective parties, Plaintiff's counsel +indicated that Plaintiff was not seeking loss of income/earning capacity type. damages; +(Defendant is not aware that there has been any formal withdrawal of such damages +claimed); notwithstanding, the information sought is still relevant and discoverable +based on the additional damages claimed by Plaintiff. The time period will allow +Defendant to compare how Plaintiff was doing in her life prior to, during, and after the +alleged incident. Again, the type of jobs Plaintiff has been able to hold and her earnings +and ability to support herself clearly have not only a financial component, but an +emotional/psychological/mental health component as well. +Accordingly, Plaintiff's \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bced2afaaeb0d2a9407fa3877158831e2535ad59b8ec98245bbc50564cd2431f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bced2afaaeb0d2a9407fa3877158831e2535ad59b8ec98245bbc50564cd2431f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..893d74283cd2f4d9287b996cca459a2609efe1f8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bced2afaaeb0d2a9407fa3877158831e2535ad59b8ec98245bbc50564cd2431f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -2185, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bced2afaaeb0d2a9407fa3877158831e2535ad59b8ec98245bbc50564cd2431f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 62, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "7bb72f1a7d3904466c0467b04bb556bc867cab1681fe00b6304a7257242ebf15", + "output_sha256": "fae5f95b6fc8a22c8167b4eede4bf1185d49b35f92cc453a063a5dfa60ac6986", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd0f189dad59abee8b5e8539129767720d9d1be26b2c393a306735ee390d7e33.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd0f189dad59abee8b5e8539129767720d9d1be26b2c393a306735ee390d7e33.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1c9db8f9fa0b332b6401a565e37bcb468727ca0e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd0f189dad59abee8b5e8539129767720d9d1be26b2c393a306735ee390d7e33.md @@ -0,0 +1,167 @@ +Filing # 200571761 E-Filed 06/14/2024 11:51:47 AM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +DIVISION: AG +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff/Petitioner +VS. +DAVE ARONBERG, +SHARON R BOCK, +Defendant/Respondents. +ORDER SETTING HEARING ON C +PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE TRIAL COURT'S +FEBRUARY 29, 2024 ORDER +FILED ON JUNE 12, 2024 +THIS CAUSE having come before the Court, on June I2, 2024, upon Plaintiff's Motion +for Reconsideration of the Trial Court's February 29, 2024 Order filed on June 12, 2024, it is +hereby +ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration +Topic: Division AG Zoom Meeting +https://us02web.zoom.us/j85056337361 +Meeting ID: 850563373617 +This is a special set hearing which shall be limited to 30 minutes. +It is further ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the attorneys/parties must submit to the +Court by hard copy (7) working days before the hearing noting the date and time of the hearing: +1. copies of all relevant pleadings; +2. a copy of any memorandum of law (not to exceed 10 double spaced pages with +case authority in no less than 12 point font for body and any footnotes); +3. copies of all case law authority; +4. copies of exhibit and witness lists; and + +*** FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL +ABRUZZO, CLERK. 06/14/2024 11:51:47 AM *** + + +5. in compliance with Local Rule 3 proposed order and/or judgment. +This hearing has been specially set by the Court and shall not be canceled unless the issues +of this motion have been settled and an order entered, or the motion withdrawn. +If an interpreter is needed for a party or witness in this case, it shall be the responsibility +of the party needing same to provide a qualified interpreter. +DONE and ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. +502019C.01460.360x15 002024QUIT +Luis Delgado +Circuit Judge +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +06/14/2024 +Luis Delgado +Circuit Judge +COPIES TO: +COLLIN D. +P.O. BOX 229 +WEST PALM BEACH, FL +33401 +CYNTHIA M GUERRA +DOUGLAS A. WYLER +JESSICA NEER +MCDONALD +No Address Available +961687 GATEWAY BLVD +SUITE 201-1 +FERNANDINA BEACH, FL +32034 +POST OFFICE BOX 229 +WEST PALM BEACH, FL +33401 +clerk e- +service@mypalmbeachclerk.co +eservice@mypalmbeachclerk.c +om +cdjackson@mypalmbeachclerk. +com +Clerk_e- +service@mypalmbeachclerk.co +m +doug@jswflorida.com +doug.wyler@comcast.net +JOHN SCAROLA +No Address Available +LAUREN R. WHETSTONE 777 S FLAGLER DR +STE 300 E +WEST PALM BEACH, FL +33401 +CLERK E- +SERVICE@MYPALMBEACH +CLERK.COM +jnmcdonald@ mypalmbeachclerk +.com +_scarolateam@searcylaw.com +mmccann@searcylaw.com +WHETSTONEL@GTLAW.CO +M +flservice@gtlaw.com +sandra.famadas@gtlaw.com + + + +MARK F BIDEAU +No Address Available +MARK F. BIDEAU +No Address Available +MICHAEL GRYGIEL +MICHAELJ. GRYGIEL +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +bideaum@gtlaw.com +thomasd@gtlaw.com +FLService@gtlaw.com +bideaum@gtlaw.com +thomasd@gtlaw.com +FLService@gtlaw.com +GRYGIELM@GTLAW.COM +54 STATE STREET +6TH FLOOR +ALBANY, NY 12207 +No Address Available +No Address Available +grygielm@gtlaw.com +boyajiann@gtlaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com +boyajiann@gtlaw.com +STEPHEN A. +MENDELSOHN, ESQ +EAS CENTURY PARK +SUITE 1900 +LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 +5100 TOWN CENTER CIR +mendelsohns@gtlaw.com +SUITE 400 +rita.curran@gtlaw.com +BOCA RATON, FL 33486 +jflservice@gtlaw.com +CERTIF +NOT A + + + +This notice is provided pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2.207-7/22 +"If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation +in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to +you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact William +Hutchings, Jr., Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator, Palm Beach +County Courthouse, 205 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, Florida +33401; telephone number (561) 355-4380 at least 7 days before your +scheduled court appearance, +or immediately upon receiving this +notification if the time before the scheduled appearance is less than 7 days; +if you are hearing or voice impaired, call 711." +"Si usted es una persona minusválida que +necesita algún +acomodamiento para poder participar en este procedimiento, usted tiene +derecho, sin tener gastos propios, a que se le provea cierta ayuda. Tenga la +amabilidad de ponerse en contacto con William Hutchings, Jr., 205 N. +Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401; teléfono número (561) +355-4380, por lo menos 7 días antes de la cita fijada para su comparecencia +en los tribunales, o inmediatamente después de recibir esta notificación si +el tiempo antes de la comparecencia que se ha programado es menos de 7 +días; si usted tiene discapacitación del oído o de la voz, llame al 711." +"Si ou se yon moun ki enfim ki bezwen akomodasyon pou w ka +patisipe nan pwosedi sa, ou kalifye san ou pa gen okenn lajan pou w peye, +gen pwovizyon pou jwen kèk ed. Tanpri kontakte William Hutchings, Jr., +kòòdonatè pwogram Lwa pou ameriken ki Enfim yo nan Tribinal Konte +Palm Beach la ki nan 205 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida +33401; telefòn li se (561) 355-4380 nan 7 jou anvan dat ou gen randevou +pou parèt nan tribinal la, oubyen imedyatman apre ou fin resevwa +convokasyon an si lè ou gen pou w parèt nan tribinal la mwens ke 7 jou; si +›u gen pwoblèm pou w tande oubyen pale, rele 711.' diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd0f189dad59abee8b5e8539129767720d9d1be26b2c393a306735ee390d7e33.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd0f189dad59abee8b5e8539129767720d9d1be26b2c393a306735ee390d7e33.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..88789657ce9c97a0646724892916ab4d21350d65 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd0f189dad59abee8b5e8539129767720d9d1be26b2c393a306735ee390d7e33.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -198, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bd0f189dad59abee8b5e8539129767720d9d1be26b2c393a306735ee390d7e33", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "6ce68cfd3cc29542bd6875c65e5be0cd1976916628cac96625fd5c8afc70d987", + "output_sha256": "3f494b838fb8967964a60d319b0939db0e3030de62891fdb4ee40795c2208e6f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd2885678009231248c94586bfed81fc1ef99768c541776688404c7746c9b150.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd2885678009231248c94586bfed81fc1ef99768c541776688404c7746c9b150.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ad8e03e1889a50da8fe825968c8b862a98f64e94 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd2885678009231248c94586bfed81fc1ef99768c541776688404c7746c9b150.md @@ -0,0 +1,192 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 223-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 1 of 5 +The Psychological Trauma Center +a division of Preventive Psychiatry Associates Medical Group, Inc. +Medical Director: Gilbert W. Kliman, M. D. +2105 Divisadero St., San Francisco, CA 9411: +Phone (415)292-7119 Fax (415) 749-2802 +www.experichildposchiatry.com +Forensic Child Psychiatric Evaluations, Life Care Plans & Testimony +DECLARATION OF GILBERT KLIMAN, M. D. +June 4, 2009 +RE: EXPECTATION OF HARM FROM DISCLOSING THE PLAINTIFFS' IDENTITIES +IN DOES V JEFFREY EPSTEIN +1. 1, Gilbert W. Kliman, M.D., of 2105 Divisadero Street, San Francisco, California, +CA. Physicians License G55912, declare the following under penalty of perjury: +2. I have been retained by plaintiffs' law firm, Mermelstein & Horowitz, to give expert +testimony. If called as a witness, I would testify truthfully and competently concerning +my psychiatric findings about each of the plaintiffs' alleged experiences of sexual abuse, +and the enduring effects that I find each of the young women have suffered as a direct +result of the sexual acts perpetrated by the defendant. +3. I have been asked to respond to the Defense motion, which requests that some of the +plaintiffs, who are now adults, should be publicly named. It is my opinion that +involuntary public disclosure will result in the plaintiffs experiencing revictimization, +albeit by a justice system that is designed to protect them. If their identities are released, +the victims will be at-risk of having their personal lives scrutinized by friends, extended +family, spouses, children, fellow students, employers and fellow employees, the media +and general public. This type of exposure humiliates many victims and represents anothe +betrayal of trust. Public exposure places the plaintiffs at further risk of stigmatization +4. Due to traumatization the plaintiffs are arrested in their development, and even those +who are now legally adults are arrested in part to adolescent aspects of psychology. +5. The plaintifts do not hold their heads high with pride for having been sexually +absorption and self-doubt and self-blame about sexual acts. + +A +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 223-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 2 of 5 +6. Clinically harmful levels of shame, self-consciousness, self-doubt and self-blame are +even more prominent among victims of molestations than among the general population. +7. Molested teenagers are particularly vulnerable to wrongful manipulations and special +clinical harms from the experiences of shame and humiliation. In fact, shame and efforts +to cope with it played an underlying role in the harm to each plaintiff. Each was lured +into Mr. Epstein's sexual lair with the promise of overcoming bodily and sexual shame +by earning money and bettering their lot in life. The defendant capitalized on their sexual +naiveté, insecurities and effort to better themselves, and he worked hard to overcome +their shame at his enlistment of them in his selfish gratifications. +8. The defendant who wishes to make their identities public is one whom the criminal +justice system has already determined is a person who has already committed a crime of +child molestation. That surely means he has already exploited and manipulated the girls' +state of adolescent sexuality, including their embarrassment, awkwardness and bodily +self-consciousness. He perverted their nascent and developing moral structures by posing +as a generous, avuncular mentor who could coach them about their bodies, sex and love. +The exploitation of adolescent bodies, sex and love is - from a psychoanalytic point of +view - an influence on the developing moral conscience of the children, as well as on +their sexual urges. Now the ravaging of their internal and private moral conscience is +intended by the perpetrator to be made a public ravaging. +9. Among sexual trauma victims, the insidious and destructive persistence of shame, +humiliation and associated self-blame is well-documented (Finkelhor and +_, 1985). +Stigmatization, as experienced by a sexual trauma victim, has especially painful and +pathologic consequences. Shame lingers and becomes integrated within the adolescent +victim's malleable emerging identity, character structure and self image. Moral clarity is +distorted, Perceptions of self-blame and guilt are magnified. The impact of shame lends +to cultivating a self image of being "spoiled goods." +10. Stigmatization following sexual trauma results in long-term risks that can negatively +shape multiple facets of adult development: sexual, emotional, interpersonal and +vocational. Stigmatization, which is generally to be avoided among psychiatric patients, +ncreases risks among those - as in our plaintitts as a group - who experience clinical +epression and self-destructive behaviors: drug use, criminal activity, even prostitution +Stigmatization following abuse is associated with delinquency due to increased anger +and affiliation with deviant peers (Feiring et al., 2007). +11. Shame and guilt are important dimensions of both complex and single event, +posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Symptoms of shame are associated with feelings of +helplessness and powerlessness, which each of the plaintiffs endorsed experiencing in +relation to Mr. Epstein. + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 223-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 3 of 5 +12. The DSM-IV-TR recognizes both powerlessness and helplessness as requisite parts of +the traumatic experience in Criterion A for the diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder +Seligman, recent Past President of the American Psychological +Association, coined relevant terms of "learned helplessness and "Loss of Personal Locus +of Control." See Seligman, M.P. 1975: Helplessness, Depression, Development and +Death. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco). The teenaged girls suffered the loss of personal +locus of control to a much more experienced, sexually aggressive, powerful and +dominant, manipulative perpetrator. +13. Releasing names of the plaintiffs to the public will reenact experiences of +powerlessness and helplessness in the face of a boundary violation. Repetition and +reenactment represent central features of Criterion B in the DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of' +posttraumatic stress disorder trauma. In effect, release of their identity and public +intrusion into their personal life represents a reenactment of the shame of sexual +traumatization. Repetition and reenactment are central pathologies that afflict sexual +trauma survivors. +14. Victims of sexual abuse often rely upon some form of dissociation, splitting or denial, +as a detensive means to manage overwhelming attects associated with the sexual trauma. +Each of the plaintiff girls has employed some variation of this defense, both during the +massages and then subsequently following disclosure of the abuse. Primitive, +maladaptive responses of this nature will become additionally reinforced as a result of +public disclosure. +15. Another aspect of the plaintiffs' experience, which is recognized by DSM-IV-TR, is +that the trauma was associated with human design factors (such as cruel intention to do +harm, rape, torture). Trauma of this origin has a tendency to produce more "severe or +long lasting" posttraumatic stress disorder than natural events (DSM IV TR p. 464). A +policy of deliberate revelation of the names of the victims would reinforce the sense of +design, pattern and policy of human intentions. +16. Negative expectations about significant activities are noted in DSM-IV-TR, as part of +Criterion C. Symptoms of foreshortened future are characteristic of a traumatized +individual's clinical course (C4). They expect revictimization. They expect bad outcomes +identity will aggravate existing symptoms of hypervigilance. +17. The DSM-IV-TR diagnostic category of "chronic" is justified for each of the +auntills. Scientifie literature shows that the prognostic consequences of PTSD an +esidual effects may last for decades (U.S. Dept. of Health, 2005; Issues in Child Abus +Prevention Number 9 Autumn1998: Long-term Effects of Child Sexual Abuse, Paul E +Mullen and Jillian Fleming). The lasting impact upon character, identity and moral +development will probably affect long-term influences upon adult development. It is +more probable than not that stigmatization associated with public disclosure of the +3 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 223-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 4 of 5 +plaintiffs' identities will intensify the scope, nature and severity of the chronic symptom +course. +18. In addition to PTSD, shame and humiliation themselves have also been associated +with causing clinical depression. Coexisting PTSD and clinical depression places the +plaintiff's at increased risk for re-victimization and high risk sexual behaviors (e.g., +sexually transmitted disease, premature pregnancy, rape) (Nelson, 2002), and at greater +risk to victimize others (Filipas and Ullman, 2006; Desai, Centers for Disease Control, +2002) who are in their control. Studies have also shown that chronic symptoms of PTSD, +in association with a single episode of Major Depressive Disorder, can produce lifetime +adjustment difficulties, which include suicidality (Oquendo et al, 2005; Dube et al, CDC, +2001; Rohde, J. Am. Acad. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2005). The plaintiffs will be +additionally vulnerable to these clinical outcomes, if they suffer the stigmatization and +humiliation associated with public disclosure of their identities. +19. Alternative hypothesis: I have applied the evidence shown from examination and +testing of the plaintiffs and relevant observations and information from other +professionals while testing an alternative hypothesis: that no harm would result from +public disclosure of the plaintiffs' identities. During the evaluations with the six +plaintiffs, I used generally acceptable criteria for establishing whether a DSM-IV-TR +disorder occurred. I established that there were provable and diagnosable injuries, +primarily posttraumatic stress disorder and comorbid depression. Based upon these +diagnostic signs, it is more probable than not, that exposing the plaintiff's identity to the +public is not a trivial concern or one without substantial clinical repercussions. I believe +that most child, adolescent and adult psychiatrists would share the opinion that additional +psychiatric injury will result from such exposure. +20. However, consider for the sake of argument, that my diagnostic conclusions are +incorrect, notwithstanding having fulfilled standard psychiatric evaluation procedures of +taking a history from multiple sources, videotaping and transcribing my initial interview, +and reviewing available medical and legal documents. Even if this was the case, and my +diagnostic conclusions were faulty, I believe that multiple experts, even those who may +now propose publication of the victims' names, would still come to a conclusion that the +plaintiff's suffered sexual abuse, and in some cases, multiple acts of ongoing abuse, at the +hands of Jeffery Epstein. Even without developing a subsequent disorder, there is much +clinical evidence and scientific literature showing likelihood of substantial psychiatric +harm to these sexually abused plaintiffs. +21. To form these conclusions, I have used my extensive experience in forming these +opinions. That experience is both as a treating child psychiatrist and separately as a +forensic psychiatrist. I have treated hundreds of minor patients, as well as additionally +evaluated hundreds of children and adolescents who have suffered sexual abuse. I have +made long term followups of many of the children and have treated many adults who +have been molested as adolescents. It is my opinion, with a reasonably high degree of +medical certainty that the defense motion to allow public disclosure of the plaintiffs' +identities is clinically and ethically a wrongful plan. The act of revealing their identities +against their wishes places the plaintiffs at risk, in the best of circumstances, of suffering +4 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 223-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 5 of 5 +an aggravation of existing diagnostic concerns. It is more probable than not that releasing +personal identities will f +an exacerbation and magnification of symptoms lending to +increased risk of revictimization and retraumatization. +I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the +foregoing statements are true and correct, and that this declaration was executed at San +Francisco, California on June 4, 2009. +Sincerely +Babe man up +Gilbert Kliman, M.D. +Distinguished Life Fellow, American Psychiatric Association +Senior Fellow, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry +Brockman Award Holder, for Distinguished Lifetime Contributions to +Psychoanalysis and Psychiatry, bestowed by the American College of Psychoanalysis and +Psychiatry +LEONID NAKHODKIN +Соми. $ 1791115 +NOTARY PUBLIC- CALIFORMA +DITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISO +ty Cow. Exp. FEe: 27, 2012 H +State of California, City & County of San Francisco +subscibed and sworn to (or attimed) before me on thi +yay of undory by Gilbert Klinkeen +proved me petrol sho appeared peter me +5 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd2885678009231248c94586bfed81fc1ef99768c541776688404c7746c9b150.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd2885678009231248c94586bfed81fc1ef99768c541776688404c7746c9b150.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..40f97ed4a6e4a1aedb9656756a0f3fc3b1241929 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd2885678009231248c94586bfed81fc1ef99768c541776688404c7746c9b150.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -67, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bd2885678009231248c94586bfed81fc1ef99768c541776688404c7746c9b150", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c7fb73412988128f223d7dee4a8860fdfc1cfd10e4bcf3e3f5d66c9e45250e4a", + "output_sha256": "100d87f0a26d88afdb6056a1301ccc5f8ef25046b51ceb1f67d6a0557aaa027e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd34243a99ca6dbcbbc23e10395cc5a29fc61e80a6d076c2d283b52d4b697af4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd34243a99ca6dbcbbc23e10395cc5a29fc61e80a6d076c2d283b52d4b697af4.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7a6c4a2b007e2ac5ccaa7e9eb5327894751ce701 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd34243a99ca6dbcbbc23e10395cc5a29fc61e80a6d076c2d283b52d4b697af4.md @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 09-80591-Civ-MARRA/ +JANE DOE 101, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +NOTICE OF AGREEMENT FOR APPOINTMENT OF MEDIATOR +Counsel for the Plaintiff hereby notifies the Court that the Parties have stipulated and agreed +upon Rodney| +Esquire of Matrix Mediation, LIC, 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite +700, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401, and whose telephone number is (561) 340-3500, to act as +mediator in this matter. +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 +By: s/Katherine W. Ezell +Robert C. Josefsberg +Fla. Bar No. 040856 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Katherine W. Ezell +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +kezell@podhurst.com +City National Bank Building +25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +Telephone: (305) 358-2800 +Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 » Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 ++ + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 2 of 3 +CASE NO. +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this S +day of September, 2009, we electronically filed +the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify that the +foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached +Service List either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some +other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically +Notices of Electronic Filing. +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 +By: +s/Katherine W. Ezell +Robert C. Josefsberg +Fla. Bar No. 040856 +riosefsberg@podhurst.com +Katherine W. Ezell +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +kezell@podhurst.com +City National Bank Building +25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 80C +Miami, FL 33130 +Telephone: (305) 358-2800 +Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 +-2- +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 306.358.2382 • Fort Latuderdale 952.463.4346 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 3 of 3 +SERVICE LIST +JANE DOE NO. 101 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Case No. 09-CV-80591-MARRA/ +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Robert Critton, Esq. +rcrit@bclclaw.com +Michael J. Pike, Esq. +mpike@bclclaw.com +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman LLP +303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 842-2820 +Fax: (561) 515-3148 +Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Jack Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 659-8300 +Fax: (561) 835-8691 +jages @bellsouth.net +Co-counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 » Fort Lauderdale 954.463.1346 T \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd34243a99ca6dbcbbc23e10395cc5a29fc61e80a6d076c2d283b52d4b697af4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd34243a99ca6dbcbbc23e10395cc5a29fc61e80a6d076c2d283b52d4b697af4.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d593d9fc9f374071e7ca548e3a651f1e11ef0d9f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd34243a99ca6dbcbbc23e10395cc5a29fc61e80a6d076c2d283b52d4b697af4.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -88, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bd34243a99ca6dbcbbc23e10395cc5a29fc61e80a6d076c2d283b52d4b697af4", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "c4781d032e8c449f24589f410b3872af9eb57bcb1c24fa1475e9397acbb38f2c", + "output_sha256": "bd0fca0ec43c4e5cf05a396f253b795a18a40ed4302eb035ff079386d66bfa82", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd5301e3f4877058ab83d7e23a2835cc3a765398159b77d5aab0f4ce9b574709.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd5301e3f4877058ab83d7e23a2835cc3a765398159b77d5aab0f4ce9b574709.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed008f0c51982f2d28938be39a1c3deef889e6ea --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd5301e3f4877058ab83d7e23a2835cc3a765398159b77d5aab0f4ce9b574709.md @@ -0,0 +1,256 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 10 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 +V. +UNITED STATES +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION TO HAVE THEIR FACTS ACCEPTED +BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO CONTEST ANY OF THE FACTS +COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and +through undersigned counsel, to move this Court to accept all of their facts in their Motion for +Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The victims have been attempting to +negotiate with the Government for more than 30 months on a stipulated set of facts. Despite +repeated opportunities to advise the victims of what facts they are contesting, the Government in +the last few days has flatly declared that it will not discuss the facts in this case. This is violation +of the Court's direction to the parties as well as the local rule on the subject. Accordingly, the +Government should be deemed to have failed to contest the victims' facts and the Court should +proceed to resolve this case on the basis of the victims' proffered facts. +FACTUAL BACKGROUND +The victims have been attempting to reach an agreement on the facts surrounding this +case since filing their petition on June 7, 2008. In that petition, the victims' recited the facts as +'The petition was initially filed on behalf of Jane Doe #1. Jane Doe #2 was quickly +added into the case. For simplicity, we will refer to the pleadings as having been filed by "the +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 2 of 10 +they understood them at the time - i.e., the victim asserted "upon information and belief" that +they understood that Epstein was involved in on-going plea negotiations with the U.S. Attorney's +Office for the Southern District of Florida. Victims' Petition (doc. #1) at 1. On July 9, 2008, the +Government responded with a sealed response (quickly unsealed by the Court), that stated that +an agreement had already been reached with Epstein. Government's Response to Victims' +Emergency Petition (doc. #13). Two days later, the victims replied, explaining that they were +just learning these facts from the Government's pleading. See, e.g., Victims' Reply to +Government's Response (doc. #9) at 8. +The Court quickly scheduled a hearing on the victims' petition, held on July 11, 2008. +The Court discussed a need to "hav[e] a complete record, and this is going to be an issue that's +... going to go to the Eleventh Circuit, [so it] may be better to have a complete record as to what +your position is and the government's is as to what actions were taken." Tr. at 25-26. Counsel +for the victims explained: " +... I will confer with the government on this and if evidence needs +to be taken, it [can] be taken at a later date." Tr. at 26. The Court concluded the hearing with the +following instructions: "So I'll let both of you confer about whether there is a need for any +additional evidence to be presented. Let me know one way or the other. If there is, we'll +schedule a hearing. If there isn't and you want to submit some additional stipulated information, +do that, and then I'll take care of this in due course." Tr. at 32. +The vietims and the U.S. Attorney's Office then attempted to reach a stipulated set of +facts underlying the case. The U.S. Attorney's Office offered a very abbreviated set of proposed +facts, and the victims responded with a detailed set of proposed facts. Rather than respond to the +victims." +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 3 of 10 +victims' specific facts, however, the U.S. Attorney's Office suddenly reversed course. On July +29, 2008, it filed a Notice to Court Regarding Absence of Need for Evidentiary Hearing (doc. +#17). The U.S. Attorney's Office took the following position: "After consideration, the +Government believes that an evidentiary hearing is not necessary" (doc. #17 at 1). The Office +asserted that the Court need only take judicial notice of the fact that no indictment had been filed +against Epstein to resolve the case. +On August 1, 2008, the victims filed a response to the Government's "Notice" (doc. #19), +giving a proposed statement of facts surrounding the case. The proposed statement of facts +highlighted the fact that the Government had signed a non-prosecution agreement containing an +express confidentiality provision, which prevented the Government from disclosing the +agreement to them and other victims. Id. at 5. The victims response also requested that the +Court direct the Government to confer with the victims regarding the undisputed facts of the +case, produce the non-prosecution agreement and other information about the case. Id. at 14. +On August 14, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the case regarding the confidentiality of +the non-prosecution agreement. The Court ultimately ordered production of the agreement to the +victims. +After the U.S. Attorney's Office made the non-prosecution agreement available to the +victims, the victims reviewed it and pursued further discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office. +Ultimately, however, the U.S. Attorney's Office declined to reach a stipulated set of facts with +the victims and declined to provide further information about the case. +With negotiations at an impasse, the victims attempted to learn the facts of the case in +other ways. In approximately May 2009, counsel for the victims propounded discovery requests +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 4 of 10 +in both state and federal civil cases against Epstein, seeking to obtain correspondence between +Epstein and prosecutors regarding his plea agreement - information that the U.S. Attorney's +Office was unwilling to provide to the victims. Epstein refused to produce that information, and +(as the Court is aware) extended litigation to obtain the materials followed. The Court rejected +all of Epstein's objections to producing the materials. +On June 30, 2010, counsel for Epstein sent to counsel for the victims approximately 358 +pages of e-mail correspondence between criminal defense counsel and the U.S. Attorney's Office +regarding the plea agreement that had been negotiated between them. See Jane Doe #1 and Jane +Doe #2's Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and Request for a +Hearing on Appropriate Remedies, Attachment "A." These e-mails fully disclosed for the first +time the extreme steps that had been taken by the U.S. Attorney's Office to avoid prosecuting +Epstein and to avoid having the victims in the case learn about the non-prosecution agreement +that had been reached between Epstein and the Government. +In mid-July 2010, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 settled their civil lawsuits against +Epstein. Then, armed with the new information, they turned to moving forward in the CVRA +case. On September 13, 2010, the victims informed the Court that they were preparing new +filings in the case. +On October 12, 2010, the Court entered an order directing the victims to provide a status +report on the case by October 27, 2010. That same day, counsel for the victims again contacted +the U.S. Attorney's Office about the possibility of reaching a stipulated set of facts in the case. +That same day, the U.S. Attorney's Office responded: "We don't have any problem with +agreeing that a factual assertion is correct if we agree that is what occurred" (doc. #41 at 2). +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 5 of 10 +On October 23, 2010, the victims e-mailed to the U.S. Attorney's Office a detailed proposed +statement of facts, with many of the facts now documented by the correspondence between the U.S. +Attorney's Office and Epstein's counsel. The victims requested that the U.S. Attorney's Office +identify which facts it would agree to. In a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office, the victims stated: +If you believe that any of the facts they propose are incorrect, Jane Doe #1 and Jane +Doe #2 would reiterate their long-standing request that you work with us to arrive at a +mutually-agreed statement of facts. As you know, in the summer of 2008 Jane Doe +#1 and Jane Doe #2 were working with you on a stipulation of facts when you +reversed course and took that position that no recitation of the facts was necessary +(see doc. #19 at 2).... I hope that your e-mail means that you will at least look at our +facts and propose any modifications that you deem appropriate. Having that evidence +quickly available to the Court could well help move this case to a conclusion. +That same day, the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed to forward the proposed statement of facts to the +appropriate Assistant U.S. Attorney for review (doc. #41 at 2-3). +On October 26, 2010, rather than stipulate to undisputed facts, the U.S. Attorney's Office +contacted the victims' attorneys and asked them to delay the filing of their motion for a two-week +period of time so that negotiations could be held between the Office and the victims in an attempt to +narrow the range of disputes in the case and to hopefully reach a settlement resolution without the +need for further litigation. Negotiations between the victims and the U.S. Attorney's Office then +followed over the next two days. However, at 6:11 p.m. on October 27, 2010 - the date on which the +victims' pleading was due - the U.S. Attorney's Office informed the victims that it did not believe +that it had time to review the victims" proposed statement of facts and advise which were accurate +and which were inaccurate. The Office further advised the victims that it believed that the victims did +not have a right to confer with their Office under the CVRA in this case because in its view the case +is "civil" litigation rather than the "criminal" litigation (doc. #41 at 3).? +" In seeming contradiction to this position, on March 17, 2011, the U.S. Attorney's Office + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 6 of 10 +As a result, purely as an accommodation to the U.S. Attorney's Office, on October 27, 2010, +the victims filed a report with the Court in which they agreed to delay filing their motion and +accompanying facts for up to two-weeks to see if negotiations can resolve (or narrow) the disputes +with the U.S. Attorney's Office (doc. #41 at 4). Discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office dragged +on, including a meeting between Jane Doe #1 and the U.S. Attorney in December 2010. +After further discussions failed to produce any agreement or other visible progress, the +victims informed the U.S. Attorney's Office that they would file their "summary judgment" +motion with the Court on March 18, 2011 and requested further cooperation from the Office on +the facts. +Ultimately, after months of discussion, the U.S. Attorney's Office informed counsel for +the victims that - contrary to promises made earlier to stipulate to undisputed facts - no such +stipulation would be forthcoming. +Instead, on March 15, 2011, the U.S. Attorney for the +Southern District of Florida, Wifredo A. Ferrer, sent a letter to the victims declining to reach any +agreement on the facts: +Because, as a matter of law, the CVRA is inapplicable to this matter in which no +informed the victims that it would not be making any initial disclosures to the victims as requirec +for civil cases by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(I). The 'U.S. Attorney's Office did not explain why they +believe that this rule of civil procedure is inapplicable if they think this case is properly viewed +as a "civil" case. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 7 of 10 +Letter from Wifredo A. Ferrer to Paul G. Cassell (March 15, 2011)3 +Accordingly, the victims were left with no choice but to file a motion without stipulated +facts. Contemporaneously with the filing of this motion, the victims are filing a comprehensive +Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on +Appropriate Remedies. The motion contains the detailed set of facts which the victims have long +been attempting to discuss with the government. +THE COURT SHOULD RESOLVE THE CASE ON THE BASIS +OF THE VICTIMS' PROFFERED FACTS. +In view of the deliberate decision by the U.S. Attorney's Office not to discuss with the +victims which facts they are disputing, the Court should resolve this case on the basis of facts +that the victims offer in their motion seeking a finding of violations of the CVRA. For more than +30 months, the victims have given the U.S. Attorney's Office repeated opportunities contest their +facts, only to see the Office first commit to reviewing the facts, then later claim they did not have +sufficient time to review the facts, and then ultimately renege on that commitment to review the +facts. Indeed, the U.S. Attorney's Office now argues that the facts are "not relevant" to the +court's determination. If so, the Court should take up the U.S. Attorney's Office's position and +simply accept the facts that the victims proffer. If the U.S. Attorney's Office is correct that the +facts are irrelevant, they should not be heard to object when the victims propose a specific set of +facts for resolving this case. +To avoid any suggestion that the victims are disclosing confidential settlement +permissible for purposes other than proving the validity of a claim). +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 8 of 10 +The Court should also accept the victims' facts because the U.S. Attorney's Office has +violated the local rules regarding stipulating to facts. Local Rule 88.10(O) contains a broad, +commonsense provision requiring the parties to work together to reduce disputes over the facts: +The Local Rule provides: "The parties shall make every possible effort in good faith to stipulate +to all facts or points of law the truth or existence of which is not contested and the early +resolution of which will expedite the trial." For more than two-and-a-half years, the victims +have been trying to get the U.S. Attorney's Office to stipulate to uncontested facts. The U.S. +Attorney's Office, however, promised to do so, then refused to do so, then promised to do so, +and now finally is refusing to do so. Because its failure to try and reach a stipulation is a clear +violation of the local rule, the Court should simply adopt the victims' facts. +The Court should also accept the victims' facts because the Government has failed in its +duty to confer with the victims. Not only did this Court order counsel for the Government and +the victims to confer at the conclusion of the July 11, 2008 hearing, but the Crime Victims" +Rights Act specific afford to victims "It]he reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the +Government in the case." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5). A fundamental part of conferring about a +case would at least be learning what the Government agrees were the facts in the case. But the +Government is apparently unwilling to do even that. Accordingly, the Court should simply find +that the victims' understanding of the facts is correct and proceed to resolve this case on that +basis. +CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE +As recounted above, the victims have repeated sought to learn which facts the +Government is disputing, but the Government has declined to review the facts with the victims. +8 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80736-KAM Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 9 of 10 +CONCLUSION +For all the foregoing reasons, the Court should resolve this case on the basis of the facts +that the victims have offered. +DATED: March 21, 2011 +Respectfully Submitted, +1. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 524-2820 +Facsimile (954) 524-2822 +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 10 of 10 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +The foregoing document was served on March 21, 2011, on the following using the Court's +CM/ECF system: +A. +Villafaña +Assistant U.S. Attorney +500 S. Australian Ave.., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Fax: (561) 820-8777 +E-mail: +Attorney for the Government +L. Ackerman, Jr. +Burnett PA +777 S. Flagler Drive, West Tower, Suite 901 +Vest Palm Beach, FL 3340 +Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeffrey Epste +(courtesy copy of pleading via U.S. mail) +10 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd5301e3f4877058ab83d7e23a2835cc3a765398159b77d5aab0f4ce9b574709.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd5301e3f4877058ab83d7e23a2835cc3a765398159b77d5aab0f4ce9b574709.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..89efa461491b7e99efdfbda28a33445c1f237985 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd5301e3f4877058ab83d7e23a2835cc3a765398159b77d5aab0f4ce9b574709.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -120, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bd5301e3f4877058ab83d7e23a2835cc3a765398159b77d5aab0f4ce9b574709", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 10, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "62796c8606e50c38b270c290b900aa241a52fa36b8c6e2c284e95a30dfacac22", + "output_sha256": "c92bc81209567b86ca2fbb05d1dede33be609321421ca8fb6b692ebe65361654", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd570d3500ae20fb8b93f51d518b8042d19a3fb634d37046e7cac388078f4908.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd570d3500ae20fb8b93f51d518b8042d19a3fb634d37046e7cac388078f4908.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ec6c87c4d6cda4308b77aedd654d10906272dc56 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd570d3500ae20fb8b93f51d518b8042d19a3fb634d37046e7cac388078f4908.md @@ -0,0 +1,238 @@ +Filing # 142278425 E-Filed 01/19/2022 04:58:43 PM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION: AG +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +COPY +Defendants. +CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER'S +MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND MOTION TO TAX FEES AND COSTS +Defendant, +Abruzzo, in his official capacity as Clerk of the Circuit Court and +Comptroller, Palm Beach County ("Clerk"), by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to +Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420(i) and Florida Rule of Civil +Procedure 1.525, in order to preserve its right to recover public funds expended in responding to +the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, hereby moves for sanctions, fees, and costs against +the Plaintiff CA Florida Holdings, LLC and its counsel Greenberg Traurig, LLP, and in support +thereof states: +A. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY +On November 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a 90-page complaint, inclusive of exhibits, +against the Clerk' and Dave Aronberg as the State Attorney of Palm Beach County (State +The Come i was i do i ene are . on in her orce cape a tak he crei Court and +*** FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL +ABRUZZO, CLERK. 01/19/2022 04:58:43 PM *** + + +Attorney) seeking the release of grand jury evidence under Florida Statute s. 905.27(1). See +Complaint [DE 4]. +2. +The Clerk, through its then in-house General Counsel, filed a Motion to Dismiss on +December 13, 2019 on the basis that the Plaintiff's Complaint failed to state a cause of action. See +Clerk's Motion to Dismiss [DE 13]. Shortly thereafter, then Chief Judge Marx, sua sponte, entered +an order setting the Clerk's Motion to Dismiss and the State Attorney's Motion to Dismiss for a +hearing on January 24, 2020. See Order Setting Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss dated +January 16, 2020 [DE 14]. Days before the motions could be heard, however, the Plaintiff filed +its First Amended Complaint on January 17, 2020, which mooted the above hearing. +The Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") - a 96-page +document inclusive of exhibits - sought declaratory relief under Florida Statute 86.011 (Count I) +and the release of the records pursuant to Florida Statute section 905.27 (Count II). More +specifically, the Amended Complaint sought to declare that under Florida Statute section 905.27(1) +the Plaintiff would be entitled access to the testimony, minutes, and other evidence presented in +2006 to the Palm Beach County grand jury" and that the disclosure is appropriate "pursuant to the +Court's inherent authority over grand jury proceedings because of the exceptional public interest +in the case." Amended Complaint, 111 6, 63, and 70-72. The Amended Complaint further sought +that pursuant to Florida Statute section 905.27, in order to further justice, that the Plaintiff should +have access to the grand jury testimony. +4. +On January 24, 2020, the Clerk filed its Answer to First Amended Complaint and +Motion to Dismiss Count II, answering Count I of the Amended Complaint and moving to dismiss +Count Il again arguing that the Plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be +granted. See Clerk's Answer to First Amended Complaint and Motion to Dismiss Count II [DE + + + +24]. A hearing on the Motion was set for March 24, 2020 and rescheduled for May 6, 2020 and +then again for June 3, 2020. +On June 8, 2020, the Court dismissed Count II of the Amended Complaint with +prejudice. In the Order Granting Defendants Motions to Dismiss Count Il of Plaintiff's First +Amended Complaint with Prejudice [DE 33] (the "Dismissal Order"), the Court recognized that +all the parties conceded that section 905.27 does not contain an express provision for a civil suit +or civil liability. Dismissal Order, p. 3. Indeed, the Court stated that "[r]eading section 905.27 as +creating a private cause of action against the State Attorney and Clerk is, therefore, not only +unsupported by the language of section 905.27, but is actually paradoxical to its plain language of +the Statute." Id., p. 5 (emphasis added). +6. +The Court's Dismissal Order was also clear that the plain language of section +905.27 in its entirety, required the court to look at more than simply the "furthering justice" +provision of 905.27(1)(c) and that the intent of the Legislature was to limit, and not facilitate, +disclosure of grand jury records. Id. The Order further stated that any duty under section 905.27 +is one of secrecy and not disclosure. la. +Following the issuance of the Dismissal Order, the Plaintiff commenced with +discovery by serving its Request for Production of Documents upon the Clerk on July 10, 2020 +[DE 36] and, later, its Amended Request for Production of Documents dated July 24, 2020 [DE +37]. +8. +On October 29, 2020, the Plaintiff filed its Motion to Direct the Clerk of the Court +to Unseal the Jeffrey Epstein Grand Jury Files for an Inventory and for An Inventory Report (the +"Motion to Unseal"). Based upon the Clerk's discovery responses and conversations with the +Clerk's office, the Plaintiff requested that the Clerk be permitted to unseal the Epstein Grand Jury + + + +files and that the Clerk prepare a written inventory of the items in its possession. Motion to Unseal +[DE 49], 1M1 6-7. Importantly, as stated therein, the Clerk did not oppose the Plaintiff's Motion to +Unseal. Id., 9 10. +9. +On April 22, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a 35-page Motion for Summary Judgment, +which, again, raised the issue of "furthering justice" and set forth case law from various +jurisdictions outside of Florida. Despite this Court's Dismissal Order stating that section 905.27 +was designed to preclude disclosure and promote secrecy, the Plaintiff repeated its previous +unsuccessful argument and asserted that the Court's inherent authority allowed the Court to order +the Clerk to release the grand jury evidence. +10. +Due to the length of the Motion for Summaty Judgment, the Plaintiff's confusing +and confounding legal arguments contained within, the hiring of a new in-house General Counsel +for the Clerk's Office, and the transition of newly elected Clerk Abruzzo into office, the Clerk +retained outside counsel in order to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment.? The response +filed by the Clerk's outside counsel included an analysis of the proper procedure to seek +confidential court records under Flotida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration +2.420 and questioned the method used by the Plaintiff of initiating an independent lawsuit. Due +to the implications of granting a Motion for Summary Judgment under the basis set forth by the +Plaintiff, it was imperative that the Clerk provide to the Court the Rule of Procedure under which +the records should have been sought as well as the legal basis for such position. +11. +In its Final Judgment denying the Motion for Summary Judgment, this Court +correctly recharacterized the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Motion for Summary Judgment +2 This Court recognized and acknowledged in its Final Judgment dated December 20, 2021 that, as a result of the +Plaintiff incorrectly filing suit against the Clerk and moving for summary judgment, the Clerk was forced to take an +"expanded" role in this proceeding. See Final Judgment [DE 78]. p. 3. + + + +as a Motion to Obtain Access to Confidential Court Records under Rule of General Practice and +Judicial Administration 2.420(j). Final Judgment, p. 3. The Court further analyzed the statute +under which the Plaintiff sought to obtain access to the confidential court records and found that +the statute's "in furtherance of justice" provision did not provide a basis for the release of the +records. Id., Pp. 5-9. Moreover, this Court found that its "inherent authority and supervisor +powers," as argued by the Plaintiff, does not give it carte blanche to ignore legal precedent or +statutory mandate and, therefore, was without power to order the release of the records. Id., pp. 9- +13. This Court denied the Plaintiff's request for confidential records under Rule of General +Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420(). +B. ARGUMENT +12. Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420(i) is instructive +for scenarios such as this where an action for confidential information is filed without a legal or +factual basis. Specifically, Rule 2.420(i)(3) permits sanctions to be awarded against a party or its +attorney if (1) the party or its attorney seeks access to confidential information under subdivision +(j) and (2) the court finds after notice and an opportunity to respond, that the party's motion, filing +or other activity was not made in good faith and was not supported by a sound legal or factual +basis. See Fla. R, Gen. P. and Jud. Admin. 2.420(1)(3). +In the instant action, as stated in the Final Judgment, the Plaintiff failed to follow +the proper procedure seeking access to confidential records, which thus unnecessarily caused the +Clerk to expend public funds to represent its interest and ensure that the proper procedure is used +to seek access to confidential court records. +14. +Based upon the ruling in the Dismissal Order entered on June 8, 2020, along with +the dearth of Florida case law on the topic, and a prior order denying a request to unseal the grand + + + +jury testimony on the basis of the "pursuit of furthering justice" entered in State of Florida v. +Jeffrey Epstein, No. 50-2006-CF-009454AXXX, Plaintiff's filing of a Motion for Summary +Judgment seeking access to confidential court records was not made in good faith and was not +supported by a sound legal or factual basis. +a. +The Plaintiff and its counsel knew, at a very minimum, that they did not have a +private cause of action against the Clerk on June 8, 2020 - when Chief Judge Marx explicitly +warned the Plaintiff that section 905.27 does not create a private cause of action against the Clerk. +See Dismissal Order [DE 33], p. 3 ("... not only unsupported by the language of section 905.27, +but is actually paradoxical to its plain language of the statute."). Despite this Court's clear directive +that the instant suit was improperly filed against the Clerk and State Attorney, the Plaintiff and its +counsel continued legal proceedings against the Clerk for over a year and a half including the +imposition of written discovery, motion practice, and hearings. +b. +The Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment does not cite any Florida case law +that would permit the disclosure of the grand jury records under Florida Statue § 905.27 for the +purpose of furthering justice. +C. +Additionally, more than a year before the Plaintiff filed its Motion for Summary +Judgment, the Court in State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 50-2006-CF-009454AXXX, denied +a request from the State of Florida for the Epstein grand jury testimony on the basis of the pursuit +of furthering justice. In her Order Denying the State's Motion for an Order Unsealing Grand Jury +Testimony without Prejudice dated January 14, 2020, then Chief Judge Marx expressly stated that +the need for the disclosure of the records "cannot simply [be] public awareness, but must be the +furtherance of a specified course of action." See January 14, 2020 Order, pp. 4-5 (emphasis added). +Yet, despite this January 14, 2020 Order and the Dismissal Order, the Plaintiff still filed its Motion + + + +for Summary Judgment and raised the same "public interest" argument that had already been +previously dispelled. +15. +Based upon Plaintiff's actions, and the actions of its counsel, the Clerk is entitled +to be reimbursed the cost of public funds expended in having outside counsel respond to the Motion +for Summary Judgment. The request for attorney's fees and costs is made under both Rule of +General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420(i) as well as Florida Rule of Civil Procedure +1.525 as this Court entered a Final Judgment in this matter. See Fla. R. Ciy, P, I.525 ("Any party +seeking a judgment taxing costs, attorneys' fees, or both shall serve a motion no later than 30 days +after filing of the judgment..."). +WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, Joseph Abruzzo, in his official capacity as +Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller, Palm Beach County, respectfully moves this Court to +impose sanctions against the Plaintiff and/or its counsel, pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial +Administration 2.420(i) in the amount of public funds that the Clerk had to expend in responding +to the Plaintiff's incorrectly filed Motion for Summary Judgment. +Dated: January 19, 2022 +NOT A +Respectfully submitted, +CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & +COMPTROLLER, PALM BACH COUNTY +By: +s/ Collin D.l +Esq. (FL Bar No. 1018081) +Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller, +Palm Beach County +P.O. Box 229 +West Palm Beach, FL +Tel.: (561) 355-2983 +E-mail: eservice@mypalmbeachclerk.com + + + +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on January 19, 2022 the foregoing document was furnished upon the +following via the Florida ePortal System: +Stephen A. Mendelsohn +Kenneth G. Turkel +Shane B. Vogi +lames C. Moone +00 North Tampa Street, Suite 190 +Tampa, Florida 3360 +Michael J. Grygiel +., 6th Floor +Albany, NY 12207 +E-mail: grygielm@gtlaw.com +Nina D. Boyajian +Greenberg Traurig, P.A. +1840 Century Park East, Ste. 1900 +Los Angeles, CA 90067 +E-mails: boyajiann@gtlaw.com; +riveraal@gtlaw.com +Attorneys for Plaintiff. +CA Florida Holdings, LIC +Attorneys for Defendant, 1 +Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach +County, Florida +Abruzzo, as +CER +NOT A +By: +s/ Collin D. +Collin D. +, Esq. + diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd570d3500ae20fb8b93f51d518b8042d19a3fb634d37046e7cac388078f4908.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd570d3500ae20fb8b93f51d518b8042d19a3fb634d37046e7cac388078f4908.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..92ed421f2226f9a4c298d1f1b56f196402dce998 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd570d3500ae20fb8b93f51d518b8042d19a3fb634d37046e7cac388078f4908.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -173, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bd570d3500ae20fb8b93f51d518b8042d19a3fb634d37046e7cac388078f4908", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 15, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "558410b138e938d0e1fbe1d935e6f86b769c511cc47139eb423ae48cc4ba7cce", + "output_sha256": "d8c486e3a45fc90104022189a1c0f1625a3c6027a1b74699c5ca62a5c8562a6e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd6d22624e84a05624d7f09318dc3b31fb1a1d327b0212665fe138d475fcd374.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd6d22624e84a05624d7f09318dc3b31fb1a1d327b0212665fe138d475fcd374.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9263ff383116f1ddfeb16156184c1365b6cd890d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd6d22624e84a05624d7f09318dc3b31fb1a1d327b0212665fe138d475fcd374.md @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 2 Filed 03/17/20 + +AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +for the +Southern District of New York +JANE DOE, +Plaintiffs) +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN, in +their capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +Defendant(s) +Civil Action No. +SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION +To: (Defendant's name and address) DARREN K. INDYKE +875 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +A lawsuit has been filed against you. +Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you +are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. +P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of +the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney, +whose name and address are: Daniel J. Kaiser, Esq. +Kaiser Saurbron & Mair, P.C +30 Broad Street, 37th Floor +New York, NY 10004 +If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. +You also must file your answer or motion with the court. +CLERK OF COURT +Date: +Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk + + +Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 2 Filed 03/17/20 Page 2 of 2 +AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2) +Civil Action No. +PROOF OF SERVICE +(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (D)) +This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) +was received by me on (date) +• I personally served the summons on the individual at (place) +on (date) +; or +• Ileft the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name) +, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there, +on (date) +, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or +• I served the summons on (name of individual) +designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) +on (date) +; or +, who is +• I returned the summons unexecuted because +• Other (specify): +; or +My fees are S +for travel and $ +I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. +for services, for a total of $ +0.00 +• +Date: +Server's signature +Printed name and title +Server's address +Additional information regarding attempted service, etc: +Print +Save As... +Reset diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd6d22624e84a05624d7f09318dc3b31fb1a1d327b0212665fe138d475fcd374.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd6d22624e84a05624d7f09318dc3b31fb1a1d327b0212665fe138d475fcd374.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7ef6fdcd1dbc838f173a5cc848957601376baacb --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd6d22624e84a05624d7f09318dc3b31fb1a1d327b0212665fe138d475fcd374.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -35, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bd6d22624e84a05624d7f09318dc3b31fb1a1d327b0212665fe138d475fcd374", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "89f56f319b08060b046b81f2cadd6cca520b44a0adcb25c59eee5f74c9dd5b63", + "output_sha256": "2514b6b4a32db1a1ced7432c70098fb5154072e1bc866e8d0e35d432445402e0", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd79e415e81526bcbc07b38a732b844550a6bbaa7753e58e82c10fb3b6d7a355.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd79e415e81526bcbc07b38a732b844550a6bbaa7753e58e82c10fb3b6d7a355.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fb74a27a533beb77e6c6d094c6e799c61e7f5987 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd79e415e81526bcbc07b38a732b844550a6bbaa7753e58e82c10fb3b6d7a355.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +Service. +,Case 9:08-Cv-80380-KAM Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2008 Page 1 of 1 +AO (Rev. 10/93) Summons in a Civil Action +United States District Court +Southern +DISTRICT OF Florida +SUMMONS +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO. 08-CV-80380-Hurley-l +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +TO: JEFFREY EPSTEIN, individually: +9 EAST 7IST STREET +NEW YORK, NY 10021 +Or +358 EL BRILLO WAY +PALM BEACH FL 33480 +YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY, +Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +(305) 931-2200 +an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service of this summons upon you, +xclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in th +omplaint. You must also file your answer with the Clerk of this Court within a reasonable period of time after servic +April 14, 2008 +SUMMONS +DATE +Steven M. Larimore +Clerk of Court +s/ Vernice +Deputy Clerk +U.S. District Courts diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd79e415e81526bcbc07b38a732b844550a6bbaa7753e58e82c10fb3b6d7a355.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd79e415e81526bcbc07b38a732b844550a6bbaa7753e58e82c10fb3b6d7a355.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8b06bc9bf1e739c529a2c71d8e67177a8ef908cd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd79e415e81526bcbc07b38a732b844550a6bbaa7753e58e82c10fb3b6d7a355.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bd79e415e81526bcbc07b38a732b844550a6bbaa7753e58e82c10fb3b6d7a355", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "df3dfac35594d17eec8697bff8bb99db0ef6d1f3380457b0b042ded0aee11c80", + "output_sha256": "15d27e85d2f8a96decb908f9422147f0facc6a9dbfac193a32bab761f235ead4", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd7fd6eef762eadeb063ff86f3c061cd7b397139a453560c3177a6ed32c44dfc.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd7fd6eef762eadeb063ff86f3c061cd7b397139a453560c3177a6ed32c44dfc.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..607720c5a2580aa0525f003da975b4b6ee3f7d9e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd7fd6eef762eadeb063ff86f3c061cd7b397139a453560c3177a6ed32c44dfc.md @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 56 +Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2008 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRAL +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRAL +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/L +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA1 +ORDER + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2008 Page 2 of 2 +Upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendant's Motions to +Dismiss and for More Definite Statement, and good cause being shown it is hereby +ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is granted. Plaintiffs shall have an enlargement of time of +five (5) days, until October 31, 2008, to respond to Defendant's Motions to Dismiss. +DONE AND ORDERED in +in Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this +24 day of OCToBEr, 2008. +DISTRICT COURT JUDGE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd7fd6eef762eadeb063ff86f3c061cd7b397139a453560c3177a6ed32c44dfc.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd7fd6eef762eadeb063ff86f3c061cd7b397139a453560c3177a6ed32c44dfc.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7830f1de03c44ff2737368a872fb4d82ab872d8b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bd7fd6eef762eadeb063ff86f3c061cd7b397139a453560c3177a6ed32c44dfc.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bd7fd6eef762eadeb063ff86f3c061cd7b397139a453560c3177a6ed32c44dfc", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b4ecf3a50ea6369f062d7eddb016d71e1d6ca0406f9ea9b8f5d5a989240db727", + "output_sha256": "e941de07234f433f114e525e23410f5c01dc775e6708d7f1deeab15b7b9287e2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bdb840790b9ca54565f274a2e9f6374d96d67f1a78dc152ae3e4fab8f00ba039.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bdb840790b9ca54565f274a2e9f6374d96d67f1a78dc152ae3e4fab8f00ba039.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d2dcd1d994b2cce62f23eda8e27a89826f9e809f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bdb840790b9ca54565f274a2e9f6374d96d67f1a78dc152ae3e4fab8f00ba039.md @@ -0,0 +1,139 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 220-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 1 of 7 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON +vS. +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON +EXIST A + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 220-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 2 of 7 +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/JOHNSON +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 220-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 3 of 7 +JANE DOE, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/ +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. II, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469-MARRA/ +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRAJ +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 220-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 4 of 7 +Defendant. +ORDER +THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. +102's Motion for an Order for the Preservation of Evidence and Incorporated Memorandum of +Law (DE #114), filed May 26, 2009, and this court's order (DE #192). The parties having +agreed and the Court having carefully considered the motion and being otherwise fully advised +in the premises. +It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Motion (DE # 114) is GRANTED as +follows: +A.l Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and such employees and agents (currently under his control) +and his attorneys are directed to take every reasonable step to preserve any evidence, resulting +from the October 25, 2005 search of his home as set forth in this Court's order (DE #151-2; DE +#20 in Case 9:08 -CV-80804-KAM) previously entered. +A.2 Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and such employees and agents (currently under his control) +and his attorneys are directed to take every reasonable step to preserve any evidence relevant to +these cases that have been filed in federal court or that may lead to the discovery of admissible +evidence relevant to these cases which includes, documents, data, and tangible things, including, +writings; records; files; correspondence; digital or chemical process photographs (including +negatives); reports; memoranda; calendars; diaries; minutes; electronic messages; voicemail; e- +mail; telephone message records or logs; computer and network activity logs; hard drives; + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 220-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 5 of 7 +backup data; removable computer storage media, such as tapes, disks, and cards; printouts; +document image files; web pages; databases; spreadsheets; software; books; ledgers; journals; +orders; invoices; bills; vouchers; checks; statements; worksheets; summaries; compilations; +computations; charts; diagrams; graphic presentations; drawings; films; charts; video, +phonographic, tape, or digital recordings or transcripts thereof; drafts; jottings; and notes. +Information that serves to identify, locate, or link such material, such as file inventories, file +folders, +, and indices, is also included. Specifically, Defendant must preserve the following +evidence as defined herein: records of phone communications; records of domestic and +international travel, including travel in Defendant's private airplanes; former and current +employee records; tax returns; any document evidencing payment by Defendant of U.S. currency +and/or merchandise to each person on the list provided by the United States Attorney's Office +("USAO list"); any evidence stored in Defendant's storage unit; all photographs of the interior +and exterior of Defendant's Palm Beach residence as it appeared in 1998 through October 2005; +any diary, log, memo pad, calendar, or other writing which reflected the date that each person on +the USAO list visited Defendant's residence; any diary or document wherein each person on the +USAO list wrote regarding any visits) to Defendant's residence; all documents sent by the Palm +Beach Police Department ("PBPD"), the FBI, the USAO, or the Palm Beach State Attorney's +Office ("PBSAO") to the defendant; and all computers used by Defendant and/or such agents +and employees (currently under his control) to the extent the computers have evidence relating to +these cases. The time period for the preservation of evidence shall be 1998 - 2002 as it relates to +Jane Doe 102; and 2002 through October 25, 2005 as it relates to other persons on the USAO +list. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 220-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 6 of 7 +B. +"Evidence" is defined as any document or information that is in the possession, custody +or control of the defendant as of the date of this order and that is relevant to these cases or that +may lead to the discovery of evidence relevant to these cases. The duty to preserve evidence +extends to documents, data, and tangible things in the possession, custody, and/or control of +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and such employees or agents (currently under his control) or +attorneys who possess materials reasonably anticipated to be subject to discovery in these +actions. Counsel for the Defendant shall be directly responsible only to the extent they are in +possession or control of evidence. Counsel shall provide a copy of this Order to the Defendant +and to those employees or agents whom defense counsel knows or has reason to believe may +have evidence. +C. +"Preservation" is to be interpreted broadly to accomplish the goal of maintaining the +integrity of all documents, data, and tangible things reasonably anticipated to be subject to +discovery in these actions under Rules 26, 45, and 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. +D. +If an objection or privilege is raised, the parties may raise the issue with this Court in +a timely fashion and shall preserve the evidence in question pending resolution by the Court. +An agreement to preserve evidence and this Order is not a waiver of any existing or future right +to object to production or any constitutional or evidentiary basis. +E. +The parties, without leave of Court, may agree in writing that certain documents or +categories of evidence need not be preserved as otherwise required by this Order. If such +agreement is reached, such agreement is effective upon signing and without further order of this +Court. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 220-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 7 of 7 +F. +If this Court determines that evidence has been wrongfully destroyed or lost in +violation of this Order, it may impose appropriate sanctions based upon motion and an +evidentiary hearing, if necessary. +G. +Each party shall bear its own costs for complying with this Order. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, +this +-of +- 2009. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Court Judge +Copies to: +All counsel of record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bdb840790b9ca54565f274a2e9f6374d96d67f1a78dc152ae3e4fab8f00ba039.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bdb840790b9ca54565f274a2e9f6374d96d67f1a78dc152ae3e4fab8f00ba039.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2e2991f6b7184190629cdbb9955fd3012c107eb9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bdb840790b9ca54565f274a2e9f6374d96d67f1a78dc152ae3e4fab8f00ba039.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -433, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bdb840790b9ca54565f274a2e9f6374d96d67f1a78dc152ae3e4fab8f00ba039", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "f3e611a80c8b1e4f2ffac56f0628b128dfa2a4e8b874eb98ba1f860b5febc942", + "output_sha256": "6165b0b9523e5f3a2a8b7daa298d0c373561252c2bea324cb51b9057831f1240", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bdd56e1461228b73bdd25c23de5b851a0b6b4cdf743d5e9b1d39c8276593cb52.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bdd56e1461228b73bdd25c23de5b851a0b6b4cdf743d5e9b1d39c8276593cb52.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9cc4031a4f825aba13ee0139fb112f9728c1ba53 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bdd56e1461228b73bdd25c23de5b851a0b6b4cdf743d5e9b1d39c8276593cb52.md @@ -0,0 +1,278 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 108 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 1 of 10 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119- +MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232- +MARRA/ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380- +MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 108 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 2 of 10 +JANE DOE NO. 5, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381- +MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994- +MARRA/ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993- +MARRA/ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 108 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 3 of 10 +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. II, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469- +MARRA/ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591- +MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 108 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 4 of 10 +JANE DOE NO. 102, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656- +MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFES JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102's MOTION FOR +LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO +DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO UNSEAL +THE NONPROSECUTION AGREEMENT +Pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the +Southern District of Florida, Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 (together, +the "Plaintiffs") by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby file this Motion For +Leave to File Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Response in +Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay and/or Continue Action for Time Certain +Based on Parallel Civil and Criminal Proceedings With Incorporated Memorandum of +Law Under Seal, and, as grounds, state as follows: +Undersigned counsel seek to file this Response in Opposition to Defendant +Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay under seal in order to abide by this Court's August 21, +2008 Order to Compel Production and Protective Order entered in Case No. 08-80736- +CIV-MARRA +(the "Protective Order"). The Protective Order prohibits +Plaintiffs from disclosing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (the "NPA") or its terms to +any third party. +The sealed document should be maintained under seal for the duration +of this Court's August 21, 2008 Protective Order. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 108 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 5 of 10 +2. +Undersigned counsel recognize that this Court has previously unsealed +documents referring to the NPA. We seek to comply with the Protective Order for this +new and independent filing in an abundance of caution, until directed otherwise by the +Court. +3. +If this Court denies Plaintiffs' instant motion, Plaintiffs seek appropriate +disclosure of the NPA pursuant to this Court's recent order in Case No. 08-80736-CIV- +MARRA +(DE #36) denying Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2's +motion to unseal the NPA. As stated in that Order, the NPA has not been filed with the +Court. Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 would then have "a specific +tangible need to be relieved of the restrictions" of the Protective Order because +consideration of the terms of the NPA is necessary for this Court to resolve Defendant's +Motion to Stay. +WHEREFORE, +1. Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to enter an Order granting +Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 the right to file under seal their +Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay and/or Continue Action for Time +Certain Based on Parallel Civil and Criminal Proceedings With Incorporated +Memorandum of Law. +In the alternative, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to unseal the +Non-Prosecution Agreement in order to allow Plaintiffs to concretely respond to +Defendant's Motion to Stay. +3. +Finally, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to grant such other and +further relief to which this Court finds the Plaintiff otherwise entitled. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 108 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 6 of 10 +Date: May 29, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. +101 and Jane Doe No. 102 +By: +s/Katherine W. Ezell +Robert C. Josefsberg +Fla. Bar No. 040856 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Katherine W. Ezell +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +kezell@podhurst.com +City National Bank Building +25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +Telephone: (305) 358-2800 +Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1.A.3 +On May 29, 2009, undersigned counsel conferred with counsel for Defendant in a +good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in this motion, and Defendant's counsel +advised that Defendant opposes this motion. +Date: May 29, 2009 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 108 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 7 of 10 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this 29th day of May, 2009, we electronically +filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify +that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on +the attached Service List either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated +by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not +authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. +101 and Jane Doe No. 102 +By: +s/Katherine W. Ezell +Robert C. Josefsberg +Fla. Bar No. 040856 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Katherine W. Ezell +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +kezell@podhurst.com +City National Bank Building +25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +Telephone: (305) 358-2800 +Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 108 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 8 of 10 +SERVICE LIST +JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Robert Critton, Esq. +Michael J. Pike, Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman LLP +515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 842-2820 +Fax: (561) 515-3148 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +mpike@bclclaw.com +Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Jack Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 659-8300 +Fax: (561) 835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A +250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 202-6360 +Fax: (561) 828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Co-Defendant, +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: (561) 686-6300 +Fax: (561) 383-9456 +jsx@searcylaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 108 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 9 of 10 +Adam Horowitz, Esq. +Stuart Mermelstein, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +smermelstein@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Case Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,08-80232, 08-80380, 08- +80381, 08-80993, 08-80994 +Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq. +Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq. +Leopold Kuvin, P.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +Phone: (561) 515-1400 +Fax: (561) 515-1401 +skuvin@leopoldkuvin.com +tleopold@leopoldkuvin.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804 +Richard Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A +2290 10" Ave North, Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Phone: (561) 582-7600 +Fax: (561) 588-8819 +lawyerwillits@aol.com +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80871 +Brad +Esq. +Law Office of Brad +& Associates, LLC +2028 +Street, Suite 202 +Hollywood, FL 33020 +Phone: (954) 414-8033 +Fax: (954) 924-1530 +bedwards @rra-law.com +be@bradedwardslaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 +Isidro Manuel +Es. +Elkins & Boehringer + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 108 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 10 of 10 +224 Datura Avenue, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 832-8033 +Fax: (561) 832-7137 +isidrogarcia @ bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bdd56e1461228b73bdd25c23de5b851a0b6b4cdf743d5e9b1d39c8276593cb52.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bdd56e1461228b73bdd25c23de5b851a0b6b4cdf743d5e9b1d39c8276593cb52.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f8d37e06885181a63e2314df46c475fd95ae5b3e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bdd56e1461228b73bdd25c23de5b851a0b6b4cdf743d5e9b1d39c8276593cb52.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -375, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bdd56e1461228b73bdd25c23de5b851a0b6b4cdf743d5e9b1d39c8276593cb52", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 11, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "0cb9cf18503534af94fd6c8c4e9ec7cfeeb8c9ebffa389d69609ab937348a35a", + "output_sha256": "7b5c562468a004daaf38248dbb25cd6cb1996bdd8d96daef9686009de933c17d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bdd59625684d4ce5c6d1eafd8454677c4895f510b5653623632d064cd613fa21.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bdd59625684d4ce5c6d1eafd8454677c4895f510b5653623632d064cd613fa21.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3d31cb9ec32f18cecfb5c0dc862c6d001116d7dd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bdd59625684d4ce5c6d1eafd8454677c4895f510b5653623632d064cd613fa21.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 28 +Filed 02/12/20 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE 1000, +----X +USDC SDNY +DOCUMENT +ELECTRONICALLY FILED +DOC#:_ +DATE FILED: 2/12/2020 +Plaintiffs, +-V- +19-cv-10577 (LJL) +ORDER +INDYKE, et al., +Defendants. +J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: +The Court has received Defendant's request for a pre-motion conference (dkt. no. 24). +The ened The parin are to mac is my hidi to dil Practices vi the sped for aptiming and +page limits for such motions. Accordingly, the request for a pre-motion conference is denied as +SO ORDERED +Dated: February 12, 2020 +New York, New York +Alain +J. LIMAN +United States District Judge diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bdd59625684d4ce5c6d1eafd8454677c4895f510b5653623632d064cd613fa21.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bdd59625684d4ce5c6d1eafd8454677c4895f510b5653623632d064cd613fa21.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..34a5046d895814f6ecfbf8a77e0ab1b300502462 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bdd59625684d4ce5c6d1eafd8454677c4895f510b5653623632d064cd613fa21.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bdd59625684d4ce5c6d1eafd8454677c4895f510b5653623632d064cd613fa21", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "25176044bba9923fcfbb57373378457d6ec4100664c5a48b26091af1e8fb6b02", + "output_sha256": "9ae33332d79768710f7ff0dd8b2f2dec13d31fc2d0fb7c143cdfdc7a2f47fcaf", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bde9e4edc4795f0f9d0be16c0a2cfa78c229a0e21bbfe6a668d2396f9cb2d67e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bde9e4edc4795f0f9d0be16c0a2cfa78c229a0e21bbfe6a668d2396f9cb2d67e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..afd788f0966c03e1f7272ee501614fec42bc5639 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bde9e4edc4795f0f9d0be16c0a2cfa78c229a0e21bbfe6a668d2396f9cb2d67e.md @@ -0,0 +1,169 @@ +Filing # 192998689 E-Filed 02/29/2024 10:30:55 AM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH +COUNTY, FLORIDA +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-AG +DAVEARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm +Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk +and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida, +Defendants. +COPY +ORDER ON THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY REGARDING JEFFERY EPSTEIN +The Court was tasked with determining whether the release of the Grand Jury records would +further justice. For different reasons, the Couft reaches the same conclusion as the two predecessor +judges who also denied the request. The release of the records will not further justice as our law currently +prescribes. +This is despite many attempts over several months to force itselfto reach an opposite conclusion; +however, after weighing all of the factors In re Petition of Craig, 131 F.3d 99, it is clear there is no nexus +between those findings and furtheringjustice. This Court cannot weigh those factors in a way that "will +further justice. +These factors are: +(i) +the identity of the party seeking disclosure; +In this case, that is the private entity that owns the Palm Beach Post - a large news media corporation. +This factum cannot be construed in any meaningful way to help further justice. The press has a noble +obligation to inform the public, but that is not synonymous with furthering justice. The press has no +greater access to grand jury proceedings that the public. +(ii) +whether the defendant to the Grand Jury proceeding or the government opposes the +disclosure; +There is no one that opposes the disclosure of those records. It is understandable that no one opposes +the release of the records as they pertain to the horrific atrocity that is pedophilia. However, this +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, +ABRUZZO, CLERK, 02/29/2024 10:30:55 AM + + +factum cannot be construed to further justice. It only indicates an eagerness for the release of the +records, which is insufficient under our current law. +(ili) why disclosure is being sought in the particular case; +This is sought to "further justice" but how this furthers justice is thread-bare, disjointed and poorly +articulated. The argument presented is premised on the first amendment (freedom of the press) and +an exception of furthering justice. +The Courts are not seeking to limit the freedom of the press, but the press is not entitled to any greater +access than the public merely because they are the press. The Court does not find it would further +justice merely because the media seeks release, as opposed to any interested party: The release would +potentially promote the advancement of other noble interests such as creating more transparency, +but that is not the legal standards of our current law. +(iv) +what specific information is being sought for disclosure; +The Petitionerseeks the release of Grand Jury testimony, Thisis sensitive information that is generally +kept secret and closed to the public. The Court weighs this factor against the release of the materials. +Y +(v) +how long ago the Grand Jury proceedings took place; +The proceedings are remote in time. This factum cannot be construed in any meaningful way to help +further justice. If anything after reviewing the material the overwhelming majority of the substance +has been previously reported by the media or made the subject of documentaries. +(vi) the current status of the principals of the Grand Jury proceedings and that of their families; +This is unknown to the Court as the Petitioners are not the principals. Perhaps if a child victim who +testified had joined the petition, the Court's analysis could be different as to portions of the +proceedings. This factor is weighed against releasing the records. +(vii) +the extent to which the desired material— either permissibly or impermissibly —has been +previously made public; +The Grand Jury testimony material has never been made public. A large amount of substance of the +material or what occurred inside the Grand Jury room has been previously reported - even by the Post +- without attribution. +The testimony was previously released to a law enforcement agency to assist in a law enforcement +investigation - the results of which are unknown to the Court. The release to law enforcement to + + +conduct an investigation would clearly be to further justice, but that does not carry over to the instant +request. +(vill) +whether witnesses to the Grand Jury proceedings who might be affected by disclosure are +still alive; and +The Court has no knowledge of the current status of the witnesses and cannot use this factor in any +meaningful way to determine the release would further justice under our current law. On the contrary, +there is the express manifestation of reluctance to testify to avoid embarrassment by a minor victim. +Release in this circumstance would not further justice under our current law, and as it is the last known +intent of witnesses, the Court strongly weighs this factor against the release of the materials. +(ix) +the additional need for maintaining secrecy in the particularcase in question. +Grand Jury proceedings are generally always kept secret and are closed to the public. This is generally +to protect jurors, witnesses, those accused, and the integrity of the case. Secrecy allows people to serve +as jurors and witnesses to testify without fear of outside influence or retaliation. In some cases, it also +ensures the protection of an innocent suspect's reputation. Secrecy also makes it less likely that a +defendant will abscond after learning they are being investigated. Any concern for the reputation of +Epstein is not a valid consideration in this case, but the purpose of Grand Jury secrecy remains +important. +The Court weighs this factor against the release of the materials, under our current law. Additionally +the child victim witnesses have not expressed their desire to be named. This strongly indicates a desire +to maintain secrecy. The Court weighs this factor strongly against disclosure and finds it will not further +justice. +Concluding its analysis, the Court determines there is no nexus between the release of the records +and furtherance of justice. It is a position so untenable it would require a change in the statute to justify +release of the materials. +The Court is aware that the release of the records would accomplish many other positive objectives +such as advancing the public's interest in its criminal justice system and advancing a private corporate +interest that promotes a healthy and robust news media. Those positive outcomes do not further justice. +Judicial restraint, that is avoid judicial overreach, has been important since foundation of our nation. +Furthermore, the separation of powers is fundamental to our system of government. As has been said +"We are judges, not kings." Therefore, judges cannot not exercise our will over our judgement- no matter +how much we may wish to do so. The Courts cannot usurp the roles of the legislator or governor and +render moot pending or passed legislation because it would be easier or more popular to do so - no +matter how much easier it may seem to do so. In our Republic, popular sentiment is the concern of the + + +political branches of government, not the courts. Under our current law, the legislature has allowed the +release to "further justice"- not to advance a publicinterest. +For those reasons the request is DENIED under our current law. +However, today the Governor of Florida signed CS/HB117 amending Florida Statute 905.27 effective +July 1, 2024. This amendment significantly modifies the definition of "furthering justice" to expressly +include furthering a publicinterest when the disclosure is requested pursuant to paragraph 905.27(2)(c). +905.27(2)(c) now reads as follows: +When a court orders the disclosure of such testimony pursuant to subsection (1) in response to +a request by the media or an interested person, regardless of whether that purpose is for use in +a criminal or civil case, it may be disclosed so long as the subject of the grand juty inquiry is +deceased, the grand jury inquiry related to criminal or sexual activity between the subject of the +grand jury investigation and a person who was a minorat the time of the alleged criminalor +sexual activity, the testimonywas previously disclosed by a court order, and the state attorney is +provided notice of the request. This paragraph does not limit the court's ability to limit the +disclosure of testimony, including, but not limited to, redaction. +ADDITIONAL FINDINGS BY THE COURT +The Court finds that the request involves a matter of publicinterest. The criminal prosecutions of +the most infamous pedophile in American history began in Palm Beach County - with much controversy. +For almost 20 years, the story of how Jeffrey Epstein victimized some of Palm Beach County's most +vulnerable has been the subject of much outrage and has at times diminished the public perception of the +criminal justice system. On or after July 1, 2024, the Court will entertain a motion for reconsideration as +to how to weigh this as a factor. +Adding to the public interest, Epstein is indeed infamous and is widely reported to have cavorted +with politicians, billionaires, and even British Royalty. It is understandable that given those reports the +public has a great curiosity about what was widely reported by news agency as "special treatment" +regarding his prosecution. This matter is clearly the subject of public interest. On or after July 1, 2024, +the Court will entertain a motion for reconsideration as to how to weigh this as a factor. +The Court finds that this request is made by the media, specifically the Palm Beach Post. The Palm +Beach Post is a newspaper of record in our county, and has a long and rich history documenting ourlocal +community, Many local resident still rely on the Post to obtain information on national, state and local +events. On or after July 1, 2024, the Court will entertain a motion for reconsideration as to how to weigh +this as a factor. +The Court finds Epstein is also widely reported to have been deceased since August 10, 2019, +under controversial and "newsworthy" circumstances, at Metropolitan Correctional Center in the state of +New York. This adds to the public interest. On or after July 1, 2024, the Court will entertain a motion for +reconsideration as to how to weigh this as a factor. + + +Having reviewed the testimony, the Court also finds the testimony relates to sexual activity +between Epsteinand child victimsof sextrafficking. Again, it is widely acceptedthat Epstein is a notorious +and serial pedophile. The testimony taken by the Grand Jury concerns activity ranging from grossly +unacceptable to criminal -all of it sexually deviant and disgusting. On or after July 1, 2024, the Court will +entertain a motion for reconsideration as to how to weigh this as a factor. +The Court also notes the testimony was previously disclosed to law enforcement agencies. +Further, the State Attorney was properly noticed and withdrewany objections to release and even did his +best to disclose the information in his office's possession without delay via internet portal. On or after +July 1, 2024, the Court will entertain a motion for reconsideration as to how to weigh all of this this as a +factor. +The law is amended effective July 1, 2024 and the parties are given leave of Court to file a motion +for reconsideration filed on or after July 1, 2024. +IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, the petition to release the Grand Jury proceedings regarding Jeffery +Epstein under the current law is DENIED. +DONE and ORDERED at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida +Circuit Judge +02/29/2024 +502019CA014681XXXXMB +Luis Delgado +Circuit Judge +NOT A diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bde9e4edc4795f0f9d0be16c0a2cfa78c229a0e21bbfe6a668d2396f9cb2d67e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bde9e4edc4795f0f9d0be16c0a2cfa78c229a0e21bbfe6a668d2396f9cb2d67e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..701e8a76b3e7d03b56f4ef3d41193f3e72a449a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bde9e4edc4795f0f9d0be16c0a2cfa78c229a0e21bbfe6a668d2396f9cb2d67e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bde9e4edc4795f0f9d0be16c0a2cfa78c229a0e21bbfe6a668d2396f9cb2d67e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "bcfc0c9e108f4fb5a8247aa346ef05a3481deb51721f350f1815d15cf80a16bb", + "output_sha256": "692a309a03ef555a9bb1929de43d12199522515f4374d6be65a8e1fc633cc284", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/be18f5284ee308b693ef2d8c86edb6f3a0eab77fa65e3b42db15097f176bba25.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be18f5284ee308b693ef2d8c86edb6f3a0eab77fa65e3b42db15097f176bba25.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..89ead0e7b68a1496730e05e3e098d16f1d14eab1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be18f5284ee308b693ef2d8c86edb6f3a0eab77fa65e3b42db15097f176bba25.md @@ -0,0 +1,71 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80380-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS CO-COUNSEL +TEIN, P.L. hereby moves for leave to withdraw as co-counsel for +defendant Jeffrey Epstein, stating as follows: +1. On December 30, 2008, +Tein filed its notice of withdrawal as +counsel for Mr. Epstein [DE 59], noting that two other law firms who previously +entered their appearance on Mr. Epstein's behalf would remain as co-counsel. +2. +We have since learned through discussions with the Clerk of Court +that absent a formal order of withdrawal by this Court, +Tein will continue to +be listed as counsel for Mr. Epstein on the CM/ECF. +Accordingly, +Tein respectfully requests that this Court enter an +order allowing it to withdraw as counsel for Mr. Epstein. +Teinr + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 2 of 3 +CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA +Respectfully submitted, +TEIN, P.L. +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 +Tel: 305 442 1101 +Fax: 305 442 6744 +By: Is/ Michael R. Tein +GUY A. +Fla. Bar No. 623740 +MICHAEL R. TEIN +Fla. Bar No. 993522 +tein@lewistein.com +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 19, 2009, I electronically filed the +foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system. I further +certify that plaintiff's attorneys are CM/ECF participants, as indicated by the +CM/ECF Attorney Listings for this case. +/s/ Michael R. Tein +Michael R. Tein +2 +Tein n. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 3 of 3 +CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA +Service List +Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbery, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +Michael J. Pike, Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +3 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/be18f5284ee308b693ef2d8c86edb6f3a0eab77fa65e3b42db15097f176bba25.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be18f5284ee308b693ef2d8c86edb6f3a0eab77fa65e3b42db15097f176bba25.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c09c5c7a5ae526f9538ad198cfc47a1c735bb00a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be18f5284ee308b693ef2d8c86edb6f3a0eab77fa65e3b42db15097f176bba25.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -214, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "be18f5284ee308b693ef2d8c86edb6f3a0eab77fa65e3b42db15097f176bba25", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "9d1574a58a6999acd67394f15260a7b8b4d94f2f13a893bb8f7865af137f0e6f", + "output_sha256": "34d2dbf5b220c0a87175f5dd8d3bc00cc262167739e778d7387f23e05c53d4a1", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/be1dac6ec33abb3bbd7ffc5caf7e4a711d0d9d870f7585f52f3176699905d856.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be1dac6ec33abb3bbd7ffc5caf7e4a711d0d9d870f7585f52f3176699905d856.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dfbab72e34f79de9ff0e36277fb7cd7364f475bf --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be1dac6ec33abb3bbd7ffc5caf7e4a711d0d9d870f7585f52f3176699905d856.md @@ -0,0 +1,133 @@ +305-931 Case 9:08-Clermat &MeKAlein, Document 488-1 Entered on FLSD Dock£10115/2968-›Bage 1 045/16 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-i +JANE DOE NO. 2, +v. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION +OF NET WORTH DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT +Plaintiff requests Defendant to produce the following documents within the time required by +Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: +DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS +Unless the context indicates otherwise, the following definitions apply to each category of +documents listed below and are incorporated by reference into each specific request for documents: +The word "document" shall mean any written or graphic matter or other means of +preserving thought or expression, and all tangible things (including the original, all copies and all +drafts) from which information can be processed or transcribed, including, but not limited to, +correspondence, memoranda, notes, messages, letters, telegrams, teletype messages, bulletins, +diaries, chronological data, minutes, books, reports, charts, ledgers, invoices, worksheets, receipts, +computer printouts, schedules, affidavits, contracts, transcripts, surveys, graphic representations of +any kind, photographs, graphs, microfilm, videotapes, tape recordings, motion pictures or other +1 +A" + + +305-9315ase 9:08-049011AcKAden,Document 488-1 Entered on FLSD Dacketz@315/20 b6-2d@age 2 of 516 +films. +b. +The word "agreement" shall be deemed to include any agreement executed or in effect +at any time during an indicated period, regardless of whether it was thereafter superseded, amended, +modified, rescinded or revoked. +c. +Production of an agreement shall be deemed to require production of any draft and of +any copy of the agreement or the draft thereof which differs in any respect from such original or +draft. +d. +The word "person" shall be deemed to mean any natural person, the estate of any +natural person or any legal entity, including, but not limited to, a corporation, partnership and an +unincorporated association, and any officer, director, employee, agent or other person acting or +purporting to act on its behalf. +e. +Any request for production of a document shall be deemed to require production of +each and every such thing executed, created, prepared, received or in effect at any time to the present, +or during any other indicated period of time. +f. +The word "Plaintiff" shall include Plaintiff "JANE DOE NO. 2", who has been +identified in discovery, and any agent, employee or other person acting or purporting to act, or who +acted or purported to act, on behalf of the Plaintiff at any time until the present time, or during any +other indicated period of time. +g. +The words "Defendant" shall refer to JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and any agent, employee +or other person acting or purporting to act, or who acted or purported to act, on his behalf at any time +until the present time, or during any other indicated period of time. +2 + + +305-931228Se 9:08-4V-RATaKAMin, Document 488-1 Entered on FLSD Daoket 03/15/202020bage 3 0f4516 +h. The words "you," "your" and "yours" shall refer to Defendant, as defined above, +i. Whenever appropriate, the conjunctive "and" should be interpreted in the disjunctive +to include the term "or" and vice versa. +j. +Whenever appropriate, the singular form of a word should be interpreted in the plural +and vice versa. +k. +Any documents responsive to this request which, nonetheless, are not produced by +reason of a claim of privilege, work product or for any other reason shall be identified in writing by +(1) date; (2) author; (3) recipient; (4) general subject matter; (5) identity of person or persons to +whom the contents of the document have already been revealed; (6) the identity of the person or +entity now in possession or control of the document; and (7) the basis upon which it is being +withheld. +Unless otherwise stated, these requests are for documents created or existing in the +The word "property" means any tangible or intangible rights or interest of the +period January 1, 2002 to present. +m. +Defendant. +3 + + +305-931288e 9:08-CYermat dieKmestein, ocument 488-1 Entered on FLSD D9£.k.603/15/29168-280age 4 01,5/16 +DOCUMENTS REQUESTED +1. +All federal and state income tax returns, including all W-2 forms, 1099 forms and +schedules, for tax years 2003-2008. +2. +All documents relating to the assets, liabilities, income, expenses and net worth of +Defendant, including without limitation, the following for each of the past five years: +a. annual financial reports; +b. balance sheets; +c. income statements; +d. cash flow statements; +e. quarterly financial reports; +f. budget reports; and +g. financial analysis. +All documents which refer or relate to financing or loans requested or applied for by +the Defendant, including loan applications, appraisals, financial spreadsheets, etc. +Any and all appraisals indicating fair market value of real estate or other property of +4. +Defendant. +Any and all documents referring or relating to investment or savings accounts, +including without limitation, account statements and summaries. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Herman &Mermelstein, P +Document 488-1 Entered on FLSD DOCke 0.3/15/3078-20bage 5 016516 +Dated: June 28, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: a m +Stuart S. Mermelsteín (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz/@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-8 +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +Certificate of Service +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent via U.S. Mail +and facsimile to the following addressee this 29 day of June, 2009. +Robert D. Critton, Jr, Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +rcrit@bclclaw.com +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +5 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/be1dac6ec33abb3bbd7ffc5caf7e4a711d0d9d870f7585f52f3176699905d856.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be1dac6ec33abb3bbd7ffc5caf7e4a711d0d9d870f7585f52f3176699905d856.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4743855bcf6d8d3c39e71d26ff4f84a352ffc159 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be1dac6ec33abb3bbd7ffc5caf7e4a711d0d9d870f7585f52f3176699905d856.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "be1dac6ec33abb3bbd7ffc5caf7e4a711d0d9d870f7585f52f3176699905d856", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "be528fed892b314ebec8298846a32160fd5991fdf681046eafe4058f9694c11e", + "output_sha256": "e6956f7bc71e12e6ce57594ebcdc112370e02c801064ec20d9a089807ecff11d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/be1f7f08b7b7cb90592b774d248b0853eee8373844c914b1c230cc6baf68bd17.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be1f7f08b7b7cb90592b774d248b0853eee8373844c914b1c230cc6baf68bd17.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b926d4528f28e0d5592d2d9c666e8ee57dd36614 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be1f7f08b7b7cb90592b774d248b0853eee8373844c914b1c230cc6baf68bd17.md @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 5 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2009 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 09-80591-CIV-MARRA +JANE DO NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendants. +ORDER REQUIRING COUNSEL TO CONFER, FILE JOINT SCHEDULING REPORT +AND FILE JOINT DISCOVERY REPORT +THIS ORDER has been entered upon the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff's counsel is +hereby ORDERED to forward to all defendants, upon receipt of either an answer or a motion +pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), a copy of this order. +It is further ORDERED: +1. Every motion when filed shall be accompanied by a proposed order, except that +motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment need not be accompanied by a proposed +order. +2. Pretrial discovery in this case shall be conducted in accord with Local Rule 16.1 and +Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. +3. Pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless this action is +excluded under Rule 26(a)(1)(E), the parties must confer within twenty-one (21) days after the +last responding party either files an answer or a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), +whichever is earlier, to consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the +possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case, to make or arrange for the +disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), and to develop a proposed discovery plan that indicates the + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2009 Page 2 of 2 +parties" views and proposals concerning the matters listed in Rule 26(f). +4. The parties are jointly responsible for submitting a written report of this conference +outlining the proposed discovery plan within 14 days after the conference. +5. Counsel for the parties shall hold a scheduling conference either at the same time as +the discovery conference described in Rule 26(f) or within fourteen (14) calendar days thereafter. +See Local Rule 16.I(B). +6. Within fourteen (14) days of the scheduling conference, counsel shall file a joint +scheduling report pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(B)(2). This report shall indicate the proposed +month and year for the trial plus the estimated number of trial days required, as well as an +indication of whether the trial is to be a jury trial or bench trial. +7. The parties may submit a single report combining the discovery plan report and the +scheduling conference report. +8. Failure of counsel or unrepresented parties to file a discovery plan report or joint +scheduling report may result in dismissal, default, and the imposition of other sanctions including +attorney's fees and costs. +DONE AND SIGNED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, +this 20" day of April, 2009. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies furnished to: +All counsel +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/be1f7f08b7b7cb90592b774d248b0853eee8373844c914b1c230cc6baf68bd17.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be1f7f08b7b7cb90592b774d248b0853eee8373844c914b1c230cc6baf68bd17.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..178256d9a4af99591c6a5641897a904404db73bc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be1f7f08b7b7cb90592b774d248b0853eee8373844c914b1c230cc6baf68bd17.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "be1f7f08b7b7cb90592b774d248b0853eee8373844c914b1c230cc6baf68bd17", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "a9a6b5049b4a8c942e75db90e54f555bdf33d766515a4a44540a1602db8fbd20", + "output_sha256": "bf876615f419c4bf62b42a4b67f54ae79c9bf344874a9d71fb182b31a0400b30", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/be27efdd8ce95a3c48665631212c289be681efccfa813957800e3c9642862af1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be27efdd8ce95a3c48665631212c289be681efccfa813957800e3c9642862af1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a0ebbe141d585c584d2c15b48ee1331f30408934 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be27efdd8ce95a3c48665631212c289be681efccfa813957800e3c9642862af1.md @@ -0,0 +1,140 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2008 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR STAY +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein respectfully moves for a mandatory stay of this +action under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3509(k). As discussed below, +this action is subject to a mandatory stay based on the existence of two pending +parallel criminal actions. +Introduction +This civil action is a private counterpart to two ongoing criminal actions, one +in Palm Beach state court, the other in Miami federal court. Both cases purport to +arise from the same occurrence: the alleged sexual assault of a minor, Jane Doe +No. 2. A federal statute directly on point provides that when an alleged sexual +assault involving a child victim results in a "criminal proceeding," a commonly + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2008 Page 2 of 6 +derived civil suit "shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the criminal +action." 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) (emphasis added).' A stay of this case is required +until there is no longer a pending criminal action derived from the same underlying +allegations. See 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k). +Discussion +The parallel state criminal action pending in Palm Beach Circuit Court is +still in the discovery phase. State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 2006 CF +09454 AXX (Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County). Meanwhile, there is +also a parallel federal criminal grand jury action pending in the Southern District of +Florida. In re Grand Jury, No. FGJ 07-103(WPB) (S.D. Fla.) Both cases arise +out of the same occurrence and allege that the minor plaintiff is a victim. +The language of section 3509(k) of title 18, United States Code, is clear: a +parallel "civil action shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the criminal +" The full text of the mandatory-stay provision reads: +If, at any time that a cause of action for recovery of compensation for +damage or injury to the person of a child exists, a criminal action is +pending which arises out of the same occurrence and in which the +child is the victim, the civil action shall be stayed until the end of all +phases of the criminal action and any mention of the civil action +luring the criminal proceeding is prohibited. As used in thi +ubsection, a criminal action is pending until its final adjudication it +the trial court. +18 U.S.C. § 3509(k). +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2008 Page 3 of 6 +action." 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) (emphasis added). When it comes to statutory +construction, the mandatory nature of the word "shall" is well-settled. See, e.g., +531 U.S. 230, 241 (2001) (noting Congress' "use of a mandatory +"shall' to impose discretionless obligations") (emphasis added); Lexecon Inc. v. +Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35 (1998) (explaining that +"the mandatory 'shall' ... normally creates an obligation impervious to judicial +discretion"). (emphasis added). Cf. | +V. +530 U.S. 327, 350(2000) +("Through the PLRA [Prison Litigation Reform Act], Congress clearly intended to +make operation of the automatic stay mandatory, precluding courts from +exercising their equitable powers to enjoin the stay. And we conclude that this +provision does not violate separation of powers principles.") (emphasis added). +One district court within the Eleventh Circuit, facing the identical issue with +a pending state prosecution, recently construed "the plain language of § 3509(k)" +as "requiring] a stay in a case ... where ... a parallel criminal action [is] +pending." Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MCR/WCS, 2005 WL 950623, at *2 +(N.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2005) (Francis II) (emphasis added). Accord Doe v. Francis, +No. 5:03 CV 260 MCR/WCS, 2005 WL 517847, at *1-2 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2005) +(Francis 1) (staying federal civil action in favor of "a criminal case currently +pending in state court in Bay County, Florida, arising from the same facts and +involving the same parties as the Instant action," noting that "the language of 18 +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2008 Page 4 of 6 +U.S.C. § 3509(k) is clear that a stay is required in a case such as this where a +parallel criminal action is pending which arises from the same occurrence +involving minor victims") (emphasis added). There is no contrary opinion from +any court. +In determining that the federal stay provision is mandatory, the Francis II +court expressed that there was apparently no case law supporting, or even +"discussing the [avoidance] of a stay [under the command of] § 3509(k)." Francis +II, 2005 WL 950623, at *2. Deferring to the statute as written, the Francis II court +rejected the plaintiffs' argument that some of the alleged victims had already +reached their majority. See id. The court similarly rejected the plaintiffs' +argument that it would be in the victims' best interests to avoid a stay so as to +counteract the victims' "ongoing and increasing mental harm due to the 'frustrating +delay in both the criminal case and [the civil] case.'" Id. The Francis II court, in +adhering to the plain language of the statute, also adhered to the "well established +priority of criminal proceedings over civil proceedings." Cf. United States v. +Hanhardt, 156 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1000 (N.D. III. 2001) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. +50(a)). +Conclusion +Because this civil action arises from the same allegations as two pending +criminal actions, § 3509(k) mandates a stay of this civil action. +- +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 12. Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2008 Page 5 of 6 +WHEREFORE, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein respectfully requests that the +Court enter a stay under 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k), coextensive with the state and +federal criminal actions. +Respectfully submitted, +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & +WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Tel: 561 659 8300 +Fax: 561 835 8691 +By: /s/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger +Fla. Bar No. 262013 +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2008 Page 6 of 6 +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7 +Counsel for defendant has conferred in good faith with counsel for the +plaintiff, who opposes the relief requested in this motion. +Is/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 20, 2008, I electronically filed the +foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECE. I also certify that +the foregoing document is being served this day on counsel of record identified +below by facsimile and U.S. Mail. +Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Fax: 305 931 0877 +/s/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger +6 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/be27efdd8ce95a3c48665631212c289be681efccfa813957800e3c9642862af1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be27efdd8ce95a3c48665631212c289be681efccfa813957800e3c9642862af1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a04fd0811c3da91b08f1a5af3ede41dedc9cb761 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be27efdd8ce95a3c48665631212c289be681efccfa813957800e3c9642862af1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "be27efdd8ce95a3c48665631212c289be681efccfa813957800e3c9642862af1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e1bcaea722f0e33d5ff2715e68334285a4b5abb885cf5302009624d5dbff564b", + "output_sha256": "57c9ee1b70fd0d9ee3e337b8f4463f6b1914dfadc9368a153e15f4767af7cffb", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/be518e243995651da3574c89d653cb2029f7c98babe2fbd1d28d36af343fca73.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be518e243995651da3574c89d653cb2029f7c98babe2fbd1d28d36af343fca73.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..da41807f53b7ac80ec9550862b128eef4b4bed53 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be518e243995651da3574c89d653cb2029f7c98babe2fbd1d28d36af343fca73.md @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 535-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2010 Page 1 of 3 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 432 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/03/2009 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +ORDER +THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Third Party Witness, Igor Zinoview's, Motion +for Protective Order (D.E. #402). For the following reasons, Third Party Witness Zinoview's +Motion for Protective Order is denied. +By this Motion Third Party Witness Zinoview, who has been employed by Defendant +Epstein as a driver and bodyguard since 2005, seeks an order preventing the taking of his +deposition on the basis that his employment with Epstein post-dates the facts giving rise +to these cases and that "at not time has he discussed with Mr. Epstein any issues involving +Mr. Epstein's criminal case or any the cases or issues involved with civil Plaintiffs." +1 +"B" + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 535-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2010 Page 2 of 3 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 432 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/03/2009 Page 2 of 3 +Zinoview's Mtn., p. 1-3. +For "good cause" shown the Court may issue a protective order preventing or +delaying a deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); see McCarthy v. Barnett Bank of Poly County, +876 F.2d 89, 91 (11th Cir. 1989). An order completely prohibiting a deposition from going +forward, however, is rare, and only resorted to in extraordinary circumstances. Salter v. +Upjohn Co., 593 F.2d 649, 651 (5" Cir. 1979)(noting that it is very unusual for trial court to +prohibit the taking of a deposition altogether, and absent extraordinary circumstances, such +order would likely be in error); Jennings v. Family Management, 201 F.R.D. 272 (D.D.C. +2001)(stating that a "complete prohibition of a deposition is an extraordinary measure +which should be resorted to only in rare occasions."). In this instance the Court agrees with +Plaintiff that neither Zinoview's conclusory affidavit in which he denies any knowledge of +the facts giving rise to these cases, nor his Motion provide anything even approaching the +"extraordinary circumstances" necessary to justify a complete prohibition of his deposition. +Nor, does the Court find any basis to limit the questions that may be asked Zinoview at +deposition. At the deposition Zinoview's counsel is free to invoke any privileges afforded +him by the applicable procedural rules. In accordance with the above and foregoing, it is +hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Third Party Witness, Igor Zinoview's, Motion for +Protective Order (D.E. #402) is DENIED. +DONE AND ORDERED this December 3rd, 2009, in +, at West Palm +Beach, Florida. +2 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 535-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2010 Page 3 of 3 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 432 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/03/2009 Page 3 of 3 +LINNEA R. JOHNSON +UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE +CC: The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra +All Counsel of Record +3 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/be518e243995651da3574c89d653cb2029f7c98babe2fbd1d28d36af343fca73.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be518e243995651da3574c89d653cb2029f7c98babe2fbd1d28d36af343fca73.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bf384377fe05190fba5c38681f7f0b807112e859 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be518e243995651da3574c89d653cb2029f7c98babe2fbd1d28d36af343fca73.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "be518e243995651da3574c89d653cb2029f7c98babe2fbd1d28d36af343fca73", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "95e6593e063484555a31b025b4a0e90a6b7f8ea6fb09c83056ef9251251c3c06", + "output_sha256": "07c085c6049e534d36f8de6fb5bbee1c7daa5c27779680457b41d4db758d0d91", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/be6c3ca964237e486f1fde0d11c0a8b7dea9798fd07f732eabf99b1e761b7bcd.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be6c3ca964237e486f1fde0d11c0a8b7dea9798fd07f732eabf99b1e761b7bcd.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ce11ea39481b470bd74c236d8e3dbbd7d20e6cf1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be6c3ca964237e486f1fde0d11c0a8b7dea9798fd07f732eabf99b1e761b7bcd.md @@ -0,0 +1,304 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 1 of 11 +-UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119- +MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232- +MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380- +MARRAJ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381- +MARRA/ + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 2 of 11 +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994- +MARRA/. +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993- +MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +vS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 3 of 11 +JANE DOE, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. II, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469- +MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591- +MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656- +MARRA/ + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 4 of 11 +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFES JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102's +REPLY TO DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS +JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102'S MOTION FOR A NO- +CONTACT ORDER +Plaintiffs, JANE DOE No. 101 and JANE DOE No. 102 (together, the +"Plaintiffs"), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby reply to Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein's Response to Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Motion for a +No-Contact Order (" Response") as follows: +Plaintiffs have not, and will not, engage in any name-calling. For +purposes of Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Motion for a No- +Contact Order ("Motion"), it does not matter whether "many of the alleged victims ... +were or are admitted prostitutes, dancers at strip clubs... or have criminal records or +warrants for their arrests ...," Def.'s Resp. 4, or whether they were living in a monastery +or planning on becoming nuns, lawyers, or judges. This matter is quite simple: The +allegations are that, when these victims were minors, Defendant sexually exploited, +abused, molested, and/or battered them. Regardless of the victims' character or +Defendant's character, it is obvious that Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, a 55-ycar-old +designated sexual offender and convicted felon, should have no contact with his victims. +2. +Defendant makes much ado that one victim allegedly telephoned Jack +Goldberger's office to complain that Mr. Goldberger was holding up the matter. Def.'s + + +Case 9:09-cV-80469-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 5 of 11 +Resp. 5. We have no reason to doubt the truth of that statement by defense counsel. +Unsurprisingly, a 21-year-old homeless, ill, and desperate victim who had waited for +settlement funds for seven weeks regretfully may have called Mr. Goldberger's office; +but whether she did so has nothing to do with Plaintiffs' Motion. Likewise, if Defendant +attempts to telephone undersigned counsel to complain or have any other contact with +undersigned counsel, undersigned counsel will handle the matter as professionally as Jack +Goldberger did by refusing to speak to the opposing party. +The troublesome part of Defendant's position is his counsel's statement in +the attached correspondence that, pursuant to Rule 4-4.2 of the Rules of Professional +Conduct, "parties to a matter may communicate directly with each other ...." In this +case, Plaintiffs' counsel are concerned that Defendant or his agents may assert that +alleged right, and we vehemently disagree that they should have that prerogative in these +Plaintiffs' cases. No legal justification exists for Defendant or his agents to have any +direct communications with victims whom Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, sexually +exploited, abused, molested, and/or battered. +In his Response, see Def.'s Resp. 4, and in his letter, counsel for Defendant, +Jeffrey Epstein, professes that "it is not Mr. Epstein's intention to have any direct contact +with [our] clients." This statement poses two significant problems. First, it leaves the +door open for Defendant's investigator(s) or other agents) to contact the victims. Such +contact would not be direct and would not be inconsistent with his professed intention to +refrain from direct contact with his victims. See, e.g., +v. All State Home Mortgage, +Inc., No. 08-3564, 2009 WL 1391527, at *1 (6th Cir. May 15, 2009) (intimidation of +plaintiffs-loan officers with contentious relationship with defendant-mortgage company + + +Case 9:09-cV-80469-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 6 of 11 +through threatening phone calls by defendant's employees considered indirect contact in +violation of no-contact order in civil suit claiming violation of Fair Labor Standards Act); +Commonwealth v. +661 N.E. 2d 666, 666-67 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996) (defendant's +anonymous delivery of flowers to victim considered indirect contact in violation of nocontact order). Second, Defendant's counsel does not state that Defendant will not have +any contact with his victims. He merely states Defendant's intentions. Unfortunately, +the last five months is replete with other incidents in which Defendant, through his +counsel, has stated his intentions and thereafter changed his mind. Defendant, Jeffrey +Epstein, feels free—-and actually is free- +-to change his mind and his stated intentions. +His victims deserve more than that. Because they are traumatized and fearful, they +require for their security a firm, unambiguous commitment that Defendant will not +directly or indirectly contact either of them; considering the situation, any secure +commitment is attainable only via a Court order. Plaintiffs cannot emotionally afford to +be in a position in which Defendant can unilaterally change his mind. +4. +In the event that Defendant wants to be present at the deposition of a +Plaintiff or at a Court hearing where a Plaintiff is to attend, the Court can easily resolve +such situations at that time. Meanwhile, the sole purpose of Defendant's refusal to agree +to not contact these Plaintiffs is to leave them intimidated and in fear of being in the +presence of the man who has sexually exploited, abused, molested, and/or battered them. +One would think that, instead, Defendant would have voluntarily agreed with Plaintiffs' +prior request to have no contact directly or indirectly, including through his agents, and +would want to demonstrate to the Court that he will not contact his victims; his refusal to +stay away from them is nothing short of disturbing. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 7 of 11 +Although not requested, if Defendant's counsel seeks some type of +reciprocity, Plaintiffs' counsel would agree in writing, and would not oppose a Court +order prohibiting Plaintiffs from contacting Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. It is obvious to +undersigned counsel that there should be absolutely no contact between the parties to +these lawsuits. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Court to enter an Order prohibiting +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and/or his agents from directly or indirectly contacting them. +Dated: June 4, 2009. +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. +101 and Jane Doe No. 102 +By: +s/ Robert C. Josefsberg +Robert C. Josefsberg +Fla. Bar No. 040856 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Katherine W. Ezell +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +kezell@podhurst.com +City National Bank Building +25 W. Flagler Street, Ste. 80( +Miami, FL 3313( +Telephone: (305) 358-2800 +Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 8 of 11 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this 4th day of June, 2009, we electronically +filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify +that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on +the attached Service List either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated +by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not +authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +ttorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe N +01 and Jane Doe No. 10 +By: +s/Katherine W. Ezell +Robert C. Josefsberg +Fla. Bar No. 040856 +osefsberg@podhurst.co +atherine W. Ezc +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +kezeil@podhurst.com +City National Bank Building +25 W. Flagler Street, Ste. 800 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 9 of 11 +SERVICE LIST +JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Robert Critton, Esq. +Michael J. Pike, Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman LLP +515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 842-2820 +Fax: (561) 515-3148 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +mpike@bclclaw.com +Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Jack Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 659-8300 +Fax: (561) 835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 202-6360 +Fax: (561) 828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Co-Defendant, +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack P. +, Esq. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: (561) 686-6300 +Fax: (561) 383-9456 +jsx@searcylaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 10 of 11 +Adam Horowitz., Esq. +Stuart Mermelstein, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +ahorowitz@sexabuscattorney.com +smermelstein@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Case Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,08-80232, 08-80380, 08- +80381, 08-80993, 08-80994 +Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq. +Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq. +Leopold Kuvin, P.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +Phone: (561) 515-1400 +Fax: (561) 515-1401 +skuvin@leopoldkuvin.com +tleopold@leopoldkuvin.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804 +Richard Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A +2290 10" Ave North, Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Phone: (561) 582-7600 +Fax: (561) 588-8819 +lawyerwillits@aol.com +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811 +Brad +Esq. +Law Office of Brad +& Associates, LIC +2028 +Street, Suite 202 +Hollywood, FL 33020 +Phone: (954) 414-8033 +Fax: (954) 924-1530 +bedwards@rra-law.com +be@bradedwardslaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 +Isidro Manuel +Elkins & Boehringer + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 11 of 11 +224 Datura Avenue, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 832-8033 +Fax: (561) 832-7137 +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/be6c3ca964237e486f1fde0d11c0a8b7dea9798fd07f732eabf99b1e761b7bcd.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be6c3ca964237e486f1fde0d11c0a8b7dea9798fd07f732eabf99b1e761b7bcd.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..73fdf06c7fa420cd7ca3bfd574bc3189f09324b2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be6c3ca964237e486f1fde0d11c0a8b7dea9798fd07f732eabf99b1e761b7bcd.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -256, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "be6c3ca964237e486f1fde0d11c0a8b7dea9798fd07f732eabf99b1e761b7bcd", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 13, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "c861653ce213293e2b690a40ef458942a712ea9fe7d8e05589f0b4c509842b6b", + "output_sha256": "80ba952992345b6f3003dbf1efc26df9a5e39859f1555bd3faaa37c953f582df", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/be7ff6f2733784ec4dd56414dd7b71dc6939745ac95a489531de8625c127df59.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be7ff6f2733784ec4dd56414dd7b71dc6939745ac95a489531de8625c127df59.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..20b8e99d6dec169c889b95afe3f55644f43730fb --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be7ff6f2733784ec4dd56414dd7b71dc6939745ac95a489531de8625c127df59.md @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 19 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +EPSTEIN'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF +MOTION [DE 11] TO SET ASIDE CLERK'S DEFAULT +Discovery on service of process would be extraordinary, unnecessary and a +waste of resources. +Mr. Barnett's affidavit is dispositive: He was the one who received the +summons at Epstein's house, but he did not reside there. If the plaintiff had +offered some evidence (e.g., a phone-book entry, a Google search-result, an +affidavit, etc.) that Mr. Barnett did reside there, or that some other person, who did +reside there, received the summons - - and if we were contesting service altogether +' See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) ("A party may not seek discovery from any source before the +parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial +disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court +order."). + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 2 of 5 +- - perhaps discovery would be appropriate. Instead, the plaintiff ventures a +guess (unsupported by affidavit or other evidence) that Mr. Epstein "instructed +[Barnett] to answer the door on May 7, 2008 and take service anonymously" (DE +16 at 2). +Such rank speculation is insufficient to warrant "pre-discovery discovery" +on service of process. To conclude otherwise would create a rule that any plaintiff +who could not identify the person who answered the door would be entitled to prediscovery discovery. Cf. Patterson v. +No. 3:06cv476, 2008 WL 219965, at +*8 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 24, 2008) (refusing discovery where information sought was +irrelevant to the issue of whether service of process was valid); Centennial LLC v. +Becker, No. Civ.A. 3:97-CV-1126, 2000 WL 35508748, at *5 n.2 (D.S.C. Nov. 14, +2000) (stating that "Plaintiff's speculation, grounded in nothing but a 'hunch' or a +prayer, is simply insufficient to thwart the court's finding [based on the +defendant's uncontroverted sworn statement]," and adding that "PlaintiffI, instead +of] provid[ing an] affidavit" to challenge the defendant's position, put forth an +"entire argument ... grounded in nothing more substantial than idle and baseless +speculation"). +As explained in our motion, because Mr. Barnett did not reside at Mr. +Epstein's house, substitute service on Mr. Barnett was effective only under New +York rules. They gave Mr. Epstein until June 23 to respond. Mr. Epstein timely +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 3 of 5 +responded on June 20, by filing a motion to stay (DE 13). Accordingly, he is not +in default and the clerk's default should be set aside. +Respectfully submitted, +TEIN, P.L. +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 +Tel: 305 442 1101 +Fax: 305 442 6744 +By: Is/ Michael R. Tein +GUY A. +Fla. Bar No. 623740 +MICHAEL R. TEIN +Fla. Bar No. 993522 +tein@lewistein.com +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Tel. 561 659 8300 +Fax. 561 835 8691 +By: Is/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger +Fla. Bar No. 262013 +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 4 of 5 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 7, 2008, I electronically filed the +foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that +the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified +on the following service list via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing +generated by CM/ECF. +/s/ Michael R. Tein +Michael R. Tein +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 5 of 5 +SERVICE LIST +Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. +182 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +5 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/be7ff6f2733784ec4dd56414dd7b71dc6939745ac95a489531de8625c127df59.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be7ff6f2733784ec4dd56414dd7b71dc6939745ac95a489531de8625c127df59.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7432813544b28400c65f1fb1437314988bda6b5d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/be7ff6f2733784ec4dd56414dd7b71dc6939745ac95a489531de8625c127df59.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -62, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "be7ff6f2733784ec4dd56414dd7b71dc6939745ac95a489531de8625c127df59", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "af997c48897efdf486029bfb82a83747c8ac7b6887a32ee4b3795b27a7f931d5", + "output_sha256": "7f9032a08c0a085ba9aaf6c30c74a9a367bd50e29a459d507b6f454f7cdf6749", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bed2a4e331f493211b8f27e96b5a66a01e1cef8a148ba24cd2194fda8f89dde1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bed2a4e331f493211b8f27e96b5a66a01e1cef8a148ba24cd2194fda8f89dde1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c2d8946c1af3338753ec258008326105478ef322 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bed2a4e331f493211b8f27e96b5a66a01e1cef8a148ba24cd2194fda8f89dde1.md @@ -0,0 +1,100 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2009 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2009 Page 2 of 5 +TO FILE REPLY MEMORANDA IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO COMPEL +ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS +Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-5, by and through undersigned counsel, file this Motion for +Enlargement to Time to File Reply Memoranda in Support of Motion to Compel Answers to +Interrogatories and Production of Documents, pursuant to S.D. Fla.L.R. 7.1 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), +and state as follows: +Plaintiffs in the above-styled cases filed Motions to Compel Answers to +Interrogatories and Production of Documents on March 2, 2009. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein served +Memoranda in opposition to these Motions on March 25, 2009. +2. +Plaintiffs move for an enlargement of time to prepare and file their replies in support +of the Motions because of demands on Plaintiffs' counsel in other cases and matters. In particular, +Plaintiffs' counsel has an initial appeal brief due in Doe v. School Bd. of Broward County and +Scavella, case no. 09 -10394-E, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs' counsel also has an +impending discovery deadline in +v. Archdiocese of New York, case no. 10069-06, Supreme +Court of the State of New York, County of New York. +3. +The Plaintiffs' replies in support of the subject Motions are presently due on April 6, +2009. Plaintiffs request an enlargement of time of two (2) weeks, until April 20, 2009. +Pursuant to S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1(A), Plaintiffs' counsel has conferred with counsel for +Defendant regarding the relief sought in this Motion, who has advised Plaintiffs' counsel that +Defendant has no objection to the enlargement of time requested. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request an enlargement of time to file reply +memoranda in support of the Motions to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of +Documents, until and including April 20, 2009. +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2009 Page 3 of 5 +Dated: April 3, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2009 Page 4 of 5 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on April 3, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day +to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices +of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who +are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2009 Page 5 of 5 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Is/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 5- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bed2a4e331f493211b8f27e96b5a66a01e1cef8a148ba24cd2194fda8f89dde1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bed2a4e331f493211b8f27e96b5a66a01e1cef8a148ba24cd2194fda8f89dde1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3ba2e36bcc117dab51a6c223690f8ff602a451fc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bed2a4e331f493211b8f27e96b5a66a01e1cef8a148ba24cd2194fda8f89dde1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bed2a4e331f493211b8f27e96b5a66a01e1cef8a148ba24cd2194fda8f89dde1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2160c9e41d2ebd0895d3473b3e5ae7b8ac5053a8fad79ecc89830b1df85a74e2", + "output_sha256": "262ea8cb7957752b808e99e4e13b89807a1da1889170522d13121d7db26e8106", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bed8df918c2c806f0eb52966fa884416646ca4e45a0d0ce14cb7d1b6adbb274c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bed8df918c2c806f0eb52966fa884416646ca4e45a0d0ce14cb7d1b6adbb274c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ae2e6a4617e4ad89ea97c00b928cc49d67871b92 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bed8df918c2c806f0eb52966fa884416646ca4e45a0d0ce14cb7d1b6adbb274c.md @@ -0,0 +1,141 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 561 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2010 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/. +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +JOINT NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL +AS TO JANE DOES 2-8 +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-8, in the abovestyled cases hereby file their Joint Notice of Withdrawal. In support thereof: +1. The parties have agreed upon settlements in the cases of Jane Does 2-8 and intend +to file Stipulations of Dismissal on or about June 30, 2010. +2. As a result, the following docket entries are hereby rendered moot: +a. DE 489, Motion to Compel Production of Jane Doe Nos. 2-7's Sworn +Statements to FBI Investigators and Incorporated Memorandum of Law +b. DE 493, Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-8' Appeal Pursuant to S.D.Fla.Mag.R.4 and +Objections as to the Magistrate Judge's Order on Net Worth Discovery +c. DE 522, Defendant's Response in Opposition to Jane Does 2-8' Rule 4 +Appeal with Incorporated Memorandum of Law +DE 534. Motion for Protective Order of Jane Doe No. 4, as to the Depositions +of Certain Non-Party Witnesses + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 561 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2010 Page 2 of 4 +e. DE 545, Defendant's Consolidated Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of +Magistrate's Orders dated February 4, 2010 (DE 462, 480) and April 1, 2010 +(DE 513) with Incorporated Objections and Memorandum of Law as it +pertains to Jane Does 2-8; however, this consolidated Appeal shall remain +active as to Jane Doe (08-80893) as it is consolidated as to that Plaintiff and +that case remains active. +• DE 552, Plaintiff's Jane Does 2-8' Memorandum Response to Defendant's +Rule 4 Appeal +g. DE 539, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Including Supporting +Memorandum of Law as to Jane Doe 2. +By: _Is/ Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +By: /s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein +Florida Bar No. 947245 +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document is being served this day on all +counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by +electronic mail (e-mail) on this 11* day of June, 2010. +Respectfully submitted, +By: _Is/ Robert D. Critton. +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 561 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2010 Page 3 of 4 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +By: Is/Stuart S, Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz/@sexabuseattorney.com +(Counsel for Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-8) +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. +. 08-80069, 08-80119, +08-80232, 08-80380, +08-80381, 08-80993, +08-80994 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/J +Brad I +Esquire +, Jaffe, Weissing, +Fistos +& Lehrman, PL +425 N. Andrews Avenue +Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Phone: 954-524-2820 +Fax: 954-524-2822 +brad@pathtojustice.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80893 +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +801-585-5202 +801-585-6833 Fax + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 561 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2010 Page 4 of 4 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Isidro M. +Esq. +Law Firm, P.A +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +isidrogarcial@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80469 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bed8df918c2c806f0eb52966fa884416646ca4e45a0d0ce14cb7d1b6adbb274c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bed8df918c2c806f0eb52966fa884416646ca4e45a0d0ce14cb7d1b6adbb274c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..deb8799c20ce0370d2d5f1cc132e3e726876f239 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bed8df918c2c806f0eb52966fa884416646ca4e45a0d0ce14cb7d1b6adbb274c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -50, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bed8df918c2c806f0eb52966fa884416646ca4e45a0d0ce14cb7d1b6adbb274c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "152771156c89de16a08c49ad02932e6d36eacb21c217ffc4eb2a93e1a4c427c7", + "output_sha256": "3f4b06c89067b088414cda9fdbd417b563a896c23570f060945e50f43e82bbcb", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bf3ece1246eb372d8fb15e3ca8c48f022de66ecd1019dce02dd340eef6a4048e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bf3ece1246eb372d8fb15e3ca8c48f022de66ecd1019dce02dd340eef6a4048e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b741841268be34c060d26c86de0dc161a964b5f9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bf3ece1246eb372d8fb15e3ca8c48f022de66ecd1019dce02dd340eef6a4048e.md @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 29 Filed 07/30/21 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +--X +Plaintiff, +-against- +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their +capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. +EPSTEIN; NES, LLC; NINE EAST 71ST STREET +CORPORATION; FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, INC.; +NEW YORK STRATEGY GROUP, LLC; DARREN K. +INDYKE, in his capacity as trustee of EPSTEIN INTERESTS; +DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as a representative of +J. EPSTEIN VI FOUNDATION; J. EPSTEIN VIRGIN +ISLANDS FOUNDATION, INC.; C.O.U.Q. FOUNDATION, +INC.; GRATITUTE AMERICA LTD.; DARREN K. INDYKE +and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as trustees of THE +1953 TRUST; SOUTHERN TRUST COMPANY, INC. +MAPLE, INC.; CYPRESS, INC.; LAUREL, INC.; SCI JEP; +POPULAR, INC.; NAUTILUS, INC.; HBRK ASSOCIATES, +INC.; JEGE, LLC; JEGE, INC.; PLAN D, LLC; HYPERION +AIR, LLC; FREEDOM AIR INTERNATIONAL, INC.; ZORRO +DEVELOPMENT CORP.; LSJE, LLC; L.S.J., LLC; ZORRO +MANAGEMENT, LLC, +Defendants. +Docket No. 20-CV-02365 +NOTICE OF MOTION +TO PROCEED +ANONYMOUSLY +---X +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying memorandum of law, and all +prior pleadings and proceeding herein, Jane Doe ("Plaintiff") will move this Court, before the +Honorable Debra C. Freeman, U.S.D.J., at the United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New +York, New York 10007, for an Order, pursuant to Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil + + +Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 29 Filed 07/30/21 Page 2 of 2 +Procedure, for leave to proceed anonymously and for such other and further relief as the Court +deems appropriate. +Dated: New York, New York +July 30, 2021 +By: +KAISER SAURBORN & MAIR, P.C. +I-LL +Daniel J. Kaiser[DK-9387] +30 Broad Street, 37 Floor +New York, New York 10004 +(212) 338-9100 +To: +TROUTMAN PEPPER +Bennet J. Moskowitz, Esq. +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +(212) 704-6000 +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bf3ece1246eb372d8fb15e3ca8c48f022de66ecd1019dce02dd340eef6a4048e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bf3ece1246eb372d8fb15e3ca8c48f022de66ecd1019dce02dd340eef6a4048e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..83435712b1462189b3efd2fceaf62d3ce6fd1ad3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bf3ece1246eb372d8fb15e3ca8c48f022de66ecd1019dce02dd340eef6a4048e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bf3ece1246eb372d8fb15e3ca8c48f022de66ecd1019dce02dd340eef6a4048e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "3c04a9b93e0695e59df543cab0641f991c4cf2f1f84dcf2465f4dfd5f9006e5d", + "output_sha256": "f35660ae2e1047e2df09e748545fec24d181a8ffe24c16ea83153b6ad7a988d2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bf5a0e6163b266b716d35039e4310744524bb21bd0c4a3f408a509eb6d5e74b8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bf5a0e6163b266b716d35039e4310744524bb21bd0c4a3f408a509eb6d5e74b8.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e65f4fb8a7063c99798c3f03d899f2da7c6e9960 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bf5a0e6163b266b716d35039e4310744524bb21bd0c4a3f408a509eb6d5e74b8.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 33-1 +Filed 03/30/20 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO: 20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF +[PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, +in their capacities as the executors of the +ESTATE OF JEFFREY EDWARD EPSTEIN and +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, an individual, +Defendants. +DEBRA FREEMAN, United States Magistrate Judge: +It is hereby ORDERED that: +1. The parties shall serve their initial disclosures no later than April 10, 2020. +2. The parties shall serve their initial document requests and interrogatories no later than April +20, 2020. +3. Any motions to amend the pleadings or to join any additional parties shall be filed no later +than May 14, 2020. +4. The parties shall confer and stipulate as to a protocol regarding the production of documents +and electronically stored information no later than June 1, 2020. +5. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than July 21, 2020. +6. Expert discovery shall be conducted on the following schedule: +a. Plaintiff's expert reports shall be served no later than July 21, 2020. +›. Defendants'. +: Expendise very sal robe comall be no vate than seen Aur 8, 22.2020 +7. The parties may stipulate to modify interim deadlines in this Scheduling Order, without +seeking prior leave of Court. +1 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 33-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 2 +8. The parties shall submit joint status reports to the Court, regarding discovery and the +progress of settlement discussions no later than June 19, 2020. +Dated: New York, New York +, 2020 +SO ORDERED +DEBRA C. FREEMAN +United States Magistrate Judge +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bf5a0e6163b266b716d35039e4310744524bb21bd0c4a3f408a509eb6d5e74b8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bf5a0e6163b266b716d35039e4310744524bb21bd0c4a3f408a509eb6d5e74b8.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6f489e5e1037781f877c2e13d4c0af8c4199ac96 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bf5a0e6163b266b716d35039e4310744524bb21bd0c4a3f408a509eb6d5e74b8.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -35, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bf5a0e6163b266b716d35039e4310744524bb21bd0c4a3f408a509eb6d5e74b8", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "6d314badab48ca71b1d18dbc48c91691ebd471251f9d9b23f3a21485f6d2e75d", + "output_sha256": "7e467973e673bc6ebc15aebb6a9b0c55e85c719e98914a535925b97a30fc4342", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfa750e366faa2dd3ba519d8ded7196fcea668c497f3e727f1b6b6930e975b45.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfa750e366faa2dd3ba519d8ded7196fcea668c497f3e727f1b6b6930e975b45.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..79b0c1ab81b7ad077a5c851cb99db493e3547de1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfa750e366faa2dd3ba519d8ded7196fcea668c497f3e727f1b6b6930e975b45.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 35-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2008 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +[PROPOSED| ORDER +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 35-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2008 Page 2 of 2 +Upon the parties Joint Motion to Approve Stipulation for Acceptance of Service of Process +and Agreed Date for Defendant's Responses to Complaints, and good cause being shown, said +Stipulation is hereby SO ORDERED. +DONE AND ORDERED in +in Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this +_day of +, 2008. +DISTRICT COURT JUDGE +LiPleadings Ord-Slip Serv of Process.doc +- 2- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfa750e366faa2dd3ba519d8ded7196fcea668c497f3e727f1b6b6930e975b45.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfa750e366faa2dd3ba519d8ded7196fcea668c497f3e727f1b6b6930e975b45.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9ed7e9913ac9adc45679bd115b410380dc0aa98e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfa750e366faa2dd3ba519d8ded7196fcea668c497f3e727f1b6b6930e975b45.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bfa750e366faa2dd3ba519d8ded7196fcea668c497f3e727f1b6b6930e975b45", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "d1d6cf499a7c7f113c2ca4237268dcb294086cbb730437697697c8e058ba8273", + "output_sha256": "a8c655a3059bd3af90139afe748b089a9122cd5f30b4eea60d33d6110313669b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfb970f6267e4167891ed1a3babeee7df26592215d1b9c0cfee48259242bfbee.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfb970f6267e4167891ed1a3babeee7df26592215d1b9c0cfee48259242bfbee.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9e2ccbdb784b34b4b793d9ba8c09dc5d74f71168 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfb970f6267e4167891ed1a3babeee7df26592215d1b9c0cfee48259242bfbee.md @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 23 Filed 02/14/20 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +------ X +Plaintiff, +Index No. 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. +KAHN, in their capacities as executors of the +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, an individual +Defendants. +: +X +MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE +Pursuant to Rule 1.3 of the Local Rules of the United States Courts for the Southern and +Eastern Districts of New York, Molly S. DiRago hereby moves this Court for an Order for +admission to practice Pro Hac Vice to appear as counsel for Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. +Kahn as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, the "Co-Executors"), in the +above-captioned action. +I am in good standing of the bar(s) of the state of Illinois and there are no pending +disciplinary proceedings against me in any state or federal court. I have never been convicted of +a felony. I have never been censured, suspended, disbarred or denied admission or readmission +by any court. I have attached the affidavit pursuant to Local Rule 1.3. + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 23 Filed 02/14/20 Page 2 of 2 +Dated: February 14, 2020 +Respectfully Submitted, +Is/ Mary "Molly" S. DiRago +Mary "Molly" S. DiRago (Pro Hac Vice Pending) +Troutman Sanders LLP +One North Wacker Drive, Suite 2905 +Chicago, 60606 +(312) 759-1926 +(312) 759-1939 (Fax) +molly.dirago@troutman.com +Attorneys for Defendants Darren K. Indyke and +Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of +Jeffrey E. Epstein diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfb970f6267e4167891ed1a3babeee7df26592215d1b9c0cfee48259242bfbee.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfb970f6267e4167891ed1a3babeee7df26592215d1b9c0cfee48259242bfbee.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e36591f3d3715fef837eb6d0bc217f1a7dcd8eb6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfb970f6267e4167891ed1a3babeee7df26592215d1b9c0cfee48259242bfbee.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bfb970f6267e4167891ed1a3babeee7df26592215d1b9c0cfee48259242bfbee", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "3d64ee31c4935cc2d537fd12e40a87a565a590bdebc6c374104d8d480efefe3e", + "output_sha256": "34b3caf2873f42672af3549b7578f1603f523d34aba825a872129344baa13f6f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfbd5ad8a20993a8bdd30f5644cb2a78ac708207686eb28459b41762967856de.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfbd5ad8a20993a8bdd30f5644cb2a78ac708207686eb28459b41762967856de.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f0afa3c606b745060c15dd9f745774f91748920f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfbd5ad8a20993a8bdd30f5644cb2a78ac708207686eb28459b41762967856de.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-11869-MKV-DCF Document 29 Filed 05/12/20 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +ANASTASIA DOE, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. +KAHN AS CO-EXECUTORS OF THE +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN +Defendants. +Case No. 1:19-cv-11869 +NOTICE OF APPEARANCE +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney hereby appears as counsel for +defendants Darren _. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. +Epstein in the above-captioned action. I certify that I am admitted to practice in this Court. All +notices given or required to be given in this case shall be served upon the undersigned. +Dated: New York, New York. +May 12, 2020 +By:_ Is/ Charles L. Glover +Charles L. Glover +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +212.704.6000 +Charles.Glover@troutman.com +Attorneys for Defendants +To: All Counsel of Record (via ECF) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfbd5ad8a20993a8bdd30f5644cb2a78ac708207686eb28459b41762967856de.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfbd5ad8a20993a8bdd30f5644cb2a78ac708207686eb28459b41762967856de.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3b8aac58c575a7602d48277503a4c02bafda2eca --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfbd5ad8a20993a8bdd30f5644cb2a78ac708207686eb28459b41762967856de.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -23, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bfbd5ad8a20993a8bdd30f5644cb2a78ac708207686eb28459b41762967856de", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "76bde7db159f3601cdddb23b1552edfd3b5cc125eb1442dfa3376a48e4f8d4c6", + "output_sha256": "cef4aaa0a4d6db3adf3dd68fd67fedfb38f0e205aa2590f21c64880e40d88791", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfdcb2f2313117aad7499a10570198e783c63dd1e3d6384d56b49077a9414503.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfdcb2f2313117aad7499a10570198e783c63dd1e3d6384d56b49077a9414503.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ca02ff56920329ba84c3776e529f024c65dcd665 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfdcb2f2313117aad7499a10570198e783c63dd1e3d6384d56b49077a9414503.md @@ -0,0 +1,155 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 95 +Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRAL +JANE DOE NO. 2, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING +THAT PLAINTIFF USE PROPER CASE STYLE IN ALL FILINGS +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, moves +this Court for the entry of an order requiring that the Plaintiff in the above-styled action +use the proper case-style in all filings in this action, as opposed to improperly including +all other Jane Does, (Jane Doe No. 2, Jane Doe No. 3, Jane Doe No. 4, Jane Doe No. +5, Jane Doe No. 6, and Jane Doe No. 7), who are represented by the same counsel. +Rule 10(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. (2009), Loc. Gen. Rule 7.1 (S.D. Fla. 2009). In support of his +motion, Defendant states: +1. Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, pertaining to "Caption; Names +of Parties," provides that - +Every pleading must have a caption with the court's name, a title, a file +number, and a Rule 7(a) designation. The title of the complaint must name +all the parties; the title of other pleadings, after naming the first party on +each side, may refer generally to other parties. +2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is the case style which Plaintiff recently used in +filing papers with this Court. This action has not been consolidated with any of the other + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 95 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 2 of 5 +Doe 2 v. Epstein +Page 2 +Jane Doe actions filed by Plaintiff's counsel. Rule 10(a) makes clear that only the +parties to this action are to be included in the caption. +3. By including case styles from five additional cases makes it appear as though the +cases have been consolidated. Further, the case style used by Plaintiff is not only +misleading, but confusing in that there is no clear delineation as to in which action the +matter is properly filed. Each case has different facts and should proceed on those +facts. Each Plaintiff is claiming personal injury type damages which must be decided +separately. +4. Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to an order requiring that Plaintiff uses the +proper caption and case style in this action and not list every case in which her counsel +represents other Jane Does. +WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant Defendant's +motion, and enter the requested order. +Rule 7.1 Certification +Pursuant to letter communication, Plaintiff's counsel did not agree with the relief +request in Defendant's motion. +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 95 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 3 of 5 +Doe 2 v. Epstein +Page 3 +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +jherman@hermanlaw.com +Irivera@hermanlaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein +Respectfully subyhitted, +ROBERT D/CRITTON, JR., ESO. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-842-2820 +Fax: 561-515-3148 +(Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 95 +Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 4 of 5 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 82 +Entered on FLSD Donet 04/23/2009 Page 1 of 9 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/|TM +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 95 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 5 of 5 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 82 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2009 Page 2 of 9 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 7, +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +/ +PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION +TO MOTION TO STAY AND OR CONTINUE ACTION +Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-7, by and through undersigned counsel, file this Memorandum in +Opposition to Stay and or Continue Action, as follows: +I. +Introduction +In moving for stay, Defendant has the burden of demonstrating that, due to a parallel criminal +proceeding, if he exercises his right against self incrimination he will certainly lose on summary +judgment unless a stay is granted. Defendant has failed to satisfy this burden. There is no pending +motion for summary judgment. There is also no criminal proceeding at this time arising from +Epstein's acts against the Plaintiffs or other victims. Indeed, whether such a criminal proceeding is +ever commenced is entirely within the Defendant's control, by complying with the terms of his +Non-Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office. Defendant relies upon an amorphous +- 2- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfdcb2f2313117aad7499a10570198e783c63dd1e3d6384d56b49077a9414503.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfdcb2f2313117aad7499a10570198e783c63dd1e3d6384d56b49077a9414503.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..20848e2dce6c1d81e816024079b40ee60d469d0a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfdcb2f2313117aad7499a10570198e783c63dd1e3d6384d56b49077a9414503.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bfdcb2f2313117aad7499a10570198e783c63dd1e3d6384d56b49077a9414503", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "13920aef4a798d867422e9676f186571e14edb771bcdf37f935ec2814e2df9d6", + "output_sha256": "1b56918c0e57f3862ee0b04a7179afca4fd475bfcd0a6b7f8db035e0b87bec50", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfe33c6042e45862ed9d0943f28a28a121934ce1b82b48b790170e0882316783.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfe33c6042e45862ed9d0943f28a28a121934ce1b82b48b790170e0882316783.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..084258123ac94542a635ad7d85d50101197416a8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfe33c6042e45862ed9d0943f28a28a121934ce1b82b48b790170e0882316783.md @@ -0,0 +1,230 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2009 Page 1 of 9 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 09-80469-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE II, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and +Defendants. +DEFENDANT +ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES +TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT +Admit that Plaintiff has sued Defendant +| (hereinafter "Defendant") in this +action. +3. +JURISDICTION AND VENUE +Admit that the action seeks damages in excess of $75,000. Deny that any damages are owed. +Admit that the facts alleged in the complaint, if true, create venue in this Court. As to the +remaining allegations in paragraph 3, Defendant asserts her Fifth Amendment privilege +against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4" +DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self- +Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth +Amendment - "li]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity +of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim +was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure +to Deny - Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("....court must treat the defendant's claim of + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2009 Page 2 of 9 +privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. +Defendants in civil actions. — * +... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not +precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative +defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief" which +would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the +privilege. +4. +PARTIES +Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny whether Plaintiff is a natural +person residing in Palm Beach County, Florida. As to the remainder of the allegations in +paragraph 4, Defendant asserts her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See +DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4" DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 +S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the +states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "li]t would be +incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based +on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or +federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny - Privilege +Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as +equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil +actions. +-"... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from +asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not +constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief" which would prevent a +plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. realleges and +2 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2009 Page 3 of 9 +6. +adopts her response in paragraph 3, above. +Admit that Jeffrey Epstein is a natural person, who is an adult, and who resides and/or does +business in Palm Beach County, Florida. Admit that Defendant +is a natural person, +who is an adult. +As to the remainder of the allegations in paragraph 5, Defendant asserts her +Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, +436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4* DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth +Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause +of the Fourteenth Amendment - "li]t would be incongruous to have different standards +determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending +on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d +§1280 Effect of Failure to Deny - Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat +the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d +Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. -" +….. a civil defendant who raises an affirmative +defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because +affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief" +which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the +privilege. +Admit that Jeffrey Epstein currently resides in Palm Beach, Florida. Defendant is without +sufficient knowledge to admit or deny where Epstein claims residency. +FACTS +As to the allegation set forth in paragraph 7, Defendant asserts her Fifth Amendment privilege +against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th +3 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2009 Page 4 of 9 +DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self- +Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth +Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity +of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim +was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d $1280 Effect of Failure +to Deny - Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("…..court must treat the defendant's claim of +privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. +Defendants in civil actions. - "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not +precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative +defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief" which +would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the +privilege. +8. +As to the allegation set forth in paragraph 8, Defendant realleges and adopts her response in +paragraph 7, above. +As to the allegation set forth in paragraph 9, Defendant realleges and adopts her response in +paragraph 7, above. +10. +As to the allegation set forth in paragraph 10, Defendant realleges and adopts her response in +paragraph 7, above. +11. +As to the allegation set forth in paragraph 11, Defendant realleges and adopts her response in +paragraph 7, above. +12. +As to the allegation set forth in paragraph 12, Defendant realleges and adopts her response in +paragraph 7, above. +4 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2009 Page 5 of 9 +13. +As to the allegation set forth in paragraph 13, Defendant realleges and adopts her response in +paragraph 7, above. +14. +As to the allegations in paragraph 14, Defendant realleges and adopts her response in +paragraph 7, above. +COUNT I: 18 U.S.C. §2255(a) vs. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN +15. +Although Count I is not alleged against Defendant as to the allegations in paragraph 15, +Defendant restates and incorporates by reference her responses as set forth in paragraphs 1 +through 14. +16. +Not applicable to Defendant. +COUNT II: 18 U.S.C. §2255(a) vs. DEFENDANT +17. +As to paragraph 17, Defendant restates and incorporates by reference her responses as set +forth in paragraphs 1 through 14. +18. +Admit that Plaintiff seeks the damages stated in paragraph 18. Deny that any damages, +attorney's fees, or costs are owed. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that the Court deny all relief sought by Plaintiff. +AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES +1. As to Plaintiff's claim, Plaintiff actually consented to and was a willing participant in the acts +alleged, and therefore, her claims are barred, or her damages are required to be reduced accordingly. +2. As to Plaintiff's claim, Plaintiff actually consented to and participated in conduct similar +and/or identical to the acts alleged with other persons which were the sole or contributing cause of +Plaintiff's alleged damages. +3. As to Plaintiff's claim, Plaintiff impliedly consented to the acts alleged by not objecting, and +5 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2009 Page 6 of 9 +therefore, her claims are barred, or her damages are required to be reduced accordingly. +4. As to Plaintiff's claim, Defendant reasonably believed or was told that the Plaintiff had +attained the age of 18 years old at the time of the alleged acts. +5. As to Plaintiff's claim, Plaintiff's claims are barred as she said she was 18 years or older at +the time. +6. As to Plaintiff's claim, Plaintiff's alleged damages were caused in whole or part by events +and/or circumstances completely unrelated to the incident(s) alleged in the complaint. +7. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. +8. Plaintiff has failed to plead a cause of action as she does not and can not show a violation of +a predicate act under the applicable version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 (2005) - the version in effect prior +to the 2006 amendment, effective July 27, 2006. +9. As to Plaintiff's §2255 claim, the version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 in effect at the time of the +alleged conduct applies, and, thus, the presumptive minimum damages amount should Plaintiff prove +the elements of such claim is $50,000, and not subject to any multiplier. +10. As to Plaintiff's §2255 claim, Plaintiff is entitled to only a single recovery of her actual +damages. Should Plaintiff prove actual damages in an amount less than $50,000, the applicable +statutory minimum, she is entitled to a single recovery of $50,000, regardless of the number of acts. +Allowing a multiplication of the damages recoverable would be in violation of the prohibition against +the recovery of duplicative damages. +I1. As to Plaintiff's §2255 claim, application of the amended version of 18 U.S.C. §2255, +effective July 27, 2006, would be in violation of the legal axiom against retroactive application of an +amended statute, and also in violation of such constitutional principles, including but not limited to, +6 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2009 Page 7 of 9 +the "Ex Post Facto" Clause, U.S. Const. Article I, §9, cl. 3, §10, cl. 1, and procedural and substantive +due process, U.S. Const. 14" Amend., 5 Amend. The statute in effect during the time of the alleged +conduct applies. +12. As to Plaintiff's §2255 claim, application of the amended version of 18 U.S.C. §2255, +effective July 27, 2006, is prohibited pursuant to the vagueness doctrine and the Rule of Lenity. A +criminal statute is required to give " 'fair warning ... in language that the common world will +understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed. To make the warning fair, so far +as possible the line should be clear.^ " United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 265, 117 S.Ct. 1219, 137 +L.Ed.2d 432 (1997) (quoting McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27, 51 S.Ct. 340, 75 L.Ed. 816 +(1931)) (omission in original). The "three related manifestations of the fair warning requirement" are: +(1) the vagueness doctrine bars enforcement of a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of +an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and +differ as to its application; (2) the canon of strict construction of criminal statutes, or rule of lenity, +ensures fair warning by so resolving ambiguity in a criminal statute as to apply it only to conduct +clearly covered; (3) due process bars courts from applying a novel construction of a criminal statute +to conduct that neither the statute nor any prior judicial decision has fairly disclosed to be within its +scope. +13. The applicable version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 creates a cause of action on behalf of a "minor." +Plaintiff had attained the age of majority at the time of filing this action, and accordingly, her cause +of action is barred. +14. Application of the 18 U.S.C. §2255, as amended, effective July 27, 2006, is in violation of the +constitutional principles of due process, the "Ex Post Facto" clause, and the Rule of Lenity, in that +7 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2009 Page 8 of 9 +in amending the term "minor" to "person" as to those who may bring a cause of action impermissibly +and unconstitutionally broadened the scope of persons able to bring a §2255 claim. +15. 18 U.S.C. §2255 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14" Amendment under the U.S. +Constitution, and thus Plaintiff's claim thereunder is barred. +16. 18 U.S.C. §2255 violates the constitutional guarantees of procedural and substantive due +process. Procedural due process guarantees that a person will not be deprived of life, liberty or +property without notice and opportunity to be heard. Substantive due process protects fundamental +rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff's cause of action thereunder is barred. +WHEREFORE Defendant requests that this Court deny the relief sought by Plaintiff. +Respectfully submitted, +Is/Bruce E. Reinhart +BRUCE E. REINHART, P.A. +Florida Bar No. 0010762 +250 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +(561) 202-6360 +(561) 828-0983 (fax) +BReinhart@BruceReinhartLaw.com +8 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2009 Page 9 of 9 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +Thereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer was served on all counsel +of record by CM/ECF on October , 2009. +Is/Bruce E. Reinhart +BRUCE E. REINHART diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfe33c6042e45862ed9d0943f28a28a121934ce1b82b48b790170e0882316783.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfe33c6042e45862ed9d0943f28a28a121934ce1b82b48b790170e0882316783.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..43f51ea809f6e48bc36ab0d6a9b6b1de4a45c3ba --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bfe33c6042e45862ed9d0943f28a28a121934ce1b82b48b790170e0882316783.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -108, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bfe33c6042e45862ed9d0943f28a28a121934ce1b82b48b790170e0882316783", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8e47ce30c8f9ad277d10cde30ec0338f3168b242dad1edf4a64f11903288499f", + "output_sha256": "69119169dced5f25928201283c41c2f2ba7fc671a034b95ff90dd418b29e05f6", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bff7c581d67b8675045d0ac61022ad929a84e5f859bb6ca243b66bde3b205b7e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bff7c581d67b8675045d0ac61022ad929a84e5f859bb6ca243b66bde3b205b7e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..704df4ec46afebcc9d0b97698fb317943769593f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bff7c581d67b8675045d0ac61022ad929a84e5f859bb6ca243b66bde3b205b7e.md @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 36 Filed 04/17/20 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff. +V. +DARREN _ INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN in +their capacities as the executors of the ESTATE OF +JEFFREY EDWARD EPSTEIN and GHISLAINE +MAXWELL, an individual, +Defendants. +Case No. 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF +NOTICE OF CO-EXECUTORS' MOTION TO DISMISS +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law and all prior +pleadings and proceedings in this action, Defendants Darren ||. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as +Co-Executors of the estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, will move this Court before the Hon. John G. +Koeltl, United States District Judge, at the Daniel +Moynihan United States Courthouse, +500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, at a time to be scheduled by this Court, for an Order, +pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(D(6), to dismiss with prejudice Counts I-IV in +Plaintiff Jane Doe's ("Plaintiff") Complaint (ECF Doc. 9) to the extent they are time-barred, Count +V in its entirety, and Plaintiff's demand for punitive damages against them. +Dated: New York, New York +April 17, 2020 +By: /s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +Attorneys for Co-Executors diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/bff7c581d67b8675045d0ac61022ad929a84e5f859bb6ca243b66bde3b205b7e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bff7c581d67b8675045d0ac61022ad929a84e5f859bb6ca243b66bde3b205b7e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..13693884d3cb07a93f66fd53edb94b538430fdd4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/bff7c581d67b8675045d0ac61022ad929a84e5f859bb6ca243b66bde3b205b7e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "bff7c581d67b8675045d0ac61022ad929a84e5f859bb6ca243b66bde3b205b7e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "9aaa634c00732fc62002e3f454419a505754da2f0fdf290a78f749c02cb64fb4", + "output_sha256": "e06038938cdedac9569587d27a68d99ec13a237e68bf6278022f09746f675f5e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c007836fe515df88526be5ac7b3f459725fdf509652731e7e4e0c9dc2c0c6619.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c007836fe515df88526be5ac7b3f459725fdf509652731e7e4e0c9dc2c0c6619.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0047861338ff06d594394129df9458244025facb --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c007836fe515df88526be5ac7b3f459725fdf509652731e7e4e0c9dc2c0c6619.md @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 15 Filed 01/28/20 Page 1 of 2 +AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +for the +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiffs) +V. +Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00484 +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their +capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant(s) +) +SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION +To: (Defendant's name and address) +Richard D. Kahn +c/o Bennet ). Moskowitz, attorney +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10002 +A lawsuit has been filed against you. +Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you +are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. CIv +. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 o +the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney, +whose name and address are: Kevin R. Boyle +Robert S. Glassman +Panish Shea & Boyle LLP +11111 Santa Monica, Blvd., Suite 700 +Los Angeles, CA 90025 +If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. +You also must file your answer or motion with the court. +CLERK OF COURT +Date: +01/28/2020 +ATES DISTR +/s./D.Howie +Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 15 +Filed 01/28/20 Page 2 of 2 +AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2) +Civil Action No. +PROOF OF SERVICE +(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (D) +This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) +was received by me on (date) +• I personally served the summons on the individual at (place) +on (date) +; or +• I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name) +, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there, +on (date) +, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or +• I served the summons on (name of individual) +designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) +on (date) +; or +, who is +• I returned the summons unexecuted because +• Other (specify): +; or +My fees are $ +for travel and S +for services, for a total of $ +0.00 +I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. +Date: +Server's signature +Printed name and title +Server's address +Additional information regarding attempted service, etc: diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c007836fe515df88526be5ac7b3f459725fdf509652731e7e4e0c9dc2c0c6619.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c007836fe515df88526be5ac7b3f459725fdf509652731e7e4e0c9dc2c0c6619.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b9818e1d2c2725c4f05226e0ea8a4e4df26379f0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c007836fe515df88526be5ac7b3f459725fdf509652731e7e4e0c9dc2c0c6619.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c007836fe515df88526be5ac7b3f459725fdf509652731e7e4e0c9dc2c0c6619", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "cf95650f9f840b3ede1dde6974a253be1b864d65d2dd232ae751c6beeaa56152", + "output_sha256": "20d1c3cfbb547064f7a793e1d6c314269235c40268d0b163aa3500d5c5011112", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c016b3bf93f75acc528a8464884393ab0a187c389bbc30e44cfb20b0f7a1e055.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c016b3bf93f75acc528a8464884393ab0a187c389bbc30e44cfb20b0f7a1e055.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..791fb30a8df5a4702438c443fe68d5f50bd98838 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c016b3bf93f75acc528a8464884393ab0a187c389bbc30e44cfb20b0f7a1e055.md @@ -0,0 +1,2378 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 64 +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/_ +JANE DOE No. 1 and JANE DOE No. 2 +V. +UNITED STATES +AFFIDAVIT OF +J. +_ ESQ. REGARDING NEED FOR +PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS +,, Esq., do hereby declare that I am a member in good standing of the Bar +of the State of Florida. Along with co-counsel, I represent Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 +(as referred to as "the victims") in the above-listed action to enforce their rights under the Crime +Victims Rights Act (CVRA). I also represented them (and several other victims) in civil suits +against Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing them. I am also familiar with the criminal justice +system, having served as state prosecutor in the Broward County State Attorney's Office. +2. This affidavit covers factual issues regarding the Government's assertions of privilege to +more than 13,000 pages of documents it has produced for in camera inspection in this case. This +affidavit provides factual information demonstrating that the Government's assertions of +privilege are not well founded. It further demonstrates that the victims have a compelling and +substantial need for the information requested and have no other way of obtaining the +information. +Background Regarding Unsuccessful Efforts to Reach Stipulated Facts with the +Government +3. On July 7, 2008, I filed a petition to enforce the CVRA rights of Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe +No. 2 with regard to sex offenses committed against them by Jeffrey Epstein while they were +minors. The course of the proceedings since then is well-known to the Court. For purposes of +this affidavit regarding privileges, it is enough to briefly recount the efforts of the victims to +reach a stipulated set of facts with the Government - efforts that the Government has blocked. +4. The Court first held a hearing on victims' petition on July 11, 2008. The Court discussed a +need to "hav[e] a complete record, and this is going to be an issue that's ... going to go to the +Eleventh Circuit, [so it] may be better to have a complete record as to what your position is and +the government's is as to what actions were taken." Tr. at 25-26. The Court concluded the +hearing with the following instructions: "So I'll let both of you confer about whether there is a +need for any additional evidence to be presented." Tr. at 32. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 2 of 64 +5. The victims and the U.S. Attorney's Office then attempted to reach a stipulated set of facts +underlying the case. The U.S. Attorney's Office offered a very abbreviated set of proposed facts, +and the victims responded with a detailed set of proposed facts. Rather than respond to the +victims' specific facts, however, the U.S. Attorney's Office suddenly reversed course. On July +29, 2008, it filed a Notice to Court Regarding Absence of Need for Evidentiary Hearing (DE 17). +The U.S. Attorney's Office took the following position: "After consideration, the Government +believes that an evidentiary hearing is not necessary" (DE 17 at 1). The Office asserted that the +Court need only take judicial notice of the fact that no indictment had been filed against Epstein +to resolve the case. +6. On August 1, 2008, the victims filed a response to the Government's "Notice," giving a +proposed statement of facts surrounding the case. DE 19 at 5. The victims' response also +requested that the Court direct the Government to confer with the victims regarding the +undisputed facts of the case, and produce the non-prosecution agreement and other information +about the case. Id. at 14. On August 14, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the case regarding +the confidentiality of the non-prosecution agreement. The Court ultimately ordered production +of the agreement to the victims. +7. After the U.S. Attorney's Office made the non-prosecution agreement available to the +victims, the victims reviewed it and pursued further discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office. +Ultimately, however, the U.S. Attorney's Office declined to reach a stipulated set of facts with +the victims and declined to provide further information about the case. +8. With negotiations at an impasse, the victims attempted to learn the facts of the case in other +ways. In approximately May 2009, counsel for the victims propounded discovery requests in +both state and federal civil cases against Epstein, seeking to obtain correspondence between +Epstein and prosecutors regarding his plea agreement - information that the U.S. Attorney's +Office was unwilling to provide to the victims and information that was highly relevant both to +the victims' civil suit and their CVRA enforcement action. Epstein refused to produce that +information, and (as the Court is aware) extended litigation to obtain the materials followed. The +Court rejected all of Epstein's objections to producing the materials. +9. On June 30, 2010, counsel for Epstein sent to counsel for the victims approximately 358 +pages of e-mail correspondence between criminal defense counsel and the U.S. Attorney's Office +regarding the plea agreement that had been negotiated between them. See DE48-Attachment +1/Exhibit A. These e-mails began to disclose for the first time the extreme steps that had been +taken by the U.S. Attorney's Office to avoid prosecuting Epstein and to avoid having the victims +in the case learn about the non-prosecution agreement that had been reached between Epstein +and the Government. While the Court ordered that all of the correspondence be turned over to +the victims, Epstein chose to disobey that order and instead only produced the correspondence +authored by the Government and redacted all correspondence authored by him or his attorneys. +10. In mid-July 2010, Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 settled their civil lawsuits against +Epstein. Then, armed with the new information, they turned to moving forward in the CVRA +case. On September 13, 2010, the victims informed the Court that they were preparing new +filings in the case. +11. On October 12, 2010, the Court entered an order directing the victims to provide a status +report on the case by October 27, 2010. That same day, counsel for the victims again contacted +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 3 of 64 +the U.S. Attorney's Office about the possibility of reaching a stipulated set of facts in the case. +That same day, the U.S. Attorney's Office responded: "We don't have any problem with +agreeing that a factual assertion is correct if we agree that is what occurred" (DE 41 at 2). +12. On October 23, 2010, the victims e-mailed to the U.S. Attorney's Office a detailed proposed +statement of facts, with many of the facts now documented by the correspondence between the +U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein's counsel. The victims requested that the U.S. Attorney's +Office identify which facts it would agree to. In a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office, the victims +stated: +If you believe that any of the facts they propose are incorrect, Jane Doe No. 1 and +Jane Doe No. 2 would reiterate their long-standing request that you work with us +to arrive at a mutually-agreed statement of facts. As you know, in the summer of +2008 Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 were working with you on a stipulation +of facts when you reversed course and took that position that no recitation of the +facts was necessary (see doc. No. 19 at 2).... I hope that your e-mail means that +you will at least look at our facts and propose any modifications that you deem +appropriate. Having that evidence quickly available to the Court could well help +move this case to a conclusion. +That same day, the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed to forward the proposed statement of facts to +the appropriate Assistant U.S. Attorney for review (DE 41 at 2-3). +13. On October 26, 2010, rather than stipulate to undisputed facts, the U.S. Attorney's Office +contacted the victims' attorneys and asked them to delay the filing of their motion for a twoweek period of time so that negotiations could be held between the Office and the victims in an +attempt to narrow the range of disputes in the case and to hopefully reach a settlement resolution +without the need for further litigation. Negotiations between the victims and the U.S. Attorney's +Office then followed over the next two days. However, at 6:11 p.m. on October 27, 2010 - the +date on which the victims' pleading was due - the U.S. Attorney's Office informed the victims +that it did not believe that it had time to review the victims' proposed statement of facts and +advise which were accurate and which were inaccurate. The Office further advised the victims +that it believed that the victims did not have a right to confer with their Office under the CVRA +in this case because in its view the case is "civil" litigation rather than "criminal" litigation (doc. +No. 41 at 3).' +14. As a result, purely as an accommodation to the U.S. Attorney's Office, on October 27, 2010, +the victims filed a report with the Court in which they agreed to delay filing their motion and +accompanying facts for up to two-weeks to see if negotiations can resolve (or narrow) the +disputes with the U.S. Attorney's Office (DE 41 at 4). Discussions with the U.S. Attorney's +Office dragged on, including a personal meeting between Jane Doe No. 1 and the U.S. Attorney +in December 2010. +' In seeming contradiction to this position, on March 17, 2011, the U.S. Attorney's Office +nformed the victims that it would not be making any initial disclosures to the victims as require +or civil cases by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). The U.S. Attorney's Office did not explain why the +believe that this rule of civil procedure is inapplicable if they think this case is properly viewed +as a "civil" case. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 4 of 64 +15. After further discussions failed to produce any agreement or other visible progress, the +victims informed the U.S. Attorney's Office that they would file their "summary judgment" +motion with the Court on March 18, 2011 and requested further cooperation from the Office on +the facts. +16. Ultimately, after months of discussion, the U.S. Attorney's Office informed counsel for the +victims that - contrary to promises made earlier to stipulate to undisputed facts - no such +stipulation would be forthcoming. Instead, on March 15, 2011, the U.S. Attorney for the +Southern District of Florida, Wifredo A. Ferrer, sent a letter to the victims declining to reach any +agreement on the facts: l +Because, as a matter of law, the CVRA is inapplicable to this matter in which no +federal criminal charges were ever filed, your requests for the government's +agreement on a set of proposed stipulated facts is unnecessary and premature. +That is, because whether the rights in 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) attach prior to the filing +of a charge in a federal court is a matter of statutory interpretation, resolution of +that question is not dependent upon the existence of any certain set of facts, other +than whether a charging document was ever filed against Jeffrey Epstein in the +United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. And while this +Office remains willing to cooperate, cooperation does not mean agreeing to facts +that are not relevant to the resolution of the legal dispute at issue.... +Letter from Wifredo A. Ferrer to Paul G. Cassell (March 15, 2011). +17. Accordingly, unable to work with the Government to reach a resolution of the facts, on +March 21, 2011, the victims filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, alleging 53 undisputed facts +along with some evidentiary support for each of the facts. DE 48. The victims also filed a +motion to have their facts accepted because of the Government's failure to contest their facts. +DE 49. The victims also filed a motion to have the Court direct the Government to not withhold +18. Following a hearing on the motions, on September 26, 2011, the Court rejected the +Government's argument that the CVRA was inapplicable in this case because the Government +had never filed charges against Epstein. DE 99. The Court, however, rejected the victims" +argument that it should accept their facts because of the Government's failure to contest the +facts. DE 99 at 11. Instead, the Court directed that discovery could proceed in the form of +requests for admission and document production requests. Id. at 11. The Court reserved ruling +on the victims' motion that the Government should be directed not to withhold evidence. +19. In light of the Court's order, on October 3, 2011, the victims filed requests for production +with the Government. The requests included 25 specific requests, each of which linked very +directly to the facts that the victims were attempting to prove in this case. +20. On November 7, 2011, the day when the Government's responses were due, rather than +produce even a single page of discovery, the Government filed a motion to dismiss the victims' +petitions. DE 119. On that same day, the Government filed a motion to stay discovery. DE 121. +The victims filed a response, arguing that the Government's motion was a stall tactic. DE 129. +The victims also filed a motion to compel production of all of their discovery requests. DE 130. +The Government filed a reply, arguing that it was not stalling. Indeed, the Government told the +Court that "the United States has agreed to provide some information to [the victims] even +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 5 of 64 +during the pendency of the stay [of discovery] and is undertaking a search for that information." +DE 140 at 4. Contrary to that representation, however, over the next seventeen months, the +Government did not produce any information to the victims, despite the victims reminding the +Government of that statement made to the court. +21. Ultimately, after some additional motions and rulings, on June 19, 2013, the Court denied +the Government's motion to dismiss and lifted any stay of discovery. DE 189. That same day, +the Court entered an order granting the victims" motion to compel and directing the Government +to produce (1) all correspondence between it and Epstein; (2) all communications between the +Government and outside entities; and (3) every other document requested by the victims. DE +190 at 2. With respect to the third item, the Court allowed the Government to assert privilege by +producing the items in question for in camera inspection and filing a contemporaneous privilege +log. Id. The Court required that the privilege log must "clearly identifyl] each document|] by +author(s), addressee(s), recipients), date, and general subject matter ...." DE 190 at 2. +22. On July 19 and July 27, 2013, the Government made its production. With regard to item (1) +- correspondence with Epstein, the Government withheld the correspondence pending a ruling +from the Eleventh Circuit on Epstein's motion to stay production of these materials. With regard +to the other items, the Government produced 14,825 pages of documents to the Court for in +camera inspection, but turned over only 1,357 pages to the victims. Thus, the Government +asserted privilege to more than 90% of the documents in question. The documents that the +Government produced were almost worthless to the victims, as they included such things that the +victims' +own letters to the Government ( +0001-04), court pleadings filed by the victims +themselves or other victims, by Epstein, or by news media organizations (e.g., +00142-88, +00229-31, 281-311, 00668-69), public court rulings on Epstein related matters (e.g., +0008- +10, 0012-14. 0036-86, 00190-228), public newspaper articles (e.g., +0011, 0030, 0032-33), +and similar materials already available to the victims. It also included roughly four hundred +pages of notices sent to the various other victims in this case - notices that were substantively +indistinguishable from the notices the victims themselves in this case had already received. +Almost without exception, the documents the Government produced do not go to the disputed +issues in this case. +23. The Government made one last production of materials in this case on August 6, 2013. This +involved roughly 1,500 pages of documents that were largely meaningless in the context of the +contested issues in the case. They included public documents in the case such the crime victims' +own pleadings, see, e.g., +000671-000711 (copy of the victims' redacted summary +judgment motion). Curiously, while the Government has produced these documents that would +likely fall into an "irrelevant" category of documents, they have simultaneously refused +production of hundreds of other documents that are responsive to our requests on the basis of +relevance. +24. The victims have tried to obtain information on all relevant subjects through requests for +admission. The Government, however, has refused to admit many of the victims" central +allegations in this case. A copy of the victims' requests for admissions and the Government's +responses is attached to this affidavit so that the Court can see that the victims have diligently +tried to pursue this avenue for developing the facts in this case. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 6 of 64 +25. The victims have also tried to obtain information on subjects related to their suit by +voluntary requests for interview with persons who are no longer employed by the Justice +Department. For example, I have sent letters to both Bruce Reinhart and Alex Acosta, who both +have information about the Epstein case, requesting an opportunity to discuss the case with them. +Both of them have ignored my letters. +The Need for the Materials Requested by the Victims +26. The documents that the victims requested that the Government produce to them on October +3, 2011, are all highly relevant to their CVRA enforcement action. We would not have requested +them otherwise. The victims also have no other means of obtaining the requested material. This +section of the affidavit explains why the materials are needed by the victims. For the +convenience of the Court, the affidavit will proceed on a section-by-section basis concerning the +need for the materials. Also for the convenience of the Court, a copy of the October 3, 2011, +request for production is attached to this Affidavit. Also attached is the victims' supplemental +discovery request of June 24, 2013. As the Court will note from reviewing the requests for +production, most of the requests specifically recount the allegations that the requested documents +would support, in an effort to eliminate any dispute from the Government that the documents +were not relevant to the case. Many of the requests for production link directly to specific +paragraphs in the victims' previously-filed summary judgment motion. Accordingly, the victims +have a very specific need for these documents to support the allegations in the summary +judgment motion found at DE 48 at 3-23. +27. The Court has previously concluded that the victims' proof of their claims is, at this point in +the case, inadequate. Instead, the Court has ruled: "Whether the evidentiary proofs will entitle +[the victims] to that relief [of setting aside the non-prosecution agreement] is a question properly +reserved for determination upon a fully developed evidentiary record." DE 189 at 11-12. The +Court has further indicated that it will be considering an "estoppel" argument raised by the +Government as a defense in this case. DE 189 at 12 n.6. The Court has noted that this argument +"implicates a fact-sensitive equitable defense which must be considered in the historical factual +context of the entire interface between Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial authorities and the +federal offense +victims - including an assessment of the allegation of a deliberate conspiracy +between Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the pendency of +negotiations between Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and presentation of +the non-prosecution agreement to them as a fait accompli." DE 189 at 12 n.6 (emphasis added). +The victims have a compelling need for information about the Government's actions to show +what the "entire interface" was and to respond to the Government's estoppel arguments, as well +as other defenses that it appears to be preparing to raise. See, e.g., DE 62 (52-page response +from the Government to the victim's summary judgment motion, raising numerous factuallybased and other arguments against the victim's position). +28. Request for Production ("RFP") No. 1 requests information regarding the Epstein +investigation. These documents are needed to support the victims' allegations that the +Government had a viable criminal case for many federal sex offenses that it could have pursued +against Epstein. See, e.g., DE 48 at 3-7. +29. RFP No. 2 requests information regarding crime victim notifications in this case. These +documents are needed to support the victims' allegations that their rights under the CVRA, their +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 7 of 64 +right to notice and to confer with the Government, were violated in this case. In particular, these +documents are needed to demonstrate that the victims were not properly notified about the nonprosecution agreement (NPA) entered into by the Government and Jeffrey Epstein and that the +Government did not confer with the victims about the agreement. See, e.g., DE 48 at 11-17. +30. RFP No. 3 requests information about the NPA, including in particular its confidentiality +provision. These documents are needed to demonstrate that the confidentiality provision +precluded disclosing the agreement to Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, as well as to other +victims. See, e.g., DE 48 at 10-17. These documents are further needed to demonstrate that +Jeffrey Epstein specifically orchestrated the secrecy of the agreement, thereby deliberately +causing the Government's CVRA violation in this case. See, e.g., DE 48 at 13. +31. RFP No. 4 requests documents relating to negotiations between the Government and Jeffrey +Epstein concerning the court and/or location in which Jeffrey Epstein would enter any guilty plea +(including in particular any negotiations concerning concluding the plea in Miami or another +location outside of West Palm Beach). These documents are relevant to the victims allegations +that the Government was interested in finding a place to conclude any plea agreement that would +effectively keep Epstein's victims (most of whom resided in or about West Palm Beach) from +learning what was happening through the press. See, e.g., DE 48 at 7-8. +32. RFP No. 5 requests documents pertaining to negotiations between the Government and +Jeffrey Epstein regarding any legal representation of the victims in civil cases against Epstein. +These documents are needed to prove the victims' allegation that part of the plea negotiations +with Epstein involved Epstein's efforts to make sure that the victims would be represented in +civil cases against Epstein by someone who was not an experienced personal injury lawyer or by +someone familiar to Epstein or his legal team. See, e.g., DE 48 at 9. +33. RFP No. 6 requests documents concerning the Government's and/or Epstein awareness or +discussion of possible public criticism and/or victim objections to the non-prosecution agreement +that they negotiated. The documents are needed to prove the victims' allegations that the +Government wanted the non-prosecution agreement with Epstein concealed from public view +because of the intense public criticism that would have resulted had the agreement been +disclosed and/or the possibility that victims would have objected in court and convinced the +judge not to accept the agreement. See, e.g., DE 48 at 7-8, 11. They are also relevant to bias and +motive by the authors or subjects of other documents in this case. +34. RFP No. 7 requests documents regarding the Government's awareness of its potential +CVRA obligations in this case and regarding any discussions between the Government and +Epstein concerning these CVRA obligations in this case. These documents are needed to prove +the victims' allegations that the Government was aware that it potentially had obligations under +the CVRA to notify the victims about the non-prosecution agreement and any related state court +plea agreement. See, e.g., DE 48 at 12-13. +35. RFP No. 8 requests documents regarding Epstein's lobbying efforts to persuade the +Government to give him a more favorable plea arrangement and/or non-prosecution agreement, +including efforts on his behalf by former President Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and Harvard +Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. These materials are needed to prove the victims allegation +that, after Epstein signed the non-prosecution agreement, his performance was delayed while he +used his significant social and political connections to lobby the Justice Department to obtain a +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 8 of 64 +more favorable plea deal. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16-18. These materials also are needed to establish +the course of the proceedings in this case, which is necessary in light of the Government's letters +to the victims (discussed in the next paragraph) concerning the status of the case. +36. RFP No. 9 requests documents regarding the letters sent to the victims by the FBI on +January 10, 2008, Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 advising them that "this case is currently +under investigation." These documents are needed to show that these letters were inaccurate or, +at the very least, highly misleading, because they conveyed the impression that no plea +arrangement (for example, a non-prosecution agreement) had been negotiated between Epstein +and the Government. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16. These documents are also needed to respond to the +Government's "estoppel" defense, as noted in the Court's order DE 189 at 12 n.6. +37. RFP No. 10 requests documents regarding the victims' allegations that the FBI was led to +believe that their investigation of Epstein was going to produce a federal criminal prosecution +and that the FBI was also misled by the U.S. Attorney's office about the status of the case. The +Government has argued that these documents are not relevant to the case, because the only issue +is whether the Government misled the victims. But the Government fails to recognize that the +victims received information about the case through the FBI. These documents are therefore +needed to demonstrate that the victims received inaccurate information about the status of the +case - inaccurate information caused by the U.S. Attorney's Office's negotiations with Epstein. +If the FBI agents were not accurately informed about the progress of the cases, then they could +not have accurately informed the victims about the progress of the case - a central point in the +victims' argument. Moreover, these documents would show a common scheme or plan - +something made admissible in a trial by operation of Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Of course, if the U.S. +Attorney's Office was misleading the FBI about the NPA, it would have been part of the same +scheme or plan to mislead the victims as well. The documents are also needed to support specific +allegations in the victims' summary judgment motion. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16-17. +38. RFP No. 11 requests documents regarding various meetings that the Government (including +FBI agents) had with the victims. These documents are needed to prove that during those +meetings the Government did not disclose to the victims (or to their attorneys) that a nonprosecution agreement had been negotiated with Epstein, and even signed with Epstein, that +related to their cases, allegations that the victims have advanced in their summary judgment +motion. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16-18. +39. RFP No. 12 requests all documents connected with a request from the U.S. Attorney's +Office to me ( +J. +) to write a letter concerning the need for filing federal charges +against Epstein and follow-up to that letter. These documents are needed to show that this +request was made to me without disclosing the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. +Thus, just as Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 were deceived about the NPA, I was deceived +as well. See, e.g., DE 48 at 18-19. It is also needed to contradict the Government's apparent +position that it disclosed the "existence' of the NPA to me and to the victims. See, e..g., Gov't +Answers to RFA I[ 13(d) ("The government admits that, when Epstein was pleading guilty to the +state charges discussed in the non-prosecution agreement, the USAO and Epstein's defense +attorneys sought to keep the document memorializing the non-prosecution agreement +confidential, but denies that they sought at that time to keep the existence of the non-prosecution +agreement confidential."). +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 9 of 64 +40. RFP No. 13 requests documents regarding how, on or about June 27, 2008, the Government +learned that Epstein would be entering his plea to state charges on or about June 30, 2008. The +documents are needed to describe the course of proceedings in this case and to prove both the +Government's and Epstein's awareness that he would be entering a guilty plea (and thus +blocking prosecution of other crimes) without the victims' full knowledge of what was +happening. See, e.g., DE 48 at 19-20. +41. RFP No. 14 requests documents relating to the Government and Epstein working together +to keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement secret, including declining comment +about the existence of such an agreement when asked about it when his guilty plea in state court +became public knowledge. These documents are needed to prove the victims' allegations that +the Government concealed the NPA from them, see, e.g., DE 48 at 14-18, and to contradict what +appears to be the Government's position, namely that the victims were aware of the NPA shortly +after it was negotiated, see, e.g., Gov't Answers to RFA I 13(b) (claiming that "the USAO had +communicated with Jane Doe #1 about the non-prosecution agreement prior to Epstein's June 30, +2008 guilty plea."). These documents are also necessary to contradict the Government's +apparent claim that the NPA did not bar discussions with crime victims. See, e.g., Gov't +Answers to RFA 1| 13(d) (Government denying request that it admit that "Epstein's defense +attorneys had negotiated for a confidentiality provision in the non-prosecution agreement that +barred conferring with victims about the agreement"). +42. RFP No. 15 requests documents pertaining to the feasibility of notifying the victims about +the NPA, along with information concerning how the victims came to receive a "corrected" +notification letter on about September 3, 2008 - months after Epstein had pled guilty. These +documents are needed to demonstrate that the Government had no valid reason for failing to +provide notice to the victims. It is also needed to demonstrate why the victims at first received +inaccurate information about the NPA, as well as Jeffrey Epstein's involvement in that +inaccurate notice. See, e.g., DE 48 at 15-16. +43. RFP No. 16 requests documents regarding Bruce Reinhart, a senior prosecutor who was +present in the U.S. Attorney's Office during the time that the Office negotiated the NPA with +Epstein, blocking his prosecution for federal crimes in the Southern District of Florida. In RFP +No. 16, the victims have sought documents showing that Reinhart learned confidential, nonpublic information about Epstein matter. The Court will recall that Reinhart has filed a sworn +affidavit with this Court, in which he flatly declared that while he was a prosecutor in the Office: +"I never learned any confidential, non-public information about the Epstein matter." DE 79-1 at +3 (9l 12). When Reinhart made that statement, it seemed improbable to me, because Reinhart was +in close contact with other prosecutors in the Office and would seem likely that he would have +discussed the high-profile Epstein case with them. Additionally, I learned through public record +that while still a prosecutor at the Office Mr. Reinhart established his criminal defense office at +the exact address (and exact Suite number) as Jeffrey Epstein's personal business address. +However, I did not have any direct way of contradicting Reinhart's sworn statement. Since then, +however, in answering the victims' Requests for Admissions, the Government has admitted that +it possesses information that Reinhart learned confidential, non-public information about the +Epstein case and that he discussed the Epstein case with other prosecutors. Gov't Answers to +RFA's Il 15(a) & (b). Of course, this means that the Government has documents that Reinhart +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 10 of +filed a false affidavit with this Court. This gives rise to the reasonable inference that, if Reinhart +was willing to provide false information about this subject, he may have additional information +about the case that is being concealed as well. +44. Materials about Reinhart are also needed to support the victims" summary judgment motion. +See, e.g., DE 48 at 22-23 (raising allegations about Reinhart). +45. Reinhart's affidavit with the Court also states: "Because I did not have any, I did not share +non-public confidential information about the Epstein investigation with any of Epstein's +attorneys." DE 79-1 at 4 (I 17). Because the Government has information demonstrating that +the first part of this statement is false, it may well be that the second part of the statement is false +as well. Given that Mr. Reinhart established a business address identical to Epstein's business +address, at a time while he was still working at the US Attorney's Office, and that Mr. Reinhart +ultimately represented several of Epstein's co-conspirators, jet pilots, and staff, during the civil +litigation, any involvement Mr. Reinhart had with the Epstein case while working at the Office is +highly relevant. +46. The Government has further admitted that it possesses documents reflecting contacts +between Bruce Reinhart and persons/entities affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein before Reinhart left +his job at the U.S. Attorney's Office. Gov't Answers to RFA's # 16. As stated above, Reinhart +left the U.S. Attorney's Office to start a private firm that was located in the same address as +Epstein's personal business where he was daily. This would appear to be a violation of the +Florida rules of ethics for attorneys. +47. Information about Reinhart's connections to Epstein is critical to the victims' allegations in +this case. If Reinhart was helping Epstein gain insight into the prosecutions efforts, that would +provide a motive for Reinhart (and other prosecutors) not to properly notify the victims and not +to confer with them. +Also, if Epstein was improperly receiving information about the +prosecution efforts against him (or lack thereof), that could be highly relevant to the remedies +stage of this case, in which the victims will ask (among other things) to have the NPA agreement +invalidated. Epstein has already indicated that he will raise a double jeopardy argument against +that effort. However, double jeopardy considerations do not apply in situations where the +defendant was not truly in jeopardy of prosecution. In addition, the Court may wish to consider, +in crafting a remedy, Epstein's culpability for the violations of the NPA. Evidence that Epstein +was improperly obtaining information about the prosecution efforts against him would be highly +relevant to that culpability assessment. It is also relevant to the estoppel defense that the +Government (and perhaps Epstein as well) intend to raise. +48. Evidence concerning Reinhart's connections, including improper connections, to Epstein is +also relevant to bias and motive in this case. It would show, for example, the Reinhart had a +reason to encourage others in the U.S. Attorney's Office to give Epstein a more lenient deal than +the one he was entitled to. +49. RFP No. 16 requested information not only about improper connections between Epstein +and Reinhart, but more broadly about such connections with any other prosecutors. Of course, if +the Government possesses such information, it would be highly relevant to the victims' +allegations for the reasons just discussed. In its answers to the victims' Requests for Admission, +the Government admits that it has information about a personal or business relationship between +Jeffrey Epstein and another prosecutor involved in the Epstein case, Matthew Menchel. Answers +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 11 of +to Requests for Admission at 9| 20. The Government should be required to disclose all of those +documents so that the victims can determine whether there was anything improper about those +relationships. In my experience, it is highly unusual for federal prosecutors to work on a case +prosecuting someone (such as Jeffrey Epstein) and then, shortly thereafter, leave the employment +of the federal government and enter into a business relationship with the person who was being +prosecuted. +sundertaken by The ustic Departments mince of Proficational to consisten rosecution +Washington, D.C. The investigation was undertaken at the request of the victims, who asked the +Justice Department to determine whether "improper influences" were brought to bear during the +negotiations involving the possible prosecution (and ultimately the non-prosecution) of Jeffrey +Epstein. It is apparent from the privilege logs that the Government has produced that OPR +generated a great deal of correspondence (at least 46 pages) regarding this request. See +013909 to P-013955. Of course, improper influences being brought to bear on the Epstein +prosecution would support the victims" allegations that they were not being properly notified. +Moreover, OPR may well have investigated the specific allegations that are at issue in this case - +or directed others to undertake such an investigation. Here again, this information would be +critical to supporting the victims' case. In fact, because OPR has presumably investigated many +of the precise actions and actors, about which the victims complain in this litigation, and have +already gathered many of the documents needed, the production of the OPR case file could +probably short-cut this litigation and discovery process. +51. There is no other way to obtain this information from OPR. On May 6, 2011, nearly half a +year after the victims' +request of December 10, 2010, for an investigation, OPR sent a letter to +my co-counsel, Professor Paul Cassell, in which it stated that it "regret[ted] it could not be of +assistance" in providing information about the allegations. +52. RFP No. 18 asks for information about why the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern +District of Florida was "conflicted out" of handling various issues related to the Epstein case. +This information is needed to show why the victims did not receive proper notifications about +the NPA that the Office negotiated with Epstein. It appears that the conflict of interest that has +been recognized may have to do with the Office's treatment of the victims. Moreover, in its +production of documents, and in follow-up correspondence, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the +Southern District of Florida has indicated that there are no responsive documents being held by +the U.S. Attorney's Office in the other district that is handling conflict matters. (It appears that +this other office is the Middle District of Florida.) This appears to be improbable, because the +conflict matters would presumably generate many documents covered by the victims' discovery +requests, including the OPR investigative file. Accordingly, the conflict matter is highly relevant +to determining whether the U.S. Attorney's Office has provided complete production to the +victims. A conflict of interest would also be highly relevant to the motivations of the +Government attorneys throughout the handling of the Epstein case. +53. RFP No. 19 asks for information supporting allegations made in March 2011, by former +U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta. He sent a three-page letter to the news media in which he +claimed that when Government attorneys began investigating Epstein, Epstein launched "a +yearlong assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors." This information is needed to explain +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 12 of +why the U.S. Attorney's Office would have withheld notifications from the victims about the +NPA. If the prosecutors were being assaulted, as Acosta has said they were, then they would +have reason to disregard their obligations to crime victims. In addition, this would show +improper behavior by Epstein, which would be relevant at the remedies stage of this case in +determining the scope of any remedy. These allegations would also bear strongly on motive and +54. RFP No. 20 requests documents between the Government and state and local prosecutors +and police agencies (including The Palm Beach Police Department) regarding the nonprosecution agreement. Because this involves information outside of the Department, it is the +victims understanding that the Government has already turned over all of this information to +them, as the Court has directed. See DE 190 at 2 (requiring production of information with +persons or entities outside the federal government). For the sake of completeness, however, it is +worth noting that this information is needed to demonstrate that the victims were not properly +informed that Epstein's plea to state charges would trigger the NPA and preclude prosecution for +crimes committed against them. +55. RFP No. 21 requests correspondence regarding the NPA. Here again, the victims +understand that the Government is prepared to produce all of this information to them (once the +stay pending action by the Eleventh Circuit is lifted). Again, for the sake of completeness, it is +worth noting that this correspondence is needed to demonstrate the victims' claims that the +Government was concealing the existence of the NPA from them and that this was done at +Epstein's behest. The Court has specifically noted that the victims have a need for information +that will allow them to argue to the Court in support of their "allegation of a deliberate +conspiracy between Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the +pendency of negotiations between Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and +presentation of the non-prosecution agreement to them as a fait accompli." DE 189 at 12 n.6 +56. RFP No. 22 requests information about any considerations that Epstein provided, or offered +to provide, to any individual within the Government. Here again, the victims understand that this +information is being provided to them. It is again worth noting, however, that this information is +highly relevant to explaining why the U.S. Attorney's Office would not have properly notified +the victims about what was happening in their case, an allegation that is at the center of the +victims' summary judgment motion. See, e.g., DE 48 at 11 (noting allegation that Epstein +pushed the U.S. Attorney's Office to keep the NPA secret from public view to avoid public +criticism). +Au will regite in Doe No one san Do Not in +ad with entities outside the federal government. Here again, it is my understanding that thes +naterials have already been ordered produced. See DE 190 at 2 (requiring production o +coralines, this intormation is egantide at federal goethe course of the Epstein +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 13 of +investigation and why the victims were not properly notified about event during that +investigation. +59. RFP No. 25 requests all initial productions that are required under the Federal Rules of Civil +Procedure. This is a protective request to ensure that, should it be determined that the Civil Rules +apply, they then receive all materials to which they are entitled. +60. In June 2013, the victims sent a supplemental request for production, asking the Government +to provide any information concerning any investigation that the Department undertook +concerning the treatment of the victims during the investigation in this case, including any FBI, +grand jury, OPR or other investigation in the Southern District of Florida, Middle District of +Florida, or elsewhere. Here again, this information is critically needed, as it would go directly to +proving the victims' allegations that their rights were violated during the investigation of +Epstein. This information would also go directly to defeating the Government's "estoppel" +argument. This information would also show motive and bias. +Inadequate Privilege Log +61. The Government has produced a privilege log that violates the Court's order in this case. I +have been greatly hampered in responding to the Government's assertions of privilege because +of that inadequate log. Indeed, in many cases, it is impossible to determine whether the +Government's assertions of privilege are even plausible because of the inadequacy of the log. +62. The Court has directed the Government to produce a privilege log that "clearly identiflies] +each document] [as to which privilege is asserted] by author(s), addressee(s), recipients), date, +and general subject matter ...." DE 190 at 2. Many of the entries in the privilege log fail to +meet this requirement. +63. A good illustration of the inadequacies of the privilege log comes from the very first entry in +the log, covering Box No. 1 (P-000001 through P-000039), some 39 pages of documents. DE +212-1. Yet the only description of these 39 pages is: "File folder entitled 'CORR RE GJ +SUBPOENAS' containing correspondence related to various grand jury subpoenas and attorney +(Villafaña) handwritten notes." +64. Another good illustration of the inadequacies of the privilege log is provided on page 20 of +the first privilege log, with regard to Box No. 3 (P-012362 through P-012451). The Government +asserts privilege here regarding 90 pages of documents. Yet the only description of these 90 +pages is: "File folder entitled 'Key Documents' containing correspondence between AUSA and +case agent regarding indictment prep questions, victim identification information, corrections to +draft indictment, indictment preparation timeline, key grand jury materials." +65. There are many other illustrations of the inadequacies of the privilege log which the Court +will see when it examines it. I have also filed contemporaneously a response to the +government's privilege log, which identifies many situations of an inadequate privilege log, as +well as other responses that are needed to respond to the Government's privilege log. +66. The Government has never contacted me or co-counsel about any burdens associated with +producing a privilege log that complied with the Court's directives. At all times relevant to this +case, I would have been willing to work with Government counsel to minimize any excessive +burden from producing an adequate privilege log. The requests for production that 1 sent to the +Government specifically invited discussion to avoid any excessive burden. +Failure to Prove Factual Underpinnings of Privilege Claim +13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 14 of +67. Many of the Government's privilege assertions require factual premises - such as the +existence of an attorney-client relationship and the rendition of legal services within that +relationship. Yet the Government has not provided the factual underpinnings for any of its +privilege assertions. +68. An illustration of this problem is found on page 1 of the supplemental privilege log (DE +216-1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013284). The entry here reads: "7/10/08 +emails between J. Sloman and A. L +Villafaña, K. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to +Goldberger's letter re victim notification." The log then indicates that the Government is +asserting attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, and deliberative process privilege. +The Government, however, does not provide any document for any of the factual underpinnings +of any of these claims. For example, with regard to the attorney-client claim, the Government +does not explain who the attorney is and who the client is. With regard to the work product +claim, the Government does not explain what litigation this document contemplated. And with +regard to deliberative process, the Government does not explain what deliberative process was +involved. +69. There are many other illustrations of the Government's failure to prove the factual +underpinnings of privilege assertions, which the Court will see when it examines the privilege +log and the victims responsive log. +Waiver of Confidentiality +70. Some of the privileges that the Government has asserted have been waived. Of course, a +requirement of a privilege is that confidentiality be maintained. Some of the materials have been +circulated outside of any confidential circle, thereby waiving privilege. +71. An illustration of waiver found on page 1 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with +regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013282 to 83). The entry here reads: "7/08/08 email from +A. +Villafaña to A. Acosta, J. Sloman, Ki. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to +Goldberger's letter re victim notification." The log then indicates that the Government is +asserting attorney-client privilege regarding these emails. But the emails were not internal to the +U.S. Attorney's Office, but were also sent to the "FBI." (This is another illustration of the +inadequacies of the privilege log, because who in the FBI the materials were sent to is not +disclosed.) But the FBI is a law enforcement investigative agency, not an agency that provides +legal advice. Accordingly, any attorney-client privilege would be waived by dissemination of +this e-mail outside the U.S. Attorney's Office. +72. Another illustration of waiver is found on page 3 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216- +1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013504 to P-013507). The entry here reads: "File +folder labeled "Mtg w/ Ken Starr, RAA, JS, Drew' containing handwritten notes by A. +Villafaña." Kenn Starr, of course, is a defense attorney who represented defendant Epstein. +Recording information provided by a defense attorney is not part of any governmental attorneyclient privilege. +73. Another illustration of waiver is found on page 7 of the supplemental privilege log (DE +216-1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013644 through P-013653). The entry here +reads: "File folder entitled "Notes Re Plea Negotiations" containing 9/17/07 e-mail from A. +Villafaña to J. Richards, N. Kuyrkendall re status update; undated and typed handwritten +notes by A. +Villafaña re items to be completed on case, strength of case, victim interviews, +14 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 15 of +summary of evidence, guidelines calculations." The Government is asserting attorney-client +privilege regarding this e-mail. I understand the reference to "Richards' and "Kuyrkendall" to be +references to FBI agents - not attorneys in the U.S. Attorney's Office. Accordingly, the +attorney-client privilege would not extend to this e-mail. +The Government's Fiduciary Duty to Crime Victims Bars Any Privilege +74. I am familiar with the caselaw recited in our pleadings regarding a "fiduciary exception" +(also known as the "Garner exception" in some settings) to privileges. In this case, the +Government had a fiduciary obligation to protect the CVRA rights of Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane +Doe No. 2. Specifically, because they were recognized "victims" under the CVRA, the +Government had obligations to provide them rights under the CVRA, including the right to +confer, the right to notice, and the right to be treated with fairness. Because of this fiduciary +duty, an exception applies to many of the Government privilege claims regarding interactions +with the victims. +75. The fiduciary duty of the Government to the victims in this case is clear. In 2007, the FBI +determined that both Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 were victims of sexual assaults by +Epstein while they were minors beginning when they were approximately fourteen years of age +and approximately thirteen years of age respectively. These sexual assaults involved use of +means of interstate commerce (i.e., a telephone) and travel in interstate commerce. Both Jane +Does were initially identified through the Palm Beach Police Department's investigation of +Epstein. +76. Confirming the fact that the Government had identified Jane Doe No. 1 as a victim in this +case, on about June 7, 2007, FBI agents hand-delivered to Jane Doe No. 1 a standard CVRA +victim notification letter. The notification promises that the Justice Department would make its +"best efforts" to protect Jane Doe No. I's rights, including "[t]he reasonable right to confer with +the attorney for the United States in the case" and "to be reasonably heard at any public +proceeding in the district court involving ... plea ...." The notification further explained that +"[a]t this time, your case is under investigation." +77. Similarly, on about August 11, 2007, FBI agents hand-delivered to Jane Doe No. 2 a standard +CVRA victim notification letter. The notification promises that the Justice Department would +make its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe No. I's rights, including "It]he reasonable right to +confer with the attorney for the United States in the case" and "to be reasonably heard at any +public proceeding in the district court involving ... plea...." The notification further explained +that "[alt this time, your case is under investigation." +78. Early in the investigation, the FBI agents and the Assistant U.S. Attorney had several +meetings with Jane Doe No. I. Jane Doe No. 2 was represented by counsel that was paid for by +Epstein and, accordingly, all contact was made through that attorney. These meetings occurred +because the FBI had obligations to protect the victims' rights under the CVRA. +79. In October 2007, shortly after the initial non-prosecution agreement was signed betweer +Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, Jane Doe No. 1 was +contacted to be advised regarding the investigation. On October 26, 2007, Special Agents E. +Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards met in person with Jane Doe No. 1 because she was +recognized as a "victim' of Epstein's crime. +15 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 16 of +80. In all of these dealings between the Government and the victims, as well as other dealings of +a similar nature, the Government had a fiduciary obligation to protect the interests of the victims +under the Crime Victims Rights Act. Accordingly, the Government is precluded from raising +any privilege claim to which a fiduciary exception applies or, at the very least, any privilege +assertion would be outweighed by the victims' compelling need for the material. +81. An illustration of a situation where the fiduciary duty exception applies is found on page 1 of +the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013282 to +83). The entry here reads: "7/08/08 email from A. +_ Villafaña to A. Acosta, J. Sloman, K. +Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger's letter re victim notification." +In +responding to defense attorney Goldberger's letter about victim notification, the U.S. Attorney's +Office had a statutory duty under the CVRA to protect the victims' interests. Accordingly, the +Office cannot assert privilege when questions about whether it fulfilled its obligations to the +victims have arisen in this case or, at the very least, any privilege assertion would be outweighed +by the victims' compelling need for the materials. +82. Another illustration of a situation where the fiduciary duty exception applies is found on +page 16 of the first privilege log (DE 212-1), with regard to Box #2 P-010526 to P-010641. The +entry reads: "File folder entitled 'Rsrch re Crime Victims Rights' containing attorney research, +handwritten notes, draft victim notification letter, and draft correspondence to Jay Lefkowitz." +Here again, the materials at issue go to the heart of this case - what kind of notifications were +made to the victims and how did the defense attorneys shape and limit those notifications. +Moreover, in evaluating victims' +rights issues and determining what kind of letter to send, the +Government was fulfilling legal duties that it owed to the victims. Accordingly, the Office +cannot now assert privilege when questions about whether it fulfilled its obligations to the +victims have arisen in this case. +Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not Covered +83. I am familiar with the cases cited in our brief regarding an exception to various privileges +when the communications concern crime, fraud, or government misconduct. Many of the +important documents about the treatment of the victims to which the Government is asserting +privilege would fall within that exception. +84. With regard to fraud and government misconduct, a number of the documents in the +Government's privilege log concern concealment from the victims of the existence of a nonprosecution agreement between the Government and Epstein. I have reviewed a copy of the nonprosecution agreement signed on about September 24, 2007, by Epstein and his attorneys and a +representative of the U.S. Attorney's Office. The text of that agreement bars disclosure of the +agreement to the victims. +85. On about January 10, 2008, my clients Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 received letters +from the FBI advising them that "It]his case is currently under investigation. This can be a +lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough +investigation." The statement in the notification letter was deceptive, because it did not reveal +that the case had previously been resolved by the non-prosecution agreement entered into by +Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office discussed previously. Moreover, the FBI did not notify +Jane Doe No. 1 or Jane Doe No. 2 that a plea agreement had been reached previously, and that +part of the agreement was a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the +16 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 17 of +Southern District of Florida and that the Non-Prosecution Agreement would resolve the federal +case completely. (Whether the FBI itself had been properly informed of the non-prosecution +agreement is also unclear. We are not alleging misconduct by the FBI, but rather that the FBI +was not properly informed about the case or, in any event, was acting at the direction of the U.S. +Attorney's Office.) +86. In about April 2008, Jane Doe No. 1 contacted the FBI because Epstein's counsel was +attempting to take her deposition and private investigators were harassing her. Assistant U.S. +Attorney A. +Villafaña secured pro bono counsel to represent Jane Doe No. 1 and several +other identified victims in connection with the criminal investigation. Pro bono counsel was able +to assist Jane Doe No. 1 in avoiding the improper deposition. AUSA Villafaña secured pro bono +counsel by contacting Meg Garvin, Esq. of the the National Crime Victims' Law Center in +Portland, Oregon, which is based in the | +& Clark College of Law. During the call, Ms. +Garvin was not advised that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached in this matter. +87. On May 30, 2008, another one of my clients who was recognized as an Epstein victim by the +U.S. Attorney's Office, received letters from the FBI advising her that "It]his case is currently +under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while +we conduct a thorough investigation." The statement in the notification letter was deceptive +because it did not reveal that the case had been resolved by the non-prosecution agreement +entered into by Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office in September 2007. +88. In mid-June 2008, I contacted AUSA Villafaña to inform her that I represented Jane Doe No. +1 and, later, Jane Doe No. 2. I asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes +committed by Epstein, hoping to secure a significant federal indictment against Epstein. AUSA +Villataña and I discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed. At the end of the call, +AUSA Villafaña asked me to send any information that I wanted considered by the U.S +Attorney's Office in determining whether to file federal charges. I was not informed that +previously, in September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office had reached an agreement not to file +federal charges. I was also not informed that any resolution of the criminal matter was imminent +at that time. Presumably the reason the U.S. Attorney's Office withheld this information from +me was because of the confidentiality provision that existed in the non-prosecution agreement. +At this point it is clear that AUSA Villafana was restricted in what she was being permitted to +tell me. +89. On July 3, 2008, I sent to AUSA Villafaña a letter. In the letter, I indicated my client's +desire that federal charges be filed against defendant Epstein. In particular, I wrote on behalf of +my clients: "We urge the Attorney General and our United States Attorney to consider the +fundamental import of the vigorous enforcement of our Federal laws. We urge you to move +forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes +Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take the steps necessary to protect our +children from this very dangerous sexual predator." When I wrote this letter, I was still unaware +that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached with Epstein - a fact that continued to be +concealed from me (and the victims) by the U.S. Attorney's Office. I only learned of this fact +later on. +90. As alleged in the preceding paragraphs, and elsewhere in this affidavit and in this case, +deliberate concealment from crime victims and their legal counsel of the existence of a signed +17 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 18 of +non-prosecution agreement would be a fraud and government misconduct. Documents relating +to that fraud and misconduct would then fall outside of many of the privileges being asserted. +91. An illustration of a document to which the crime-fraud-misconduct exception applies on this +basis is found on page 3 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box +#3 P-013342 to P-013350. The entry reads: "File folder entitled '12/05/07 Starr to Acosta' +containing drafts of 11/30/07 letters from A. Acosta to K. Starr and from J. Sloman to J. +Lefkowitz re performance and victim notification with handwritten notes and edits by A. +Villafaña." Again, these materials are central to the dispute in this case, as they involve +discussions between the U.S. Attorney's Office and defense attorneys about notifications to +related to the deceptive notifications that the Government made to the victims a few weeks later. +92. Another illustration of a document to which the crime-fraud-misconduct exception applies is +found on page 1 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-I), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P- +013282 to P-013283. The entry reads: "7/9/08 Email from A. +Villafaña to A. Acosta, J. +Sloman, K. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger letter re victim notification." +These communications would presumably reflect efforts by the government prosecutors and +Epstein's defense attorneys (e.g., Goldberger) to keep the non-prosecution agreement secret. +93. Another illustration of where the crime-fraud-misconduct exception would apply is to +information that the Government possesses that Bruce Reinhart learned private, non-public +information about the Epstein case. +This would show (at the very least) misconduct by Bruce +Reinhart in later representing Epstein-related entities. Because the Government's (inadequate) +privilege log does not reveal which entries relate to Reinhart, it is not possible to point the Court +to the specific documents that demonstrate this misconduct. These documents, however, are +covered by the crime-fraud-misconduct exception. +94. Another illustration of where the crime-fraud-misconduct exception could potentially apply +is with regard to information that the Government possesses that Matthew Menchel has a +personal or business relationship with defendant Jeffrey Epstein. Gov't Answers to RFA's $ 20. +This could potentially show misconduct by Menchel, and also potentially a motive to violate the +victims' rights as explained previously. The Government's privilege log has numerous entries +showing that Menchal was substantially and personally involved in making decisions related to +the Epstein prosecution. See, e.g., page 19 of the first privilege log (DE 212-1), with regard to +Box #3 P-011923 to P-011966. The victims have information suggesting that immediately after +leaving his employment with the U.S. Attorney's Office, Menchel was associated with Epsteincontrolled entities or had some business relationship with him. The documents that the +Government possesses showing a personal or business relationship between one of its +prosecutors and the man he was charged with prosecuting should be produced. +95. The Government has admitted that its internal affairs component - the Office of Professional +Responsibility - has collected information about possible improper behavior during the +investigation of the Epstein matter. Gov't Answers to RFA 922 (government admits that "The +Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and/or other Government entities +have collected information about ... other government attorney's [apart from Bruce Reinhart's] +possible improper behavior in the Epstein matter"). The fact that the Government's own +investigating agencies have collected such information demonstrates that there is a prima facie +18 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 19 of +case of improper behavior, which is enough to trigger the crime-fraud-misconduct exception to +various privileges. +Factual Materials Not Privileged +96. As noted in the accompanying legal memorandum, factual materials are generally not +covered by the privileges at issue in this case. Many of the materials to which the Government is +asserting privilege are factual materials. +Assertions of Attorney-Client Privilege +97. The Government has asserted attorney client privilege regarding many documents. Yet with +regard to most of these assertions, it is impossible to determine who is the attorney, who is the +client, whether professional legal services are being rendered, and whether the communications +were confidential to those involved in the delivery of legal services. Accordingly, it is very +difficult for me to respond to many of the assertions of attorney client privilege and, in any +event, the Government has failed to carry its burden of showing that the privilege applies. +98. An illustration of documents at to which attorney-client privilege appears to have been +improperly asserted or inadequately described is found at page 7 of the first privilege log (DE +216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013811 to P-013833. The entry for these twenty-two +pages of documents reads: "File folder entitled 'Information Packet Drafts' containing several +drafts of Informations, and complete draft Information packet." It is impossible from this +description to see how the attorney-client privilege applies to these documents. I could provide +many other illustrations of the problem. +99. The Government's attorney-client privilege claim directly covers situations where it was in a +fiduciary relationship with the victims and therefore is limited in now asserting privilege. For +example, page 3 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1) contains an entry concerning +Suppl. Box #3 P-013342 through P-013350, which involves "File folder entitled 12/05/07 Starr +to Acosta' containing drafts of 11/30/07 letters from A. Acost to K. Starr and from J. Sloman to +J. Lefkowitz re performance and victim notification with handwritten notes and edits by A. +Villafaña." This information goes very directly to the issues involved in this case, as it +goes directly to "victim notification." Yet the Government has asserted an attorney-client +privilege to prevent the victims from learning what is in these documents. The fiduciary +exception to the attorney-client privilege applies in this situation, and limits the government's +ability to invoke a privilege. This also appears to be shared communications between the +Government and Epstein's attorneys, and it is unclear how the attorney-client privilege could +ethically apply to such documents. +100. As one example of why the victims have established a compelling need for the materials +described in the preceding paragraph (and other materials like them) is the fact that the Court has +indicated that it will be considering an "estoppel" argument raised by the Government as a +defense in this case. DE 189 at 12 n.6. The Court has noted that this argument "implicates a +fact-sensitive equitable defense which must be considered in the historical factual context of the +entire interface between Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial authorities and the federal offense +victims - including an assessment of the allegation of a deliberate conspiracy between Epstein +and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the pendency of negotiations between +Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and presentation of the non-prosecution +agreement to them as a fait accompli." DE 189 at 12 n.6 (emphasis added). The materials to +19 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 20 of +which the Government is asserting attorney-client privilege go directly to that "interface" +between the victims, the Government, and Epstein. The vietims have a compelling need for this +information and the fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege applies to permit the +Court to provide these documents to the victims. +101. The Government has not explained any harm that would come from releasing the +documents covered by attorney client privilege to the victims. If the Government raises any such +harm, I respectfully request an opportunity to provide additional information on that alleged +harm. +Deliberative Process Privilege +102. Some of the correspondence that is being withheld by the Government under the +deliberative process privilege concerns an investigation that the Justice Department's Office of +Professional Responsibility (OPR) opened with regard to the Epstein case. This investigation +was undertaken at the request of the victims in this case. On December 10, 2010, co-counsel, +Professor Paul Cassell of the University of Utah College of Law, and I met with the U.S. +Attorney for the Southern District of Florida regarding this case in the U.S. Attorney's Office in +Miami, Florida. At on that date, Professor Cassell presented a letter to the U.S. Attorney, Mr. +Ferrer, asking him to personally investigate what happened during the Epstein prosecution and +how the victims were treated during that investigation. Based on the privilege log that has been +provided, as well as subsequent correspondence sent to Professor Cassell, that request for +investigation was turned over to OPR in Washington, D.C. +103. The ultimate outcome of the OPR investigation is unclear. What is clear is that many +documents are being withheld about that investigation - documents that would go to the central +issues in this case. Approximately three whole pages of the privilege log - pages 12 through 14 +of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1) - relate to the OPR investigation of how the +Epstein case was handled and how the victims were treated. +104. A deliberative process privilege claim can only be asserted with regard to the process of +reaching a decision, not the ultimate decision itself. The Government here has apparently +asserted a deliberative process claim over not only the OPR process, but also over the OPR +decision. +It is not clear which document embodies the final OPR decision (or, given the +inadequacies of the Government's privilege log, whether that final decision has been produced). +Given the limited descriptions of the documents that have been provided, it appears that the OPR +decision may be reflected in a document found on page 13 of the supplemental privilege log (DE +216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013940 to P-013942. The description there reads: "Draft +Letter, marked 'Confidential: To Be Opened by Addressee Only,' Robin C. Ashton to Wifredo +A. Ferrer, with handwritten corrections." No date is provided regarding this letter. Nor is there +any indication as to whether the letter was or was not circulated to other persons. It is also +noteworthy that this letter is described as a "draft" letter. Nowhere in the privilege log is the +final version of the letter indicated, raising questions about what was "draft" and what was +"final." If this is the final embodiment of OPR's conclusions, then this letter would not be +protected by a "deliberative process" privilege, because the deliberations would have come to an +end. (It is also worth noting that because OPR is an agency that investigates misconduct by +federal prosecutors, it would not be providing attorney-client advice to prosecutors and its +20 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 21 of +documents would not be attorney-client privileged with regard to, for example, the U.S. +Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida.) +105. The fact that OPR has investigated many of the exact claims raised by Jane Does 1 and 2, +and were able to gather documents unobstructed by the Government in order to reach its +conclusion likely means that production of the OPR file to the victims in this case could +significantly shorteut this discovery process and the litigation. Additionally, if OPR "needed" +the documents to investigate and make findings regarding the victims" claims, then logically the +victims share that "need" and have no other means through which to obtain the documents. The +Government has not explained any harm that would come from releasing the documents covered +by deliberative process privilege to the victims. If the Government raises any such harm, I +respectfully request an opportunity to provide additional information on that alleged harm. +Investigative Privilege +106. The investigative privilege is a qualified privilege, which balances the need of particular +litigate for access to information against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing +process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 +F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: +(1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by +discouraging citizens from giving the government information; (2) the impact +upon persons who have given information of having their identities disclosed; (3) +the degree to which governmental self-evaluation and consequent program +improvement will be chilled by disclosure; (4) whether the information sought is +factual data or evaluative summary; (5) whether the party seeking the discovery is +an actual or potential defendant in any criminal proceeding either pending or +reasonably likely to follow from the incident in question; (6) whether the police +investigation has been completed; (7) whether any intradepartmental disciplinary +proceedings have arisen or may arise from the investigation; (8) whether the +plaintiff's suit is non-frivolous and brought in good faith; (9) whether the +information sought is available through other discovery or from other sources; +and (10) the importance of the information sought to the plaintiff's case. +On the facts of this case, these factors weigh in favor of disclosing the information the victims +have requested. +107. With regard to factor (I) (the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental +processes by discouraging citizens from giving the government information), I represented four +victims of Epstein's sex offenses in Federal Court - Jane Doe No. 1, Jane Doe No. 2, and a +victim I will refer to as "S.R." and "M.J.", and other victims of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse as well. +If further information is disclosed about this case, that will not discourage them from providing +information, but rather will encourage them. I have also talked personally to attorneys for a +number of other victims in this case. I have been told that many of these other victims hope that +Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 are successful in their case. +108. With regard to factor (2) (the impact upon persons who have given information of having +their identities disclosed), Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 are not asking for information that +would identify any particular victim. Accordingly, there will be no effect on other victims. +Additionally, I am aware of the true names of many of Epstein's victims and that information has +21 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 22 of +not been disseminated to the public where those individual victims did not wish for their +identities to be disseminated. +109. With regard to factor (3) (the degree to which governmental self-evaluation and consequent +program improvement will be chilled by disclosure), this is a lawsuit to force the compliance by +the Government with its CVRA obligations. Accordingly, the Government's "program" of +providing victims' rights will be directly improved if the victims are able to enforce their rights +in this lawsuit. +110. With regard to factor (4) (whether the information sought is factual data or evaluative +summary), many of the items that the victims seeks are factual summaries. An example of this is +found at page 18 of the first privilege log (DE 212-1), with regard to Box #3 P-011778 to P- +011788. The entry reads: "File folder entitled '6/12/09 Victim Notif. Log' containing chart with +victim contact information and attorney notes regarding dates and type of contacts." This would +include, for example, dates of contacts with Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, which would be +purely factual information. +111. +With regard to factor (5) (whether the party seeking the discovery is an actual or potential +defendant in any criminal proceeding either pending or reasonably likely to follow from the +incident in question), Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 are plainly victims of a crime, not +criminal defendants. Indeed, as the Court is aware, it is the criminal defendant (Jeffrey Epstein) +who has undertaken several "limited" intervention efforts to try and block disclosure of +information to the victims. +112. +With regard to factor (6) (whether the police investigation has been completed), the +investigation of Epstein was completed years ago and the Government has not produced in its +privilege log any information indicating recent investigative activity. +With regard to factor (7) (whether any intradepartmental disciplinary proceedings have +arisen or may arise from the investigation), it appears than OPR investigation has arisen as a +direct result of the victims' efforts in this case. However, it does not appear that release of any +information to the victims would hamper any disciplinary proceedings. Indeed, to the extent that +the victims are able to obtain information about this case and find information about misconduct, +then they can provide that information to Government and other disciplinary entities as +appropriate. +114. With regard to factor (8) (whether the plaintiff's suit is non-frivolous and brought in good +faith), it should be clear at this juncture of a five-year long case that the victims have a +substantial claim that is brought in good faith. +115. With regard to factor (9) (whether the information sought is available through other +diner very or obin the isures, a recou id this pher thiebated it the lies informatino +internal to the Justice Department. +116. With regard to factor (10) (the importance of the information sought to the plaintiff's case), +the information that the victims are seeking is highly important to their case. Indeed, without +adequate proof, the Court has indicated that it may have to deny the victims' petition. DE 99 at +11. Throughout this affidavit, I have provided numerous examples and explanations of why the +victims need the information that they are requesting. The documents to which the Government +22 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 23 of +is asserting investigative privilege, for example, bear directly on the Government's alleged +"estoppel" defense, which the victims need a complete evidentiary record to dispute. +Work-Product Doctrine +117. A work product claim can be defeated by a showing of substantial need and undue hardship +to obtain the materials in other ways. In this affidavit, I have tried to articulate the specific and +compelling need for all of the materials that victims are seeking. I will not repeat all of those +assertions here, but simply note that I stand ready to provide any additional information that the +Court may require to determine the compelling need that the victims have for the materials they +have requested as well as the undue hardship (if not actual impossibility) of obtaining the +materials in other ways. Any balancing of considerations tips decisively in the victims favor. +118. As one example, the victims have a compelling need for the materials that OPR collected as +part of its investigation. Because Justice Department attorneys are generally required to talk to +OPR investigators, OPR was apparently able to investigate the claims of misconduct related to +the Epstein case by getting statements from the attorney's involved. These interviews appear to +be recorded in materials found at page 14 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with +egard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013956 to P-013846 [sic - apparently should be P-013970, a total o +4 pages]. Judging from the entry, these notes would be factual statements from Justic +Department prosecutors about how the Epstein case was handled and whether any misconduct +occurred during the handling of the case. Those are central issues in this case. There is no other +way for the victims to obtain information about these subjects, because the Justice Department +has declined to provide information on this subject. +119. The victims have established a substantial need for the materials they are requesting in the +previous paragraphs of this affidavit that review, request-by-request, their document production +requests numbers 1 through 25 and supplemental request number 1. +As another example of why the victims have established a compelling need for the +materials is the fact that the Court has indicated that it will be considering an "estoppel" +argument raised by the Government as a defense in this case. DE 189 at 12 n.6. The Court has +noted that this argument "implicates a fact-sensitive equitable defense which must be considered +in the historical factual context of the entire interface between Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial +authorities and the federal offense victims - including an assessment of the allegation of a +deliberate conspiracy between Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on +the pendency of negotiations between Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and +presentation of the non-prosecution agreement to them as a fait accompli." DE 189 at 12 n.6 +(emphasis added). The materials to which the Government is asserting work product protection +go directly to that "interface" between the victims, the Government, and Epstein. The victim +nave no other way of showing what that interface is. The Government will not be harmed if th +materials are provided to the victims. +Grand Jury Information +121. The victims' legal pleading has explained why the Government has not properly asserted +any grand jury secrecy to the documents at issue. In addition, many of the Government's grand +jury privilege assertions appear to broadly cover both grand jury and non-grand jury information. +Even if the Court allows the Government to assert some form of grand jury privilege, it should +require the Government to sever grand jury materials from non-grand jury materials. +23 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 24 of +122. An illustration of this problem comes from page 12 of the first privilege log (DE 212-1), +with regard to Box #2 P-008616 to P-008686. The entry reads: "File folder entitled FBI +Summary Charts' containing chart prepared at direction of AUSA, containing victims names, +identifying information, summary of activity, and other information relevant to indictment." +This does not appear to be a document that was ever presented to the grand jury or that directly +discloses grand jury proceedings. Moreover, to the extent that it involves some kind of limited +disclosure of grand jury proceedings, that limited disclosure could be redacted and the other +information provided to the victims. +123. It does not appear that any of the alleged grand jury materials that the Government is +asserting privilege involve on-going grand jury issues. Moreover, it does not appear that +disclosing any of the materials would "tip off" a potential target to a Government investigation. +Of course, Jeffrey Epstein (and his associates) are well aware of the Government's investigation +into their crimes against young girls for sexual purposes. +124. The Government has not explained any harm that would come from releasing the +documents to the victims. If the Government raises any such harm, I respectfully request an +opportunity to provide additional information on that alleged harm. +about any other victims. To clarify that fact, on July 31, 2013, I sent a letter to the Government +stating, in part, that "to avoid any interference with any privacy rights of victims who are not +parties to this litigation, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 are not seeking any identifying +information about other victims. In any of the documents that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have +requested the Government produce, the Government should not produce the names of other +victims or other identifying information (e.g., address or telephone number) but should instead +redact that information." +***** +I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is +true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. +Executed this 16th day of August, 2013. +L ESQ. +Attachments: +1. October 3, 2011, request for production; +2. June 24, 2013, supplemental request for production; and +3. Victims' Requests for Admissions and Government Answers +24 + + +Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 25 of + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 26 of +64 +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Plaintiffs +V. +UNITED STATES, +Defendants +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION +TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THEIR +PENDING ACTION CONCERN THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT +COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims"), by and through undersigned +counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter "the Government") to produce the +original or best copy of the items listed herein below for inspection and/or copying, pursuant to +the Court's Order (DE #99) directing discovery in this case. +BACKGROUND +As the Government will recall, the victims have asked the Government to stipulate to +undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their +Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on +Appropriate Remedies (DE 48) (the victims' "summary judgment motion") along with a Motion +to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts +(DE 49). +On September 26, 2011, the Court denied the victims" motion to have their facts accepted +(DE 99 at 11). At the same time, however, the Court has ordered discovery to develop the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 27 of +factual record concerning the summary judgment motion (DE 99 at 11). The Court reserved +ruling on the victims' motion for an order directing the Government not to suppress relevant +evidence (DE 99 at 11). +On September 28, 2011, the victims requested that the Government voluntarily provide +documents concerning this case. The Government declined to provide even a single document. +Accordingly, the victims now seek the following information relevant to their pending summary +judgment motion. +DISCOVERY REQUESTED +The numbered discovery requests below should all be construed in light of the definitions of +terms provided at the end of the requests. +1. In the victims' currently-pending summary judgment motion, the victims contend that the +Government conducted an extensive criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's sexual +exploitation of young girls, including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 between 2001 and 2008. +The victims also contend that the FBI and other federal agencies established that Epstein +operated a large criminal enterprise that used paid employees and underlings to repeatedly find +and bring minor girls to him. In deferring ruling on the victims' summary judgment motion, the +Court noted that the victims had alleged that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office's +chim that sign +"investigation developed a strong case for a federal prosecution against Epstein based on +'overwhelming' evidence." DE 99 at 2. The Court, however, also noted that this was an +allegation that needed "further factual development." DE 99 at 2 n.2. Please provide all +documents, correspondence, and other information that supports these victims" allegations, +including: +(a) the FBI case file on the Epstein case; +(b) all documents, correspondence, witness statements, FBI 302s, and other +similar information, that the Government collected as part of its case against +and/or investigation of Epstein, including any information provided to Epstein +or receive from Epstein as part of "discovery" or exchange of information +concerning the case; +(c) all documents, correspondence, witness statements, and other similar +information that the Government received from any federal, state, local, or +other law enforcement agency regarding sex offenses committed against +children by Jeffrey Epstein; +(d) the 82-page prosecution memorandum (a/k/a "pros memo") outlining +numerous federal sexual offenses committed by Epstein (and any attachments +to that memorandum) and the 53-page draft indictment for numerous federal + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 28 of +offenses that the Government developed in this case and any similar successor +or predecessor document; and +(e) Any other prosecution memorandum regarding Jeffrey Epstein (and any +documents attached to that memorandum) and all draft federal indictments +that were prepared regarding Epstein. Please also provide all documents, +correspondence, and +other information regarding these prosecution +memoranda and the draft federal indictments. +2. Throughout their pending summary judgment motion, the victims contend that they +received only limited notifications from the Government (and, in particular, the U.S. Attorney's +Office acting through FBI agents) about the plea negotiations that occurred with Jeffrey Epstein +and the non-prosecution agreement that was ultimately reached. Please provide all documents, +correspondence and other information regarding victim notifications in this case, including (but +not limited to): +a) All crime victims notifications (and draft notifications) sent to Jane Doe #1 and +Jane Doe #2 and the other identified victims of Epstein's offenses; +b) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding negotiations +between the Government and Epstein's defense attorneys concerning the extent +and nature of notifications to be made to Epstein's victims; +c) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding discussions +between the Government, the FBI, the Palm Beach Police Department, the Palm +Beach County State Attorney's Office, and Epstein's defense attorneys +concerning the extent and nature of notifications to be made to Epstein's victims; +d) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding "marching +orders" that were given to FBI agents regarding the information that they could +provide to the victims about the negotiations and the non-prosecution agreement; +e) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding information that +could be given to attorneys for the victims about the non-prosecution agreement, +including information about what could be told to Brad +(counsel for Jane +Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) about the non-prosecution agreement; +f) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding Epstein's +awareness that his victims (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) would not be +notified of the non-prosecution agreement (and its ultimate presentation in court) +or given a chance to confer regarding the plea negotiations he was conducting +with the Government. +3. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that the Government +negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein and that among the subjects covered in that +non-prosecution agreement was a confidentiality provision that precluded disclosing the +agreement to them and to other victims. Please provide all draft plea agreements (both state and +federal) and non-prosecution agreements prepared either by attorneys for the Government or by +attorneys for Epstein, as well as any correspondence, documents or other information pertaining +to these agreements and to any confidentiality provision in these agreements. Please indicate +that date on which each of these proposed agreements was drafted and by whom. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 29 of +4. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that the Government was +interested in finding a place to conclude any plea agreement that would effectively keep +Epstein's victims (most of whom resided in or about West Palm Beach) from learning what was +happening through the press. +Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other +information pertaining to negotiations between the Government and Jeffrey Epstein concerning +the court and/or location in which Jeffrey Epstein would enter any guilty plea (including in +particular any negotiations concerning concluding the plea in Miami or other location outside of +West Palm Beach). +5. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that part of the plea +negotiations with Epstein involved Epstein's efforts to make sure that the vietims would be +represented in civil cases against Epstein by someone who was not an experienced personal +injury lawyer. Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information pertaining +to negotiations between the Government and Jeffrey Epstein regarding any legal representation +of the victims in civil cases against Epstein, including any negotiations about what kinds of +representation should be provided in a plea agreement or non-prosecution agreement. +6. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment that the Government wanted the +non-prosecution agreement with Epstein concealed from public view because of the intense +public criticism that would have resulted had the agreement been disclosed and/or the possibility +that victims would have objected in court and convicted the judge not to accept the agreement. +Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information concerning the +Government's and/or Epstein awareness or discussion of this possible public criticism and/or +victim objections. +7. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that the Government was +aware that it potentially had obligations under the CVRA to notify the victims about the nonprosecution agreement and any related state court plea agreement. Please provide all +correspondence, documents, and other information regarding the Government's awareness of its +potential CVRA obligations in this case and regarding any discussions between the Government +and Epstein concerning these CVRA obligations in this case. This should include any objections +raised by Epstein to any notification of the victims (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) and +any Government response to these objections. This should also include any correspondence and +information about whether the CVRA applied to the victims. +8. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that, after Epstein signed +the non-prosecution agreement, his performance was delayed while he used his significant social +and political connections to lobby the Justice Department to obtain a more favorable plea deal +(including lobbying components of the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., including the +Child Exploitation Obscenity Section). Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other +information regarding Epstein's lobbying efforts to persuade the Government to give him a more +favorable plea arrangement and/or non-prosecution agreement, including efforts by former +President Bill Clinton, Andrew Albert Christian Edward (a/k/a Prince Andrew, +Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, Ken Starr, Lillian | +. Jay Lefkowitz, and Roy +Black on his behalf. +EFTA02754540R + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 30 of +9. On January 10, 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 received letters from the FBI +advising them that "this case is currently under investigation." Please provide all documents, +correspondence, and other information relating to those representations being made by the FBI to +Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, including all information about whether the FBI was aware of the +non-prosecution agreement at that time and about whether Epstein was aware of the notifications +being made to the victims. +10. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that the FBI was led +to believe that their investigation of Epstein was going to produce a federal criminal prosecution +and that the FBI was also misled by the U.S. Attorney's office about the status of the case. +Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information relating to these +allegations, including: +) All documents, correspondence, and other information relating to discussion +etween the U.S. Attornev's Office and the FBI concerning the status of th +investigation and the plea discussions with Epstein, as well as what kind of +charges would appropriately be filed against Epstein; +b) All documents, correspondence, and other information relating to the U.S. +Attorney's Office's representations to the FBI and any other state or local law +enforcement agency about how this case was being handled; and +c) All documents, correspondence, and other information relating to whether the FBI +would support the position of the U.S. Attorney's Office that it has not violated +the rights of Epstein's victims in this case. +11. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that they had +various meetings with Government prosecutors and/or agents (including FBI agents). Related to +these meetings, they also allege that in mid-June 2008, their attorney +J. +discussed with an AUSA involved in the case the need for filing federal charges and that the +AUSA asked the attorney to send a letter about why such charges should be filed without +disclosing the existence of a previously-signed non-prosecution agreement. The victims further +allege that on about July 3, 2008, their attorney sent a letter urging the filing of federal charges +against Epstein. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information regarding +these meetings with the victims and their legal counsel, including meetings with the victims on +October 26, 2007, and January 31, 2008, and the contact with their legal counsel in mid-June +2008. Please also provide all documents, correspondence, and other information related to +contacts between the Government and the National Crime Victim's Law Institute (NCVLI) +concerning possible legal representation or other assistance to the victims by NCVLI. +12. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims allege that in mid-June 2008, +their attorney ( +J. +) discussed with an AUSA involved in the case the need for +filing federal charges and that the AUSA asked the attorney to send a letter about why such +charges should be filed without disclosing the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. The +victims further allege that on about July 3, 2008, their attorney sent a letter urging the filing of +federal charges against Epstein. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other +information regarding these contacts, including e-mails and correspondence generated as a result +of the attorney's inquiry and any action that was taken in response to the letter that he sent. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 31 of +13. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims allege that on or about June 27, +2008, the Government learned that Epstein would be entering his plea to state charges on about +June 30, 2008. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and information regarding: +a) How the Government Office learned that the plea was going to be entered; +b) How the Government notified victims about the entry of the guilty plea; and +c) The contents of the notifications given to the victims about the entry of the guilty, +including whether the victims were informed about the non-prosecution +agreement and about whether the entry of this plea would preclude prosecution of +crimes Epstein had committed against them. +14. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that the +Government and Epstein worked together to keep the existence of the non-prosecution +agreement secret, including declining comment about the existence of such an agreement when +asked about it when his guilty plea in state court became public knowledge. Please provide all +documents, correspondence, and information about the Government's and Epstein's efforts to +keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement secret, including all e-mails and +correspondence about "declining comment" or similar devices to keep the non-prosecution +agreement secret. +15. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims allege that at all materials times, +it would have been practical and feasible for the Government to have kept the victims informed +about the discussions concerning the non-prosecution agreement. The victims further allege that +on about July 9, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office provided notice to Jane Doe #1 of some of the +terms of the agreement between it and Jeffrey Epstein. The victims also received a "corrected" +notification letter on about September 3, 2008. Please provide all documents, correspondence, +and other information about these notifications, including: +a) any information about whether these notifications should or should not include +some mention of the non-prosecution agreement; +b) any information about the contents of these notifications; +c) any communications between the Government and Epstein's counsel regarding +what the notifications should contain, including any communication on or about +July 9, 2008, objecting to parts of the draft; +d) Any communications between the Government and Epstein's counsel about +which parts of the non-prosecution agreement were operative (including whether +Part 3 was operative; +e) Any communications between the Government and Epstein's counsel regarding +the September 3, 2008, corrected notification letter; and +f) any documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the practicality +and feasibility of providing notice to the victims of the existence of the +agreement, which shall include any correspondence related to meeting with the +victims or notifying them in any way of the non-prosecution agreement. +16. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims allege that one of the senior +prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office joined Epstein's payroll shortly after important +decisions were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability - and improperly represented people +close to Epstein. In light of this fact, the peculiar nature of the non-prosecution agreement + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 32 of +reached in this case, and other information in the possession of the victims, it is also possible that +other improper relationships exist between Government agents and Epstein. Please provide any +documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the possibility of any improper +relationship, including: +a) Attorney Bruce Reinhart's involvement in and/or awareness of any aspect of the +Government's criminal investigation and/or possible prosecution/non-prosecution +of Epstein; +b) Attorney Bruce Reinhart's involvement in and/or awareness of the Government's +interest in any witness, subject, or target of the Epstein investigation, including +Ghislaine Maxwell, +• Lesley Groff, +Louella Ruboyo, Larry +1. Larry Visoki, David Rogers, William +Hammond, and Robert Roxburgh; +c) All documents, correspondence, and other information reflecting telephone calls +(including telephone logs and telephone billing statements) made by or received +by Reinhart from Jeffrey Epstein, the Florida Science Foundation, Jack +Goldberger, Alan Dersowitz, Roy Black, Ken Starr, Lillian +and any +other person involved with the criminal defense of Jeffrey Epstein, including +telephone calls to and from Jack Goldberger and the Florida Science Foundation; +d) All documents, correspondence, and other information (including, for example, e- +mails) that were sent to, copied to. or sent by Reinhart in which the word +"Epstein," " +"Ruboyo," " +" "Visoki," "Rogers," "Hammond," +Roxburgh," "Villafana, +"Florida +Science Foundation," +"Starr," "Black, +"Goldberger," "Jeffrey," "Australian," ' +' "358 El Brillo Way" +appears and which are connected to or related to Jeffrey Epstein, Jack Goldberger, +or the Jeffrey Epstein investigation or prosecution; +e) All documents, correspondence, and other information (including for example e- +mails) of a similar nature that indicate that any other Government prosecutor has +represented (or discussed representing) a person or entity related to Jeffrey +Epstein or has received business or funds from a person or entity related to Jeffrey +Epstein; +f) All documents, correspondence, and other information that indicate or suggest +that any Government prosecutor or investigator (including state and local +prosecutor or investigator has had any form of business, social, personal, or other +relationship with Jeffrey Epstein or a person or entity related to Jeffrey Epstein; +and +g) All documents, correspondence, and other information that indicate or suggest +that any Government prosecutor or investigator (including state and local +prosecutor or investigator) would receive anything of value, directly or indirectly +from Jeffrey Epstein or a person or entity related to Jeffrey Epstein (including any +charitable contributions to be made by Epstein to any entity). +17. In December 2010, the victims sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern +District of Florida, requesting that the Office investigate whether "improper influences" were +brought to bear during the negotiations involving the possible prosecution (and ultimately the +non-prosecution) of Jeffrey Epstein. That letter led to a reference of the matter to the Office of + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 33 of +Professional Responsibility (OPR) in the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., which began +some kind of an inquiry/investigation. Please provide: +a) All documents, correspondence, and other information collected by the Office of +Professional Responsibility (OPR) and any other component of the Justice +Department (including the FBI) in response to the victims' letter; +b) All documents, correspondence, witness statements, and other information +collected as part of OPR's inquiry/investigation; +c) All documents, correspondence, witness statements and other information +collected as part of any criminal inquiry/investigation that was initiated as a result +of that letter, including any inquiry/investigation into criminal conflict of interest +violations (such as 18 U.S.C. § 205 and § 207) +d) All documents, correspondence, witness statements, and other information +collected by any federal investigative agency that was triggered by OPR's +inquiry/investigation, including any FBI inquiry/investigation regarding any +improper influences or criminal or ethical violations that may have been +committed by government attorneys during the handling of the Epstein +investigation and/or prosecution; +e) Any documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the accuracy or +inaccuracy of Bruce Reinhart's sworn statements (found in DE 79-1 at p. 31) that +he "did not participate in any way in the Office's investigation of Epstein;" that he +information about the Epstein matter;" +f) Any documents, correspondence, +or other information regarding the +circumstances that lead OPR to send a letter to the victims on May 6, 2011, +indicating that they would not provide any further assistance to the victims in +connection with their allegations that improper influences were brought to bear on +the Epstein case; +g) Any document, correspondence, e-mail, memoranda, or other information +prepared by OPR, the FBI, or other Justice Department Component as a result of +or following up on the victims' December 2010 letter concerning the Epstein +case: and +h) Any documents, correspondence, or other information that OPR has collected or +obtained regarding the Epstein investigation and/or prosecution. +18. At a couple points during the prosecution of this action, including in approximately +December 2010 and most recently after the August 2011 hearing, the Justice Department in +Washington, D.C., discussed or determined that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern +District of Florida (USAO SDFL) was "conflicted out", or may be conflicted out, of handling +various issues related to the Epstein case because it suffered from a conflict of interest. The +Justice Department accordingly sent various issues related to the Epstein case (and, on +information and belief, issues related to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) to the Department of +Justice and to a United States Attorney's Office in another District. Please provide all +documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the potential conflicts of interest +that the Justice Department discussed or determined existed for the USAO SDFL, as well as any +referral that was made to Main Justice or to any other District, including any documents that + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 34 of +were transmitted to any other District regarding the conflict and regarding what was to be +investigated. +19. In March 2011, former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta sent a three-page letter to the +news media in which he claimed that when Government attorneys began investigating Epstein, +Epstein launched "a yearlong assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors." Shortly thereafter, +Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorney Roy Black sent a responsive letter to Alexander Acost's letter +to the news media in which he claimed that he did not pry into the personal lives of prosecutors +but merely pointed out misconduct and over-reaching by certain people involved in the Epstein +investigation. Please provide all documents, correspondence and other information that supports +or contradicts Acosta's allegations in his letter, including any information that the Justice +Department received from Epstein attacking the prosecutors and investigators working on the +case. Please also provides all documents, correspondence, information about misconduct and +over-reaching that was provided by Black and that the Government found that supported or +contradicted such allegations. +20. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that Epstein's guilty +plea to state charges was intended to be the consummation of a non-prosecution agreement that +barred prosecution of federal offenses committed against them. They have further alleged that +Epstein entered such a guilty plea on or about June 30, 2008. Please provide all documents, +correspondence, and other information between the Government and state and local prosecutors +and police agencies (including The Palm Beach Police Department and Palm Beach State +Attorney's Office) regarding the Epstein investigation and ultimate Epstein plea. +21. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that correspondence +in the possession of the Government will support their claims. Please provide all documents, +correspondence, and other information between Government attorneys/officials (including both +federal and state prosecutors) and attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein (or non-attorney acting on +and other in mad at bees to +Epstein's behalf) relating to (1) negotiations involving the possible prosecution (and ultimately +the non-prosecution) by federal or state agencies for sex offenses, including sex offenses +committed against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, (2) Epstein's entry of state guilty pleas for +related sex offenses; (3) a non-prosecution agreement entered into between Epstein and the +Government that barred his prosecution for offenses committed against Jane Doe #1 and Jane +Doe #2; (4) the fulfillment of Epstein's and/or the Government's obligations under the nonprosecution agreement and/or the state guilty pleas Epstein entered; (5) any work release or other +conditional release of Epstein from confinement; (6) any designation of Epstein as a sex offender +or restrictions on him contacting victims of his offenses (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe +#2); and (7) any termination of supervision or parole of Epstein. This information should include +unredacted e-mails, letters, and correspondence of any type between government prosecutors +working on the case (including, but not limited to, federal prosecutors Alexander Acosta, Jeffrey +H. Sloman, Matt Menchel, Andy Lourie, Ann +Villafana, Dexter Lee, and Bruce Reinhart +and state prosecutors Dahlia Weiss, Lana Belolovek, and others involved in the Epstein +investigation) and defense attorneys representing Epstein (including, but not limited to, Roy +Black, Jay Lefkowitz, Jack Goldberger, +Weinberg, Gerald Lefcourt, Michael Tien, Guy +1 Lilly Ann | +_. Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz) and agents acting in support of Epstein +(including, but not limited to former President Bill Clinton and Andrew Albert Christian Edward + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 35 of +(a/k/a Prince Andrew, [ +of York). This should also include letters of recommendation or +similar communications submitted to any Government official vouching for or providing support +for Jeffrey Epstein. +22. As you know, throughout their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have +alleged that they were not properly notified of plea negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein and were +denied their right to confer by the Government and that instead the Government gave Epstein +generous concessions through the plea negotiations. Please provide any documents, +correspondence and other information that reflects or discusses any consideration of any type +that Epstein had previously provided or offered to provide to the Government (or any individual +within the Government, in either his official or private capacity) or any person previously +employed by the Government and involved in the Epstein investigation or prosecution. The +documents, correspondence, and other information should include any information discussing: +(a) Any donation or offer to donate, directly or indirectly, either funds, services, +or any other valuable consideration to any person or entity; +(b) Any offer to assist, directly or indirectly, any person to obtain employment, +business opportunities, business clients, real estate, office properties; +(c) Any offer to assist the Government or law enforcement agencies in the +investigation or prosecution of any federal or state criminal offense; +(d) Any consideration that Epstein had provided to Government or law +enforcement agencies in the past; and +(e) Any other consideration of any type that Epstein offered to provide or had +provided in the past that could provide a basis for the Government extending +Epstein a more generous or lenient plea bargain or non-prosecution agreement +than would be received by any other similarly situated child abuse suspect. +23. The Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1), requires the Government to use +its "best efforts" to protect the rights of crime victims. +Please provide all documents, +correspondence, and other information that will assist Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in protecting +their rights under the CVRA, including all documents, correspondence, and other information +that the Government previously identified as being helpful to the victims but refused to provide +based on its legal interpretation (now rejected by the Court) that the CVRA did not apply to this +case because no indictment was filed. +24. In the course of its investigation of Epstein and negotiations with Epstein, the +Government (i.e., federal investigators and prosecutors) shared documents, correspondence, anc +information with other persons outside the federal government, including state and local +prosecuting and law enforcement agencies, prosecuting and law enforcement agencies in other +countries, Epstein's legal counsel, legal counsel for crime victims, and other entities. Please +provide all documents, correspondence, and other information that the Government shared with +any entity or person outside the federal government, including all correspondence (including e- +mails) with those entities or persons. +25. After the victims had made extensive efforts to try and reach a stipulated set of facts in +this case, in March 2011 the Government refused to negotiate about such facts. Accordingly, at +that time the victims filed various motions to obtain evidence in this case and, at the same time, + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 36 of +the victims voluntarily made all initial disclosures on their part that are required by Federal Rule +of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1). Please provide all initial disclosures required by the Federal Rules +of Civil Procedure, including all disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). +DEFINITIONS +For the purpose of construing the foregoing discvery requests, the following terms are +defined: +The term "documents" means and includes, without limitation, all writings of any kind, +including the originals and all non-identical copies or drafts, whether different from the original +by reason of any notation made on such copy or draft or otherwise including, without limitation, +correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, statistics, letters, e-mails, electronic computer files, +telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports, studies, checks, statements, receipts, returns, summaries, +pamphlets, books, prospectuses, interoffice communications, offers, notations of any sort of +conversation, telephone calls, meetings or other communications, bulletins, printed matter, +computer print-outs, teletypes, facsimiles, invoices, work sheets and all drafts, alterations, +modifications, changes, and amendments of any of the foregoing, graphic or aural writs, records +or representations of any kind including, without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs, +microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings, motion pictures; and electronic, mechanical or +electric records or representations of any kind including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes and +disc recordings, and writings and printed material of every kind. +The term "correspondence" means any tangible object that conveys information or +memorializes information that was conveyed in tangible or oral form including, but not limited +to, writings, letters, memoranda, reports, notes, e-mails, telephone logs, telephone billing +information, telephone recordings, and interoffice communications. +The term "Epstein's victims" means any person that the Government identified as a +possible victim of a sex offense committed by Jeffrey Epstein, including Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe +#2, all victims identified in attachment to the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein, +and another person that the Government investigated as a possible victim of Epstein's sex +offenses. +The term "Government" means the federal government, including all employees of and +components of the United States Department of Justice (such as, the Office of the Attorney +General, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Divisions, the Office of +Professional Responsibility, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, the U.S. Attorney's +Offices for the Southern District and Middle District of Florida, and the Federal Bureau of +Investigation) and other federal government agencies with law enforcement responsibilities +related to the Epstein case (such as the Internal Revenue Service). This request for production +seeks all documents, correspondence, and other information held by all of these entities, +including all employees of and components of the Justice Department that worked on or were in +any way involved the Epstein investigation and/or that possess information relevant to the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 37 of +The term "including" means containing within the request, but not limiting the request. +The term "witness statement" means any document or other recording in any form +(including oral form) reflecting, recording, or otherwise memorializing a statement made or +information conveyed by a potential witness, including for example FBI 302's. The term +includes information collected by any law enforcement, prosecuting or government agency, +including all federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies located in Washington, D.C., or +Florida. +NO GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPTS SOUGHT +If any of the foregoing requests cover grand jury transcripts, do not provide the grand +Jury transcript. If any of the foregoing requests include documents that quote directly from a +grand jury transcript, please redact that particular quotation. +PRIVILEGE LOG +If you believe that any document, correspondence, or other information requested in this +request is subject to a privilege and if you intend to assert that privilege, please provide a +"privilege log" consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g), including a description a document that is +consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g)(3)(B). Your privilege log should include the type of +document, general subject matter of the document, date of the document, and author and +REDUCING UNDUE BURDEN +If you believe that complying with any of the foregoing requests would be unduly +burdensome, please contact victims counsel - +I1. +- to discuss ways to reduce +any such burden. +DATED: October 3, 2011 +Respectfully Submitted, +s/ +JAFFE, WEISSING, +, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 524-2820 +Florida Ba So.: 4-2852 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 38 of +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +The foregoing document was served on October 3, 2011, on the following via US Mail and +E-Mail Transmission: +Dexter Lee +A. +Villafaña +Assistant U.S. Attorneys +500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Fax: (561) 820-8777 +E-mail: Dexter.Lee@usdoj.gov +A romeys For the Government +Roy Black, Esq. +Jackie Perczek, Esq. +Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1300 +Miami, FL 33131 +RBlack@royblack.com +Attorneys for Proposed Intervenors Roy Black et al. +Respectfully Submitted, +JAFFE, WEISSING, +1. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. + + +Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 39 of + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 40 of +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Plaintiffs +V. +UNITED STATES, +Defendants +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST +FOR PRODUCTION TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING NEW INFORMATION +CONCERNING INVESTIGATION OF HANDLING OF EPSTEIN NON- +PROSECUTION AGREEMENT +COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims), by and through undersigned +counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter "the Government") to produce the +original or best copy of the items listed herein below for inspection and/or copying, pursuant to +the Court's Order (DE 99) directing discovery in this case, the Court's Order denying the +Government's motion to dismiss and lifting stay of discovery (DE 189), and the Court's +Omnibus Order (DE 190): +BACKGROUND +As the Government will recall, the victims have repeatedly asked the Government to +stipulate to undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the +victims filed their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and +Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (DE 48) (the victims" "summary judgment +motion") along with a Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's +Failure to Contest Any of the Facts (DE 49). + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 41 of +On September 26, 2011, the Court denied the victims' motion to have their facts accepted +(DE 99 at 11). At the same time, however, the Court has ordered discovery to develop the +factual record concerning the summary judgment motion (DE 99 at 11). The Court reserved +ruling on the victims' motion for an order directing the Government not to suppress relevant +evidence (DE 99 at 11). +On September 28, 2011, the victims requested that the Government voluntarily provide +documents concerning this case. The Government declined to provide even a single document. +On October 3, 2011, the victims sent requests for production of documents relevant to +this case. +On November 8, 2011, the same day that the production of this discovery was due, rather +than produce a single item of discovery or stipulate to a single fact, the Government filed a +motion to dismiss the victims" case. The Government also filed an accompanying motion for a +stay in this case. +On November 8, 2011, the Government filed an ex parte, sealed motion to stay further +discovery in this case. (DE 121). On November 9, 2011, the Court granted an ex parte, sealed +order to stay. (DE 123). +On December 5, 2011, the victims filed a response to Government's motion to stay. The +victims strenuously objected to the Government's approach, alleging specifically that "delay +appears to be the Government's motivation for filing the motion to dismiss." DE 129 at 2. The +victims went on to recount the fact that the Government had waited three years to file a motion to +dismiss, concluding that "as a practical matter, the Government's motion has had the desired +effect of delay: While its motion remains pending, the victims have been effectively denied any +ability to obtain discovery from the Government." DE 129 at 2-3. The victims also filed a + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 42 of +protection motion to compel (DE 130) asking that the Court direct the Government to produce +the requested materials. +On January 24, 2012, the Government filed a reply in support of its motion to stay. DE +140. In that reply, the Government represented that it would voluntarily be providing +information to the victims: "[T]he United States has agreed to provide some information to [the +victims] even during the pendency of the stay and is undertaking a search for that +information." DE 140 at 4. Contrary to that representation, however, over the next seventeen +months, the Government did not provide any information to the victims. +A year after the Government's motion to dismiss, on December 6, 2012, the victims filed +a Motion for a Prompt Ruling Denying the Government's Motion for a Stay (DE 179). The +motion explained that it had been more than a year since the Government had filed its motion for +a stay and that the Government's refusal to produce any information continues to effective block +the vietims from learning what happened during the Government's plea negotiations with the +man who sexually abused them. The Government filed a response in opposition to that motion +(DE 182). +On February 25, 2013, counsel for the victims sent a request to the Government that, in +view of that fact that its requested stay had never been granted, it should begin fulfilling its +court-ordered discovery obligations: +The victims believe that in view of fact that it has been more than fifteen +months since the Government filed its motion for a stay of discovery and yet the +Court has not granted that motion, the Court's discovery order is in effect and +controlling. Accordingly, the victims respectfully request that by March 8, 2013, +the Government produce all of the materials which is covered by the victims' +fiscovery requests. If the Government has not produced those materials by +March 8, 2013, the victims may be forced to seek the intervention of the Court t +order the Government to follow its obligations. +If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to set up a time +where we can talk to you over the phone about all this. We are happy to work + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 43 of +with you to try and minimize any unnecessary burden from your discovery +obligations. +E-mail from Paul G. Cassell & +to Dexter Lee, et al., Counsel for the +Government (February 25, 2013). +The Government ignored the e-mail and did not respond in any way. +Accordingly, in view of the Government recalcitrance and refusal to even discuss its +discovery obligations, on March 14, 2013, the victims filed a motion to compel production of +discovery materials. The Government did not respond to this motion. +On June 1, 2013, the Court denied the Government's motion to dismiss. DE 189. That +denial also lifted stay of discovery proceedings. DE 189 at 14 ("The stay of discovery pending +ruling on the Government's motion to dismiss entered on November 8, 2011 [DE# 123] is also +lifted."). The Court also entered an Omnibus Order (DE 190) that, among other things, granted +the victim motion to compel (DE 130). +SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY REQUEST +The victims now request one specific item of supplemental discovery relating to information +that, in large measure, has come into existence since they filed the first request for production of +documents on October 3, 2011: +Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have asked the Government to investigate their allegations that +the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida entered into a non-prosecution +agreement with Jeffrey Epstein for sexual offenses committed against them and other victims +based on considerations apart from the merits of the criminal case and also that violations of +criminal law, rules of ethics, Justice Department policies (including policies on crime +victims' rights), and the Crime Victims Rights Act occurred during the negotiations leading +up to and surrounding the entry of the non-prosecution agreement. Please provide any +information that the Government has developed concerning or relating to those allegations +and the handling of the negotiations and consummation of the non-prosecution agreement, +including any information developed by the Justice Department's Office of Professional +Responsibility (OPR), the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other federal investigative +entity, and any grand jury investigating these (or releated) allegations, including any grand +jury meeting in the Southern District of Florida, the Middle District of Florida, the District of + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 44 of +New Jersey, and/or the District of Columbia. For this one discovery request only, please +include all relevant grand jury transcripts and evidence collected by the grand jury. +DEFINITIONS +For the purpose of construing the foregoing discovery requests, the following terms are +defined: +The term "documents" means and includes, without limitation, all writings of any kind, +including the originals and all non-identical copies or drafts, whether different from the original +by reason of any notation made on such copy or draft or otherwise including, without limitation, +correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, statistics, letters, e-mails, electronic computer files, +telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports, studies, checks, statements, receipts, returns, summaries, +pamphlets, books, prospectuses, interoffice communications, offers, notations of any sort of +conversation, telephone calls, meetings or other communications, bulletins, printed matter, +computer print-outs, teletypes, facsimiles, invoices, work sheets and all drafts, alterations, +modifications, changes, and amendments of any of the foregoing, graphic or aural writs, records +or representations of any kind including, without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs, +microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings, motion pictures; and electronic, mechanical or +electric records or representations of any kind including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes and +dise recordings, and writings and printed material of every kind. +The term "correspondence" means any tangible object that conveys information or +memorializes information that was conveyed in tangible or oral form including, but not limited +to, writings, letters, memoranda, reports, notes, e-mails, telephone logs, telephone billing +information, telephone recordings, and interoffice communications. +The term "Epstein's victims" means any person that the Government identified as a +possible victim of a sex offense committed by Jeffrey Epstein, including Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe +#2, all victims identified in attachment to the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein, +and another person that the Government investigated as a possible victim of Epstein's sex +offenses. +The term "Government" means the federal government, including all employees of and +components of the United States Department of Justice (such as, the Office of the Attorney +General, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Divisions, the Office of +rotessional Responsibility, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, the U.S. Attorney': +Offices for the Southern District and Middle District of Florida, and the Federal Bureau of +Investigation) and other federal government agencies with law enforcement responsibilities +related to the Epstein case (such as the Internal Revenue Service). This request for production +seeks all documents, correspondence, and other information held by all of these entities, +including all employees of and components of the Justice Department that worked on or were in +any way involved the Epstein investigation and/or that possess information relevant to the +The term "including" means containing within the request, but not limiting the request. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 45 of +The term "witness statement" means any document or other recording in any form +(including oral form) reflecting, recording, or otherwise memorializing a statement made or +information conveyed by a potential witness, including for example FBI 302's. The term +includes information collected by any law enforcement, prosecuting or government agency, +including all federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies located in Washington, D.C., or +PRIVILEGE LOG +If you believe that any document, correspondence, or other information requested in this +request is subject to a privilege and if you intend to assert that privilege, please provide a +"privilege log" consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g), including a description a document that is +consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g)(3)(B). Your privilege log should include the type of +document, general subject matter of the document, date of the document, and author and +addressee of the document or correspondence. +REDUCING UNDUE BURDEN +If you believe that complying with any of the foregoing requests would be unduly +urdensome, please contact victims counsel - +IJ. +- to discuss ways to reduce +ny such burden +DATED: June 24, 2013 +Respectfully Submitted, +JAFFE, WEISSING, +1. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 524-2820 +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +SUniversily Collage of Law at the +332 S. 1400 E. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 46 of +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 + + +Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 47 of + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 48 of +64 +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Plaintiffs +V. +UNITED STATES, +Defendants +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS +TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING QUESTIONS RELEVANT TO THEIR +PENDING ACTION CONCERNING THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT +COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims"), by and through undersigned +counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter "the Government") to admit or +deny the following facts: +BACKGROUND +As the Government will recall, the victims have asked the Government to stipulate to +undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their +Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on +Appropriate Remedies (DE 48) (the victims" "summary judgment motion") along with a Motion +to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts +(DE 49). +On September 26, 2011, the Court denied the victims' motion to have their facts accepted +(DE 99 at 11). At the same time, however, the Court has ordered discovery to develop the +factual record concerning the summary judgment motion (DE 99 at 11). The Court reserved + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 49 of +ruling on the victims' motion for an order directing the Government not to suppress relevant +evidence (DE 99 at 11). The Court allowed the victims to propound requests for admission to +the Government. +DISCOVERY REQUESTED +The numbered requests for admissions below should all be construed in light of the +definitions of terms provided at the end of the requests. Where the request for admission has +separate, lettered sub-parts, please admit or deny each separate sub-part: +1. The FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's +investigation into Jeffrey Epstein developed a case for a federal prosecution against +Epstein for many federal sex offenses. +1. The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for +the Southern District of Florida (*USAO") conducted an investigation +into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and +information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against +Epstein for many federal sex offenses. Except as otherwise admitted +matter calling for an admission. Nonetheless, the government denies the assertion that +the government has declined the request of Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 to stipulate to +undisputed facts in this case. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 50 of +2. Regarding notifications provided to victims of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse: +The U.S. Attorney's Office negotiated with Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorneys +concerning the notifications to be provided to victims of Epstein's abuse; +(b) +2. (a) The government admits that, after Epstein's attorneys learned of +the notification that the government planned to provide to Jane +Doe : +#2, who claimed that she was not a victim, Epstein's +attorneys contacted the USAO and objected to the procedures for +notification and the legal bases therefor. The government further +admits that +the USAO considered +those objections when +evaluating what notification to provide to victims. Except as +otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. +2(a). +It is not standard practice for the U.S. Attorney's Office to negotiate with defense +attorneys about the extent of notifications provided to crime victims; +(b) Admitted. +(c) +As a result of those negotiations or requests received from Epstein, the U.S. +Attorney's Office stopped making notifications to some crime victims; + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 51 of +(d) +The language used in the notifications to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were +affected by the negotiations with Epstein's defense lawyers; +(d) The government admits that, after the USAO received objections to victim +notifications from Epstein's counsel and reevaluated its victim notification +obligations, the USAO altered the language that was ultimately contained in +the July 9, 2008 notification letter to Jane Doe #1 in care of +Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 2(d). +(e) +At least in part as a result of the negotiations, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were +not told that the U.S. Attorney's Office had entered into a non-prosecution +agreement with Epstein until after the agreement was executed. +(e) The government admits that, at least in part as a result of objections lodged +by Epstein's lawyers to victim notifications, the USAO reevaluated its +obligations to provide notifications to victims, and Jane Doe #1 was thus not +told that the USAO had entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein +until after the agreement was signed. The government further admits that Jane +Doe #2 was not told that the USAO had entered into a non-prosecution +agreement with Epstein until after the agreement was signed, but denies that +the USAO did not inform Jane Doe #2 as a result of any negotiations involving +Epstein or any objections lodged by Epstein's lawyers; the USAO did not +consider Jane Doe #2 a victim after she informed the USAO and the FBI that +she was not a victim of any offense committed by Epstein, and, as a result, the +USAO did not consider informing Jane Doe #2 about the non-prosecution +agreement. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies +Request No. 2(e). +3. Because of a confidentiality provision in the non-prosecution agreement signed by the +3. Denied. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 52 of +4. During its negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorneys, the U.S. Attorney's +Office was aware that publicly disclosing the non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey +Epstein would likely have led to public criticism of the agreement. +4. Denied. +S. During negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein regarding the non-prosecution agreement, it was +the position of at least one experienced attorney within the U.S. Attorney's Office that the +Crime Victims' Rights Act required notifications to the victims in this case. + +6. The Justice Department possesses documents, correspondence or other information +reflecting contacts with the Department between May 2007 and September 2008 on +behalf of Jeffrey Epstein by: +(a) President Bill Clinton; Denied. +(b) Andrew Albert Christian Edward (a/k/a Prince Andrew, | +(c) Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz; Admitted +of York); Denied. +(d) Ken Starr; Admitted. +(e) Lillian +Admitted to the extent that the reference to "Lillian +meant to refer to Lilly Ann +(f) Jay Lefkowitz; Admitted and +' was +(g) Roy Black. Admitted + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 53 of +7. On about January 10, 2008, when Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were sent letters advising +them that "this case is currently under investigation," the U.S. Attorney's Office had +already entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. +7. The government admits that, on about January 10, 2008, when Jane +Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were sent letters advising them that "this case +is currently under investigation," the U.S. Attorney's Office had +already signed a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, but +that, on that date, the non-prosecution agreement nonetheless +remained in a state of some flux and was subject to being set aside as +Epstein was challenging the propriety of the non-prosecution +agreement and seeking further review from the Department of +Justice. +8. In September 2007 when the U.S. Attorney's entered into the non-prosecution agreement +with Epstein, it did not inform FBI agents of the details of the disposition of the case ir +the way that it ordinarily informed them of dispositions of other cases. +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied +9. With regard to the non-prosecution agreement between Epstein and the Government: +(a) +Epstein insisted on, and the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed to, a provision in the +non-prosecution agreement that made the agreement secret; +(a) The government admits that, at Epstein's insistence, the USAO +Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 9(a). +(b) +1 particular, the agreement stated: "The parties anticipate that this agreement wi +ot be made part of any public record +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 54 of +(c) +(d) +By entering into such a confidentiality agreement, the U.S. Attorney's Office put +itself in a position that conferring with the crime victims (including Jane Doe #1 +and Jane Doe #2) about the non-prosecution agreement would violate certain +terms of the agreement; +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied +Even notifying the victims about the agreement would have violated the +confidentiality provision; and +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied +(e) +From September 24, 2007 through June 2008, the U.S Attorney's Office did not +notify Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 of the existence of the non-prosecution +agreement. +(e) The government admits that, during the period from September 24, 2007 +through June 2008, the USAO did not notify Jane Doe #2 of the existence of +non-prosecution agreement during the period from September 24, 2007 +through June 2008. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government +10. With regard to contact between the Government and the victims: +(a) +On about October 26, 2007, FBI agents met with Jane Doe #1; +only that meeting. +(b) +The agents explained that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges involving +another victim, he would be required to register as a sex offender, and he had +made certain concessions related to the payment of damages to the victims, +including Jane Doe #1; + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 55 of +(b) The government admits that, on or about October 26, 2007, FBI agents +explained to Jane Doe #1 that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges for +procuring minors to engage in prostitution; that Epstein would be required to +register as a sex offender; that Jane Doe #1 would be entitled to seek damages +from Epstein; and that, if she desired, Jane Doe #1 would be entitled to use the +services of an attorney at no expense to her in seeking those damages from +Epstein. The government denies that the FBI agents explained that the state +charges "involv[ed] another victim." +(C) +During this meeting, the agents did not explain that an agreement had already +been signed that precluded any prosecution of Epstein for federal crimes +committed against Jane Doe #1; +(c) The government denies that the FBI agents did not explain to Jane Doe #1 that +an agreement had already been signed; denies that the FBI agents did not explain to +Jane Doe #1 that the agreement resolved the investigation of the federal case +involving Jane Doe #1; and denies that the FBI agents did not explain to Jane Doe +#1 other terms of that agreement Except as otherwise admitted above, the +government denies Request No. 10(c). +(d) +The agents could not have revealed this part of the non-prosecution agreement +without violating the terms of the non-prosecution agreement; +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied +(e) +The agents themselves had not been informed of the existence of the provision in +the non-prosecution agreement barring Epstein's prosecution for various federal +crimes or sex offenses at that time; +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied +(f) +Because the non-prosecution agreement had already been reached with Epstein, +he agents made no attempt to secure Jane Doe #l's view on the proposer +esolution of the case: and +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied +(g) +The agents never explained that the non-prosecution agreement would ultimately +bring to an end the federal investigation in the case. +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 56 of +11. On about November 29, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent a draft of a crime victim +notification letter to Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The notification +letter would have explained: "I am writing to inform you that the federal investigation of +Jeffrey Epstein has been completed, and Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office have +reached an agreement containing the following terms ...." Because of concerns from +Epstein's attorneys, the U.S. Attorney's Office never sent the proposed victim +notification letter to the victims. +11. The government admits that, on or about November 28, 2007, A. +Villafaña of the USAO sent a draft of a crime victim notification letter to Jay +Lefkowitz, counsel for Jeffrey Epstein, and that the draft notification letter +stated, in part: "1 am writing to inform you that the federal investigation of +Jeffrey Epstein has been completed, and Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's +Office have reached an agreement containing the following terms...." Th +government further admits that, in part as a result of objections lodged bi +Epstein's lawyers, the USAO reevaluated its obligations to provide notifications +to victims, and, as a result of that reevaluation and other considerations and +developments, the USAO never sent victims the draft notification letter that was +sent to Jay Lefkowitz on or about November 28, 2007. Except as otherwise +admitted above, the government denies Request No. 11. +12. On July 3, 2008, when +J. +was working on a letter to the U.S. Attorney's +Office concerning the need to federally prosecute Epstein for sex offenses committed +against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, the U.S. Attorney's Office had already entered into +a binding non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. +12. The government admits that, prior to July 3, 2008, the USAO had already +entered a binding non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. The +on that letter on July 3, 2008. Except as atherwise admitted abover ted +government denies Request No. 12. +13. When Jeffrey Epstein pled guilty to state charges on June 30, 2008, +(a) +Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 had not been informed by the U.S. Attorney's +Office of the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 57 of +13. (a) The government admits that, when Epstein pled guilty to state charges on +June 30, 2008, Jane Doe #2 had not been informed by the USAO of the +existence of the non-prosecution agreement. The government further admits +that, although the USAO, through FBI agents, had notified Jane Doe #1 of the +existence of the non-prosecution agreement prior to Epstein's June 30, 2008 +guilty plea, no employee of the USAO had personally notified Jane Doe #1 at +that time of the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. Except as +otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 13(a). +(b) +The U.S. Attorney's Office had not conferred with either Jane Doe #1 or Jane Doe +#2 about the non-prosecution agreement; +(b) The government denies that, by the time of Epstein's June 30, 2008 guilty plea, +an attorney for the government working at the USAO had not already +conferred with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 about their opinions regarding +how the federal investigation and potential prosecution of Epstein should +proceed. The government admits that the USAO had not conferred with Jane +Doe #2 about the non-prosecution agreement prior to Epstein's June 30, 2008 +guilty plea. The government further admits that, although the USAO had +communicated with Jane Doe #1 about the non-prosecution agreement through +FBI agents prior to Epstein's June 30, 2008 guilty plea, no employee of the +USAO had personally conferred with Jane Doe #1 about the non-prosecution +agreement prior to Epstein's guilty plea. Except as otherwise admitted above, +the government denies Request No. 13(b). +(c) +Epstein's defense attorneys were aware that the U.S. Attorney's Office had not +conferred with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 about the agreement; and +Request No. 13(c). Except as otherwise admitted above and in the responses to + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 58 of +Epstein's defense attorneys had negotiated for a confidentiality provision in the +non-prosecution agreement that barred conferring with victims about the +agreement. +(d) The government admits that Epstein's attorneys negotiated with the USAO +for a provision in the non-prosecution agreement that ultimately provided as +follows: "The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any +public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act +request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, +it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure." Except as +otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 13(d). +14. When Epstein was pleading guilty to the state charges discussed in the non-prosecution +agreement, both the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein's defense attorneys were working +to keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement confidential. +14. The government admits that, when Epstein was pleading guilty to the state +charges discussed in the non-prosecution agreement, the USAO and Epstein's +defense attorneys sought to keep the document memorializing the nonprosecution agreement confidential, but denies that they sought at that time to +keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement confidential. Except as +15. Defense attorney Bruce E. Reinhart: +(a) +learned confidential, non-public information about the Epstein matter; +15. (a) The government admits that, while Bruce E. Reinhart was an Assistant U.S. +Attorney, he learned confidential, non-public information about the Epstein +matter. +(b) +discussed the Epstein matter with an attorney working on the case for the U.S. +Attorney's Office; and +b) The goner, men scisses the phie Brute inhart er an Aani as +ttorney working on the Epstein matter + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 59 of +(c) +was involved in decision-making with regard to the Epstein matter. +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied +16. The Government possesses information (including telephone logs and emails) reflecting +contacts between Bruce E. Reinhart and persons/entities affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein +(including Jeffrey Epstein, the Florida Science Foundation, Jack Goldberger, Harvard +Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, Roy Black, Ken Starr, Lily Ann +Reinhart left the employment of the U.S. Attorney's Office. +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted. +17. The Government possesses information (including telephone logs or emails) reflecting +contacts between Bruce E. Reinhart and persons working at or for the Department of +Justice or United States Attorney's Office that related to Jeffrey Epstein or the +investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and other potential co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein. +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted. +18. The government possesses, or has knowledge or information (including telephone logs or +photographs or emails) reflecting improper communication or influence made or +attempted with the Government, +, on Jeffrey Epstein's behalf by: +(a) +Guy +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied. +(b) LilyAnn +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied. +19. The government possesses, or has knowledge or information (including telephone logs, +photographs, emails or statements) of other credible sources) about a personal or +business relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and U.S. Attorneys and/or Assistant US +Attorneys. +19. To the extent that Request No. 19 is directed to the business or personal +relationships of the 93 U.S. Attorneys and over 5,400 Assistant U.S. Attorneys +serving across this country, or the countless individuals who have formerly +served as U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S. Attorneys throughout this nation, +the government objects to Request No. 19 as overly broad and burdensome and +not calculated to lead to or involve information relevant to the instant matter. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 60 of +The government denies possessing or having any knowledge or information +about a personal or business relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and either the +U.S. Attorney or any Assistant U.S. Attorney serving in the Southern District of +Florida. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. +19. +20. The government possesses, or has knowledge or information (including telephone logs, +photographs, emails or statements) of other credible sources) about a personal or +business relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Matthew Menchel. +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted. +21. The government possesses, or has knowledge or information (including telephone logs, +photographs, emails or statements) of other credible sources) about a personal or +business relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Alex Acosta. +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied +22. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and/or other Government +entities have collected information about: +(a) +Bruce Reinhart's possible involvement in the Epstein matter; +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted +(b) +Other government attorney's possible improper behavior in the Epstein matter; +and +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted +(c) +A conflict of interest regarding the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern +District of Florida handling issues relating to the Epstein matter. +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 61 of +23. The non-prosecution agreement signed by the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein +currently blocks the U.S. Attorney's Office from prosecuting sex offenses committed by +Epstein against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in the Southern District of Florida. +23. The government admits that the non-prosecution agreement signed by the +USAO and Jeffrey Epstein currently blocks the USAO from prosecuting sex +offenses committed by Epstein against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in the +Southern District of Florida from in or around 2001 through in or around +September 2007, provided that those offenses are set out on pages 1 and 2 of the +non-prosecution agreement, were the subject of the joint investigation by the +FBI and the USAO, or arose from the federal grand jury investigation. Except as +otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 23. +24. The Justice Department possesses information that Epstein, himself or through his +attorney's or acquaintances, has provided or offered to provide to the federal government +(or an individual within the Government, in his official or private capacity) valuable +24. Admitted; Jeffrey Epstein provided valuable consideration to the federal +government through the non-prosecution agreement he entered with the USAO. +UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied +26. The Government possesses evidence, not covered by grand jury secrecy rules, that +eveals that districts outside the Southern District of Florida share jurisdiction and venu +ith the Southern District of Florida over potential federal criminal charges based on th +alleged sexual acts committed by Epstein against Jane Doe #1 and/or Jane Doe #2. +26. The government objects to Request No. 26 because it seeks information +protected from disclosure by the law enforcement investigative privilege. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 62 of +DEFINITIONS +For the purpose of construing the foregoing discovery requests, the following terms are +defined: +The term "documents" means and includes, without limitation, all writings of any kind, +including the originals and all non-identical copies or drafts, whether different from the original +by reason of any notation made on such copy or draft or otherwise including, without limitation, +correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, statistics, letters, e-mails, electronic computer files, +telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports, studies, checks, statements, receipts, returns, summaries, +amphlets, books, prospectuses, interottice communications, ofters, notations of any sort o +onversation, telephone calls, meetings or other communications, bulletins, printed matte +computer print-outs, teletypes, facsimiles, invoices, work sheets and all drafts, alterations, +modifications, changes, and amendments of any of the foregoing, graphic or aural writs, records +or representations of any kind including, without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs, +microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings, motion pictures; and electronic, mechanical or +electric records or representations of any kind including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes and +disc recordings, and writings and printed material of every kind. +The term "correspondence" means any tangible object that conveys information or +memorializes information that was conveyed in tangible or oral form including, but not limited +to, writings, letters, memoranda, reports, notes, e-mails, telephone logs, telephone billing +information, telephone recordings, and interoffice communications. +The term "Epstein's victims" means any person that the Government identified as a +possible victim of a sex offense committed by Jeffrey Epstein, including Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe +#2, all victims identified in attachment to the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein, +and another person that the Government investigated as a possible victim of Epstein's sex +offenses. +The term "Government" means the federal government, including all employees of and +components of the United States Department of Justice (such as, the Office of the Attorney +General, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Divisions, the Office of +rofessional Responsibility, +The term "including" means containing within the request, but not limiting the request. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 63 of +The term "U.S. Attorney's Office" means the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern +District of Florida and includes all branch offices within the Southern District of Florida. +PRIVILEGE LOG +If you believe that any request for admission is subject to a privilege and if you intend to +assert that privilege, please provide a "privilege log" consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g), +including a description a document that is consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g)(3)(B). Your +privilege log should include a specific identification of the privilege being asserted and the basis +for the privilege. +DATED: December 1, 2011 +Respectfully Submitted, +S/ +JAFFE, WEISSING, +FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 3330. +Telephone (954) 524-2820 +Florida Ba No: S452 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +The foregoing document was served on December 1, 2011, on the following persons via US Mail +and electronic mail to: +Dexter A. Lee +A. +Villafaña + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 64 of +Assistant U.S. Attorneys +500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Fax: (561) 820-8777 +E-mail: dexter.lee @ usdoi gov +E-mail: +Attorneys for the Government \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c016b3bf93f75acc528a8464884393ab0a187c389bbc30e44cfb20b0f7a1e055.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c016b3bf93f75acc528a8464884393ab0a187c389bbc30e44cfb20b0f7a1e055.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..70c48e6d2b41ddf0379728f4fc27b406865364a2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c016b3bf93f75acc528a8464884393ab0a187c389bbc30e44cfb20b0f7a1e055.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -1803, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c016b3bf93f75acc528a8464884393ab0a187c389bbc30e44cfb20b0f7a1e055", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 81, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "d4291674d42750ca0b4eb36fc2781c061ee07efb278fc2a329e3a200b85506e4", + "output_sha256": "4c5fe7c5530ddff67ffec18cdc717c2b9103527bce4f76864ca26c01ed8e10bb", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c02b2498c926e707cff11c36e594967b3f594bc76cd260196d4a2d567e7a7e38.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c02b2498c926e707cff11c36e594967b3f594bc76cd260196d4a2d567e7a7e38.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e96a5c27c5078cf867d92407f43f113ed83eed3d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c02b2498c926e707cff11c36e594967b3f594bc76cd260196d4a2d567e7a7e38.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA +FOURTH DISTRICT, 110 SOUTH TAMARIND AVENUE, WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401 +March 06, 2023 +CASE NO.: 4D23-0536 +L.T. No.: +502019CA014681 +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of v. CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, Publisher of +Palm Beach County, Florida +THE PALM BEACH POST +Appellant / Petitioner(s) +Appellee / Respondent(s) +BY ORDER OF THE COURT: +This court notes that a motion tolling rendition is pending in the trial court. ORDERED +that the above-styled case is held in abeyance until the trial court disposes of the motion and +appellant files a copy of the order in this court. On that date, this case shall proceed, and the +briefing schedule shall run from that date. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(h)(2)(C). If the trial court +has not entered an order disposing of the motion within thirty (30) days from the date of this +order, appellant shall file a status report with this court as to the progress being made +towards disposition of the motion. +Served: +cc: Arthur +Douglas Wyler +Lauren R. Whetstone +Michael J. Grygiel +Nina D. Boyajian +Richard J. Scholz +Stephen A. Mendelsohn +Clerk Palm Beach Hon. Luis Delgado +Weisshlum +LONN WEISSBLUM, Clerk +Fourth District Court of Appeal +ATE +OF FLORIDA +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL +ABRUZZO, CLERK 03/06/2023 04:20:38 PM diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c02b2498c926e707cff11c36e594967b3f594bc76cd260196d4a2d567e7a7e38.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c02b2498c926e707cff11c36e594967b3f594bc76cd260196d4a2d567e7a7e38.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e092b40e8e4a1b68b39c2da6c54968d19e57ed15 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c02b2498c926e707cff11c36e594967b3f594bc76cd260196d4a2d567e7a7e38.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c02b2498c926e707cff11c36e594967b3f594bc76cd260196d4a2d567e7a7e38", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b07ede86ea5282b9a2f338e15fcf2a92d9eabe46ee5c712cbb2448e8cd6a2f46", + "output_sha256": "b8a95f48e099b26b21a0c93b45f9e70348bde81140a66782db4cd576ace120a6", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c03c95c50e5700db83a168c9c8df8f07f5cf3993b1766276d81154c302834a0a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c03c95c50e5700db83a168c9c8df8f07f5cf3993b1766276d81154c302834a0a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c0e3b521b3aaa26830610d43db18411ebd8473c4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c03c95c50e5700db83a168c9c8df8f07f5cf3993b1766276d81154c302834a0a.md @@ -0,0 +1,10156 @@ +B. +Acosta Exercised Poor Judgment When He Failed to Ensure That Victims +Identified in the Federal Investigation Were Informed of the State Plea +Hearing +Although Acosta (or the USAO) was not required by law or policy to notify victims of the +state's plea hearing, he also was not prohibited by law or policy from notifying the victims that +the federal investigation had been resolved through an agreement that included pleas to state +charges. As the contemporary records indicate, Acosta consistently expressed hesitancy to +interfere in the state's processes or to "dictate" actions to the State Attorney. His decision that the +USAO refrain from notifying victims about the state plea hearing and defer to the State Attorney's +judgment regarding whether and whom to notify was consistent with this view. However, OPR +found no evidence that Acosta's decision to defer victim notification "to the discretion of thé State +Attorney" was ever actually communicated to any state authorities or that Acosta recognized that +the state, absent significant coordination with federal authorities, was unlikely to contact all of the +victims identified in the state and federal investigations or that the state would inform the victims +that it did notify that the state plea hearing was part of an agreement that resolved the federal +investigation into their own cases. +Even taking into account Acosta's views on principles of federalism and his reluctance to +interfere in state processes, Acosta should have recognized the problems that would likely stem +from passing the task of notifying victims to the State Attomey's Office and made appropriate +efforts to ensure that those problems were minimized. Appropriate notification would have +included advising victims identified in the federal investigation that the USAO had declined to +bring charges and that the matter was being handled by the State Attorney, and, at a minimum, +provided the victims with Belohlavek's contact information. Acosta could have interacted with +the State Attomey, or instructed Villafaña or others to do so, to ensure the state intended to make +notifications in a way that reached the most possible victims and that it had the information +necessary to accomplish the task. Instead, Acosta deferred the responsibility for victim notification +entirely to the State Attorney's, discretion without providing that office with the names of +individuals the USAO believed were victims and, apparently, without even informing the state +prosecutors that he was deferring to them to make the notifications, if they chose to do so. +Epstein was required by the NPA to plead to only two state charges, and even assuming +that each charge was premised on a crime against a different victim, and the solicitation charge +involved three separate victims, there were thus only at most four victims of the charged state +offenses. Without at least inquiring into the state's intentions, Acosta had no way of determining +whether the state intended to notify more than those few victims. Moreover, the federal +investigation had resulted in the identification of several victims who had not been identified by +infonithe victim and to the extent that it will not interfere with the investigation." See 42 U.S.C. §S 10607(c)(1)(B) +and (c)(3)(A). +Through counsel, Acosta argued that OPR's criticism of him for "electing to 'defer' the notification +obligation to the state" was inappropriate and "a non sequitur" because "where no federal notification obligation +exists, it cannot be deferred." OPR's criticism, as explained further below, is not with the decision itself, but rather +with the fact that although Acosta inlended for the federal victims to be notified of the state plea hearing, and believed +that they should receive such notification, he nonetheless left responsibility for such notification to the state without +ensuring that it had the information needed to do so and without determining the state's intended course of action. +269 +CA/Aronberg-000737 +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:22:44 PM + + +the PBPD during its investigation into Epstein's conduct. Absent information from the USAO, +the state would not have been in a position to notify those additional victims of the state plea +proceeding, even if the State Attorney had decided to include other victims identified during the +state investigation. Furthermore, at the time he made his decision, Acosta had already been advised +by Villafaña that Belohlavek, in November 2007, had requested that the USAO notify victims, +presumably those identified during the federal investigation, about the state plea hearing. +Acosta told OPR that it had been his understanding at the time of Epstein's plea that the +victims would be made aware of the proceeding and would have an opportunity to speak Acosta +also told OPR that he expected the state would have "notified [the victims] that that was an allencompassing plea, that the state court sentence would also mean that the federal government was +not proceeding." There is no evidence, however, that he verified this understanding with Sloman +or Villafaña, let alone the State Attorney. OPR found no indication that Acosta ever +communicated, or directed Sloman or Villafaña to communicate, his decision to the State Attorney +or to provide the State Attorney's Office with a complete list of victims identified during the +federal investigation. OPR located a draft letter to the State Attorney's Office that Villafaña +prepared and forwarded to Acosta in December 2007, which did provide such information, but +OPR found no evidence that the letter was ever sent, and it was not among materials publicly +released from the State Attorney's Office.*2* OPR also found evidence that both Sloman and +Villafaña interacted with the State Attorney's Office in the months leading up to the June 30, 2008 +plea hearing, but there is no indication that they discussed victim notification issues with that +office, and Villafana's last minute request to PBPD Chief Reiter to notify victims indicates that +the USAO had not coordinated with the State Attorney's Office. Belohlavek told OPR that no one +from the USAO provided her with a list of victims or coordinated any notification of victims to +appear at the hearing. +Krischer and Belohlavek were thus evidently unaware that Acosta had decided to leave it +to them to decide whether to notify victims about the state proceeding. In the absence of some +discussion of which or how many victims the state intended to notify, what the state intended to +tell them about Epstein's plea, and whether the state intended to let the victims speak at the plea +hearing, Acosta had no way to ensure that his assumption about victim notification was accurate. +In other words, Acosta failed to plan for how all of the identified victims of Epstein's crimes, both +federal and state, "would be aware of what was happening in the state court and have an +opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing." +OPR did not find evidence that Acosta acted for the purpose of excluding victims from the +plea hearing, and Acosta's assumption that the state would handle victim notification appropriately +was not unsupported. State prosecutors are subject to victim notification requirements under the +Florida Constitution, and the state prosecution offices have victim witness personnel, resources, +and processes to help accomplish notification. However, Acosta was aware-through the +prosecufion memoranda, the draft indictment, and email communications from Villafaña— that the +USAO's investigation had expanded beyond those victims identified in the original PBPD +The text of the letter indicated that Epstein's attomeys asked the USAO not to inform victims of "any rights +they may have as victims of the charges filed by the State Allomey's Office" and that the USAO was providing the +State Allorney's Office with a list of the 33 identified federal victims "in case you are required to provide them with +any further notification regarding their rights under Florida law:" +270 +CA/Aronberg-000738 + + +investigation. Because the state indictment and information appeared to pertain to far fewer than +the total victims identified in either the state or the federal investigation, and no one at the USAO +was certain which victims were covered by the state charges, it should have been apparent to +Acosta that without advance planning between the USAO and the State Attorney's Office, there +was a substantial risk that most of the victims identified in the federal investigation would not +receive notice of the hearing. *2 Notification to the broadest possible number of identified victims +could only have been successful if there was appropriate communication between the USAO and +the state prosecutors, communication that had previously been lacking regarding other significant +issues relating to Epstein. Villafaña and Sloman's hastily arranged effort to enlist in the +notification process PBPD Chief Reiter, who likely played little role in complying with the state's +victim notification obligations in a typical case, was not an adequate substitute for careful planning +and coordination with the State Attorney's Office. 426 +Even if the State Attomev's Office had notified all of the identified victims of the upcoming +plea hearing, there was no guarantee that such notification would have/included information that +the state plea was resolving not just the state's investigation of Epstein, but the federal investigation +as well. The State Attorney was not obligated by state statutes to inform the victims of the status +of the federal investigation, and there was little reason to assume Krischer, or one of his staff, +would voluntarily do so, thereby putting the State Attorney's Office in the position of fielding +victim questions and concerns about the outcome. Furthermore, as both the USAO and the defense +had differing views as to who could lawfully participate in the state plea hearing, there is no +indication that Acosta, Sloman, or Villafaña took steps to confirm that, if victims appeared, they +could actually participate in the state court proceeding when they were not victims of the charged +crimes 427 +Through counsel, Acosta asserted to OPR that because Villafaña and Sloman both told +OPR that they believed that state officials would notify the victims, "OPR identified no reason +why Secretary Acosta should have distrusted his team on these points." Acosta's counsel further +425 +Krischer told OPR that the state's notification obligation extended to all victims identified in the state +investigation. Nonetheless, which victims/were encompassed in the state's investigation was unclear. The PBPD's +probable causc affidavit included crimes against only 5 victims, not the 19 identified in the state +investigation. According to state records made public, the state subpoenacd to the grand jury only 3 victims. After +Epstein's guilty plea, the state sent notification letters to only 2 victims. +Belohlavek told OPR that because of the +nature of the charges, she did not know whether "technically under the law" the girls were "victims" she was required +to notify of the plea hearing. +426 +The State Attorney's Office had its own procedures and employces who handled victim notification, and +Belohlavek told OPR that the Chief of the Police Department would not regularly play a role in the state victim +notification process. +427 +Although Villafaña's notes indicate that she rescarched Florida Statutes §$ 960.001 and 921.143 when she +drafted unsent Ictiers to victims in November and December 2007 inviting them to participate in the state plea hearing +pursuant to those statucs, the casclaw was not clear that all federal victims would have been allowed to participate in +the state plea hearing. In Lelkowitz's November 29, 2007 letter to Acosta, he argued that the statutes afforded a right +to speak at a defendant's sentencing or to submit a statement only to the victims of the crime for which the defendant +was being sentenced. In April 2008, a Florida District Court of Appcal ruled against a defendant who argued that +Florida Statute § 921.143(I) did not allow the testimony of the victim's relatives at the sentencing hearing. The court +ruled that § 921.143(I) "should not be read as limiting the testimony Rule 3.720(b) allows trial courts to consider at +sentencing hearings." +271 +CA/Aronberg-000739 + + +argued that Acosta should have been able to rely on his staff to accomplish the victim notification +task, and thus had no responsibility to personally confirm that Chief Reiter would notify the +victims of the hearing. *2 Acosta is correct that under usual circumstances, USAO management +played no role in the victim notification process; however, in this case, the issue of victim +notification had been elevated from a rote administrative task to a major area of dispute with the +defense. Acosta personally involved himself by resolving the notification dispute with defense +counsel in his December 19, 2007 letter. Villafaña provided Acosta with a draft letter to state +officials that would have opened a dialogue concerning the notification of all the victims identified +in the federal investigation. OPR found no evidence, however, that Acosta sent the letter or any +similar communication to the State Attorney's Office or that he provided Villafaña and Sloman +with instructions concerning victim notification other than those contained in his December 19, +2007 letter. Having inserted himself into the notification process, Acosta had a responsibility to +ensure that his expectation that the victims would be notified could be accomplished through the +state process. +Many victims only learned of Epstein's state court pleas when they later received a letter +from the USAO informing them that those pleas had resolved the federal investigation, and some +victims only learned of the state court pleas and sentencing from the news media. In the end, +although Villafaña and Sloman hastily attempted to ensure victim notification through Chief +Reiter, their effort was too little and too late to ensure that victims had the opportunity to attend +the plea hearing or were given sufficient information about its significance to their own cases. 429 +Although Acosta may have conferred with others about the decision to defer the responsibility for +notifying victims to the State Attorney, Acosta was responsible for choosing this course of action. +OPR concludes that under these unique circumstances, its criticisms are warranted because Acosta +personally decided to change the process initiated by his staff, and although he expected that the +federal victims would be notified, he did not take the necessary steps to ensure that they would be. +Acosta could have authorized disclosure of the plea hearing to victims, even if he did not believe +the CVRA required it, to ensure that the victims identified in the federal investigation were aware +of the state court proceeding. Because the state pleas ended the federal investigation into Epstein's +conduct, ensuring that the victims were notified of the state plea hearing would have been +consistent with the Department's overarching commitment to treat victims with fairess, dignity, +and sensitivity. Acosta's failure to prioritize notification and coordinate communication about the +428 +As noted, ift his comments on OPR's draft report, Acosta's counsel strongly objected to OPR's finding of +poor judgment with respect to victim notification, arguing that OPR "unwarrantedly applies a standard never before +expected of any US Attorney," and inappropriately criticizes Acosta for "not personally confirming that the State +Altorney had the information needed" to notify the victims and for "not personally confirming" that Chief Reiter had +actually notified the victims. For the reasons discussed, the issue is not whether Acosta "personally" took certain +specific steps but that he stopped his staff from implementing a notification plan they had devised, and instead, shifted +responsibility for notification to another entity while failing to consider how or even whether that entity would be able +to accomplish the notification that Acosta expected to happen. +429 +PR notes that Villafaña contacted Reiter soon afler the state plea hearing was scheduled, and the resulling +window of time for Reiter to make any notifications was short. Had the USAO coordinated with the State Attorne +al some point in time closer to Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter and decision, the USAO could have ensured that +the State Attorney had an appropriate notification process in place to act quickly when the hearing was scheduled and +that issues concerning the victims" appearance at the hearing were appropriately considered by state authorities. +Similarly, if the USAO believed that Reiter should make the notifications, it could have coordinated with Reiter in the +272 +CA/Aronberg-000740 + + +resolution of the case to ensure Epstein's victims were given an opportunity to attend the plea +hearing, and to possibly speak about the impact of Epstein's crimes, presented a glaring contrast +with Acosta's responsiveness to the demands of Epstein's attorneys, which included the unusual +courtesy of allowing them to preview and respond to the USAO's draft victim notifications. This +contrast added to the victims' perception that they had been treated unfairly; a view shared by the +public. +Nothing in the documentary record suggests that Acosta thought through the issue of +determining which victims would be notified by the state, or that he took any steps to ensure that +all of the known federal victims received information about the state plea hearing. Instead, as with +his decision to resolve the federal investigation through a state-based resolution, Acosta exercised +poor judgment when he made critical decisions affecting the federal investigation and the victims, +but also failed to consider the full consequences of those decisions or what was needed to +implement them. Acosta's failure to consider these issues before simply leaving the responsibility +for making notifications entirely to the State Attorney's discretion reflected poorly on the USAO +and the Department as a whole. It left victims in the dark about an important proceeding that +resolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO had communicated with +victims for months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that the Department intentionally +sought to silence the victims by keeping them uninformed about the NPA and the resulting state +proceeding. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were afforded an opportunity to attend a hearing +that was related to their own cases and thus failed to ensure that victims were treated with +forthrightness and dignity. +V. +VILLAFAÑA DID NOT COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IN HER +ORAL COMMUNICATIONS TO VICTIMS AND VICTIMS' ATTORNEYS, IN +WHICH SHE DESCRIBED THE CASE AS "UNDER INVESTIGATION" BUT DID +NOT DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THE NPA TO SOME VICTIMS +From September 24, 2007, when the NPA was signed, until after Epstein's June 30, 2008 +state court plea, the case agents, acting under Villafaña's direction, directly informed only three +victims that the government had signed an NPA and that, if Epstein complied with its terms, the +federal investigation would be closed. During this time period, Villafaña and the case agents +interacted with several victims and their attorneys, and Villafaña contacted victims' attorney +Edwards to encourage him to attend the state court plea hearing, but she did not inform +victims or Edwards of the NPA or the resolution of the federal investigation. +As described in Part One of this chapter, after the NPA was signed, the FBI case agent and +co-casé agent began notifying victims about the NPA. 43º After speaking to three victims, however, +the FBI case agent became concerned that informing the victims about the NPA and the monetary +damages provision would create potential impeachment material for the victims and the agent +should Epstein breach the NPA and the case proceed to indictment and trial. As the case agent +told OPR, "I would . +have to testify that I told every one of these girls that they could sue +Mr. Epstein for money, and I was not comfortable with that, I didn't think it was right." The case +Although +disputed that she was informed of the resolution of the federal case, the case agent's email to +Villafaña from this time period reflects that at least one victim understood that the federal case was resolved and that +she was unhappy with the resolution. +273 +CA/Aronberg-000741 + + +agent and Villafaña consulted with the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer about the +matter, and thereafter stopped notifying the victims about the NPA and their ability to pursue +monetary damages according to its terms. +Villafaña advised Sloman by email of her concerns regarding the potential impeachment +evidence, telling him, "One thing I am concerned about is that, if we [file charges] now, crossexamination will consist of- and the government told you that if Mr. Epstein is convicted, you are +entitled to a large amount of damages right?'' Explaining the decision in her later CVRA +declaration, Villafaña said that after Epstein's attorneys "complained that the victims were +receiving an incentive to overstate their involvement with Mr. Epstein in order to increase their +damages claims," she "concluded that informing additional victims could compromise the +witnesses' credibility at trial if Epstein reneged on the agreement." Acosta was aware of these +concerns as he referred to them in an August 2008 email, "[W]e also believed that contacting the +victims would compromise them as potential witnesses. Epstein argued very forcefully that they +were doing this for the money, and we did not want to discuss liability with them, which was [a] +key part of [the] agree[ment]." +The case agents interviewed victims in October and November 2007, but did not inform +them about the NPA. 431 On January 31, 2008, the FBI agents, Villafaña, and the CEOS Trial +Attorney interviewed three victims, including +and they interviewed at least one +more victim the next day. 432 +and two others had been contacted by the FBI in the fall of +2007 and may have been informed about the resolution of the federal investigation. +Villafaña told OPR that during the January 31, 2008 interviews, she did not specifically +tell the victims that "there was a signed non-prosecufion agreement that had these terms." She +stated that she would not use "terminology" such as "NPA" because "most people don't understand +what that means." Instead, with respect to the three victims who, according to Villafaña, had been +informed by the FBI about the resolution, she stated that "an agreement had been reached where +[Epstein] was going to be entering a guilty plea, but it doesn't look [like] he intends to actually +perform … [and] now it looks like this may have to be charged ... and may have to go to trial." +Villafaña recalled telling some victims that Epstein "was supposed to enter a plea in state court" +that would end the investigation, but she did not recall distinguishing between the "federal +investigation versus a state investigation." Villafaña told OPR she explained "the case was under +investigation," she and the agents "were preparing .. again" to file charges, and they hoped "that +charges would be brought." An email from Villafaña to Sloman and Acosta during this time period +reflects that she had such discussions with at least one victim interviewed on this date: "The +(shed gild ather not gry uper abey a the are pite spl she big read above in the paper ana, +lowever, did not recall telling all of the victims interviewed at this time of the state plea; rathe +he likely only told those who knew about the resolution from the FBI. In her own 2015 CVRA +case declaration, +stated that she "was not told about any [NPA] or any potential resolution of +FBI agents also interviewed victims in March and May of 2008, without prosecutors, and did not inform the +victims of the NPA. +Two additional victims were scheduled to be interviewed on February 1, 2008, but the evidence is unclear as +to whether the interviews occurred. +274 +CA/Aronberg-000742 + + +the federal investigation I was cooperating in. If I had been told of a[n NPA], I would have +objected." +further stated in her declaration that, "Based on what the FBI had been telling me, +I thought they were still investigating my case." +Neither the CEOS Trial Attorney nor the FBI case agent recalled the specifics of the victim +interviews. The FBI reports memorializing each interview primarily addressed the facts elicited +from the victim regarding Epstein's abuse and did not describe any discussion about the status of +the case or the victim's view about the prosecution of Epstein. *33 +When asked whether she was concerned that failing to tell victims about the NPA when +As Villafaña stated, "So to me, saying to a victim the case is now back under invéstigation is +perfectly accurate." +Villafaña was also aware that some victims were represented by counsel in connection with +civil lawsuits against Epstein, but did not proactively inform the victims' attorneys about the NPA. +In a 2017 affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation, victims' attomey Bradley | +alleged that +during telephone calls with Villafaña, he "asked very specific questions about what stage the +investigation was in," and Villafaña replied that she could not answer his questions because the +matter "was an on-going active investigation." Edwards stated that Villafaña gave him "the +impression that the Federal investigation was on-going, very expansive, and continuously growing, +both in the number of identified victims and complexity." +also stated, "A fair +characterization of each call was that 1 provided information and asked questions and Villafaña +listened and expressed that she was unable to say much or answer the questions I was asking." +In her written response to OPR, Villafaña stated that she "listened more than [she] spoke" +during her interactions with Edwards and that due to the "uncertainty of the situation" and the +possibility of a trial, she "did not feel comfortable sharing any information about the case." +Villafaña also told OPR that because of "all of these concerns and instructions that I had been +given by Alex [Acosta] and Jeff [Sloman] not to disclose things further and not to have any +involvement in victim notification," she felt "prohibited" from providing additional information +to +Sloman told OPR that although neither the NPA terms nor the CVRA prevented the USAO +going to be instant impeachment for the defense."434 Acosta told OPR that, because Epstein did +As noted above, the FBI agent's notes for one victim's interview reported that she wanted another victim to +be prosecuted. +434 +When asked why the USAO did not simply notify the victims of the change of plea hearing. Sloman +responded that he "was more focused on the restitution provisions. I didn't get the sense that the victims were overly +interested in showing up ... at the change of plea." +275 +CA/Aronberg-000743 + + +not plead guilty in October 2007 as the USAO expected, it was a "very open question" whether +the case would go to trial, and Acosta thought that "where there is no legal requirement [.] [t]here +has to be discretion to judge how much you can tell the victims and when." +Epstein's attorneys' conduct during the period between the signing of the NPA and +Epstein's entry of his state guilty pleas illustrated the risk that Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña all +identified. As Epstein's counsel deposed victims related to the state court criminal charges and +civil cases against Epstein, counsel suggested that the victims were motivated to testify against +Epstein by the government's promises of financial gain. For example, during a February 20, 2008 +state deposition of a victim, defense counsel asked her whether the federal prosecutors or FBI +agents told her that she was entitled to receive money from Epstein. *35 In her 2017 declaration in +the CVRA litigation, Villafaña identified that line of questioning as a motivating factor in the +government's decision to stop notifying the victims about the potential for 18 U.S.C. § 2255 +recovery. +On June 27, 2008, the Friday before Epstein's Monday, June 30, 2008 state court guilty +plea hearing, Villafaña contacted +to inform him about that upcoming hearing. Villafaña +told OPR she "was not given authorization to contact" any victim's attorney other than +about the scheduled state plea hearing. *36 In his 2017 affidavit prepared for the CVRA litigation, +stated that Villafaña "gave the impression that she was caught off-guard herself that +Epstein was pleading guilty or that this event was happening at all." +said in a 2016 court filing that Villafaria told him only that "Epstein was pleading +guilty to state solicitation of prostitution charges involving other victims-not Mr. Edward's +clients nor any of the federally-identified victims." Villafaña stated in her 2017 declaration that +she "never told Attorney +that the state charges involved 'other victims,' and neither the +state court charging instrument nor the factual proffer limited the procurement of prostitution +charge to a specific victim." Villafaña told OPR she "strongly encouraged [l +clients to attend" the plea hearing but "could not be more explicit" because she was not "authorized +by the Office to disclose the terms of, the NPA." In his 2017 affidavit, +acknowledged +that "Villafaña did express that this hearing was important, but never told me why she felt that +claimed that Villafaña's failure to inform him that the "guilty pleas in state court +would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement" +resulted in his clients not attending the hearing. +himself was out of town and not able to +As previously noted, the defense used Florida criminal procedure to depose potential federal victims to leam +information concerning the federal investigation even though those individuals were not involved in the state +prosecution. For example, in a March 2008 email, Villafaña informed her managers that she spoke to a victim who +had received a subpoena "issued in connection with the state criminal case, which, as you know, doesn't involve most +of the victims in our case (including the girl who was subpoenacd)." Villafaña further observed that because Epstein +is "going to plead to the solicitation of adults for prostitution charge [in state court), [the act of subpoenaing the victim] +seems to be a clear effort to find out about our case through the state case." +Villafaña's June 30, 2008 handwritten notes reflect that, at the time of Epslein's state court guilty plea, +Villafaña was aware of the identities of a least five other altomeys representing Epstein's victims. In her written +response to OPR, Villafaña staled, "I requested permission to make oral notifications tojthe victims regarding the +upcoming change of plea, but the Office decided that victim notification could only come from a state investigator, +and Jeff Sloman asked PBPD Chief Reiter to assist." On Saturday, June 28, 2008, Villafanalemailed Sloman to inform +him that PBPD Chief Reiter "is going to notify victims about the plea." Sloman replied, "Good." +276 +CA/Aronberg-000744 + + +attend the hearing. In his affidavit, +asserted, "[T]here was no possible way I could have +believed that this state plea could affect the federal investigation or the rights of my clients in that +federal investigation." +In the Eleventh Circuit panel stated that the government "seemingly" deferred to +Epstein's attorneys' requests not to notify the victims about the NPA, and that in sending the +January and May 2008 FBI letters, the government's efforts "seem to have graduated from passive +nondisclosure to (or at least close to) active misrepresentation."437 Although both the appellate +court and district court focused on the FBI's letters for which OPR concludes that neither Villafaña, +Sloman, nor Acosta was responsible, OPR considered the courts' analyses in evaluating whether +similar representations Villafaña made to the victims whom she interviewed on January 31 and +February 1, 2008, and to +were misleading +Therefore, OPR considered whether +Villafana's statements that the matter was "under investigation" and her failure to inform all of the +victims whom she interviewed or +L about the NPA violated FRPC 4-4. 1(a), 4-8.4(c), ог +4-8.4(d). +FRPC 4-4.1(a) prohibits an attorney from "knowingly mak[ing) a false statement of +material fact or law to a third person" during the representation of a client. The FRPC defines +"knowingly" as "denotling] actual knowledge of the fact in question" and states that such +knowledge may be "inferred from circumstances."438 The comment to FRPC 4-4.1 states that +"[m]isrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that +are the equivalent of affirmative false statements." The comment references FRPC 4-8.4 "[fJor +dishonest conduct that does not amount to a false statement." Like FRPC 4-4. 1(a), Rule 4-8.4(c) +requires evidence that the attorney knew the statement in question was false. Under FRPC +4-8.4(c), the intent requirement can be satisfied merely by showing that the conduct was +deliberate or knowing" and the "motiye underlying the lawyer's conduct is not determinative; +instead the issue is whether he or she purposefully acted "439 In Feinberg, the court concluded that +the prosecutor violated FRPC 4.4.1 and 4-8.4(c) and (d) by deliberately making untruthful +statements to a defense attorey, despite evidence that the prosecutor intended to help the +defendant by making the statements. * In this case, Villafaña was fully aware of the signed NPA +when she interviewed the victims on January 31 and February 1, 2008, and when she spoke to +on the telephone, but she did not inform them specifically of the signed NPA. The +question is whether this omission amounted to a knowing false statement or misrepresentation. +One difficulty is determining what Villafaña actually said during conversations that +participants were asked to recall many years later. With respect to three of the victims whom she +interviewed in January and February 2008, Villafaña contended that she discussed the agreement +with them, even if she did not specifically refer to it as the NPA or discuss all of its terms, and as +437 +Wild, 955 F.3d at 1199-1200. +438 +See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-Preamble: A Lawyer's Responsibilities, "Terninology." +439 +Florida Bar v. +284 So. 3d 393, 396 (Fla. 2019) (citing Florida Bar v. Berthiaume, 78 So. 3d 503, +510 n.2 (Fla. 2011); Florida Bar v. Riggs, 944 So. 2d 167, 171 (Fla. 2006); Florida Bar v +866 So. 2d 41,46 +(Fla. 2004)). +440 +Florida Bar v. Feinberg, 760 So. 2d 933, 937-38 (Fla. 2000). +277 +CA/Aronberg-000745 +ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2: 22:44 PM + + +previously noted, there is some contemporaneous evidence supporting her assertion. Villafaña's +mention of the agreement, even if not described in specific terms, would have been sufficient to +apprise those victims of the status of the federal investigation. +Nevertheless, Villafaña did not recall discussing the NPA specifically or in general terms +with other victims interviewed at that time, nor did she do so with +or any other victim's +attorney. OPR therefore considered whether the omission of information about the existence of +the NPA during these interactions to the level of professional misconduct in violation of FRPC +4-4.1 ог 4-8.4.441 +OPR evaluated Villafaña's conduct in light of the comment to FRPC 4-4.1: +A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a +client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an +opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if +the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that +the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by +partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the +equivalent of affirmative false statements. +The victims and their attorneys were certainly not "opposing parties]" to the USAO, but the +comment indicates that the rule recognizes that omissions made during discussions with third +parties, even of relevant facts, are not always treated as false statements. +Here, the evidence does not show that Villafaña knowingly made an affirmative false +statement to the victims or +or that her omissions were "the equivalent of affirmative false +statements" about material facts. First, Villafaña told OPR that she believed the investigation was +ongoing and her statement to that effect truthful, and as discussed earlier in this Chapter, the +evidence shows that Villafaña and the agents did continue to investigate the case until Epstein +entered his guilty plea in state court in June 2008. Villafaña's email correspondence with her +supervisors reflects her strong advocacy during that timeframe to declare Epstein in breach and to +charge him. The evidence similarly does not show that Villafaña knowingly made any affirmative +false statement to Edwards when she informed him of the state court plea, although she declined +to provide additional information in response to his questions. 442 +Second, in reaching its conclusion, OPR considered the full context in which Villafaña +interacted with the victims and +information will be disclosed to witnesses, including victims, for a variety of strategic reasons. I +nany cases, prosecutors must make difficult decisions about providing information to witnesses +An Florida Bar v. Joy, the court affirmed a referee's conclusion that Joy violated FRPCs 4-4.1(a) and 4-8.4(c) +"for making false statements by omission of material facts in his represerations [to counsel]." Florida Bar v. Joy, +679 So. 2d 1165, 1166-68 (Fla. 1996). See also Florida Bar re Webster, 647 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1994) (petition for +reinstatement denied due to "misrepresentation by omission"). +$12 +In Feinberg, 760 So. 2d at 938, the court found that an Assistant State Attorney lacked candor and violated +ethics rules when, afler meeting with a defendant outside his attorney's presence, the prosccutor falsely stated to the +defense attorney that he (the prosecutor) had not met with the defendant. +278 +CA/Aronberg-000746 + + +and they often cannot fully reveal either the facts or the status of an investigation, even with +victims. The 2005 Guidelines advise that in consulting with a victim, prosecutors may be limited +in their disclosures: "Because victims are not clients, may become adverse to the Government, +and may disclose whatever they have learned from consulting with prosecutors, such consultations +may be limited to gathering information from victims and conveying only nonsensitive data and +public information. "443 +Villafaña's concern about generating potential impeachment evidence by informing +victims of their potential to recover monetary damages from Epstein was not unreasonable. +Indeed, the case agents initially raised the impeachment issue, and after considering the problem, +Villafaña agreed with the agents' concerns. Villafaña raised those concerns with the USAO's +Professional Responsibility Officer in October 2007 after the agents brought the issue to her +attention, and she ultimately raised the issue with Sloman and Acosta as well, neither of whom +advised her that those concerns were improper or unsound. OPR also considered that although +Villafaña had sought to notify the victims in writing of the NPA soon after it was signed, her +supervisor, the U.S. Attorney, had decided otherwise. When authorized to inform +of the +scheduled change of plea hearing, she did so. Although she did not inform Edwards that the plea +was part of a global resolution that would end the federal investigation, the evidence does not show +that Villafaña acted for the purpose of deceiving +or preventing him from attending the +hearing. Had she sought to exclude him from the state proceedings, she could have elected not to +inform +at all, or she could have discouraged him from attending the state proceedings +Rather, as +confirmed, Villafaña told him the hearing was "important." Villafaña sought +to strike a difficult balance of securing Edwards's (and his clients') attendance at the state court +plea, while obeying her management's directive that informing victims of the resolution of the +federal investigation should not be done until completion of the state plea. +Therefore, after carefully considering all of the circumstances, OPR concludes that the +evidence does not establish that Villafaña violated her obligations under FRPC 4-4.1 or 4-8.4(c) +or (d). 44 Nonetheless, as discussed below, Villafaña's interactions with victims and victims' +attorneys without informing them, of the NPA and the potential conclusion of the federal +investigation contributed to the likelihood that the victims would feel that the government was +443 +2005 Guidelines, Art. IV, 1 B.2.c(1). As noted, some victims continued to express favorable views of Epstein +during interviews with the government and they, or their attorneys, could have provided information to Epstein about +the government's communications. For example, within a day of Villafaña contacting a victim's attorney about a +potential victim notification letter, Starr complained to Acosta that the government had recently inappropriately +provided "oral notification of the victim notification letter" to one girl's attorney, even though it was clear from the +girl's recorded FBI interview that she "did not in any manner view herself as a victim." +444 +The case most directly on point is +109 A.3d 1184, in which the Maryland Court of Appcals affirned +a violation of Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) based on a prosecutor's failure to notify the victim of the +resolution of a sex abuse case. However, as noted previously, in +, the criminal defendant had been arrested and +charged before entering a plea, and various specific statutes afforded victims the right io receive notices and an +opportunity to be heard concerning "a case originating by indictment or infonnation in a circuit court." In this case, +for the reasons previously discussed, Villafaña did not have a clear and unambiguous obligation to inform the victims +ог +279 +CA/Aronberg-000747 + + +intentionally concealing information from them and was part of a series of interactions with +victims that led to condemnation of the government's treatment of victims. 445 +Vl. +THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO TREAT VICTIMS FORTHRIGHTLY AND +WITH SENSITIVITY WHEN IT FAILED TO TIMELY PROVIDE VICTIMS +WITH IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESOLUTION OF THE +FEDERAL INVESTIGATION +Although OPR does not conclude that any of the subjects committed professional +misconduct, either by failing to consult with the victims before the NPA was signed or in +interactions afterwards, OPR's findings are not an endorsement of the government's course of +action. The government's interactions with victims confused and frustrated +ay of the victims, +particularly the two CVRA petitioners and the two victims who had unsuccessfully attempted to +join in the CVRA litigation. As a result, the victims' and the public's perception of the matter is +that the prosecutors worked with Epstein's attorneys to disenfranchise and silence the victims. It +is unfortunate, and appears fundamentally unfair to the victims, that Acosta and Sloman (after +Menchel and Lourie departed) took the unusual step of deciding to vet the USAO victim +notification letters with the defense after the NPA was signed, but failed to go beyond the +requirements of the CVRA or the 2005 Guidelines to consult with the victims before the NPA was +signed. This result is contrary to the Department's intent, as set forth in the 2005 Guidelines, that +Department employees work to "minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of crime +endure in its wake." When considering the entirety of the government's interactions with victims, +OPR concludes that victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by +the Department. +criticisms of the government's conduct were based on interactions that are similar +to and generally representative of the goyernment's interactions with other Epstein victims and +that demonstrate an overall lack of sensitivity to the victims by the government. +experienced +a series of confusing and inconsistent communications in her interactions with Villafaña and the +case agents. +received Villafaña's letter in June 2007 stating inaccurately that she was a +federal victim entitled to CVRA rights. She was interviewed by the FBI in August 2007 but was +not told that a potential outcome was a state plea. Shortly after the September 24, 2007 signing of +the NPA, the FBI contacted her to inform her of the resolution of the federal case. Nonetheless, +on January 10, 2008, the FBI sent her a victims' rights letter indicating thạt the case was under +investigation and that some of her CVRA rights may not apply until after the defendant was +charged. On January 31. 2008, Villafaña re-interviewed +_ along with a CEOS attorney and +the FBI agents, and fold +that the case was under investigation, but did not specifically mention +the NPA, although she may have mentioned a possible resolution. In mid-June 2008, when +Edwards contacted Villafaña on +behalf, Villafaña informed him that the case was under +investigation but did not mention the NPA. Just before Epstein's June 30, 2008 state court plea, +Sloman, concerned aboul the potential for conflict of interest +280 +CA/Aronberg-000748 + + +Villafaña informed 1 +about the state plea, but did not mention the NPA or the fact that the +state pleas would resolve the federal investigation. +then filed the CVRA petition and +learned about the NPA signed months earlier and that the federal investigation of Epstein had +concluded with Epstein's state guilty pleas. +only received access to the NPA when a judge +permitted it in August 2008 pursuant to a protective order. +After considering this series of +interactions, it is not surprising that +came away from the experience feeling confused and +believing she had been misled +OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that Villafaña, Acosta, Sloman, +Menchel, or Lourie opted not to consult with the victims in order to protect Epstein or shield the +NPA from public scrutiny. Although neither Sloman nor Acosta could recall a specific discussion +of CVRA obligations before the NPA was signed, both recalled knowing that victim consultation +was not required, and Menchel also told OPR that consultation was not required, at least not up to +the point when he left the USAO. The evidence is clear that Villafaña sought at various points to +consult with and to notify victims about the details of the NPA but was constrained before the +NPA was signed by managers who either made a decision to not consult victims or did not address +the issue after it was raised, and after the signing by her own concern about creating possible +impeachment evidence that would damage the victims' credibility at a possible trial. +Nonetheless, a more open and straightforward appfoach with the victims, both before and +after the signing of the NPA, would have been the better practice. Before the NPA was signed, +victims could have been asked for their views about the general terms the USAO was +contemplating offering, including that a plea to state charges was one of the options being +considered; asked for their views in general about a guilty plea, or, at a minimum, asked to share +their views of how the case should be resolved. Even if the USAO ultimately determined to +proceed with the NPA, the government would have had the benefit of the victims' thoughts and +concerns, particularly on the issue of punishment, and victims would have felt included in the +process. OPR found no evidence that the benefits of victim consultation were discussed or +considered before the NPA was signed +After the NPA was signed, no one from the government explained the agreement to the +majority of the victims until months later and only after the entry of Epstein's guilty plea. +Although the evidence supports Villafaña's assertion that she acted from a good faith belief that +Epstein might breach the NPA and a potential trial would be harmed if information about the NPA +was divulged to the victims and their counsel, she, Sloman, and Acosta failed to consider how the +desire to shield the victims from that potential impeachment might impact; the victims' sense of +the openness and fairness of the process. As +stated during the CVRA litigation, she believed +she had been "mistreated in the process." When deciding not to inform the victims of the NPA to +avoid creating impeachment evidence, Villafaña, Sloman, and Acosta do not appear to have +carefully considered possible alternatives to, or all of the ramifications of, that decision, nor did +they revisit the decision before Villafaña met the victims in person to discuss a potential trial or +spoke to +or other attorneys representing victims. 46 Furthermore, more attention needed +It is not at all clear whether a court would have permitted impeachment of the victims concerning one +provision in a pica agreement that otherwise could not be used as evidence. See Fed! R. Crim. P. 11(D) ("The +admissibility or inadmissibility of a plea, a plea discussion, and any related statement is governed by Federal Rule of +Evidence 410."). In any case, the victims could have been impeached regarding the possibility of their obtaining +monetary damages through citler a civil suit or through 18 U.S.C. $ 2255 (if Epstein were convicted after a trial, +281 +CA/Aronberg-000749 + + +to be paid to the FBI's communications to ensure that the victims were receiving accurate and +timely information that was consistent with the status of the case and with the USAO's +communications with victims. 447 +The decision not to inform victims and their attorneys about the existence of the NPA gave +victims and the public the misimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein's counsel +to keep the agreement secret from the victims. Moreover, the lack of openness about the NPA +gave the impression that the USAO lacked sensitivity for the victims in resolving the matter and +undercut public confidence in the legitimacy of the resulting plea agreement. The overall result of +the subjects' anomalous handling of this case left at least some of the victims feeling ignored and +frustrated, failed to promote their healing process, and resulted in extensive public criticism. +Although OPR credits Villafaña's statements that she wanted to go beyond her obligations in +dealing with victims, the end result nonetheless was that communications with victims were not +prioritized by the USAO. In part this was due to the fact that interactions with victims are generally +handled by staff in the USAO and the FBI who are trained and have expertise in dealing with +victims and other witnesses. However, decisions made by Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña also +contributed to the problems. The government, as it ultimately acknowledged in the CVRA +litigation, could have, and should have, engaged with the victims in a more transparent and unified +OPR recognizes that the Epstein investigation occurred soon after the passage of the +CVRA. In the years since, the Department's prosecutors and personnel have become more familiar +with its provisions. OPR encourages the Department as a whole to take the issues discussed above +into account when providing training and direction to its employees regarding victims' rights to +ensure that in the future, Department attorneys' actions promote victim inclusion whenever +possible.*4% For example, although the division of responsibility between the FBI and the USAO +for communicating with victims works efficiently and appropriately in the average case, the USAO +failed to consider that in a case involving a pre-charge disposition, the victims were receiving +inconsistent and confusing communications from the separate entities. In certain cases, such as the +Epstein case, prosecutors may need to provide more oversight when multiple Department +components are communicating with victims to avoid providing confusing and contradictory +messages. +447 +An addition to the FBI letters previously discussed, another example of the inconsistent communication can +be seen in letters that were to be sent afler Epstein entered his guilty plea to two victims residing in foreign countries. +state guilty plea. +445 +OPR understands that the Department is in the process of revising the 2011 Guidelines. +282 +CA/Aronberg-000750 + + +CONCLUSION +In November 2018, the Miami Herald published an extensive investigative report about +state and federal criminal investigations initiated more than 12 years earlier into allegations that +Jeffrey Epstein, a wealthy financier with residences in Florida, New York, and other United States +and foreign locations, had coerced girls into engaging in sexual activity with him at his Palm +Beach, Florida estate. The Miami Herald reported that in 2007, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern +District of Florida, R. Alexander Acosta, entered into an "extraordinary" deal with Epstein that +permitted Epstein to avoid federal prosecution and a potentially lengthy prison sentence by +pleading guilty in state court to "two prostitution charges," immunized from prosecutión Epf +co-conspirators, and concealed from Epstein's victims the terms of the NPA +Following the Miami Herald's report, and after receiving a Congressional request to +investigate, OPR initiated an investigation into the allegations that prosecutors in the USAO +improperly resolved the federal investigation into the criminal conduct of Jeffrey Epstein by +negotiating and executing the NPA. OPR subsequently included in its investigation allegations +stemming from judicial criticism of the government's conduct relating to federal prosecutors' and +law enforcement agents' interactions with Epstein's victims. In July 2008, a victim, later joined +by a second victim, filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida an emergency petition +or enforcement of her rights under the CVRA. In February 2019, the district court found that the +rovemment violated the CVRA by failing to advise victims about its intention to enter into thi +NPA. The court also found that letters the government sent to victims after the NPA was signed, +describing the investigation as ongoing, were misleading. +During the course of its investigation, OPR obtained and reviewed hundreds of thousands +of records from the USAO, the FBI, and other Department of Justice components. The records +included emails, letters, memoranda, and investigative materials. OPR also collected and reviewed +materials relating to the state investigation and prosecution of Epstein, including sealed pleadings, +grand jury transcripts, and grand jury audio recordings; examined extensive publicly available +information, including depositions, pleadings, orders, and other court records; and reviewed media +reports and interviews, articles, podcasts, and books relating to the Epstein case. OPR conducted +more than 60 interviews of witnesses, including the FBI case agents, their supervisors, and FBI +administrative personnel, cufrent and former USAO staff and attorneys; current and former +Department attorneys and senior managers; and the former State Attorney and Assistant State +Attorney in charge of the state investigation of Epstein. OPR also interviewed or received written +information from several victims and attorneys representing victims concerning victim contacts +with the USAO and federal law enforcement. +OPR identified the following five former USAO attorneys as subjects of its investigation +based on information indicating that each of them was involved in the decision to resolve the case +through the NPA or in the negotiations leading to the agreement: former U.S. Attorney +R. Alexander Acosta, and former AUSAs Jeffrey H. Sloman, Matthew I. Menchel, Andrew C +Lourie, and Ann +_C. Villafaña. Each subject submitted written responses detailing their +involvement in the federal investigation of Epstein, the drafting and execution of the NPA, and +decisions relating to victim notification and consultation. OPR conducted extensive interviews of +all five subjects. The subjects also submitted comments on OPR's draft report. +283 +CA/Aronberg-000751 + + +OPR evaluated the conduct of each subject based on his or her individual role in various +decisions and events and assessed that conduct pursuant to OPR's analytical framework. OPR +found that Acosta made the pivotal decision to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein through +a state-based plea and either developed or approved the terms of the initial offer to the defense that +set the beginning point for the subsequent negotiations that led to the NPA. Although Acosta did +not sign the NPA, he participated in its drafting and approved it, with knowledge of its terms. +Therefore, OPR considers Acosta to be responsible for the NPA and for the actions of the other +subjects who implemented his decisions. +Based on its extensive investigation, OPR concludes that the subjects did not commit +professional misconduct with respect to the development, negotiation, and approval of the NPA +Under OPR's framework, professional misconduct requires a finding that a subject attorney +intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard governing the conduct at +issue. OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard that required Acosta to indict Epstein on +federal charges or that prohibited his decision to defer prosecution to the state. Furthermore, none +of the individual terms of the NPA violated Department or other applicable standards. +As the U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the "plenary authority" under established federal law and +Department policy to resolve the case as he deemed necessary and appropriate, as long as his +decision was not motivated or influenced by improper factors. Acosta's decision to decline to +initiate a federal prosecution of Epstein was within the scope of his authority, and OPR did not +find evidence that his decision was based on corruption or other impermissible considerations, +such as Epstein's wealth, status, or associations! Evidence shows that Acosta resisted defense +efforts to have the matter returned to the state for whatever result state authorities deemed +appropriate, and he refused to eliminate the incarceration and sexual offender registration +requirements. OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta's "breakfast meeting" with one +of Epstein's defense counsel in October 2007 led to the NPA, which had been signed weeks earlier, +or to any other significant decision that benefited Epstein. The contemporaneous records show +that USAO managers' concerns about legal issues, witness credibility, and the impact of a trial on +the victims led them to prefer a pre-charge resolution and that Acosta's concerns about the proper +role of the federal government in prosecuting solicitation crimes resulted in his preference for a +state-based resolution, Accordingly, OPR does not find that Acosta engaged in professional +misconduct by resolving the federal investigation of Epstein in the way he did or that the other +subjects committed professional misconduct through their implementation of Acosta's decisions. +Nevertheless, OPR concludes that Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation +through the NPA constitutes poor judgment. Although this decision was within the scope of +Acosta's broad discretion and OPR does not find that it resulted from improper factors, the NPA +was a flawed mechanism for satisfying the federal interest that caused the government to open its +investigation of Epstein. In Acosta's view, the federal government's role in prosecuting Epstein +was limited by principles of federalism, under which the independent authority of the state should +be recognized, and the federal responsibility in this situation was to serve as a "backstop" to state +authorities by encouraging them to do more. However, Acosta failed to consider the difficulties +consideration required under the circumstances. +In sum, Acosta's application of federalism +284 +CA/Aronberg-000752 + + +principles was too expansive, his view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too +narrow, and his understanding of the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use +the NPA. Furthermore, because Acosta assumed a significant role in reviewing and drafting the +NA and the other three subjects who were supervisors left the USAO, were transitioning to other +jobs, or were absent at critical junctures, Acosta should have ensured more effective coordination +and communication during the negotiations and before approving the final NPA. The NPA was a +unique resolution, and one that required greater oversight and supervision than Acosta provided. +OPR further concludes that none of the subject attorneys committed professional +misconduct with respect to the government's interactions with victims. The subjects did not +intentionally or recklessly violate a clear and unambiguous duty under the CVRA by entering into +the NPA without consulting with victims, because the USAO resolved the Epstein investigation +without a federal criminal charge. Significantly, at the time the NPA was signed, the Department +did not interpret CVRA rights to attach unless and until federal charges had been filed, and the +federal courts had not established a clear and unambiguous standard applying the CVRA before +criminal charges were brought. In addition, OPR did not find evidence that the lack of consultation +was for the purpose of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the lack of consultation was part of a series +of government interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of +the government's treatment of the victims, reflected poorly on the Department as a whole, and is +contradictory to the Department's mission to minimize the fristration and confusion that victims +of a crime endure. +OPR determined that none of the subjects was responsible for communications sent to +certain victims after the NPA was signed that described the case as "under investigation" and that +failed to inform them of the NPA. The letters were sent by an FBI administrative employee who +FBI when communicating with victims, and were not drafted or reviewed by the subjects. +Moreover, the statement that the matter was "under investigation" was not false because the +frustration and confusion by failing to provide important information about the status of the +responsible for communicating with Epstein's victims and showed a lack of attention to and +oversight regarding communication with victims. +After the NPA was signed, Acosta elected to defer to the State Attorney the decision +whether to notify victims about the state's plea hearing pursuant to the state's own victim's rights +requiréments. Although Acosta's decision was within his authority and did not constitute +professional misconduct, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he failed to +make certain that the state intended to and would notify victims identified through the federal +investigation about the state plea hearing. His decision left victims uninformed about an important +proceeding that resolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO had +communicated with victims for months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that the +Department intentionally sought to silence the victims. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were +made aware of a court proceeding that was related to their own cases, and thus he failed to ensure +that victims were treated with forthrightness and dignity. +285 +CA/Aronberg-000753 + + +OPR concludes that the decision to postpone notifying victims about the terms of the NPA +after it was signed and the omission of information about the NPA during victim interviews and +conversations with victims' attorneys in 2008 do not constitute professional misconduct. +Contemporaneous records show that these actions were based on strategic concerns about creating +impeachment evidence that Epstein's victims had financial motives to make claims against him, +evidence that could be used against victims at a trial, and were not for the purpose of silencing +victims. Nonetheless, the failure to reevaluate the strategy prior to interviews of victims and +discussions with victims' attorneys occurring in 2008 led to interactions that contributed to +victims' feelings that the government was intentionally concealing information from them. +ter examinine the full scope and context of th +PR concludes thatthe overnment lack offransparenco and its inconsistent messages led +victims feeling confused and ill-treated by the government; gave victims and the public the +misimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein's counsel to keep the NPA secret +from the victims; and undercut public confidence in the legitimacy of the resulting agreement. The +overall result of the subjects' anomalous handling of this case understandably left many victims +feeling ignored and frustrated and resulted in extensive public criticism. +In sum, OPR concludes +that the victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by the +Department. +NOT A +286 +CA/Aronberg-000754 + + +METHODOLOGY +A. +Document Review +As referenced in the Executive Summary, OPR obtained and reviewed hundreds of +Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA). The categories of documents reviewed by OPR, and their +sources, are set forth below. +USAO Records +The USAO provided OPR with access to all of its records from its handling of the Epsteir +nvestigation and the CVRA litigation. The records included, but were not limited to, boxes of +material that Villafaña updated and maintained through the course of both actions, which contained +pleadings from the Epstein investigation, the CVRA litigation, and other related cases; extensive +compilations of internal and external correspondence, including letters and emails; evidence such +as telephone records, FBI reports, material received from the state investigation, and other +confidential investigative records; court transcripts; investigative transcripts; prosecution team +handwritten notes; research material; and draft and final case documents such as the NPA, +prosecution memoranda, and federal indictments. +The USAO also provided OPR with access to filings, productions, and privileged material +in the CVRA litigation; Outlook data collected to respond to production requests in that case; a set +of Epstein case documents maintained by Acosta and Sloman; computer files regarding the Epstein +case collected by Sloman; Villafaña's Outlook data; Acosta's hard drive; and the permanently +retained official U.S. Attorney records of Acosta held by the Federal Records Center. +2. +EOUSA Records +EOUSA provided OPR with Outlook data from all five subjects and six additional +witnesses. This information, dating back to 2005, included all inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, and +saved emails, and calendar entries that it maintained. EOUSA provided OPR with over 850,000 +Outlook records in total (not including email attachments or excluding duplicate records). OPR +identified key time periods and fully reviewed those records. OPR applied search terms to the +remainder of the records and reviewed any responsive documents. +After reviewing the emails, OPR identified a data gap in Acosta's email records: his inbox +with an unrelated employee who had a similar name. Once the data was properly associated. +EOUSA found and produced 11,248 Acosta emails from April 3, 2008, through the end of his +enure at the USAO. However, with respect to the remaining emails, EOUSA concluded that th +mails were not transferred from the USAO when, in 2008 and 2009, Outlook data for all U.s +287 +CA/Aronberg-000755 + + +Attorney's Offices was migrated to EOUSA's centralized system to be maintained. The USAO's +data was migrated between March and June 2008. +EOUSA and OPR separately confirmed with the USAO that it was unable to locate any +additional emails. OPR questioned Acosta, as well as numerous administrative staff, about the +email gap. Acosta and the witnesses denied having any knowledge of the problem, or that they or, +to their knowledge, anyone else made any efforts to intentionally delete the emails. In addition, at +OPR's request, EOUSA conducted an analysis of records migrated from four other U.S. Attorney's +Offices and found that each office provided data that also contained significant gaps in their U.S. +Attorney email records, although the time periods varied for each office. OPR found no evidence +indicating that the gap in Acosta's emails was caused by any intentional act or for the purpose of +concealing evidence relating to the Epstein investigation and concludes that it was most likely the +result of a technological error. +Although a gap in Acosta's email inbox from May 26, 2007, through April 2, 2008, +remained, OPR was nonetheless able to examine a significant number of Acosta's emails from this +time due to the extensive case files kept by the USAO; the availability of Acosta's sent email, +which did not contain a similar gap; and the availability of emails of other USAO subjects and +witnesses who were included on emails with Acosta. +3. +Federal Bureau of Investigation Records +OPR worked with the FBI's Palm Beach Office, including with two case agents and the +Victim Witness Specialist who worked on the Epstein matter, to obtain relevant FBI documents. +In addition, the FBI searched its Automated Case Support system and also provided documentation +concerning its victim notification system. +4. +Criminal Division Records +The Office of the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division provided OPR with +Outlook data for the four individuals from that Office who examined issues connected to the +USAO's Epstein investigation. The data included the individuals' inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, +and saved emails, and calendar entries. +CEOS also provided OPR with Outlook data for the four individuals from that office who +vorked on, or examined issues connected to, the USAO's Epstein investigation. The data include +he individuals inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, and saved emails. CEOS also conducted a check o +its shared hard drive and provided documents that were potentially relevant to OPR's investigation. +Office of the Deputy Attorney General Records +OPR obtained Outlook data for the three individuals from the Office of the Deputy +ttorney who examined issues connected to the USAO's Epstein investigation, including th +ormer Deputy Attomey General. The data included the individuals' inbox, outbox, sent, deleter +and saved emails, and calendar entries. +288 +CA/Aronberg-000756 + + +U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida Records +The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida provided OPR with records +related to its review of evidence against Epstein, after he concluded his Florida state sentence, +when the Department recused the USAO in August 2011 from "all matters, to include the +investigation and potential prosecution, relating to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual activities with +minor females," and assigned the matter to the Middle District of Florida U.S. Attorney's Office +for further consideration. The records included a declination of the matter due to the NPA. +U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia Records +The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia provided OPR with récords +related to its work on the CVRA litigation after the recusal of the USAO. +8. +Public Records +OPR obtained and reviewed a variety of public records, including publicly released records +of the Palm Beach Police Department, the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit, +and the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office; documents pertaining to the CVRA litigation and other court +proceedings involving Epstein and related individuals; and books and media reports. +B. +Information from Subjects, Witnesses, and Victims +1. +Subjects +OPR requested that all five subjects provide written responses detailing their involvement +in the federal investigation of Epstein, the drafting and execution of the NPA, and decisions +relating to victim notification and consultation. In addition, OPR conducted extensive interviews +of each subject under oath and before a court reporter. Each subject was represented by counsel +and had access to relevant contemporaneous documents before the subject's OPR interview. The +subjects reviewed and provided comments on their interview transcripts and on OPR's draft report. +2. +Witnesses +OPR conducted more than 60 interviews of witnesses, including the FBI case agents, their +supervisors, and FBI administrative personnel. OPR interviewed current and former USAO staft +Assistant State Attorney Lanna Behlolovick. +Communications with Victims and Victims' Attorneys +289 +CA/Aronberg-000757 + + +the victims to provide OPR with information regarding their contacts with, and notification +received from, the FBI and USAO, during the period before the NPA was signed or before +Epstein's state plea hearing, about the status of the federal investigation, about Epstein's state plea +or about the NPA. OPR received information from or pertaining to 13 victims. +290 +CA/Aronberg-000758 + + +ХНІВІТ ЦОРУ +State Indictment +NOT A CERTIF. +CA/Aronberg-000759 + + +CA/Aronberg-000760 + + +INDICTMENT. +ATAUEEN 06-9454GE +IN THE NAME OF AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA +GI +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL. +27 += +77 +CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA +For Palm Beach County, at the Spring Term thereof, in the year of our Lord Two. Thousand ard Six, to-wit: +The Grand Jurors of the State of Florida: inquiring in and for the body of said County of Palm Beach, upon their +oaths do present that JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN in the County of Palm Beach aforesaid, in the Circuit and State +aforesaid, +COUNT ONE +'FELÖNY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION +on or about or between the ist day of August in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Four and October 31, +;2005. did solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution lewdness, or assignation, contrary to +Florida: Statute 796.07(1) on three or more occasions. between August 01. 2004 and October 31, 2005; +contrary to Florida Statute 796:07(2)(1) and: (4)(c). (3 DEG FEL) (LEVEL. 1) +against the förm of the statute, to the evil example of all others, and against the peace and dignity of the State +of Florida: +/ hereby certily that hake holed the et diny veturning this indictment as authorized and required by law. +hereby certity-that the +! egoing is a true copy +18/She record in iy blice. +222008 20- +sullite +Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of the State +el Florida: prosecuting for the said +DEPUTY: CLERK +State +GRAND JURY FOREPERSON +19,2008 +Jeffrey E. Epstein, Race: +Sex: Male, DOB: +SS#: +Issue Warrant +CA/Aronberg-000761 + + +CA/Aronberg-000762 + + +EXHIBI 2 07* +September 6, 2007 +Draft Non-Prosecution +Agreement +NOT A +CA/Aronberg-000763 + + +CA/Aronberg-000764 + + +NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT +IT APPEARING that Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein") is reported to have +committed offenses against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around +October 2005, including +(1) +knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to commit +an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means of interstate +or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to +engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section +2422(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371; +(2) +(5) +knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel in +interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as +defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, in violation of Title 18, +United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States +Code, Section 2423(e); +using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowing!) +ersuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in violation ol +Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2; +traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexua +conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females; in violation of +Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and +knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, enticing, +IT APPEARING that Epstein has accepted responsibility for his behavior by his +Поує 1 оф 4 +CA/Aronberg-000765 + + +signature on this Agreement; and +IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background, that +the interest of the United States and Epstein's own interest and the interest of justice will be +served by the following procedure; +Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in +conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set out below. +Should Epstein violate any of the conditions of this Agreement, the United States +Attorney may at any time initiate prosecution against Epstein for any offense. In this case, the +United States Attorney will furnish Epstein with notice specifying the conditions of the +Agreement which he has violated +After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for +the offenses set out on page 1 of this Agreement will be instituted in this District, and the +charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed. +Neither this Agreement nor any other document filed with the United States Attorney as +part of this Agreement will be used against Epstein, except for impeachment purposes, in +connection with any prosecution for the above-described offenses. +Terms of the Agreement: +1. +Epstein shall plead guilty (not nolo contendere) to an Information filed by +the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm +Beach County, (hereinafter, the "State Attorney's Office") charging +violations of the following Florida Statutes: +(a) +lewd and lascivious battery on a child, in violation of Fl. Stat. +800.04(4); +solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Fl. +Stat. 796.03; and +engaging in sexual activity with minors at least sixteen years of +age, in violation of Fl. Stat. 794.05. +2. +Epstein and the State Attorney's Office shall make a joint, binding +ecommendation that Epstein serve at least two years in prison, withou +ny opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing; and withou +probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment. +Паує 2 оф 4 +CA/Aronberg-000766 + + +3. +Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State +Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and +sentence. +4. +Epstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal +investigation file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not +contest the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District +of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein will not +contest that the identified victims are persons who, while minors, were +victims of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections(s)) 2422 +and/or 2423. +5. +The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of the +identified victims, which will not exceed forty, after Epstein has signed +this agreement and entered his guilty plea. The United States shall make +a motion with the United States District Court for the Southern District of +Florida for the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the identified +victims and Epstein's counsel may contact the identified victims through +that counsel. +6 +Epstein shall enter his guilty plea and be sentenced not later than +September 28, 2007, and shall begin service of his sentence not later than +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is +material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach of +any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement and to +investigate and prosecute Epstein for any and all federal offenses. +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that +the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal +prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further is +aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court may +dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting a charge to +the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein hereby +requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such +prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to the +date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be deemed +to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such prosecution +on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules +of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to a +speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute of limitations for a +period of months equal to the period between the signing of this agreement and the breach of this +Поує 3 оф 4 +CA/Aronberg-000767 + + +agreement. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the Fifth Amendment +and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that all felonies must be charged +in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees and consents that, if a +prosecution against him is instituted, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed by the +United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury. +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and +explained to him. +Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this +non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. +Dated: +Jeffrey Epstein +Dated: +Roy Black, Esq. +Counsel to Jeffrey Epstein +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Dated: +NOT A +NOT A CERE +A. +Villafaña +Assistant United States Attorney +Поує 4 оф 4 +CA/Aronberg-000768 + + +EXHIBI 305) +September 24, 2007 +Non-Prosecution +Agréement +NOT A +CA/Aronberg-000769 +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, E + + +NOT A CERTIFIED CÓPY +CA/Aronberg-000770 +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, O + + +NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT +IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State +Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (hereinafter +the "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey +Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"); +IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Office has charged Epstein by indictment +with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07; +IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of +Investigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any +offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or +around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including: +(1) +knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to +commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means +of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice +minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States +Code, Section 2422(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section +371; +(2) +(3) +(4) +knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel +in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as +defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, in violation of Title 18, +United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States +Code, Section 2423(e); +using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly +pisation of tie 10 United saito de, Ses ions 242g aposition; in +traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual +conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females; in violation + +CA/Aronberg-000771 + + +of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and +(5) +knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, +enticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had +not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a +commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1); in violation of Title +18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and +IT APPEARING that Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal +liability and Epstein understands and acknowledges that, in exchange for the benefits +provided by this agreement, he agrees to comply with its terms, including undertaking certain +actions with the State Attorney's Office; +IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background by +both State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State +Attorney's Office, that the interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the +Defendant will be served by the following procedure; +THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for +the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be +deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the +following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below. +If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that, +during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this +Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the +expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely +notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the +United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of +the Agreement. + +CA/Aronberg-000772 + + +Terms of the Agreement: +Epstein shall plead guilty (not nolo contendere) to the Indictment as +2. +3. +Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a +thirty (30) month sentence to be divided as follows: +(a) +(b) +Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) +months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without +any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, anc +vithout probation or community control in lieu of +imprisonment; and +Epstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (12) months of +community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail +as described in Term 2(a), supra. +This agreement is contingent upon a Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit +accepting and executing the sentence agreed upon between the State +Attorney's Office and Epstein, the details of which are set forth in this +agreement. +Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State +Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and +sentence, except a sentence that exceeds what is set forth in paragraph +(2), supra. +Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all + +CA/Aronberg-000773 + + +8. +9. +proposed agreements with the State Attorney's Office prior to entering +into those agreements. +12533 +If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to +file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the +jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District +of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives +his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages +up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and +Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed +exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other +claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. +Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names +appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on +this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such +damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any +criminal or civil liability. +Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an +admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional +or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the +list provided by the United States. +•10. +11. +Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be + +CA/Aronberg-000774 + + +12. +sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no +Latection anuate i, soll repoting to begin serving his sentence not +Epstein agrees that he will not be afforded any benefits with respect to +Florida. At the United States' request, Epstein agrees to provide an +accounting of the gain time he earned during his period of +13. +The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any +public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information +Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of +the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that +disclosure. +Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the +State Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that +it is his obligation to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office and to use his +best efforts to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary +to satisfy the United States' interest. Epstein also understands that it is his obligation to use +his best efforts to convince the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein's binding +recommendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, and understands that the failure to +do so will be a breach of the agreement. +In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation +in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions +of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges +against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to +outstanding grand jury subpoenas shall be deemed withdrawn. + +CA/Aronberg-000775 + + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is +material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach +of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement +and to investigate and prosecute Epstein and any other individual or entity for any and all +federal offenses. +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that +the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal +prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further +is aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court +may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting +a charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein +hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such +prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to +the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be +deemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such +prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of +the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the +United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute +of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this +agreement and the breach of this agreement as to those offenses that were the subject of the +grand jury's investigation. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the +Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all +felonies must be charged in an indietment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees +and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted for any offense that was the +subject of the grand jury's investigation, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed +by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury as +to any such offense. +/// - + +CA/Aronberg-000776 + + +By signing this agreement, Epstéin asserts and certifies that the above has been read +and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this. Non- +Prosécution Agréement and agrees to comply with them +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Dated: +By: +A. MARIE VILLAFAÑA +ASSISTANT US. ATTORNEY +JEFFREY EPSTET +Dated: +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESO. +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Dated: +NOT A CER +LILLY +ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Page 7:of 7 +CA/Aronberg-000777 + + +Bysigning this agréement, Jipsicin asserts and certifies that itie above has been read +and explained to him. Epstein hereby stales that he understands the conditions of this Nontrosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Ducal 9/27/07 +By: +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY +Dated: +Dared: 9/24/07 +ERCOUl +RIVESQ +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Dated: +NOT A CER +LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ: +ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Page 7 of ? +CA/Aronberg-000778 + + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been reac +and explained to him. Epstein hereby stales that he understands the conditions of this Non- +Prosecution Agrecment and agrees to comply with them. +R. ALEX +I ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Dated: +By: +A: MARIE VILLAFAÑA +ASSISTANT US: ATTORNEY +Dated: +Dated:_ +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ: +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Dated 9-24-07 +Ep +LILLY ANN SANG +HEZ, ESQ. +ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN +NOT A +Page 7.of. 7 +: +CA/Aronberg-000779 +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, II + + +CA/Aronberg-000780 +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, M + + + +Addendum to the +Non-Prosecution Agreement +NOT A +CA/Aronberg-000781 + + +CA/Aronberg-000782 + + +ADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT +IT APPEARING that the parties seck to clarify certain provisions of page 4, paragraph 7 +of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (hereinafter "paragraph 7"), that agreement is modified as +follows: +7A. +The United States has the right to assign to an independent third-party the responsibility +for consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, selecting +the attorney representative for the individuals identified under the Agreement. If the +United States elects to assign this responsibility to an independent third-party, both the. +United States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney +representative suggested by the independent third-party prior to the final designation of +the attorney representative. +7B. +The parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-party +regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to +pay such attorney representative his or her regular customary hourly rate for represchting +such victims subject to the provisions of paragraph C, infra. +7C. +Pursuant to additional paragraph 7A, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney +representative selected by the independent third party. This provision, however, shall not +obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Thus, +if after consideration of potential settlements, an attorney representative elects to file a +contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. s 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested +remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the costs of the attorney +representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable +attorneys fees and costs such as those contained in s 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney +representative, shall cease. +: +: +: +CA/Aronberg-000783 + + +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts andicerones that the above has been read and +explained to him: Epstein hereby, states that he understands the clarifications to the Non: +Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply wịth them, +ER ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +jeffer Homan +TAL MARIE VILLAFANA +ASSISTANT US: ATTORNEY +Dated: 10/30/2 +can idealer +FAUSA +PSTEIN +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ: +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN: +NOT A ( +CERT +LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. +ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN +CA/Aronberg-000784 + + +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and +explained to him: Epsiein hereby states that he windersuands the clarifications to thei Noo- +"Prosccution Agreement and agrees to comply with them +*R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA. +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Dared: 10/30/07 +FAUSA: +da A MARIE VILLAFANA, +ASSISTANT US ATTORNEY: +Dated: (0 +ня +ESQ +COUNSEL TO JEFERBY EPSTEIN +NOT A +NOT A CER +LILLY, ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ: +ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN +CA/Aronberg-000785 + + +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and +explained to him Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non +Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them: +Dated: 10/30/07 +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Xit; +I A MARIE VILLAFANA +ASSISTANT US ATTORNEY +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ: +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTED +10:20 +-07. +NOT A CER +LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ +ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN. +CA/Aronberg-000786 + + + +NOT A CERTIF® +State Information +CA/Aronberg-000787 + + +CA/Aronberg-000788 + + +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA +CRIMINAL DIVISION "W" (LB) +08 CF9381 +ARISES FROM BOOKING NO.: + +STATE OF FLORIDA +VS. +JEFFREY E EPSTEIN, W/M, +INFORMATION FOR: +1) PROCURING PERSON UNDER 18 FOR PROSTITUION. +Pil +In the Name and by Authority of the State of Florida: +BARRY B. KRISCHER, State Attorney for the Fifeenth Judicial Circuit; Palm Beach Cooty, Florida, by and +through his undersigned Assistant State Attorney; charges that JEFFREY E EPSTEIN on or about or between. +the 1" day of August in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Four and October 9, 2005, did knowingly and +unlawfully procure for prostitution, or caused to be prostituted, +a person under the age of 18 years, +contrary to Florida Statute 796.03. (2 DEG FEL) +AN +FL. BAR NO. 0776726 +Assistant State Attorney +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +Appeared before me, LANNA BELOHLAVEK Assistant State Attorney for Palm Beach County, +Florida; personally known to me, who, being first duly swor, says. that the allegations: as set forth in the +foregoing information are based upon facts that have been swom to as true, and which, if true, would constitute +the offense therein charged, that this prosecution is instituted in good faith, and certifies that testimony under +oath has been received from the material witness or witnesses for the offense +aunty +Assistant State Attomey +Swornito and subscribed to before me thic Ce day of June, 2008. +Lanaris Dera +Damaris Pina +MYCOMARSSION e DOSeDIE DiPTES +LB/dp +Ceo nu 012X201 +ANUNCI +FCIC REFERENCE NUMBERS: +1) FELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUȚION 3699 +NOTARY PUBLIC, State of Florida +STATE OF FLORIDA - PALM BEACH COUNTY +hereby certily that the +foregoing is a true copy +record in my office +- 20. +SHARON R. BOCK +5 & COMPIROI +CA/Aronberg-000789 + + +CA/Aronberg-000790 + + +Appendix 4 +! +CA/Aronberg-000791 + + +Page 1 +IN THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 502008CA037319 XXXXMB AB +B.B. Maini, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +VIDEO. TAPED DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL RETTER +A WITNESS +TAKEN BY THE PLAINTIFF +DATE: November 23, 2009 +TIME: 10:12 a.m. - 7:38 p.m. +Page: 2 +5 +6 +7 +9 +10 +11. +12 +-13 +14 +15 +16 +•17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +2 +5 +is do at +10 +1 +2 +3. +5, +6 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +15 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24- +25 +I-N-D-E-X +Novemsher 23, 2009. +MICHAEL REITER +DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS +352 +By Mr. Kuvin +Hy-Mr. +By Mr. Critton +155 +190 +361 +EXHIBITS +Marked +Plainti's Exhibit No. I +16 +(Palm Beach PD Intelligeice Report 11/28/04) +Plainti's Exhibit No. 2 +(Incident Reports) +Plaini's Exhibit No.3 +(Letter to Harry Krischer) +Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 4 +(Photographs of El Brillo Way) +Plaintitt's Exhibit No. 5 +(Pooto of 358 El Brillo Way) +Defendants Exhabit No. 6 +(Subpeona Duces Tecum) +Plaimtill's Exhibit No. 7 +(Money Transfers) +Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 8 +(Flight Summary) +99 +131 +132 +2i8; +356 +357 +Centified Question: Page 160, Line 10 +Letter to John Randolph, Esq +Emata Sheeis (to be forwarded upon completion) +16 +19 +20 +21 +.22 +23 +24 +25 +Pleasanton, Greenhill, Meek and Associates +561-833-7811 +Page 3| +The deposition of MICHAEL REITER, a witness'in the +above-entitled and numbered cause was inken before, me, +Vanessa G. Archer. Court Reporter. Notary Public for. the +State of Florida at Large, at 2925 PGA Boulevard. Palm Beach +Gardens, Florida, on the 23id day of November, 2009, +pursunat to Notice in said cause for the laking of said +deposition on behalf of the Plaintiff. +APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF B.B.: +SPENCER T. KUVIN. ESQ. +LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. +2925:PGA Boulevard, Suite. 200 +Palın Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 +APPEARING ON REHALE OF PLAINTIFFS JANE DOES 2-8: +ADAM HOROWITZ, ESO. +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +18205. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF C.A. +JACK HILL,,ESQ +SEARÇY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART & SHIPLEY, PA. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF: +ISIDRO GARCIA. Esq. +GARCIA LAW FIRM, P.A. +The Harvey Building +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beoch, Florida 33401 +Page 4 +APPEARING ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, ESQ. +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP +JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQ +ATTENBURY. GOLDBERGER, RICHARDSON & WEISS, P.A. +250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 +Nest Palm Beach, Florida 3340 +APPEARING ON BEHALF OF WITNESS: +JOANNE +_ ESQ. +JOHN RANDOLPH. ESQ. +I JOHNSTON & STUBBS, P.A. +505.South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100 +Wesi Palm Beach. Florida 33401 +ALSO PRESENT: JEFFREY EPSTEIN +VIDEOGRAPHERS: MICHAEL D. DOWNEY +EDDIE GUERRERO +VISUAL EVIDENCE +1 (Pages 1 to 4) +CA/Aronberg-000792 + + +1 +4 +8 +9 +10 +1 +1 +12 +13 +14. +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +2,2 +23 +24 +25 +4 +n ic +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 53 +And at what point did you lear that +Mr. Epstein, in fact, did become aware of the +investigation? +A I think the point that I actually knew +that it was, it was reported to me by one of the +detectives that one of the victims had been +contacted by a private investigator that the +department believed was employed by a lawyer of -- +employed by Mr. Epstein, +Q On that topic, at some point did you +become aware that Mr, Epstein was actually +investigating you? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: Yes. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Tell me about that? +.A Well I heard through various individuals +that. one of his lawyers, Mr. Dershowitz, had been +contacting private investigators in the area to +perform background investigations on me. I.know +that there was a public records law demand filed by +several priväte investigators on the Town of Palm +Beach for my personnel records. And I actually ran +into one of the private investigators very carly +on -- you asked me when 1 first became aware -- +Page 54 +Q Yeah. +A +- that basically told me that. Ialso - +I mean I saw surveillance a humber of times. I +didn't know precisely who had hired thost persons, +but I mean I had surveillance for a fairly long +period of time. +Q There was surveillance you noticed on you? +A +- Yes: +Do you know why? +A +No, no, I don't. It would be an +assumption. In general sense, you know, there's an +attack on the case and if that doesn't work there's +an attack on the investigators. I don't know. I +don't know. Shouldn't say that. +MR. CRITTON: Form, move to strike. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q +You were working as a police officer for +twenty-eight years and then as a chief -- well -- +A And two years prior to that actually: +Q Right, During your entire history as a +police officer, can you ever recall someone going to +that length? In other words, a suspect conducting +an investigation on you such as the lengths that +occurred in this case which include surveillance on +you? +1 +2 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 55 +A No. +Q First time ever? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q First time you can recall it going to this +extent? +A The only time lever recall anyone ever +going to this extent. +Q +How long were you aware there was +surveillance on you personally? +A Well, you know, I just took the approach +that I have nothing to hide; and I just lived my +life so I tried not to look around every corner. I +felt like it was around three months. +At any time during the investigation, did +you become aware that investigafors were also +surveilling and investigating potential victims? +A. That had/been reported to us by victims. +And the lead investigator in the case also felt like +he was being surveilled, people were picking up his +trash and so on. +Q Is that Detective Recarey! +A. Yes. +Q So there was a time that your officers +became aware it was being investigated on? +Page 56 +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: One officer, one detective. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q To the extent they were picking up his +trash? +A Yes. +Q Were you aware of that ever occurring in +your career to officers working under you? +A I didn't say it never occurred to this +degree. +Q Got you. +A Ithink if you're asking the question do I +know of any other law enforcement officers who know +as part of their job somebody investigated them and +picked up their.trash, not that I can specifically +recall. +Q Okay. +A Other than the police department itself, +we've had private investigators take trash at the +police department itself, we've caught people doing +that: +Q Obviously at some point Mr. Epstein was +tipped off as to the investigation because of the +investigators that you became aware of: Did you +ultimately know how he became tipped off? +14 (Pages 53 to +56) +Pleasanton, Greenhill, Meek and Associates +561-833-7811 +CA/Aronberg-000793 + + +- N +3 +7 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +6 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24. +25 +Page 69 +Q How did you keep that information when you +were there? +A It was a letter that I received from the +V.S. Attorney: +Q Hang on, back up, you misunderstood my +question. I'm talking about the state, your +investigation. In other words, what did you match +the forty some odd victims in the U.S. Altorney's +leiter with in your'list? I'm looking for your +list. +A The incident reports. +Q Okay. How many incident reports did you +all generate? +A I don't recall if the latter victim, or +victims, generated à néw casc numberor if they'to +included in this, It scems like it probably +generated a new case number but I can't say for +sure. But Detective Recarcy would know. +Q Okay: All right. Would all of the +potential victims. that were being investigated by +your department prior to let's say July of 2006, +have been listed in this incident report we've +marked as Exhibit 2? Were there any additional. +incident reports? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +Page +70 +THE WITNESS: For the time period that +that covers -- +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Yeah. For the time period of January 27 +of '05 through the last page of this Exhibit 2.is +July 12 of 06. +A I think there was only one réport. +_ Q Okay. +A When you mention victims, and that's sort +of a subjective word, there were individuals that we +felt their activity had constituted a crime but they +were not cooperative. +Q +Right, +A You know, they're not victims but they're +in here and the numbers change if you want to add +all them in. +Q Okay. And what I'm just trying to find +is, is in this particular report we've:marked as +Exhibit 2, iț has, if I rocall, seventeen yictims +listed and it goes through the date of July of 06. +Do you know how many girls approached the department +later on, total: number? +A Definitely one and possibly more, I'mi not. +sure exactly. But once I realized that they had +been considered by the federal investigation, I knew +Page 71 +1 +2 +we had no further involvement. So it wasn't +something that I would be completely informed about. +Q Okay. At any point did someone, anyone, +4 +come to you and either formally or informally ask +5 +you to back off the investigation, stop the +6 +investigation, or alter your investigation in any +7 +way? +8 +A Thad individuals suggest that the +9 +department's approach to the investigation and my +10 +referral of the investigation to the FBI was moré +11 +horse power than the investigation. deserved. And I +12 +13 +had other individuals suggest that+- yeah, the term +14 +back off probably fits, yes. +Q Who? +15 +16 +A. I think that Barry Krischer would be +included in that description. +17 +Q Who else? +18 +A. I had people in the community in Palm +19 +Beach that either made comments directly to me or to +20 +others who relayed them to me that.I didn't need to +21 +take the tact in the investigation that we did, +22 +which is completely investigate it and then refer it +23 +to the FBI after the state case was resolved. +24 +25 +Q +Do you remember any of those people that +mentioned it either to you directly or through your +Page 72 +departinent? +2 +A Well it wouldn't be, 1 think, appropriate +for me to list individuals that I don't know +4 +5 +first-hand said that. I had many people relate +conversations of another on the cocktail party +circuit that suggested that we approach this in a, +7 +way that wasn't necessary. I had one individual who +8 +actually came to see me a couple of times about. +9 +this. +10 +11 +1 +2 +1 +3 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Who was that? +A. Jeiry GoldSmith. +• Okay. What did he say? +He said that this wasn't, necessary, this +was a case that really was very minor. The victims +had.lifestyles that don't make them -- shouldn't +make them believable to the police department. And +he said that I shouldn't have referred, it to the FBI +and Palm Beach solves its own problems, why did I do +that, why am I after Jeffrey Epstein. A couple of +occasions that was the general topic of the +discussion. +Q Did you know who Mr. Goldsmith was? +A Yes. I'know them all. +Q Lives on the island? +A As far as I know, yes. +18 (Pages 69 to 72) +Pleasanton, Greenhill, Meek and Associates +561-833-7811 +CA/Aronberg-000794 + + +6 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +2 +3 +6 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 93 +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: That's not my role as Police +Chic. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q How did you ultimately learn what was +going to happen with respect to the federal +investigation; who told you that for the first time? +A +Well it changed so many different times. +The final outcome when it had been agreed upon, +Assistant U.S. Attorney +shared with +me in a general sense that there was a +non-prosecution agreement and told me what +Mr. Epstein would plea to in state court, and just +in a very general sense. +Q What were your thoughts about what +occurred with respeci. to the federal investigation? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Inother words, did you respond to her and +tell her what you were thinking? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: 1 had been telling her what +my thoughts were about the investigation and +the prosccution all along. I don't think when. +she told me what was going to happen -- did I +Page +94 +make a comment about it? +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Yes. +A If that's what your question is, yes. AlL +along my concern was that he would be classified as +a sexual offender and all of the provisions that +travel along with that so there wouldn't be +opportunity, or be far less opportunity, for +ka Mink 1) +additional victims to take place: And I think 1. +shared with her some sense of relief that that was a +part of the plea. Beyond that, there really wasn't +a need to say anything else. +Did you discuss with her the fact that the +feds were not going to prosecute; in other words, +the federal government weren't going to prosecute +A You know, I guess I have to sori of pose +this question that this is part of the, I suppose, +the work product of the U.S. Attorney's Office. Is +this the kind of thing that 1 should be talking +about? I mean is this privileged from the federal +end for me to talk about the conversations T'had +with the United States Attorney? +MR. RANDOLPH: I think if you have any +discomfort at all in regard to whether it is, +1. +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 95 +that you should not answer that question. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q I certainly don't think once your +investigation is closed that there's any problem +with having: the discussion if it's a closed +investigation, which it is now. +Well let me ask that. Is your +investigation closed with respect to Mr. Epstein? +A I'm retired. So as far as I know when I +left it was a closed investigation, yes. +@ Okay. So when you left, the investigation +with respect to Mr. Epstein was closed? +A Yes. I don't know if the federal +investigation is closed. +Q Fair enough. +You didn't though learn of any new +investigation with respect to the Town of Palm +Beach's duties after you left, did you? +A. No. +Q So as far as you know, as you sit here +today, the Town of Palm Beach's investigation is +ovet as far as you know? +A +Yes. +MR. KUVIN: Then;at that point, once the +investigation's closed, I certainly don't see +Page 96 +that there's any privilege with respect to +those communications that he may have had on a +closed investigation. +MR. RANDOLPH: He's not stating a concern +in regard to the closed investigation of the +town, he's stating his concern in regard to a +federal investigation and stated he does not +know whether there's any ongoing investigation +'in that regard, I believe, and he has concerns +revealing that. +BY MR. KÜVIN: +Q Well with respeet:io your communications +with the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding your now +closed investigation, do you recall discussing with +them the non-prosecution agreement, let's just start +there? Gencrally, did you discuss that with them? +A Yes, I discussed that with them. And it's +different iterations as it went along. They shared. +some portion of the information. I still today bave +not seen the non-prosecution agreement but they +shared some of the provisions with me. +Q Okay. Based upon what was shared with +you, did you at any point discuss your +dissatisfaction with that agreement in any regard? +Yes. +24 (Pages 93 to 96) +Pleasanton, Greenhill, Meek and Associates +561-833-7811 +CA/Aronberg-000795 + + +Page 97 +Page 99 +1 +2 +6 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14. +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20: +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +25 +Q Why? +A Well Thad been told by the U.S. +Attorney's Office that typically these kinds of +cases with one victim would end up in a ten-ycar +sentence. And they told me early on that they had, +I guess in carlier iterations of agreement, tried to +get some sort of a fund set up which I understand +there are provisions for in federal law to +compensate the victims. And I think:, remember +asking that when they told me that the agreement had. +been signed, and I think it was changed a time or +two and they told me that that was not a part of it. +Because I always felt that this-case, +it was all about the victim, that's rcason to do +this. And I did:* I think they told me that this +fund had not been a part of the final version and I +told them that I was disappointed in that. Bụt they +didn't really give me the details of it, they gave +me an overall explanation and they said it was going +1 +any? +2 +A No. +3 +4 +Q At some point you sent a letter to State +Attorney Barry Krischer. Let me show you what well! +5 +mark as Exhibit 3. Let me give you a chance to just +6 +read through this letter again to help refresh your +8 +recollection. +A Ive read it: +9 +Q At this point, in May of 2006, I'm +10 +assuming based on what you told us before, that you +11 +had had some conversations with Barty Krischer +12 +13 +directly at this point by phone, correct, prior to +this letter? +14 +15 +A. I had conversations in person and by +16 +phone. +Q. Okay. But nonetheless in May, May 1, +17 +2006, you felt the need to write this letter; is +18 +that correct? +19 +A. Yes. +20 +Q Can you tell us why? +And l understand it's been' unscaled +21 +A. Well I felt the handling and just +but I haven't -- I haven't rçad.it. Along the way I +22 +continued to feel that the way the State Attorney's +gave general comment when they would inform me about +23 +Office handled this case was extremely unusual. I +parts of it. Because they asked formy input, I +24 +felt that Mr. Krischer's -- I knew that Mr. Krischer +would give them general comment about the parts of +25 +was making decisions about this case. I felt that +Page +98 +Page 100 +it that were important to me: And the part that was +important to me is the classification as a sexual +offender. +Q Ökay. Did.you, at any time, learn why +they entered into a non-prosecution agreement as +opposed to prosecuting the forty some odd cases? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Never gave you an explanation on that? +A No. +Q +You know the name Ken Starr? +A +Yes. +Q Did you learn that name with respect to +this investigation at all? +A From the nows media. And I think maybe +the U.S. Attorney's Office mentioned to me that he +ither represents or did represent.Mr. Epstein. +› Do you know what discussions were had witt +Ken Starr regarding the federal investigation at. +all; did you ever become aware of that? +A +No. +2 Do you know what influence Mr. Starr may +have exerted on the U.S. Attorney's Oflice and the +DC Office at all regarding his investigation, if +his öbjectivity was lacking, and I felt that the +2 +3 +4 +appropriate way after reading the statute that +governed the assignment of cases to other circuits, +I felt that his action met the standard. I used +some of the words from the statute in here. And I +6 +attempted to call him and he wouldn't return my +7 +phone calls: +8 +The detective attempted to contact -- +9 +his contact in the State Attorney's Office, Canna +10 +Belohlavek, however you pronounce that, I apologize +11 +if T.have it wrong, and she wouldn'treturn his +12 +calls. So [ wrote the letter in hope that he would +13 +think about his situation and realize that his +14 +objectivity was insufficient to prosecute the case: +15 +and ask the governor to appoint someone else. And I +16 +felt like that was necessary for a fair prosecution +17 +of our case that we submitted to him. +18 +1,9 +Q Could you tell us, explain to us, why you +felt that his objectivity may be lacking in regards +20 +to this prosecution? +21 +MR. CRITTON: Form. +22 BYMR KUVIN: +23 +Q. In other words, what evidence did you see +24 +here uncover that you felt made it potentially +25 +non-objective? +25 (Pages 97 to 100) +Pleasanton, Greenhill, Meek and Associates +561-833-7811 +CA/Aronberg-000796 + + +UNH +4 +5. +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14. +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 101 +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: Well, carly on I had - whên +I first told him about the case and I realized +that it was a serious case, there were multiple +victims, that the suspect was very well known, +I told him about it, And we were - it was in +person, I talked to him after a meeting that he +and I were both involved in. And I had known +him to be a victim advocate and to protect the +rights of children.. Well I know that he even +wrote a portion of the statute that addresses +those issues. And when I told him about it +originally he said let's go for it, this is an +adult male in his fifties who's had sexual +contact with children of the ages of the +victims. He said this is somebody who we have: +to stop. And whatever we need, he said, in the +State Attomey's Office, we have a unit that's +equipped to investigate and prosecute these +kinds of cases. 1 think he probably mentioned +Lanna's name to me and anything that you need +and, you know, this is basically case that +needs to be prosecuted. +And 1 didn't have too many facts carly on +when.I talked with him, but I'knew that there +Page 102 +were multiple victims and to our detectives +they were believable: So when time went on and +Mr. Epstein became aware of the investigation +and his lawyers contacted the State Attorney's +Office, they told me that. +And from that point on, and I believe it +was Mr. Dershowitz initially, the tone and +fenor ofthe discussions of this casc with +Mr. Krischer changed completely. One point he +suggested that we write him a notice to appear +which would be for a misdemeanor. He just +name Jeffrey Epstein, till when he had been +informed on Mr. Epstein's reputation and his +wealth, and I just thought that very unusual. +I feel like I'know him or knew him very +well, the State Attorney, and I just felt like +he could not objectively make decisions about +this case; that is why I wrote it. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Was there anything that you learned +through discussions with him that led you to believe +maybe his objectivity had been altered in some +regards; in other words, anything he told you +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +2 +3 +.4 +5 +6- +7 +8 +9. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 103 +directly? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: He told me that he had +conversations with Mr. Dershowitz, Iknow Roy +Black. At least thé news media reporter was +involved in this and I think that he said that +he had a conversation with him. I think Roy +Black had another case with that circuit around +the same time and maybe even other lawyers that +represented Mr. Epstein, and they were +obviously discussing the case. And he +basically told me that he looked at Facebook +pages of some of the victims and that he felt +like they were incredible +And I,have never felt like prosecutions; +evidence should be weighed outside of the +judicial process I just don't -- we wouldn't +cover our ears and eyes when a person under +investigation's lawyer would bring forward +exculpatory evidence, but on the other hand +we're not the weigher of fact in these things. +We reach the standard of probable cause and +beyond, and that's when a judge, or in this +particular case a State Attorney, should make +those decisions. +Page 104 +And he had been meeting with them without +the presence of our investigators. I don't +mean he personally but at least: - probably he +personally but definitely members of his +office, and he hadn't been sharing that +information with us. +He hadn't, you know -- he characterized it +with me but he didn't show us the things, at +least not exhaustively; that had been given to +him by Mr. Epstein's attorneys. I just felt +like that was wrong. Those are the reasons. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Have we exhausted the reasons why you felt +that this case, at least you put in your letter, +was the handling of this case was highly unusual? +Was there anything else that you felt was highly +unusual regarding the investigation? +A Well the Dahlia Weiss being involved in +this case with her husband as a lawyer for -- I'm +not saying that anything happened therc, but there's +certainly an appearance of impropriety. I felt. like +that alone should have been reason enough. First of +all for her to be disqualified as soon as she became +aware that a law firm that -- not disqualified but +removed from the case as soon as she became aware +26. (Pages 101 to 104) +Pleasanton, Greenhill, Meek and Associates +561-833-7811 +CA/Aronberg-000797 + + +1 +2 +6 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1. +2. +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +:12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 105 +that her husband's law firm had represented. Mr. +Epstein. And maybe even done damage to the point. +that because that happened it should be handled by +another circuit. +This was a case that I felt +absolutely needed the attention of the State +Attorney's Office, that needed to be prosecuted in +state court. It's not generally something that's +prosecuted in a federal court. And I knew that it +didn't really matter what the facts were in this +cașe, it was pretty clear to me that Mr. Krischer: +did not want to prosecute this case. +Q Did he, in fact, make that clear to you at +some point verbally? +A +Not in those exact words. But the +suggestion that multiple victims and some of the +crimes, felonies, that he should write a notice to +appear for a misdemeanor and the scheduling of a +grand jury on an issue like this is extremely rare. +The fact that he and I had an +excellent relationship. I was the speaker at his +swearing in ceremony. And that he wouldn't rettin +my phone calls, I mean it was clear to me by his +actions that he could not objectively look at this +CaSC. +Page 107 +record at 1:44. This is the beginning of tape +2 +BY MR. KUVIN: +4 +5 +6 +Q Okay. When we left off we were talking +about Barry Krischer's office. And before I move on +from that subject I just have one other question. +Are you aware of any contact that was +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +made with Mr. Krischer's oflice from anyone in the +democratic parly or the DNC at all? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: Relative to this case? +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Yes, relative to the Epstein case? +A No. +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Q +• Are all of the officers that were involved +in the investigation listed or contained within the +incident report that we've marked as Exhibit 2, and +were there any additional officers that were +involved that may not be listed in there? +A Typically and generally when you say +involved, I mean that could encompass all sons of +different people. It might be -I don't even know +that this, was the case but it might ask the patrol +officer in the arca to collect license tags from.a, +street or something like that. I mean if they +Page 106 +Page 108 +Q. Atsome point, did you feel, or did you +become aware, that maybe he had been.threatened.in +some regard, either regarding his job or personaliy +in any regard? +A. No. +MR CRITTON: Form. +BY MR. 'KUVIN: +Q You're aware that obviously his position +is an elected position? +A Tam aware. +Q Did you know whether or not he had had any +discussions with apyone about his political career +if this case did not go a certain way; did you ever +become aware of that in any regard? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: No. He had already publicly +announced he wasn't running for re-election. +MR. KUVIN: All right. This is actually a +good stopping point for a quick lunch if you +want to take a quick one, I just have to eat. +I'm hopefully not far from concluding. +THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're off the record at +12:35, This is the end of tape 2. +(Recess) +THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the +aren't writing a report and they aren't doing +2 +3 +4 +5 +something that's probably important later on.as a +witness, they might not appear in there: But the +detectives who conducted the investigation are +listed in there from what recall the last time I +read it, and it's been a while, but as far as 1 +7 +8 +9. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Q At any point, did you have to remove for +any reason anyone in your department from the +investigation for any reason? +A No: It took place over a fairly long +period of time so people were transferred and so on, +but I didn't personally remove someone for any +reason. +Q And it may not have been you personally, +but just to make sure that it encompasses all +potential iterations of that question, was anyone +removed for any reason other than just someone +transferring out? +A Do you mcan for -- I think you have to +explain that. +Q. Were any of the investigating police +officers removed for any potential conflicts, +refusal to follow direction, any reason, other than +just a transfer out of the department for some +27 (Pages 105 to 108) +Pleasanton, Greenhill, Meek and Associates +561-833-7811 +CA/Aronberg-000798 + + +Page 141 +1 +2 +6 +11 +12 +13 +14. +15. +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24. +25 +Q If we look at the bottom of page 67, +second paragraph down -- sorry, second paragraph +froin the bottom, excuse ine, it says here letter to +Mr. Dershowitz sent advised.hc was looking into the +allegation that one of the private investigators +used by the private attorneys of Epstein, attempted +to impersonate or state that they were police +officers from Palm Beach. Do you recall hearing +about that?' +A I didn'trecall, not till | read this. +Q Okay: Apparently there was a package sent +to both ASA Lanna Belohlavek and ASA Dahlia Weiss at - 12 +the State Attorney's Office. Do you see that? +A I'see that sentence, yes. +Q Did you see that package that was sent? +A +I don't remember that I did. I wouldn't +normally. +Q If we turn to page 73, top of the page it +has the name of a Dr. +Bard. Do you see that +in the first paragraph? +A +I.do. +Q Did you ever come to leam who Dr. +Bard was other than, what might be stated in here? +A Tread this at one time so I was informed +of it, but I had not recalled the name until I read. +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 143 +A No. +Q If you turn to page 79, it appears that on +the date of February 16, 2006, there's a meeting +that takes place between the investigator +Recarey and two women, +and.a +- Do you see that? +MR. CRITTON: Are we at 797 +MR. KUVIN: Yeah. +THE WITNESS: Yes. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Okay. Did you learn any additional +information regarding those two women other than +what might be in here, in the report? +A No, not personally. +go along with what you discussed +at the beginning with respect to not really +prosecuting what tochnically would be a criminal act +for prostitution in a home. But it appears from +this information here that these iwo girls were paid +for sexual contact with Mr. Epstein, at least +according to what Detective Recarey investigated. +Were there any additional +investigations ongoing regarding allegations of +prostitution at the home? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +Page 142 +1 +it again here. +2 +Q No additional information regarding +3 +Dr. Bard? +A No. +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11. +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Q And with respect to the next paragraph it +mentions a woman by the name of Johanna Sjoberg. +spelled S-J-O-B-E-R-Q, Do you see that? +A I see it, yes. +Q Do you recall anything in particular with +respect to +A +No. +Q If we turn to page 74 for a moment, there +are, at the bottom of the page, last paragraph, four +separate telephone numbers. listed for a Cingular +vireless, one of which is listed to a Janusz +-A-N-U-S-Z, Banasiak: Do you know who Janus +Banasiak is? +A No. Only from what it says here. +Q No additional information though? +A No. +Q +at the bottom of the +page, do you see that name? +A 'I see it. +Any additional information that you're +aware of regarding her? +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 144 +THE WITNESS: The only way I can answer +that question iș I don't consider +fifteen-year-olds, sixteen-year-olds who are +paid money to engage in sexual contact +prostitution, by the legal definition of the +law, for purposes of prosecuting them. 1. +really don't know what you're getting at beyond +that: I mcan that's -- 1 don't know how cisc +to answer that: +BY MR. KUVIN: +Maybe I phrased it wrong. +were apparently +over the age of eighteen. These were girls that +were over the age of majority that were apparently +paid for sexual contact with Mr. Epstein. +Were there any ongoing investigations +regarding solicitation for prostitution against +Mr. Epstein regarding girls over the age of +A No. These kinds of situations are not +prosccutable. The State Attomey's Office some +years carlier even suggested that we no longer do +sting operatións for prostitution because they +didn't want to prosecute them. This is a case where +you have willing participants after the fact and no +36 (Pages 141 to 144) +Pleasanton, Greenhill, Meek and Associates +561-833-7811 +CA/Aronberg-000799 + + +1 +3 +4 +5 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 145 +physical evidence. +No, the resources of the department +are not dedicated for these kind of semi-victimless +crimes in private residences unless it presents some +other problem. +Q Okay. If we turn to page 81, bottom of +the page dated April 10 of 2006. Second to last +paragraph.it references -- +MR. CRITTON: I'm sorry, Spencer, what +page? +MR. KUVIN: 81. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Additional subpoenas. from the State +Aitorney's Office requesting information from Dollar +Rent a Car and Jet Aviation. Do you see that? +A Yes. +Q Do you recall seeing any of the records +that: were produced in response to this subpoena to +Dollar Rent a Car or Jet Aviation? +A No. +Q Turn to page 84 if you would. Top of page +84 there's discussion -- and this goes back to the +initial note as begun on April 14, 2006 and actually +'begins on page 82 -- regarding grand jury subpocnas +and discussions with the State Attorney's Office. +Page 146 +If we go to page 84 though, it talks +about the quote, unquote, deal being offered to +Mr. Epstein. And if you look at paragraph one here; +in the middle of the paragraph it says however, 1 +expressed that was only my opinion and that the +final approval would come from the Chief of Police. +She explained to have Chief Reiter call Barty +Krischer about the deal. Do you see that? +A Ido. +Q Did Officer Recarey talk to you about the +deal? +A There were so many potential deals, deals +being the plea agreement, that had been suggested, I +don't know which one they're talking about here. +Bottom of page 83, if you read the last +paragraph it'll explain it, might help refresh your +recollection. +A +Well after reading this it refresbed my +recollection on one of the different proposed +agreements, which - +Q +Okay: +- I guess some of which they asked for +our input. And what this teflects is that in this +particular case with all of its unusual twists and +tums, I told Detective Recarcy that he should not: +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +2 +.3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +Page 147 +offer an opinion on behalf of the department of +whether we think any deal is appropriate, that I +would want to reserve that for myself. So that's +what happened here. +Q Okay. All right. +Do you recall having direct +conversation with Batty Krischer, about this +particular deal that's discussed here on pages 83 +and 84? +In other words, it looks here on page +83 to be a deal where the offer is one count of +aggravated assault with intent to commit a felony, +five years probation with adjudication withheld, +which was conveyed to Mr. Epstein's attorneys at the +time, Guy Fronstin and Mr. Dershowitz: +A I always told Barry Krischer when we had +conversations about how this would resolve itself +that my biggest concern, really my main concern was +that Mr. Epstein be classified as a sexual offender +to reduce the likelihood that this would continue in +the future. I never formed an opinion or +communicated it to him about how many years of this +or how many years of that, so on, other than to tell +him that Lfelt like a Notice to Appear was not the +appropriate way to resolve this. +Page 148 +Q Okay: All right. Bottom of page 84 +there's a documented call with Officer Recarey, +Detective Recarey: Says here on May 3rd, 2006 at +approximately 2:54 p.m., I, meaning Detective +Recarey, received a telephone call from ASA Dahlia +Weiss on my cellular telephone. ASA Weiss advised +she has'been taken off the Jeffrey Epstein case +because her husband is employed with Attorey Jack +Goldberger. Do you see that? +MR. CRITTON: Is there a date there, +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Spencer, of reference? +MR. KUVIN: Yes, May 3rd, 2006. +MR. CRITTON: Thank you. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Is that the first time that - or shortly +after that call that you became aware of the +relationship between ASA Weiss and Mr. Goldberger's +office? +A Like I said earlier, I became aware of the +relationship prior to learning of her being taken +off the case, so I would have known about the +relationship before this day. +Q It appears, and I don't want you to guess, +so all I want to know is whether your had a +37 (Pages 145 to 148) +Pleasanton, Greenhill, Meek and Associates +561-833-7811 +CA/Aronberg-000800 + + +2 +4 +5 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +8 +9 +:10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page +149 +conversation with Detective Recarey about this, +whether he said anything directly to you thai she +was removed as opposed to removing herself +voluntarily from the case? +MR. CRITTON: Form. You're asking him to +speculate: +MR. KUVIN: No, I'm not, I'm asking for +any conversation he had with Delective Recarey. +THE WITNESS: I don't remember. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Okay. Page 85, again going down to the +date of May 15, 2006, there's a reference to a +contracior by the name: of David Nor, N-O-R-R, and +apparenily be was surveilled for a short period of +timic. +A +• Let me find that. +Q Sure. Middle of the page. +A Okay. +Q Do you recall whether your department +oblained any records regarding the renovations, that +were going on at Mr. Epstein's home; blue prints, +construction diagrams, anything like that, documents +from the contractor? +A No. +Q No, you didn't, or no -- +Page 150 +A No, 1 don'trecall. It would have been +casily available to us from the building department. +Q +Right, building and zoning? +A l have no idea if we did. +Q Turn to page 86. Top of the page on May +22nd, 2006, 1 réceived several phone calls +throughout the day from Mr., and then it's blacked +out; who stated he had been followed aggressively by +à private investigator. Who was that? +A I don't know. +Q It appears if you go further down that the +vehicle that was following this person was traced by +Florida tag 135-XGA to a Mr. Zachary Bechard of +Candor Investigations, Do you see that? +A Yes. +Q Did you come to learn anything about that +particular investigative agency? Independent of +what might be in the report. +A No, not that I can recall. +Q Page 87, lasi page. Middle of the page +references Epstein's corporation attonicy, a +gentleman by the name of Darren Indyke, I-N-D-Y-K-E. +Do you see that? +A Not yet. Okay, yes. +Q Do you recall having any conversations: +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +2 +:4 +5 +7 +8 +9. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 151 +with Mr. Indyke? +A No. +Q: There appear to be a number of +corporations. El Zorro Ranch Corporation, New York +Strategy Group, Ghislaine, G-H-I-S-L-A-L-N-E, +Corporation, J. Epstein and Company and the +Financial Strategy Group. Do you see those? +A I do. +Q Do you recall anything, seeing any +documents, or infornation regarding those companies? +A: I've read this report before. And if it's +in the report'1 read it previously, but I don't have +anything independent of the report, not do I recall +any more than what you've shown me here. +Q I'm just looking to see whether or not you +saw any corporate printouts or corporate documents +or anything like that that might have been obtained +online or through other sources? +A. I did not get involved in this +investigation at that level. +Q Okay. Last entry here of July 12, 2006, +it says here Belchlavek - and spelled for the +benefitof the court reporter, we've used. it before, +but just for her sake it's B-E-L-O-H-L-A-V-E-K- +stated State Attorney Barry Krischer made the +Page 152 +determination to go to the Grand. Jury to hear the +case. +Did you, or do you recall discussing +directly with him why he was taking this to a Grand. +Jury as opposed to just charging Mr. Epstein, his +office doing it themselves? +A No. +Q +You agroc with me that that would be out +of the ordinary based on the charges that were +brought? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: My experience, yes. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Do you agree with me that you learned that: +it was Mr. Krischer that made that decision himself? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: That's my understanding. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Did,you.ever get any explanation from +anyone, not just him, but anyone, as to why they did +that? +MR: CRITTON: Form, +THE WITNESS: Sometime after the fact, the +Grand Jury, maybe even possibly long after the +fact, he told me that it was a political -not +38 (Pages 149 to 152) +Pleasanton, +Greenhill, Meek and Associates +561-833-7811 +CA/Aronberg-000801 + + +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +1 +.2 +13 +14. +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +6 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 153 +a political, but it was a noteworthy +investigation, a noteworthy prosecution. And +in these kind of controversial situations, an +independent body of the Grand Jury, it was +appropriate to have them exam him. He called +other grand juries for things, I can't say +similar, but a homicide that had racial. +overtones and so on, and he made reference to +that, that that was his choice to deal with +these kinds. of things. That could have been as +recent as, you know, within the last year and a +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Do you recall your department being +involved in any other high profile type of +investigations; for example, the investigation that +involved a radio personality that lives in Palm +Beach and the investigation of a potential boater +fraud as a result of another author or radio +personality on Palm Beach, or was this the only high +profile investigation you can recall working on in +your history in the city, or the towin? +A +Involved in the department and personally +"been involved in many high profile investigations. +Q Many being more than ten? I'm just trying +Page 154 +to get an idea - +A The standard rules don't really help me. +We used, to joke about how very small things in Palm +Beach would become noteworthy in the news media, +that they would be meaningless everywhere else +@ Right. +A If you mean national political interest, +at that level profile, yes, at least ten, probably +more than. ten. +Q +• In your experience in dealing with even +those high profile investigations, was this one +different? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: It wasn't different in the +amount of, you know, at the level of protile of +had ave been involved in that' before where it +gets international news media coverage and all +of the things that come with that. It was +different in the respect that probably what +should have remained a state case had to become +a federal case, which they ended it.and it all +ended in an agreed plea in the state case. It +was different for me in that Tasked the State +Altorney 1o remove himself from the case, you +know: It was different from many differeni +Page 155 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +perspectives but not necessarily the news media +coverage- +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Was it handled any differently than you +handled other high protile cases that you may have +handled in the past? +MR. CRITTON: Form: +BY MR.KUVIN: +Q From your perspective? +A. I don't think it was handled any +differently by the Palm Beach Police Department.than +from any of the other high profile cases. +@ Okay. I appreciate it. That's all the +questions I have at this point, I'm going to tum +it over to the other plaintiff attorneys who may +have a few for you. +MR. +lidon't have any. Thank you, +Sir. +THE WITNESS: You're welcome. +MR. GARCIA: I just have a couple here. +CROSS-EXAMINATION. +BY MR. GARCIA: +Q. Chief, my name is Sid +I represent +one of the plaintifis in the case. Ithink we met +• before in another case, another deposition years +Page 156 +ago. +2 +3 +Just want to ask you a few questions +beginning with the -- asking basically your opinion +as to why Mr. Krischer did not pursue theicase with. +5 +the diligence that. you thought he should have +6 +pursued it with? +7 +MR: CRITTON: Form. +8 +THE WITNESS: I'in not sure I understand +9 +the question. +10 +BY MR. +11 +Q In other words, you talked about that you +12 +13 +sent a letter to Mr. Krischer asking him to +disqualify his office from the case. Why do you. +14 +believe that he did not pursue the case with the +15 +zeal that you thought he should pursue it with? +16 +17 +MR, CRITTON: Form, +18 +BYMR. +19 +Q What is your opinion of why he didn't +20 +pursue it that way? +21 +MR. CRITTON: Form. +22 +THE WITNESS: That's not my role: +23 +24 +havent formed an opinion on that, I dont know +25 +39 (Pages 153 to 156) +Pleasanton, Greenhill, Meek and Associates +561-833-7811 +CA/Aronberg-000802 + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5. +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +2.3 +24 +25 +Page 157 +BY MR +Q Did you think that -- were you aware or +did you become aware at some point that Mr. Epstein +was a contributor to the democratic party? +A +Yes. +Q Are you aware that'Mr. Krischer has ties +io the democratic parly? +MR. GRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: Yes. +BY MR. +Q Did you suspect at any point in time that +there was a connection between Mr. Epstein's +political connections with the democratic party and +Mr. Krischer's relusal or neglect to prosecute in +this case with the zeal he should have pursued, it +with? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: I didn' allow myself to +explore that. +BY MR. +Q Did you have any discussions with Mr, +Krischer about that issue, whether or not +Mr. Epstein was receiving favorable treatment from +the State Attorney's Office because of Mr. Epstein's +political connections? +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 159 +criminal charges against Mr. 'Epstein, correct? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: Yes. +BYMR. +Q. This is not a situation where there was. +maybe a boyfriend/girlfriend situation, an age +difference and the victim was not cooperating in the +investigation; is that correct? +MR, CRITTON; Form. +THE WITNESS: That's correct: +BY.MR. +Q Did you challenge him on that issue? +A.. Yes. +O And what was his response? +A. He continued to reiterate that the case, +that it was his.ethical obligation. And he had told +me this before about other cases that we had +discussed, Palm Beach Police Department cases and +other cases, that.he has an ethical responsibility +to feel - to be reasonably certain that the case is +winnable before he prosecutes it. And he said that +because offall of those reasons and others involving +some of the reputation and Facebook pages and so on +of contain victims, that he couldn'i feel that he +could be successful in the prosecution. +Page 158 +Page 160 +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: Tasked him why he was +treating the case in the way that he did +BY MR. +Q And what was his response? +A His response was that the victims weren't +credible in his mind. I don't know - I don't mean +all the victims weren't crodible but some of the +victims weren't credible. He didn't believe that.- +sixteen and seventeen-year-old victims, he told me, +were -- he said it was the policy of the State +Attorney's Office not to charge molestation type +cases or even a sex type battery case when it was +consensual. His answer to that question was about +the merits of the case. +Q So he told you it was the policy of the +State Attorney's Office not to charge victims of +lewd and lascivious who were sixteen and seventeen +years old? +A +Well when it was a consensual - I know +it's kind of a misnomer because they can't Iegally +consent'to it, but he said when it was practically a +consensual situation it was their general policy not +to prosecute those kinds of cases, yes. +Q But these victims were willing to press +Q Did be show you any of the Facebook pages +2 +that he had considered? +A He did not. +4 +.5 +6 +7 +8 +Q You said when he presented this case to +The Grand Jury he gave you some explanatiop as to +why he presented it that way. Did your detectives +and investigators, were they subpoenaed to appear +before the Grand Jury? +A At least one: detectíve was. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Q You know who that was? +A Thave to ask my lawyer the question of +wheiher or not I can answer that because Grand Jury +material, I know, always remains sealed. I don't +'know if 1 do something: improper by identifying that +person alone without -- I don't know what they said, +I wasn't in the Grand Jury. +Q. I think the testimony would remain +privileged or confidential, but the Grand Jury did +return an indictment; is that correct? +A That's my understanding, yes. +Q So I'm not asking you to -- you don't have +access to the testimony I'm assuming? +A That's correct. +Q I'm just asking you for the identity of +the person who was subpocnaed to appear before the +40 (Pages 157 to 160) +Pleasanton, Greenhill, Meek and Associates +561-833-7811 +CA/Aronberg-000803 + + +Page 186 +IN THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 502008CA037319 XXXX.MB AB +B.B. Paintir, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Page 188 +LD CO +VOLUME II: +VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL REITER. +A WITNESS +TAKEN BY. THE PLAINTIEF +3 +6 +DATE: November 23, 2009 +TIME: 10:12 a.m. - 7:38 p.m. +9 +20 +21 +2 +2 +3 +24 +25 +Page 187 +I-N-D-E-X +November 23, 2009 +MICHAEL REITER +DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS +8 +352 +2 +By Mr. Kuvin +Hy-Mr. +By Mr. Critton +6 +155 +190. +361 +฿ +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +EXHIBITS +Marked +Plaintiff's Exhibit No. ! +(Palai. Beach PD Inélligeic, Ripon 11/28/04) +Plaintiff's Exhibit No:2 +(Incident Reports) +Plaintilt's Exhibit No. 1 +(Letter, to Barry Krischer) +PlaiatifT's Exhibit No. 4 +(Photographs of El Brillo Way) +Plaintill's Exhibit No. 5 +17 +(Photo of 358 El Brillo Way) +Defendant's Exhibil No. 6 +18 (Subpeonn Duces Tecum) +Plainti's Exhibit No. 7 +(Money Transfers) +PlaintifT's Exhibit No. 8 +(Flight Summary) +131 +132 +2i8 +356 +357 +Certified Question:: Page 160; Line 10 +10 +11. +12 +13 +14 +15 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24. +25 +Letter to John Randolph. Esq +Errata Sheets (to be forwarded upon completion) +19 +NFE +23 +24 +25 +Page 189 +The deposition of MICHAEL REITER, a witness in the +nbove-entilled and nümbered cause was taken before me. +Vanessa G. Archer, Court Reporter, Notury: Public for, the +Staie of. Florida at Large, at 2925 PGA Boulevard, Palm Beach +Gardens, Florida, on the 23nd day of November: 2009. +pursuant to Notice in said causer for the taking of said +deposition on behalf of the Plaintiff. +APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF B.B.:: +SPENCER T. KUVIN, ESQ. +LEOPOLD-KUVIN. PA: +2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410- +APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFES JANE DOES 2-8: +ADAM HOROWITZ, ESQ: +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +8205: Bisçayne Boulevard, Suite 221 +liami, Florida 3316 +APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF: CA. +JACK HILL, ESO. +SEARCY. DENNEY, SCAROLA. BARNHART & SHIPLEY. P.A +The Harvey Building +Wet Palm each, Finia 33401 +1 (Pages 186 to 189) +Pleasanton, Greenhill, Meek and Associates: +561-833-7811 +CA/Aronberg-000804 + + +2 +3. +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +'18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24: +25 +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13. +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 298 +Q You're talking about a'little over a year,. +a dozen or so communications between at least calls +to or from Ms. Villafana to you? +A Right. +What are we talking about? +A. Do you want me to guess about the number? +Q. +No, I asked for your best estimate and you. +'said approximately a dozen calls. +A. The best estimate is a guess in this case. +Q So what did you do, did you call up and +say what's going on with regard to the Epstein. +matter? +A. +Sometimes when we hadn't heard from them +for months or when.Detective Recarey would call the +FBI and the FBI would say I'm.not - +Q +I'm sorry, he has to change the tape. +THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're off the record at +5:50. This is the end of tape 5. +(Off the record) +THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back, on the +record at 5:58. This is the beginning of tape +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q Mr. Reiter, has there ever been an +occasion, another occasion, when you've been the +Page 299. +Chief, when you were Chief of Police, where you went +to the FBI and/or the FBI called you about pursuing +a prosecution because you felt what the state had +done was not adequate or not acceptable to you? +A No. +Q. This was the first and only occasion, +correct? +A +Well that was kind of a complicated set of +situation, circumstances. But what you described, +this is the first time that I was not -- didn't +think that justice was sufficiently served and that +the FBI contacted me to initiate an investigation. +That unusual thing, yes, that's true. +Q And in fact you were in large part relying +on the report that had been done in thẹ +investigation that had been done by the Palm Beach +Police Department? +A Yes +Q. Had there ever been an occasion where -- +let me strike that. +At any time, did you tell the FBI, not +to discuss the case with the State Attorney's +Office? +A No. +Q Did you tell the FBI when you first met +1 +2 +3 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 300 +with them that, you were disappointed with the manner +in which the State Attorney had prosecuted or had +handled the Epstein matter? +MR. +: Objection, asked and answered. +MR. KUVIN: Twice, join. +THE WITNESS: Yeah. I don't know that T +used that exact word. I didn't feel as though +justice had been sufficiently served. +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q Had there ever been another instance where +the State Attorney had either filed charges, had +gone to a Grand Jury, as they did in the Epstein +case, and then you subsequently contacted either the +'FBI or the U.S. Attorey's Office and/or they +contacted you? +A. I'll try to stay with you better this +time. Could you- +Q In this particular instance Mr. Krischer +took the Epstein charges, or the allegations, to a +Grand Jury, the Grand Jury came back with an +indictment and he subsequently was arrested. You +subsequently had contact with the FBI and the FBI +and the USAO did their own independent +investigation, correct? +A +Yes. +Page 301 +Q Had you ever had another circumstance like +that during the time that you had been the Chief or +the Assistant Chief, or a police officer for the Town +of Palm Beach; that is, where the State Attorney had +filed either charges that you didn't agree with or +had taken it to a Grand Jury, Grand Jury had come +back and bad returned. an indictment and then you +'went to the FBI or the FBI contacted you, or was +this the first and only occasion? +A This was the first.occasion in which I, +ever bad a casc go to a State Grand Jury that wasn't +a bomicide. There have been other instances that +the case bogged down in the state prosecution and it +was clear that the most appropriate place to be +would be a federal prosecution. And the case was +eventually investigated by the FBI or the DEA or the +Secret Service or somebody being prosecuted by the +US Attomey. +Q In that particular situation though, did +the state work,- the State Attorney's Office work +with the FBI or the U.S. AO's office to bring the +federal charges because it got bogged down in the +state investigation and/or process? +A Yes, typically that's how it would go. +Q So the state was then actively involved +29 (Pages 298 to 301) +Pleasanton, Greenhill, Meek and Associates +561-833-7811 +CA/Aronberg-000805 + + +Appendix 5 +CA/Aronberg-000806 + + +10 1835 +TOWN OF PALM BEACH +POLICE DEPARTMENT +A NATIONAL AND STATE ACCREDITED LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY +May 1, 2006 +ORION +POLICE! +PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL +Mr. Barry E. Krischer, State Attorney +Office of the State Attorney +Fifteenth. Judicial Circuit +401 North Dixie Highway +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Dear Mr. Krischer, +Please find enclosed the probable cause affidavits and case filing packages thus far +resulting from the Palm Beach Police Department's investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah +and +. The submission of these documents are both in response to +Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek's request for them and to serve as the Palm +Beach Police Department's presentation for prosecution. +I know that you agree that it is our shared responsibility to seek justice and to serve the +public interest by discharging our duties with fairness and accountability. I must renew my +prior observation to you that i continue to find your office's treatment of these cases highly +unusual. It is regrettable that Jam forced to communicate in this manner but my most +recent telephone calls to you and those of the lead detective to your assigned attomeys +have been unanswered and messages remain unreturned. +After giving this much thought and consideration, I must urge you to examine the unusual +course that your office's handling of this matter has taken and consider if good and +sufficient reason exists to require your disqualification from the prosecution of these +cases. +Sincerely, +Michail'S Reites +Michael S. Reiter +Chief of Police +MSR:nt +* Pal, uny Real a Palin Beach, Firia 3480 age 50 520 450) - Fa (SA 1S ice cord enbeach: 0-20m +- +CA/Aronberg-000807 + + +OBTS Number +Agency Of umber: +no 510, 0 1 1610.0 +Enace Pay +O.2; Trame Folony +Location of Anest (including Name of Business) +ARREST / NOTICE TO APPEAR +Juvenile Referral Report : +Agency Name: +PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT +Ordinance +Traffic Misdemeanor: +i Arosi +3 Request lor Wariant ++ 2. N T.A +• Raquest lar Capia +Agency, Rapen Number iN TA s only): + +E Weapon Seized: +Enger Type +socason al Orgases Iusiness Na +Dale of Area: +Name (Las, Rest, Mokie) +Time ol Anast +Booking Dale +Booking Time +Jail Dale +Jar Time +Location at venice +EPSTEIN +JEFFREY +Wrie +amencas Indany: W +01205 +Scars, Marks, Tallops, Unique Physical Features (Location, Type, Deserpion) +Ez-le INA? +a0 2552-4117 +Phone +HAN MASON AVE +1 Number, Stat +4300411133 05V1 +Co-Defencan: Name (Last Frai, Migoe) +Co Defendan; Name (Last. Visi; Mode - +my route +INS Number. +Prote +Rage: Str +Face +Ser +_Dale of Bath: +Dạe of Bah +- Name (Lasi +(Modie) +(Aders (Siren, Aal. Number) +(Cay!. +(Suaiel +-(Zip) +•TOT JAC +- Dale. +School Anended +D'Yes, bre(Namo) +Propeity Crime? +• Yos +• No +Descripion of Property. +Mate of Propesty +asses +Descripi- +Disinbute +M. Marlene! 2. 0ing? +Produce/ +darbturale +H. Halucinogen +Manjuana +A: Amphetamine +Domesic +sense! +Wartant / Capias Numbe +Bold +Counta +amount Um + ++ IS 1 1 +Warrant /Capias Number +5366 +Couns +Domesic +Stale Monion Number +Warrant v Capas Numbe +HALL KiLL +Statute Viclason Number +Ohense s +Location (Cour, Room Mumber, A0g ess) +Clearance: / +Indianice +MED. +• Type: +1, Florid +*Out of Stal +Apdress +coupalic +LANE STOL +SENTY. +LUSA +Misdemeanor +35 Juven a +1, Misdemeano +Residence Phone +Business Phone +Time +grade +• P. Paraphernalia/ - Ur Unintan +Equipment +2: Other +5. Sinshane +Violational ORDE +Bond +Violation of DAD. 1. +Band +Vigiation of ORD = +Bond +*harge, Descripiian +charge Descriplo +rug Aclivity +Dug-Type +until Unit +J Instrucaon No./1 +Mandairy Appearance in Coun +J insiruction No. 2: +fou noed not apoor in Count but mut +omply wilh instructions on Reverse So +Sigrialure or Detendant (or. Juvenile and Parent / Custodia) +DLD tor piner Agency +Ime. +] Dangerous +| Suicidal +He Deputy +Signature of Anesido. +Date Signec +Name Vantication (Pr +D:Rosisied Anesi" +"© Orner: +(PAINTI +PAGE: +Transcoring Onceit +1.D.7 +Agency +Waness nere it subc signed with an ?! +•DISTRIBUTION: +WHITE - COURT COPY +-STATE ATTORNEY: +YELLOW - AGENCY +PINK: - JAIL: +CA/Aronberg-000808 +PH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:22:44 PM + + +Police Case#: 05-368 (1) +Defendant: +Race/Sex: +DOB: +Charges: +Jeffrey Epstein +1 Male +01-20-1953 +Unlawful Sexual Activity with a Minor (4) counts +Lewd and Lascivious Molestation +From March 15, 2005, through February 2006, the Palm Beach Police Department conducted a sexua +attery investigation involving Jeffrey Epstein, I +hand +Sworn taped statements were +ken from five victims and seventeen witnesses concerning massages and unlawful sexual activity that took pla +the residence of Jeffrey Epstein, 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach. Several of the victims were recruited by ar +brought to the residence by +• to perform massages for Epstein, for whichl +h received +monetary compensation. During the visit they would be introduced tol +i, Epstein's assistant, who in +turn would record their telephone numbers and name. The victims would be brought to Epstein's bedroom to +provide the massage. Epstein would enter the room and order the victims to remove their clothing to provide the +massage. As the victims complied and provided the massages, Epstein would rub his fingers on their vaginas. +On occasion, Epstein would introduce a massager/vibrator and rub the victims vaginas as they provided the +massage. On three separate occasions, Epstein had intercourse and inserted his penis/fingers in the victims +vaginas. At the conclusion of the massages the victims were paid sums of money ranging from $200 - $1,000. +The facts, as reported, are as follows: +On 03/15/2005, A fourteen year old +female, hereinafter referred to as +dob +and +her family reported unlawful sexual activity which occurred at a residence within the Town of Palm Beach. +reported that a subject known to her as "Jeff" had touched her vaginal area with a vibrator/massager while within +his residence. "Jeff" was later identified as Jeffrey Epstein through a photo line up. +During a sworn taped interview +stated that +, dob 04/09/1986, a cousin of +boyfriend and classmate at ( +worked for a wealthy man and did sexual favors for +him. She also admitted that +the month of abruary 205, explained that he was first auro ched ay Me to going her to Epicios +house. C +stated that +along with a Hispanic female, later identified at +her father's house on a Sunday. +Dras not sure of the exact dates but knew it was a Sunday. +Brold her +father that they were going shopping but in reality +drove them to Palm Beach. During the drive a +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +C.I. perp +signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +Panal a599 +CA/Aronberg-000809 + + +conversation occurred between I +and +whereas I +she should say she was eighteen. It was later confirmed by thel +on February 6, 2005. According tol +Kather, 1 +reportedly told +•father that ] +drove a pick up truck. +What if Jett asked her age, +picked his daughter up +described Epstein's house as a two-story pink house with a Cadillac Escalade parked in the +driveway. She recalled that Jeff's house was on a dead end street. Upon arriving at the houser, +stated that +they walked up a driveway, past what appeared to be a small guard/security room. A male approaching them +asking what they wanted. +stated they were there to see Epstein. The male allowed them to continue +walking up to the house.f +stated the man told them that Epstein was not there but was expected back. He +allowed them to enter the house, via the kitchen. He offered them something to drink while they waited inside. +Shortly thereafter, Epstein and his assistant, described as 1 +female with blond hair and later identified as +entered the kitchen. Epstein introduced himself to +• described Epstein as being +approximately forty-five years old, having a long face and bushy eyebrows, with graying hair. +and Epstein left the kitchen leaving +lone in the kitchen. They returned a short time later. +They all spoke briefly in the kitchen. +was instructed to follow Kellen upstairs. recalled walking up a +flight of stairs, lined with photographs, to a room that had a massage table in it. Upon entering the room there +was a large bathroom to the right and a hot pink and +sofa in the room. There was a door on each side of +recalled there being a mural of a naked woman in the room, as well as several photographs of +naked women on a shelf. +told the victim that Epstein would be up in a second. +Epstein entered the room wearing only a towel and told +Do take off her clothes.C +stated Epstein +was stern when he told her to take off her clothes. ( +said she did not know what to do as she was the only one +there in the room so she took off her shirt leaving her bra on. Epstein had removed his towel and told the to +take off everything +stated Epstein was nude when he took his towel off, placing it on the floor as he laid +down on the table. +stated she then removed her pants leaving her thong panties on. Epstein then instructed +her to give him a massage pointing to a specific lotion for her to use. As began to give Epstein the massage, +he told her to get on his back C +•stated she straddled herself on Epstein's back whereby her exposed buttocks +were touching Epstein's bare buttocks. +said Epstein was specific in his instruction to her on how to massage +him, telling her to go clockwise or counter clockwise. Epstein then turned over and instructed to massage his +chest. d +avas now standing on the ground and resumed massaging Epstein's chest area. +onto the small of her back as she massaged his chest and shoulder area. Epstein then turned to his side ano +tarted to rub his penis in an up and down motion. Epstein then pulled out a purple vibrator and began to +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Signature of Policé Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Page 2of 22 +CA/Aronberg-000810 + + +massage +• vaginal area. +•stated there was no penetration as the vibrator was on top of her underwear. +recalled Epstein ejaculating because he had to use the towel to wipe himself as he got off the table. Epstein +then left the room and got dressed. She went back downstairs where she met with +said she +was paid thi +dollars in cash from Epstein. Before she left, Epstein asked +to leave her phone +number. As +and +• were leaving the house, +a told +• she received two hundred +dollars that day for bringing her. +During the course of the investigation, parental consent was granted for +to assist with the +investigation. At our direction +•conducted controlled taped phone calls to +i cellular telephone 561- +308-0282. spoke with +in an attempt to arrange another meeting with Epstein. asked +what did she need to do to make more money. +Will stated, "the more you do, the more you get paid." +had subsequently called back +and left a voice mail message for her indicating that she had set up an +appointment for +Dio go to Epstein's house at 11:00 am on April 5, 2005. This message was recorded from +• voice mail. +Based on the above, trash pulls were established at Epstein's residence with Supervisor Tony Higgins of +the Sanitation Bureau of the Town of Palm Beach. The trash pull from April 5, 2005 revealed a telephone +message for Epstein which stated Haley and +• name at 11:00 am. This was the time frame I +had +informed! +•to be ready to go work at Epstein's house. +On October 3, 2005, Sgt Frick and I went to Robson's residence and viewed her vehicle parked in the +driveway, a red Dodge Neon. Sgt. Frick and I knocked on the door and met with +was +told that we were investigating a claim involving Jeffrey Epstein of El Brillo Way, in Palm Beach. +was - +asked if she would accompany us back to the police station for further questioning. She was also told that at the +conclusion of the interview she would be returned home. +voluntarily came with us back to the Palm +Beach Police Department. +Upon our arrival at the police station, +was brought to the interview room in the Detective Bureau +where I obtained a taped, sworn statement. I began the interview by asking +how she became +acquainted with Epstein. +stated that approximately two years ago, just after she turned 17 years of age, +she was approached by a friend named Molly at the Canopy Beach Resort in !!| Beach. +I was asked +if she wanted to make money. She was told she would have to provide a massage and should make $200.00. +I thought about the offer and agreed to meet with Jeffrey. +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Eleputa +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of Palm Beach +Date: +05/81/2006 +Page3of22 +CA/Aronberg-000811 + + +Molly (Unknown last name) and Tony (Unknown last name) picked | +up and she was taken to +Epstein's house. Upon her arrival to the house she was introduced to Epstein in the kitchen of the house. She +was also introduced to a i! +female known to her as Sarah. She was led upstairs to the main bedroom known +to her as Jeff Epstein's bedroom. Sarah arranged the massage table and covered the table with a sheet. She +brought out the massage oils and laid them next to the massage bed. Sarah, then left the room and informed +_Jeff would be in, in a minute. Jeff entered the bedroom wearing only a towel. He removed the towel +and laid nude on the massage table. He laid on the table onto his stomach and picked a massage oil for +to rub on him. During the massage, +stated "He tried to touch me and I stopped him." I asked how he +tried to touch her. +stated that Epstein grabbed her buttocks and she felt uncomfortable. +told +Epstein, I'll massage you but I don't want to be touched. +stated she performed the massage naked. At +the conclusion of the massage, Epstein paid +$200. +After the massage Epstein stated to +that he understood she was not comfortable, but he would +pay her if she brought over some girls. He told her the younger the better. Robson stated she once tried to bring +a 23 year old female and Epstein stated that the female was too old. Robson stated that in total she only +remembers six girls that she brought to see Epstein, each time she was paid $200. +stated she had +brought the following girls: +(al6 year old female), +→ a 16 year old +female) and ( +said that at the time she brought these girls to Epstein's house they were all14 +through 16 years of age. I asked +which one was the youngest. +advised +was the youngest as +she was fourteen when the massage occurred. Robson stated every girl she brought knew what to expect when +they arrived. They were told they would provide a massage, possibly naked, and allow some touching. I asked +her if +was aware. She stated every girl she brought knew what to expect. She explained she knew that +wanted to make money. She approached +and explained about going to work for Jeff, l +agreed and +arrangements were made to bring her to Epstein's house on a weekend. +stated that she and ( +(Later identified ast +• picked up +at her house. +stated that at that time she was driving +a red pickup truck. They traveled to Epstein's house and entered through the kitchen door. They met with the +house chef and Epstein's assistant Sarah. +was introduced to Epstein while they were in the kitchen area. +Sarah led +upstairs and Epstein went upstairs. When the massage was over +returned to the kitchen area. +stated she was paid $200.00 for bringing +to Epstein's house. +stated +told her she was +paid $300.00 for the massage. +stated that +vas the last person she brought to Epstein's house. She had changed her cellular +number to avoid being contacted by Sarah. She continued stating that she had no direct contact with Epstein +State of Florida +County of Palm Beach +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +1-perhag +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Date: +05101/2806 +PageHof 22 +CA/Aronberg-000812 +- + + +when he was going to travel to Palm Beach. +said when Epstein announces to his assistant, Sarah, that +he is traveling to Palm Beach, Sarah would then contact +to arrange girls to "work" for Epstein. +stated that once her parents discovered that she was visiting Epstein, they disapproved of the encounters with him +and she stopped. +further stated that Sarah still tries to call +house and leaves messages. +Sgt Frick entered the room and explained to +that based on her own statements, she had +implicated herself by bringing underage girls to Epstein's house. +provided cellular telephone numbers for +the girls she had mentioned previously. Additionally, she also provided possible addresses and areas in which +they lived. +As +was being taken home in the vehicle, a tape recorder was placed within the vehicle to record +any conversations within the vehicle. During the drive back to her home, +ras place +made the comment "I'm like +a Heidi Fleiss." (Hollywood Madam who sent girls to clients for sexual favors in California). +was +dropped off at her house without incident. +On October 3, 2005, Sgt Frick and I went to speak with +• a sixteen year-old female who was +brought to Epstein's residence by +We met with +• mother at their front door. We explained +the ongoing investigation and asked to speak with +as we had information that she had "worked" for Jeff. +Mrs. introduced us to her husband and allowed us entry into the home. We sat in the dining room and met +with i +•Date of Birth +• As she was under the age of eighteen, Mrs Cavas advised we would be +speaking with her. She expressed if her daughter had information, she wanted to assist. We interviewed who +denied having any inappropriate encounters with Jeff (Epstein). She stated she had gone to Jeff's house with +approximately eight months ago and sat in the kitchen with the house chef, but nothing happened +As the parents were present during the interview, we felt that +I was withholding information from us. She made • +several comments as to putting the entire incident behind her. I left my telephone number and advised should she +wish to speak with me again to telephone me/Sgt Frick and I thanked Mrs. for her time and left the area. She +stated she would ask +again after we left as to what happened at Epstein's house. I informed her that d +my telephone number and hopefully she would call. +On October 4, 2005, +Det Dawson and. I drove to the d +•dobl +During a sworn taped statement +chen she was seventeen years old, she was taken to a house by +because they both attend +home and met with +and +stated approximately a year ago +• stated she knows +She was told she could make money working +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +County of Palm Beach +Signature of Police 1 +Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Date: +05/01/2606 +Page5or 22 +CA/Aronberg-000813 + + +for Jeff. She was told she would have to provide a massage to Jeff. +stated upon her arrival to the house +she was brought to the kitchen area byl +n. They met with the house chef who was already in the kitchen +area. +stated +a would wait for her in the kitchen. +• was introduced to Sarah, Jeff's +assistant, who brought her upstairs to the +bedroom. Sarah prepared the room and massage table for a +massage. Epstein entered the room wearing only a towel and she provided a massage. d +stated she kept +her clothes on during the massage. She advised sometime during the massage, Epstein grabbed her buttocks and +pulled her close to him. ( +• said she was uncomfortable by the incident involving Jeff. At the conclusion of +the massage, she was paid $200.00 for the massage. I asked +if she has any formal training in massages to +which she replied no. I asked her if +n received any monies for taking her to perform the massage. +stated +had received money for taking her there but was unsure in the amount. +stated she +retured to Epstein's house on another occasion with +and another girl, +stated +she waited in the kitchen with +,, whiled +• was taken upstairs by Sarah +stated she oniy did the +massage once as she was uncomfortable with the whole experience. +At the conclusion of the interview, the tape was stopped. I was informed that Sarah had attempted to +reache +via cell phone. A voice mail message on October 4, 2005 at 10:59 am, revealed a female voice +who identified herself as Sarah who requested +• to call her back reference the police questioning. +provided the incoming telephone number as +stated she inadvertently told +about the police investigation because! +had called her to tell her about how she just received a rental car +from Jeff Epstein. +had called her to tell her that she was given a rental car, a 2005 Silver Nissan Sentra, +to utilize to visit family and visit Epstein. +Basked her what was going on at the house that the police would +be asking questions. +stated | +• then called Jeff and Sarah and asked what was going on +reference the ongoing police investigation. According to +Sarah has since then been trying to contact her +to ask about the police questions. I instructed +not to contact Sarah and do not provide any more +information to d +as she would notify Jeff Epstein and Sarah what was transpiring. +On October4, 2005, I made telephone contact with +who had left several messages for me to contact +her. During the message, she advised she was not completely truthful when we met in person but would like to +speak with me to advise what had happened. She further advised she did not want to speak of this incident in +front of her mother. At approximately 3:48 pm I made telephone contact with During a taped recorded +statement @astated the following: approximately a year ago, when she was sixteen years of age, +took her +to Epstein's house twice. She knows +because they both attend +• The first +time she went, +] drove to the house. They entered through the kitchen area where she was +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +County of Palm Beach +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Date: +05/07/2006 +Pageloof 22 +CA/Aronberg-000814 + + +introduced to Sarah and Epstein. She was taken upstairs to a bedroom by Sarah who set the room up with a +massage bed and brought out the oils to use. Epstein then entered the room wearing a towel. He laid on the +table and picked out a lotion for to rub on him. At one point during the massage he tried to remove her shirt, +at which point she became very upset and discontinued the massage. Both and Epstein had a verbal +disagreement, at which time she left without being paid. She got with +who was sitting in the +kitchen and told her "let's go." ‹ +advised she received no money for that day. +Palso said that +had told her if she was uncomfortable with what was going on, to let him know and he'll stop. She knew that the +more you do the more you get paid. advised that several weeks later she agreed to be taken a second time +- Once they arrived at the residence, +sat in the kitchen and Sarah took her +upstairs to the +bedroom again. Sarah set the room up with a massage bed and brought out the oils to +use. Epstein then entered the room wearing a towel. He laid on the table and picked out a lotion for do rub +on him. At one point during the massage he tried to touch her buttocks. Ast +avas wearing tight jeans and had a +tight belt on Epstein was unable to touch her buttocks. Epstein then rolled onto his back during the massage and +then attempted to touch her breastst +hen became upset again and told Epstein she didn't want to be touched. +discontinued the massage and was paid $200.00. +athen went downstairs where +was waiting +for her. She told +she wanted to leave. +said she never returned to the house. +stated she is aware +that her friend, +was also at the house and had a problem with Epstein. +I later researched +dob • +Pand met with her at her residence. During a sworn +taped statement, +•stated the following: on or about November 2004, she was approached at +by +,, a fellow student. +asked +if she wanted to make money. +She agreed and was told she would provide a massage to wealthy man in Palm Beach. +picked her up +and drove her to a house in Palm Beach. She was brought into the kitchen area of the house. She further stated +that fellow +students C +came with them. They were +brought into the kitchen where she was introduced to Epstein and other females. +stated she was +introduced to a female helper of Epstein, the female was described as +female (unknown name ), with +blond hair. She stated that the assistant was familiar with +• The assistant brought her upstairs into a +bedroom area. The assistant set up the massage table and put out lotions to be used. She toidd +Epstein would be available in a minute. Epstein entered the room wearing only a towel. Epstein removed his +towel, and laid naked on the massage table and picked a lotion to rub on his thighs and back. +stated during the massage, Epstein asked her to remove her clothes. She complied and removed her pants and +didn't remember if she had removed her bra but feels that she did. O +Dawas certain that she +stayed in her thong underwear. +continued the massage and at one point she climbed onto the massage +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Ch 1 Judy +Signature of Police Officer (F'S.S. 117.10) +state of Florida +County of Palm Beach +Signature/ +Date: 05/01/2006 +ting Officer +Page7of 22 +CA/Aronberg-000815 + + +table, straddling Epstein to massage his back: While doing this her bullocks were touching Epsteins: +was instructed.to retum to the ground at which time: Epstein tured to have his chest rubbed a +advised she +was sure he was masturbating based on his hand movements going up and down on his penis area: +i did: +not want to look at his penis area because she was uncomfortable: Epstein removed a large white vibrator which +was next to the massage table and turned it on. +stated Epstein began rubbing the vibrator over her thong. +underwearion her vaginal area, Shortly thereafter, Epstein cjaculated and removed himself from the table. He +"walked over to where the shower was and opened the +door. She waited as he was taking a shower in her +directview, When J askede +show old she was when this occurred, she stated she had just turned +seventeen. At the conclusion of the shower +was paid either $350:00 or $400.00 She siated she +wasn't süre, but knows ii was close to $400.00: +stated she never returned to provide a massage for +Epstein. +Al approximately 2:10 pm, Det Dawson and I met with +ather residence: As +was only seventeen years of age; I had notified her mother, that she would be interviewed reference an ongoing +investigation in Palm Beach. 'assued her thanher daughter was not asuspect: l explained the possibility of her +being either a witness or victim. Mrs advised she wanted +Dio cooperate and consented lo the interview: +During a sworn taped statement, +sealed the following; at the age of sixteen, during the month of +September 2004; she was approathed by Haley +for a chance to make money. C +Devas friends with +associates of Robson and knew the same people.. +stad been previously told by her friends fromd +what Robson did: for Epstein. Robson called a person Known to +Mbas Sarah and +scheduled the appointment. Robson piçked lip and drove her to Palm Beach fo a'street called "Brillo Way". +"They drove to the end of the street and entered a large driveway, They entered the kitchen area of the house and: +mei with Epstein. +lavas introduced to Jeff Epstein: Robson led & upstairs: to the main bedroom area andi +set up the room with a massage table and set our the oils el stated that while going up the stairs and into the +bedroom she observed numerous photographs of naked young girls. Robson dimmed the lights and turned on +I exited the room and Epstein entered the room wearing, önly a towel: Epstein picked oils and +instructed her to rub his legs, under his buttocks, back and chestarea: Epstein asked her to get comfortable. +advised she did not remove her clothes: She was wearing light jeans and a cropped tank top exposing her +removed his towel and laid on the massage table naked Astrubbed +Epslein's chest area be attempted to reach down her pantsito touch her bullocks area however was unable to +die so due to the lightuess of the jeans and a tighi belt. O advised. Epstein began to masturbate as she rubbed +his chest. Epsrein moaned as she rubbed his chest. She observed he was continuing to masturbate and +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed. +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Der Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +County of Palm Beach +Signalureof Police Officer (KS:S. 117:10) +Signatund/Aresing Officer +Date 09012006 +Pagebor22 +CA/Aronberg-000816 + + +attempted to reach up her tank top and touch her breasts. +pulled back and Epstein stopped, however he +kept masturbating until he climaxed. He cleaned himself with the towel he was previously wearing. / +• was +paid $200.00 for the massage and left the area. She met with +who was waiting in the kitchen area and +left the house. +then explained she never provided another massage for Epstein. She did however, go to the house +with +and +as they took another friend of +advised she was present when +went to work for Epstein. She advised she rode over and sat in the kitchen area with +to +wait for +advised while they waited for +• the house chef prepared lunch for them as it was +almost lunchtime when they went. When C +• was finished with the massage they left the area. I asked • if +ever told her what would be expected when she provided a massage. +stated yes, +told her +that a massage would be expected, possibly naked and possibly some touching involved. +has no formal +training in providing massages. +spoke about a third and last time she went to Epstein's house. +drove another girl, +(sixteen years of age) who is +s friend, to Epstein's house. +knew that +had made money massaging Epstein and wanted to make money herself! +took them in the kitchen +area of the house and introduced to Sarah. +and Sarah took +upstairs to the main bedroom. +advised she doesn't know what happened as +did not speak about what happened in the room. +received +$100.00 from +for going with her to Epstein's house and recommending +On October 6, 2005, at 11:45 am, I met with t +dob +and +explained to her why we there to interview her. She advised she was aware of the ongoing investigation. +stated she had préviously spoken with! +who told her she was interviewed by detectives. During a +sworn taped statement, +stated she knew that +worked for Jeff Epstein in Palm Beach. +advised she originally had been taken to the Epstein house by +I, whom she met when they both +attended +She began going to the house when she was sixteen years of age and +stated she had been there a lot of times to provide massages over the past two years. I asked her if she had +formal training in providing massages, whiche +stated she had not. +advised she was told what was +expected of her by providing massages and she would have to remove clothing but if she felt uncomfortable just +to say so and Epstein would stop pushing the issue. C +began providing massages and advised she kept her +clothes on. She considered Epstein a pervert and he kept pushing to go further and further. d +explained she +would keep telling him she had a boyfriend and would not be right to her boyfriend. It wasn't until recently that +began removing her clothes and staying in her thong underwear to provide a massage. explained +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +County of Palm Beach +Signature A +ting Officer +Date: +05/012006 +Signature of Police +Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Page 9of 22 +CA/Aronberg-000817 + + +Palim Beach Police Department +Agency ORIN FLO:500600 +Epstein wantedito be rubbed on his back and recenily he began turning over and have her rub his chest as he +masturbated. He would try to touch her breasis as she rubbed his chest +• stated "Jeff would try to get away" +with more and more on each massage!" +stated Epstein would try to touch her more and on one occasion +hé attemptedito use a massager/vibrator on her. Robson drove +leto the house for the original massage: +left Sarah her.cell phone number and every time Epstein would come into town, Sarah would call her for an +appointment to "work". Each time she went, Sarah would meet her at the kitchen door area. She would bring +her upstairs and prepare the massage table. +ridvised Epsiein would ask herquestions about herseif. Epstein +Knew-she was a soccer player and would be attending +B Tasked: +A ( Epstein knew her real: +age +stated Epsiein did and didn't care. The most recent massage she provided ivas on October 1, 2005; +During the massage: she asked Epstein if she could boirow one of his vehicles fo visit her family and boyfriend in: +Orlándo: Florida, Epstein had told her she could borrow one of his vehicles: but later stated he would rent het a +car: She continued with the massage as Epstein gräbbed her buttocks and caressed the buttocks cheeks: I. +asked if she was wearing undergarments to which she replied her thong underwear. Once he tried to touch +her breasts, She would pull away from him and he would stop. +Avas asked if.he ever used a vibrator on her. +Avas aware of the vibrätor but advised she never would allow him to use the vibrator on her. She described +the vibrator as the large white vibrator, with a huge head on the tip ofithe vibrator. Sheisiated he kept the vibrator +in a closet near the massage table, +a stated that on October 3, 2005, she was contacied by Epstein's assistant, Sarah, who informed.ber +that Jeff. Epstein had rented her a new Nissan Sentraand she should come by the house to pick it up. Sarah +informed ta she would have the car for a month +stated Epstein knew her car was not working property +and that she had missed appointmenis in the past because of her car being inoperable +Dexplained the caris +currently parked next to these C +a Gym field. Lasked her if she ever took any one to the house e +explained she took & d +ba friend of hers who attended aS +who has +relocatedito Orlando to attend college. +Tasked if she ever allowed, another female-in the room +advised no +one was brought into the room with her +At the conclusion of the interview; Det Dawson and Ewent to the gym area oft +localed: the Silver Nissan Sentra bearing Florida tag X98-APM, The vehicle is registered to Dollar Rent a Car +out of ihc. Palm Beach International Airport: The vehicle was rented by Janusz Banasiack, later learned to be: +Epstein/s houseman, and paid with Epsiein'scredit card. +'On Sepiember 11, 2005. +dob a +was arrested by the. Palim Beach Police Depaitment +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of +N. 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known torme. +State of Florida +County of Palm Beach +Signatu +esting Officer +Signature of Police Officer (E.S.S. 117:10). +Date: +0520x/2006 +Ýage|0122 +CA/Aronberg-000818 + + +for misdemeanor possession of marijuana. During the arrest +told the arresting officer that she had information +about sexual activity taking place at the residence of Jeffrey Epstein. Additionally, during the ongoing trash pulls +from Epstein's residence, discarded papers were found which contained +name and cell phone number. +On October, 11, 2005, Det Dawson and I met with ( +and obtained a sworn taped statement. +explained she had been going to Epstein's house since 2002, when she was sixteen years of age. Since then she +has gone to the house hundreds of times. stated she became his "number one girl." She explained that on +her first visit she was brought to the house by fellowe +classmate, +•said she was brought through the kitchen area where she met +for the first time. +was led to +the +• bedroom, Epstein s room. explained that as she was walking up the stairs she observed several +photographs of naked women along the walls and tables of the house. +•further explained that she was +brought into the bedroom, where Sarah prepared the room by setting up the massage table and provided the oils +for her to rub on Epstein. I +explained she remembered the steam room area, which contained two large +showers. Epstein entered the room from the steam room area and introduced himself. Epstein lay on the table +and told her to get comfortable. C +removed her skirt and kept her shirt on. Epstein then instructed her to +remove her shirt. d +•removed her shirt and remembered she was not wearing a bra. +stated she provided +the massage wearing only her panties. She continued rubbing his legs, thighs and feet. +advised he turned +over onto his back. Epstein touched her breasts and began to masturbate. Epstein ejaculated which meant the +massage was over. At the conclusion of the massage, +was paid $200.00. They walked together downstairs +were waiting +received an unknown amount of +money for taking her to Epstein. Epstein instructed to leave her cellular telephone number so that he could +contact her when he is in town. +stated that during her many visits a routine was established between her and Epstein. She would enter +the house and get naked in the bedroom. She would then start with a back massage. Epstein would roll on to his +back and allow her to massage his chest area/ +•stated Epstein would then began to masturbate himself and at +the same time would insert his fingers in her vagina and masturbate her with his fingers. +explained Epstein +would continue this process until be ejaculated. He would then utilize a vibrator/massager on her vagina until +climaxed. C +•advised that during her frequent visits, Epstein asked for her real age, +stated she was sixteen. +Epstein advised her not to tell anyone her real age. a +advised that things escalated within the home as Epstein +vould instruct and pay to have intercourse with his female friend, | +explained the +ntercourse included using strap on dildos, large rubber penis' and other devices that Epstein had at his disposa! +Epstein would watch them have intercourse and masturbate himself. Occasionally, Epstein would then join in +State of Florida +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this I" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Ten tuden +Signature of Police Officer (RS.S. 117.10) +Signature Arrosting Officer +Date: 05/01/2006 +Pagell of 22 +CA/Aronberg-000819 + + +during the female on female intercourse and provide oral sexelo both & +Band Marcinkova: This occurred during +the tinie +Divas sixteen years of age: +advised this continued to escalate during two years. The röutine became familiar to += Epstein's: +assistant Sarah would iclephone her every time Epsteinwas in the Town of Palin Beach and would place +appointments for her to visit and work for Epstein. Each time something new was introduced additional monies +were produced and offered for +Sio allow the acts to happen. +@consenied to perform all these acts but was +adamant that there was an ünderstanding with Epstein that no vagina! pénetration would occur with his penis. +explained that Epstein's penis-was deforied, @explained that his penis was oval shaped, & claimed whèn +Epstein's penis was erect, it was thick toward the bottom but was thin and small toward the head portion +called Epstein's penis "egg shaped." ( +• siated Epstein would photograph Marcinko wa and her naked and +having sex and proudly display the photographs within the home +stated during one visit to Epstein's house +in which she provided a massage to Epstein; his female friend, Nada Marcinkova, was also present.: +provided the massage in which Marcinkova and her would fondle each oihers breasts and kiss for Epstein to +enjoy. Towards the end of this massage, Epsiein grabbed e +and turned her over onto her stomach on the +massage table and forcibly inserted his penis into her vağina. +WEB sfated Epstein began to pump his penis in her +vağina Call became-upset overthis. 'She said her head was being held against the table forcibly, as he continued +to pump inside her, She screamed "No!" and Epstein stopped: She told him that she did not want to have his +pehis inside of her, Epstein did not ejaculate anside of het and apologized for bis actöns and subsequently paid +•her ta thousand dollars for that visit 6 stated she knows he still displays her photographs through out the house. +On Ocrober 12, 2005, Det Dawson and I met th +dob +who stated during +a swom taped statement, that nothing happened between her and Epstein. +appeared nervous during the +inteiview. Lassured her that I have spoken with other people: who advised differently. +A stated on several, +occasions she provided a massage to Epstein: She stated she was brought io the Epstein house in March of +2005:3 +ga classmate at 6 +- approached her andasked ber if she +wanted to "work" +made the arrangements with Sarah, Epstein's assistant. +i who has no formal. +training in providing massages, stated she provided a massage, fully clothed for $200:00. As Isensed hesitancy +in her answers; Tasked and if she had been coniacted by anyone from Epstein's organizations or his house. +be stated she was interviewed already by a private investigator for Epstein: He identified himself as "Paul" +and inquired about the police investigation, and left his telephone number 305-710-5165 for additional contact: +provided no additional inforination, as it appeared herresponses were almost scripted: +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed. +before'me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +County of Palm Betch +Signature of Police Officer (ES.5: 117.10) +Signatu +feAresting Officer. +Date: +05/01/2006 +Page Zor 22 +CA/Aronberg-000820 + + +On November 6, 2005, at approximately 3:30 pm, I met with I +adobl +at the +Palm Beach Police Department. +was identified as a potential witness/victim through information +obtained during the trash pulls. During the sworn taped statement, +advised she was at Jeffrey Epstein's +house one time, approximately two months ago. She was approached by a girl, ‹ +• who was dating +•i roommate, for an opportunity to make some quick money. ! +•advised she needed to make some +quick cash to make the rent that month. She agreed to go to the house. She had been told by +that +the massage would have to be done in her underwear. She advised & +drove with her and brought her into the +house. They walked into the kitchen area, and took the stairs upstairs. +•further stated she was brought +into a il +bedroom area. She advised she recalled seeing portraits of naked women throughout the room. A +massage table was already out near the sauna/shower area in the l +bedroom. Epstein entered the room +wearing only a towel and introduced himself as "Jeff." At Epstein's direction, ( +and +• removed their +clothing down to their panties, Epstein laid on his stomach area and they provided a massage on his legs and feet +area. I asked +• if she had any formal massage training and she replied "no." +• advised she was +topless and the panties she wore were the boy shorts lace panties. She and +continued the massage until the +last ten minutes of the massage, Epstein, tolde +o leave the room so that +could finish the massage. +got dressed, and left the room as Epstein turned over onto his back. Epstein then removed the towel and +laid naked. Epstein requested that& +rub his chest area. +•stated as she did this, Epstein, began +masturbating. +• stated Epstein pulled down her boy short panties, and he produced a large +with a large head. She stated it was within his reach in a drawer in his d +bathroom. He rubbed the vibrator +on her vaginal area. +• advised be never penetrated her vagina with the vibrator. He continued to rub her +vagina with the vibrator as he continued to masturbate. +• stated she was very uncomfortable during the +incident but knew it was almost over. Epstein climaxed and started to remove himself from the table. He wiped +himself with the towel he had on previously and went into the shower area. +•got dressed and met with +in the kitchen area. Epstein came into the kitchen and providede +$200.00 for bringing +paid $200.00 to 1 +for providing the massage. I +was told to leave her telephone number with Sarah +for future contact. +provided her cellular telephone number. +vas asked if she was recently +contacted about this investigation by anyone from the Epstein organization. She replied she was called but it was +for work. She stated she was called by Sarah for her to return to "work" for Epstein. +•stated "work" is +the term used by Sarah to provide the massages and other things. +advised she declined as she was not +comfortable in providing that type of "work." +On November 1, 2005, Det +and I met withe +sworn taped statement, +•stated she met Jeffrey Epstein through +• During a +when they were still +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1 day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Ch 1. fags +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of Palm Beach +resting Officer +Date: +Pagel3or 22 +CA/Aronberg-000821 + + +Probable Cause Affidavir +Palim Beach Police Department +Agenéy ORI ELO 500600 +attending +• Robson would approach females who wished to work for Epsiein. +instated she was offered to work for Epstein but declined: +@explained that "work" means give +massages. She was asked about any formal! training in providing massages which she said! *no" +said +she accompanied +and other females who-were taken to Epstein's house to provide massages. +further stated she had been to the house approximately 4 or 5 times in the past year She accompanied Robson +with +@and +• Each time the girls-were taken +over, they were previously told they would have to provide a massage, possibly naked: They were also told that +should Epstein require them to do anything extra, and they were not comfortable just to tell him and he would +@stated Robson received $200:00 for each girl she brought over to massage Jeffrey Epstein. +When asked which gil appeared to be the youngest, she replied, +who was really young, fifteen years old at +the most G +• further stated each time she went to the house, she sat in the kitchen and waited with Robson +rintil the massage was over, She further stated that the cook would nake lunch ora snack for them as they +waited, Lasked her if there was anything that caught her attention within the home. +a stated there were a +lot ofinaked, girls in photographs throughout the house. +On November 8; 2005, at approximately 2:00pm I met with e +at the +Palim Beach Pölice Department: During a sworn taped statement, +a stated she had met Epstein +approximately tivo years ago when she was first approached by Haley Robson, a classmate at +6) Robson approached her about working for Epstein and providing a massage to him for $200:00 +Robson had made the arrangements however was ünable to take her the day the arrangements were made: +Robson had Q +@take C +also attended +Wand was familiar +with Epsiein: +recalled she was brought there and entered through the back kitchen door. She had met- +• with an assisiant Sarah and another assistant Adrianna: Sarah broughi her upstairs as she observed severat; +photographs of naked females throughout the house +no came in the room, wearing only a +towel, and laid on the table +a stated he picked out the oils he wanied her to use and requested she +remove her clothing to provide the massage. +Awa stated that-ön the first massage she provided she did not +remove her clothing: +ase stated she had returned severaktimes after that. Each time she returned it was. +more thai a massage. +Epsiein would walk into the master bedroom/bathroom area wearing only a towel; He +would masturbate as she provided a massage. +a stated she was unsure if he climaxed as hermasturbated +under the towel. Additionally, she never looked below his waist. She claimed that Epstein would convince her toi +remové her clothes. She eventually removed her clothes and stayed in her thong panties. Onoccasion, Epstein: +would use a massager vibrator, which she described as white in color and'a large head. Epstein would rub the +vibratör massager on her vaginal area as he would mastürbate. +D stated she had been to the house +The foregoing instrument was sivorn to or affirmed +before methis 1* day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +I fastes +Signature of Police Officer (ESS 11770) +State of Florida +County of Palm Bosch +Signature/Ar +Date: +05/01/2006 +ig Orficer. +Pağe Sr22. +CA/Aronberg-000822 + + +numerous times. +added she has no formal training in providing a massage. +stated she brought +two females during her visits to provide massages. +•stated she brought a girl named? +• from +stated she received $200.00 for each girl she brought. +On November 8, 2005, I met with +: W/F, +, at the Palm Beach Police +Department. During a sworn taped statement, +stated she had met Jeffrey Epstein approximately one year +ago. She was approached by a subject known to her as +had asked her if she wanted to make money +providing massages to Epstein. C +•had heard that several girls from +I were +doing this and making money. She agreed and was taken to the house by +had introduced her to Sarah +and Epstein and brought her upstairs to a +bedroom where a massage table was prepared and the proper +oils were selected. deft the room and waited downstairs for her. ‹ +•stated Epstein entered the room +wearing a towel and laid on his stomach. She provided a massage wearing only her thong panties. +advised Epstein had masturbated every time she provided a massage. She stated Epstein continued to +masturbate until he climaxed. Once that occurred the massage was over. She felt the whole situation was weird +but she advised she was paid $200.00 for providing the massage. She also stated was paid $200.00 by +Epstein for bringing +stated she had gone a total of 15 times to Epstein's residence to provide a +massage and things had escalated from just providing a massage. Epstein began touching her on her buttocks and +grabbed her closer to him as he masturbated. Epstein also grabbed her breasts and fondled her breasts with his +hands as she provided the massage. +•stated on one occasion, while she was only seventeen years of age, he +offered extra monies to have vaginal intercourse. She stated this all occurred on the massage table. +•stated +Epstein penetrated her vagina with his penis and began having intercourse with her until he reached the point of +climax. Epstein removed his penis from her yagina and climaxed onto the massage table. +$350.00 for her massage. I asked her if she had any formal training in providing massages, +stated she did +continued to state on one other occasion, Epstein introduced his girlfriend, Nadia, into the massage. +Nadia was brought into room withd +to provide a massage. Epstein had them kiss and fondle each other +around the breasts and buttocks as they provided a massage to Epstein. Epstein, watched and masturbated as +this occurred. On other occasions, Epstein, introduced the large +vibrator/massager in the massage. Epstein +stroked the vibrator/massager on +vagina as she provided the massage. +On November 14, 2005, Det +and I met with +, dobe +swor taped statement she advised she started going to the house approximately one year ago and has been there +approximately five or six times. +• also stated she was sixteen years old when she first went to Epstein's +known to her +house. On her first visit she was brought by a fellow student from +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +1.pudep +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of Palm Beach +Same an ens oncer +Date: +03/01/2006 +n. 15.000 +CA/Aronberg-000823 + + +Agency ORIH FLO:500600. +as +stated +i brought her into the house and she was introduced to Sarah. Sarah then +brought her, upstairs into a master bathroom, located within the bedroom. +a siated she met Epstein in the +bathroom. He laid on the table and picked the massage oils, She provided the massage asihe laid naked on the +massage bed. She stated she rubbed his calves and back area. Upon the end of the massage, Epstein removed +himself from the massage table and paid her $300:00 for the massage. +said each subsequent time she +wenero the house, she was notified by: Sarah Kellen that Epstein was in town and would like her to "work": +slated she returned to the house and was again led upstairs by Sarah: She provided the massage; +privas asked if she ever removed her clothing to provide a massage. +stated it was not +until the third time that she went that she removed her clothing. +stated she was notified by Sarah that +Epstein, wanted her to come to work. She arrived at the house and was led upstairs by Sarah She siaried +providing the massage when Epstein asked her to remove her clothing +removed her pants, shirt and: +Bra. She stayed in her thong panties and continued rubbing Epstein Epstein turned over onto his back and she +ribbed his chest area. +stated she khew he was masturbating himself as she providing the massage: +• siated she believed he climaxed based on his breathing. She did not want to view either the climax or +the fact that he was masturbating +stated once the breaihing relaxed he got up and told her to get +•dressed. She was paid $300.00 for her services +staled on the last time she went to provide a +massage, she was notified by Sarah. Kellen to come to the house and work" +› stated she was now +dating her current boyfriend and didinot feel comfortable going. She recalled it was approximately, January 2005 +She said she went already thinking that this would be the lastlime: She went upsiairs and went into the master +bathroom. She met ith Epstein, who was wearing only a towel, and laid onto the table +stated +Epstein caught her looking at the clock on several occasions. Epstein asked her it she was in a hurry: +stated her boyfriend was in the car waiting for here +So further stated that Epstein got upset as he wasn +enjoying the massage.' Shetold him ihat she didn't wani to continue and she ivould noi be back. Epstein told her. +to leave as she was ruining his massage +advised she had no formal training in providing any massages. +stated although she had a falling out with Epstein; she still received a Christmas bonus from Epsicin: +• stated she was wired money from Western Union for her Christmas bonus: Subpoena results from +Western Union revealed money was sent from Jeffrey Epsiein on December 23, 2004. +received +$200.00 from Epsiein for her Christmas-bonus.. +On November 1502005, Det. Sandman and I met with +During a sworn taped +statement: +stated she met Jeffrey Epstein over a year ago: She was sixteen years of age and was +approached bys +a a fellowi +Prudent, who informed herithat she could +make $200.00. providing a massage to: Epstein: +had informed her that she would have to provide this +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1f day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to.me: +State of Florida +County of Palm Beech +Signature +citing Officer +Signature of Police Officer (1 +(S.S.:1.17:10) +Date: +05/01/2006 +CA/Aronberg-000824 + + +Agency: ORI# FLO 500600- +¡massage topless +made the arrangements with Epstein and his assistants and took +to the house +stated +and she entered through a glass door that led into a kitchen. +She was taken upstairs by +to a +master bedroom. +She recalled the +bathroom had. a large pink couch, 'sauna and matching shower. +Epstein eniered into the room wearing only a towel. +and a Demoved their clothing remaining only in +thong underwear. She further, stated that Epsiein laid on his chest on the table.. The oils avere selecied on which +ones to use. Bothe +and +Reprovided the massage on his legs, back and feet.. Forty minutes into the +massage; Epstein turned over onto his back and réquested? +wait downstairs in the kitchen area for +Epsiein instructed +Pro finish the massage: As Cl +got dressed, C +Mo tarting rubbing Epstein's chest: +left the room, and Epstein began masturbating as +rubbed Epstein's chest: +estated Epstein continued +masturbating until hệ climaxed on the towel he was wearing; When asked if he had temoved the towel she stated +he tumned the fowel around: so that the opening would allow him to expose himself, After hercleaned himself off +with the lowel he instructed la the massage was done and to get dressed and meet with -bim downstairs. +gọt dressed and mệt with Epsiein in the kitchen area. She was paid $200,00 dollars for providing the massage. +« stated she as aware that as also received monies for the same thing: The second time she went to the +house she was again approached bye +dvised if she wanted to return to the, house: to provide another. 1 +massage. +balagreed, and the arrangements were made by +for her to return to the house a stated e +drove her to the house and knocked on thé same glass door which leads to the kitchen area. They were allowed +entry into the house by one of the staff members: +•led her upstairs to the master bedroom and master +bathroom area. +left L this time to do the massage alone, Epstein entered the room again wearing only a +towel, began removing her clothing as she did the last time she was atithe house: Epstein instrucled her to +get naked. He laid on the table onto his stomach ass@ began massaging his legs and back. As +with Epstein's back and legs, Epstein then turned over onto his back +started to-rub his chest and he began +masturbating. As +Drubbed his chest, Epsiein leaned over and produced a massager/Vibrator: He turned it on +and began rubbing +vagina and masturbating himself at the same time: +stated she continued to rub his +chest as this, was occurring: She described the vibrator/massager as large grey with a large head. Epstein +rubbed her vagina for approximately two to three minutes with the massager/vibrator. He then removed the +vibrator from her vaginal aréa and concentrated on masturbating himsclf. +#stated Epstein climaxed onto the +towel again and informed her that the massage was done +got dressed and met withe +who was waiting +in the kitchen area. She received S200,00 for the massage +said she never returned to the house and had no +desire to return to the house. +Avas asked if she received any formal massage training. She advised she had +no formal training +MAyas asked if Epstein knew her real áge: +Gas fared he knew, as he asked her questions +aboul herself and high schoo!. He was aware she attended, and is still attending +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +"before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joc Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +County of Palm B +çach +Signature of Police Officer (ESS 11710) +-Signatura: +Date: +09/01/2006 +sting Officer +Pase or 22 +CA/Aronberg-000825 + + +During the course of the investigation a search warrant was executed at Jeffrey Epstein's home located at +358 El Brillo Way in Palm Beach. While in the home I observed the pink and +within the +bedroom area just as the girls previously mentioned. The stairway, which is located from the kitchen area to the +bedroom area, is lined with photos of naked young girls. Additionally, numerous photographs of naked +young females, some of which appeared to be the girls 1 previously interviewed, were on display throughout the +house. Also located in the house were various phone message books. The telephone message books have a +duplicate copy (Carbon Copy) which, once a phone message is written into the book, the top copy is then torn +on the perforated edge and the carbon copy is left in the book. First names of girls, dates and telephone numbers +were on the copy of the messages. I recognized various numbers and names of girls that had already been +interviewed. The body of the messages were time of the day that they called for confirmation of "work." Other +names and telephone numbers were located in which the body of the messages were, "I have girls for him" or "I +have 2 girls for him." These messages were taken by +L. who signed the bottom of the messages. +During the execution of the warrant, I located al +transcript for in Epstein's +bedroom desk. This desk had stationary marked Jeffrey E Epstein. I located a wood colored armoire beside +Epstein's bed that contained a bottle of "Joy Jelly," which is used to provide a warm massage. Several massage +tables were located throughout the second floor of the residence, including a massage table found in Epstein's +bedroom. On the first floor of the residence I found two covert cameras hidden within clocks. One was located +in the garage and the other located in the library area on a shelf behind Epstein's desk. A computer was located +which was believed to contain the images from the covert cameras. The computer's hard drive was reviewed +which showed several images of +and other witnesses that have been interviewed. All of these +images appeared to come from the camera positioned behind Epstein's desk. +On December 13, 2005, Det. Dawson and I met with +, dob +• During a sworn taped +statement, +stated that when she was sixteen years old she was taken to Epstein's house to provide a massage +for money. +stated it was before Christmas last year (2004) when an associate, +• approached her and +asked if she needed to make money for Christmas. ( +made arrangements to take +• to the house and drove +• to the house to "work." +They were encountered by a +female with long blond hair. +Swas unable to +remember the name of the +female with blond hair but knew she was Epstein's assistant. She was led +upstairs by the +female who explained that there would be lotions out already and Epstein would choose the +lotion he wanted her to use. She was led through a spiral staircase which led to a +bedroom and +•bathroom. The massage table was already set up in the bathroom. +• described the bathroom as a large +spacious bathroom with a steam room and shower beside it. +was introduced to Epstein who was on the +phone when she entered the room. Epstein was wearing a +towel and laid on his stomach so that +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of Palm Beach +sting Officer +Date: +05/01/2006 +CA/Aronberg-000826 + + +massage his feet and calves. +started the massage with the oils Epstein chose and rubbed his feet and calves. +Epstein got off the phone and requested she massage his back as well. began rubbing his back and got to +the small of his back. During the rubbing of his back, Epstein asked her to get comfortable. He requested she +remove her pants and shirt. I +removed her shirt and pulled her pants off. +stayed in her bra and thong +panties. As she finished massaging the small of Epstein's back, he then turned onto his back. Epstein +instructed +to rub his chest and pinch his nipples. As she began to rub his chest, Epstein asked her questions +about herself. +remembered telling him she attended. +•. Epstein asked her if +she was sexually active. Before +could answer, he also asked what sexual position does she enjoy. +stated she was shy and didn't like talking about those things. She continued rubbing his chest. Epstein reached +up and unsnapped her bra from the front. Ond explained the bra she used had a front snapping device. Epstein +rubbed her breasts and asked her if she like having her breasts rubbed. +•said "no, I don't like that." Epstein +then removed his towel and laid on the bed naked exposing his penis tol +• He began touching his penis and +masturbated as he touched her breasts. +explained Epstein then touched her vaginal area by rubbing her +vagina with his fingers on the outside of her thong panties. +tensed up and stated Epstein was aware that she +was uncomfortable. i +•stated that Epstein said to her, "Relax, I'm not going inside." She further explained +Epstein commented to her how beautiful and sexy she was. Epstein then moved her thong panties to one side +and began stroking her clitoris. +, said, "He commented how hard my clit was." He then inserted two fingers in +her vagina and was stroking her within her vagina. She tried pulling back to pull out his fingers from within her +vagina. Epstein removed his fingers from within her vagina and apologized for putting his fingers inside her. +During this time, he kept his hand on her vaginal area and continued to rub her vagina. stated he rubbed her +really hard as he was masturbating. said he climaxed onto the towel he had been previously wearing and got +up from the table. Epstein told her there was $200.00 dollars for her on the dresser within the +bathroom. +Epstein also told her that there was an additional $100.00 that was to be given to for bringing her there to +massage him. Epstein told her to leave her telephone number with his assistant as he wanted to see her again. +Epstein stated his assistant would contact her to work again soon. I asked her if she ever received any formal +massage training to which +stated she did not. +stated it was the only time she ever went to work for Jeff +and knew what happened to her was wrong. She further stated that she had never been contacted for any +additional work. +On January 9, 2006, 1 located and interviewed another victim,, dob e +was identified +as a potential victim/witness from information obtained during trash pulis from Epstein's residence. stated she +met Epstein when she was fifteen years of age. She was approached by a friend from +to be taken to Jeffrey Epstein's house to work. She was originally told she would be able +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +County of Palm Beach +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Signature/s +Date: + +resting Officer +CA/Aronberg-000827 + + +to model lingerie for a wealthy Palm Beacher. was taken to Epstein's house located on El BrilloWay. +introduced ko Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein had his personal chef prepare dinner for +Pand & +• At the +conclusion of dinner, +and Epstein brought upstairs into al +- bedroom area. +observed a large +massage table with a sheet on it. Epstein entered through a door and exited wearing only a towel. +informed that they were going to provide a massage on Epstein basked why were they doing this instead +of modeling lingerie. +explained to that this was his routine and to rub his calves and feet. Epstein had +tolde to get comfortable. +removed her pants and blouse. +•stated she stayed only in panties as she did +not wear a bra that evening. +stated while rubbing his calves and feet, Epstein turned over onto his back. +Epstein told dato rub his chest and rub his nipples. d +astated that as she started rubbing his chest, Epstein +began masturbating himself. Epstein touched her breasts and stroked her vagina with his fingers. Epstein +continued to masturbate himself as he stroked her vagina. Epstein ejaculated on his towel and paid 5200.00 +for the massage. Epstein told +that if she told anyone what happened at his house that bad things could +evere brought home by Epstein's houseman andl +was afraid that Epstein knew where +stated that several days later she received a telephone call from +who coordinated for +to return to "work." +returned to the house and was brought to Efl +bedroom area by Sarah who +prepared the room for the massage. Epstein entered the room wearing only a towel. Epstein had remove her +clothing and provide the massage naked. & +began rubbing his feet and calves and Epstein turned over onto his +back. Epstein rubbed her vagina with his fingers. Epstein began to masturbate himself with an upwards and +downward motion on his penis. Epstein continued to touch her vagina with one hand and masturbate with the +other hand. Once Epstein ejaculated onto the towel he was wearing, the massage was over. was paid +$200.00 for the massage. Epstein again toldnot to speak of what happened at his house or bad things would +happen. wanted to notify authorities however she was afraid of what would happen to either her or her +family. +During the course of the investigation, several subjects were identified as a potential witness/victim +through information obtained during the trash pulls, physical surveillance and telephone message books retrieved +from the search warrant. While conducting research on the subjects, I discovered that the females were age +eighteen or older. Interviews were conducted on the consenting adults whose statements provided the same +massage routine when they went to "work" for Epstein. The females would be notified by +, and +made appointments for the females to "work" for Epstein. The females would come to Epstein's house and were +led upstairs, through a stairwell from the kitchen area, by L +to Epstein's bedroom. Epstein would then +inter the room wearing only a towel, and ask them to get comfortable. The females would then provide the +massage naked as Epstein would either touch their vaginas with his fingers and/or utilize the massager/vibrator on +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +- pasta, +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of Palm Beac +Date: +05/01/2006 +Pano20r27 +CA/Aronberg-000828 + + +Agency ORI FLO 500600 +their vaginal area. He would masturbate during the massage and upon his climaxing, the massage would end. The +girls were then paid two or three hundred dollars for the massage. +was the house manager, driver and house maintenance person. It was his responsibility to prepare the house for +Epstein s arrival. When asked about cooks or assistants, Alessi stated they traveled with Epstein on his private +bedroom or bathroom. He knew this because he often set up the massage tables. I asked if there were things +going on other than a massage. Alessi stated that there were times towards the end of his employment that he +would have to wash off a massager/vibrator and a long rubber penis, which were in the sink after the massage. +Additionally, he stated the bed would almost always have 10 be +le after the massage. +On January 4, 2006 1 interviewed another former houseman, Mr Alfredo Rodriguez. During a sworn +taped statement, Mr. Rodriguez stated he was employed by Jeffrey Epstein for approximately six months, from +November 2004 through May of 200S. His responsibilities as house manager included being the | +chauffeur, chef, houseman, run errands for Epstein and provide for Epstein's guests. I asked Rodriguez about +masseuses coming to the house. Rodriguez stated Epstein would have two massages a day. Epstein would have +one massage in the moring and one massage in the afternoon everyday he was in residence. Rodriguez stated +he would be informed to expect someone and make them comfortable until either +Lor Epstein would +meet with them. Rodriguez stated once the masseuses would arrive, he would allow them entry into the kitchen +area and offer them something to drink or eat. They would then be encountered by either +Epstein. They would be taken upstairs to provide the massage. I asked Rodriguez if any of the masseuses +appeared young in age. Rodriguez stated the girls that would come appeared to be too young to be masseuses. +He stated one time under Epstein's direction, he delivered a dozen roses to d +one of the girls that came to provide a massage. He knew the girls were still in high school and were of high +school age. I asked Rodriguez about the massages. He felt there was a lot more going on than just massages. +He would often clean Mr. Epstein's bedroom after the alleged massages and would discover massagers/vibrators +and sex toys scattered on the floor. He also said he would wipe down the vibrators and sex toys and put them +away in an armoire. He described the armoire as a small +armoire which was on the wall close to Epstein's +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this I" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of Palm Beath +Signature/AT +resting Officer +Date: +05/01\2006 +Dano2hrz7 +CA/Aronberg-000829 + + +bed. On one occasion Epstein ordered Rodriguez to go to the Dollar rent a car and rent a car for the same girl +he brought the roses to, so that she could drive her self to Epstein's house without incident. Rodriguez said the +girl always needed rides to and from the house. +Rodriguez produced a +h folder which contained documents, and a note with Mr. Epstein's stationary +with direction to deliver a bucket of roses to R +•after +high school drama +performance. Also in that same note was direction to rent a car for f +and direction to extend the rental +contract. +During the course of the investigation, subpoenas were obtained for cell nhone and home phone records +from several victims and witnesses along with the cell phone records off +An analysis of these +records was conducted which found numerous telephone calls were made between +and the victims. +These records indicate the dates the calls were made are consistent with the dates and times they +victims/witnesses stated they were contacted. Specifically, The phone records showed +Called +a during the exact times and dates when victim +advised the incident occurred. +also coordinated +the encounters with +•during the time frame the girls +stated they occurred. +Pursuant to a lawful subpoena I obtained Epstein's private plane records for 2005 from Jet Aviation. +The plane records show arrival and departure of Epstein's plane at Palm Beach International airport. These +records were compared to the cell phone records of +This comparison found that all the phone calls +I made to +and the victims were made in the days just prior to their arrival or during the time Epstein +was in Palm Beach. +Therefore, as Jeffrey Epstein, who at the time of these incidents was fifty one years of age, did have +vaginal intercourse either with his penis or digitally with +who were minors at the time this +occurred, there is sufficient probable cause to charge Jeffrey Epstein with four counts of Unlawful Sexual Activity +with a Minor, in violation of Florida State Statute 794.05(1), a second degree felony. As Epstein, Who at the time +of the incident was fifty two years of age, did use a vibrator on the external vaginal area of a fourteen year +old minor, there is sufficient probable cause to charge him with Lewd and Lascivious Molestation, in violation of +Thore meis i day on May, wor to or afirmed +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of Palm Beach +Signature/ Arresting Officer +Date: 05/01/2006 +Dranklara +CA/Aronberg-000830 + + +Number +ARREST/ NOTICE TO APPÈAR +IVE +Rancy OF! Number ! +LAgancy name +Juvenile Referral Repor +по 5.50 016.0.0 +PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT +D 3: Misdemeanor +any: +05. +Ordinanbe +Traffic Foleny +Traffic Misdomeanor +D6. Other +Location of Arrest (Including Name of Business +Time ol Ares! +Booking Dase +Booking Time: +Jat Date +Date of Aresi +Hame (34: Fist, Makin)™ +Daia c +BATAL +05iz99 +Marks Tanops Unique Physical Egatures +1 :Arest: +3. Roquest, for Warranı, +2-NT-A: +4 Roguast for Capia +Agency Repon Number (N.T.A 's onty) +76E THEI +# Weapon Seizod +Entor Type +(Busir +Frank +lal Time +Lacesong/ Manicte +has (Name, DOB, Spc. Soc, Eic) +VIN METE +E02 Vizo +8 Co +CA: +Lantal Status +Religion +3 +Juvonne T +Addresa (Sirest, Apt +L: Numoer) +(53201 +to Come +Alcohol +influence +Drug infiance +8 +уре: +Caty +Oute State. +Permanens Addross (Street, Api. Number) +(Cryl +manc +Address (flame, Sepel +(Zip) +Prone +De Numean Sialo +INS Number +241534576 La +Co-Defendant Name (Last Firsi, Mace) +Date ci Binh +Co-Delondant Name (Last, Fess, Model +Pore Cuntien +• Name CaN +(Firsi): +Address (Street, Apt, Number): +(Metals +(State) +TOT, JAC +Arresied: +12p) +Coronship +relony +Misdemeanor +Sluvanile +4. Misdemeanor +Residence Phone +BusineSs Pane +for delandant's parents. The child and / or parent was okt +Schoel Amended +Grade +Property Crime? +O. Yos +• No +Desorpion of Property +Value of Property +*bespenser +Disinbute +Unknown +Pathic +TOUCH +Charge Despipion +nig Açinly +Amphetamine +Stance Vigtatien Number +0.0 +Violation eE ORD», +Amount /-Unil: +Drug Activity: Prig Type +ge Descripto +Drug Actinly Drug Type +Amount /UNil +01S(2) +OY. +268(0) +Warrant /Canies Number +Statuse Vielation Number +Violation al ORD a +LA SNA +Statule Violation Mumber +Violation of ORDE +Offense ! +Statule Violaton +Violation: / ORD # +Drug Acsivity +Drug Type +Aman Uni +•:Instrución No: 1 +Mandalary Appearance in Couri. +• Instrucian No. 2 +empy were in Brunera Se +Location (Cour, Room Number, Address). +Cour Daie and Time: +Spnature of Detendant for Juvenile and Parent / Custodian) +HOLD tor gibir Apency +Name: +• Dangerous +• Suicidal +take Deputy +DISTRIBUTIÓN: +• Rossiod Arrest +•.Cher; +Hame of Airesting Oncer +Dato Signed +Name Verlicason (Prinjod br Ariesie). +LI(PRINT):, +CHAREN +A.D:#: Pous +Transpening Otice! +PAGE +OF +•WHITE: - COURT CORY +- STATE ATTORNEY +YELLOW. - AGENCY. +PINK: - JAIL: +GOLD DEFENDANT TAS ONLY +CA/Aronberg-000831 + + +OT A CERTIFIED +CA/Aronberg-000832 +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, PL, + + +! +Agency ORIH FLO 500600 +Police Casell: 05-368 (2) +Defendant: +Race/Sex: +DOB: +Charges: +Female +05-25-1975 +Principal in the 1" Unlawful Sexual Activity with a Minor (4) counts +Principal in the 1" Lewd and Lascivious Molestation (1) count +brought to the residence by +to perform massages for Epstein, for which +monetary compensation. During the visit they would be introduced to! +Epstein's assistant, who in +turn would record their telephone numbers and name. The victims would be brought to Epstein's bedroom to +provide the massage. Epstein would enter the room and order the vietims to remove their clothing to provide the +massage. As the victims complied and provided the massages, Epstein would rub his fingers on their vaginas. +On occasion, Epstein would introduce a massager/vibrator and rub the victims vaginas as they provided the +massage. On three separate occasions, Epstein had intercourse and inserted his penis/fingers in the victims +vaginas. At the conclusion of the massages the victims were paid sums of money ranging from $200 - $1,000. +The facts, as reported, are as follows: +On 03/15/2005, A fourteen year old white female, hereinafter referred to as t +• dob +, and +her family reported unlawful sexual activity which occurred at a residence within the Town of Palm Beach. ( +reported that a subject known to her as "Jeff" had touched her vaginal area with a vibrator/massager while within +his residence. "Jeff" was later identified as Jeffrey Epstein through a photo line up. +During a sworn taped interview, +stated that +dob 04/09/1986, a cousin off +boyfriend and classmate at +worked for a wealthy man and did sexual favors for +him. She also admitted that +had offered her an opportunity to make money. During the beginning of +the month of February 2005/ +@explained that she was first approached by +to go with her to Epstein's +stated that +along with a Hispanic female, later identified at +pick her up at +her father's house on a Sunday. +father that they wet going shopping but int sure of the exact dates but knew it was a Sunday. +• told her +drove them to Palm Beach. During the drive a +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +C.I. perp +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of Palm Beach +Date: +05/01/2006 +Page / of 22 +CA/Aronberg-000833 + + +conversation occurred between +and whereas +she should say she was eighteen. It was later confirmed by the +on February 6, 2005. According to father, l +reportedly told +that if Jeff asked her age, +father that +picked his daughter up +drove a pick up truck. +described Epstein's house as a two-story pink house with a Cadillac Escalade parked in the +driveway. She recalled that Jeff's house was on a dead end street. Upon arriving at the house stated that +they walked up a driveway, past what appeared to be a small guard/security room. A male approaching them +asking what they wanted. +stated they were there to see Epstein. The male allowed them to continue +walking up to the house. +stated the man told them that Epstein was not there but was expected back. He +allowed them to enter the house, via the kitchen. He offered them something to drink while they waited inside. +Shortly thereafter, Epstein and his assistant, described as +female with blond hair and later identified as +, entered the kitchen. Epstein introduced himself to described Epstein as being +approximately forty-five years old, having a long face and bushy eyebrows, with graying hair. +and Epstein left the kitchen leaving alone in the kitchen. They returned a short time later. +They all spoke briefly in the kitchen. +was instructed to follow Kellen upstairs. recalled walking up a +flight of stairs, lined with photographs, to a room that had a massage table in it. Upon entering the room there +was a large bathroom to the right and a hot pink and +sofa in the room. There was a door on each side of +the sofa. ( +recalled there being a mural of a naked woman in the room, as well as several photographs of +naked women on a shelf. +told the victim that Epstein would be up in a second. +Epstein entered the room wearing only a towel and told to take off her clothes. stated Epstein +was stern when he told her to take off her clothes. C +•said she did not know what to do as she was the only one +there in the room so she took off her shirt leaving her bra on. Epstein had removed his towel and told the to +take off everything. +stated Epstein was nude when he took his towel off, placing it on the floor as he laid +down on the table. +stated she then removed her pants leaving her thong panties on. Epstein then instructed +her to give him a massage pointing to a specific lotion for her to use. As began to give Epstein the massage, +he told her to get on his back. stated she straddled herself on Epstein's back whereby her exposed buttocks +were touching Epstein's bare buttocks. said Epstein was specific in his instruction to her on how to massage +him, telling her to go clockwise or counter clockwise. Epstein then turned over and instructed do massage his +chest. was now standing on the ground and resumed massaging Epstein's chest area. stated Epstein held +onto the small of her back as she massaged his chest and shoulder area. Epstein then turned to his side and +started to rub his penis in an up and down motion. Epstein then pulled out a purple vibrator and began to +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me tbis 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +County of Palm Beach +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Date: +95181/2006 +Page 2of 22 +CA/Aronberg-000834 + + +massage +vaginal area. stated there was no penetration as the vibrator was on top of her underwear. +recalled Epstein ejaculating because he had to use the towel to wipe himself as he got off the table. Epstein +then left the room and got dressed. She went back downstairs where she met with +• said she +was paid three hundred dollars in cash from Epstein. Before she left, Epstein asked +to leave her phone +number. As C +hand( +were leaving the house, +told 1 +she received two hundred +dollars that day for bringing her. +During the course of the investigation, parental consent was granted for d +to assist with the +investigation. At our direction +•conducted controlled taped phone calls to Robson's cellular telephone +308-0282. spoke with +in an attempt to arrange another meeting with Epstein, C +asked +what did she need to do to make more money. +stated, "the more you do, the more you get paid." +had subsequently called back and left a voice mail message for her indicating that she had set up an +appointment for to go to Epstein's house at 11:00 am on April 5, 2005. This message was recorded from +• voice mail. +Based on the above, trash pulls were established at Epstein's residence with Supervisor Tony Higgins of +the Sanitation Bureau of the Town of Palm Beach. The trash pull from April 5, 2005 revealed a telephone +message for Epstein which stated Haley and l name at 11:00 am. This was the time frame +had +informed to be ready to go work at Epstein's house: +On October 3, 2005, Sgt Frick and I went to Robson's residence and viewed her vehicle parked in the +driveway, a red Dodge Neon. Sgt. Frick and I knocked on the door and met with +was +told that we were investigating a claim involving Jeffrey Epstein of El Brillo Way, in Palm Beach. +was +asked if she would accompany us back to the police station for further questioning. She was also told that at the +conclusion of the interview she would be returned home. +voluntarily came with us back to the Palm +Beach Police Department. +Upon our arrival at the police, station, +was brought to the interview room in the Detective Bureau +where I obtained a taped, sworn statement. I began the interview by asking +how she became +acquainted with Epstein. Robson stated that approximately two years ago, just after she turned 17 years of age, +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Signature of Police Officer (FIS.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of Pairh Beach +Signature Apresting Officer +Date: +05401/2006 +Page 3of 22 +CA/Aronberg-000835 + + +Molly (Unknown last name) and Tony (Unknown last name) picked | +up and she was taken to +Epstein's house. Upon her arrival to the house she was introduced to Epstein in the kitchen of the house. She +was also introduced to a +| female known to her as Sarah. She was led upstairs to the main bedroom known +to her as Jeff Epstein's bedroom. Sarah arranged the massage table and covered the table with a sheet. She +brought out the massage oils and laid them next to the massage bed. Sarah, then left the room and informed +| Jeff would be in, in a minute. Jeff entered the bedroom wearing only a towel. He removed the towel +and laid nude on the massage table. He laid on the table onto his stomach and picked a massage oil for +to rub on him. During the massage, +stated "He tried to touch me and I stopped him." I asked how he +tried to touch her. +| stated that Epstein grabbed her buttocks and she felt uncomfortable. told +Epstein, I'll massage you but I don't want to be touched. +I stated she performed the massage naked. At +the conclusion of the massage, Epstein paid +$200. +After the massage Epstein stated to +that he understood she was not comfortable, but he would +pay her if she brought over some girls. He told her the younger the better. Robson stated she once tried to bring +a 23 year old female and Epstein stated that the female was too old. Robson stated that in total she only +remembers six girls that she brought to see Epstein, each time she was paid $200. +stated she had +brought the following girls: +• (aló year old female), (a 16 year old +female) and +said that at the time she brought these girls to Epstein's house they were all14 +through 16 years of age. I asked +which one was the youngest. +advised +was the youngest as +she was fourteen when the massage occurred. Robson stated every girl she brought knew what to expect when +they arrived. They were told they would provide a massage, possibly naked, and allow some touching. I asked +her if +was aware. She stated every girl she brought knew what to expect. She explained she knew that +wanted to make money. She approached +and explained about going to work for Jeff, agreed and +arrangements were made to bring her to Epstein's house on a weekend. +stated that she and +(Later identified as d +picked up l +at her house. +stated that at that time she was driving +a red pickup truck. They traveled to Epstein's house and entered through the kitchen door. They met with the +house chef and Epstein's assistant Sarah. C +→was introduced to Epstein while they were in the kitchen area. +Sarah led! +upstairs and Epstein went upstairs. When the massage was over +-teturned to the kitchen area. +stated she was paid $200,00 for bringing to Epstein's house. +stated told her she was +paid $300.00 for the massage. +was the last person she brought to Epstein's house. She had changed her cellular +number to avoid being contacted by Sarah. She continued stating that she had no direct contact with Epstein +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Page Yof 22 +CA/Aronberg-000836 + + +when he was going to travel to Palm Beach. I +said when Epstein announces to his assistant, Sarah, that +he is traveling to Palm Beach, Sarah would then contact I +to arrange girls to "work" for Epstein. H +stated that once her parents discovered that she was visiting Epstein, they disapproved of the encounters with him +and she stopped. HA +further stated that Sarah still tries to call +house and leaves messages. +Sgt Frick entered the room and explained to I +that based on her own statements, she had +implicated herself by bringing underage girls to Epstein's house. +provided cellular telephone numbers for +the girls she had mentioned previously. Additionally, she also provided possible addresses and areas in which +they lived. +As IM +was being taken home in the vehicle, a tape recorder was placed within the vehicle to record +any conversations within the vehicle. During the drive back to her home, 1 +made the comment "I'm like +a Heidi Fleiss." (Hollywood Madam who sent girls to clients for sexual favors in California). I +was +dropped off at her house without incident. +On October 3, 2005, Sgt Frick and I went to speak with +a sixteen year-old female who was +brought to Epstein's residence by +We met with +mother at their front door. We explained +the ongoing investigation and asked to speak with +as we had information that she had "worked" for Jeff. +Mrs. introduced us to her husband and allowed us entry into the home. We sat in the dining room and met +with +, Date of Birth +As she was under the age of eighteen, Mrs owas advised we would be +speaking with her. She expressed if her daughter had information, she wanted to assist. We interviewed C? who +denied having any inappropriate encounters with Jeff (Epstein). She stated she had gone to Jeff's house with +approximately eight months ago and sat in the kitchen with the house chef, but nothing happened +As the parents were present during the interview, we felt that was withholding information from us. She made +several comments as to putting the entire incident behind her. I left my telephone number and advised should she +wish to speak with me again to telephone me. Sgt Frick and I thanked Mrs. • for her time and left the area. She +stated she would ask again after we left as to what happened at Epstein's house. I informed her that • had +my telephone number and hopefully she would call. +On October 4, 2005, Det Dawson and I drove to the l +During a sworn taped statement, +when she was seventeen years old, she was taken to a house by +because they both attend +home and met with +and +•stated approximately a year ago +stated she knows +7. She was told she could make money working +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Da CAudau +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County +Palm Beach +Signature/ar +resting Officer +Date: +Page Sof 22 +CA/Aronberg-000837 + + +for Jeff. She was told she would have to provide a massage to Jeff. +• stated upon her arrival to the house +she was brought to the kitchen area by F +_ They met with the house chef who was already in the kitchen +area. +stated H +would wait for her in the kitchen. +was introduced to Sarah, Jeff's +assistant, who brought her upstairs to the r +bedroom. Sarah prepared the room and massage table for a +massage. Epstein entered the room wearing only a towel and she provided a massage. { +• stated she kept +her clothes on during the massage. She advised sometime during the massage, Epstein grabbed her buttocks and +pulled her close to him. +• said she was uncomfortable by the incident involving Jeff. At the conclusion of +the massage, she was paid $200.00 for the massage. I asked C +if she has any formal training in massages to +which she replied no. I asked her if 1! +received any monies for taking her to perform the massage. +stated 1 +had received money for taking her there but was unsure in the amount. +a stated she +returmed to Epstein's house on another occasion with I +and another girl, C +she waited in the kitchen with ! +was taken upstairs by Sarah. +stated +stated she only did the +massage once as she was uncomfortable with the whole experience. +At the conclusion of the interview, the tape was stopped. Iwas informed that Sarah had attempted to +reach +→ via cell phone. A voice mail message on October 4, 2005 at 10:59 am, revealed a female voice +who identified herself as Sarah who requested• +to call her back reference the police questioning. +provided the incoming telephone number as 917-855-3363. +stated she inadvertently told +about the police investigation becaused +had called her to tell her about how she just received a rental car +from Jeff Epstein. ( +nad called her to tell her that she was given a rental car, a 2005 Silver Nissan Sentra, +to utilize to visit family and visit Epstein. +be asking questions. +•stated' +asked her what was going on at the house that the police would +then called Jeff and Sarah and asked what was going on +reference the ongoing police investigation. According tol +• Sarah has since then been trying to contact her +to ask about the police questions. I instructed! +• not to contact Sarah and do not provide any more +information tol +›as she would notify Jeff Epstein and Sarah what was transpiring +On October4, 2005, I made telephone contact with +who had left several messages for me to contact +her. During the message, she advised she was not completely truthful when we met in person but would like to +speak with me to advise what had happened. She further advised she did not want to speak of this incident in +front of her mother. At approximately 3:48 pm I made telephone contact with During a taped recorded +to Epstein's house twice. She knows +time she went, Haley +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +I to ludo +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of Palm Beach +Date: +05/01/2006 +Page 6of 22 +CA/Aronberg-000838 + + +introduced to Sarah and Epstein. She was taken upstairs to a bedroom by Sarah who set the room up with a +massage bed and brought out the oils to use. Epstein then entered the room wearing a towel. He laid on the +table and picked out a lotion for to rub on him. At one point during the massage he tried to remove her shirt, +at which point she became very upset and discontinued the massage. Both and Epstein had a verbal +disagreement, at which time she left without being paid. She got with +- who was sitting in the +kitchen and told her "let's go." +advised she received no money for that day. also said that +had told her if she was uncomfortable with what was going on, to let him know and he'll stop. She knew that the +more you do the more you get paid. advised that several weeks later she agreed to be taken a second time +Once they arrived at the residence, +sat in the kitchen and Sarah took her +upstairs to the +bedroom again. Sarah set the room up with a massage bed and brought out the oils to +use. Epstein then entered the room wearing a towel. He laid on the table and picked out a lotion for to rub +on him. At one point during the massage he tried to touch her buttocks. As & +was wearing tight jeans and had a +tight belt on Epstein was unable to touch her buttocks. Epstein then rolled onto his back during the massage and +then attempted to touch her breasts. chen became upset again and told Ep she didn't want to be touched +discontinued the massage and was paid $200.00 +then went downstairs where +was waiting +for her. She told +she wanted to leave. +said she never returned to the house. stated she is aware +that her friend, +was also at the house and had a problem with Epstein. +1 later researched +taped statement, +dob C +and met with her at her residence. During a sworn +stated the following: on or about November 2004, she was approached at +i, a fellow student. Robson asked l +if she wanted to make money. +She agreed and was told she would provide al +assage to wealthy man in Palm Beach. +picked her up +and drove her to a house in Palm Beach. She was brought into the kitchen area of the house. She further stated +that fellow +Students and +came with them. They were +brought into the kitchen where she was introduced to Epstein and other females. I +• stated she was +introduced to a female helper of Epstein, the female was described as +i female (unknown name ), with +blond hair. She stated that the assistant was familiar with +. The assistant brought her upstairs into a +bedroom area. The assistant set up the massage table and put out lotions to be used. She told C +Epstein would be available in a minute. Epstein entered the room wearing only a towel. Epstein removed his +towel, and laid naked on the massage table and picked a lotion to rub on his thighs and back. I +further +tated during the massage, Epstein asked her to remove her clothes. She complied and removed her pants and +blouse. +didn't remember if she had removed her bra but feels that she did. was certain that she +stayed in her thong underwear. f +continued the massage and at one point she climbed onto the massage +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +County of Palm Beach +Signature of Police Offičer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Date: +05/07/2006 +Page of 22 +CA/Aronberg-000839 + + +table, straddling Epstein to massage his back. While doing this her buttocks were touching Epsteins. +was instructed to return to the ground at which time Epstein turned to have his chest rubbed. ( +• advised she +was sure he was masturbating based on his hand movements going up and down on his penis area. +•did +not want to look at his penis area because she was uncomfortable. Epstein removed a large +vibrator which +was next to the massage table and turned it on. +• stated Epstein began rubbing the vibrator over her thong +underwear on her vaginal area. Shortly thereafter, Epstein ejaculated and removed himself from the table. He +walked over to where the shower was and opened the +door. She waited as he was taking a shower in her +direct view. When I asked how old she was when this occurred, she stated she had just turned +seventeen. At the conclusion of the shower,• +was paid either $350.00 or $400.00. She stated she +wasn't sure, but knows it was close to $400.00. € +astated she never returned to provide a massage for +Epstein. +At approximately 2:10 pm, Det Dawson and I met with +y at her residence. Ast +was only seventeen years of age, I had notified her mother, that she would be interviewed reference an ongoing +investigation in Palm Beach. I assured her that her daughter was not a suspect. I explained the possibility of her +being either a witness or victim. Mrs@advised she wanted +to cooperate and consented to the interview. +During a sworn taped statement, +stated the following: at the age of sixteen, during the month of +September 2004, she was approached by +for a chance to make money. +was friends with +associates of +and knew the same people. +had been previously told by her friends from +what +did for Epstein. +called a person known to d +Das Sarah and +scheduled the appointment. +picked up and drove her to Palm Beach to a street called "Brillo Way". +They drove to the end of the street and entered a large driveway. They entered the kitchen area of the house and +met with Epstein. C +was introduced to Jeff Epstein. +set up the room with a massage table and set out the oils. +led upstairs to the main bedroom area and +stated that while going up the stairs and into the +bedroom she observed numerous photographs of naked young girls. +dimmed the lights and turned on +soft music. +exited the room and Epstein entered the room wearing only a towel. Epstein picked oils and +instructed her to rub his legs, under his buttocks, back and chest area. Epstein asked her to get comfortable. d +advised she did not remove her clothes. She was wearing tight jeans and a cropped tank top exposing her belly +area. During the massage, epstein removed his towel and laid on the massage table naked. As rubbed +pstein's chest area, be attempted to reach down her pants to touch her buttocks area however was unable to +ue so due to the tightness of the jeans and a tight belt. advised Epstein began to masturbate as she rubbec +his chest. Epstein moaned as she rubbed his chest. She observed he was continuing to masturbate and +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Signature of Police Ófficer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of Palm Beach +same gains omer +Date: 05/01/2006 +PageBof 22 +CA/Aronberg-000840 + + +attempted to reach up her tank top and touch her breasts. +pulled back and Epstein stopped, however he +kept masturbating until he climaxed. He cleaned himself with the towel he was previously wearing. was +paid $200.00 for the massage and left the area. She met with +who was waiting in the kitchen area and +left the house. +then explained she never provided another massage for Epstein. She did however, go to the house +with +and +•as they took another friend of +•advised she was present i. +aent to work for Epstein. She advised she rode over and sat in the kitchen area with +to +wait for +advised while they waited ford +• the house chef prepared lunch for them as it was +almost lunchtime when they went. When +awas finished with the massage they left the area +asked if +ever told her what would be expected when she provided a massage. +I stated yes, +told her +that a massage would be expected, possibly naked and possibly some touching involved +›has no formal +training in providing massages. +spoke about a third and last time she went to Epstein's house. +drove another girl, +• (sixteen years of age) who is +•friend, to Epstein's house. +stated +Knew that +had made money massaging Epstein and wanted to make money herself. +took them in the kitchen +area of the house and introduced to Sarah. +and Sarah took +upstairs to the main bedroom. +advised she doesn't know what happened as did not speak about what happened in the room. +received +$100.00 from +for going with her to Epstein's house and recommending +On October 6, 2005, at 11:45 am, 1 met with +•dob +at +/ and +explained to her why we there to interview her. She advised she was aware of the ongoing investigation. +stated she had previously spoken with +who told her she was interviewed by detectives. During a +sworn taped statement,! +stated she knew that +worked for Jeff Epstein in Palm Beach. +advised she originally had been taken to the Epstein house by +whom she met when they both +attended +She began going to the house when she was sixteen years of age and +stated she had been there a lot of times to provide massages over the past two years. I asked her if she had +formal training in providing massages, which +stated she had not. +advised she was told what was +expected of her by providing massages and she would have to remove clothing but if she felt uncomfortable just +to say so and Epstein would stop pushing the issue. +began providing massages and advised she kept her +clothes on. She considered Epstein a pervert and he kept pushing to go further and further. explained she +would keep telling him she had a boyfriend and would not be right to her boyfriend. It wasn't until recently that +began removing her clothes and staying in her thong underwear to provide a massage. @explained +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +County of Palm Beach +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Signature +Wresting Officer +Date: 05/01/2006 +Page9of22 +CA/Aronberg-000841 + + +Epstein wanted to be rubbed on his back and recently he began turning over and have her rub his chest as he +masturbated. He would try to touch her breasts as she rubbed his chest. C +stated "Jeff would try to get away +with more and more on each massage". +•stated Epstein would try to touch her more and on one occasion +he attempted to use a massager/vibrator on her. I +drove to the house for the original massage. C +left Sarah her cell phone number and every time Epstein would come into town, Sarah would call her for an +appointment to "work". Each time she went, Sarah would meet her at the kitchen door area. She would bring +her upstairs and prepare the massage table. +advised Epstein would ask her questions about herself. Epstein +knew she was a soccer player and would be attending +• 1 asked if Epstein knew her real +age. stated Epstein did and didn't care. The most recent massage she provided was on October 1, 2005. +During the massage, she asked Epstein if she could borrow one of his vehicles to visit her family and boyfriend in +Orlando, Florida. Epstein had told her she could borrow one of his vehicles but later stated he would rent her a +car. She continued with the massage as Epstein grabbed her buttocks and caressed the buttocks checks. I +asked +Dif she was wearing undergarments to which she replied her thong underwear. Once he tried to touch +her breasts, she would pull away from him and he would stop. +was asked if he ever used a vibrator on her. +• was aware of the vibrator but advised she never would allow bim to use the vibrator on her.. She described +the vibrator as the large +vibrator with a huge head on the tip of the vibrator. She stated he kept the vibrator +in a closet near the massage table. +stated that on October 3, 2005, she was contacted by Epstein's assistant, Sarah, who informed her +that Jeff Epstein had rented her a new Nissan Sentra and she should come by the house to pick it up. Sarah +informed +she would have the car for a month. +• stated Epstein knew her car was not working properly +and that she had missed appointments in the past because of her car being inoperable. C explained the car is +currently parked next to the +•Gym field. I asked her if she ever took any one to the house. ! +explained she took d +a friend of hers who attended +who has +relocated to Orlando to attend college. I asked if she ever allowed another female in the room. +advised no +one was brought into the room with her. +At the conclusion of the interview, Det Dawson and I went to the gym area off +and +located the Silver Nissan Sentra bearing Florida tag X98-APM. The vehicle is registered to Dollar Rent a Car +out of the Palm Beach International Airport. The vehicle was rented by Janusz Banasiack, later learned to be +Epstein's houseman, and paid with Epstein's credit card. +On September 11, 2005, w/fE?, dob +, was arrested by the Palm Beach Police Department +he foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirme +efore me this 1" day of May, 2006 l +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Ch 1 Auden +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of Palm Beach +Signature/AN +rresting Officer +Date: +05701/2006 +Pageloof 22 +: +CA/Aronberg-000842 + + +for misdemeanor possession of marijuana. During the arrest +told the arresting officer that she had information +about sexual activity taking place at the residence of Jeffrey Epstein. Additionally, during the ongoing trash pulls +from Epstein's residence, discarded papers were found which contained ( +name and cell phone number. +On October, 11, 2005, Det Dawson and I met with +and obtained a sworn taped statement. +explained she had been going to Epstein's house since 2002, when she was sixteen years of age. Since then she +has gone to the house hundreds of times. +•stated she became his "number one girl." She explained that on +her first visit she was brought to the house by fellow +•classmate, +said she was brought through the kitchen area where she met! +for the first time. +was led to +the i +bedroom, Epstein s room. +explained that as she was walking up the stairs she observed several +photographs of naked women along the walls and tables of the house. +further explained that she was +brought into the bedroom, where Sarah prepared the room by setting up the massage table and provided the oils +for her to rub on Epstein. ( +explained she remembered the steam room area, which contained two large +showers. Epstein entered the room from the steam room area and introduced himself. Epstein lay on the table +and told her to get comfortable. +removed her skirt and kept her shirt on./ Epstein then instructed her to +remove her shirt. +Premoved her shirt and remembered she was not wearing a bra. ! +•stated she provided +the massage wearing only her panties. She continued rubbing his legs, thighs and feet. +• advised he turned +over onto his back. Epstein touched her breasts and began to masturbate. Epstein ejaculated which meant the +massage was over. At the conclusion of the massage, +was paid $200.00. They walked together downstairs +avere waiting. +stated C +→ received an unknown amount of +money for taking her to Epstein. Epstein instructed to leave her cellular telephone number so that he could +contact her when he is in town. +stated that during her many visits a routine was established between her and Epstein. She would enter +the house and get naked in the bedroom. She would then start with a back massage. Epstein would roll on to his +back and allow her to massage his chest area. +•stated Epstein would then began to masturbate himself and at +the same time would insert his fingers in her vagina and masturbate her with his fingers. explained Epstein +would continue this process until he ejaculated. He would then utilize a vibrator/massager on her vagina until +climaxed. +›advised that during her frequent visits, Epstein asked for her real age, d +• stated she was sixteen. +Epstein advised her not to tell anyone her real age. d +- advised that things escalated within the home as Epstein +would instruct and pay to have intercourse with his female friend, MI +explained the +intercourse included using strap on dildos, large rubber penis' and other devices that Epstein had at his disposal. +epstein would watch them have intercourse and masturbate himself. Occasionally, Epstein would then join in +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida/ +County of Palm/Beach +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Signature/AAresting Officer +Date: 05/01/2006 +Pagel/of 22 +CA/Aronberg-000843 + + +during the female on female intercourse and provide oral sex to both fland +the time l +swas sixteen years of age. +a. This occurred during +advised this continued to escalate during two years. The routine became familiar to +• Epstein's +assistant Sarah would telephone her every time Epstein was in the Town of Palm Beach and would place +appointments for her to visit and work for Epstein. Each time something new was introduced, additional monies +were produced and offered for to allow the acts to happen. ( +consented to perform all these acts but was +adamant that there was an understanding with Epstein that no vaginal penetration would occur with his penis. +explained that Epstein's penis was deformed. explained that his penis was oval shaped. +claimed when +Epstein's penis was erect, it was thick toward the bottom but was thin and small toward the head portion. C +called Epstein's penis "egg-shaped." stated Epstein would photograph +a and her naked and +having sex and proudly display the photographs within the home. +astated during one visit to Epstein's house +in which she provided a massage to Epstein, his female friend, Nada Marcinkova, was also present. & +provided the massage in which +and her would fondle each others breasts and kiss for Epstein to +enjoy. Towards the end of this massage, Epstein grabbed band turned her over onto her stomach on the +massage table and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina. +stated Epstein began to pump his penis in her +became upset over this. She said her head was being held against the table forcibly, as he continued +to pump inside her. She screamed "No!" and Epstein stopped. She told him that she did not want to have his +penis inside of her. Epstein did not ejaculate inside of her and apologized for his actions and subsequently paid +her a thousand dollars for that visit. +• stated she knows he still displays her photographs through out the house. +On October 12, 2005, Det Dawson and I met with! +→ dob +who stated during +a sworn taped statement, that nothing happened between her and Epstein. +appeared nervous during the +interview. I assured her that I have spoken with other people who advised differently. +•stated on several +occasions she provided a massage to Epstein. She stated she was brought to the Epstein house in March of +2005. 0 +a classmate ad +• approached her and asked her if she +wanted to "work". +amade the arrangements with Sarah, Epstein's assistant. T +who has no formal +training in providing massages, stated she provided a massage, fully clothed for $200.00. As I sensed hesitancy +in her answers, I asked +if she had been contacted by anyone from Epstein's organizations or his house. +• stated she was interviewed already by a private investigator for Epstein. He identified himself as "Paul" +and inquired about the police investigation, and left his telephone number 305-710-5165 for additional contact. +@provided no additional information, as it appeared her responses were almost scripted. +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +-Auto +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of Palm Beach +Signature/Ar +Date: 05/01/2006 +ting Officer +Page 14f22 +CA/Aronberg-000844 + + +On November 6, 2005, at approximately 3:30 pm, I met withe +dob +at the +Palm Beach Police Department. C +was identified as a potential witness/victim through information +obtained during the trash pulls. During the sworn taped statement, ( +advised she was at Jeffrey Epstein's +house one time, approximately two months ago. She was approached by a girl, C +who was dating +roommate, for an opportunity to make some quick money. +•advised she needed to make some +quick cash to make the rent that month. She agreed to go to the house. She had been told by +that +the massage would have to be done in her underwear. She advised& +drove with her and brought her into the +house. They walked into the kitchen area, and took the stairs upstairs. +further stated she was brought +into a +bedroom area. She advised she recalled seeing portraits of naked women throughout the room. A +massage table was already out near the sauna/shower area in the +bedroom. Epstein entered the room +wearing only a towel and introduced himself as "Jeff." At Epstein's direction, & +and... +•temoved their +clothing down to their panties, Epstein laid on his stomach area and they provided a massage on his legs and feet +area. I askedi +if she had any formal massage training and she replied "no." +advised she was +topless and the panties she wore were the boy shorts lace panties. She and & +•continued the massage until the +last ten minutes of the massage, Epstein, told.. +•to leave the room so that | +could finish the massage. +got dressed, and left the room as Epstein turned over onto his back./ Epstein then removed the towel and +laid naked. Epstein requested that +brub his chest area. +•stated as she did this, Epstein, began +masturbating. +stated Epstein pulled down her boy short panties, and he produced a large +vibrator +with a large head. She stated it was within his reach in a drawer in his +bathroom. He rubbed the vibrator +on her vaginal area. +advised he never penetrated her vagina with the vibrator. He continued to rub her +vagina with the vibrator as he continued to masturbate. +• stated she was very uncomfortable during the +incident but knew it was almost over. Epstein climaxed and started to remove himself from the table. He wiped +himself with the towel he had on previously and went into the shower area. +•got dressed and met with +in the kitchen area. Epstein came into the kitchen and provided. +$6200.00 for bringing and +paid $200.00 tol +for providing the massage. +was told to leave her telephone number with Sarah +for future contact. +provided her cellular telephone number. ( +was asked if she was recently +contacted about this investigation by anyone from the Epstein organization. She replied she was called but it was +for work. She stated she was called by Sarah for her to return to "work" for Epstein. +•stated "work" is +the term used by Sarah to provide the massages and other things. +› advised she declined as she was not +comfortable in providing that type of "work." +On Noyember 7, 2005, Det +and I met withe +swor taped statement, +•tated she met Jeffrey Epstein through +• dob +.. During a +when they were still +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Cun 1. Judo +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of Palmy Beach +Date: 05/01/2006 +Page/30f 22 +CA/Aronberg-000845 + + +attending +•Robson would approach females who wished to work for Epstein. +• stated she was offered to work for Epstein but declined. +•explained that "work" means give +massages. She was asked about any formal training in providing massages which she said "no." +said +she accompanied +n and other females who were taken to Epstein's house to provide massages. +further stated she had been to the house approximately 4 or 5 times in the past year. She accompanied +with +. Each time the girls were taken +over, they were previously told they would have to provide a massage, possibly naked. They were also told that +should Epstein require them to do anything extra, and they were not comfortable just to tell him and he would +stop. +• stated +In received $200.00 for each girl she brought over to massage Jeffrey Epstein. +When I asked which girl appeared to be the youngest, she replied, ? who was really young, fifteen years old at +the most. +•further stated each time she went to the house, she sat in the kitchen and waited with +until the massage was over. She further stated that the +would make lunch or a snack for them as they +waited. I asked her if there was anything that caught her attention within the home. +› stated there were a +lot of naked girls in photographs throughout the house. +On November 8, 2005, at approximately 2:00pm, I met with +, dob +at the +Palm Beach Police Department. During a sworn taped statement, +stated she had met Epstein +approximately two years ago when she was first approached by Haley +), a classmate at d +approached her about working for Ep +and providing a massage to him for $200.00. +had made the arrangements however was unable to take her the day the arrangements were made. +and was familiar +with Epstein. +recalled she was brought there and entered through the back kitchen door. She had met +with an assistant Sarah and another assistant Adrianna. Sarah brought her upstairs as she observed several +photographs of naked females throughout the house. +stated Epstein came in the room, wearing only a +towel, and laid on the table. +• stated he picked out the oils he wanted her to use and requested she +remove her clothing to provide the massage. +stated that on the first massage she provided she did not +remove her clothing. +stated she had returned several times after that. Each time she returned it was +more than a massage. +Epstein would walk into the +* bedroom/bathroom area wearing only a towel. He +would masturbate as she provided a massage. +• stated she was unsure if he climaxed as he masturbated +under the towel. Additionally, she never looked below his waist. She claimed that Epstein would convince her to +emove her clothes. She eventually removed her clothes and stayed in her thong panties. On occasion, Epstein +vould use a massager/vibrator, which she described as 1 in color and a large head. Epstein would rub the +vibrator/massager on her vaginal area as he would masturbate. +stated she had been to the house +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1'" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +1.Auton +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of Palth Beach +Signature/AN +resting Officer +Date: +05701/2006 +Page/40f 22 +CA/Aronberg-000846 + + +numerous times. +added she has no formal training in providing a massage. +• stated she brought +two females during her visits to provide massages. +stated she brought a girl named +and +from +stated she received $200.00 for each girl she brought. +On November 8, 2005, I met with +W/F, 1 +at the Palm Beach Police +Department. During a sworn taped statement, +stated she had met Jeffrey Epstein approximately one year +ago. She was approached by a subject known to her as +•had asked her if she wanted to make money +providing massages to Epstein. +had heard that several girls from +were +doing this and making money. She agreed and was taken to the house by +had introduced her to Sarah +and Epstein and brought her upstairs to a +bedroom where a massage table was prepared and the proper +oils were selected. L +Bleft the room and waited downstairs for her. +stated Epstein entered the room +wearing a towel and laid on his stomach. She provided a massage wearing only her thong panties. +advised Epstein had masturbated every time she provided a massage. She stated Epstein continued to +masturbate until he climaxed. Once that occurred the massage was over. She felt the whole situation was weird +but she advised she was paid $200.00 tor providing the massage. She also stated +was paid $200.00 by +Epstein for bringing +stated she had gone a total of 15 times to Epstein's residence to provide a +massage and things had escalated from just providing a massage. Epstein began touching her on her buttocks and +grabbed her closer to him as he masturbated. Epstein also grabbed her breasts and fondled her breasts with his +hands as she provided the massage. +astated on one occasion, while she was only seventeen years of age, he +offered extra monies to have vaginal intercourse. She stated this all occurred on the massage table. C +• stated +Epstein penetrated her vagina with his penis and began having intercourse with her until he reached the point of +climax. Epstein removed his penis from her yagina and climaxed onto the massage table. ( +$350.00 for her massage. I asked her if she had any formal training in providing massages, ( +stated she did +a continued to state on one other occasion, Epstein introduced his girlfriend, Nadia, into the massage. +Nadia was brought into room with +to provide a massage. Epstein had them kiss and fondle each other +around the breasts and buttocks as they provided a massage to Epstein. Epstein, watched and masturbated as +this occurred. On other occasions, Epstein, introduced the large +vibrator/massager in the massage. Epstein +stroked the vibrator/massager on +vagina as she provided the massage. +On November 14, 2005, Det +and I met with +adob +During a +sworn taped statement she advised she started going to the house approximately one year ago and has been there +approximately five or six times. ( +also stated she was sixteen years old when she first went to Epstein's +house. On her first visit she was brought by a fellow student from +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Signature of Policé Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of Palf Beach +Signature/Amering Officer +Date: +05Y0x/2006 +Page |50122 +CA/Aronberg-000847 + + +as +stated +brought her into the house and she was introduced to Sarah. Sarah then +brought her upstairs into a +bathroom, located within the bedroom. +• stated she met Epstein in the +bathroom. He laid on the table and picked the massage oils. She provided the massage as he laid naked on the +massage bed. She stated she rubbed his calves and back area. Upon the end of the massage, Epstein removed +himself from the massage table and paid her $300.00 for the massage. ( +said each subsequent time she +went to the house, she was notified by +that Epstein was in town and would like het to "work". +clothed. +stated she returned to the house and was again led upstairs by Sarah. She provided the massage, +was asked if she ever removed her clothing to provide a massage.' +stated it was not +until the third time that she went that she removed her clothing. +stated she was notified by Sarah that +Epstein wanted her to come to work. She arrived at the house and was led upstairs by Sarah. She started +providing the massage when Epstein asked her to remove her clothing. +removed her pants, shirt and +bra. She stayed in her thong panties and continued rubbing Epstein. Epstein turned over onto his back and she +rubbed his chest area.! +stated she knew he was masturbating himself as she providing the massage. +stated she believed he climaxed based on his breathing. She did not want to view either the climax or +the fact that he was masturbating. +stated once the breathing relaxed he got up and told her to get +dressed. She was paid $300.00 for her services. d +stated on the last time she went to provide a +massage, she was notified by +to come to the house and "work". +stated she was now +dating her current boyfriend and did not feel comfortable going. She recalled it was approximately January 2005. +She said she went, already thinking that this would be the last time. She went upstairs and went into the +bathroom. She met with Epstein, who was wearing only a towel, and laid onto the table. +stated +Epstein caught her looking at the clock on several occasions. Epstein asked her if she was in a hurry. +stated her boyfriend was in the car waiting for her. +further stated that Epstein got upset as he wasn't +enjoying the massage. She told him that she didn't want to continue and she would not be back. Epstein told her +to leave as she was ruining his massage. +advised she had no formal training in providing any massages. +stated although she had a falling out with Epstein, she still received a Christmas bonus from Epstein. +•stated she was wired money from Western Union for her Christmas bonus. Subpoena results from +Western Union revealed money was sent from Jeffrey Epstein on December 23, 2004. +received +$200.00 from Epstein for her Christmas bonus. +On November 15, 2005, Det. +and I met with +• During a sworn taped +statement, C +•stated she met Jeffrey Epstein over a year ago. She was sixteen years of age and was +approached by +•a fellow +•student, who informed her that she could +make $200,00 providing a massage to Epstein. +thad informed her that she would have to provide this +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of Palm Beach +Signature/Ar +Date: 05/072006 +ging Officer +Page/Lor 22 +CA/Aronberg-000848 + + +massage topless. +made the arrangements with Epstein and his assistants and took to the house. +stated +and she entered through a +door that led into a kitchen. She was taken upstairs by +1 to a +bedroom. She recalled the +bathroom had a large pink +sauna and matching shower. +Epstein entered into the room wearing only a towel. C +andi +Removed their clothing remaining only in +thong underwear. She further stated that Epstein laid on his chest on the table. The oils were selected on which +ones to use. Both +and +provided the massage on his legs, back and feet. Forty minutes into the +massage, Epstein turmed over onto his back and requested ! +•wait downstairs in the kitchen area for +Epstein instructed 1 +to finish the massage. Ast +•got dressed, C starting rubbing Epstein's chest. +left the room, and Epstein began masturbating as ( +rubbed Epstein's chest. stated Epstein continued +masturbating until he climaxed on the towel he was wearing. When asked if he had removed the towel she stated +he turned the towel around so that the opening would allow him to expose himself. After he cleaned himself off +with the towel he instructed the massage was done and to get dressed and meet with him downstairs. I +got dressed and met with Epstein in the kitchen area. She was paid $200.00 dollars for providing the massage. +stated she was aware that +also received monies for the same thing. The second time she went to the +house she was again approached byd +advised if she wanted to return to the house to provide another +massagen +agreed and the arrangements were made by +-for her to return to the house. 1 +stated +drove her to the house and knocked on the same +door which leads to the kitchen area. They were allowed +entry into the house by one of the staff members. +led her upstairs to the +bedroom and +bathroom area. C +• lefte +this time to do the massage alone. Epstein entered the room again wearing only a +towel. C +began removing her clothing as she did the last time she was at the house. Epstein instructed her to +get naked. He laid on the table onto his stomach as +began massaging his legs and back. Ast +• finished +with Epstein's back and legs, Epstein then turned over onto his back. ( +• started to rub his chest and he began +masturbating. As +• rubbed his chest, Epstein leaned over and produced a massager/vibrator. He turned it on +and began rubbing +vagina and masturbating himself at the same time. L +• stated she continued to rub his +chest as this was occurring. She described the vibrator/massager as large grey with a large head. Epstein +rubbed her vagina for approximately two to three minutes with the massager/vibrator. He then removed the +vibrator from her vaginal area and concentrated on masturbating himself. ( +stated Epstein climaxed onto the +towel again and informed her that the massage was done. +got dressed and met with +• who was waiting +in the kitchen area. She received $200.00 for the massage.! +said she never returned to the house and had no +desire to return to the house. +•was asked if she received any formal massage training. She advised she had +no formal training. +was asked if Epstein knew her real age. • +•stated he knew, as he asked her questions +about herself and high school. He was aware she attended, and is still attending +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +County of Palmy Beach +Signature of Police Officef (F.S.S. 117.10) +Signature At +resting Officer +Date: +05/01/2006 +Pageppf 22 +CA/Aronberg-000849 + + +During the course of the investigation a search warrant was executed at Jeffrey Epstein's home located at +358 El Brillo Way in Palm Beach. While in the home I observed the pink and +bedroom area just as the girls previously mentioned. The stairway, which is located from the kitchen area to the +bedroom area, is lined with photos of naked young girls. Additionally, numerous photographs of naked +young females, some of which appeared to be the girls I previously interviewed, were on display throughout the +house. Also located in the house were various phone message books. The telephone message books have a +duplicate copy (Carbon Copy) which, once a phone message is written into the book, the top copy is then torn +on the perforated edge and the carbon copy is left in the book. First names of girls, dates and telephone numbers +were on the copy of the messages. I recognized various numbers and names of girls that had already been +interviewed. The body of the messages were time of the day that they called for confirmation of "work." Other +names and telephone numbers were located in which the body of the messages were, "I have girls for him" or "I +have 2 girls for him." These messages were taken by +, who signed the bottom of the messages. +During the execution of the warrant, I located a da +I transcript for in Epstein's +bedroom desk. This desk had stationary marked Jeffrey E Epstein. I located a +colored armoire beside +Epstein's bed that contained a bottle of "Joy Jelly," which is used to provide a warm massage. Several massage +tables were located throughout the second floor of the residence, including a massage table found in Epstein's +bedroom. On the first floor of the residence I found two covert cameras hidden within clocks. One was located +in the garage and the other located in the library area on a shelf behind Epstein's desk. A computer was located +which was believed to contain the images from the covert cameras. The computer's hard drive was reviewed +which showed several images of +and other witnesses that have been interviewed. All of these +images appeared to come from the camera positioned behind Epstein's desk. +On December 13, 2005, Det. Dawson and I met with +-dob +• During a sworn taped +statement, stated that when she was sixteen years old she was taken to Epstein's house to provide a massage +for money. +stated it was before Christmas last year (2004) when an associate, +approached her and +asked if she needed to make money for Christmas. +made amangements to take +•to the house and drove +• to the house to "work." They were encountered by a +female with long blond hair. was unable to +remember the name of the +female with blond hair but knew she was Epstein's assistant. She was led +upstairs by the +female who explained that there would be lotions out already and Epstein would choose the +lotion he wanted her to use. She was led through a spiral staircase which led to a ! +towel and laid on his stomach so that +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +County of Palm Beact +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Signatur +resting Officer +Date: + +Page/gof 22 +CA/Aronberg-000850 + + +massage his feet and calves. ( +• started the massage with the oils Epstein chose and rubbed his feet and calves. +Epstein got off the phone and requested she massage his back as well. +• began rubbing his back and got to +the small of his back. During the rubbing of his back, Epstein asked her to get comfortable. He requested she +remove her pants and shirt. removed her shirt and pulled her pants off. stayed in her bra and thong +panties. As she finished massaging the small of Epstein's back, he then turned onto his back. Epstein +instructed to rub his chest and pinch his nipples. As she began to rub his chest, Epstein asked her questions +about herself. +• remembered telling him she attended +1. Epstein asked her if +she was sexually active. Before could answer, he also asked what sexual position does she enjoy. +stated she was shy and didn't like talking about those things. She continued rubbing his chest. Epstein reached +up and unsnapped her bra from the front. +•explained the bra she used had a front snapping device. Epstein +rubbed her breasts and asked her if she like having her breasts rubbed. +said "no, I don't like that." Epstein +then removed his towel and laid on the bed naked exposing his penis to +He began touching his penis and +masturbated as he touched her breasts. +explained Epstein then touched her vaginal area by rubbing her +vagina with his fingers on the outside of her thong panties. +tensed up and stated Epstein was aware that she +was uncomfortable. +stated that Epstein said to her, +"Relax, I'm not going inside." She further explained +Epstein commented to her how beautiful and sexy she was. Epstein then moved her thong panties to one side +and began stroking her clitoris. +¿ said, "He commented how hard my clit was." He then inserted two fingers in +her vagina and was stroking her within her vagina. She tried pulling back to pull out his fingers from within her +vagina. Epstein removed his fingers from within her vagina and apologized for putting his fingers inside her. +During this time, he kept his hand on her vaginal area and continued to rub her vagina. l +stated he rubbed her +really hard as he was masturbating. +said he climaxed onto the towel he had been previously wearing and got +up from the table. Epstein told her there was $200.00 dollars for her on the dresser within the +bathroom. +Epstein also told her that there was an additional $100.00 that was to be given to dor bringing her there to +massage him. Epstein told her to leave her telephone number with his assistant as he wanted to see her again. +Epstein stated his assistant would contact her to work again soon. 1 asked her if she ever received any formal +massage training to which +•stated she did not. +stated it was the only time she ever went to work for Jeff +and knew what happened to her was wrong. She further stated that she had never been contacted for any +additional work. +On January 9, 2006, I located and interviewed another victim, fid dob ( +was identified +as a potential victim/witness from information obtained during trash pulls from Epstein's residence. stated she +net Epstein when she was fifteen years of age. She was approached by a friend from +, to be taken to Jeffrey Epstein's house to work. She was originally told she would be able +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +• 1. рива, +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of Palm Beach +Date: +05/0142606 +Page/gof 22 +CA/Aronberg-000851 + + +to model lingerie for a wealthy Palm Beacher. +was taken to Epstein's house located on El Brillo Way. +introduced to Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein had his personal chef prepare dinner for and +• At the +conclusion of dinner, +Pand Epstein brought +apstairs into a i +bedroom area. +observed a large +massage table with a sheet on it. Epstein entered through a door and exited wearing only a towel. +informed that they were going to provide a massage on Epstein • +asked why were they doing this instead +of modeling lingerie. +•explained tol that this was his routine and to rub his calves and feet. Epstein had +told to get comfortable. L +removed her pants and blouse. +•stated she stayed only in panties as she did +not wear a bra that evening. +•stated while rubbing his calves and feet, Epstein turned over onto his back. +Epstein told Coto rub his chest and rub his nipples. +stated that as she started rubbing his chest, Epstein +began masturbating himself. Epstein touched her breasts and stroked her yagina with his fingers. Epstein +continued to masturbate himself as he stroked her vagina. Epstein ejaculated on his towel and paid $200.00 +for the massane. +Epstein told that if she told anyone what happened at his house that bad things could +happen. +were brought home by Epstein's houseman ande +was afraid that Epstein knew where +she lived. +•stated that several days later she received a telephone call from +who coordinated for +to return to "work." ( +returned to the house and was brought to Epstein's bedroom area by Sarah who +prepared the room for the massage. Epstein entered the room wearing only a towel. Epstein had +•remove her +clothing and provide the massage naked. began rubbing his feet and calves and Epstein turned over onto his +back. Epstein rubbed her vagina with his fingers. Epstein began to masturbate himself with an upwards and +downward motion on his penis. Epstein continued to touch her vagina with one hand and masturbate with the +other hand. Once Epstein ejaculated onto the towel he was wearing, the massage was over. - was paid +$200.00 for the massage. Epstein again told not to speak of what happened at his house or bad things would +happen. wanted to notify authorities however she was afraid of what would happen to either her or her +During the course of the investigation, several subjects were identified as a potential witness/victim +through information obtained during the trash pulls, physical surveillance and telephone message books retrieved +from the search warrant. While conducting research on the subjects, I discovered that the females were age +eighteen or older. Interviews were conducted on the consenting adults whose statements provided the same +massage routine when they went to "work" for Epstein. The females would be notified by +and +made appointments for the females to "work" for Epstein. The females would come to Epstein's house and were +enter the room wearing only a towel, and ask them to get comfortable. The females would then provide the +massage naked as Epstein would either touch their vaginas with his fingers and/or utilize the massager/vibrator on +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Ca. 1. Audie +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of Palm Beach +Signature/Arresting Officer +Date: +05/01/2006 +Page200f 22 +CA/Aronberg-000852 + + +their vaginal area. He would masturbate during the massage and upon his climaxing, the massage would end. The +girls were then paid two or three hundred dollars for the massage. +On November 21, 2005 I interviewed Jose Alessi, a former houseman for Jeffrey Epstein. Alessi stated +he was employed for eleven years with Mr. Epstein, from approximately 1993 through 2004. Alessi stated he +was the house manager, driver and house maintenance person. It was his responsibility to prepare the house for +Epstein s arrival. When asked about cooks or assistants, Alessi stated they traveled with Epstein on his private +plane. I asked Mr. Alessi about the massages that have occurred at Epstein's home. Alessi stated Epstein +receives three massages a day. Each masseuse that visited the house was different. Alessi stated that towards +the end of his employment, the masseuses were younger and younger. When asked how young, Mr. Alessi +stated they appeared to be sixteen or seventeen years of age at the most. The massages would occur in Epstein's +bedroom or bathroom. He knew this because he often set up the massage tables. I asked if there were things +going on other than a massage. Alessi stated that there were times towards the end of his employment that he +would have to wash off a massager/vibrator and a long rubber penis, which were in the sink after the massage. +Additionally, he stated the bed would almost always have 1o be made after the massage. +On January 4, 2006 I interviewed another former houseman, Mr Alfredo Rodriguez. During a sworn +taped statement, Mr. Rodriguez stated he was employed by Jeffrey Epstein for approximately six months, from +November 2004 through May of 2005. His responsibilities as house manager included being the +chauffeur, chef, houseman, run errands for Epstein and provide for Epstein's guests. I asked Rodriguez about +masseuses coming to the house. Rodriguez stated Epstein would have two massages a day. Epstein would have +one massage in the morning and one massage in the afternoon everyday he was in residence. Rodriguez stated +he would be informed to expect someone and make them comfortable until either ! +or Epstein would +meet with them. Rodriguez stated once the masseuses would arrive, he would allow them entry into the kitchen +area and offer them something to drink or eat. They would then be encountered by either +or +Epstein. They would be taken upstairs to provide the massage. I asked Rodriguez if any of the masseuses +appeared young in age. Rodriguez stated the girls that would come appeared to be too young to be masseuses. +He stated one time under Epstein's direction, he delivered a dozen roses to +one of the girls that came to provide a massage. He knew the girls were still in high school and were of high +22222 +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +County of PAlm Beach +Signature of Policé Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Signature/Arresting Officer +Date: +05/01/2606 +Pagez of 22 +CA/Aronberg-000853 + + +Agency ORI# FLO 500600* +bed. On one occasion Epstein ordered Rodriguez to go to the Dollar rent a car and rent a car for the same girl +he brought the roses to, so that she could drive her self to Epstein's house without incident. Rodriguez said the +girl always needed rides to and from the house. Rodriguez produced a I +folder which contained documents, +and a note with Mr. Epstein's stationary with direction to deliver a bucket of roses to ! +hafter ( +high school drama performance. Also in that same note was direction to rent a car for +and +direction to extend the rental contract. +During the course of the investigation, subpoenas were obtained for cell phone and home phone records +from several victims and witnesses along with the cell phone records of +1. An analysis of these +records was conducted which found numerous telephone calls were made between Sarah +and the victims. +These records indicate the dates the calls were made are consistent with the dates and times they +victims/witnesses stated they were contacted. Specifically, The phone records showed +called +during the exact times and dates when victim +advised the incident occurred. +also coordinated +the encounters withd +and +during the time frame the girls +stated they occurred. +Pursuant to a lawful subpoena I obtained Epstein's private plane records for 2005 from Jet Aviation. +The plane records show arrival and departure of Epstein's plane at Palm Beach International airport. These +records were compared to the cell phone records of +| This comparison found that all the phone calls +and the victims were made in the days just prior to their arrival or during the time Epstein +was in Palm Beach. +Jeffrey Epstein, who at the time of these incidents was fifty one years of age, did have vaginal intercourse +either with his penis or digitally with +7, and l +, who were minors at the time this occurred, and +who at the time of the incident was fifty two years of age, did use a vibrator on the external vaginal area of a +fourteen year old minor. Therefore, as +coordinated and aided in the recruitment of minors to +frequent Epstein's house so that sexual services were provided to Epstein, scheduled the said minors to return to +the work for Epstein, secured their appointments for the purpose of sexual activity and lewd and lascivious acts +and arranged the bedroom for said minors, there is sufficient probable cause to charge l +with four +counts of Principal in the 1" degree Unlawful Sexual Activity with a Minor, in violation of Florida State Statute +794.05(1), a second degree felony and there is sufficient probable cause to charge her with Lewd and +Lascivious Molestation, in violation of Florida State Statute 800.04 (5), a second degree felony. +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +County of Palm Beach +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Date: +05108/2906 +Pagezzof 22 +CA/Aronberg-000854 + + +Appendix 6 +CA/Aronberg-000855 + + +INDICTMENT +DECF945Y +• A TRUE BILL +-IN THE NAME OF AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL +CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA +For Palm:Beach County, atthe Spring Term thereof, in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Six, to-wit +The Grand Jurors of the State of Florida, inquiring in and for the body of said County of Palm Beach, upon their +oaths do present that JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN in the County of Palm Beach aforesaid inthe Circuit and State +aforesaid, +COUNT ONE +FELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION +on or about or belween the stday of Augustinthe year of our Lord Two Thousand and Four and October 3t. +200s, did solici, induce entice, or procure another to commit prositution lewdness or assignation, contrary to +Florida Statute 796 07(1) on three or more occasions between August 01, 2004 and October 31, 2005., +contrani to Florida Statute 79607(2) and (4)c) (3 DEG FELLEVEL 1): +against the, form of the statute, to the evil example of all others, and against the peace and dignity of the State +ot Florida. +Whereby centfy that have advised the Grand Jury returning this indictment as authorized and required by law: +Assistant State Attorney of the +Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of the State +of Fiorida, prosecuting for the said +State: +GRAND JURY FOREPERSON +DATE +Jettrey E: Epstein, Race. Whito, Sex: Male: DOB: January 20, 1953, SSH 090-44 3348 Issue Warrant +107/26/17 + +Public Records Request No.: 17-295 +CA/Aronberg-000856 + + +IN THE CIRCUL +LOURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDI +AL CIRCUIT, +INAND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA, CRIMINAL DIVISION LU +COURT CASE NO +06-9454 CALIY +AGENCY & CASE NO +Palm Beach Pana Deslos3c8 +INVESTIGATING OFFICER NAME RA COLT CE +1210.2915 +TO: ALL SHERIFFS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA YOU ARE COMMANDED TO ARREST +NAME TeHre E Epste +ADDRESS 358Bil. Wan +lambul FL 33480 +BUSINESS ADDRESS +PHONE: (HOME) +150D 832H15 +RACE +SEX: +a Le +2DOB: +(BUSINESS) +3120/53 +HEIGHT DUKO +WEIGHT GOO +FOR APPEARANCE BEFORE THIS COURT TO ANSWER A CHARGE OF: +2)2 +3): +4) +5) +FCIC +NCIC +EXTRADITION AUTHORIZATION: - YES +NO. +CAPIAS +This capias is'issued pursuant to an information tiled by the State +Atomey, Fitteenth Judical Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida +APPEARANCE BOND set by Court Order per bond schedule +WITNESS my hand and the seal of this Court on this +day +of +199 +(SEAL): +DOROTHY HEWILKEN, +CLERK OF COURT. +BY +Deputy Clerk +RS: 791.07(2) fari (cla) +(3 Teleng) +HARON R. BOCK +ARREST WARRANT +BAIL ENDORSEMENT +The detendant is to be admitted to ball in the sum ol +19-PER SCHEDULE CO +• OWN RECOGNIZANCE +• OTHER'S +retumable toithis Court on the third Faday following the date of +arrest at 9:00 A.M. before the Judge assignedithe case +GIVEN UNDER my hand and seal on the Zi day of +10963 +al Palm Beach County. +¿State of Flonda +(SEAL) +Execuledion the +day of +PESO #O0H|REV 10A5 +CA/Aronberg-000857 +199. +by arresting the within namedy +I.D: +e.ReRyl Shorill Palm Beach Couple Records Request No: 17-295 + + +i3#033 +86017 +291 + +33724 +HAREST NOTICE TO APPEARA +uvenile Referral +PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFE'S OFFICE +Folony +will + +12,008 +100 + +490 +105 + +191 Dinose +3UE25 +Drug! +Date and Time +O 'APPEAR BEF +IGNATED.TO +BY THIS NOTICE TO AP +HOLD BOi +a MAnging +I Other:" +* 07/26/17 +DISTRIBUTION: +WHITE COURT.COPY +GREEN STATE ATTORNEY +CA/Aronberg-000858 +YELLOW. AGENCY +anie Reguest No.: 17:295 +GOLD DEFENDANT GITA SONLY) + + +Appendix 7 +CA/Aronberg-000859 +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, M + + +Case 9:08-cv-89736-KAM +Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 2 of 15 +file +Place in +NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT +IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State +Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (hereinafter +the "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey +IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Office has charged Epstein by indictment +with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07; +IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of +Investigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any +offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or +around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including: +. (1) +knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to +commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means +of interstate or foreigh, commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice +minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States +Code, Section 2422(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section +371; +(2). +knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to trave! +in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as +defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(D); with minor females; in violation of Title 18, +United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States +Code, Section 2423(c); +(3) +using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly +Volation of Tric 18, United Sato Code, Se ions 242 i postition; in +(4) +traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual +conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(1), with minor females; in violation + +CA/Aronberg-000860 + + +Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 3 of 15 +of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and +(5) +knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, +IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background by +both State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State +Attorney's Office, that the interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the +Defendant will be served by the following procedure; +THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for +the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be +deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the +following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below. +If the United States Attomey should determine, based on reliable evidencé, that, +during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this +Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the +expiration of the term. of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely +notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that be has violated, and shall initiate its +prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days" of giving notice of the violation. Any +notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the +United States Iearning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of +the Agreement: " +After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution +for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have +been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the +United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury +investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be +dismissed. + +CA/Aronberg-000861 + + +Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 4 of 15 +Terms of the Agreement: +1. +2. +3. +Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a +thirty (30) month sentence to be divided as follows: +(a) +Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) +months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without +any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and +without probation +or community control in lieu of +imprisonment, and +Epstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (12) months of +community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail +as described in Term 2(a), supra: +This agreement is contingent upon a Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit +accepting and executing the sentence agreed upon between the State +Attomey's Office and Epstein, the details of which are set forth in this +agreement: +The terms contained in paragraphs I and 2, supra, do not foreclose. +Epstein and the State Attomey's Office from agreeing to recommend +Jany additional charge(s) or any additional terms) of probation and/or +incarceration. +10 +(2), supra. +Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all + +CA/Aronberg-000862 + + +Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 5 of 15 +7. +8. +9. +10. +proposed agreements with the State Attorney's Office prior to entering +into those agreements. +The United. States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of +individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. +§ 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced +With and sect to of i reth april or are none han +select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for +by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals +through that representative. +If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to +file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $ 2255, Epstein, will not contest the +jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District +. of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives +his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages +up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and +Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed +exclusively under 18 U.S.C.§ 2255, and agrees to waive any other +claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. +Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names +appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on +this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such +damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any +criminal or civil liability. +Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an +admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional. +or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the +list provided by the United States. +Except as to those individuals who élect to proceed exclusively under +10 +pereided by the pete satether or not her name appears on the list. +11. +Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be + +CA/Aronberg-000863 + + +Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 6 of 15 +sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no +objection to Epstein self-reporting to begin serving his sentence not +later than January 4, 2008. +12. +Epstein agrees that he will not be afforded any benefits with respect to +gain time, other than the rights, opportunities, and benefits as any other +inmate, including but not limited to, eligibility for gain time credit +based or standard rules and regulations that apply in the State of +Florida. At the United States" request, Epstein agrees to provide an +accounting of the gain time he earned. during his period of +incarceration. +13. +The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any +public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information +Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of +the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that +disclosure. +Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the +State Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that +it is his obligation to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office and to use his +best efforts to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary +lo satisfy the United States' interest. Epstein also understands that it is his obligation to use +his best efforts to convince the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein's binding +recommendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, and understands that the failure to +do so will be a breach of the agreement. +In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation +in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions +of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges +against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to +Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova. +Further," upon execution of this +agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Grand Jury +in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement. The +requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that have been issued, and +cluding certain computer equipment, inviolate until all of the terms of this agreement hav +éen satisfied. Upon the successful completion of the terms of this agreement, a +outstanding grand jury subpoenas shall be deemed withdrawn. + +CA/Aronberg-000864 + + +Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 7 of 15 +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is +material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach +of any one of these conditions allows the United States to clect to terminate the agreement +and to investigate and prosccute Epstein and any other individual or entity for any and all +federal offenses. +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that +the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal +prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further +3 aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal. Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Cou +iay dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presentir +a charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein +hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such +prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to +the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be +deerned to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such +prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of +the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the +United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute +of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this +agreement and the breach of this agreement as to those offenses that were the subject of the +grand jury's investigation. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the +Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all +felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby ágrees +and consents that; if a prosecution against him is instituted for any offense that was the +subject of the grand jury's investigation, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed +by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury as +to any such offense. +Page 6'of 7 +CA/Aronberg-000865 + + +Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 8 of 15 +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read +anid explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non- +Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Dated: +By: +À. MARIE VILLAFAÑA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY +Dated: 12 +Dated:_ +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Dated: +NOT A CER +LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, BSQ. +ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +CA/Aronberg-000866 + + +Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 9 of 15 +rosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with then +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Dated: +By: +• VILLAFANA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY +Dated: +Dated: 9/24/07 +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Dated: +NOT A CER +LILLY ANN SANCHEZ,, ESQ. +ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Pago 7 of ? +CA/Aronberg-000867 +_ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:22:44 PM + + +Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 10 of 15 +and By nig in i preten ei set and cried as or aditions of bis Non- +Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNBY +Dated: +By: +VILLAPAÑA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNE +Dated:_ +JEPFREY EPSTEIN +Dated: +GERALD LEPÇOURT, ESQ. +COUNSEL, TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Datod: 9-24-07 +NOT A CER + +LILLY ANN SAI +LEZ, ESQ: +ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN +CA/Aronberg-000868 + + +*Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 11 of 15 +ADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT +IT APPEARING that the parties seck to clarity certain provisions of page 4, paragraph +of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (hereinafter "paragraph 7"), that agreement is modified as +follows: +7A. +The United States has the right to assign to an independent third party the responsibility +for consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, selecting +the attorney representative for the individuals identified under the Agreement. If the +United States elects to assign this responsibllity to an independent third-party, both the +United States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith-objections to the attomey +representative suggested by the independent third-party prior toi the final designation of +the attorney representative. +7B. +The parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-party +regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to +pay such attorney representative his or her regular customary hourly rate for representing +such victims subject to the provisions of paragraph C, intra. +Pursuant to additional paragraph 7A, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attomey +representative selected by the independent third pairty. This provision, however, shall not +obligate Epstein to pay the foes and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Thus, +if after consideration of potential settlements, an attorney representative clects to file a +contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. s:2255 or elects to pursue any other contested +remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the costs of the attomney +representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable +attorneys fees and costs such as those contained in s 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney +representative, shall cease. +10, +CA/Aronberg-000869 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5: Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 12 of 15 +By signing this Adderdum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and +explained to hilm. +pstein horeby, states that he understands the clarifications to the No +rosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with ther +ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +By: +Dated: +A. +VILLAPANA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY +Dated: +172 +27/0 +EREY RPSTEIN +Dated: +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Dated: +NOT A CER +LILLY ANN +ESQ +ATTORNEY FOR JEPFREY EPSTEIN +CA/Aronberg-000870 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM +Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docker 03/21/2011 Page 13 of 15 +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and +explained to him. Epstein herchy states that he understands the clarifications to the Nog- +Prosccution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Dated: +By: +VILLAFANA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY +Dated: +on 10/9/07 +JEFPREY EPSTEIN +COUNSEL TO JEFFRÉY EPSTEIN +Dated +NOT A CER +LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. +ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN +CA/Aronberg-000871 + + +Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 14 of 15 +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and +explained to him. +Epstein horeby states that he understands tie clarifications to the Non- +Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. +R: ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNY +Dated: +By: +VILLAFAÑA +ASSISTANT U.S, ATTORNEY +Dated: +Dated: +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTED +D +ated +: 10-29 +07 +NOT A CER +LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, BSQ +ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN +CA/Aronberg-000872 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80736-KAM +Dac-07-07 +04:55pg +From-Fowler- +Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 15 of 15 +Burnett + +T-RSE P.003/004 F-875 +Afirmatien +I, Jeliny B, Epstein do hereby ro uffin the Noo-Proscoution Agreemerit and Addentum to +Mune daed October 30, 2007. +NOT A CERTIFIED +CA/Aronberg-000873 + + +Appendix 8 +CA/Aronberg-000874 + + +STATE OF ELORIDA +IN THE CIRCÚ COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAS CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY STATE OF FLORIDA +CRIMINAL DIVISION "W" (LB). +08 CF9381 +ARISES FROM BOOKING NO. + +JEFFREY E EPSTEIN, W/M, 01/20/1953 +ORIGINAL +Circuf Chirpist +INFORMATION FOR: +JUN 4. += +PROCURING PERSON UNDER 18 FOR PROSTITUION +Starun i +Clerks Compir +In the Name and by Authority of the State of Florida: +Palm Bebbi +BARRY E KRISCHER, Stale Attorney for the Fifleenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida, by and +through his undersigned Assistant State Attorney, charges that JEFFREY E EPSTEIN on or about or between +the: "day.of August in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Four and October 9; 2005, did knowingly and +unlawfully, procure for prostitution, or caused to be prostituted, A.D, a person under the age of 18 years, +contrary to Florida Statute 796.03 (2 DEG FEL) +NA BELOHLAVEK +FL BAR NO. 0776726 +Assistant State Altorney +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +-Appeared before me, LANNA BELOHLA VEK Assistant State Allomey for Palin Beach County, +Florida, nersonally knownito me who, being first duly sworn, says that the allegations as setitorth in the +foregoing information are based upon facts that have ben sworn to as true, and which, if true, would constitute +the offense therein charged, that this prosecution is instituted in good faith, and certifies thatitestimony. under +oath has been received from the material witness or witnesses for the offense. +Assisiaht State Allomey +Swornoand subscribed to before me thisdul +day of June, 2008. +Camaris Dina +- Damaris Pina. +MY COMMISSION • DOSBOTE: DORRES +Augun 2 2010: +NOTARY PUBLIC/Staic of Florida +FIC REFERENCE NUMBERS +I) FELONY SOLICITA TION OF PROSTITUTION 3699 +CA/Aronberg-000875 + +Püblic Records Request No:: 17-295 + + +CLOSE OUT 'SHEET +Défendant: +Settrey Epstein +Case Number: 08-9381 +Dare Closed: 6 30 08 ASA +UB +Division: W +Nolle Prossed: +Pled to Lesser Felony: +Negotiated Plea: +Jury Tral: +Acquitied: +Pled to Lesser Misd +Pled to Court: +Nộn- Jury Triai: +Dismissed: +Guidelines Score +Non DOC: +Mandatory DOC: (minimum) +Pre October 1998 Discretionary DOC: - +Adjudicated +Withheld:_ +couny ti lepath o pelua d +Montis - Days - Years - Time Served +Probation +Months- +Community Control 2 Mon ths +Habitual Öffender: +Youthful Offender. +Juvenile: +PRR: +- 10-20-Lifet +Restitution: +Despuated +Amount: +Sexval Ofender +Page. 2 of 114 +Public Records Requesl No.: 17-295 +CA/Aronberg-000876 + + +CLOSE OUT SHEET +Defendant +Jettrey Epstein +Case Number: +Date Closed: +L0/30/08 ASA UB +Nollc Prosscd _../ +Pled to Lesser Felony:_ +_ Pled to Lesser Misdi +Negotiated Plca: +Pled to Court: +Jury Tral: +Acquitted: +Non-Jury Trial: +Dismissed: +06-9454 +Division: W +Guidelines Score +:Non DOC: +Mandatory DOC. (minimum) +Pre October 1998 Discretionary DOC: +Adjudicated +Withheld: +County Jail: +i2 montos - +Months -Days- Years- Time Served. +Probation; +Mon Yere. +Months Years : Community Control: +Habitual Offenders. +_ Youthiful Offender: +Juveniler +PRR +10-20-Lifes. +Restitution: +Amount: +CA/Aronberg-000877 +Page:3 of.114 +Püblic Records Request.No.: 17-295 + + +948.101 Terms and conditions of community control and criminal quarantine community +control- +(1). The court shall detarming the terms and conditions of communily control Conditions +spocified in thir subsection do not require oral pronouncoment at the time of sentencing and +may be considered standard conditions of community control! +(a) The court shell roquire intersive suporvision and survelllance for an offonder placed into +community control, which may include but is not Limited to: +1g Specified contact with the parole and probation officor. +2. Confinement to an egrood upon residonce during hours away from omploymont and public +sarMico activitios +35 Mandatory public sarvice. +4, Supervision by the Department of Corrections by means of an olectronic monitaring device +of System. e +5. Tho standard conditions of probation sot forth in 5: 248.03. +(b) For an offonder placed on criminal quarantino community control, the court shall require: +Bloctronic monitoring 24 hours per day. +-2. Confinoment to a designated residance during dosignated hours. +2) The enumeration of specific kinds of terms and conditions does not prevent the court from +adding therato any other terms or conditions that the court considors proper. Howover the +sentancing court may only impose a condition of supervision allowing an offonder convicted of +5.794.011, S. 800.04, 5. 827-071 or 5: 047-0145 to resido in another stato it the order +stipulates that it is contingent upon the approval of the roceiving stato interstate compact +authority. The court may rescind or modify at any time the torms and conditions theratofore +Imposed by It upon the offender in community control. Howaver, if the court withholds +adjudication of guilt or imposes a period of incarcoration as a condition of community conuo +the ported may not oxceod 364 days, and Incarceration shall bo rostricted to a county faclity, +a probation and restitution center under the jurisdiction of the Dopartment of Corractions, a +probation program drue puntshment phase i securo residontial treatment Institution, or a +community residentlal facility owned or operated by any entity providing such services. +(3) The court may place a defondant who is baing sentenced for criminal transmission of HIV In +violation of s. 775.0872 on criminal quarantine community control. Tho Dopartment of +Corroctions shall dovelop and administer a criminal quarantine community control program +omphasizing Intensivo suporvision with 24 hour por day electronic monitoring. Criminal +quarantine community controlstatus must includo surveillance and may include other moasures +normally associated with community control, excopt that spocific conditions necossary to +monitor this population +y be ordered; +07/26/174 +Page 4 of 114) +4 Public Records: Request No. 17-295 +CA/Aronberg-000878 + + +(943.0435 Sexual offenders required to rogister with the dopartment; penalty s +(1) As used in this saction, the term: +(e)1, Saxuel offender means a person who mats the criterte in sub-subparagraph a sub +subparagraph b, sub-subparagraph Ci or sub subparagraph d as followe +a.(I) Has been convicted of committing, or attempting, soliciting, or conspiring to commit, any +of the criminal offonses proscribed in the following statutas in this state on simitar oftenses in +another Jurisdiction: s. 787.01, s. 787.02, ors. 767.025(2)(c), where the Victim Is a minor and +the defendant is not the victim's paront or guardian; - 794.011 excluding s 794.011(10); 5. +794.05; 4. 796.03:5. 796.035; g. 800.049S. 825.1025:S: 827.071 S 847.0133:5. 847.01353 +excluding s. 847.0135(4); 3. 847.01373. 947.01385 647.0145 or 5. 985.701(1); or any similar +offense committed in this state which has boen redesignated from & formor statute number to +one of those listed in this sub sub subperagraph; and +(I) Hes been released on or after October 1, 1997, from the sanction Imposed for any +conviction of an offonse described in sub sub subparagraph (l). For purposes of sub ab +subparagraph (i), a sanction imposed in this state or In any other Jurisdiction includes, but is +net limited to, a fine, probation, community control, parole, conditional release, control +release, or Incarcoration In a stato prison, foderal prison, private correctional facility, or locat +detantion facility; +6. Establishes or maintains a residence in this state and who has not boon designated as a +saxual predator by 4 court of this state but who has been designated as a sexual predator, as a +sexually violent prodator, or by anothor sexuat offonder designation in anothar state or +Jurtsdiction and was, as a rosult of such designation, subjected to registration or community or +public notification, or both, or would be if the person were a resident of that state or +jurisdiction, without rogard to whother the person otherwise meets tha critorla for registration +as - sexual offandor; +c. Establishes or maintains a residence in this stato who is in the custody or control of, or +under the suporvision of, any other stato or jurisdiction as a result of a conviction for +committing, or attompting, solfeiting, or conspiring to commit, any of the criminal offanses +proscribed in the following statutos or simflar offenso in anothar Jurisdiction: . 787.01, 3. +787. 02, or s. ZB7.025(2)(c), where the victim is a minor and the defendant is not the victims +paront or guardian; s. 794.011, excluding ‹ 79011(10); L011(10); 794.05; 5. 796.03; 796.03;S. 796.03595- +800.04; s. 825.1025. 827-074-1. 847.0133; 5. 847.0135, oxcluding o. 847.0135(4); 5. +847.0137; 3. 847.0138; 3. 847.0145; or s. 985.701(1); or any similar offense committed in this +state which has boen redosignated from a formor statute number to one of those listed in this +sub-subparagraph; or +d. On or after July 1, 2007, has been adjudicatod delinquent for committing, or attampting, +soliciting, or conspiring to commit, any of the criminal offenses proscribed in the following +statutes in this stato or similar offonses in another jurisdiction whon the juvonile was 14 years +of ago or older at the time of the offonse: +(1) Section 794.01L, oxcluding s. 794.011(10); +(I) Saction 800,01(4)(b) whore the victim is under 12 years of age or whore the court finds +sexual activity by the use of force or coercion; +(Il) Section 800.04(5)(c)1. where the court finds molestation involving unclothod genitals; or +07/26/1:7: +Page 5 or 114 +CA/Aronberg-000879 + + +(V) Soction 800.04(5)(d) whero the court finds the use of force or coercion and unclothod +conitals. +2. For all quallfying offonses listed in sub-subparagraph (1)(9)1.0., the court shall make a +written finding of tho ago of the offender at the time of the offense. +For each Molation of a qualifying offense listed in this subsectlon, the court shall make a +written finding of the ago of the victim at the time of the offenso. For a violation of s. +800.04(4), the court Shall additionaily make a written finding ind cating that the ottonse did o +did not involve sexual activity and indicating that the offanse did or did not involve forco or +coercion: For, a violation of s: 800.04(5), the court shall additionally make a writton finding +that the offonso did or did not Involve unclothed gonfali or conital aro and that cho offenso +did or did not involve tho use of force or coarcior. +(b) Convictod, moans that there has bean a dotermination of guilt as a result of a trial or the +entry of a plea of gullty or nolo contandore, rogardioss of whether adjudication is withhold, +and includes, an adjudication of delinquency of a juvenito as spocified in this section. +Convicdon of a similar offonse includes, but ts not Imitod to, a conviction by c faderal or +military tribunal, Including courts-mardet conductod by the Armed Forces of the United States +and includes a corviction or entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contandare rosulting in a sanction +in any state of the United States or other Jurisdiction. A sanction Ineludes, but is not Umited +toy a fine, probation, community control, parole, conditional rolease, control rolease, or +Incarcoration in distate prison, federal prisen, private corroctional facility, or local detontion +Macility: +(5) Perinenent rosidence and "tomporary residence? have the same meaning ascribed in 5. +726:21. +(d) Institution of higher education means a careor conter, community collage, college, state +university, or indopendant post secondary Institution. +(e): Change in onrollment or employmant status" moans the commoncement or tormination of +onralimont or amploymant or a change in location of annellment or emplayment. +(0) Electronie mall address has the same moaning as provided in s- 668.602. +(E) "Instant mossage name" moons an idontifier that allows a parson to communicate in real +time with another person using the internat. +(2) A sexual offender shall? +(a) Roport In parson at the shoriff's offico: +1. In the county in which the offonder ostablishes or maintaim • permancht or tomporary +residenco within 48 hours after: +a. Establishing pormanent or tomporary residonce in this state; or +b. Being rolemed from the custody, control, or supervision of the Dopertmont of Corractions +or from the custody of a privato correctional facility; or +2. In tho county, where ho or she was convicted within 48 hours after being convictod for a +qualifying offonse fot registration undor this section If the offendor is not in the custody or +Page for 114 +Public Records Request No. 17.295 +CA/Aronberg-000880 + + +control of, or undor the suporvision of, the Department of Corractions, or is not in the custody +of a private correctional facility. +Any change In the saxual offonder's permanent or tamporary residonce, name, any electronic +mail address and any Instant massage nama required to be providod pursuant to paragraph +(+(d), aite the soxual offender reperts in parson et the theriff's office, shall be accomplishod +in the manner providod in subsoctions (41: (7), and (8). +(b) Provide his or her name, date of birth, social socurity number, reco, sex, holght, wolght, +halr and ayo coler, tattoos or other Identifying marks, occupetion and placo of amploymont, +address of permanent or Legal residence or address of any current temporary rosidenced within +the stato and out of state, Including a rural route address and a post office box, any olectronic +mail address and any Instant, mossage name required to be provided pursuant to paragraph +()(g), date and place of each conviction, and a brief description of the crime or crimes +committodiby the oftandor. A post office box shall not be provided in tfeu of o physical +reddential address. +16 In the sexust offender, pleco of residonce (sa moter vehicle, taller, mobile home, or +manufactured home, as defined in chapter 320, the saxual offonder chall alse provide to tho +dopertmont through the thorifts office written notice of tha vehicle identification numbor; the +licenso tag number; the registration number, and a doscription, Including color schame, of the +motor vehiclo, trailer, mobile home, or manufactured homo, If the sexual offendor's place of +elstration number; and a description, Induding color schome, of the vassal, Live aboard +sol, or houseboats +25 If tha sexual affender is arrolled, employed, or carrying on a vocation et an institution of +Nighor oducation in til state, the sexuel affonder shall also provide to the dapartment through +the heriff office the namo, address, and county of oach institution, Including each campus +attanded, and the saxual offondars enroll mont or omploymont status. Each changoin +arrolmont or omployment statur shall be roported in porson at the shariffs office, within 48 +hours aftor any change in status, The shariff shall promptiy notify ouch institution of the sexual +offender's presenco and any chango in the soxual offendors enrotlment or employment status. +When a soxual offonder reports at the shoriffs office, the sheriff shall take a photograph and a +sot of fingerprints of the offender and forward the photographs and fingorprints to the +departmont, along with the information provided by the sexual offonder. The shariff shall +promptly provido, to the department the information racalvod from the sexual affondor. +3) Within 48 hours after the report required undor subsoction (2), a sexual offender shall +report in porson at a drivors liconse office of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor +Vehicles, unless a driver's license or identification card thet complies with the raquiromants of +S 222:141(3) wes provously facurod or updated undors 914.607, At the driver's liconse office +the soxual offondor chall: +(a) If otherwise qualified, socure a Floride driver's license, renew a Florida driver's license, or +socure an Identification card. The saxual offender shall identify himself or horself as a sexual +offonder who Is required to comply with this soction and shall provide proof that the sexue! +offonder reported at requirod in subsoction (2), The sexual offender shall provide any of tho +information spocifiod in subsaction (2), if requestod, The sexual offender shall submit to the +taking of a photograph for uso in Issuing a drivor's liconse, renowed icanse, or Identification +card, and for usa by the department in maintaining currant rocords of sexual offenders. +Page 7 of 114: +Public Records Request NO: 17:295 +CA/Aronberg-000881 + + +(conse or Identification card (suod must bo in compliance with 3. 322:141(3). +c) Provide, upon roquest, any additionel Information nacessary to confirm the Identity of, the +axual offandor, including a set of fingerprints +(4)(e) Each timo a sexual offander's driver ticonse or Idontification card is subject to ronewal, +and, without rogard to the status of the offender's driver's Licanse or Idontification card, within +48 hours after any change in the offender's permanont or tomporary rosidonce or change in the +offender's namo by roason of marriago or othor legal process, the offendor shall report in +person, to a drivers ticense office, and shall be sub lect to the requirements specified in +subsoction (3). Tho Departmont of Highway Safoty and Motor Vehicles shall forward to the +dopertmont all photographs and information provided by sexual ofianders. Notwithstanding the +restrictions sot forth in 222,12, the Department of Highway Safaty and Moter Vehiclor is +authorized to rolease a reproduction of a color photegraph or digital image licanse to tho +Departmant of Law Enforcemont for purposes of public notification of soxual offenders as +provided in this soction and ss. 943.043 and 944.606. +(b) A sexual offender who vacates o permanent residence and fails to establith or mainteln +another permanent or temporary residence shall, within 48 hours aftor vacating the pormenont +residonce, roport in porson to the shariff: office of the county in which ho or the is located +The sexual offender shall spocify the date upon which he or she intends to or did vacate such +residenco. The sexual offender must provide or update all of the registration information +roquired under paragraph (2)(b). The sexual offender must provide an addross for the rosidence +or othor location that ho or she is or will be occupying during the timo in which ho or she toils +to gstablish or mairitain a pormanont or temporary residonce. +(c) A sexual offonder who ramalns at a permanent residence after roporting his or her Intent +to vacate such residence shall, within 48 hours after the deto upon which the offender, +indicated he or she would or did vacate such residonce, report in person to the agency to which +he or she reported pursuant to paragraph (b) for the purpose of roporting his or her addross at +such residance. When the sheriff recelves the report, the sharlff shall promptly convey the +inforination to the department. An offender, who makes a roport as roquired under paragraph +(b) but fails to make a report as required under this paragraph commits a felony of the sacong +coeroo, punishablo as provided in 5-7/5.083, or or 775-084. +(d) A sexual offander must register any olectronte mall address or Instant messago name with +the dopartmont prior to using such olectronte mail addross or instant mossege namo on or after +October 12007; The departmont shall ostablish an online system through which soxual +offonder:] +y securely accoss and update all olectronic mail address and instant message +name information. +(5) This section does not apply to a sexial offonder who is also A soxual prodator, as defined in +$ 775.21. A sexual predator must registor as required unders 775.21. +(6) County and local law onforcement egoncios, in conjunction with the departmont, shall +verify the addressos of soxual offonders who are not under. the care, custody, control, or +supervision of the Departmont of Corrections in a mannor that is consistent with the provisions +of the federat Adam Walsh Child Protoction and Safety Act of 2005 and any other federal +standards applicablo to such vorification or required to be met as a condition for the reccipt of +federal funds by the state. Local law onforcoment aponcies shall report to the department any +failure by a soxual offender to comply with registration roquiremants. +Page B'of 114 +Public Records Request No 217-295 +CA/Aronberg-000882 + + +(rA sexual offender who intends to establish residence in anothor tate or furisdiction other +than the State of Florida shall report in porson to the sheriff of the county of current residorice +within 48 hours beforg the dato ho or sho intands to love this state to osteblish residence in +another state or jurisdiction. The notification must include the address, municipality, county, +and state of intended residence. The sheriff shall promptly provide to the departmont the +Information recolved from the sakust offender. The department shall notify the statewide law +onforcement agancy, or a comparable agency, in the intonded state or jurischation of residance +of the sexumt offender' intended residenco. The failure of a sexual offender to provido his or +har Intonded place of residence is puntshable is provided in subsection (9). +(9) A sexual offander, who indicates his or har intent to roside In another state or Jurisdiction +othe than the State of Florida and later decides to remain in this state shall, within 48 hours +after the date upon which the sexual offander indicated he or the would leave this state, +report in parson to the sheriff to which the sexual offendor: reported the Intonded chango of +residence, and roport his on her intent to remain in this state. The sheriff shall promptly repor +his information to the dopartment. A saxual affonder who roports his or her intent to reside ir +anothor state or Jurisdiction but who remains in this state without reporting to the shortff in +the manner roqured by this subsaction commits a folony of the second dagree, punishable es +(9)(a). A sexual offendar who does not comply with the requfrements of this section commits a +falony of the third degroo, punishablo as provided in 5. 775.082, 5. 775.083 ors 775.084. +(b). A sexual offendor who commits any act or omfssion in violation of this section may be +prosecuted for the act of omission in the county in which the act of omission was comfitted, +the county of the last registored address of the sokual offender, or the county in which the +conviction occurred for the offanse or offensas that meet the criterla for designating person +as a sexual offonder. +(e) An arrest on charges of failure to registor when the offondor has bean provided and advised +of his or her statutory obligators to register under subsection (2), the service of an +information or a complaint for a violation of this section, or an arraignmont on chargos for.a +violation of this section constituter actual notice of the duty to register. A soxual offondors +failuro to iminadiately rogister as required by this section following such arrest, service, or +arreignment constitutes grounds for a subsequant charge of failure to registor. A saxual +offender charged with the crime of failure to register who asserts, or intonds to assert, a lack +of notice of the duty to rogister as a deferse to a charge of falluro to register shall +Immodiately register as required by this section. A sexual offondor who is charged with a +subsequent failure to register may not assert the dofonso of a lack of notico of the duty to +(d) Registration following such arrost, sorvice, or arralamont is not a dofense and doas not +relfavo the soxuel offendor of criminal liabflity for tho failuro to ragister. +(10) The departmont, the Departmont of Highway Safety and Motor Vahicles, the Departmont +of Corrections, the Department of Juvonile Justico, any law enforcomont agoncy in this stato, +and the parsonnel of those departmonts; an olacted or appointed official, public amployee, or +school administrator; or an omployee, goncy, or any individual or entity acting at the roquost +of upon the diroction of any law onforcement agency is immune from civl Liabllity for damages +for good faith compliance with the requiremonts of this soction or for the rolease of +information under this section, and shall be presumed to have acted in good faith in compiling, +rocording, roporting, or roloasing the information. The presumption of good faith is not +ovorcome if a tochnical or clerical error is made by the departmont, the Departmont of +Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, the Dopartmont of Corroctions, the Departmont of Juvertile + +¡Public Records Requesi No: 17,295 +CA/Aronberg-000883 + + +Justico, the personnet of these department, or any individual or entity acting at the request +or upon the direction of any of those departments in complling or providing information or if +Information ts Incomplete or Incorract bacause a soxual offondar fails to report or falscly +raports his or har current placo of permanent, or tomporary residence. +11) Excopt as provided in 5:943:04354 a sexual offendor must maintain rogistration with thi +opartmont for the duration of his or hor Life, unlass the sexual offander has racelvad a fu +pardon or has had a conviction sot aside in a postconviction proceeding for any offenso that +moets the criteria for classifying tha person as a sexual offender for purposes of registration: +Howaver, a sexual offender: +(a)1; Who has bean lawfully roleased from confinament, supervision, or sanction, whichaver is +Later, for at lonst 25 yoers and has not been urrested for any folony or misdomoanor offonso +ance reloase, provided that the sexual offendor's roguiramant to register was not based uper +an adult conviction? +a. Por a Molation of s. 787.01 or.S. 787.02; +1b. For a violation of s. 794:011, excluding s. 794 011(10); +C. Por a Molation of 3800.04(4)(b) where the court finds the of fome involved a vistim under +12 yoars of age or sexual activity by the uso of force or coarcion; +da For a violation of 5. 800.04(5) (b); +0. Por a violation of s 800.04(5)c.2. where the court finds the offense involved unclothed +goritals or gorital area; +f For any attempt or conspiracy, to commit any such offense or +e Por a violation of sImilar law of another jurisdiction, +may petition tho criminal division of the circult court of the circutt in which the saxual +offonder resides for the purpose of removing che roquirement for registration as a sexual +offonder. +2. The court may grant or deny rollof if the offender demonstrates to the court that ho or she +has not been arrested for any crime since roleese; the requestod rollef complios with tho +provisions of the fodoral Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 and any other +federal standards applicable to the romoval of registration roquirenants for a sexual offondor +or required to bo met as a condition for the recoipt of foderal funds by the stato; and the court +is athorwise satisfied that the offondor is not a current or potential threat to public safety. The +state attornoy in the circult in which the petition is filed must be given notice of the petition. +at least 3 wooks before the hearing on the matter. The state attorney may present evidonco in +opposition to the requestod relief or may otherwise demonstrate the reasons why the petition +should be domod. if the court denios the petition, tho court may sot a futuro date at which tha +sexual offonder may again patition the court for relief, subjuct to the standards for reliof +provided in this subsection. +3. The dopertment shall remove an offendor from classification as a saxual offonder for +purposes of registration if the effonder providus to the department a certified copy of the +court's written findings or order that indicates that the offonder is no longer required to +comply with the roquirements for registration as a sexuat offender. +407/26/17 +CA/Aronberg-000884 + + + +b) As definod in sub-subparagraph (1)(a)1 bo must maintain registration with the departmont +for the duration of his or her life until the person provides the dopartment with an order issund +by the court that dosignated the person as a sexual predator, as a sexually Molent prodator, or +by another sexual offender des pnation in tho state or jurisdiction In which the ordor was +issued which states that such dosignation has been removed or demonstrates to the +dopartmont that such desienation, If not imposed by a court, has been romaved by operation of +Law br court order in the state or jurisdiction in which the designation, was made, and provided +such person no longar meets the critoria for registration us a sexuat offender under the laws of +this stato. +(12) The Logislature finds that sexual offenders, aspocially those who have committed offense +ust nst miners, ofton pose a high risk of engaging in sexual offenses aven after boing roloesod +from incarceration or commitment and that protection of the public from saxual offendor: is a +Borera of to pies interes in pile in and in he ded a pete on or proriente +Releasing Information concorning sexual offanders to law enforcement agoncies and to persons +who request such (information, and the rolen of such information to the public by a law +onfarcement agency or publie agoncy, will further the govarnmental interests of public cafoty. +The designatien of a person as a soxual offender is not a santence or a punishment but la simply +the status of the offondor which is the rosult of a conviction for having committed certain +crimes. +(13), Any person who has reasan to bellove, that a saxual offonder is not complying, or has not +complled, with tha requiremonts of this section and who, with the Intent to assist the saxual +offander including a law enforcement agency that it sanking to ind the sexuel offonder to +question the saxual offender about, or to arrest the saxual offendor, for his or her +noncompliance with the regulromants of this section: +(a) Withholds information from, of does not notify, the law enforcemont agency about the +sexual offander's noncompllance with the requirements of this section, and, if known, the +whoroabouts of the saxual offendor; +(P) Harbors, or attompts to harbor, or assists another parson in harboring or attempting to +harbor, the sexual offander, or +(c) Conceals or attempts to concoal, or assists another porson in concoaling or attompting to +concoal, tha sexual offonder, or +(d) Provides Information to tho taw enforcement agency regarding the soxuat offendor that the +person knows to be false information, +commits a felony of the third degroe, punishablo es provided in s. 775.082, E- 775.083, or 5. +715.084. +S(14)(a) A sexual offender must report in person each yeor during the month of tho soxua +offender's birthday and during the sixth month following tho sexual offender's birth month to +the thoriff's office in the county in which, ho or she rosidas or Is otherwisa located to rorogister. +(b) Howavor, a sexual offender who is required to registor as a rosult of a conviction for: +1- Soction 787.01 or 1.787.02 whore the Mictim Is a minor and the offonder is not the victim's +parent or guardien; + +Public Records Request No: 172295 +CA/Aronberg-000885 + + +2. Soction 794.011, oxcluding s: 794.011(10); +3J Section 800.04(4)(b) where the court finds the offanse Involved a victim under 12 years of +age or sexual activity by the use of farce or coercion; +25 Soction g00.04(5)(b); +5, Section 800.04(5)(c)1. Whero the court finds molestation involving unclothed genitals or +sonical arce: +6. Saction 800.01(5)c.2, whato the court finds molestation involving unclothod gopftals or +gonital area; +7 Soction 800.01(5)(d) whord the court finds the use of force or coercion and unclothed +genitals or genital aroa; +8: Any attempt or complracy to commit such offense, or +2 Aviolation of a similar law of another Jurisdiction, +must rerogister each your during the month of the sexuat offender's birthday and overy third +month thoroafter. +(C) The sheriff coffice may datermine the appropriate times and days for reporting by the +caxual offender which chall be consistent with the reporting requirements of this subsection. +Roregistration shall includo any changcs to the following information: +1% Name, cocial socurity number; ago; racer sex date of birth; haight; walght; hair and ayo +color, address of any permanent residance and address of any curront tomporary roadence, +within the state or out of state, including a rural route address and a post office box; any +doctronic mail address and any instant message namo roquired to be provided pursuant to +peregraph (*)(d); dato and place of any omploymont, vehicle make, model, color, and Ucense +teg number, Anger prints; and photograph, A post office box shall not be provided in lieu of a +physical residential address. +2. If the sexual offender is enrolled, amployed, or carrying on a vocation at an institution of +higher education in this state, the saxual offonder shall also provide to the departmont the +name, address, and county of oach institution, Including each compus attended, andi tho sexual +offonder's onrollment or employment status. +3. If the saxual offender s placo of rosidonco is a motor vehicle, trator mobile home, or +manufactured home, as defined in chapter 320, the sexual offendor shall also provide tho +vehicle identification numbor, the ticonse tag number; the registration number; and a +description, Including color schomo, of the motor vehicte, trafler, mobile horno, or +manufactured home, if the saxual offendors placo of residence is a vessol, Livo aboard vessol, +or houseboat, as defined in chapter 327, the saxual offendor shall also provide the hull +idontification number; the inchufacturer's sortal number; the name of the vossol, live aboard +vessel, or houseboat; the registration number; and a description, Including color schome, of +the vessel, live-aboard vessel or houseboat. +45 Any soxual offender who fails to report in porson as roquired at the sheriffs office, or who +fails to respond to any address verification correspondance from the department within 3 +weeks of the date of the correspondence or who fails to report olectronic mail addrosses or + +Public Records Requesl: No 317-295 +CA/Aronberg-000886 + + +Instant message names, committ o folony, of the third degroo, puntthablo as provided in sh +775.082, S. 775.083, or 775.084. +(d) The shortlis office shall, within 2 working days, clactronically submit and update all +information provided by the soxt offender to the dopartmont in a mannor proscribed by the +departmont +CA/Aronberg-000887 + + + +STATE OF FLORIDA +VS. +1. DEFENDANT: +2. DEFENDANT: +3:DEFENDANT: +4. DEFENDANT +5. DEFENDANT +6. DEFENDANI +DEFENDANT: +8. DEFENDANT: +9. DEFENDANT: +I0 DETENDANT: +11: DEFENDANT: +IN THE +L DIVISION OF THE CIRCUIT +COURTL +IFTEENTHJUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NUMBERS) O +PLEA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT +i am the defendant in the above mentioned maller(a), and 1, +unt represented by the attorey indicated below +understand i have the right to be represented by an atomey at all stages of the proceding until the case is terminated +and if I cannot afford an attorney, one will he appointed free of charge +-understand T have the right to speedy and public trial cither by jury or by cour thereby waive and glye up this +righte +understand 1 have the right to be confronted by the witnesses againsi me and to crossexamine them by myself or +through my atomey I hereby sivelup these righe +undersland I have the right to testify on my own behalf, but 1 cannot be compelled to be a +ess against myself +and may remain silent if! so choose! heieby, give up these rights. +l understand 1 have the right to call witnesses to estifyin my behalf and to invoke the compulsory process of the +Court to subpoena those witnesses Thereby sive up these rights. +i understand i have the right 1g appeal all mailers relating to the chargels) and unless I ples Guilty or No Contest +specifically reserving my right to appeal, will give up such oght of appea +el undersland that if I am not a United States Citizen, my plea may subject me to deportation pursuant to the laws ani +regulations governing the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service and this Court-has no jurisdiction, +(authority) in such matters. +i have not received any promises from anyone including my aromey, concerning eligibility for any form of early +relcase authorized bylaw and further no promises have been made to me as to the actual amount oftime that I will +serye under the senterice to be imposed Further, Tunderstand that this plea may, be used to enhance future criminal +penalties in anycourt system, ccif adiudication of gilt is withheld +Loffer my plea freely and voluntarily and of myjown accord, with fullunderstanding of all matter set forb in the +pleadings and this waiver +T have personally placed my initials in each bracket above, and I undersiand each and every one of the right outlined +above hereby waive and give up each ofthem in order, in enter my plea to the within charge(s). I undersiand that +even though the Court may approve the agreement of sentence the Court is not bound by the agreement the Cour +may withdrawits approval at any time before pronouncing judginen, in which case Ishall be able to withdraw, my +plea should I desire to do so. +Choose one: +applicable. I choose hiprogmm which is or may be spirtually based +Trapplicable. choose a program which is NOr spiritually based +th applicable, have no preference if the program is or may be spirally +DEFENDANT +DATE +DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY ONLY +Lam atiomey of record, I have explained each of the above rightsto the defendant and have Explored the facts with him/her and studied his/hei +possible defenses to the charge(s) concur, with his/her decision to waive the rights and to citer this plea, 1 further stipulate that this document +may be received by the Count asevidence of defendant intelligent waiver of there nihts and that shall be fled by the Clerk as permanent record a +of that waiver: +ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT +DATE +Page Lof +Original CR Gieen Sure Attoniey +Yellow Defens Aoey I Detendan CouNta gaines No 7205 +Form 002 +Fom Circuit tey 82000) +CA/Aronberg-000888 + + +/ DATE OF SENTENCE +6 30/08 +NAME MASTH FIRST, MIL +Epsten Jeffrey +PRIMARY OFFENSE it Qualiter, at +FELONY +FISE +DEGREE +OPE +794.03 +(Lovel Puints 0-4 2219 3-102-22 F225-20 +Prescapia tetony tipies Primary Offens point C +RULE 3.992(a) CMINAL PUNISHMENT CODE SCO +PREPARER'S NAME DO X/SAO +(COUNTY: +Belchlave la +E. DOB +3i/20/SB +/WOTHER +•9. GENDER +SHEET, +OPR +MARRET PATE +L(A-Alempl S Salich +DESCRIPTION +0-30, 7-56, 8-74/0- +ADDITIONAL OFFENSES): Supplemental page attached E +DOCKET# +04-9454 +FEUMM +79C, JOGE +QUALIFY +Description +Welon +Khale +C +Basemption +goda +Description +Haver Ponts M-oy -07. 272, 020 36 C0C G10. +17-285 +Prior captaielony Cipice Adoonal Offense point E +VICTIM INJURY +Total +2 Degree Murder +Death +Severe +Moderate. +240 X +120 X +40 X +18X +Slight +Sex Ponetration: +Sex Conlac +IV: +PRIOR RECORD: +WORK POCKE +731 +OFFENSE +(POINTS: +LEVEL +07 +"POINTS. +L TOTAL +page points +FEUMM ASA +DEGREE +NUMBER +POINTS +TOTAL +AS CR +0000 +0000 +0000 +0000 +0000 +0000 +(Lovel Points: M-02 11950208/3815. +4124 0-30, ci9 +07126/17 +CA/Aronberg-000889 +0-199:23.10:294 +•Page i5 of 114; +Pago 1 Subtotal?: +Püblic Records Request: No 17-295 + + +Page 1 Subtotal +567 +VI +galas volate a Points, +company San ten dillon beforo the court for sentencing. +New felony conviction a 12 points x each successive violation +Fiream/Sem Automatic on Machine Gunsl18 or 25 Points. +(Ul Prior Serous Felony = 30 Pai +Enhancements (only us the primary oftense qualie yor enhancen +VIL. +Subtotal Sentence Points: +5,67 +Enhanced Subore Sente Point 507 +TOTAL SENTENCE POINTS +SENTENCE COMPUTATION +To tess than orequal to ta chelower pen +ible sentence is any non-slate arison sanction o +sentence points are greater th +1 maximum sentence is ip to the slatutory maxhum torthe +unless the lowest perissible sentence inder the code +menty on consecutively If total sentence points are +owest pormiss/blo prison +sentence in months +d any additional offenses as provided in s 775.082 +tatulory maximum. Such sentances may be imposed +to 363 allife sentence may be imposed +TOTAL SENTENCE IMPOSED +Months +Days ti +© State Prisor +D Time Served +SO Community Contro +20 Probation +Please chock il sentenced as O habituat offender, @ liabnual +reoffender or a mandalory minimum applies +Megated Per +Other Reaso +JUDGE'S SIGNATURE +CA/Aronberg-000890 +Page. 16 of 114 + + +Pago i Subtotal +Community Sanction daton belore the courtitor senlencing +3 points xeach succes lve olalion OR 1s +Now felony conviction = 12 points x each successive violation +Vil Fream Semi Automaticio: Machine Gun a 1B or 25 Points +VILE Pror Serous Felony Pad Foints +VILLE +27.7 +Subtotal Sentence Points: +Enhansements (on itthe primer/offense qualite at enhance ment +A 02201 + +15X115 +Emanced subt is to no onto 77 +TOTAL SENTENCE POINTS +SENTENCE COMPUTATION +total sentence points are less than or equal to sae or +vespermiss blo sentence Bany cop slate prisons anglin +in clal sentence pantee greate an +x759 +atal sentence points: +lowesliperm pible prison +tendone to monthe +hearimumsuntancel uptoune statutory maximum konihe pomary andany adaltonal oftentes as provided in 75082, +Sunless then lowest permissible sentenco under the code exceeds the fatutory maximum Such sentences may be imposed +untenty or consecutivelys If oral gentence points are greater than of equallo 363, alite sentence may be imposed +TOTAL SENTENCE IMPOSED +Months +-Days +© State Prison +a County Jali +Quite +© Time Served +@ Communily Control +1O Probation +Pleaso checklisentenced as a habitual offender a habitual violent oftender, Evolent career criminal, Of prison release ( +reoffender, or a D mandatory minimum applies: +Mig jed Departure O Pica Bargain +Other Reason +JUDGE'S SIGNATURE +07/26/1 +CA/Aronberg-000891 +Page 17. of 11: +Public Records RequesiNo: 17-295 + + +Page Subtotal g +egal Status violation - 4 Points +Community Sanction gation before the court for sentencing +bipoints seach successive violation OR +-Nal felony conviction, pointa pointex each successive violation +SVIl Fiream Sem Automatio or Machine Gun 218 or 25 Points +MIlL Prior Serous Felony 230 Points +X Enhancements (only the primary offense qualifie, let enhancement) +Grand +x20LX235 +VIlL +Subtotal Sentence Points 5261 +Enhanced Subtotal Santonce Points IX A +24214 +TOTAL SENTENCE POINTS +SENTENCE COMPUTATION +the lowest permissible sentence sany nonstate pisensancilen +totalisentance points are greater than +miscilence poin +owest part +Sentence in months +maximumsentence bipto the statuary mayinümto the primary one any acolong ditenses as provided in setts oz, +missible sentence under the code, exceeds theit tatutory maximum, Such senlences may be imposed +rently or conseculively total Sentence points are greater than or cabal to 363 a life sentence may be imposed +TOTAL SENTENCE IMPOSED +Months +Days +a State Pr +i County Jai +© Life +© Tune Served: +@ Community Control +• Probation +Please checkill sentenced as habilual offender, © habitual violent offender. violent career criminal, E prison releasee +reaffender, ora Of mandatory minimum appliest +Other Reason! +JUDGE'S SIGNATURE +07/26/17- +CA/Aronberg-000892 +Page 18 of 114; +Públic Records Requesi No:: 17-295 + + +PLEA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT +THE FOLLOWING IS TO REFLECT ALL TERMS OF THE NEGOTIATED SI TTLEMENT +Name, Jeffrey E. Epstein +Plea Guilty X +Case No +:06CF009454AMB +08CF009381AM8 +Charge +Felony Solicitation of Prostitution +Procuring Person Under 18 for Prostitution 1 +Count Lesse +Degree +13 FEE +No +2 FEL +PSI: Waived/Not Required X +ADJUDICATION: +Required/Requested_ +Adjudicate x | +SENTENCE: +On 06CF009454AMB, the Defendant is sentenced to 12 months in the Palm Beach County +Detention Facility, with credit for 1 (one) day time served +On 08CF009381 AMB, the Defendant is sentenced to 6 months in the Palm Beach County +Detention Facility, with credit for 1 (one) day time served This 6 month sentence is to be +served consecutive to the 12 month sentence in 06CF009454AMB. Following this 6 +month sentence, the Defendant will be placed on 12 months Community Control 1 (one). +The conditions of community control are attached hereto and incorporated herein +OTHER COMMENTS OR CONDITIONS! +As a special condition of his community control, the Defendant is to have no unsupervised +contact with minors, and the supervising adult must be approved by the Department of +Cortections. +The Defendant is designated as a Sexual Offender pursuant to Florida Statute 943.0435 and +must abide by all the corresponding requirements of the statute, a copy of which is attached +thereto and incorporated herein. +The Defendant must provide a DNA sample in count at the time of this plea. +stant State Attorney +Date of Plea +Attorney for the Defendant +Defendant: + +CA/Aronberg-000893 + + +918.101 Terms and conditions of community control and criminal quarantine cominunity +control: +(9) The court shall determine the terms and conditions of community control. Condition: +spacified in this subsection do not require oral pronouncomont at the time of sentencing and +may be considered standard conditions of community control +(a) The court shall roquire intensive supervision and surveillance for an offondor placed into +community control, which may include but is not limited to: +1. Spocified contact with the parole and probation officer. +2 Confinement to an agrood upon residonce during hours away from omploymont and public +servico activities. +3; Mandatory public service. +4 Supervision by the Departmont of Corractions by means of an electronic nonitoring dovice +or system +15: The standard conditions of probation set forth in s. 948.03. +(b). For an offondor placod on criminal quarantino community control, the court shall requiet +Eloctronic monitoring 24 hours per day. +2. Confinement to a designated rosidance during designated hours. +(2) The coumoration of specific kinds of terms and conditions does not prevent the court from +adding thereto any other terms or conditions that the court considers proper towuver, the +sentencing court may only impose a condition of supervision allowing an offender convicted of +S. 794.011, 3. 800.04,S 827.071, or s. 847.0145 to resido in another stete if the order +stipulates that itsel contingent unon the hootoval of the recolving stato interstate compact +authority. The +time the terms and conditions therotofore +imposed by it upen the offender in community control. However, if the court withholds +adjudication of guilt or imposes a period of incarceration as a condition of comnunity control, +the poriod may not exceed 304 days, and incarceration shall be restricted to a county facility, +a probation and rostitution center under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections, a +probation program drug punishinent phaser socure residential treatment institution, or a +community residential facility owned or operatid by any entity providing such services! +3) The court mey, place a dofendant who is being sentenced for criminal transmission of HIV in +Volation of s. 175.0877 on criminal quarantine community control. The Dopertment of +Corrections shall devolop and administer a criminal quarantine community control prouram +amphasizing intonsive supervision with 2- hour por day alectronic monitoring. Criminal +quarantino community control status must includo surveillance and may include othor moesures +normally associated with community control, oxcept that specific conditions necessery to +monitor this population +be ordered: +Piage 21 of. 114. +Püblic Records Request No.: 17-295 +CA/Aronberg-000894 + + +1943.0435 Sexuat offenders required to rogister with the department; penalty +(1) As usod in this section, the term +(a)1/ Sexual offender" means a porson, who meets the criteria in sub-subparagraph a sub +subparagraph b., sub subparagraph C.,or sub-subparagraph d, as follows; +a.(l) Has boon convicted of committing, or attempting, soliciting, or conspiring to commit, any +of the criminal offenses proscribed in the following statutes in this state of similar offenses in +another jurisdiction: 787.01. 5. 787.02, or $ 787.025(2)(c), where the victim is a minor, and +the dofendant is not the victims paront or guardian; s794.011, excludings 794.011(19);9 +794.05; 3. 796.03; . 796.035; s,800:04; 5. 825.1025; s. 827.071: 5. 847.013385. 847.0135, +excluding s. 847.0135(4); 5. 847.0137: 5. 847.0138; 5. 847.0145, or s. 985.701(1); or any similar +offonse committed in this state which has boon redesignated from a formor statute number to +one of those listed in this sub-sub-subparagraph, and +(1) Has boon roleased on or after October 1, 1997, from the sanction imposed for any +conviction of an offense described in sub sub subparagraph (!) For purposes of sub-sub: +subparagraph (1), a sanction imposed in this state or in any other jurisdiction includes, but is. +not limited to, a fine, probation, community control, parole, conditional reloaso, control +release, or incarcoration in a state prison, fodoral prison, private correctional facility, orloceli +-detention facility; +b. Establishios or maintains a rosidance in this stato and Who has not been dosignated as a +sexual predator. by a court of this state but who has boen designated as a sexual predator, as a +sexually violont prodator, or by another sexual offonder designation in another state or +junsdiction and wast as a rosult of such designation, subjected to registration or community. or +public notification, or both, or would be if the person were a residont of that state or +jurisdiction, without regard to whether the person othervise moets the critoria, for registration +as a sexual offender; +c. Establishes or máintains a residonce in this stato who is in the custody or control of, or +under the supervision of, any other stato of jurisdiction as a result of a conviction for +committing, or attompting, soliciting, or conspiring to commit, any of the criminal offense: +proscribed inithe following statutes or similar offonse in another jurisdiction s 787.01,0 +787.02, or.s: 787.025(2) (c), where the victim is a minor and the defendant is not the victim s +parent or guardian; 794.011, oxcluding s 794.011(10); 3 294.05; 3. 7.96.03; 796.035, s +600.04, 5. 825.1025, s. 827.071: 5. 847.0133 3 847.0135, oxcluding s: 847.0135(4);., +847:0137; S. 847.0138S 847.0145; ors. 985.701(10) or any similar offense conmitted in this +state which has boon redosignated from a formor statute number. to one of those listod in this +sub subparagrophs.or +d: On or äftor July 1, 2007, has been adjudicated delinquent for committing, or attempting, +soliciting, or conspiring to cormit, any of the criminal offenses proscribed in the following. +statutos in this stato or similar, offonses in another jurisdiction when die juvenile was 14 years +of ago or oldor at the time of the offense: +(1) Soction 794.011, excluding s. 794.011(10); +( Soction 800.01(4)(b) whore the victim is under 12 years of ago or whore the court finds +sexual activity by the use of force or coercion; +(1) Section 800.0415)(c)1. whore the court finds molestation involving unclothod genitals, or + +Public Records Request No.: 17-295 +CA/Aronberg-000895 + + +(V) section 800 04(5)(a) Whero the court finds the use of force or coorcion and unclothed +genitals: +2. For all qualifying offonses listod in sub-subparagraph (1)(a)1.d., the court shall makera +written finding of the aggrof the offender at the time of the offense, +For each violation of a qualifying offonso listed in this subsection, the court shall make a +written finding of tho ago of the victim at the time of the offense. For a violation of s +800.04(4), the court shall additionally make awntien finding indicating that the offense did or +did not involve sexual; activily and indicating that the offanse did or did not involve forco or +coercion: For a violation of 5. 80004(5), the court shall additionally make a written finding +that the offense: did or did not involve unclothed gonitals or genital area and that the offens +did or did not Involve the use of force or coercion. +(b) "Convictad moans that there has beon a detormination of guilt as a rosult of a trial orithe +entry of a ploa of guilty or nolo contendore, regardless of whether adjudication is withhold, +and includes an adjudication of delinquoncy of a juvonile as specified in this section. +Conviction of a similar offense includes but is inct limited to, a conviction by a fodoral or: +military tribunal, including courts martial conducted by the Armed Forcos of the Unitod States;. +and includes a conviction or entry of a ploa of guilty or nolo contendere resulting in a sanction; +in any state of the United Statos or other jurisdiction. A sanction includes, but is not limited +to, a fino, probation, community control parolo, conditional release, control relouse +Incarceration in a state prison, fedoral prison, private correctional facility, or local detantion +facility: +(c) "Permanont residenco and comporary: residence +have the same meaning ascribed in s. +725.21. +(d) Institution of higher education means a career conter, community college, colloge, state +university, or indopendent postsecondary institution: +(e): Change in enrollinent or employment status means the commencorient or ternination of +enrollmont or employmant or a change in location of enrollment or employment. +(f) "Electronic mail address" has the same meaning as provided in s 668.60%- +(g) Instant nessage neme ingons an identifier tist alloys a porson to communicacalinreat +time with anothor person using the internet. +(2) Aisexual offonder shall: +(a) Reportin personat the shoriff's office: +in the county in which the offonder establishes or maintains a permenes or tomporaly +residonce within as hours altor +a. Establishing permanent or tomporary residence in this state or +b. Going rolcased from the custody, control, or supervision of the Departmont of Corrections +orrom the custody of a private correctional facility: or +2. In thie county hero he orshe was convicted within 48 hours after being convicted for e +qualifying offente for registration under this section f the offender is not in thaicustody or +Page:23 of. 114 +Public Records Request:No.: 17-295 +CA/Aronberg-000896 + + +control of, or undor theisuporvision of, the Department of Corroctions or is not +the custody +of a private correctional facility +Any change in the sexual offender's permanont or temporary residence, name, any eloctronic +mail address and any instant mossage name required to be provided pursuantito paragraph +(a), after the foxual offender roports in person at the sheriffs office, shall be accomplished +in the manner, provided in subsoctions. (4), 2), and (B). +(b) Provide his or her name, date of birth, social socurity number, race, sex, choight, weight +hair and oye color, tattoos or other idontifying marks; occupation and place of employment; +address of permanent or legal residence or address of any current temporary rosidence, within +the stato and out of state, including a rural route address and a post office box, any electronic +L addross and any instant message name required to be provided pursuant to paragraph +(4/lg), date and place of each conviction, and a bric! description of the crime or crimos +committed by the offender. A post office bon shall not be provided in lieu of a physical +residential address; +. If the sexual offender's place of residonce is a motor chicle, trailer, nobile home, or +manufacturod homo, as defined in chaptor. 320, the soxual offonder shall else provide to the +departmont through the shoriffs offico: written notice of the vehicle identification numbers the +licenso tag numbor; the rogistration number, and a description, including color schome, of ne +motor vehicle, trailer mobile home or manufactured home. If the saxual offenders place of +rosidonco is a vessel, live aboard vossel, or housoboat, as defined in chaptor. 327, the sexual +offender shall also provide to the departmont written notice of/tho hull identification number; +the manufacturer's serial nuinber; the name of the vessel, live aboard vessel, or houseboat the +registration numbor, and a description, including color schome, of the vessel, live-aboard +tessel, or houseboat. +2. if the soxuat offender is onrolled, omployed, or carryiig on a vocation at an institution of +highor education in this stato, the sexiial offander shaltalso provide to the department through +the shoriffs office the namo;, address, and couhty of oach institution, including each cainpus +attended, and the sexual offonder's onrollmont or employment status. Each change in +enrollment or employment status shall be reported in person at the sheriffs office, within 18 +hours after any change in status. The shoriff shall promptly notify cach institution of the serval: +offonder's prosence and any chango in the sexual offenders enrollment or employment statues +When a sexual offender roports at the sheriffs office, the sheriff shall take a photograph and a +set of fingorprints of the offender, and forward the photopraphs and fingerprints to the +departmont, along with the information provided by the sexual offender: The sher, seat +promptly provide to the departmont the information received from the sexual offondor. +(3) within 48 hour after the roport required under subsection (2), a Sexual offonder shall, +roport in person at a drivers license office of the Department of thighway Safety and Motor +Vehicles, 'unless a driver slicense or identification card thet complios with the requircinents.of- +s. was was previously socured or updated undors: 944.097. Atthe drivers cense othe +the soxual offondor shall +(al it otherwise qualified, secure a Florida driversilicenso ronew a Florida driver's liconsert +secure an idontification card The sexual offender shall identity himself or herself as a sexust +offonder who is required to comply with this soction and shall provide proofichat the sexual. +offender reportod as required insubsoction l2), The sexual offendar shall provide any of the +information spocified in subsoction: (2), if requestod. The soxual offender shall submit to the +taking of e photograph for, use in issuing a drivers license, renewed license jor identification +card, and for use by the departient in maintaining curront records of soxual offenders. + +CA/Aronberg-000897 + + +(b) Pay the costs assessod by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles for issuing +or renowing a driver's licenso or identification card as required by this section. The drivers +-license or idontification card issued must be in complianco with 5 322 14131: +(c) Provide, upon requesti any additional inforination nocessary to confirm the idontity of the +sexual offender including a set of fingerprints: +(4)(ä) Each timo a sexual offender's drivor license or idontification card is subjoct to ronewal, +and, without regard to the status of the offondors driver's license or identification card, within +48 hours after any chango in tho offendors permanent or tomporary residence or change in the +offonder's namo by roason of marriago or other legal process, the offendor shall roport in +porson to a drivers license office, and shall be subjectito the roquirements spocifiod in +subsoction (3). The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles shalliforward to the +department all photouraphs, and information provided by sexual offenders. Notwithstanding the +restrictions set forth ins: 322.142, the Department of Highway Safaty and Motor Vehicles 1s +authorized to roloase a roproduction of a color photograph or digital image liconso to the +Departmont, of Law Enforcement for purposes of public notification of soxual offendors at +provided in this section ond 5s, 943.043 and 944.606. +(6) A sexual offender who vacates a perinenent residenco and fails to establish or maintain +another permanent or temporary residence shall, within 48 hours aftor vacating the permanent +residance, report in porson to the sheriffs office of the county in which he or she is locatou +*The soxual offondor shall specify the date upon which ho or she intends to or did vacate such: +residonco. The sexual offender must provide or update all of the rogistration information +required undor paragraph: (2)(b). The sexual offender must provide an addross for the residenice +or other location that, he or she is or will be occupying during the time in which helor she foils. +to establish or maintain a permanent or temporary rosidence: +(c) A sexual offender who remains at a permanent residence after roporting his or her intent +to Vecate such rosidence shawithin a hours after the date upon which the offender +indicated he or sho would or did vacate such residence, report In person to the agoncy to which +he or she reported pursuant to paragraph (b) for the purpose of roporting his or her address att +such rosidence. When the chariff receives the report, thie sheriff shall promptly convey the +Information to the department., An offender who makes a roport as required under paragraph +b) but fails to malio a report as required under this paragraph commits a felony of tha second +•degroo punishablo as provided in's 775.082/5.775.083, ors:275.084 +(d) A saxual offender must register any electronic mail address or instant mossaga name with +the departmont prior to using such electronic mail address or instant message name on or afçer ++ October 1, 2007. The departmont shall establish an online systein through which soxual +i offenders may securely accost and update all electronic mail address and instant messege +namo information. +(5) Thissoation does not apply to a sexual offunder who is also a sexual predator, os definedy +$ 225.21. A sexual predaton must registor as required unders, 775.21 +(g) County and local law enforcement agencies, in conjunction with the davertment, shall +varify tho addressos of sexual offendors who are not under the care, custody, control or +supervision of the Departmont of Corroctions in a mannor that is consistont iwith the provisions +of the federal Adorn, Walsh Child Protection and Salsty Act of 2006 and any other federal +standards applicablo to such verification or required to be met as a condition for the recupeot +foderat funds by the stato, Local law enforcomg agoncies shall roport to the department ong! +failure bie sexual offender to comply with registration requireinons, + +Public Records Reques! No: 17-295 +CA/Aronberg-000898 + + +(7) A sexual, offonder who intand, to establich ridenco in anothor stato or jurisdiction other +than the State of Florida shall report in person to the shoriff of the county of current residonce +within 48 hours bofore tho date ho or she intends to leave this state to establish residence in +anothor state or jurisdiction. The notification must include the address, municipality, county, +rand state of intended residence. The shoriff shall promptly provide to the department the +information receivod from the saxual offonder. The dopartment shall notify the statowido law +enforcement agency, or a comparable agency, lin the intended state or jurisdiction of residorce +of the sexual offender sintendod residence. The failure of a sexual offender to provido his or +hor intended place of residonce is punishable as provided in subsection: (9): +(8) A sexual offender who indicates his or her intent to roside in another state or jurisdiction +othor, than the State of Florida and later decides to romain: In this state shall, within 48 hours +aftor the dato upon which the soxual offender indicated he or she would loave this state, +reportiin person to the sheriff to which the sexual offondor reported the intended change of +residence, and report his or her intent to romain in this stato The sheriff shall proinpely report +this information to the dopartment. A soxual offender who reports his or her intent to residen +anothor stato or jurisdiction but who remains in this state without reporting to the shenfil +the manner required by this subsection commits a felony of the socond degree, punishablo as +provided in's 775.082s 775.083 or s 775.084 +(9)(a) A séxual offonder who does not coinply with the requiremonts of this saction commits a +felony of the third degrea, punishable as provided in 275.082, 275.083 or 5, 775.084. +(b) A sexual offender who commits any act or omission in violation of this soction may be +prosecuted for the act of onission in the county in which the act or omission was conmitted. +the county of the last registered address of the sexual offender, or the county in whichithe +conviction accurrod for the offonse or offenses that meet the critoria for dosignating a person. +as a sexual offondor. +(e) An arrest on chargos of failuro to register when the offender has beon provided +advisod +of his or her statutory obligations to register under subsoction (2), the service of an; +information or a complaint for a violation of this section, or on arraignment on charges for +Molation of this saction constitutes actual notice of the duty to registor. A sexual offonder's +failure to iminodiately register as required by this section following such arrest, service, or +arraignment constitutes grounds for a subsoquent charge of failure to registor. A soxuat +-offender charged with the crimo of failure to registor who assorts; or intonds to asserts a lack +of notice of the duty, to register asia, defense, to a charge of failure tolregister shalt +immodiately register as required by this section. A sexual offender who is charged with a +subsaquent failure to register may not assert the dofonse of a lack of notice of the duty to +register +(d/ Registration following buch arrost, service, on arraigninent it not a dofense and does not +relievo the sexual offendor of criminal liability for tha failure to rogater. +(10) The departmont, the Oepartiment of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, the Departinent +of Corrections, the Department of Juvenile Justico, any law enforcoment egency in this state, +and the personnel of these departments; an clocted or appointed official, public employee. or +school administretor; orian omployce, agony, or any individual or gitity, acting at the roqugst, +for upon the diroction of any law enforcement agency is immune froncivil ligbility for damage? +for good faith compliance with the roquirements of this section of for the release of +information under chis section, and shall be presumed to have actod in aged faith in compiling; +rocordine, roporting, or relenting the information. The presumption of good faithis not +ovorcomo if a technicat or clérical error is made by the department, the Department of +fishway Sofaty and Motor Vahletes, the Opportinent of Corrections, the Dopertmen of giante + +Public Rocords Request No. 17-295 +CA/Aronberg-000899 + + +Justico, tho personnel of those departmonts, lor any Individual or entity acting at the request +or upon the direction of any of those departingnts in compiling or providing information, or if +Information is incomplete or incorrect because a soxual offondor fails to report or falsely +(reports his or her current place of permanent of temporary residence, +(111) Except as provided in s 943:04354, a sexual offender must maintain registration with the +dopartment for the duration, of his or her life, unless the sexual offender has received a full +pardon or has had a conviction set aside in a postconviction proceeding for any oftonse the! +moots the critoria for classifying the person as a sexual offonder for purposes of rogistration. +Howover, a sexual offonder: +(a)1. Who has beon lawfully released from confinement, supervision, or sanction, whichover +lator, for at least 25 yoars and has not been arrested for any folony or misdomanor oftense +since reloase, provided that the sexual offendor's roquiromont to register, was not based upon +an adult conviction: +a For a violation of s. 787,01 ors: 787:02; +b. For a violation ofs: 794.011, excluding s 794011(10); +c. For a violation of s 800: (b) where the court finds the offonse involved a victim under +12 years of age or sexual activity by the use of force or coorcion; +d. for a violation of s. 800 04(5)(b); +o: Fora violation of s 800. 04(5)c.2: where the court finds the offense involver unclothed, si +genitals or genitet area; +if For any attempt or conspiracy to commit any such offonse; ore +* For a violation of similar law of another jurisdiction, +may potition the criminal division of the circuit court of the circunt in which the sexual. +offonder resides for the purpose of removing the requirement for registration as a sexual, +offendor. +2. The court may grant or deny rolief if the offender demonstrates to the court that he or die +has not boon arrested for eny crime since rolease; the requested rolief complics with the +provisions of the foderal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 and any other, +federal standards applicable to the removal of reil tration roquitoronts for a soxual offonder +or required to be mot as a condition for the recipe of federal funds by the state, and the court +is 'othorwise satisfiod that the offander is not a current or botontial threat to public safety the +state attorney in the circuit in which the petition is filed inust be givon notice of the petition. +wat least 3 weeks before the hearing on the ratten The state attorney may present evidence in: +opposition to the requested relief or may culerwise domonstrato the roasons why the petition, +should bo denied. If the court donies the petition, the court may sot a future date at which the +sexual offender may again petition the court for relief, sübjoct to the standard: for rolief +provided in this sulisection: +3. Tho dopartinent thall corove an offender from clacsification as & sexual offender for +purposes of rogistration if the offunder provides to the department a certified copy of the +court's written findings or order that indicates that the offender is no longer required to. +comply with the requirements for registration as a sexual offender. + +CA/Aronberg-000900 + + +(b): As dofinod in sub-sübparagraph (1)(a)1 b. must maintain rogistration with the department +for the duration of his or her life until the person provides the departmont with an order issued +by the court that designated the porson as a sexual prodator, as a sexually violent predator. or +by another sexual offondor designation in the state or jurisdiction in which the ordor was +issued which states that such designation has been removed or demonstrates to the +dopertmont thatsuch designation, if not imposed by a court, has been romoved by operation of +law or court örder in the state or jurisdiction in which the dosignation was made, and provided +such person no longer meets the criteria for registration as a sexual offender undor che laws of +this state. +(12) The Logislature finds chet sexual offenders, espocially those who have committed offonse +- against minors, ofton pose a high risk of engagine in soxual offorises ovon after being reloased +from incarcoration or commitment and that protoction of the public from sexual offanders is a +paramount government interest: Sexual offenders have a reduced oxpectation of privacy: +because of the public's interost in public safoty and in the offective operation of governments +Releasing information concorning sexual offenders to law onforcement agencies andito persons +who roquest such information, and the release of such information to the public by a law +enforcement agency or public agoncy, will further the governmental interests of public safely. +The designation of a person as a saxual offandor is not a sentence or a punishment but is simely: +the status of the offendor which is the result of a conviction for having committed cortain +comes. +(13) Any person who hap reason to believe that le sexuet offondor is not complying or hat not +-complied, with the roquirements.of this section and who, with the intent to assist the socua +offender in eluding a law enforcement agency that is seoking, to find the sexual ottonder to +quention the sexual offender about, or to errest the sexual offendor for, his or her +noncompliance with the requirements of this section: +(a) Withholds information from, or does not notify +the law onforcement agoncy about the +sexual offonder si noncompliance with the roquirements of this section, and, if known, the +wherogbouts of the sexual offonder; +(b) Harbors, or attempesto: harbor, or assists another porson in harboring of attompting to +(harbor: the Sexual offender, or +(c) Conceals or attempts to concoet, of assis, another person in concoaling or attempting to +concoal, the sexual offender, or +(d) Provides information to the law enforcement agency regording the soxual offender that they. +porson knows to be faisg information, +commits a folony of the third degroe; punishable as provided in s 775.082; s. 725:083, oris. +775.0845 +(14)(a): A séxual offendoromist report in person each yoar during the month of the sexual +offonder birthdey and during the siath monith following the sexual offonders birth monthit +the sheriffs office in the county in which he or she resides of is otherwise, located to toreg ter +b) Howevar, a sexual offonder who is roquired to registor as a rosult of a conviction for: +9 Saction 782:01 ors.1737, 92 whore the victim is e minor and the offenders not the victims +parent or guardian: +Page: 28 of 114 +Public Records Request No.: 17-295 +CA/Aronberg-000901 + + +2 Soction 794.011, excluding s: 794.011(10); +3. Soction 800.04(4)(b) where the court finds the offerse, involvedia victim under 12 yeers of +ago or sexual activity by the uso of force or coarcion; +4. Section 800. 04(916), +5. Section 800: 04(sic)r: Where the courtifinds molestation involving unclothed gomitals or +6 Soction 800: 04(Sic 2 where the court finds molestation involving unclothed genitals +genital: area; +7. Soction 800/04(5)(d); whore the court finds the wo of forco or coercion and unelothed +genitals or gonitel aroa; +B. Any attompt or conspiracy to cominit such offonse, or +" 9. A violation of a similar law of another Jurisdiction, +must rerogister cach yeur during the mouth of the soxual offenders birthday and evory third +month thoroafter.. +(e) The sheriff's office may detormine tho appropriate times and day: for roporting by the +sexual offender, which shall be consistent with the roporting requirements of this subsectione +Roragistration shall include any changes to the following information: +1. Name: sociál security number, age race: sex date of birth; height; weight, hair and oye +color, address of any permanent residence and address of any current torporary residence, +within the stato or out of state, including a rurat route address and a post office box; any +cloctronic mail address and any instant message name roquired to be provided pursuant co +paragraph: (4)(d); date and place of any employmont, vehicle mako, modol, color and license +tag number, fingerprints; and photograph. A post office box shall not be provided in ticurofa +physical residential addross! +at the sexual offender is enrolled, omployed, or carrying on a vocation at an institution of +higher education in thisistato, the sexual offender shall also provide to.the departmont the +name, address, and county of cach institution, includine oach compusattended, and thorsexcat +offonders enrollment or omployment status. +3. If the sexual offenders place of residonce i a motor vehicle traller, mobile hone of +manufactured home, as defined in chapter 320, the sexual offundur shell also provido the +vehicle identification numbor, the licenso tag number, the rogistration number, andie +- description, including colorschomo, of the motor vohicle: trailer, mobile home, or +manufactured home alf the sexual offendors place of residence is a vessel; live aboard vessel +or houseboat, as defined in chaptor 327, the sexual offender shall also provide tho hulls; +identification number, the nanufacturer s serial number, the name of the vossst, live aboard +vossel, or housoboat: the registration numbor and a description, including colde schame, of +the vessal, live aboard vessol or houseboel: +4 Any sexual offonder who Tail, to ruport in porson as required at the cheriff offico, or whe +fails to respond to any address verification correspondorice from the departmont within 3 +weeks of the date ofithe correspondence on who falls to report cloctronie mail eddiesses o +Page:29 of. 114 +Public Records Request No.: 17-295 +CA/Aronberg-000902 + + +Instant mossage names, commits a felony of the third degreo, punishable as providad in s. +775.082, 5. 775.083, or s. 775.084 +(d) The shoriff's office shall, within 2 working days; electronfcally submit and updato all +information provided by the sexual offender to the department in a manner proscribed by the +départimont. +CA/Aronberg-000903 +Piage:30 of 114 + + +Appendix 9 +CA/Aronberg-000904 + + +U.S. Department of Justice +United States Attorney +Southern District of New York +The Silvio I. Afollo Building +One Saint Andrew's Plaza +New York; New York: /0007 +VIA ECE +The Honorable Henry: Pitman +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +United States Courthouse. +500 Pearl Street +New York, New Kork 10007 +Re: United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB) +Dear Judge Pitman: +The Government respectfilly submits this letter in advance of the bail hearing scheduled +for July 8, 2019, in the above-captioned case. +For the reasons set forth herein, the Court should +order that the defendant be detained pending trial; he cannot meet his burden of overcoming the +presumption that there is no combination of conditions that would reasonably assure his continued +appearance in this case or protect the safety of the community were he to be released +As set forth below, the charges in this case are exceptionally serious: the defendant is +alleged to be a serial sexual predator who preyed on dozens of minor girls over a penod of years, +and he now faces a potentially massive prison sentence predicated on substantial and multifaceted +evidence of his guilt. In light of the strength of the Government's evidence and the substantial +incarceratory term the defendant would face upon conviction, there is an' extraordinary risk of +flight, particularly given the defendant's exorbitant wealth, his ownership of and access to private +planes capable of international travel, and his significant international ties: Indeed, the arrest of +the defendant occurred when he arrived in the United States on his private jet after having returned +from a multi-week stay abroad. +Finally, and as detailed herein, the Government has real concerns grounded in past +xperience with this defendant—that if allowed to remain out on bail, the defendant could attem! +› pressure and intimidate witnesses and potential witnesses in this case, including victims an +their anim, iny inhering atept to best visable merers, he posignifican askanger +The defendant thus cannot overcome the statutory presumption that detention is appropriate in thi +ase, and the Court should order that he be detained pending trial +CA/Aronberg-000905 + + +Page 2 +BACKGROUND +A. Overview +On July 2, 2019, a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York returned a sealed +indictment (the "Indictment") charging the defendant with one count of sex trafficking of minors, +in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, and one count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors, +in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. +As charged by the grand jury, the facts underlying the charges in the Indictment arise from +a years-long scheme to sexually abuse underage girls. In particular, beginning in at least 2002, the +defendant enticed and recruited dozens of minor girls to engage in sex acts with him, for which he +paid the victims hundreds of dollars in cash. +He undertook this activity in at least two different locations, including his mansion in +Manhattan, New York (the "New York Residence") and his estate in Palm Beach, Florida (the +"Palm Beach Residence"). In both New York and Florida, the defendant perpetuated this abuse in +similar ways. Victims were initially recruited to provide "massages" to the defendant, which +would be performed nude or partially nude, would become increasingly sexual in nature, and +would typically include one or more sex acts, including groping and direct or indirect contact with +victims' genitals. The defendant paid his victims hundreds of dollars in cash for each separate +encounter. +Moreover, the defendant actively encouraged certain of his victims to recruit additional +girls to be similarly sexually abused. He incentivized his victims to become recruiters by paying +these victim-recruiters hundreds of dollars, for each additional girl they brought to him. In this +fashion, the defendant created a vast network of underage victims for him to exploit, in locations +including New York and Palm Beach. +The defendant's victims were as young as 14 years old when he abused them. Many of his +victims were, for various reasons, often particularly vulnerable to exploitation. The defendant +intentionally sought out--and knew that he was abusing—minors. Indeed, in some instances, his +victims expressly told him they were underage before or during the period in which he abused +them. +B. The Defendant +and through is pirin don of tier, ined and epain od this emer disma agitian +rampant abuse of underage girls +: +CA/Aronberg-000906 + + +Page 3 +As has been widely reported, the defendant is extraordinarily wealthy, and he owns and +maintains luxury properties and residences around the world, including in Manhattan, New York; +Palm Beach, Florida; Stanley, New Mexico; and Paris, France. Additionally, Epstein owns a +private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands which, as noted above, is believed to be his primary +residence in the United States. His mansion in Manhattan alone—a multi-story townhouse +reported to be one of the largest single residences in all of Manhattan, which previously housed a +school and which he owns through an LLChas been valued at approximately $77 million. +Entities controlled by the defendant also own at least two private jets in active service, at least one +of which is capable of intercontinental travel. +As described further below, the defendant possesses three active United States passports, +and his international connections and travels are extensive. For example, in addition to +maintaining a residence in Paris, France, as described above, in the past 18 months alone, the +defendant has traveled abroad, via private jet, either into or out of the country on approximately +more than 20 occasions. +C. The Prior Florida Investigation +In or about 2005, the defendant was investigated by local police in Palm Beach, Florida, in +connection with allegations that he had committed similar sex offenses against minor girls. The +investigation ultimately also involved federal authorities, namely the U.S. Attorney's Office for +the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL") and the FBI's Miami Office, and included interviews +with victims based in the Palm Beach area, including some of the alleged victims relevant to Count +One of the instant Indictment.' +In fall 2007, the defendant entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the SDFL in +connection with the conduct at issue in that investigation, which the non-prosecution agreement +identified as including investigations into the defendant's abuse of minor girls in the Palm Beach +area. The Southern District of New York was not a signatory to that agreement, and the defendant +was never charged federally? In June 2008, the defendant pled guilty in state court to one count +of procuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution, a felony, and one count of solicitation +of prostitution, a felony. As a result, the defendant was designated as a sex offender with +registration requirements under the national Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. +' The non-prosecution agreement, further discussed below, was entered into at the conclusion of +the SDFL investigation and did not purport to cover any victims outside of the State of Florida. +As noted above, the instant Indictment expressly alleges the existence of dozens of victims who +were abused in this District in addition to dozens of victims who were abused in Florida. +While beyond the scope of a bail hearing, as discussed further below, it is well-established in th +¡econd Circuit that absent an express provision to the contrary in the agreement, one District i +not bound by the terms of an agreement entered into between a defendant and a U.S. Attorney's +Office in another district. See page 6, infra. +CA/Aronberg-000907 + + +Page 4 +ARGUMENT +I. +Applicable Law +Under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141 et seq., federal courts are empowered to +conditions would reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any +other person and the community"). A finding of risk of flight must be supported by a +preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., United States v. +1. 823 F.2d 4, 5 (2d Cir. 1987); +United States v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400, 405 (2d Cir. 1985). A finding of dangerousness must +be supported by clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g., United States 14 Ferranti, 66 F.3d 540, +542 (2d Cir. 1995); Chimurenga, 760 F. 2d at 405. In addition, a court may also order detention if +there is "a serious risk that the [defendant] will.: +injure, or intimidate, a prospective witness or juror." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(B); see also United +States v. +837 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1988). +The Bail Reform Act lists four factors to be considered in the detention analysis: (1) the +nature and circumstances of the crimes charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; +(3) the history and characteristics of the defendant, including the person's "character ... [and] +financial resources"; and (4) the seriousness of the danger posed by the defendant's release. See +18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). Evidentiary rules do not apply at detention hearings and the government is +entitled to present evidence by way of proffer, among other means. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(t)(2); +see also United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2000) (government entitled +to proceed by proffer in detention hearings); Ferranti, 66 F.3d at 542 (same); United States v. +Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1145 (2d Cir. 1986) (same). +Where a judicial officer concludes after a hearing that "no condition or combination of +conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any +other person and the community, such judicial officer shall order the detention of the person before +trial." +18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). Additionally, where, as here, a defendant is charged with +committing an offense involving a minor victim under 18 U.S.C. § 1591, it shall be presumed, +subject to rebuttal, that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the +appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the community. 18 U.S.C. +§ 3142(e) (3)(E) +Discussion +The defendant should be detained pending trial. For the reasons set forth below, it is +and for those ae the he ef night and dat get to the come saily if he defendan is favored, +detention in this case. +CA/Aronberg-000908 + + +Page 5 +A. The Defendant Poses an Extreme Flight Risk +Each of the relevant factors to be considered as to flight risk - the nature and circumstances +of the offense, the strength of the evidence, and the history and characteristics of the defendant - +counsel strongly in favor of detention. +1. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense and the Strength of the Evidence +The "nature and circumstances" of this offense plainly favor detention, 18 V.S.C. +§ 3142(g)(1) (specifically enumerating "whether the offense... involves a minor victim" as a +factor in bail applications). Indeed, the crime of sex trafficking of a minor is so serious that for a +defendant charged with that offense, there is a presumption that no condition or combination of +conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the +community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (e)(3)(E). Here, as specified in the Indictment, the detendant's +conduct was committed serially, over a period of years, and affected dozens.of victims. +The seriousness of the charge is also reflected in the penalties the defendant faces, which +include up to 45 years of incarceration for Counts One and Two of the Indictment? As the Second +Circuit has noted, the possibility of a severe sentence is a significant factor in assessing the risk of +flight. See +| 823 F.2d at 7; see also United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610, 618 (10th Cir. +2003) (defendant was a flight risk because her knowledge of the seriousness of the charges against her +gave her a strong incentive to abscond); United States v. Townsend, 897 F.2d 989, 995 (9th Cir. 1990) +("Facing the much graver penalties possible under the present indictment, the defendants have an even +greater incentive to consider flight."). Here, the defendant is facing a statutory maximum of decades +in prison. Even in the absence of means which, as discussed in detail below, the defendant has +in abundance-this fact alone would provide a compelling incentive for anyone to fail to appear. +It is particularly compelling fora defendant who is 66 years old and therefore faces the very real +prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison if convicted. +The likelihood of a substantial period of incarceration is buttressed by the strength of the +evidence. As set forth in the Indictment, the evidence in this case is strong. The Indictment alleges +that the defendant sexually abused dozens of minor victims, and the conspiracy count lists +numerous overt acts committed in furtherance of the defendant's crimes.4 +3 The current penalties for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 include a 10 year mandatory minimum +sentence. However, that punishment was created through an amendment to the statute in 2006. +The penalty for a violation of Section 1591 during the period charged in the Indictment, and +therefore relevant here, was a maximum of 40 years' imprisonment. +4 With respect to the evidence in this case, the Court should start its analysis by accepting that the +Indictment is sufficient, on its own, to establish probable cause that the defendant committed the +crimes of sex trafficking and sex trafficking conspiracy. Contreras, 776 F.2d at 54. (Were an +evidentiary hearing addressing the existence of probable cause required in every § 3142(e) case in +which an indictment had been filed, the court would spend scarce judicial resources considering +that which a grand jury had already determined, and have less time to focus on the application of +CA/Aronberg-000909 + + +Page 6 +Multiple victims, including several specified in the Indictment, have provided information +against the defendant. That information is detailed, credible, and corroborated, in many instances, +by other witnesses and contemporaneous documents, records and other evidence—including, as +further detailed below, evidence from a search of the New York Residence on the night of the +defendant's arrest that reflects an extraordinary volume of photographs of nude and partially-nude +young women or girls. Such corroborating evidence also includes documents and other materials, +such as contemporaneous notes, messages recovered from the defendant's residence that include +names and contact information for certain victims, and call records that confirm the defendant and +his agents were repeatedly in contact with various victims during the charged period. Put simply, +all of this evidence - the voluminous and credible testimony of individuals who were sexually +abused by the defendant as minors, each of whom are backed up by other evidence - will be +devastating evidence of guilt at any trial in this case and weighs heavily in favor of detention. +Finally, it bears noting that neither the age of the conduct nor the defendant's previous nonprosecution agreement ("NPA") with a different federal distriet pose any impediment to his +conviction. As an initial matter, all of the conduct is timely charged, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3283, +which was amended in 2003 to extend the limitations period for conduct that was timely as of the +date of the amendment, to any time during the lifetime of the mihór victim. See United States v. +Chief, 438 F.3d 920, 922-25 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding that because Congress extended the statute +of limitations for sex offenses involving minors during the time the previous statute was still +running, the extension was permissible); United States 4. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 Cr. 541 (CM), 2018 +WL 4043140, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018) (same) +Moreover, with respect to the NPA, that agreement, to which the Southern District of New +York +was not a party, which by its express language pertained exclusively to the SDEL +investigation, and which did not purport to bind any other Office or District, does not preclude +prosecution in this District for at least two reasons. First, it is well settled in the Second Circuit +that "a plea agreement in one U.S. 'Attorney's office does not, unless otherwise stated, bind +another." United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010) ("A plea agreement binds +only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it +affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.") (citing United States +v. Annabi, 771 F 2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam)). This is true even if the text of the +agreement purports to bind "the Government." See Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. This analysis +similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, +354 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statemen +to the contrary, it is presumed that a non-prosecution agreement binds offices of the United State +Aftorney that are not parties to the agreement. This position is at odds with the law in this Circuit +hich presumes a narrow reading of the boundaries of a plea agreement unless a detendant c +firmatively establish that a more expansive interpretation was contemplated.") (citing Annal +771 F.2d at 672). Second, the Indictment charges conduct not covered by the NPA, namely +the presumptions and the § 3142(g) factors in deciding whether the defendant should be +detained.") +CA/Aronberg-000910 + + +Page 7 +conduct that occurred in New York. The prior NPA included a list of several dozen victims +identified in the prior investigation, all of whom were abused in the State of Florida, and none of +whom are a part of the conduct charged in Count Two of the instant Indictment. +the positch of lene facing retirin uses of the legation therengto or Andesert +described below, the defendant has the means and money to do so. +2. The Characteristics of the Defendant +The history and characteristics of the defendant also strongly support detention. The +defendant is extraordinarily wealthy and has access to vast financial resources to fund any attemp +to flee. Indeed, his potential avenues of flight from justice are practically limitless +no in ng in mn the s in and tim in his on +private island), and one each in Palm Beach, Florida; Paris, France; New York, New York; and +Stanley, New Mexico. The most recent estimated value of the defendant's New York City mansion +alone is more than $77 million. The most recent tax-assessed value of the defendant's Palm Beach +estate is more than $12 million. The defendant's primary residence is a private island in the U.S. +Virgin Islands, a place where any sort of meaningful supervision would be all but impossible. +Moreover, the defendant has access to innumerable means to flee. His sex registration +documentation of "current vehicles" lists no fewer than 15 motor vehicles, including seven +Chevrolet Suburbans, a cargo van, a Range Rover, a Mercedez-Benz sedan, a Cadillac Escalade, +and a Hummer II. These cars are fegistered in various states and territories including the Virgin +Islands, New York, Florida, and New Mexico. The defendant also has access to two private jets, +giving him the ability to leave the country secretly and on a moment's notice and to go virtually +anywhere he wants to travel. He is a very frequent international traveler and regularly travels to +and from the United States by private plane. In particular, between January 1, 2018, and the +present, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol has logged approximately more than 20 flights in which +Epstein was trayeling to or from a foreign country. Indeed, he was arrested at Teterboro Airport +arriving on just such a private international flight after having spent approximately three weeks +abroad. Extensive international travel of this nature further demonstrates a significant risk of +flight. See, e.g., United States v. +| 384 F. Supp. 2d 32, 36 (D.D.C. 2005). There can be +no assurance that, upon release, the detendant would suddenly lack access to such means of travel +Finally, the defendant has no meaningful ties that would keep him in this country. The +defendant has no known immediate family. He is not married and has no children. He has friends +and associates worldwide, as demonstrated by his extensive international travel, and his +professional obligations, if any, can and seemingly are plainly capable of being handled by the +defendant remotely. Simply put, there would be no meaningful reason for the defendant to remain +in the country, while he would have every incentive (and every resource needed) to flee. +Nor would home confinement with electronic monitoring reasonably assure the +defendant's presence as required. At best, home confinement with electronic monitoring would +CA/Aronberg-000911 + + +Page 8 +merely reduce his head start should he decide to flee. See United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773, +2000 WL 1134364, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application +for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring "at beșt ... limits a fleeing +defendant's head start"); see also United States v. Casteneda, No. 18 Cr. 047, 2018 WL 888744, +at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2018) (same); United States v. +, 384 F.Supp.2d 32, 41 (D.D.C +2005) (same); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y +Oct. 10, 2002) (same). +Finally, there can be little doubt that the defendant is in a position to abandon millions of +dollars in cash and property securing any potential bond and still live comfortably for the rest of +his life. These resources, and the ease with which the defendant could flee and live outside the +reach of law enforcement-particularly considering his vast wealth and lack of meaningful ties to +this District-make the risk of flight exceptionally high in this case, particularly when considered +in conjunction with the strength of the government's case and the lengthy sentence the defendant +could receive if convicted. +B. The Defendant Poses a Risk of Danger to the Community and of Engaging in +Obstruction of Justice +The release of the defendant, under any conditions, would pose a significant threat to the +community and to the ongoing investigation. +As described above, where there is probable cause to believe that an individual has +committed an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1591, itis presumed that no condition or combination of +conditions can reasonably assure the safety of the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3). Here, not +only is the defendant charged with very serious sex crimes against minors, he has already +previously admitted to--and been convicted of-engaging in related conduct. Specifically, in +June 2008, the defendant pled guilty in state court to one count of procuring a person under the +age of 18 for prostitution, a felony, and he currently is a registered sex offender, under +classification level three in New York-defined as presenting a "high" risk of committing another +sex crime and harm to the community. While the conduct presently alleged does not post-date the +2008 conviction, it nevertheless underscores the risk he poses to the community if released. +Additionally, and in connection with the investigation of the defendant's offense in Florida, +there were credible allegations that the defendant engaged in witness tampering, harassment, or +other obstructive behaviors. In fact, according to publicly-filed court documents, there were +discussions between prosecutors and the defendant's then-counsel about the possibility of the +defendant pleading guilty to counts relating to "obstruction," as well as "harassment," with +reference to 18 U.S.C. § 1512, which criminalizes "[t]ampering with a witness, victim, or +informant." For example, in a communication from the defendant's then-counsel to prosecutors +in SDFL, his counsel set forth a possible factual proffer that included statements that the defendant +had "attempted to harass both [redacted] delay and hinder their receipt of a [redacted] to attend an +official proceeding" and that the defendant "in particular, changed travel plans and flew with both +[redacted] to the United States Virgin Islands rather than to an airport in New Jersey in order to +attempt to delay their receipt of what Mr. Epstein expected to be a [redacted]" and "further verbally +CA/Aronberg-000912 + + +Page 9 +harassed both (redacted] in connection to this attempt to delay their voluntary receipt of process +all in violation of 18 USC 1512(d)(1)." Doe v. United States, 08 Civ. 80736 (S.D. Fla.), Dkts. +361 at 3-4, 361-7 through 361-11. In addition to 18 U.S.C. § 1512(d), prosecutors also proposed +that the defendant could plead guilty to 18 U.S.C. § 403, that is, a knowing or intentional violation +of the privacy protection of child victims and child witnesses, to which the defendant's thencounsel replied: " Already thinking about the same statutes." Id. Dkt. 361-11. They also discussed +a possible obstruction plea that "could rely on the incident where Mr. Epstein's private +investigators followed [redacted] father, forcing off the road." Id. Dkt. 361-10 +The defendant's apparent previous willingness to obstruct a federal investigation, harass or +tamper with witnesses, and hire private investigators that "forced] off the road" the father of an +individual relevant in the investigation is alarming. It should especialiy weigh on the Court's +consideration here because the defendant was apparently willing to take those steps before even +being charged and thus facing federal indictment; the incentive to interfere in the Government's +case here, where an Indictment has been returned, +, is exponentially greater. And as discussed +above, the defendant has nearly limitless means to do so. +Finally, despite having been previously convicted of a sex offense involving an underage +victim, the defendant has continued to maintain a vast trove of lewd photographs of young-looking +women or girls in his Manhattan mansion. In a search of the New York Residence on the night of +his arrest, on July 6-7, 2019, pursuant to judicially-authorized warrants, law enforcement officers +discovered not only specific evidence consistent with victim recollections of the inside of the +mansion, further strengthening the evidence of the conduct charged in the Indictment, but also at +least hundreds—and perhaps thousands of sexually suggestive photographs of fully- or partiallynude females. While these items were only seized this weekend and are still being reviewed, some +of the nude or partially-nude photographs appear to be of underage girls, including at least one girl +who, according to her counsel +1, was underage at the time the relevant photographs were taken. +Additionally, some of the photographs referenced herein were discovered in a locked safe, in which +law enforcement officers also found compact discs with hand-written labels including the +following: "Young [Name] + [Name)," "Misc nudes 1," and "Girl pics nude." The defendant, a +registered sex offender, is not reformed, he is not chastened, he is not repentant," rather, he is a +continuing danger to the community and an individual who faces devastating evidence supporting +deeply serious charges. +" The redactions above are contained in the publicly filed version of the quoted document. +"See, e.g., Amber Southerland, Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein: I'm a sex offender, not a predator, +N. Y. Post (2011) ('I'm not a sexual predator, I'm an "offender," the financier told The Post +yes, The Famas, New York Magazine (r and the can story, als one ., elop +close to the sun,' I said. 'Did Icarus like massages?' Epstein asked."). +CA/Aronberg-000913 + + +Page 10 +CONCLUSION +As set forth above, in this case, the risk of flight in this case is extraordinarily real. The +defendant is extremely wealthy, has extensive foreign contacts, and is charged with serious +oftenses that carry a potential statutory sentence of up to 45 years' imprisonment—-even a fraction +of which could result in the defendant, who is 66 years old, spending the rest of his life in jail. In +sum, the defendant's transient lifestyle, his lack of family or community, ties, his extensive +international travel and ties outside the country, and his vast wealth, including his access to and +ownership of private planes, all provide the defendant with the motive and means to become a +successful fugitive. Further, the nature of the offenses he is alleged to have perpetrated — the abuse +dozens of underage, +vulnerable girls along with his demonstrated willingness to harass, +intimidate and otherwise tamper with victims and other. potential witnesses against him, render his +dangerousness readily apparent. +Accordingly, the Government respectfully submits that the defendant cannot and will not +be able to meet his burden of overcoming the strong presumption in favor of detention, that there +are or protects of bay ott would assure he defer any presin for bai shrocee deniedhis. +Very truly yours, +GEOFFREY S: BERMAN +United States Attorney +By.: +Alex Rossmiller / Alison Moe / Maurene Comey +Assistant United States Attomey +Southern District of New York +Tel: (212) 637-2415 / 2225 / 2324 +Co: +Martin Weinberg, Esq., and Reid Weingarten, Esq., counsel for defendant +Hon. Richard M. Berman, United States District Judge +CA/Aronberg-000914 + + +Appendix 10 +CA/Aronberg-000915 + + +D) United Sures Depurmen Elustice: vI +THE UNITED STATES ATTOKNEYS OFFICE +SOUTHERN DISTRICT of NEW YORK +U.S. Attomeys » Southern District of New York » News » Press Releases +Department of Justice +U.S. Attorney's Office +Southern District of New York +FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE +Monday, July 8, 2019 +Jeffrey Epstein Charged In Manhattan Federal Court With Sex +Trafficking Of Minors +Alleged Conduct Occurred in both New York and Florida over Multiple Years, Involving +Dozens of Victims +Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, William F: Sweeney +Jr., the Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation +('FBI"), and James P. O'Neill, Commissioner of the New York City Police Départment ("NYPD"), announced +that JEFFREY EPSTEIN was arrested Saturday and charged with sex trafficking of minors. and conspiracy to +commit sex trafficking of minors. The indictment unsealed today alleges that, between 2002 through 2005. +EPSTEIN sexually exploited and abused dozens of underage girls by enticing them to engage in sex acts +with him in exchange for money. Epstein allegedly worked with several employees and associates to ensure +that he had a steady supply of minor victims to abuse, and paid several of those victims themselves to +recruit other underage girls to engage in similar sex acts for money. He committed these offenses in +locations including New York, New York, and Palm Beach, Florida. EPSTEIN is expected to be presented in +Manhattan federal court this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman. The case is assigned +to U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman. +U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: "As alleged, Jeffrey Epstein abused underage girls for years, +operating a scheme in which girls he victimized would recruit others for Epstein to exploit and abuse. +Epstein exploited girls who were vulnerable to abuse, enticed them with cash payments, and escalated his +conduct to include sex acts, often occurring at his residence on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. While +the charged conduct is from a number of years ago, the victims - then children and now young women - are +no less entitled to their day in court. My Office is proud to stand up for these victims by bringing this +indictment." +FBI Assistant Director William F. Sweeney. Jr. said: "We are asking anyone who may have been victimized +by Jeffrey Epstein, or anyone who may have information about his alleged criminal behavior, to please call +üs. The number is 1-800-CALL-FBI. We want to hear from you, regardless of the age you are now, or +whatever age you were then, no matter where the incident took place: The bravery it takes to call us might +empower others to speak out about. the crimes committed against them. It is important to remember there +was never, nor will there ever be an excuse for this type of behavior. In the eyes of the FBI, the victims will +always come first." +CA/Aronberg-000916 + + +NYPD Commissioner James P.. O:Neill said: "Today's charges serve as a warning to individuals who +continue to prey upon some of our society's most vulnerable population: we are coming for you. I thank and +commend the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District and the FBI for their tireless efforts to ensure. +child predators are taken off our streets. The NYPD will continue to work with our law enforcement partners +to eradicate the trafficking of children in our city and nation and work to bring justice to victims of these +heinous crimes." +If you believe you are a victim of the sexual abuse perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein, please contact the +FBI at 1-800-CALL FBI, and reference this case. +According to the Indictment[1] unsealed today in Manhattan federal court: +From at least 2002 through at least 2005, JEFFREY EPSTEIN enticed and recruited, and caused to be +enticed and recruited, dozens of minor girls to visit his mansion in New York, New York (the "New York +Residence"), and his estate in Palm Beach, Florida (the "Palm Beach Residence"), to engage in sex acts +with him, after which he would give the victims hundreds of dollars in cash. In order to maintain and +increase his supply of victims, EPSTEIN also paid certain victims to recruit additional underage girls whom +he could similarly abuse. In this way, EPSTEIN created a vast network of underage victims for him to +sexually exploit, often. on a daily basis, in locations including New York and Palm Beach. +EPSTEIN's victims were as young as 14 at the time he abused them, and were, for various reasons, often +particularly vulnerable to exploitation. Moreover, EPSTEIN knew that many of his victims were under 18, +including because, in some instances, victims expressly told him they were underage. +In creating and maintaining this network of minor victims in multiple states to. abuse and exploit sexually, +EPSTEIN worked with others, including employees and associates who facilitated his conduct by, among +other things, contacting victims and scheduling their sexual encounters with EPSTEIN at the New York +Residence and at the Palm Beach Residence: +In both New York and Florida, EPSTEIN perpetuated this abuse in similar, ways. Victims were initially +recruited to provide "massages" to EPSTEIN, which became increasingly sexual in nature and would +typically include one or more sex acts. EPSTEIN paid his victims hundreds of dollars in cash for each +encounter. +In particular, during encounters at the New York Residence, victims would be taken to a room where they +would perform a massage on EP +, during which EPSTEIN would frequently escalate the nature and +scope of physical contact with his victims to include, among other things, sex acts such as groping and +direct and indirect contact with the victims' genitals. In connection with the encounters, EPSTEIN, or one of +his employees or associates, typically paid each victim hundreds of dollars in cash. Once minor victims +were recruited, EPSTEIN or his employees or associates would contact victims to schedule appointments +for "massages," As a result, many victims were abused by EPSTEIN on mültiple subsequent occasions. +To further enable him to abuse underage girls, EPSTEIN asked and enticed certain of his victims to recruit +additional minor girls to perform "massages" and similarly engage in sex acts with EPSTEIN. When a victim +would recruit another underage gir for EPSTEIN, he paid both the victim-recruiter and the new victim +hundreds of doilars in cash. Through these victim-recruiters, EPSTEIN maintained a steady supply of new +victims to exploit, and gained access to dozens of additional underage girls to abuse. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 66, is charged with one count of sex trafficking of minors, which cares a maximum +sentence of 40 years in prison, and one count of conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking of minors, which +carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. +CA/Aronberg-000917 + + +The statutory maximum and mandatory penalties are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for +informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant would be determined by the judge. +Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the FBI and the NYPD. He also thanked the U.S. +Customs and Border Protection for their assistance. +This case is being handled by the Office's Public Corruption Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Alex Rossmiller, +Alison Moe, and Maurene Comey are in charge of the prosecution, with assistance from the Office's Hüman +Trafficking Co-Coordinator, Abigail Kurland. +The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations. The defendant is presumed innocent +unless and until proven guilty. +[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment, and the description of the +Indictment set forth herein, constitute only allegations, and every fact described therein should be treated as +an allegation. +Attachments): +Download U.S. V. Jeffrey Epstein Indictment +Topic(s): +Project Safe Childhood +Component(s): +USAO - New York, Southern +Press Release Number: +19-211 +CERTIFIED CO +Updated July 9, 2019 +NOT A +CA/Aronberg-000918 + + +Appendix 11 +CA/Aronberg-000919 + + +1 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +J8RSEPS1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, +-x +19 CR 490 (RMB) +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +New York, +August 27, 2019 +10:30 a.m. +Before: +HON. RICHARD M. BERMAN, +District Judge +APPEARANCES +GEOFFREY S. BERMAN +United States Attorney for the +Southern District +df New York +BY: +MAURENE R. COMEY +Assistant United States Attorneys +G. WEINBERG, PC +Attorney for Defendant +BY: MARTIN G. WEINBERG +STEPTOE & I +I LLP +Attorneys for Defendant +BY: +REID WEINGARTEN +MICHAEL +SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.Ç. +(212) 805-0300 +CA/Aronberg-000920 + + +2 +J8RSEPS1 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +(Case called) +THE COURT: Good morning, everybody. +Please be +seated. +So just some housekeeping. We have a podium here for +both attorneys and others who may be speaking, and so we would +like you, attorneys and others who are speaking, to come up to +the podium. This room is a little cavernous. +• thought the +podium over there would be more comfortable. +For starters, and for this you don't have to go up to +the podium, if you could just indicate your names. This table +in front to my left, your right, are defense counsel, and that +table to my right, your left, are goverhment attorneys. +If we could just ask the attorneys to +introduce +themselves. +MS. COMEY: +Good morning, your Honor. Maureen Comey +and Alison Moe for the government. Joining us at counsel table +are Special Agent Amanda Young of the FBI and Detective Paul +Byrne of the NYPD. +MR. WEINGARTEN: Good morning, your Honor. +Reid Weingarten. +MR. WEINBERG: / +Weinberg. +Good morning, your Honor. +THE COURT: Good morning. +MR. +Michael +Good morning, your Honor +• from Steptoe & +on behalf of the +SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. +(212) 805-0300 +CA/Aronberg-000921 + + +3 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +J8RsEPS1 +defendant. +THE COURT: Great. +Again, good morning to all of you. This hearing that +we're having today considers the government's motion +to dismiss +the indictment in this case. +I must add that it also serves +as the opportunity +for +me to thank all of you, the attorneys and the victims +who are +here today, among others, for your very hard work and +dedication in this case. +We also have here today the U.8. Attorney for the +Southern District of New York, Geoffrey Berman, who has also +been very helpful and indispensable in this matter. +The news on August 10, 2019, that Jeffrey Epstein had +been found dead in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional +Center, at the MCC, was certainly shocking. Most of you, and +myself for that matter, were anticipating that the next steps +in this case would be defense motion practice, including a +motion to dismiss, followed by a trial on the merits before a +jury, +if the motions were not successful, and through which the +acousers and the accused would come face to face, allowing +everyone to get their day in court. Mr. Epstein's death +abviously means that a trial in which he is a defendant cannot +take place. It is a rather stunning turn of events. +The government's motion to dismiss the indictment +because of Jeffrey Epstein's death on August 10, 2019, is +SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. +(212) 805-0300 +CA/Aronberg-000922 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c03c95c50e5700db83a168c9c8df8f07f5cf3993b1766276d81154c302834a0a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c03c95c50e5700db83a168c9c8df8f07f5cf3993b1766276d81154c302834a0a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..61ed4cb5e5eae136808528ddd7cc2b4376499cd1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c03c95c50e5700db83a168c9c8df8f07f5cf3993b1766276d81154c302834a0a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -20373, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c03c95c50e5700db83a168c9c8df8f07f5cf3993b1766276d81154c302834a0a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 233, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "3616e0510a9f4b6b1e05efd45ec0d412ed2e8d293726aeab5c640fd7d53e3709", + "output_sha256": "42589b96099acd9f71d098a83acd9b01b8c5e77ffb9ad292d59caaa8f90d8f80", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c0428977080e68df819945786fb1b8038dbe4656003b562daa0f1c05b4008c35.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c0428977080e68df819945786fb1b8038dbe4656003b562daa0f1c05b4008c35.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b85fd457e33ae1b9c572501096974aa057448e65 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c0428977080e68df819945786fb1b8038dbe4656003b562daa0f1c05b4008c35.md @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 51 +Filed 07/08/20 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +Jane Doe +Case No. 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF +Plaintiff, +-against- +DARREN _. INDYKE and RICHARD +D. KAHN, et al., +Defendant. +NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS +TO: +ATTORNEY SERVICES CLERK AND ALL OTHER PARTIES +I have cases pending +I have no cases pending +Pursuant to Local Rule 1.3 of this Court, please take notice of the following attorney information change (s) for: +Mary "Molly" S. Dirago +FILL IN ATTORNEY NAME +_My State Bar Number is +My SDNY Bar Number is: +1 am, +• +An attorney +A Government Agency attorney +A Pro Hac Vice attorney +FIRM INFORMATION (Include full name of firm (OLD AND NEW), address, telephone number and fax number): +OLD FIRM: +FIRM NAME: Troutman Sanders LLP +FIRM ADDRESS: _227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3900, Chicago, IL 60606 +FIRM TELEPHONE NUMBER: (312) 759-1920 +FIRM FAX NUMBER: (312) 759-1939 +NEW FIRM: +FIRM NAME: Troutman Pepper +Sanders LLP +FIRM ADDRESS: 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3900, Chicago, IL 60606 +FIRM TELEPHONE NUMBER: (312) 759-1920 +FIRM FAX NUMBER: (312) 759-1939 +I will continue to be counsel of record on the above-entitled case at my new firm/agency. +• +I am no longer counsel of record on the above-entitled case. An order withdrawing my appearance +was entered on +by Judge +Dated: July 8, 2020 +s/Mary "Molly" S. Dirago +ATTORNEY'S SIGNATURE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c0428977080e68df819945786fb1b8038dbe4656003b562daa0f1c05b4008c35.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c0428977080e68df819945786fb1b8038dbe4656003b562daa0f1c05b4008c35.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c0304eb7e4939b5c3670d4b7da00f212459edcb0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c0428977080e68df819945786fb1b8038dbe4656003b562daa0f1c05b4008c35.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c0428977080e68df819945786fb1b8038dbe4656003b562daa0f1c05b4008c35", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "08b227a00368be503752108cc31a6915ef718f50e5c3b33a15f2bcc39eb6817f", + "output_sha256": "e0fa1b25edeb7afe1a651823b70d428e79a255be109ed343f90418ab379e255f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c06d334bbb32a0cc5b1a97115a715c4ecec8c5cf550c6601219af6b8252005c5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c06d334bbb32a0cc5b1a97115a715c4ecec8c5cf550c6601219af6b8252005c5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0d816f0839f465218b44e74a8cf6fdebc0c29d07 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c06d334bbb32a0cc5b1a97115a715c4ecec8c5cf550c6601219af6b8252005c5.md @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ +Case 9:08-CV-80381-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2008 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF +TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO COMPLAINT +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein moves, pursuant to S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(A), for an +enlargement of time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until ten days +after his motion for a mandatory stay, filed contemporaneously with this motion, is +decided, and as grounds for this relief respectfully states as follows: +1. +This civil action is a private counterpart to two ongoing criminal +actions, one in Palm Beach state court, the other in the Southern District of Florida. +These cases purport to arise from the same occurrence: the alleged +sexual assault of a minor, Jane Doe No. 5. +On June 20, 2008, Mr. Epstein filed a motion seeking a stay of this +action under 18 U.S.C. § 3509. Under that section, when an alleged sexual assault + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2008 Page 2 of 4 +involving a child victim results in a "criminal proceeding," a commonly derived +civil suit "shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the criminal action." 18 +U.S.C. § 3509(k) (emphasis added). +4. If Mr. Epstein's stay motion is granted, he will not be required to +respond to the Complaint or otherwise litigate this action until the two pending +criminal matters are resolved. +WHEREFORE, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein respectfully requests an +enlargement of time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until ten days +after his motion for a stay is decided. +Respectfully submitted, +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & +WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite +1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Tel: 561 659 8300 +Fax: 561 835 8691 +By: /s/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger +Fla. Bar No. 262013 +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2008 + +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7 +Counsel for defendant has conferred in good faith with counsel for the +plaintiff, who opposes the relief requested in this motion. +Is/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 20, 2008, I electronically filed the +foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that +the foregoing document is being served this day on counsel of record identified +below by facsimile and U.S. Mail. +Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Fax: 305 931 0877 +/s/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger +3 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80381-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2008 Page 4 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +/ +ORDER +THIS CAUSE having come to be heard on the Defendant's Motion for An +Enlargement of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint, and this +Court being fully advised, it is hereby: +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion is hereby granted. +DONE AND ORDERED in Miami-Dade County, Florida this +day +of +, 2008. +Copies furnished to: +KENNETH A. MARRA +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. +Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c06d334bbb32a0cc5b1a97115a715c4ecec8c5cf550c6601219af6b8252005c5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c06d334bbb32a0cc5b1a97115a715c4ecec8c5cf550c6601219af6b8252005c5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a6eee52173d23de19bba3a0865af4a4687bd8019 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c06d334bbb32a0cc5b1a97115a715c4ecec8c5cf550c6601219af6b8252005c5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -59, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c06d334bbb32a0cc5b1a97115a715c4ecec8c5cf550c6601219af6b8252005c5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b4b691949533555c7b8402183c2d3eb0c11bf9d71a459f96099e52a51f980ded", + "output_sha256": "d2ba6344c1f2bbc6ae73e01fe1e9e69d33606c9fbb647bb50f377dc6f15c39ce", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c084875c15d14d92bf2b5044bb523bbbf445a2f0e6542b634ac53870d5bb4162.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c084875c15d14d92bf2b5044bb523bbbf445a2f0e6542b634ac53870d5bb4162.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c86bb6819307806dd317dbbfba306c9945ecd829 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c084875c15d14d92bf2b5044bb523bbbf445a2f0e6542b634ac53870d5bb4162.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Petitioners, +VS. +UNITED STATES, +Respondent. +ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE +MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN EXCESS OF TWENTY PAGES +THIS MATTER is before the Court upon respondent's motion for leave of Court to file +memorandum of law in excess of twenty pages. Having carefully considered the same, and +finding good cause has been shown, it is +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that respondent's motion is GRANTED. The Clerk is +directed to accept the United States' Response to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion for +Finding of Violations of the Crime Victim Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate +Remedies, numbering fifty-three (53) pages. +DONE AND ORDERED at West Palm Beach, Florida, this +day of April, 2011. +KENNETH A. MARRA +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +cc: +Paul Cassell, Esq. +J. +1. Esq. +Dexter A. Lee, AUSA diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c084875c15d14d92bf2b5044bb523bbbf445a2f0e6542b634ac53870d5bb4162.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c084875c15d14d92bf2b5044bb523bbbf445a2f0e6542b634ac53870d5bb4162.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1f1dfa1d7b20a2baff624295e6d32d7c9b9b8a15 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c084875c15d14d92bf2b5044bb523bbbf445a2f0e6542b634ac53870d5bb4162.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c084875c15d14d92bf2b5044bb523bbbf445a2f0e6542b634ac53870d5bb4162", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4d146d64181510aa621061fe310e60d7d98e858e5f492403194d9e373ab37b9e", + "output_sha256": "6bf3e9e90e7d305c1fcfad4e70572dc205545ee6b71626bc6e052e3db9cb1bbb", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c0a25584118481b75a8dd9b2841476f656bee87fcb6e0d49d4da9063d829834f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c0a25584118481b75a8dd9b2841476f656bee87fcb6e0d49d4da9063d829834f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5b88c7661f9b509810f109aeef4dc9bd6e94b190 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c0a25584118481b75a8dd9b2841476f656bee87fcb6e0d49d4da9063d829834f.md @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 53 | +Entered on FLSD Docket 10/29/2009 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 09-80656-MARRA/. +JANE DOE No. 102, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant, +DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION +OF TIME IN WHICH SERVE RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO COMPLAINT +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned +attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time in which to respond to +Complaint dated, May 1, 2009 [DE 1]. Defendant seeks an extension until November +16,2009, to file his response. As good cause in support of granting the motion, +Defendant states: +1. On May 1, 2009 Plaintiff filed a Complaint [DE 1]. Defendant's response would +be due on August 20, 2009, as previously agreed upon. +2. The parties continue to work together to potentially resolve this case. +3. The requested extension is fair and reasonable under the circumstances as it will +provide time to allow the Defendant, EPSTEIN to fully and adequately respond. +4. As certified below, counsel for Defendant conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, and +Plaintiff's counsel is in agreement with the requested extension. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/29/2009 Page 2 of 3 +Doe 102 v. Epstein +Page 2 +WHEREFORE Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order +granting an extension until November 16, 2009, to file a response to Plaintiff's +Complaint. +Local Rule 7.1 Statement +Counsel for the movant conferred by telephone and correspondence with +counsel for the Plaintiff and Counsel for Plaintiff is in agreement with the requested +extension until November 16, 2009 for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. +Robert/D Critton Jr., Esq. +Attorney for Defendant +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the +manner specified by CM/ECF on this 29t day of October, 2009 +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +305 358-2800 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +ezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiff +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/29/2009 Page 3 of 3 +Doe 102 v. Epstein +Page 3 +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR. ESO. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c0a25584118481b75a8dd9b2841476f656bee87fcb6e0d49d4da9063d829834f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c0a25584118481b75a8dd9b2841476f656bee87fcb6e0d49d4da9063d829834f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0d74956b3cabd9e60b1d083b4b2cfbe2f2eb5589 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c0a25584118481b75a8dd9b2841476f656bee87fcb6e0d49d4da9063d829834f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c0a25584118481b75a8dd9b2841476f656bee87fcb6e0d49d4da9063d829834f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f8a9660b0fff00b79d8baa79d253e5b5ea18316e644308f5306f49af49584bec", + "output_sha256": "c070508c491deb87b046117a61a3dd4741c7e240fbadf1396686033f31e75663", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c0b7644b28423044a6c652bf03aa1dbd4cc62b77769ebacce1a667bfe4ada0cd.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c0b7644b28423044a6c652bf03aa1dbd4cc62b77769ebacce1a667bfe4ada0cd.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c3b11862376b0b189822422aeca42f4f2c2ff725 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c0b7644b28423044a6c652bf03aa1dbd4cc62b77769ebacce1a667bfe4ada0cd.md @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 446 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2010 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/M +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +NOTICE TO STRIKE (DE 445) +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN") by and through his +undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Notice to Strike: +1. On January 12, 2010 Defendant filed his Motion to Withdrawal (DE 445). +2. The incorrect docket number was linked. +3. Defendant will re-file his Motion with the correct focket number. +By: +CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar #224168 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 446 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2010 Page 2 of 3 +Certificate of Service +THEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is +being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in +the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 12 day of January, 2010. +Respectfilly soomitted, +By: +ROBERT D SLITTON, JR., ESQ +Florida Bar No. 22416 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/253-0164 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRAà +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Brad +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Fistos +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Jaffe, Weissing, +12. Lauderdale, L 330, Suite H2 +Phone: 954-524-2820 +Fax: 954-524-2833 +brad@pathtojustice.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +Pro Hac Vice +08-80994 +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 446 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2010 Page 3 of 3 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 10* Avenue North +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80811 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack P. 1 Esq. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, +P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-686-6300 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +jsx@searcylaw.com +iph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +801-585-5202 +801-585-6833 Fax +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Isidro M. +Esq. +Law Firm, P.A. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80469 +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +305 358-2800 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases +Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c0b7644b28423044a6c652bf03aa1dbd4cc62b77769ebacce1a667bfe4ada0cd.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c0b7644b28423044a6c652bf03aa1dbd4cc62b77769ebacce1a667bfe4ada0cd.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5990429e98d5ba65cf97a62617951c77ee55f82f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c0b7644b28423044a6c652bf03aa1dbd4cc62b77769ebacce1a667bfe4ada0cd.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c0b7644b28423044a6c652bf03aa1dbd4cc62b77769ebacce1a667bfe4ada0cd", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ddfea4f1124e07071f76f06b2364ab5f864d8d452cc161105c26d993e077befc", + "output_sha256": "434e4ec072257f7406c9a9ab0c9b1071602c4c6d74ef6c5151869ff366febde2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c1108f0ad8b684e03d2dd2ba59cc37d9ebc76ad74f1d3a664aa7704ac52806cd.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c1108f0ad8b684e03d2dd2ba59cc37d9ebc76ad74f1d3a664aa7704ac52806cd.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0c9609c580f18db748f910dfc3913f9af88e57d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c1108f0ad8b684e03d2dd2ba59cc37d9ebc76ad74f1d3a664aa7704ac52806cd.md @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 88 +Sanders LLP +Troutman Pepper +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +troutman.com +Filed 12/22/20 Page 1 of 2 +troutman" +pepper +Bennet J. Moskowitz +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +December 22, 2020 +VIA ECF +The Honorable Debra C. Freeman +Daniel +Moynihan Courthouse +500 Pearl Street +New York, NY 10007 +Re: Jane Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as +executors of the Estate of Jefferey E. Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell, +No. 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF +Dear Judge Freeman: +We represent Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as Co-Executors +of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Co-Executors"), in the above-referenced matter. +We write in response to the December 21, 2020 letter from Plaintiff's counsel [Doc 87], to +clarity the record. +The Co-Executors have no objection to Plaintiff's request that the Court dismiss +this action following her decision to accept the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program's +(the "Program") independent Administrator's compensation determination. Accordingly, +and as Plaintiff's counsel accurately notes, our clients have already executed the Joint +Stipulation for Dismissal of Entire Action With Prejudice +In his letter, however, Plaintiff's counsel inaccurately states: "The Epstein Estate +and Ghislaine Maxwell mandated that Ms. Maxwell be included in the Program settlement +release (presumably because when she committed her tortious and criminal conduct +against the victims she was doing so as an agent and/or employee in the scope of her +agency and/or employment with Mr. Epstein)." Neither Ms. Maxwell nor her counsel had +any say whatsoever regarding the Program, including the scope of the Program release. +Only the Estate, various plaintiffs' counsel and the U.S.V.I. Attorney General provided +input on the Program. +It is not surprising that, in the interest of finality and as expressly explained in the +Program Protocol - a document drafted over several months with the assistance of +claimants' counsel, and in which neither Ms. Maxwell nor her counsel had any +involvement - a claimant who elects to accept the offer of compensation from the + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 88 Filed 12/22/20 Page 2 of 2 +December 22, 2020 +Page 2 +troutman" +pepper +Program must release her claims against the Estate and anyone who would potentially +implead the Co-Executors. (Ms. Maxwell has already sued the Estate in the U.S.V.I. +seeking indemnification of her legal expenses, including in this case. It is a matter of +public record that the Estate has refused to indemnify Ms. Maxwell, and has moved to +dismiss her claims for such relief.) All claimants remain free to pursue claims against +others and are in no way prohibited from communicating their experiences (if they wish) +to law enforcement, the press or the public. +Respectfully submitted, +Is/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz, Esq. diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c1108f0ad8b684e03d2dd2ba59cc37d9ebc76ad74f1d3a664aa7704ac52806cd.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c1108f0ad8b684e03d2dd2ba59cc37d9ebc76ad74f1d3a664aa7704ac52806cd.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cd25e27c43a47847c2032dc5659b98802e3213e3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c1108f0ad8b684e03d2dd2ba59cc37d9ebc76ad74f1d3a664aa7704ac52806cd.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c1108f0ad8b684e03d2dd2ba59cc37d9ebc76ad74f1d3a664aa7704ac52806cd", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b2c6c5ac7d0392b5e798a7dcbaaffec35882a5df07ed2845a31d172a04113f25", + "output_sha256": "ad89f9901527500727f8204700fed733ae020b83636e1c4d0cff70fc7141e5bb", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c15348d1d25aeca680db0d2f9dad05a716c024aedf45788e12c1e2e270ccd350.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c15348d1d25aeca680db0d2f9dad05a716c024aedf45788e12c1e2e270ccd350.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..91dcb30e721836636d603c9f05e2e1b77a7d887c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c15348d1d25aeca680db0d2f9dad05a716c024aedf45788e12c1e2e270ccd350.md @@ -0,0 +1,471 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 1 of 15 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRAJ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 2 of 15 +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +vS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/ +VS. +2 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 3 of 15 +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. II, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFES JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102'S +MOTION FOR AN ORDER FOR THE PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE +AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW +3 + + +Case 9:09-cV-80591-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 4 of 15 +Plaintifis, Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 (the "Plaintiffs"), pursuant to Rules +26,34, and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby move this Court for an Order for +the Preservation of Evidence directed to Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and, as grounds, state as +follows: +1. +After investigations by the Palm Beach Police Department ("PBPD"), the Palm +Beach State Attorney's Office ("PBSAO"), the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), and the +United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO"), Defendant, +Jeffrey Epstein, in June 2008, entered pleas of "guilty" in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm +Beach County, Florida, to various Florida state crimes involving the solicitation of minors for +prostitution and the procurement of minors for the purposes of prostitution. +2. +As outlined in detail in the relevant complaints, beginning in or around 1998 +through in or around September 2007, Defendant used his resources and his influence over +vulnerable minor children to engage in a systematic pattern of sexually exploitative behavior. +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, sexually abused Plaintiffs while Plaintiffs were under the age of 18 +years old. +3. +As a result of Defendant's sexual abuse, Plaintiffs filed their actions, alleging +multiple violations of federal statutes condemning the coercion and enticement of a minor to +engage in prostitution or sexual activity, travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, sex +trafficking of children, sexual exploitation of minor children, transport of visual depictions of a +minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, transport of child pornography, child exploitation +enterprises, and other crimes, specifically including, but not limited to, those crimes designated +in 18 U.S.C. § 2421, § 2422(a), § 2422(b), § 2423(a), § 2423(b), § 2423(e), § 2251, § 2252, § +2252A(a)(1), and § 2252A(g)(1). +4 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 5 of 15 +4. On October 25, 2005, the PBPD executed a search warrant at Defendant's Palm +Beach, Florida mansion at 358 El Brillo Way. Thus, Defendant reasonably should have known +of potential criminal prosecution and/or civil litigation since at least that date. +5. +According to the PBPD Property Receipt, evidence seized during the October 25, +2005 search included phone message books, photographs of nude underage females, VHS tapes, +CDs, and school transcripts of underage girls. See PBPD Property Receipt (attached hereto as +Exhibit A). While still incarcerated, Defendant filed a Motion for Return of Property with the +Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County on July 23, 2008. +On September 5, 2008, this Court entered an Order in Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, et al., Case +No. 08-80804-CIV-MARRA +directing Defendant to preserve the evidence listed in +the PBPD Property Receipt and to provide duplicates to the plaintiff should this evidence be +returned to Defendant by the State of Florida (DE# 20). +6. _ +According to the PBPD Property Receipt, at least some of the evidence has +already been returned to Defendant, including zip CDs, 8mm videotapes, floppy disks, zip drive +disks, CPUs from various areas throughout the mansion, and phone message books. Upon +information and belief, one or more sexually explicit printed photographs of Plaintiffs and other +minor girls taken by Defendant and/or his agents when Plaintiffs were minors were confiscated +during the search and may have been returned to him. In addition, the zip CDs, 8mm videotapes, +floppy disks, zip drive disks, and CPUs that were returned to Defendant may have contained, and +may still contain, pornographic images of these and other minors. Plaintiffs respectfully request +that this Court clarify that the Order of September 5, 2008 requires returned evidence to be +preserved. +7. +In addition, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to take judicial notice that, in +the event that such evidence includes child pornography, it is imperative for the PBPD, the FBI, +5 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 6 of 15 +the USAO, and the PBSAO not to return any photographs that may be child pornography +(including files, electronic or otherwise) to Defendant or his counsel. Pursuant to the Adam +Walsh Protection and Safety Act, Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587 (2006), any property or +material that constitutes child pornography shall remain in the care, custody, and control of either +the government or the court. Defendant has no right to seck its return. See 18 U.S.C. § 3509(m) +(2008). In addition, copying evidence that constitutes child pornography is not permissible as +long as the Government makes the property or material reasonably available to the defendant. +See 18 U.S.C. § 3509(m)(2)(A) (2008). +8. In addition to evidence related to the October 25 search, Defendant, Jeffrey +Epstein, exercises sole custody and control over specific evidence relevant and material to this +lawsuit relating to Defendant's sexual abuse of Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to, +documents, data, and tangible things, including, but not limited to, writings; records; files; +correspondence; digital or chemical process photographs (including negatives); reports; +memoranda; calendars; diaries; minutes; electronic messages; voicemail; e-mail; telephone +message records or logs; computer and network activity logs; hard drives; backup data; +removable computer storage media, such as tapes, disks, and cards; printouts; document image +files; web pages; databases; spreadsheets; software; books; ledgers; journals; orders; invoices; +bills; vouchers; checks; statements; worksheets; summaries; compilations; computations; charts; +diagrams; graphic presentations; drawings; films; charts; video, phonographic, tape, or digital +recordings or transcripts thereof; drafts; jottings; and notes. Information that serves to identify, +locate, or link such material, such as file inventories, file folders, indices, and metadata, is also +included. Specifically, Plaintiffs consider the following evidence relevant: records of phone +communications; records of domestic and international travel, including travel in Defendant's +private airplanes; former and current employee records; tax returns; medical bills; bills regarding +6 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 7 of 15 +any other expenses; all documents evidencing payment by Defendant of U.S. currency and/or +merchandise to each victim; any evidence stored in Defendant's storage unit; photographs of +Defendant's mansions; any diary, log, memo pad, calendar, or other writing reflecting date of +each victim's visits) to Defendant's mansions; any diary or document wherein each victim +wrote regarding a victim's visit to Defendant's mansions; all documents sent to or by the PBPD, +the FBI, the USAO, or the PBSAO; and all computers used by Defendant and/or his agents +and/or employees since 1998. +9. +Other relevant evidence includes, but is not limited to, electronically-stored +information stored on Defendant's current and former computer systems and other media and +devices (including handheld devices, personal digital assistants, voice-messaging systems, online +repositories, and cellular telephones). Electronically-stored information should be afforded the +broadest possible meaning and includes (by way of example and not as an exclusive list) +potentially relevant information electronically, magnetically, optically, or otherwise stored as: +Digital communication (e.g., e-mail, voice mail, instant messaging); +2. +3. +4. +5. +6. +7. +8. +9. +10. +11. +12. +13. +14. +15. +16. +17. +E-mail Server Stores (e.g., Lotus Domino NSF and Microsoft Exchange .EDB) +Word-processed documents (e.g., Word and WordPerfect files and drafts); +Spreadsheets and tables (e.g., Excel or Lotus 123 worksheets); +Accounting Application Data (e.g., QuickBooks, Money, Peachtree data); +Image and Facsimile Files (e.g., PDF, TIFF, JPG, GIF images); +Sound Recordings (e.g.,. WAV and .MP3 files); +Video and Animation (e.g., AVI and MOV files); +Databases (e.g., Access, Oracle, SQL Server data, SAP); +Contact and Relationship Management Data (e.g., Outlook, ACTI); +Online Access Data (eS. Temporary Intermet Files, History, Cookies; +Online Access Data (e.g., +Presentations (e.g., PowerPoint, Corel Presentations); +Network Access and Server Activity Logs; +Project Management Application Data; +Computer Aided Design/Drawing Files; and +Backup and archival files (e.g., Veritas, Zip, GHO). +7 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 8 of 15 +10. Plaintiffs also respectfully request this Court to order Defendant to preserve all +potentially relevant evidence, even if Defendant does not intend to produce such evidence +because he anticipates raising his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. +11. +As more fully set forth in Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 102's Complaint (DE # 1 in Case +No.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ +D, Defendant is a designated sexual offender who +sexually exploited minor girls all over the world, including in some or all of his six mansions. +Thus, there is reason to believe that relevant evidence, including many photographs of other nude +underage females, exists in some or all of Defendant's six mansions, with all but one of his +mansions located outside the State of Florida. +12. On May 15, 2009, Plaintiff's counsel sent a letter to Defendant's counsel detailing +the numerous sources of relevant evidence in this matter (the "Preservation Letter," attached +hereto as Exhibit B). Despite requests for a written response confirming Defendant's duty to +take the necessary steps to preserve all relevant evidence, Defendant and his counsel have neither +acknowledged this letter nor confirmed their duty to preserve all relevant evidence under the +Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. +13. +In the past, Defendant's counsel have asserted that a motion requesting to +preserve evidence would be moot because of an order previously entered in Jane Doe v. Jeffrey +Epstein, et al., Case No. 08-80804-CIV-MARRA +Plaintiffs respectfully submit that +an enforceable order is needed in their particular cases and that the binding order needs to cover +evidence other than evidence related to the October 25, 2005 search of Defendant's Palm Beach +mansion. The sole focus of the previous order is seized evidence identified in the PBPD +Property Receipt. +There is great need to preserve all evidence (physical and electronic), +especially with respect to potential evidence related to Defendant's possession, production, +and/or transportation of child pornography. In addition, there is reason to believe that relevant +8 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 9 of 15 +evidence, including many photographs of other nude minor girls, exist in some or all of +Defendant's six mansions and/or on some or all of his computers. Given Defendant's efforts to +gain control over evidence in the custody of the PBPD, as well as Defendant's unwillingness to +acknowledge or respond to Plaintiff's Preservation Letter, a legitimate concern remains for the +continuing existence and maintenance of the integrity of the evidence in question absent an order +preserving the evidence. This evidence, some of which is in the sole custody, dominion, and +control of Defendant, is critical and indispensable to Plaintiffs' cases. +Memorandum of Law +When there is a good faith belief that evidence may be lost, the Court has the authority to +enter an order preserving such evidence. See AT & T Mobility LLC v. Dynamic Cellular Corp., +No. 08-20537-Civ., 2008 WL 2139518, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 7, 2008); see also Tracfone +Wireless, Inc. v. +Trading, Inc., No. 3-08-CV-0398-B, 2008 WL 918243, at *1 (N.D. Tex. +Mar. 13, 2008) (finding "a legitimate concern for the continuing existence and maintenance of +the integrity of the evidence in question absent an order preserving the evidence"). This +evidence, some of which is in the sole custody, dominion, and control of Defendant, is critical +and indispensable to Plaintiffs' cases. The evidence that Plaintiffs seek to protect is relevant and +critical to the prosecution not only of their actions, but for the prosecution of at least ten other +filed actions against Defendant and twenty-two other as-yet-unfiled actions by Defendant's +victims listed on the USAO List. Plaintiffs' concerns outweigh any harm to Defendant that may +result from a preservation order. Given Defendant's vast wealth and demonstrated willingness to +incur expenses, Defendant will not be unduly burdened by such an order. See Tracfone Wireless, +Inc., 2008 WL 918243, at *1. +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, is a designated sexual offender who was convicted of +violating various Florida state crimes involving the solicitation of minors for prostitution and the +9 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM +Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 10 of 15 +procurement of minors for the purposes of prostitution, and is currently serving his sentence +based on the charges that form the foundation of Plaintiffs' claims. Therefore, it is reasonable to +assume that both the evidence seized by the PBPD and other relevant evidence in Defendant's +custody and control is extremely harmful to Defendant's position in his civil cases. Defendant's +successful efforts to obtain the return of some of the seized property causes Plaintiffs grave +concern regarding his willingness to comply with his duty to preserve all evidence relevant to +Plaintiffs' actions. Without a protective order, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, may seek to destroy +records and information to thwart this lawsuit and many other lawsuits and thus perpetuate the +wrongs that the federal laws regarding the sexual exploitation of children intend to protect. +Because of the nature of the relevant violations, which include allegations of production +and transportation of child pornography, electronically-stored information is a valuable and +irreplaceable source of discovery and/or evidence in these matters. Plaintiffs anticipate that +much of the information subject to disclosure or responsive to discovery in this cause is stored on +Defendant's former computer systems and other media and devices. In addition, as previously +stated, Plaintiffs believe that crucial relevant evidence may be present in some or all of the +computers in perhaps each of his six mansions (in Palm Beach, New York City, Santa Fe, +London, Paris, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). +Finally, in the other pending Jane Doe cases with active discovery, Defendant, Jeffrey +Epstein, has objected to the production of any evidence on Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth +Amendment grounds. Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 challenge Defendant's +objections to discovery and, more relevant to the matter at hand, request that this Court issue an +order clearly stating that Defendant has a duty to preserve all relevant evidence, regardless of +whether he intends to raise his privilege against self-incrimination. See Capricorn Power Co. v. +Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp., 220 F.R.D. 429, 434 (W.D. Pa. 2004) (A motion for a +10 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 11 of 15 +preservation order can be granted with regard to all items of evidence that are discoverable in +accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, without the necessity of establishing that +the evidence will necessarily be relevant and admissible at trial.) +WHEREFORE, in light of the above-stated duty to preserve all relevant evidence, +Plaintiffs, Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102, move this Court to enter an Order granting +Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Motion for the Preservation of Evidence. +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1.A.3 +Undersigned counsel conferred with counsel for Defendant in a good faith effort to +resolve the issues raised in this motion. Despite requests for a written response acknowledging +Defendant's duty to take the necessary steps to preserve all relevant evidence to alleviate the +need for this motion, Defendant's counsel have failed to respond or acknowledge in any way +Defendant's duty to preserve all relevant evidence under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. +Date: May 26, 2009 +s/Robert C. Josefsberg +Robert C. Josefsberg, Bar No. 040856 +Katherine W. Ezell, Bar No. 114771 +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +City National Bank Building +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, Florida 33130 +(305) 358-2800 +(305) 358-2382 (fax) +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 +and Jane Doe No. 102 +11 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 12 of 15 +Certificate of Service +I hereby certify that, on May 26, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served +this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List in the manner specified, +either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other +authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically +Notices of Electronic Filing. +/s/ Robert Josefsberg +Robert C. Josefsberg, Bar No. 040856 +Katherine W. Ezell, Bar No. 114771 +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +City National Bank Building +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, Florida 33130 +(305) 358-2800 +(305) 358-2382 (fax) +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 +and Jane Doe No. 102 +12 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 13 of 15 +SERVICE LIST +JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Robert Critton, Esq. +Michael J. Pike, Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman LLP +515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 842-2820 +Fax: (561) 515-3148 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +mpike@belelaw.com +Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Jack Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 659-8300 +Fax: (561) 835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 202-6360 +Fax: (561) 828-0983 +ect@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Co-Defendant, +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack P. +, Esq. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: (561) 686-6300 +Fax: (561) 383-9456 +jsx@searcylaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. +13 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 14 of 15 +Adam Horowitz, Esq. +Stuart Mermelstein, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz., P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +smermeistein@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Case Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, +08-80993, 08-80994 +Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq. +Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq. +Leopold Kuvin, P.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +Phone: (561) 515-1400 +Fax: (561) 515-1401 +skuvin@leopoldkuvin.com +tleopold@leopoldkuvin.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804 +Richard Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 10** Ave North, Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Phone: (561) 582-7600 +Fax: (561) 588-8819 +lawyerwillits@aol.com +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811 +Brad +, Esq. +Law Office of Brad +2028 +& Associates, LLC +Street, Suite 202 +Hollywood, FL 33020 +Phone: (954) 414-8033 +Fax: (954) 924-1530 +bedwards@rra-law.com +be@bradedwardslaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 +14 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 15 of 15 +Isidro Manuel +ESq. +Elkins & Boehringer +224 Datura Avenue, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 832-8033 +Fax: (561) 832-7137 +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469 +15 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c15348d1d25aeca680db0d2f9dad05a716c024aedf45788e12c1e2e270ccd350.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c15348d1d25aeca680db0d2f9dad05a716c024aedf45788e12c1e2e270ccd350.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..abab846227cb74491a127b91eacbffc8901b07a7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c15348d1d25aeca680db0d2f9dad05a716c024aedf45788e12c1e2e270ccd350.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -180, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c15348d1d25aeca680db0d2f9dad05a716c024aedf45788e12c1e2e270ccd350", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 15, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f7bdc8e60f5d7cba4dfbf586e6d2655f5f002a6aeac5bae397b9924c14e600d6", + "output_sha256": "a89266cdce3c30ba5760ea605b2cb81e404f70877c66e5c412ec8e43f6c6b1d8", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c157bdfb888ba4503efe502f25d676e397d7498c66b75bd98aeaa36ae1a019b5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c157bdfb888ba4503efe502f25d676e397d7498c66b75bd98aeaa36ae1a019b5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4abb532113d32036007c1f53ddc6957a8ce1f3a2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c157bdfb888ba4503efe502f25d676e397d7498c66b75bd98aeaa36ae1a019b5.md @@ -0,0 +1,132 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 1 of 4 +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +JANE DOE II +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +and +Defendants. +] +FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT' +Plaintiff, JANE DOEII, hereby sues JEFFREY EPSTEIN and +CASE NO.:50 2008CA020614XXXXMBAF +: +, and +states: +• +JURISDICTION AND VENUE +This is an action for damages in excess of $15,000, exclusive of interests and costs. +3. +Venue is proper in this Court as all acts occurred in Palm Beach County and all parties +reside and/or do business herein. +PARTIES +- +4. +Ms. DOE II is a natural person residing in Palm Beach County, Florida. During the +events giving rise to this claim, she was a minor but has now reached majority. +Defendant EPSTEIN is a natural person who resides and/or does business in Palm +1 +Amended to correct scrivener's error on f11 of the +Complaint relating to the dates of the occurrences. + + + +Case 9:09-cV-80469-KAM Document 13-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 2 of 4 +Beach County, Florida, and who committed the acts alleged within the jurisdiction of Palm Beach +County, Florida. Defendant +is believed to reside in the State of New York, but committed +the acts alleged within the jurisdiction of Palm Beach County, Florida. +6. +Defendant EPSTEIN is believed to now be incarcerated in the Palm Beach County Jail +for crimes committed that are related and/or similar to the claims in this case. +FACTS +7. +Defendant EPSTEIN was, at all times relevant to this action, a part time resident of +Palm Beach, Florida. All acts complained of herein occurred at his estate residence in Palm Beach, +Florida. +Defendant EPSTEIN has a history of enticing young women, under the age of consent, +to private sessions that begin with massages and evolve, through his acts of solicitation by use of his +lavish wealth, into sexual encounters, wherein Defendant EPSTEIN fulfills sexual fantasies by using +said young women. +9. +Defendant EPSTEIN, in agreement with two (2) persons he employed for this +purpose, +and Defendant +conspired with these other two Defendants to +solicit young women of the type Defendant EPSTEIN preferred, blonde, attractive in appearance, and +younger than the age of legal consent, to provide sexual gratification for him. +10. Defendants EPSTEIN and +entered into a criminal conspiracy to solicit +young women for acts of prostitution, including the Plaintiff. +11. +From about June or July, 2004 until on or about February, 2005, Defendants EPSTEIN +and +solicited the Plaintiff to come to Defendant EPSTEIN's home and provide "massages" +for him. Defendant EPSTEIN corrupted young girls, such as Plaintiff, into engaging in sexual acts +2 + + +Case 9:09-cV-80469-KAM Document 13-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 3 of 4 +to designed to fulfill his unnatural sexual desires for young women or even younger girls who were +under the age of consent. These acts included his requests that he wanted the encounter to be like a +"porn video." Defendant EPSTEIN would script lines for Plaintiff to say, including calling out his +name and requesting that he perform a certain sexual act "harder," while he touched the Plaintiff's +vagina with a vibrator or with his fingers; alternately, he would masturbate in the presence of the +Plaintiff after demanding her to disrobe and walk in front of him in provocative sexual poses. +12. +Defendant EPSTEIN touched Plaintiff's vagina, or penetrated Plaintiff's vagina, using +his fingers and/or a vibrator on multiple occasions, during the time that Plaintiff was a minor. +COUNT I: SEXUAL BATTERY +13. +Plaintiff reasserts and alleges, as if fully set forth in Count I, the allegations +of 11l 1-12, supra. +14. Defendant EPSTEIN unlawfully touched the Plaintiff without Plaintiff's consent, and +before she reached the age of consent, with the intention of bringing about a harmful and offensive +contact. +15. +As a direct and proximate result of said unlawful touching, plaintiff suffered physical +injuries, severe emotional distress, mental anguish and distress, humiliation and embarrassment and +continues to suffer so today. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court: +A. +Award Plaintiff compensatory damages for humiliation, loss of reputation, mental +anguish and pain and suffering; and +B. +Award Plaintiff her costs of this action. +COUNT II: CIVIL CONSPIRACY +3 + + +Case 9:09-cV-80469-KAM Document 13-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 4 of 4 +• +16. +Plaintiff reasserts and alleges, as if fully set forth in Count I, the allegations +of 911-12, supra. +17. Defendants entered into a criminal conspiracy to solicit young women for the sexual +gratification of Defendant EPSTEIN, including, but not limited to, soliciting the Plaintiff and others +like her for him to exploit and take advantage of their youth, inexperience and financial need. +As a direct and proximate result of said unlawful touching, plaintiff suffered physical +injuries, severe emotional distress, mental anguish and distress, humiliation and embarrassment and +continues to suffer so today. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court: +A. +Award Plaintiff compensatory damages for humiliation, loss of reputation, mental +anguish and pain and suffering; and +B. +Award Plaintiff her costs of this action. +JURY DEMAND +PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE. +Respectfully submitted, +ISIDRÓ M. GARCIA +Flonda Bar No.: 437883 +• ELKINS & BOEHRINGER, P.A. +224 Datura St., Ste. 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Telephone: (561) 832-8033 +Telecopier: (561) 832-7137 +E-mail: isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF +Dated: Luly 11, 2008 +4 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c157bdfb888ba4503efe502f25d676e397d7498c66b75bd98aeaa36ae1a019b5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c157bdfb888ba4503efe502f25d676e397d7498c66b75bd98aeaa36ae1a019b5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a87f8099daa7468941ad315cfd0f6122f83fd116 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c157bdfb888ba4503efe502f25d676e397d7498c66b75bd98aeaa36ae1a019b5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -59, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c157bdfb888ba4503efe502f25d676e397d7498c66b75bd98aeaa36ae1a019b5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c9e7df9bb68ee502eb81479c50e1f067b33743b45816f381eb2f81b676ce0040", + "output_sha256": "ca3930ab2a0a2219fb1bcceae46ab691f5fc288b50baf0d43c51261c5c9521f9", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c17362b4aa04408c765a42ed2a2de15b6acf1f0abe15348d167e14f63f234cb6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c17362b4aa04408c765a42ed2a2de15b6acf1f0abe15348d167e14f63f234cb6.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2b144e0bcbeb44d608899ad2bdd2428d84fec7f2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c17362b4aa04408c765a42ed2a2de15b6acf1f0abe15348d167e14f63f234cb6.md @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +GT GreenbergTraurig +Fax 561.659.9119 +mendelsohns@gtlaw.com +June 23, 2020 +Douglas A. Wyler +Jacob Scholz & Wyler, LLC +961687 Gateway Blvd. +Suite 201-1 +Fernandina Beach, FI. 32034 +Re: CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronberg et al. +Case No. 2019-CA-014681 +COPY +Dear Mr. Wyler: +We are in receipt of your letter of June 8, 2020 with your proposed Fla. Stat. section 57.105 motion. +In your letter and your proposed motion, you assert that CA Florida Holdings, LLC and the law +firm of Greenberg Traurig, P.A. should be liable for the attorneys' fees to be incurred by State +Attorney Aronberg after the date of your letter. Your letter cites to Fla. Stat. sections 57.105(1) +(a) and (b) for support. As shown below, there is no basis for a Fla. Stat. section 57.105 motion, +and we expect that if the State Attorney were to make such a motion, the court should deny it. +Your letter omits a citation to section 57.105(3). Subsection 57.105(3)(a) provides that sanctions +may not be awarded where there is a "good faith argument for the extension, modification or +reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law, as it is applied to the material facts, with +a reasonable expectation of success." We have such a good faith argument. +Contrary to your ahalysis of Fla. Stat. section 905.27, there are actually three instances where a +court may order the release of grand jury materials. As we argue, the court may order release "in +furtherance of justice " There are few cases in Florida reviewing this provision and its scope. It is +an open and valid question as to whether the court may order release of grand jury transcripts to +the media, under both the statute and the First Amendment to the US Constitution in furtherance +of justice, The statutory language you cite refers to instances where a person is seeking grand jury +materials, for use in a civil or in a criminal case. In these limited situations, the statute allows for +such uses and for no other reasoni. However, the statute does not state, as you assert, that where +the media seeks grand jury materials based upon its constitutional standing, which the Circuit +Court acknowledged at the June 2, 2020 hearing includes The Palm Beach Post, that the statutory +Greenberg Traurig, P.A: | Attorneys at Law +5100 Town Center Circle | Suite 400 | Boca Raton, Florida 33486 | T +1 561.955.7600 | F +1 561.338.7099 +Albany: Amsterdam. Atlanta. Austin. Berlin" Boca Raton. Hoston. Chicago, Dallas. Delaware. Denver. Fort Lauderdale. Houston. Las Vegas. London" Los Angeles. +Mexico City: Miami. Milas. Minneapolis. Nashville. New Jersey: New York Nehern. Miminia-ne +—Orlando. Philadelphia. Phoenix. Sacramento. +San Franeisco. Seoul" Shanghai. Silicon Valley: Tallahassee. Tampa. Tel Avis! +Party. +JOINT +'est Palm Beach. Westehester County: +ID#. 116 EV#JiG +ww +DATE ADMITTED: 9/6/2022 +Case No. 2019-CA-014681 +CA/Aronberg 009244 BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPPF HENNERO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 3:44:22 PM +Joint Exhibit +J16 + + +Correspondence to Douglas A. Wyler +June 23, 2020 +Page 2 +use limitation you cite applies. No reported Florida case has addressed this issue and there is a +good faith basis for our view of Fla. Stat. section 905.27 +Your letter also argues that sanctions are applicable because the State Attorney has alleged that it +does not possess the Jeffrey Epstein grand jury transcripts. This allegation is also contained in the +State Attorney's Answer. Assuming that the State Attorney does not currently have physical +possession of the Epstein grand jury materials, which has yet to be demonstrated, this does not end +the matter. The State Attorney was named as a party not simply as a custodian of grand jury +records. The State Attorney was named in his official capacity as his office has was its primary +interest the protection of its grand jury system." [Italics in original.] In re Grand Jury Proceedings, +832 F. 3d 554, 559 (11" Circuit 1987). In that case, the US petitioned a state judge to order the +State Attorney to turn over grand jury transcripts. The State Attorney argued against their release +citing to Fla. Stat. section 905.27. Later, a federal grand jury subpoenaed the Broward County +State Attorney for delivery of state grand jury testimony. The Broward State Attorney advised the +federal court that it would produce the transcripts, thereby demonstrating that while it may not +have physical possession of the materials, he had legal authority fo obtain and deliver them. It +should also be noted that the State Attorney moved to quash the subpoena arguing that it was +unlawful under Florida law and Fla. Stat. section 905.27. This case indicates that where one seeks +grand jury materials, the relevant State Attorney is a necessary party in order to protect the grand +jury that the Office of State Attorney supervised and to make arguments, if need be, against release +of the grand jury materials. These are some of the same reasons why the State Attorney was named +in this case. +Also, assuming the State Attorney does not have physical possession of the grand jury materials, +there is nothing in Florida law that prohibits the State Attorney from requesting that the Clerk +provide copies to the State Attorney. Chapter 905, Fla. Stats. does not contain a prohibition against +a Staté Attorney demand that the Clerk grant his office access to grand jury materials, even after a +criminal case has concluded. Upon information and belief, the Clerk's office maintains a log that +tracks release of grand jury materials to the State Attorney upon its request. Please confirm +whether the State Attorney has accessed grand jury materials from the Clerk's office in other +instances or that it has never done so. If the Clerk has such a log, then its contents should be +discoverable, or subject to Florida Public records laws. +Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | Attorneys at Law +CA/Aronber@00024& BEACH COUNTY, FL, +www.gtlaw.com +ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 3:44:22 PM + + +Correspondence to Douglas A. Wyler +June 23, 2020 +Page 3 +For these reasons, we decline your Fla. Stat. section 57.105 demand that the case be dismissed +against the Office of the State Attorney. We expect that your demand will be withdrawn. +Thank you, +Very truly yours, +/s/Stephen Mendelsohn +Stephen Mendelsohn +SAM:Is +ACTIVE +51081659v1 +NOT A CERTIFIED COPY +: +: +Greenberg Traurig. P.A. | Attorneys at Law +www.gtlaw.com +CA/Arohiber 000246 BEACH COUNTY, FL, L +ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 3:44:22 PM diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c17362b4aa04408c765a42ed2a2de15b6acf1f0abe15348d167e14f63f234cb6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c17362b4aa04408c765a42ed2a2de15b6acf1f0abe15348d167e14f63f234cb6.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7a40ec8d156c2c906050cefc1c2ce364348fc41f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c17362b4aa04408c765a42ed2a2de15b6acf1f0abe15348d167e14f63f234cb6.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c17362b4aa04408c765a42ed2a2de15b6acf1f0abe15348d167e14f63f234cb6", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c2a2e7ee500d0c15cd4b6fd4a5dc2f513cde396180972d4f1508e88986514f9b", + "output_sha256": "bc7a2c7ac7bb915226c33e4298fa91e7b5d94c1accc5144f45938a3d3125ebaa", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c188fb20c183fa1745aaf11123ee946f94d9d1366fbca01b65bbc8cdd5fc323a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c188fb20c183fa1745aaf11123ee946f94d9d1366fbca01b65bbc8cdd5fc323a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a6836888cd939aa9ee64d39f297070b5eb1db9c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c188fb20c183fa1745aaf11123ee946f94d9d1366fbca01b65bbc8cdd5fc323a.md @@ -0,0 +1,309 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 53 Filed 07/09/20 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. +KAHN, in their capacities as executors of +the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, an individual, +Defendants. +20-cv-00484-JGK +-X +Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, by and through her attorneys Haddon, +& +1, P.C., submits the following Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. +Introduction +A. The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York on June +29, 2020 caused a meritless indictment to be issued against +Maxwell has formed an opinion that responding to the allegations in +this Complaint "could provide a link in the chain of evidence necessary to prosecute" Ms. +Maxwell. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486-89 (1951); In re Gorsoan Lid., 435 +F.Supp.3d 589, 605-06 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). +C. Under these circumstances, on the advice of counsel, Ms. Maxwell will answer the +Complaint's allegations to the extent that she can without waiving the right against selfincrimination under the United States and New York constitutions and otherwise will invoke the +right. +1 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 53 Filed 07/09/20 Page 2 of 11 +D. Ms. Maxwell's denials of factual allegations shall be interpreted the same as pleading +not guilty to the various counts in any criminal indictment. +Allegations +1. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations contained in Paragraph 1. +2. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations pertaining to her contained in Paragraph +2. To the extent allegations contained in Paragraph 2 do not pertain to Ms. Maxwell, she is +without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies the same. +3. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations pertaining to her contained in Paragraph +3. To the extent allegations contained in Paragraph 3 do not pertain to Ms. Maxwell, she is +without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies the same. +4. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations pertaining to her contained in Paragraph +4. To the extent allegations contained in Paragraph 4 do not pertain to Ms. Maxwell, she is +without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies the same. +5. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegation pertaining to her in Paragraph 5. +6. Ms. Maxwell is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations +contained in Paragraph 6 and therefore denies the same. +7. Ms. Maxwell is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations +contained in Paragraph 7 and therefore denies the same. +8. Ms. Maxwell is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations +contained in Paragraph 8 and therefore denies the same. +9. Ms. Maxwell is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations +contained in Paragraph 9 and therefore denies the same. +10. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegation pertaining to her in Paragraph 10. +2 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 53 Filed 07/09/20 Page 3 of 11 +11. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations and legal conclusions contained in +Paragraph 11. +12. Paragraph 12 contains a legal assertion to which no response is required. +13. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegation pertaining to her contained in Paragraph +13. To the extent allegations contained in Paragraph 13 do not pertain to Ms. Maxwell, she is +without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies the same. +14. Ms. Maxwell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to +the allegations contained in Paragraph 14. +15. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegation pertaining to her contained in Paragraph +15. To the extent allegations contained in Paragraph 15 do not pertain to Ms. Maxwell, she is +without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies the same. +16. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations pertaining to her contained in Paragraph +16. To the extent allegations contained in Paragraph 16 do not pertain to Ms. Maxwell, she is +without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies the same. +17. Ms. Maxwell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to +the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 and therefore denies the same. +18. Ms. Maxwell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to +the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 and therefore denies the same. +19. +Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations pertaining to her contained in Paragraph +19. To the extent allegations contained in Paragraph 19 do not pertain to Ms. Maxwell, she is +without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies the same. +20. Ms. Maxwell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to +the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 and therefore denies the same. +3 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 53 Filed 07/09/20 Page 4 of 11 +21. Ms. Maxwell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to +the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 and therefore denies the same. +22. Ms. Maxwell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to +the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 and therefore denies the same. +23. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations contained in Paragraph 23. +24. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations pertaining to her in Paragraph 24. To the +extent allegations contained in Paragraph 24 do not pertain to Ms. Maxwell, she is without +sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies the same. +25. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations pertaining to her in Paragraph 24. To the +extent allegations contained in Paragraph 25 do not pertain to Ms. Maxwell, she is without +sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies the same. +26. Ms. Maxwell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to +the allegations contained in Paragraph 26 and therefore denies the same. +27. Ms. Maxwell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to +the allegations contained in Paragraph 27 and therefore denies the same. +28. +Ms. Maxwell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to +the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 and therefore denies the same. +29. Ms. Maxwell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to +the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 and therefore denies the same. +30. Ms. Maxwell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to +the allegations contained in Paragraph 30 and therefore denies the same. +31. Ms. Maxwell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to +the allegations contained in Paragraph 31 and therefore denies the same. +4 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 53 Filed 07/09/20 Page 5 of 11 +32. Ms. Maxwell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to +the allegations contained in Paragraph 32 and therefore denies the same. +33. Paragraph 33 does not require a response. +34. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations pertaining to her contained in Paragraph +34. To the extent allegations contained in Paragraph 34 do not pertain to Ms. Maxwell, she is +without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies the same. +35. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations pertaining to her contained in Paragraph +35. To the extent allegations contained in Paragraph 35 do not pertain to Ms. Maxwell, she is +without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies the same. +36. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations pertaining to her contained in Paragraph +36. To the extent allegations contained in Paragraph 36 do not pertain to Ms. Maxwell, she is +without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies the same. +37. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations and legal conclusions pertaining to her +contained in Paragraph 37. To the extent allegations and legal conclusions contained in +Paragraph 37 do not pertain to Ms. Maxwell, she is without sufficient information to admit or +deny the allegations and therefore denies the same. +38. Paragraph 38 does not require a response. +39. Ms. Maxwell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to +the allegations contained in Paragraph 39 and therefore denies the same. +40. Ms. Maxwell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to +the allegations contained in Paragraph 40 and therefore denies the same. +41. Ms. Maxwell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to +the allegations contained in Paragraph 41 and therefore denies the same. +5 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 53 Filed 07/09/20 Page 6 of 11 +42. Ms. Maxwell is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to +the allegations contained in Paragraph 42 and therefore denies the same. +43. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations and legal conclusions pertaining to her +contained in Paragraph 43. To the extent allegations and legal conclusions contained in +Paragraph 43 do not pertain to Ms. Maxwell, she is without sufficient information to admit or +deny the allegations and therefore denies the same. +44. Paragraph 44 does not require a response. +45. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations pertaining to her in Paragraph 45. To the +extent allegations contained in Paragraph 45 do not pertain to Ms. Maxwell, she is without +sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies the same. +46. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations pertaining to her in Paragraph 46. To the +extent allegations contained in Paragraph 46 do not pertain to Ms. Maxwell, she is without +sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies the same. +47. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations pertaining to her in Paragraph 47. To the +extent allegations contained in Paragraph 47 do not pertain to Ms. Maxwell, she is without +sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies the same. +48. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations and legal conclusions pertaining to her in +Paragraph 48. To the extent allegations and legal conclusions contained in Paragraph 48 do not +pertain to Ms. Maxwell, she is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations +and therefore denies the same. +49. Paragraph 49 does not require a response. + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 53 Filed 07/09/20 Page 7 of 11 +50. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations pertaining to her in Paragraph 50. To the +extent allegations contained in Paragraph 50 do not pertain to Ms. Maxwell, she is without +sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies the same. +51. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations and legal conclusions pertaining to her in +Paragraph 51. To the extent allegations contained in Paragraph 51 do not pertain to Ms. +Maxwell, she is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore +denies the same. +52. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations and legal conclusions pertaining to her in +Paragraph 52. To the extent allegations contained in Paragraph 52 do not pertain to Ms. +Maxwell, she is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore +denies the same. +53. Paragraph 53 does not require a response. +54. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations pertaining to her in Paragraph 54. To the +extent allegations contained in Paragraph 54 do not pertain to Ms. Maxwell, she is without +sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies the same. +55. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations and legal conclusions pertaining to her in +Paragraph 55. To the extent allegations contained in Paragraph 55 do not pertain to Ms. +Maxwell, she is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore +denies the same. +56. +Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations and legal conclusions pertaining to her in +Paragraph 56. To the extent allegations contained in Paragraph 56 do not pertain to Ms. +Maxwell, she is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore +denies the same. +7 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 53 Filed 07/09/20 Page 8 of 11 +57. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations pertaining to her in Paragraph 57. To the +extent allegations contained in Paragraph 57 do not pertain to Ms. Maxwell, she is without +sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies the same. +58. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations and legal conclusions pertaining to her in +Paragraph 58. To the extent allegations contained in Paragraph 58 do not pertain to Ms. +Maxwell, she is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore +denies the same. +59. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations and legal conclusions pertaining to her in +Paragraph 59. To the extent allegations contained in Paragraph 59 do not pertain to Ms. +Maxwell, she is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore +denies the same. +60. Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations and legal conclusions pertaining to her in +Paragraph 60. To the extent allegations contained in Paragraph 60 do not pertain to Ms. +Maxwell, she is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore +denies the same. +61. +Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations and legal conclusions pertaining to her in +Paragraph 61. To the extent allegations contained in Paragraph 61 do not pertain to Ms. +Maxwell, she is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore +denies the same. +62. +Ms. Maxwell denies the factual allegations and legal conclusions pertaining to her in +Paragraph 62. To the extent allegations contained in Paragraph 62 do not pertain to Ms. +Maxwell, she is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore +denies the same. +8 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 53 Filed 07/09/20 Page 9 of 11 +*********************** +63. To the extent not inconsistent with Ms. Maxwell's invocation of the rights against +self-incrimination, Ms. Maxwell denies every averment not expressly admitted. +64. Ms. Maxwell reserves the right to amend the foregoing answers in the event that the +threat to her liberty is lifted. +AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES +To the extent not inconsistent with Ms. Maxwell's invocation of the rights against selfincrimination, she asserts the following affirmative defenses. +1. The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Ms. Maxwell. +2. The case is improperly venued in the Southern District of New York. +3. Insufficient process has been afforded to Ms. Maxwell. +4. Insufficient service of process has been afforded to Ms. Maxwell. +5. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. +6. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations. +7. Plaintiff failed to take reasonable, necessary, appropriate and feasible steps to +mitigate her alleged damages, and to the extent of such failure to mitigate, she should be barred +from recovering some or all of the alleged damages she seeks. +8. +Plaintiff's damages, if any, are the proximate result of intervening causes, preexisting medical and mental conditions of Plaintiff, and/or causes that occurred without the +knowledge or participation of Ms. Maxwell and for which Ms. Maxwell is not responsible. +9. Plaintiff's damages, if any, were the result of her own conduct or the conduct of +others and were not proximately caused by any action of Ms. Maxwell. +10. Plaintiff voluntarily or negligently assumed a known risk. +9 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 53 Filed 07/09/20 Page 10 of 11 +11. Plaintiff consented to the alleged conduct. +12. N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 214-g, N.Y.P.L. § 130.52 and N.Y.P.L. § 130.55 are unconstitutional +as applied to Ms. Maxwell. +13. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the affirmative defenses of +waiver, estoppel, laches, and unclean hands. +JURY DEMAND +Ghislaine Maxwell demands that this matter be heard by a jury on all matters so triable. +WHEREFORE, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell demands judgment as follows: +A. That Plaintiff take nothing by way of her Complaint; +B. That the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice; +C. That Judgment be entered in favor of Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell and against +Plaintiff; +D. That Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell be awarded her costs and fees in this action, +including reasonable attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest; and +E. All other such relief as this Court deems just and proper. +Dated: July 9, 2020. +Respectfully submitted, +s/ Laura A. Menninger +Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374) +HADDON, L +LAND| +150 East 10" Avenue +Denver, CO 80203 +Phone: +303.831.7364 +Fax: +303.832.2628 +Imenninger@hmflaw.com +Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell +P.C. + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 53 +Filed 07/09/20 + +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I certify that on July 9, 2020, I served the accompanying Answer on the following +counsel of record: +Kevin Boyle +Robert Glassman +Panish, Shea & Boyle +11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste 700 +Los Angeles, CA 90025 +boyle@psblaw.com +glassman@ psblaw.com +Bennet J. Moskowitz +Charles L. Glover +Troutman Pepper +875 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +charles.glover@troutman.com +Sanders LLP +Molly S. DiRago +Troutman Pepper +Sanders LLP +227 W. Monroe Street. Suite 390( +Chicago, IL 60606 +molly.dirago@troutman.com +s/ Nicole +11 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c188fb20c183fa1745aaf11123ee946f94d9d1366fbca01b65bbc8cdd5fc323a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c188fb20c183fa1745aaf11123ee946f94d9d1366fbca01b65bbc8cdd5fc323a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fefffffda44e18ad39342b7670f79aaed4f7fe57 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c188fb20c183fa1745aaf11123ee946f94d9d1366fbca01b65bbc8cdd5fc323a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -163, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c188fb20c183fa1745aaf11123ee946f94d9d1366fbca01b65bbc8cdd5fc323a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 16, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "a3848d54e09e2f2281e24ce9d6cadfee8a3002c81d7624542242b01f1100da6e", + "output_sha256": "9be0e3b419091c4a1020bd96b4a7354688b4f681df68249d52f4841e509699b9", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c1c04ee1e72800421287d8424e12011897f4188994cfb488dd38780dac21ad57.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c1c04ee1e72800421287d8424e12011897f4188994cfb488dd38780dac21ad57.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dfdcf357c273070dbe69e7773a9fd074b92e8d82 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c1c04ee1e72800421287d8424e12011897f4188994cfb488dd38780dac21ad57.md @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@ +**** CASE NUMBER: 502019CA014681XXXXMB Div: AG **** +Filing # 98869063 E-Filed 11/14/2019 11:06:37 AM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, 15th +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR +PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO.: +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida, SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida, +Defendants. +COPY +DEFENDANT: +SUMMONS +Dave Aronberg, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida +401 N. Dixte Highway +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +A lawsuit has been filed against you. You have 20 calendar days after this summons is +envie or laid fice dined int photo mode ou may al on to wi +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, 11/14/2019 11:06:37 AM + + +THE STATE OF FLORIDA +TO EACH SHERIFF OF THE STATE: You are commanded to serve this Summons and +a copy of the Complaint in this lawsuit on the above named Defendant. +DATED on November +, 2019 +Nov 15 2019 +Sharon R. Bock +As Clerk & Comptroller of the Court +By: +Deputy Clerk +DOLLY GARCIA +IMPORTANTE +Usted ha sido demandado legalmente. Tiene 20 Dias, contados a partir del recibo de esta +notificacion, para contestar la demanda adjunta, por escrito, y presentarla ante este ttibunal. Una llamada +telefonica no lo protegera. Si usted desca que el tribunal considere su defensa, debe presentar su respuesta +por escrito, incluyendo el numero del caso y los nombres de las partes interesadas. Si usted no contesta la +demanda a tiempo, pudiese perder el caso y podria ser despojado de sus ingresos y propiedades, o privado +de sus derechos, sin previo aviso del tribunal. Existen otros requisitos legales. Si lo desea, puede usted +consultar a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede lamar a una de las oficinas de +asistencia legal que aparecen en la guia telefonica. +Si desca responder a la demanda por su cuenta, al mismo tiempo en que presenta su respuesta ante +el tribunal, debera usted enviar por correo o entregar una copia de su respucsta a la persona denominada +abajo como "Plaintiff/Plaintiff's Attorney" (Demandante o Abogado del Demandante). +IMPORTANT +Des poursuites judiciares ont ete entreprises contre vous. Vous avez 20 jours consecutifs a partir +de la date de l'assignation de cette citation pour deposer une reponse ecrite a la plainte ci-jointe aupres de ce +tribunal. Un simple coup de telephone est insuffisant pour vous proteger. Vous etes oblige de deposer +votre reponse ecrite, avec mention du numero de dossier ci-dessus et du nom des parties nommees ici, si +vous souhaitez que le tribunal entende votre cause. Si vous ne deposez pas votre reponse ecrite dans le +relai requis, vous risquez de perdre la cause ainsi que votre salaire, votre argent, et vos biens peuvent etre +saisis par la suite, sans aucun preavis ulterieur du tribunal. Il y a d'autres obligations juridiques et vous +pouvez requerir (les services immediats d'un avocat. Si vous ne connaissez pas d'avocat, vous pourriez +telephoner a un service de reference d'avocats ou a un bureau d'assistance juridique (figurant a l'annuaire de +telephones). +Si vous choisissez de deposer vous-meme une reponse ecrite, il vous faudra egalement, en meme +temps que cette formalite, faire parvenir ou expedier une copie de votre reponse ecrite au +"Plaintiff/Plaintiff's Attorney" (Plaignant ou a son avocat) nomme ci-dessous. +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c1c04ee1e72800421287d8424e12011897f4188994cfb488dd38780dac21ad57.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c1c04ee1e72800421287d8424e12011897f4188994cfb488dd38780dac21ad57.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..97a704e1a362806e08f7fa5bf97ae228c637cc27 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c1c04ee1e72800421287d8424e12011897f4188994cfb488dd38780dac21ad57.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c1c04ee1e72800421287d8424e12011897f4188994cfb488dd38780dac21ad57", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "cca158c64251e40884f3ecf9125eeadefcb892eaeea26269c4668594b0060fd9", + "output_sha256": "781747f83ee888722cfca3b41f723b42ec9c39d7339f0e3409752491febe0be7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c1e4ddb8b7685af61d83525579cc96c2d3cf64678ed0c3d24b5f476c0fcee207.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c1e4ddb8b7685af61d83525579cc96c2d3cf64678ed0c3d24b5f476c0fcee207.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..770a9aacd165e669d68edb3ea236821871f464e6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c1e4ddb8b7685af61d83525579cc96c2d3cf64678ed0c3d24b5f476c0fcee207.md @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 30iA W +Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2008 Page 1 of 2 +OFFICE +Brad Edwards +AND ASSOCIATES +October 15, 2008 +Dexter Lee, AUSA +United States Attorney's Office +99 N.E. 4th Street +Miami, Florida 33132 +Re: +Jane Doe # and Jane Doe #2 v. United States of America +Case No.: +08-80736-CIV-MARRA +Dear Mr. Lee: +I am writing to inquire about whether Mr. Epstein has violated his Non-Prosecution +Agreement with the Government. +As you know, the Government has repeatedly described the Non-Prosecution Agreement +as guaranteeing to the victims of Epstein's sexual abuse at least $150,000 in civil damages. The +Government has made these representations in reliance on a current provision in the U.S. Code - +18 U.S.C. § 2255(a) - which provides for an automatic amount of damages of at least $150,000. +At the time that the Non-Prosecution Agreement was drafted and signed, that was the law that +was in effect. +In Epstein's latest filing in federal court, however, he takes the position that the pre-2006 +Amendments version of the law applies. See Defendant Epstein's Motion to Dismiss, for More +Definite Statement and To Strike Directed to Plaintiff Jane Doe's Complaint at 9, Jane Doe v. +Jeffrey Epstein, No. 08-CIV-80893-Marra/ +(discussing § 2255 and stating that the +"applicable version of the statute" is "pre-2006 Amendments"). The 2006 Amendments altered +§ 2255(a), by increasing the presumed minimum damages from $50,000 to $150,000. See Pub. +L. 109-248, Title VII, § 707(b), (c), July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 650. +In light of Epstein's latest filing, I write to ask several questions: +(1) Would you stipulate that you told me several times that Epstein had agreed to pay at +least $150,000 to the identified victims of his abuse? +(2) Did Epstein in fact agree to pay damages to the identified victims of his abuse at least +$150,000? +(3) Did the Government tell victims, either directly or through counsel, that Epstein had +agreed to pay his victims at least $150,000? +2028 +STREET, SUITE 202, HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020 +OFFICE: 954-414-8033/305-935-2011 +FAX: 954-924-1530/305-935-4227 +BE@BRADEDWARDSLAW.COM + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80736-KAM Document 30-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2008 Page 2 of 2 +Dexter Lee, AUSA +United States Attorney's Office +October 15, 2008 +Page Two +(4) Is Epstein in compliance with his Non-Prosecution Agreement with the Government +when he is now taking the legal position, through his attorneys, that he only has to +pay the victims $50,000 damages under § 2255? +Thank you for any clarification you can provide on these questions. +Sincerely, +BE/sg +cc: +Brad +Ann +C. Villafaña, AUSA +United States Attorney's Office +500 South Australian Avenue +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +2028 +STREET, SUITE 202, HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020 +OFFICE: 954-414-8033/305-935-2011 +FAX: 954-924-1530/305-935-4227 +BE@BRADEDWARDSLAW.COM diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c1e4ddb8b7685af61d83525579cc96c2d3cf64678ed0c3d24b5f476c0fcee207.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c1e4ddb8b7685af61d83525579cc96c2d3cf64678ed0c3d24b5f476c0fcee207.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..94f4f2e5ebf54c08a84aa73b3b02d3680f014cd3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c1e4ddb8b7685af61d83525579cc96c2d3cf64678ed0c3d24b5f476c0fcee207.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c1e4ddb8b7685af61d83525579cc96c2d3cf64678ed0c3d24b5f476c0fcee207", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4e87132b954462d25f4748f0326d95cb22059069721dfcf3de76a08132b13322", + "output_sha256": "40d73939140d8083db36b9ea7d8de7290ea0a684aaf08d80138a6ed78280e964", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c1ef07e06b87945e06cec043b92a2bfe1313a7c9afcd623d099cd80f6e5125da.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c1ef07e06b87945e06cec043b92a2bfe1313a7c9afcd623d099cd80f6e5125da.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed9bfe7786ace06f29baf04e78af7b4100d18344 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c1ef07e06b87945e06cec043b92a2bfe1313a7c9afcd623d099cd80f6e5125da.md @@ -0,0 +1,112 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 1 of 5 +JANE DOE NO. 2, +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRAJ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 2 of 5 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 7, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- 80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON +PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME +TO FILE MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO COMPEL +PLAINTIFES TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST REQUEST +TO PRODUCE AND FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, ET AL. +Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-7, by and through undersigned counsel, file this Motion for +Enlargement to Time to File Memorandum in Opposition to Motions to Compel Plaintiffs to +Respond to Defendant's First Request to Produce and First Set of Interrogatories, et al., pursuant to +S.D. Fla.L.R. 7.1 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), and state as follows: +On April 2, 2009, Defendant Epstein filed two Motions to Compel in each of the +above-captioned cases: (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Defendant's First Request to +Produce and to Overrule Objections, and for an Award of Defendant's Reasonable Expenses; and (2) +Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Answer Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, and to Overrule +Objections, and for an Award of Defendant's Reasonable Expenses. Plaintiffs' responses to these +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 3 of 5 +Motions are due on April 20, 2009. +2. +Plaintiffs move for an enlargement of time to prepare and file their response to the +Motions because of demands on Plaintiffs' counsel in this case and in other cases and matters. This +includes an initial appellate brief presently due on April 24, 2009, in Doe v. School Bd. of Broward +County and Scavella, case no. 09 -10394-E, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. +3. +Plaintiffs request an enlargement of time until April 29, 2009. +4. +Pursuant to S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1(A), Plaintiffs' counsel has conferred with counsel for +Defendant regarding the relief sought in this Motion, who has advised Plaintiffs' counsel that +Defendant has no objection to the enlargement of time requested. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request an enlargement of time to file their response to +the Motions to Compel et al., until and including April 29, 2009. +Dated: April 17, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Itorneys for Plaintiff +8205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 221 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 4 of 5 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on April 17, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of +Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those +parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 5 of 5 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Is/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 5- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c1ef07e06b87945e06cec043b92a2bfe1313a7c9afcd623d099cd80f6e5125da.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c1ef07e06b87945e06cec043b92a2bfe1313a7c9afcd623d099cd80f6e5125da.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dd922c810ae2a442be6b0f6936e42918c5e80935 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c1ef07e06b87945e06cec043b92a2bfe1313a7c9afcd623d099cd80f6e5125da.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c1ef07e06b87945e06cec043b92a2bfe1313a7c9afcd623d099cd80f6e5125da", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "602f0927c9c81b6c272c21fc0be5a14492ad264bead3d655dd66f28df402f709", + "output_sha256": "5b7ce1220bd01766867c20ffcab59abc698f56945ab891e9604fd103e096bef1", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c21e9359d91eb59aa9bb4e1d99c1f2d61ac3a7f2878aa5b0dce83ee3ca06aff5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c21e9359d91eb59aa9bb4e1d99c1f2d61ac3a7f2878aa5b0dce83ee3ca06aff5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..13ca3bfdb4e855f7843ef54cb6246841d2cf1f3c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c21e9359d91eb59aa9bb4e1d99c1f2d61ac3a7f2878aa5b0dce83ee3ca06aff5.md @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRAL +JANE DOE NO. 5, +v. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS COURT'S ORDER TO +SHOW CAUSE AS WHY ALL CASES SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED FOR DISCOVERY +PURPOSES AND MOTION TO CLARIFY THE COURT'S ORDER DATED APRIL 28, 2009 +Defendant, JEFFERY EPSTEIN, (EPSTEIN), by and through his undersigned +attorneys, hereby files his Response in Opposition to this Court's Order to Show Cause +as to Why All Cases Should Not be Consolidated for Purposes of Discovery and Motion +for Clarification of this Court's Order on general consolidation of discovery (DE 78), and +states: +L. +Response In Opposition +Defendant has no further objections to consolidating these cases for +purposes of depositions as outlined in this Court's April 28, 2009 Order. +However, to consolidate the cases for purposes of all "discovery" including, but +not limited to, motion practice and related orders thereto will, without question, confuse +many of the individual discovery issues raised not only by Epstein as to the individual +Plaintiffs that have brought separate lawsuits against him, but will also confuse the +individual discovery issues raised by those same individual Plaintiffs as to Epstein. This +will undoubtedly lead to several motions to clarify certain orders which will seek + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 2 of 5 +Page 2 +explanation from the court as to how those orders affect Epstein as to each individual +Plaintiff's discovery requests and vice versa (i.e., how those future orders affect the +individual Plaintiffs' discovery requests directed to Epstein). +It is important to note that each related Federal matter before this court has its +very own distinct set of facts and defenses thereto. As such, the discovery served and +the responses received are particular and individualized as to both Plaintiff and +Defendant. As such, discovery of "all" cases for general discovery consolidation +(separate and apart from depositions) will only cloud rulings on discovery and will result +in more attorney labor and judicial resources, which will inevitably be spent on motions +for clarification. +Each Plaintiff and Epstein have served and will in the future serve separate +requests for production, separate interrogatories, separate requests for admissions, and +separate motions to compel, responses and replies addressing certain discovery issues. +Obviously, both Plaintiff and Defendant will base their discovery related arguments on +the particularized facts of each case, which are separate and distinct from one another. +Moreover, the Plaintiffs will likely seek to retain different experts to support their +individual claims. In that regard, how will a general consolidation of discovery impact +discovery related to those experts' individualized opinions? +As this court is aware, certain case management orders are in place setting the +parameters of discovery. It is unclear how Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate and the +Courts Order will handle the potential problems and any other potential discovery +related issues outlined above. In fact, it appears that Jane Doe, in Case No. 08-CV- +80893 (DE 47), has expressed her own reasons for opposing the consolidation all the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 3 of 5 +Page 3 +cases for discovery purposes. Obviously, Jane Doe's counsel, like the undersigned, +anticipates that discovery issues will present themselves if general consolidation occurs +and does not want it to impact her case. +In fact, the debates have already begun in +light of this Court's April 29, 2009 Order and the responses filed addressing same. This +provides the court with a glimpse of what will occur if general consolidation occurs, in +particular, how attorney resources and judicial resources will be unnecessarily used. +In addition, the initial style of each case should be maintained in pleadings and in +orders in an effort to maintain organization and application of the rulings this court +espouses for each case. Utilizing a compound multiple-type style will only confuse +cases that should be kept separate for all discovery purposes. +Il. +Motion for Clarification of this Court's April 28, 2009 Order +This Court ruled that cases 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380 and 08-80993 are +consolidated for discovery purposes. Epstein not only objects to the courts +consolidation order but seeks clarification from this Court as to how consolidation of +general discovery will impact motion practice and orders in the above cases. What does +the court mean when it says the above cases are consolidated "for purposes of +discovery only?" How does consolidation operate? The concerns addressing general +discovery consolidation are set out above and are therefore incorporated herein. +Likewise, for those reasons, the court should reverse its ruling on consolidation and +issue a new order maintaining the individuality of each case for discovery purposes. +In addition, Epstein not only objects to the court's potential consolidation of case +numbers 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469 and 09-80591 for +general discovery purposes, but respectfully requests that this court clarify how + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 4 of 5 +Page 4 +consolidation of general discovery will impact motion practice and orders in the above +cases should this court choose to consolidate same for discovery. Again, how does +consolidation operate? The concerns addressing general discovery consolidation are +set out above and are therefore incorporated herein. +In short, the Motions seeking consolidation for discovery purposes only do not +delineate how consolidation operates. As such, the Order granting the Motions to +Consolidate for discovery purposes only does not provide any additional information +addressing how consolidation will operate. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court not consolidate case numbers +08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469 and 09-80591, that it clarify its +order as to consolidation of case numbers 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380 and 08- +80993 (or the future consolidation of other cases) and that it reverse its April 28, 2009 +ruling on general consolidation in light of the potential problems presented in this +response, that an order be entered requiring the parties to utilize the style secured by +the initial case filing and not a compound-case style incorporating all case styles in one +particular document, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and +proper. +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 5 of 5 +Page 5 +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #5 +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +By: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/515-3148 Fax +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c21e9359d91eb59aa9bb4e1d99c1f2d61ac3a7f2878aa5b0dce83ee3ca06aff5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c21e9359d91eb59aa9bb4e1d99c1f2d61ac3a7f2878aa5b0dce83ee3ca06aff5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..726bdb09f22ef58cb7e1b616fd8e2723c59256fb --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c21e9359d91eb59aa9bb4e1d99c1f2d61ac3a7f2878aa5b0dce83ee3ca06aff5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c21e9359d91eb59aa9bb4e1d99c1f2d61ac3a7f2878aa5b0dce83ee3ca06aff5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "422d2bd20d0f89beb2c42db603634d7b21c7a49be5c8f2f60d83685ce1cd1282", + "output_sha256": "fece7acf8caeae0160740890108068a3ae2141fbc2b163faee433e24c62f0533", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c2569fb2f3d67546ce58f90057c52508d211a1d3f168c972bede0866170334f9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c2569fb2f3d67546ce58f90057c52508d211a1d3f168c972bede0866170334f9.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..72455f058aeb0fbc6f26ccef2fb36815b38ed269 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c2569fb2f3d67546ce58f90057c52508d211a1d3f168c972bede0866170334f9.md @@ -0,0 +1,770 @@ +Document 303-8 + + +04.27322 amAss +ARREST A NOTICE TO APPEAF +Agency ORI Numbar +Juvenile Referral +10 DOr +L. ATTA +• Request for Warrar +• Roquest for Capit +Agency Name +Anvenile +FLO + +ADMINISTRA +Charp»Туре: +PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT +Check as many +1. Felony +en appa. +3. Misdomonnor +86 00 41-4402 +3. Tattie Foly +1. Traffia Misdemeanor +B 8. Othar +8. Ordinance +Location of Arrest [including Name of Businera) +151 Bilbao St Royal Palm Bch, F1 33411 +Location of Olfonise (Business Name, Address) +Deto of Arosl +Tine of Ampul +same +10/31/04 +Booking Dala +Booking Time +0407 +Jall Dale +Name (Lasl, First, Midcle) +0455 +10/31/04 +Jal Time +10/31/04 +Locaton or venice +N/A +Vinyard, Preston, S +Ales (Name, DOB, Soc. Sec. C, Ele.) +W- Whita! - +- Black O- Oriental/Asian +Orensen Intan +SeE +Date of Both +Height +M +04/05/1980 +Eye Coor +Har Color +6'00" +Scara, Maria, Telloon, Unique Physical Features (Locason. +170 +Completian +Buid +Br +Blo +Fair +Forearm, Back, Shoulder +pe, Descripton) +Marital Btatus +Med +Raligion +Inocaion cE +DEFENDANT +Local Address (BEel Apl. Number) +(Caty) +Single +Unk +Alcohol bifuence +103-C Weybridge Cr +Phone +Drug Inituence +Parmanent Addresa (Street, Apl. Number) +Palm Bch, Fl 33411 +пса туре +561) +798-9410 +E: Eamty +same +(503) +PRons +Agorest source +Business Addreta (Name, Sapet) +Phone +Defendant +Dit. Mumber, burie +V563677801250 +Soc. Sec. Number +Unk + +Place of Bris (Clly, Blata) +Co-Delindent Hame (Lal, First, Mcia) +Oklahoma +Race +Sex +Data Birth +US +Co-Defendant Him (LAL, Fire, Madele) +82 Area +3. Felony +2. At Large +Date af Baris +Juvenile +• 1. Amalad +Rame (ani) +• 2. Al Lage +el Custodian +Rassance +Address (bire, Not Humber) +(Cay) +7515) +(Op) +вайлота Phone +Rolled by: (ame) +Time +arced within +Ratessed To (Rama +Dapt and Released. +2. TOT HRS /DY: +3. Incarcerate +Vitonship +Date +i Can (Phone 558a528) Informan & No. (rain) +moe any change a drone or pare marlos +Time +drace +Desalpion ef Properly +Possesa +Paine +CH +are Descripoon +Violation of Protection Order +Amount / Unil +N/A +K. Depensa +Distriberte +Ottonse • +Charge Descratc +1 +04-4495 +Countai +Dometle +Volarice +CHARGE +Offense # +Charge Doctation 2 +Counta +Amant tuni +Clienta +Instruction No. 1 +Mandatory Appeerance in Court +00 NO. 2 +ou need not appear in Court but ira +TO +LAGREE +Bchool Allanded +Value of Property +0. Berbiturate +A. Amphetamine +E Feedin +Cocaina +Statute Violation Namber +741.31 +Warrant 1 Capes Number +N/A +Satirie Vidation Number +Werrari / Capias Numbe +Statute Violation Mumber +Warrant 7 Capias Rumber +Statute Violation Number +Wamar 1 Caples Hunder +30th +_ Olhe +N/A +Violeton of ORD F +Bond +Bond +Bond +Viciason of ORD • +Violelion of ORD B +callon (Court, Room Number, Actress) +Court Data and Time +Criminal Justice Complex 3228 Gun Club Rd +Month +November +2004 +8:00 +P.M. M +Signature of Delendand or Juverile and Fa +OLD for other Agenc +• Restated Area +• Ober: +LO.0 +DISTRIBUTION: +Pouch 1 +Date Signed +Sprailure of Arresing Office +Mame Varication (Printed by Arreste +1251 +SPRIND +Transporting Officer +DE +gone +HOLBERTON 251 +Winese here I subject signed Within +- Court Copy +- State Altorney +YELLOW-Aguncy +PINK - Jall +GOL +16 + + +Document 303-8 + +Number +04.27322 amAsS + +ARREST / NOTICE +gancy Off Numbar +Agency Name +1. Request for Warran +1. Requesi for Caplai +Juvenile +ELO +Charge Type: + +1 Be many +1. Felony +PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT +3. Misdompanor +2. Traffie Felony +Lection clAres incuting Kame of Bulliness) +151 Bilbao St +Deta of Arrest +Palm Bch, Fl 33411 +Time of Arrest +10/31/04 +Booking Data +0407 +Lame (Last, First, Modies +10/31/04 +Vinyard, Preston, S +3 • Bleck 0- OrientalArian +Ser +Date of barth +M +04/05/1980 +Scars, Marke, Talloos, Unique Physical Fastura (Locaton, Type, Descriplion) +Heighi +6'00" +Forearm, Back, Shoulder +Local seres (street, Apt. Humber) +103-C Weybridge Cr +Permanent Address (Screet, Apt. Number) +same +Palm Bch, Fl 33411 +(6ta) 20) +Business Actress (Name, Stol) +DiL Hamber, Sula +·563677801250 +Co-Delendant Name (Lent, First, Missie) +Soc. Soc. Number + +Co-Derstand Name (UR FiN, M602) +Custodian +"Name (ael) +Weapon Saged/ Typi +2 2% +Location of Oftense (Bualness Name, Address) +Booking Time +same +JES Cade +0455 +10/31/04 +Jal Time +Location of Venide +N/A +Allas (Nama, DOB. Soc. Sec. R, Ele) +Wight +Eye Color +170 +Br +Hair Color +Completion +Blo +Fair +Marital Status +Ralçion +ndication a +Single +Unk +Phone +Aicohol Inflance +Dry Influence +8 +(561) 798-9410 +Phons +2 Canty +Address Source +Phone +Defendant +Decipation +Unk +Place of than ay. Balay +Clizens is +Oklahoma +US +• 1. Avesta +• 2. AI Larg +• 1. Ames'e +• 2. AI LarD +Med +Race +Bate of Brin +Tale of Binh +Address (street, Apt. Number) +(caly) +Halited by: (Nema) +Time +(Др) +position +sed within +Dopt and Released. +Rascance P +Business Phone +2. TOT HRS / DYE +Data +• clandanin +one see Can on 588-282e) infarms al ary shan +e1, by. (Hame +Descripton of Properly +Time +Grade +8. Sel +Possess +arрa Descripdor +Violation of Protection Order +Amount / Unl +N/A +Bertural 2. Crar +Charge Despion: → +Drug Actiny Drug Tree +Change Doese t +04-4495 +Couris +Amount / Unil +Offense • +Counta +Domestle +CHA +Amanz fume +Charge Descripton +Drug Aconiy ing Ties +Amourt 7Um +struction No. 1 +candatory Appetrance in Court +Counta +Cemensio +Bchool Alanded +Value of Propeity +8. Barbilurate +Cocaine +ahatarina +E. Horos +Babite Victation Numbor +741.31 +Warrent Capes Number +N/A +Statute Vict bon Mumbe +Warrari/ Capias Namiber +Statule Vidation Number +Werent 7 Caples Rambor +Statute Violalien Number +Waters/ Capes Rumber +O. Opium Darty +P.F +A. Unknow +Gupment +8. Synthelica +Violation of ORD F +N/A +Bond +Violation of ORD • +Bond +Violaton of ORD +Bond +Violation of ORD • +Bond +ocation (Court, Raom Nimber, Aderess) +Court Date and Time +Criminal Justice Complex 3228 Gun Club Rd +Month +November +30th +2004 +8:00 +Ам. 2 Pм.П +Signature of Defendent (or Juvenile and Parent Cussiodian) +HOLD for other Agency +ата: +Signsiure of Arresting Office +Dengerous +ike Deputy +• Rested Arres +• Other +LD.B +Pouch• +DISTRIBUTION: +1c. Holberton #25 +Transporting Officer +HOLBERTON 251 +- Court Copy +- State Allornay +Date Signed +Name Verficasion (Printed by Ares +'251 +(PRINT) +genE +K/73 +Witness here if subject signe wit +YELLOW- Agancy +PINK - Jail +G + + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 3 of 6 +PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT +- Ares +2. N.T.A +3. Request for Warrent +4. Racuest for Capin +Avorite +Agency Of Number +FLO: +5 +2 +Check a +8 +,0 +Ho +u44,2,511 +DEF +inyard, +Preston, S +Charge Di +tony +afic Falon +Violation of Protection Order +PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT +- 3. Misdemeanor +6. Ordinanon +T4. Tastie Misdomasnor +6. Other _ +Alies +IM B4,0,5,8, 0 +Charge Descrplion +Charge Desertption +Last, First, Lidol) +State of Florida +Local Address (52-wel, Apt, Number) +RACE +(CRy) +(cala) +(apl +Phone +ss Address (Name, Stroel) +(Ctly) +(Slat) +(rip) +Phone +SeX +Data clich +1 +Address Bource +Victim +Docupasion +Govt +undersioned certiles and swear that harshe has fust end reasonable grounde l believe, and does bellere that the above named Defendant corrumiCed the following Volation of lim +Person iaken Inio custody. +2 committed the botow octa in my prusence. +• was observed by +who told. +• confosted to +that ha/she saw the arrested person commit the below acts. +admitting to the below lacie. +E was found to have committed the below acts, resulting from my (described) investigation. +On tha +31st +- day of +November +2004 or. +0321 +@A.м. DJ P.M. (Spocifically includa facts conalituting cause for arrest) +On the above date/time I was dispatched to +in reference to a Battery in the back of a taxi and +Theft of Services. +Upon arrival 1 made contact with the anh driver John Bespinis. Bespinis advised me he was driving Preston +S Vinyard and +when they started to argue because neither of them had money +to pay the cab. At some point during the argument, Bespinis sald Vinyard hit +Upon arriving at +and Vinyard got out of the vehicle and ran into the residence. I walked up to the front door +and noticed it was partially open. Shortley after +and Ofc.Doerr arrived to assist me. I knocked +on the door several times ans said "Police", but no one answered. Myself, Sgt.Murphy, and Ofe.Doerr +entered the residence to make sure no one was injured. As 1 entered the residence +stepped out from +behind a wall with a pair of shorts on and no shirt exposing her breast +told us to get out of her house +CAUSE +numerous times. I advised +to put a shirt on and she did so. I tried to explain to +why we were +there, but she kept telling us to get out of her house, and that no one was in her house +then called her +Lather +and told him police were in there house for no reason. I then got on the phone with +and informed him of the situation. Since +was a juvenile, 1 askedy +for consent to search +* his residence for the battery suspect +agreed to let us search the house, but +would not let us +search her fathers bedroom and locked herself in there +stayed on the phone with her father and +kept telling him she wanted us out of there house. We talked back and forth with +For about thirty +minutes and 1 tried to have her open the door. +then told her father she was going to kill herself. +Sgt.Murphy advised the father that since she made that statement we had no choice but to force entry into +the room if the door was not opened +advised he was on the way home from Ft.Pierce and that he will +be home as seon as possible. +then opened the door and was placed in handcuffs for our protection. +then sat +on the couch in the living room while Sgt.Murphy searched the bedroom and discovered +Vinyard under the bed. Vinyard was placed in cuffs and sat down on the +In the living room. After +running Vinyard by his Florida Drivers License, he came back with a Protection Order for +Shortley after +arrived home and was updated on the situation. Vinyard was placed under +arrest for Violation of Protection Order and transported to the county jall without incident +advised +Vinyard did not hit her at any time, and refused to prosecute. Bespinis had left the scene earlier and when +contacted refused to return to +entify Vinyard or to prosecute for theft of services. +SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME +NOTARY PUBLIÇ/ CLERK OF COURT / POLICE OFFICER +10/31/2004 +DATE +DISTRIBUTION: +SIGNATURE OF ARRESTING /INVESTIGATING OFFICER +Ofc.Holberton #251 +NAME OF OFFICER (PLEASE PRINT) +10/31/2004 +DATE +- Court Copy +-- State Altornay +YELLOW- Agancy +PINK - Agency +GOLDENROD - +PAGE +1 +• OF + + + + +OBTS Number +PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT +Agency ORI Number +0 5 0 28.0,0 +many +1. Folony +2. Traffic Folony +PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT +1-93. Misdemeanor +• 4. Traffie Misdameanor +1, Artes +I, N.T.A +3. Requesi for Wamant +4. Request for Capion +Agency Repor Humbor +0, 4 +1449,5L +Juvenile +Lice) +myard, treston. +Charge Descripcion +ALRI +м 10.270,5,8,0 +Charge Description +Violation of Protection Order +Charge Description +Charge Description +Victim's Name l +State of Florida +Local Addresa (Street, Apk, Number) +Race +Business Address (Name, Street) +The undersioned cartiles and faders thai beishe has just and rosonabir +The Person Lakan into custody.... +29 commilted the below octa in my prosence. +• confossed to +admitting to the bolow facts. +On the _ +31st +November +- day of _ +Cont. +(9um) +(ap) +Phone +Hadron Source +(State) +Phone +Victim +Occupation +Govt +ta bellero, and does belove at the above named Defendant commited the Talowng willin of lam. +• was obsorved by +who told +that ha/she saw the arrested person commit the below acts. +(8 was found to have committed the below acts, resulting from my (dascribud) investipation. +20.04.._ 0321 +18 A.M. • P.M. (Specifically include facts constiluting cause for arrast.) +was turned over to her father. +No further information. +SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME +NOTARY PUBLIC / CLERK OF COURT / POLICE OFFICER +10/31/2004 +DATE +DISTRIBUTION: +- Court Copy +- State Attorney +SIGNATURE OF ARRESTING / INVESTIGATING OPFICER +Ofc.Holberton #251 +HAME OF OFFICER (PLEASE PRINT) +10/31/2004 +DATE +YELLOW- Agency +PINK - Agancy +GOLDENROD - +PAGE +2 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 5 of 6 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 5 of 6 +N THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT, FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +TATE OF FLORID +BOOKING No: 200435/347 +Pester Vengard s. +CASE NO.: +(last name) +Defendant. +ORDER OF NO CONTACT +1. +2. +3. +4. +5. +6. +unless civil +judge and +upalate lift +The Defendant is specifically ordered to have NO CONTACT and to not attempt to contact the following person or +persons: +no contact +• Alleged victims) +order +• Co-defendants) +• Witnesses) +The Defendant shall NOT CONTACT or attempt to contact the above-listed person(s) until this case is closed or until +further order of the Court, whichever occurs first. +for purposes of this Order. no contact means. nome at all +NO direct or indirect messages or commuhications by the Defendant. +2. +NO direct or indirect contact by a third person on behalf of the Defendant. +3. +NO communication of any kind including telephole calls, messages on answering machines and voice +or electronic mail; all written forms of gommunication) including letters of apology; or any other means +of communication, including the delivery "otgifts at any time, either at a residence, school, or workplace. +The Defendant has been expressly advised that if any of the above listed person(s) attempts to contact the Defendant, +he/she must avoid any such contact and the Defendant has been, further' advised that he/she would be in violation of this +Order if the Defendant communicates with any of the above-listed persóns even if contact is initiated by the above-listed +person(s). +Exceptions: +(applies only if checked): +The Defendant may return to the residence where the above-listed person(s) resides for the purpose of +removing the Defendant's PERSONAL EFFECTS ONLY and then only in the presence of a uniformed +law enforcement officer and on ONE occasion only. +Contact may be in writing +Contact may be by telephone. +Contact may occur but only through a third party and only to facilitate visitation with the Defendant's +minor children. +The Defendant has been expressly advised that violation of this Order will subject the Defendant to arrest and +commitment by the Court. plus, if applicable. bond foreiture. +copes +Immediately understand ond agree that if disy this Order, the Judge may possibly +ovoke and forfeit any bond, andior grde +Strendani +DONE AND ORDERED at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this St +CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT JUDGE +Г.. IС/ ^ ? 2004 +Gold +State Anomey +Public Defender/Defenso Attorney +Delendent +Aleged victum (provided by Stale Attorney) +Jad records +ba 20021 +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 303-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 6 of 6 + +: • +: +: +IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA +CRIMINAL DIVISION "TDC" +STATE OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 04MM027322A02 +BOOKING NO. 2004351347 +VS. +PRESTON VINYARD, W/M, 04/05/1980, 441-78-2517 +INFORMATION FOR: +1) +VIOLATION OF INJUNCTION AGAINST REPEAT OR DATING VIOLENCE +In the Name and by Authority of the State of Florida: +BARRY E. KRISCHER, State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida, by and +through his undersigned Assistant State Attorney, charges that PRESTON VINYARD on or about October 31, +2004, in the County of Palm Beach and State of Florida, did willfully, after having been served with an +Injunction for Protection Against Repeat or Dating Violence issued pursuant to section 784.046 or a foreign +protection order accorded full faith and credit pursuant to section 74% 15, go to the residence, school, place of +employment, or a specified place frequented regularly b +and any named family or +household member, contrary to Florida Statute 784.047(2). (1 DEG VISD) +TACEY COLL BARROU +FL. BAR NO. 0162541 +Assistant State Attorney +FILED +Palm Beach County, Florida +NOV 1 6 2004 +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +CIRCUIT & COUNTY COURTS +(CRIMINAL DIV.) +Appeared before me, STACEY | +IBARRA Assistant State Altorney for Palm Beach Courity, +Florida, personally known to me, who, being first duly sworn, says that this prosecution is instituted in good +swarm to and subscribed to before me this. 12 day of Moverybor, 2004., +Nowa +ECIC REFERENCE NUMBERS: +1) VIOLATION OF INJUNCTION AGAINST REPEAT OR DATING MI +Laura A Rodriguez +MY COMMISSION • DD367565 EXPIRES +ZENeR8003 20 00C. ME \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c2569fb2f3d67546ce58f90057c52508d211a1d3f168c972bede0866170334f9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c2569fb2f3d67546ce58f90057c52508d211a1d3f168c972bede0866170334f9.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4d2718b8b120b22b41c0f840387bef8ca9309814 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c2569fb2f3d67546ce58f90057c52508d211a1d3f168c972bede0866170334f9.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -851, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c2569fb2f3d67546ce58f90057c52508d211a1d3f168c972bede0866170334f9", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 19, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e72501298fbeb872c332e682f484691c8b6134b83a840def174dc37e8d4fca8e", + "output_sha256": "33ad20fa0c6b3870992a5fa17cac4f310f23a52abfe83fcc112b29952a0318cd", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c265a01c9aae92f651ce16c5e1844889132f4bdd22f232076a0078e95e164606.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c265a01c9aae92f651ce16c5e1844889132f4bdd22f232076a0078e95e164606.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..29a9a12a456a8701516ccb85b8ed495a295aee8d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c265a01c9aae92f651ce16c5e1844889132f4bdd22f232076a0078e95e164606.md @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 27 Filed 11/13/19 Page 1 of 2 +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP +350 FIFTH AVENUE | SUITE 7110 +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 +TEL (212) 763-0883 | FAX (212) 564-0883 +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884 +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com +November 13, 2019 +VIA ECE +The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 +Re: +Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) +Dear Judge Failla: +We represent Plaintiff Jane Doe in the above-captioned action. We write in response to a +request we received from Defendants yesterday, November 12, 2019, to extend their time to +respond to Plaintiff's Complaint and Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym. We anticipate that +Defendants will file a letter with the Court seeking an extension, as they did yesterday in four +related cases.' Defendants have offered no legitimate basis for their request, and their continued +efforts to delay these proceedings and avoid their discovery obligations risks significant +prejudice to Plaintiff. Plaintiff therefore cannot agree to any extension of Defendants' time to +respond. +As the Court is aware, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action and a Motion to +Proceed Under Pseudonym on September 18, 2019. (ECF Nos. 1 & 3.) On September 24, 2019, +counsel for Defendants agreed to accept service of the Complaint, and we agreed, at Defendants' +request, to extend Defendants' time to respond to the Complaint and to the Motion to Proceed +Under Pseudonym from October 15, 2019 to November 15, 2019, which the Court approved on +October 7, 2019. (ECF No. 10.) On October 15, 2019, the Court scheduled the initial pretrial +conference for December 13, 2019. (ECF No. 11.) On November 12, 2019, merely three days +Defendants have also sought additional time to respond to the complaints filed in almost all other pending +cases against the Epstein estate in the Southern District of New York. See Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et al., No. 19- +cv-07773 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2019), ECF No. 25; Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et al., No. 19-cv-07772 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. +12, 2019), ECF No. 32; Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et al., No. 19-cv-07771 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2019), ECF No. 38; +Doe 1 et al. v. Jeffrey Epstein et al., No. 19-cv-07675 (S.D.N.Y Nov. 12, 2019), ECF No. 20; VE v. Nine East 71st +Street et al., No. 19-cv-07625 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2019), ECF No. 27. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 27 Filed 11/13/19 Page 2 of 2 +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP +2 +before Defendants' responses are due, counsel for Defendants contacted us to request a threeweek extension of the November 15 deadline. See Ex. A. +Defendants' counsel asserts that the delay is necessary because Defendants are planning +to seek approval of their decision to offer an alternative claims resolution program from a court +in another jurisdiction. Id. Defendants offer no meaningful reason why their exploration of an +alternative dispute resolution mechanism should delay litigation of Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff +has no obligation to participate in any such program and, indeed, Plaintiff has significant +concerns about the fairness and efficiency of the process Defendants are apparently developing. ? +Regardless, Defendants have already had more time than should be necessary to file an +answer to the Complaint. Defendants have no non-frivolous basis to file a motion to dismiss, +and counsel for Defendants has told us that they are not likely to oppose the Motion to Proceed +Under Pseudonym. Essentially, by November 15, 2019, Defendants will have had sixty days to +file a simple answer. There is no reason for continued delay. +Finally, as we have made clear to Defendants and the Court, we have serious concerns +about the Defendants' unwillingness to confirm that they are preserving documents relevant to +this action. (ECF No. 14.) We are eager to begin discovery as soon as possible to limit the risk +of spoliation in light of Defendants' refusal to confirm that they are preserving all relevant +evidence. To the extent that Defendants' request would require that the Court push back any +deadlines related to discovery, including the pretrial conference schedule for December 13, such +a request would be prejudicial to Plaintiff. +Plaintiff has already waited more than fifteen years for some semblance of justice for the +harm Epstein wrought. She cannot agree to wait any longer for this action to move forward. +Respectfully submitted, +Roun +Roberta A. Kaplan +cc: Counsel of Record +Despite our repeated requests to be informed of Defendants' efforts to arrange a resolution process, +Defendants have kept us almost entirely in the dark. Yesterday, counsel for Defendants indicated that Defendants plan +to seek approval from a U.S. Virgin Islands court of their decision to create a voluntary claims resolution program. +See Ex. A. If approved, Defendants will then arrange for claims administration experts to design such a program. Id. +Defendants have provided us with no timeline for when they will seck approval of their decision to establish this +alternative process and for how long it will take to design the process. diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c265a01c9aae92f651ce16c5e1844889132f4bdd22f232076a0078e95e164606.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c265a01c9aae92f651ce16c5e1844889132f4bdd22f232076a0078e95e164606.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b84d401a5d95c79f9c41fe5e2c00c9501e9ecca5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c265a01c9aae92f651ce16c5e1844889132f4bdd22f232076a0078e95e164606.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -26, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c265a01c9aae92f651ce16c5e1844889132f4bdd22f232076a0078e95e164606", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "bbf22fe2df40d5b1e811cb42b7c07664933c0b2baadb028acf1109289d659a45", + "output_sha256": "f388476157147317c9f88178dea5b3eaeef2fa6c3b55c13c59bd2eb8f5a4c98f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c28ae16008737bb2c06e125ffdae997b6cc893eccf0ff706073cc5daaa927b93.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c28ae16008737bb2c06e125ffdae997b6cc893eccf0ff706073cc5daaa927b93.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..caad7926a09b1754b08da19eff84462bba587049 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c28ae16008737bb2c06e125ffdae997b6cc893eccf0ff706073cc5daaa927b93.md @@ -0,0 +1,203 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 1 of 7 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/] +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 2 of 7 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRAI +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80993-MARRA/ +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80811 -MARRAJ +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80893-MARRA/| +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 08-CV- 80469-MARRA/ +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 3 of 7 +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al., +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80591-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80656-MARRA1 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +/ +PLAINTIFFS JANE DOES' 2- 7 NOTICE OF JOINDER IN PLAINTIFFS' +JANE DOES 101 AND 102'S MOTION FOR NO-CONTACT ORDER +Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 join in Plaintiffs Jane Does 101 and 102's Motion for No- +Contact Order, filed May 22, 2009, and state as follows: +Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 incorporate and adopt the facts set forth in the pending +Motion for No-Contact Order. Additionally, Plaintiffs offer additional facts in support of the +Motion for a No-Contact Order, as set forth below. +2. +Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 were all identified on the +victims list provided to Defendant Epstein's counsel in connection with the Non-prosecution +Agreement, and each has been identified as victims to Defendant Epstein in their pending +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 4 of 7 +actions. In June 2008, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Pucillo ordered Defendant Epstein "not +to have any contact, direct or indirect," with any of his victims. Judge Pucillo clarified that +forbidden "indirect" contact included, but was not limited to, text messages, emails, telephone +calls, or messages through third parties. As detailed herein, Jane Does 4 and 7 have been +contacted on multiple occasions by at least one person representing that she is cooperating with +and communicating on behalf of Defendant Epstein. In these contacts, the Plaintiffs/victims +were threatened and harassed. +3. +As with other Plaintiffs, Jane Does 4 and 7 were first introduced to Defendant +Epstein by Hayley +, who was a high school friend.' +4. +had had contact with these Plaintiffs on several occasions in which she +represented to Plaintiffs Jane Doe 4 and 7 that she is cooperating with Defendant Epstein's +attorneys and that she is being financially supported by Defendant Epstein. Moreover, +has told these Plaintiffs specifically that she is communicating on behalf of Defendant Epstein. +5. +During these contacts, +made disparaging comments to the Plaintiffs and +also sent disturbing text messages to Jane Doe No. 4. In one text, +specifically stated, "I +just met with my lawyer today and I'm finally done with the Epstein case. LOL. I knew you were +suing Jeffrey all along and I've learned so much about you in the meantime. LOL." Jane Doe 4 +understood this to mean that +had exchanged private information about Jane Doe 4 with +Defendant Epstein and his attorneys. Since February, 2009, Jane Doe 4 has continued to receive +text messages from +that are sometimes harassing and other times seek information about +Jane Doe 4's private life, her lawsuit against Defendant Epstein, and/or her lawyer's strategy. +was +named in at least one civil case against Mr. Epstein as a co-defendant. See +Jane Doe v. Epstein, case no. 50-2008-CA-0065996, Palm Beach County Circuit Court. +brought multiple underage girls to Epstein in addition to Jane Does 4 and 7. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 5 of 7 +6. +On one occasion, +approached Jane Doe 7 and disclosed that she was +cooperating with Defendant Epstein's defense, and that she ( +agreed that she would +testify against Jane Doe 7 and the other plaintiffs to make sure that none of the Plaintiffs ever +received any money from Defendant Epstein, making clear that her testimony would not be +truthful to achieve this end. She also made disparaging comments to Jane Doe 7, accusing her of +ruining Defendant Epstein's reputation. +7. +The very possibility of any contact with Epstein or his agents, including | +causes anxiety and distress particularly to Jane Doe 4 and 7, as well as the other Plaintiffs. A nocontact order should prevent further harassment of the Plaintiffs by Epstein and his agents, +including, but not limited to, Hayley +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7, respectfully join Plaintiffs Jane Does 101 and +102 in moving this Court to enter an order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for a No Contact Order +prohibiting the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, from any contact or communication with Plaintiffs, +either directly or indirectly, except through Plaintiffs' attorneys of record for the duration of the +Order. +Dated: June 8, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By:_ +_s/ Adam D. Horowitz. +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 6 of 7 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +THEREBY CERTIFY that on June 8, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via +transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized +manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic +Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 7 of 7 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +bedwards@rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +/s/ Adam D. Horowitz +7 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c28ae16008737bb2c06e125ffdae997b6cc893eccf0ff706073cc5daaa927b93.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c28ae16008737bb2c06e125ffdae997b6cc893eccf0ff706073cc5daaa927b93.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..564b8f305245f7f9af62ce56cd70a0eeada53386 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c28ae16008737bb2c06e125ffdae997b6cc893eccf0ff706073cc5daaa927b93.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -86, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c28ae16008737bb2c06e125ffdae997b6cc893eccf0ff706073cc5daaa927b93", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "bd06feb789a0655c262896be57354939da243501501fbdc98175ed6a9d01a8bd", + "output_sha256": "cfcb21a0539e094a6e3ad9bfa33bbec3b1c9bf5458b6c6b3491e42a7da1b0caf", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c2a159902be5fae24a8ed8dcbaa70520f35c5d9306e9c1d8bcc8cbd7bf9b9b87.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c2a159902be5fae24a8ed8dcbaa70520f35c5d9306e9c1d8bcc8cbd7bf9b9b87.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8786f6da36cc37ed08374d5b74a98d80b6f0e75a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c2a159902be5fae24a8ed8dcbaa70520f35c5d9306e9c1d8bcc8cbd7bf9b9b87.md @@ -0,0 +1,424 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2013 Page 1 of 16 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 +V. +UNITED STATES +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO +INTERVENORS' MOTION TO STAY +COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and +through undersigned counsel, to respond in opposition to Intervenors' Motion for Stay Pending +Appeal (DE 193). The intervenors - Jeffrey Epstein and his team of defense lawyers (hereinafter +referred to collectively as "Epstein") -- have requested a stay of the Court's order requiring +disclosure of correspondence connected with plea negotiations on behalf of Epstein relating to +crimes he committed against the victims (DE 188, DE 190) pending an interlocutory appeal to +the Eleventh Circuit. The motion should be denied for two straightforward reasons: First, +Epstein cannot take such an interlocutory appeal; second, on the merits, any such appeal would +be baseless and thus Epstein cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits and the +other requirements for obtaining a stay pending appeal. +EPSTEIN CANNOT TAKE AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL OF THIS +COURT'S DISCOVERY ORDER. +Epstein has asked the Court for a stay "pending appeal." (DE 193 at 1). This raises the +immediate question of how the Eleventh Circuit would have jurisdiction over such an appeal. +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2013 Page 2 of 16 +Epstein apparently does not rely on 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which gives district courts discretion to +authorize interlocutory appeals in civil cases where "an immediate appeal from the order may +materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation."' Instead, Epstein claims that he is +entitled to an interlocutory appeal under Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918). Epstein +claims that "questions of privilege and confidentiality asserted by non-parties to the litigation are +paradigmatic examples of circumstances in which interlocutory appeals are allowed." (DE 193 +at 2). Epstein (and his battery of lawyers), however, have conspicuously chosen to ignore recent +controlling caselaw from the Supreme Court, which makes clear that an interlocutory appeal is +not permitted. +A. +The Supreme Court's Recent Decision in Mohawk That Attorney-Client +Privilege Rulings are Not Immediately Appealable Limits the Perlman +Doctrine to Non-Litigants in a Case. +Contrary to Epstein's claim that privilege litigation is a paradigmatic example of when +interlocutory appeals are proper, the Supreme Court has recently and flatly concluded otherwise. +In Mohawk Industries, Inc. +v. Carpenter, 130 S.Ct. 599 (2009), an opinion that immediately +appears when performing basic research on this issue, the Supreme Court affirmed the Eleventh +Circuit and rejected an effort by a defendant to take an interlocutory appeal of a district court +decision denying an attorney-client privilege claim. Mohawk explained that "[p]ermitting +piecemeal, prejudgment appeals ... undermines efficient judicial administration and encroaches +upon the prerogatives of district court judges, who play a special role in managing ongoing +' Presumably the reasons that Epstein does not rely on this provision is that he does not +want the expansive discovery that would follow from characterizing this cases as a "civil" case, +as well as the insurmountable problem of demonstrating that his time-wasting, interlocutory +appeal would somehow advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2013 Page 3 of 16 +litigation." Id. at 605 (internal quotations omitted). Mohawk noted that "most discovery rulings +are not final" and thus not appealable. Id. at 606. Mohawk specifically held attorney-client +privilege issues to be no different than other discovery rulings: "In our estimation, postjudgment appeals generally suffice to protect the rights of litigants and assure the vitality of the +attorney-client privilege." Id. +Rather than cite this recent, controlling decision, Epstein's relies on Perlman v. United +States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918), as grounds for an interlocutory appeal. Of course, appellate court +jurisdiction is typically confined to "final" judgments of the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. +Perlman recognized a narrow exception to the final judgment rule in situations where a district +court has denied a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena directed at a disinterested third party, +non-litigant, leaving the privilege holder powerless to remedy harm from disclosure. Perlman's +reasoning, however, directly conflicts with Mohawk.? As the Seventh Circuit has recently +explained, "Mohawk ... calls Perlman and its successors into question, because, whether the +order is directed against a litigant or a third party, an appeal from the final decision will allow +review of the district court's ruling." Wilson v. +621 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2010); +accord Holt-Orsted v. City of Dickson, 641 F.3d 230, 236-40 (6th Cir. 2011) ("IT]he Mohawk +decision has altered the legal landscape related to collateral appeals of discovery orders adverse +to the attorney-client privilege and narrowed the category of cases that qualify for interlocutory +review."). +Under these recent court of appeals authorities from other circuits (the Eleventh +" Perlman has also been described as "Delphic" by no less an authority than Judge +Friendly. See In re Sealed Case, ---F.3d--, 2013 WL 2120157, at *5 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (refusing +to read Perlman expansively, citing Nat'l Super Spuds, Inc. v. N.Y. Mercantile Exch., 591 F.2d +174, 178 (2d Cir. 1979) (Friendly, J.)). +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2013 Page 4 of 16 +Circuit has not discussed Perlman recently), "Only when the person who asserts a privilege is a +non-litigant will an appeal from the final decision be inadequate." Wilson, 621 F.3d at 643; +Holt-Orstead, 641 F.3d at 240. +In light of these latest decisions, Epstein cannot avail himself of an interlocutory appeal if +he is a litigant in this case. If he is a litigant, then he can simply wait (like every other litigant) to +challenge an erroneous privilege order (or any other order for that matter) on appeal from any +adverse judgment against him. By previously filing a motion for limited intervention in this case +(which the Court granted, see DE 159, granting DE 93), Epstein is a litigant in this case and +therefore he cannot take an interlocutory appeal now. Indeed, Epstein has announced that he will +seek to intervene further in this case should any effort be made by the victims to seek a remedy +that would harm him. See, e.g., DE 108 at 13 n.3 (claiming that Epstein has an "interest" in the +non-prosecution agreement and that his interests would later become "ripe" if the Court were to +consider invalidating that agreement). As a result of his current posture in this case, Epstein can +appeal any adverse privilege ruling that harms him at the conclusion of this case. The Eleventh +Circuit accordingly lacks jurisdiction to hear any interlocutory appeal from Epstein under +Mohawk. +B. +The Court's Discovery Order Requiring the United States to Produce +Certain Plea Agreement Correspondence is Not Immediately Appealable +Under Perlman. +Even assuming that for some reason Epstein could not take an appeal at the conclusion of +the case, the Perlman doctrine would still not allow Epstein to take an immediate, interlocutory +appeal for multiple reasons. +3 The victims reserve their right to challenge any such belated intervention. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2013 Page 5 of 16 +1. Epstein is Not a Privilege Holder. +The first hurdle that Epstein cannot clear is the fact that the Perlman doctrine applies to +claims of privilege, not other ancillary discovery or evidentiary issues. See, e.g., In re Grand +Jury Proceedings, 142 F.3d 1416, 1419 (11th Cir. 1998) (applying Perlman in context of +attorney-client privilege claim). Epstein is not seeking to take an interlocutory appeal of what is +truly a privilege issue. Instead, he first purports to appeal an issue regarding the applicability of +Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which makes some plea discussions "not admissible" +in certain limited situations. See Fed. R. Evid. 410 ("In a civil or criminal case, evidence of the +following is not admissible ... "). Thus, Rule 410 does not purport to protect plea discussions +from disclosure; it only protects against their introduction into evidence in limited situations. In +taking appeal of an issue regarding the rules governing the admissibility of evidence before the +trier of fact, Epstein obviously falls outside the parameters of the Perlman doctrine. See, e.g., +United States v. Copar Pumice Co., Inc., 714 F.3d 1197, 1207 (10th Cir. 2013) (discussing how +Perlman doctrine applies only to situations "where a third party has a justiciable interest in +preventing a third party's disclosure of documents"). +Epstein also purports to appeal an issue of whether this Court erred in failing to invent a +brand new privilege for communications in the course of plea negotiations. But here again, such +a speculative claim falls outside the reach of the Perlman doctrine. Perlman applies to someone +who holds a privilege, not someone who is arguing for a new privilege. See In re Sealed Case, -- +-F.3d--, 2013 WL 2120157 at *5 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ("Typically, Perlman permits a privilegeholder to appeal a disclosure order directed at a disinterested third party ....") (emphasis +added). We are aware of no case (and Epstein cites none) in which an interlocutory appeal was +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2013 Page 6 of 16 +allowed under Perlman by a party who wants to create a new privilege, rather than defend an +existing one. +In sum, Epstein seeks to take an interlocutory appeal of an evidentiary issue and a +privilege-creation issue, neither of which fall within the narrow Perlman doctrine. +2. Epstein Is Not Challenging a Grand Jury Subpoena. +As the Court is aware, this is a case brought by crime victims to enforce crime victims' +rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. This kind of case is not subject to the Perlman +doctrine. Perlman applies in situations involving grand jury subpoenas. For example, the five +Eleventh Circuit cases discussing Perlman appeals over the last fifty years have all involved +grand jury subpoenas. +In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 142 F.3d 1416 (11th Cir. 1998); In re +Federal Grand Jury Proceedings (FGJ 91-9), +1. 975 F.2d 1488 (11th Cir. 1992); In re +Grand Jury Proceedings, 832 F.2d 554 (11th Cir. 1987); In re Grand Jury Proceedings in the +Matter of Fine, 641 F.2d 199 (11th Cir. 1981); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 528 F.2d 983 +(11th Cir. 1976). The Eleventh Circuit is not unusual in this regard. As the Tenth Circuit +explained just last month: "We are aware of no case ... that extends Perlman beyond criminal +grand jury proceedings. We decline to do so here." United States v. Copar Pumice Co., Inc., 714 +F.3d 1197, 1207 (10th Cir. May 2013) (internal quotation omitted) (emphasis in original). +Epstein offers no argument for extending the Perlman doctrine into the new context of crime +victims' rights cases, much less a persuasive one. +The Documents Are Not Held By a Disinterested Third Party Litigant, But +By a Party in the Case. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2013 Page 7 of 16 +Yet another reason Epstein cannot take an interlocutory appeal is that this is not a +situation where a disinterested third party has the correspondence in question. Instead, the +correspondence is held by a party to this action: the Government. +It is generally agreed that the Perlman rule "applies only when the privilege holder is +powerless to avert the mischief of a district court's discovery order because the materials in +question are held by a disinterested third party." Holt-Orsted v. City of Dickson, 641 F.3d 230, +239 (6th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations omitted). That is not the case here. The Government is +not a disinterested "third party" to this lawsuit: It is a party which is actively litigating in +opposition to the victims' argument. Accordingly, should any improper use be made of +correspondence between it and Epstein, then the Government will no doubt point that out to the +distriet court or seek further appellate review at the end of this case. +Indeed, under Epstein's theory, the Government is apparently a co-holder of the privilege +in question. Epstein has asked this Court to invent a new privilege for "plea negotiations" (DE +193 at 10), which presumably would extend not just to defense counsel but also to prosecutors. +As a result, the Government is not "disinterested" in the asserted privilege, but in fact would +possess the privilege if Epstein's theory were to be recognized. * Perlman is inapplicable for this +reason as well. +* It is instructive to note that, even though the correspondence was between Epstein and +the Government, the Government cannot now take an interlocutory appeal from the Court's order +releasing the correspondence. See 18 U.S.C 3731 (limiting interlocutory appeals by the +Government in criminal cases to orders suppressing evidence). It would be anomalous to allow +an interlocutory appeal by Epstein regarding his correspondence with the Government while the +Government is barred from taking an appeal regarding its correspondence with Epstein. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2013 Page 8 of 16 +For all these reasons, the Perlman doctrine is not applicable to the Court's order on +correspondence and the Eleventh Circuit would lack jurisdiction to hear any appeal. The Court +should deny Epstein's requested stay on this ground. +II. +EPSTEIN CANNOT SHOW HE MEETS ANY OF THE FACTORS REQUIRED +TO OBTAIN A STAY PENDING APPEAL. +Epstein also should not receive a stay pending appeal because he cannot satisfy any of the +four requirements for obtaining such a stay. As Epstein concedes in his motion, to obtain a stay +he "must show: (1) a likelihood that [he] will prevail on the merits of the appeal; (2) irreparable +injury to [him] unless the stay is granted; (3) no substantial harm to other interested persons; and +(4) no harm to the public interest." In re Federal Grand Jury Proceedings (FGJ 91-9), +975 F.2d 1488, 1492 (11th Cir. 1992) (emphasis added). If he is unable to meet any one of these +strict requirements, then his motion fails. In this case, he fails to meet his burden on each and +every one of these points, and therefore his motion for a stay is completely meritless. +A. +Epstein Does Not Have a Likelihood Of Prevailing on the Merits. +As just explained, Epstein will not even be able to take an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, +much less convince it of the merits of his claims. For this reason alone, this stay should be +denied. +In addition, Epstein's claims that correspondence with an adversary is somehow +"confidential" and "protected" is far-fetched. Epstein begins his pleading with the dramatic +claim that "It]he Court's order is the first decision anywhere, insofar as the undersigned counsel +are aware, +that orders disclosure to third-party litigants of private and confidential +communications between attorneys who were seeking to resolve a criminal matter +…..." (DE +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2013 Page 9 of 16 +193 at 2). Epstein seems to have forgotten that just two years ago, he lost the same battle in the +civil case filed by victims against him. As this Court explained: "At the outset, the court +observes that the intervenors' privilege objections to public release of the correspondence in +question were previously rejected by Magistrate Judge Linnea +in a discovery order +entered in a parallel civil lawsuit, Jane Doe # 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08-80893-CIV- +MARRA." (DE 188 at 3). This Court's decision to turn over the correspondence does not break +new ground. Indeed, if anything, it would be new ground to hold that correspondence sent by a +criminal defendant to prosecutors trying to convict him of a crime was somehow "confidential." +Epstein then contends that "[t]he Court's decision drastically reshapes the landscape of +criminal settlement negotiations sets at naught expectations of privacy, confidentiality, and +privilege on which criminal defense attorneys have reasonably relied for many decades ...." +(DE 193). Again, not so. This Court's decision has not reshaped the landscape of plea +discussions; the Crime Victims' Rights Act has done so. Crime victims are now entitled to +"confer" with prosecutors about important stages of criminal proceedings, including plea +proceedings. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5). If Epstein and other defense attorneys want to engage in +plea discussions with federal prosecutors, they must now be aware that prosecutors will confer +with victims about these plea arrangements. Indeed, the Attorney General has promulgated +guidelines requiring such conferences. See U.S. Dept. of Justice, Attorney General Guidelines +for Victim-Witness Assistance 41 (2012) ("Federal prosecutors should be available to confer +with victims about major case decisions, such as ... plea negotiations ...."). And when a +criminal defendant works with a prosecutor to violate that congressionally-created right to +confer, the defendant can hardly complain about efforts to reveal what he has done. In short, +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2013 Page 10 of 16 +Epstein cannot share information with the government about how to avoid the requirements of +the CVRA and then expect to be able to hide behind some nebulous "privilege" to escape +accountability for that violation of law. +Epstein seems to think that on appeal he will be able to demonstrate that his +correspondence with prosecutors somehow falls within the "heartland" of Rule 410 of the +Federal Rules of Evidence (DE 193 at 6). But he fails to demonstrate that the correspondence +falls within the text of the Rule. As this Court carefully explained: "The communications +between Epstein's counsel and federal prosecutors at issue here ultimately did result in entry of a +plea of guilty by Epstein -- to specific state court charges -- thereby removing the statements +from the narrow orbit of statements] made during plea discussions .. if the discussions did not +result in a guilty plea ....' which are inadmissible in proceedings against the defendant making +them under Rule 410." (DE 188 at 5) (citing United States v. Paden, 908 F.2d 1229, 1235 (5th +Cir. 1990) (statements made during negotiations that resulted in a final plea of guilty not +protected under Rule 410), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1039 (1991)). +Perhaps recognizing the weakness of his argument based on Rule 410, Epstein asks this +Court for a stay to appeal for the creation of a brand new privilege for "communications in the +course of settlement/plea negotiations." (DE 193 at 10). As with his other arguments, Epstein +does nothing more than rehash arguments that this Court has already carefully considered - and +persuasively rejected. As this Court carefully explained: "Congress has already addressed the +competing policy interests raised by plea discussion evidence with the passage of the pleastatement rules found at Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f) and Fed. R Evid. 410, which generally prohibits +admission at trial of a defendant's statements made during plea discussions, without carving out +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2013 Page 11 of 16 +any special privilege relating to plea discussion materials. Considering the Congressional +forbearance on this issue -- and the presumptively public nature of plea agreements in this +District --, this court declines the intervenors' invitation to expand Rule 410 by crafting a federal +common law privilege for plea discussions." (DE 188 at 9) (collecting supporting authorities). +Epstein's odds of prevailing on the merits of his claims are slim to none. +B. +Epstein Does Not Suffer Irremediable Harm from Disclosure of the +Correspondence to the Victims. +Epstein's motion for a stay also founders on the fact that he will not suffer "irreparable +injury" from having the victims review the materials. Epstein's pleading huffs and puffs about +the importance of confidentiality in the plea bargaining process generally. (See DE 193 at 15- +17). But he never specifically explains how turning over the correspondence to counsel for the +victims will specifically harm him. It is not enough for Epstein to show that he does not want the +victims to read the correspondence. Epstein must present evidence that he will be injured if the +victims read the correspondence. See, e.g., Northeastern Florida Chapter of Ass'n of General +Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville, Fla., 896 F.2d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 1990) +("Because plaintiff presented no evidence on the issue, we cannot agree that irreparable injury is +"apparent".). Epstein's claims become weak to the vanishing point in light of the fact that +victims' counsel has already seen significant parts of the correspondence in July 2011, when +Magistrate Judge +ordered it produced in a parallel civil lawsuit. +In an +effort to prove irreparable injury, Epstein cites various authorities about +"confidential" documents. But none of these cases involved anything remotely like what Epstein +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2013 Page 12 of 16 +is attempting to assert is "confidential" here: discussions not with his allies but with adversaries +- i.e., criminal prosecutors seeking to force him to plead guilty to criminal charge. +Moreover, the Court will recognize that all of these cases were older cases, decided +before the Supreme Court's decision in Mohawk. The Mohawk decision makes clear that even as +to highly sensitive attorney-client materials, "[a]ppellate courts can remedy the improper +disclosure of privileged material in the same way they remedy a host of other erroneous +evidentiary rulings: by vacating an adverse judgment and remanding for a new trial in which the +protected materials and its fruits are excluded from evidence." 130 S.Ct. at 606-07. +Epstein has not shown that he will suffer injury from the Court's order, much less +irreparable injury. +C. +The Victims Will Be Prejudiced By a Stay. +Epstein next contends that the victims will not be a prejudiced by a stay. In the course of +making his arguments, Epstein makes a series of inaccurate representations about the course of +these proceedings over the last several years. In the interests of keeping this response brief, the +victims will only respond to a few of the most obvious distortions. +Epstein claims that the fact that the victims have moved for summary judgment somehow +proves that they do not need the correspondence. (DE 193 at 17). But as Epstein must know, the +Court has found that the existing record is insufficient to grant that summary judgment motion +(DE 99 at 11), which is one of several reasons why the victims need the correspondence to move +forward with their case. Epstein also contends that the victims "knowingly sat on their CVRA +claims for years ...." (DE 193 at 17). But as the Court is aware, much of the delay in this case +has come from intransigence of the Government, which despite repeated efforts by the victims +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2013 Page 13 of 16 +has been unwilling to reach any agreement on what the facts are in this case. And the Court is +also aware of delay caused by repeated motions filed by Epstein himself in the parallel civil case, +which also impeded the ability of the victims to resolve all their litigation with him. +Epstein also contends that the "timing of that relief [that the victims seek] matters little, if +at all." (DE 193 at 18). Again, not true. As Epstein is no doubt aware, the applicable statute of +limitations for prosecuting him for federal sex abuse claims appears to be ten years. 18 U.S.C. § +3283. Epstein abused the victims (and other similarly situated young girls) from roughly 2002 to +2005. As a result, if Epstein can succeed in stalling this case for another two years or so, then he +will have successfully "run out the clock" on his criminal liability. At this point, the victims are +irreparably harmed in their ability to seek prosecution of Epstein by every day that goes without +resolution of the case. +Epstein also attempts to pre-litigate whether the non-prosecution agreement could be +rescinded. Interestingly, Epstein does not discuss this Court's ruling on this issue, in which it +carefully explained: "As a threshold matter, the court finds that the CVRA is properly +interpreted to authorize the rescission or "re-opening' of a prosecutorial agreement - including a +non-prosecution agreement - reached in violation of a prosecutor's conferral obligations under +the statute." (DE 189 at 7). This ruling is now the law of the case that Epstein must abide by. +Given this ruling, the victims are clearly harmed by delay in any opportunity to seek that remedy. +And finally, Epstein also fails to recognize that under the CVRA, the victims have a right +to have this Court "take up and decide any motion asserting a victim's right forthwith." 18 +U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3). An interlocutory appeal by Epstein would clearly interfere with bringing +13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2013 Page 14 of 16 +this case to a resolution "forthwith." The victims obviously will be harmed by an interlocutory +appeal. +D. The Public Interest Will Not Be Served By Allowing Epstein to Appeal. +Epstein finally claims that a delaying this case through a stay is somehow in the public +interest. But nothing could be further from the truth. A stay will only serve to delay the victims +effort to vindicate their rights under the CVRA, a clear indication that the public interest is not +being served. See United States v. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269, 1301 (11th Cir. 2012) (*Frustration +of federal statutes and prerogatives are not in the public interest ...."). +In a transparent effort to trivialize what is at stake in this important case, Epstein +remarkably claims that the "public may have little interest at all in a dispute between private civil +litigants regarding access to documents." (DE 193 at 20). To the contrary, as the Court well +knows, there is considerable public interest in just how it was possible for a well-connected +billionaire who had sexually abused dozens of young girls to obtain a plea deal with the federal +government in which he served little prison time. Denying a stay will not begin to answer all of +the public's questions about this case. But it will at least move this case one step closer to +resolution, which is what the public interest demands. +CONCLUSION +For all the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Epstein's motion for a stay of +production of correspondence pending an interlocutory appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. +DATED: June 28, 2013 +14 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2013 Page 15 of 16 +Respectfully Submitted, +JAFFE, WEISSING, +1. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 524-2820 +Facsimile (954) 524-2822 +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +E-mail: brad @pathtojustice.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 +15 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2013 Page 16 of 16 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +The foregoing document was served on June 28, 2013, on the following using the Court's +CM/ECF system: +Dexter Lee +A. +Villafaña +Assistant U.S. Attorneys +500 S. Australian Ave.., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Fax: (561) 820-8777 +E-mail: Dexter.Lee@usdoj.gov +Anori. is for the Government +Roy Black, Esq. +Jackie Perczek, Esq. +Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1300 +Miami, FL 33131 +(305) 37106421 +(305) 358-2006 +16 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c2a159902be5fae24a8ed8dcbaa70520f35c5d9306e9c1d8bcc8cbd7bf9b9b87.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c2a159902be5fae24a8ed8dcbaa70520f35c5d9306e9c1d8bcc8cbd7bf9b9b87.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..07afc87614dba8c5e8430bc3ac0d634befd4a2fb --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c2a159902be5fae24a8ed8dcbaa70520f35c5d9306e9c1d8bcc8cbd7bf9b9b87.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -198, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c2a159902be5fae24a8ed8dcbaa70520f35c5d9306e9c1d8bcc8cbd7bf9b9b87", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 19, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "3dadf856a5c750661b2c7772299b4a4ec30513092a1ea540f45aaeca3cba9dde", + "output_sha256": "c4f22206b170a1a973cd44f981f4aef8f1061d4e887e84d8e2e134b3a0f89c1e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c2cfc5696ab837a47f3470f6b0d6bb5ba4b7316056735677477eb8df1381b23a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c2cfc5696ab837a47f3470f6b0d6bb5ba4b7316056735677477eb8df1381b23a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..819ee15e9530ede3549977b1b6bf462851106d75 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c2cfc5696ab837a47f3470f6b0d6bb5ba4b7316056735677477eb8df1381b23a.md @@ -0,0 +1,466 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 1 of 17 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/__ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 2 of 17 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/ +vS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +-2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 3 of 17 +DOE II, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102 +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER +REQUESTING POSITION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY [DE 99] +Comes now the United States, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States +Attorney, and files this response to the Court's Order requesting the position of the United +States on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay Proceedings [DE 99]. For the reasons +set forth below, it is the United States' position that a stay of the proceedings is not necessary +and was not contemplated by the Non-Prosecution Agreement between the United States and +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. +-3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 4 of 17 +ISSUE PRESENTED +The United States is not a party to these lawsuits and, accordingly, is not fully aware +of the scope of the proceedings, the range of arguments presented by counsel, and any +correspondence or oral communications between the parties in these civil suits. Based on +the information presented by the Court and a review of Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion +to Stay and/or Continue Action for Time Certain Based on Parallel Civil and Criminal +Proceedings with Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Court File No. 08-CV-80811- +MARRA/JOHNSON DE 51-1), and responses thereto filed by various plaintiffs in their suits, +the undersigned understands that the Court has requested the position of the United States +on the following issue: +Are there "special circumstances" that require the imposition of a stay of the +civil proceedings in the "interests of justice" until the "expiration" of the Non- +Prosecution Agreement ["NPA"] between the United States and Epstein? +By filing this response, the United States does not make itself a party to this litigation +and takes no position with respect to the outcome of any of the civil suits; nor does the +United States take any position regarding Defendant Epstein's performance of his obligations +pursuant to the NPA. The United States also declines to comment on Defendant Epstein's +representations regarding past allegations of violations of the NPA by Epstein. The United +States files this response solely as amicus curiae at the Court's request and does not waive +any procedural or statutory bars to suit. +-4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 5 of 17 +I. +STANDARD FOR IMPOSING A DISCRETIONARY STAY +The Defendant Must Show that the Assertion of His Fifth +Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Would +Automatically Result in the Entry of Summary Judgment Against +Him. +"The decision whether or not to stay civil litigation in deference to parallel criminal +proceedings is discretionary..... A movant must carry a heavy burden to succeed in such an +endeavor." Microfinancial, Inc. v. Premier Holidays Internat'l, Inc., 385 F.3d 72, 77 (Ist +Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). When a defendant facing possible criminal liability invokes +his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination in connection with civil +litigation, a court can stay discovery or the entire civil case. +v. Jenne, 2007 WL 624286 +*1 (S.D. Fl. Feb. 23, 2007) (Cooke, J.). "However, the Constitution does not require a stay +of civil proceedings pending the outcome of related criminal proceedings. Forcing an +individual to risk non-criminal disadvantage by remaining silent for fear of self incrimination +in a parallel criminal proceeding does not rise to the level of an unconstitutional +infringement."" Id. (quoting Shell Oil Co. v. Altina Assocs., Inc., 866 F. Supp. 536, 540 +(M.D. Fl. 1994)). +As this Court has previously explained: +The law regarding stays of civil actions is well-settled in the Eleventh Circuit. +In United States v. Lot 5, Fox Grove, Alachua County, Fla, 23 F.3d 359, 363- +5 (1lth Cir. 1994) (*Lot 5" +av ith Cir. 1994) "st 5"), the Cou ariculated the following principles of +criminal action: +[A] blanket assertion of the privilege is an inadequate basis for +the issuance of a stay. +Rather, a court must stay a civil +-5- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 6 of 17 +proceeding pending resolution of a related criminal prosecution +only when "special circumstances" so require in the "interests +of justice." The court may deny a stay so long as the privilege's +invocation does not compel an adverse judgment against the +claimant. +[T]he standard set by the Eleventh Circuit as to when a stay should be granted +to prevent unconstitutional infringement is more narrow. The law in the +Eleventh Circuit requires consideration of whether, as a result of invoking the +privilege, the defendant faces certain loss of the civil proceeding on summary +judgment if the civil proceeding were to continue. Lot 5, 23 F.3d at 364; +Pervis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 901 F.2d 944 (11th Cir. 1990). +Under this standard, Movants must show that invocation of the privilege in the +instant matter will result in certain loss by automatic summary judgment. +United States v. Two Parcels of Real Property, 92 F.3d 1123, 1129 (11th Cir. +1996); Pervis, 901 F.2d at 946-47. This must be an actual adverse judgment +ind not "merely the loss of the defendant's most 'effective defense." +Securities & Exchange Comm. v. Incendy, 936 F. Supp. at 955 (S.D. Fl. 1996); +Shell Oil Co., 866 F. Supp. at 540-41. +Court-Appointed Receiver of Lancer Mgt. Group LLC v. Lauer, 2009 WL 800144 (S.D. Fl. +Mar. 25, 2009) (Marra, J.). +Thus, before reaching the relative benefit and prejudice to each of the parties caused +by staying the cases, the Court must determine whether, if defendant Epstein were to invoke +his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination' and the Court were to allow an adverse +inference to be drawn therefrom, an adverse judgment against Epstein would be +automatically compelled. The United States respectfully submits that it would not. +'It appears from a brief review of some of Epstein's discovery responses that Epstein has +nade a blanket assertion of the privilege. For example, Epstein has asserted his Fifth Amendmer +rivilege in response to a plaintiff's request to produce the NPA and the United States' list o +identified victims although these documents were provided to Epstein by the United States. +-6- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 7 of 17 +From a review of the Complaints filed by the plaintiffs in these cases, it appears that +some have filed claims based upon Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, some have +filed claims based upon common law torts, and some have filed a combination of the two. +Under general principles of tort law, a plaintiff is required to prove: (1) that the defendant +committed a bad act; (2) that the plaintiff suffered damages; and (3) that the damages were +caused by the defendant's bad act. To succeed on a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, a plaintiff +must show: (1) that the plaintiff is a person who, while a minor, was a victim of an +enumerated offense committed by the defendant; (2) that the person suffered personal injury +as a result of that violation; and (3) the amount of damages she sustained. +Epstein's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege could result in the drawing of +a negative inference only as to the first element under both of these claims. Therefore, to +succeed on summary judgment (or at trial), the plaintiffs would still have to prove that they +suffered personal injury/damages as a result of the defendant's bad act. Cf. In re Financial +Federated Title & Trust, Inc., 252 B.R. 834, 838 (S.D. Fl. Bank. Ct. 2000) (Stay not +warranted in bankruptcy proceeding where criminal indictment was pending because +negative inference related only to defendant's receipt of allegedly fraudulent transfers, but +"Trustee must still carry the burden of proving all of the elements of his complaint for +fraudulent transfers ... includ[ing] fraudulent intent, insolvency, and financial condition at +the time of the transfers to the Defendants."). +While Epstein may believe that his arguments and proof as to the first element are his +"most effective defense," that alone is insufficient to warrant the imposition of a stay of the +-7- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 8 of 17 +litigation. There are two other items for the Court to consider in deciding this issue. First, +pursuant to the terms of the NPA, as to those victims identified by the United States, Epstein +has already made a concession that they are victims of an enumerated offense committed by +Epstein. Thus, this inference is drawn not due to his invocation of the right against selfincrimination but due to his entry into a contractual agreement with the United States for +which the identified victims are third-party beneficiaries.? Second, in Lot 5, the Eleventh +Circuit pointed out the wealth of evidence other than the defendant's testimony that could +be used to defeat a liability claim. See Lot 5, 23 F.3d at 364 ("Thus, Claimant's assertion that +only her own testimony could vindicate her is groundless; other participants to the illegal acts +that gave rise to the forfeiture were available to testify at trial. Claimant's failure to indicate +with precision why she did not use other parties' testimony to substantiate her defense was +fatal."). For example, Epstein could mount a defense using effective cross-examination, +telephone records, travel records, documents within the possession of the plaintiffs or third +parties, and/or the testimony of third parties to rebut the plaintiffs' proof. +"The United States notes that it is not aware of the identities of all of the plaintiffs in the civil +suits. To the extent that any are not "identified victims" under the NPA, this contractual provision +would not apply. +-8- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 9 of 17 +Additional Factors to Consider in Balancing the Prejudice to the +Parties +If the Court is persuaded that the negative inference drawn from Epstein's assertion +of his Fifth Amendment privilege would result in an automatic grant of summary judgment +in favor of the plaintiffs, then the Court must engage in a balancing of equities in determining +whether there are "special circumstances" warranting the imposition of a stay "to prevent +a party from suffering substantial and irreparable prejudice.'" Securites and Exchange +Comm'n v. Incendy, 936 F. Supp. 952, 956 (S.D. Fl. 1996) (quoting S.E.C. v. First Financial +Group of Texas, Inc., 659 F.2d 660, 668 (5th Cir. 1981) (add'I citations omitted). +Examples of "special circumstances" provided by the Supreme Court in +[United States v. Kordel] are: (1) if the Government brought the civil action +solely to obtain evidence for its criminal prosecution, (2) if the Government +failed to advise the defendant in the civil proceeding that it contemplates his +criminal prosecution; (3) if the defendant is without counsel or reasonably +fears prejudice from adverse pretrial publicity or other unfair injury; or (4) any +other special circumstances indicating unconstitutionality or even impropriety. +Incendy at 956 (citing United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 11 (1970)). See also Securities +and Exchange Comm'n v. +1, 261 Fed. Appx. 259, 263 (11th Cir. 2008) ("[NJo 'special +circumstances' existed in this case warranting a stay, as there is no record evidence +suggesting the Government had brought the civil case solely to obtain evidence for the +criminal prosecution or that the criminal case against [defendant] was unconstitutional or +inappropriately instituted."). +No "special circumstances" exist here. First, unlike +and Incendy, the United +States Government is not a party to the civil litigation. Each suit is brought on behalf of an +-9- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 10 of 17 +individual plaintiff represented by private counsel. Some of those plaintiffs are adverse to +the United States and have filed suit against the Government based upon its handling of the +criminal case against Epstein. (See In re Jane Doe Litigation, Court File No. 08-80736-Civ- +Marra.) There has been no allegation, and certainly no showing, that the civil litigation is +a ruse to obtain discovery on behalf of the criminal investigation. +As some of the plaintiffs have mentioned, one purpose of the NPA was to place the +identified victims in the same position where they would have been if Epstein had been +convicted after trial of an offense enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255. (See, e.g., Court File No. +08-CV-80119 DE 49-2.) If Epstein had proceeded to trial and been convicted, those victims +would have been entitled to restitution and to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and +would have been entitled to the same sorts of discovery that they now seek. None of the +plaintiffs has contacted the United States about passing on materials gathered through +discovery to any criminal investigators or about seeking discovery that would be relevant +only to the criminal proceedings, rather than to their individual cases. If Epstein has +legitimate concerns that the civil discovery process is being abused in some way, he can ask +the Court for a protective order limiting the scope of discovery or its distribution. +Furthermore, if at some time in the future, Epstein were the subject of a criminal indictment +and he alleged that the evidence to be used against him was gathered improperly, he could +file a motion to suppress or to dismiss the indictment in that criminal action. See, e.g., United +States, ex. rel. Westrick v. Second Chance, 2007 WL 1020808 *4 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2007) +(Defendant in civil False Claims Act suit moved to stay civil action pending criminal +-10- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 11 of 17 +investigation where no indictment had been returned. The district court denied the motion, +noting that while "allowing civil discovery to proceed may afford the government [who was +the real party in interest in the civil case] the opportunity to gain evidence that it may not be +entitled to under the more restrictive criminal discovery rules, if and when discovery +becomes necessary, protective orders and other remedial measures may be taken.") (citations +omitted). +By entering into the NPA, with its explicit discussion of 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein +acknowledged that the United States was trying to protect the victims' rights to restitution +and that civil claims would likely follow. Epstein did not bargain for a stay of those +proceedings. Instead, both parties received benefits and gave consideration for the bargain +that was struck - while Epstein is faced with answering discovery requests that he would not +face during criminal proceedings, he also is entitled to the identification of and extensive +discovery from the victims, which he would not have received in the criminal case. Based +upon a review of the discovery requests he has promulgated thus far, it appears that Epstein +is taking full advantage of this benefit and if a criminal case were ever filed, he would, no +doubt, seek to use that information in his defense.? +With respect to the other "special circumstances" mentioned in Incendy, the government +obviously advised Epstein of the potential for criminal charges, and that knowledge led to the +negotiation of the NPA. Epstein also has a number of attorneys listed on the Service List for the +civil cases and has retained a similarly large number of attorneys to handle the criminal investigation +and negotiation of the NPA. Epstein alleges a fear of adverse publicity, but as the plaintiffs have +pointed out, during the course of the state and federal criminal investigations, Epstein's personal +publicist distributed stories to the press impugning the credibility of the victims and other witnesses +and averring that the victims' allegations of abuse were made solely to extract money from the +defendant. In the context of some of the civil suits currently pending, Epstein has asked the Court +-11- + + +Case 9:08-cV-80380-KAM Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 12 of 17 +Unlike +and Incendy, Epstein also has not been criminally indicted. In some +districts, this alone is virtually dispositive. See, e.g., Sterling Nat'l Bank v. A-1 Hotels +Internat'l, 175 F. Supp. 2d 573, 576-77 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ("district courts in this Circuit +'generally grant the extraordinary remedy of a stay only after the defendant seeking a stay +has been indicted."" (quoting Citibank, N.A. v. L +_. 1993 WL 481335 *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. +18, 1993) (add'1 citations omitted). As one court explained: +the consensus that a party seeking a stay bears a heavier burden when he has +not yet been indicted derives logically from the balancing test set out by the +courts of appeals that have considered the question. When a defendant has +been indicted, his situation is particularly dangerous, and takes a certain +priority, for the risk to his liberty, the importance of safeguarding his +constitutional rights, and even the strain on his resources and attention that +makes defending satellite civil litigation particularly difficult, all weigh in +favor of his interest. Moreover, if the potential prejudice to the defendant is +particularly high post-indictment, the prejudice to the plaintiff of staying +proceedings is somewhat reduced, since the criminal litigation has reached a +crisis that will lead to a reasonably speedy resolution. Furthermore, at that +stage in the criminal proceeding, the contours of the indictment will provide +the Court with a reasonable basis for determining the extent of the threat to the +defendant's Fifth Amendment rights, and the likely extent and timing of the +criminal litigation. +Pre-indictment, these factors must be balanced significantly differently. +Though many of the same risks to the civil defendant are present, the dangers +are at least somewhat more remote, and it is inherently unclear to the Court +just how much the unindicted defendant really has to fear. Conversely, the +delay imposed on the plaintiff is potentially indefinite. There is no telling how +complicated the government's investigation may be, whether the allegations +of the particular civil plaintiff are merely the tip of an iceberg that will result +in a lengthy and open-ended investigation, what priority the government +assigns to the investigation, whether it will result in charges that will have to +to unseal the victims' names so that he may make use similar press efforts to impugn their +credibility. +-12- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 13 of 17 +be litigated, or how time-consuming the resulting criminal case will be. Under +these circumstances, the likelihood that a civil party can make the necessary +showing to obtain the "extraordinary" remedy of a stay is inevitably much +reduced. +Sterling Nat'l Bank, 175 F. Supp. 2d at 577 (internal citations omitted). +The First Circuit has noted that the decision whether to grant a stay "is highly nuanced +….. [and] involves competing interests. Balancing these interests is a situation-specific task, +and an inquiring court must take a careful look at the idiosyncratic circumstances of the case +before it." Microfinancial, supra, 385 F.3d at 78. Epstein's case is more idiosyncratic than +most. +As the Court aptly noted in its Order denying Epstein's first motion to stay the civil +proceedings, Epstein has not been indicted and there are no criminal proceedings pending +against him.* The resurrection of criminal proceedings against Epstein lies entirely within +Epstein's own hands, by performing or not performing under the terms of the NPA. This tips +the balance of equities even further in favor of the plaintiffs. Epstein makes allegations that +the U.S. Attorney's Office has unfettered discretion in determining breaches of the NPA, but +this is no different than in any contractual setting. If one party believes that there has been +a breach, it may seek the remedy set forth in the contract. If the other party believes that +*Epstein points to provisions requiring him to maintain certain evidence "inviolate" as proof +that the grand jury investigation is still active. These provisions are meant only to insure that easily +destroyed evidence identified through the investigation, such as computer equipment, that is still in +Epstein's control, will still be available to investigators if Epstein does, in fact, breach the NPA. +Epstein is well aware that litigation concerning those matters have been removed from the Court's +docket, at the insistence of the United States, because it fully halted its investigation in accordance +with the terms of the NPA. +- 13- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 14 of 17 +there has been no breach, it has a remedy at law or equity. In this situation, Epstein would +be entitled to seek dismissal of the indictment. See United States v. Beeks, 167 Fed. Appx +777 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. L +138 Fed. Appx. 965 (9th Cir. 2005); United +States v. +1, 393 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2004). +Epstein argues that because he is seeking a finite period of delay - until the time that +he asserts that the NPA "expires" - and that, thereafter, he will promptly provide full and +complete responses to all discovery, the harm to the plaintiffs is de minimis. With all respect, +this overlooks a number of obvious issues. First, if a stay is imposed until Epstein's +proposed "expiration date," it affords Epstein one of two incentives: (a) to delay any intended +breach until a time when he believes that the United States has no remedy and then to breach +the agreement with impunity (i.e, to use the NPA as a shield and a sword); or (b) to delay the +civil litigation as long as possible (until shortly before the "expiration" of the NPA), and +then, after criminal charges have been filed, to seek a mandatory stay of the civil cases until +the criminal case is resolved. Thus, contrary to the assertions of Epstein, the delay is not +limited but, instead, is "potentially indefinite," as Sterling Bank warns. If the U.S. Attorney's +Office were to proceed criminally, the litigation would likely be very lengthy, and would +result in an even greater delay to the plaintiffs. +'The United States also notes that this finite termination to Epstein's exposure to potential +criminal consequences is illusory. The NPA addresses only certain victims identified during the +course of the government's investigation. To the extent that any of the plaintiffs who have already +filed suit against Epstein do not fall within that group, the NPA does not address potential charges +based upon crimes committed against them. The NPA also does not bind any other state or federal +prosecutor from pursuing charges for criminal acts committed within their jurisdiction(s). The +federal statute of limitations for offenses against children is ten years or the life of the child, +-14- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 15 of 17 +The factors to consider include: "(i) the interests of the civil plaintiff in proceeding +expeditiously with the civil litigation, including the avoidance of any prejudice to the +plaintiff should a delay transpire; (ii) the hardship to the defendant, including the burden +placed upon him should the cases go forward in tandem; (ill) the convenience of both the +civil and criminal courts; (iv) the interests of third parties; ... (v) the public interest:] ... +(vi) the good faith of the litigants (or the absence of it) and (vii) the status of the cases." +Microfinancial, 385 F.3d at 78 (citations omitted). +In considering those factors, the United States respectfully recommends to the Court +that all of the factors weigh against a stay. In making its decision, the Court should consider +that, unlike all of the cases cited herein, Epstein seeks to stay not one suit involving a single +plaintiff, but more than a dozen suits filed by individual plaintiffs. Each of those plaintiffs, +in turn, impliedly asserts that she is a "crime victim" with the "right to full and timely +restitution" and the "right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay." 18 U.S.C. § +3771(a)(6) & (7). As noted above, one of the purposes of the NPA was to provide these +rights to victims identified in the Government's investigation. Thus, this factor weighs more +heavily for the plaintiffs than in the average civil dispute as it embodies both the plaintiffs' +and the public's interests. The victims who were identified in the government investigation, +by and large, were without financial assets and had significant counseling needs that could +whichever is longer. 18 U.S.C. § 3283. Thus, for Epstein (or any other person accused of sexually +abusing children) to "wait out" any chance of criminal liability, the court would have to stay civil +litigation until all of the plaintiffs have died. +- 15- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 16 of 17 +be remedied through obtaining restitution from Epstein. In addition to those needs, they have +legitimate concerns about memories fading, witnesses becoming unavailable, and dissipation +of Epstein's assets while the matter is stayed. On the other hand, while the potential harm +to the defendant normally weighs in the defendant's favor, in this case, Epstein has +significant control over whether the criminal investigation remains in abeyance and whether +criminal charges are ever filed +CONCLUSION +In accordance with the Court's Order, the United States hereby submits that it is not +aware of any "special circumstances" that warrant staying all of the civil cases pending the +"expiration" of the NPA. +By: +Respectfully submitted, +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +S/A. +Villafaña +À. +VILLAFAÑA +Assistant United States Attorney +Florida Bar No. 0018255 +500 East Broward Boulevard, 7th Floor +Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 +Telephone: 954-356-7255 +Facsimile: 954-356-7230 +-16- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 17 of 17 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 28, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. According to the Court's website, counsel +for all parties are able to receive notice via the CM/ECF system. +SA +A. +Villafaña +VILLAFANA +Assistant United States Attorney +-17- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c2cfc5696ab837a47f3470f6b0d6bb5ba4b7316056735677477eb8df1381b23a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c2cfc5696ab837a47f3470f6b0d6bb5ba4b7316056735677477eb8df1381b23a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..19b7e8f3505ccd76f32b21bd91cc1d1da65713bc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c2cfc5696ab837a47f3470f6b0d6bb5ba4b7316056735677477eb8df1381b23a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -206, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c2cfc5696ab837a47f3470f6b0d6bb5ba4b7316056735677477eb8df1381b23a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 18, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "a3d8af09f9e86b4abf6bde8e1a3b92f13e60ab9804bc0f8dafedc0599fa4d3b0", + "output_sha256": "9c7e8eb798b18ad2bff5c4307fbb29b6ff3a1165d65f9faf03a58c5788ce9774", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c32eaa1729685a353986898a8774529abb1281097cfa738c9622752b598c88bc.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c32eaa1729685a353986898a8774529abb1281097cfa738c9622752b598c88bc.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5d455b0cdad2196383f07fdcdd5c99f2f4878ff1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c32eaa1729685a353986898a8774529abb1281097cfa738c9622752b598c88bc.md @@ -0,0 +1,432 @@ +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 63-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 1 of 14 33 +7 +A.C., +V. +IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM +BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 502008CA025129XXXXMB AI +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and +Defendants. +ORDER ON DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & +OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, +DATED FEBRUARY 6, 2009 +THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's +Response & Objections To Plaintiff's First Request For Production, dated +February 6, 2009 and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being +fully advised in these premises, it is hereby +ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendants Obja tens armed. +denied +sustained. +DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach County Courthouse, West Palm +Beach, Florida, this +23 day of. +Edward A. Garrison +Circuit Judge +Copies furnished: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ., and MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ., 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach +FL 33401; JACK SCAROLA, ESQ., AND JACK P. +ESQ., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & +West Palm Beach, FL 33409, and JACK A +ESQ., Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1400, 250 +Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +COMPOSITE EXHIBIT "C" +-VENED! + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 2 of 14 +32 +IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM +BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 502008CA025129XXXXMB AI +A.C., +Plaintiff, +V. +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and +Defendants. +_' +DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S AMENDED RESPONSE & +OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, +hereby files his Amended Response and Objections to Plaintiff's First Request For +Production To Defendant, served January 5, 2009 and states: +Introduction +This Amended Response amends Defendant's previously filed Response and +Objections to Plaintiff's First Request for Production, dated February 6, 2009. This +response does not change the legal objections previously raised but rather sets forth a +discussion of the law in support of Defendant's constitutional objections to production, in +particular, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Except for the +discussion of law set forth herein, this response sets forth the identical responses and +objections previously filed and served. Accordingly, Plaintiff is in no way prejudiced by +this Amended Response. +Legal Basis Applicable to Each of Defendant's Objections Set Forth Below +In response to each of the items requested, set forth below, Defendant asserts +his Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 3 of 14 +Page 2 +Privilege extends to the act of production where, as here, it involves a self-incriminating +testimonial communication or "a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. +Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 120 S.Ct. 2037 (2000); Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 +(1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self- +Incrimination, §138 (6'" Ed.). See also Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the +Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due +Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "filt would be incongruous to have +different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same +feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal +court."); Hoffman v. U.S., 71 S.Ct. 814, 818 (1951), and progeny). +The Fifth Amendment Privilege may be invoked in a civil action where a litigant or +witness is being asked to provide information or respond to a question that may +incriminate him in a crime. See generally, DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company. 436 So.2d +1099 (Fla. 4** DCA 1983). The privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted +during discovery when a litigant has "reasonable grounds to believe that the response +would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prove a crime against a litigant." +A witness, including a civil defendant, is entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege +whenever there is a realistic possibility that the answer to a question could be used in +anyway to convict the witness of a crime or could aid in the development of other +incriminating evidence that can be used at trial. Id; Pillsbury Company v. Conboy, 495 +U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608 (1983). + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 63-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 4 of 14 +Page 3 +The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the scope of the Fifth +Amendment Privilege includes the circumstances as here "the act of producing +documents in response to a subpoena (or production request) has a compelled +testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 +(2000). In explaining the application of the privilege, the Supreme Court stated: +We have held that "the act of production" itself may implicitly communicate +"statements of fact." +By "producing documents in compliance with a +subpoena, the witness would admit that the papers existed, were in his +possession or control, and were authentic. "EN19 Moreover, as was true in this +case, when the custodian of documents responds to a subpoena, he may be +compelled to take the witness stand and answer questions designed to +determine whether he has produced everything demanded by the subpoena. +EN20 The answers to those questions, as well as the act of production itself, +may certainly communicate information about the existence, custody, and +authenticity of the documents. Whether the constitutional privilege protects +the answers to such questions, or protects the act of production itself, is a +question that is distinct from the question whether the unprotected contents of +the documents themselves are incriminating. +FN19. "The issue presented in those cases was whether the act of +producing subpoenaed documents, not itself the making of a statement, +might nonetheless have some protected testimonial aspects. The Court +concluded that the act of production could constitute protected testimonial +communication because it might entail implicit statements of fact: by +producing documents in compliance with a subpoena, the witness would +admit that the papers existed, were in his possession or control, and were +authentic. United States v. Doe, 465 U.S., at 613, and n. 11, 104 S.Ct. +1237; Fisher, 425 U.S., at 409-410, 96 S.Ct. 1569; id., at 428, 432, 96 +S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States, [487 +U.S.,] at 104, 108 S.Ct. 2284; Lid.,] at 122, 108 S.Ct. 2284 (dissenting +opinion). Thus, the Court made clear that the Fifth Amendment privilege +against self-incrimination applies to acts that imply assertions of fact."... +An examination of the Court's application of these principles in other cases +indicates the Court's recognition that, in order to be testimonial, an +accused's communication must itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate a factual +assertion or disclose information. Only then is a person compelled to be a +'witness' against himself." Doe v. United States, 487 U.S., at 209-210, 108 +S.Ct. 2341 (footnote omitted). + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 5 of 14 +Page 4 +FN20. See App. 62-70. Thus, for example, after respondent had been duly +sworn by the grand jury f +the prosecutor called his attention to +paragraph A of the Subpoena Rider (reproduced in the Appendix, infra, at +2048-2049) and asked whether he had produced "all those documents." +App. 65. +Finally, the phrase "in any criminal case" in the text of the Fifth Amendment +might have been read to limit its coverage to compelled testimony that is used +against the detendant in the trial itself. It has, however, long been settled that +its protection encompasses compelled statements that lead to the discovery of +incriminating evidence even though the statements themselves are not +incriminating and are not introduced into evidence. Thus, a half century ago +we held that a trial judge had erroneously rejected a defendant's claim of +privilege on the ground that his answer to the pending question would not itself +constitute evidence of the charged offense. As we explained: +"The privilege afforded not only extends to answers that would in +themselves support a conviction under a federal criminal statute but likewise +embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to +prosecute the claimant for a federal crime." Hoffman v. United States, 341 +U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.Ct. 814, 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951). +Compelled testimony that communicates information that may "lead to +incriminating evidence" is privileged even if the information itself is not +inculpatory. Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 208, n. 6, 108 S.Ct. 2341, +101 L.Ed.2d 184 (1988). It's the Fifth Amendment's protection against the +prosecutor's use of incriminating information derived directly or indirectly from +the compelled testimony of the respondent that is of primary relevance in this +case. +In summarizing its holding regarding the application of the Fifth Amendment +Privilege to a production request, the Hubbell Court left "no doubt that the constitutional +privilege against self incrimination protects" not only "the target of a grand jury +investigation from being compelled to answer questions designed to elicit information +about the existence of sources of potentially incriminating evidence," but the privilege +also "has the same application to the testimonial aspect of a response to a subpoena +seeking discovery of those sources." At 43, and 2047. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 6 of 14 +Page 5 +EPSTEIN entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with United States +Attorney General's Officer ("USAO") for the Federal Southern District of Florida. The +terms and conditions of the NPA also entailed EPSTEIN entering into a Plea Agreement +with the State Attorney's Office, Palm Beach County, State of Florida. By its terms, the +NPA took effect on June 30, 2008. As well, pursuant to the NPA, any criminal +prosecution against EPSTEIN is deferred as long as the terms and conditions of the +NPA are fulfilled by EPSTEIN. Criminal matters against EPSTEIN remain ongoing until +the NPA expires by its terms in late 2010 and as long as the USAO determines that +EPSTEIN has complied with those terms and conditions. The threat of criminal +prosecution against EPSTEIN by the USAO continues presently and through late 2010. +The USAO possesses the right to declare that the agreement has been breached, give +EPSTEIN's counsel notice, +and attempt to move forward with the prosecution. See +attached Exhibit "A", Affidavit of Jack A. Goldberger, a board certified criminal defense +attorney who has in the past and is currently representing EPSTEIN. +This is precisely the situation that the protection of the Fifth Amendment Privilege +is to apply. By responding to the request as opposed to asserting his constitutional +privilege, EPSTEIN would admit that the documents/items existed, were in his +possession or control, and were authentic. The act of production itself, may certainly +communicate information about the existence, custody, and authenticity of the +documents/items. +"Whether the constitutional privilege protects the answers to such +questions, or protects the act of production itself, is a question that is distinct from the + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 63-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 7 of 14 +Page 6 +question whether the unprotected contents of the documents themselves are +incriminating." United States v. Hubbell, supra. +Given the type of documents requested (set forth below), the collection and +production of the of the items demanded would be "tantamount to answering a series of +interrogatories asking a witness to disclose the existence and location of particular +documents/[items] fitting certain broad descriptions." Hubbell, supra at 41-2, and 2046. +Responding to the requests is "the functional equivalent of the preparation of an answer +to either a detailed written interrogatory or a series of oral questions at a discovery +deposition." Id. As stated in Hubbell, "it is undeniable that providing a catalog of +existing documents (items)" fitting within any of the requested documents "could provide +a prosecutor with a 'lead to incriminating evidence,' or 'a link in the chain of evidence +needed to prosecute.'" +Accordingly, Defendant's constitutional objection is required to be upheld. +Specific Requests & Responses, Including Objections +Request No. 1: Any and all evidence required to be maintained by Epstein +and the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, specifically evidence +requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that have been issued in +connection with the investigation referenced in the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and +including certain computer equipment. +Response: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant +documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 63-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 8 of 14 +Page 7 +present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this +lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without +waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and +confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution +agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the +request may include information subject to work product or an attorney-client privilege. +Request No. 2: +Any and all documents reflecting or relating to the identity of, +the scheduling of, and/or the payment of any female compensated by or on behalf of +Epstein for providing any service to Epstein that required, contemplated, or included in +the provisions of such service, any physical contact between Epstein and the female, +any act or prostitution, any illicit sexual conduct, the exposure of breast, buttocks or +genitalia, or any commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. §1591(c)(1). +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant +documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the +present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this +lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 63-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 9 of 14 +Page 8 +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without +waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and +confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution +agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further +Defendants objects to the production as overly broad and seeking information that is +neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be +reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Plaintiff in +this instance has alleged in her complaint that she was sexually abused by the +Defendant on one occasion sometime in the year 2004. The documents requested +herein have no time period provided, and therefore the information sought is grossly +overbroad. +Request No. 3: Any and all documents reflecting or relating to the identity of +and/or the nature and extent of any other person's participation in the communication +with and/or the scheduling of and/or the payment of any person who participated in any +conduct described in Request #2. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant +documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 10 of 14 +Page 9 +present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this +lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing +an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without +waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and +confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution +agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further +Defendants objects to the production as overly broad and seeking information that is +neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be +reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Plaintiff in +this instance has alleged in her complaint that she was sexually abused by the +Defendant on one occasion sometime in the year 2004. The documents requested +herein have no time period provided, and therefore the information sought is grossly +overbroad. +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was send by ts. Mail to +the following addressees on this 19th day of_February, 2009: +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Jack P. +1, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +Searcy +Denney Scarola Barnhart & 250 Australian Avenue South +Shipley, P.A +Suite 1400 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 11 of 14 +Page 10 +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-686-6300 Phone +561-383-9424 Fax +Counsel for Plaintiff +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendants Jeffrey Epstein +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER +& COLEMAN, LLP +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 842-2820 +(8) 15248 F +Robert D Criton, Jr. +Florida Bar #224162 +Michael J. Pike +Florida Bar #617296 +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 12 of 14 +AFFIDAVIT OF JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE +) SS +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +BEFORE ME, the +undersigned authority, personally appeared +having personal knowledge and being duly sworn, deposes and says: +1. +1, Jack A. Goldberger, have personal knowledge of the matters set +forth herein. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida since +1978. I am a partner with the law firm of Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., +located at One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1400, 250 Australian Avenue South, West +Palm Beach, FL 33401. +2. +My practice includes and specializes in the defense of criminal +matters. I am board certified in criminal law. I have been and currently am the +criminal defense attorney for JEFFREY EPSTEIN. +3. +I represented Mr. EPSTEIN in the negotiation of and entering into a +Non-Prosecution Agreement with the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for +the Federal Southern District of Florida. The terms and conditions of the Non- +Prosecution Agreement also entailed the entering of a Plea Agreement with the +State Attorney's Office, Palm Beach County, State of Florida. +(The Non- +Prosecution Agreement shall hereinafter be referred to as the "NPA"). +4. +By its terms, the NPA took effect on June 30, 2008. Also, pursuant +to the terms of the NPA, any criminal prosecution against EPSTEIN is deferred +as long as the terms and conditions of the NPA are fulfilled by EPSTEIN. + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 13 of 14 +5. +The criminal matters against EPSTEIN remain ongoing until the +NPA expires by its terms in late 2010, and as long as the USAO determines +EPSTEIN has complied with those terms and conditions. The threat of criminal +prosecution against EPSTEIN by USAO in the Southern District of Florida +continues presently and through late 2010. +Pursuant to the terms of the NPA, the USAO possesses the right to +declare that the agreement has been breached, give EPSTEIN's counsel notice, +and attempt to move forward with a prosecution. As of the date of this Affidavit, +the USAO has taken the position on a number of occasions that it might consider +the following actions by EPSTEIN to be a breach of the NPA. +• Investigation by EPSTEIN (by and through his attorneys) of this Plaintiff +and the other Plaintiffs in other pending civil cases for purposes of +defending the civil actions; +• EPSTEIN's contesting damages in this action and other civil actions. +• EPSTEIN or his legal representatives making statements to the press +about this Plaintiff or the other Plaintiffs. +• Using the word "jail" instead of "imprisonment" in the plea agreement with +the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office. +7. +EPSTEIN, through counsel, submitted a Freedom of Information +Act request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for documents relating to +this and the other cases; the FBI denied the request stating the materials are at +this time exempt from disclosure because they are in an investigative file, i.e. the +matter is still an ongoing criminal investigation. +Page - 2 - + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 63-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 14 of 14 +8. +The NPA expires in late 2010. +FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +I hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to +administer +oaths +acknowledgments, +personally +appeared +Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire, known to me to be the person described in and who +executed the foregoing Affidavit, who acknowledged before me that he/she +executed the same, that! relied upon the following form of identification of the +above named person: two tersonally +_, and that an oath was/was +not taken. +this WINESS case in the county and sate last aforesaid +rebrary. +Intary Public Slate of Flonde +LE Rosin +My Commission DD489790 +Expires 11/13/2009 +RINT NAME: +E RoSIr +NOTARY PUBLIC/STATE OF FLORIDA +COMMISSION NO.: DD 489790 +MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: +1|13/2009 +Page - 3 - \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c32eaa1729685a353986898a8774529abb1281097cfa738c9622752b598c88bc.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c32eaa1729685a353986898a8774529abb1281097cfa738c9622752b598c88bc.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7209464dfa26b8931e4ea8b5253f80e1e6dfea69 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c32eaa1729685a353986898a8774529abb1281097cfa738c9622752b598c88bc.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -397, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c32eaa1729685a353986898a8774529abb1281097cfa738c9622752b598c88bc", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 16, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "afd47e01500f102ba9529bdd8b3495d313a6bf179fdac7478b3083f39a818f70", + "output_sha256": "eaadc6eaa0cd36161ad7cdad29c74cfe04d26082e4e5e2ce9800484decbcca1c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3823a816d27483d1b3a184164ce657c7d7c903443a21adfc699bf38b40790eb.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3823a816d27483d1b3a184164ce657c7d7c903443a21adfc699bf38b40790eb.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1bc47232777482fb9d141c4ba618d89d24ea1ac4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3823a816d27483d1b3a184164ce657c7d7c903443a21adfc699bf38b40790eb.md @@ -0,0 +1,1222 @@ +Scholz & Wyler, LLC +961687 Gateway Blvd.; +, Suite 201l +'Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 +United States +- 904-261-3693 +Jacobs Scholz & Wyler, LLC +Dave Aronberg +Balance +Invoice # +Invoice Date +Payment Terms +Due Date +$32,440.00 +00307. +November 6, 2020 +Aronberg (SAO15) adv. CA. Florida Holdings, LLC +Time Entries +Date*?: +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019. +11/26/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/03/2019 +12/00/2019 +EE +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +DW +AIJ +DW +DW +ANJ +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +Activity +Review +Review +Teleconference +Draft +Review +Review +Meeting +Meeting +Teleconference +Research & +Preparation +Draft +Teleconference +Review - +Teleconference +Meeting +Meeting. +Draft +Teleconference +Description +initial review of summons and complaint. +Reviewed motion for pro hac vice and Judge +Hafele' order granting +Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit +Drafted engagement letter and sent to client +Reviewed 15th circuit local rules +Initial review of complaint +Meeting w/ DAW to discuss lawsuit and strategy +Meeting w/ AlJ to discuss lawsuit and strategy +Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit +Research and prep for Motion to dismiss +1st Draft motion to dismiss. +Teleconference w/ Client, re: draft motion to +dismiss +Reviewed 1st Draft MTDismiss +Teleconference w/ client, ie: draft motion to +dismiss +Meeting w/ DAW, re: motion to dismiss +Meeting w/ AW. re: MTDismiss +Completed final draft of motion to dismiss; filed with +Court +Rate +$425.00 +$425,00 +$425.00 +$425,00 +$425.00 +•$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00% +Spoke w/'client, re: final draft of motion to dismiss +: $425.00 +Hours +1.5 +0.2 +0.5. +0.3 +1.0 +1.0 +0.5 +0.5 +0.5 +2.0 +1.0 +D.3 +- 0.5 +0.2 +0.2 +0.7 +0.5 +Party. +JOINT +ID#. J24 EV#J24 +DATE ADMITTED: 91/6/2022 +Case No. 2019-CA-014681 +BEACH COUNTY, FL +L, JOSEPHENUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 3:44:22 PM +Line Total +$637.50 +• $85.00 +$127.50 +$425.00 +$475.00 +.$237.50 +$212,50 +$237.50 +$850.00 +$425.00 +$212,50 +$142,50 +$237.50 +$95.00 +585.001 +$297.50 +$212,50 +Joint Exhibit +J24 + + +12/13/2019 +01/16/2020 +01/16/2020 +01/17/2020 +01/17/2020 +01/17/2020 +01/20/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/22/2020 +01/22/2020 +01/23/2020 +01/24/2020 +01/24/2020 +01/24/2020 +01/27/2020 +02/03/2020 +02/03/2020 +03/13/2020 +03/13/2020 +03/18/2020 +03/18/2020 +03/18/2020 +03/19/2020 +03/20/2020 +DW +AIJ +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AU +DW +DW +DW +DW +AU +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +Teleconference +Review +Review +Review +Review +Review +Review +Teleconference +Review +Review +Review +Review +Teleconference +Meeting +Meeting +Review +Research & Draft : +Teleconference +Various +Draft +Review +Review +Review +Teleconferençe +Review +Review +Teleconference +Review +E-mail +E-mail +Review +Spoke with Clerk's attorney, re: response +Reviewed final draft MTDismiss +Reviewed Clerk's MTDismiss +Reviewed Clerk's Motion to Dismiss +Reviewed Order Setting Hearing on Defendants" +MTDismiss +Reviewed motion for pro hac vice +Reviewed Pr's Amerided Complaint +Spoke with client, re: Amended Complaint +Reviewed Pl's notice of filing +Reviewed PI's Am. Compl +Reviewed Judge Mart's Order Cancelling +MTDismiss Hearing +Reviewed Pl's Objection to Defendants' MTDismiss +Spoke with client, re: Amended complaint +Meeting w/ DAW. re: response to Am. Compl. +Meeting w/ All, re: response to Am. Compl +Reviewed Order granting pro hac vice admission +Researched and drafted response to Amended +Complaint +Spoke with Clerk's attomey, re: response to +amended complaint +Completed Answer/MTDismiss Amended +Complaint, filed with Court; sent copy to Client +Drafted and filed Notice of Unavailability +Reviewed final Answer/MTDismiss +Reviewed Clerk's Answer/MTDismiss +Reviewed Order setting hearing on Defs' +MTDismiss +Spoke w/ client, re: order setting TDismiss +hearing for March 24, 2020 +Reviewed Pl's Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss +& Clerk's MTDismiss +Reviewed Pl's Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss +& Clerk's MT.Dismiss +Reviewed email from Pr's counsel, re: motion to +continue hearing +Reviewed P!'s unopposed motion for continuance +Emails w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Pl's request to +continue hearing +Reviewed email from Pl, re: agreed order & +responded +Reviewed Court's agreed order continuing hearing +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +3425,00 +$425,00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +• $425.00 +$425.00 +0.5 +0.2 +0.2 +0.5 +0.1 +0.1 +1.0 +D.5 +0.1. +• 0.3 +0.1 +0.2 +0.5 +0.2 +0.2 +0.1 +1.0 +0.2 +1.0 +0.4 +0.2 +0.3 +0.1 +0.5 +1.5 +0.7 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1 +$212:50 +$95.00 +$95.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$425.00 +$212:50 +$42.50 +$142.50 +$42.50 +$85.00 +. $95.00 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$425.00 +$85.00 +$425.00 +$170.00 +$95.00 +$127.50 +$42.50 +$637.50 +$332.50 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +CA/Arohbeig-0D0304 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +05/22/2020 +05/22/2020 +05/27/2020 +05/27/2020 +05/28/2020 +05/29/2020 +06/01/2020 +06/02/2020 +06/02/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/10/2020 +06/23/2020 +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +•DW +DW +AL +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +AN +DW +AU +DW +DW +Review +Teleconference +Review +Review +Teleconference .. +Review +Teleconference +E-mail +Preparation +E-mail +Various +E-mail +Attend Hearing +Teleconference +E-mail +E-mail +Attend Hearing +Review +Review +Various +Various +Meeting +Meeting +Review +Various +Various +Reviewed order rescheduling hearing on Defs' +MTDismiss +Spoke w/ client, re: order.reschieduling MT Dismiss +hearing for June 3, 2020 +Reviewed Order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing +Reviewed order setting Zoom hearing, re: +MT Dismiss +Spoke w/client, re: hearing will be via Zoom +Reviewed Clerk's filing: change of atty of record +Spoke with Clerk's new counsel, Nicole Fingerhist +Reviewed Pts email, re: cases and authorities for +MTDismiss hearing; responded +Began orál argument prep for 6/B MTDismiss +hearing +Reviewed email from Judge Mart's JA and +responded +Reviewed PI's 500+ page binder, re: MTDismiss & +prepped for hearing +Dratted and sent email to client, re: MTD hearing +tomorrow +Prepped for and attended MTDismiss hearing via +Spoke w/ Client, re: debriel MTDismiss hearing +Emailed courtesy copies of Aronberg's Ariswer and +MT Dismiss to Judge Marx +Reviewed response from Client and replied +Attended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom +Reviewed order granting MT Dismiss w/ prejudice +Reviewed Couit's Order Granting Defendants +MTDismiss Count II w/ Prejudice +Shared order w/ Client and spoke wi, re: result and +plan going forward, re: 57.105 +Researched § 57.105 Fla. Stat.; drafted 57.105 +demand letter and proposed motion for attorneys' +fees/sanctions; Served P!'s counsel with demand +letter and proposed motion. +Meeting w/ DAW, re: Order & 57.105 +Meeting w/ AlJ. re: Order & 57.105 +Reviewed 57.105 demand and proposed motion for +sanction +Reviewed nolice of change of altorney, re: Clerk; +called and spoke w/ new counsel Cynthia Guerra +Reviewed Pl's letter refusing to voluntarily dismiss +amended complaint despite 57.105 demand; called +and spoke w/ client, re: PI's refusal & next steps +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +'$425.00 +$425.00 +0.1 +0.3 +0.1 +0.1. +0.2 +o.1 +02 +o.1 +1.0 +0.1 +3.0 +0.1 +1.5 +0.5 +0.1 +0.1. +1.0 +0.3 +0.5 +0.5 +$42.50 +$127,50 +$47.50 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$425.00 +$42.50 +$1.275.00 +$42.50 +$637.50 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$475:00 +3142.50 +$425.00 +2.0 +$850.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +0.3 +0.3 +0.2 +0.3 +1.0 +$142.50 +$127.50 +:$95.00 +$127.50 +$425.00 +CA/Aropherg 009394 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +06/23/2020 +06/23/2020 +07/01/2020 +07/02/2020 +07/08/2020 +07/08/2020 +07/10/2020 +07/10/2020 +07/10/2020 +07/13/2020 +07/13/2020 +07/27/2020 +07/27/2020 +07/28/2020 +07/29/2020 +07/29/2020 +07/30/2020 +07/30/2020 +08/05/2020 +08/07/2020 +08/10/2020 +08/17/2020 +08/17/2020 +08/18/2020 +08/27/2020 +09/01/2020 +09/02/2020 +09/02/2020 +DW +AL +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +DW +ALJ +DW- +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AL +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW - +E-mail +Review +Various +E-mail +Teleconférence +Teleconference +Draft +Various +Meeting +Review +Teleconference +Review +Teleconference +Draft +Draft +Research & +Preparation +Various +Draft +Draft +Review +E-mail +Meeting +Various +Draft +Teleconference +Various +Review +Teleconference +Sent client copy of PT's letter refusing to dismiss +complaint: +Reviewed Pr's letter refusing to dismiss Count V/Am. +Compl. +Spoke w/ client, re: filing of 57.105 motion for +fees/sanctions; filed motion for attorneys' fees +based on Pis failure to voluntarily dismiss +amended complaint count 1 +Email to client, re: affidavit and summary judgment +Discussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for +Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence +Discussed i/ Client dratting and filing Motion for +Summary Judgment and MS evidence +Created 1st draft of Aronberg Affidavit; shared w/ +client +Reviewed draft affidavit and discussed w/ DAW +Discussed draft affidavit w/ AlJ +Reviewed Pl's Request to Produce, re: Clerk +Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Request to Produce +Reviewed Pl's Amerided Request to Produce, re: +Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Amended Request to +Revised Aronberg affidavit +Research and prep for Motion for Summary +Judgment +Received executed Aronberg Affidavit +Began drafting Motion for Summary Judgment +Continued drafting Motion for Summary Judgment +Reviewed email from Plaintiff attempting to set +hearing on 57,105 motion for fees/sanctions +Sent responsive email to P['s counsel +Discussed draft MSJ w/ AlJ +Reviewed draft MSJ and met w/ DAW to discuss +Finalized Motion for Summary Judgment; filed wl +court along with Aronberg alfidavit +Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: request to produce +Reviewed Pr's email and accepted conference call +invite for 9/2/20 +Reviewed Clerk's response to request for +production - +Spoke w/ Pt's counsel, re: dispute as to whether +MSJ should be heard before 57,105 fee motion or +vis versa - call was unsuccessful +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +0.1 +0.1 +0.5 +0.1 +0.7 +0.7 +1.0 +03| +0.2 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1 +0.1 +0.5 +0.5 +1.0 +0.1 +2.0 +1.0 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2. +0.5 +2.0 +0.1 +0.1 +0.5 +$42.50 +$47.50 +$42.50 +$297.50. +$332.50 +$425.00 +$142,50 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$425.00 +$42.50 +$850.00 +$425.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$237.50 +$850.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$85.00 +CA/Arontdig 08030a BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +09/02/2020 +09/02/2020 +09/16/2020 +09/17/2020 +09/17/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/22/2020 +10/02/2020 +10/02/2020 +10/02/2020 +10/02/2020 +10/12/2020 +10/13/2020 +10/13/2020 +10/13/2020 +10/13/2020 +10/14/2020 +10/14/2020 +10/14/2020 +AL +DW +DW +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +Meeting +Meeting +E-mail +Meeting +Meeting +Various +-E-mail +E-mail +E-mail +E-mail +Various +Review +Review +Review +Review +Research +Research 8 +Analyze +Draft +Meeting +Various +Draft +Telephone +Telephone +Attend Hearing +Various +Discussed w/ DAW phone call w/ Pt's counsel +Discussed w/ AlJ phone call w/ Pr's counsel +Reviewed email from Pl's counsel requested +Aronberg to withdraw sanctions motion w/o +prejudice +Discussed w/ Ald filing motion for CMC +Discussed w/ DAW filing motion for CMC +Drafted and filed motion to set case management +conference; re: MSJ 1st or Fee hearing 1st +Responded to Pl's 9/16/20 email and refused to +withdraw 57.105 motion; provided copy of iration to +set CMC and available dates for hearing +Reviewed Pl's email insisting that 57.105 motion be +withdrawn +Replied to Pl's counsel thạt the 57.105 motion for +sanctions will not be withdrawn and asking for +response, re: CMC +Sent client copy of email exchange w/ PTs counsel; +called and spoke w/ Client +Drafted and filed Notice of Hearing on 10/15/20; set +up Court Call; spoke w/ client, re: hearing date +Reviewed Pr's Memo of Law opposing Aranberg's +57.105 motion for fees/sanctionis +Reviewed Pl's Response to Aronberg's request to +schedule 57.105 motion for fees after MSJ +Reviewed Pi's Memo of Law opposing 57.105 +motion. +Reviewed PI's Response to Aronberg's request to +schedule, 57.105 motion after MSJ +Research caselaw & statutes, re: response to Pr$ +Memo of Law +Continued researching caselaw, ré: response to +Pl's memo of law +Created 1st draft of Response to PI's Memo of Law +and shared w/ Client +Discussed w/ AlJ caselaw and draft response to +memo +Reviewed draft MS, discussed draft w/ DAW and +caselaw +Finalized and filed Response to Pl's Memo of Law +Spoke w/ client, re: memo of law +Spoke w/ client again, re: response to memo of law +Attended hearing, re: Motion to Set CMC; called +client to discuss +Reviewed email and letter from Pl, re: settlement. +Sent copy to Client and called to discuss. +$475.00 +-$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +.0.2 +0.2 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.5 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425:00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +0.1 +0.1 +0.5 +0.7 +0.7 +0.5 +0.5 +0.4 +1.0 +1.0 +4.0 +0.5 +0.7 +1.0 +0.2 +0.1 +:1.5 +0.5 +:$95.00 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$47.50 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$297.50 +$297.50 +$237.50 +$190.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$1,700.00 +$332.50 +$425.00 +$85,00 +$42.50 +: 5637.50 +CA/Aronberg 0D930M BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +10/16/2020 +10/16/2020 +10/16/2020 +10/16/2020 +10/16/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +DW +DW +AU - +AL +DW +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +AU +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AU +Telephone +Telephone +Various +Varicus +Meeting +Various +Telephone +Telephone +Meeting. +Meeting +Various +Telephone +Telephone +Meeting +Meeting +Various +Telephone +Telephone +Telephone +Meeting +Meeting +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/22/2020 +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +DW +DW +Various +Review +Telephone +Telephone +Telephone +Telephone +Telephone +E-mail +Meeting +Meeting +Various +Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: settlement +Spoke w/ client, re: Pts settlement proposal +Altended hearing, re: motion to set CMC; +discussed w/ client +Discussed Pr's settlement proposal w/ DAW and +then w/ Client +Discussed PI's setlement proposal w/ AlJ +Drafted and shared proposed order w/ Pl's counsel +Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: settlement +Spoke w/ client, re: PI's settlement proposal +Discussed Pr's settlement proposal w/ ALJ +Discussed PI's settlement proposal w/ DAW +Uploaded proposed order, re: CMC for Judge +Hafele +Spoke w/ client, re: Pr's settlement proposal +Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: settlement +Discussed Pl's setlement proposal w/ DAW +Discussed Pr's settlement proposal wi AL +Reviewed email from Pl, re: settlement; sent copy +to Client and called to discuss +Spoke w/ client, re: settlement +Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: settlement +Spoke w/ client, re: settlement +Discussed Pl's settlement proposal wi AlJ +Discussed PI's settlement proposal w/ DAW +Drafted and filed Motion to Set Hearing on +Aronberg MSU; drafted proposed order granting +motion to set; checked court availability; emailed +Pl's counsel, re: choose date for hearing +Reviewed Order, re: CMC unnecessary +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Spoké w/ client, re: media response +Sent email w/ Aronberg statement to media +Discussed media response wi DAW +Discussed media response w/ AlJ +Reviewed Pr's Notice of Dropping Aronberg as *- +party: spoke w/ Clierit and Alu, re: notice and next +steps +$425.00 +$425,00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +0.1 +0.2 +1.0 +0.4 +0.2 +0.5. +0.2 +0.5 +0.2 +0.2 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1 +0.2 +0.2 +0.5 +0.4 +0.1 +0.1 +. 0.2 +0.2 +1.0 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1. +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.3 +0.3 +0.5 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$475.00 +$190.00 +$85.00 +$85.00 +$85.00 +$95,00 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$95.00 +$85.00 +$170.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$95.00 +$425.00 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$142.50 +$127.50 +CA/Aronberg OBA308 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +: 10/22/2020 +ALJ +Various +Reviewed PI's Notice of Dropping Aronberg as +party; spoke w/ Client and DAW, re: notice and next +steps +$475.00 +Totals: +0.5 +74.8 +Time Entry Sub-Total: +Sub-Total: +Total: +Amount Paid: +Balance Due: +NOT A CERTIFIED COP +$237.50 +: $32,440.00 +$32,440.00 +$32,440.00 +$32,440.00 +$0.00 +$32,440.00 +CA/Aronberg 090309 BEACH COUNTY, FL, \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3823a816d27483d1b3a184164ce657c7d7c903443a21adfc699bf38b40790eb.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3823a816d27483d1b3a184164ce657c7d7c903443a21adfc699bf38b40790eb.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a89b871b955fe61ab228acd92acaa5b9388f97a5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3823a816d27483d1b3a184164ce657c7d7c903443a21adfc699bf38b40790eb.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -632, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c3823a816d27483d1b3a184164ce657c7d7c903443a21adfc699bf38b40790eb", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "b059e7d406e988f8a174444294b8ce6940401111eefba07c8b97cd45dbfc7dd8", + "output_sha256": "5f9e9a4beac35b77622f8d84871201e617af260dc8e09d67a6acd2191aaf52a6", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3825a91639c7051605ceaef6cb859f18c45243a7135f78f31049a1ab81413c3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3825a91639c7051605ceaef6cb859f18c45243a7135f78f31049a1ab81413c3.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3115e3bf2d8dccacadcf3b3eed74ce57b9a059b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3825a91639c7051605ceaef6cb859f18c45243a7135f78f31049a1ab81413c3.md @@ -0,0 +1,132 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80804-CIV-MARRA/. +JANE DOE, a/k/a, +JANE DOE NO. 1, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +, and +Defendants. +PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE +AND EXPEDITE CERTAIN DISCOVERY +Plaintiff Jane Doe moves, pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 to Preserve Evidence and Expedite +the Discovery of this Evidence and states: +1. Defendants removed this action to federal court on July 21, 2008. (DE 1). +2. Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand on August 18, 2008. (D.E. 11). +3. It has come to the attention of Plaintiff's counsel that on July 21, 2008, Defendant +JEFFREY EPSTEIN filed a Motion with the Florida State Court to return the +evidence seized at his home in conjunction with his criminal prosecution. (Ex. 1). +4. This evidence is relevant and critical to the prosecution of not only the instant claim, +but for six (6) other claims filed against Defendant EPSTEIN, including but not +limited to the Florida RICO claims filed in State Court. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request the Court grant her Motion to Preserve of +all of the seized Evidence identified in Ex. A, to Exhibit 1 of this Motion (Palm Beach Police +Department Property Receipt) should it be Returned to EPSTEIN by the State Court, and + + +Case 9:08-cV-80804-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2008 Page 2 of 5 +expedite the duplication of this evidence immediately upon its return, in advance of any Rule 26 +conference. +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Pursuant to Rules 26, 30 and 34, of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court has +the authority to modify the normal time limitations under the Rules. See AT&T Mobility LLC v. +Dynamic Cellular Corp., 2008 WL 2139518 (S.D. Fla. 2008); see also Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. +Trading, Inc., 2008 WL 918243 (N.D. Tex. 2008): Additionally, when there is a good faith +belief that evidence may be lost the Court has the authority to enter an Order preserving such +evidence. Id. at 1. An injunction is not required, nor are the elements of an injunction necessary +before entering an Order preserving such evidence. Id. at 2, +Given that Defendant EPSTEIN has plead guilty and is currently serving a year in jail +based on the charges which form the foundation of Plaintiffs (and many other Plaintiffs') claims, +it is reasonable to assume the State's seized evidence is extremely harmful to Defendant +EPSTEIN. As a result, without a Protective Order Defendant EPSTEIN has no reason to keep or +maintain this negative evidence. Plaintiff has put Defendant EPSTEIN on notice that this +evidence is relevant to the instant action and any destruction could potentially constitute +spoliation. If this evidence were destroyed Plaintiff would be severely prejudiced. +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1.A.3 +On August 21, 2008, undersigned counsel conferred with counsel for the Defendants in a +good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in this motion, and Defendants' counsel advised that +Defendants oppose this motion. +s/ Spencer 1. Kuvin +Spencer T. Kuvin (Florida Bar Number 089737) +2 of 4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2008 Page 3 of 5 +Certificate of Services +I hereby certify that on August 13, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached Service List in +the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by +CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized +to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +s/ Spencer T. Kuvin +Spencer T. Kuvin (Florida Bar Number 089737) +Attorney E-Mail Address: +RICCI-LEOPOLD, P.A. +2925 PGA Blvd. +Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +Telephone: (561) 684-6500 +Facsimile: (561) 697-2383 +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +3 of 4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 12: Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2008 Page 4 of 5 +SERVICE LIST +Doe v. Epstein, et. al. +CASE NO: 08-80804-Civ-MARRA/ +United States Distriet Court, Southern Distriet of Florida +Robert Critton, Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 842-2820 +Fax: (561) 515-3148 +Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein +Served via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid +Guy Alan +Email: +Esg +Tein +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, FL 33133 +Phone: (305) 442-1101 +Fax: (305) 442-6744 +Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein +Served via CM/ECF +Bruce E: Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 202-6360 +Fax: (561) 828-0983 +Counsel for +Served via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid +Michael R. Tein, Esq. +Email: tein@lewistein.com +Tein +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, FL 33133 +Phone: (305) 442-1101 +Fax: (305) 442-6744 +Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein +Served via CM/ECF +4 of 4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2008 Page 5 of 5 +Douglas M. McIntosh, Esq. +Jason A. +, Esq. +McIntosh, Sawran, Peltz. & Cartaya, P.A. +Centurion Tower, Suite 1110 +1601 Forum Place +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 682-3202 +Fax: (561) 682-3206 +Counsel for +Served via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid +5 of 4 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3825a91639c7051605ceaef6cb859f18c45243a7135f78f31049a1ab81413c3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3825a91639c7051605ceaef6cb859f18c45243a7135f78f31049a1ab81413c3.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..47cb09a0cb3d8ecad1bb58697de0e256f5f91adb --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3825a91639c7051605ceaef6cb859f18c45243a7135f78f31049a1ab81413c3.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c3825a91639c7051605ceaef6cb859f18c45243a7135f78f31049a1ab81413c3", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "af5cd9bd9833f8fe5121c7969d68297cd69c9b4a25e818a43e6ca27b2dd2651f", + "output_sha256": "68d1310990212b15a20cefd60c7f6801103694b5120da15223f3b499f6c7ad87", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3bab8b63e2ab0f6dd35cbee60b991be50b275c69d228f7a0ccd0991ce0f9fb7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3bab8b63e2ab0f6dd35cbee60b991be50b275c69d228f7a0ccd0991ce0f9fb7.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d3d83a9a5ae2b7b9ae297500a136a57dc617034b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3bab8b63e2ab0f6dd35cbee60b991be50b275c69d228f7a0ccd0991ce0f9fb7.md @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 1 of 3 + +to +Plaintiffs Jane Doe 101 and Jane Doe 102's +Motion for No-Contact Order + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 2 of 3 +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER +& COLEMAN LLP +A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP +I. MICHAEL BURMAN, P.A.' +GREGORY W. COLEMAN, P.A. +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., P.A.' +BERNARD LEBEDEKER +MARK T. LUTTIER, P.A. +JEFFREY C. PEPIN +MICHAEL J. PIKE +HEATHER MeNAMARA RUDA +I FLORIDA BOARD CERTIPIED +CIVIL TRIAL LAWYER +May 21, 2009 +DELQUI J. BENAVEN +ARAL.BGAL./ INVESTIGATI +ARBARA M. McKENN +SHLIE STOKEN-BARD +BETTY STOKES +PARALEGALS +RITA H. BUDNYK +OF COUNSEL +Sent by E-Mail and U.S. Mail +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +Katherine Ezell, Esq. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Dear Bob: +Lawyers who represent Mr. Epstein are well familiar with the Rules of +Professional Conduct, including Rule 4-4.2. At the same time, I am certain you are +The Comment provides "Parties to a matter may +To my knowledge, neither Mr. Epstein nor any attorney or agent of those +attorneys who represent Mr. Epstein, have contacted or attempted to contact your +clients. Given that it is not Mr. Epstein's intention to have direct contact with your +clients, it is unnecessary to respond point by point to statements attributed to my co- +515 N. FLAGLER DRIVE / SUITE 400 / WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 +TELEPHONE (561) 842-2820 FAX (561) 844-6929 +mail@belclaw.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 3 of 3 +May 21, 2009 +Page 2 +Rather than to be concerned about what my client is doing, I would ask that you +advise your clients not to contact Mr. Epstein's lawyers directly. Neither 1 nor the +attorneys who represent Mr. Epstein want to be put in a position where we are set up by +any of your clients. +RobeD. Cition, Jr. +RDC/msc +CC: +Roy Black, Esq. +Jay Lefkowitz, Esq. +J. Michael Burman, Esq. +Jack Goldberger, Esq. +Josefsberg.011.doc diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3bab8b63e2ab0f6dd35cbee60b991be50b275c69d228f7a0ccd0991ce0f9fb7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3bab8b63e2ab0f6dd35cbee60b991be50b275c69d228f7a0ccd0991ce0f9fb7.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8f950160a60a493f10ba8469bbb248ec32389e1e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3bab8b63e2ab0f6dd35cbee60b991be50b275c69d228f7a0ccd0991ce0f9fb7.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -45, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c3bab8b63e2ab0f6dd35cbee60b991be50b275c69d228f7a0ccd0991ce0f9fb7", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "9aa448a06aec11f5ed809c7de1668fcab35513b115b7d135c6e08d9d0938e87b", + "output_sha256": "e6bb0b292443c0400534f6d594b37f4b5cdd82d516aecaa522db23417ee19d47", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3c935efbbc38cdc225bc28e1b4c30b46e727255119808a70ed9b3831c2fc978.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3c935efbbc38cdc225bc28e1b4c30b46e727255119808a70ed9b3831c2fc978.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5a84ae149459128776d9c417a0f3f4b77de4b32f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3c935efbbc38cdc225bc28e1b4c30b46e727255119808a70ed9b3831c2fc978.md @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 33 +Filed 12/19/19 +Page 1 ot 1 +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 32 Filed 12/19/19 Page 1 of 1 +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +troutman™ +New York, New York 10022 +sanders +troutman.com +Bennet J. Moskowitz +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +December 19, 2019 +ECF +Hon. Paul A. Engelmayer +Thurgood Marshall +United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 +Re: +Jane Doe 17 v. Darren ||. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as Joint Personal +Representatives of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, et al., 1:19-cv-09610-PAE- +DCF +Dear Judge Engelmayer: +We represent Defendants Darren _. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of +Jeffrey E. Epstein (named herein as "Joint Personal Representative[s] of the Estate of Jeffrey E. +Epstein"), Nine East 71st Street, Corporation, Financial Trust Company, Inc., NES, LLC, Laurel, +Inc., Maple, Inc., LSJE, LLC, HBRK Associates, Inc., Nautilus, Inc., Cypress, Inc., and JEGE, +Inc. (together, "Defendants") in the referenced action. We write to respectfully request a two +day extension of Defendants' time to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF #1), from Saturday +December 21, 2019, to Monday December 23, 2019. +The parties previously stipulated (ECF #20) and the Court So Ordered (ECF #21) that +Defendants would accept service of Plaintiff's Complaint and have until December 21, 2019 to +respond thereto. This is the first request for an extension of the agreed upon December 21, +2019 deadline. Plaintiff consents to Defendants' request. +12/19/19 +Thank you for your attention to this matter. +Respectfully submitted, +Is/Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +Granted. Further requests for extensions and adjournments +should be directed to Judge Freeman, to whom this case +has been referred for general pretrial purposes. +SOORDERE aul A. Engely +PAUL A. ENGELMAYER +United States District Judge diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3c935efbbc38cdc225bc28e1b4c30b46e727255119808a70ed9b3831c2fc978.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3c935efbbc38cdc225bc28e1b4c30b46e727255119808a70ed9b3831c2fc978.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8a75148c6091b90cb21170e5e8debbc566eeee8e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3c935efbbc38cdc225bc28e1b4c30b46e727255119808a70ed9b3831c2fc978.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c3c935efbbc38cdc225bc28e1b4c30b46e727255119808a70ed9b3831c2fc978", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "3c28e8849a1704c3e46019bb164954c26a9514dd6ce6a94c83b8946f84061f27", + "output_sha256": "76747dd9bbb8527b2574fb079a1acc947663679a04b0cf3cee7c96745e11fa7a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3d99eeaf193cec2df8d20801deba77393e80f8cbbf0bf1516ff3e50ed25b67f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3d99eeaf193cec2df8d20801deba77393e80f8cbbf0bf1516ff3e50ed25b67f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f2b56a2695935063e1f17480f9cbb76626fdf3db --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3d99eeaf193cec2df8d20801deba77393e80f8cbbf0bf1516ff3e50ed25b67f.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +MAR 2 5 2009 +TEVEN M. LARIMOR +LERK U.S +DIST. CT. +S.D. OF FLA. - V +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION IN +RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO +INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, +INCLUDING SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW +This matter came before the Court on Defendant's, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Motion to +Exceed Page Limitation +Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to +Interrogatories and Production of Documents, Including Supporting Memorandum of Law. +(0E=68) +Having considered Defendant's motion and Plaintiff's counsel being in agreement with the +request to exceed page limitaton, it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: +Defendant's motion is GRANTED. Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to +Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents, Including Supporting +Memorandum of Law may exceed 20 pages. +DONE and ORDERED this 24 day of MARCH +_, 2009. +Kenneth A. Marra +United States District Judge +MAGiSTRATE +R. Johnsoo +Courtesy Copies: Counsel of Record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3d99eeaf193cec2df8d20801deba77393e80f8cbbf0bf1516ff3e50ed25b67f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3d99eeaf193cec2df8d20801deba77393e80f8cbbf0bf1516ff3e50ed25b67f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..91dadfa4234f49e1aa38d3dff82fc613ad9d551d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c3d99eeaf193cec2df8d20801deba77393e80f8cbbf0bf1516ff3e50ed25b67f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c3d99eeaf193cec2df8d20801deba77393e80f8cbbf0bf1516ff3e50ed25b67f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0d1e57e18799c0c5662b54034e0eeb4805ff79f11db385c92cb8d7f0da881c83", + "output_sha256": "a9b7f712160dc4578998b87736eb59819f5e3af93d561a5e5f2f58d05eef50ab", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c407b6592903539f9ead4ae7e463e969059c065db725d78134f1a620caf957ad.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c407b6592903539f9ead4ae7e463e969059c065db725d78134f1a620caf957ad.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5438ece4f2aa9828d4e03c285dfe2a54b4c258cb --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c407b6592903539f9ead4ae7e463e969059c065db725d78134f1a620caf957ad.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 114 Filed 06/16/21 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE +USDC SDNY +DOCUMENT +FLECTRONICALLY FILED +DOC# +DATE FILED: 6:16:2/. +20 cv 484 (JGK) +ORDER +Plaintift, +- against - +DARREN. INDYKE, +ET AL. +Defendants. +JOHN G. KOELIL, District Judge: +Defendant, Ghislane Maxwell, seeks to have her costs in the +amount of $13.70 taxed against the plaintiff because the +plaintiff dismissed this action with prejudice against Ms. +Maxwell. The Clerk declined to tax costs because the plaintiff +disputed whether Ms. Maxwell was a prevailing party. This Court +previously found that Ms. Maxwell was a prevailing party. See +ECE No. 98 at 5. By letter dated June 10, 2021, ECE. No. 113, +counsel for the plaintiff indicated that if the Court is +inclined to grant Ms. Maxwell's request, the plaintiff will send +the plaintiff the $13.70. Because Ms. Maxwell is the prevailing +party, the plaintiff should pay the costs in the amount of +$13.70. +SO ORDERED. +Dated: +New York, New York +June 16, 2021 +- +John G. Koeltl +United States District Judge diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c407b6592903539f9ead4ae7e463e969059c065db725d78134f1a620caf957ad.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c407b6592903539f9ead4ae7e463e969059c065db725d78134f1a620caf957ad.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cc9eda58e5d9f117f5e6800d1c26a8559276573c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c407b6592903539f9ead4ae7e463e969059c065db725d78134f1a620caf957ad.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c407b6592903539f9ead4ae7e463e969059c065db725d78134f1a620caf957ad", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f1f97591d8091790d3548f82351a1f99441043212b19097623b2ddb64f16efdb", + "output_sha256": "cab4b4bacdf891c6bae64de10f9689d10153b173b5c35f4eab0738c497ea8052", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c42ad09bd08126d233c76e9b436125b104a1044a7d04fa9e1f9b8d44493a5665.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c42ad09bd08126d233c76e9b436125b104a1044a7d04fa9e1f9b8d44493a5665.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c1223da12640fb984a303caa390ad35d33295988 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c42ad09bd08126d233c76e9b436125b104a1044a7d04fa9e1f9b8d44493a5665.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 97 Filed 11/12/20 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN I. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in +their capacities as the executors of the Estate of +Jeffrey E. Epstein, +Defendant. +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) (DCF) +STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL +Plaintiff, JANE DOE, and Defendants, Darren . Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, executors +of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and +agree that pursuant to Plaintiff's acceptance of an offer of compensation from the Epstein +Victims' Compensation Program and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), this action shall be +dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs. +Roll +Roberta A. Kaplan +350 5" Avenue, Suite 7110 +New York, NY 10118 +(212) 763-0883 +rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Molly S. DiRago +Molly S. DiRago +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +(212) 704-6000 +molly.dirago@troutman.com +Counsel for Defendants Darren +ndyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co +Executors of the Estate of Jeffre +Epstein +Dated: November 12, 2020 +1 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c42ad09bd08126d233c76e9b436125b104a1044a7d04fa9e1f9b8d44493a5665.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c42ad09bd08126d233c76e9b436125b104a1044a7d04fa9e1f9b8d44493a5665.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a20da2ac01c80e7f7a6e88778e13c953e3d3ce1d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c42ad09bd08126d233c76e9b436125b104a1044a7d04fa9e1f9b8d44493a5665.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c42ad09bd08126d233c76e9b436125b104a1044a7d04fa9e1f9b8d44493a5665", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "db0d90e4cd637e504bfc3d4c7f36da4a5afcf6c938ba353206e672b8d6f61fab", + "output_sha256": "9282dae14a9f8046e09da0dc133ae975c42778d4e62784fe8959e04cb0e98ca4", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c43080335674fbc6043c76d717eeee12c27dfb4a0529b3f595a0c2ed3323e89a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c43080335674fbc6043c76d717eeee12c27dfb4a0529b3f595a0c2ed3323e89a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a76b6031f978e2039df90152c6dfefdca639115d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c43080335674fbc6043c76d717eeee12c27dfb4a0529b3f595a0c2ed3323e89a.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2008 + +IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.:08-CV-80232-MARRA-1 +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +NOTICE OF FILING PERMANENT APPEARANCE +The Clerk of Court shall enter the appearance of the undersigned counsel for JEFFREY +EPSTEIN, in the above-entitled cause. +DATED: +June 13, 2008 +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy hereof has been furnished to Jeffrey M. +Herman, Esquire, Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esquire and Adam D. Horowitz, Esq., Herman & +Mermelstein, P.A., 18205 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2218, Miami, Florida, 33160 this 13" day of June, +2008. +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +(561) 659-8300 +Fax: (561)835-8691 +Is/Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. +JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE +Florida Bar No. 262013 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c43080335674fbc6043c76d717eeee12c27dfb4a0529b3f595a0c2ed3323e89a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c43080335674fbc6043c76d717eeee12c27dfb4a0529b3f595a0c2ed3323e89a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ecbfcf5fd30e6b4788ccd02d5e9d688cba1ec2ea --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c43080335674fbc6043c76d717eeee12c27dfb4a0529b3f595a0c2ed3323e89a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -23, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c43080335674fbc6043c76d717eeee12c27dfb4a0529b3f595a0c2ed3323e89a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c1d9f253db9a24701916a2b8f4d969e5ba430b451cde56cb90354fc1a167e24b", + "output_sha256": "95416a04d2bf35a51aaaaf704fb2174d1c10b40efd145135489ab923d33bdde7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4430ee0be5ab02b99df414c1754280d19c8f2c8aac689d12bf7a29f5d3655b7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4430ee0be5ab02b99df414c1754280d19c8f2c8aac689d12bf7a29f5d3655b7.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..abd3d8ed1b7b0d89279d794ecb63b9df7274f1c2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4430ee0be5ab02b99df414c1754280d19c8f2c8aac689d12bf7a29f5d3655b7.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 5-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2010 Page 1 of 1 +RSR +U.S. District Court +Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) +CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:10-cv-80309-WJZ +Internal Use Only +Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defandant +Assigned to: Judge William J. Zloch +Referred to: Magistrate Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum +Cause: 28:1391 Personal Injury +Plaintiff +Sealed Plaintiff +Date Filed: 02/23/2010 +Jury Demand: Plaintift +Nature of Suit: 360 P.L.: Other +Jurisdiction: Federal Question +Defendant +Sealed Defandant +Date Filed +02/23/2010 +02/23/2010 +02/23/2010 +02/23/2010 +03/09/2010 +# +91 +02 +03 +04 +95 +03/09/2010 +96 +Docket Text +Sealed Document (gme) (Entered: 02/23/2010) +Sealed Document (gme) (Entered: 02/23/2010) +Sealed Document (gme) (Entered: 02/23/2010) +Sealed Document (ebs) (Entered: 02/23/2010) +Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Seal and Proceed Anonymously 2 . +Plaintiff's Identity 3 shall be permanently sealed. Clerk is directed to unseal +Dy indge Colam i. loch on 31921000b. Sentered 030920154. Signed +Case Deleted : Case Unsealed (nc) (Entered: 03/09/2010) +https://ecf.flsd.circ11.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?333601464819395-L_560_0-1 +3/9/2010 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4430ee0be5ab02b99df414c1754280d19c8f2c8aac689d12bf7a29f5d3655b7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4430ee0be5ab02b99df414c1754280d19c8f2c8aac689d12bf7a29f5d3655b7.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e9c52a9abcaf3fecfc911d41a2be429990ab8567 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4430ee0be5ab02b99df414c1754280d19c8f2c8aac689d12bf7a29f5d3655b7.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -23, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c4430ee0be5ab02b99df414c1754280d19c8f2c8aac689d12bf7a29f5d3655b7", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e5a818a1ce547267779a4dab9021e4017f4535cfcb415926984e2ab855a1b1f5", + "output_sha256": "b832f4e31595a53e0a537b73767e53af60d4952d4d0b6642190304419856c763", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c463bc4bf8a6f0f497308ae08455bffc19237a02c4394f6356e42590684d1ed8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c463bc4bf8a6f0f497308ae08455bffc19237a02c4394f6356e42590684d1ed8.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0d495ce45c892fc5b5fbdf1853bda3e74fae64b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c463bc4bf8a6f0f497308ae08455bffc19237a02c4394f6356e42590684d1ed8.md @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 44-3 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 1 of 1 +DECLARATION OF JANE DOE NO. 6 +state as follows: +I am the Plaintiff identified as Jane Doe No. 6 in this lawsuit. +On July 9, 2009, an investigator came to the office of my former employer, A +Affordable Auto Insurance, in Lake Worth, Florida. +After the investigator left, 1 was contacted by my former employer and told that +the investigator was asking personal questions about me. +I am worried that Jeffrey Epstein will continue to send investigators to speak with +other people I know who do not know that I am a Plaintiff in this lawsuit. I am concerned that +the investigators will ask these people very personal questions about my life and disclose that I +am a Plaintiff in a sexual abuse lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein. +I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing to be true and correct. +→ 2009 +Dated this 22 day of July +mika line Doc Nigo diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c463bc4bf8a6f0f497308ae08455bffc19237a02c4394f6356e42590684d1ed8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c463bc4bf8a6f0f497308ae08455bffc19237a02c4394f6356e42590684d1ed8.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6e179ec0a770251b081f83bf2fd87f81285e8dd2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c463bc4bf8a6f0f497308ae08455bffc19237a02c4394f6356e42590684d1ed8.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c463bc4bf8a6f0f497308ae08455bffc19237a02c4394f6356e42590684d1ed8", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e7d4e209686915662b47691feb0a5c1eb2a4e04db2493b5eea697a2a89547e62", + "output_sha256": "0cd0a3c75b31377e890549953a09c0371cb87ce353a592a8526c3dfb3d4da375", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4695a928db9b8332c336fc6ee1d7d533bdfce2d022a2a8b1936c1a1b3b549ae.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4695a928db9b8332c336fc6ee1d7d533bdfce2d022a2a8b1936c1a1b3b549ae.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..85df5977a2bfc6e71a0e176812590f3f9144642b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4695a928db9b8332c336fc6ee1d7d533bdfce2d022a2a8b1936c1a1b3b549ae.md @@ -0,0 +1,334 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 6 +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE +CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE +REMEDIES +CASE NO: +08-80736-Ciy-Marra/ + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 2 of 6 +• +FD-302 (Rev. 10-6-95) +- 1 - +FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION +Date of transcription 08/14/2007 +C +was interviewed in West Palm Beach, +Florida, regarding a +tederal investigation involving the sexual +exploitation of minors. +After being advised of the identity of the +interviewing agents +and the nature of the interview, w +provided +the following information: +In 2003 Or 2004 W +I was introduced to JEFFREY EPSTEIN +for the purpose of providing him with personal massages. +I was +approached at a party by a female she believed was named CHARLISE. +She described the female as having brown hair and taller. +female was later identified as +o's friend, TH +that they could make money by +providing massages to EPSTEIN. +• that she coulo +provide the massages with her clothes on or off. W, who was +fifteen years old, +believed that she was close to turning sixteen +when she first met EPSTEIN. However, during W +•s first contact +with EPSTEIN, she told him that she had just turned eighteen. +• traveled to EPSTEIN's residence in Palm +Beach by taxi +was pregnant at the time. +Once at the +residence, +took w +upstairs. +EPSTEIN entered the room +wearing only +Once EPSTEIN had removed the robe, both +• provided EPSTEIN with a massage. Both +had removed their clothing and remained only in their +underwear. EPSTEIN asked ( +to leave. +Once alone with we +EPSTEIN began to masturbate. +was uncomfortable. +EPSTEIN climaxed the massage was over. Wl believed that 1 +had mentioned EPSTEIN might masturbate during the massage but she +was still very surprised when he masturbated. +EPSTEIN paid Wi +$200.00. +EPSTEIN did not touch We during that massage. +departed EPSTEIN's residence with two men that worked for EPSTEIN. +They drove Wamoto a Shell Gas Station located near Okeechobee +Boulevard and the Florida Turnpike. +Prior to departing the residence, n +•provided her +telephone number to one of EPSTEIN's assistants, +(PHONETIC) • +• described her as a very pretty Hispanic female in +her early twenties, with long. +hair, and approximately 5'5" to +5'6" tall. Wi +•stated that +another of EPSTEIN's +assistants, or EPSTEIN would usually contact her. +I would +telephone and ask if she was available or if she had any other +Investigation on +08/07/2007 +File : 31E-MM-108062 +SA E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall +by +SA Jason R. Richards +_" West Palm Beach, Florida +Date dictated 08/07/2007 +This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: +it and its conlents are not to be distributed outside your agency. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 3 of 6 +Continuation of FD-302 of +. On 08/07/2007 +_, Page _ +girls she could bring. +When EPSTEIN telephoned, +he usually asked +for Wu to come over. +Accofding to WE EPSTEIN's house +elephone number began with the digits 655. +She would call +sometimes and leave a message. +w stated that when they +telephoned her they would inform her of when they would be coming +back to town and if +she might have anyone new. +•did not +believe that EPSTBIN ever really liked her. +traveled to the EPSTEIN's residence during 2003 and +2004 over twenty five times. +believed that she +provided +EPSTEIN with approximately 10-15 massages. +EPSTEIN initially +started out touching Wh +s breasts but gradually the massages +became more sexual. EPSTEIN would instruct W +• on how and what to +do during the massages. +He would request W +• to rub his chest and +nipples. +wE stated that on approximately two occasions, EPSTEIN +asked that Wi remove her underwear and provide the massage nude. +complied. +W stated that EPSTEIN would make her feel that +she had the option to do what she wanted. +During one massage, +stated that she had been giving +EPSTEIN a massage for approximately 30-40 minutes when instead of +EPSTEIN turning over to masturbate, +EPSTEIN brought another female +into the massage area. +•described the female as a +beautiful +blonde girl, a "Cameron +" type, 19 years of age, bright blue +eyes, and speaking with an +accent. +EPSTEIN had Wo straddle the +female on the massage table. EPSTEIN wanted WI +•to touch cne +females breast. +According to we +EPSTEIN "pleasured" the female +while WI +• was +straddled on top of the female: W +stated she +could hear what she believed to be a vibrator. +said for +EPSTEIN it was all about pleasuring the female. +After the female +climaxed, EPSTEIN patted W. +on the shoulder and she removed +herself +from the table. +The female got up from the table and went +into the spa/sauna. +EPSTEIN commented to Wi +•that in a few +minutes the female would realize what had just happened to her. +W +received $200.00. +• advised the interviewing agents that EPSTEIN had +used a back massager on her vagina. +EPSTEIN asked her first if he +could use the massager on her. +wastated that she had held her +breath when EPSTEIN +used the back massager on her. +WE stated +that at no time during any of the massages had EPSTEIN caused her +to climax. +During another massage, W +was seventeen, +EPSTEIN placed his hand on leved by this time she +• vagina, touching + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 4 of 6 +Continuation of FD-302 of +. On 08/07/2007 Page 3 +clitoris. +W +was uncomfortable and told him to stop. +EPSTEIN complied. +•stated that the incident freaked her out. +•stated that EPSTEIN was upset because she was upset. +WI +never return to the residence. +•stated that she did not deal +with EPSTEIN anymore after that incident. +PSTEIN gave both Win and Meach a book entitle +"Massage for Dummies". +Thev received the books on the same visi +EPSTEIN also commented how strong W +her providing his massages. +On another occasion, W +mentioned to EPSTEIN that she +looking at a car, a Toyota Corolla. +EPSTEIN provided we +$600.00 - $700.00. +We stated that EPSTEIN gave her the money +after the incident with the other female. +According to W +EPSTEIN would ask her to bring him +other girls. +• who started dancing at strip clubs when she was +brought girls from the club as well as from other sources. +|I stated she brought girls from fifteen years of age to twentyfive years of age: +" stated that EPSTEIN would get frustrated +her if she did not have new females for him. On one instance, +EPSTEIN hung up on her because she could not provide him with +anyone new. +•stated that EPSTEIN's preference was short, +Worstated that EPSTEIN was upset when one +other girls brought a black girl. wu +• stated that EPSTEIN +did not want black girls or girls with tatoos. +stated that one of the girls she stayed with on +occasion, +• also started providing EPSTEIN with +massages. +A telephone number for El +said that her family resides in +• Florida, possibly +•also stayed with +• during this same +time period. +However, ( +never went to EPSTEIN's house or +provided him with massages. +has a Yacht Club address. +Another girl that w +•had taken to EPSTEIN's residence +was LI +Last Name Unknown +According to w +• EPSTEIN +liked I +a lot. +said that she was never a favorite of +EPSTEIN. EPSTEIN offered W +$300.00 to bring IN +• LNU. +was a couple years younger than W wi +believed that she +was either 16 or 17 when she first went to EPSTEIN's residence. +ward said that L +INU went 2-3 times but that she did not want +any part of it after that. +wa believes she could identify LI +if she saw her photograph. +W +• also stated that Lu +LNU at + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 5 of 6 +.. On 08/07/2007. +_. Page, +4 +Continuation of FD-302 of +one time attended +HIGH SCHOOL. +believed that they had met through a group of friends while +attending +- a dropout prevention school. +mentioned another girl by the name of Cu +EPSTEIN distinguished the two +• by referring to +• worked at an ice cream +•stated that she did not like I• +• and that I +was a storyteller and a bad liar. +we stated that I +really wanted to go to EPSTEIN's residence but she went anyway. +said that she had not taken a good 1o0k at EPSTEIN's +explained that it seemed like he would always try and +hide his penis. +• stated that EPSTEIN never asked her for sex. +started dancing when she was sixteen at +The owner, +let her dance. +worked at +Beach, Florida. +• located +•has also +in Boynton +used illegal drugs during the years she provided +EPSTEIN with massages. +We said that EPSTEIN tried to provide her +with advice regarding controlled substances. +stated that she met with EPSTEIN's attorneys, +and +a unidentified female (UF), at +the ALE HOUSE RESTAURANT. +met with them after she contacted +who contirmed that +they were really working for EPSTEIN. +stated that +also +talked of her twin boys and stated that she was living in +Manhattan, W found out that i +mand the UF are employed by +They asked a lot of questions. +specifically asked about L +1 and a GAiN LNU. +reiterated +her dislike for +•L +W +also informed the interviewing agents that she had +spoken to M. +she believed before the fourth of July. +told withat she had met with investigators and that they had +videoed her. +confirmed her association to the following telephone +numbers: +Old cellular number - (561)l +Possibly an old cellular number +- (561)D +ug telephone number - (561) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 6 of 6 +Continuation of FD-302 of +. On 08/07/2007_ «Puge , +5 +" ... \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4695a928db9b8332c336fc6ee1d7d533bdfce2d022a2a8b1936c1a1b3b549ae.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4695a928db9b8332c336fc6ee1d7d533bdfce2d022a2a8b1936c1a1b3b549ae.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4e7db159117d7349274be899649295127195c64e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4695a928db9b8332c336fc6ee1d7d533bdfce2d022a2a8b1936c1a1b3b549ae.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -232, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c4695a928db9b8332c336fc6ee1d7d533bdfce2d022a2a8b1936c1a1b3b549ae", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "0f44255c3cf69c036dbe2a34f8574867d5263884b3d76cf16f0222354b4f2a73", + "output_sha256": "fcfcefa3293d030deb31376f1eb0fc18939554f88215514fe7c908c4a556a2ab", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4c24abbd88f600147d97b56209270a96b3f4a29c633b4d0aa85dd76877c9684.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4c24abbd88f600147d97b56209270a96b3f4a29c633b4d0aa85dd76877c9684.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f44dba339dc2e3f84768401ec9d9f351f3d21c3a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4c24abbd88f600147d97b56209270a96b3f4a29c633b4d0aa85dd76877c9684.md @@ -0,0 +1,939 @@ +IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, +FOURTH DISTRICT +DCA NO. 23-0536 +L.T. NO. 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida +Appellant, +VS. +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST +Appellee. +RECORD ON +APPÉAL +APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION) +DOUGLAS A. WYLER +doug@jswflorida.com +filings@jswflorida.com +ARTHUR +buddy@jswflorida.com +RECORDS ON APPEAL +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL. + +ABRUZZO, CLERK 04/05/2023 01:54:37 PM + + +RICHARD J. SCHOLZ +rich@jswflorida.com +NINA D BOYAJIAN +BoyajianN@gtlaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com +MICHAEL GRYGIEL +GrygieIM@gtlaw.com +LAUREN R. WHETSTONE +whetstonel@gtlaw.com +flservice@gtlaw.com +sandra.famadas@gtlaw.com +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN +mendelsohns@gtlaw.com +rita.curran@gtlaw.com +CERTIFIED COPY +NOT A +RECORDS ON APPEAL + + + +Case Description: CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEAC +Date +Instrument +04/05/23 PROGRESS DOCKET +11/14/19 CIVIL COVER SHEET +11/14/19 COMPLAINT: F/B PLT +11/15/19 VERIFIED MOTION: FOR ADMISSION OF MICHAEL G +11/19/19 ORDER: HAFELE DTD 11/19/19: MOTION TO APP +12/06/19 MOTION TO DISMISS: F/B DFT DAVE ARONBERG AS +12/13/19 MOTION TO DISMISS: F/B DFT SHARON R BOCK AS +01/16/20 ORDER SETTING HEARING: KMARZ DTD 1/16/20 0 +01/16/20 VERIFIED MOTION: AS TO PRO HAC VICE OF NINA +01/17/20 COMPLAINT: FIRST AMENDED FIB PLT +01/17/20 NOTICE OF FILING: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT F +01/21/20 ORDER: KMARX DTD 1/21/20 CANCELLING HEARIN +01/21/20 OBJECTION: PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDA +01/22/20 ORDER GRANTING: DHAEFELE DTD 1/22/20 MOTION +01/24/20 ANSWER: TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTI +01/24/20 ANSWER: TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTI +02/03/20 ORDER SETTING HEARING: MARTZ DTD 2/3/20: 3 +03/12/20 NOTICE: OPPOSITION TO DFT DAVE ARONBEG STAT +03/12/20 NOTICE: OPPOSITION TO DFT SHARON R. BOCK CL +03/18/20 MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE CIVIL: PLAINTIFF'S U +03/20/20 ORDER OF CONTINUANCE: MARX +DTD 03/19 +04/21/20 ORDER RESETTING: ON MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT +05/22/20 ORDER SETTING HEARING: MARX DTD 05/22/20 +05/27/20 NOTICE -NAME/ADDRESS CHANGE: CHANGE OF ATTY +06/08/20 ORDER GRANTING: MARX; DFTS MOTIONS TO D +06/10/20 NOTICE -NAME/ADDRESS CHANGE: AND DIRECTIONS +07/01/20 MOTION: DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG'S MOTION F +08/18/20 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: DEFENDANT DAVE +08/18/20 AFFIDAVIT: AFFIDAVIT_OF DAVID ARONBERG +09/18/20 MOTION: MOTION TO SET CASE MANAGEMENT CONFE +10/02/20 MEMORANDUM OF LAW: IN OPPOSITION TO THE STA +10/02/20 RESPONSE TO:: DFT STATE ATTY DAVE ARONBERGS +10/14/20 RESPONSE TO:: PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW +10/21/20 ORDER: HAFELE DTD 10/21/20: CASE MANAGEMEN +10/21/20 MOTION: MOTION TO SET HEARING ON DEFENDANT, +10/21/20 NOTICE OF DROPPING PARTY: AS TO DFT DAVE AR +Pages +0008-0012 +0013-0014 +0015-0104 +0105-0110 +0111-0112 +0113-0115 +0116-0119 +0120-0121 +0122-0126 +0127-0220 +0221-0316 +0317-0318 +0319-0321 +0322-0323 +0324-0336 +0337-0350 +0351-0352 +0353-0373 +0374-0391 +0392-0394 +0395-0396 +0397-0398 +0399-0402 +0403-0403 +0404-0410 +0411-0411 +0412-0413 +0414-0422 +0423-0424 +0425-0458 +0459-0472 +0473-0506 +0507-0531 +0532-0532 +0533-0534 +0535-0536 + + + +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +Case Description: CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEAC +10/29/20 MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DIRECT THE CL +11/09/20 MOTION: DEFENDANT DAVE ARONBERG'S AMENDED M +11/09/20 AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY FEES: AFFIDAVIT OF AT +11/19/20 AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY FEES: VERIFIED AFFIDA +12/03/20 NOTICE OF NON JURY TRIAL: FILED BY DAVE ARO +12/10/20 NOTICE OF NON JURY TRIAL: AMENDED FIL +01/28/21 NOTICE: OF CHANGE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD AND +01/28/21 ORDER SETTING HEARING: HAFELE DTD 01/28/202 +03/25/21 NOTICE -NAME/ADDRESS CHANGE: CHANGE OF COUN +04/22/21 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. AND INCORPORAT +04/22/21 APPENDIX: TO MOTION PLTS' MOTION FOR SUMMAR +05/24/21 MOTION: PLAINTIFF CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC +05/25/21 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE CIVIL: AS COUNSEL FOR +05/25/21 RESPONSE TO:: PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SCHEDULE +06/11/21 AGREED ORDER: HAFELE; ON PLF'S MOTION TO S +07/15/21 MEMORANDUM OF LAW. AND RESPONSE IN OPPOSITI +07/23/21 AFFIDAVIT: OF DAVID ARONBERG +07/23/21 TRANSCRIPT: OF HEARING ON 6-3-20 +07/23/21 MEMORANDUM OF LAW: IN SUPPORT OF DAVE ARONB +07/26/21 ORDER SETTING HEARING: D HAFELE DTD. 7/26 +07/26/21 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE CIVIL: F/B ATTY WHETST +07/26/21 ORDER RESETTING: DHAFELE DTD 7/26/21 HEARI +07/29/21 MEMORANDUM OF LAW: IN SUPPORTOF DEFENDANT D +08/05/21 MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE CIVIL: JOINT MOTION +0537-0540 +0541-0599 +0600-0619 +0620-0623 +0624-0624 +0625-0625 +0626-0627 +0628-0630 +0631-0631 +0632-0666 +0667-1376 +1377-1380 +1381-1383 +1384-1387 +1388-1389 +1390-1402 +1403-1404 +1405-1426 +1427-1448 +1449-1452 +1453-1455 +1456-1459 +1460-1606 +1607-1609 +08/09/21 ORDER: HAFELE DTD 8/5/21: JOINT MOTION TO +08/12/21 MEMORANDUM OF LAW: AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF LA 1613-1950 +10/01/21 RESPONSE TO:: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMAR +10/05/21 ORDER: HAFELE: CONFIRMING HEARING ON PLAINT +10/13/21 REPLY/RESPONSE: IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOYIO +12/20/21 FINAL JUDGMENT: D HAFELE DTD 12/20/2021 +01/03/22 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE CIVIL: AND DESIGNATION +01/03/22 MOTION: CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTR +01/19/22 MOTION: CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTR +01/26/22 NOTICE: CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTR +01/27/22 NOTICE OF APPEAL CIVIL: ORDER RENDERED ON 1 +02/24/22 REPLY/RESPONSE: [AMENDED] AND MEMORANDUM OF +03/30/22 MOTION TO WITHDRAW: F/B DFT JOSEPH ABRUZZO +1978-1981 +1982-1992 +1993-2006 +2007-2009 +2010-2014 +2015-2022 +2023-2024 +2025-2045 +2046-2064 +2065-2067 + + + +Case Description: CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEAC +03/30/22 EXHIBIT: F/B DFT +ABRUZZO AS CLERK AN +04/13/22 NOTICE: DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG'S NOTICE O +04/13/22 AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY FEES: AMENDED & SUPPL +04/14/22 AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY FEES: AMENDED AND SUP +05/25/22 ORDER SETTING HEARING: D. HAFELE DTD 05/25/ +06/07/22 ORD SUBSTITUTION COUNSEL: HAFELE; COLIN D J +07/01/22 ORDER SETTING HEARING: HAFELE: (RESETTING) +07/22/22 MOTION: AGREED MOTION OF PLAINTIFF CA FLORI +09/01/22 EVIDENCE/EXHIBIT LIST FILED: JOINT EXHIBIT +09/08/22 CLERK'S NOTE: EVIDENTIARY HEARING 9/07/22 +09/26/22 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME: TO SUBMIT WRI +09/28/22 AGREED ORDER: DELGADO: ON JOINT MOTION FOR +10/04/22 EXHIBIT LIST +10/04/22 TRANSCRIPT: HEARING PROCEEDINGS DTD SEPTE +10/06/22 NOTICE: CLOSING ARGUMENT OF DEFENDANT, DAVE +10/06/22 NOTICE: WRITTEN CLOSING ARGUMENT OF CA FLOR +02/01/23 ORDER DENYING: L DELGADO DTD 1/31/23 +02/01/23 MOTION: TO ALTER OR AMEND ORDER DENYING THE +02/16/23 RESPONSE TO:: IN OPPOSITION TO STATE ATTY D +03/01/23 NOTICE OF APPEAL CIVIL: ORDER RENDERED ON 1 +03/06/23 ORDER: DELGADO DTD 3/6/23: MOTION TO ALTER +03/10/23 NOTICE OF APPEAL CIVIL: ORDER RENDERED ON 3 +03/27/23 EXHIBIT CHECK OUT RECEIPT +04/05/23 CERTIFICATE +2068-2069 +2070-2071 +2072-2153 +2154-2157 +2158-2161 +2162-2164 +2165-2167 +2168-2187 +2188-2192 +2193-2195 +2196-2198 +2199-2199 +2200-2201 +2202-2480 +2481-2509 +2510-2614 +2615-2616 +2617-2618 +2619-2625 +2626-2629 +2630-2631 +2632-2635 +2636-2637 +4270-4270 + + + +Case Description: CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEAC +Party +OIN +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +Description +Pages +J01 LETTER TO D. ARONBERG FROM S. MENDELSOH +2638-2640 +JO2 LETTER TO J. PACENTI FROM N. CRUZ +2641-2641 +J03 LETTER TO MUSGRAVE FROM N. CRUZ +2642-2644 +J04 SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT +2645-2736 +J05 LETTER TO J. HOWARD FROM D. WYLER +2737-2737 +J06 MOTION TO DISMISS +2738-2740 +J07 MOTION FOR AN ORDER UNSEALING GRAND JUR +2741-2746 +J08 ORDER DENYING THE STATE'S MOTION FOR AN +2747-2753 +J09 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (PART I) +2754-2779 +J09 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (PART II) +2780-2873 +J10 DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG AS STATE ATTOR +2874-2886 +J11 DEFENDANT ARONBERG TWITTER POST +2887-2888 +J12 SAO15 PRESS RELEASE +2889-2889 +J13 HEARING TRANSCRIPT +2890-2894 +J14 EMAIL TO S. MENDELSOHN FROM D WYLER +2895-2899 +J15 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DIS +2900-2906 +J16 LETTER TO D. WYLER FROM S MENDELSOHN +2907-2909 +J17 DEFENDANT DAVE ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR AT +2910-2911 +J18 AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID ARONBERG +J19 DEFENDANT DAVE ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR SU +2912-2913 +2914-2922 +J20 MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF PLAINTIFF CA HOLDI +2923-2936 +J21 DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG'S RESPONSE TO +2937-2961 +J22 LETTER TO D. WYLER FROM S MENDELSOHN +2962-2963 +J23 PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS, LLC'S NOTICE OF +2964-2965 +J24 JACOBS SCHOLZ & WYLER INVOICE +2966-2972 +J25 DEFENDANT DAVE ARONBERG'S AMENDED MOTIO +2973-3031 +J26 AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES +3032-3051 +J27 APPENDIX TO MOTION OF PLT CA FLORIDA H +J27 APPENDIX TO MOTION OF PLT CA FLORIDA HO +3052-3224 +3225-3399 +J27 APPENDIX TO MOTION OF PLT CA FLORIDA HO +3400-3585 +J27 APPENDIX TO MOTION OF PLT CA FLORIDA HO +3586-3760 +J28 MOTION OF PLALINTIFF CA FLORIDA HOLDING +3761-3795 +J29 AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT O +3796-3955 +J29 AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT O +3956-4133 +J30 FINAL JUDGMENT +4134-4147 +J31 AMENDED RESPONSE AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW +| 4148-4166 + + + +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +Case Description: CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEAC +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +JOINT +SCHOLZ & WYLER INVOICE +J33 AMENDED & SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF AT +J34 DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG'S NOTICE OF DR +J35 AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OFy +J36 JAMES V WILLE, 480 SO.2D. 253 (1985) +J37 LETTER FROM M GRYGIEL TO D. ARONBERG +4167-4175 +4176-4257 +4258-4259 +4260-4263 +4264-4266 +4267-4269 +NOT A CERTIFIED + + + +Case Description: CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH +# +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +21 +20 +22 +23 +24 +25 +26 +27 +28 +29 +30 +31 +32 +33 +34 +35 +Effective Date +11/14/2019 +11/14/2019 +11/14/2019 +11/14/2019 +11/15/2019 +11/15/2019 +11/15/2019 +11/15/2019 +11/19/2019 +11/25/2019 +11/25/2019 +12/6/2019 +12/13/2019 +1/16/2020 +1/16/2020 +1/17/2020 +1/17/2020 +1/17/2020 +1/21/2020 +1/21/2020 +1/22/2020 +1/24/2020 +1/24/2020 +1/24/2020 +2/3/2020 +3/12/2020 +3/12/2020 +3/18/2020 +3/20/2020 +4/21/2020 +5/22/2020 +5/27/2020 +6/8/2020 +6/10/2020 +7/1/2020 +Count +Description +CIVIL COVER SHEET +SUMMONS ISSUED +SUMMONS ISSUED +COMPLAINT +DIVISION ASSIGNMENT +PAID < AMOUNT> ON RECEIPT +VERIFIED MOTION +PAID < AMOUNT > ON RECEIPT «NUMBER› +ORDER +SERVICE RETURNED (NUMBERED) +SERVICE RETURNED (NUMBERED) +MOTION TO DISMISS +MOTION TO DISMISS +ORDER SETTING HEARING +VERIFIED MOTION +PAID ON RECEIPT +COMPLAINT +NOTICE OF FILING +ORDER +OBJECTION +ORDER GRANTING +ANSWER +ANSWER +ORDER SETTING HEARING +MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE CIVIL +ORDER OF CONTINUANCE +ORDER RESETTING +ORDER SETTING HEARING +NOTICE -NAME/ADDRESS CHANGE +ORDER GRANTING +NOTICE -NAME/ADDRESS CHANGE +MOTION + + + +Case Description: CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH +# +36 +37 +38 +39 +40 +41 +42 +43 +44 +45 +46 +47 +48 +49 +50 +51 +52 +53 +54 +55 +56 +57 +58 +59 +60 +61 +62 +63 +64 +66 +67 +68 +65 +69 +70 +Effective Date +7/10/2020 +7/24/2020 +8/18/2020 +8/18/2020 +9/2/2020 +9/18/2020 +9/22/2020 +10/2/2020 +10/2/2020 +10/14/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/29/2020 +11/9/2020 +11/9/2020 +11/19/2020 +12/3/2020 +12/10/2020 +1/28/2021 +1/28/2021 +3/25/2021 +4/22/2021 +4/22/2021 +5/24/2021 +5/25/2021 +5/25/2021 +6/11/2021 +7/15/2021 +7/23/2021 +7/23/2021 +7/23/2021 +7/26/2021 +7/26/2021 +7/26/2021 +Count +Description +REQUEST TO PRODUCE +REQUEST TO PRODUCE +MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT +AFFIDAVIT +RESPONSE TO REQ TO PRODUCE +MOTION +NOTICE OF HEARING +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +RESPONSE TO: +RESPONSE TO: +ORDER +MOTION +NOTICE OF DROPPING PARTY +MOTION +MOTION +AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY FEES +AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY FEES +NOTICE OF NON JURY TRIAL +NOTICE OF NON JURY TRIAL +ORDER SETTING HEARING +NOTICE -NAME/ADDRESS CHANGE +MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT +APPENDIX +MOTION +NOTICE OF APPEARANCE CIVIL +RESPONSE TO: +AGREED ORDER +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +AFFIDAVIT +TRANSCRIPT +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +ORDER SETTING HEARING +NOTICE OF APPEARANCE CIVIL +ORDER RESETTING + + + +Case Description: CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH +# +71 +72 +73 +74 +75 +76 +78 +79 +80 +81 +82 +89 +83 +84 +85 +86 +87 +88 +90 +91 +92 +93 +94 +95 +96 +99 +100 +97 +98 +101 +102 +103 +104 +105 +Effective Date +7/29/2021 +8/5/2021 +8/9/2021 +8/12/2021 +10/1/2021 +10/5/2021 +10/13/2021 +12/20/2021 +12/20/2021 +1/3/2022 +1/3/2022 +1/19/2022 +1/26/2022 +1/27/2022 +1/27/2022 +1/27/2022 +1/27/2022 +1/27/2022 +1/28/2022 +2/24/2022 +3/22/2022 +3/22/2022 +3/23/2022 +3/25/2022 +3/30/2022 +3/30/2022 +4/13/2022 +4/13/2022 +4/14/2022 +4/14/2022 +4/20/2022 +4/28/2022 +5/25/2022 +5/31/2022 +6/2/2022 +Count +Description +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE CIVIL +ORDER +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +RESPONSE TO: +ORDER +REPLY/RESPONSE +FINAL JUDGMENT +DISPOSED AFTER OTHER +NOTICE OF APPEARANCE CIVIL +MOTION +MOTION +NOTICE OF APPEAL CIVIL +PAID ON RECEIPT +AUTOMATIC RECEIPT APPELLATE FILING +ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASE +TRUE COPY +TRUE COPY +REPLY/RESPONSE +INDEX TO RECORD ON APPEAL +INVOICE +PAID ON RECEIPT ON RECEIPT +AUTOMATIC RECEIPT APPELLATE FILING +ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASE +TRUE COPY +ORDER +NOTICE OF APPEAL CIVIL +PAID ON RECEIPT +TRUE COPY +EXHIBIT CHECK OUT RECEIPT + + + +Case Description: CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH +# +141 +142 +143 +144 +145 +146 +147 +148 +149 +150 +151 +152 +153 +154 +155 +156 +157 +158 +159 +160 +161 +162 +163 +164 +165 +166 +167 +168 +169 +170 +171 +Effective Date +3/27/2023 +3/27/2023 +3/27/2023 +3/27/2023 +3/27/2023 +3/27/2023 +3/27/2023 +3/27/2023 +3/27/2023 +3/27/2023 +3/27/2023 +3/27/2023 +3/27/2023 +3/27/2023 +3/27/2023 +3/27/2023 +3/27/2023 +3/27/2023 +3/27/2023 +3/27/2023 +3/27/2023 +3/27/2023 +3/27/2023 +3/27/2023 +3/27/2023 +3/28/2023 +3/28/2023 +3/28/2023 +3/28/2023 +3/28/2023 +3/28/2023 +Count +Description +DONT ENDEACE + + + +ABRUZZO +HE CIRCOIT COURT & COMPTROLLE +ALM BEACH COUNT +County Civil Division +Wex Palm Ball F033406 +P: (561) 355-2500 | F: (561) 355-6211 +MAM NACH COUNC +CERTIFICATE OF THE CLERK +4th DCA NO.: 23-0536 +ABRUZZO, Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller, in +and for Palm Beach County, State of Florida, do hereby certify that the +foregoing pages of: +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST +VS +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida +CASE NO: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +contains true and correct transcripts and copies of all such papers and +proceedings in said cause as appears from the records and files of my +office that have been directed to be included in said RECORD by the +directions furnished to me, with all redactions required by law, rule or +administrative order. +IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto my hand affixed the seal +of the court, this 5th of April, 2023. +ABRUZZO +CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & +COMPTROLLER +Palm Beach County, FL. +ROLL +ER +MIM BEACH COUNT +By: Cristina Riosa +Deputy Clerk +Main Courthouse +205 N. Dixie Hwy. +West Palm Beach, FL +North County Courthouse +3188 PGA Bivd. +Palm Beach Gardens, FL +Midwestern Service Center +200 Civic Center Way, Suite 500 +Palm Beach, FL + +West County Courthouse +2950 State Road 15, Room S-100 +Belle Glade, FL +South County Courthouse +200 W. Atlantic Ave +Delray Beach, FL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4c24abbd88f600147d97b56209270a96b3f4a29c633b4d0aa85dd76877c9684.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4c24abbd88f600147d97b56209270a96b3f4a29c633b4d0aa85dd76877c9684.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..45c7a864c328cd8b0c2c71ead39f30a5e448da8f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4c24abbd88f600147d97b56209270a96b3f4a29c633b4d0aa85dd76877c9684.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -1678, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c4c24abbd88f600147d97b56209270a96b3f4a29c633b4d0aa85dd76877c9684", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 29, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "4b70a06955f9dd296e912a0022a42d4bdccdb4133215c2e1cfb0efe69bd53113", + "output_sha256": "da04cec1cdcb19e86787288fe2f2a92519944256e5fbcbe824809a4c5d8bec37", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4c45179c4f6f2a5d712484a5dbfce3d9b634abaffa40478bbd687821429a43b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4c45179c4f6f2a5d712484a5dbfce3d9b634abaffa40478bbd687821429a43b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4d70a148be92e887588aea8cbc46834e41c56648 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4c45179c4f6f2a5d712484a5dbfce3d9b634abaffa40478bbd687821429a43b.md @@ -0,0 +1,142 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2009 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JO +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/J +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/J +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2009 Page 2 of 5 +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JQ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JO +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/J +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +•Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/J +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2009 Page 3 of 5 +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON +/ +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA-JL +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA-JL +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/J +DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME +TO FILE REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' JANE DOE 2-7 RESPONSES IN +OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO 1 SET OI +INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2009 Page 4 of 5 +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Epstein") by and through his +undersigned attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time in which to +reply to Plaintiffs' Responses In Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Answers +to Interrogatories And Production of Documents, dated March 2, 2009. Local General +Rule 7.1 A.1 and Rule 6, Fed. R. Civ. P. (2009). Defendant seeks an extension until May +22, 2009, to file his response. As good cause in support of granting the motion, +Defendant states: +1. Defendant's reply to the Plaintiff's Responses in Opposition to Defendant's +Motion to compel would be due on May 18, 2009. As certified below, Plaintiff's counsel +is in agreement with the requested extension of May 20, 2009. +2. Plaintiff's counsel also represents five other Plaintiffs pursuing claims against +Defendant, EPSTEIN. A total of five of the Plaintiffs have also filed Responses In +Opposition to Defendant's Motions to Compel bearing the same dates. In order to fully +and adequately respond to this and the other motions, Defendant is in need of an +extension until May 20, 2009. +3. The requested extension is fair in reasonable under the circumstances as it will +provide time to allow the Defendant, EPSTEIN, to fully and adequately reply to this and +the other Responses in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court enter an order granting the +Defendant an extension until May 20, 2009, in which to respond to Plaintiff's Response +in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and +Production of documents. +Local Rule 7.1 Certification +Counsel for the movant conferred by telephone with counsel for the Plaintiff and + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2009 Page 5 of 5 +Counsel for Plaintiff is in agreement with the requested extension until May 20, 2009 for +Defendant to respond to the motion to compel. +ell +Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Attorney for Defendant Epstein +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is +being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in +the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 18"* day of May, 2009: +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesg@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfuly tubmine +ROBERT D. CRÍTTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4c45179c4f6f2a5d712484a5dbfce3d9b634abaffa40478bbd687821429a43b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4c45179c4f6f2a5d712484a5dbfce3d9b634abaffa40478bbd687821429a43b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..678aaa20c6ddd102ff83b087616cf28d27492afd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4c45179c4f6f2a5d712484a5dbfce3d9b634abaffa40478bbd687821429a43b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c4c45179c4f6f2a5d712484a5dbfce3d9b634abaffa40478bbd687821429a43b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "5a1f9aadeb62a42e4c15c1d866a3b52a2d84abf3e7e48118170efebd1f0b418f", + "output_sha256": "2843149e05d394b8fb4ab9690112f6f1b22c94a4acb820a8a9b7460dcdd81914", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4f97005fa5d8cf9cb6a85aca4390cfe794d7fef93d4296d51d391ad69ccfcec.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4f97005fa5d8cf9cb6a85aca4390cfe794d7fef93d4296d51d391ad69ccfcec.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..19ad7b4a7d4f377f9334ea54cbfd57c7a3bc4029 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4f97005fa5d8cf9cb6a85aca4390cfe794d7fef93d4296d51d391ad69ccfcec.md @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 444-1 l +Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2010 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092, +AFFIDAVIT OF JESSICA ARBOUR +) SS: +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE +Jessica Arbour deposes and states as follows: +1. My name is Jessica Arbour. I am an attorney at Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A., +the law firm representing Jane Doe No. 3. +2. +I was present at the first scheduled deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 in September +2009, when Defendant Epstein crossed paths with the Plaintiff in the lobby of the building where +her deposition was to take place. (DE 305, I5). +3. +I attended all of the IMEs of Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 2-6, including that of Jane +Doe No. 3. Hers was the last of the five IMEs conducted by the expert for Jeffrey Epstein in +these cases. + +A + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 444-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2010 Page 2 of 4 +4. +The IME was conducted at Prose Court Reporting, located on the 15"h Floor of +250 S. Australian Ave. in West Palm Beach, FL. +5. +In all five IMEs, Dr. Ryan. the Defendant's expert, advised the Plaintiffs that +they could take breaks throughout the day, and specifically advised them that they could go +outside and smoke cigarettes during these breaks. He knew which of the Plaintiffs, including +Jane Doe No. 3, smoked cigarettes because he asked them if they smoked. +6. +On more than one occasion on November 24, 2009, Jane Doe No. 3 and I went +outside the office building to sit on a bench so she could smoke a cigarette. It was generally at a +point when the videotape was being changed, which was every two hours. +7. +At about 4:15 p.m. on November 24, 2009, the videographer stopped the IME for +the last tape change of the day. Jane Doe No. 3 and I went just outside of the building so she +could smoke a cigarette. Jane Doe No. 3 and I were sitting on a bench at that location. +8. +I saw Defendant Jeffrey Epstein exit the building where the IME was taking place +through the door closest to us. I stood up, trying not to alert my client to his presence, but so as +to alert Epstein that we were sitting there in hopes that he would turn around and walk away. +Epstein and I made direct eye contact. It appeared to me that he recognized me and then glared +at me. When I realized he was not stopping, I immediately placed myself between Jane Doe No. +3 and Epstein in hopes of blocking her view of him. Her back was still to him at this point and I +do not believe that she saw this interaction between Epstein and me. +9. +Epstein did not make any attempt to stop, change his direction, or return to the +building, despite the fact that he had to walk more than 15 feet before he reached the bench +where Jane Doe No. 3 was sitting. He continued to stare at me for several seconds as he walked +toward us. +10. +Epstein crossed directly in front of my client, approximately 5-7 feet behind me. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 444-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2010 Page 3 of 4 +11. When Jane Doe No. 3 saw Epstein, she yelled, "L +God! No!" and began to +scream. She began to cry loudly, yelling "No! No! No!" My immediate concern was to remove +her from Epstein's immediate vicinity and into the safety of the building. Eventually I got her +into the lobby of the building and she collapsed into a chair in the lobby. She was crying and +screaming so loudly that several onlookers, including the security guard at the front desk, +stopped and stared at the commotion. +12. After some time, I was able to calm Jane Doe No. 3 enough to get her back up to +the office where the IME was taking place. I immediately brought Jane Doe No. 3 into a private +office. I did not tell anyone what had happened in the lobby. Dr. +immediately apologized +to me and said that he had no knowledge that Epstein was in the building. I do not know how +Dr. +_ found out about the incident. +13. +Jane Doe No. 3 and I spent several minutes alone in the private office. When it +was apparent to me that Jane Doe No. 3 was still quite visibly distraught and could not proceed, I +terminated the IME. +14. On multiple occasions prior to November 24, 2009, because of the incident with +Jane Doe No. 4 in September, I consulted the list of companies with office space in the building +at 250 S. Australian Ave. I noted each time that Epstein's employer, the Florida Science +Foundation, was not listed on the building's directory. +When I saw him on November 24, 2009, Epstein was dressed in an oversized +sweatsuit. +FURTHER AFFIANT SA YETH NAUGHT. +Dated: January 4 +_, 2010 +Jessica Arbour +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 444-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2010 Page 4 of 4 +BEFORE ME, personally appeared Jessica D. Arbour who after being first duly sworn, +deposes and states that he has executed the foregoing Affidavit, and that it is correct to the best +of his knowledge and belief. +THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT was sworn to and subscribed before me this_4 +_day of +January, 2010. +Lisa +E COMMISSION # DD878095 +5 EXPIRES: APR. 11, 2013 +www.AARONNOTARY.com +Lu quend +NOTARY PUBLI +STATE OF FLORIDA +4 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4f97005fa5d8cf9cb6a85aca4390cfe794d7fef93d4296d51d391ad69ccfcec.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4f97005fa5d8cf9cb6a85aca4390cfe794d7fef93d4296d51d391ad69ccfcec.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..92343cb0981ca704a2c6a5367f3196a8166787b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c4f97005fa5d8cf9cb6a85aca4390cfe794d7fef93d4296d51d391ad69ccfcec.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -55, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c4f97005fa5d8cf9cb6a85aca4390cfe794d7fef93d4296d51d391ad69ccfcec", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "63e7e438818f6eacde67c196d104830e9dc19a02f3529d4d64ebd2eb79db0661", + "output_sha256": "f72c264ea6281aac30c09c0ef11bffebe9ea068055fd33035ab9b1c347249bfa", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c51d29ce718530f45e314eb041fa25c56388a3e847383c704ea9080f4bf01634.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c51d29ce718530f45e314eb041fa25c56388a3e847383c704ea9080f4bf01634.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2d3843e7b25d6c7f570df0b3e7f91bb6c23870bc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c51d29ce718530f45e314eb041fa25c56388a3e847383c704ea9080f4bf01634.md @@ -0,0 +1,129 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 537 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2010 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092, +PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 4'S REPLY MEMORANDUM +IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF JANE DOE +NO. 4'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DE 534) +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 4, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files this +Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4's Motion for Protective +Order, and states as follows: +Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4's Motion for Protective Order ("Motion") is now +moot, in part, with regard to the deposition of Rocky Orezzoli, as Mr. Orezzoli was +deposed by Defendant Epstein's counsel on April 30, 2010, while the Motion was +pending. However, the Motion remains ripe with regard to the subpoena for deposition +of Bill +another former soccer coach of Jane Doe No. 4. +2. +Epstein repeatedly postures that Plaintiff is "yet again" seeking to +stonewall his discovery efforts. This argument entirely misses the issue, however, + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 537 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2010 Page 2 of 5 +because as Plaintiff sets forth in her Motion, the Defendant's "efforts" with regard to +taking the deposition of such a marginal witness, who knows nothing of Plaintiff's +alleged sexual abuse or this lawsuit, is not geared toward discovery, but rather to harass, +embarrass, humiliate and intimidate the Plaintiff. +Defendant Epstein has attempted to distract this Court as to the limited +scope of the Motion before it by arguing that since some of the other Plaintiffs have +experienced other traumatic events, such as other molestations, rapes, suicides by close +friends/family, poverty, parental adjustment difficulties, or abuse by other family +members, he should be entitled to conduct a fishing expedition on these same topics +regarding Jane Doe No. 4, even though no testimony or other evidence suggests these +issues arise in Jane Doe No. 4's case, or more importantly, that Bill +Plaintiff's +former soccer coach, has a relationship with Plaintiff such that he has reason to know of +traumatic events in her life. +4. +Mr. Orezzoli was Jane Doe No. 4's college soccer coach for four years. +At his deposition, he was asked if he knew anything about Jane Doe No. 4's medical, +employment, social and sexual histories. Not surprisingly, he knew nothing about these +topics, except to say that he knew she worked at a summer camp run by the university +one year. He had never heard that Jane Doe No. 4 was a plaintiff in a lawsuit against +Epstein, or had "been involved with" Epstein before he was informed of that fact by +Epstein's attorney at deposition. He was unable to offer any testimony about her mental +and emotional state, except to say that sometimes she seemed "under stress," but that he +did not know any reasons for that perceived stress. In short, it is difficult to see how +anything probative or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence was gained by + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 537 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2010 Page 3 of 5 +his deposition. The effect of the deposition was rather to inform Mr. Orezzoli that Jane +Doe No. 4 is suing Defendant Epstein and the underlying facts of her case. These facts +were suggested to Mr. Orezzoli by questions of Defendant's attorney about his +knowledge of media reports regarding Epstein. +5. +Given that Mr. +was also one of Plaintiff's soccer coaches, Mr. +can be expected to provide no more discovery than did Mr. Orezzoli, especially +when one considers that more time has passed since Mr. +coached Jane Doe No. 4. +Therefore, it would appear that the effect of this deposition will be to harass, intimidate, +and embarrass Jane Doe No. 4, with little, if any, benefit for purposes of discovery. That +is precisely the circumstance which Rule 26(c) is intended to remedy. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 4, respectfully requests that her Motion +for Protective Order as to the deposition of Bill +be granted, and that the deposition +of Bill +be prohibited, or restricted to prevent unnecessary disclosures by +Defendant's attorney in the form of questions, and all other relief as this Court deems just +and appropriate. +Dated: May 5, 2010. +Respectfully submitted, +By: s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 537 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2010 Page 4 of 5 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on May 5, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is +being served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, +either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some +other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically +Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Stuart S. Mermelstein + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 537 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2010 Page 5 of 5 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +bedwards @rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia @bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c51d29ce718530f45e314eb041fa25c56388a3e847383c704ea9080f4bf01634.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c51d29ce718530f45e314eb041fa25c56388a3e847383c704ea9080f4bf01634.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..97bad3c2a3c67887482c8b990f381dc8c794319f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c51d29ce718530f45e314eb041fa25c56388a3e847383c704ea9080f4bf01634.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c51d29ce718530f45e314eb041fa25c56388a3e847383c704ea9080f4bf01634", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "d0ebe2e960383fc0a96156f5a575f9cac760e0a59312ba480b33a7d0d1c0b571", + "output_sha256": "24356f9279ae590f9c4b5b052e960afa15573eb2aeeef968a46db71178363de2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c525a63846caf592a6c183f5449853ee6ce2a37b326e18684f471f1a179c1174.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c525a63846caf592a6c183f5449853ee6ce2a37b326e18684f471f1a179c1174.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6e4befc9363d52c8df81fe99ab6abdc95ce5b9f8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c525a63846caf592a6c183f5449853ee6ce2a37b326e18684f471f1a179c1174.md @@ -0,0 +1,294 @@ +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 19-24 W off c FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 1 of 7 +Brad Edwards +AND ASSOCIATES +July 17, 2008 +Ann +C. Villafaña, AUSA +500 South Australian Avenue +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Re: Proposed Stipulated Facts for In Re Jane Doe +Dear Ms. Villafaña: +Thank you for your recent proposed stipulation of facts in this case. I believe that we +have considerable common ground. At the same time, however, it appears to me that a few areas +of potential disagreement are arising. In view of that, and to avoid any misunderstandings, I +thought it might be useful to send a short letter outlining several requests and issues for +resolution before I send you back my proposed stipulated facts. +I am working with two other attorneys on this case - Jay Howell in Jacksonville, +Florida, and Professor Paul Cassell in Salt Lake City, Utah. Because they were not in court for +the hearing last Friday, they will need to review a transcript of the hearing before our legal team +can agree to any stipulated facts. I have requested a transcript, but the preparation of it will +apparently take several weeks. Do you have any way of expediting the preparation of the +transcript by requesting it yourself? Also, as you know, my clients are indigent. As part of the +Government's responsibility to use its "best efforts to see that crime victims are ... accorded[] +the rights" in the CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1), I was wondering whether the Government +would' be willing to pay for the transcript. +2. +Your proposed stipulation indicates that in September 2007 the U.S. Attorney's +Office reached an agreement with Epstein to resolve the case, which was then modified in +October and December of that year. While this seems plausible, to stipulate to the facts, I would +obviously need to see copies of those three agreements. Moreover, because the circumstances +surrounding the initial agreement and its later modification are now the subject of litigation, my +client is entitled to see them. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8) (victim's right to "be treated with +fairness"). In addition, your proposed stipulation states that: "On July 9. 2008, AUSA Villafaña +sent a victim notification to Jane Doe #1 via her attorney, +which is attached as +Exhibit 6 to the Villafaña Declaration. That notification contains a written explanation of the full +terms of the agreement between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office." I am puzzled by this +proposed stipulation, as your July 9 letter explicitly noted that it was covering only some of the +provisions in the agreement. Perhaps the fact that I have not yet received the agreement is all +just an oversight on your part, and you had intended to give me the "full terms" of the plea +agreement that was ultimately reached. In any event, the simplest way to proceed at this point is +for the plea agreement - and the earlier versions -- to be provided to me so that I can review +2028 +STREET, SUITE 202, HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020 +BE@BRADEDWARDSLAW.COM + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 19-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 2 of 7 +Ann +C. Villafaña, AUSA +Page 2 +them with my clients. Of course, no possible harm to the Government can come from the release +of the documents, as this criminal matter is now concluded - at least from the Government's +perspective. +3. +I am wondering about your position on the confidentiality provision in the +agreement. As I understand things from your proposed stipulation, in September 2007 you +"reached" an agreement with Epstein's attorneys. that "contained an express confidentiality +provision." Are you taking the position that this "express" provision barred disclosure of the +substance of the agreement to my clients? And, if so, would you stipulate that the FBI agents +and your office complied with the provision up through June 30 when, I assume, the confidential +provision expired as Epstein entered his guilty plea in open court? +4. +Your proposed stipulation indicates: +On October 26, 2007, Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards +met in person with Jane Doe #1. +The Special Agents explained that the +investigation had been resolved, that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges, +he would be required to register as a sex offender for life, and he had made certain +concessions related to the payment of damages to the victims, including Jane Doe +#1. During this meeting, Jane Doe #1 did not raise any objections to the +resolution of the matter. +From the drafting of this proposed stipulation, it appears that you may be working from a Report +of Interview with my client (i.e., an FBI 302). My client has a differing recollection of some +aspects of that meeting. Of course, she did not take notes of the meeting. Therefore, I ask that +you provide me (the relevant parts of) any report of this meeting as well as reports of any other +meetings relevant to the matters at hand. +I believe that my client is entitled to a copy of (the relevant parts of) the reports of +interviews with her. Of course, a criminal defendant would be entitled to such documents. See +Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A) & (B). As an innocent victim in this matter, my client should be +treated with at least the same consideration. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8) (victim's right to "be +treated with fairness"). +I am hoping that the Special Agents' and my client's recollections about one point +of the October 26"* meeting coincides: that she was never told that the agreement blocked all +federal prosecution for the crimes at hand. Is a stipulation on that point agreeable? +2028 +STREET, SUITE 202, HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 19-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 3 of 7 +Ann +• C. Villafaña, AUSA +Page 3 +6. +You mention your assistance in securing pro bono counsel for Jane Doe #1 to help +prevent harassment. I trust that you would be willing to stipulate that you did not mention the +federal non-prosecution agreement to this counsel and that you did not mention that a plea +agreement had already been reached. Professor Cassell has spoken to Meg Garvin, Esq., at the +National Crime Victims' Law Institute, and that is her recollection of the events. +7. +I think that your proposed stipulation regarding my contact with the office is +somewhat abbreviated. I wonder what you would think about the following: +In mid-June 2008, Mr. +contacted AUSA Villafaña to inform her +that he represented Jane Doe #1 and, later, Jane Doe #2. Mr. +asked to +meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein, +hoping to secure a significant federal indictment against Epstein. AUSA +Villafaña and Mr. +discussed the possibility of federal charges being +filed. At the end of the call, AUSA Villafaña asked Mr. +to send any +information that he wanted considered by the U.S. Attorney's Office in +determining whether to file federal charges. +Because of the confidentiality +provision that existed in the plea agreement, Mr. +was not informed that, +in September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office had reached an agreement not to +file federal charges. Mr. +was also not informed that any resolution of the +criminal matter was imminent. +On July 3, 2008, Mr. +sent to AUSA Villafaña a letter, a true and +correct copy of which is attached. In the letter, Mr. +indicated his desire +that federal charges be filed against defendant Epstein. In particular, he wrote on +behalf of his clients: "We urge the Attorney General and our United States +Attorney to consider the fundamental import of the vigorous enforcement of our +Federal laws. We urge you to move forward with the traditional indictments and +criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr. Epstein has committed, +and we further urge you to take the steps necessary to protect our children from +this very dangerous sexual predator." When Mr. +I wrote this letter, he +was still unaware that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached with +Epstein. Mr. +first learned of this fact on or after July 9, 2008, when the +Government filed its responsive pleading to Jane Doe's emergency petition. That +pleading was the first public mention of the non-prosecution agreement and the +first disclosure to Mr. +and his clients. +I trust that you will agree that the Government had probable cause to file a +multiple count federal indictment against Epstein, including an indictment charging crimes +2028 +STREET, SUITE 202, HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020 +BE@BRADEDWARDSLAW.COM + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 19-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 4 of 7 +AnnIE C. Villafaña, AUSA +Page 4 +against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. In asking for this stipulation, I realize that you have taken +the position that you would not have filed an indictment involving Jane Doe #2, presumably +because you thought that you could not carry the Government's burden of proof beyond a +reasonable doubt. At the same time, though, I trust you will concede that the evidence in that +case was strong enough to pass the probable cause standard. +Finally, in light of the fact that you have been sending letters to Jane Doe #2, +which was obviously done because you believed her to be a "victim" in this case, and since she +has been added in this matter as a victim, we would like some assurances that she will be +protected, as the other victims have been, in your agreement with Mr. Epstein. +Thank you very much for considering these issues and concerns. I look forward to +working with you to reach a stipulation that covers as much common ground as possible in this +case. If you think that further discussions might be helpful, I would like to try and set up a +conference call with you and my co-counsel to discuss these issues further. +Sincerely, +BaRe +Brad HAH +BE/sg +Enclosure +cc: +Dexter Lee, AUSA +99 N.E. 4th Street +Miami, Florida 33132 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 19-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 5 of 7 +- LAW OFFICE +(Bird Eilerichs +AND ASSOCIATES +July 3, 2008 +Ann +C. Villafana, AUSA +500 South Australian Avenue +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Dear Ms. Villafana: +VIA CERTIFIED MAIL +RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED +7007 2680 0002 5519 8503 +As you are aware, we represent several of the young girls that were victimized +and abused by Jeffrey Epstein. While we are aware of his recent guilty plea and +conviction in his State Court case, the sentence imposed in that case is grossly inadequate +for a sexual predator of this magnitude. The information and evidence that has come to +our attention in this matter leads to a grave concern that justice will not be served in this +cause if Mr. Epstein is not aggressively prosecuted and appropriately punished. Based on +our investigation and knowledge of this case, it is apparent that he has sexually abused +more than 100 underage girls, and the evidence against him is overwhelmingly strong. +As former Assistant State Attorneys with seven years' prosecution experience, we +believe that the evidence against Mr. Epstein is both credible and deep and that he may +be the most dangerous sexual predator of children that our country has ever seen. The +evidence suggests that for at least 4 years he was sexually abusing as many as three to +four girls a day. It is inevitable that if he is not confined to prison, he will continue to +manipulate and sexually abuse children and destroy more lives. He is a sexual addict that +focused all of his free time on sexually abusing children, and he uses his extraordinary +wealth and power to lure in poor, underprivileged little girls and then also uses his wealth +to shield himself from prosecution and liability. We are very concerned for the health +and welfare of the girls he has already victimized, and concerned that if justice is not +properly served now and he is not imprisoned for a very long time, he will get a free pass +to sexually abuse children in the future. Future abuse and victimization is obvious to +anyone who really reviews the evidence in this case, and future sexual abuse of minors is +inevitable unless he is prosecuted, tried and appropriately sentenced. Money and power +should not allow a man to make his own laws, and he has clearly received preferential +treatment at every step up to this point. If he were a man of average wealth or the abused +girls were from middle or upper class families, then this man would spend the rest of his +life in prison. In a country of true, blind justice, those distinctions are irrelevant, and we +really hope he does not prove the point that a man can commit heinous crimes against +children and buy his way out of it. +If the Department of Justice's recent commitment to the protection of our children +from child molesters is to be more than rhetoric, then this is the time and the case where +the Department must step forward. We urge the Attorney General and our United States +2028 +STREET, SUITE 202, HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 19-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 6 of 7 +Ann ! | C. Villafana, AUSA +Page Two +Attorney to consider the fundamental import of the vigorous enforcement of our Federal +laws. We urge you to move forward with the traditional indictments and criminal +prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further +urge you to take the steps necessary to protect our children from this very dangerous +sexual perpetrator. We will help you to do this in any way possible to ensure that true +Justice is served in this case. +Sincerely, +BER +Esquire +Jay Howell, Esquire +2028 +STREET, SUITE 202, HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 19-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 7 of 7 +SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION +• Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete +Item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. +Print your name and address on the reverse +so that we can return the card to you. +• Attach this card to the back of the mallpiece, +or on the front if space permits. +1. Article Addressed to: +COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY +A Signature +ERe Painted Name) +D. Is delivery address different from Item 17 +If YES, enter delivery address below: +• Agent +•*D Addressee +C. Paterof Delivery +77/08 +• Yer +• No +Ann +C. Villafana, AUSA +500 South Australian Avenue +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +2, Article Number +(Transfer from service label) +PS Form 3811, February 2004 +h Seguice Typ +Certified M +• Express Mall +• Registered +• Retum Recept for Merchandise +• Insured Mail +• C.O.D. +4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fes) +• Yes 2 +7007 2680 0002 5519 8503 +Domestic Return Receipt +102595-02-M-1540 +U.S. Postal Service ru +CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT +"(Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) +For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.coms +OFFICIAL USE +Postapo s +Certified Fea +(Endorsemen fall Far) +Postmark - +Hare +: +Total Postage & Fees +Sent 1o +or PU Box No. +i Shal, 2i7* +PS Form 3800, August 2006 +Soo Reverso for Instructions \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c525a63846caf592a6c183f5449853ee6ce2a37b326e18684f471f1a179c1174.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c525a63846caf592a6c183f5449853ee6ce2a37b326e18684f471f1a179c1174.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..55cf6e4828f7c7ead7c1cf7cc31b7c919ab72b59 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c525a63846caf592a6c183f5449853ee6ce2a37b326e18684f471f1a179c1174.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -732, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c525a63846caf592a6c183f5449853ee6ce2a37b326e18684f471f1a179c1174", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "8ae506c486c4b19939b61450eedfb1e6d4560ebd989339644fd3cdcd3a988279", + "output_sha256": "c419a1d4ab5d839f5622f9e4541d3eea4444d4647b6cd872a901ac6e0d69ef2a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c532ff93fae7c200b8430e502944d27e7694421bfff79251f106ac1f191dc265.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c532ff93fae7c200b8430e502944d27e7694421bfff79251f106ac1f191dc265.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..91e3e04777185ec7d0bd60b27a1aa80b836faa4e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c532ff93fae7c200b8430e502944d27e7694421bfff79251f106ac1f191dc265.md @@ -0,0 +1,490 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 40 Filed 04/13/20 Page 1 of 15 +NITED STATES DISTRICT COUR +OUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORI +JANE DOE 1000, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. +KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of +the ESTATE OF JEFFREY EDWARD +EPSTEIN, +Case No. 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF +Defendants. +DEFENDANTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR +MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +Tel: 212-704-6000 +Fax: 212-704-6288 +Attorneys for Defendants + + + +TABLE OF CONTENTS +PRELIMINARY STATEMENT +ARGUMENT +A. +Page +1 +1 +B. +C. +D. +E. +Plaintiff has the procedural burden backwards: she fails to meet her +burden to allege facts sufficient to invoke an extraordinary exception to +the statute of limitations. +Plaintiff is unable to invoke CPLR § 215(8)(a) because she fails to +present a criminal indictment that arises from Decedent's alleged +conduct towards her ... +2. +Plaintiff bears the burden to allege "extraordinary" circumstances; +she fails to meet this burden +N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213-c is not applicable retroactively. +This motion is proper and timely regardless of its title. +There is no basis to disregard black letter New York law applying the law +of the place of alleged torts to the issue of punitive damages. +Even if USVI law applies, which it does not, it follows the majority rule +prohibiting recovery of punitive damages against a tortfeasor's estate +CONCLUSION. +1 +1 +3 +6 +.6 +7 +9 +10 +-i- + + + +TABLE OF AUTHORITIES +Page(s) +Cases +Abercrombie v. College, +438 F. Supp. 2d 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)... +Amusement Indus. v. Stern, +693 F. Supp. 2d 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).. +Blissett v. Eisensmidt, +940 F. Supp. 449 (N.D.N.Y. 1996)... +Booth v. Bowen, +No. CIV. 2006-217, 2008 WL 220067 (D.V.I. Jan. 10, 2008) +Brandy v. Flamboyant Inv. Co., Ltd., +24 V.I. 249 (V.I. Terr. Ct. 1989). +v. Parkchester S. Condos., +287 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2002).. +Cerveceria Modelo, S.A. de C.V. v. USPA Accessories LLC, +No. 07-CV-7998 (HB), 2008 WL 1710910 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2008) +I v. Christian, +46 V.I. 557 (D.V.I. App. Div. 2005)... +V. +No. 15-cv-5359 (KMK), 2016 WL 5720811 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016) +Deutsch v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., +723 F. Supp. 2d 521 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) .... +Fairley v. +No. 09-CV-6894 (PGG), 2011 WL 1002422 (Mar. 15, 2011 S.D.N.Y.) +(Gardephe, J.). +Funk v. Belneftekhim, +No. 14-CV-0376 (BMC), 2019 WL 3035124 (E.D.N.Y. July 11, 2019) +Gen. Stencils, Inc. v. Chiappa, +219 N.E.2d 169 (N.Y. 1966).. +Gotlin v. Lederman, +No. 05-CV-1899 (ILG), 2006 WL 1154817 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2006). +.3 +8 +.10 +.10 +.5 +..7 +10 +.5 +.8 +.3 +.4 +..5 +.5 +ii + + + +Gov't of Virgin Islands v. +No. S. CT. CIV. 2013-0095, 2014 WL 702639 (V.I. Feb. 24, 2014) +Guidi v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp., +No. 95-CV-9006 (LAP), 2003 WL 1846864 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2003) +Guobadia v. Irowa, +103 F. Supp. 3d 325 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) .... +v. Dowson Holding Co., +51 V.I. 619 (D.V.I. 2009).. +Hunter v. Palisades Acquistion XVI, LLC, +No. 16-civ-8779 (ER), 2017 WL 5513636 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2017) +Isaac v. Crichlow, +63 V.I. 38, 2015 WL 10568556 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2015) +Kashef v. BNP Paribas S.A., +925 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2019).. +Kunica v. St. Jean Fin., +No. 97-CV-3804 (RWS), 1998 WL 437153 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 1998). +In re Merrill +Auction Rate Sec. Litig., +851 F. Supp. 2d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)..... +Nash v. Coram Healthcare Corp., +No. 96-CV-0298 (LMM), 1996 WL 363166 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 1996) +Nat'l Jewish Democratic Council v. Adelson, +417 F. Supp. 3d 416 (S.D.N.Y. 2019).... +Okyere v. Palisades Collection, LLC, +961 F. Supp. 2d 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).... +Ortiz v. Cornetta, +867 F.2d 146 (2d Cir. 1989). +Pappas v. Hotel on the Cay Time-Sharing Ass'n, +69 V.I. 3 (U.S.V.I. Super. Ct. 2015)..... +SJB v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., +No. 03-CV-6653 (NRB), 2004 WL 1586500 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2004) +St. L +House, Inc. v. Barrows, +15 V.I. 435 (V.I. Terr. Ct. 1979). +.9 +.8 +.5 +.10 +1 +.10 +.3 +.6 +..7 +..7 +8,9 +.1 +..1 +.10 +..6 +.10 +iii + + +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 40 Filed 04/13/20 Page 5 of 15 +Starr Indem. d Liab. Co. v. Am. Claims Mgmt., +No. 14-CV-0463 (JMF), 2015 WL 2152816 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2015) +Stenberg v. Carhart, +530 U.S. 914 (2000).. +The Cookware Co. (USA), LLC v. Austin, +No. 15-CV-5796 (DAB), 2016 WL 7378762 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2016) +v. Rijos, +780 F. Supp. 2d 376 (D.V.I. 2011) ... +Statutes +EPTL §11-3.2(a)(1). +Other Authorities +C.M +& A. +, 5C Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1380 (3d ed.). +CPLR § 215(8)(a).. +Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). +2 Linda L. Schlueter, Punitive Damages § 20.4 (7th ed. 2015). +Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908(2). +..7 +.6 +.0 +7,8 +.6 +•1, 2, 3 +..3 +.11 +.10, 11 +iv + + +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 40 Filed 04/13/20 Page 6 of 15 +The Co-Executors' submit this reply memorandum of law in support of their motion to +dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. I). +PRELIMINARY STATEMENT +In her opposition brief, Plaintiff effectively asks the Court to depart from well-established +law to resuscitate her claims that expired fifteen years ago. First, Plaintiff asks the Court to +disregard basic principles of statutory interpretation and numerous cases applying CPLR +§ 215(8)(a) by holding that, unless a criminal indictment expressly rules out that it arises from the +same event as a civil action, a plaintiff in the civil action may invoke that rule to revive a timebarred claim. Second, Plaintiff asks the Court to disregard Second Circuit authority holding that +it is Plaintiff's burden to allege "extraordinary circumstances" to toll the statutes of limitations. +Third, while conceding that courts generally apply the law of the place of a tort to the issue of +punitive damages, Plaintiff nonetheless urges this Court to create a new rule whereby, if an alleged +tortfeasor's will is being probated in a jurisdiction that has nothing to do with the tort, the law of +the probate jurisdiction should apply. Plaintiff's requests are baseless. +A. +ARGUMENT +Plaintiff has the procedural burden backwards: she fails to meet her burden to allege +facts sufficient to invoke an extraordinary exception to the statute of limitations. +Plaintiff is unable to invoke CPLR § 215(8)(a) because she fails to present a +criminal indictment that arises from Decedent's alleged conduct towards her. +Plaintiff's central premise in arguing for application of CPLR § 215(8)(a) to this action, +notwithstanding the Indictment charges sex-trafficking of minors while Plaintiff alleges she was +abused by Decedent as an adult, is that the "pattern described in the Indictment matches +[Plaintiff's] experience." (Op. Br. p. 4.) Even assuming that is correct, it does not render CPLR +' Capitalized terms not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Co-Executors' moving brief (ECF +No. 34). +1 + + +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 40 Filed 04/13/20 Page 7 of 15 +§ 215(8)(a) applicable. Rather, to invoke CPLR § 215(8)(a), Plaintiff is required to establish the +Indictment and this action arise from the same "event or occurrence"—i.e., what Decedent +allegedly did to her. Plaintiff fails to do this. +The Indictment has nothing to do with Plaintiff, even if it concerns her alleged abuser and +describes a "pattern" similar to what she described. There is no legal authority that permits a civil +Plaintiff to interpret CPLR § 215(8)(a) in such an open-ended manner. Plaintiff's assertion that +the Indictment "was not restricted to minors" (Op. Br. p. 6) defies a plain reading of it. Plaintiff's +reliance on an FBI press release (id. at 6-7) is unconvineing in light of the language in the +Indictment itself: it alleges that Decedent sexually trafficked "minor girls" (Compl., Ex. A at 9| 1), +stating throughout that it concerns sex trafficking of "minors" (id., Ex. A at 11l 2-4, 6, 8, 11-15, 18- +20,22). +The cases cited in the Co-Executors' moving brief confirm that, even where it is undisputed +that the subject criminal indictment concerns the civil plaintiff and the same kind of conduct +alleged in the plaintiff's civil complaint, CPLR § 215(8)(a) still does not apply where the +indictment and civil action arise from different events or occurrences—i.e., the express limitation +set forth in the text of CPLR § 215(8)(a). (See Op. Br. pp. 5-6.) Plaintiff's attempt to distinguish +these cases on the ground that they "focused on events that occurred on specific dates" (id., p. 9) +is based on Plaintiff's dubious assertion that, because the Indictment at issue here "was not limited +to a specific day or discrete event" (id., p. 10), anyone alleging she suffered the same type of +misconduct described in the Indictment is free to invoke CPLR § 215(8)(a). Such a reading renders +the limitation in CPLR § 215(8)(a) meaningless and does not comport with the rationale set forth +in the cited decisions. +2 + + +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 40 Filed 04/13/20 Page 8 of 15 +Plaintiff once again relies on Kashef v. BNP Paribas S.A., 925 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2019), +notwithstanding that the Co-Executors already demonstrated that Kashef, which concerned a +conspiracy between BNP and Sudan to violate U.S. sanctions, is factually distinguishable from +this action. (Mov. Br. p. 8.) Plaintiff's decision to cite Kashef again shows that she has not located +any relevant authority to rebut the cases cited by the Co-Executors. +2. +Plaintiff bears the burden to allege "extraordinary" circumstances; she fails to +meet this burden. +Plaintiff misstates the burden with respect to equitable estoppel by asserting "Defendants +have failed to meet their burden of showing that [she] will be unable to invoke equitable estoppel +and … tolling." (Op. Br. p. 1.) As explained in the Co-Executors' moving brief, the burden is on +Plaintiff to sufficiently allege "extraordinary circumstances" to invoke these doctrines. (Mov. Br. +pp. 8-11.) +In her opposition brief, Plaintiff does not even attempt to address many of the cases that +the Co-Executors cite on this point, including Abercrombie v. College, 438 F. Supp. 2d 243 +(S.D.N.Y. 2006) (without adequate pleading, the issue is not properly raised and therefore cannot +defeat a motion to dismiss based on statute of limitations grounds"), and this Court's decision in +Fairley v. +No. 09-CV-6894 (PGG), 2011 WL 1002422, at *4-6 (Mar. 15, 2011 S.D.N.Y.) +(Gardephe, J.) (finding equitable tolling did not apply and granting defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. +12(b)(6) motion to dismiss complaint on statute of limitations grounds). +Plaintiff fails to meet her burden. In her opposition brief, Plaintiff attempts to paint a more +detailed picture of why she waited 15 years to bring this action than she did in her Complaint. +However, the Complaint is controlling. In her Complaint, Plaintiff does not allege: any +particularized acts by Decedent that prevented her from exercising her rights; that Decedent made +3 + + +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 40 Filed 04/13/20 Page 9 of 15 +a misrepresentation to her and had reason to believe she would rely on it; or that she reasonably +relied on any misrepresentation by Decedent to her detriment. +Rather, excluding vague allegations concerning Decedent's alleged misconduct directed at +some unidentified set of alleged victims that does not include Plaintiff (see, e.g., Compl. 1 26 +("[Decedent] ... manipulate[d] his victims"), Plaintiff merely asserts the following allegations +concerning events allegedly occurring in 1999: "Upon meeting [Plaintiff], [Decedent] offered her +a position modeling with Victoria's Secret ... [Decedent] reiterated his connection to Victoria's +Secret each time he saw and spoke with [Plaintiff]" (id. | 39); Plaintiff was "terrified of [Decedent], +who repeatedly threatened her and made representations about his wealth, power, and connections" +(id. | 40); "On one occasion, [Decedent] forced [Plaintiff] to meet with a lawyer ... and [Decedent] +later used the information that the lawyer had obtained through his meeting with [Plaintiff] to +intimidate her and to keep her compliant in his sex-trafficking scheme" (id. | 43); "[Decedent] +made very clear to [Plaintiff] that he was incredibly wealthy, powerful, and regularly in contact +with world leaders ... he had photographs displayed of significant political figures to ensure that +any young female entering the home would know that he had extensive government connections +... [Decedent] was not to be disobeyed and he made clear by his words and actions that there would +be consequences if [Plaintiff] did not comply with his demands" (id. | 44); and "[Decedent] +constantly promised [Plaintiff] modeling opportunities ... up until the last time [Plaintiff] saw +[Decedent]" (id. 9| 45). +These nebulous allegations do not constitute "exceptional" circumstances that justify +permitting Plaintiff to pursue this action that expired 15 years ago. Not a single case Plaintiff cites +supports a finding that her allegations are "extraordinary." To the contrary, Funk v. Belneftekhim, +No. 14-CV-0376 (BMC), 2019 WL 3035124 (E.D.N.Y. July 11, 2019), which Plaintiff cites, +4 + + +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 40 Filed 04/13/20 Page 10 of 15 +confirms that her allegations fall short. In that matter, the court found the plaintiffs "alleged +extraordinary circumstances that could warrant the application of equitable tolling: they were +drugged, kidnapped, flown to Belarus, held captive, and tortured for 383 and 483 days, +respectively." Id. at *2. There are no such allegations here. +Other cases Plaintiff cites likewise support the conclusion she has not met her burden. See +Gotlin v. Lederman, No. 05-CV-1899 (ILG), 2006 WL 1154817, at *30 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2006) +(plaintiffs in medical malpractice action alleged defendants failed to provide them with, and +intentionally and fraudulently attempted to discourage and prevent them from obtaining, their +medical records); Gen. Stencils, Inc. v. Chiappa, 219 N.E.2d 169, 171 (N.Y. 1966) (plaintiff was +allowed to invoke equitable estoppel against a bookkeeper who had used his position to carefully +conceal his theft of the plaintiff's money); L +v. Parkchester S. Condos., 287 F.3d 58, 59 (2d +Cir. 2002) (employee argued his medical condition prevented him from timely filing his +complaint); Guobadia v. Irowa, 103 F. Supp. 3d 325, 341 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (plaintiff filed her +lawsuit less than a year after leaving a home where she was allegedly forced to work without pay +as a servant). Other cases Plaintiff cites do not even address the issues on this motion.? +Plaintiff's reliance on +, No. 15-CV-5359 (KMK), 2016 WL 5720811, at +*11 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016) to support her assertion that reasonable fear of retaliation "may +be sufficient" to warrant equitable tolling (Op. Br. p. 17)—is misleading. In that action, the court +granted a pro se prisoner leave to allege facts sufficient to show he pursued his claims with +reasonable diligence. Id. at *39. However, the court was very clear that its findings were based +on plaintiff's incarceration and pro se status. See id. at *35, 39 ("in the prison context, reasonable +2 See Ortiz v. Cornetta, 867 F.2d 146 (2d Cir. 1989) (fact issue was date on which pro se office received plaintiff's +complaint). + + +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 40 Filed 04/13/20 Page 11 of 15 +fear of retaliation may be sufficient"; "given Plaintiff's pro se status ... the Court is hesitant to +dismiss [his] claims). Plaintiff is neither a prisoner nor pro se, so +is inapplicable. +B. +CPLR § 213-c does not apply retroactively and is not a revival statute. +Plaintiff's invocation of CPLR § 213-c is erroneous. The 20-year statute of limitations in +CPLR § 213-c became effective as of September 18, 2019; the statute of limitations was 5 years +as of 2006 and 1 year before then. (L. 2006, ch. 3, § 5(b).) The 20-year statute of limitations does +not apply retroactively except "where the applicable statute of limitations in effect on the date of +such act or omission has not yet expired." L. 2019, ch. 315, § 4. Therefore, CPLR § 213-c neither +applies retroactively nor revives Plaintiff's claims, all of which expired nearly two decades ago. +C. This motion is proper and timely regardless of its title. +Plaintiff's argument that the Co-Executors may only move to strike her punitive damages +claim (Op. Br. pp. 1, 19) is both wrong and irrelevant. "[T]he technical name given to a motion +challenging a pleading is of little importance ... as prejudice to the nonmoving party hardly can +result." See C. +& A. +, 5C Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1380 (3d ed.). +Courts in this District regularly grant motions to dismiss punitive damages. See, e.g., The +Cookware Co. (USA), LLC v. Austin, No. 15-CV-5796, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177691, at *17 +(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2016) (Batts, J.) (granting motion to dismiss claim for punitive damages without +leave to replead because allegations regarding defendant's bad-faith conduct were conclusory and +did not rise to the required level of malice); SJB v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., No. 03-CV-6653 (NRB), +2004 WL 1586500, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2004) (Buchwald, J.) (granting motion to dismiss +punitive damages claims which were not statutorily available); Kunica v. St. Jean Fin., No. 97- +CV-3804 (RWS), 1998 WL 437153, at *8-9 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 1998) (Sweet, J.) (granting motion +to dismiss claim for punitive damages because, even if conduct alleged in complaint was true, it +did not rise to the level necessary to award punitive damages). +6 + + +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 40 Filed 04/13/20 Page 12 of 15 +Courts in the Second Circuit, including in this District, also routinely grant motions to +strike punitive damages including at the pleadings stage. See, e.g., In re Merrill | +Auction +Rate Sec. Litig., 851 F. Supp. 2d 512, 544 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (granting defendant's motion to strike +sections of first amended complaint asserting punitive damages); Nash v. Coram Healthcare +Corp., No. 96-CV-0298 (LMM), 1996 WL 363166, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 1996) ("The motion +to strike the punitive damages prayer from the Complaint is Granted."); Cerveceria Modelo, S.A. +de C.V. v. USPA Accessories LLC, No. 07-CV-7998 (HB), 2008 WL 1710910, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. +Apr. 10, 2008) ("Because Defendant has failed to allege that Plaintiff's conduct was egregious and +directed at the public generally, its claim for punitive damages cannot proceed."). Therefore, +whether the Co-Executors' motion is deemed one to dismiss or strike, the Court should dispose of +Plaintiff's punitive damages claim.? +D. +There is no basis to disregard black-letter New York law applying the law of the +place of alleged torts to the issue of punitive damages. +Plaintiff's argument that "New York choice-of-law-rules" dictate the application of USVI +law to the issue of punitive damages (Op. Br. p. 20) is wrong for two independent reasons. First, +Plaintiff alleges the acts and omissions giving rise to her causes of action occurred in New York +and Florida. (Compl. 11 40-42, 46.) Therefore, New York and Florida law applies to the issue of +punitive damages. See Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v. Am. Claims Mgmt., No. 14-CV-0463 (JMF), +2015 WL 2152816, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2015) ("Because punitive damages are conduct- +'Plaintiff cites Amusement Indus. v. Stern, 693 F. Supp. 2d 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). However, that court acknowledged +a plaintiff's demand for punitive damages may be stricken where, as here, it is prohibited by law. Id. at 318 n.5 (citation +damages claim would be premature involve a prohibition on such claims such as EPTL §11-3.2(a)(1). See Hunter v. +Palisades Acquistion XVI, LLC, No. 16-civ-8779 (ER), 2017 WL 5513636, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2017) (defendant +moved to dismiss plaintiff's claim for punitive damages under her cause of action for conversion); Okyere v. Palisades +Collection, LLC, 961 F. Supp. 2d 522, 536 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (defendants alleged punitive damages were not available +in the absence of malice and intent). +7 + + +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 40 Filed 04/13/20 Page 13 of 15 +regulating, 'the law of the jurisdiction where the tort occurred will generally apply."" (quoting +Deutsch v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 723 F. Supp. 2d 521, 524 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)); Guidi v. Inter- +Continental Hotels Corp., No. 95-CV-9006 (LAP), 2003 WL 1846864, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, +2003)). +Second, Plaintiff may not have the Court apply the first sentence of § 11-3.2(a)(1), +permitting her to bring this case, but disregard the very next sentence precluding punitive damages. +At least one New York federal court expressly rejected such an "anomalous situation." See Blissett +v. Eisensmidt, 940 F. Supp. 449, 457 (N.D.N.Y. 1996) ("[!]t would be an anomalous situation +indeed if plaintiff were allowed to proceed with this ... action ... because of [$] 11-3.2(a)(1), while +at the same time he was allowed to recover ... punitive damages."). +Plaintiff's premise used to gin up a purported connection to the USVI in this action-that +Decedent "chose to probate his Estate" there and had allegedly abused other victims (but not +Plaintiff) there (Op. Br. p. 21)—is specious. Plaintiff sues for damages based on torts that occurred +in New York and Florida. Further, she chose to sue in New York. Therefore, the Court should +reject Plaintiff's assertion that "[w]hereas the [USVI] has a strong interest in applying its law on +punitive damages, New York and Florida have no conceivable interest in denying the [USVI] from +advancing that interest." (Id. p. 21). The USVI has no interest in applying its punitive damages +laws in a case brought by a non-USVI resident who alleges torts that took place in New York and +Florida. +The sole connection to the USVI is that the Decedent's Estate is being probated there, 20 +years after the alleged tortious conduct took place—a connection much weaker than the one +deemed "tenuous" in Nat' Jewish Democratic Council v. Adelson, 417 F. Supp. 3d 416 (S.D.N.Y. +2019), on which Plaintiff relies. Even under the framework of Adelson, New York, not the USVI, +8 + + +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 40 Filed 04/13/20 Page 14 of 15 +has the greater interest in applying its laws and policies concerning Plaintiff's improper claim for +punitive damages. +Plaintiff also misinterprets Adelson. In Adelson, the National Jewish Democratic Council +and its chair sued Sheldon G. Adelson for damages based on Adelson's prior filing of a defamation +suit against them in the same court pursuant to Nevada law. Id. at 421. The court had dismissed +Adelson's prior action under Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute, which has its own punitive damages +provision. Id. at 421, 426. In the action against Adelson, the court held that Nevada had a much +stronger interest in applying its punitive damages law because Adelson had tried to use Nevada's +defamation law to chill First Amendment rights. Id. at 426. By contrast, "New York's interest +[was] relatively attenuated" in the second action because "[i]ts sole connection to this suit [was] +that the suit was filed here." Id. Here, the situation is effectively the opposite, given the strong +New York connection. +E. +Even if USVI law applies, which it does not, it follows the majority rule prohibiting +recovery of punitive damages against a tortfeasor's estate. +Plaintiff does not dispute that New York law bars her punitive damages claim. Should the +Court find New York law applies (it does), then Plaintiff's punitive damages claim should be +dismissed. Even if the Court finds USVI law applies to Plaintiff's punitive damages claim (it does +not), the result is the same. USVI courts apply a "Banks analysis" to determine U.S.V.I. common +law, including consideration of: (1) whether USVI courts previously adopted a particular rule; (2) +the position taken by a majority of other jurisdictions; and (3) most importantly, which approach +is the soundest rule for the USVI. Gov't of Virgin Islands v. +No. S. CT. CIV. 2013-0095, +2014 WL 702639, at *1 (V.I. Feb. 24, 2014). The Banks factors show that USVI courts would +adopt the majority rule that punitive damages are not available against a deceased tortfeasor's +estate: (1) previously, USVI courts favorably cited the Restatement section barring punitive +9 + + +Case 1:19-CV-10577-LJL-DCF Document 40 Filed 04/13/20 Page 15 of 15 +damages against estates, see, e.g., +v. Dowson Holding Co., 51 V.I. 619, 628 (D.V.I. +2009); Booth v. Bowen, No. CIV. 2006-217, 2008 WL 220067, at *5 (D.V.I. Jan. 10, 2008) +(considering the inverse issue); (2) a majority of U.S. jurisdictions preclude awards of punitive +damages based on wrongful acts of decedents, see 2 Linda L. Schlueter, Punitive Damages § 20.4 +(7th ed. 2015) ("[A] majority of jurisdictions will not award punitive damages against a deceased +tortfeasor's estate." (citation omitted)); and (3) post-Banks, USVI have found the Restatement +§ 908 is "the soundest rule," Pappas v. Hotel on the Cay Time-Sharing Ass'n, 69 V.I. 3, 15 n.8 +(U.S.V.I. Super. Ct. 2015) (citing +v. Christian, 46 V.I. 557 (D.V.I. App. Div. 2005). See +also Isaac v. Crichlow, 63 V.I. 38, 2015 WL 10568556 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2015); St. +House, +Inc. v. Barrows, 15 V.I. 435 (V.I. Terr. Ct. 1979); Brandy v. Flamboyant Inv. Co., Ltd., 24 V.I. +249 (V.I. Terr. Ct. 1989); +v. Rijos, 780 F. Supp. 2d 376, 380 (D.V.I. 2011).* +CONCLUSION +For the reasons set forth above and in the Co-Executors' moving brief, the Co-Executors +respectfully request that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, together with such other and +further relief the Court deems just and proper. +Dated: New York, New York +April 13, 2020 +Respectfully submitted, +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +212.704.6000 +By:/s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +Attorneys for Defendants ++ Plaintiff argues that the USVI A.G.'s request for punitive damages in a USVI Criminally Influenced and Corrupt +Irganizations Act lawsuit against Decedent's Estate shows the third Banks factor weighs in Plaintiff's favo +lowever, that the USVI A.G. asks for something in a lawsuit is not legal authority. See Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.: +914, 940 (2000). +10 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c532ff93fae7c200b8430e502944d27e7694421bfff79251f106ac1f191dc265.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c532ff93fae7c200b8430e502944d27e7694421bfff79251f106ac1f191dc265.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9485d958dc84031c14fba2c8d498f96a6f1bce7d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c532ff93fae7c200b8430e502944d27e7694421bfff79251f106ac1f191dc265.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -381, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c532ff93fae7c200b8430e502944d27e7694421bfff79251f106ac1f191dc265", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 20, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "d231425cf55fb3252d679c85d172837f30df8ad29f932ac9fce6475834cefd19", + "output_sha256": "ce5526b166a4c0155f2f39b9398744ad1db91a81aa090b5ff44c458e5127c91d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c543c41feb6643dc30a2d63725c44ee491cf2f1d4bd172c965b805db8019a992.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c543c41feb6643dc30a2d63725c44ee491cf2f1d4bd172c965b805db8019a992.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cb95a570cf89c16ba91e429362062bec7646a4d6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c543c41feb6643dc30a2d63725c44ee491cf2f1d4bd172c965b805db8019a992.md @@ -0,0 +1,225 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2009 Page 1 of 10 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH +SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO. 3, MOTION +TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY, +AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT +Non-party witness, Jane Doe No. 3, by and through undersigned counsel, files this Motion +for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition of Jane Doe No. 3, Motion to +Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Memorandum of Law in Support, as follows: +I. +Introduction +This is one of six (6) related cases in this Court against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, each +alleging that the Defendant sexually assaulted the plaintiff when she was a minor. This Motion is +prompted by the Defendant's efforts to take the deposition of Jane Doe No. 3 as a witness in this +case. Defendant, however, does not at this time seek to take Jane Doe No. 3's deposition in her own +case. The Defendant apparently intends to take Jane Doe No. 3's deposition at least twice, and as +discussed below, most likely three times. +Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 3 alleges that she is a victim of sexual assault by Defendant Epstein. +To compel her to sit for deposition by Epstein's attorney more than once would be unduly +traumatizing, burdensome, annoying, harassing and, most importantly, unnecessary. There is no +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2009 Page 2 of 10 +conceivable good faith basis for Defendant's attorney to require that Jane Doe No. 3's deposition to +be taken more than once. +Accordingly, this Motion seeks to limit Defendant's counsel to a single deposition of Jane +Doe No. 3, encompassing her claims as a party in her own case and as a witness in any other case +pending in this Court against Defendant Epstein alleging sexual misconduct. As a corollary to this +relief, Plaintiff moves for consolidation of the six (6) related cases for purposes of pretrial discovery +pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a). +II. Background and Relevant Facts +The cases Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, case no. 08-CV-80119-Marra/ +y. Epstein, case no. 08-CV-80232- Marra/ +, Jane Doe No. 3 +Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein, 08-CV-80380- +MARRA/ +Jane Doe No. 5 v. Epstein, case no. 08-CV-80387- Marra +Jane Doe +No. 6 v. Epstein, case no. -CV-80994- Marra/ +80993-CIV - Marra/ +and Jane Doe No. 7 v. Epstein, case no. 08- +, are related cases in this Court.' These cases have been treated jointly +for purposes of pretrial scheduling and deadlines. The Court entered a single Order Setting Trial and +Discovery Deadlines et al., dated September 29, 2008, in the four cases, Jane Does 2-5 v. Epstein, +(DE 45). The Jane Doe No. 6 and Jane Doe No. 7 cases, which were filed later, were likewise +treated jointly and a single Order Setting Trial Date and Discovery Deadlines et al. entered for those +cases dated December 18, 2008. +On September 25, 2008, the parties filed a single Joint Scheduling and Discovery Report in +the four cases, Jane Doe Nos. 2-5. (DE 44). In this Report, the Plaintiff takes the position that it +would be in the interests of judicial economy and efficiency to consolidate these cases at least for +' In all of the cases Jane Doe Nos. 2-7 v. Epstein, the Plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel. +There are other similar cases pending in this Court and in state court against Defendant Epstein in +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2009 Page 3 of 10 +discovery purposes. (Joint Report, p. 5, §II(D)). The Defendant, however, states in this Report his +position in opposition to consolidation for any purpose. (Id.). +All of the cases Jane Doe Nos. 2-7 v. Epstein allege sexual assaults by Defendant Epstein. +They all make identical claims for relief for Sexual Assault and Battery (Count I); Intentional +Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count II; and Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in +Violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422 (Count III). Most importantly for present purposes, they all allege the +same plan and scheme by Defendant Epstein to lure underage girls to his Palm Beach mansion for +the purpose of giving a massage, and that he sexually molested them during the course of this +massage. (See, e.g., Jane Doe No. 3 Second Amended Complaint 99l 7-11; Jane Doe No. 4, Second +Amended Complaint, 9I 8-12). +Jane Doe No. 3 in discovery responses served on January 26, 2009 disclosed that she brought +three other girls to Epstein's mansion for the purpose giving him a massage. These other girls +include Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 2 and Jane Doe. No. 4. (see Plaintiff Jane Doe 3's Answers to +Interrogatories, no. 23, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"). +On March 16, 2009, Defendant's counsel served a Notice of Taking Deposition of Jane Doe +No. 3 in the Jane Doe No. 2 case (A copy of this Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit B).' By letters +dated March 3, 2009 and March 20, 2009, Plaintiff's counsel advised Defendant's counsel that +Plaintiffs oppose the taking of their depositions more than once, and insisted that each Plaintiff's +deposition be noticed in her own case as well as any other case in which she is a witness. +Defendant's counsel has to date failed to respond to this correspondence, or otherwise provide any +reason why he should be allowed to take a victim's deposition more than once. Absent a protective +which the plaintiffs are represented by different counsel. +2 The deposition was unilaterally scheduled for April 14, 2009. +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2009 Page 4 of 10 +order or other relief, Defendant's counsel could take Jane Doe No. 3's deposition three times, once +in her own case and as a witness in both the Jane Doe No. 2 and Jane Doe No. 4 cases. (See Exh. +"A"). +Ill. Argument +A. +A PLAINTIFF IN THESE CASES SHOULD NOT BE +REQUIRED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION MORE THAN ONCE +The district court has discretion to fashion a protective order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). +Farnsworth v. Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545 (11th Cir. 1985). This discretion "does not +depend upon a legal privilege." Id.; Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Southeast Floating Docks, Inc., 231 +F.R.D. 426, 429-30 (M.D.Fla. 2005). Under Rule 26(c), "the Court may, for good cause, issue an +order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or +expense." +The federal rules expressly recognize that a party should not without cause be deposed more +than once. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2)(B). "[I]t is clear that the prohibition against deposing a second +witness without leave of court exists to protect the witness. Indeed, cases construing Rule +30(a)(2)(B) concern protection of the deponent from, for example, undue burden or harassment." +Beaulieu v. Bd. of Trustees, 2007 WL 4468704 (N.D. Fla. 2007). See also Fed.R.Civ.P. +26(b)(2)(C)(i) (directing the court to limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed +under the rules where "the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be +obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive"). +Additionally, Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c) provides that the party or attorney issuing a subpoena must take +reasonable steps to avoid imposing an undue burden on the deponent, and that the Court may impose +an appropriate sanction, including reasonable attorneys' fees, if the party or attorney fails to comply. +- 4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2009 Page 5 of 10 +In the present cases, where sexual misconduct is at issue, Jane Doe No. 3 will be unduly burdened +by one or more separate depositions of her as a witness, to be followed by her deposition as a party. +See Miscellaneous Docket Matter #1 v. Miscellaneous Docket Matter #2, 197 F.3d 922, 925 (8th +Cir. 1999) (case where sexual matters at issue, holding that district court was warranted in quashing +subpoena of witness' second deposition to protect witness from embarrassment and undue burden). +Defendant's counsel seeks to circumvent these rules by noticing Jane Doe No. 3's deposition +first as a witness in the Jane Doe No. 2 case, apparently to be followed by her depositions in her own +case and the Jane Doe No. 7 case. Such multiple depositions of Jane Doe No. 3 would be contrary to +judicial economy and efficiency, and would serve only to unduly harass, annoy and burden her. +Defendant's counsel has offered no reason whatsoever why Jane Doe No. 3's deposition should not +be taken just once, encompassing her knowledge of facts and information relevant to all three related +cases. It is inconceivable that Defendant's counsel would be prejudiced if Jane Doe No. 3 were to +sit for deposition just once. +Accordingly, good cause exists for a protective order preventing Defendant from taking Jane +Doe No. 3's deposition piecemeal in separate cases, and requiring that the Plaintiff's deposition be +taken just once, covering all of the related cases against Epstein. +B. +THESE RELATED CASES SHOULD BE +CONSOLIDATED FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY +As a corollary to the protective order sought by Jane Doe No. 3, the problem of multiple +depositions of any Plaintiff could be avoided by consolidating the related cases for purposes of +pretrial discovery pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a). Consolidation may be appropriate where "actions +before the court involve a common question of law or fact", and in such cases the court is authorized +to issue "orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay." Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(3). "Consolidation of +- 5- + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2009 Page 6 of 10 +actions in their pretrial stage, under many circumstances, will be a desirable administrative +technique and is within the power of the Court." +1&l +, Federal Practice & Procedure, +§2382 (2008). See also +v. Eagle Building Technologies, 209 F.R.C. 499, 501 (S.D. Fla. +2002) (noting that Court has broad discretion under Rule 42(a) to consolidate cases within its +district). "In deciding whether to consolidate actions, we have instructed that district courts should +consider whether doing so could lead to prejudice or confusion." Ramsay v. Broward County +Sheriff's Office, 2008 WL 5237162 *3 (11th Cir. 2008). +The common and overlapping issues in this case, both factual and legal, are patent and +obvious. Here, Plaintiff moves for limited consolidation, for purposes of pretrial discovery only. +Such a consolidation is common and appropriate to further the interests of judicial economy and +efficiency. See, e.g., In re Enron Corp. Securities Litigation, 206 F.R.P. 427, 438 (S.D. Tex. 2002). +At the same time, there is no conceivable prejudice or confusion that would result from +consolidation for purposes of pretrial discovery. To the contrary, consolidation will avoid +unnecessary prejudice and confusion. For example, with regard to the instant Motion, consolidation +for purposes of discovery would make it clear that each party/witness can only be deposed once, +covering all issues in the related cases. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests (i) a protective order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. +26(c) requiring that the deposition of Jane Doe No. 3 be taken no more than once, for purposes of all +of the related case to which her testimony may be relevant; (ii) an order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 +quashing the unilateral nonparty subpoena for deposition of Jane Doe No. 3 in this case; (iii) an +order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a) consolidating the Jane Doe Nos. 2-7 v. Epstein cases for +purposes of pretrial discovery; and (iv) such other and further relief as this Court deems just and +proper. +- 6- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2009 Page 7 of 10 +Dated: March 26, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiff +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +- 7- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2009 Page 8 of 10 +CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO S.D.FLA.L.R. 7.1(A)(3) +Counsel for Plaintiff has made reasonable efforts to confer with counsel for Defendant, by +letters dated March 3, 2009 and March 20, 2009 and by telephone, seeking in good faith to resolve +or narrow the issues raised in the Motion, but Defendant's counsel failed to respond to Plaintiff's +letters, and Plaintiff's counsel has been unable to resolve this dispute. +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 8 - + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2009 Page 9 of 10 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on March 26, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of +Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those +parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 9 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2009 Page 10 of 10 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +/s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 10 - diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c543c41feb6643dc30a2d63725c44ee491cf2f1d4bd172c965b805db8019a992.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c543c41feb6643dc30a2d63725c44ee491cf2f1d4bd172c965b805db8019a992.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3f7ed3fee0fe1eaaee8a332799b10e481f1322e8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c543c41feb6643dc30a2d63725c44ee491cf2f1d4bd172c965b805db8019a992.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -120, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c543c41feb6643dc30a2d63725c44ee491cf2f1d4bd172c965b805db8019a992", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 10, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "010dd8e9e8957c0f9d009b4769dcbd56767ef8ed23ee9cf41e42677f70bd9678", + "output_sha256": "76634fc44b2b4ba3183ce68a78479da17d9da2a9c1a606a655d6ae54f53c7059", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c5469479bc5dc2c9b33c081ac01fd321bd136ff0b65c625c41a4fee7feab3dd2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c5469479bc5dc2c9b33c081ac01fd321bd136ff0b65c625c41a4fee7feab3dd2.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..890790e4a215503148f53e1bbbf6bc2afcac8ee5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c5469479bc5dc2c9b33c081ac01fd321bd136ff0b65c625c41a4fee7feab3dd2.md @@ -0,0 +1,138 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 246 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 246 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 2 of 6 +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/_ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 246 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 3 of 6 +Defendants. +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09- 80469-CIV-MARRA +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09- 80591-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102 +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09- 80656-CIV-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF, C.M.A.'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR +PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING THE DEPOSITIONS OF SUSAN POPE +THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff C.M.A.'s Emergency Motion for +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 246 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 4 of 6 +Protective Order Regarding the Depositions of Susan Pope and Dr. Serge Thys, filed August 4, +2009. The Court has carefully considered the motion, the record, and is otherwise fully advised +in the premises. +On Friday, July 31, Defendant unilaterally scheduled the deposition of Susan Pope, a +mental health therapist, for Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 10:00 a.m., and the deposition of Dr. +Serge Thys, a psychiatrist, for August 31, 2009 at 3:15 p.m. The Court will construe Plaintiff's +motion as as emergency only as to to the deposition of Susan Pope. +On August 4, 2009, Plaintiff timely moved for a protective order as to the deposition of +Susan Pope. By the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks a protective order to prevent the deposition of +Pope, a mental health therapist, based on (1) Plaintiff's Conditional Notice of Intent to +Exclusively Rely on Statutory Damages Provided by 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (DE 113 in case no. 08- +80811) and (2) the psychotherapist-patient privilege pursuant to Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 +(1996). +First, the Court rejects Plaintiff's contention that her notice of conditional intent can be +used as a shield against discovery that is relevant to the claims in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint +(DE 40). Absent an amended pleading or stipulation of the parties, Plaintiff's unilateral +non-binding notice of intent cannot be used to preclude discovery in this case. In the absence of +a stipulation or court order, Plaintiff's notice can be withdrawn at any time. +Plaintiff also claims that the Pope deposition should not be allowed to proceed because +the information sought by Defendant is protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege. See +4 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 246 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 5 of 6 +Jaffee, 518 U.S. 1; Fla. Stat. § 90.503. Blanket assertions of privilege are largely regarded as +improper. See U.S. v. Finley, 434 F.2d 596, 597 (5'" Cir. 1970)' (blanket refusal to testify is +"unacceptable and improper" utilization of vehicle to invoke attorney-client privilege); Wells v. +Xpedx, 2007 WL 1200955, *4 (M.D. Fla. 2007) ("Blanket assertions of privilege [are] usually +insufficient .. During [the] deposition, Defendant may assert attorney-client privilege and work +priduct privilege, if appropriate, as to any questions or requests for documents."); U.S. v. +Kowalik, 809 F.Supp. 1571, 1577 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (blanket refusal to produce records or to +testify is insufficient to support a Fifth Amendment claim of privilege against self-incrimination). +Rather, claims of privilege should be made on a question-by-question basis. See Anglada +v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11" Cir. 1987) (Fifth Amendement privilege against +compulsory self-incrimination must be claimed "with respect to particular questions"); Atlantic +Sounding Co., Inc. v. Townsend, 2006 WL 4702150, *1 (M.D. Fla. 2006) (claims of work +product privilege must be made on question-by-question basis); Kowalik, 809 F.Supp. at 1577. +See also L.R. Appx A. Sec. V.A (explaining the procedure for invocation of privilege during +deposition). Accordingly, Plaintiff's emergency motion for a protective order to prevent the +deposition of Susan Pope is denied. During the deposition, Plaintiff may assert psychotherapistpatient privilege, if appropriate, on a question-by-question basis. It is hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff C.M.A.'s August 4, 2009 Emergency +'In Bonner v. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 & 1209 (11" Cir. 1981) (en bane), +the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent the decisions of the Fifth Circuit rendered +prior to October 1, 1981. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 246 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 6 of 6 +Motion for Protective Order Regarding the Deposition of Susan Pope is DENIED. +DONE AND ORDERED in +Florida, this 5" day of August, 2009 +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies furnished to: +all counsel of record +6 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c5469479bc5dc2c9b33c081ac01fd321bd136ff0b65c625c41a4fee7feab3dd2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c5469479bc5dc2c9b33c081ac01fd321bd136ff0b65c625c41a4fee7feab3dd2.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..54fe102ebc87b482dbe011e39872ab0b8a2145f9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c5469479bc5dc2c9b33c081ac01fd321bd136ff0b65c625c41a4fee7feab3dd2.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -74, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c5469479bc5dc2c9b33c081ac01fd321bd136ff0b65c625c41a4fee7feab3dd2", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 7, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "32d4d2bf04e53f2c100f0d82daa45f91bd8e518647cafa4371b9c98b30b3fb72", + "output_sha256": "25ea8b4b7095815285a4905fceac1c30fdb790c9b6cf7d41314574b90b1c6a0e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c54d9ad08ea730ba335fb433fda0aa806768ebc975c33ccf0f2a823d4ce4a99f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c54d9ad08ea730ba335fb433fda0aa806768ebc975c33ccf0f2a823d4ce4a99f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3d7da915a49a4318c3998a82a73056c2c77beaf2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c54d9ad08ea730ba335fb433fda0aa806768ebc975c33ccf0f2a823d4ce4a99f.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 13-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2008 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME +TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR STAY +[PROPOSEDI ORDER +Upon Plaintiff's Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendant's Motion for +Stay, and good cause being shown it is hereby +ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion is granted. Plaintiff shall have an enlargement of time of +(wenty (20) days, until July 30, 2008, to respond to Defendant's Motion for Stay. +DONE AND ORDERED in +in Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this +_ day of +_, 2008. +DISTRICT COURT JUDGE +- 1- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c54d9ad08ea730ba335fb433fda0aa806768ebc975c33ccf0f2a823d4ce4a99f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c54d9ad08ea730ba335fb433fda0aa806768ebc975c33ccf0f2a823d4ce4a99f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7c261f70cf2bbc391705828ecef4b1121f1677af --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c54d9ad08ea730ba335fb433fda0aa806768ebc975c33ccf0f2a823d4ce4a99f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c54d9ad08ea730ba335fb433fda0aa806768ebc975c33ccf0f2a823d4ce4a99f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e8510a27871649727ec772ba98bf5a696c9508f7d534d218d84b4625f0fcaad5", + "output_sha256": "39b7fbca8c63221a9622f87709312c0ab690762ee9f3ae50466d05fca8992cbe", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c562d942f46ffdb60a5d43a3108c65fdaaeee446f6dea227f8b71c9fc1af4395.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c562d942f46ffdb60a5d43a3108c65fdaaeee446f6dea227f8b71c9fc1af4395.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4dabfd144f7f486a39156b4d76e1940cb1dcb618 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c562d942f46ffdb60a5d43a3108c65fdaaeee446f6dea227f8b71c9fc1af4395.md @@ -0,0 +1,177 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2009 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2009 Page 2 of 6 +JANE DOE NO. 6 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRAJ, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRAI, +C.M.A. +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRAJ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/ +2 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2009 Page 3 of 6 +DOE II +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/. +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101 +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/. +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102 +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRAI. +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF FILING WITHDRAWAL OF PREVIOUSLY RAISED +OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S, MOTION TO COMPEL +AND/OR IDENTIFY C.M.A. IN THE STYLE OF THIS CASE AND MOTION TO +IDENTIFY C.M.A. IN THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS FOR PURPOSES OF +DISCOVERY, OR, ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO DISMISS SUA SPONTE, WITH +INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Plaintiff, C.M.A., by and through her undersigned attorneys, hereby files notice of +withdrawal of previously raised objections to Defendant, JEFRREY EPSTEIN'S, Motion +3 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2009 Page 4 of 6 +to Compel and/or Identify C.M.A. in the Style of This Case and Motion to Identify C.M.A. +in Third-Party Subpoenas For Purposes of Discovery, or, Alternatively, Motion to +Dismiss Sua Sponte, With Incorporated Memorandum of Law, and further states as +follows: +1. +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, filed a Motion to Compel and/or Identify +C.M.A. in the Style of This Case and Motion to Identify C.M.A. in Third-Party Subpoenas +For Purposes of Discovery, or, Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss Sua Sponte, With +Incorporated Memorandum of Law (D.E. 67) on April 29, 2009. +2. +EPSTEIN's Motion seeks the following relief (taken verbatim from the +conclusion of his Motion): +a) "That C.M.A. be identified by her legal name in the style of this case; +b) That Epstein be granted leave to identify C.M.A. by her legal name in +Third-Party Subpoenas (but not file them in Court, or, if required, in a +redacted form); and +c) That on an alternative basis, this court dismiss this action Sua Sponte +until such time as C.M.A. identifies herself in the style of this matter. +Doe v. Rostker, 89 F.R.D at 163." +3. +Plaintiff withdraws her objection to a) and b) requested above. The +request to have C.M.A.'s case dismissed is rendered moot given C.M.A.'s acquiescence +to a) and b). To the extent that it is not, however, C.M.A. continues to object to c) +above. +4 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2009 Page 5 of 6 +4. +Counsel for EPSTEIN is free to prepare a proposed agreed order +reflecting the above for the Court's consideration following the undersigned's review of +same. +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1 +Counsel for the movant conferred via telephone with counsel for the Defendant +regarding the filing of the instance Notice and he has no objection to Plaintiff filing +same. +s/ Jack P.| +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 20th day of May, 2009, I electronically filed the +foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using CM/ECF system, which will send a notice +of electronic filing to all counsel of record on the attached service list. +Is/Jack P. +Jack Scarola +Florida Bar No.: 169440 +Jack P. +Florida Bar No.: 0547808 +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: +(561) 686-6300 +(561) 383-9424 +Attorneys for Plainti, C.M.A. +5 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2009 Page 6 of 6 +COUNSEL LIST +Richard H. Willits, Esquire +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 10th Avenue North, Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Phone: +(561) 582-7600 +Fax: +(561) 588-8819 +Robert Critton, Esquire +Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman LLP +515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33414 +Phone: +(561) 842-2820 +(561) 844-6929 +Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: +(561) 863-9100 +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esquire +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 South Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: +(561) 202-6360 +Fax: +(561) 828-0983 +6 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c562d942f46ffdb60a5d43a3108c65fdaaeee446f6dea227f8b71c9fc1af4395.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c562d942f46ffdb60a5d43a3108c65fdaaeee446f6dea227f8b71c9fc1af4395.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1982bec6498f9266c93fa2f929e0d023e5c0d78e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c562d942f46ffdb60a5d43a3108c65fdaaeee446f6dea227f8b71c9fc1af4395.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c562d942f46ffdb60a5d43a3108c65fdaaeee446f6dea227f8b71c9fc1af4395", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c02f1ddee940c3e82165c8650cec28bd89d7dcffd8d77fac93125ce71e099ecf", + "output_sha256": "ea071a4232ee1ef1c44833928af05eccc5e9f9d12794698116810831a6009139", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c5814fc117809027451baeb472c4bed46a5ff88697e45a2283461809c6fed926.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c5814fc117809027451baeb472c4bed46a5ff88697e45a2283461809c6fed926.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..730438e4369ed3c7c722184f0806f0bfdeef1bd1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c5814fc117809027451baeb472c4bed46a5ff88697e45a2283461809c6fed926.md @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Matthewman +JANE DOES #1 AND #2, +Petitioners, +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, +Respondent. +/ +UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG +Pursuant to the Court's June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United +States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby gives +notice of its filing of its Privilege Log, which is attached hereto. +The documents referenced in the Privilege Log are being delivered today to the +of U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra for ex parte in camera review, pursuant to the Court's +Omnibus Order. +By: +Respectfully submitted, +WIFREDO A. FERRER +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +S/A. +Villafaña +A. +VILLAFAÑA +Assistant United States Attorney +Florida Bar No. 0018255 +500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400 +/est Palm Beach, FL 3340 +elenhone: 561-820-871 +Facsimile: 561-820-8777 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 2 of 2 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 26, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing document +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. According to the Court's website, counsel for all parties +are able to receive notice via the CM/ECF system. +SA +A. +Villafaña +[VILLAFAÑA +Assistant United States Attorney +SERVICE LIST +Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, +Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Brad +, Esq., +Jatte Weissing +425 N Andrews Ave Ste 2 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3268 +brad@pathtojustice.com +954-524-2820 +Fax: 954-524-2822 +Fistos Lehrman +Paul G. Cassell +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 +(801) 585-5202 +Fax: (801) 585-6833 +E-mail: casselp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c5814fc117809027451baeb472c4bed46a5ff88697e45a2283461809c6fed926.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c5814fc117809027451baeb472c4bed46a5ff88697e45a2283461809c6fed926.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a7d5e3ba2ee99ec19d2d97dff70654fdb9289d9c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c5814fc117809027451baeb472c4bed46a5ff88697e45a2283461809c6fed926.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c5814fc117809027451baeb472c4bed46a5ff88697e45a2283461809c6fed926", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b82f2549d7e9aec2daf798a24c9719a1e1dfe13cd1d305d53825e18af21b6079", + "output_sha256": "776484dea119ff8e7eb493be949225983c2ffb954660a0950891deaaf5e79453", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c588c7bf78aba68c5d15c2de06f2c581de47aa96e3a070c4539039cb9577a5f5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c588c7bf78aba68c5d15c2de06f2c581de47aa96e3a070c4539039cb9577a5f5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4aec53ff24bd1787729ef7cea59bb6bee59394fb --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c588c7bf78aba68c5d15c2de06f2c581de47aa96e3a070c4539039cb9577a5f5.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 77 Filed 06/21/20 Page 1 of 1 +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP +350 FIFTH AVENUE | SUITE 7110 +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 +TEL (212) 763-0883 | FAX (212) 564-0883 +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884 +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com +June 21, 2020 +VIA ECE +Hon. Judge Freeman +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +New York, NY 10007 +Re: +Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) +Dear Judge Freeman: +We write pursuant to ECF Rule 21.7 and Rule | +of this Court's Individual Practices to +request that Docket Numbers 74-1 and 74-3 be sealed and re-filed on the public docket in redacted +form. +Plaintiff contends these two documents contain highly confidential and sensitive +information. Accordingly, with Defendants' consent, we request that Docket Numbers 74-1 and +74-3 be sealed, and that Defendants be permitted to re-file in redacted form. This request is made +without prejudice to the parties' rights and legal positions. +Thank you for your attention to this matter. +Respectfully submitted, +Roll +Roberta A. Kaplan +cc: Counsel of Record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c588c7bf78aba68c5d15c2de06f2c581de47aa96e3a070c4539039cb9577a5f5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c588c7bf78aba68c5d15c2de06f2c581de47aa96e3a070c4539039cb9577a5f5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7b97c8de8f3642e6d52eeddbb1f662b18f607199 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c588c7bf78aba68c5d15c2de06f2c581de47aa96e3a070c4539039cb9577a5f5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c588c7bf78aba68c5d15c2de06f2c581de47aa96e3a070c4539039cb9577a5f5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "a1c7fd84b24b791dc32e9430710a1ccf9f11db1ef06e6defcb560e708db8c20a", + "output_sha256": "f6b30e85aa3ac6d2e4f52046c6d3be33a265c1d84536705b89b2cd96b1331e39", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c5ada83063b4e3aa8c4ac65e38150cb17fa1d197cdc87cf33ee5f25664bf01d9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c5ada83063b4e3aa8c4ac65e38150cb17fa1d197cdc87cf33ee5f25664bf01d9.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5eadec82a815bc3bdeefa2f19352e62632f851a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c5ada83063b4e3aa8c4ac65e38150cb17fa1d197cdc87cf33ee5f25664bf01d9.md @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2008 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENTRY +OF DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 2, by and through her undersigned counsel, and pursuant to the +Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) and S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1, hereby files this Motion for Entry of +Default Against Defendant, and states as follows: +1. +On May 7, 2008, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein was served with a Summons and +Complaint in this case. A copy of the Affidavit of Service is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". +Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1), Defendant was required to +answer or otherwise serve a response to the Complaint on or before May 27, 2008. +To date, Defendant has neither answered the Complaint, filed a response of any kind, +nor requested an enlargement of time. Moreover, no attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of +the Defendant. +4. +The Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein is not on active duty in the armed forces of the United +States. See Exhibit "B". +5. +Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), Plaintiff applies to +this Honorable Court for the entry of default judgment against the Defendant. +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2008 Page 2 of 3 +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JANE DOE NO. 2, respectfully requests this Court to grant this +motion in favor of Plaintiff and enter a default against Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN. +Dated: May 29, 2008. +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Adam D. Horowitz +Jeffrey M. Herman (FL Bar No. 521647) +jherman@hermanlaw.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@hermanlaw.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on May 29, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day +to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices +of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who +are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2008 Page 3 of 3 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/, +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jeffrey Epstein (Via Regular Mail) +9 East 71st Street +New York, NY 10021 +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +Herman & Mermelstein, P. A. +- 3- \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c5ada83063b4e3aa8c4ac65e38150cb17fa1d197cdc87cf33ee5f25664bf01d9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c5ada83063b4e3aa8c4ac65e38150cb17fa1d197cdc87cf33ee5f25664bf01d9.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..700ed60947d45e0a0a455be696e33769d06c1b10 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c5ada83063b4e3aa8c4ac65e38150cb17fa1d197cdc87cf33ee5f25664bf01d9.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -91, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c5ada83063b4e3aa8c4ac65e38150cb17fa1d197cdc87cf33ee5f25664bf01d9", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0346fabce8d4947755713d67c6d1bd58fb57d7a04d6b5b7901e86e73dd5a6471", + "output_sha256": "805454639a7934837bfbcac5cf6f3c8956e7b6b0cf570dd5a1c8f0829ca34682", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6090b8d30a224117bb95933302e0c029340cbeb4b7b218c0c9aa6a71e8b4ba4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6090b8d30a224117bb95933302e0c029340cbeb4b7b218c0c9aa6a71e8b4ba4.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..acb65ed5bf842713890780425b0fcc2945bab53c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6090b8d30a224117bb95933302e0c029340cbeb4b7b218c0c9aa6a71e8b4ba4.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 23-3 Filed 02/14/20 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +------ X +Plaintiff, +Index No. 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. +KAHN, in their capacities as executors of the +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, an individual +: +Defendants. +------ X +ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE +The motion of Mary "Molly" S. DiRago for admission to practice Pro Hac Vice in the +above captioned action is granted. +Applicant has declared that she is a member in good standing of the bar(s) of the state(s) +of Illinois; and that her contact information is as follows: +Mary "Molly" S. DiRago +Troutman Sanders LLP +One North Wacker Drive, Suite 2905 +Chicago, 60606 +(312) 759-1926 +(312) 759-1939 (Fax) +molly.dirago@troutman.com +Applicant having requested admission Pro Hac Vice to appear for all purposes as counsel for +Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein +(together, the "Co-Executors"), in the above entitled action; +IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Applicant is admitted to practice Pro Hac Vice in the +above captioned case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. +1 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 23-3 Filed 02/14/20 Page 2 of 2 +All attorneys appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, including +the Rules governing discipline of attorneys. +Dated: +United States District/Magistrate Judge +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6090b8d30a224117bb95933302e0c029340cbeb4b7b218c0c9aa6a71e8b4ba4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6090b8d30a224117bb95933302e0c029340cbeb4b7b218c0c9aa6a71e8b4ba4.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..236525fa9149b9dc2c17b1a56bf53909fc2d7663 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6090b8d30a224117bb95933302e0c029340cbeb4b7b218c0c9aa6a71e8b4ba4.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -35, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c6090b8d30a224117bb95933302e0c029340cbeb4b7b218c0c9aa6a71e8b4ba4", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "438a8ff1970bb67794b675b68690100740c0c3453552a4f0889db7776462bc68", + "output_sha256": "5d79691288503f05aae076647385fb26c6b66592c88727ac86f1c73dab138e9c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c60a11bfdb963aeb5e6d7c015cbb30dfbc70be633460241e2528f66310d77fe9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c60a11bfdb963aeb5e6d7c015cbb30dfbc70be633460241e2528f66310d77fe9.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2a18ea5de8720369573778bcb5ab9c3b0c11dc7d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c60a11bfdb963aeb5e6d7c015cbb30dfbc70be633460241e2528f66310d77fe9.md @@ -0,0 +1,226 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 1 of 7 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +JOINT SCHEDULING AND DISCOVERY REPORT + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 2 of 7 +Plaintiffs, Jane Doe No. 2, Jane Doe No. 3, Jane Doe No. 4 and Jane Doe No. 5, and +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, submit this Joint Scheduling and Discovery Report' in accordance with +this Court's Order Requiring Counsel to Confer, file Joint Scheduling Report and file Joint +Discovery Report, and S.D.Fla.L.R. 16.1(B)(2) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f), as follows: +I. DISCOVERY REPORT +A. Disclosures Under Rule 26(a) +The parties propose to exchange initial disclosures under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a) on or before +October 17, 2008. +B. +Conduct of Discovery +Discovery and Pretrial Deadlines +The parties propose the following discovery and pre-trial deadlines: +Joinder of parties and +Amendment of pleadings +Parties to exchange list of fact +witnesses and expert witness +summaries/reports required +by S.D.Fla.L.R. 16.1E +Mediation to be completed +Completion of Discovery +Dispositive Motions to be Filed +Joint Pretrial Statement to be +Filed pursuant to S.D.Fla.L.R. 16.1E +Propose pre-trial conference +Proposed Trial +December 1, 2008 +June 1, 2009 +July 1, 2009 +August 1, 2009 +August 20, 2009 +September 25, 2009 +October, 2009 +November, 2009 +1 The submission of one Joint Scheduling and Discovery Report for the four cases is not intended to +be an agreement or admission regarding whether these cases should be consolidated for any purpose. +See §II (D) below. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 3 of 7 +Number of days estimated for jury trial +10 +Subjects of Discovery and Whether Discovery +Should be Phased or Limited to Particular Issues +Plaintiffs' Position: There are no unusual issues at this time which require bifurcation or +special restrictions on the scope of discovery or the subjects of discovery. Such issues may arise, +however, as discovery continues. It is suggested that no restrictions on discovery be imposed at the +outset of discovery. +Defendant's Position: Any financial discovery, if allowed, relating to a punitive damage +should be postponed until May 15, 2009. As well, as set forth in §D below, Defendant will request +an order approving a confidentiality agreement governing access to and use of said information by +Plaintiff and her attorneys until such time as documents/testimony is admitted at trial. +C. Issues About Disclosure of Electronically Stored Information +The parties do not know whether issues may arise concerning discovery of electronically +stored information. At this time, such discovery may be produced in paper or electronic form, +subject to further order of the Court as may be necessary as discovery proceeds. +D. +Issues About Claims of Privilege or Confidentiality +Plaintiffs' Position: Plaintiffs request that their identities remain anonymous in this +proceeding because they have alleged that they were victims of sexual misconduct as minors. +Papers and exhibits filed with the Court should redact the names of the Plaintiffs or otherwise be +filed under seal. +Defendant's Position: +Defendant may oppose anonymity in that Defendant will be +prejudiced in defending himself and conducting his discovery without the ability to disclose +Plaintiff's name(s), such as at depositions, subpoenaing medical/health related information, school +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 4 of 7 +records, etc. As well, Defendant's counsel has found that disclosure of a Plaintiff's name (who +previously filed anonymously) oftentimes produces invaluable and otherwise relevant and material +discovery. +Defendant will request a confidentiality agreement with restrictions on any financial +discovery which this court may allow. Defendant may assert his Fifth Amendment privilege in this +matter. +E. Limitations Imposed by the Discovery Rules +Plaintiffs' Position: Plaintiffs request that the limitation of 10 depositions for each party +under Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2) be removed. Plaintiffs intend to take the depositions of other minor +victims of Defendant Epstein, who are numerous. There is no need at this time to alter other +limitations imposed by the discovery rules. +Defendant's Position: Defendant would request that the number of 10 deposition limit be +imposed, pending a motion by either side setting forth justification for additional depositions. +F. +Other Orders that the Court Should Issue +Under Rule 26(c) or Rule 16(b) and (c) +No other orders appear necessary at this time except as set forth above. +II. CONFERENCE REPORT +A. Likelihood of Settlement +The parties have not to date engaged in settlement discussions. They are, however, willing to +explore the prospects for settlement through mediation or otherwise as the case proceeds forward. +B. +Likelihood of Appearance of Additional Parties +It does not appear that additional parties will appear in this case. However, the parties +reserve the right to join additional parties within the deadline set forth in $I(B), if appropriate. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 5 of 7 +C. +Proposed Time Limits +Proposed time limits are set forth in the Discovery Plan, §I(B) above. +D. Proposals for the Formulation and Simplification of Issues +Plaintiffs' Position: It would be in the interests of judicial economy and efficiency to +consolidate these cases at least for purposes of discovery. Plaintiffs have no other proposals for the +formulation and simplification of issues at this time. +Defendant's Position: Defendant is opposed to consolidation of the cases for any purpose at +this time. Should Plaintiff file a motion, Defendant will consider the request and respond. +E. Necessity or Desirability of Amendments to the Pleadings +Plaintiff's filed Amended Complaints in each case on September 22, 2008. Plaintiffs do not +believe at this time that further amendment will be necessary. The parties however reserve the right +to amend pleadings within the deadline set forth in §I(B) above. +Plaintiffs' Position: Plaintiffs believe that Defendant Epstein's plea agreement is an +admission of liability as to all Counts of the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff's request an early ruling +by the Court on the affect of the plea agreement, which will simplify the issues. Additionally, +Plaintiffs believe that it is appropriate to have an advance evidentiary ruling on similar fact evidence. +If the parties know early in the case how similar fact evidence will be treated at trial, discovery can +be more focused and efficient. +Defendant's Position: Defendant expects that the parties will work together to arrive at +admissions as the matter progresses. Defendant disagrees that Defendant's plea agreement is an +admission as described by Plaintiff. Defendant does agree that having an advance ruling on +similar fact evidence may be desirable, after motion and ability to brief and respond. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 6 of 7 +G. Suggestions for the Avoidance of +Unnecessary Proof and of Cumulative Evidence +There are no suggestions at this time for the avoidance of unnecessary proof or of cumulative +evidence. +H. +Suggestion on the Advisability of Referring +Matters to a Magistrate Judge or +It is suggested that discovery matters be referred to a Magistrate Judge. +I. +Preliminary Estimate of the Time Required for Trial +It is estimated that the trial will require ten (10) days. +J. +Requested Date or Dates for Pre Trial Conference and Trial +Dates are set forth in the proposed discovery plan §I(B) above. +K. Other Information +There is no other information that might be helpful to the Court at this early date regarding +setting the case for status conference or pre trial conference. +Dated: September 25, 2008. +Respectfully submitted, +By: s/ Jeffrey M. Herman +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +By: s/ Jack Alan Goldberger +Jack Alan Goldberger +250 Austrian Avenue Sovis, P.A +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +jherman@hermanlaw.com +Irivera@hermanlaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs Jane Doe #2 - #5 +By: _ +s/ Michael R. Tein +Michael R. Tein, Esq. +Tein, P.L. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 7 of 7 +By: s/ Robert D. Critton +Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esq. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +Michael J. Pike, Esq. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, FL 33133 +305-442-1101 +Fax: 305 442 6744 +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +tein@lewistein.com +7 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c60a11bfdb963aeb5e6d7c015cbb30dfbc70be633460241e2528f66310d77fe9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c60a11bfdb963aeb5e6d7c015cbb30dfbc70be633460241e2528f66310d77fe9.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f274b76b5bc09c28f97684989ba89c39657ce287 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c60a11bfdb963aeb5e6d7c015cbb30dfbc70be633460241e2528f66310d77fe9.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -84, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c60a11bfdb963aeb5e6d7c015cbb30dfbc70be633460241e2528f66310d77fe9", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 7, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "d7f5a7b13b1867c0b41460881eec206e1751926d9572351981cb3062fa01e41f", + "output_sha256": "737c73ef83d5cac30b5673ddf0da62218916ea329d2ac46431b9c878e5b80121", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c616e4cff045bf332ad8f2cee9a95aded77980115d9af57cc655116f1e4341f4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c616e4cff045bf332ad8f2cee9a95aded77980115d9af57cc655116f1e4341f4.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a17832e941b991e4c0e8641037073f0e8f6e4df3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c616e4cff045bf332ad8f2cee9a95aded77980115d9af57cc655116f1e4341f4.md @@ -0,0 +1,365 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 84 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 1 of 12 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: O8-CV-80232-MARRAW +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +MOTION TO COMPEL AND/OR IDENTIFY JANE DOE #3 IN THE STYLE OF +THIS CASE AND MOTION TO IDENTIFY JANE DOE IN THIRD-PARTY +SUBPOENAS FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY, OR ALTERNATIVELY, +MOTION TO DISMISS SUA SPONTE, WITH INCORPORATED +MEMORANDUM OF LAW' +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein" or "Defendant"), by and +through his undersigned attorneys, hereby requests that this Court enter an order +identifying in the style of this case the complete legal name of the Plaintiff, JANE +DOE #3 ("JANE DOE"), to substitute her complete legal name in this case in +place of "JANE DOE" and, equally important, allowing Defendant to identify her in +various subpoenas that Epstein must serve so Epstein can defend this case or, +alternatively, Motion to Dismiss Entire Action Sua Sponte. In support, Mr. +Epstein states as follows: +I. Motion And Incorporated Memorandum Of Law +a. Background +On March 5, 2008, Plaintiff, a 20-year-old female, filed this action +against Epstein. +* Several of the discovery responses attached to this Motion and to the +companion "Motions to Identify" filed in other related matters are +markedly different. +Therefore, each requires the court's attention on +an individual basis. +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 84 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 2 of 12 +On February 27, 2009, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended +Complaint against Epstein, which alleges three causes of action against him: +Count I - Sexual Assault and Battery; Count II - Intentional Infliction of Emotional +Distress; and Count III - Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in violation +of 18 U.S.C. §2422. +3. +The Second Amended Complaint appears to raise both Federal +and Florida State substantive issues (DE 56). +4. +Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that she is entitled to money +damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. §2422 and 2255 (in the wherefore clause) and +by virtue her claims that Epstein sexually battered her and caused her emotional +distress. Plaintiff alleges separate counts against Mr. Epstein, on which he must +conduct discovery to defend this case. +5. +In particular, JANE DOE claims, in Count I for sexual battery, that +she has and will suffer "...severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including +mental, psychological and emotional damages." 1121, 2nd Am. Comp., DE 56. +In Count II for Sexual Battery, plaintiff claims entitlement to recover for ".. +severe mental anguish and pain" 1127, 2nd Am. Comp., DE 56. In Count Ill for +Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422, +plaintiff claims entitlement to recover for "...personal injury, including mental, +psychological and emotional damages" 133, 2nd Am. Comp., DE 56. Plaintiff +also claims entitlement to "punitive damages" and "actual and compensatory +damages" and "loss of earning capacity." DE 56. See also Exhibit "A". +Interrogatory Response Number 9-10. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 84 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 3 of 12 +6. +Epstein has a constitutional due process right to defend himself and +to seek the production of information that will assist in his defense of the +allegations in the 2nd Amended Complaint. In this case, Plaintiff's counsel +objected to Epstein serving subpoenas on Plaintiff's treating physicians and other +third parties. Thus, this motion seeks to identify JANE DOE in the style of this +case, to identify JANE DOE in various third-party subpoenas for discovery +purposes +and, alternatively, to dismiss this entire action sua sponte. The +undersigned's experience in "Jane Doe" lawsuits is that once a Plaintiff is +identified, other individuals come forward in the discovery phase with information +which often directly contradicts allegations as to the events and damages. For +instance, witnesses may testify that Plaintiff was paid by others for similar sexual +acts she claims Mr. Epstein forced upon her or that she willingly participated in +certain acts) that would negate or lessen her damages. This goes directly to +Plaintiff's damage claim. +7. +Likewise, subpoenas must be issued to third-party treaters and +current and former employers, and those subpoenas will seek to obtain records +related directly to Plaintiff's claims and her damages (i.e., her claim for severe +and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and emotional +damages" and loss of self-esteem and dignity as referenced above). Cherenfant +V. Nationwide Credit, +Inc., 2004 WL 5315889 (S.D. Fla. 2004)(order allowing +discovery of medical records consistent with Plaintiff's allegations in complaint). +This too goes directly to Plaintiff's damage claims. Medical providers, employers, +co-employees, +etc..have direct and relevant personal knowledge and +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 84 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 4 of 12 +observations regarding damages, i.e., emotional state, activities, self-esteem, +etc.... +8. +Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26 allows for broad discovery. Epstein is not +required to rely solely on Plaintiff's discovery responses in defending this case, +nor is Epstein required by any statute or law to rely only upon what Plaintiff +produces in discovery or may obtain from her own medical treaters through her +counsel, and to then provide to Epstein only after Plaintiff has reviewed same. In +certain related state court actions involving Epstein, the undersigned offered to +serve certain subpoenas on the medical treaters and other third-parties with full +name, date of birth and Plaintiff's social security number (last four digits), but +agreed that the subpoenas filed with the clerk would be redacted. Several +attorneys agreed to this procedure in those cases. In Federal Court, subpoenas +are not filed with the clerk. Thus, in this matter, the undersigned offered to serve +the third-party subpoenas with plaintiff's full name, date of birth and social +security number (last four digits) and would agree to redact any identifying +information on any documents filed with this court if that ultimately became +necessary. As discussed below, Plaintiff's counsel did not agree. Further, +Plaintiff's counsel claims a HIPPA complaint protective order is necessary. Such +is not the case when a Plaintiff places her mental, emotional, psychological and +physical condition at issue, +9. +Moreover, when an order from the court is attached to the +Subpoena, treaters and other third parties produce the records and show up to +the depositions with the records requested because the deponent knows what to +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 84 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 5 of 12 +bring by virtue of knowing the identity of the Plaintiff. +10. Epstein's counsel intends to serve and depose witnesses duces +tecum. If Epstein is not permitted to identify JANE DOE, how will any deponent +know who the parties are and what to bring to the deposition pursuant to the +duces tecum? Further, how will Epstein be able to defend the claims. Just like +the Plaintiff, Epstein is entitled to due process. +11. While it is within the sound discretion of this court to allow a party to +proceed anonymously, Plaintiff should not attempt to utilize that discretion as a +shield from legitimate and necessary discovery. Epstein has a fundamental due +process right to conduct discovery. +b. Motion To Identify JANE DOE In Style Of This Case +12. As discussed below, Epstein has fundamental due process right to +defend himself in this civil litigation. While JANE DOE travels under a +pseudonym, various newspaper articles identifying Epstein have been released +discussing the alleged claims against him. Allowing JANE DOE to litigate this +matter under a pseudonym is preventing Epstein from defending this suit +including, but not limited to, preventing him from locating individuals that may +have information about this lawsuit and information about JANE DOE that may +discredit her allegations and/or lessen the monetary damages she seeks to +recover. It is the undersigned's experience that once identified, witnesses begin +to come forward. See supra. +13. In Doe v. Lepley, 185 F.R.D. 605 (D. Ct. NV 1999), a sexual +harassment case, the court reasoned that there is no express or implied right to +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 84 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 6 of 12 +bring an action anonymously. Id. at 606. Moreover, Fed. R. Civ. P 10(a) +requires that the complaint include the names of the parties. Id. When Plaintiffs +are permitted to proceed anonymously, the court must employ a balancing test to +decide if the plaintiff has a substantial privacy interest that outweighs the +presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. Id., citing, Doe v. +,, 951 +F.2d 320, 323 (11"h Cir. 1992)(requiring complaint to include the names of the +parties serves more than administrative convenience, it protects the public's +legitimate interests in knowing all the facts involved, including the identity of the +parties - thus denying request to proceed anonymously). The factors include: +a. +b. +whether the plaintiff is challenging governmental activity; +c. +whether the party defending the suit would be prejudiced; +whether the plaintiff is required to disclose information of +utmost intimacy; +whether the plaintiff is compelled to admit an intention to +engage in +• illegal conduct, thereby risking criminal +prosecution; +whether the Plaintiff would risk suffering injury if identified; +f. +whether the interests of children are at stake; and +whether there are less drastic means of protecting the +legitimate interests of either party. +Doe v. +951 F.2d at 323. +Plaintiff does not fall under any of the factors. Moreover, even if she did +meet one of the factors, "the fact that [a] Doe [Plaintiff] may suffer some +personal embarrassment, standing alone, does not require the granting of a +request to proceed under a pseudonym." Id; see also Doe v. Rostker, 89 F.R.D. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 84 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 7 of 12 +159 (N.D. Calif. 1981). Any substantial privacy interests JANE DOE has must +outweigh the customary and constitutionally embedded presumption of openness +951 F.2d at 323; Doe v. Bergstron, 2009 +to judicial proceedings. Doe v. +WL 528623 (C.A.9(Or.)) (denying request to proceed anonymously in civil action +by Plaintiff where Plaintiff's arrest, prosecution and acquittal were matters of +public record). +14. In Sweetland v. State, 535 So.2d 646 (Fla. 18* DCA 1988), the court +reasoned that the purpose of discovery is to eliminate the likelihood of surprise +and to insure a fair opportunity to prepare for trial. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure +1.280(b)(1); see also Surf Drugs, Inc., v. Vermette, 236 So.2d 108, 111 (Fla. +1970)(stating that the rules of discovery should be afforded broad and liberal +treatment to effectuate their purpose), citing, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, +501, 507 (1947). +15. Next, the right to go to court to resolve disputes is a fundamental right. +D.R. Lakes, Inc. v. Brandsmart U.S.A. of West Palm Beach, 819 So.2d 971 (Fla. 4** +DCA 2002). All litigants are afforded an equal opportunity. Lingle v. Dion, 776 +So.2d 1073 (Fla. 4* DCA 2001). The Florida Constitution establishes the right +commonly known as access to courts. Mitchell v. Moore, 786 So.2d 521 (Fla. +2001). Courts shall be open to any person for the redress of any injury and justice +shall be administered without sale, denial or delay. Art. I, §21, Fla. Const.; 10A Fla. +Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, §360. +16. +If Jane Doe's name is not disclosed and identified, Mr. Epstein will not +be afforded his fundamental right to fairly litigate this dispute and prepare for trial. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 84 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 8 of 12 +Accordingly, Epstein requests that JANE DOE be identified by her legal name in the +pleadings. +c. +Motion To Identify JANE DOE In Third-Party Subpoenas +17. While discovery in this matter is underway; Epstein is effectively +being denied due process rights by Plaintiff's counsel from conducting broad, +open and liberal discovery in that Plaintiff's counsel has objected to, among other +things, Epstein identifying JANE DOE in various third-party subpoenas to her +medical providers and other third parties. +18. The undersigned must serve subpoenas on medical doctors to +obtain medical information on JANE DOE's alleged psychological and physical +damages as same goes to the heart of Epstein's defenses and Plaintiff's +damages. Plaintiff is claiming emotional/psychological damages and "loss of +earning capacity.". See Exhibit "A", Interrogatory Response Number 9-10. +Therefore, Epstein is entitled to know her psychological condition(s) before and +after the alleged incidents) she references in the Second Amended Complaint. +In particular, JANE DOE alleges specific disorders as a result of Epstein's +alleged conduct - " +...anxiety, depression, suicidal idealization, guilt, self-blame, +feeling of being degraded, feeling unattractive, diminished sense of femininity, +fluctuations of weight and appetite, sexual intimacy problems, flashbacks. +stress, irritability, feelings of being isolated and trapped, diminished trust, social +problems, problems in personal relationships. feel[ings] of stress (particularly +around men), obsessive thoughts...." (Emphasis Added). Id. Epstein is also +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 84 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 9 of 12 +entitled to know, among other things, whether she had any physical complaints +or whether there was ever any evidence of physical battery on JANE DOE's body +from the acts she complains of in the 2° Amended Complaint. The need to +serve third-party subpoenas on medical doctors is a basic discovery need related +to the claims alleged by JANE DOE for which Plaintiff's counsel refuses to +compromise. Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 5* DCA 1997), rev. denied, +719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998)(discoverability of Plaintiff's history of sexual activity is +relevant to damages); United States v. Bear Stops, 997 F.2d 451 (8* Cir. +1993)(deals with "admissibility of other acts of sexual abuse by individuals other +than the defendant to explain why a victim of abuse exhibited behavioral +manifestations of a sexually abused child.") If Plaintiff saw a psychologist or +other physician during or after the time periods she claims she was assaulted by +Epstein but either did not discuss or did discuss the incidents (or lack thereof) +would be directly relevant to her damage claims. Plaintiff seeks physical and +emotional/mental personal injury type damages, and the Epstein must conduct +his own discovery thereon. See supra. No valid discovery objections or +exemptions exist preventing necessary and reasonable discovery. To hold +otherwise prevents Mr. Epstein from preparing and defending this matter. +19. +In defending this lawsuit, Mr. Epstein should be permitted broad +discovery, whether admissible at trial or not. Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26 provides, in +pertinent part, +that "parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not +privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action." +Plaintiff's counsel's refusal to identify JANE DOE in the third-party subpoenas +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 84 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 10 of 12 +referenced above is prejudicing Mr. Epstein by virtue of preventing discovery all +together, which is in complete contradiction of the discovery rules and Epstein's +substantive due process rights. +20. +In addition, subpoenas must also be served upon various local and +state institutions in order to determine what crimes, if any, JANE DOE has +committed (i.e., crimes that involve dishonesty and/or false statement). +Obviously, this goes directly to the heart of JANE DOE's damages she claims (". +..anxiety, depression, suicidal idealization, guilt, self-blame, feeling of being +degraded, feeling unattractive, diminished sense of femininity, fluctuations of +weight and appetite, sexual intimacy problems, flashbacks. stress, irritability, +feelings of being isolated and trapped, diminished trust, social problems, +problems in personal relationships. feel[ings] of stress (particularly around +men), obsessive thoughts...." - caused by Epstein or other events in her life) +for which a jury is entitled to hear about at trial, and certified records must be +obtained from the clerk should JANE DOE answer certain questions regarding +her crimes incorrectly. See Exhibit "A". +21. +At this time, the undersigned is aware that Jane Doe may have +committed the following crimes: +a. +Shoplifting; +Petty Theft; and +C. +Vandalism; +22. +If Jane Doe was involved in crimes, Epstein is entitled to obtain +certified copies of those crimes and other crimes Plaintiff may have committed for +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 84 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 11 of 12 +purposes of discovery and impeachment. Questions will be asked regarding +those crimes (e.g., Have you been convicted of a crime of dishonesty or false +statement? If so, how many times? Have you been convicted of a felony? If so, +how many times?) To hold otherwise would not only prevent broad discovery but +would ultimately result in reversible error at any trial. +lI. Conclusion +23. +Epstein requests the following relief: +a. +That JANE DOE be identified by her legal name in the style of +this case; +b. +That Epstein be granted leave to identify JANE DOE by her +legal name in Third-Party Subpoenas (but not file them in Court +or, if required, in a redacted form); and +c. +That, on an alternative basis, this court dismiss this action Sua +Sponte until such time as JANE DOE identifies herself in the +style of this matter. Doe v. Rostker, 89 F.R.D.at 163. +WHEREFORE, Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein, respectfully requests that this +Court enter said order granting the relief requested above, and for such other +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 84 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 12 of 12 +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #3 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein) +12 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c616e4cff045bf332ad8f2cee9a95aded77980115d9af57cc655116f1e4341f4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c616e4cff045bf332ad8f2cee9a95aded77980115d9af57cc655116f1e4341f4.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0708ff49295250be30e5595525f38de87e38a0b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c616e4cff045bf332ad8f2cee9a95aded77980115d9af57cc655116f1e4341f4.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -145, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c616e4cff045bf332ad8f2cee9a95aded77980115d9af57cc655116f1e4341f4", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 12, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4e9f442594a7b522e61d509d1e1bf46535798217c756697ca14e9e936d7006b9", + "output_sha256": "3632349f213815ac65270c10a13efc87b2a9101ee8b82fa0c872baee380e3162", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c61cdfef6fd8200be9cbd5aa9930903b6171ed65510f1cc0c8a09615ae088d2a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c61cdfef6fd8200be9cbd5aa9930903b6171ed65510f1cc0c8a09615ae088d2a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4fe1c81014dc20227bc9c02e5775b415a744a355 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c61cdfef6fd8200be9cbd5aa9930903b6171ed65510f1cc0c8a09615ae088d2a.md @@ -0,0 +1,165 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 534-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2010 Page 1 of 3 +Page 452 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +-VS- +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +VOLUME IV OF IV +/ +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, +08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +CONTINUED VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF +JANE DOE NO. 4 +Friday, February 12, 2010 +10:10 - 12:27 p.m. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 115 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Reported By: +Cynthia +,, RPR, FPR +Notary Public, State of Florida +Prose Court Reporting +Certified Copy +832-7500 +ally signed by cynthia +ally signed by cynthia +ally signed by cynthia +ally signed by cynthia +ally signed by cynthia +PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. + +6f83eob3-b5a6-47c4-9336-1208fd1246d7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 534-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2010 Page 2 of 3 +Page 517 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +were? +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +A. No. +l. Did you and she ever have the same +boyfriend? Not at the same time but did you ever +date the same guy? . +A. +No. +l. Do you know whether or not she's ever been +arrested? +A. +NO. +l. Do you know if she's ever been married? +A. Yeah. +l. Okay. And was she married? +A. I just heard about it, not through her. I +just -- I don't know. I don't know anything about it. +I just heard that she had been or maybe she is. I don't +know. +21 +22 +24 +25 +l. Okay. What was the name of your soccer +coach in high school? +A. Bill +l. Is he still in the area? +A. +NO. +l. Where is he? +A. I don't know. +e. When was the last time you knew where he +was? +561) 832-7500 +cally signed by cynthia +ally signed by cynthia +Ily signed by cynthia +cally signed by cynthia +onically signed by cynthia +PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. +6f83eeb3-b5a6-47c4-9336-1208fd1246d7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 534-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2010 Page 3 of 3 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +A. I heard he was moving from +was the last I heard whenever he moved from +Q. But you didn't know where? +A. No. +l. To where? And who was your soccer coach +Page 518 +Palm so that +Palm. +at +A. +Rocky. +l. I take it it wasn't Rocky Balboa? +A. No. +l. Does Rocky have a last name? +A. Yeah. I am drawing a blank what his name -- I +don't want to mispronounce it. +Q. Is he still the coach? +A. No. +Q. What's your best shot at pronouncing it? +A. I don't know. I don't know what it is. +Is -- do you know where he is? +A. I mean, I am guessing in Boca. +l. But, but he is not coaching at l +A. No. +l. Do you know if he is coaching anywhere? +A. +NO • +MR. LUTTIER: Okay. I need to take a +quick break. +THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record at +(561) +832-7500 +Enronically signed by cynthia +dronically signed by cynthia +andronically signed by cynthia +antonically signed by cynthia +masterialy gned by cynthia +PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. +6183eeb3-b5a6-47c4-9336-1208fd1246c \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c61cdfef6fd8200be9cbd5aa9930903b6171ed65510f1cc0c8a09615ae088d2a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c61cdfef6fd8200be9cbd5aa9930903b6171ed65510f1cc0c8a09615ae088d2a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dc15135ef8f9276e1eaea50f73e5f671fa0f028e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c61cdfef6fd8200be9cbd5aa9930903b6171ed65510f1cc0c8a09615ae088d2a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -374, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c61cdfef6fd8200be9cbd5aa9930903b6171ed65510f1cc0c8a09615ae088d2a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "a3a75edf36f4daa8d2f76e3ebbf3bb6e79dfc363feb44df62a6311c17b162b5c", + "output_sha256": "ff927a9f09bab5ef9104452e7d58b393e129e0900da12b6c9eaee2850de15dda", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c624ccbf0b65491d82af8b6dbd6c9babd5edb750a0ccfa365df755f71c504d7a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c624ccbf0b65491d82af8b6dbd6c9babd5edb750a0ccfa365df755f71c504d7a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7884a1500f85b356f57d4e9d4af15e2427b93864 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c624ccbf0b65491d82af8b6dbd6c9babd5edb750a0ccfa365df755f71c504d7a.md @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2008 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL +THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to File Ex +Parte and Under Seal, filed July 10, 2008. Defendant seeks to file a Notice of Continued +Pendency of Federal Criminal Action under seal.' The Court has carefully considered the motion +and the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. +As stated in the Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida, 'proceedings in +the United States District Court are public and Court filings are matters of public record." S.D. +Fla. L.R. 5.4(A). It is well settled that the media and the public in general possess a common-law +right to inspect and copy judicial records. See Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. +589, 597 (1978). "The right to inspect and copy records is not absolute, however. As with other +forms of access, it may interfere with the administration of justice and hence may have to be +curtailed." +v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 803 (11th Cir. 1983). This right of access creates +'All documents filed conventionally shall henceforth be filed directly with the Office of +the Clerk in West Palm Beach, Florida. The parties shall not file documents conventionally in +any other division of the Southern District of Florida. +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2008 Page 2 of 3 +a presumption in favor of openness of court records, which "must be balanced against any +competing interest advanced." United States v. Noriega, 752 F. Supp. 1037, 1040 (S.D. +Fla. 1990). For example, courts may look to see whether the records sought are for illegitimate +purposes. +696 F.2d at 803. Likewise, the Court may consider whether "the press has +already been permitted substantial access to the contents of the records." Id. +In his motion to seal, Defendant has made no argument as to why his Notice of Continued +Pendency of Federal Criminal Action should not be made available to the public. Defendant +states only that he wishes "[t]o avoid disclosure of confidential material." (Def. Mot. 2.) The +Court finds this justification insufficient to justify keeping this document (filed ex parte) under +seal. The Court is supported in this conclusion by its decision in a similar case, In re: Jane Doe, +No. 08-80736-CIV (S.D. Fla. July 11, 2008), in which the Court unsealed, over the objection of +the United States Attorney, documents containing similar information regarding Defendant's +criminal plea agreement. Thus, any argument regarding confidentiality is vitiated by the fact that +information regarding Defendant's criminal plea arrangement is already a matter of public +record. See, e.g., Sally Apgar, Victims Object to Palm Beach Billionaire's Plea Deal in +Underage Sex Case, S. Fla. Sun-Sentinel, July 12, 2008. Similarly, Defendant has not justified +the necessity of filing his Notice ex parte. As such, Defendant's Motion to Seal shall be denied. +Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to File Ex +Parte and Under Seal is DENIED. The Clerk shall UNSEAL docket entries 19 and 20 and make +them available for public inspection through CM/ECF at the earliest possible time. Defendant is +further ORDERED to serve a copy of his Notice on Plaintiff within five (5) days of the date of +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2008 Page 3 of 3 +entry of this Order. +DONE AND ORDERED in +Florida, this 16" day of July, 2008. +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies furnished to: +all counsel of record +3 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c624ccbf0b65491d82af8b6dbd6c9babd5edb750a0ccfa365df755f71c504d7a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c624ccbf0b65491d82af8b6dbd6c9babd5edb750a0ccfa365df755f71c504d7a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1fecdfac4cce9498685acbe13723272686c622a9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c624ccbf0b65491d82af8b6dbd6c9babd5edb750a0ccfa365df755f71c504d7a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c624ccbf0b65491d82af8b6dbd6c9babd5edb750a0ccfa365df755f71c504d7a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f4adc49593cf666f133a0655b2c0b831bda2fab556ae0a4462ba51a08574759d", + "output_sha256": "300299d5eb3bd17390f695d202ce8c923fd50e4bae45ea38b9b93cebad5c8271", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c63ca6d7e289b7a95cb259d0506721bb9a4fa84dcd53403551bc60b6eff87ac4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c63ca6d7e289b7a95cb259d0506721bb9a4fa84dcd53403551bc60b6eff87ac4.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9ce1613afc28c0c1897b1e6476f53704c6c0001b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c63ca6d7e289b7a95cb259d0506721bb9a4fa84dcd53403551bc60b6eff87ac4.md @@ -0,0 +1,164 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 209 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2013 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 +V. +UNITED STATES +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RESPONSE TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR +PROSPECTIVE LIMITED INTERVENTION AT THE REMEDY STAGE OF THESE +PROCEEDINGS +COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and +through undersigned counsel, to respond to Epstein's Motion for Prospective Limited +Intervention at the Remedy Stage of These Proceedings (DE 207). Although his intervention is +belated, the victims do not oppose Epstein's intervention at that late stage of the proceedings +limited to the remedy issue so narrowly defined by Epstein. The victims would note, however, +three consequences of that late and limited intervention. First, Epstein's intervention at that +point would be subject to the law of the case - that is, he would be subject to all findings of fact +made by the Court at that time; second, Epstein's intervention at that point would subject him to +such discovery requests as the Court might find appropriate at that time; and third, his +intervention would be (as he himself indicated) limited to the remedy of the rescission of the +non-prosecution agreement. Subject to these three consequences to Epstein, the victims do not +oppose his intervention. +BACKGROUND +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 209 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2013 Page 2 of 6 +This is not the first time that Epstein has sought "limited" intervention in this case. As +the Court will recall, Epstein sought limited intervention back on September 2, 2011. Epstein +filed such a motion with regard to correspondence between his attorneys and federal prosecutors. +DE 93. In response, the victims objected that his efforts were untimely and appeared to be +tactically motivated to avoid assuming obligations in the case. DE 96. The victims also warned +against "subjecting the Court (and the victims) to an endless stream of 'limited' intervention +motions from Epstein and his attorneys whenever a hearing does not unfold to his liking." DE +96 at 17. Ultimately, however, the Court sided with Epstein, allowing his limited intervention +(and that of his attorneys) on issues related to the correspondence. DE 158, 159. +Now another hearing has not unfolded to Epstein's liking; on June 18, 2013, the court +ruled against the Government's motion to dismiss. DE 189. In response, Epstein has now filed +another motion for "limited" intervention - this one a "prospective" motion anticipating +(correctly in the victims' view) that this case will soon reach the point where the Court has found +violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and will need to determine whether +invalidating the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) is one appropriate remedy for that violation. +As the Court well knows, one of many remedies that the victims will seek is to have the NPA +between Epstein and the Government invalidated. See DE 127 at 8-13 (explaining why an +agreement negotiated in violation of the CVRA is subjection to invalidation). While the +Government objected to the victims" argument (DE 205-6 at 5-15), the Court recently sided with +the victims, holding that rescission is a proper remedy for CVRA violations: "the court finds that +the CVRA is properly interpreted to authorize the rescission or "re-opening' of a prosecutorial +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 209 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2013 Page 3 of 6 +agreement - including a non-prosecution agreement - reached in violation of a prosecutor's +conferral obligations under the statute." DE 189 at 7. +In his current motion for limited intervention, Epstein argues that he should be allowed to +intervene to contest any rescission remedy: "Epstein has a clear ... interest in opposing any +remedy that would entail rescission of his non-prosecution agreement with the government." DE +207 at 1-2. Epstein further argues that his motion to intervene is timely. Id. at 3-7. Epstein +makes clear that he "does not seek to intervene generally in the action but instead only as to the +issue of [the rescission] remedy ...." Id. at 2. +DISCUSSION +In the victims' view, Epstein's motion to intervene is not timely. He offers no good +reason for failing to file it sooner. And, in fact, Epstein is undisputedly not intervening for his +stated "limited" purpose now, but is rather informing the Court that he intends to intervene at +some later date, which will inevitably be more untimely. In the interest of narrowing the +disputes in this case, however, the victims will not oppose his motion for limited intervention. +The victims wish to make clear three consequences of the Epstein's narrow motion for +"prospective" and "limited" intervention - consequences on which their non-opposition is +conditioned. +First, Epstein's motion for "prospective" intervention at the remedy stage would be, by +definition, at the tail end of the case when many rulings will have been made by the Court. Of +course, those earlier rulings (both as to factual and legal matters) will be the "law of the case" at +the point in the proceedings. See, e.g., United States v. Bulger, ---F.Supp.2d--., 2013 WI +1831211 at * 7 (D. Mass. 2013) ("The law of the case doctrine contemplates that a legal decision +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 209 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2013 Page 4 of 6 +made at one point during a legal proceeding should remain the law of that case throughout the +litigation, unless and until the decision is modified or overruled by a higher court" (internal +quotation omitted)). Epstein's argument will have to be confined to new issues not previously +litigated. +Second, once Epstein intervenes on remedy issues, the Court may determine that further +discovery is required. If so, Epstein would be subject to those discovery requests no less than +other litigants (i.e., the Government) in this case. +Third, according to the plain terms of his motion, Epstein is seeking "limited" +intervention - specifically intervention to "oppose the rescission of his non-prosecution +agreement with the government, a matter that fundamentally impacts his constitutional and +contractual rights ...." DE 207 at 2. The victims will be seeking a number of other remedies - +apart from rescission of the NPA. Epstein would not be heard on those other remedies in view of +his limited intervention motion. +CONCLUSION +The victims do not oppose Epstein's motion for limited intervention, subject to noting the +three consequences discussed in this response. The Court should accordingly grant his motion, +but subject to those three conditions, as well as any additional conditions the court finds +necessary. +DATED: July 12, 2013 +Respectfully Submitted, +S/| +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 209 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2013 Page 5 of 6 +. JAFFE, WEISSING, +_. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 524-2820 +Facsimile (954) 524-282: +Florida Bar No.: 54207: +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 209 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2013 Page 6 of 6 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +The foregoing document was served on July 12, 2013, on the following using the Court's +CM/ECF system: +Dexter Lee +A. +Villafaña +Assistant U.S. Attorneys +500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Fax: (561) 820-8777 +E-mail: Dexter.Lee @usdoj gov +E-mail: +Attorneys for the Government +Roy Black, Esq. +Jackie Perczek, Esq. +Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1300 +Miami, FL 33131 +Email: pleading@royblack.com +(305) 37106421 +(305) 358-2006 +Jay P. Lefkowitz +Kirkland & Ellis, LLP +601 Lexington Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +Email: lefkowitz@kirkland.com +(212) 446-4970 +G. Weinberg, P.C. +20 Park Plaza +Suite 1000 +Boston, 02116 +Email: owlmgw@att.net +(617) 227-3700 +(617) 338-9538 +Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein +6 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c63ca6d7e289b7a95cb259d0506721bb9a4fa84dcd53403551bc60b6eff87ac4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c63ca6d7e289b7a95cb259d0506721bb9a4fa84dcd53403551bc60b6eff87ac4.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dbd1895466297b5a74a6e5233618820522b807f0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c63ca6d7e289b7a95cb259d0506721bb9a4fa84dcd53403551bc60b6eff87ac4.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c63ca6d7e289b7a95cb259d0506721bb9a4fa84dcd53403551bc60b6eff87ac4", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2aa980afa24722acdd95df6fee22d5e310613e13df1e81211c38cebba20127d6", + "output_sha256": "1f0bb6ed8c49e63761d7224e2f353f3f3a9642c1a39ce2e2e04d9a623aca2454", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c65d5ba451f44b14e73d91a013e031d2bb37ca3eefef56a1e0b626a47890f4e6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c65d5ba451f44b14e73d91a013e031d2bb37ca3eefef56a1e0b626a47890f4e6.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..caca33fe7a75626d24e4c536b6f8cdfc152d52a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c65d5ba451f44b14e73d91a013e031d2bb37ca3eefef56a1e0b626a47890f4e6.md @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 84 +Filed 12/15/20 Page 1 of 1 +PANISH +SHEA & +BOYLE +LLP +December 15, 2020 +VIA ECE +Hon. John G. Koeltl +Daniel | +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl Street +New York, NY 10007 +Re: Doe v. Indyke, et al., 1:20-cv-000484-JGK-DCF +Case Status Update - Global Settlement Reached +Dear Judge Koeltl: +Plaintiff Jane Doe has decided to accept the offer of compensation made to her by the +Epstein Victims' Compensation Program ("Program"). Pursuant to Individual Rule II.B., +plaintiff is requesting a pre-motion conference on her request to dismiss this action with +prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2). Since any acceptance of an offer made by the Program +requires that both defendants The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell be released in +the settlement agreement, plaintiff will be seeking a stipulation from these defendants to a +dismissal of this action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) with each party to bear its +own fees and costs. +Respectfully submitted, +PANISH SHEA & BOYLE +Is/ Robert Glassman +Robert Glassman +11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 • Los Angeles, California 90025 • 310.477.1700 phone • 310.477.1699 fax • www.psblaw.com diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c65d5ba451f44b14e73d91a013e031d2bb37ca3eefef56a1e0b626a47890f4e6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c65d5ba451f44b14e73d91a013e031d2bb37ca3eefef56a1e0b626a47890f4e6.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ac7a69ac693d97978f6a936b85ed8d37195c99a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c65d5ba451f44b14e73d91a013e031d2bb37ca3eefef56a1e0b626a47890f4e6.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c65d5ba451f44b14e73d91a013e031d2bb37ca3eefef56a1e0b626a47890f4e6", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b88e4c1f4dd94df53b3af44f6c06fe01cff20ba9103cc3633c2f7021f97355f0", + "output_sha256": "fb10ab1197c23d4b0221a2f4e9fd90eca30edb78e38c4f854f90e1d389eeea4b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6747a8dd299ae1dbb133027af87af3c9612868e27cf300ee4f0e4cc9141cfde.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6747a8dd299ae1dbb133027af87af3c9612868e27cf300ee4f0e4cc9141cfde.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a6a68a6bfb9d945884240168c9baa055c9249586 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6747a8dd299ae1dbb133027af87af3c9612868e27cf300ee4f0e4cc9141cfde.md @@ -0,0 +1,274 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 301-2 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2009 Page 1 of 9 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/ +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERS TO +DEFENDANT'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiff, JANE DOE, by and through her undersigned +counsel, has served her Answers to Defendant's First Interrogatories, numbered 1 and 25, +inclusive, propounded to said Plaintiff on or about December 10, 2008. +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been provided by United +States mail this 235% day of January, 2009, t0 +Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esquire +Michael J. Pike, Esquire +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP +515 North Flagler Drive +Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +with a copy to: +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esquire +Atterburty, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +"p" + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 301-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2009 Page 2 of 9 +Michael R. Tein, Esquire +Tein, P.L. +3059 Grand Avenue +Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 +By: +THE LAW OFFICE OF BRAD +ASSOCIATES, LLC +Brad +pao +, Esquire +Attorney for Plaintiff +Florida Bar No. 542075 +2028| +Street +Suite 202 +Hollywood, Florida 33020 +Telephone: +954-414-8033 +Facsimile: +954-924-1530 +E-Mail: +be@bradedwardslaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +Attorney for Plaintiff +Pro Hac Vice +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: +801-585-5202 +Facsimile: +801-585-6833 +E-Mail: +cassellp@law.utah.edu +& + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 301-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2009 Page 3 of 9 +DEFENDANT'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF +1. +Jane Doe, with the assistance of my attorney, Brad +Plaintiff objects to Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, having her address, as Mr. Epstein +is a registered sex offender and Jane Doe was a victim of his, and disclosure of +her address could compromise her safety and privacy. +List the names, business addresses, telephone and cell phone numbers, dates of +employment, immediate supervisor (name and address) and rates of pay regarding +all employers, including self-employment, for whom you have worked in the past 10 +years; this includes listing all sources of income you have received. Answer this +question by year, i.e. 1998 - 2008. +Flashdance - West Palm Beach - approximately 2007 +Platinum Gold - Boynton Beach - approximately 6-8 months in 2006 - 2007 +International House of Pancakes on Military Trail in West Palm Beach - +approximately 2006 +Stan Crooks (auctioneer) - worked as his assistant prior to 2006 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 301-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2009 Page 4 of 9 +3. +List all former names and when you were known by those names. State all +addresses where you have lived for the past 10 years, the dates you lived at each +address, your social security number, your date of birth, and if you are or have ever +been married, the name of your spouse or spouses. List any children by name, date +of birth and the father's name and address. List the names and address of your +parents and any brother or sister. +No former names. Date of birth and social security number will be provided to +Defendant's counsel confidentially. Objection as to the remainder of this +interrogatory as it asks for information that is irrelevant, not reasonably calculated +to lead to admissible evidence and harassing. Plaintiff has a reasonable fear for +her safety and the safety of other innocent persons and thus objects to releasing +such information to a registered sex offender that sexually victimized the Plaintiff. +4. +Have you ever been convicted of a crime, other than any juvenile adjudication, +which under the law under which you were convicted was punishable by death or +imprisonment in excess of 1 year, or that involved dishonesty or a false statement +regardless of the punishment? If so, state as to each conviction, the specific crime +and the date and the place of conviction. +Offense - shoplifting in Palm Beach County - 2006 +Please provide the name, address, telephone number, place of employment and job +title of any person who has, claims to have or whom you believe may have +knowledge or information pertaining to any fact alleged in the pleadings (as defined +in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a) filed in this action), or any fact underlying +the subject matter of this action. +In addition to all persons mentioned in the criminal discovery that was provided +to Epstein by the F.B.I., U.S. Attorney's Office, Palm Beach State Attorney's +Office, or Palm Beach Police Department, the following are additional witnesses: +Randee Speciale, MS, LMHC (Licensed Therapist) +Palm Beach County Public Safety Department +Victim Services Division +205 North Dixie Highway +Suite 5.1100 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +561-355-2428 +Jetfrey Epstein, +and other persons employed by +or through Jeffrey Epstein whose names are not yet known to Plaintiff. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 301-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2009 Page 5 of 9 +6. +Please state the specific nature and substance of the knowledge that you believe the +person(s) identified in your response to interrogatory no. 5 may have. +Randee Speciale is my treating trauma therapist and knows and understands the +psychological and emotional damage that Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, inflicted +upon me. +Jeffrey Epstein knows that I was a minor child when he sexually touched and +abused me and he knows and understands his deviant influence on me and he +knows of all of the crimes he committed against me. +knows that she assisted Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, in contacting me +and having me brought to and from his house for the purpose of Jeffrey Epstein +sexually abusing me. She knows he paid me and she knows I was underage. She +also knows that Jeffrey Epstein has a fascination and sexual disease that attracts +for years and eh suits and manor his ted upon tra, deviate sal des in +furthering his sickness upon me. +Nadia and other employees of Jeffery Epstein know that I was underage, as were +many other minor victims, and that I was a victim of Jeffrey Epstein's. +Were you suffering from physical infirmity, disability, disease, sickness or +psychiatric/psychological condition at the time of the incident(s) described in the +complaint? If so, what was the nature of the infirmity, disability, or sickness? +Yes, PTSD. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 301-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2009 Page 6 of 9 +Did you consume any alcoholic beverages or take any drugs or medication within 12 +hours before the time of each incidents) described in the complaint? If so, state the +type and amount of alcoholic beverages, drugs or medication which were consumed +and when and where you consumed them. +No. +9. +Describe each injury (physical, emotional, mental) for which you are claiming +lamages in this case, specifying the part of your body that was injured, the natur +if the injury, and as to any injuries you contend are permanent, the effects on you +My injuries are primarily emotional/psychological and are the direct result of +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's actions. I was touched, battered, and fondled by +Defendant during the incidents described in the complaint. I observed the +Defendant touch and fondle himself. I observed the Defendant ejaculate +numerous times. +I was made to touch the Defendant. I also observed sexual acts and had sexual +acts perpetrated on me by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. At various times I was +unclothed, as was the Defendant and others. +At all times material, I was a child, under the age of 18 years. The Defendant also +used me to bring him other minor girls and he controlled and brainwashed me into +believing this lifestyle was healthy and normal for a girl my age. +I was a victim of various criminal acts and sexual exploitation. I was induced and +coerced by the Defendant into acts of prostitution. +These injuries are further described in more detail in the factual allegations of the +complaint. +My emotional/psychological injuries cause severe stomach pains when I think +about the abuse that Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, inflicted upon me. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 301-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2009 Page 7 of 9 +10. +Please state each item of damage that you claim, and include in your answer: the +count to which the item of damages relates; the factual basis for each item of +damages; and an explanation of how you computed each item of damages, including +any mathematical formula used. +I incurred medical and psychological expenses in the past and will incur such +expenses in the future. +I have suffered a loss of earning capacity due to +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's influence because I was encouraged by him as a +minor child to enter a life of prostitution for him. +I suffered a loss of the capacity to enjoy life as a result of being coerced and +induced into committing acts of prostitution and as a result of being sexually +exploited. I lost self-worth, confidence and self esteem due to his control and +influence. +I have suffered mental anguish, emotional distress, fear, humiliation and +psychological trauma as a result of the acts described in the complaint. +The effect of these injuries is permanent in nature. These damages are further +escribed in the complaint. The factual basis for these damages is described i +he answer to #9 above, and in the factual allegations in the complaint. Items o1 +damage have not been calculated. +11. +List the names and business addresses of each physician (including psychiatrist, +psychologist, etc.) or medical provider (including chiropractors) who has treated or +examined you, and each medical facility where you have received any treatment or +examination for the injuries for which you seek damages in this case; and state as to +each the date of treatment or examination and the injury or condition for which you +were examined or treated. +Randee Speciale, MS, LMHC +205 North Dixie Highway +Suite 5.1100 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 301-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2009 Page 8 of 9 +12. +List the names and business addresses of all other physicians, medical facilities, +rehab facilities (drug, alcohol or psychiatric) or other health care providers +including psychiatrist, psychologist, mental health counselor and chiropractors by +whom or at which you have been examined or treated in the past 10 years; and state +as to each the dates of examination or treatment and the condition or injury for +which you were examined or treated. +Randee Speciale, MS, LMHC +205 North Dixie Highway +Suite 5.1100 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Wellington Regional Hospital +10101 Forest +Boulevard +Wellington, Florida 33414 +St. Mary's Medical Center +901 - 45th Street +West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 +Milton Girls Juvenile Residential Facility +5770 East Milton Road +Milton, Florida 32583 +Shelter +Broadway Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida +(family therapy) +Drug Center +Belvedere Road +West Palm Beach, Florida +(drug evaluation when I was 16 yrs old) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 301-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2009 Page 9 of 9 +VERIFICATION +The foregoing answers to interrogatories are true and correct to the best of my +knowledge, information and belief. +Jane Doe +JANE DOE, Plaintiff +I, counsel for Jane Doe, the Plaintiff herein, personally witnessed the Plaintiff execute +this jurat page and do swear that Jane Doe is personally known to me, is the individual identified +in the foregoing answers and is the same individual whose identify has been previously +disclosed, under seal, to Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's counsel. +Brad Edwards +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF BROWARD +ANORN TO AND SUBSCRBRD bore Ta bie 23 day or January, 2009 +by BRAD +who is personally known to me. +SHAWA A. GilbERT +Print Name +shaumAGebut +Signature +NOTARY PUBLIC - STATE OF FLORIDA +Commission Number +Ay commission expires +(Notarial Seal) +1o commission #DD596349 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6747a8dd299ae1dbb133027af87af3c9612868e27cf300ee4f0e4cc9141cfde.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6747a8dd299ae1dbb133027af87af3c9612868e27cf300ee4f0e4cc9141cfde.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..39f8c24fcc0ad0f5a41c65723d724d9723b69849 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6747a8dd299ae1dbb133027af87af3c9612868e27cf300ee4f0e4cc9141cfde.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -108, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c6747a8dd299ae1dbb133027af87af3c9612868e27cf300ee4f0e4cc9141cfde", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "5e502bf1de8295fa581ba25db09cf1f4c2c427822a63e2529f593db0d9e5bdd6", + "output_sha256": "58877df17c88f0f06dc4cd323f016d7c36801b09c18ac054f5125f19ca8b6b80", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6ab5f4c92704b243ce11c88ac90b0a54f837d96c0d855863d968426e813a8cd.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6ab5f4c92704b243ce11c88ac90b0a54f837d96c0d855863d968426e813a8cd.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..011fb003fbe3accdc7d63f2d3b6eede278d5304c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6ab5f4c92704b243ce11c88ac90b0a54f837d96c0d855863d968426e813a8cd.md @@ -0,0 +1,311 @@ +Filing # 136506318 E-Filed 10/13/2021 04:53:44 PM +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +DIVISION: AG +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida, +Defendants. +COPY +PLAINTIFF CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC'S REPLY IN +FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY +JUDGMENT AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW +I. +INTRODUCTION +The Clerk does not dispute any of the 76 statements of fact set forth in The Palm Beach +Post's Motion for Summary Judgment. Instead, the Clerk belabors the uncontested point of law +that it may not, without a court order, release the Jeffrey Epstein grand jury records. That is correct, +as The Palm Beach Post acknowledged at the June 2020 hearing on the motions to dismiss its +complaint. And that is why it is before this Court - to obtain such an order. The Clerk further +claims that it is "not aware of any authority or standing granted to its office to advocate for or +against the release of any grand jury materials," but then proceeds for 23 pages of its Opposition +to argue that this Court should deny The Palm Beach Post's request to release the grand jury +records. This position represents a complete about-face from its position at the June 2020 motion +to dismiss hearing, during which it unequivocally stated that it was "not trying to block access to +the records." Appendix at 13 (June 3 Hearing Transcript at 18:23-19:5). +Greenberg Traurig. P.A. • 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Sulte 2000 • Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 • Tel 954.765.0500 • Fax 954.765.1477 • www.gtlaw.com +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, +ABRUZZO, CLERK, 10/13/2021 04:53:44 PM + + +More remarkably, the Clerk wrongly asserts that "It]he specific subject matter of the +underlying grand jury proceedings is irrelevant to th[e] preliminary question concerning the +legality of The Palm Beach Post's suit against the Clerk." Opp. at 2 (emphasis added). The +underlying subject matter of the grand jury records sought is precisely what allows for their +exceptional release and what justifies this Court's exercising its discretion to order public access. +The underlying subject matter is the fundamental basis for the relief sought by The Palm Beach +Post. The undisputed facts support the Court's exercise of its discretion to order the Clerk of this +Court to release the Jeffrey Epstein grand jury records. +Il. +UNDISPUTED FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY +The Palm Beach Post's Motion identified 76 material facts, relying on evidence such as +police reports, sworn deposition testimony, court transcripts, and a voluminous United States +Department of Justice inquiry into the mishandling of the Epstein prosecution - a report which +was compiled after "review[ing] materials relating to the state investigation and prosecution of +Epstein, including sealed pleadings, grand jury transcripts, and grand jury audio recordings ..." +Appendix at 3 (OPR Report, p. 283). +The Clerk fails to address a single one of these 76 facts. Instead, it characterizes the +comprehensive factual assertions as "somewhat slanted and argumentative." Opp. at 4. The Clerk +does not specify which of the factual assertions were "somewhat slanted and argumentative," in +what way they were "somewhat slanted and argumentative," or to challenge the evidence on which +any of the facts were based. The Clerk, though, attempts to dispute the material facts - again +without identifying any fact in particular - by stating in a footnote that The Palm Beach Post's +assertion that the material facts are uncontested is "clearly not accurate." Opp. at 3 n.4. The Clerk's +vague argument is deficient. +2 +Greenberg Traurig. P.A. • 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000 • Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 • Tel 954.765.0500 • Fax 954.765.1477 • www.gtlaw.com + + +Because the Clerk's commentary should be disregarded, its intentional avoidance of the +evidence means that The Palm Beach Post's facts are undisputed. Under Florida Rule of Civil +Procedure 1.510(a), "[Jhe court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is +no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." +In Florida, the moving party no longer needs to conclusively disprove the nonmovant's theory of +the case in order to eliminate any issue of fact. See In re Amendments to Fla. R. of Civ. P. 1.510, +309 So. 3d 192, 193 (Fla. 2020). Rather, "the burden on the moving party may be discharged by +"showing'—that is, pointing out to the [] court-—that there is an absence of evidence to support the +nonmoving party's case." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U,S. 317, 325 (1986). Then, the +nonmoving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the +material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986); see +v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) ("[T]he mere existence of some +alleged factual dispute between the patties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion +for summary judgment; the requírement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact."). Under +this standard, The Palm Beach Post fulfills the first summary judgment prong. Below, it will show +that the law supports release of the Epstein grand jury materials. +III. ARGUMENT +A. +RUDE 2.420 IS INAPPLICABLE +Contrary to the Clerk's argument, Rule 2.420 of the Florida Rules of Judicial +Administration is inapplicable. Rule 2.420 establishes procedures for maintaining the +confidentiality of certain records and granting public access to non-confidential records. It lists 23 +presumptively + +categories, +which include grand jury materials. Rule +2.420(d)(1)(B)(xvi). For records not automatically confidential, Rules 2.420 (e), (f), (g) and (h) +3 +Greenberg Traurig. P.A. • 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000 • Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 • Tel 954.765.0500 • Fax 954.765.1477 • www.gtlaw.com + + +include procedures to determine confidentiality. Poole v. South Dade Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., 139 +So. 3d 436, 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). As grand jury materials are automatically confidential, they +do not fall within the procedures of subsections (e), (f), (g), and (h). Further, the Epstein materials +are not "trial court records in non-criminal cases" subject to subsection (e). Nor are they "trial +court records in criminal cases" subject to subsection (f), which is limited to motions made by the +"state, a criminal defendant or an affected non-party." None of these requirements are present. +The Clerk's citations to subsections (i), (I), and (m), and its argument that Rule 2.420 is the +exclusive method to seek grand jury materials, are also inaccurate. Although the Clerk uses the +term "must" for subsection (j), that subsection expressly states that a "court order allowing access +to confidential court records may be obtained by filing a written motion." (Emphasis added). That +rule assumes an on-going criminal or civil action involving "court records." Rule 2.420(b)(1)(A). +As the Clerk alleges that grand jury materials are "administrative records," Rule 2.420(b)(1)(B), +they are not included in subsection (i). Thus, the Clerk's argument refutes itself. +The Clerk further mischaracterizes subsection (1) by claiming that "an action for +mandamus" is the only process for seeking administrative records. However, subsection (I) states +that while an action for mandamus may be brought, so may "other appropriate relief." And, +subsection (1) only pertains to instances where a party is seeking "expedited review," which is not +sought here. +Similarly, subsection (m) does not create a condition precedent for seeking grand jury +materials. Subsection (m) merely provides that where a request is made for documents, it must be +in a reasonable manner and in writing to the custodian. Nowhere does subsection (m) make these +actions a condition precedent to suit. In any event, this lawsuit fulfills the writing requirement and +it is undisputed that the Clerk has not provided any Epstein grand jury materials and is opposing +4 +Greenberg Traurig. P.A. • 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000 • Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 • Tel 954.765.0500 • Fax 954.765.1477 • www.gtlaw.com + + +their production. +Finally, the Clerk's reliance upon Times Publishing Co. v. Ake, 660 So. 2d. 255 (Fla. 1995), +is misplaced. Ake did not address grand jury materials nor Fla. Stat. Section 905.27. It merely holds +that the Florida Public Record Act is not applicable to requests for judicial databases while Rule +2.420 is applicable. +B. +A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION IS PROPER +The Clerk complains that this declaratory judgment action is improper. The Clerk is wrong. +It is well-settled that where constitutional or statutory rights are in dispute, a declaratory judgment +action is appropriate. Rosenhouse v. 1950 Spring Term Grand Jury, 56 So. 2d 445, 448 (Fla. 1952); +Hildebrandt v. Dep't. of Nat. Resources, 313 So. 2d 73, 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Ironically, the +Clerk ignores its previously relied-upon Ake case, where a clerk brought a declaratory judgment +action to determine the applicability of Rule 2.420 and the Florida Public Record Act. The Clerk's +opposition to The Palm Beach Post's access to Epstein grand jury materials also proves the +relevance of this declaratory judgment acfion.' +C. +THE CLERK IMPLICITLY CONCEDES THAT THE PALM BEACH POST HAS +STANDING TO SEEK PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE EPSTEIN GRAND JURY +RECORDS +In its Motion, The Palm Beach Post argued that it has standing under Section 905.27. See +Motion at 11 83-85. This is a related - but separate - issue from whether Section 905.27 provides +a private right of action. The Clerk addresses the latter argument, but aside from acknowledging +that "The Post's Motion repeats the same arguments about its alleged standing ... that it alleged +in the Amended Complaint and which it argued in its Opposition to the Clerk's Motion to Dismiss +" In a case discussing a clerk's role as custodian of grand jury materials, a federal court observed that a clerk is a +proper party to receive a subpoena for state grand jury materials. Whittier v. City of Sunrise, No. 07-60476, 2007 +U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114239, at *12 n.4 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2007). +5 +Greenberg Traurig. P.A. • 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000 • Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 • Tel 954.765.0500 • Fax 954.765.1477 • www.gtlaw.com + + +Count II" (Opp. at 14 n.10), does not address The Palm Beach Post's standing arguments or the +authorities supporting standing. Similarly, in granting the State Attorney and Clerk's motions to +dismiss Count II of the Amended Complaint, former Chief Judge Marx relied on arguments that +there is no private right of action under Section 905.27, but did not address the threshold standing +argument. In ignoring the First Amendment bases supporting The Palm Beach Post's standing, +the Clerk implicitly concedes that The Palm Beach Post has standing to pursue the relief it seeks +- whether that be under the private right of action implicit in Section 905.27 (as elaborated further +below), under the Constitution, or by invoking the Court's inherent authority and discretion. +D. FLA. STAT. SECTION 905.27 CREATES A PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION +At all times in this proceeding, The Palm Beach Post has acknowledged that Section 905.27 +does not explicitly create a private right of action +- nó excessive boldfacing, italicizing, or +underscoring is necessary on that undisputed point. See Opp. at 17. But that does not end the +inquiry, as former Chief Judge +Marx herself acknowledged in her June 2020 Order. See June 3, +2020 Order at 3-4. +Where there is no express right of action in a statute, legislative intent has become the +primary factor? that most courts rely on to determine whether a cause of action exists. See Murthy +v. N. Sinha Corp., 644 So. 2d 983, 985 (Fla. 1994). Given the dearth of legislative history +2 Notably in this regard, during the hearing on the motions to dismiss, former Chief Judge Marx stated, "I don't think +anybody is saying that there isn't a cause of action [under Section 905.27] or that the press doesn't have standing." +Appendix at 13 (June 3, 2020 Hearing Transcript before the Honorable Krista Marx ("June 3 Hearing Transcript"), +at 8:2-4; see also 8:7-8 ("nowhere have I said there isn't a cause of 'action."); 15-16 ("So I'm not telling you, you +don't have a cause of action.")). +3 While legislative intent has become the "primary factor" in determining whether a cause of action exists when a +statute does not expressly provide for one, this does not mean that other factors, such as potential public benefit, are +excluded from consideration. See, e.g., Fischer v. Metcalf, 543 So.2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Just as the Clerk +fails to address the legislative history argument, he also fails to address any other factors, including public benefit. +As set forth in the Motion, balancing the public benefit that would result from disclosure outweighs the customary +reasons for grand jury secrecy. See Motion at 11 103-110. +6 +Greenberg Traurig. P.A. • 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000 • Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 • Tel 954.765.0500 • Fax 954.765.1477 • www.gtlaw.com + + +surrounding the enactment of Section 905.27, it is appropriate to consider acts passed at other +legislative sessions.* Fischer, 543 So.2d at 790. In 1994, at the same time Section 905.27 was +reenacted to expressly provide three exceptions to grand jury secrecy, including furthering justice, +the Florida legislature also reenacted Fla. Stat. § 905.395, which concerns the secrecy of statewide +grand juries. 1994 Fla. ALS 285, 1994 Fla. Laws ch. 285, 1994 Fla. SB 114; Fla. Stat. § 905.395. +Like Section 905.27, Section 905.395 has a general prohibition on disclosure of grand jury +proceedings, absent a court order. Fla. Stat. § 905.395. Tellingly, however, Section 905.395 does +not provide any specific exceptions to nondisclosure. Through the intentional omission of these +exceptions, including the fundamental "furthering justice" exception, it can be understood that the +legislature did not intend for court-ordered disclosure of statewide grand jury records to further +justice, and did not anticipate such disclosures would benefit the public. By contrast, the +legislature's decision to include the catchall "furthering justice" exception in Section 905.27 +reflects an intent to protect and inform the public — the ultimate benefactors of the criminal justice +system — by providing a means of access in those rare situations where the integrity and +legitimacy of the grand jury process have been called into serious question. Accordingly, implying +a private right of action is, consistent with the purposes underlying the legislative scheme in +Chapter 900 of the Florida Statutes.S +4 Neither the Clerk nor Judge Marx addressed or challenged this analysis. +" There are a number of cases where litigants have sought grand jury materials under Section 905.27 and its +predecessors with varying degrees of success. In none of these cases did the court question or hold that the statute +did not create a private right of action. See State ex rel. +the phrase "in furtherance of justice" to require a grand jury witness to provide his testimony to a criminal +defendant); Gosciminski v. State, 132 So. 3d 678, 707 (Fla. 2014); Bing v. State, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D1580 (Fla. Ist +DCA July 6, 2021); James v. Willte, 480 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (involving a deceased inmate's estate +bringing suit against prison officials). Judge Marx failed to address these and other cases. +7 +Greenberg Traurig. P.A. • 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000 • Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 • Tel 954.765.0500 • Fax 954.765.1477 • www.gtlaw.com + + +E. +SECTION 905.27. THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND THIS COURT'S INHERENT +POWER CONSTITUTE THREE INDEPENDENT GROUNDS FOR RELEASING +THE GRAND JURY RECORDS +As set forth in The Palm Beach Post's Motion, even in the absence of Section 905.27's +statutory framework, disclosure is appropriate pursuant to this Court's inherent authority over +grand jury proceedings because of the exceptional public interest in this case and the compelling +circumstances supporting transparency rather than continued secrecy. +Unlike the cases the Clerk cites for the proposition that "more than surmise or speculation" +about what the grand jury records may contain is needed to lift the veil of secrecy (Opp. at 21), the +overwhelming and undisputed evidence before this Court far exceeds "surmise or speculation" +about what the grand jury records may contain. By way of just one example, during his +investigation of the Epstein sex crimes, the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. +Attorney's Office told Criminal Chief Matthew Menchel: "The state intentionally torpedoed [the +case] in the grand jury so it was brought to us." Appendix at 3 (OPR Report, p. 26). The Clerk +cannot credibly maintain that The Palm Beach Post has not laid a "proper predicate" (Opp. at 22), +or that the relief it seeks is based on "surmise or speculation." The Palm Beach Post does not deny +that it bears the burden of justifying this exceptional release of grand jury records, but maintains +that the extraordinary and serial criminal acts at issue, and the evidence already publicly revealed +regarding official misconduct in prosecuting Epstein, has "satisfactor[ily] establish[ed] [its] right +to its use." State v. Tillett, 111 So. 2d 716, 724 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1959). +The Clerk does not dispute that this Court has the inherent power to release the records, +only that it should not do so because such release would conflict with other laws. It does not. First, +as set forth above, the release of grand jury records would be consistent with the press and public's +right of access under the First Amendment. Second, the release would be pursuant to an express +8 +Greenberg Traurig. P.A. • 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000 • Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 • Tel 954.765.0500 • Fax 954.765.1477 • www.gtlaw.com + + +statutory provision that serves as an exception to the secrecy of grand jury records. Third, because +The Palm Beach Post is not seeking these materials "for use in a criminal [or civil] case," the +limitations on its use of those materials (i.e., "only ... in the defense or prosecution of the civil or +criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever") is not so limited. See Fla. Stat. § 905.27(2). +In sum, The Palm Beach Post has constitutional standing to request the release of the +Epstein grand jury records, and such request should be granted in the furtherance of justice. +IV. +CONCLUSION +The Palm Beach Post respectfully requests that this Court, pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section +905.27(1) and the Court's inherent authority, order the Clerk of the Court to lodge with this Court +copies of the testimony, minutes, and other evidence presented in 2006 to the Palm Beach County +grand jury during the first Epstein sex abuse investigation so that, following an in camera +inspection, it can be made available to The Palm Beach Post and the public. +Respectfully submitted, +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +NOT A +Attorneys for CA Florida Holdings, LLC, +Publisher of The Palm Beach Post +Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. +401 East Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 2000 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone: (954) 768-8225 +Facsimile: (561) 338-7099 +By: /s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN +Florida Bar No. 849324 +mendelsohns@gtlaw.com +smithl@gtlaw.com +FL.Service@gtlaw.com +By: Is/ Michael J Grygiel +MICHAEL J. GRYGIEL +9 +Greenberg Traurig. P.A. • 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000 • Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 • Tel 954.765.0500 • Fax 954.765.1477 • www.gtlaw.com + + +(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) +54 State St., 6th Floor +Albany, New York 12207 +Telephone: (518) 689-1400 +Facsimile: (518) 689-1499 +grygielm@gtlaw.com +By: Is/ Nina D. Boyajian +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +Admitted Pro Hac Vice +840 Century Park East, Ste. 190( +Los Angeles, California 90067 +Telephone: (310) 586-7700 +(310) 586-7800 +boyajiann@gtlaw.com +NOT A CERTINTIDY +NOT A +10 +Greenberg Traurig, P.A, • 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000 • Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 • Tel 954.765.0500 • Fax 954.765.1477 • www.gtlaw.com + + +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 12' day of October, 2021, a true and correct copy of +ACTIVE +60572600V7 +NOT A CERTIFIED DON +the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the State of Florida e-filing system, +which will send a notice of electronic service for all parties of record herein +NOT A C +11 +Greenberg Traurig, P.A, • 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000 • Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 • Tel 954.765.0500 • Fax 954.765.1477 • www.gtlaw.com \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6ab5f4c92704b243ce11c88ac90b0a54f837d96c0d855863d968426e813a8cd.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6ab5f4c92704b243ce11c88ac90b0a54f837d96c0d855863d968426e813a8cd.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4a4194e19ded90427e5d91ebebdf87198b454968 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6ab5f4c92704b243ce11c88ac90b0a54f837d96c0d855863d968426e813a8cd.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -1065, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c6ab5f4c92704b243ce11c88ac90b0a54f837d96c0d855863d968426e813a8cd", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 13, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f465e46e2a1fca204cc13299ca6cd56256e19ce6566c4f37c13eba4eecfb5f7a", + "output_sha256": "ce417fc8d9be5e75eb144e54c656f812814740b1fd86ebae6355159d6f505fb8", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6da64ba542ab7573320b04bc3b49e494211ec469cf0353844b602afa835a65f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6da64ba542ab7573320b04bc3b49e494211ec469cf0353844b602afa835a65f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eb5611387d55ecb567ab5b801b88c333c7e1d6a0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6da64ba542ab7573320b04bc3b49e494211ec469cf0353844b602afa835a65f.md @@ -0,0 +1,1329 @@ + +IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS +DIVISION OF ST. +LAND ST. JOHN +GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES +VIRGIN ISLANDS, +Case No.: +PLAINTIFF, +V. +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, THE 1953 +TRUST, PLAN D, LLC; GREAT ST. JIM, LLC; +NAUTILUS, +INC.; HYPERION AIR, LLC; +POPLAR, INC., JOHN AND JANE DOES +DEFENDANTS, +ACTION FOR DAMAGES +JURY TRIAL DEMANDED +CEIVED +JAN 15 PM 1: 0! +COMPLAINT +COMES NOW, the Government of the United States Virgin Islands ("Government") and +files this Complaint against the above-named Defendants and in support thereof, would show unto +the Court as follows: +JURISDICTION AND PARTIES +The Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands (herein after "Virgin +Islands") brings this action on behalf of the Plaintiff, Government of the Virgin Islands, pursuant +to 3 V.I.C. § 114 and her statutory authority to enforce the laws of the Virgin Islands, and advocate +for the public interest, safety, health and well-being of persons in the Virgin Islands. +2. +This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this civil matter pursuant to 4 V.I.C. +§ 76 and 14 V.I.C. § 607. +3. +This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 5 V.I.C. § 4903. + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 2 of 49 + +4. +The Virgin Islands is an unincorporated territory of the United States. It consists +of St. I +St. Croix, St. John, and Water Island, and more than 40 surrounding islands and +Cays, some of which are privately owned. Among these privately owned islands are Little St. +James and Great St. James. +5. +Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Epstein") was a resident of the Virgin Islands and he +maintained a residence on Little St. James, which he acquired in 1998 and in 2016 he also +purchased Great St. James. +6. +Epstein registered as a sex offender in the Virgin Islands in 2010. He was a Tier 1 +offender under Virgin Islands law based upon his Florida conviction of procuring a minor for +prostitution. As a Tier 1 offender, Epstein was required to register annually with the Virgin Islands +Department of Justice ("VIDOJ") and give advance notice of his travel to and from the Virgin +Islands. Epstein was also subject to random address verification by VIDOJ. +Epstein was found dead on August 10, 2019 while in custody in New York for sex +crimes. +8. +Defendant, Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein ("The Estate"), created upon Epstein's +death, is domiciled in the Virgin Islands. On August 15, 2019, the Executors of The Estate, Darren +K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, filed a Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary which +included Epstein's last will and testament with the Probate Division of the Superior Court of the +Virgin Islands. +9. +The Petition reports the value of the real and personal property in The Estate located +in the Virgin Islands at $577,672,654.00 dollars. +10. According to the Petition, the assets in the Virgin Islands thus far includes: +a. $56.5 million in cash; + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 3 of 49 + +b. $127 million in fixed income and equity investments; +c. S195 million in hedge fund and private equity investments; and +d. $18.5 million in planes, boats, and automobiles. +The Estate has not yet valued his fine arts, antiques, and other valuables. +11. The Estate also includes shares of various corporate entities which hold residences +and real property used by Epstein, namely: +a. Brownstone in New York City valued at $56 million; +b. Ranch in New Mexico valued at $72 million; +c. Gated home in Palm Beach, Florida, valued at $12 million; +d. Seven units in an apartment building in Paris, valued at $8 million; and +e. Great St. James and Little St. James, collectively valued at $86 million. +12. The Estate is responsible to pay damages for the acts committed by Epstein and the +Epstein Enterprise described below. +13. Defendant, The 1953 Trust ("The Trust") was created by Epstein, who "amended +and restated" its terms only two days before his suicide. That same day, Epstein revised his Last +Will and Testament, transferring all of his "property, real and personal, wherever situated" to The +Trust. +14. The Trust also contains Epstein's financial assets and is also responsible to pay +damages for the acts committed by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise described below. The +Trust's administrators, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, filed a Certificate of Trust in the +Superior Court of the Virgin Islands for The Trust on August 26, 2019. +15. +Epstein maintained a deliberately complex web of Virgin Islands corporations, +limited liability companies, foundations, and other entities, not all of which are yet known to the + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 l +Filed 02/14/20 Page 4 of 49 + +Government of the Virgin Islands, through which he carried out and concealed his criminal +conduct. +16. +Epstein regularly created new entities in the territory and transferred properties and +funds between them in order to preserve and shield Epstein's assets and to facilitate and conceal +the unlawful acts described in this Complaint. +17. These entities held properties, including Little St. James and Great St. James, at +which Epstein trafficked and sexually abused women and underage girls. Epstein owned and +arranged for private planes, helicopters, boat and automobiles to transport victims to, from, and +within the Virgin Islands, and provided money to pay these young women and underage girls. +18. +Epstein sat at the hub of this web, serving as president, member, manager, or +director of each of the entities and, upon information and belief, directing their activities. +19. Defendant, Nautilus, Inc., is a corporation established and organized under the laws +of the Virgin Islands. It was incorporated on November 22, 2011. +20. According to records of the Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds, Nautilus, Inc. owns +Little St. James, a/k/a Parcel Number 109803010100, a parcel of 3.1 million square feet valued at +$3.2 million, with buildings and improvements valued at $4 million. +21. +Epstein was president and director of Nautilus, Inc., which corporate filings +describe as "holding property for personal use." Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, Executors of +the Estate, are the secretary and treasurer of Nautilus, Inc., respectively. The Estate values +Epstein's holdings of Nautilus, Inc., which holds title to Little St. James at $63.9 million. +22. A deed recorded with the Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds on December 30, 2011 +reflects that the property was transferred from a Delaware entity, L.S.J., LLC, to Nautilus, Inc. for +"TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration." The quitclaim deed lists + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 +Filed 02/14/20 Page 5 of 49 + +Jeffrey Epstein as the sole member of L.S.J., LLC, which it acquired Little Saint James via a +warranty deed dated April 27, 1998. +23. As described below, Epstein engaged in a pattern and practice of trafficking and +sexually abusing young women and female children on this private, secluded island of Little St. +James where Epstein and his associates could avoid detection of their illegal activity from Virgin +Islands and federal law enforcement and prevent these young women and underage girls from +leaving freely and escaping the abuse. +24. +Thus, Nautilus, Inc. participated in carrying out, facilitating and concealing +Epstein's crimes, hence Little St. James became an instrumentality of those crimes. +25. +Defendant, Great St. Jim, LLC, is a limited liability company established and +organized under the laws of the Virgin Islands. Great St. Jim, LLC was organized on October 26, +2015. Great St. Jim, LLC, according to records of the Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds, owns at +least three properties that make up Great St. James acquired on January 28, 2016: Parcel Number +109801010100, consisting of 3.5 million square feet and valued at $17.5 million; Parcel Number +109801010200, consisting of 450,000 square feet of land, valued at $2.8 million; and Parcel +Number 109801010300, 1.2 million square feet of land, valued at $2.7 million. According to a +warranty deed filed with the Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds, Epstein, through Great St. Jim, +LLC, acquired the last two parcels for $5 million. +26. +Epstein is listed as manager and a member of Great St. Jim, LLC and the nature of +its business is described as "holding assets." +27. +Upon information and belief, Epstein purchased these Great St. James properties +the island with closest proximity to Little St. James—to further shield his conduct on Little St. +James from view, prevent his detection by law enforcement or the public, and allow him to + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 6 of 49 + +continue and conceal his criminal enterprise. Epstein's significant investment in the purchase of +Great St. James demonstrates his intent to expand his illegal operation in the Virgin Islands for +years to come. Thus, Great St. Jim, LLC participated in carrying out, concealing, facilitating and +continuing Epstein's crimes, and Great St. James became an instrumentality of those crimes. +28. +Defendant, Poplar, Inc., is a corporation established and organized under the laws +of the Virgin Islands. Poplar, Inc. was incorporated on November 22, 2011. Epstein was president +and director of Poplar, Inc., and its purpose was described in corporate filings as "holding property +for personal use." Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, Executors of the Estate, are secretary and +treasurer of Poplar, Inc., respectively. +29. +A certificate of incumbency provided to the Department of Planning and Natural +Resources ("DPNR") also lists Epstein as president of Poplar, Inc. and expressly authorizes the +incorporators to conduct "transactions related to permitting matters submitted on behalf of Great +St. Jim, LLC." +30. Poplar, Inc. is listed as the signatory for the 2017 Annual Report for Great St. Jim, +LLC, and the signature appears to be Epstein's. The Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary +filed by The Estate lists Poplar, Inc. as holding title to Great St. James. Thus, Poplar, Inc. +participated in carrying out, concealing, facilitating and continuing Epstein's crimes. +31. +Defendant, Plan D, LLC is a limited liability company established and organized +under the laws of the Virgin Islands. In its original Articles of Organization, filed October 19, +2012, and Annual Report filings, Epstein's pilot, Larry Visoski, was listed as Plan D, LLC's sole +manager/member. However, the July 31, 2019 Annual Report revealed Epstein as the principal +behind Plan D, LLC. + + +Case 1:19-cV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 7 of 49 + +32. Upon information and belief, Plan D, LLC owns one or more of the airplanes and +helicopters that Epstein used to transport young women and children to and from the Virgin Islands +to carry out the criminal pattern of activity described below. Among the airplanes owned by Plan +D, LLC is a Gulfstream with N-number N212JE. Flight logs and travel notices indicate that +Epstein used this plane to traffic and transport and young women and underage girls to the Virgin +Islands. +33. +Defendant, Hyperion Air, LLC is a limited liability company established and +organized under the laws of the Virgin Islands on October 19, 2012. Jeffrey Epstein is a +manager/member of Hyperion Air, LLC, along with his pilot, Larry Visoski. The purpose of +Hyperion Air, LLC is listed in its Annual Report as "holding assets." +34. +Hyperion Air, LLC is the registered owner of a Bell helicopter with N-number +N331JE and a Keystone helicopter with N-number N722JE. Upon information and belief, Epstein +used these helicopters to transport young women and underage girls between St. +and Little +St. James. +35. +John and Jane Does represent individuals and entities whose identities or +involvement with Epstein are currently unknown. The Government of the Virgin Islands will +amend the Complaint to add these individuals and entities when discovered. +36. +The Attorney General brings this action to seek all remedies available to the +Government of the Virgin Islands in enforcing its laws and protecting the public interest and public +safety. These claims are distinct from, and are not intended to supplant, the claims of victims who +were unconscionably harmed by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 8 of 49 + +FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS +A. The Conduct of the "Epstein Enterprise" in the Virgin Islands +37. Epstein and his associates, including Defendants, identified and recruited female +victims, including children, and transported them to the Virgin Islands where they were abused +and injured. Epstein, through and in association with Defendants, trafficked, raped, sexually +assaulted and held captive underage girls and young women at his properties in the Virgin Islands. +38. +Epstein created a network of companies and individuals who participated in and +conspired with him in a pattern of criminal activity related to the sex trafficking, forced labor, +sexual assault, child abuse, and sexual servitude of these young women and children. Epstein and +his associates trafficked underage girls to the Virgin Islands, held them captive, and sexually +abused them, causing them grave physical, mental, and emotional injury. +39. +To accomplish his illegal ends, Epstein formed an association in fact with multiple +Defendants and others (both companies and individuals) who were willing to participate in, +facilitate, and conceal Epstein's criminal activity in exchange for Epstein's bestowal of financial +and other benefits, including sexual services and forced labor from victims. +40. +This illicit association of Epstein, Defendants, and his associates constitutes what +is referred to herein as the "Epstein Enterprise." Epstein's associates in the Epstein Enterprise, +including, but not limited to, those named as Defendants knowingly facilitated, participated in, and +concealed Epstein's illegal conduct. +41. Epstein used his wealth and power to create the Epstein Enterprise which engaged +in a pattern of criminal activity in the Virgin Islands by repeatedly procuring and subjecting +underage girls and young women to unlawful sexual conduct, sex trafficking, and forced labor. + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 9 of 49 + +42. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in a pattern of criminal activity in the Virgin +Islands (and elsewhere) with the criminal purpose and goal of placing a steady supply of vulnerable +female children and young women into sexual servitude in service of Epstein's desires, and those +of his associates. +The Epstein Enterprise maintained and made available young women and +underage girls for the purpose of engaging them in forced labor and sexual activities and used +coercion and deception to procure, abuse, and harbor its victims. +43. +Flight logs and other sources establish that between 2001 and 2019 the Epstein +Enterprise transported underage girls and young women to the Virgin Islands, who were then taken +via helicopter or private vessel to Little St. James where they were then deceptively subjected to +sexual servitude, forced to engage in sexual acts and coerced into commercial sexual activity and +forced labor. +44. +In furtherance of its criminal activities, the Epstein Enterprise used its aircrafts to +transport the young women and underage girls to the Virgin Islands for purposes of sexual abuse +and exploitation. +45. +The Epstein Enterprise facilitated and participated in the sexual molestation and +exploitation of numerous girls between the age of 12 and 17 years old. +46. +On the pretext of providing modeling opportunities, careers and contracts, +associates of the Epstein Enterprise, funded by the Epstein Enterprise, lured and recruited young +women and underage girls to travel to locations including the Virgin Islands where, upon +information and belief, based on the pattern and practice of the Epstein Enterprise, they were +sexually abused and exploited. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 10 of 49 + +47. Associates in the Epstein Enterprise recruited both victims and abusers into the +Epstein Enterprise, participated in sexual acts of rape and abuse of minors and witnessed Epstein +and others engage in sexual acts with children. +48. +As recent as 2018, air traffic controllers and other airport personnel reported seeing +Epstein leave his plane with young girls some of whom appeared to be between the age of 11 and +18 years. +49. Upon information and belief, based on Epstein's pattern of trafficking and sexually +abusing young girls, the Epstein Enterprise trafficked and abused these girls, and others, in the +Virgin Islands through 2018. +50. +When sued in civil court for committing sex trafficking and sex crimes, Epstein +never denied engaging in sexual acts with underage females and procuring underage females for +prostitution, but instead consistently invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination. +51. +Upon information and belief, the Epstein Enterprise kept a computerized list of +underage girls who were in or proximate to the Virgin Islands, and able to be transported to +Epstein's residence at Little St. James in the Virgin Islands. +52. +The Epstein Enterprise engaged in a pattern of criminal conduct by trafficking +children and young women and placing them in sexual servitude and forced labor in the Virgin +Islands. The Epstein Enterprise repeatedly violated 14 V.I.C. §§ 133 to 138, which prohibit +trafficking and sexual abuse. The Epstein Enterprise also repeatedly violated laws against child +abuse and neglect, including 14 V.I.C. § 505, which defines the crime of child abuse as knowingly +or recklessly causing "a child to suffer physical, mental, or emotional injury," or causing a child +to be placed in a situation where such injury is foreseeable, and 14 V.I.C. § 506, which applies, as + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 11 of 49 + +here, where the child suffers serious physical, mental, or emotional injury as a result of that abuse. +The harm to Epstein's victims was both fully foreseeable and deeply damaging. +53. The Epstein Enterprise knowingly recruited, transported, transferred, harbored, +received, procured, obtained, isolated, maintained, and enticed young women and girls to engage +in forced labor (such as providing massages) and, ultimately, sexual servitude at his little St. James +residence. +54. A 15 year old victim was forced into sexual acts with Epstein and others and then +attempted to escape by swimming off the Little St. James island. Epstein and others organized a +search party that located her and kept her captive by, among other things, confiscating her passport. +55. +Another victim, who was first engaged in provide massages to Epstein, was then +forced to perform sexual acts at Little St. James in the Virgin Islands. When she attempted to +escape from the "private island," Epstein and a search party found her, returned her to his house, +and suggested physical restraint or harm if she failed to cooperate. +56. +The Epstein Enterprise deceptively lured underage girls and women into its sex +trafficking ring with money and promises of employment, career opportunities and school +assistance. The Epstein Enterprise preyed on their financial and other vulnerabilities, and +promised victims money, shelter, gifts, employment, tuition and other items of value. For +example, participants in the Epstein Enterprise targeted young and underage females under the +pretext that they would be paid substantially merely to provide massages to him and others. +However, once drawn in, victims were then pressured and coerced to engage in sexual acts. +57. +The Epstein Enterprise forced underage victims to recruit others to perform services +and engage in sexual acts—a trafficking pyramid scheme. + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 12 of 49 + +58. +The Epstein Enterprise paid girls for each "meeting," with additional money if they +brought additional girls. Epstein reportedly required three meetings per day. +59. +The Epstein Enterprise used the term "work" as a code for sexual abuse, and, upon +information and belief, reportedly kept computer records of the contact information for the victims. +60. +Consistent with his creation and use of a complex web of entities to carry out and +conceal the criminal trafficking enterprise in the Virgin Islands, the Epstein Enterprise sometimes +paid young women and underage girls he exploited and trafficked through his charitable +foundations. +61. +Once the girls and women were recruited, participants in the Epstein Enterprise +enforced their sexual servitude of victims by coercion, including but not limited to, confiscating +passports, controlling and extinguishing external communications, and threatening violence. They +also made fraudulent statements to family members of victims, claiming victims were being well +cared for and supported financially in college and other educational opportunities. +62. The Epstein Enterprise transported, held, sexually abused, trafficked, and +concealed women and children at his property in the Virgin Islands dozens of times over nearly +two decades. +B. The "Epstein Enterprise" Abused Privileges of Residency to Carry out its +Criminal Scheme +63. The Epstein Enterprise in 1998 acquired Little St. James in the Virgin Islands as +the perfect hideaway and haven for trafficking young women and underage girls for sexual +servitude, child abuse and sexual assault. Little St. James is a secluded, private island, nearly two +miles from St. +with no other residents. It can be visited only by private boat or helicopter; +no public or commercial transportation is available to carry persons on or off the island, and no + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 13 of 49 + +bridge connects the island to St. +Epstein had easy access to Little St. James from the +private airfield on St. +, only 10 minutes away by his private helicopter, but the women and +children he trafficked, abused, and held there were not able to leave without his permission and +assistance, as it was too far and dangerous to swim to St. L +64. In 2016, upon information and belief, using a straw purchaser to hide Epstein's +identity, the Epstein Enterprise acquired Great St. James, the nearest island to Little St. James. By +then, Epstein was a convicted sex offender. Upon information and belief, the Epstein Enterprise +purchased the island for more than $20 million because its participants wanted to ensure that the +island did not become a base from which others could view their activities or visitors. By acquiring +ownership and control of Great St. James to the exclusion of others, the Epstein Enterprise created +additional barriers to prevent those held involuntarily on Little St. James from escaping or +obtaining help from others. +65. +Great St. James and Little St. James are environmentally sensitive locations, with +native coral and wildlife protected by federal and territorial law and enforcement authorities. The +Department of Planning and Natural Resources ("DPNR") regulates and monitors construction in +the Coastal Zone to protect, maintain and manage the precious natural resources of the Virgin +Islands. Under its authority, DPNR repeatedly issued citations and assessed thousands of dollars +of fines for violations of the Virgin Islands construction code and environmental protection laws +on both Little St. James and Great St. James—-significant penalties to the agency and to the average +resident of the Virgin Islands. But because of Epstein's enormous wealth, these fines had little +effect in curbing or stopping the Epstein Enterprise's unlawful conduct or conforming its activities +to the law. + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 14 of 49 + +66. +As a result of illegal construction activity of the Epstein Enterprise, the Virgin +Islands has incurred, and will incur, significant expenses to remove the illegal construction or +remediate its effects on natural resources in and around Little St. James and Great St. James. The +extent of the potential environmental damage is unknown at this time as the illegal construction +has not been removed or remediated. +67. +The Epstein Enterprise continues to attempt to prevent or limit DPNR authorities +from conducting random inspections on the Little St. James and Great St. James necessary to +comply with Virgin Islands law. +68. The Epstein Enterprise's violation of the construction and environmental laws was +part of a pattern of behavior in flouting the laws of the Virgin Islands and holding itself above the +law. Upon information and belief, as described above, the Epstein Enterprise undertook +construction at Great St. James after 2016 to continue the scheme to carry out and conceal his +trafficking and sexual abuse of young women and children in the Virgin Islands. These actions +are also indicative of the Epstein Enterprise's disregard for Virgin Islands' law. The Epstein +Enterprise used the Virgin Islands' land, resources, people, and laws for its illicit purposes. Rather +than participating lawfully in this community, the Epstein Enterprise took advantage of the +secluded nature of the islands in furtherance of its crimes. +69. +As a result of its deplorable and unlawful conduct, the Epstein Enterprise has +subjected the Virgin Islands to public portrayals as a hiding place for human trafficking and sex +crimes. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 15 of 49 + +C. The "Epstein Enterprise" Fraudulently Concealed its Conduct +70. The Epstein Enterprise fraudulently concealed its actions to prevent detection by +the Government of the Virgin Islands. +71. +The secluded properties at Little St. James and Great St. James were repeatedly +used by the Epstein Enterprise as the locations for unlaw fully soliciting, transporting, transferring, +harboring, receiving, providing, isolating, patronizing, maintaining, deceiving, coercing, and +sexually abusing young women and children and concealing these crimes. +72. +The Epstein Enterprise was able to hide the trafficking ring from law enforcement, +despite the fact that Epstein was a registered sex offender. Given the isolation of the Little St. +James and Great St. James and the nature of the crimes and of the victims targeted by the Epstein +Enterprise, the activities of the Epstein Enterprise were not readily detectable. Moreover, Epstein's +great wealth and power likely made witnesses reluctant to report their observations to the local law +enforcement. +73. Upon information and belief, the Epstein Enterprise prevented its employees from +cooperating with law enforcement. Employees and others were required to sign confidentiality +agreements that prohibited them from speaking to or sharing information with law enforcement. If +they were contacted by law enforcement they were to notify the Epstein Enterprise and be +represented by Epstein's counsel. +74. +The employees were directed not to communicate or interact with guests visiting +Little St. James and were also directed not to disclose to anyone events that occurred on the island. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 16 of 49 + +75. Monitoring a sex offender with his own private islands and the resources to fly +victims in and out on private planes and helicopters presented unique challenges and allowed the +Epstein Enterprise to limit scrutiny by the Government of the Virgin Islands. +76. +Sexual Offender Registration and Community Protection Act ("SORCPA") 14 +V.I.C. § 1721, et. seq. requires sex offenders registered in the Virgin Islands to make periodic inperson appearances to verify and update their registration information. +77. +Epstein renewed his registration each year in the Virgin Islands. In addition, +beyond this statutory requirement, the Virgin Islands periodically visited —or attempted to visit- +Little St. James to conduct additional address verifications. +78. At his last verification in July 2018, Epstein refused to permit Virgin Islands +Department of Justice Investigators, assisted by United States Marshals, to enter Little St. James +beyond its dock, claiming that the dock was his "front door." Instead, Epstein arranged to be met +at his office on St. +79. Epstein also misled the Government regarding his travel plans. On March 19, 2019, +the Virgin Islands was notified that Epstein would be traveling to France for 10 days on the private +plane owned by Plan D, LLC. His notification form did not disclose travel to any other countries. +It was later discovered by law enforcement authorities that Epstein also travelled to Vienna and +Monaco during that trip. +80. +Similarly, the Epstein Enterprise sought to prevent DPNR from conducting routine +site visits to inspect unpermitted and potentially damaging construction activity on Great St. James. +The Epstein Enterprise repeatedly objected to DPNR's inspections referring to them as "invasions" +of Epstein's constitutional right to privacy in his home, which he described defined as the entire +island. These DPNR inspections are required for all construction and Virgin Islands residents are + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 17 of 49 + +required to cooperate with the inspections to assure compliance with the law throughout the +construction phases. +81. +These efforts represent Epstein Enterprise's intent to conceal its unlawful activity +on Little St. James and Great St. James. +82. The Epstein Enterprise also created numerous corporations and limited liability +companies in the Virgin Islands to help conceal its unlawful activity. Most of these companies +were created in 2011 and 2012, soon after Epstein registered as a sex offender in the Virgin Islands. +83. +Epstein's pilot, Larry Visoski is identified as member or co-member in companies +that serviced and maintained the planes that the Epstein Enterprise used to traffick young women +and children - Freedom Air Petroleum, LLC (registered November 28, 2011 to hold assets); and +JEGE, LLC (registered October 19, 2012 to hold assets). +84. +Other Epstein entities include LSJ Employees, LLC (registered October 27, 2011 +to provide services); Southern Financial, LLC (registered February 25, 2013 to provide services) +and LSJ Emergency, LLC (registered December 2, 2015 to provide services). +85. +Some of these companies held considerable assets: Financial Informatics, Inc. +(incorporated November 18, 2011, also known as Southern Trust Company, Inc.) had assets of +approximately $391 million in 2015; and Financial Trust Company, Inc. (incorporated November +6, 1998) had assets of $212 million when it publicly filed its last balance sheet in 2012. +86. +Though often absent in the original incorporation or registration documents or +annual filings, Epstein ultimately appeared as president, director, manager, or sole member of each +of these companies. Upon information and belief, the purpose of this complex array of corporate +entities—-some of which may still be discovered +-was to allow Epstein to shelter his assets in +order to fund, carry out, and conceal his identity and pattern of criminal conduct. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 18 of 49 +GVT's Complaint + +87. The Estate continues to engage in a course of conduct aimed at concealing the +criminal activities of the Epstein Enterprise. On November 24, 2019, Epstein's Estate filed an +Expedited Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program in the Superior +Court of the Virgin Islands. ("Motion"). According to the Motion, the proposed program was to +be designed to "establish an independent and voluntary claims resolution program for purposes of +resolving sexual abuse claims against Jeffrey E. Epstein." (Motion, at 1). +88. +The program proposed by the Estate, whose executors are trustees of The 1953 +Trust and officers in at least two Epstein entities, imposes confidentiality requirements and +requires any claimant accepting an award under the program to sacrifice any other claims against +"any person or entity arising from or related to Mr. Epstein's conduct." (Motion, at 5). It acts to +conceal the criminal activities of the Epstein Enterprise and shield its participants from liability +and accountability for the injury they caused to the victims. +89. +Two days before his death, Epstein amended The Trust and his Last Will and +Testament. Upon information and belief, he did so, as part of a pattern and ongoing effort to +conceal and shield his assets from potential recovery by claimants. +D. The "Epstein Enterprise" Violated Numerous Virgin Islands Laws +90. +The pattern of criminal activity engaged in by Epstein and other participants in the +Epstein Enterprise violated 14 V.I.C. §§ 605 and 607 of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt +Organizations Act ("CICO"). +The Epstein Enterprise also violated Title 14, Chapter 3A, The Virgin Islands +Uniform Prevention of and Remedies for Human Trafficking Act relating to Trafficking of +Persons; Title 14, Chapter 24, relating to Child Protection and Child Abuse and Neglect; Title 14, + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 19 of 49 +- + +Chapter 81, relating to Prostitution and Related Offenses; Title 18, Chapter 85, relating to Rape +and Sexual Assault and other related offenses, as well as other Virgin Islands laws. +92. The Epstein Enterprise violated Virgin Islands laws by engaging in the human +trafficking of underage girls and young women and commercial sex with young women and +underage girls by force, fraud, enticement, or coercion, which serve as predicates to the Epstein +Enterprise's violations of CICO. +93. +Certain participants who recruited young women and underage girls to be trafficked +and forced into sexual servitude themselves were sexually trafficked and abused by the Epstein +Enterprise and may be afforded the protections of 14 V.I.C. § 145. +94. +Specifically, Plan D, LLC knowingly and intentionally facilitated the trafficking +scheme by flying underage girls and young women into the Virgin Islands to be delivered into +sexual servitude. Plan D, LLC repeatedly made flights from the mainland to St. +with +Epstein and underage girls and young women for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity on +Little St. James. On some occasions, they would transport Epstein and female children by +helicopter to Little St. James. On other occasions, Epstein and the young women and girls would +be transported by boat. +95. +Great St. Jim, LLC and Nautilus, Inc. knowingly participated in the Epstein +Enterprise and facilitated the trafficking and sexual servitude of young women and underage girls +by providing the secluded properties at, from, or to which Epstein and his associates were able to +transport, transfer, receive, maintain, isolate, harbor, provide, entice, deceive, coerce, and sexually +abuse underage girls and young women. +96. +The Epstein Enterprise engaged in a continuing course of unlawful conduct. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 20 of 49 + +97. After Epstein's suicide, the Epstein Enterprise continued to exist as each of the +participants continued to conspire to prevent detection of the breadth and scope of the Epstein +Enterprise's criminal wrongdoing and to prevent accountability. These conspiratorial acts are +ongoing. +98. +The conduct of the Epstein Enterprise offends the core purpose of the Virgin Islands +Uniform Prevention of and Remedies for Human Trafficking Act, 14 V.I.C. §131 et seq, and +violates CICO, enacted to "curtail criminal activity and lessen its economic and political power in +the Territory of the Virgin Islands by establishing new penal prohibitions and providing to law +enforcement and the victims of criminal activity new civil sanctions and remedies." 14 V.I.C. § +601. +99. +The Epstein Enterprise is an illicit enterprise within the meaning of 14 V.I.C. §§ +604 and 605. +100. The Government is entitled to recover civil penalties, damages and other remedies +and to extinguish and recoup from the Epstein Enterprise any and all financial and other benefits, +and any personal and real property that was used during the course of, or intended for use in the +course of the conduct or criminal activity in violation of the laws of the Virgin Islands. The +Government is entitled to obtain through divestiture, forfeiture, or other equitable relief all +properties and instrumentalities used by the Epstein Enterprise in the criminal pattern of trafficking +and sexual abuse in the Virgin Islands, including but not limited to, Great St. James and Little St. +James, and all other remedies and penalties permitted by law in the interest of justice. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 21.of 49 + +COUNT ONE +Human Trafficking - Trafficking an Individual +Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), +14 V.i.C. § 600 et seq.; and 14 V.I.C §133 +101. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 100 of this Complaint as if +102. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in +or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. +103. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that +constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly +recruiting, transporting, transferring, harboring, receiving, providing, obtaining, isolating, +maintaining, or enticing female children and young women in the furtherance and performance of +forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity in violation of Virgin Islands laws +codified in 14 V.I.C. §§ 133-138. +104. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly +or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. +105. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity +106. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity +that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 22 of 49 + +COUNT TWO +Human Trafficking - Trafficking an Individual +Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act +14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.C §133 +107. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-106 of this Complaint as if +108. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws +prohibiting human trafficking. +109. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the +criminal conspiracy by recruiting, transporting, transferring, harboring, receiving, providing, +obtaining, isolating, maintaining or enticing female children and young women in the furtherance +and performance of forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity in violation of +Virgin Islands laws codified in 14 V.I.C. § 133 - 138. +110. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial +value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced +labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or +reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. +111. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other +Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, +112. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity +that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 23 of 49 + +COUNT THREE +Human Trafficking - Forced Labor +Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), +14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; and 14 V.I.C §134 +113. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-112 of this Complaint as if +fully set forth herein, +114. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in +or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. +115. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that +constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly +using coercion to compel underage girls and young women to provide labor or services by forced +labor in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 134. +116. The Epstein Enterprise knowingly provided or obtained the labor services of +individuals by means of force, threats of force, physical restraint, and/or threats of physical +restraint; by means of serious harm or threats of serious harm; by means of abuse or threatened +abuse of law or legal processes; and by means of the Epstein Enterprise with the intent to cause +individuals to believe that, if individuals did not perform such labor or services, individuals would +suffer serious harm or physical restraint. +117. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity directly and indirectly participated +in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. +118. +Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly +or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. +119. +Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 24 of 49 + +120. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity +that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. +COUNT FOUR +Human Trafficking - Forced Labor +Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, +14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; and 14 V.I.C §134 +121. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-120 of this Complaint as if +122. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws +prohibiting human trafficking. +123. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the +criminal conspiracy by knowingly using coercion to compel underage girls and young women to +provide labor or services by forced labor in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 134. +124. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial +value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced +labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or +reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. +125. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other +Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 25 of 49 + +126. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity +that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. +COUNT FIVE +Human Trafficking - Sexual Servitude +Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), +14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.C §135 +127. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-126 of this Complaint as if +128. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in +or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. +129. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that +constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly +maintaining or making available minors for the purpose of engaging the minors in commercial +sexual activities or using coercion or deception to force young women to engage in commercial +sexual activity in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 135. +130. On the pretext of providing modeling opportunities, careers and contracts, +Defendants facilitated the transporting or recruiting of young women and girls or lured and +recruited young women and underage girls to travel to the Virgin Islands where they engaged in +sexual acts with Epstein and others. In some instances, young women and underage girls were +given scholarships, money, gifts or other items of value in exchange for engaging in sexual acts +with Epstein and others. +131. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity directly and indirectly participated +in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 26 of 49 + +132. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly +or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. +133. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity +134. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity +that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. +14 V.I.C. $600 et seq. +COUNT SIX +Human Trafficking - Sexual Servitude +Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act +14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.C §135 +135. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-134 of this Complaint as if +prohibiting human trafficking. +136. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws +137. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join the criminal +conspiracy by knowingly maintaining or making available minors for the purpose of engaging the +minors in commercial sexual activities or using coercion or deception to force young women to +engage in commercial sexual activity in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 135. +138. +On the pretext of providing modeling opportunities, careers and contracts, +Defendants facilitated the transporting or recruiting of young women and girls or lured and +recruited young women and underage girls to travel to the Virgin Islands where they engaged in +sexual acts with Epstein and others. In some instances, young women and underage girls were + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 27 of 49 + +given scholarships, money, gifts or other items of value in exchange for engaging in sexual acts +with Epstein and others. +139. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial +value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced +labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or +reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. +140. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other +Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, +forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(i). +141. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity +that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. +14 V.I.C. $600 et seq. +COUNT SEVEN +Human Trafficking - Patronizing Minors and Victims of Sexual Servitude +Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), +14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.C §§ 136-37 +142. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-141 of this Complaint as if +143. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in +or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. +144. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that +constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly +giving, agreeing to give, or offering to give items of value to young women and minors so that the + + + + +young women and minors would engage in commercial sexual activity with Epstein, other +Defendants, and other individuals in violation of 14 V.I.C. §§ 136-137. +145. +In some instances, young women and underage girls were given scholarships, +money, gifts or other items of value in exchange for engaging in sexual acts with Epstein and +others. +146. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity directly and indirectly participated +in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. +147. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly +or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. +148. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity +149. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity +that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO +14 V.I.C. $600 et seq. +COUNT EIGHT +Human Trafficking - Patronizing Minors and Victims of Sexual Servitude +Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act +14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.C §8 136-37 +150. +The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-149 of this Complaint as if +151. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws +prohibiting human trafficking. + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 29 of 49 + +152. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the +criminal conspiracy by knowingly giving, agreeing to give, or offering to give items of value to +young women and minors so that the young women and minors would engage in commercial +sexual activity with Epstein, other Defendants, and other individuals in violation of 14 V.I.C. §§ +136-137. +153. In some instances, young women and underage girls were given scholarships, +money, gifts or other items of value in exchange for engaging in sexual acts with Epstein and +others. +154. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial +value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced +labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or +reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. +155. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other +Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise; human trafficking, +forced labor, and sexual servitude. +156. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity +that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO +14 V.I.C. $600 et seq. +COUNT NINE +Child Abuse and Neglect +Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("CICO"), +14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.C §§ 505, 506 and 507 +157. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-156 of this Complaint as if + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 30 of 49 + +158. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in +or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. +159. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that +constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly or +recklessly causing a child to suffer physical, mental or emotional injury, or knowingly or recklessly +causing a child to be placed in a situation where it is reasonably foreseeable that such child may +suffer physical, mental or emotional injury, in violation Virgin Islands criminal laws prohibiting +Child Abuse and Neglect in Title 14 V.I.C. § 500 et. seq. +160. As a result of the Epstein Enterprise's actions numerous young girls suffered +serious physical, mental and emotional injury. +161. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly +or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. +162. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity +163. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity +that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. +14 V.I.C. $600 et seq. +COUNT TEN +Child Abuse and Neglect +Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, +14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.C §§ 505, 506 and 507 +164. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-163 of this Complaint as if + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 31 of 49 + +165. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws +prohibiting child abuse and neglect. +166. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the +criminal conspiracy as they knowingly or recklessly caused a child to suffer physical, mental or +emotional injury, or knowingly or recklessly caused a child to be placed in a situation where it is +reasonably foreseeable that such child may suffer physical, mental or emotional injury, in violation +Virgin Islands criminal laws prohibiting Child Abuse and Neglect in Title 14 V.I.C. § 500 et seq. +167. As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous young girls suffered serious physical, +mental and emotional injury. +168. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial +value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced +labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls in knowing or reckless disregard of +the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. +169. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other +Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, +170. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity +that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. + + +Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 32 of 49 + +COUNT ELEVEN +Aggravated Rape +Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("CICO"), +14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.C § 1700a +171. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-170 of this Complaint as if +172. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in +or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. +173. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that +constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, conduct that +constituted or facilitated the rape of minors by force, intimidation, or the perpetrator's position of +authority over the victim. +174. Epstein and others, using force or intimidation, engaged in sexual intercourse with +underage girls without their consent in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 1700a. +175. As a result of the Epstein Enterprise's actions, numerous underage girls suffered +serious physical, mental and emotional injury. +176. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly +or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. +177. +Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity +178. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity +that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. +14 V.I.C. $600 et seq. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 33 of 49 + +COUNT TWELVE +Aggravated Rape +Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, +14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.C § 1700a +179. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-178 of this Complaint as if +180. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws +prohibiting aggravated rape. +181. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the +criminal conspiracy by engaging in conduct that constituted or facilitated the rape of minors by +force, intimidation, or the perpetrator's position of authority over the victim. +182. Epstein and others, using force or intimidation, engaged in sexual intercourse with +underage girls without their consent in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 1700a. +183. As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous underage girls suffered serious +physical, mental and emotional injury. +184. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial +value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced +labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or +reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. +185. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other +Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 34 of 49 + +186. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity +that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. +COUNT THIRTEEN +Rape in the Second Degree +Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("CICO"), +14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.C § 1702 +187. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1- 186 of this Complaint as if +188. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in +or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. +189. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that +constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, conduct that +constituted or facilitated the rape of girls under 18 years of age. +190. Epstein and others who engaged in rape were over 18 years old at the time of the +incidents. +191. As a result of the Epstein Enterprise's actions, numerous minors suffered serious +physical, mental and emotional injury. +192. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly +or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. +193. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity + + +Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 35 of 49 + +194. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity +that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. +COUNT FOURTEEN +Rape in the Second Degree +Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, +14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.C § 1702 +195. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-194 of this Complaint as if +196. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws +prohibiting rape in the second degree. +197. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the +criminal conspiracy by engaging in conduct that constituted or facilitated the rape of girls under +18 years of age. +198. Epstein and others who engaged in rape were over 18 years old at the time of the +incidents. +199. As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous minors suffered serious physical, +mental and emotional injury. +200. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial +value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced +labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or +reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. + + +Case 1:19-cV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 36 of 49 + +201. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other +Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, +202. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity +that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. +COUNT FIFTEEN +Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First or Second Degree +Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("CICO"), +14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.C §§ 1708 and 1709 +203. +The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 - 202 of this Complaint as if as +if fully set forth herein. +204. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in +or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. +205. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that +constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, using or +facilitating the use of force or coercion to accomplish sexual contact or engaging in sexual contact +with a minor between 13 and 16 years of age. +206. Epstein and others who engaged in the sexual contact were over 18 years old at the +time of the incidents. +207. As a result of the Epstein Enterprise's actions numerous young women and minors +suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. +208. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly +or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 37 of 49 + +209. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity +210. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity +that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO +COUNT SIXTEEN +Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First or Second Degree +Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, +14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.C 88 1708 and 1709 +211. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 - 210 of this Complaint as if +as if fully set forth herein. +212. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws +prohibiting unlawful sexual contact. +213. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the +criminal conspiracy by using or facilitating the use of force or coercion to accomplish sexual +contact or engaging in sexual contact with a minor between 13 and 16 years of age. +214. Epstein and others who engaged in the sexual contact were over 18 years old at the +time of the incidents. +215. As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous young women and minors suffered +serious physical, mental and emotional injury. +216. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial +value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced +labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of minor girls and young women in +knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 38 of 49 + +217. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other +Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, +218. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity +that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO +COUNT SEVENTEEN +Prostitution and Keeping House of Prostitution +Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), +14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. §§ 1622, 1624 +219. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 - 218 of this Complaint +as if fully set forth herein. +220. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly +participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. +221. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that +constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including the engaging in or +facilitating the knowing and/or reckless abuse of minors through the acts alleged herein. +222. The Epstein Enterprise knowingly persuaded, induced, enticed, and/or +coerced young women and children to travel to the Virgin Islands to engage in prostitution +and/or sexual activity, and/or attempted to do the same. +223. The Epstein Enterprise kept, maintained, and/or permitted his property at +Little St. James to be used for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness or assignation with +knowledge or reasonable cause to know the same. + + +Case 1:19-Cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 39 of 49 + +224. The Epstein Enterprise received or offered or agreed to receive women and children +at his property at Little St. James for the purposes of prostitution, lewdness or assignation, and/or +permitted young women and children to remain there for such purposes. +225. +The Epstein Enterprise directed, took, transported, and or offered or agreed to take +or transport young women and children to Little St. James with the knowledge or reasonable cause +to know that the purpose of such directing, taking or transporting was prostitution, lewdness or +assignation. +226. The Epstein Enterprise knew or should reasonably have known that some of the +individuals that were the subjects of the actions described in this Count were minors. +227. As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous young women and minors suffered +serious physical, mental and emotional injury. +228. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly +or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. +229. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity +230. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity +that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. + + +Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 40 of 49 + +COUNT EIGHTEEN +Prostitution and Keeping House of Prostitution +Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, +14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. §8 1622, 1624. +231. The Government restates and realleges paragraph 1 - 230 of this Complaint as if +232. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined a conspiracy to laws against +prostitution. +233. +Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the +criminal conspiracy by engaging in or facilitating the persuasion, inducement, enticement or +coercion of young women and children to travel to the Virgin Islands to engage in prostitution +and/or sexual activity, and/or attempted to do the same; keeping, maintaining, and/or permitting +Epstein's property at Little St. James, to be used for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness or +assignation with knowledge or reasonable cause to know the same; receiving, offering, or agreeing +to receive individuals at his property at Little St. James for the purposes of prostitution, lewdness +or assignation, and/or permitted young women and children to remain there for such purposes; and +directing, taking, transporting, and/or offering or agreeing to take or transport young women and +children to Little St. James with the knowledge or reasonable cause to know that the purpose of +such directing, taking or transporting was prostitution, lewdness or assignation, in violation of 14 +V.I.C. §§ 1622 and 1624. +234. Defendants knew or should reasonably have known that some of the individuals +that were the subjects of the actions described in this Count were minors. +235. +As a result of Defendants' actions numerous young women and minors suffered +serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + + +Case 1:19-cV-08673-KPF-DCF +Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 41 of 49 + +236. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial +value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced +labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or +reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. +237. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other +Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, +forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(). +238. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity +that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. +14 V.I.C. $600 et seq. +COUNT NINETEEN +Sex Offender Registry +iolation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO" +4 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. § 1721 et seq +239. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 - 238 of this Complaint as if +240. Epstein was required to, and did, register under the Virgin Islands Sexual Offender +Registration and Community Protection Act ("SORCPA") codified at 14 V.I.C. § 1721 et seq. +241. +SORCPA requires registered offenders to provide information relating to intended +travel in foreign commerce. +242. On at least two occasions, Epstein traveled to Vienna and Monaco without +disclosing that travel to the Virgin Islands sex offender registry. +243. Epstein's failure to disclose this travel before, during, or even after his travel was +knowing. + + +Case 1:19-cV-08673-KPF-DCF +Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 42 of 49 + +244. Epstein's violation SORPCA was part of a pattern of criminal activity that was not +isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise. 14 V.I.C. §604(i). +COUNT TWENTY +Fraudulent Conveyance +Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), +14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. §8 832-833 +245. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 - 244 of this Complaint as if +246. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in +or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. +247. Each Defendant engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitutes +criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to transferring assets to and +between various entities controlled by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise to avoid, defeat, hinder +or delay claims against them. +248. Upon information and belief, in an effort to defeat the claims of creditors and avoid +the oversight of the court probating his estate, Epstein, days before his death, transferred significant +assets, including assets held by other Defendants, into The 1953 Trust. +249. At the time of these transfers, Epstein had numerous actions pending against him +related to his trafficking and sexual assaults seeking financial judgments. +250. Through these transfers, Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise fraudulently removed +property and effects beyond the jurisdiction of the probate court. +251. Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise were parties to the fraudulent conveyance of the +property, real or personal, and/or the interests or rights arising out of property, contracts, or +conveyances of Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise. + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 43 of 49 + +252. Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise acted with the intent to defeat, hinder, or delay +creditors and claimants, including the Government of the Virgin Islands, in collecting on their +judgements, debts and demands. +253. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly +or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. +254. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity +255. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity +that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. +14 V.I.C. $600 et seq. +COUNT TWENTY-ONE +Fraudulent Conveyance +Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, +14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. §§ 832-833 +256. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 255 of this Complaint as if +257. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to commit +fraudulent conveyances. +258. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the +criminal conspiracy, including, but not limited to, transferring assets to and between various +entities controlled by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise to avoid, defeat, hinder or delay claims +against them. + + +Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 44 of 49 + +259. Upon information and belief, in an effort to defeat the claims of creditors and avoid +the oversight of the court probating his estate, Epstein, days before his death, transferred significant +assets, including assets held by other Defendants, into The 1953 Trust. +260. At the time of this transfer, Epstein had numerous actions pending against him +related to his trafficking and sexual assaults seeking financial judgments. +261. +Through this transfer, Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise fraudulently removed +property and effects beyond the jurisdiction of the probate court. +262. Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise were parties to the fraudulent conveyance of the +property, real or personal, and/or the interests or rights arising out of property, contracts, or +conveyances of Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise. +263. Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise acted with the intent to defeat, hinder, or delay +the Government of the Virgin Islands and other creditors and claimants to collect on their +judgements, debts and demands. +264. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial +value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced +labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or +reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. +265. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other +Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, +forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(0). +266. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity +that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 +Filed 02/14/20 Page 45 of 49 + +COUNT TWENTY-TWO +Civil Conspiracy +267. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 - 266 of this Complaint as if +268. Defendants acted in concert and joined with others to perform the wrongful acts +identified in Counts 1 to 13, among others, concealing the sexual abuse of minor females by +unlawful means. +269. Each co-conspirator knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, +about the conduct of the others and about the common unlawful scheme. +270. These unlawful acts could not have been carried to the length and extent +accomplished without the common understanding shared by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise +Defendants. +271. Each of the Defendants had a duty to report, stop or terminate the wrongful conduct, +but instead each Defendant concealed, assisted and furthered the wrongful acts by use of civil +conspiracy. +272. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conspiracy, the Virgin Island has +been injured. +273. +Each co-conspirator is jointly and severally liable for the acts alleged herein. + + + + +Notice of Allegation of +PUNITIVE DAMAGES +274. +The purpose of punitive damages in the common law is to punish the defendant +for outrageous conduct that is reckless or intentional and to deter others from engaging in such +conduct in the future. +275. This Complaint describes intentional conduct so egregious, persistent, and injurious +that it shocks the conscience and offends a civilized society. +276. Punitive damages are especially important in the case of persons or companies that +have money, assets, and power that mere fines, penalties, and economic damages are simply not +sufficient. +277. At all times material herein, Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise engaged repeatedly +in wrongful acts which were intentional and outrageous. The Government gives notice that it +intends to pursue the possibility of punitive damages in any jury verdict. +PRAYER FOR RELIEF +WHEREFORE, the Government respectfully requests that the Court: +Enter a judgment in favor of the Government and against Defendants on all counts; +B. +Declare that Defendants, through the Epstein Enterprise, have engaged in a pattern +of criminal activity in the Virgin Islands including but not limited to human trafficking, forced +labor and sexual servitude of female children and young women, unlawful sexual contact, child +sexual abuse, child abuse and neglect, rape, prostitution and other offenses related offenses, and +civil conspiracy.; + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 47 of 49 + +C. +Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 610, enforce and maintain the criminal activity liens the +Government is filing contemporaneously with this lawsuit, or shall file in connection with this +action; +D. +Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)(1) and 14 V.I.C. § 141, issue an order forfeiting and +divesting in favor of the Government of the Virgin Islands all of Defendants' interests in any real +and personal property within the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands used to facilitate the criminal +enterprise carried out by the Epstein Enterprise, including but not limited to Little St. James Island +and Greater St. James Island. +E. +Issue an order forfeiting to the Government of the Virgin Islands any proceeds or +funds obtained by Defendants, whether directly or indirectly, during the course of the criminal +activity of the Epstein Enterprise; +F. +Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)(1), require Defendants to divest themselves of any +real property or other interests in favor of the Government of the Virgin Islands used to further the +goals of the Epstein Enterprise; +G. +Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)(3) and (5), order the dissolution of the Epstein +Enterprise, including but not limited to, order the dissolution of the corporate Defendants; +H. +Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)(2) enter an injunction to prevent the further criminal +conduct, and concealment of the criminal conduct, by the Epstein Enterprise; +Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)(4), order the revocation of any and all licenses, +permits and approvals that had been granted by any agency of the Territory, and require the +repayment of any tax benefits that had been bestowed on any Defendant; +J. +Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)(6)(e), award the Government the maximum civil +penalty for each and every violation of law committed by the Epstein Enterprise; + + +Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 48 of 49 + +K. +Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607, award treble damages and all other available remedies, +including attorneys' fees and costs; +L. +Award compensatory and punitive damages for Defendants' civil conspiracy; +M. +Void the transfer of assets as fraudulently conveyed to the The 1953 Trust; +N. +Award such equitable relief, including disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains, as may +be just and proper and appropriate, pursuant to 14 14 V.I.C. § 608(c)(4), to protect the rights of +victims and innocent persons in the interest of justice and consistent with the purposes of CICO; +O. +Assess and award a judgment in favor of the Government and against the +Defendants for attorneys' fees and costs and pre- and post-judgment interest; and +P. +Award any and all other relief this Court deems appropriate. +The Government demands a jury trial on all issues so triable. +Dated: January 15, 2020 +RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, +GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES +VIRGIN ISLANDS +ATTORNEY GENERAL +V.I. Department of Justice +Office of the Attorney General +34-38 Kronprindsens Gade +GERS Building, 2nd Floor +St. +U.S.V.I. 00802 +Telephone: (340) 774-5666 + + +Document 52-1 Filed 02/14/20 + +RECEIVED +20 JAN 15 PM |: 01 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6da64ba542ab7573320b04bc3b49e494211ec469cf0353844b602afa835a65f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6da64ba542ab7573320b04bc3b49e494211ec469cf0353844b602afa835a65f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7a54e5bd3aff29f4a862e7402becce7690207884 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6da64ba542ab7573320b04bc3b49e494211ec469cf0353844b602afa835a65f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -5451, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c6da64ba542ab7573320b04bc3b49e494211ec469cf0353844b602afa835a65f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 103, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "56ee62d3522b00b92abd3ff3fdae933575eae2902c430d50a8c5bb8d4836d5a7", + "output_sha256": "44889be20993e400e95472a3ad842ec971759aa138f4fb7f0be8874c6f00ed60", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6f838f1f8eec7e6c7b07be9aa70ec56f81f3541844b27c66f6bb5ac90f5e3d6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6f838f1f8eec7e6c7b07be9aa70ec56f81f3541844b27c66f6bb5ac90f5e3d6.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..84b49685929476eba859683d792bda830439a860 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6f838f1f8eec7e6c7b07be9aa70ec56f81f3541844b27c66f6bb5ac90f5e3d6.md @@ -0,0 +1,97 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2008 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE, a/k/a +JANE DOE NO. 1, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +1, and +Defendants. +DEFENDANTS JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND I +REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT +Pursuant to Rule 7.1(B)(1) of the Local Rules of the United States District +Court for the Southern District of Florida, defendants Jeffrey Epstein and +_ respectfully request oral argument in connection with their motion to stay. +The defendants believe an opportunity to formally argue the motion would +assist the Court in ruling on their motion, which seeks to stay this action until +resolution of a pending criminal action. +The defendants estimate that the time required for argument is one hour. +The undersigned are authorized to represent that defendant +joins in this request. +Tein.. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2008 Page 2 of 4 +Respectfully submitted, +TEIN, P.L. +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 +Tel: 305 442 1101 +Fax: 305 442 6744 +By: +Is/ Michael R. Tein +GUY A. +Fla. Bar No. 623740 +MICHAEL R. TEIN +Fla. Bar No. 993522 +tein@lewistein.com +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Tel. 561 659 8300 +Fax. 561 835 8691 +By: Jack A. Goldberger +Fla. Bar No. 262013 +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +2 +3059 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 340, CoCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2008 Page 3 of 4 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 25, 2008, I electronically filed the +foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that +the foregoing document is being served this day on counsel of record identified +below by U.S. Mail. +Is/ Michael R. Tein +Michael R. Tein +3 +P Teinr. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2008 Page 4 of 4 +Service List +Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. +Ricci-Leopold, P.A +2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +Fax: 561 697 2383 +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Douglas M. Mclntosh, Esq. +Jason A. +Esq. +McIntosh, Sawran, Peltz & Cartaya, P.A. +Centurion Tower +1601 Forum Place, Suite 1110 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Fax. 561 682-3206 +Counsel for Defendant +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 South Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Fax. 561 828 0983 +Counsel for Defendant +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +Michael J. Pike, Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & +Coleman, LLP +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Fax. 561 515 3148 +Co-Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein +4 +Tein.. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6f838f1f8eec7e6c7b07be9aa70ec56f81f3541844b27c66f6bb5ac90f5e3d6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6f838f1f8eec7e6c7b07be9aa70ec56f81f3541844b27c66f6bb5ac90f5e3d6.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2bc5be55e714cdcbd527b3bc87b922060d28a32e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c6f838f1f8eec7e6c7b07be9aa70ec56f81f3541844b27c66f6bb5ac90f5e3d6.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -346, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c6f838f1f8eec7e6c7b07be9aa70ec56f81f3541844b27c66f6bb5ac90f5e3d6", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "91c4ca736ad924622f6ca71ef3349587a3fa5c4686c13a03965a7b89eddcc1f3", + "output_sha256": "3cb66ab8a72fa711e7719a1f683690be0baf30a2a74b4da6aae6009541332576", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c7109de111c3efe681240ca33af4c50617b21b354fd8d6d887ac00d34493064a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c7109de111c3efe681240ca33af4c50617b21b354fd8d6d887ac00d34493064a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..68215c86e354e30bc78d49be4e62f0e83266fa33 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c7109de111c3efe681240ca33af4c50617b21b354fd8d6d887ac00d34493064a.md @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2009 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA,| +JANE DOE NO. 2, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +Defendant's Amended Motion For Extension Of Time In Which To Respond To +laintift's Motion For Protective Order And To Quash Subpoena For Depositio +f Jane Doe No. 3, Motion To Consolidate Cases For Purposes Of Discovery, An +Incorporated Memorandum Of Law +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Epstein") by and through his +undersigned attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time in which to +respond to Plaintiff's Motion For Protective Order And To Quash Subpoena For +Deposition Of Jane Doe No. 3, Motion To Consolidate Cases For Purposes Of +Discovery, And Incorporated Memorandum Of Law ("Motion"). Local General Rule 7.1 +A. 1 and Rule 6, Fed. R. Civ. P. (2009). Defendant seeks an extension until April 16, +2009 to file his response. As good cause in support of granting the motion, Defendant +states: +1. Defendant's response to the Motion is due on or about April 6, 2009, and an +extension was given to April 13, 2009. +2. Plaintiff's counsel also represents five (5) other Plaintiffs pursuing claims against +Defendant, EPSTEIN, most of which have filed similar Motions. In order to fully and + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2009 Page 2 of 3 +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein +Page 2 +adequately respond to this and the other motions, Defendant is in need of an extension +until April 16, 2009. +3. In addition to the multiple motions, good cause for the extension also includes +that counsel has been attempting to resolve discovery issues in this and other cases +against Defendant, EPSTEIN; an associate of Defendant's undersigned counsel who +works extensively on this case is currently out of the office and the undersigned was +working on and has filed between 12-15 motions and responses in the various cases +during the time these motions were filed. +4. The requested extension is fair and reasonable under the circumstances as it will +provide time to allow the Defendant, EPSTEIN, to fully and adequately respond to this +and the other motions. In addition, this action is still at its early stages. +5. As certified below, counsel for Defendant conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, and +Plaintiff's counsel is in agreement with the requested extension. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court enter an order granting an +Defendant an extension until April 16, 2009, in which to respond to the Above Motion. +Local Rule 7.1 Statement +Counsel for the movant conferred by telephone with counsel for the Plaintiff and +Counsel for Plaintiff is in agreement with the requested extension until April 16, 2009 for +Defendant to respond to the Motion. +Attorney for Defendant +Certificate of Service + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2009 Page 3 of 3 +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein +Page 3 +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the +manner specified by CM/ECF on this 1Q day of April, 2009: +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +ilysubmitted, +By: +ROBEBT +CRÍTTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +crit@bclclaw.com +VICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c7109de111c3efe681240ca33af4c50617b21b354fd8d6d887ac00d34493064a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c7109de111c3efe681240ca33af4c50617b21b354fd8d6d887ac00d34493064a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f10cad2165015dcad101110e43e4fe7d789b02d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c7109de111c3efe681240ca33af4c50617b21b354fd8d6d887ac00d34493064a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c7109de111c3efe681240ca33af4c50617b21b354fd8d6d887ac00d34493064a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "9dcc4ba2da3532a0026370fbf94026f2d8a7f6c1ad517068e1db5f3f2c20c9d1", + "output_sha256": "2ae31ce0f30fd52694119a0979578891c29f24ca87d3be7004dffb6644828572", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c71c6fbaa57c9dbb867a9c662471618b6da06329141eb13d811232558d451849.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c71c6fbaa57c9dbb867a9c662471618b6da06329141eb13d811232558d451849.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c6c6f952de0c3d4b4c62066e375f7fead4003e29 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c71c6fbaa57c9dbb867a9c662471618b6da06329141eb13d811232558d451849.md @@ -0,0 +1,949 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 431-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 1 of 20 +AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action +for the +Southern District of Florida +Plaintiff +V. +Civil Action No. 08-civ-80119-Marra +(If the action is pending in another district, state where: +Defendant +Southern District of Florida +) +SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS +OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION +To: Presidential Women's Center, Records Custodian, 100 Northpoint Parkway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +& Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following +documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the +material: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A +Date and Time: +Place: Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman, LLC +303 Banyan Bivd. Sulte #400 +11/30/2009 9:00 am +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +• Inspection of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit entry onto the designated premises, land, or +ther property possessed or controlled by you at the time, date, and location set forth below, so that the requesting part +nay inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on i +Place: +Date and Time: +The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rule +45 (d) and (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, are +Date: +11/13/2009 +CLERK OF COURT +OR +Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk +Attorney's signature +The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) +Defendant +., who issues or requests this subpoena, are: +Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman, LLC, 303 Banyan Blvd., #400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; +Phone (561) 842-2820; Fax (561) 844-6929; mpike@bclclaw.com (Attorney): jcadwell@bclclaw.com (Paralegal +"A" + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 2 of 20 +AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action (Page 2) +Civil Action No. 08-clv-80119-Marra/s +PROOF OF SERVICE +(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.) +This subpoena for (name of individual and title, (arry) +was received by me on (date) +• 1 served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows: +on (date) +; or +• 1 returned the subpoena unexecuted because: +Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also +tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of +$ +My fees are $ +for travel and $ +for services, for a total of S +0.00 +I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. +Date: +Server's signature +Additional information regarding attempted service, ete: + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 431-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 3 of 20 +AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action(Page 3) +Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), and (e) (Effective 12/1/07) +(c) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena. +(d) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena. +(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or +(1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. +attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take +These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically +reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a +stored information: +person subjeot to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this +(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce +duty and impose an appropriate sanction - which may include lost +documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary +earnings and reasonable attorney's fees — on a party or attorney +course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to +who fails to comply. +the categories in the demand. +(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. +(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not +(A) Appearance Not Reguired. A person commanded to produce +Specified. If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing +documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or +electronically stored information, the person responding must +to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the +produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or +place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear +in a reasonably usable form or forms. +for a deposition, hearing, or trial. +(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One +(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or +Form. The person responding need not produce the same +tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or +electronically stored information in more than one form. +attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to +(D) Jnaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person +inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or +responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored +to inspecting the premises — or to producing electronically stored +information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably +information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be +accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel +served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 +discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show +days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the +that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue +following rules apply: +burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless +(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving +order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows +party may move the issuing court for an order compelling production +good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The +or inspection. +court may specify conditions for the discovery. +(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and +(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection. +the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's +(A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed +officer from significant expense resulting from compliance. +information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to +(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. +protection as trial-preparation material must: +(A) When Reguired. On timely motion, the issuing court must +(1) expressly make the claim; and +quash or modify a subpoena that: +(i) describe the nature of the withheld documents, +(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; +communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without +(il) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer +revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the +to travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is +parties to assess the claim. +employed, or regularly transacts business in person - except that, +(B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a +subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), the person may be commanded to +subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trialattend a trial by traveling from any such place within the state where +preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any +the trial is held; +party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. +(il) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if +After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or +no exception or waiver applies; or +destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use +(iv) subjects a person to undue burden. +or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take +(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by +reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it +a subpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the +before being notified; and may promptly present the information to +subpoena if it requires: +the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person +(f) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, +who produced the information must preserve the information until +development, or commercial information; +the claim is resolved. +(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that +does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from +the expert's study that was not requested by a party; or +(lil) a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to incur +substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial. +(C) Specifving Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances +(e) Contempt. The issuing court may hold in contempt a person +who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the +subpoena. A nonparty's failure to obey must be excused if the +subpoena purports to require the nonparty to attend or produce at a +place outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii). +described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or +modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under +specified conditions if the serving party: +() shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that +(i) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 431-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 4 of 20 + +ind social +security number is +Including but not limited to any forms completed by the +patient, medical records, reports, lab or diagnostic test results, consultants' reports, letters to and +from the patient, handwritten office notes by any person, telephone messages, computer data +kept on the patient, attorney +• letters, photographs, charts, intake forms, release forms and +consultations from January 1, 1999 through the date of this Subpoena. *If you require the entire +Social Security number, please contact our office at 561-842-2820 and ask for Jessica Cadwell. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 431-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 5 of 20 +AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action +for the +Southern District of Florida +Plaintif +V. +Civil Action No. 08-clv-80119-Marra/ +(If the action is pending in another district, state where: +Defendant +Southern District of Florida +SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS +OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION +To: Presidential Women's Center, Records Custodian, 100 Northpoint Parkway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +58 Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following +documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the +material: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A +Place: Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman, LLC +Date and Time: +303 Banyan Blvd. Suite #400 +11/30/2009 9:15 am +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +• Inspection of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit entry onto the designated premises, land, or +other property possessed or controlled by you at the time, date, and location set forth below, so that the requesting party +may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it. +Place: +Date and Time: +The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rule +45 (d) and (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, are +attached. +Date: +11/13/2009 +CLERK OF COURT +OR +Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerke +The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) +Defendant +,, who issues or requests this subpoena, are: +Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman, LLC, 303 Banyan Blvd., #400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; +Phone (561) 842-2820; Fax (561) 844-6929; mpike@bclclaw.com (Attorney); jcadwell@bclclaw.com (Paralegal) + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 6 of 20 +AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action (Page 2) +Civil Action No. 08-civ-80119-Marra +PROOF OF SERVICE +(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.) +This subpoena for (name of individual and title, (f any) +was received by me on (date) +• I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows: +on (date) +; ОГ +• I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: +Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also +tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of +$ +My fees are $ +for travel and $ +for services, for a total of $ +0.00 +I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. +Date: +Server's signature + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 431-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 7 of 20 +AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action(Page 3) +Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (e), (d), and (e) (Effective 12/1/07) +(c) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena. +(d) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena. +(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or +(1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. +attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take +These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically +reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a +stored information: +person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this +(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce +duty and impose an appropriate sanction - which may include lost +documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary +earnings and reasonable attorney's fees — on a party or attorney +course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to +who fails to comply. +the categories in the demand. +(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. +(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not +(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce +Specifled. If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing +documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or +electronically stored information, the person responding must +to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the +produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or +place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear +in a reasonably usable form or forms. +for a deposition, hearing, or trial. +(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One +(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or +tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or +attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to +во дну ни +Form. The person responding need not produce the same +electronically stored information in more than one form. +(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information, The person +inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or +responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored +to inspecting the premises — or to producing electronically stored +information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably +information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be +accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel +served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 +discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show +days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the +that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue +following rules apply: +burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless +(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving +order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows +party may move the issuing court for an order compelling production +good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The +or inspection. +court may specify conditions for the discovery. +(il) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and +(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection. +the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's +(A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed +officer from significant expense resulting from compliance. +information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to +(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. +protection as trial-preparation material must: +(A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must +(f) expressly make the claim; and +quash or modify a subpoena that: +(ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, +(1) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; +communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without +(il) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer +revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the +to travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is +parties to assess the claim. +employed, or regularly transacts business in person - except that, +(B) Information Produced If information produced in response to a +subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), the person may be commanded to +subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trialattend a trial by traveling from any such place within the state where +preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any +the trial is held; +party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. +(il) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if +After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or +no exception or waiver applies; or +destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use +(iv) subjects a person to undue burden. +or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take +(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by +reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it +a subpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the +before being notified; and may promptly present the information to +subpoena if it requires: +the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person +(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, +who produced the information must preserve the information until +development, or commercial information; +the claim is resolved. +(il) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that +does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from +the expert's study that was not requested by a party; or +(ill) a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to incur +substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial. +(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances +(e) Contempt. The issuing court may hold in contempt a person +who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the +subpoena. A nonparty's failure to obey must be excused if the +subpoena purports to require the nonparty to attend or produce at a +place outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii). +described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or +modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under +specified conditions if the serving party: + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 431-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 8 of 20 + +security number is +including but not limited to any forms completed by the +patient, medical records, reports, lab or diagnostic test results, consultants' reports, letters to and +from the patient, handwritten office notes by any person, telephone messages, computer data +kept on the patient, attorney letters, photographs, charts, intake forms, release forms and +consultations from January 1, 1999 through the date of this Subpoena. *If you require the entire +Social Security number, please contact our office at 561-842-2820 and ask for Jessica Cadwell. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 431-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 9 of 20 +AO 8BB (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action +for the +Sputhern District of Florida +Plaintif +V. +Civil Action No. 08-civ-80119-Marra/-LII +(If the action is pending in another district, state where: +Defendant +Southern District of Florida +) +SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS +OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION +To: Presidential Women's Center, Records Custodian, 100 Northpoint Parkway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +focuments, diction ely stored comtion, role podid pete time, fap end op torn into a pi ne +naterial: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A +Place: Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman, LLC +[Date and Time: +303 Banyan Blvd. Suite #400 +11/30/2009 9:45 am +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +• Inspection of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit entry onto the designated premises, land, or +other property possessed or controlled by you at the time, date, and location set forth below, so that the requesting party +may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it. +Place: +Date and Time: +The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rul +5 (d) and (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, ar +attached. +Date: +11/13/2009 +CLERK OF COURT +OR +Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk +Attonhey's signature +The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) +Defendant +_, Who issues or requests this subpoena, are: +Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman, LLC, 303 Banyan Blvd., #400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; +Phone (561) 842-2820; Fax (561) 844-6929; mpike@bolclaw.com (Attorney): jcadwell@bclclaw.com (Paralegal) + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 431-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 10 of +AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Perit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action (Page 2) +Civil Action No. 08-clv-80119-Marra/. +PROOF OF SERVICE +(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed, R. Ch, P. 45.) +This subpoena for (name of individual and title, (ary) +was received by me on (date) +• I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows: +on (date) +; or +My fees are S +• I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: +Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also +tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of +for services, for a total of$ +0.00 +for travel and S +I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. +Date: +Server's signature + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 431-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 11 of +AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action(Page 3) +Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (e), (d), and (e) (Effective 12/1/07) +(c) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena. +(d) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena. +(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or +(1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Informatior. +attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take +These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically +reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a +person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this +(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce +duty and impose an appropriate sanction - which may include lost +documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary +earnings and reasonable attorney's fees - on a party or attorney +course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to +who fails to comply. +the categories in the demand. +(2) Conmand to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. +(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not +(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce +Specified. If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing +documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or +electronically stored information, the person responding must +to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the +produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or +place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear +in a reasonably usable form or forms. +for a deposition, hearing, or triai. +(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One +(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or +Form. The person responding need not produce the same +tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or +electronically stored information in more than one form. +attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to +(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person +inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or +responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored +to inspecting the premises — or to producing electronically stored +information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably +information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be +accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel +served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 +discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show +days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the +that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue +burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless +following rules apply: +(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving +order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows +party may move the issuing court for an order compelling production +good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The +or inspection. +court may specify conditions for the discovery. +(it) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and +(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection. +the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's +(A) Information Withheld A person withholding subpoenaed +officer from significant expense resulting from compliance. +information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to +(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. +protection as trial-preparation material must: +(A) When Required On timely motion, the issuing court must +(i) expressly make the claim; and +quash or modify a subpoena that: +(Il) describe the nature of the withheld documents, +(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; +communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without +(il) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer +revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the +to travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is +parties to assess the claim. +employed, or regularly transacts business in person - except that, +(B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a +subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), the person may be commanded to +subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trialattend a trial by traveling from any such place within the state where +preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any +the trial is held; +party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. +(il) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, it +After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or +no exception or waiver applies; or +destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use +(iv) subjects a person to undue burden. +or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take +reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it +before being notified; and may promptly present the information to +subpoena if it requires: +(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, +development, or commercial information; +(il) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that +does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from +the expert's study that was not requested by a party; or +(ill) a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to incur +substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial. +(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances +described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or +modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under +specified conditions if the serving party: +(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that +(il) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably +the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person +who produced the information must preserve the information until +the claim is resolved. +(e) Contempt. The issuing court may hold in contempt a person +who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the +subpoena. À nonparty's failure to obey must be excused if the +subpoena purports to require the nonparty to attend or produce at a +place outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii). + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 12 of + +and social security number is +ncluding but not limited to any forms completed +by the patient, medical records, reports, lab or diagnostic test results, consultants' reports, letters +to and from the patient, handwritten office notes by any person, telephone messages, computer +data kept on the patient, attorney letters, photographs, charts, intake forms, release forms and +consultations from January 1, 1996 through the date of this Subpoena. *If you require the entire +Social Security number, please contact our office at 561-842-2820 and ask for Jessica Cadwell. + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 431-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 13 of +AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Pernit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action +for the +Southern District of Florida +Plaintiff +V. +Civil Action No. 08-civ-80119-Marra/Johnson +(If the action is pending in another district, state where: +Defendant +Southern District of Florida +) +SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS +OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION +To: Presidential Women's Center, Records Custodian, 100 Northpoint Parkway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +• Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the followin +ocuments, electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of th +material: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A +| Place: Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman, LLC +Date and Time: +303 Banyan Blvd. Suite #400 +11/30/2009 10:00 am +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +• Inspection of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit entry onto the designated premises, land, or +other property possessed or controlled by you at the time, date, and location set forth below, so that the requesting party +may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it. +Place: +Date and Time: +The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rule +45 (d) and (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, are +attached. +Date: +11/13/2009 +CLERK OF COURT +OR +Signature of Clerk or Deputy Cleric +Accorney's signature +The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party +Defendant +_, who issues or requests this subpoena, are: +Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman, LLC, 303 Banyan Blvd., #400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; +Phone (561) 842-2820; Fax (561) 844-6929; mpike@bclclaw.com (Attorney); jcadwell@bciclaw.com (Paralegal) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 431-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 14 of +AO 88B (Rev, 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action (Page 2) +Civil Action No. 08-civ-80119-Marra/-I +PROOF OF SERVICE +(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.) +This subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any) +was received by me on (dale) +• I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows: +on (date) +; or +• I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: +Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have als +endered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of +$ +My fees are S +for travel and $ +I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. +for services, for a total of $ +0.00 +Date: +Server's signature + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 431-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 15 of +AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action(Page 3) +Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), and (e) (Effective 12/1/07) +(e) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena. +(d) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena. +(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or +(1) Producing Docaments or Electronically Stored Information. +attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take +These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically +reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a +stored information: +person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this +(A) Doeuments. A person responding to a subpoena to produce +duty and impose an appropriate sanction — which may include lost +documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary +earnings and reasonable attorney's fees - on a party or attorney +course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to +who fails to comply. +the categories in the demand. +(2) Connand to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. +(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not +(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce +Specified. If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing +documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or +electronically stored information, the person responding must +to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the +produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or +place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear +in a reasonably usable form or forms. +for a deposition, hearing, or trial. +(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One +(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or +Form. The person responding need not produce the same +tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or +electronically stored information in more than one form. +attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to +(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person +inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or +responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored +to inspecting the premises — or to producing electronically stored +Information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably +information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be +accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel +served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 +discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show +days afler the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the +that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue +following rules apply: +burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless +(f) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving +order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows +party may move the issuing court for an order compelling production +good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The +or inspection. +court may specify conditions for the discovery. +(il) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and +(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection. +the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's +(A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed +officer from significant expense resulting from compliance. +information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to +(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. +protection as trial-preparation material must: +(A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must +(i) expressly make the claim; and +quash or modify a subpoena that: +(il) describe the nature of the withheld documents, +(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; +communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without +(il) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer +revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the +to travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is +parties to assess the claim. +employed, or regularly transacts business in person — except that, +(B) Information Produced If information produced in response to a +subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), the person may be commanded to +subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trialattend a trial by traveling from any such place within the state where +preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any +the trial is held; +party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. +(il) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if +After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, o +no exception or waiver applies; or +destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use +(iv) subjects a person to undue burden. +or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take +(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by +reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it +a subpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the +before being notified; and may promptly present the information to +subpoena if it requires: +the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person +(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, +who produced the information must preserve the information until +development, or commercial information; +the claim is resolved. +(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that +does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from +the expert's study that was not requested by a party; or +(ill) a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to incur +substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial. +(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative, In the circumstances +(e) Contempt. The issuing court may hold in contempt a person +who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the +subpoena. A nonparty's failure to obey must be excused if the +subpoena purports to require the nonparty to attend or produce at a +place outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3XAXii). +described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or +modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under +specified conditions if the serving party: +(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that +(i) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 16 of + +security number is +, including but not limited to any forms completed by the +patient, medical records, reports, lab or diagnostic test results, consultants' reports, letters to and +from the patient, handwritten office notes by any person, telephone messages, computer data +kept on the patient, attorney letters, photographs, charts, intake forms, release forms and +consultations from January 1, 1998 through the date of this Subpoena. *If you require the entire +Social Security number, please contact our office at 561-842-2820 and ask for Jessica Cadwell. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 431-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 17 of +AO 88B (Rev, 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action +for the +Southern District of Florida +Plaintif +V. +Civil Action No. 08-civ-80119-Marra/ +(If the action is pending in anotber district, state where: +Defendant +Southern District of Florida +) +SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS +OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION +To: Presidential Women's Center, Records Custodian, 100 Northpoint Parkway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +# Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following +locuments, electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the +material: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A +Place: Burman Critton Luftier & Coleman, LLC +Date and Time: +303 Banyan Blvd. Suite #400 +11/30/2009 10:15 am +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +O Inspection of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit entry onto the designated premises, land, or +ther property possessed or controlled by you at the time, date, and location set forth below, so that the requesting part +nay inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on i +Place: +Date and Time: +The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rule +45 (d) and (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, are +attached. +Date: +11/13/2009 +CLERK OF COURT +OR +Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk +Attorn +y's signature +The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) +Defendant +_, who issues or requests this subpoena, are: +urman Critton Luttier & Coleman, LLC, 303 Banyan Blvd., #400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +hone (561) 842-2820; Fax (561) 844-6929; mpike@bclclaw.com (Attorney); jcadwell@bclclaw.com (Paralega + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 431-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 18 of +AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action (Page 2) +Civil Action No. 08-civ-80119-Marra/Johnson +PROOF OF SERVICE +(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.) +This subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any) +was received by me on (date) +• I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows: +on (date) +¡ or +• I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: +Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also +tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of +My fees are $ +for travel and $ +for services, for a total of $ +0.00 +1 declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. +Date: +Server's signature + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 19 of +AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action(Page 3) +Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (e), (d), and (e) (Effective 12/1/07) +(c) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena. +(d) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena. +(1) Avoiding Ündue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or +(1) Prodacing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. +attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take +These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically +reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a +stored information: +person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this +(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce +duty and impose an appropriate sanction - which may include lost +documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary +carnings and reasonable attorney's fees — on a party or attorney +course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to +who fails to comply. +the categories in the demand. +(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. +(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not +(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce +Specified. If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing +documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or +electronically stored information, the person responding must +to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the +produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or +place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear +in a reasonably usable form or forms. +for a deposition, hearing, or trial. +(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One +(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or +Form. The person responding need not produce the same +tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or +electronically stored information in more than one form. +attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to +(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person +inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or +responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored +to inspecting the premises — or to producing electronically stored +information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably +information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be +accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel +served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 +discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show +days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the +that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue +following rules apply: +burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless +(1) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving +order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows +party may move the issuing court for an order compelling production +good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The +court may specify conditions for the discovery. +(il) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and +the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's +officer from significant expense resulting from compliance. +(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. +(A) When Required On timely motion, the issuing court must +quash or modify a subpoena that: +(f) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; +(il) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer +to travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is +employed, or regularly transacts business in person - except that, +subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), the person may be commanded to +attend a trial by traveling from any such place within the state where +the trial is held; +(il) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if +no exception or waiver applies; or +(iv) subjects a person to undue burden. +(B) When Permitted To protect a person subject to or affected by +a subpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the +subpoena if it requires: +(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, +development, or commercial information; +(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection. +(A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed +information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to +protection as trial-preparation material must: +(i) expressly make the claim; and +(il) describe the nature of the withheld documents, +communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without +revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the +parties to assess the claim. +(B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a +subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trialpreparation material, the person making the claim may notify any +party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. +After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or +destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use +or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take +reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it +before being notified; and may promptly present the information to +the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person +who produced the information must preserve the information until +the claim is resolved. +(e) Contempt. The issuing court may hold in contempt a person +who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the +subpoena. A nonparty's failure to obey must be excused if the +subpoena purports to require the nonparty to attend or produce at a +place outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(iI). +the expert's study that was not requested by a party; or +(lil) a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to incur +substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial. +(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances +described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or +modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under +specified conditions if the serving party: +(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that +(il) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 20 of + +A copy of the entire file o +security number is +including but not limited to any forms completed by the +patient, medical records, reports, lab or diagnostic test results, consultants' reports, letters to and +from the patient, handwritten office notes by any person, telephone messages, computer data +kept on the patient, attorney letters, photographs, charts, intake forms, release forms and +consultations from January 1, 1996 through the date of this Subpoena. *If you require the entire +Social Security number, please contact our office at 561-842-2820 and ask for Jessica Cadwell. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c71c6fbaa57c9dbb867a9c662471618b6da06329141eb13d811232558d451849.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c71c6fbaa57c9dbb867a9c662471618b6da06329141eb13d811232558d451849.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b90afa94ba3be7f458088609bd5dcaded801f8ea --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c71c6fbaa57c9dbb867a9c662471618b6da06329141eb13d811232558d451849.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -1681, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c71c6fbaa57c9dbb867a9c662471618b6da06329141eb13d811232558d451849", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 31, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "a330b837b37383a049a1201747783531079c7cd69cd8a858e5ee4128c5a665b4", + "output_sha256": "e6e9a1001c3d3961340d274418188f373a3f83c212d06f3f57cc36b93c796306", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c724cb449694f69ab4d6d8da0bff06622dd17b9873da7a912b6fc08b9b16a8bd.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c724cb449694f69ab4d6d8da0bff06622dd17b9873da7a912b6fc08b9b16a8bd.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e746201327794c35084262af6f49cdadc2bc7c64 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c724cb449694f69ab4d6d8da0bff06622dd17b9873da7a912b6fc08b9b16a8bd.md @@ -0,0 +1,362 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 1 of 12 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 09-80591-MARRA/ +JANE DOE No. 101, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant, +• +RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY +AND +EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND/OR IDENTIFY JANE DOE #101 IN +THE STYLE OF THIS CASE AND MOTION TO IDENTIFY JANE DOE #101 IN +THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY, WITH +INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein" or "Defendant"), by and +through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Response In Opposition to +Plaintiff, Jane Doe #101's Motion to Proceed Anonymously and files his Motion +requesting that this Court enter an order identifying in the style of this case the +complete legal name of the Plaintiff, JANE DOE #101 ("JANE DOE"), to +substitute her complete legal name in this case in place of "JANE DOE" and, +equally important, allowing Defendant to identify her in various subpoenas that +Epstein must serve so Epstein can defend this case. In support, Mr. Epstein +states as follows: +1 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 2 of 12 +I. Response In Opposition With Incorporated Motion And Incorporated +Memorandum Of Law +a. +Background +1. +On April 17, 2009, Plaintiff filed this action against Epstein. The +Complaint (DE 1) alleges three causes of action against him: Count I - Coercion +and Enticement of a Minor to Engage in Prostitution or Sexual Activity Pursuant +to 18 U.S.C. §§2255 and 2422(b); Count II - Cause of Action for Travel With +Intent to Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct Pursuant to Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. +S$2255 and 2423(b); Count III - Cause of Action for Sexual Exploitation of +Children Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§2255 and 2251(b); Count IV - Cause of Action +for Visual Depiction of Minor Engaging in Sexually Explicit Conduct Pursuant to +18 U.S.C. §§2255 and 2251(a)(1); Count V - Cause of Action for Transport of +Child Pornography Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§2255 and 2252A(a)(1); and Count VI +- Cause of Action for Engaging in a Child Exploitation Enterprise Pursuant to 18 +U.S.C. §$2255 and 2252A(g). +Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that she is entitled to money +damages pursuant to 2255 (in the wherefore clause), as well as actual and +compensatory. +Obviously, Plaintiff alleges separate counts against Mr. Epstein, on +which he must conduct discovery to defend this case. Therefore, for the reasons +set forth herein, not only must JANE DOE'S Motion to Proceed Anonymously be +denied, but Epstein's Motion to Identify Jane Doe must be granted. Despite +Plaintiff's allegations in the Motion to Proceed Anonymously, this Court has not +"allowed" any Plaintiff to proceed anonymously. Quite simply, that is the way + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 3 of 12 +each Plaintiff chose to file each of their respective cases, all of which are +currently being challenged in those other matters by Motion to Identify. +4. +Importantly, JANE DOE claims that she has and will suffer ".. +•physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and +psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss +of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her +privacy..., and medical and psychological expenses. .., loss on income, loss +of the capacity to earn income in the future, and loss of the capacity to enjoy life" +119128, Comp., DE 1; see also 11132, 36, 41, 46 and 50, Comp., DE 1. +Epstein has a constitutional due process right to defend himself and +to seek the production of information that will assist in his defense of the +allegations in the Complaint. In this case, Plaintiff's counsel intends on serving +subpoenas on Plaintiff's treating physicians and other third parties. Thus, this +motion seeks not only a denial Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Anonymously but to +identify JANE DOE in the style of this case and to identify JANE DOE in various +third-party subpoenas for discovery purposes. +6. +The undersigned's experience in "Jane Doe" lawsuits is that once a +Plaintiff is identified, other individuals come forward in the discovery phase with +information which often directly contradicts allegations as to the events and +damages. +For instance, witnesses may testify that Plaintiff was paid by others +for similar sexual acts she claims Mr. Epstein forced upon her or that she willingly +participated in certain acts) that would negate or lessen her damages. This goes +directly to Plaintiff's damage claim. +3 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 4 of 12 +Likewise, subpoenas must be issued to third-party treaters and +current and former employers, and those subpoenas will seek to obtain records +related directly to Plaintiff's claims and her damages (i.e., her claim for severe +and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and emotional +damages and loss of self-esteem as referenced above). Cherenfant v. +Nationwide Credit, +Inc., 2004 WL 5315889 (S.D. Fla. 2004) order allowing +discovery of medical records consistent with Plaintiff's allegations in complaint). +This too goes directly to Plaintiff's damage claims. Medical providers, employers, +co-employees, etc... have direct and relevant personal knowledge and +observations regarding damages, i.e., emotional state, activities, self-esteem, +etc.... +8. +Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26 allows for broad discovery. Epstein is not +required to rely solely on Plaintiff's discovery responses in defending this case, +nor is Epstein required by any statute or law to rely only upon what Plaintiff may +produce in discovery or may obtain from her own medical treaters through her +counsel, and to then provide to Epstein only after Plaintiff has reviewed same. In +certain related state court actions involving Epstein, the undersigned offered to +serve certain subpoenas on the medical treaters and other third-parties with full +name, date of birth and Plaintiff's social security number (last four digits), but +agreed that the subpoenas filed with the clerk would be redacted. Several +attorneys agreed to this procedure in those cases. In Federal Court, subpoenas +are not filed with the clerk. Thus, in this matter, the undersigned offered to serve +the third-party subpoenas with plaintiff's full name, date of birth and social +4 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 5 of 12 +security number (last four digits) and would agree to redact any identifying +information on any documents filed with this court if that ultimately became +necessary. +9. +Moreover, when an order from the court is attached to the +Subpoena, treaters and other third parties produce the records and show up to +the depositions with the records requested because the deponent knows what to +bring by virtue of knowing the identity of the Plaintiff. +10. Epstein's counsel intends to serve and depose witnesses duces +tecum. If Epstein is not permitted to identify JANE DOE (thus allowing her to +proceed anonymously), how will any deponent know who the parties are and +what to bring to the deposition pursuant to the duces tecum? Further, how will +Epstein be able to defend the claims. Just like the Plaintiff, Epstein is entitled to +due process. If the Court allows Jane Doe to proceed anonymously, Jane Doe +will be permitted to present her case and Epstein will be limited in his defenses. +11. While it is within the sound discretion of this court to allow a party to +proceed anonymously, Plaintiff should not attempt to utilize that discretion as a +shield from legitimate and necessary discovery. Epstein has a fundamental due +process right to conduct discovery. +b. Response In Opposition And Motion To Identify JANE DOE In Style +Of This Case +12. +As discussed below, Epstein has fundamental due process right to +defend himself in this civil litigation. While JANE DOE travels under a +pseudonym, various newspaper articles identifying Epstein have been released +discussing the alleged claims against him. Allowing JANE DOE to litigate this +5 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 6 of 12 +matter under a pseudonym is preventing Epstein from defending this suit +including, but not limited to, preventing him from locating individuals that may +have information about this lawsuit and information about JANE DOE that may +discredit her allegations and/or lessen the monetary damages she seeks to +recover. It is the undersigned's experience that once identified, witnesses begin +to come forward. See supra. +13. In Doe v. Lepley, 185 F.R.D. 605 (D. Ct. NV 1999), a sexual +harassment case, the court reasoned that there is no express or implied right to +bring an action anonymously. Id. at 606. Moreover, Fed. R. Civ. P 10(a) +requires that the complaint include the names of the parties. Id. When Plaintiffs +are permitted to proceed anonymously, the court must employ a balancing test to +decide if the plaintiff has a substantial privacy interest that outweighs the +presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. Id., citing, Doe v. +951 +F.2d 320, 323 (11" Cir. 1992)(requiring complaint to include the names of the +parties +serves more than administrative convenience, it protects the public's +legitimate interests in knowing all the facts involved, including the identity of the +parties - thus denying request to proceed anonymously). The factors include: +a. +b. +whether the plaintiff is challenging governmental activity; +whether the party defending the suit would be prejudiced; +whether the plaintiff is required to disclose information of +utmost intimacy; +whether the plaintiff is compelled to admit an intention to +engage in +illegal conduct, thereby risking criminal +prosecution; +e. +whether the Plaintiff would risk suffering injury if identified; +6 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 7 of 12 +f. +whether the interests of children are at stake; and +g. +whether there are less drastic means of protecting the +legitimate interests of either party. +Doe V. +951 F.2d at 323. +Plaintiff does not fall under any of the factors. Moreover, even if she did +meet one of the factors, "Ithe fact that [a] Doe [Plaintiff] may suffer some +personal embarrassment, standing alone, does not require the granting of a +request to proceed under a pseudonym." Id; see also Doe v. Rostker, 89 F.R.D. +159 (N.D. Calif. 1981). Any substantial privacy interests JANE DOE has must +outweigh the customary and constitutionally embedded presumption of openness +951 F.2d at 323; Doe v. Bergstron, 2009 +to judicial proceedings. Doe v. +WL 528623 (C.A.9(Or.))(denying request to proceed anonymously in civil action +by Plaintiff where Plaintiff's arrest, prosecution and acquittal were matters of +public record). +14. +In Sweetland v. State, 535 So.2d 646 (Fla. 1s DCA 1988), the court +reasoned that the purpose of discovery is to eliminate the likelihood of surprise +and to insure a fair opportunity to prepare for trial. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure +1.280(b)(1); see also Surf Drugs, Inc., v. Vermette, 236 So.2d 108, 111 (Fla. +1970)(stating that the rules of discovery should be afforded broad and liberal +treatment to effectuate their purpose), citing, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, +501, 507 (1947). +15. Next, the right to go to court to resolve disputes is a fundamental right. +D.R. Lakes, Inc. v. Brandsmart U.S.A. of West Palm Beach, 819 So.2d 971 (Fla. 4"h +7 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 8 of 12 +DCA 2002). All litigants are afforded an equal opportunity. Lingle v. Dion, 776 +So.2d 1073 (Fla. 4* DCA 2001). The Florida Constitution establishes the right +commonly known as access to courts. Mitchell v. Moore, 786 So.2d 521 (Fla. +2001). Courts shall be open to any person for the redress of any injury and justice +shall be administered without sale, denial or delay. Art. I, §21, Fla. Const.; 10A Fla. +Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, §360. +16. If Jane Doe's name is not disclosed and identified, Mr. Epstein will not +be afforded his fundamental right to fairly litigate this dispute and prepare for trial. +Accordingly, Epstein requests that JANE DOE be identified by her legal name in the +pleadings. +c. Response In Opposition And Motion To Identify JANE DOE In Third- +Party Subpoenas +17. Epstein will be effectively denied his due process rights to conduct +broad, open and liberal discovery in that Plaintiff's counsel has objected to, +among other things, Epstein identifying JANE DOE in various third-party +subpoenas to her medical providers and other third parties. +18. +The undersigned must serve subpoenas on medical doctors to +obtain medical information on JANE DOE's alleged psychological and physical +damages as same goes to the heart of Epstein's defenses and Plaintiff's +damages. Plaintiff is claiming emotional/psychological damages. Therefore, +Epstein is entitled to know her psychological condition(s) before and after the +alleged incidents) she references in the Complaint. In particular, JANE DOE +alleges specific disorders as a result of Epstein's alleged conduct - suffer ".. +•physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and +8 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 9 of 12 +psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss +of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her +privacy..., and medical and psychological expenses.., loss on income, loss +of the capacity to earn income in the future, and loss of the capacity to enjoy life." +(Emphasis Added). See supra. Epstein is also entitled to know, among other +things, whether she had any physical complaints or whether there was ever any +evidence of physical battery on JANE DOE's body from the acts she complains +of in the Complaint. The need to serve third-party subpoenas on medical doctors +is a basic discovery need related to the claims alleged by JANE DOE for which +Plaintiff's counsel refuses to compromise. Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d 1076 (Fla. +5t DCA 1997), rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998)(discoverability of +Plaintiff's history of sexual activity is relevant to damages); United States v. Bear +Stops, 997 F.2d 451 (8" Cir. 1993)(deals with "admissibility of other acts of +sexual abuse by individuals other than the defendant to explain why a victim of +abuse exhibited behavioral manifestations of a sexually abused child.") If +Plaintiff saw a psychologist or other physician during or after the time periods she +claims she was assaulted by Epstein but either did not discuss or did discuss the +incidents (or lack thereof) would be directly relevant to her damage claims. +Plaintiff seeks physical and emotional/mental personal injury type damages, and +the Epstein must conduct his own discovery thereon. See supra. No valid +discovery objections or exemptions exist preventing necessary and reasonable +discovery. To hold otherwise prevents Mr. Epstein from preparing and defending +this matter. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 10 of 12 +19. +In defending this lawsuit, Mr. Epstein should be permitted broad +discovery, whether admissible at trial or not. Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26 provides, in +pertinent part, that "parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not +privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action." +20. +In addition, subpoenas must also be served upon various local and +state institutions in order to determine what crimes, if any, JANE DOE has +committed +(l.e., +crimes that involve dishonesty and/or false statement). +Obviously, this goes directly to the heart of JANE DOE's damages she claims +suffer "...physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological +and psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, +loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of +her privacy..., and medical and psychological expenses. .., loss on income, +loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and loss of the capacity to enjoy +life" - caused by Epstein or other events in her life) for which a jury is entitled to +hear about at trial, and certified records must be obtained from the clerk should +JANE DOE answer certain questions regarding her crimes incorrectly. +21. +Epstein is entitled to know whether Jane Doe committed and/or +was charged with any crimes. If Jane Doe was charged with crimes, Epstein is +entitled to obtain certified copies of those crimes Plaintiff may have committed for +purposes of discovery and impeachment. Questions will be asked regarding +those crimes (e.g., Have you been convicted of a crime of dishonesty or false +statement? If so, how many times? Have you been convicted of a felony? If so, +how many times?) To hold otherwise would not only prevent broad discovery but +10 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 11 of 12 +would ultimately result in reversible error at any trial. +II. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief +22. Epstein requests the following relief: +a. +That JANE DOE's Motion to Proceed Anonymously be denied; +C. +That this Court grant Epstein's Motion and that JANE DOE be +identified by her legal name in the style of this case; and +That Epstein be granted leave to identify JANE DOE by her +legal name in Third-Party Subpoenas (but not file them in Court +or, if required, in a redacted form). +WHEREFORE, Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein, respectfully requests that this +Court enter said order granting the relief requested above, and for such other +and further relief as this Court may deem just and propel +By: +I do +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically +filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the +following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this & day of +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +305 358-2800 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiff +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +11 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 12 of 12 +Respectully submitted +By: _ +CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +12 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c724cb449694f69ab4d6d8da0bff06622dd17b9873da7a912b6fc08b9b16a8bd.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c724cb449694f69ab4d6d8da0bff06622dd17b9873da7a912b6fc08b9b16a8bd.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0f6578ce8c107db8cb0d5fed72ab539db5ad904d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c724cb449694f69ab4d6d8da0bff06622dd17b9873da7a912b6fc08b9b16a8bd.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -144, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c724cb449694f69ab4d6d8da0bff06622dd17b9873da7a912b6fc08b9b16a8bd", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 12, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "762c8fd9c24d6f3db3bfe251bb42b9390700684250e45bff990120673bb55990", + "output_sha256": "3b5ea8c6a99844a25ea963b58e7059d205b5ce693e6012881f7821b6108eddea", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c74c66116dd9c2aae69740c8cb388563da266e6e1657fa628dfef35159fff5bd.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c74c66116dd9c2aae69740c8cb388563da266e6e1657fa628dfef35159fff5bd.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8a7ebba1dccc2e76806a31ac0a3e05eca1d487bf --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c74c66116dd9c2aae69740c8cb388563da266e6e1657fa628dfef35159fff5bd.md @@ -0,0 +1,112 @@ +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 540-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010 Page 1 of 4 +PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE +ORDER [DE 536] +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +PP79 +Document 540-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010| +0 W35755 02172010 1420 +P150824 04/08/10 990. 18.20 +DORB079 +OFFENDER CONTACT/COMMENT SUMMARY +PAGE: 046 +DC NO: W35755 +NAME: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY +SUPV LVL: CC7 +TERM DT: 07/21/2010 +STAT: 01 ACTIVE +OFFICER: 24398-ELKINS, CANDICE CUR.LOC: 154 LAKE WORTH +AL DATE +TIME TYP NARRATIVE +_ 02/17/10 1420 CN +TRAVEL PERMIT APPROVED AND WAS EMAILED TO S'S STAFF ATTN: +STORY COWLES.CELKINS +- 02/22/10 1840 P +P.O. RECEIVES PHONECALL FROM S'S ASSNT. STORY COWLES THAT S +WILL BE TRAVELING TOMM FOR LEGAL ISSUES TO NY/STORY +APLOGIZED FOR IT BEING LAST MIN AND STATED ITIENERARY IS +BEING SENT NOW TO THIS OFC'S WORK EMAIL/S IS SET TO LEAVE +TOMM AND RETURN ON 2/24. CELKINS +_ 02/22/10 2112 HP HOME PERSONAL - ROUTINE CONTACT. NO CHANGES NOTED. +WALK THROUGH VISUAL INSPECTION CONDUCTED +THIS OFC CONDUCTED A WALK-THRU WITH OFC +/S SHOWED +THESE OFC HIS WHOLE HOUSE/NO PROBLEMS. CELKINS +_ 02/23/10 1114 OP OFFICE PERSONAL/ SUBMITTED COMMUNITY CONTROL SCHED +S WAS REINSTRUCTED ON HIS ORDERS/S WAS GIVEN TRAVEL PERMIT +F4-RETURN TO PREVIOUS SCREEN +F2=1ST PAGE +F3=PGDN +F12=IT05 +E1-MAIN MENU +F6=SCREENS +AC I=PP76/U=PP76/T=PP78 +F7=REPORTS +- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 540-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010 Page 3 of 4 +PP79 0 W35755 02232010 1114 +P150BZ4 04/08/10 10.18.24 +DORB079 +OFFENDER CONTACT/COMMENT SUMMARY +PAGE: 047 +DC NO: W35755 +NAME: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY +SUPV LVL: CC7 +TERM DT: 07/21/2010 +STAT: 01 ACTIVE +OFFICER: 24398-ELKINS, CANDICE CUR.LOC: 154 LAKE WORTH +AC DATE +TIME TYP NARRATIVE +_ 02/23/10 1114 OP OFFICE PERSONAL/ SUBMITTED COMMUNITY CONTROL SCHED +TO TRAVEL TO NY AND WILL RETURN ON 2/24-S MADE AWARE TO CALL +THIS OFC ONCE HE RETURNS. CELKINS +_ 02/24/10 1545 CN +P.O.RECEIVES EMAIL FROM S'S ASSTN THAT HE WILL BE TRAVELING +ON 3/2-3/3 TO NEW YORK FOR DRS APPT AND LEGAL MTGS AND +ALSO ON 3/5 TO THE VIRGIN ISLANDS FOR BUSINESS MTGS/P.O. +TO GET ITENERARY READY AND HAVE SUP LOOK OVER/P.O.MADE PHONE +CALL TO S'S ASSTN THAT S IS TO REPORT ON MON@ 1030AM +CELKINS +_ 03/01/10 1036 OP OFFICE PERSONAL/ SUBMITTED COMMUNITY CONTROL SCHED +WRITTEN MONTHLY REPORT RECEIVED FOR CURRENT MONTH. +S REPORTED IN AND WAS GIVEN TRAVEL PERMITS/THIS OFC ALSO +GOT THE HOME PHONE# TO THE NEW YORK ADDRESS TO VERIFY S +IS ABIDING BY SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE.CELKINS +F4-RETURN TO PREVIOUS SCREEN +F2=1ST PAGE +F3=PGDN +F12=IT05 +F1=MAIN MENU +F6=SCREENS +F7=REPORTS +AC I=PP76/U=PP76/T=PP78 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 540-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010 Page 4pf 4 +Sloane, Carmen +From: Story Cowles [storycowles@me.com] +Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 11:14 AM +To: +Sloane, Carmen +Subject: Schedule for Mr. Epstein +Re: Helicopter flights +Good Morning Officer Sloane, +Our records indicate that Mr. Epstein has only taken one helicopter flight which was on September 14th to +Miami. The other flight that he took was on August 27th to visit Sikorski Helicopters. That trip Mr. Epstein flew on a +small plane, hr had a helicopter standing by. Yesterday, November 10th, Mr. Epstein took a flight simulator for a +helicopter. There was no actual time spent in the air. +Story +few from PBI +WIB- +to Sikorski +-8-27- givenpermista +-1lHO-given permissin +1 easyrer +North PalmBanh +11/12/2009 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c74c66116dd9c2aae69740c8cb388563da266e6e1657fa628dfef35159fff5bd.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c74c66116dd9c2aae69740c8cb388563da266e6e1657fa628dfef35159fff5bd.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d68ee5786c588c951300db7156136c2c1205608f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c74c66116dd9c2aae69740c8cb388563da266e6e1657fa628dfef35159fff5bd.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -58, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c74c66116dd9c2aae69740c8cb388563da266e6e1657fa628dfef35159fff5bd", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "72202f5a65f597110d46189cd35d9997e58a9da0c0ed8e643619657015a30158", + "output_sha256": "69ffd67d5ebd7e7fc2e63b8710260c976b02605b467bee9be0f2ec462f7b6cc5", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c7a498bb37b0b7ee7993f9ff073a46dc0cd06429ff697ee4f7d6b8516f5e54a9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c7a498bb37b0b7ee7993f9ff073a46dc0cd06429ff697ee4f7d6b8516f5e54a9.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2055343cb8538ba4504736965a6714dba29cc14d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c7a498bb37b0b7ee7993f9ff073a46dc0cd06429ff697ee4f7d6b8516f5e54a9.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 509-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2010 Page 1 of 1 +AO 88A (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 2) +Civil Action No. 08-CIV-80119-Marra/. +PROOF OF SERVICE +(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.) +This subpoena for (name of individual and lil, fany) Samantha Rivera +was received by me on (date) 2/3/10 +* I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named individual as follows: Individua/Service +on (date) 2/4/10:00 +• I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: +Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also +tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of +$ 45,00 +My fees are $ +for travel and S +for services, for a total of $ +0.00 +I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. +Chelan +Date: 2/6/10 +Edward Cameron +Server's signature +Certified Process Server #401 +Printed name and title +Server's address +Additional information regarding attempted service, etc: +"B" diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c7a498bb37b0b7ee7993f9ff073a46dc0cd06429ff697ee4f7d6b8516f5e54a9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c7a498bb37b0b7ee7993f9ff073a46dc0cd06429ff697ee4f7d6b8516f5e54a9.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8479486300992bebc8b2313ae531c3b1eb66123c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c7a498bb37b0b7ee7993f9ff073a46dc0cd06429ff697ee4f7d6b8516f5e54a9.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c7a498bb37b0b7ee7993f9ff073a46dc0cd06429ff697ee4f7d6b8516f5e54a9", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "63862ca3c934dfb60b9ba309744c2bc1234d991ea663a5c7e0c1c96354622955", + "output_sha256": "01ad08b78ec226b8de3e59a947147d3412bf79d96144a4a5e024b760df1d07a2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c7f1cce6b6cec566b9d6c66f0d63647aa23860937a4fb0229c2424b9e6d463a8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c7f1cce6b6cec566b9d6c66f0d63647aa23860937a4fb0229c2424b9e6d463a8.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7b1c22adeb418f467c8ce5e9ff1a5f8ab21e1168 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c7f1cce6b6cec566b9d6c66f0d63647aa23860937a4fb0229c2424b9e6d463a8.md @@ -0,0 +1,300 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 9 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA-| +JANE DOE NO. 5 +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF, +JANE DOE NO. 5, To ANSWER DEFENDANT'S FIRST SET OF +INTERROGATORIES AND TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS, AND +FOR AN AWARD OF DEFENDANT'S REASONABLE EXPENSES +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, +moves this Court for an order compelling Plaintiff, JANE DOE No. 5 to answer +Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and to overrule her objections asserted in +Plaintiff's Answers To Defendant's First Interrogatories, dated January 26, 2009. +Defendant further seeks an award of his reasonable expenses, including expenses, +associated with the making of this motion. Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P. (2008); Local Gen. +Rules 7.1 and 26.1 H (S.D. Fla. 2008). In support of his motion, Defendant states: +Introduction +Prior to the filing of this motion, counsel for Defendant and counsel for Plaintiff +corresponded with each other and were able to resolve some of the discovery issues +related to Defendant's First Interrogatories and Plaintiff's answers and objections +thereto. By letter, dated March 3, 2009, the Plaintiff agreed to withdraw her "General +Objections" set forth in her response. As well, issues as to interrogatories nos. 10 and +14 are presently resolved. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 9 +Page No. 2 +Also, Defendant has filed simultaneously with this motion a Motion To Compel +directed to certain of Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First Request To Produce, +also dated January 26, 2009, and which addresses identical discovery issues. Both +motions should be determined at the same time. +Motion To Compel Answers to Interrogatories Nos. 18, 19, 20, and 21 +List separately the names, addresses and phone numbers of all males, +excluding Mr. Epstein, with whom you have had sexual activity since age 10 (by year) +up through your current age. Describe the nature of sexual activity, the date(s) and +whether you received money or other consideration from the person. +19. List separately the names, addresses and phone numbers of all males, +excluding your claims against Mr. Epstein, +whom you have claimed (formally or +informally) committed sexual assault or battery on you since age 10 (by year) up +through your current age. Describe the nature of sexual assault or battery, the date(s) +and whether you received money or other consideration from the person. +20. +State the names, addresses and phone numbers of all males, excluding +your claims against Mr. Epstein, +whom you have claimed (formally or informally) +committed lewd or lascivious conduct to you since age 10 (by year) up through your +current age. Describe the lewd or lascivious conduct, the date and whether you +received money or other consideration from the person. +21. State the names, addresses and phone numbers of all males, excluding +your claims against Mr. Epstein, +whom you have claimed (formally or informally) +committed lewd or lascivious exhibition to you since age 10 (by year) up through your +current age. Describe the lewd or lascivious exhibition, the date and whether you +received money or other consideration from the person. +Plaintiff asserted the identical answer to each of the above stated interrogatories: +Answer: +Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, +harassing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. +Moreover, this interrogatory is outrageous, offensive and apparently posed for the +purpose of intimidating the victim. Fed.R.Evid. 412 makes any answer to this +interrogatory inadmissible, and nothing in the answer could plausibly lead to discovery +of admissible evidence. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 3 of 9 +Page No. 3 +Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery +Plaintiff does not make a relevancy objection, but instead claims that the +requests are "not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible +evidence," claiming that such "evidence ... would not be admissible under Fed.R.Evid. +412." Plaintiff further claims, without making any showing in her answer and without +moving for a protective order in accordance with Rule 26(c) and Local Gen. Rule 26.1 H +(S.D. Fla. 2008), that the interrogatory is "harassing,' "outrageous, offensive and is +apparently posed for the purpose of intimidating Plaintiff." +It is well settled that relevant information is discoverable, even if not admissible at +trial, so long as the discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of +admissible evidence. Rule 26(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Donahay v. Palm Beach Tours & +trans., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007). Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, Rule 412 +does not automatically result in a determination that such sexual history and sexual +activity/behavior information is never admissible. In fact, written into the Rule are the +procedures to follow in determining when such information is admissible at trial. The +Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 412, Fed.R.Evid, makes clear that the procedures to +determine admissibility of an alleged victim's/plaintiff's sexual conduct or activity in civil +cases does not apply to discovery of such information. Rather, discoverability of such +information is governed by Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P., pursuant to which the scope of +discovery is broad. Donahay, supra, at 686, and cases cited therein. "Parties may +obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the claims or +defense of any party involved in the pending action." Id. +Rule 412, entitled "Sex Offense Cases; Relevance of Alleged Victim's Past +Sexual Behavior or Alleged Sexual Predisposition," provides in relevant part - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 4 of 9 +Page No. 4 +(a) Evidence generally inadmissible.--The following evidence is not admissible +in any civil .. +• proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct except as +provided in subdivisions (b) and (c): +(1) Evidence offered to prove that any alleged victim engaged in other sexual +behavior. +(2) Evidence offered to prove any alleged victim's sexual predisposition. +(b) Exceptions.— +** +* +* +(2) In a civil case, evidence offered to prove the sexual behavior or sexual +predisposition of any alleged victim is admissible if it is otherwise admissible +under these rules and its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of +harm to any victim and of unfair prejudice to any party. Evidence of an alleged +victim's reputation is admissible only if it has been placed in controversy by the +alleged victim. +(C) Procedure to determine admissibility.- +(1) A party intending to offer evidence under subdivision (b) must— +(A) file a written motion at least 14 days before trial specifically describing +the evidence and stating the purpose for which it is offered unless the court, for +good cause requires a different time for filing or permits filing during trial; and +(B) serve the motion on all parties and notify the alleged victim or, when +appropriate, the alleged victim's guardian or representative. +(2) Before admitting evidence under this rule the court must conduct a +hearing in camera and afford the victim and parties a right to attend and be +heard. The motion, related papers, and the record of the hearing must be +sealed and remain under seal unless the court orders otherwise. +In confirming +that Rule 412 does not control the discoverability of such +information, the Advisory Committee Notes (1994 Amendments) state - +The procedures set forth in subdivision (c) do not apply to discovery of a +victim's past sexual conduct or predisposition in civil cases, which will be +continued to be governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. In order not to undermine the +rationale of Rule 412, however, courts should enter appropriate orders pursuant +to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (c) to protect the victim against unwarranted inquiries and +to ensure confidentiality. Courts should presumptively issue protective orders +barring discovery unless the party seeking discovery makes a showing that + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 5 of 9 +Page No. 5 +the evidence sought to be discovered would be relevant under the facts +and theories of the particular case, and cannot be obtained except +through discovery. In an action for sexual harassment, for instance, while +some evidence of the alleged victim's sexual behavior and/or predisposition in +the workplace may perhaps be relevant, non-work place conduct will usually be +irrelevant. Cf. +v. McGregor Electronic Industries, Inc., 989 F.2d 959, 962- +63 (8th Cir. 1993) (posing for a nude magazine outside work hours is irrelevant +to issue of unwelcomeness of sexual advances at work). Confidentiality +orders should be presumptively granted as well. +(Emphasis added). +In accordance with Rule 412 and Rule 26, the discovery sought regarding +Plaintiff's sexual activity with males, including whether she received any compensation +or consideration therefore, in interrogatory no. 18, whether she claims other males +committed sexual assault or battery on her in no. 19, whether she claims other males +committed lewd and lascivious conduct to her in no. 20, and whether other males +committed lewd or lascivious exhibition to her in no. 21, are all relevant to Plaintiff's +damages claims and the type of injury she claims she has suffered. Defendant has no +other means of obtaining such information and obtaining such information through +Plaintiff will better protect the confidentiality until the Court can make a determination in +accordance with the procedures under Rule 412(c) whether such information will be +admissible at trial. See Rule 412(c) quoted above. Defendant will agree to an order +keeping the confidentiality of the information obtained through discovery. +The evidence sought is relevant based on the facts and theories of this action. +In her Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff attempts to allege claims in Count for +"Sexual Assault and Battery," Count II for "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress," +and in Count III for "Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 +U.S.C.A. §2422," and seeks damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255(a). (Plaintiff alleges + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 6 of 9 +Page No. 6 +diversity of citizenship as a basis for this Court's jurisdiction. 2d Am. Complaint, 15). +Counts I and Il are brought pursuant to state law. +In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges that "she has suffered and will continue to suffer +severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and emotional +damages," "severe emotional distress," and "severe mental anguish and pain." She +also seeks actual (Count III) and compensatory damages for her alleged injuries. 2d +Am. Complaint, 1121, 26-27, 33, and "Wherefore" clauses. In her answers to +interrogatory no. 9, Plaintiff further states that: +Plaintiff has sustained mental and emotional injuries, including, but not limited +to, depressive episodes, anger, low self-esteem, flashbacks, mood swings, lack +of trust generally, and lack of trust of men (particularly of older men around her +daughter). (Interrog. No. 9). +Plaintiff also alleges that "Epstein's scheme involved the use of young girls to +recruit underage girls." "Epstein's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and +method" in the alleged recruiting of girl's to come to EPSTEIN's Palm Beach mansion +and give him "massages" in exchange for money. 2d Am. Complaint, 18-11. According +to the complaint allegations - "Upon information and belief Epstein has a sexual +preference and obsession for underage minor girls." 118. The "girl would be led up a +flight of stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table ... The girl would be alone +with EPSTEIN; "Epstein would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual +acts, including masturbation and touching the girl's vagina." 2^d Am. Complaint, 111. +Plaintiff alleges that "in 2002-2003," she, "then approximately 15-16 years old, fell into +Epstein's trap and became one of his victims." 178, 12. Plaintiff alleges that "she was +recruited to give Epstein a massage for monetary compensation." 912. She was +brought with another girl to Epstein's Palm Beach mansion, and were led up a flight of + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 7 of 9 +Page No. 7 +stairs by +to a room with a massage table. 112. Plaintiff and the other girl +were directed to remove their clothes and give Epstein a massage; "While on the +massage table, Epstein masturbated and touched both girls on their vaginas.... 112. +Plaintiff alleges that Epstein's actions constitute "sexual assault." 13, Count I - Sexual +Assault and Battery. +The information sought is clearly relevant to the injuries and damages claimed by +Plaintiff. The nature of her claimed injuries and damages are such that Defendant is +entitled to evidence which would show the nature of her relationship with males, +whether she has suffered other acts of sexual misconduct as alleged in her complaint, +and whether she suffered injury and damages as a result of the other claimed sexual +misconduct with males. See United States v. Bear Stops, 997 F.2d 451(8" Cir. +1993)(Defendant charged with sexual abuse of six year old boy was entitled to +admission of evidence relating to victim's sexual assault by 3 older boys to establish +alternative explanation for why victim exhibited behavioral manifestations of sexually +abused child.). +In further support of Defendant's motion, a copy of Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d +1076 (Fla. 5* DCA 1997), rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998), is attached hereto as +Exhibit A as it is on point to the discovery issues in this action, and the relevancy and +discoverability of Plaintiff's history of sexual activity and any payment, therefore. See +interrogatories 8, 22 and 30 propounded in the Balas case and footnote 1 herein. ' +" In Balas v. Ruzzo, supra, the Plaintiffs alleged a multicount complaint including claims +for "coercion of prostitution" pursuant to §796.09, Fla. Stat.; for battery for the unwanted +and offensive touching of petitioners' bodies; false imprisonment for physically confining +the petitioners against their will; invasion of privacy; and intentional infliction of +emotional distress. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 8 of 9 +Page No. 8 +Additionally and significantly, in other pending state court civil actions against Defendant +EPSTEIN attempting to assert similar claims and damages, the Circuit Court Judges +have already ruled that such information is discoverable as it is relevant to the damages +claims of Plaintiff. See Composite Exhibits B and C hereto. Composite Exhibit B +are the Orders, dated February 23, 2009, entered in the case of A.C. v. Epstein, and +, Case No. 502008CA025129 MB Al, 15" Judicial Circuit, In and For Palm Beach +County, State of Florida, which granted Defendant's motion to compel therein directed +to discovery identical to interrogatory no. 18 above, and to requests for production nos. +17 and 18 addressed below herein. (In the A.C. case, the Plaintiff answered without +objection interrogatories identical to nos. 19, 20, and 21 herein.) Composite Exhibit C +is a portion the transcript from a March 3, 2009 hearing on Defendant's motion to +compel discovery in the case of Jane Doe II v. Epstein, and +Case No. +502008CA020614 MB AF, 15* Judicial Circuit Court, In and For Palm Beach County, +State of Florida. Again, the Circuit Court Judge determined that the information sought +is relevant to the issue of damages and, thus, discoverable. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court grant his motion to compel +and award his attorney's fees and costs, associated with this motion, in accordance with +Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P., and applicable Local Rules. +Rule 7.1 Certification +I hereby certify that counsel for the respective parties communicated by letters in +a good faith effort to resolve the discovery issues prior to the filing of this motion to +compel. Some of the issues were resolved. +Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Attorney for Defendant Epstein + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 9 of 9 +Page No. 9 +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the +manner specified by CM/ECF on this N +-day of April, 2009: +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR, ESO. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +npike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c7f1cce6b6cec566b9d6c66f0d63647aa23860937a4fb0229c2424b9e6d463a8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c7f1cce6b6cec566b9d6c66f0d63647aa23860937a4fb0229c2424b9e6d463a8.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8fa32eebb9b94677aa1e78caffc296794a29f1ec --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c7f1cce6b6cec566b9d6c66f0d63647aa23860937a4fb0229c2424b9e6d463a8.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -245, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c7f1cce6b6cec566b9d6c66f0d63647aa23860937a4fb0229c2424b9e6d463a8", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 10, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4264cb65636c6ca8db25f0f0cff5d3a379a1ff10d9007d5415e9d7cacc1a507c", + "output_sha256": "f8466a3c108151c53961f0c2c72a4ae3c619662c66fe6acf2c16664636c73ce7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c83bfdeda3763004351f2c6f53804b0b49928687302992ce7f69a9c610a0223b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c83bfdeda3763004351f2c6f53804b0b49928687302992ce7f69a9c610a0223b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0099da53575a1d8cfcaa5941decb523e70e31997 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c83bfdeda3763004351f2c6f53804b0b49928687302992ce7f69a9c610a0223b.md @@ -0,0 +1,718 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 212 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 1 of 20 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 212 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 2 of 20 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +/ +JANE DOE NO. 6. +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 212 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 3 of 20 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +C.M.A., +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/] +Vs. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +DOE II, +CASE NO: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/] +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendants. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 212 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 4 of 20 +CASE NO: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO PLAINTFF'S FIRST +SET OF INTERROGATORIES +Plaintiff Jane Doe, hereby moves this Court for an order compelling defendant, +Jeffrey Epstein, to answer her first set of interrogatories or, in the alternative, to prove +that his invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege is proper. +Jane Doe has propounded 23 interrogatories, including such straightforward +requests as: +Interrogatory No. 2: Describe financial assets that are under your control, +directly or indirectly, including interests in corporations or other business entities. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 212 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 5 of 20 +Interrogatory No. 3: Describe which financial assets listed in your answer to +interrogatory #2 are located outside the 50 states of the United States and where they +are located +Interrogatory No. 4: +Describe your net worth, including income and +expenses for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. +Interrogatory No. 5: +Describe any real property in which you have a total +or partial interest, either directly or indirectly. +Interrogatory No. 7: +Describe any transfer of assets under your control, +either directly or indirectly, to locations outside the 50 United States in 2005, 2006, 2007 +and 2008. +Interrogatory No. 8: Describe, with specificity, your travel to locations outside +the 50 states of the United states in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, including your dates +of travel, location to which you traveled and persons that accompanied you in each such +travel. +Interrogatory No. 11: Have you heard or do you know about any statement or +remark (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of any party to this lawsuit, other than +yourself, concerning any issue in this lawsuit? If so, state the name and address of each +person who heard or read it, and the date, time, place and substance of each statement +or remark. +Interrogatory No. 12: Do you intend to elicit testimony of witnesses other than +Plaintiff regarding any statements she has ever made? If so, what statements do you +5 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 212 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 6 of 20 +intend to produce through testimony? Through which witness do you intend to elicit +such statement? And for what purpose do you intend to admit such statement? +Interrogatory No. 23: State the facts upon which you rely for each affirmative +defense in your answer. +In response to these interrogatories, Epstein has given the following response +(with only slight variations on the overbreadth objection): +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant +questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled +me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit +and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the +pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. +This Court should order Epstein to answer all of these interrogatories or, in the +alternative, prove that his Fifth Amendment invocations are valid. It is for the court, not +the claimant, to determine whether the hazard of incrimination is justified. United States +v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991). "A court must make a +particularized inquiry, deciding, in connection with each specific area that the +questioning party wishes to explore, whether or not the privilege is well-founded." Id. +Typically this is done in an in camera proceeding wherein the person asserting the +privilege is given the opportunity "to substantiate his claims of the privilege and the +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 212 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 7 of 20 +district court is able to consider the questions asked and the documents requested by +the summons." Id +Here Epstein has made boilerplate invocation of the Fifth Amendment to each +and every question propounded by Jane Doe, including for example the question: +Do you intend to elicit testimony of witnesses other than Plaintiff regarding any +statements she has ever made? This obviously is not an interrogatory with Fifth +Amendment implications. Nor is Epstein's claim that this interrogatory is somehow +"overbroad" or "not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" even +facially plausible. +Epstein's "cut and paste" response to the interrogatories also blatantly +disregards the requirements for invoking privilege under the Court's local rules. Local +rule 26.1.G very specifically requires the preparation of a privilege log with respect to all +documents and oral communications (among other things) that are withheld on the +basis of privilege. Epstein has failed to prepare such a log, making it impossible for +Jane Doe to effectively challenge his generic assertions. The Local Rules do not permit +this tactic, and Epstein should be (at a minimum) promptly required to produce a +privilege log. +For all these reasons, the Court should compel Epstein to answer the +interrogatories or provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment +invocation with regard to each request. +It should be noted that the only two grounds on which Epstein can refuse to +answer the interrogatories are either proof of a valid Fifth Amendment privilege or proof +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 212 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 8 of 20 +of a valid overbreadth objection. These are the only two objections Epstein has +asserted. As a result, any other objections to production are deemed waived. See +Local Rule 26.1G.3.(a) ("Any ground [for an objection] not stated in an objection within +the time provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or any extensions thereof, +shall be waived."). +SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES +For the convenience of the court - and in compliance with Local Rule 26.1 H +(party filing motion to compel shall list specific requests in succession) - Jane Doe's +interrogatories are as follows: +What is the full name and Florida address of the person answering these +interrogatories, and, if applicable, the person's official position or relationship with +the party to whom the interrogatories are directed? +[Note: This is the only interrogatory Epstein answered in any way.] +Describe financial assets that are under your control, directly or indirectly, +including interests in corporations or other business entities. +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant +questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled +me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit +and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by United States Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, Detendant objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, seeks intormation that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the +pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. +8 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 212 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 9 of 20 +3. +4. +5. +Describe which financial assets listed in your answer to interrogatory #2 that are +located outside the 50 states of the United States and where they are located. +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant +questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled +me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit +and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. +Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the +pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. +Describe your net worth, including income and expenses for 2005, 2006, 2007, +and 2008. +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant +questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled +me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit +and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. +Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the +pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. +Describe any real property in which you have a total or partial ownership interest, +either directly or indirectly. +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant +questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 212 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 10 of 20 +6. +me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit +and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the +pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. +Describe which real properties listed in your answer to interrogatory #5 are +located outside the 50 United States and where the properties are located. +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant +questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled +me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit +and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the +pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. +Describe any transfer of assets under [y]our control, either directly or indirectly, to +locations outside the 50 United States in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant +questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled +me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit +and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. +Accordingly, 1 assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 212 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 11 of 20 +8. +9. +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the +pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. +Describe, with specificity, your travel to locations outside the 50 states of the +United States in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, including your dates of travel, +location to which you traveled and persons that accompanied you in each such +travel. +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant +questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled +me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit +and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the +pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. +List each telephone number used by you or your assistants to call minor females +directly, or indirectly, for the purpose of scheduling a massage to take place at +your house located at 358 El Brillo Way, West Palm Beach (includes landlines, +providhones, and private jet or airplane lines). For each cell phone, list the +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant +questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled +me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit +and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 212 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 12 of 20 +10. +11. +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +List the last known name, address and telephone numbers of all persons that +may have any knowledge about any of the allegations in the Complaint, +including, but not limited to, friends, acquaintances, employees, or others to +whom you have spoken about the subject matter which forms the basis of this +Complaint or who have observed such activity. +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant +questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled +me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit +and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the +pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. The scope of the information is so +overbroad that it also includes information that is attorney-client and workproduct privileged. +Have you heard or do you know about any statement or remark (verbal or +written) made by or on behalf of any party to this lawsuit, other than yourself, +concerning any issue in this lawsuit? If so, state the name and address of each +person wo made the statement or remark, the name and address of each person +who heard or read it, and the date, time, place and substance of each statement +or remark. +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant +questions regarding this lawsuit,, however, my attorneys have counseled +me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit +and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, 1 assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +12 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 212 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 13 of 20 +12. +13. +the Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the +pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. The scope of the information is so +overbroad that it also includes information that is attorney-client and workproduct privileged. +Do you intend to elicit testimony of witnesses other than Plaintiff regarding any +statements she has ever made? It so, what statements do you intend to produce +through testimony? Through which witness do you intend to elicit such +statement? And for what purpose do you intend to admit such statement? +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant +questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled +me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit +and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by United States Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the +pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence +Additionally, work-product and +attorney-client. +Are you transferring, or do you plan to, or might you transfer money or assets out +of the country during the course of this litigation? +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant +questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled +me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit +and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 212 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 14 of 20 +14. +15. +thus, seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the +pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. +Describe each property owned by you, including location, approximate value, and +whether there is a mortgage on the property and the amount of any such +mortgage. +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant +questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled +me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit +and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, 1 assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the +pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. +Describe with specificity the amount of money available to you in cash or that can +be readily liquidated as such. Include the bank financial institution, holding +company, or other location of this money and the name of the account. +Detendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant +questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled +me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit +and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the +pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. +14 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 212 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 15 of 20 +16. +State with as much specificity as possible when you met the Plaintiff, and +including in your answer the following: (a) the circumstances and location of how +and where you met (b) describe the nature of your relationship, (c) describe how +many occasions she was with you at your residence located at 358 El Brillo Way +in Palm Beach, Florida. +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant +questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled +me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit +and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +17. +Provide the names, addresses, and phone numbers of all your current +accountants, financial planners or money managers handling, or assisting in the +handling, of your money or assets. +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant +questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled +me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit +and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. +Accordingly, ! assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +in addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +thus, seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the +pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. +18. +Did you ever ask the Plaintiff to introduce you to minor females and/or to bring +minor females to your house in Palm Beach, Florida and if so, when did this +ccur, and what was she asked by you to do, and what did you tell her about th +eason for her to bring these other minor airls' +15 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 212 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 16 of 20 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant +questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled +me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit +and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +19. Did you ever engage in sexual activity of any kind whatsoever with the Plaintiff, +and including in your answer what type of sexual activity took place, where it took +place, and the dates or general timeframe when this activity occurred. +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant +questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled +me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit +and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +20. +Were there parameters or instructions by you to the Plaintiff as to the types of +girls to bring to your Palm Beach, Florida house, including age, range, what they +would be asked to do, body type or socio-economic background? +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant +questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled +me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit +and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +16 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 212 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 17 of 20 +21. +22. +23. +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +Describe any words or actions that you made to assure the Plaintiff that sexual +activity with you was properl] or appropriate? +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant +questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled +me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit +and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. +Accordingly, 1 assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +Describe what age you thought the Plaintiff was when you first had sexual activity +with her, including your reasons for that belief. +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant +questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled +me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit +and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +State the facts upon which you rely for each affirmative defense in your answer. +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant +questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled +me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit +and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional +rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, +17 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 212 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 18 of 20 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/| +thus, seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the +pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. No answer has yet been filed, so not +applicable. +CONCLUSION +For all these reasons, the Court should compel Epstein to answer the +interrogatories or provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment +invocation with regard to each request. Epstein should also be required to produce a +privilege log. Counsel for Jane Doe have conferred with opposing counsel on the +issues raised in this motion, and no resolution was possible. +DATED July 20, 2009 +Respectfully Submitted, +ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER +Las Olas City Centre +401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 522-3456 +Facsimile (954) 527-8663 +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +E-mail: bedwards@rra-law.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: +cassellp@law.utah.edu +18 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 212 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 19 of 20 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +1 HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 20, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the +manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by +CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to +receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing. +J. +19 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 212 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 20 of 20 +SERVICE LIST +Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Isidro Manual +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +iph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@bclclaw.com +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerswillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Adam D. Horowitz +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +William J. Berger +wberger@rra-law.com +20 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c83bfdeda3763004351f2c6f53804b0b49928687302992ce7f69a9c610a0223b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c83bfdeda3763004351f2c6f53804b0b49928687302992ce7f69a9c610a0223b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..166470f2082493edcc86a9adf026987eb618aa68 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c83bfdeda3763004351f2c6f53804b0b49928687302992ce7f69a9c610a0223b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -725, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c83bfdeda3763004351f2c6f53804b0b49928687302992ce7f69a9c610a0223b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 23, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "9e29c4539eb9ca048e8536818cfc56537c14288a3418495db5c61c9587e48432", + "output_sha256": "be12eb44b7d924bac94ae3374616836f7dfbe49217e1df8e8c50592c34a5203c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c84e3d054a5f5e549356a9100deb749973bdc73f9e82d85f9b69a55a7d3a0cdf.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c84e3d054a5f5e549356a9100deb749973bdc73f9e82d85f9b69a55a7d3a0cdf.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6cd0c9c677e57ff143b177d7dc8df49a5c25bad2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c84e3d054a5f5e549356a9100deb749973bdc73f9e82d85f9b69a55a7d3a0cdf.md @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 168-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintift, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 168-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2009 Page 2 of 4 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/I + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 168-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2009 Page 3 of 4 +JANE DOE NO. II, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +ORDER +THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's +Unopposed Amended Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Their Replyto Defendant's Response +to Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order for the Preservation of Evidence (D.E. 114). Upon consideration +of the foregoing, it is + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 168-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2009 Page 4 of 4 +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's +Unopposed Amended Motion for Enlargement of 'Time to File Their Reply to Plaintiffs' Motion for +and Order for the Preservation of Evidence (D.E. 114) is hereby GRANTED, making their reply due +June 26, 2009. +DONE AND ORDERED in +, this +_ day of June, 2009. +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +Copies furnished: +All counsel of record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c84e3d054a5f5e549356a9100deb749973bdc73f9e82d85f9b69a55a7d3a0cdf.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c84e3d054a5f5e549356a9100deb749973bdc73f9e82d85f9b69a55a7d3a0cdf.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..60a4d8031109fa69320965935274c4959aa02fc1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c84e3d054a5f5e549356a9100deb749973bdc73f9e82d85f9b69a55a7d3a0cdf.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c84e3d054a5f5e549356a9100deb749973bdc73f9e82d85f9b69a55a7d3a0cdf", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "d597dcdd3a43a955112ab5d55d4a750fc44e4e84bfb9ce181cff9bb8c2142625", + "output_sha256": "fb6faeb17bcef555a87ae32f339ff50cd0b2a57608f47f90a133cefd7f729ee2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c851ad5c5dbe9706aef20ee9de088c7517b03afb5d24246849d0e2dade0c0371.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c851ad5c5dbe9706aef20ee9de088c7517b03afb5d24246849d0e2dade0c0371.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..213623f6d325014fc0aee35c9e9a3dbbacfc15e6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c851ad5c5dbe9706aef20ee9de088c7517b03afb5d24246849d0e2dade0c0371.md @@ -0,0 +1,4108 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 1 of 88 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +In re: +: +DOE, JANE, +Docket #1:19-cv-08673- +: KPF-DCF +Plaintiff, +: +- against - +: +INDYKE, et al., +Defendants. +: New York, New York +June 24, 2020 +: +TELEPHONE CONFERENCE +----- +PROCEEDINGS BEFORE +THE HONORABLE JUDGE DEBRA C. FREEMAN, +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAGISTRATE JUDGE +APPEARANCES: +For Plaintiff: +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP +BY: ROBERTA A. KAPLAN, ESQ. +KATE I. DONIGER, ESQ. +350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 +New York, New York 10118 +212-763-0883 +For the Defendants: +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP +BY: BENNET J. MOSKOWITZ, ESQ. +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +212-704-6087 +TROUTMAN SANDERS +BY: MOLLY S. DIRAGO, ESQ. +227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3900 +Chicago, Illinois 60606 +312-759-1926 +Transcription +Service: +Carole Ludwig, Transcription Services +155 East Fourth Street #3C +New York, New York 10009 +Phone: +(212) 420-0771 +Email: Transcription420@aol.com +Proceedings conducted telephonically and recorded by +electronic sound recording; +Transcript produced by transcription service + + + +Witness +None +INDEX +EXAMINATIONS +Direct +Cross +EXHIBITS +Re- +Direct +Re- +Cross + +Number +None +Description +ID +In +Voir +Dire + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 3 of 88 +1 +3 +2 +HONORABLE DEBRA C. FREEMAN (THE COURT): So this +3 is Judge Freeman. +This is Doe v. Indyke, and it is 19-cv- +4 8673. +The case is before Judge Failla. +5 +Can I have counsels' appearances, please, for this +6 record, starting on plaintiffs' side? +7 +MS. ROBERTA KAPLAN: Yes, your Honor. For +8 plaintiffs you have Roberta Kaplan. And I'm here with my +9 colleague -- or I shouldn't say "I'm here" -- I'm on the +10 +phone with my colleague, Kate Doniger. +11 +THE COURT: Okay. And on defendants' side? +12 +MR. BENNET MOSKOWITZ: Hi, your Honor, Bennet +13 +Moskowitz. +14 +THE COURT: Hold on a second. If others could +15 +please mute their lines if they're not speaking? It sounds +16 like someone is maybe monitoring another call at the same +17 +time. So I'd appreciate it if you could just mute. +18 +Thank you. On defendant's side? +19 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, thank you, your Honor. I was +20 +waiting for that to play out; I heard the same thing. +21 +Bennet Moskowitz, Troutman Sanders, for the co-executors. +22 +And my colleague, Molly Dirago, is also on the line. +23 +THE COURT: +Okay. Is there anyone else on the +24 +line who is a participant in this call, an attorney for one +25 +of the parties in this case? + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 4 of 88 +1 +4 +2 +THE COURT: All right, we have a number of people +3 on the line apparently. I probably have some people from +4 my +who +are listening in, including student +5 interns. +And there may be press on the call and others. +6 I'm just going to ask anyone who's listening, again please +7 keep your lines on mute so that it doesn't interfere with +8 the conference with the participants. +9 +So the reason I wanted to have a conference in +10 +this case -- well, there are a few reasons. There are +11 discovery disputes on the docket that need attention, +12 there's a scheduling matter that needs attention. There's +13 +a bigger issue that I wanted to raise about what's going on +14 +with this case and the potential settlement of claims +15 +through the program that's been set up. +16 +So let me start there because of all of the many +17 +cases that have been filed in the court, most of which have +18 +been referred to me to supervise, far and away most of +19 +those are now temporarily stayed because the plaintiffs are +20 +planning to pursue remedies in the claims program, now that +21 +it's gotten off the ground, and have voluntarily consented +22 +to stays. +Obviously, there's no obligation that a +23 +plaintiff voluntarily consent to a stay, but I did want to +24 +understand why this case pretty much stands alone as being +25 +aggressively litigated at this time and understand if + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 5 of 88 +1 +5 +2 plaintiff has decided not to participate in the program or +3 is considering and hasn't decided yet whether to +4 +participate or wants to do both things simultaneously or +5 what the +story is with this particular plaintiff. So can +I +6 +have +that +addressed first? +7 +MS. KAPLAN: Sure, your Honor; it's Roberta +8 Kaplan. Let me -- first, to answer your question directly, +let me tell you that our client is still considering +10 +whether to participate in the program. But -- +11 +THE COURT: I'm sorry, is still considering? +12 +MS. KAPLAN: Yes, whether or not to -- +13 +THE COURT: Okay. +14 +MS. KAPLAN: And she may indeed well do that. +But +15 +I think it's very important for the Court to understand +16 that the program itself is not a settlement discussion of +17 this case in the sense that the defendants in this case, as +18 +we understand it, have no role in relationship to ability +19 to interfere in any way -- in any way -- with the +20 +settlement program. +So essentially the way it works, as we +21 +understand, is Ken Feinberg and his colleagues will come up +22 +with a number. +That's the number, and it's either take it +23 +or leave it. +There's no subsequent negotiation with the +24 +estate or anyone else. And so it's not like it's really a +25 +settlement discussion of this case; it's not. It's an + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 6 of 88 +1 +6 +amount of money that Mr. Feinberg thinks is appropriate +3 under the settlement fund. +4 +For many reasons, including the fact that we +5 believe our client is differently situation than many if +6 not all of the other plaintiffs, she believes that there is +7 a very strong likelihood that she is likely to receive more +8 in this case at trial than she would from whatever +9 Mr. +Feinberg determines on his own is the appropriate +10 +number. +11 +And that's for a couple of reasons. One, very few +12 +of the cases or not many of the cases have plaintiffs who +13 +were underage at the time the acts happened. So there is +14 +no statute of limitations problem in this case. And, two, +15 +there is no issue in this case, as there are in many of the +16 +other cases, about whether or not our client settled any +17 +prior claims with either Mr. Epstein or the estate. And +18 +the facts are straightforward. She was, as your Honor +19 +knows, was witness No. 1, victim No. 1 in the indictment. +20 The U.S. Attorney's Office was fully satisfied in her +21 +story. We believe that, whether it's a bench trial, as +22 +we've requested, or a jury, that either the judge or the +23 +jury will be, too. +24 +THE COURT: If she does participate in the program +25 +and an amount is offered to her and she decides to accept + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 7 of 88 +1 +7 +2 it, does +that have the result of resolving this litigation? +3 +MS. KAPLAN: Absolutely. And the minute that +4 happens, we would obviously voluntarily dismiss this case. +5 I think that's a condition of participation in the program. +6 +THE COURT: All right. +So -- +7 +MS. KAPLAN: We also don't know, your Honor, how +8 quickly the program's going work, how many women have been +9 in it. And, again, based on our understanding of the kind +10 +of damages awards that Mr. Feinberg and his colleagues have +11 given in analogous circumstances -- and I'm thinking of the +12 Catholic church cases -- we think it's unlikely, very +13 +unlikely that our client is willing to accept the kind of +14 +amounts that he's previously offered in similar situations. +15 +THE COURT: Well, I assume if you decide to +16 +participate in it, you'd participate in it, consider any +17 +18 +amount that may be offered, you know, in full good faith, +and mull it over and make a decision. You're not going to +19 +go into it saying we're not going to accept it whatever +it +20 +is; you find out what it is. +21 +22 +23 +no, no, no, no. +THE COURT: You find out what it is. +MS. KAPLAN: Of course, your Honor. We've +24 +basically done a lot of work on this, so we're basing this +25 +on what we understand to be amounts that similar funds that + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 8 of 88 +1 +8 +2 Mr. Feinberg has +administered have offered to plaintiffs +3 who've experienced things similar to what our client has +4 experienced. And the numbers tend to be actually quite +51ow. +6 +THE COURT: Okay. Well, I can't speak to that. +7 don't know what may be offered in this case. Here are some +8 +concerns that +I have. One concern that I have is that the +9 underlying reasoning for the Court to make the +10 +institutional decision to refer a lot of these cases -- I +11 +mean, I shouldn't say that, actually, because it was still +12 +an individual judge's decision to refer or not to refer -- +13 +most of the judges decided that they would refer cases to +14 +me so that there could be coordination among the cases +15 +where appropriate in discovery to conserve resources, both +16 +for the estate, for the Court, just generally to have +17 +coordination so that you didn't have, for example -- and I +18 +think it's the most obvious example -- a witness who was +19 +going to testify to something that would be relevant to all +20 +of the different plaintiffs have to testify on multiple +21 +occasions if that could be avoided. And that seems to me +22 +still to be a laudable goal. And if it's possible that +23 +your client may -- +24 +I just want to make sure that we didn't gain -- +25 +that sounds like someone joining the call -- we didn't gain +I + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 9 of 88 +1 +9 +2 any attorney who wants to be participating in this case. +3 Did anyone just join in who wants to be speaking on this +4 call? No. If not, please keep your phone line mute; I +5 appreciate that. +6 +If your client decides to participate in the +7 program, then, you know, query why we're spending a lot of +8 +resources now, as opposed to +in a couple of months. Most +9 of the stays that have been put in effect are only for a +10 couple of months; they're not infinite stays. There are a +11 +couple, I think, that were signed by district judges +12 +separately that might say Pending Further Order of the +13 +Court. The ones that I've signed recently I think have +14 +been 60 days. Mr. Moskowitz, correct me if I'm wrong on +15 that. +16 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Your Honor, it's been both, +17 +actually. I think the majority are even, I would argue, +18 +more flexible than that. I believe the majority, including +19 even more recent ones, just say on the plaintiffs deciding +20 +that they no longer want the case stayed, they're +21 essentially free to go back to court and ask for the stay +22 +to be lifted. I think there are three or so that include a +23 +specific 60 days, which I suppose could be renewed or just +24 +let lapse. +25 +THE COURT: Yes, I think the most recent ones were + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 10 of 88 +1 +10 +2 60 days, the most recent ones that I signed off on. +So +3 those are the ones +most recent in my memory. But I've +4 +asked for status reports on all of them by sometime mid- +5 August because I don't want it to stretch out forever. +6 +So +the first issue is should we be conserving +7 resources in case your client ends up resolving the claims +8 through the program. And the second is if your client +9 really is unlikely to participate, unlikely to resolve the +10 claims that way, is there a possibility, and how likely is +11 this, that one of the other plaintiffs or more than one of +12 +the other plaintiffs will make a similar decision and will +13 +want to come back and litigate maybe in a couple of months, +14 +and at that point, would it make sense to try to have some +15 +coordinated discovery, particularly again with respect to +16 +certain depositions perhaps or certain discovery from the +17 +estate or some of the discovery plaintiff by plaintiff is +18 +going to be different -- and I understand that -- but some +19 +of it is likely to have some common threads; is there a +20 +21 +distinct prejudice to waiting for some reasonable limited +period of time to see if somebody else comes back into the +22 +mix before we go forward with a slew of depositions? And +23 +part of the reason for the call was when I asked you to see +24 +if you could work out a schedule that included dates for +25 +depositions and stop just squabbling about it, you came + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 11 of 88 +1 +11 +2 back with nearly a dozen depositions over a relatively +3 short period of time. And that sort of jumped out at me as +wait a second; does it make sense for any of those, at a +5 minimum even if not all of them, to be put on hold to see +6 whether they're the kinds of things that should include +1 parties in more than one of these cases in order to have a +8 more efficient running of multiple cases to conserve +9 resources, including resources of the estate, which after +10 +all, maybe can and should be going towards plaintiffs as +11 +opposed to litigation costs. +12 +And so, you know -- and there are a lot of things +13 +that factor into that kind of thought process. One of them +14 +15 +is when you have a delay, you know, how likely is it that +documents won't be preserved or that memories will fail. +16 +Here we have a very long time since the underlying events, +17 +and so the likelihood that, you know, memories will fail +18 +now that haven't failed already or that documents won't be +19 +preserved now when there's a litigation hold when they +20 +weren't preserved already -- when they weren't previously +21 preserved, that seems unlikely. And in terms of how fast +22 +could this case otherwise get to trial, since I'm sure +23 +plaintiff, you know, doesn't want to delay any longer than +24 +necessary to reach a resolution, we have the COVID-19 +25 +issue, which means that we're set back as a court with + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 12 of 88 +1 +12 +respect to how fast we can get cases tried. And that's +3 just a current fact of life. +4 +And I was speaking to Judge Failla about this to +5 try to get a sense from her as to what she thought, and I +6 don't know if this would be a bench trial or a jury trial. +7 Which would it be, by the way? +8 +MS. KAPLAN: Plaintiffs have waived a jury trial. +9 +THE COURT: Okay. So with a bench trial -- +10 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: We have -- I'm sorry, we -- +11 +12 +MS. KAPLAN: It's hard for me to believe, your +Honor, it's hard for me to believe that -- +13 +THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait just a second. Did +14 +defendant -- +15 +MS. KAPLAN: Can I finish what I was going to say? +16 +It's hard -- defendants have not responded to that -- it's +17 hard for me to believe that the defendants truly believe +18 +that they're going to insist on a jury, given the facts and +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +circumstances of this case, but they have refused to tell +us whether or not they agree to waive a jury trial. +THE COURT: What is defendants' position on this? +Because if you didn't -- +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yeah, the position -- +THE COURT: answer -- +MR. MOSKOWITZ: -- was not file -- no, that's not + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 13 of 88 +1 +13 +2 correct, your Honor. The plaintiffs' last exchange on this +3 was they -- they said, "Will you waive a jury trial?" We +4 said we're not prepared at this time to make that decision +5 and waive a jury trial. And they said, "Fine. Let us know +6 by the 30th; otherwise, our offer of waiving the bench +7 trial is no longer there." What I'm hearing now is that +8 they are absolutely committed to waiving jury trial. I +9 still am not prepared at this time to make that waiver on +10 my side, nor do I see why it has to be decided at this +11 time. +12 +MS. KAPLAN: Yes, what you're hearing, +13 +Mr. Moskowitz, is that you are delaying again in bad faith +14 +because there's no reason -- +15 +THE COURT: All right, wait, wait, wait, wait, +16 +wait, please. Everybody stop. I don't need to get into an +17 +argument about whether there is or is not a jury trial. +18 +I'm going to say this about that. I was raising it only +19 because it's going to be harder to get a trial quickly on +20 +this case in light of the COVID-19 problem than it would be +21 +otherwise. What's happening in the court is this. With +22 +respect to juries, right now we don't have jury trials +23 +because we can't get jurors safely in the court. When we +24 +eventually get juries safely in the court, odds are there +25 +will be fewer jurors coming in than had been before in the + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 14 of 88 +1 +14 +2 initial jury pools because we have to make sure people will +3 be socially distanced. The cases that will go first with +4 juries are undoubtedly going to be the criminal cases where +5 there's a constitutional right to a speedy trial. There's +6 going +to be something of a backlog on that. Any cases that +7 are large, that involve large numbers of people in the +8 courtroom are probably going to have to be held in certain +9 designated courtrooms that are particularly large that will +10 +lenable social distancing. Courtrooms are currently being +11 +measured so we can figure out how trials can safely be +12 +held, and so on and so forth. In terms of how quickly a +13 +civil jury case can be held, the answer is not that fast. +14 +Just we're going to have to -- we have a lag time to get +15 +jurors, we have a lag time to get enough jurors, we're +16 +going to have to deal with the criminal cases, we're going +17 +to have to deal with things like Court size. And odds are +18 +that that is not happening just -- I can't tell you when it +19 +will, but it's not going to be all that fast. +20 +With respect to bench trials, there are some +21 +judges who are venturing into the world of holding remote +22 +bench trials. +I believe Judge McMahon has one scheduled. +23 +There are some others who have been making efforts and +24 +figuring out remote platforms that will work. And there's +25 +also the possibility of sort of hybrid trials where you + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 15 of 88 +1 +15 +2 have some people in person and you have some people hooked +3 in remotely, you know, certain witnesses or something like +4 that. That is certainly a possibility. But everybody's +5 schedule for trials has also been affected so that if, for +6 example, Judge Failla, who has this case for trial -- and I +7 can't speak to this -- but if, for example, Judge Failla +8 had three criminal trials that she was unable to try +9 because of this period of time when ordinarily trials would +10 be happening, and so those have to be scheduled, then even +11 +a bench trial may be difficult to schedule, even if it is +12 +logistically possible, because of other things that are +13 +going to be on the judge's plate. +14 +So when I look at the issue about delay, there are +15 +two main questions that come up with respect to potential +16 delay. One is is it prejudicial to the plaintiff, or to +17 +the defendant for that matter, because we're likely to lose +18 +evidence, we're likely to have a witness who is -- +19 +MS. KAPLAN: Your Honor, can I argue the rest of +20 the factors that you talked about earlier? Because we have +21 things to say about all of them. +22 +THE COURT: Yes. Let me finish what I'm saying, +23 +and I'll absolutely hear from you. Okay? +24 +25 +MS. KAPLAN: Okay. +THE COURT: I keep hearing people joining the + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 16 of 88 +1 +16 +2 call. I'm just going to issue the reminder please keep +3 your line mute unless -- on mute unless you're a +participant in this call, in which case please speak up and +5 let us know +you are here. +6 +With respect to the loss of evidence, it may +7 be -- and it's a question I usually ask -- you know, it may +8 be there is a particular witness who is ill or very elderly +9 or you know +is about to move out of the jurisdiction, you +10 +need to preserve evidence, something like that, and those +11 +are issues in any case where there is any stay, any delay, +12 +that I always want to know about because it may be +13 +important to address those particular issues with +14 +particular witnesses or particular evidence. +15 +The second thing I look at is what is the end of +16 +the road in the case. Is it -- would it, you know, be +17 +triable next month, or would it be waiting, anyway, for +18 +trial. Here, odds are, even with a bench trial, there's +19 +going to be some wait. And so where does the end end up. +20 +And that is a factor to think about here and whether it +21 +makes sense to hold off on any of the discovery that's +22 +currently on the table to see whether either plaintiff +23 +resolves the claims through the program or anyone else +24 +whose case is currently stayed comes back into the court +25 +and says, "Please lift the stay. I want to go forward with + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 17 of 88 +1 +17 +2 discovery to give us a chance of coordinating that +3 discovery if it makes sense for the particular discovery. +4 +Now, having said all that, I will absolutely hear +5 from you. +Counsel? +6 +MS. KAPLAN: Okay. So, number one, on prejudice, +7 your Honor, there will be prejudice to my client even with +8 +respect to the Feinberg settlement fund. One of the issues +9 that the Feinberg settlement funds says they will look to +10 +in deciding whether or not to award fees or award damages +11 and how much to award is based on the corroborating +12 evidence for the particular person. In our case at this +13 +point, we have produced all the documents that we have from +14 +our plaintiffs to the other side. Mr. Moskowitz, on the +15 +other hand, has produced barely nothing. So that if +16 +discovery is stayed at this point, our rights to get a +17 +higher award from the Feinberg fund are severely +18 +prejudiced. +We know they have corroborating information. +19 +They have hits that show our client's name and contact with +20 +our client. We should be able to obtain those documents, +21 +which should have been produced to us long ago, in order to +22 +use that if we agree to proceed with the fund to +23 +corroborate and to make our claim toward the fund stronger. +24 +And by this delay tactic that's gone on and on and on, what +25 +they've done is have us produce everything but us not have + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 18 of 88 +1 +18 +2 the +information that we should have that Feinberg, Ken +3 Feinberg, has +said is relevant to a determination under the +4 fund. +So under no circumstances should there be any stay +5 or delay of document discovery. In fact, that would be +6 +severely unfair, given our alacrity and our good faith in +7 producing everything, and unfair to our opportunity to +8 +participate in the fund, number one. +9 +THE COURT: Okay. Just let me interrupt you there +10 +for one second, because I was not talking so much about +11 +documents regarding the particular plaintiff in this case +12 +or discovery, for that matter, regarding the particular +13 +plaintiff in this case. What I was talking about was +14 +whether there -- whether we should still look for any +15 +potential opportunities that may come up down the road to +16 +coordinate discovery where it made sense because it was +17 +common discovery for all of the cases, probably not +18 +plaintiff specific. +19 +MS. KAPLAN: So on that issue, your Honor, I'm +20 +21 +frankly not aware of any real discovery or evidence in this +case that is not plaintiff specific. The trial, when and +22 +if it takes place, will last no longer than two, three +23 +days. +The witnesses will be our clients, psychological +24 +forensic experts, maybe one or two people who she told +25 +about what happened. +And the only two people who + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 19 of 88 +1 +19 +2 possibly -- we don't have claims against anyone else, we +3 don't have claims against Ms. Maxwell, we don't allege any +4 kind of wider conspiracy regarding Prince Andrew the way +5 the other cases do. It's a very simple, very +6 straightforward case. The only possible overlap that I can +7 possibly think of -- and Ms. Doniger should correct me if +8 I'm wrong -- are two of the women who worked for +9 Mr. Epstein who helped book the so-called massages that our +10 client participated in, both of whose lawyers have told us +11 +they intend to plead the Fifth. So we could honestly get a +12 +letter from them telling they intend to take the Fifth. +13 +And there is, therefore, no overlapping evidence, either in +14 +terms of documents or witnesses. +15 +THE COURT: Are they included or not included in +16 +the 11 depositions that you listed? +17 +MS. KAPLAN: They are. We have very few +18 +depositions. Most of the depositions are ones that +19 +Mr. Moskowitz is noticing of my client's doctors, family +20 +members and friends. +21 +THE COURT: And why do you think that those might +22 +not be witnesses who would testify at trial such that the +23 +trial might have more witnesses than what you've described? +24 +You've got 11 people to be deposed. That sounds to me like +25 +there might be 11 witnesses at trial except for maybe a + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 20 of 88 +1 +20 +2 couple who take the Fifth. +3 +MS. KAPLAN: No. It's highly unlikely, your +4 Honor. Most of the people, as we notified Mr. Moskowitz +5 many times, like doctor's offices that she's gone to where +6 they told us they have no records; or friends that, you +7 know, barely remember. We were very, as your Honor can +8 imagine, we were very overinclusive to be extremely careful +9 on our 26(a) disclosures. And they just noticed everyone +10 +on the 26(a) disclosures, not -- it's very unlikely that +11 any of those people are going -- or most of those people +12 +are going to testify at trial. We're certainly not going +13 +to put them on. And I would suggest that the point of +14 +deposing them is to, again -- I don't know what the point +15 +of deposing them is, but I guess he wants to depose all +16 +these people under oath and ask them questions. It's very +17 +unlikely that any of them will say anything that's going to +18 +be relevant to his defenses. +19 +THE COURT: Let me hear briefly on the other side +20 +about these witnesses. +21 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, your Honor, Bennet Moskowitz. +22 +I feel like I'm talking about a different case than the one +23 +Ms. Kaplan is talking about. And part of this may be +24 +because the day-to-day of discovery is not handled by +25 +Ms. Kaplan. I've been dealing exclusively with her + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 21 of 88 +1 +21 +2 colleague who is on the line. So I'd just like to back up +3 and clarify a few things. +4 +One is they have not substantially completed their +5 document production, even putting aside the disputes we +6 have over what they say they don't have to do. In fact, +7 the latest -- and maybe Ms. Kaplan, although she was copied +8 on these emails, wasn't aware of it -- is that they refused +9 to review 7,000 documents that hit on search terms to be +10 proposed. And we suggested ways they can narrow that. And +11 we haven't yet reached a resolution of that. +12 +In terms of our production, the documents -- we +13 +did already produce most of the few documents among over +14 +730,000 that hit on their client's name. And they +15 +definitively showed why that is, that such few documents +16 exist; not because we didn't find them, but rather because +17 +the decedent didn't even have any knowledge of their client +18 +when she appeared in more recent history regarding making +19 +some kind of pre-litigation settlement demand when he was +20 +still alive. So there's been no stonewalling; I'm not sure +21 +where that's coming from. +22 +And I want to correct one other thing. You know, +23 +I'm hearing this -- and you're right; this plaintiff stands +24 +alone. Her counsel now stands alone. So these complaints +25 +about the program, they fall flat, given that every other + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 22 of 88 +1 +22 +attorney who was likewise very skeptical, as your Honor +3 knows, +has voluntarily stayed their action, with the +4 exception of two cases other than this one that were filed +5 much later, and I'm actually confident we'll reach similar +6 resolutions +in those cases. But we will see. It's not the +7 Feinberg fund. Mr. Feinberg's not the administrator. It's +8 Jordana +. Kaplan knows that. I don't know why +9 she insists on saying that as if it's some kind of ding +10 +against the program. Mr. Feinberg, who's the preeminent +11 person who designed such programs, is indeed one of the +12 designers of the program. But there is one administrator, +13 +Jordana +, who has full independence. And Ms. Kaplan +14 +is right; we don't get to tell +what should be +15 +awarded to this plaintiff. It is solely +who +16 +makes that determination. I don't know why that is viewed +17 +as a bad thing; and, again, plaintiff here stands alone in +18 +saying that. +19 +Look, your Honor, raised this, as well. This is +20 +the world we live in, not as we want it. There is going to +21 +be no trial around the corner, whether it's bench trial or +22 +jury trial. The estate is not -- is not in favor of +23 +dragging things out. That's part of the reason that the +24 +program is designed the way it's designed. It's a much +25 +speedier resolution of claims than any litigation, + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 23 of 88 +1 +23 +2 including this one. And the fact that we're now having +3 these disputes in this case while the plaintiff, for +4 whatever reason, wants to rocket through the docket to +5 have, I guess, what they view as, you know, the first crack +6 at a payment of judgment, I get why they want that. But +7 it's not realistic, number one, because of all the reasons +8 your Honor went over; and the other realistic factor that +9 we're ignoring is the money spent on this, it's just not +10 going to be available to the program. That's a harm to +1l this plaintiff if she's going to join -- and I believe she +12 +is -- they've struggled in many different ways to avoid +13 +saying yes, they're going to do the program. I'm very +14 +confident they will, based on my understanding of their +15 | +heavy involvement in discussions with +and +16 Mr. Feinberg. But that money is not going to go to this +17 +plaintiff, it's not going to go to any other plaintiff. +18 +That's their choice. We haven't sought a stay; it's not +19 +required. That was one of the other benefits of the +20 +program. But the fact that everyone else, for the most +21 part, has seen the wisdom in staying their action but this +22 plaintiff is the outlier speaks volumes to their intent, +23 not ours. +24 +In terms of these depositions, look, they can't +25 +have it both ways. They said we were very careful in only + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 24 of 88 +1 +24 +2 disclosing the people that really have anything of +3 knowledge. Yeah, they did that, and we need to speak to +4 these people. This is a serious case, they're seeking +5 serious damages. +They haven't told us how much and, you +6 know, that's part of our letter, which is just unbelievable +7 now that we're nearly a year out from when they filed it. +8 But the fact that their client saw so many doctors related +9 to their myriad of alleged harms is what drives our need to +10 depose so many people. +11 +There are only a couple of fact witnesses, and +12 +then they mentioned family members like we're trying to +13 +bully people, well, paragraph 58 of the complaint brings +14 +the plaintiff's husband directly into this case because she +15 +alleges that Mr. Epstein's abuse that allegedly occurred +16 +caused her issues in her marriage. We didn't bring him +17 +into the case; they did. So, yes, we do need to depose the +18 +husband. We're not going out and deposing relatives that +19 +have not been brought into the case and that we have no +20 +reason to believe know anything, but it is going to be more +21 +22 +than two witnesses and this. You know, you hear a lot of, +] it will be this, so a day later we'll be done. That's +23 +how they want it. But we have a lot more to do. +24 +And we're very unhappy that they're just, after +25 +many weeks where we had what I thought were very productive + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 25 of 88 +1 +25 +2 conversations, it was really just between me and Kate and +3 some of her colleagues -- Ms. Kaplan was not part of those +4 discussions. They turned around and basically said to us, +5 "All right, well, it's your fault you waited so long; you +6 really better finish your depositions in, you know, record +7 time." +What is the rush? Like your Honor said, there is +8 not going to be any trial tomorrow. It's not going to be +9 next month. There is time to do this. There's even time, +10 +if the Court sees the wisdom in it, for a 30- or 60-day +11 +stay, just like in all the other actions. No one will be +12 +harmed. The only harm that for certain will happen if this +13 +case continues to go forward in this fashion is that we +14 +will have to burn through litigation fees having to deal +15 +with disputes over documents, depositions that may be avoid +16 +altogether. +17 +18 +So the situation is clear, and your Honor already +got it exactly right. You don't need me to explain to you +19 +what the situation is. Your Honor already correctly +20 +understands it. +21 +22 +23 +MS. KAPLAN: Your Honor, when my client was -- +THE COURT: +Who are the -- who -- +MS. KAPLAN: +-- a 14-year-old girl -- +24 +25 +THE COURT: Hold on, please. These 11 witnesses +for deposition, can I just make a list of who they are by + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 26 of 88 +1 +26 +2 kind of the category? In other words, a plaintiff's +3 doctor, a plaintiff's doctor, a plaintiff's relative, and +4 how many are not directly connected to plaintiff in that +5 sort of way. +6 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Sure, I could do that. And it was +7 actually -- plaintiff's counsel asked us not to put the +8 +names in the submissions, so we -- +9 +THE COURT: No, I don't want the names -- +10 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: -- abided by that. +11 +12 +THE COURT: -- I just want -- +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yeah, I won't do that. +13 +THE COURT: -- just like the concept of who they +14 +are. +15 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Sure. So four individuals are, I +16 +believe, friends of plaintiff that they disclosed as having +17 +knowledge of plaintiff's allegations. I believe there are +18 +three treating physicians that they disclosed. There is +19 also the plaintiff's husband, which I just went over. And +20 +then there's the plaintiff's deposition and Rule 35 +21 +examination. And then the other two are the alleged co- +22 +conspirators that -- and those are depositions that the +23 +plaintiff seeks, not us. And those are people that are +24 +in -- +25 +MS. KAPLAN: Your Honor, exactly -- exactly as I + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 27 of 88 +1 +27 +2 explained, there is no overlapping witnesses in this case, +3 other than the two co-conspirators, again, both of whose +4 +attorneys have told me they intend to take the Fifth. And +5 they're not co-conspirators in the sense that we're suing +6 them; they're co-conspirators in the sense they were the +7 two women who booked so-called massages for my client with +8 Mr. Epstein when she was a child of 14 years old. +9 +Our client has waited, your Honor, a very long +10 +time to get justice from Mr. Epstein and now from his +11 +estate. The idea there's a $350 million estate -- or at +12 +least that's what they say it is -- that our client should +13 +wait so that the estate can save on litigation costs, given +14 +what Mr. Epstein has done to my client, is not only +15 +unconstitutional but offensive. All these depositions are +16 +depositions they want to take. There's no overlap with +17 +other cases. The reason -- the explanation he gave you +18 +about documents, they gave us one woman's name and said, +19 +"Search the name Maria," for example. And we had 7,000 +20 +hits, and we said, "That's not the way to do it. Give us +21 some limiter. Maria within 5 of X or 5 of y. That's the +22 +way people do litigation, as I'm sure your Honor knows as a +23 +magistrate in the Southern District. And they refused to +24 +do that. +25 +So the idea that we should have to wait for the + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 28 of 88 +1 +28 +settlement fund when an explicitly bargained term of the +3 settlement fund was that no one would have to wait, that no +4 one would have to stay their claim, it's written into the +5 fund itself, when there's no overlap and when we've +6 completed our document production and we're waiting for +7 theirs is frankly unfair, especially because it will +8 prejudice us with respect to the fund. Mr. Feinberg and +9 Jordana have said very clearly they're looking for all the +10 | +documents they can get their hands on. +11 +THE COURT: Okay. Okay. I am -- I would like it +12 +if you could try to pin down if in fact these two witnesses +13 +are planning to take the Fifth because, if so, that will be +14 +a very short deposition. I'm sure it can be -- maybe it +15 +can be done in writing ahead of time; or if you must have +16 +somebody on the record, I'm assuming you can say, you know, +17 +18 +general questions, "If I were to ask you any questions +about this or that, would the answer be the same?" And it +19 would be very short -- +20 +21 +MS. KAPLAN: Of course, your Honor. +THE COURT: I'm sorry -- that would be very short. +22 +And that does not trouble me in terms of a lot of cost or +23 +time. +24 +I'm satisfied with respect to the other witnesses +25 +that they are very case specific and that there would not + + + +1 +29 +2 be any lost opportunity -- if I have those depositions go +3 forward, there would not be any lost opportunity for +4 coordinating depositions with other cases because it sounds +5 like these other witnesses would not be relevant to other +6 cases. +If it +is -- if there are people who are +7 particularly friends of the plaintiff and they're being +8 asked to testify about things other than what plaintiff's +9 told them, you know, they may have been friends of others, +10 +as well, you know, but I'm satisfied that the questioning +11 here will just relate to this plaintiff. Treating +12 +physicians are obviously this plaintiff's doctors. +13 +Plaintiff's husband is obviously this plaintiff's husband. +14 +And the plaintiff is obviously the plaintiff. So it does +15 +not sound like there are efficiencies or economies there +16 +that I should be concerned about with respect to +17 +depositions, which was my first reaction when I saw that +18 +long -- a list of deposition dates. Okay? +19 +It may be also, if some of these witnesses really +20 +do not have much information, you will have -- you can +21 +either work out a substitute way to depose them that makes +22 +it simpler -- you don't have to retain a court reporter and +23 +you can just get some written statement or something or +24 +maybe you can have more than one in a day or something to +25 +make these take less time and be less costly. And I will + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 30 of 88 +1 +30 +2 +say that I am charged, under Rule 1 of the Federal Rules, +3 with trying to make sure that they are interpreted and +4 +administered in a way that not only is efficient but that +5 is -- that keeps the economies in mind and keeps the cost +6 in mind. And I need to do that as I look at a case. +I +7 need to do that with respect to document production. I +8 +need to do that in general. +9 +With respect to document production, it's hard for +10 +me to tell exactly what's been going on here. Each side +11 +claims that it's been, you know, highly forthcoming and the +12 +other side has not been. I don't really want to hear that. +13 +I really just want to hear that you're working +14 +cooperatively and in an efficient manner to get the +15 +productions done. If they are productions that are +16 +specifically related to plaintiff, then I don't really see +17 +the reason to hold it up. I mean, I do think that it would +18 +be nice if every last dime in the estate could be kept +19 +there and be used for compensating victims if there's, you +20 +know, it's demonstrated that people have been victims, that +21 +they should get the money as opposed to the lawyers getting +22 +the money. +But, you know, if it's very case specific, if +23 +it's very plaintiff specific and plaintiff wishes to +24 +proceed with it, I'm going to let that proceed. If there +25 +are any documents that are not case specific and where + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 31 of 88 +1 +31 +2 there would be any efficiencies to doing it differently, I +3 don't see it the same way as I see it with respect to +4 depositions where you might want to have other lawyers in +5 the room asking questions. I see less reason to hold off +6 on the +document production. But if there's something I'm +7 not thinking of that you want to bring to my attention, +8 bring it to my attention. +9 +But I'm going to resolve the disputes that are in +10 +front of me about documents +in particular. And I'm going +11 +to, you know, urge you to move forward civilly and without, +12 +you know, name calling or finger pointing or charging the +13 +other with any kind of shenanigans and just try to get it +14 +done. +15 +16 +MS. KAPLAN: Agreed, your Honor. +THE COURT: I don't know that I have a motion to +17 +compel from the plaintiff. I know I have a motion to +18 +compel or a request for a conference in connection with a +19 +motion to compel on the defendants' side seeking more from +20 +plaintiff. But plaintiff's counsel was complaining on this +21 +call. Do you also have ripe issues on your side that +22 you -- +23 +MS. KAPLAN: I anticipate -- no, no, your Honor. +24 +I anticipate we'll be able to work out whatever remaining +25 +issues we have -- + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 32 of 88 +1 +32 +2 +THE COURT: Perfect. +3 +MS. KAPLAN: -- on our side. +We do not have a +4 +motion to compel at this time. +5 +The only other thing I wanted to clarify, your +6 Honor, is it's not my understanding that all -- let's +7 +assume the estate has $350 million. It's very clearly not +8 +my understanding that the estate has committed to pay the +9 entire +amount of the estate to Mr. Epstein's victims. And +10 +that's not the way the Feinberg fund was set up or will be +11 administered. Rather, it's my understanding, that any +12 +amounts that are not paid to victims will go to the heirs +13 +under the estate, who we understand is Mr. Epstein's +14 +brother. So your Honor's under a misconception if you +15 think that legal fees saved by the estate necessarily go +16 into a fund that's all going to be distributed to victims. +17 +That is not the way it's been set up. +18 +THE COURT: Well, it was my understanding, which +19 +may be incorrect -- and, by the way, let's not refer to it +20 +as the "Feinberg fund." It's just -- it's claims, it's the +21 +victims' compensation claims program or something like +22 +that. It's got a name. +We'll just call it "the fund." It +23 +was my understanding that the claims would be paid out of +24 +whatever there is. Whether it all goes to claimants or not +25 +is not really the question that I had in my mind; that + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 33 of 88 +1 +33 +2 there is a universe out there, there is an amount of money +3 or assets out there which is available as the administrator +4 +sees fit to pay. The larger it is, the more that is +5 arguably available for the administrator to decide would be +6 appropriate +for different victims. It may be that more +7 will come forward, it may be that more victims will not +8 come forward, it may be there's money left over, and it may +9 be there's no money left over. But any money that is +10 currently in the estate, you know, you don't want to see it +11 +shrink. Why would anyone want to see it shrink? If the +12 administrator would like to say that, you know, more should +13 +be paid, wouldn't it be better that there's more there that +14 +could potentially be tapped than having it pay for +15 +litigation costs? +16 +MS. KAPLAN: Understood, your Honor. But I have +17 +seen settlement funds, for example, in Michigan and other +18 +places where the commitment was made that all the funds +19 that were available were going to be paid out to victims. +20 +That was very clearly not what was done here. And the only +21 +assumption that anyone can make is that once -- and it's +22 +not limitless number of victims -- that once the +23 +settlement administrators and +have made +24 +25 +whatever determinations they make, that -- we have been +told by them that they would see that as being less than + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 34 of 88 +1 +34 +2 the amount in the estate, and the remainder in the estate +3 will be paid to Mr. Epstein's brother. +4 +THE COURT: They don't have any -- they don't have +5 a particular limit on the amount, do they? +6 +MS. KAPLAN: No, but they -- +7 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: No. Your Honor -- sorry. Go +8 +ahead. I could clarify this. +9 +THE COURT: Okay. +10 +MS. KAPLAN: This is something that was +11 +negotiated, quite clearly, by the side and something -- +12 +there was proposals made by the plaintiffs to set up a fund +13 +where there would be a commitment that all the money in the +14 +estate would be paid out to victims. It's my +15 +understanding, after many conversations, that is not the +16 +commitment. And in fact, there was Mr. Feinberg and +17 +told us that they didn't even have a full +18 +understanding of the full amount in the estate. +19 +THE COURT: Let me just put some numbers on this +20 +hypothetically. And, obviously, these are not the correct +21 +numbers; I'm sure there are, you know, millions of +22 +dollars +-- actually, I'm not sure of anything, but I'm +23 +going to assume there are millions of dollars in the +24 +estate. But let's just call it a million dollars. There's +25 +a million dollars in the estate -- or let's even make it + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 35 of 88 +1 +35 +2 even simpler than that. Say it's $100,000 in the estate. +3 And so it's $100,000 that could be paid out. And maybe +4 80,000 of it gets paid out to victims, and there's 20,000 +5 left over and it goes to somebody else. Okay. But if +6 30,000 gets spent on legal fees or other things, now +7 there's no longer the ability to pay out 80,000. Now +8 there's only 70,000 there. You certainly don't want that +9 to happen. And if there's -- +10 +MS. KAPLAN: Yes, but we were -- +11 +THE COURT: —- if there's 90,000 left, you know, +12 +maybe it could be the administrator would say, you know +13 +what, let's pay out 90. That may be, and it's there, and +14 +it's available. +15 +MS. KAPLAN: But, your Honor, we were told quite +16 +17 +explicitly -- quite explicitly by Mr. Feinberg and +that that is not the case here. There is more +18 +than sufficient funds, as they said, to pay out everyone +19 with excess. And so for the implication to be that by my +20 +21 +client incurring litigation costs for the estate, she's +taking money from other victims is not the case. If she's +22 +23 +taking money from anyone, she's taking it from +Mr. Epstein's brother. +24 +25 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: That's -- your Honor, Bennet +Moskowitz. That's not correct. And no one -- and I wish + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 36 of 88 +1 +36 +we would not speak for other people who are not on this +3 call. I highly doubt Mr. Feinberg or +said any +4 of those things. First of all, I don't know where +5 Ms. Kaplan's getting her information about who's receiving +6 what money under the will. It's not based on any facts +7 that I'm actually aware of. So perhaps she knows something +8 I don't. +9 +But your Honor has it exactly correct. What's +10 available to the fund -- and it's called the Epstein +11 Victims Compensation Program -- is not all the money in the +12 +world. Right? There's an estate. Within that is a pool +13 +of assets available to a program which has no artificial +14 +cap to it because we don't know how many victims are out +15 +there. That's part of the problem. If Ms. Kaplan does, I +16 +would love to know the number. We don't know. But it is +17 +absolutely correct what your Honor said. If a million +18 +dollars is spent on this case on legal fees, that's taken +19 +out of a pot of assets that is there if ever needed for the +20 +fund while it's ongoing; that's gone because it's spent on +21 +lawyers. So your example was -- absolutely got it correct. +22 +It's about what's actually available to pay the people. +23 +So make no mistake. This is not good for the fund +24 +process, the spending of assets, which is why -- +25 +MS. KAPLAN: Is that why the case -- + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 37 of 88 +1 +37 +2 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: -- other people stayed their +3 actions in part. +They know that. +4 +MS. KAPLAN: If that were the case, your Honor, +5 then the estate could have made the commitment, which they +6 refused to +make +and refused to say to the fund +7 administrators that all the amounts in the estate, subject +8 to whatever secure claims are out there, would be devoted +9 to this fund. +They have not said that. +10 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yeah, and we could debate trusts +11 +and estates law and the, you know, theory of how it works +12 in law school, but that's correct, we don't control -- we +13 +don't get to willy-nilly say forget what a will says or any +14 +other legal instruments; we're going to do what we think is +15 +right under Ms. Kaplan's notion of justice. What we've +16 done is voluntarily gone out of our way to work very hard +17 +to design a program that so many see the value in that you +18 +now -- that this plaintiff now stands alone. And -- +19 +THE COURT: Okay. Wait. Hold on a minute. It +20 +sounds to me like what you are saying are different spins +21 +are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It may be -- and I +22 +don't know because I haven't read the documentation about +23 +how the program is going to work - but it may be that it +24 +is not required that all assets will be paid to claimants +25 +once it's clear how many are coming forward, that every + + + +1 +38 +2 +asset that there is will be distributed to victims. That +3 may well be the case. It may also be that the decisions as +4 to how much +. to offer and to then distribute is going to be +5 capped at whatever the assets are. And if the assets are +6 X, then that's as much as there could be available to the +7 administrator to make decisions based on if there's less, +8 then there's less available to make the decision based on. +9 And it may be that it's anticipated that not all of the +10 +money will be paid out. And maybe that's because there's a +11 +concern that some other victim may come forward at a later +12 date, and they want to hold back some money; or it may just +13 +be that they think there is so much money that there will +14 +be left over. It may be that they're just going to take it +15 +as it comes without any kind of artificial limits other +16 +than what's in the assets of the estate. But it does seem +17 +to me that the more costly the litigation gets -- and +18 +everyone knows that litigation can be very costly -- and it +19 +could be meaningfully costly. I don't know if it is a drop +20 +in the bucket or if it costs a million dollars, if that is +21 +a meaningful million. +But it could be that the continuing +22 +costs of litigating the case could deplete assets to some +23 +extent that could otherwise potentially ends up in the +24 +hands of victims being compensated through the fund. And +25 +even if that's not -- even if they anticipated that there's + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 39 of 88 +1 +39 +2 going +to be more than enough, the universe is not +3 absolutely infinite of what there is to pay. It is +4 +whatever is in the estate. That is the outer bound of what +5 there is that's possible. So if money is paid out of the +6 estate +for lawyers, then there is necessarily less money in +7 the estate. +8 +I am going to urge counsel to litigate this case, +9 what remains of it, in as efficient a way as possible with +10 +as much cost savings as possible. Not to -- you know, I'm +11 +not going to tell lawyers how to staff matters, but keep an +12 eye on it. I'm not going to tell lawyers how much to spend +13 +on squabbling, but try to keep it down. Everyone knows +14 +where money gets spent in litigation. It gets spent on +15 +electronic discovery. Well, try to work together on a +16 +protocol so that you don't have to do it twice, because do- +17 +overs are costly. Try to figure it out the first time, and +18 +try to live with what you agree on. And if you need to +19 +make some minor adjustments later because something +20 +surfaces, you know, try to focus on keeping the costs under +21 +control. Okay? Because, you know, no offense to counsel, +22 +but that's not where we really want to see money go. +23 +I'm going to address the disputes that I have in +24 +front of me. I'm glad to hear that on plaintiff's side you +25 +think you can resolve your issues through good-faith + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 40 of 88 +1 +40 +2 consultation. That's great. Please try to do it in as, +3 you know, civil and efficient way as possible. +4 +I have three clusters of information that have +5 been brought to me by defendants that need my attention. +6 One +has +to do with +the Rule 26(a) disclosure on computation +7 of damages by plaintiff. One category has to do with +8 +communications with either the press or with other counsel. +9 That's really two categories, but it's -- yeah, I guess +10 +it's two categories. And then the last one has to do with +11 +plaintiff's medical records during the relevant time, +12 +thereafter, whatever. +13 +So let me just take them in order. With respect +14 +to computation of damages, I've taken a look at plaintiff's +15 +Rule 26(a) disclosure that was attached to the papers. +16 I've taken a look at the arguments made by counsel in the +17 +letters. The computation of damages that was provided on +18 +its face does +not comply with the rules. Now, I understand +19 +that there may be an expert coming down the pike who may +20 +have something to say about damages, and it may be that +21 +there'll be a need to supplement as evidence comes out. +22 +But that does not excuse a computation that, to the best of +23 +the plaintiff's ability, complies with the rules at the +24 +time the disclosure is made, which means you set out the +25 +amounts that are known to you in different categories so + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 41 of 88 +1 +41 +2 that if you, for example, have doctor expenses, medical +3 expenses that you think are a proper category, you pull +4 together the evidence that you have and you put down the +5 number that's the total of what you believe the medical +6 expenses +are, and you say I'm going to be providing to you +7 the support for this. If more comes out, you supplement it +8 under Rule 26(e). And you say, "I have more. It was +9 incomplete. That number's going up. Here it is." And if +10 you want to flag for defendant that there's a likelihood +11 that certain numbers may rise as you, you know, uncover +12 +more documents, that's fine. You supplement it. That's +13 +what supplementation is all about. +14 +If you have a category of lost wages or something, +15 +again, you quantify it, you put it down, you provide the +16 +documentation that supports it. You don't just say, "We +17 +can't do it," because of course you can; you just can't do +18 +it perfectly yet. You can do it to the extent you can, and +19 +you supplement it later. I have had cases where someone +20 +says an expert is needed, and sometimes I've moved the +21 +expert discovery up so that the damages computation could +22 +be done before all the rest of fact discovery was over so +23 +that the defendant could have the benefit of understanding +24 +what the claim was before then deposing certain fact +25 +witnesses about it. + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 42 of 88 +1 +42 +2 +That +may or may not make sense, but the +3 computation of damages in the disclosure does need to be +modified; it is not adequate under the rules. +5 Understanding that it may change and understanding there +6 +may need to +be the need for expert testimony to modify some +7 of the numbers or to add in certain figures, you lay out +8 what you can and you lay it out with specificity as the +9 rule requires. +10 +MS. KAPLAN: Your Honor, we will do that. The +11 vast majority of the damages here is going to be pain and +12 suffering and future mental health costs. +13 +THE COURT: You put a number on it -- you put a +14 +number on it as best as you can; and if it gets changed, it +15 +gets changed. But you -- +16 +MS. KAPLAN: Well, I was just going to say +17 +something. I was just going to say something, your Honor, +18 +following up on what you said. We were going to put that +19 in. We have retained a very illustrious expert, Dr. Don +20 Hughes, who's testified many, many times about these +21 issues. We would be happy, if defendant prefers, to move +22 +up the expert discovery so that they can get that. But +23 +without Dr. Hughes's report, it really will be guesswork +24 +for the vast majority of it on our part. +25 +THE COURT: Well, it's not going to be guesswork + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 43 of 88 +1 +43 +if there was -- +3 +MS. KAPLAN: That's just the reality of it. +4 +THE COURT: -- an out-of-pocket medical expense; +5 it's not going to be guesswork if there's lost income, that +6 +she says, "I would have had this job, and I couldn't have +7 this. I lost my job. I was making this much money in the +8 +past." You know, you can make some estimates, and you can +9 say these are estimates to the best of our ability now, and +10 +it may get modified with an expert. But you can't just -- +11 +MS. KAPLAN: We understand. As long as they're +12 +aware that the vast majority of it is probably going to +13 +come through Dr. Hughes, that's fine with us. We just +14 +don't want to be charged, when the number goes way up with +15 +Dr. Hughes, with being -- in any accusation that we're not +16 being full and complete. +17 +18 +THE COURT: Well, you've retained this person. +You can talk to this expert and you can say, "Give me +19 +something ballpark that you think is, you know, based on +20 +what you already know is likely to, you know, to hold." +21 And you don't have to make up a number from counsel's head +22 and then totally separate from the expert's head. You've +23 hired somebody; presumably you're in consultation. +24 +MS. KAPLAN: All right, well, we will do that, +25 +your Honor. I just offered to move up expert discovery if + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 44 of 88 +1 +44 +2 they want to do that. That's exactly what we were -- +3 +THE COURT: Well, that's what -- you talk with +4 your adversary about it because there's no absolute magic +5 that this must happen first and then that must happen. YOU +6 know, what you're trying to do is litigate the case +7 efficiently, save unnecessary costs. Experts can be very +8 expensive. If you think you might want to participate in +9 the claims program and you decide to do that, then it may +10 +make sense at that point to have at least a brief stay to +11 avoid the clock running so that you avoid unnecessary +12 +expert expenses or something else that can really, you +13 +know, rachet up the dollars spent on the case. So -- +14 +MS. KAPLAN: That's not an +issue from our side, +15 your Honor. Our expert has already -- is drawn and willing +16 to do it. So that's not an issue. +17 +THE COURT: All right. It may be an issue on +18 +defendants' side if they're going to have a counter-expert +19 +or a rebuttal expert; they may want some time to save those +20 +costs. And I might be favorably inclined to say if you're +21 +participating in the program, yes, I'm going to hold off on +22 +certain of this discovery. I want you to be able to have +23 +good-faith conversations about where the particular high- +24 +25 +expense items are that maybe could be done later, like, in +30 days or in 60 days if, you know, if you do decide to + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 45 of 88 +1 +45 +2 participate in the program, if it doesn't result in a +3 resolution and you have to come back with the +4 understanding, like I said, the case is not going to be +5 tried that fast. It's not going to be tried in 30 days or +6 60 days no +matter +what. So, you know, having that much of +7 +a delay is probably not going to affect the ultimate +8 resolution date. +9 +So think about it, talk about it, keep an eye on +10 +the expenses. And come back to me, either of you or both +11 of you, with rational proposals if you think something +12 +should be put on hold. +13 +With respect to communications with the press, I +14 +didn't quite understand -- I mean, I think that the parties +15 +are -- one seems to be talking about if anything was said +16 that relates to the case, and the other seems to be saying +17 +anything that may have related to plaintiff's specific +18 +allegations. And it's neither one of those for the test +19 +for relevance. It's whether it's related to a claim or +20 +defense that's been asserted in the case. And it may well +21 +be that there are statements that were made that relate to +22 +a claim that's been made in this case and that would be +23 +relevant and that could be identified, could be found. +24 Maybe it was in, you know, an email or something. And it +25 +should be produced. On the other hand, if it's just + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 46 of 88 +1 +46 +2 anything at all, like including about the claims program or +3 something, that wouldn't be relevant to a claim in the case +4 or to a defense that's been asserted in the case. So I +5 think there's probably a middle ground there. I don't +6 think it's good enough for plaintiff just to say, you know, +7 we object to providing anything that's not related to the +8 specific allegations because I don't know that specific +9 allegations means the same thing as claim, which is a +10 +relevance test. That sounds -- +11 +12 +MS. KAPLAN: Yes, we have no problem producing +documents with journalists relating to the claims in the +13 +case. I'm quite confident there won't be any, but we +14 +15 +understand, your Honor, that -- +THE COURT: Well, go do a reasonable search. +16 +17 +18 +19 +MS. KAPLAN: Yes. Well, we have, but we will +again, your Honor. The real debate here was statements +that were made by me to members of the press about the +claims fund. +20 +THE COURT: Okay. You've been jumping in on these +21 +points, and I haven't really given an opportunity to +22 +23 +24 +defense counsel to jump in on these points. Before I get +to the next category, do you want to say anything further +about the damages computation or about the +25 +communications -- + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 47 of 88 +1 +47 +2 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yeah. So, first, if I could just +3 back -- Bennet Moskowitz, your Honor. I apologize -- get +4 +into that habit. +5 +If your Honor recalls, the reason this all came +6 about this way with this jammed-up deposition schedule is +7 because we had originally just asked for what we thought +8 +was quite reasonable, let's move all of these out 30 days +9 so we can get all this done in a reasonable fashion. My +10 +one concern that I haven't heard addressed yet -- and +11 +perhaps because I hadn't expressly raised it -- is, you +12 +know, I'm still of the view that, look, we're trying to get +13 +these depos done on this schedule; that's what we agreed to +14 +strive for with opposing counsel. They have indicated to +15 +me that you'd better get them done by July 27 because we +16 think that's how long you should have. +17 +I'd like to just say now and confront the issue +18 +that, 1ook, we will try to hold these dates, but already +19 +we're having trouble, say, serving one of the people in +20 +particular, one of plaintiff's friends. There's no reason +21 +that if we must, based on deponent's reasonable +22 +availability, these depositions can't go into August. +23 +There's no magic number. And I would just like to include +24 +within the directive of the court to confirm that my +25 +understanding of that is that that would probably include, + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 48 of 88 +1 +48 +2 if it makes +sense, to having some of the depositions go +3 beyond July 27, not five months from now, but some time in +4 August. I don't see any problem with that, and I figure +5 while we're talking about this, that I'd love to get +6 clarity about +that point. So I could stop there because +7 that's one of about three points I wanted to raise. +8 +THE COURT: Yes. Raise your other points. So far +9 we're up to computation of damages and communications with +10 +the press on the specific document issues. +11 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Sure. +I believe the -- I +12 +apologize; the calendar was addressed before this. I don't +13 +want to lose sight. +14 +THE COURT: Right. +15 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: So as for the press statements, +16 +we're not looking for statements about the -- we didn't say +17 +give us everything you said about the claims program. What +18 +we want is the good-faith search for things that may be +19 +20 +relevant, not just to a claim, right, but to our defenses. +If, for example, plaintiff's counsel spoke to the press or +21 +other plaintiff's counsel -- I know we're not there yet, +22 +but it's the same issue -- about their view of the alleged +23 +trafficking scheme, about the relative strength of claims +24 +against the estate, it's not that we're trying to get all +25 +discovery about all the other actions; it's just that, to + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 49 of 88 +1 +49 +2 the extent this plaintiff's counsel was part of those +3 discussions and made statements, that is necessarily +4 informed by this plaintiff's allegations even if in that +5 communication it's not the express, "This plaintiff says +6 Mr. Epstein did X, Y, Z." It may not say that, which is +7 what I understood plaintiff's counsel's position was, +8 "Well, we didn't say anything about specific claims." But +9 your Honor is correct that's not the limit on discovery. +10 But it would be highly relevant if, for example, +11 plaintiff's counsel says to members of the press, you know, +12 +"Our view of claims against Epstein are X, Y and Z." I get +13 +why they may not want us to see that, but it's not +14 +privileged, it's highly relevant and should be produced. +15 +So I look forward to the reasonable search for those, and +16 +I'm just informing the Court of how I view the potential +17 +relevance there. It's not just the claims; it's also the +18 +defense. +19 +THE COURT: I didn't understand -- +20 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: I will =- +21 +THE COURT: I didn't understand how you define +22 +what the defenses are and what's relevant to your defenses. +23 +What are the estate's defenses that you're looking for +24 +documents that it's relevant to? +25 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: It would -- yes, sure -- it would + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 50 of 88 +1 +50 +really go, for the most part, to issues of damages, you +3 know, +alleged harms. There could be, among plaintiff's +4 counsel, discussion of the claims relative to each other. +5 And to the extent that -- +6 +THE COURT: But that's not what the -- +7 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: -- statements like -- +8 +THE COURT: -- that's your category about talking +9 with other counsel. +10 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: I don't know. I mean, I haven't +11 +seen a single email from the press. I was -- you know, we +12 were given the categorical, you know, "You don't need it." +13 +THE COURT: Do you think there's going to be an +14 +email to the press where this plaintiff's counsel said, +15 +"Our client's claims are, you know, less severe than the +16 other plaintiffs' claims"? The odds of that seem to me +17 none. +18 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, no, that would certainly +19 +20 +surprise me, your Honor. But statements of that nature +going the other way would still be relevant. And I see a +21 +lot of press stories with this plaintiff's counsel and with +22 +other plaintiff's counsel. +23 +THE COURT: Going the other way -- +24 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: No, just in general, that all +25 +allegations that are (indiscernible). + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 51 of 88 +51 +THE COURT: Wait a minute. You're not looking +1 +2 +4 +5 +3 for -- +MS. KAPLAN: Your Honor -- +THE COURT: -- you're not looking for -- wait a +6 minute. +I don't even understand what defense counsel is +saying here. +When you say "going the other way, " you mean +8 +communications from the press to plaintiff's counsel? +9 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: No, no, I apologize. Going the +10 other way in terms of the substance. So even if +11 +plaintiff's counsel says, "Our claim is stronger for the +12 +following reasons," well, it's said to a member of the +13 +press, it's not privileged, and that's highly relevant to +14 +their view of this case. +It could well be that the expert +15 +report's going to echo some of the sentiments. We're +16 entitled to see that information. +17 +THE COURT: Ms. Kaplan? +18 +MS. KAPLAN: Your Honor, I think I can cut this +19 +short. I've been a member of the bar and this court for 25 +20 +years, I'm an officer of the court. I'm very well aware of +21 +my obligations and a duty of candor to the Court. I'm the +22 +only one on our team who spoke to the press. And every +23 +statement that I made to the press, which you can Google +24 +and find out, is about the settlement fund. No statements +25 +were made to the press, particularly because they are + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 52 of 88 +1 +52 +2 privileged, +about our client's claims, her facts, relative +3 claims. +And here where we're even more sensitive, putting +4 +aside the privilege issue, because she's pseudonymous. So +5 there was +6 +THE COURT: I'm sorry, because what? +7 +MS. KAPLAN: So there was absolutely zero +8 +conversation about -- +9 +THE COURT: Wait, wait. I'm sorry because -- +10 +MS. KAPLAN: Our client is pseudonymous. +She's +11 +anonymous. We couldn't say -- +12 +THE COURT: • she's anonymous, anonymous. +13 +MS. KAPLAN: -- even if we wanted to have a +14 +nonprivileged conversation, anything we could have said +15 +could have potentially divulged her identity. There were +16 +no such conversations with anyone in the press. Every +17 +conversation, which is what Mr. Moskowitz has seen, if you +18 +Google my name, is about the settlement fund. +19 +THE COURT: Okay. +So -- +20 +MS. KAPLAN: And this is what's frustrating, your +21 +Honor, because we've said this to them countless times. +I +22 +don't even know why we're still on this issue. +23 +THE COURT: All right, I will take that +24 +representation, and I'm going to assume that there are no +25 +statements of the sort that Mr. Moskowitz is suggesting + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 53 of 88 +1 +53 +2 could be out there. You know, make a diligent search of +3 what you've got, if you have emails or anything like that. +4 If there's something that relates to a claim that you've +5 asserted or a defense that's been asserted, that's the +6 +test; +produce +it. If there really isn't, there is nothing, +7 you make a representation there really isn't, I've searched +8 and there just isn't. And you can have a more specific +9 conversation with each other, and Mr. Moskowitz can say, +10 +"Did you look for anything that might have talked about +Il this or that or the other thing?" And you can clear it up. +12 And I'm not going to waste time ordering production of +13 +documents that don't exist or that you can figure out +14 +between you exist or not. +15 +All I was saying was that when you talked about +16 particular allegations, that sounded too narrow. All +17 +right -- +18 +MS. KAPLAN: Understood, your Honor. +19 +THE COURT: Okay. With respect to communications +20 +with other counsel representing other plaintiffs in this +21 +case, at a first level of analysis, I suspect that we have +22 +a valid common interest privilege or work product privilege +23 +that there's just been no showing that it would be -- that +24 +there's need to overcome that work product immunity. It +25 +seems to me the kind of case where, you know, if there were + + + +1 +54 +2 communications among counsel about their clients' claims, +3 they would likely be protected under a common interest +4 doctrine or they would likely be talking about litigation +5 strategy, and that would likely be protected as work +6 product. +So, you know, absent some particularized showing +7 of something that you're trying to get at that you know +8 exists or you've heard about or something, I'm not going to +9 direct plaintiff to be making production there. +10 +This is not -- this is without prejudice. There +11 +could be a further application on this if there's something +12 +more specific, but I'm just not going to say as a wholesale +13 +matter go and produce all your communications with other +14 +counsel about your client's claims. So I'm ruling in favor +15 +of plaintiff on that one, at least at this time. +16 +The medical records, this I find a little bit +17 +confusing. Certainly, medical records from the time of the +18 +alleged abuse and thereafter, if there is a claim of +19 +lasting emotional harm, certainly any records regarding +20 mental health care have been put at issue. And I'm +21 +assuming she's alleging +much +more than garden-variety +22 +emotional distress and that -- that's correct, right? +23 +MS. KAPLAN: Yes, your Honor. +24 +THE COURT: Yes. +Okay. So she's put her mental +25 +health, her emotional state, at issue. She is going to + + + +1 +55 +2 have to produce +the mental health records both from the +3 time it was contemporaneous with any alleged abuse and +4 going forward into the future if she's claiming that her +5 injury has lasted, because that's what she says, that's +6 entitled to +be +tested. And to the extent there +is +7 privilege, that would be waived. +8 +Now, with respect to physical issues for other +10 +9 sorts of doctors, they're a little unsure because when I +looked at the complaint because defendants directed me to +11 +12 +13 +allegations in the complaint and now unfortunately my -- +1, here it is. I've got it. +We just lost someone. Let's make sure we didn't +14 +lose counsel. Do we still have Ms. Kaplan? +15 +16 +17 +18 +MS. KAPLAN: I'm still here, your Honor, yes. +THE COURT: Mr. Moskowitz, are you still there? +MR. MOSKOWITZ: I'm still here, your Honor. +THE COURT: All right, we'll go with the two of +19 you. +20 +So I have here the complaint. And defendants +21 +referred me to paragraph 56, for example, where it says, +22 +23 +for example, that plaintiff had symptoms such as a rapid +heartbeat. Now that, obviously -- I'm not a doctor, but I +24 +25 +think it's pretty commonly known that can be related to, +you know, anxiety or fear or something like that; people's + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 56 of 88 +1 +56 +2 hearts can race. +On the other hand, there might be an +3 underlying medical condition or it might have caused a +4 +medical condition, or it might be treated by a doctor who's +5 not a psychiatrist. She may have gone to a cardiologist -- +6 it's possible. +7 +There's an issue here about difficulty eating. +8 Well, that may be a symptom of a psychiatric condition. On +9 the other hand, she may have had a physical problem. She +10 +may have had, I don't know, some reflux or something where +11 +she had to take medication, where she was treated. There +12 +could have been something related to that. Unclear simply +13 +from the allegations. +14 +Difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep. And +15 +it may be that she went a general practitioner who +16 +prescribed her with sleeping medication or who monitored +17 +that and, you know, tried different kinds of, you know, +18 +sleeping pills if that was going to help her or not help +19 +her. So it may not only be mental health care providers +20 +who might have knowledge relevant to particular things that +21 +are alleged in the complaint. Not clear. +22 +Now, that doesn't mean -- +, and another thing is +23 +if she is claiming that she +: was sexually abused, I don't +24 +know if she ever was examined by a medical professional in +25 +connection with any alleged rape. If that happened, if + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 57 of 88 +1 +57 +2 there +was +rape kit, for example, it would be relevant for +3 sure. +4 +MS. KAPLAN: Of course. +5 +THE COURT: It may not have happened that way, +6 right, but there may be medical records; I mean, you know, +7 God forbid if she was sexually abused and she got pregnant +8 and there was -- you know, and she had an abortion. +I'm +9 making this up. +10 +MS. KAPLAN: Right. No, no, no. We -- +11 +THE COURT: Okay? I know nothing about the case. +12 +But my point is there may be medical records from doctors +13 +other than mental health providers that would be highly +14 +relevant to the claims that she's asserting in this case. +15 That said -- +16 +MS. KAPLAN: We agree. +17 +THE COURT: Okay. That said, if she had twisted +18 +her ankle, you know, walking down the street one day and +19 +went to an orthopedist, that would have no relevance to +20 +anything, okay, unless -- +21 +MS. KAPLAN: Correct, your Honor. +22 +THE COURT: +-- somehow it came out at a deposition +23 +that it's relevant to something. So the medical -- I think +24 +that the line for only mental health care might be too +25 +narrow, but all medical records from any kind of provider + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 58 of 88 +1 +58 +seems to me to be overly broad. And I think there needs to +3 be some discussion about that to sort that out. And +4 certainly, if the plaintiff is deposed and something comes +5 out that opens the door to some additional records, the +6 risk there +is +that if I say yeah, you know, she said this +7 thing now about some -- about being, you know, treated for +8 digestion problems or something and now there are +9 additional records and now once you get those records, she +10 might have to go back and sit for deposition round two, +11 which nobody wants. Nobody wants it because it's more +12 costly, and plaintiff certainly doesn't want to have to go +13 +through this twice. +14 +MS. KAPLAN: So we understand that, your Honor. +15 We are absolutely willing to give all medical records, not +16 only for mental health treatment but for any physical +17 +symptoms that we allege arise from the abuse and from the +18 +mental health problems that she has suffered from. I don't +19 think that's the dispute here. I think they just say they +20 +want all of her medical records. +21 +THE COURT: Well, it may be a little bit difficult +22 +to parse out because if she has a general practitioner and +23 +she sees that person for complaints like I can't sleep and +24 +that person prescribes sleeping medication, and she also +25 +goes to that person because, well, I don't know, she -- you + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 59 of 88 +1 +59 +2 know, she's got lower back pain or something, she's got +3 headache, something else, you know, that doctor may not +4 +parse it out in his or her records that -- you know, and to +5 ask the doctor to go through and produce this but not that +6 can sometimes +be difficult. So that's -- +7 +MS. KAPLAN: But, your Honor, I don't -- I +8 don't -- with respect, I don't think we have that problem +9 here. Our client is very poor. She was a street kid when +10 +she was raped by Jeffrey Epstein, a 14-year-old street kid. +11 +She's not a wealth -- she's a very poor person today. She +12 +does not go to doctors, certainly, for everyone who knows +13 +me, the way that I go to doctors when I have a medical +14 +condition to be treated. There's very few doctor records +15 +here, and the doctor records that she does go to are for +16 +people like when her child was born or to get regular +17 +obstetrics exams, etc. So it's not like there's this huge +18 +universe and she's going to a zillion different doctors the +19 +way, quite frankly, I do, your Honor. She is a very low +20 resources, very low income, does not frequent doctors in +21 her -- +22 +THE COURT: What is the -- what is the dispute +23 +really about here? What are the records that you do not +24 +want to produce that exist -- +25 +MS. KAPLAN: We don't want to give all of the + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 60 of 88 +1 +60 +2 +records -- +3 +THE COURT: -- but are not relevant? +4 +MS. KAPLAN: Every year she goes in for a pap +5 smear. I don't think they're entitled to her pap smear +6 records._ +It's just -- I mean, people go to regular doctors +1 that have nothing to do with what happened here. She's not +8 alleging -- she's alleging no physical injury from the +9 rape. And I don't think they're entitled to that. +10 +THE COURT: Okay. But if she alleges that she was +11 raped and she saw a gynecologist about that who did -- +12 +MS. KAPLAN: She was -- didn't happen. If she +13 +had, we would have given it. She was a 14-year-old street +14 +kid. +15 +16 +17 +THE COURT: Okay. +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Your Honor, may I respond to this? +THE COURT: Yes. +18 +19 +20 +21 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yeah, so this is the problem +again. Here we get again a blanket assertion of, "You get +these; you don't get these." Here's the problem -- and +your Honor actually alluded to this a little earlier. It +22 +may be that I, as a layperson when it comes to medicine, +23 +goes to what I think is a regular exam. But there could be +24 +ten close reasons that that exam is then relevant to +25 +something I didn't know it was relevant to. Doctors take + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 61 of 88 +1 +61 +2 notes, often sometimes about mental health, even when +3 they're not the mental health care provider. Doctors +4 prescribe things. You can go for a "regular" dental +5 procedure and get prescribed opioids that could very well +6 lead into things that are very relevant here. And because +7 it's a small universe, what we are saying is please don't +8 be so exclusive in saying wholesale that you get these but +9 not these. +We need our experts to look and say what is +10 +relevant. We can't have that decision made on the +1l plaintiff's side. +12 +13 +14 +15 +THE COURT: Okay. All right. +MS. KAPLAN: Your Honor, that's -- +THE COURT: No, no, no, no. Stop. No. +MS. KAPLAN: If she goes to a dentist -- +16 +THE COURT: Before you jump in -- before you jump +17 +in, I'm going to side with you. You don't have to jump in. +18 +Okay? So stop for a second. +19 +MS. KAPLAN: Thank you, your Honor. +20 +THE COURT: All right, there is a -- once again, +21 +there is a middle ground here. First of all, all the +22 +mental health records get produced. Second, if she had a +23 +24 +25 +primary care physician and, you know, she was having +difficulty sleeping, if this was the person that she was +talking to about that or any of the symptoms that are + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 62 of 88 +1 +62 +2 +alleged in the complaint, then that person's records should +3 probably be produced unless there is something that is, you +4 know, easily carve-outable from it or something. But it's +5 very hard for a doctor to parse through records and produce +6 +some and not produce the rest. +7 +Other kinds of care providers, such as a dentist, +8 +no. You don't just get a dentist's records because you're +9 speculating that maybe she got opioids from a dentist. If +10 you have a psychiatrist's records, if she had psychiatric +11 +care or some kind of therapist records for mental health +12 +care, and you see in the notes something like, you know, +13 +"She's really upset today about her cancer diagnosis," +14 +right? Well, it's going to open the door that there's +15 +something else that's a major stressor and is affecting her +16 +emotional health. Right? If there's some indication that +17 +she is on medication in the mental health records or in the +18 +general practitioner's records where that medication can +19 +affect somebody's mental status in some way, okay, it might +20 +open the door to a little further discovery about what the +21 deal is with this medication. But you don't just get to +22 +fish; you don't just get to speculate and get any and all +23 +providers. +24 +25 +So you try to figure out where the rational line +is, because I hear a lot on defendant's side in any kind of + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 63 of 88 +1 +63 +2 case +that involves +mental health -- or emotional distress, +3 I should say, pain and suffering -- mental pain and +4 +suffering, that, +, maybe she had a terrible medical +5 condition or maybe something else was going on medically +6 that +could have +affected that. Well, sure, lots of things +7 could go on in a person's life that's a stressor. They +8 could have lost a job, they could have had a death in the +9 family, there could have been something else. It doesn't +10 +meant you get to fish for everything about their lives. If +11 +you get some discovery that suggests that she was in fact, +12 +you know, significantly affected by something else that's +13 +going on in her life, yes, it can open the door to +14 +discovery about that something else. But you don't get to +15 +fish for everything. +16 +So I don't know how many providers there are here. +17 +You have identified three treating physicians as witnesses. +18 +These are all mental healthcare professionals? For the +19 +depositions? +20 +MS. KAPLAN: No, I don't think any of them are. +21 +Is that correct, Kate? +22 +MS. KATE DONIGER: They are, I think, almost +23 +exclusively primary care physicians who she consulted about +24 +primary care issues and also mental health issues. +25 +THE COURT: Okay. So you've got the primary care + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 64 of 88 +1 +64 +2 physicians +identified, I guess, in your Rule 26(a) +3 disclosures +because that's why defendants asked for their +4 depositions. +Right? +5 +MS. KAPLAN: Yes. +6 +THE COURT: So they have some relevant knowledge. +7 Unless there's a way for them to parse their records and +8 +produce only those things that relate to a mental health +9 issue, +sleeping +issues, diet issues, you know, rapid +10 heartbeat issues, unless there's a way where they can +11 +segregate that out, or maybe it's easier to do it the other +12 +way that, you know, if she had a fracture, you separate and +13 +say, "We don't have to produce the documents related to the +14 +orthopedist that we sent her to for a consult." But I +15 +think you're going to have to produce the records of the +16 doctors you identified as potentially having knowledge +17 +relevant to the case. And I don't know how many other +18 +doctors there really are. I'm going to say no on dentists, +19 +if she went to a dentist. If she went to a regular OB-GYN +20 +type provider on a regular basis, if there was nothing +21 +related to her -- to any allegations she's making here, if +22 +there's no -- if she's not claiming any physical harm, if +23 +she's not claiming that she was ever examined in connection +24 +with any rape here or anything, then I'm going to say no +25 +for now. +I'll say that with respect to a gynecologist, + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 65 of 88 +1 +65 +2 I'll say that +without prejudice if defendants want to show +me some case law that in a case alleging sexual abuse, that +4 opens up the door to all gynecological records. I have my +5 doubts, but that may be possible, and I'd look at law if +6 you can find me something. But any doctor you -- +7 +MS. KAPLAN: Understood, your Honor. We -- +8 +THE COURT: Yes? +9 +MS. KAPLAN: -- we're not alleging any physical +10 injury from Mr. Epstein's rape of her when she was 14. +11 +THE COURT: And you said she was not -- she was +12 +not examined at that time? +13 +MS. KAPLAN: She -- it's not -- no, it's not our +14 +understanding that she was examined. Again, she was a +15 +homeless street kid. +16 +THE COURT: So there's no -- there's no physical +17 +evidence as to whether or not she actually was raped at +18 +19 +20 +that time? That doesn't exist, as far as you know? +MS. KAPLAN: That's correct, your Honor. We have +none to offer, and I don't think any exists. +21 +THE COURT: Okay. All right. So I'm not sure +22 +what doctors are going to still be at issue here in terms +23 +of what there is to argue about. It doesn't sound like +24 +there's that much to argue about. Defendant's being +25 +overbroad, but if you've identified the person as having, + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 66 of 88 +1 +66 +2 you know, somebody who's got relevant knowledge, then their +3 records should probably be produced. Right? +4 +MS. DONIGER: Kate Doniger, your Honor. +5 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Your Honor -- +6 +MS. DONIGER: If I could just add one thing? We +7 have produced all of the records for the providers that we +8 identified in our disclosures. That is our understanding +9 as far as -- +10 +THE COURT: You produced the records or you -- you +11 produced the records, or you -- +12 +13 +14 +MS. DONIGER: All of the records. +THE COURT: -- produced the HIPAA release? +MS. DONIGER: +We've produced the complete records +15 +already. +16 +17 +18 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +THE COURT: Well, then, you should produce the +|HIPAA release because the defendant's entitled -- +MS. DONIGER: We've also -- we've also done that. +We've also produced the HIPAA release -- +THE COURT: Okay. So you did -- +MS. DONIGER: -- so that they can get the records +from these -- yes -- +THE COURT: From the providers -- +MS. DONIGER: -- we've already done that. +THE COURT: Hold on. Talking simultaneously even + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 67 of 88 +1 +67 +when +it's me is not a good idea. +3 +So with respect to the doctors who you've +4 identified in Rule 26 (a) (1) disclosures as people with +5 potential knowledge, you've already provided, a, records; +6 and b, +releases, +and defendants are free to get those +records from those doctors. +8 +MS. DONIGER: That's correct. +9 +THE COURT: And, number two, if there's any mental +10 health records other than those, you've provided releases +11 for those. +So what's left? Dentists and OB-GYN? Is there +12 +anything else? +13 +MS. DONIGER: Well, dentists, OB-GYN. Part of the +14 +way that -- you know, plaintiff did not have one primary +15 +care doctor who she sees consistently for all her issues. +16 +That's just not how she accesses medical care. So she has +17 +gone to urgent care for various issues. She may have gone +18 +to the ER for, you know, colds, sinus infections. +We +19 +actually don't have a specific list, and we think it would +20 be very difficult and burdensome to -- +21 +22 +23 +THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on, please. +MS. DONIGER: +-- to create one, but -- +THE COURT: Hold on. Mr. Moskowitz, are you still +24 +there? +25 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: I'm still here, your Honor. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 68 of 88 +1 +68 +2 +THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Kaplan, are you still +3 there? +4 +MS. KAPLAN: I am, your Honor. +5 +THE COURT: Okay. I heard somebody drop off. +6 +Okay, so urgent care, hospital emergency rooms, +7 urgent care, I don't care; I don't think defendants should +8 +care about a sinus +infection. On the other hand, if she +9 went to urgent care because she couldn't sleep and needed +10 +sleeping medication or because she was having panic attacks +11 +or something and she needed to go somewhere and she didn't +12 +have a primary care physician so she went to an urgent care +13 +clinic, that might be a place that has records. I don't +14 +know why she was going wherever she was going, but that +15 +needs a little bit of exploration because defendants are +16 entitled to records regarding mental health and regarding +17 +these various conditions that may be associated with mental +18 +health for which she may have sought care. So -- +19 +MS. DONIGER: And we don't disagree with that, +20 +your Honor. We're not aware of any other place where she +21 +has received treatment related to the conditions that she +22 +alleges in the complaint, and we've specifically +23 +represented that we would produce documents and records +24 +relating specifically to those conditions. So -- +25 +THE COURT: I'm left with the same question, which + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 69 of 88 +1 +69 +2 +is what exactly are you guys arguing about here? +3 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, your Honor -- +4 +THE COURT: What's the universe of documents that +5 plaintiffs will not produce? +6 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Your Honor, if I may, Bennet +7 Moskowitz. +Part of the problem here is until this call, +8 they would never tell us this. We at one point said, +9 +"Well, will you list out the other things that are out +10 +there that you don't think are relevant?" That was +11 +declined. +So perhaps we could have avoided this back-and- +12 +forth. We're seeking all of it because we don't know. +13 This is the most I'm hearing about this. So, you know, +14 +this warrants +further conversation along that line that we +15 +suggested perhaps a month or so ago. +16 +THE COURT: Look, look, do yourself -- +17 +MS. DONIGER: I think that -- +18 +THE COURT: -- save yourself time at plaintiff's +19 +deposition. All right? At plaintiff's deposition +20 +21 +defendant's counsel will say, "Tell me all the places +you've gone and tell me the reasons you've gone there," +22 +because if some place is identified where counsel thinks +23 +that, you know, she may have actually gone for mental +24 +health care or for, you know, to try to get a sleeping pill +25 +prescription or something, then counsel's going to go back + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 70 of 88 +1 +70 +2 +and ask for +release for that place, and then you're going +3 to circle around. And once again, you don't want to have +4 +to have plaintiff come back. +5 +Go through the different places with plaintiff +6 that she went +to +for care, the different providers, a +7 dentist, an urgent care facility, an emergency room or +8 whatever it may have been. Go through the places, tell +9 defense counsel what you understand about them and why you +10 +think that it's not necessary to produce releases for the +11 records there. If you have a particular discrete +12 disagreement on something, you know, it may have to come to +13 +head after a deposition. But you want to try to avoid the +14 +testimony of, "l +, yeah, I went there because, you know, I +15 +was worried I was having a heart attack because my heart +16 +was beating so fast," well, then it's going to be relevant. +17 +Right? And then you're going to have to go back and +18 +produce it. If she says, "I went there because I burned +19 +myself by accident with some hot water from the stove, " you +20 know, then it's not going to be relevant, and nobody's +21 going to say you're going to get the releases. But if you +22 +have a little bit more of a conversation ahead of time, you +23 +should be able to +it off, because I don't hear +24 +plaintiff's counsel being, you know, completely -- to be +25 +completely resistant or refusing to produce records from + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 71 of 88 +1 +71 +2 doctors for physical care to the extent they might have any +3 bearing on the claims that are being asserted here. +4 +MS. KAPLAN: No, no, absolutely not, your Honor. +5 For example, we've +given -- there are cardiology tests that +6 are clearly relevant to the allegations we have, and we've +7 produced those. +We don't disagree. +8 +THE COURT: So -- right. And once again, it's not +9 just the tests, it's also the release for that provider. +10 +MS. KAPLAN: Yes, no, we understand. +11 +THE COURT: The defendant's entitled to get it -- +12 +to get the documents on their own and to make sure the +13 +universe is complete. Okay? +14 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Your Honor, I have one more +15 +related but different point on medical records that I would +16 +like to raise, because I think some clarity, with the +17 +Court's assistance, would be helpful. I can't get into the +18 +specifics because it pertains to some of the information +19 +20 +that's been redacted now from one of the exhibits, but +there is disclosure by plaintiff that relates to certain +21 +things with potential other medical implications. And I +22 +want to be careful here because what I'm hearing +23 +plaintiff's counsel continue to talk about is they are +24 +going to 1o0k for things that relate to medical, either +25 +physical or mental, related to the claims of what + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 72 of 88 +1 +72 +2 Mr. Epstein +allegedly did to this plaintiff. However, what +someone else +may have done is also going to be highly +4 +relevant to +my experts. And we're entitled to see -- +5 +THE COURT: I don't quite understand -- I don't +6 quite understand +what you're trying to tell me here. +7 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes. +8 +MS. KAPLAN: I don't want -- and I'm very +9 uncomfortable, especially given the nature of the +10 +allegation in this case, if we want to have a -- if your +11 Honor wants to schedule an ex parte conversation or you +12 +want me to talk to mister -- I mean, without reporters on +13 +the phone or you want me to talk to Mr. Moskowitz +14 +separately, I'm happy to do that. But because I don't know +15 +what he's talking about now, I'm quite concerned about +16 the -- +17 +THE COURT: Yes. It sounds to me like defendants' +18 +counsel is trying to tread carefully, which leads me to +19 +believe there may be something of a confidential nature. +20 +Talk to each other first; see if you can reach a resolution +21 +on it with the guidance that, 100k, if it bears on the +22 +claims that are going to be made, she's going to have +23 +waived any privilege or confidentiality, and she's going to +24 +have to produce it. If it really doesn't bear on the +25 +claims that are being made, then I'm not going to require + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 73 of 88 +1 +73 +2 it to be produced because just because someone has put +3 certain mental health or even medical conditions at issue +4 doesn't necessarily open the door to anything and +5 everything about medical records. And if you're talking +6 about something +other than medical records, talk to +7 plaintiff's counsel about it first before you raise it with +8 +me. +Okay? +9 +I want to say something -- +10 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, will do, your Honor. +11 +THE COURT: Okay, so summarizing on these various +12 +issues that were raised, I'm directing plaintiff to modify +13 +the computation of damages and the Rule 26(a) disclosure +14 +with the best numbers they've got at this time and the +15 +documents specifically that support the different numbers. +16 +If you're making a rolling production, explain as you do +17 +this is further documentation to support that number we put +18 +in here. And if you need to supplement as you go, even +19 +more than once, supplement under Rule 26(e). If you want +20 +to move up an expert report, talk to opposing counsel about +21 whether it makes sense or it doesn't make sense. Keep cost +22 +in mind; keep the overall trajectory of the case in mind +23 +and try to do something that is intelligent and cost +24 +efficient. +25 +With respect to communications with the press, +I + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 74 of 88 +1 +74 +2 accept plaintiff's representation that there were no +3 communications with the press about claims or defenses, +4 only about the settlement fund. But take a check, you +5 know, at emails or any other communications you may have +6 had. Double-check; don't be overly narrow on what's +7 related to a claim or defense by only looking for what's +8 related to plaintiff-specific allegations, because it's +9 broader than that in terms of a claim, and it's certainly +10 broader than that in terms of a defense. And have a +11 further conversation with counsel if you have any doubt on +12 that issue. +13 +I'm not requiring plaintiff to produce documents +14 +concerning communications -- +| somebody has dropped off. +15 +Did we lose either Ms. Kaplan or Mr. Moskowitz? +16 +MS. KAPLAN: You're still stuck with me, your +17 +Honor. I'm here. +18 +THE COURT: Mr. Moskowitz? +19 +20 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, I'm still here, your Honor. +THE COURT: Good. Okay. I'm not requiring +21 +plaintiff at this time to produce communications with other +22 +counsel on other cases in this court that are cases like +23 +this one. That's without prejudice to coming +back later to +24 say, "Look, I am aware of something more particular here +25 +that I have concern about that I don't think is either + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 75 of 88 +1 +75 +2 privileged"; or if it is work product, it's -- "We have a +3 substantial need. It's information we can't get by other +4 +means, +and it should be overcome." But for now I'm saying +5 no. +6 +And on the medical records, we've just had a lot +7 of discussion. +Talk to each other. Yes, produce all the +8 +mental health records; yes, produce anything relevant -- +9 and releases for -- anything relevant to any of the +10 +assertions that are being made. But that's not free rein +11 +for defendants to be asking for any and all medical records +12 +of any kind. +13 +Now, I want to address the timing of the close of +14 +discovery in the case and the timing of depositions. +What +15 +I was trying to get you to do when I said go talk to each +16 +other about it, I'm willing - obviously, I'm willing to be +17 +flexible with the close of discovery. Close of fact +18 +discovery, close of expert discovery, whatever it may be, +19 +I'm willing to work with you to accommodate you with +20 deadlines that make sense. Honestly, I think that if +21 plaintiff may be participating in the program, it may make +22 +sense to put certain things off that might be particularly +23 +costly to see if by any chance it's not necessary to spend +24 +that money. +25 +In terms of depositions, I care more about your + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 76 of 88 +1 +76 +2a l +working well together and having a plan to get them done +3 than I care about squeezing them into the month of July. +4 If you've got some clear difficulty getting ahold of +5 somebody, if you think it makes more sense to put some a +6 little bit later because you're hoping you can do an in- +7 person deposition instead of a remote deposition and you're +8 hoping things will open up a little bit more and it will be +9 a little easier and a little safer, I'll work with you on +10 that. There isn't a huge rush because it's not getting +1l tried so fast and because there is a possibility of a +12 +resolution to the plaintiff's program, and both of those +13 +things counsel in favor of doing it, you know, sensibly as +14 +opposed to unnecessarily, you know, rushed and slammed +15 +through to get it done fast. That doesn't mean it should +16 drift forever; that doesn't mean, you know, the case +17 +shouldn't get resolved in a reasonably prompt fashion. It +18 +just means that Mr. Epstein is correct, if somebody -- if +19 +it's easier to get someone deposed in August or if there's +20 +some more records coming in that you think would be +21 +relevant to that deposition and you want to have them fully +22 +in hand before the deposition, be sensible. Work together. +23 +Come up with a schedule that makes sense, that works, and +24 +preferably that allows there to be some savings of money in +25 +case the case can get resolved through the claims program. + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 77 of 88 +1 +77 +2 +I don't think that the anticipated length of time +3 in the claims program is -- I don't know that much about +4 it, but I didn't think it was going to be something where +5 it would be months and months before there's a dollar +6 number put on a claim. Is that right? +7 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: That's correct. And, your Honor, +8 if I can for the record, you said Mr. Epstein when I +9 believe you went to refer to me, Mr. Moskowitz, so -- +10 +THE COURT: +• I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I +11 +12 +certainly did not mean to call you Mr. Epstein. +MR. MOSKOWITZ: No, that's okay. I just wanted a +13 +14 +clear record. +THE COURT: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. +15 Well, Mr. Epstein cannot be on this call, in any event. +16 +17 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Correct. +THE COURT: So I could not possibly have been +18 +referring to him. +19 +20 +21 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: That's right. So -- +THE COURT: Mr. Moskowitz -- I'm sorry. +22 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, correct. And he's not even +the client. +But, in any event, yes, the claims program's +23 +speed. That's correct, it's not supposed to be months on +24 +end. In fact, it's done on a rolling basis. If someone +25 +the way I understand it is if someone comes in, say, + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 78 of 88 +1 +78 +2 tomorrow, when they start receiving the actual, you know, +3 here's our claims submission, if person A comes in with a +4 complete set of documents for purposes of the administrator +5 being able to in her judgment determine that claim, it +6 could be weeks, six weeks, you know, less than two months, +7 for sure, potentially -- like I said, even closer to a +8 month. If someone else comes in and it's all incomplete, +9 well, then, it's on that person to fill the gap. But it's, +10 +in any event, not months on end and much quicker than +11 +litigation. +12 +THE COURT: Here is my suggestion. Plaintiff's +13 +counsel says plaintiff needs certain information through +14 +the discovery process in order to present her claim in the +15 +fullest light and maximize her chances of having a +16 favorable recovery with the fund. So prioritize that so +17 +that she feels comfortable going and presenting the claim. +18 +The depositions of her doctors, of her friends is not +19 +something that plaintiff is going to need; it's not +20 +evidence plaintiff needs. That's the evidence defendant +21 +wants to, you know, make sure the i's are dotted and the +22 +t's are crossed before going to trial in this case. That's +23 +evidence defendant wants. +So that's not needed by +24 +plaintiff to go forward with the claims process. If there +25 +are documents in particular that plaintiff wants to get + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 79 of 88 +1 +79 +ahold of or if you want to pin down the testimony from +3 these women who booked massages and find out if they're +really taking the Fifth and get that, you know, get that +5 down on paper, you know, then maybe you'll have in hand +6 what you +feel +you need. If at that point you decide that +7 you want to take a shot at the claims process, maybe at +8 that point we stay some of the discovery that defendant +9 wants, with the understanding it will happen in a pretty +10 expedited fashion if you come back to the court. But we +11 +save that money, you know, save unnecessary expense. +12 +All of these things are things that you should +13 +talk about and that you should try to work on cooperatively +14 +with the - you know, the logical goals of getting +15 +plaintiff what plaintiff feels is needed for this. You +16 +know, if plaintiff's going to go to the claims process, +17 +make it most likely to be successful for her to resolve the +18 +claims, to save some money. You know, if we can save the +19 +cost of defendant having an expert here, that's money. If +20 +we can move a few depositions to August instead of July, +21 +I'm willing to give you that time to do that; you know, to +22 +get some records in hand first that might be outstanding +23 +to, you know, do it at a pace that's not breakneck. I +24 +realize it's not necessarily breakneck to do 11 depositions +25 +in a month, but -- especially if some of them are less than + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 80 of 88 +1 +80 +2 a full day; but, you know, does it make sense in light of +3 what's going on with the other cases, does it make sense in +4 light of the fact she might participate in the program, +5 does it make sense in trying to conserve resources for the +6 fund, why not conserve resources for the fund, for the +7 estate, if possible. Right? +8 +Have these conversations. Think about it. Talk +9 to your clients. +Talk to each other. Take a look at the +10 +whole picture. Stop squabbling. Stop finger pointing. +11 +Stop racking up legal fees, writing me letters that have a +12 +paragraph here, a paragraph there that's just accusatory in +13 +tone; I don't need that, you don't need that. Just see +14 +what you can do that makes the most sense. And if you have +15 +thoughts, you know, come back and tell me those thoughts. +16 +Right now you've got all these depositions +17 +happening. I think it was by the end of July -- is that +18 +right? +19 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Correct, your Honor. That was +20 +July 27th. +21 +THE COURT: Well, by all means, if this is the +22 +23 +best schedule and this schedule makes sense, so just go do +it. But I'll give you until August 14, which is a couple +24 +of weeks into August, if you want a little breathing room +25 +and you can work together well with that in mind. It + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 81 of 88 +1 +81 +2 doesn't mean just put things off for the sake of putting it +3 off. It doesn't mean, you know, be lax with respect to the +4 case; it just means be sensible in terms of planning and +5 thinking about what you're doing instead of reflexive on +6 both sides. +Okay? +7 +MS. KAPLAN: Understood, your Honor. And, again, +8 just so it's clear, these are not decisions that we take +9 lightly. Without waiver of any privilege, we have talked +10 +very carefully with our client about all these issues. +11 This is her decision to go forward with this case. +And, +12 +again, I believe she's entitled to do that under the law. +13 +THE COURT: She's entitled to do it, but there are +14 +competing considerations. +I mean, you mentioned before a +15 +constitutional right. You know, nobody is trying to +16 +deprive anybody of any rights that they have here. I mean, +17 +we're here, she's entitled to bring a claim. You know, +18 +we'll hear her claim. +But the Court also is charged with +19 +managing its own docket; and, as I said, under the very +20 +first Rule of Civil Procedure, which I don't have memorized +21 +but should -- I'm going to look it up because I'm +22 +particularly fond of Rule 1. Rule 1, Scope and Purpose of +23 +the Rules. Let me see if I can get that to open up for me +24 +somewhere here. Rule 1: "These rules govern the procedure +25 +in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 82 of 88 +1 +82 +2 District Court," except as stated in Rule 81. "They should +3 be construed, administered and employed by the Court and +4 the parties to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive +5 determination of every action and proceeding." So we have +6 these conflicting issues here. Speedy, that's plaintiff, +"Let's go. Let's go." Inexpensive, that's, "Do we have to +8 spend this money? +Might the case be resolved separately? +9 Does it make sense when we're talking about an estate where +10 +we would like to see the most available money possible for +1l victims of Mr. Epstein?" Those are competing +12 considerations. Might others be coming back to the court? +13 +Are they all going to resolve the case? I don't know. You +14 +know, is there any way in which it makes sense to +15 +coordinate; maybe it does not. But these are things to +16 think about. Nobody is intending to violate anybody's +17 rights here through a just resolution of -- +18 +MS. KAPLAN: No. And the first part of that rule +19 +20 +that your Honor didn't repeat is justice and just, and +that's what my client is seeking here. +21 +THE COURT: Just, speedy and inexpensive, those +22 +are the three concerns. +We're going to keep them all, all +23 +three, in mind as we construe the rules. You know, speedy +24 +is going to be difficult because of COVID, whatever we do. +25 +That's out of our control. Just, nobody's going to say + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 83 of 88 +1 +83 +that +she can't have a fair trial and a just determination. +3 Inexpensive is largely dependent upon how we look at the +4 +scope of discovery +and how the parties conduct themselves. +5 Keep it in mind +and try to keep the cost down and try to +6 work +together +without squabbling. Okay? +7 +MS. KAPLAN: Thank you, your Honor. +8 +THE COURT: Is there anything outstanding or is +9 there anything that lacks clarity where before we get off +10 +this call you want me to cover it or you want me to make +11 +something clear for the record? Or you think we're good? +12 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Your Honor, Bennet Moskowitz. I +13 +do have one question. Given what your Honor said about the +14 +depositions going into August, is the Court going to +15 +formally reset the deadlines that flow from that, you know, +16 expert disclosure -- +17 +THE COURT: I'm going to -- yes, I'm going to -- I +18 +mean, if you have through the end of July, I'm just going +19 +to kick you out another couple of weeks just to give you a +20 +little breathing room on the depositions. I expect you to +21 +work together on them. +I expect you'll be able to work +22 +that out. If the dates you've already agreed to work, then +23 +they work. If there's something there that doesn't quite +24 +work and there's a good reason for it, then, you know, kick +25 +it a little bit. And keep talking; and if plaintiff + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 84 of 88 +1 +84 +2 decides to participate in this process, I may rethink the +3 extent to which things are going forward. I may rethink +4 +whether everything +should be stayed in whole or in part for +5 at least a short period of time. I don't know. But right +6 now she's not participating, and right now it looks like +7 the discovery is very plaintiff specific; and so under +8 those circumstances, right now I'm not staying anything. +9 Okay? +10 +MS. KAPLAN: Just as a reminder, your Honor, +11 +again, a bargain for very clear term in the settlement fund +12 +is that no plaintiff should be required to stay anything in +13 +order to participate in the fund. +14 +THE COURT: I understand that. But that doesn't +15 bind the Court in what it thinks is sensible. So I +16 understand that, and I'm not at the moment -- +17 +MS. KAPLAN: No, it actually -- it may impact my +18 +client -- if you're telling me that you're going to stay if +19 +she participates in the fund, that actually may impact her +20 +decision to participate in the fund. +21 +THE COURT: I'm saying I don't know what I will +22 +do. +What I'm saying is if she decides to do it -- and I +23 +don't know at what point you'll be in discovery at that +24 +point; I don't know what will be left -- if the only thing +25 +that's left, for example, is defendants' retaining an + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 85 of 88 +1 +85 +expert +and examining the plaintiff, she might say, "Yeah, I +actually would like to hold off on having to sit for a +4 +psychiatric exam by defendants' expert. I don't mind +5 having that held off." Okay? +6 +MS. KAPLAN: Understood, your Honor. I just -- I +7 | +need to tackle whether if what I'm hearing is -- +8 +THE COURT: I'm not -- I'm not making -- I'm not +9 making any advance +ruling. What I'm saying is keep me +10 +apprised, tell me what you both think is sensible. +11 +Hopefully you got from this call that I'm listening to both +12 +of you and I'm trying to do what makes sense for the case +13 +and what makes sense potentially for other cases. Had I +14 +heard that there were depositions where it would be likely +15 +that other plaintiffs, should they end up not settling, +16 +would want to be at the table for the same witness, I would +17 +have said let's stay that particular deposition. I didn't +18 +hear that, so I'm not doing it. Okay? +19 +So right now I don't see a basis for a stay, but I +20 +do see a reason for you to keep talking and keep +21 +communicating and to try to keep thinking about what's +22 +sensible. And depending upon where we are, if she decides +23 +to participate, there may be two different applications +24 +that come in that I may have to weigh. And, like I said, +25 +if the only thing that's left is the expensive expert and + + +Case 1:19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 86 of 88 +1 +86 +she's not raring to go with it, it may make sense to hold +3 it off, you may stipulate to it. It +4 +_. KAPLAN: You're right -- you're right, your +5 Honor. +The reason I'm raising it is because if I have to +6 +tell her that +participating in the fund means this case +7 will be stayed, I think that will affect her decision to -- +8 +THE COURT: I am not saying that. I am not saying +9 that. I am saying that if circumstances change and anyone +10 has an application to make, bring it to my attention, and I +11 will hear what everyone has to say, and I will do what I +12 think makes the most sense at that time in those +13 circumstances without prejudging it. I'm not ruling out a +14 +potential stay or a partial one. And I am not saying I +15 +would do it, either. I'm just saying if things change, +16 +tell me what's going on and let me look at it anew with +17 +everybody's input. And I will have another conference, and +18 +I will hear from everybody. I can't assure her that she +19 +will do both simultaneously and this will go absolutely +20 full speed ahead, but I'm not saying right now that I see a +21 basis for a stay. Okay? +22 +MS. KAPLAN: Thank you, your Honor. +23 +THE COURT: All right? No guarantees on the +24 +future. We'll take it as it comes. +25 +All right, enough said. I'll probably do a text + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 87 of 88 +1 +87 +2 order or two on what's outstanding on the docket. And if +3 more issues come up, you know, bring them to my attention. +4 All right? +5 +MS. KAPLAN: Thank you, your Honor. +6 +THE COURT: Thank you, both. Thank you, all. +7 +MS. KAPLAN: Good afternoon. +8 +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Thank you, your Honor. +9 +(Whereupon, the matter is recessed.) +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 85 Filed 06/29/20 Page 88 of 88 +88 +CERTIFICATE +I, Carole Ludwig, certify that the foregoing +transcript of proceedings in the case of Doe V. Indyke et +al, Docket #19-CV-08673-KPF-DCF, was prepared using digital +transcription software and is a true and accurate record of +the proceedings. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Signature +Date: +Carole Ludwig +Carole Ludwig +June 29, 2020 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c851ad5c5dbe9706aef20ee9de088c7517b03afb5d24246849d0e2dade0c0371.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c851ad5c5dbe9706aef20ee9de088c7517b03afb5d24246849d0e2dade0c0371.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9bc4a6f692afa1ad4cff0c68a3f524b13f120427 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c851ad5c5dbe9706aef20ee9de088c7517b03afb5d24246849d0e2dade0c0371.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -2418, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c851ad5c5dbe9706aef20ee9de088c7517b03afb5d24246849d0e2dade0c0371", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 95, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4de59edff0c5ffaef4900d9ec1ebfd8f2f35d13e1bf0f51142d6e3bfd957856c", + "output_sha256": "f648de981bf21c9662c658178b99d4538bddc7818b90b41e6ffb4ef56e50ad6c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c8638afb79df3c5026639d5e568f256aaa0dadd9997318e9b385dd691c564679.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c8638afb79df3c5026639d5e568f256aaa0dadd9997318e9b385dd691c564679.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9588de65531bcbf46a7a670abdf5f53531ec3f33 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c8638afb79df3c5026639d5e568f256aaa0dadd9997318e9b385dd691c564679.md @@ -0,0 +1,403 @@ +Oregone +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2008 | Regeb of 6T +ELECTRONIC +April 14, 2008 +CLERK +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-Hurley-l +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +/ +COMPLAINT +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 4 ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), brings this Complaint against Jeffrey +Epstein, as follows: +Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue +Jane Doe No. 4 is a citizen and resident of the State of Florida, and is sui juris. +2. +minor. +This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name to protect the identity of the +Plaintiff because this Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon a +3. +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen and resident of the State of New York. +4. +This is an action for damages in excess of $50 million. +This Court has jurisdiction of this action and the claims set forth herein pursuant to 28 +U.S.C. §1332(a), as the matter in controversy (i) exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs; +and (i) is between citizens of different states. +6. +This Court has venue of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a) as a substantial +part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A +- 1- +1 of 6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2008 Page 2 of 6 +Factual Allegations +At all relevant times, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") was an adult male, 52 +years old. Epstein is a financier and money manager with a secret clientele limited exclusively to +billionaires. He is himself a man of tremendous wealth, power and influence. He maintains his +principal home in New York and also owns residences in New Mexico, St. L +and Palm Beach, +FL. The allegations herein concern Epstein's conduct while at his lavish estate in Palm Beach. +Upon information and belief, Epstein has a sexual preference and obsession for +underage minor girls. He engaged in a plan and scheme in which he gained access to primarily +economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home, sexually assaulted these girls, and then gave +them money. In or about 2002-2003, Jane Doe, then approximately 15 years old, fell into Epstein's +trap and became one of his victims. +Upon information and belief, Jeffrey Epstein carried out his scheme and assaulted +girls in Florida, New York and on his private island, known as Little St. James, in St. +Epstein's scheme involved the use of young girls to recruit underage girls. +I, a Palm Beach Community College student from Loxahatchee, Florida recruited girls +ostensibly to give a wealthy man a massage for monetary compensation in his Palm Beach mansion. +The young girls would be contacted when Epstein was planning to be at his Palm Beach residence or +soon after he had arrived there. +upon information and belief, generally sought out +economically disadvantaged underage girls from western Palm Beach County who would be enticed +by the money being offered - generally $200 to $300 per "massage" session - and who were +perceived as less likely to complain to authorities or have credibility if allegations of improper +conduct were made. This was an important element of Epstein's plan. +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. +- 2- +2 of 6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2008 Page 3 of 6 +11. +Epstein's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. The underage +victim would be brought to the kitchen entrance of Epstein's mansion, where she would be +introduced to +,, Epstein's assistant. +would then bring the girl up a flight of +stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table in addition to other furnishings. There were +photographs of nude women lining the stairway +and in the bedroom. The girl would then find +herself alone in the room with Epstein, who would be wearing only a towel. He would then remove +his towel and lie naked on the massage table, and direct the girl to remove her clothes. Epstein +would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual acts, including masturbation and +touching the girl's vagina. +12. +Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, when Jane Doe was approximately 15 +years old, she was recruited by l +||| to give Epstein a massage for monetary compensation. +Jane was brought to Epstein's mansion in Palm Beach, to the kitchen entrance. Once there, Jane +was introduced to +, who led her up the flight of stairs to the room with the massage +table. In this room, Jane was directed by Epstein to remove her clothes and give him a massage. +Jane initially kept her panties and bra on, and complied with Epstein's instructions. Jane was paid by +Epstein for this massage. +13. +Jane returned on many occasions to the Palm Beach mansion to provide Epstein with +massages. On those occasions, Epstein engaged in sexual contact and activity with the minor Jane, +which included, among other things, directing Jane to remove all her clothes, masturbating during +the massage, and digitally penetrating Jane's vagina. Jeffrey Epstein often used a vibrator on the +minor Jane during the massage. This sexual abuse continued for approximately three years. +14. +As a result of these encounters with Epstein, Jane experienced confusion, shame, +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A +- 3- +3 of 6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2008 Page 4 of 6 +humiliation and embarrassment, and has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries. +COUNT I +Sexual Assault +15. +Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. +16. +Epstein tortiously assaulted Jane Doe sexually. Epstein's acts were intentional, +unlawful, offensive and harmful. +17. Epstein's plan and scheme in which he committed such acts upon Jane Doe were done +willfully and maliciously. +18. This sexual assault was in violation of Chapter 800 of the Florida Statutes, which +recognizes as a crime the lewd and lascivious acts committed by Epstein upon Jane. +19. As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's assault on Jane, she has suffered and will +continue to suffer severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and +emotional damages. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and such other and further relief as this +Court deems just and proper +COUNT II +Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress +20. +Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. +21. +22. +23. +Epstein's conduct was intentional or reckless. +Epstein's conduct was outrageous, going beyond all bounds of decency. +Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. Epstein knew or had +reason to know that his intentional and outrageous conduct would cause emotional trauma and +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. +- 4- +4016 + + +, Case 9:08-Cv-80380-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2008 Page 5 of 6 +damage to Jane Doe. +24. +As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's intentional or reckless conduct, Jane +Doe, has suffered and will continue to suffer severe mental anguish and pain. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for compensatory damages, costs, punitive damages, and such other and further relief as this +Court deems just and proper. +JURY TRIAL DEMAND +Plaintiffs demand a jury trial in this action +Dated: April /47/2008 +Respectfully submitted, +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd. +Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +By: +Jeffrey M. Herman +jherman@hermanlaw.com +Florida Bar No. 521647 +Stuart S. Mermelstein +smermelstein@hermanlaw.com +Florida Bar No. 947245 +Adam D. Horowitz +Florida Bar No. 376980 +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +Herman & Mermelstein, P. A. +- 5- +5 of 6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Docu@|/IL1C@MERSHEEED Docket 04/14/2008_ Page 6 of 6 +except as provided by local rules of court this form, approved by the Judicial Conference one hid Sates in See be 19 rote er i de +except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September +the Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.) +|(a) PLAINTIFFS +JANE DOE NO. 4, +(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF +MARION COUNTY +(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) +DEFENDANTS +APR 1 4 2008 +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTER CAKENPOST. CEW YORK +(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF C-6 FL4 FF. LAUD +(c) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER) +ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN) +Herman & Mermelstein, P.A., 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218, Miami, +FL 33160, (305) 931-2200 +(d) CIRCLE COUNTY WHERE ACTION AROSE: PALM BEACH +Il. BASIS OF JURISDICTION +(PLACE AN X ONE BOX ONLY) +• 1. U.S. Government +• 3. Federal Question +Plaintiff +(U.S. Government Not a Party) +• 2 US. Government +x 4. Diversity +Defendant +(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item +9:08CV 80380- Husky-topkins +MI. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES +(For Diversity Case Only) +DEF +• 4 04 +Citizen of This State +Citizen of Another State +02 × 2 +Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country • 3 • 3 +AND ONE FOR DEFENDANT +Incorporated of Principal Place of +Business in This State +Incorporated and Principal Place of O 5 0 5 +Business in Another State +Foreign Nation +0606 +HI) +IV. CAUSE OF ACTION +(CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE +DO NOT CITE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY.) +DIVERSITY ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1332(a) FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT +IVa. 5. days estimated (for both sides) to try entire case +V. NATURE OF SUIT +(PLACE AN XIN ONE BOX ONLY) +A CONTRACT +A TORTS +A BANKRUPTCY +00000 +120 Marne +1:30 Miller Act +140 Negosable Instrument +150 Recovery of Overpaymert +& Enorcemert ol +Judgmen +• 131Mcк88 AC +• 152 Recovery of Defauled +Student Lcans (Excl +Veterans) B +• 153 Recovery of Overpayment +of Veteran's Benefis B +• 160 Sockholder's Suis +• 105 Contract Produet Liability +PERSONAL INJURY +© 310 Airplane +© 382 Persenal Injury-Med Malpractice +• 315 Alplane Product Liabity +© 385 +• 320 Assault, Libel & Slander +• 368 +Personal Injury-Product Liabilty +Asbestos Personnel +• 330 Federal Employers Liabilty +Injury Product Liabilty +• 340 Marine +/Jes, Marine Product Liabily +PERSONAL PROPERTY +• 350 +olor Vehicie +© 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability +C370 Oter Fraud +x 360 gener Personal Injury +D371 +Trih in Lendina B +• 380 +Other Personnel +Property Damage +0 365 +Property Damage +B FORFEITURE +PENALTY +• 6810 Agricuture +© 820 Other Food & Drug +© 625 Drug Reiated Seizure +of Property 21 USC 881 +© 830 Liquor Laws +D 640 R.R. & Truck +© 850 Arline Regs +• 560 Oocupatonal +Safety Health +• 690 Other +A OTHER STATUS +• 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 +• 423 Windrawal 20 USC 157 +A REAL PROPERTY +• 210 Land Condemnaton +220 Foreclosure B +O 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment +• 240 +Torts to Land +8 285 Ten pet a risent +A CIVIL RIGHTS +• 441 Volng +• 442 Employment +• 443 Housing/Accommodations +444 Welfare +• 440 Other Cil Rights +B PRISONER PETITIONS +A PROPERTY RIGHTS +• 820 Copyrights +© 830 Patent +• 840 Trademark +B SOCIAL SECURITY +0801 HIA (130SM) +O 582 Black Lung (923) +O563 DIWC/D/WW(405(g)) +• 0A SSID THe XVI +C 665 RSI (405(g)) +• 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence +Habeas Corpus +• 530 General* +535 Death Penalty +• 540 Mandarmus & Other +A LABOR +X710 Far Labor Standards +• 720 Labor Management +Ratasons B +• 730 Labor Management +Reporing 5 Disciosure +Act +© 140 Raiway Labor Act +• 790 Other Labor Ligation +© 701 Employee Ret. inc +Security Act B +A FEDERAL TAX SUITS +Stus Reappointment +• 410 +• 430 +Andtrust +450 +Banks and Banking +460 +CommercaIC Rales/ec. B +Deportation +• 470 +Racketeer Influenced and +Corrupt Organizations +D 850 +Securties/ Commodies/ +• 875 +Customer Chalenge +12USC3410 +0 891 +Agricultural Acti +Economic Stabilzation Ad +Envionmental Matters +880 +Energy Allocation Act +Freedom of information Act +• 900 +Appeal of Fee Determination +Under Equal Acpess to +Justice +• 950 Consiusonality of Sate +Statutes +• 800 Other Sututory Actions" +*AorB +Declaratory reef and scate law claims +for delamation +VI. ORIGIN +x 1. Original +Proceeding +• 2. Removed from • 3. Remanded from +• 4. Refilled +• 6. Multidistrict Litigation +07. +Appeal to District Judge from +State Court +Appellate Court +] 5. Transferred from another distric +(Specify) +Magistrate Judgmen +• CLASS ACTION +DEMAND $ +VIl. REQUESTED +IN COMPLAINT +Check YES only if demanded in X YES +omplain +URY DEMAND +• NO +VIII. RELATED +(See Instructions): +CASE(S) IF ANY +Jane Doe 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Jane Doe 3 v. Jeffrey Epstein +DATE +4/14/08 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +S/F 1-2 +REV. 9/94 +(SEE ATTACHED) +JUDGE KENNETH A. MARRA +JUDGE KENNETH A. MARRA +SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD +FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Receipt No +Date Paid: +DOCKET NUMBER 08-CV-80119-MARRA- +DOCKET NUMBER: 08-CV-80232-MARRA +Amount:_ +Mifp: +6 of 6 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c8638afb79df3c5026639d5e568f256aaa0dadd9997318e9b385dd691c564679.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c8638afb79df3c5026639d5e568f256aaa0dadd9997318e9b385dd691c564679.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6120ca443c9baa0e69ba4e228d64426d67607f84 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c8638afb79df3c5026639d5e568f256aaa0dadd9997318e9b385dd691c564679.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -169, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c8638afb79df3c5026639d5e568f256aaa0dadd9997318e9b385dd691c564679", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "24ad4f9c270aaa3e0dc9e8f81781f91b61d431ea01ba2ff32bc75e04bc0b8060", + "output_sha256": "d5e026f7581d29eafa92d5b06cca9ffe7900242425910d099fdf427c94e03101", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c8ccadc9e4ded55870f13560a8550ff2966928ec39fd728f3f8a757ee86f9a2e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c8ccadc9e4ded55870f13560a8550ff2966928ec39fd728f3f8a757ee86f9a2e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3a2f70ab1a41ab6daf20f238ea6a131410d0903a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c8ccadc9e4ded55870f13560a8550ff2966928ec39fd728f3f8a757ee86f9a2e.md @@ -0,0 +1,121 @@ +Filing # 147731023 E-Filed 04/14/2022 03:40:25 PM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida. +Defendants. +/ +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +COPY +AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT +OF REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES & COSTS +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, appeared Robert Winess, Esq., who, after being +first duly sworn, deposes and says: +1 am a practicing attorney in Palm Beach County, Florida. I was admitted to The +Florida Bar in 2002 and have practiced law in the State of Florida continuously ever since. +I manage and practice in a firm that handles legal matters, including litigation, in +the State of Florida. +I represent a wide range of clients including numerous corporate and +professional clients as well as individuals and professional groups. I handle many different civil +matters and have experience in litigation against media entities. +3. +I am familiar with the amount customarily charged by attorneys in this community +for civil litigation and allowed by the court for attorney's fees in civil litigation contingency fees +cases such as this matter. +Party_ JOINT. +ID#. 135 EV# J35 +DATEADMITTED: 9/6/22 +CA/Aronberg-001597 +Case No. 2019-CA-014681 +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ISS$PH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:20:48 PM +Joint Exhibit +J35 + + +I am familiar with the hourly billing rates charged for legal services in this +community by senior partners, partners, associates, and paralegals. My current hourly billing rate +is $500,00 per hour, The hourly rate charged in this community by attorneys with comparable +experience is between $450.00 and $600:00 per hour. The hourly rate charged by the attorneys +for Defendant Aronberg is found within the middle of that range. Specifically, the hourly rate for +services performed by Defendant Aronberg's attorney, Douglas A. Wyler, is $425,00 per hour and +this is a reasonable hourly rate for a named partner with the extensive experience and skill +demonstrated by Mr. Wyler within this community. Likewise, Mr. Wyler's senior partner, Arthur +I. +hourly rate is $475.00 per hour, which is also a reasonable rate within this community. +I have reviewed the pleadings and documents filed in this cause and have otherwise +generally become familiar with the proceedings in this case. Similarly, I have examined the record +of time expended in this matter by the attorneys for Defendant Aronberg in this matter: It is my +opinion that the hours expended by the attorneys are consistent with the work-product performed, +as reflected in the file, as well as counsel's expectation, to incur an additional 15,0 hours at $425.00 +an hour in preparing for; traveling and attending the hearing on sanctions/attorneys' fees are +reasonable. Accordingly, 144 hours of attorney time reflects an accurate billing and expenditure +of time for counsels" services from the date of their demand under § 57.105, Fla. Stat +6. +Based on the criteria in +v. Florida Patient's Compensation Fund, 472 So.2d +1145 (1985), the amount of time spent, and a reasonable hourly rate for legal services of the type +performed by Defendant. Aronberg's attorneys in this case, $61,840:00 (calculated at 131.2 hours +x $425.00/hour + 12:8 hours x $475.00/hour) is a reasonable fee for the attorneys of record. in the +above styled cause. +CAVArophers 9159% BEACH COUNTY, FL, +ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:20:48 PM + + +• +7. +I have reviewed said file in light of the criteria set forth in Rule 4.1-5 of the Florida +Bar Rules of Professional Conduct and the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court in Florida. +Patient's Compensation Fund v. +• 472 $0.2d 1145. (Fla. 1985) and Standard Guaranty +Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990). +In my opinion, the outcome achieved by counsel for Defendant Aronberg in this +case demonstrates the level and skill in advocacy of representation which Defendant Aronberg +received in this case. +11. +Based upon my experience, it is my opinion that the events described in the +Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed in this case for which Defendant Aronberg +seeks compensation are based on a reasonable and nécessary expenditure of time and expenses. I +base my conclusions on the foregoing and my knowledge of the time required to litigate similar +civil cases involving media entities. +FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. +ROBERT WINESS, ESQ. +VERIFICATION +UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, I DECLARE THAT I HAVE READ THE FOREGOING +AND THAT THE PACTS STATED THEREIN ARE TRUE. +ROBERT, S: WINESS, ESQ +APRIL 14, 2022 +DATE +CAVAropheE% 81599 BEACH COUNTY, FL, +ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:20:48 PM + + +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 14th day of April, 2022, a copy of the foregoing +Amended and Supplemental Affidavit.of Reasonable Attorneys Fees has been electronically filed +with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein +SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +/s/ Douglas A. Wyler +Arthur I. +_Esq. +Fla: Bar No.: 10249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esq. +Fla: Bar No.: 0021261 +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. +Fla: Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-I +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +(904) 261-3693 +(904) 261-7879 Fax +Primary: jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net +Attorneys for Defendant, Dave Aronberg +NOT A CER +CA AropPeES PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, L +• ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:20:48 PM diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c8ccadc9e4ded55870f13560a8550ff2966928ec39fd728f3f8a757ee86f9a2e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c8ccadc9e4ded55870f13560a8550ff2966928ec39fd728f3f8a757ee86f9a2e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cdc0353a7e88576f72a9931b61f2f3d8d0844386 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c8ccadc9e4ded55870f13560a8550ff2966928ec39fd728f3f8a757ee86f9a2e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c8ccadc9e4ded55870f13560a8550ff2966928ec39fd728f3f8a757ee86f9a2e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "9dd7e190157a62dddc19ac473418581722e1fc748ab4244495e91c83128ee679", + "output_sha256": "4a37e209326b02548ab190e14855f8b8f1426ee1a364ceb1e1cac141c31a49c1", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c904d9cbcbcdd67373766c0e8e22d77549efc1807fb5214f4283e20836bf8a9e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c904d9cbcbcdd67373766c0e8e22d77549efc1807fb5214f4283e20836bf8a9e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f13e306978ffce28ec70649c43e6223938c280d9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c904d9cbcbcdd67373766c0e8e22d77549efc1807fb5214f4283e20836bf8a9e.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 64 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/07/2009 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE +Plaintiff, JANE DOE NO. 102 and Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN (collectively, "Parties"), +by and through their undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 41(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of +Civil Procedure, hereby stipulate to the dismissal of this action with prejudice. The Parties further +stipulate that tho Cours, +I retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Parties' settlement. +Dated this Z +day of December, 2009. +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER +& COLEMAN LLP +Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +Attorneys for Jane Doe No. 102 +By: +By: +Robert Critton +Fla. Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Telephone: (561) 842-2820 +Facsimile: (561) 515-3148 +Hotheres W. Ezell +Katherine W. Ezell +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +City National Bank Building +25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Telephone: (305) 358-2800 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c904d9cbcbcdd67373766c0e8e22d77549efc1807fb5214f4283e20836bf8a9e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c904d9cbcbcdd67373766c0e8e22d77549efc1807fb5214f4283e20836bf8a9e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8fd4e5eec708ccddf4920a6fa0d5250d6e120d13 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c904d9cbcbcdd67373766c0e8e22d77549efc1807fb5214f4283e20836bf8a9e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c904d9cbcbcdd67373766c0e8e22d77549efc1807fb5214f4283e20836bf8a9e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4da21c7f4c449144ddaf0951c665d10f6cb7fe1de06bb0183cf2e8ce309e1d65", + "output_sha256": "f661d64e876e83ce2ad6ed74f85bf6d4b1c0d9b1f14f8378d739b277b1ac9222", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c91da20529344299952884d72714c207a570aa5ea2be79cfbfda8384871ce36a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c91da20529344299952884d72714c207a570aa5ea2be79cfbfda8384871ce36a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..65b6bacb23c9c5ac2a18297ad3d64dac43f3e030 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c91da20529344299952884d72714c207a570aa5ea2be79cfbfda8384871ce36a.md @@ -0,0 +1,290 @@ +• Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 1 of 9 +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRAL +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +JUN 1 4 2010 +STEVEN US, SORE +S.D. OF FLA. - W.PB +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Emergency Motion For Protective Order, Motion to +Quash and Motion for Attorneys' Fees, With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN") by and through his +undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Emergency Motion For Protective Order, Motion +to Quash and Motion for Attorneys' fees and Costs, With Incorporated Memorandum Of +Law. In support, Defendant states as follows: +1. As this Court is well aware, these cases have been consolidated for discovery. +However, on April 1, 2010, Plaintiff's counsel, Spencer Kuvin, filed C.L. v. Epstein, +Case No. 10-80447-cv-Marra/ +Ill, and that case has not been consolidated with the +other related cases for purposes of discovery. +2. On April 20, 2010, Mr. Kuvin served Maritza Milagros Vasquez with a subpoena +for deposition, which is set to occur tomorrow. See Exhibit "A". However, this Notice +and subpoena for deposition must be stricken/quashed as Mr. Kuvin, on behalf of his +client, has failed to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 (d). That rule states, in pertinent part, + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 2 of 9 +that: "[a] party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred +as required by Rule 26(f)...." Mr. Kuvin, on behalf of his client, has not complied with +Rule 26(f) and, therefore, the subpoena for deposition must be stricken/quashed and a +Protective Order should be entered pursuant to Rule 26(c) forbidding the deposition from +occurring for non-compliance with the applicable rules. In Varo, Inc. v. Litton Systems. +Inc., 129 F.R.D. 139, 141 (N.D. TX 1989), the court held that one cannot be compelled to +comply with a withdrawn subpoena. Id. Likewise, the court here cannot compel Maritza +Milagros Vasquez to attend any deposition when the subpoena itself is invalid, especially +when it will require those involved in these matters to incur substantial attorneys' fees. +3. Next, Mr. Brad +, counsel for Jane Doe, cross-noticed Maritza Milagros +Vasquez's deposition in Jane Doe (#08-80893 - Exhibit "B"), which matter is already set +for trial in July 2010. Discovery concluded on May 31, 2010 (see DE 531). +Accordingly, the cross notice served by Jane Doe must be stricken/quashed and a +protective order entered because the subpoena itself in invalid due to C.L's counsel's +failure to comply with Rule 26(d) and discovery in Jane Doe (80893) has concluded. +Rule 7.1 Certification +I hereby certify that counsel for the respective parties communicated by e-mail in a +good faith effort to resolve the issues set forth above prior to the filing of this Motion and +none of the issues were resolved. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court enter an order granting +Defendant's motion for protective order and motion to quash. Defendant further requests +that this Court award his attorney's fees and costs associated with this motion, in +accordance with Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P. and applicable Local Rules and specifically: +a. Quash CL's subpoena attached as Exhibit "A"; + + +• Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 3 of 9 +b. Quash and/or strike Jane Doe's cross notice as to Exhibit "A" because +Exhibit "A" is invalid and discovery has concluded in Jane Doe; +c. Award attorneys to Defendant for CL and Jane Doe's noncompliance with +these discovery matters; and +to et a fire eir a his contre in the raper. +MICHAELS. PIKÉ, ESQ +Florida Bar #617296 +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is +being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in +the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 14* day of June, 2010 +Respectfully submitted +ROBERY +Flotida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/J| +Brad +_ Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Suite 1650 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 4 of 9 +Suite 2218 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: 954-522-3456 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +bedwards@rra-law.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +08-80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, +, Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +Pro Hac Vice +08-80994 +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +801-585-5202 +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +801-585-6833 Fax +250 Australian Avenue South +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Suite 1400 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Isidro M. Esq. +Law Firm, P.A +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80469 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 77. Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 5 of 9 +AO 88A (Rev. 06/09) Subpoene to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action +for the +Southern District of Florida +C.L. +Plaintiff +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Civil Action No. 10-80447-cv-Marra/ +(If the action is pending in another district, state where: +Defendant +SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION +To: MARITZA MILAGROS VASQUEZ, 1253 SW 21ST TERRACE, APT 21, MIAMI, FL 33145-2922 +• Testimony: YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at a +deposition to be taken in this civil action. If you are an organization that is not a party in this case, you must designate +one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on your behalf +about the following matters, or those set forth in an attachment: +Place: INTELLIGENT OFFICE, 701 BRICKELL AVENUE, +SUITE 1550, MIAMI, FL 33131 +Date and Time: +05/18/2010 10:00 am +The deposition will be recorded by this method: VIDEOGRAPHER AND COURT. REPORTER +D Production: You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents, +electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the +material: +The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rule +at ached (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, are +Date: +04/08/2010 +CLERK OF COURT +Sigrature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk +The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) +C.L. +., who issues or requests this subpoena, are: +SPENCER T. KUVIN, ESQ., LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A., 2925 PGA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200, PALM BEACH GARDENS, +FLORIDA 33410 +T: 561-515-1400 +F: 561-515-1401 +"A" + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM. Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 6 of 9 +AO 8BA (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 2) +Civil Action No. 10-80447-cv-Marra/ +PROOF OF SERVICE +(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed, R. Civ. P. 45.) +This subpoena for (name of individual and tille, if any) +was received by me on (date) +• I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named individual as follows: +on (date) +i or +• I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: +Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also +tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of +$ +My fees are $ +for travel and S +I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. +for services, for a total of $ +0.00 +Date: +Server's signatyre +Printed name and title +Server's address +Additional information regarding attempted service, etc: + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 7 of 9 +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA. +Vs. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, +08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-NOTICE OF VIDEO DEPOSITION OF +MARITZA MILAGROS VASQUEZ +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff, Jane Doe, will take the video deposition by +oral examination, of the persons named below, at the time, on the date, at the hour of +the place indicated: +NAME +Maritza Milagros Vasquez +DATE AND +TIME +June 15, 2010 @ +10:00AM +[PLACE OF TAKING DEPOSITON +Intelligent Office +701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1550 +Miami, FL 33131 +upon oral examination before Videographer and a Notary Public, or any other notary +public or officer authorized by law to take depositions in the State of Florida. The oral +examination will continue from day to day until completed. The depositions are being +"B + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 8 of 9 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRAM +taken for the purpose of discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are +permitted under the Rules of Court. +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was served by e-mail on May 12, +2010 to: See attached service list. +jatte, Weissing, +Fistos & Lehrman, PL +425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +(954) 524-2820 +(954) 524-2822 fax +brad@pathtojustice.com +By: +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +2 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 9 of 9 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRAJ +SERVICE LIST +Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein +United States District Court - Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Jgoldberger@agwpa.com +robert D. Critton, Esc +crtton@bclclaw.con +sidrogarcia @bellsouth.ne +Jack +iph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerswillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +3 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c91da20529344299952884d72714c207a570aa5ea2be79cfbfda8384871ce36a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c91da20529344299952884d72714c207a570aa5ea2be79cfbfda8384871ce36a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0c95cab2a3dca01e71690316d8df75acfe2c3fc9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c91da20529344299952884d72714c207a570aa5ea2be79cfbfda8384871ce36a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -196, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c91da20529344299952884d72714c207a570aa5ea2be79cfbfda8384871ce36a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 10, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "29c4a616d386267910c794c6207f038a4ec626bd73952d254f41e4b25618c7c1", + "output_sha256": "955699e650478d813103f104a4d80b1d4d481c2ad5828b400607f0a110d6242f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c939bbbb4b90e7ca847eb3b3dc031e8454b919446cef2300f9c1a6a5f80b383c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c939bbbb4b90e7ca847eb3b3dc031e8454b919446cef2300f9c1a6a5f80b383c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ac76934d8d60e8cb9fd8df22eac0cab7f56e97cf --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c939bbbb4b90e7ca847eb3b3dc031e8454b919446cef2300f9c1a6a5f80b383c.md @@ -0,0 +1,167 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 540 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/ +Vs. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, +08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S +MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER [DE 536] +Plaintiff, Jane Doe, hereby files this response to Defendant Epstein's Motion for +A Protective Order Regarding the Deposition of Story Cowles [DE 536]. The motion +should be denied in its entirety, as Cowles possesses non-privileged information and +any true attorney-client information he possesses obviously need not be disclosed +during his deposition. +Plaintiff Jane Doe agrees that Story Cowles, who was hired by Epstein's defense +attorney in 2008, possesses some information properly covered by the attorney-client +privilege and by work product. For example, defense counsel may have asked Cowles +to relay attorney-client advice to Epstein. +Jane Doe does not intend to ask any +questions regarding such attorney client advice during Cowles's deposition. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 540 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010 Page 2 of 6 +At the same time, however, Cowles possesses significant information about +statements made by Epstein that are clearly and obviously not covered by the attorneyclient or any other privilege. In particular, Cowles visited Epstein 159 times between +7/14/08 and 2/8/09 while Epstein was incarcerated, where he has been listed as a +"Paralegal" an "Attorney" and "Public Defender" on different occasions. See Affidavit of +(attached as Exhibit A). Often, these visits with Epstein involved +three people: Epstein, Cowles, and a third-party visitor who was not part of Epstein's +legal defense team (either civil or criminal). Of course, the presence of a third-party +eliminated any "confidentiality" that might otherwise have attached to discussions +between Cowles and Epstein. See id. +The Cowles affidavit that has been filed by Epstein states charily that Epstein +"has never discussed the claims asserted against him" except in the presence of an +attorney. Cowles Affidavit, Ex. C to Epstein's Motion at 2 (emphasis added). But there +are a variety of other subjects apart from the "claims asserted against him" that Epstein +likely discussed - either with Cowles or with third party visitors in the presence of +Cowles. For example, Epstein may have discussed where he is hiding his assets with +Cowles: Is he moving them to the Channel Islands, as Jane Does has heard? Is he +moving them to Israel, as has been suggested in a nationally-circulated publication? Is +he liquidating them to pay mounting bills? Is he transferring title to his expensive cars +and yachts to other persons, as Jane Doe argued in her motion seeking to block further +asset transfers? +2 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 540 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010 Page 3 of 6 +Another subject that Jane Doe plans to explore, Cowles has been in a dating +relationship with +for more than a year. As the Court is aware, Jane Doe +has alleged that +conspired with Epstein to sexually abuse her. +has +taken the Fifth rather than answer questions about her role in helping Epstein abuse +Jane Doe and other girls. +Jane Doe is obviously entitled to explore these subjects +during a deposition of Cowles. It simply defies any believability to think that Cowles will +attempt to maintain - under oath - that not once has he discussed with his girlfriend +anything connected (either directly or indirectly) with Epstein's activities. At the very +least, Cowles should be required to make whatever representations he intends to make +on this subject under oath at a deposition. +Another subject that Jane Doe plans to explore is Cowles's errands that he has +recently been running for Epstein. Mr. Cowles's primary vehicle is owned by Defendant +Epstein, which clearly indicates a relationship quite different from that of a clientparalegal. Jane Doe understands that Cowles is currently at Epstein's home nearly +every day and works directly for Epstein. Indeed, Cowles has represented himself to +Florida probation authorities as Epstein's assistant. See Affidavit of +(attached as Exhibit A). Certainly, in this capacity, Cowles has personally observed, +and communicated with, the visitors that come and go from Epstein's home, all potential +witnesses. Here again, there is ample ground for questioning on subjects not remotely +covered by any kind of privilege. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 540 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010 Page 4 of 6 +As another example of relevant subjects not covered by any privilege that Jane +Doe plans to explore, Epstein may have discussed plans to flee the jurisdiction to avoid +being served with legal process connected with the case. +In sum, all of these subjects (not to mention many others) are obviously not +covered by any attorney client privilege and a deposition of Cowles inquiring into such +subjects is clearly proper. +Epstein also argues that Jane Doe's counsel "agreed" - apparently forever and +for all subjects and for all time - never to depose Cowles. While there was a limited +agreement regarding Cowles, Epstein's description of what was agreed goes far beyond +what was actually agreed. See Affidavit of +(attached as Exhibit A). +Here again, there is no basis for the Court foreclosing all opportunity to question Cowles +about his potentially important knowledge regarding Epstein and his recent efforts to +hide assets and other activities. This point is even more important given the fact that +Epstein and all of his known co-conspirators in his child molestation ring (namely, +and +) have invoked their 5' amendment +rights against self-incrimination and have thus stopped Plaintiff from gaining any +meaningful discovery whatsoever. +For all these reasons, Epstein's motion to foreclose completely a deposition of +Cowles should be denied. Obviously, Jane Doe will not ask questions during the +deposition about attorney-client advice conveyed by Cowles to Epstein. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 540 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010 Page 5 of 6 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA| +DATED: May 7, 2010 +Respectfully Submitted, +S/ +J. +I JAFFE, WEISSING, +1. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 524-2820 +Facsimile (954) 524-2822 +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: +801-585-6833 +E-Mail: +cassellp@law.utah.edu +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +1 HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 7, 2010 1 electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the +manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by +CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to +receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing. +S/ +J. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 540 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010 Page 6 of 6 +SERVICE LIST +Jane Doe V. Jeffrey Epstein +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Isidro Manual +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +iph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerswillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Adam D. Horowitz +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +6 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c939bbbb4b90e7ca847eb3b3dc031e8454b919446cef2300f9c1a6a5f80b383c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c939bbbb4b90e7ca847eb3b3dc031e8454b919446cef2300f9c1a6a5f80b383c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e3132865da04527511ecc0e0fdd573a7d9a05270 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c939bbbb4b90e7ca847eb3b3dc031e8454b919446cef2300f9c1a6a5f80b383c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -189, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c939bbbb4b90e7ca847eb3b3dc031e8454b919446cef2300f9c1a6a5f80b383c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ab973b1b4f1764718407b97875961f747a478b5628bfedfbf28f9663c455702a", + "output_sha256": "d3343c5823e70eca86d0c1f62be236e03efd817d5ecee9829be2fe975da3ec50", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c93ecf0d104606a3c19dc870e624ac4154c8334bc993a01dc40a343ffb6c9c60.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c93ecf0d104606a3c19dc870e624ac4154c8334bc993a01dc40a343ffb6c9c60.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d0910479cbe74802e7dd9b02c2b7210e98191b72 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c93ecf0d104606a3c19dc870e624ac4154c8334bc993a01dc40a343ffb6c9c60.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 146-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2010 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA-. +JANE DOE NO. 5 +v. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE +THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the parties' Stipulation of Dismissal with +Prejudice [DE], filed June , 2010. The Court has reviewed the Stipulation, the +pertinent portions of the record, and is otherwise advised in the premises. +In +accordance with the parties' Stipulation, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: +1. The above-styled action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. +2. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. +3. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' +settlement. +4. The Clerk shall CLOSE THIS CASE. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Florida this +_day +of June, 2010. +KENNETH A. MARRA +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +Copies Furnished to: +All Counsel of Record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c93ecf0d104606a3c19dc870e624ac4154c8334bc993a01dc40a343ffb6c9c60.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c93ecf0d104606a3c19dc870e624ac4154c8334bc993a01dc40a343ffb6c9c60.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..855f7b75579b0c52939841b76ca30de666a6077b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c93ecf0d104606a3c19dc870e624ac4154c8334bc993a01dc40a343ffb6c9c60.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c93ecf0d104606a3c19dc870e624ac4154c8334bc993a01dc40a343ffb6c9c60", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c4507abb24a866678c722e3afb90e6fb69fdd141649c171beafbcd57bddfb7d1", + "output_sha256": "5793da21e9b6a1733c25aea8645732a43f6a2f0a08a395d43e3b88dfc55df75a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c988d5bd59191b56cfded2844f7727d5393ed75ed19977aa2da5295548739333.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c988d5bd59191b56cfded2844f7727d5393ed75ed19977aa2da5295548739333.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a0028d3d0a9fc241327f75e84ecc863b35d9715 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c988d5bd59191b56cfded2844f7727d5393ed75ed19977aa2da5295548739333.md @@ -0,0 +1,544 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 137 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 1 of 16 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 137 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 2 of 16 +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 6. +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 137 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 3 of 16 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +C.M.A., +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/_ +Vs. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +DOE II, +CASE NO: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/ +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendants. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 137 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 4 of 16 +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO PLAINTFF'S FIRST +REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION +Plaintiff Jane Doe, hereby moves this Court for an order compelling defendant, +Jeffrey Epstein, to answer her first request for production or, in the alternative, to prove +that his invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege is proper. Jane Doe also requests +production of a privilege log. +Jane Doe has propounded 16 requests for production, including such +straightforward requests as requests for production of: +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 137 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 5 of 16 +Request No. 1: Copies of all telephone records; +Request No. 2: Photos of the inside of your home located at 358 El Brillo Way, +Palm Beach, Florida, that depict the rooms) where massages took place (including +massage table). +Request No. 10: Correspondence between Epstein and federal prosecutors; +Request No. 12: Personal tax returns; +Request No. 13: Photocopies of Epstein's passport; +Request No. 14: A statement of net worth; and +Request No. 16: Medical records. +In response to each and every one of these requests, Epstein has given the +following response (with only minor variations here and there): +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under +the Filth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +States Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +This Court should order Epstein to provide all of the requested information or, in +the alternative, prove that his Fifth Amendment invocations are valid. It is for the court, +not the claimant, to determine whether the hazard of incrimination is justified. United +States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991). "A court must make a +particularized inquiry, deciding, in connection with each specific area that the +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 137 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 6 of 16 +questioning party wishes to explore, whether or not the privilege is well-founded." Id. +Typically this is done in an in camera proceeding wherein the person asserting the +privilege is given the opportunity "to substantiate his claims of the privilege and the +district court is able to consider the questions asked and the documents requested by +the summons." Id. +Here Epstein has made boilerplate invocation of the Fifth Amendment to each +and every request propounded by Jane Doe, including for example the request for +correspondence with federal prosecutors and for production of federal tax returns. This +obviously is not a request with Fifth Amendment implications, as the information has +already been fully disclosed to the Government. +For all these reasons, the Court should compel Epstein to answer the requests or +provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment invocation with regard to +each request. +Epstein's "cut and paste" response to the request for production also blatantly +disregards the requirements for invoking privilege under the Court's local rules. Local +rule 26.1.G very specifically requires the preparation of a privilege log with respect to all +documents and oral communications (among other things) that are withheld on the +basis of privilege. Epstein has failed to prepare such a log, making it impossible for +Jane Doe to effectively challenge his generic assertions. Indeed, with respect to a few +requests, Epstein has stated: "Further, the request may include information subject to +work product or an attorney-client privilege." Of course, the whole purpose of forcing a +defendant to prepare a privilege log is to force the defendant to decide whether or not +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 137 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 7 of 16 +information is privileged. An assertion that something "may" be privileged is obviously +woefully deficient. The Local Rules do not permit this tactic, and Epstein should be (at a +minimum) promptly required to produce a privilege log. +For all these reasons, the Court should compel Epstein to provide a privilege log +and to answer the interrogatories or provide a particularized justification for his Fifth +Amendment invocation with regard to each request. +It should be noted that (with minor exceptions) the only grounds on which Epstein +can refuse to answer the request for production is proof of a valid Fifth Amendment +privilege. This the only objection Epstein has asserted (with minor exceptions). As a +result, any other objections to production are deemed waived. See Local Rule +26.1G.3.(a) ("Any ground [for an objection] not stated in an objection within the time +provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or any extensions thereof, shall be +waived."). +SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION +For the convenience of the court - and in compliance with Local Rule 26.1 H +(party filing motion to compel shall list specific requests in succession) - Jane Doe's +requests for production and Epstein's objections are as follows: +Request No. 1: Copies of all telephone records in your or your attorney's possession +from 2002 through 2005 that in any way relate to you (including all phone lines owned +by you or that were used to contact girls for the purposes of scheduling massages for +you.) +authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 137 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 8 of 16 +representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under +the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +States Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +Request No. 2: All massage appointment books, diaries, computer calendars or +scheduling entities, scheduling books or any other writing or correspondence that +contains the names of any of the girls that were called, contacted, scheduled or who +otherwise went to your home located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, for the +purpose of giving you a massage. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under +the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +States Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +Request No. 3: Any and all documentation in your possession that contains Plaintiff's +name or that refers to Plaintiff, directly or indirectly, (includes e-mails, letters, message +pads, diaries, appointment books, computer print outs). +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under +the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +States Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +Request No. 4: Any and all photos, videos, downloaded digital prints or any other visual +depiction of Plaintiff, or of any other known or suspected minor females introduced to +you, directly or indirectly, by Plaintiff. +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 137 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 9 of 16 +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under +the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +States Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +Request No. 5: Photos of the inside or your home located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm +Beach, Florida, that depict the rooms) where the massages too place (including +massage table). +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time | cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under +the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +States Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +Request No. 6: Any and all documentation of cancelled checks or evidence of payment +to Plaintiff of any kind and for any reason whatsoever. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time | cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under +the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +States Constitution. +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +vould raving analy +Drawing an adverse inference under these +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 137 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 10 of 16 +Request No. 7: All discovery information obtained by you or your attorneys as a result +of the exchange of discovery in the State criminal case against you or the Federal +investigation against you. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my tederal constitutional rights under +the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +States Constitution. +Drawing an adverse +inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and +inadmissible to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Federal +Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and § 90.410, Fla. Stat.' +Further, the +request may including information subject to work product or an attorneyclient privilege. +Request No. 8: All financial documents evidencing asset transfers from 2005 to present +for you personally or any company or corporation owned by you. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under +the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +States +Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +"Jane Doe does not intend to use these materials to draw a forbidden inference of guilt from the mere +the non-prosecution agreement, nothing in that agreement bars discovery of information relevant to this +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 137 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 11 of 16 +Request No. 9: Any documents or other evidentiary materials provided to local, state, +or federal law enforcement investigators or local, state or federal prosecutors +investigating your sexual activities with minors. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under +the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +States Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and +inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, +Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and § 90.410, Fla. Stat. 2 +Further, +the request may include information subject to work product or an +attorney-client privilege. +Request No. 10: All correspondence between you and your attorneys and state or +federal law enforcement or prosecutors (includes, but not limited to, letters to and from +the States Attorney's office or any agents thereof). +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under +the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +States +Constitution. +Drawing +an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, the information +sought is privileged and confidential, and +inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, +7 act of Diea discussins, nd to the horse me protes here materials are cooler a re +fact of plea discussions, but rather for other purposes. +discovery of other admissible evidence. +To the extent that Epstein relies on the non-prosecution +agreement, nothing in that agreement bars discovery of information relevant to this lawsuit. +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 137 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 12 of 16 +Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and § 90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, +the request may include information subject to work product or an +attorney-client privilege. +Request No. 11: Any and all documents reflecting your current net worth. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under +the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +Request No. 12: Personal tax returns for all years from 2002 through the present. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under +the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +States +Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution; overly broad. +Request No. 13: A photocopy of your passport, including any supplemental pages +reflecting travel to locations outside the 50 United States between 2002 and 2008, +including any documents or records regarding plane tickets, hotel receipts, or +transportation arrangements. +" Jane Doe does not intend to use these materials to draw a forbidden inference of guilt from the mere +fact of correspondence in connection with plea discussions, but rather for other purposes. These +naterials are also likely to lead to the discovery of other admissible evidence. To the extent that Epstein +relies on the non-prosecution agreement, nothing in that agreement bars discovery of information relevant +to this lawsuit. +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 137 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 13 of 16 +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, 1 assert my federal constitutional rights under +the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +States Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +protections and privileges, the scope of information is so overbroad that it +seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead +to the discovery of admissible evidence; compiling such information over a +six year period would be unduly burdensome and time consuming.4 +Request No. 14: A sworn statement of your net worth (including a detailed financial +statement depicting all current assets and liabilities). +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all +relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me +that at the present time I cannot select authenticate, and produce documents relevant to +this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. +Request No. 15: All financial statements or affidavits produced by you for any reason, +to any person, company, entity or corporation since 2005. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. 1 intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under +the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +* Jane Doe believes that Epstein used overseas travel as a means of obtaining underage girls for sexual +purposes and for avoiding criminal prosecution for such activities. Also, providing a copy of a passport is +hardly "burdensome." Also, given the fact that Epstein is likely to have used the services of a travel agent +or another intermediary, it should not be difficult for him to provide evidence of his overseas travels from +such intermediaries. +13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 137 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 14 of 16 +States Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution; overly broad. +Request No. 16: All medical records of Defendant Epstein from Dr. Stephan Alexander. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my tederal constitutional rights under +the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +States Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +CONCLUSION +For all these reasons, the Court should compel Epstein to answer the request for +production, or provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment invocation +with regard to each request. Epstein should also be required to provide a privilege log. +Counsel for Jane Doe have conferred with opposing counsel on the issues raised in this +motion, and no resolution was possible. +DATED July 10, 2009 +Respectfully Submitted, +J.l +J. +ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER +Las Olas City Centre +401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 522-3456 +Facsimile (954) 527-8663 +Florida Bar No.: 54207: +E-mail: bedwards @rra-law.com +14 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 137 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 15 of 16 +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: +801-585-6833 +E-Mail: +cassellp@law.utah.edu +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 10, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the +manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by +CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to +receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing. +S/ +J. +J. +15 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 137 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 16 of 16 +SERVICE LIST +Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Isidro Manual +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +iph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@bclclaw.com +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerswillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Adam D. Horowitz +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +William J. Berger +wberger@rra-law.com +16 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c988d5bd59191b56cfded2844f7727d5393ed75ed19977aa2da5295548739333.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c988d5bd59191b56cfded2844f7727d5393ed75ed19977aa2da5295548739333.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..994efae6bed7da026a14f40270822518cd2e2068 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c988d5bd59191b56cfded2844f7727d5393ed75ed19977aa2da5295548739333.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -647, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c988d5bd59191b56cfded2844f7727d5393ed75ed19977aa2da5295548739333", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 18, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "08567e3358abb792efb835bab70f25dfeb17557580d64ef2c0cac5b74696fc47", + "output_sha256": "487318e265f8578e1e6e96859a7422362cef1dc45a5cc5268b6503a8db3d772c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c991e9252388148203e68d63e09462cc8849bc9eea5220b85f6c89b66b8c0cd9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c991e9252388148203e68d63e09462cc8849bc9eea5220b85f6c89b66b8c0cd9.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7303a10fc03d988ee0e7e5de0becfe5f8e57b70f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c991e9252388148203e68d63e09462cc8849bc9eea5220b85f6c89b66b8c0cd9.md @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2008 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +JANE DOES #1 and #2 +Petitioners, +V. +UNITED STATES +Respondent. +GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' REQUEST +FOR NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT AND REPORT OF INTERVIEW +Respondent United States, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Response to +Petitioners' Request for Non-Prosecution Agreement and Report of Interview, and states: +In their Response to Government's Notice to Court Regarding Absence of Need for +Evidentiary Hearing and Motion for Production of Non-Prosecution Agreement and Report of +Interview (D.E. 19), petitioners seek an order compelling the Government to produce the Non- +Prosecution Agreement with Jeffrey Epstein (D.E. 19 at 11-13), and the Report of Interview with +Jane Doe # 1 (D.E. 19 at 13-14). +The Government is unable to voluntarily produce the Non-Prosecution Agreement +because the Agreement contains a clause where the parties expressed their anticipation that the +Agreement would not be made part of any public record. The Government believes this clause +in the Agreement precludes it from voluntarily producing the Agreement, as requested by +petitioners. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2008 Page 2 of 3 +As to petitioners' request for the Report of Interview with Jane Doe # 1, counsel for the +Government has spoken with FBI Special Agents Nesbitt Kurykendall and Jason Richards, who +have advised that no Report of Interview was prepared subsequent to their meeting with Jane +Doe # 1 in October 2007, to discuss the Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into with Jeffrey +Epstein. +Respectfully submitted, +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +By: +s/ Dexter A. Lee +DEXTER A. LEE +Assistant U.S. Attorney +Fla. Bar No. 0936693 +99 N.E. 4"* Street +Miami, Florida 33132 +(305) 961-9320 +Fax: (305) 530-7139 +E-mail: dexter.lee@usdoj.gov +Attorney for Respondent +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2008 Page 3 of 3 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 13, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. +s/ Dexter A. Lee +DEXTER A. LEE +Assistant U.S. Attorney +SERVICE LIST +Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, +Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Brad +Esq., +The Law Offices of Brad +2028 +Street, Suite 202 +Hollywood, Florida 33020 +(954) 414-8033 +Fax: (954) 924-1530 +& Associates, LLC +3 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c991e9252388148203e68d63e09462cc8849bc9eea5220b85f6c89b66b8c0cd9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c991e9252388148203e68d63e09462cc8849bc9eea5220b85f6c89b66b8c0cd9.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..36cc6617ca05f59bbb45224cf3001e98570f0c62 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c991e9252388148203e68d63e09462cc8849bc9eea5220b85f6c89b66b8c0cd9.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c991e9252388148203e68d63e09462cc8849bc9eea5220b85f6c89b66b8c0cd9", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "664312be3dbd29ff17e6b4e1992efa4f20946888668171d791b95582a8c930aa", + "output_sha256": "adfa2e6940e1393e9ed40812bb6cd9c9ce38c730d1d8bd5931191afa2dbd59fc", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c999b89e9d497bb6fcbea9c1af26e4c5fc5dde94f4a657b73f0989ed3b38f921.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c999b89e9d497bb6fcbea9c1af26e4c5fc5dde94f4a657b73f0989ed3b38f921.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e229a6fab671945e9eb864a7a7531ee2efff00cb --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c999b89e9d497bb6fcbea9c1af26e4c5fc5dde94f4a657b73f0989ed3b38f921.md @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 90-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 1 of 3 +Dep +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15™H +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM +BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +Case No: 502008CA37319XXXX MB AB +B.B., +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE UNDERSIGNED ATTORNEY WILL TAKE THE DEPOSITION OF: +NAME: +DATE AND TIME: +Jean Lue Bruhel +November 3, 2009 +LOCATION: +Esquire Court Reporters +10:00 AM +515 N. Flagler Drive +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +upon an oral examination before a Notary Public or officer authorized by law to take depositions in +the State of New York, The oral examination will continue from day to day until completed. The +depositions are being taken for purposes of discovery, for use at trial or are being taken for such +other purposes as are permitted under the Rules of the Court. +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Notice was mailed this +day of October, 2009 to: Jack A. Goldberger, Esq., 250 Australian Avenue, Suite 1400, West Palm +Beach, FL 334101; Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq., 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm +Beach, FL. 33401; Robert D. Critton, Jr., Michael J. Pike, 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West +Palm Beach, FL 33401. +LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +(561) 515-190 +(561) 515-140 +By:_ +Spencér// +Kuvin, Esq. +Florida Bar No: 089737 +CO.JE, DI + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80994-KAM Document 90-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 2 of 3 +Depo +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CIVIL DIVISION +L.M., +) +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 502008CA028051XXXXMB AD +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +) +NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attorney for Defendant in the above-styled +cause will take the deposition of Jean Luc Bruhnel on November 3, 2009 at 10:00 +a.m. for the purposes of discovery at the following location: +Esquire Court Reporters +515 N Flagler Dr +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-4321 +Said deposition will be taken before Esquire Court Reporters, a Notary Public or +any officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the State of Florida, and a +person who is neither a relative, nor employee, nor attorney, nor counsel of any of the +parties and who is neither a relative nor employee of such attorney or counsel, and who +is not financially interested in the action. +Said deposition will be taken pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure in such +cases provided. Said oral examination will continue from hour to hour and from day to +day until completed. +D + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 90-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 3 of 3 +Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AD +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served +via U.S. Mail and Facsimile this ZCh day of October, 2009 to: Michael Burman, Esq., & +Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esq., Burman, Critton, et al., 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, +West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Jay Howell, Esq., Jay Howell & Assoc., 644 Cesery +Boulevard, Suite 250, Jacksonville, FL 32211; and Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq., Atterbury +Goldberger et al., 250 Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +and a courtesy copy to Tama Kudman, Esq., 444 PGA Boulevard, Suite 600, West Palm +Beach, Florida 33410. +ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER +Attorneys for Plaintiff +401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 +Telephone (954) 522-3456 +Telecopier (954) 527-8663 +By: +ERR +Florida Bar No. 542075 +bedwards@rra-law.com +William J. Berger +Florida Bar No. 197701 +wberger@rra-law.com diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c999b89e9d497bb6fcbea9c1af26e4c5fc5dde94f4a657b73f0989ed3b38f921.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c999b89e9d497bb6fcbea9c1af26e4c5fc5dde94f4a657b73f0989ed3b38f921.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..747df473dc653d873d95a3ad9502cf736f9a61e4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c999b89e9d497bb6fcbea9c1af26e4c5fc5dde94f4a657b73f0989ed3b38f921.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c999b89e9d497bb6fcbea9c1af26e4c5fc5dde94f4a657b73f0989ed3b38f921", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "05803309130a288d5e4a56999e0a51a6f83eb7781f2a581cefa8821b63035b6e", + "output_sha256": "7c39c8dcf56b6f34efa77abefbead82499907d7c5298ca2db73662bc784ad73b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c9bc8e5730d94593fd4d64f61733f58764fa092881691b6c70fcba9b27662ccb.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c9bc8e5730d94593fd4d64f61733f58764fa092881691b6c70fcba9b27662ccb.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..af46c2d04be433eabf4b7b722f1f2c0fb17342b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c9bc8e5730d94593fd4d64f61733f58764fa092881691b6c70fcba9b27662ccb.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2011 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, +Plaintiffs, +V. +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, +Defendant. +/ +PROPOSED INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN's UNOPPOSED MOTION +FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME UNTIL OCTOBER 14, 2011 To FILE HIS +OMNIBUS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION +This motion seeks an additional nine days, until October 14, 2011, for proposed intervenor +Jeffrey Epstein to file an omnibus reply in support of his motion for limited intervention. We have +communicated with counsel for the plaintiffs and counsel for the government, and neither objects +to this extension of time. +We seek this extension due to scheduling conflicts of undersigned counsel Jackie Perczek +and Roy Black. Additionally, Jackie Perczek has to travel to Connecticut from October 6-9, 2011 +for memorial services for her husband's grandmother, who died recently. +For these reasons, we request until October 14, 2011 to file an omnibus reply in support of +Mr. Epstein's motion for limited intervention. The reply would address the arguments raised by both +the government and the plaintiffs. +We certify that on September 29, 2011, the foregoing document was filed electronically with + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2011 Page 2 of 2 +the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. +Respectfully submitted, +BLACK, SREBNICK, KORNSPAN +& STUMPF, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1300 +Miami, Florida 33131 +Office: (305) 371-6421 +Fax: (305) 358-2006 +By +/S/ +ROY BLACK, ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 126088 +JACKIE PERCZEK, ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 0042201 +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c9bc8e5730d94593fd4d64f61733f58764fa092881691b6c70fcba9b27662ccb.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c9bc8e5730d94593fd4d64f61733f58764fa092881691b6c70fcba9b27662ccb.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5fbc58abc2270a80b6ddf6606a42b210ed7ac781 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c9bc8e5730d94593fd4d64f61733f58764fa092881691b6c70fcba9b27662ccb.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c9bc8e5730d94593fd4d64f61733f58764fa092881691b6c70fcba9b27662ccb", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "635e678d862394fcc2f443eff33a65e551774173589bc99b186c217c1183770b", + "output_sha256": "47e84f41f63c8ba7885e1ce6e9372119c0378045b6e59299b97140a9475f0c2e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c9d098902360ee44187b0371c41fffc476d4c35f3b740ef7aca25ee3d94d4f14.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c9d098902360ee44187b0371c41fffc476d4c35f3b740ef7aca25ee3d94d4f14.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..def05fa480fd5ab07dc0f1ed49b157c7b867fde2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c9d098902360ee44187b0371c41fffc476d4c35f3b740ef7aca25ee3d94d4f14.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 105-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-5073-Cir. Marra/ +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 +V. +UNITED STATES +[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S UNOPPOSED +MOTION FOR FIVE EXTRA PAGES TO RESPOND TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING +IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE BY ROY BLACK ET AL. +THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Unopposed +Motion for Five Extra Pages to Respond to Supplemental Briefing in Support of Motion to +Intervene by Roy Black, et. al., filed October 10, 2011. Having reviewed the Motion and the +Court file, and good cause having been shown, +It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion is GRANTED. The Court shall allow +Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 an additional five pages (a total of 25 pages) to respond to the +Supplemental Briefing in Support of Motion to Intervene of Roy Black, +Weinberg, and +Jay Lefkowitz (DE 94) and the government response thereto (DE 100). +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, +this day of. +_ 2011. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +1 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c9d098902360ee44187b0371c41fffc476d4c35f3b740ef7aca25ee3d94d4f14.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c9d098902360ee44187b0371c41fffc476d4c35f3b740ef7aca25ee3d94d4f14.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a440b6d6c8b20e07eff23f3d7c8f0d182b8d4806 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c9d098902360ee44187b0371c41fffc476d4c35f3b740ef7aca25ee3d94d4f14.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c9d098902360ee44187b0371c41fffc476d4c35f3b740ef7aca25ee3d94d4f14", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8b86f435d3c9e55909bfdd325913f198f6785eb5adcf991bf140ff29d5a4c002", + "output_sha256": "4ae8db6a7eecd8ca98fdc0d3379099e8b3803bcaafc00f9b52d3b06faa711caa", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c9df2d497607a2683a7314c0a49a9bd608ebfeda0a3f2792c27ee227939f9cce.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c9df2d497607a2683a7314c0a49a9bd608ebfeda0a3f2792c27ee227939f9cce.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3a1b6bdd010d12f0010ea135ce591b4d2c96396d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c9df2d497607a2683a7314c0a49a9bd608ebfeda0a3f2792c27ee227939f9cce.md @@ -0,0 +1,1139 @@ +Case 9:08-CV-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 1 of 35 +.. +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 5, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS +TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, +serves his responses and objections to Plaintiff's Amended First Request For +Production To Defendant, dated December 9, 2008. +Request No. 1. The list provided to you by the U.S. Attorney of individuals +whom the U.S. Attorney was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an +offense by Mr. Epstein enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §2255. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +COMPOSITEEXHIBIT_ +"''" + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 2 of 35 +Page 2 +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. +Request No. 2. All documents referring or relating to the United States' +agreement with Defendant to defer federal prosecution subject to certain +conditions, including without limitation, the operative agreement between +Defendant and the United States and all amendments, revisions and +supplements thereto. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. +I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 3 of 35 +Page 3 +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. +Request No. 3. +All documents referring or relating to Defendant's agreement +with the State of Florida on his plea of guilty to violations of Florida Criminal +Statutes, including without limitation, the operative plea agreement and any +amendments, revisions and supplements thereto. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +- as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the + + +Case 9:08-CV-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 4 of 35 +Page 4 +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Whatever public documents exist are in the State Court file and +equally accessible to Plaintiff. +Request No.4. All documents obtained in discovery or investigation relating +to either the Florida Criminal Case or the Federal Criminal Case, including +without limitation, documents obtained from any federal, state, or local law +enforcement agency, the State Attorney's office and the United States Attorney's +office. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents +regarding +| this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 5 of 35 +Page 5 +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Request No. 4 seeks documents that are attorney-client and +work product privileged in that it seeks "all documents obtained in discovery or +investigation relating either to the Florida Criminal Case or the Federal Criminal +Case +...." In addition, such documents are privileged and confidential as they +are the subject of a pending investigation. +Request No. 5. All telephone records and other documents reflecting telephone +calls made by or to Defendant, including without limitation, telephone logs and +message pads. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the + + +• Case 9:08-Cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 6 of 35 +Page 6 +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Defendant objects as the request is overbroad and seeks +information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor +does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible +evidence. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2002 - 2003." +Plaintiff's request seeks information for a time period of January 1, 2003 until +present regarding any and all telephone records and other documents reflecting +any and all telephone calls made to or by Defendant. As phrased, the request +includes attorney-client and work product privileged information, as well as +records and documents of calls having absolutely no relationship to any of the +allegations in this action. +Request No. 6. All telephone records and other documents reflecting telephone +calls made by or to Defendant, including without limitation, telephone logs and +message pads, reflecting telephone calls made by or to employees. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents +regarding this lawsuit, +however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce + + +Case 9:08-CV-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 7 of 35 +Page 7 +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, 1 assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, as defined by Plaintiff in +paragraph g of her request, the term employee is overly broad and encompasses +information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor +does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible +evidence. Further, the request seeks information pertaining to person who are +not parties to this action and whose privacy rights are implicated. +Request No. 7. All surveillance videos, slides, film, videotape, digital recording +or other audio or video depiction or image of the Palm Beach Residence. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 8 of 35 +Page 8 +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. +Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2002 - +2003." Plaintiff's request seeks information for a time period of January 1, 2003 +until present regarding "all surveillance videos, etc., or image of the Palm Beach +Residence." +Request No. 8. All documents referring or relating to Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2, +including +without limitation, web pages, social networking site pages, +correspondence, videotapes and audiotapes. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my + + +Case 9:08-CV-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 9 of 35 +Page 9 +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +Request No. 9. All statements taken, transcribed or recorded from any person +referring or relating to Defendant's sexual conduct, massages given to Defendant +or any issue in these cases. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 10 of 35 +Page 10 +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +Request No. 10. All documents referring to or relating to air travel and aircraft +used by Defendant, including without limitation, flight logs and flight manifests. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time +period of "in or about 2002 - 2003." Plaintiff's request seeks documents for a + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 11 of 35 +Page 11 +time period of January 1, 2003 until present regarding air travel and aircraft used +by Defendant. +Request No. 11. Any and all documents referring to or relating to modeling +agencies, including but not limited to documents relating to or reflecting +communications with female models. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. +I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2002 - + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 12 of 35 +Page 12 +Request No. 12. All photographs, videotapes, digital images and other +documents depicting or showing females who, at the time thereof, were under +the age of 21, which were taken or created by or for Defendant and not intended +for sale commercially to the public. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2002 - +2003." Plaintiffs request has no time limitation. + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 13 of 35 +Page 13 +Request No. 13. All photographs and painting of females which were displayed +in any of Defendant's homes or residences in the time frame of these requests, +including without limitation, photographs in standing or sitting frames or wall +frames. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. +Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about." +Plaintiff's request has no time limitation. + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 14 of 35 +Page 14 +Request No. 14. Any and all documents consisting of, referring or relating to +communications between Jeffrey Epstein and +including, but not +limited to, letters, notes, text messages, messages on social networking sites, +and e-mails. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. +. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2002 - + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 15 of 35 +Page 15 +Request No. 15. Any and all documents consisting of, referring or relating to +communications between Jeffrey Epstein and +including, but not +limited to, letters, notes, text messages, messages on social networking sites, +and e-mails. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and 1 must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2002 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 16 of 35 +Page 16 +Request No. 16. Any and all documents consisting of, referring or relating to +communications between Jeffrey Epstein and +including, but +not limited to, letters, notes, text messages, messages on social networking +sites, and e-mails. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2002 - + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 17 of 35 +Page 17 +Request No. 17. Any and all documents consisting of, referring or relating to +communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, including, but +not limited to, letters, notes, text messages, messages on social networking +sites, and e-mails. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2002 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 18 of 35 +Page 18 +Request No. 18. Any and all documents and photographs placed by Defendant +at any time in the period of these requests on a social networking website, +including without limitation, Facebook.com and MySpace.com. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2002 - +2003." Plaintiff's request seeks documents and photographs for a time period of +January 1, 2003 until present. + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 19 of 35 +Page 19 +Request No. 19. Any and all documents reflecting or consisting of +communications between Jeffrey Epstein and MC2 Models or Jean-Luc Brunel, +relating or referring to females coming into the United States from other countries +to pursue a career in modeling, including, but not limited to, letters, notes and e- +mails. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, 1 assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2002 - + + +. Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 20 of 35 +Page 20 +2003." In addition, the request seeks documents pertaining to females who are +not non-parties, and who possess privacy rights. +Request No. 20. Any and all documents referring or relating to gifts or loans to +females under the age of 21, including, but not limited to, notes, receipts and car +rental agreements. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. +I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2002 - + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 21 of 35 +Page 21 +Request No. 21. Any and all personal calendars or schedules of or for Jeffrey +Epstein from January 1, 2003 to the present. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, 1 assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. +Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2002 - +2003." In addition, the request encompasses attorney-client privileged material. +Request No. 22. All documents written by Jeffrey Epstein consisting of personal +thoughts, feelings or descriptions of events, incidents or occurrences in +Defendant's life, including without limitation, any diaries of Jeffrey Epstein. + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 22 of 35 +Page 22 +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. | +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2002 - +2003." On its fact, the request goes beyond the scope of allowable discovery +and is meant to harass, embarrass and overburden the Defendant. Further, the +request is so overly broad that it includes attorney-client and work product +privileged materials. +Request No. 23. All documents referring to or relating to Jeffrey Epstein's +purchase or consumption of prescription medicine. + + +. Case 9:08-Cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 23 of 35 +Page 23 +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, / assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2002 - +2003." Defendant's medical condition is not at issue in this action. Such a +request is meant to harass and embarrass Defendant. Further, such information +is privileged pursuant to Fed. Rule 501 and §90.503, Fla. Stat. In addition, such +information is protected by the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and +Accountability Act (HIPAA). + + +. Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 24 of 35 +Jane Doe No. 5 v. Epsteit: +Page 24 +Certificate of Service +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent +via U.S. Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this 26th +_day of +January, 2009. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +jherman@hermanlaw.com +Irivera@hermanlaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #5 +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein +Respectfully submited. +By: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-842-2820 +Fax: 561-515-3148 +(Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 25 of 35 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS +TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, +serves his responses and objections to Plaintiff's December 9, 2008 Amended First Set +Of Interrogatories To Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, attached hereto. +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent by fax and +U.S. Mail to the following addressees this _26th +_ day of January, 2009: +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +jherman@hermanlaw.com +Irivera@hermanlaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #5 +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +wort + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 26 of 35 +Page 2 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclay.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 27 of 35 +Page 3 +DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO +PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES +Identify all employees who performed work of services inside +Interrogatory No. 1. +the Palm Beach Residence. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his +constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the +interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or +about 2002-2003." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for a time period from +January 1, 2003 until present. Also, see "Employee" as defined in paragraph g of +Plaintiff's interrogatories. +Interrogatory No. 2. +Identify all Employees not identified in response to +interrogatory no. 1 who at any time came to Defendant's Palm Beach Residence. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the +interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. +Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or +about 2002-2003." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for "all Employees" "who at +any time" came to the residence. Also, see "Employee" as defined in paragraph g of +Plaintiff's interrogatories. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 28 of 35 +Page 4 +Interrogatory No. 3. +Identify all persons who came to the Palm Beach Residence +and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the +interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or +about 2002-2003." +Interrogatory No. 4. +Identify all persons who came to the New York Residence +and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that ! cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the +interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or +about 2002-2003." +Interrogatory No. 5. +Identify all persons who came to the New Mexico Residence +and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 29 of 35 +Page 5 +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the +interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or +about 2002-2003." +Interrogatory No. 6. +Identify all persons who came to the St. +Residence +and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the +interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or +about 2002-2003." +Interrogatory No. 7. +List all the time periods during which Jeffrey Epstein was +present in the State of Florida, including for each the date he arrive and the date he +departed. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the +interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 30 of 35 +Page 6 +discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or +about 2002-2003." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for a time period from +January 1, 2003 until present. +Interrogatory No. 8. +Identify all of Jeffrey Epstein health care providers in the +past (10) ten years, including without limitation, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental +health counselors, physicians, hospitals and treatment facilities. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the +interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, such information is privileged pursuant to +Rule 501, Fed. Evid., and §90.503, Fla.Evid. Code. In addition, such information is +protected by the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act +(HIPAA). +Interrogatory No. 9. +List all items in Jeffrey Epstein's possession in Palm Beach, +Florida, at any time during the period of these interrogatories, which were used or +intended to be used as sexual aids, sex toys, massage aids, and/or vibrators, and for +each, list the manufacturer, model number (if applicable), and its present location. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the +interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges a time period +of "in or about 2002-2003," while Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information from January + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 31 of 35 +Page 7 +Defendant. +1, 2003, until present. Further, the request is meant to embarrass and harass the +Interrogatory No. 10. +Identify all persons who provide transportation services to +Jeffrey Epstein, whether as employees or independent contractors, including without +limitation, chauffeurs and aircraft crew. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the +interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff places no time limitation. +Interrogatory No. 11. +Identify all telephone numbers used by Epstein, including +cellular phones and land lines in any of his residences, by stating the complete +telephone number and the name of the service provider. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and | must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the +interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's allegations claim a time period of "in or +about 2002-2003" and involve Defendant's Palm Beach residence. +Interrogatory No. 12. +Identify all telephone numbers of employees of Epstein, +used in the course or scope of their employment, including cellular phones and land +lines in any of his residences, by stating the complete telephone number and the name +of the service provider. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 32 of 35 +Page 8 +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the +interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject +matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's allegations claim a time period of "in or +about 2002-2003" and involve Defendant's Palm Beach residence. +Interrogatory No. 13. +List the names and addresses of all persons who are +believed or known by your, your agents, or your attorneys to have any knowledge +concerning any of the issues in this lawsuit; and specify the subject matter about which +the witness has knowledge. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the interrogatory seeks information +that is attorney-client and work product privileged as it seeks information known by +Detendant's attorneys. The interrogatory is so overbroad that Defendant cannot +reasonably form a response, including the raising of additional privileges which may +apply. Without waiving any objection, see Rule 26 disclosures made by Defendant's +counsel in this case. +Interrogatory No. 14. +State the name and address of every person known to you, +your agents, or your attorneys who has knowledge about, possession, or custody, or +control of, any model, plat, map, drawing, motion picture, videotape or photograph +pertaining to any fact or issue involved in this controversy; and describe as to each, +what item such person has, the name and address of the person who took or prepared +it, and the date it was taken or prepared. + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 33 of 35 +Page 9 +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the interrogatory seeks information +that is attorney-client and work product privileged as it seeks information known by +Defendant's attorneys. +Interrogatory No. 15. +Identify all persons who have made a claim, complaint, +demand or threat against you relating to alleged sexual abuse or misconduct on a +minor, and for each provide the following information: +a. The person's full name, last known address and telephone number; +b. The person's attorney, if represented; +c. The date of the alleged incidents); +d. If a civil case has been filed by or on behalf of the person, the case number +and identifying information. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges and without waiving such objection, +with regard to subparagraph (d), Defendant's counsel states that such information is +public record and equally attainable by Plaintiff. +Interrogatory No. 16. State the facts upon which you intend to rely for each denial +of a pleading allegation and for each affirmative defense you intend to make in these +cases. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as +well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 34 of 35 +Page 10 +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under +these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional +rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, no answer to the Amended +Complaint has been filed by defense counsel in this case; however, Defendant does not +intend to waive his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. Defendant further +objects in that Plaintiffs interrogatory attempts to obtain discovery in other cases filed +by her undersigned counsel. +Interrogatory No. 17. +Identify all witnesses from whom you have obtained or +requested a written, transcribed or recorded statement relating to any issue in these +cases, and for each, in addition to the witness's identifying information, state the date of +the statement and identify the person taking the statement. +Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well +as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide +answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as +to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects to this +interrogatory in that it seeks information that is attorney-client and work product +privileged. In addition, the request is overbroad in that it seeks information "relating to +any issue." +STATE OF Florida +) +) +COUNTY OF Palm Beach) +I hereby certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths +and take acknowledgments, personally appeared Jeftrey +Epstein +_, known to +ne to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Interrogatories wh + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80381-KAM Document 68-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 35 of 35 +Page 11 +acknowledged before me that he/she executed the same, that I relied upon the following form of +identification of the above-named person: personally known/identification, and that an oath +was/was not taken. +WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this _ 26 th +day of January +NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF FLORIDA +Nayanira Alanis +Commission #DD841844 +an Expires: DEC. 01, 2012 +BONDED THRU ATLANTIC BONDING CO., INC. +(SEAL) +My Commission Expires: +Commission #:_ \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/c9df2d497607a2683a7314c0a49a9bd608ebfeda0a3f2792c27ee227939f9cce.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c9df2d497607a2683a7314c0a49a9bd608ebfeda0a3f2792c27ee227939f9cce.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..17018e086144a0b37b5ea286dc4b245dad12b87f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/c9df2d497607a2683a7314c0a49a9bd608ebfeda0a3f2792c27ee227939f9cce.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -1559, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "c9df2d497607a2683a7314c0a49a9bd608ebfeda0a3f2792c27ee227939f9cce", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 36, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "e07502849324f39b1c5d88008a534ae0ba485cdfde2c73412a00108eff843265", + "output_sha256": "19024669779aad7f541e755a12fb9bf4c32200b45693209fbcd53034481d54cf", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca3cd24ad5ea26c3f6d05241697bd7058ee6a90a07bf0dee9ab4909764522707.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca3cd24ad5ea26c3f6d05241697bd7058ee6a90a07bf0dee9ab4909764522707.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a26ea869c63494cc4703ee168c75dec551ee139b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca3cd24ad5ea26c3f6d05241697bd7058ee6a90a07bf0dee9ab4909764522707.md @@ -0,0 +1,160 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA-Y +JANE DOE NO. 5, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING +THAT PLAINTIFF USE PROPER CASE STYLE IN ALL FILINGS +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, moves +this Court for the entry of an order requiring that the Plaintiff in the above-styled action +use the proper case-style in all filings in this action, as opposed to improperly including +all other Jane Does, (Jane Doe No. 2, Jane Doe No. 3, Jane Doe No. 4, Jane Doe No. +5, Jane Doe No. 6, and Jane Doe No. 7), who are represented by the same counsel. +Rule 10(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. (2009), Loc. Gen. Rule 7.1 (S.D. Fla. 2009). In support of his +motion, Defendant states: +1. Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, pertaining to "Caption; Names +of Parties," provides that - +Every pleading must have a caption with the court's name, a title, a file +number, and a Rule 7(a) designation. The title of the complaint must name +all the parties; the title of other pleadings, after naming the first party on +each side, may refer generally to other parties. +2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is the case style which Plaintiff recently used in +filing papers with this Court. This action has not been consolidated with any of the other + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 2 of 5 +Jane Doe No. 5 v. Epstein +Page 2 +Jane Doe actions filed by Plaintiff's counsel. Rule 10(a) makes clear that only the +parties to this action are to be included in the caption. +3. By including case styles from five additional cases makes it appear as though the +cases have been consolidated. Further, the case style used by Plaintiff is not only +misleading, but confusing in that there is no clear delineation as to in which action the +matter is properly filed. Each case has different facts and should proceed on those +facts. Each Plaintiff is claiming personal injury type damages which must be decided +separately. +4. Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to an order requiring that Plaintiff uses the +proper caption and case style in this action and not list every case in which her counsel +represents other Jane Does. +WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant Defendant's +motion, and enter the requested order. +Rule 7.1 Certification +Pursuant to letter communication, Plaintiff's counsel did not agree with the relief +request in Defendant's motion. +By: +ROBERTE +CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the +manner specified by CM/ECF on this I day of May, 2009: +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 3 of 5 +Jane Doe No. 5 v. Epstein +Page 3 +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #5 +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +By: _ +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 4 of 5 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 82 Entered on FLSD Dounet 04/23/2009 + +JANE DOE NO. 2, +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/LI +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA1 +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/LL LI +- 1- +EXHITA" + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 5 of 5 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 82 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2009 Page 2 of 9 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/1) +JANE DOE NO. 7, +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +vS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION +TO MOTION TO STAY AND OR CONTINUE ACTION +Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-7, by and through undersigned counsel, file this Memorandum in +Opposition to Stay and or Continue Action, as follows: +I. +Introduction +In moving for stay, Defendant has the burden of demonstrating that, due to a parallel criminal +proceeding, if he exercises his right against self incrimination he will certainly lose on summary +judgment unless a stay is granted. Defendant has failed to satisfy this burden. There is no pending +motion for summary judgment. There is also no criminal proceeding at this time arising from +Epstein's acts against the Plaintiffs or other victims. Indeed, whether such a criminal proceeding is +ever commenced is entirely within the Defendant's control, by complying with the terms of his +Non-Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office. Defendant relies upon an amorphous +-2- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca3cd24ad5ea26c3f6d05241697bd7058ee6a90a07bf0dee9ab4909764522707.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca3cd24ad5ea26c3f6d05241697bd7058ee6a90a07bf0dee9ab4909764522707.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c8a609f3d360d9c1a9b314072ff499ad9c055af8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca3cd24ad5ea26c3f6d05241697bd7058ee6a90a07bf0dee9ab4909764522707.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -71, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ca3cd24ad5ea26c3f6d05241697bd7058ee6a90a07bf0dee9ab4909764522707", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "bfc575341a498635cbc1110f4723e163aaff77694a9df32ec7633948d36738cb", + "output_sha256": "54b8230a8bc1cf6124fe59db75c34d0e111eb11950b3db216d45cb413f61dead", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca6bd8931c963d939f8c8682f23159e8c663fe9902abaefb4a06ce21b0121b7d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca6bd8931c963d939f8c8682f23159e8c663fe9902abaefb4a06ce21b0121b7d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..958967e36bd4f9dd41b77efff7d2e90d3c664898 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca6bd8931c963d939f8c8682f23159e8c663fe9902abaefb4a06ce21b0121b7d.md @@ -0,0 +1,140 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 2 of 6 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRAI +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80993-MARRA/ +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80811 -MARRAJ +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80893-MARRA/| +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 08-CV- 80469-MARRA/ +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 3 of 6 +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al., +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80591-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 102, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80656-MARRA1 +/ +NOTICE OF FILING PROPOSED ORDER +Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-7, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby file the +attached Proposed Order in reference to document no. 111 filed in case no. 08-80119 on May 21, +2009. +Dated: May 27, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By:_ +s/ Adam D. Horowitz +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuscattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +3 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80381-KAM Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 4 of 6 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 5 of 6 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on May 27, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served +this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission +of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for +those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 6 of 6 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +bedwards@rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +/s/ Adam D. Horowitz +6 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca6bd8931c963d939f8c8682f23159e8c663fe9902abaefb4a06ce21b0121b7d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca6bd8931c963d939f8c8682f23159e8c663fe9902abaefb4a06ce21b0121b7d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd7ba92655190d9ec53e8e8fdfd932d3b374d1c8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca6bd8931c963d939f8c8682f23159e8c663fe9902abaefb4a06ce21b0121b7d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ca6bd8931c963d939f8c8682f23159e8c663fe9902abaefb4a06ce21b0121b7d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "11006656374bbfb809317be2369f27a53c7209522209561ed3edcd4b919f28b6", + "output_sha256": "64ced1af818788c1c637a0069c085dcd0b2092200154faac26a8af79673f0ede", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca799e889bdf331721729f374d44cc14df82c495ae7a348889a4eb07e013f509.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca799e889bdf331721729f374d44cc14df82c495ae7a348889a4eb07e013f509.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a106deed7b011e356d7fbedc9135466a137c165e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca799e889bdf331721729f374d44cc14df82c495ae7a348889a4eb07e013f509.md @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 18-2 Filed 02/06/20 + +The State Bar +of California +180 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 +888-800-3400 +OFFICE OF ATTORNEY REGULATION +& CONSUMER RESOURCES +AttorneyRegulation@calbar.ca.gov +CERTIFICATE OF STANDING +January 11, 2020 +TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: +This is to certify that according to the records of the State Bar, ROBERT SAMUEL +GLASSMAN, #269816 was admitted to the practice of law in this state by the +Supreme Court of California on June 1, 2010 and has been since that date, and is at +date hereof, an ACTIVE licensee of the State Bar of California; and that no +recommendation for discipline for professional or other misconduct has ever been +made by the Board of Trustees or a Disciplinary Board to the Supreme Court of the +State of California. +THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA +Dina DiLoreto +Custodian of Records diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca799e889bdf331721729f374d44cc14df82c495ae7a348889a4eb07e013f509.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca799e889bdf331721729f374d44cc14df82c495ae7a348889a4eb07e013f509.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..45e21f743a36338c7a1e5b3668e53468d64ebd57 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca799e889bdf331721729f374d44cc14df82c495ae7a348889a4eb07e013f509.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -23, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ca799e889bdf331721729f374d44cc14df82c495ae7a348889a4eb07e013f509", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "6f1335d2cdf6236d30e270b062765bae6f7c5c90c9846dc45753db747f419665", + "output_sha256": "5ed61aa251ab78365d2bdfad8536bd932f443d2e1cfda1aa62dec7fba0b316da", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca82911fbd0033211e8b50b07e1f2f5468837b41a3db87b1dfeaab0ad7f421c5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca82911fbd0033211e8b50b07e1f2f5468837b41a3db87b1dfeaab0ad7f421c5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eb74ccd6e32263242c8afd71db2b24637b9659de --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca82911fbd0033211e8b50b07e1f2f5468837b41a3db87b1dfeaab0ad7f421c5.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 571-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2010 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 2 +V. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE +THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the parties' Stipulation of Dismissal with +Prejudice [DE], filed June , 2010. The Court has reviewed the Stipulation, the +pertinent portions of the record, and is otherwise advised in the premises. +accordance with the parties' Stipulation, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: +1. The above-styled action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. +2. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. +3. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' +settlement. +4. The Clerk shall CLOSE THIS CASE. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Florida this_ +_day +of June, 2010. +KENNETH A. MARRA +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +Copies Furnished to: +All Counsel of Record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca82911fbd0033211e8b50b07e1f2f5468837b41a3db87b1dfeaab0ad7f421c5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca82911fbd0033211e8b50b07e1f2f5468837b41a3db87b1dfeaab0ad7f421c5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..57ab0eb905d4a0d5a6839752e9c1f16753050213 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca82911fbd0033211e8b50b07e1f2f5468837b41a3db87b1dfeaab0ad7f421c5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ca82911fbd0033211e8b50b07e1f2f5468837b41a3db87b1dfeaab0ad7f421c5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e153fa0747cba7c873e95e5158ba578b1cc344b7418a7e829e75da6f5940691c", + "output_sha256": "04f1bd30e0261c526cb58db7dede699c3d75b90f8113fb2f2db730037d977d7f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca875bd6d7947a241efe4216539738793c366f0fd75f151438c3a57844d653d6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca875bd6d7947a241efe4216539738793c366f0fd75f151438c3a57844d653d6.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b0b43a08b9e61474f282659e09236de7999b4b4d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca875bd6d7947a241efe4216539738793c366f0fd75f151438c3a57844d653d6.md @@ -0,0 +1,681 @@ +• Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 1 of 24 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-, +JANE DOE NO. 2, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS +TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, +serves his responses and objections to Plaintiff's Amended First Request For +Production To Defendant, dated December 9, 2008. +Request No. 1. +The list provided to you by the U.S. Attorney of individuals +whom the U.S. Attorney was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an +offense by Mr. Epstein enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §2255. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. +I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference + + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 2 of 24 +Page 2 +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. +Request No. 2. All documents referring or relating to the United States' +agreement with Defendant to defer federal prosecution subject to certain +conditions, +including without limitation, the operative agreement between +Defendant and the United States and all amendments, revisions and +supplements thereto. +Response: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 3 of 24 +Page 3 +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. +Request No. 3. All documents referring or relating to Defendant's agreement +with the State of Florida on his plea of guilty to violations of Florida Criminal +Statutes, including without limitation, the operative plea agreement and any +amendments, revisions and supplements thereto. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, 1 assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80119-KĄM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 4 of 24 +Page 4 +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Whatever public documents exist are in the State Court file and +equally accessible to Plaintiff. +Request No.4. All documents obtained in discovery or investigation relating +to either the Florida Criminal Case or the Federal Criminal Case, including +without limitation, documents obtained from any federal, state, or local law +enforcement agency, the State Attorney's office and the United States Attorney's +office. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding +this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +tederal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 5 of 24 +Page 5 +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Request No. 4 seeks documents that are attorney-client and +work product privileged in that it seeks "all documents obtained in discovery or +investigation relating either to the Florida Criminal Case or the Federal Criminal +Case ...." In addition, such documents are privileged and confidential as they +are the subject of a pending investigation. +Request No. 5. All telephone records and other documents reflecting telephone +calls made by or to Defendant, including without limitation, telephone logs and +message pads. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 6 of 24 +Page 6 +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Defendant objects as the request is overbroad and seeks +information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor +does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible +evidence. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 - 2005." +Plaintiff's request seeks information for a time period of January 1, 2003 until +present regarding any and all telephone records and other documents reflecting +any and all telephone calls made to or by Defendant. As phrased, the request +includes attorney-client and work product privileged information, as well as +records and documents of calls having absolutely no relationship to any of the +allegations in this action. +Request No. 6. All telephone records and other documents reflecting telephone +calls made by or to Defendant, including without limitation, telephone logs and +message pads, reflecting telephone calls made by or to employees. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding | +this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 7 of 24 +Page 7 +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +tederal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, as defined by Plaintiff in +paragraph g of her request, the term employee is overly broad and encompasses +information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor +does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible +evidence. Further, the request seeks information pertaining to person who are +not parties to this action and whose privacy rights are implicated. +Request No. 7. All surveillance videos, slides, film, videotape, digital recording +or other audio or video depiction or image of the Palm Beach Residence. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 8 of 24 +Page 8 +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 - +2005." Plaintiff's request seeks information for a time period of January 1, 2003 +until present regarding "all surveillance videos, etc., or image of the Palm Beach +Residence." +Request No. 8. All documents referring or relating to Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2, +including without limitation, web pages, social networking site pages, +correspondence, videotapes and audiotapes. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 9 of 24 +Page 9 +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +Request No. 9. All statements taken, transcribed or recorded from any person +referring or relating to Defendant's sexual conduct, massages given to Defendant +or any issue in these cases. +Response: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. +I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 10 of 24 +Page 10 +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +Request No. 10. All documents referring to or relating to air travel and aircraft +used by Defendant, including without limitation, flight logs and flight manifests. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time +period of "in or about 2004 - 2005." Plaintiff's request seeks documents for a + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 11 of 24 +Page 11 +time period of January 1, 2003 until present regarding air travel and aircraft used +by Defendant. +Request No. 11. Any and all documents referring to or relating to modeling +agencies, including but not limited to documents relating to or reflecting +communications with female models. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. +I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 - + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 12 of 24 +Page 12 +Request No. 12. All photographs, videotapes, digital images and other +documents depicting or showing females who, at the time thereof, were under +the age of 21, which were taken or created by or for Defendant and not intended +for sale commercially to the public. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 - + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 13 of 24 +Page 13 +Request No. 13. All photographs and painting of females which were displayed +in any of Defendant's homes or residences in the time frame of these requests, +including without limitation, photographs in standing or sitting frames or wall +frames. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding +this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 - + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 14 of 24 +Page 14 +Request No. 14. Any and all documents consisting of, referring or relating to +communications between Jeffrey Epstein and +including, but not +limited to, letters, notes, text messages, messages on social networking sites, +and e-mails. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 - + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 15 of 24 +Page 15 +Request No. 15. Any and all documents consisting of, referring or relating to +communications between Jeffrey Epstein and +including, but not +limited to, letters, notes, text messages, messages on social networking sites, +and e-mails. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 - + + +• Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 16 of 24 +Page 16 +Request No. 16. Any and all documents consisting of, referring or relating to +communications between Jeffrey Epstein and +, including, but +not limited to, letters, notes, text messages, messages on social networking +sites, and e-mails. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 - + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 17 of 24 +Page 17 +Request No. 17. Any and all documents consisting of, referring or relating to +communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, including, but +not limited to, letters, notes, text messages, messages on social networking +sites, and e-mails. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. +I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiffs complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 - + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 18 of 24 +Page 18 +Request No. 18. Any and all documents and photographs placed by Defendant +at any time in the period of these requests on a social networking website, +including without limitation, Facebook.com and MySpace.com. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. +I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and 1 must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 - +2005." Plaintiff's request seeks documents and photographs for a time period of +January 1, 2003 until present. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 19 of 24 +Page 19 +Request No. 19. Any and all documents reflecting or consisting of +communications between Jeffrey Epstein and MC2 Models or Jean-Luc Brunel, +relating or referring to females coming into the United States from other countries +to pursue a career in modeling, including, but not limited to, letters, notes and e- +mails. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 20 of 24 +Page 20 +2005." In addition, the request seeks documents pertaining to females who are +not non-parties, and who possess privacy rights. +Request No. 20. Any and all documents referring or relating to gifts or loans to +females under the age of 21, including, but not limited to, notes, receipts and car +rental agreements. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. +Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, +and confidential. +In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 21 of 24 +Page 21 +Request No. 21. Any and all personal calendars or schedules of or for Jeffrey +Epstein from January 1, 2003 to the present. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 - +2005." In addition, the request encompasses attorney-client privileged material. +Request No. 22. All documents written by Jeffrey Epstein consisting of personal +thoughts, feelings or descriptions of events, incidents or occurrences in +Defendant's life, including without limitation, any diaries of Jeffrey Epstein. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 22 of 24 +Page 22 +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, 1 assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiffs complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 - +2005." On its fact, the request goes beyond the scope of allowable discovery +and is meant to harass, embarrass and overburden the Defendant. Further, the +request is so overly broad that it includes attorney-client and work product +privileged materials. +Request No. 23. All documents referring to or relating to Jeffrey Epstein's +purchase or consumption of prescription medicine. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 23 of 24 +Page 23 +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have +counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce +documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my +federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference +under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the +Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the +information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to +the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and +408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, +attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks +information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights +are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 - +2005." Defendant's medical condition is not at issue in this action. Such a +request is meant to harass and embarrass Defendant. Further, such information +is privileged pursuant to Fed. Rule 501 and §90.503, Fla. Stat. In addition, such +information is protected by the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and +Accountability Act (HIPAA). + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 24 of 24 +Page 24 +Certificate of Service +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent +via U.S. Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this 26th +_day of +January, 2009. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +jherman@hermanlaw.com +Irivera@hermanlaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein +Respectfully subphitted, +By: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bat No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-842-2820 +Fax: 561-515-3148 +(Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca875bd6d7947a241efe4216539738793c366f0fd75f151438c3a57844d653d6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca875bd6d7947a241efe4216539738793c366f0fd75f151438c3a57844d653d6.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5fdc6fff17d85e14013576ae51d483fae8b370c0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca875bd6d7947a241efe4216539738793c366f0fd75f151438c3a57844d653d6.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -1306, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ca875bd6d7947a241efe4216539738793c366f0fd75f151438c3a57844d653d6", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 26, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "75b986868494a29297052f75fe74826f9d31250e564d88d4cab2fef335b618f9", + "output_sha256": "c0f9ac21fc371aeb20d7ca1e35355d69d27ea9c5898445bd27d3047db34b9576", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca9300ac895799c3e106e368ceb954a2cd0cfbf2f4cab464d9cba7a899bb13f2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca9300ac895799c3e106e368ceb954a2cd0cfbf2f4cab464d9cba7a899bb13f2.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a462e36086ef9174aefbd1fd7c184d33866daae1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca9300ac895799c3e106e368ceb954a2cd0cfbf2f4cab464d9cba7a899bb13f2.md @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 60 Filed 08/04/20 Page 1 of 3 +Troutman Pepper +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +Sanders LLP +troutman" +pepper +troutman.com +Mary +W. Metcalfe +marygrace.metcalfe@troutman.com +August 4, 2020 +VIA ECE +The Honorable Debra C. Freeman +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +Daniel +Moynihan Courthouse +500 Pearl Street +New York, NY 10007 +Re: +Jane Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as +executors of the Estate of Jefferey E. Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell, +No. 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF +Dear Judge Freeman: +We represent Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as Co-Executors +of the Estate of Jefferey E. Epstein (the "Co-Executors"), in the above-referenced action. +We write pursuant to Your Honor's Order dated July 21, 2020 to request that, during the +August 5, 2020 scheduling conference, the court address Plaintiff's failure to satisfy Rule +26(a)(1)(A)(iii). +As a matter of context, Plaintiff served her Rule 26 initial disclosures on April 10, +2020, disclosing her alleged damages as follows: +Plaintiff alleges damages for past and future pain and suffering, emotional +distress and loss of enjoyment of life. Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages +against Defendants. Further, Plaintiff seeks (to the extent permitted by law) +reimbursement of attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, court costs and other +recoverable expenses of litigation. +By letter dated April 20, 2020, we explained to Plaintiff's counsel that her damages +disclosure was insufficient. Specifically, and as Your Honor pointed out to counsel for a +plaintiff in another action against the Co-Executors, Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) "requires a +'computation,' supported by documents," including an analysis providing the underlying +calculations or formulas used in arriving at the damages claimed. Design Strategy, Inc. +V. +1. 469 F.3d 284, 295 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Rule 26). See also Max Impact, LLC +v. Sherwood Grp., Inc., 2014 WL 902649, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2014) ("initial disclosures + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 60 Filed 08/04/20 Page 2 of 3 +August 4, 2020 +Page 2 +troutman? +pepper +were wholly inadequate because they merely provided [the other party] with total dollar +figures for each category of damages and were unaccompanied by any analysis +whatsoever" and "failed to provide a calculation or formula through which the figures were +derived"); Doe v. Indyke et al., 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF, Transcript of Proceeding dated +June 24, 2020, at 40:17-41:13 (wherein Your Honor noted that "it]he computation of +damages that was provided on its face does not comply with the rules" and while "there +may be an expert coming down the pike who may have something to say about damages, +and it may be that there'll be a need to supplement as evidence comes out", "that does +not excuse a computation that, to the best of the plaintiff's ability, complies with the rules +at the time the disclosure is made, which means you set out the amounts that are known +to you in different categories"). +On April 24, 2020, Plaintiff purported to supplement her Rule 26 disclosures, +stating: +Plaintiff's damages are in excess of $25,000,000. That computation is +based upon the damages caused by Decedent Jeffrey E. Epstein to Plaintiff +as a result of repeated and malicious acts of sexual abuse, including rape, +committed against Plaintiff. As a result of this repeated and horrific sexual +abuse committed by Decedent Epstein on Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered +significant past and future pain and suffering, emotional distress and loss of +enjoyment of life. +We additionally explained to Plaintiff's counsel during a telephone call that Plaintiff's +disclosures did not meet the requirements of Rule 26. +In their First Set of Interrogatories, served on April 20, 2020, the Co-Executors +requested that Plaintiff "[i]dentify and describe the computation of each category of +damages for which you seek recovery in this litigation." In her response, served on June +3, 2020, Plaintiff simply copied-and-pasted her supplemental Rule 26 damages +disclosure. +By letter dated June 18, 2020 and during a telephonic meet-and-confer held on +June 30, 2020, we once again urged Plaintiff's counsel to comply with Rule +26(a)(1)(A)(ii). During the meet-and-confer, we again directed Plaintiff to the text of Rule +26 and case law applying it. Moreover, we explained that Your Honor had recently +addressed this exact issue in another matter involving the Co-Executors. +On July 7, Plaintiff again purported to supplement her response to the Co- +Executors' interrogatory seeking a computation of Plaintiff's alleged damages, this time +by adding the following: +Objection. Pursuant to New York Pattern Jury Instructions ("PJI"') 2:280, "no +precise rule can be formulated to measure pain or to compensate for it in +109200445v4 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 60 Filed 08/04/20 Page 3 of 3 +August 4, 2020 +Page 3 +troutman? +pepper +money damages." There is no requirement that evidence of the monetary +value of such intangible things as pain and suffering be introduced into +evidence. There is no exact standard for fixing the compensation to be +awarded for these types of damages and no expert testimony need be +introduced. Any such award should be fair in light of the evidence presented +at the trial. There is also no yardstick by which to measure the dollar value +of pain or injury. The jury will have to determine based on their common +sense and experience that amount of money that will fairly and reasonably +make Plaintiff whole or compensate her for the physical, psychological, or +emotional pain and suffering that she sustained as a consequence of any +intentional, negligent or reckless acts that violated her rights and satety. +Indeed, it is improper for a lawyer to suggest to the jury that they may follow +a particular mathematical guide or unit-of-time basis in fixing damages for +pain and suffering. Halftown v. Triple D Leasing Corp., 89 A.D.2d 794 (4th +Dept. 1982). +New York's pattern jury instructions have no bearing on the proper scope of discovery +under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). While the parties have not yet fully conferred on the majority +of the issues that the Co-Executors raised in their June 18 letter, many of which we hope +to resolve without the Court's intervention, the issue of Plaintiff's damages has been +repeatedly discussed by counsel for several months, without resolution.' We therefore +request that the Court address this matter at the August 5 conference. +Respectfully submitted, +s/ Mary/ +W. Metcalfe +Mary l +W. Metcalfe +CC: All Counsel (via ECF) +'By contrast, the two issues Plaintiff's counsel prematurely raised in their letter to Your Honor dated July +15, 2020 do not warrant discussion during the coming court conference. First, Mr. Indyke's deposition has +already been rescheduled, which is exactly what counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell had requested +and in accordance with such confidentiality agreement, just as in the numerous other actions against the +Co-Executors pending before Your Honor. +109200445v4 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca9300ac895799c3e106e368ceb954a2cd0cfbf2f4cab464d9cba7a899bb13f2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca9300ac895799c3e106e368ceb954a2cd0cfbf2f4cab464d9cba7a899bb13f2.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..682396111ca85900cf6f0877d2641e65fa641a1c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca9300ac895799c3e106e368ceb954a2cd0cfbf2f4cab464d9cba7a899bb13f2.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ca9300ac895799c3e106e368ceb954a2cd0cfbf2f4cab464d9cba7a899bb13f2", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f1b25d629404d7974f1301b5b8e2a25464f1194c61f463cd4f810979673f23ba", + "output_sha256": "56e4377d47a4b6e4a21bb7990a1fcb0756e6b3c2618785428b2403eb23fbe431", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca9f7b8d713a1c310dde22ae35d0d33bda85b27c8360bef1bda469954c9f816e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca9f7b8d713a1c310dde22ae35d0d33bda85b27c8360bef1bda469954c9f816e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd3540576c47bb841d1d2df6a9a6c6518d2d3ebb --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca9f7b8d713a1c310dde22ae35d0d33bda85b27c8360bef1bda469954c9f816e.md @@ -0,0 +1,166 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 93-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO.2, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80119-MARRA/J +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO.3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO.4, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80380-MARRA/] +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +'A" + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 93-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 2 of 6 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80993-MARRAI, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80811-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80893-MARRA/. +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., +Defendants. +Page - 2 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 93-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 3 of 6 +DOE II, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80469-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80591-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80656-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQUIRE +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +ss +PERSONALLY APPEARED before the undersigned Notary Public, Michael +J. Pike, Esq., who after being sworn states the following: +Page - 3 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 93-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 4 of 6 +1. My name is Michael Pike, and I am one of the attorneys assigned +to this matter. Burman, Critton, Luttier and Coleman, LLP, Robert D. Critton, Jr., +Esq., J. Michael Burman, Esq., and | represent Jeffrey Epstein. I have +knowledge of the facts outlined in the Motion to Strike Cases from Current Trial +Dockets and/or Motion to Continue Cases and/or Motion to Modify Trial and +Scheduling Orders (Motion to Strike"). I have fully read the Motion, and I +personally drafted the Motions and Replies to various discovery responses +identified by docket entry in the Motion to Strike. +2. +The information set forth in the Motion to Strike is true and accurate +in that the undersigned law firm, on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein, has attempted in +good faith to obtain discovery in preparation for trial and in accordance with this +Court's Order Setting Trial Date and Discovery Deadlines, Referring Case to +Mediation and Referring Discovery Motions to the United States Magistrate +Judge. +3. +Unfortunately, due to the Plaintiff's delays, objections to relevant +discovery and refusal to allow Jeffrey Epstein to identify Plaintiffs in other Third- +Party Subpoenas, the undersigned has a good faith belief that it will be +impossible to complete discovery pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Order. In +fact, as outlined in the Motion to Strike, it is abundantly clear that Jeffrey Epstein +has not been afforded any meaningful discovery and cannot properly prepare the +cases for trial. It will also be impossible to satisfy the remaining schedules +referenced in the Motion. +In short, Plaintiffs have refused and/or failed to produce any +Page - 4 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 93-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 5 of 6 +meaningful discovery and/or answer any meaningful discovery responses. As a +result, the undersigned has not had an opportunity to depose any individuals that +may have information about the allegations made by Plaintiffs. +5. +Next, as stated in the Motion to Strike, Plaintiffs' counsel refuses to +allow the undersigned law firm to identify Plaintiffs by their true legal names in +the style of the case and/or identify the Plaintiffs in any third party subpoenas, +which has effectively prevented the undersigned law firm from obtaining any +meaningful discovery about the Plaintiffs and/or the damages they seek. As +stated in the Motion to Strike, Brad +, has agreed to such a procedure +relative to third party subpoenas. +As a result, good cause has been shown to continue the actions or +modify the schedules. Therefore, the cases should be struck from the current +trial dockets, continued to the next available trial dockets or, alternatively, the +discovery schedules and other related schedules outlined in the Court's +Scheduling Orders should be modified as requested in the Motion. Without the +granting of the Continuance and/or a Modified Scheduling Order, Mr. Epstein's +due process rights will be violated in that he will not be able to prepare and +properly defend the cases for trial. This will substantially prejudice Jeffrey +Epstein. +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +Page - 5 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 93-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 6 of 6 +I hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to +administer +oaths +and take +acknowledgments, personally +appeared +Michael J. Pike, Esquire, known to me to be the person described in and who +executed the foregoing Affidavit, who acknowledged before me that he/she +executed the same, that I relied upon the following form of identification of the +above named person: MICHAEL J. PIKE, and that an oath was/was +not taken. +this say my a gotial sean he Couly and Sale last aloresaid +(SE +JESSICA CADWELL +MY COMMISSION # DD 853529 +EXPIRES: April 19,2013 +Bonded Thru Notary Public Underwriters +Inica Cadwell +JESSICA CANNELL +NOTARY PUBLIC/STATE OF FLORIDA +COMMISSION NO.: +MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: +Page - 6 - diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca9f7b8d713a1c310dde22ae35d0d33bda85b27c8360bef1bda469954c9f816e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca9f7b8d713a1c310dde22ae35d0d33bda85b27c8360bef1bda469954c9f816e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cd6b8bfe665f9916024847bbe0f6ec1bc4d72072 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ca9f7b8d713a1c310dde22ae35d0d33bda85b27c8360bef1bda469954c9f816e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ca9f7b8d713a1c310dde22ae35d0d33bda85b27c8360bef1bda469954c9f816e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ba5e9d3d35186af4073d4f9c2896c93912e9ba27f65998c56eb3b9e1b55ae28b", + "output_sha256": "01c9158af8df28573e40b835f421bd63f5b166e5b7ef99068e3163efde717a13", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cab3e0002d270f937d9ee94e19fda2ef3c840cca3c3654a1b7573a4df8d36d2e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cab3e0002d270f937d9ee94e19fda2ef3c840cca3c3654a1b7573a4df8d36d2e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..528c7c3e4f22caa9ab49700754516fba573a6b2f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cab3e0002d270f937d9ee94e19fda2ef3c840cca3c3654a1b7573a4df8d36d2e.md @@ -0,0 +1,78 @@ +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2010 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 10-80309-CIV-Marra/. +JANE DOE No. 103, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFERY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION +OF TIME IN WHICH TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Epstein") by and through his undersigned +attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time in which to respond to +Complaint dated, February 23, 2010. Defendant seeks an extension until April 5, 2010, +to file his response. As good cause in support of granting the motion, Defendant states: +1. On February 23, 2010 Plaintiff filed a Complaint [DE 1]. Defendant's response +would be due on March 26, 2010. +2. There are several other cases filed with this Court in which Jeffrey Epstein is +named a Defendant. In those cases, the undersigned has been preparing responses and +replies to various motions, and handling other matters associated therewith. +3. The requested extension is fair in reasonable under the circumstances as it will +provide time to allow the Defendant, EPSTEIN, to fully and adequately respond. +4. As certified below, counsel for Defendant conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, +and Plaintiff's counsel is in agreement with the requested extension. +1 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2010 Page 2 of 3 +WHEREFORE Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter an order granting +an extension until April 5, 2010 to file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint. +Local Rule 7.1 Statement +Counsel for the movant conferred by telephone and correspondence with counsel +for the Plaintiff and Counsel for Plaintiff is in agreement with the requested extension +until April 5, 2010 for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. +/s/ Michael J. Pike +Robert D. Critton, Attorney for +Defendant Epstein +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +305 358-2800 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiff +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +By: Is/ Michael J. Pike +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +2 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2010 Page 3 of 3 +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +3 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cab3e0002d270f937d9ee94e19fda2ef3c840cca3c3654a1b7573a4df8d36d2e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cab3e0002d270f937d9ee94e19fda2ef3c840cca3c3654a1b7573a4df8d36d2e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cadd65338de7cb2c819a19fdf1962db61e6f9275 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cab3e0002d270f937d9ee94e19fda2ef3c840cca3c3654a1b7573a4df8d36d2e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cab3e0002d270f937d9ee94e19fda2ef3c840cca3c3654a1b7573a4df8d36d2e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4b89134c55c191120b1832a1cd6ab7d3131200f0d3633065be2297dad49ac853", + "output_sha256": "ba84a2f898e650404f696519d67c96bf60bedb9f6aecdedd918a3041e3ca5692", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cafa67ae906b3bf0a76a78bbb025fcf036ea04df71473111cfcc50612ae9330b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cafa67ae906b3bf0a76a78bbb025fcf036ea04df71473111cfcc50612ae9330b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5dfd09d6a659dadff4d92aee9a2322810faa38fd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cafa67ae906b3bf0a76a78bbb025fcf036ea04df71473111cfcc50612ae9330b.md @@ -0,0 +1,207 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/13/2009 Page 1 of 7 +JANE DOE NO. 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA- +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Reply to Plaintiff's Response In Opposition To Defendant's +Motion To Stay And/Or Continue Action For Time Certain With Incorporated +Memorandum Of Law +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN") by and through his +undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Reply to Plaintiff's Response In Opposition to +Defendant's Motion to Stay and/or Continue Action, and states: +Introduction and Argument +Plaintiff's Response in Opposition challenging the stay should not prevail when +5" Amendment principles are at issue and when there exists a real, substantial and not +remote possibility that Epstein may face criminal prosecution by the United States +Attorneys' Office ("USAO") if the USAO unilaterally determines that Epstein somehow +violated that certain Non-Prosecution Agreement dated June 30, 2008 (NPA") and/or if +Epstein is forced to waive those 5* Amendment rights and participate in civil discovery +in order to defend this civil action. +Epstein should not be confronted with the substantial risk of loosing this civil +action by virtue of asserting his 5 Amendment privileges. Despite Plaintiff's contention, +Epstein's Motion does not concentrate solely on the fact that the pleadings are not at +the summary judgment stage. The motion also concentrates on Epstein's risk of loosing + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/13/2009 Page 2 of 7 +this entire civil action as a result of Epstein invoking his 5* Amendment rights. Severino +v. Klytie's Developments, Inc., 2008 WL 1782637, *2 (D. Colo)(recognizing that a stay is +appropriate under similar circumstances as in the instant case); see also infra. +In fact, waiver of Epstein's 5'" Amendment privileges should not be compelled to +defend this civil action (and could be remedied by a reasonable stay), especially when +civil discovery may lead to the USAO unilaterally declaring a violation of the NPA. +The USAO has already unilaterally claimed that EPSTEIN violated the NPA by, +among other things, "investigating the Plaintiffs (by and though his attorneys) +whom brought civil suits against him for purposes of defending those civil +actions" and "by contesting damages in this action and in the other civil actions." +See Motion to Stay and Jack Goldberger Affidavit attached thereto as Exhibit "B". Thus, +these are not vague assertions as Plaintiff claims. How can Epstein truly defend these +matters and be afforded his due process rights when to do so might result in the USAO +claiming a breach of the NPA? The fact is that he cannot. Notwithstanding the +allegations against Epstein, this Court has an obligation to ensure his due process +rights are upheld in both the civil and criminal contexts. +Next, in her response, Plaintiff claims that a stay should not be entered because +a parallel criminal proceeding against Epstein does not exist. Not only is Plaintiff's +theory incorrect for reasons set out herein and in the Epstein's Motion to Stay, but her +response ignores the significant fact that a stay may be issued in light of an ongoing +investigation. It is clear from the NPA and Jack Goldberger's Affidavit attached to the +Motion to Stay) "...that the criminal matters against Epstein remain ongoing until the +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/13/2009 Page 3 of 7 +NPA expires by its terms in late 2010. .., and the threat of criminal prosecution against +Epstein by the USAO continues presently and through late 2010." See Jack +Goldberger's Affidavit, 15 (attached to the Motion to Stay). In fact, the FBI refused to +provide information regarding this case and other related cases filed against Epstein ".. +•stating the materials are at this time exempt from disclosure because they are in an +investigative file, i.e., the matter is still an ongoing criminal investigation." See Jack +Goldberger's Affidavit, 17 (attached to the Motion to Stay) +Additionally, Plaintiff's response downplays the fact that civil discovery may result +in the USAO claiming a breach of the NPA. Epstein wishes to vigorously defend this +case and others filed against him; however, he does not wish to risk waiver of his 5th +Amendment privileges, at least before the NPA expires or any investigation is closed. +Further, Plaintiff adopts the arguments set forth in Jane Doe's Response to the +Motion to Stay filed in 08-CIV-80893, which asserts that the NPA is not attached to +Epstein's Motion to Stay. The Court has a copy of the NPA. While it may be sealed, +this Court may review same, in camera. As such, Plaintiff's Best Evidence argument +(as adopted in the instant response) is entirely misplaced and should be disregarded. +a. +Justice Requires The Entry of A Stay +As set out in the Motion to Stay, once the NPA expires, EPSTEIN intends to +testify to all relevant and non-objectionable inquiries made to him in discovery be it a +deposition, in interrogatories or in production requests. +However, the current +circumstances are such that by testifying or responding to discovery, EPSTEIN will be +required to waive his constitutional privileges, thereby subjecting himself to scrutiny by +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/13/2009 Page 4 of 7 +the USAO as a result of matters alleged in this civil action (and others before this Court +and in the State of Florida 15" Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach County. +When an ongoing criminal investigation exists, courts have granted motions to +stay civil proceedings. In St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. U.S., 24 CI.Ct +513 (1991), the court held that staying a civil action for 6-9 months was reasonable in +light of a pending criminal investigation so long as the movant met certain elements +(see infra) and the stay was not immoderate or unreasonable. Taking into consideration +the Motion to Stay and this Reply as well as facts alleged by Plaintiff in her operative +pleading against Epstein, it is clear that Epstein has met the elements of St. Paul Fire +necessary for this Court to enter a stay: +1. +Epstein has made a clear showing, by direct or indirect proof, that +the issues in the civil action are "related" as well as "substantially similar" +to the issues in the criminal investigation. +Epstein has made a clear showing of hardship or inequity if +required to go forward with this civil case while the NPA and/or the +ongoing investigation exist. (see supra and see also Motion to Stay anc +attached affidavit of Jack Goldberger, Esq. discussing Epstein's 5" +Amendment Rights and how those rights affect this civil litigation - see +supra); and +Epstein, in light of the stays granted by other courts, has shown +that a stay in the instant matter until late 2010 (the date the NPA expires) +and the likely date any ongoing investigation will be closed is not +immoderate or unreasonable. +St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. U.S., 24 CI.Ct at 515-16; see also +Wilson v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 2006 WL 3791313, *1 (E.D. La. +2006)(granting motion to stay civil proceeding for 2 years and 7 months pending +criminal investigation); Ostrow v. U.S., 1986 WL 6855, *1 (M.D. Fla.)(recognizing a +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/13/2009 Page 5 of 7 +defendant's constitutional rights and allowing for a stay of the civil case until the criminal +aspects/investigation of Defendant's companion case are closed). +Here, Epstein is not required to "contemplate an in haec verba iron-clad +comparison of separate issues by direct proof." St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance +Company v. U.S., 24 CI.Ct at 516. Instead, a reading of the complaint, the NPA (in +camera), the pleadings in support of and against Epstein's Motion to Stay along with +other pleadings in the clerk's file, makes it clear that the facts in the instant matter and +those in the ongoing investigation are "related" and/or "substantially similar." Id. As +such, permitting this civil action to go forward would create a hardship on Epstein in that +he will be forced to invoke his 5* Amendment Privilege and risk loosing this case by +virtue of not being able to present evidence, or waive that right and risk a potential +criminal prosecution. Eastwood v. U.S., 2008 WL 5412857, *1 (E.D. Tenn.))("When a +party to a civil action is subject to criminal proceedings and/or investigations that relate +to such civil action, courts will often stay the civil proceeding so as to prevent the use of +civil discovery and evidentiary procedures to obtain evidence for use in the criminal +matter). Id. Courts will also stay a civil case to preserve 5* Amendment rights. Id. +Further, a comparison of Fed.R.Civ. Pro. 26 may expand the rights of criminal discovery +beyond the limits of Fed.R.Crim.Pro. 16(b). Epstein satisfies the requirements to stay +this action as set forth in St. Paul Fire and in Eastwood, including the similarity of issues +underlying the civil litigation and ongoing criminal investigation. As such, a stay should +be entered in the instant matter. See also U.S. v. $75,020.00 In United States Funds, et +al., 2009 WL 1010359 (M.D. G.a. 2009). +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/13/2009 Page 6 of 7 +III. Conclusion and Request for Relief +Based upon the foregoing, Epstein is entitled to a full stay of this proceeding (and +other related matters) until such time as the NPA expires and until the ongoing +investigation by the USAO is closed (i.e., until late 2010). Alternatively, in an effort to +protect Epstein's 5" Amendment and his due process rights in connection with +defending these civil matters, this court should enter a stay of any discovery directed to +Epstein and strike this case from the trial docket until the NPA and the ongoing +investigation are both concluded and/or expired. In this manner, Plaintiff's investigation +and discovery as to third parties will continue and will not be delayed. Epstein is +invoking his 5" Amendment rights in the first place, which means that objections to +discovery and deposition questions are being asserted so as not to waive those 5" +Amendment rights. Once the NPA and the ongoing investigation terminate, this court +could allow additional time for Plaintiff to complete Epstein's deposition and discovery +directed to him, and then set this case on the Court's most available docket. Despite +Plaintiff's contentions, Epstein's 5" Amendment rights and his due process rights +associated therewith and in connection with defending this civil case should trump any +civil claim for money damages when it comes to timing. Eastwood v. U.S., 2008 WL +5412857, *6 (reasoning that a stay is warranted when the risk to an individual's +constitutional rights is magnified). +WHEREFORE, Epstein requests the following relief set forth above, and for such +other and further relief as this court deems just and proper. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/13/2009 Page 7 of 7 +Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Attorney for Defendant Epstein +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the +manner specified by CM/ECF on this 13 day of May, 2009: +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +7 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cafa67ae906b3bf0a76a78bbb025fcf036ea04df71473111cfcc50612ae9330b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cafa67ae906b3bf0a76a78bbb025fcf036ea04df71473111cfcc50612ae9330b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7d19c8372fc70dd3ab5b602adc59fe008d14d96b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cafa67ae906b3bf0a76a78bbb025fcf036ea04df71473111cfcc50612ae9330b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -188, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cafa67ae906b3bf0a76a78bbb025fcf036ea04df71473111cfcc50612ae9330b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b6e20e97b6a6a2d943823be5bfb467383d75cfc79953f171d646a2b7480470ff", + "output_sha256": "889397de7fe5f689d904f94b926d715fc3f44fcd8c8be2914ac28fd5f666b0f3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb1aa1ca7b29ad2be06198411bcb538494fd736044b0f7587cae3dd50c77cfda.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb1aa1ca7b29ad2be06198411bcb538494fd736044b0f7587cae3dd50c77cfda.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..efc7023f7e08d0be01d01e3dd32594019b224a06 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb1aa1ca7b29ad2be06198411bcb538494fd736044b0f7587cae3dd50c77cfda.md @@ -0,0 +1,311 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 1 of 12 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-80381-CIV-MARRA +Jane Doe No. 5, +Plaintift, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND +MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT +THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Defendant")'s +Motion to Dismiss and Motion for More Definite Statement, Directed to Plaintiff's Amended +Complaint (DE 52), filed October 6, 2008. Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 5 ("Plaintiff") filed a response +to the motion (DE 55) and Defendant filed a Reply (DE 56). The Court has carefully reviewed +the motion, response, and reply, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. +Background +On April 14, 2008, Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Defendant (DE 1), which was +replaced on September 22, 2008 by an Amended Complaint (DE 47). Plaintiff brings suit +alleging Count I - Sexual Assault and Battery; Count II - Intentional Infliction of Emotional +Distress; and Count III - Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 U.S.C. § +2422. +The facts, as alleged in the Amended Complaint, are as follows: At all relevant times, +Defendant was an adult male. Am. Compl. 17. Defendant engaged in a plan and scheme in +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 2 of 12 +which he gained access to primarily economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home, +sexually assaulted these girls, and then gave them money. Am. Compl. | 8. In or about 2002- +2003, Plaintiff, then approximately 15-16 years old, became one of Defendant's victims. Am. +Compl. 918. Defendant carried out his scheme and assaulted girls in Florida, New York, and his +private island in St. +Am. Compl. 19. +Defendant's scheme involved the use of young girls to recruit underage girls. Am. Compl. +9 10. Under Defendant's plan, underage girls were recruited ostensibly to give a wealthy man a +massage for monetary compensation in his Palm Beach mansion. Id. The young girls would be +contacted when Defendant was planning to be at his Palm Beach residence or soon after he +arrived. Id. +generally sought out economically disadvantaged underage girls from +western Palm Beach County who would be enticed by the money being offered - generally $200 +to $300 per "massage" session - and who were perceived as less likely to complain to authorities +or have credibility if allegations of improper conduct were made. Id. This was an important +element of Epstein's plan. Id. +Defendant's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. Am. Compl. 9 11. +Upon arrival at Defendant's mansion, the underage victim would be brought to the kitchen +entrance, where she would be introduced to +] Defendant's assistant. Id. +would then bring the girl up a flight of stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table in +addition to other furnishings, and a bathroom. Id. The victim would then find herself alone in +the room with Defendant, who would be wearing only a towel. Id. Defendant would then remove +his towel, lay down naked on the massage table, and direct the girl to remove her clothes. Id. +Defendant would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual acts, including +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 3 of 12 +masturbation and touching the girl's vagina. Id. +Consistent with the foregoing plan, when Plaintiff was approximately 15-16 years old, +she was recruited to give Defendant a massage for monetary compensation. Am. Compl. 9| 12. +Plaintiff and another girl were brought to Defendant's mansion in Palm Beach, to the kitchen +entrance. Id. Once there, they were introduced to +_, who led them up the stairs to the room +with the massage table. Id. In this room, Defendant told Plaintiff and the other girl to remove +their clothes and to give him a massage. Id. Plaintiff and the other girl removed their clothes +except for their panties and bras, and complied with Defendant's instructions. Id. While on the +massage table, Defendant masturbated himself and touched both girls on their vaginas with his +hand and with a vibrator. Id. +After Defendant had completed the sexual assault, both girls were then able to get +dressed, leave the room and go back down the stairs. Am. Compl. 1 13. Defendant gave both +girls money for this "massage." Id. +As a result of this encounter with Defendant, Plaintiff experienced confusion, shame, +humiliation, and embarrassment, and has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries. +Am. Compl. 9 14. +Under Count I - Sexual Assault and Battery, the Amended Complaint alleges as follows: +Defendant acted with intent to cause an offensive contact with Plaintiff, or an imminent +apprehension of such a contact, and Plaintiff was thereby put in such imminent apprehension. +Am. Compl. 9 16. Defendant made an intentional, unlawful offer of offensive sexual contact +toward Plaintiff, creating a reasonable fear of imminent peril. Am. Compl. 9 17. Defendant +intentionally inflicted harmful or offensive contact on the person of Plaintiff, with the intent to +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 4 of 12 +cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent. Am. Compl. 9 18. +Defendant tortiously committed a sexual assault and battery on Plaintiff. Am. Compl. " 19. +Defendant's acts were intentional, unlawful, offensive and harmful. Id. Defendant's plan and +scheme in which he committed such acts upon Plaintiff were done willfully and maliciously. Am. +Compl. 920. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's assault on Plaintiff, she has +suffered and will continue to suffer severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, +psychological and emotional damages. Am. Compl. 9 21. +Under Count II, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, the Amended Complaint +alleges as follows: +Defendant's conduct was intentional or reckless. Am. Compl. 1 23. Defendant's conduct +with a minor was extreme and outrageous, going beyond all bounds of decency. Am. Compl. 1 +24. Defendant committed willful acts of child sexual abuse on Plaintiff. Am. Compl. 9 25. +These acts resulted in mental or sexual injury to Plaintiff, that caused or were likely to cause +Plaintiff's mental or emotional health to be significantly impaired. Am. Compl. 1 25. +Defendant's conduct caused severe emotional distress to Plaintiff. Am. Compl. 1 26. Defendant +knew or had reason to know that his intentional and outrageous conduct would cause emotional +distress and damage to Plaintiff, or Defendant acted with reckless disregard of the high +probability of causing severe emotional distress to Plaintiff. Id. As a direct and proximate result +of Defendant's intentional or reckless conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer +severe mental anguish and pain. Am. Compl. 9 27. +Under Count III, Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 U.S.C. § +2422, the Amended Complaint alleges as follows: +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 5 of 12 +Defendant used a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, induce +or entice Plaintiff, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or sexual +activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. Am. Compl. 129. As a +result of Defendant's violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422, Plaintiff has suffered personal injury, +including mental, psychological and emotional damages. Am. Compl. 131. +Defendant argues in his motion that Counts I and III of the Amended Complaint must be +dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). +Alternatively, Defendant seeks a more definite statement of Counts I and III. Lastly, Defendant +argues that the reference in Count III to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 should be stricken as immaterial. +Plaintiff responds that the Court should deny the motion because the pleadings at issue +contain a short and plain statement of the claims showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief in +accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Plaintiff contends that the specific facts sought by +Defendant may properly be the subject of discovery, but are not necessary for purposes of +pleading. +Standard of Review +In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a +court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most +favorable to the plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007). To satisfy the +pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain a short and +plain statement showing an entitlement to relief, and the statement must "give the defendant fair +notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz v. +Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 6 of 12 +Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007); Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346 (2005). +This is a liberal pleading requirement, one that does not require a plaintiff to plead with +particularity every element of a cause of action. Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 +F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir. 2001). Instead, the complaint need only "contain either direct or +inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under +some viable legal theory." Id. (internal citation and quotation omitted). "A complaint need not +specify in detail the precise theory giving rise to recovery. All that is required is that the +defendant be on notice as to the claim being asserted against him and the grounds on which it +rests." +v. United Food and Comm'l Workers Int'l Union, 866 F.2d 1380, 1384 (11th Cir. +1989). +"While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed +factual allegations, [ ] a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitlement to relief" +requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause +of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1964-65 (citations omitted). +"Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the +assumption that all of the complaint's allegations are true." Id. at 1965. Plaintiff must plead +enough facts to state a plausible basis for the claim. Id. +Discussion +Counts I alleges a claim for sexual assault and battery. Defendant concedes that Plaintiff +has properly pled a claim for battery, but contends that Plaintiff's assault claim fails. (Mot. 5). +Under Florida law, it is customary to refer to the term "assault and battery" as if it were a legal +unit, or a single concept; however, assault and battery are separate and distinct legal concepts, +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 7 of 12 +assault being the beginning of an act which, if consummated, constitutes battery. 3A Fla. Jur 2d +Assault §1. "'The essential element of an assault is the violence offered, and not actual physical +contact." McDonald v. +223 So.2d 553, 555 (Fla. 2' DCA 1969), guoting 3 Fla.Jur., +Assault and Battery, § 3. Assault is defined as an intentional, unlawful offer of corporal injury to +another by force, or force unlawfully directed toward another under such circumstances as to +create a fear of imminent peril, coupled with the apparent present ability to effectuate the +attempt. Lay v. Kremer, 411 So.2d 1347, 1349 (Fla. Ist DCA 1982). +Defendant does not contend that Plaintiff failed to allege the above-listed elements of the +tort of assault. Instead, Defendant argues that, under the standard of pleading established in +Twombly, Plaintiff has failed to set forth sufficient factual allegations to support the pleading. +Defendant's argument, in essence, is that in a post-Twombly pleading, a heightened fact pleading +of specifics is required. However, Twombly did not alter the standard for dismissal under Rule +12(b)(6) in the typical case. As the Court explained in CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Goodmail +Systems, Inc: +In my view, Twombly did not radically alter the elementary rules of civil +procedure that have governed litigation in the federal courts for the past seventy +years. The Court's forced retirement of Conley v. +"no set of facts" +language does not change the fundamental command of Rule 8 as to what a valid +complaint must look like. Indeed, the Court made clear that it was not imposing a +heightened pleading standard. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1974 ("[W]e do not require +heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to +relief that is plausible on its face."). As a general matter, I am loath to assume that +the Supreme Court circumvented the normal channels for amending the Federal +Rules. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 515 (2002) ("A requirement of +greater specificity for particular claims is a result that must be obtained by the +process of amending the Federal Rules, and not by judicial interpretation.") +(quotations omitted). Second, to the extent that Twombly might be plausibly read +to alter the requirements for the sufficiency of a complaint, there should be a +strong presumption in favor of narrowly confining the decision to its facts. Cohens +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 8 of 12 +v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) ( "It is a maxim not to be disregarded, that general +expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which +those expressions are used."). The Court's "new standard" was merely a specific +way to articulate a solution to what it perceived to be a specific pleading problem, +in a specific area of law that inflicted a high cost upon antitrust defendants. It was +not a broad based new license for federal courts to ramp up pleading +requirements. +CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Goodmail Systems, Inc., 529 F.Supp.2d 1376, 1379 (N.D. Ga. 2007). +In this case, Defendant contends that the pleadings fail to allege the specific facts of +"what was done to [Plaintiff]; "and "what Epstein said and did, if anything, to create fear and +apprehension in Plaintiff." (Mot. 5). As to these issues, the Amended Complaint alleges as +follows: In an upstairs room of Defendant's mansion, Defendant told Plaintiff to remove her +clothes and to give him a massage. Am. Compl. 9 12. Defendant acted with intent to cause an +offensive contact with Plaintiff, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and Plaintiff was +thereby put in such imminent apprehension. Am. Compl. 1 16. Defendant made an intentional, +unlawful offer of offensive sexual contact toward Plaintiff, creating a reasonable fear of +imminent peril. Am. Compl. 9| 17. While on the massage table, Plaintiff masturbated himself +and touched both girls on their vaginas with his hand and with a vibrator. Id. Defendant +intentionally inflicted harmful or offensive contact on the person of Plaintiff, with the intent to +cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent. Am. Compl. 9 18. +Defendant tortiously committed a sexual assault and battery on Plaintiff. Am. Compl. 9 19. +Defendant's acts were intentional, unlawful, offensive and harmful. Id. +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 9 of 12 +Plaintiff need not set forth more specific facts to support its allegations to satisfy the +notice pleading standard under Rule 8, which requires only that a complaint must set forth a short +and plain statement of the facts upon which the claim is based that is sufficient to give the +defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. The +parties will be afforded a liberal opportunity for discovery "to disclose more precisely the basis +of both claim and defense and to define more narrowly the disputed facts and issues." Conley v. +, 355 U.S. 41, 48 (1957). Defendant's motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement +is DENIED as to Count I. +Counts Ill' alleges a claim for coercion and enticement to sexual activity in violation of +18 U.S.C. § 2422. That statute states, in pertinent part, +(b) Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign +commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United +States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has +ot attained the age of 18 vears, to engage +oratained the a cof is years do engagerin ma oftense, or any ecuat adivity fo +shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life. +18 U.S.C. § 2422(b).? +The Amended Complaint alleges: "Epstein used a facility or means of interstate +commerce to knowingly persuade, induce or entice Jane Doe, when she was under the age of 18 +'Plaintiff mistakenly cites 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the wherefore clause of Count III, +regarding damages sought. Plaintiff acknowledges that this was a typographical error and the +correct cite is to 18 U.S.C. $ 2255. Defendant's motion to strike the citation to 28 U.S.C. $ 2255 +in the Amended Complaint is GRANTED. That citation is hereby STRICKEN and substituted +with 18 U.S.C. § 2255. +2 The allegations in the Amended Complaint closely track the language of § 2422(b), +making it clear that this is the subsection upon which Plaintiff is relying. +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 10 of 12 +years, to engage in prostitution or sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a +criminal offense." Am. Compl. 9 29. +First, the Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges the element of using a facility or means +of interstate commerce. See 1 29. More specifics are properly the subject of discovery. +Second, Defendant argues that the Amended Complaint fails to set forth underlying +factual allegations as to the requisite elements that Defendant knowingly persuaded, induced, +enticed, or coerced Plaintiff, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or +sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. Specifically, +Defendant claims that Plaintiff fails to allege with what criminal offense Defendant could have +been charged. See 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The Amended Complaint states a cause of action for +violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. However, Defendant's position that Plaintiff must state what part +of "to engage in prostitution or sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a +criminal offense" upon which is relying Plaintiff is well-taken. +Rule 12(e) permits a party to move for a "more definite statement of a pleading to which +a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot +reasonably prepare a response." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). As explained by another court, "It Jhe +claim of the plaintiff in his complaint is sufficiently definite to enable the defendant to know with +what it is charged, and it is reasonably able therefrom to respond whether it did the thing +charged." Dennis v. Begley Drug Co. of Tennessee, Inc., 53 F.R.D. 608, 609 (E.D. Tenn. 1971). +As it is written, 9 29is ambiguous as to whether Plaintiff claims prostitution or another criminal +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 11 of 12 +offense (and if so, what offense) with which Defendant could have been charged.? The Court +finds that Defendant is entitled to a more definite statement as to 9| 29 in order to provide +Defendant with sufficient notice to frame a responsive pleading. +Conclusion +For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for More +Definite Statement, Directed to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (DE 52) is GRANTED IN +PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: +Defendant's motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement as to Count I is DENIED. +Defendant's motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement as to Count III is +GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendant's motion to dismiss is +denied; however, Plaintiff must file another complaint, which includes a more definite +statement as to Count III - Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 +U.S.C. § 2422, as explained in this Order. +Defendant's motion to strike the citation to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the Amended Complaint +3 In its opposition, Plaintiff' improperly seeks to rely upon a July 10, 2008 letter from A. +Villafana, Assistant U.S. Attorney to Plaintiff's counsel. This letter was not referenced in +nor attached to the Amended Complaint. It is axiomatic that, at the motion to dismiss stage, the +Court must consider well-pled allegations of the complaint as true and must limit its examination +to the four corners of the complaint. Grossman v. Nationsbank, N.A., 225 F.3d 1228, 1231 (11th +Cir. 2000). Thus, the Court will not consider the letter in ruling on the instant motion. +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 12 of 12 +is GRANTED and that citation is hereby STRICKEN. +DONE AND ORDERED in +Florida, this 12" day of February, 2009. +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +copies to: +All counsel of record +12 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb1aa1ca7b29ad2be06198411bcb538494fd736044b0f7587cae3dd50c77cfda.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb1aa1ca7b29ad2be06198411bcb538494fd736044b0f7587cae3dd50c77cfda.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d70a3c16c7dec318f3e6862a2db35217dd71a75f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb1aa1ca7b29ad2be06198411bcb538494fd736044b0f7587cae3dd50c77cfda.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -144, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cb1aa1ca7b29ad2be06198411bcb538494fd736044b0f7587cae3dd50c77cfda", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 12, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "aa0b16f63a4ff30c3ef8a3153e11400590da89881cb6aaeaf55492a5f2bc08a1", + "output_sha256": "d5c78ba822b8464177edc17ae0d8cc9e1ee24f0443d2beb5235d758630de36de", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb30c4c53c291d4a566c3b4a98ff34947e8c41d8bb673ac0daa66d829f4e2336.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb30c4c53c291d4a566c3b4a98ff34947e8c41d8bb673ac0daa66d829f4e2336.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..517f980c4b215a0aa62fba9093c0bf1455d642f7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb30c4c53c291d4a566c3b4a98ff34947e8c41d8bb673ac0daa66d829f4e2336.md @@ -0,0 +1,6342 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 1 of 35 +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA_ + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 2 of 35 +paring and Trasrigina, les. +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. +2006 CP09454AXX +STATE OF FLORIDA, +-75- +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEPOBITION OF +Wednesday, Tabruary 20, 200E +2:00 р. л. - 4:30 р.л. +Pala Beach County Courthouse +205 North Diwle Highway +Weat Paln Beach, Florida 33401 +copy +Reported By: +Judith F. Consor, FeR +Notary Pubise, State of Florida +Consor & Associates Reporting and Transcription +Phone - 561.682.0905 +Ph. 551.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd, Suite 500 - West Paim Beach, FL. 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +25 +24 +25 +Rasoning and Tara pie. Mee +Pagu 2 +APPEARANCES: +On behalf of the State: +LANKA BELOHLAVEK, ESQ- +ASSISTANT STATE AITORNEY +401 Noeth Dazie Highway +Nest Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +561.355.7100 +On behalf of the Detendant: +MICHAEL R. TEIN, ES0. +NATHAYN A. +MEYERs, E9Q- +I TEIN, PL +3059 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 340 +COCONUT GRONS, EL 33133 +on behalf of the Defendant: +JACK A. GOLDBERGER, R90- +ATTERBURY, GOLDRERGER & WEISS +250 AUSTRALIAS AVENUE SOUTH +SUITE 1400 +WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 +561.659.8300 +ALSO PRESENT! +ON BEHALF OF THE WITNESS: +THEODORE J. IEOPOLD, ESO. +KEITH J. BRETT, BIRBOTOR OF MULTIMEDIA DIVISION, +LEGAL-TZE +Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fox. 561.682.1771 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +ning and Tanisen, for +INDEX +WITNESS: +DIRECT EXAMINATTON +BY MN. TEIN: +NOEXHIBITS +MARKED +CERTIFIED QUESTIONS. +53 +55 +59 +111 +112 +Page 3 +PAGE: +10 +12 +19 +14 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.582.1771 +1555 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd., Sute 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Repenting and Tuner poon, ou +Page 4 +Deposition takea before Judith I. Consor, +Court Reporter and Notary Public Is and for the State of +Florida at Large, is the above cause. +Thereapon. +having been first duly sworn or affimed, was examited +and tastilled as follows: +• THE WITNESS: I do. +DIRECT EXAMINATTON +BY ME. TEIN: +9- +Good afternoon. Please tall ao your full +And can you please spell it. +Thank You, +May I call you +I'm going to ask you a few +questions, +sereral questioca coday. If at any cine you +want to take a brenk, you Just let me know. Okay? +A. +okay. +0. +It you at any time don't understand one of +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 3 of 35 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +nsor & Associates +Page 5 +my questiona, will you jast please let po know? +A. +Tea. +0. +Asd It at asy time you're not faeling well +or soothing like that, you'll tell us, right? +A. +Do you feel okay today? +A. +Tas. +Like that, right? +No. +Not taking any alcohol or drugs or anything +so you feel ready to have your deposition +taken? +what is your address? +I's currently living at py aunt's heuse and +I don't kaow it off the top of my head. +Where is 1t7 +In Jupiter. +WhO 13 Y02E 89061 +Who else is living there? +ay uncle. +Anyone else living tbere? +No. +The contesps motion that your sother filed +Ph. 561.582.0905 - Fax. 561.662.1771 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palms Beach, FL 33401 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 4 +açainst your father regarding your fifty million-dollar +lawsult aqalnat Jeffrey Epstein sayo that you live with +your must and untie and have been living there: is that +Yes +low long have you been living with your +sant and uncle? +since my batber KIGANG BA GOE +that was Thankagining of this past year? +Tea. $12. +Okay. Didn't your Ilrefighter beyfriend +get an apartmant for the two of you? +No, sir. +He has an apartment, but by +Did he get an apastment toe the two of you +to live in? +Q. +No, sir. +Are you plassing to some in with Bia? +Maybe one day in the future. +Do you have a plan to nove is with bin +presently? +No- +Have you bees to the aparteent that you and +have discussed moving in together? +I have been to the apa:tont. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd., Suite 500 - West Paim Beach, FL. 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 7 +0- +Pala Beach Lakes- +Have you spent the night over there? +No. sit. +Do you know the address there? +I do nat. +130 • YºaE 989E• +planning on living +with you and +A. +you know that thio court case is a +criminal prosecution, correct? +A. Correct. +0. And you know that it's a criminal +presecution againat a mun who has no criminal background. +Do you know that? +I do son. +0. You agree that court in a very serious +matter? +2. Tes. +0- +and you'se bece with your lawyer +Mr. Leopold, right? +A- +Tea. +2. And you know that Mr. Leopold recently +Illed a Jawsuit In fadezal court against Jeffroy Epsteis, +sooking titty alllies dollars. +Pt. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Веретікд вой Темніркі ма, Кон. +Page 8 +MA. EBOPOLD: let ne just ogect. +let so instruct you. Mything that +you have learned through conversationa between you +and me are protected. So 1f you know any of that +inforsation outside of thorn diacussions, you may +anaver. Bat If the only way you know it 1s +thesugh our discusalons, do not answer that +question. +BY MR. TETH: +you know that Mr. Seopold recently +filed a lawsuit in federal coast en your beball againat +Jettrey Ipatein spoking titty eillion dollars? +MA. IROPOLD: Base saguetion. +II you know the ansues to that outside of +our diacussions, you say anever. If it la the +caly way that you know the answer 1* through our +discussions, do not ansver that question. +THE WITNESS: Okay- +MA, LEOPOLD: Aesorney/ellane privilege. +BT MY. TEIN: +9- +Toa can answer the question unless -- +MA. LEOPOLD: sane objection. +MA, TEEN: Let me finish. +MR. LBOPOLD: Excuse me. Ne're -- +MA. IRIN: No. Let me Ilnish. +Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.582.1771 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd., Sube 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 15-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 4 of 35 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +на, іна +Page 9 +ME: BOUFULL: +5, ue ta not gotre Lo 00 +that. +MR. TEIN: Ny sane 1s nor +I'a going to finiah my queation. Okay? +MA. ISOPOLD: Do not answer, until you hear +14030- +BY MR. TEIN: +Other thas conversations that you bare Bac +with Mr. Leopold - I'm not asking about that -- are you +aace that Mr. Leopold has filed a lawsuit in federal +court seoking fifty million dollars tron jettrey spatein +on your behalt? +HA. LEOPOLD: Sase objeetion. +Anything that you learn through +conversations betveen you and ne, do not answer- +Those are protected. If you know through any +other seals of knowiedge, you say answer- +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. TRIN: +0. +You hare no Idea that Mr. Lecpold filed a +Iltty eillice-dollar lawsuit on your babalf against +Jettrey spatein? +I. LBOPOLD: Same objection. +Do not answer that question If it's theough +discatalens that you and I bad. Outaide of that, +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +U +Supering al Tearipime, In +Page 10 +you say ansver. So do sot answer that goration it +that la the only basis by which you underatand +that answer. +THE WITNESS: N0. +You didn't Ince that? +ME. IDOPOLD: Don't ansver that questien. +Again, It's attorney/cleat privilege. Any +infornation you"ve leaceed through convaraations +between you and I are protected. If you know It +through any otber realn, you say anaver. +MR. TEIN: Are you going to say that for +every goostion in the depostion, Me. Leopold? +HR. LBOPOLD: When you ask leproper +quations like that without the proper -- +HA. TEIN: You're poing to stop your +speaking objections right now, Okay? +MR. IBOPOLD: Nichout the proper - +MR. TEIN: You need to stop your speaking +objectiens. +Let's continue. +KM: IBOPOLD: Counsel, you just asked ne a +question and I'm going co state it on the +record -- +MR. TEIN: +You need to stop your speaking +Pt. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Sute 500 - West Pairs Beach, FL 33401 +1655 Paim Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +U +sing so Tate +Page 11 +objectiona. Check your rules. +MR. LBOPOLD: Excuse so. For the record. +Counsel asked se a quation. I'll state the +anaer on the record. Ho asked so the question de +I going to be answering that way throughout the +deposltion. So long as tbere's inproper +Foundation and predicate asted by the attorsey. I +will protect my ellest and I sake the record where +appropriate. If counsel wishes to ask as +appropelate worded question with the proper +Foundation and predicate, I will certainly allow +the cilent to answer the question. +MA. GOLDBERGER: aty dos't you just state +attorney/elient privilege and just to done with +ME. 12020LD: I want the recard to be +clear. +MA. TEIN: Tou vant to waste tine is vhat +you want to do. +You were supposed to be here this noming +and you totally broke the deal, the agreenant that +you had with as if your hearing goe cascelled. +Dat Let's nove on and maybe you'll stop +obstructing this deposition. +HA. LEOPOLD: I think the record is very +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd., Suite 500 - West Paim Beach, FL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +23 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ansor & Associates +Page 12 +clear where wo stand thus tar. +Is there a recording takon of thia +deposition? +THE CAT REPUR: 162- +MR. LEOPOLD: Just nake sure that's +preserTed. +NT-MAIRIN: +Go to Exhibit 20-61 - well, before you do +that. +are you aware that a Lawyer nased Jeffrey +Herman filed a lovesit on your behalf, yes or no? +MR. INOPOLD Objection. +Any comersationa that you and I hame had +regarding that, il that in the only vay by which +you understand how to ansver that question, do not +answer. It's attorney/ellent privilege, an well +as any coversations you say hare bad with the +astorney from Kiami. That is aldo attorney/client +privilege. Aad 1'n assusing - +MA. TEIN: Tou're actually wrong about the +attorney/cllest privilego +HA. LEOPOLD: I'm asturing Counsel 1s N0t +asking you to divulge attorney/ellent =- +NA. TEINI Of course not. +BY ME. TEIN: +aro you aware that JulIray Hersen, +Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.562.1771 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bvd, Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-1 | +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 5 of 35 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Snsor & Associates +Page 13 +bebalf againat ceffrey Epstein, yer or b0? +MA. LEOPOLD: Sae abdection- +MA. TEIN: de've heard the objectien 10 +HR. IEOPOLD: Counsel, excuse ne. +M2. TEIN: Just say attorney/ellent +privilege. Stop interrupting dy queationa. +MA. LEOPOLD: 1'm entitled to nate an +objection for the record, which 1'n doing, and +I'1l make the sane objection. Nod if it calls foe +attorney/ellent privilege, asy cenversations you +and 1 bave had, do sor anaver the quration. +And I think chat it mighe be appropeiate. +tor the cecond, to ask questions vii +as opposed 10 +vould be soze appropriate for chia deposition. +Go shead. Please snaver yes or no. +Yes- +Thank you. +Ie Iact, Jou know that Hr. Hesnan heid = +press conterenoe atter be flled the tstty-at1ilot-dellar +lavsult on your behalf, don't you? +After it happened. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd, Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +asor & Arsociates +a seung i Tae +Page 14 +You Inow chat he had * presa confecence. +dan': you, yes or not +in fact, let'» go to Exhibit 20-01. +MR. GOLOBERGIR: +LooE benate y9a- +You' i1 +300 35- +3T MR. I81N: +Have you enur seen that picture before? +In that a pieture of your father, yoar +stepsother and Nr. Herman at the press contarance +raçaeding your lawwalt? +A- +Sow you know that chis in a rery serious +don't you? +KN. L20POLD: Asked and angsered. +objectlen. +NR. GOLDBERS8R, A11 right. You cas +object. You're represeatiag a witaess here, +ME. Lespoid. You can object on privilege grounda. +You casnot sake legal sagections. +you bave so +standing to do so- +sA. IEOPOLDI I'a geing to nake then and +then -- +HR. GOLOBENCER: Ne'DA -- +Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.582.1771 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Sube 500 - West Palm Beach, F. 33401 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Baganng wel Tranuripei ne, lee +Page 15 +NN. LEOPOGD: De're golng to leave oe we're +going to take a besak, because bis deseanor ia net +appropriate. There'a no reason to have chis kind +of deraanoe. If you vant to have chis kind of +deneanor vith se «- +HA. TEIN: You are obatructing this +deposition- +MR. GOLDBERGER: Way doa't you guys go +cutside asd just talk about -- +MR- LEOPOLD:| +she -- ber Job is mery +diffieult and sho's not going to be able te tabe +us both talking at the sase tiso. +Kt. GOLDBERSER: Off the record. +MR. LEOPOLD: We're not going off tho +record, Jack. He'se Bot, Jack. Her Job' in verg +diffieult. 1'a poing to male the record. +I don't think it 1s appropriate, especlally +in the snall confines of thia roon, to be very +aparessive with thia young lady. +HR. TEIN: That's not happening. Stap, +stop actually -- +Ma. LEDPOLD: 11 you 'ro going to incerrupe +se, va'ra going to carcel thia depositlon - +на. TEIN: Stop wissepresesting- +THE COUST REPORTIR: I need oct at a tine, +Pn. 561.662.0905 - Fax. 551.582.1771 +1655 Paim Beach Lakes Bvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ering andi Tiata-ipris, ieu +Page 16 +to natter who it 1s. +HR. LEOPOLD: I think ve'ce poing to take a +break. Perhapa you eight want to talk to your +co-tounsel - +MR. TEIN: I dos"t nand to talk co bim- +MR. LEOPOLD: but we'ee golng to take a +break. +MR, TE19: He'ze not taking & break unless +the witnena weds d break. +toa"re obatracting thia deposielen, Ted. +NA. IROPLD: Coie 00, +You all want to continue in this +067H070E - +MN. TEIN: Tou'se obstructing the +depealtion. Stop esking speechas. we're Bot +diacuasing this wich you. +The quostions sre to +your ellent. Go take your fim-ninute becak. +NR. LEOPOLD: fina. We seed te make auze +the secord's olear and clean. +And I want to nake auce, as I'va aleeady +asked you - I isou that you're oe of the beat in +toun -- Chat this sodio -. thia neede co be +Frepacved. Okay? +H8. TBIN: Go takm your five-adnute benak, +Mr. Ieopold, sow. +1655 Palm Besch Lakes Bivd., Sube 500 - West: Palm Beach, FL 33401 + + +U +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 6 of 35 +ansor & Associates +Page 17 +Tou vore sapposed to be hace at nine a.n.? +it'a now after two. +back. +MR. LEOPOLD: Okay. If the demeanor keeps +up. ve will not be here beyond those five minutea. +MR. TEINI Take your break and coze back. +MR. LEOPOLD: Okay. So I suggest that you +relas. +на. TWIN: I muggeat that you take your +10 +11 +12 +five-ainute break. +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +MR. IROPOLDI But I would suggest that yoa +Lake deep Breaths. +MR. THIN: Suppest whatever you want. Go +take a breas. +(Thereupon, a recess vas caken.) +BY NA. THIN: +you agree that giving testimony +today as your depoaltlon is somthing very serious, don't +yoa? +A. +Tes. +23 +24 +25 +And you respect the court, don't you? +Yes. +9. +Let no show you Exhibit 91-001. Can you +Ph. 561.682.0905. - Fax. 561.682.1771 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd, Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +інт ad Trameopune, Леч +Page 10 +read that out loud, plesse- +Okay. +WILL GO 20 ManG! +Will you read that out loud, please. +• +9- +Thank you. +lol bah ey buddd...Lol yah i got soun +atupid court ahit on the 20th... bullshit...and dane you +still have court shit with hia? Like after so long wow +im sorry... well yah well ve will definitely harta sake +plans for sure. because i sino a toes tines a million and +no no no i love you. a and p.r. a love us default ple +niggas. Muah Ko. +Old you send that message last vast to a +friend of yours on Myspace? +I wouldn't know. +Toere's no dates and I've +SAILO CB BV020*, 39 +Okay. +Right. +we're going to talk about that in a second. +bid you send that message last week - +2- let me cantan my goonzoo. +(riend of youra co Hydpace? +Did you send that seasape last week to a +I wouldn't know the date, but obviously. +it a to a Iriend. +1655 Pains Beach Lakes Bhd., Sute 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +1T +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ánsor & Associates +Baparing and Transople, Jes +Page 19 +Did you send that ressage to • friend of +yours on Ky#pace? +A- +Bure, +Were you referring to this depouition? +Yes - +Do you find the turn a-i-g-g-e-s offensive? +That's bot anywhere in there. +What word did you use in there? +vI. LEOPO13: seze are you referring to, +Coussel? There's 20 plus vords in there. +MN. TEIN: +Dos't wake & apeaking objection. +THE WITNESS: Are you referring to +anything - +Don't -- don't -- +Let his ask you the question. +what question were you asking. +MR. IBOPOLD: She doesn't ask questions. +You ask the questlens. What 15 the question +pending? +Q. +what in the last word on thare in +the taxt of your rassage before the closing? +0. +Siggas- +Don't you find that tere offensive? +Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.582.1771 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bld, Sulte 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +9 +10 +11' +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ning on Totary +Page 20 +A. +No. +MR. LEOPOLD: Can you spell it for the +299030, 2-9438- +THE WITNESS: 1-1-9-9-- +MR. TEIN: ND, bo, no. You are not going +to be asking questions. +HE, GROPOLD: 1'e not asking questions. +I'a asking for the record the word to be spelled, +because we don't have a video here today. +MA. TEIN: These exhibits sce part of the +HA. LEOPOLD! Moll, It's not marked as an +exhibit. +MR. TEIN: Stop interrupting no, +Me. Leopold. I have narked and Idestitled as an +exhibit and you will pet it. +MA. LEOPOLD: There has bean so +identification of this document in the record. +KA. TEIN: Mr. Leopold, step interrupting +thin deposition. +MA. LEOPOLD: What is the exhibit nonber +narked for identification? +MR. TEIN: 31-001. +MR. LEOPOLD: Do we have copiea? la it on +the record anywhere? +1655 Palm Beach Lekes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 7 of 35 +10 +11 +13 +16 +17 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ansor & Associates +Page 21 +did you in face +write yaur friend this sessage about this depoastion? +Tos. +So you wrote your friend that this +deposition is stupid court a-h-1-I, cocrect? +30a. +Because you think chis deposation in stupid +don"t you? +You wrote that to your triund, didn't your +You think that court is atupid, don't you? +30 6030 58792- +And you think that ovart in bull s-h-i-t. +don't you? +And you think this depositton is bull +#-h-i-t, don't you? +No. +You wrote that to your friend, didn't you? +DEL. LEOPOLD: Objection. +answered. +ME. SEIN: That's not as objection. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 3340L +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ansor & Associates +guad Transfine, loo +Page 22 +You wrote that to your friend, didn't you? +MN. 180POLD: Objection. Asked and +asavered, for the fourth tise. +MA. TRIM. You are leproperly objecting. +ME. Leopold. You have no grounde to object. dad +that's not an objeotion- +HA. 1BOPOLD: It 1a an objection. +MA. TEIN: Then terminate the depoodtion it +you think it's been asked and answered. +MA. IROPOLD: Counsel, I am sot precluded +Iron Just sating an objection to the form of the +question. As the courts well know, and if you +practice here in Most Bain Teach, sany of the +judges sequire you to set cho objection with +apecificity. And I will do that. Bed It you +don't wast se to, you can make the record. But = +will do that. +MR. TEIN: Hero's what wa'll do, Ted. Toa +can -- I vill allow you to zeserve an objection to +JoIn for every single one of my questions. +Otherwise, all you're doing is obetracting. +HH. LEOPOLD: 1 von't do that- +MA. TEIN: Of course; because you want to +obstruct. +MR. LEOPOLD: All right- +Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.177: +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd, Sute 500 - West Palm Boach, PL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 23 +BY MR. TRIN: +ou think that giving testimony +today, under cach, is bull a-h-i-t, don't you? +A. +No. +And you wrote that to your fakerd on +MySpace last week, didn't you? +MR. IBOPOLD: Objection. Aaked and +shawared. +THE MInNESS: No, I did not. +BY MR. THIN: +You dente write this easlesLE +I wrote that, but I dids't write what you +9. You woota in this exhibit, 'I got scae +stupid coust 0-t-i-t on the 20th. Tall a-h-s-t." bidn't +you write that? +0. Referring to this deposition, didn't yout +A. +Referring to the court. I wat later +Intored that it was a deposatios. +I's going to ash you some questions nou +about what happened when you went to Jett Epstein's soapp +thruo years ago. +Okay? +When the police intervieved you one nosth +Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.177: +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ansor & Associates +Page 24 +after yoa went to Epatein's bouse, you gore on your +mother's grave that you and Iputein did not engage in sex +of any kind? +Yes. +Didn't you tall that to the police? +A- +Yes. And I will contime. I have never +bad sex with hin- +0. Eid what happened upstaies at Jett +Epstein's house take you cospletely by surprise, +A. +Yes. +@. Now the civil complaint that you filed +aguinat Mr. Epstein for titty sillion dollars alleged +that you were tatally shocked by what happened when you +got there. +Yes. +Here you totally shocked by what happened +when you got to Ipatein's bouse? +Л. +Yes- +You didn't expect it at all, did you? +30- +You had absolutely to Idea why your friend +as taking you to Epstein's house, eight? +I was inforzed it was a massage. +0. All you thought that it wto going to be was +• мазаро, correst? +Ph. 361.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 8 of 35 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Supering one Tale +Page 25 +Yea. +Before you got to Epstein's house +never said anything to you on the telephone about sexual +activity with Epatein, did abe? +Ho. +And before you got to Epstein'a house +never seat yog a sessage over the Internet about +auxoni activity with Epsteln, did abet +Did +Ever try to convince you to +engage in any sexual activity with Epatein? +NO- +Did +every try to convince +you to engage in any sersal activity with Epacein? +I don't krow who +Do you bave a triano +Okay. Before yoa went so Epateis'a house +did anyone call or e-pall you to induce you to engage in +sexual actlyity with Epsteint +No. +So you're rate that before you pot to +Epstein's hosse so oce teled to pursvade you to engage in +sexual activity with Jeftrey Epstein! +No. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ning and Tunn +Page 26 +You're sure that me let DO 36 t 93C10n +You're sure that bufore you pot to +spatein's house no one tried to perrude you to engage in +susual activity with Epstein for sooty. Are you? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Naked and +THE WITNESS: No. And I've already +anavered that a barillion tines. +BY MR. TEIN: +he's coaching you now. 50 I's going to sak +the questlon -- +MA. LEOPOLD: Counsel, I've nado an +objection for the second. +MR. TEIN: Stop speaking. +MR. LEOPOLD: I'm not going to stop +speaking. Yoo can't interrep- ze word d'8 BakIng +the record. +MR. TEIN: You're coaching the Witness. +AM. LEOPOLD: Counsel - +MR. TKIN: Stop coaching the witness. +BY MR. SEIN: +let me ask you +MR. LEOPOLD: If you continue to = +Stop interrupting my questions. +1655 Paim Beach Lakes Blvd, Suite 500 - West Falm Beach, FL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +megan Tangie, Joe +Pago 27 +MA. IZOPOLD: If you do it one nore time, +ve're leaving- +DT MR. TELS: +I's going to make the second. +You cascot interrupt an when I'a naking the +record. Out of professional conduct, you cannot +do that. I'a entitled to nate the second. I made +an objection, asced and answered. +YoRE dermabor +in inappeopriate. You're willing and you are able +and you're responsible to ask a question in a +protesaional manner, and ask the question and once +you get the anever, to either follow up on 1t or +nove on, but not continuesly beevest and ask the +same question over and over because you don't 1lce +MR. THIN: Calm down, sie. +MA. LEGPOLD: Truat no. I'm very cale here. +When I'= not cain, you 11 krow it. I'a razy cals. +So please continue on. But I vill not +allow you to cortire to harata her in the +desmanor that you'se doing. Ask her a question +and sove on- +IN. TEIN: Are you done? +MA. ISOPOLD: Thank you. +I am. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd, Sute 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ensor & Associates +Page 29 +MR. TBIN: Stop ndsrepresenting the record +and calm down. I'm going to ask ay quention. +stop it. +BE MR. THIS: +0. +мя. LOPOLD: I think the record is very +N2. GOLDBERGER: Let ne jset olarity +sonethisg. When you object to the for of = +gestion, you're not izatructing the witness sot +to anaue: the question, are yout +MR. IBOPOLD! No. And I'm not making that +objection: only on atsomey/elient pelvilege. +WN. TEIN: W1l1 you stop speaking now so I +can ask my question? Are you donat +Okay. I'= pring to ask ay queation. +IT MA. TRIS: +R. +tAsten, +MA. TROPOLD: +Bold on. Stop- +I've been doing this for 20 plas yoars and +have net a lot of attorsaya, but I've never had as +experience 1fke thia wheze I've - +M. TEIN: stop your speeches. +MA. LEOPOLD: If you continue to do this, +whether It's with se or with my ellent, I will so! +Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.582.1772 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL. 33401 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 9 of 35 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ánsor & Associates +Fage 29 +put up with de and I don't need to pet up with it +and is's not appropelate. And I'm sure +N=. Goldberger knous all this, beceuse I know that +he wouldn't do this. So I will not put up with +it. And I think it's bighly inappeopelate to do +this with thia child sitting here, the way you' ce +acting, primarily towardo me, and I will not put +up with it. +Ma. THIN: Will you please acop yous speech +so I can ask questions? +Ma. LAOTOLD So long as you act +professionally, I will do so. Dut it you consince +to do it this way, I vill leare. +MA. TEIN: Suit yourself. +BY MA. TEIN: +stein's house +ice you suce that before you got to +no one tried to persuade you to engage in +sexual activity with Epstein for money? +NR. LEOPOLD: +Anied and answered. +objection. +N. TRINI Did you get her anaver? +THE COURT REPORTER: so, I did Bot. +THE HITS! I'= WC0. +BY MA. TEIN: +Let ta ask you a ter queations about your +Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.582.1771 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Paim Beach, FL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ánsor & Associates +Page 30 +contact with Jeffrey Epatein. Okay? +(Witness noda bead up and qowns! +JalI never e-mailed you, did he? +NO. +Jeff sever text masaged you, did he? +No. +Jeff never chatted in a chat come with you, +did bet +A. +Q. +Before you got to Epstein's hoare you bad +rever spoken to jeff, had you? +And betore you got to petain's house you +had never net Jeft? +Correct- +Before you got po Epstein's hose you had +never told Jeff that you vere under 18, right? +No. +Refose you got to Epstein's house had you +over told Jeffrey that you were under 187 +No. +I sever spoke to the man before that. +0. +And you saly went to Jeft Epstela's house +that one time threw years ago, correct? +Yes. +You never went there again, correct? +Ph. 561.582.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Sute 500 - West Palm Beach, F. 33401 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +sor & Associates +Page 31 +A. +No. +All right. +Let =e ask you two final areas +of questioeleg about this and ve'll nove onto sonething +wIse. Okay? +Uh-huh. Tes. +I'a sorry- +Defore you got to Epatein's did anyone +assoclated with Ipatein over cell you on the phone and +cry to persuade, induce, entice or coerce you to engage +in any sexual dotivity? +A. +No. +0. +Before you got to Epstain's did anybody +assoclaced with Epatein aver contact you on the Interset +and try to persuade, induce, encico or coerce you to +engage is uny sezuel activity? +A. +No. +0. +who told you that when you got to +Jeff Ipatein's bouse you should lie to Jeff about yoar +age? +A. +or vas it the otbee girl in +the car who you +over with to Spatein's house? +A. +who was the other gied in the car with you +that day? +I hontacly doa't know. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd, Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Sas Associates +Page 32 +Had you aver audd her before? +No, air. +0- +You told the police that when you rode over +to Epstein's you bad no idea who she was, sighe? +Correct. +0- +Tou told the police that you didn't know +her name, but ahe was live really dark, kind of like a +Spanish gira? +Yes. +Those were your words, right? +Tus. +Do you cow know who she 1s7 +No, sir. +Bo it was +who told you to lie about +your ago to Jeft Epstein? +A. +Yes. +And +told you that if you weren't 1B, +Ipatein wouldn't let you into bis house, 11ght7 +That's - yes, yes- +All right. Let's talk for a minute about +when you firat net Jett. Okay? +A. +Sure. +When you first set beft he teled to find +out how old you were, right? +a. +Excuse ne? +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Sure 500 - West Palm Beach, FL. 33401 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 10 of 35 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 33 +When you first set eff he trled to find +out bow old you were, right? +Not when we first introduced each other: +when we get upatairs, then, yes. +During the passage Jeff asked you how old +you were, COrreCtI +A. +795: 395- +How badn't you already told Jell's +sasistant, the one who walked you upataiza, that you went +to college and had just noves down here fron Chio? +A. +I never spoke to the lady. +Do you went to rethink that azaver? +NA. LEOPOLD: Is that 4 question? +BT MR. TEIN: +Do 20% wans Lo techink that answer? +I didn't seally speak with her that +much. +Go yoc want to try to refresh your senory +on that? +HA. INDOLD: Do you have sonathing to +retresh ber monory with? +MR. TEIN: Do you want to stop making +speaking objections? +But to refresh songone' +memory, you show then a document. +Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1772 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd., Sute 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Jasming and tauriptive, les +Page 34 +MR. TEIN: I knew how to do this- +MA. LEOPOLD: Then show her • document. +MR. TEIN: Stop speaking- +MR. IBOPOGD: I'm not going to stop +speaking. +I's going to continse to sake the +record. +HI. TET You're obstructing. Please +atop. +MR. LEOPOGD: I'm not obstructing. But it +you want to retreat be: recollection, you need to +show her something. +that's not a proper question. I ebject to +the foundacion and the predicate of that question. +MA. TEIN: Are you done? +ма. 1ДОРОLО: І ми лом, Тпк уо. +BY NA. TEEN: +Do you want to try to refresh your nemory +as to whether you had any conversation with the woean who +walked you upatairs in Epatein's house in which you told +her that you went to college and had juat moved dows fres +MR. LEOPOLD: Objectien. deject to the +four of the question. Jack of foundatico and +prosecute. +BE ME. TEIN! +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd, Suite 500 - West Paim Besch, FL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +регіна мні Trauriprinn, Der +Page 35 +0- +You can ansuer the question. +Sure- +Is there anything that would tefresh your +perory that In fact you told Mr, Apotein's assistant, +tha +obe who walked you upstairs, that you went to college and +you had joat sored down bece foom Ohiot +I don't renenber saying that, but if you - +I don't rember saying that syself, 10 - +That would be a lie, right? +No. I really den't renester. +So yoa told Jeff that you were 1f years +old, correct? +Yes. +Do you remember Detective D +• Pagan of +the Police Department, Pala Beach Pollos tepartnent? +A. +0. +A. +TuS. +Do yoc traesbor you spoke to her? +Tes. +Do you rinenber that you told Detective +Pagan that whe you lied about your age to jeff you said +It really fast because you didn't want to sake it sound +like you were lying? +I don't remember the vords exactly, but I +do resenber telling ber I told him I was 38. +Q. +And do you reberber telling Detectare Pagan. +1655 Palm Beach Lakas Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +19 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Kaporring wed 3u +Page 36 +that when you lled to Ipstein about your age that you +said it really tast so Ipatein would't realise you were +No, I don't reverber saying those woeds +exactly to ber. I reminter telling ber tha: I Cold +Epstein I was 19- +0. +Does it sound right to you that you told +Detective Pagan that you said your age really fast to +Ipatein -- +MS. MELCHLAVER: Objection. Aaked and +answered. +BY NA. TEIN: +Q. = do he wouldn't think that you ware +lying? +N*. IROPOLD: Objection. Asked and +anavered, lack of foundation, mischaracterization +of her earlier toatimony. She's already answored +that question. +BY MA. TETH: +Toa can ansues it. +MR. IEOPOLD: Sane objection. It's been +anted and anavered. +tou con araver. Ive sade the objection. +THE WITNESS: I forget the question, now. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bld., Sute 500 - West Falm Beach, FL 33401 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 11 of 35 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Rajaning and Tassipim, is. +Page 37 +ET ME. TEIN: +Let no put it again. +Detective Pagan that when you lled about your ago to +Jetfrey Ipatein, you said it really fast beckase you +didn't want to nake it sound like you were iying? +Ma. LEOPOLD: Objection. Jack of +THE WITNESS: I could have possibly said +that, yes. +BY NR. ZEIN: +You didn't wast Nr. Epstein to know that +you vece Lying about your age, right? +Correct. +Tou didn't want Mr. Epstein to know that +yeu were not 18 yet, right? +Correct- +You wanted NE. Ipatein to believe that you +really vere 1f, elght? +A- +Correct- +0- +Do you resenter when Mr. Spatein asked +where you vent to school? +A- +Tea. +0- +And you told Mr. Epatein you went to +wellington, Fighe? +1655 Paim Beach Lakes Bivd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ansor & Associates +ding and Transcrigion, Tee +Page 30 +TeD. +0- +Was that the truth? +In fact, you want to +Pals, right? +Tes. +30 you lied to Mr. Ipatein again, corcect? +Yes. +Is Wellington the college that you told +Jaft's assistant that you vere attending? +I sca't inaber having that conversation +with her, do I wouldn't know if chat's what I said. +That wan a lie, though, wasn't 1t7 +MEl. LEOPOLD Objection to the form of che +assuption. she just ansvered you she can't tell +HA. TEIN: Speaking objection. And you +well know tbas, Mr. Leopold. +MR. IROPOLD: She can't answer that +quastion. +The way you phrased that question, +you're purposely raking ber not be honest in bee +cestimony. She can't anaver a question like that- +She doesn't renenber. So then you say. +*So you +were lying." That's improper and you know that. +That's not a proper gestion. +And any attorney +1655 Palm Boach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +sor 4 Associates +Page 39 +that would do that to a Witnesses or to a person +that's sitting in thin chair Is not acting +prodensiorally. +You can't ask a question like +that. You can do it, but it's not proper. +And +I'm sure you veren't trained that way, certainly +not ethically. +MR. TEIN: W111 you stop? +MN. IBOPOLD: I'm not going to stop. +becaure the way you're asking that queacion is +improper and you kick 15. +MR. TSIN: You're losing your coel. +BY NA. TEIN: +MP.. LEOPOLD: +Trust no. I'a very cain- +When I lose my cool, you'll kace it. +X. TBIN: I do know it- +BY NR. THIN: +Mr. Epstein never asked you +to do anything other thaa passage him, correct? +A. +Incorrect/ because he asked no to take oft +my bra, so that would be two thinga he's asked ea to de. +0. other than saking you to take your bra off, +HE. Epacein never asked you to do anytbing with his other +than massage, correct! +HA. 200P0LD: Objection. Foundation, +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd, Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +U +im, far. +Page 40 +predicate. +THE WITNES: COFFeE. +BY ME. TEIN: +2. +A. +You told the polace, in your woods, that +you did not whack him off, Fight? +Correct - +hat does that seant +whack, 1ike whacking offt +Yoar term, what does that sean? +0. +A- +0. +your hand, did he? +masturbating- +Nr. Epsteds never tried at any tine to grab +Nr. Epetein never teled to put your hand +0- +anywhere, did be? +A. +No. +At no tine did you touch Mr. Epatein's +penis, did your +No. +And he did not touch you, correct? +Incorrect. +0. +Voll, you told the police, "M so time dia +he touch no." Were you lying to the police then? +A. +3s. Well, I vasn't being fully trothtal, +but I wasn't lying. +3655 Pain Beach Lakes-Bvd, Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 12 of 35 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ansor & Associates +Page 43 +You told the police twice when you spoke to +Pagan that at no fine did he touch ne. " Didn't +you say that to the police? +And you're saying that that was not fully +truthful. Is that what you're saying now? +And you're saying if you're not fully +truthful, that's noe a lie. Correct? +A. +You took that out of context like really +bad. I didn't mean like that. Touching my lege and -- +he narer kept his hands to himself the encire tine. +That's what I'a trying to say. +You told the police, "at no cipes did ba +touch en." Vou agree with that, sorrect? +No, I don't agree with that, because be did +cooch se- +Did you tell the polioe that he dad sot +touch you, yus of no? +It's a posalbility, but I do not tengabes. +okay. And yos did not have any type of sex +with Jeff, correct? +So- +And you did not have any type of oral sex +9- +with Jeff, correct? +1655 Palm Seach Lakes 9lvd., Sulte-500- West Palm. Reach, PL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ensor & Associates +Page 42 +No sype of intercourse with Jeff, correct? +Correct • +A11 right. +Let's talk about what happeced +after the sassage was over. +Okay- +0. +After the assage, you told Epatein that +you wanted to bring your twin sister back so she could +nate son money, correct? +Incorrect- +Your twin sister 14 +1ght? +A. +Correct. +And you love +very such, don't you! +TOs- +Aad when you left the house you were joking +with the other giris, veren't you? +Incorrect. +9- +We11, when +od the other girl in the +car that day nade their statusente to the pollee thay +told the police that you were joking afterwards. Are you +saying that they were lying to the police about that? +No. But a questien or •- qoastiona fron +- Iike ahe asked me goostions, but it wasn't +Joking- +She was kind of like in a happy vay, lite, +what did you do? What did yoa do?" bike those kind of +Ph. 561.692.0905 - Fax. 561.662.1771 +1655 Palm Bosch Lakes Bid., Sute 500-West: Palm Beach, FL. 33401... +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ansor & Associates +Page 43 +things, but de vana't joking about it at all. +You Joked about it, didn't you? +A. +50- +You said to +that It you did this +every weekend you'd be rich, didn't you? +No. That's what +0. +Iou didn't teil that to +ME. LEOPOLD: objection. Asiced and +апати. +THE WITNESS: No. +aT MR. TEIN: +Q. +Attar you left patein's bouse you book the +soney and you went shopping with +and the other +girl le the car, correct? +Incorrect. I didn't speed any of the +0. +You want to Maeshall's, didn't you? +I vent aloog, yes, but I didn't -- +You want shopping with then at Marshall's, +0- +didn't yeu? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. +TRE NITNESS: I quess you could say that. +H9. IEOPOLD; Objection. Tack of predicate +and foundation, Mischaracterization of earlier +testisony- +1655 Palm Beach Takes Bivd., Sute 500 - West Pair Beach, PL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +15 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ansor & Associates +wing and Tame +Page 44 +ST MR. TEIN: +boughe a parse, right? +Ter- +And you were with her the whole time at +Marahall's, correct? +Tea. +Now tell me about when the federal +prosecutors cold yoo about getting relaburned. +I have no idea what you're talking about. +Tell ne about whes the federal prosecutors +spoke to you About getting money you feel you're entitled +to tron Mr. Epatein. +I don't know what you're talking about. +0- +Do yo know who BE villatone jat +No, sIr. +Did you ever soot with any federal +0- +proberutora? +I think =- yeah. I think they were - I +think they wack 1ike FRI. +M-huh. Ese you neet with federal +peesecutors? +A. +A. +They case to ay house ose tize, yes. +When did they come to your house? +very lang ago. +Was it this year, 20097 +_Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 +1655 Pain Beach Lakes Bhd., Suite 500- West Paim-Beach,-FL. Paim-Beach,-FL33401. + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 13 of 35 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Énsor & Associates +Pago 45 +It was not thin year, E0. +was it 20017 +I'd have to say at lesa: two yeare ago of a +your ago. yeah. +5o it would be 2007, 2006/ but it was a +while ago. +How many federal prosecutors of Pal agents +came to your house? +I'a trying to remember. I want to say four +people cane +Did they give you their businean carda? +If they did, I don't renesber, and they +weren't toward ne. Maybe ay paresto have then. +I dan't +Old thay give you theis cell photo nambers? +No. +Did you ever speak to thon on their cell +phones? +9- +Bld they speak to your parenta? +That's nosething you'd hare to ask sy +parents. +Do you know whether they spoke to your +parent's? +0. +No. șII• +Tou have no idea? +1655 Falm Beach Lakes Bled, Suite 500-West Palm Beach, FL 33401. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ánsor & Associates +Page 46 +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. +Asked and +BY HE. TRIN: +So if I say the natu to you all +Villatera, you don't know who that 15? +No, sir- +How zany wosen and how sany sen sane to +your house? +A. +I want to say two ladies and two guys. +Did someone sased Jeffrey Bloaan come. to +your house? +I don't know naves, sir. +Do you know who Jeffrey Birman 1a7 +A- +No. sir. +Do you know who. Jeffrey Hernan 1a7 +Yes. +that's the lawyer who first sued Spatein on +2. +your behalf, righer +Has Me. Herman advanoed your tanily any +воглу! +NO. LBOPOLD: My conversations that you're +had with Mr. Herman regarding that issue, you are +not to disclose. It you've iearced in aote other +1655 Paim Beach Likes BNd., Suite 500-West Paim Beach, E33401. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +реліку нні Талит +ка. іна +Page 47 +tashion, you say snaver- +THE WITNESS: Okay- +I wouldn't know. +BY MA. TEIN: +You don't know? +A. +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Foundation. +actorsey/client privilege. +BY MR. T8IM: +And you say you don't know who Jeft slonan +1a7 +No. B1I. +Dowd it refresh your secolleation thet he'a +the nuber two prosecutor at the D.5. Attorney'a Offices +A. +NO - +That he's +Villatosa's boas? +Ho- +9- +Does it refresh your manory that he's the +ex-partner of Jeff Herman, the first lawyer who sood +you -- sued Mr. Epstein on your behalf for flity aillion +dollarat +A. No, sir. I don't know who he is. +Without telling me any conversations that +you're had with your lawyers, how is it thas you selected +ME. Herman as your lawyer fron the 81,000 menbers of the +1655 Paim Beach Cakes Bivd,; Suite 500- West Palm Beach, EL 33401. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Fage 48 +FLorida Bar? +A- +0- +I did not select him. +who did? +My Lather- +Did you ever nuet Mr. Harman? +A. +Once. +Don't "- doa't cell ee what you discussed +with him. +Whete did you meet his? +A. +I was shopping in my - he abound up at mo +0. +A- +whose boate? +My frlend +Is that +from the Qasterdeck +Tavern? +A. +Yes. +And did you have a meeting with him as +9. +HOU? +Yes. I guess yos could say that. +And who else was there? +Hy Aunt +And what was that meeting about? +MR. LBOROLD: Objection. That calls for +attorney/client privilege. +0. +What discusades did you have with +Pi. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 +1635 Palm Beach Caess Bivd, Sute 500 - West Palm, Besch, FL 33401 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 14 of 35 +10 +11 +12 +13 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 49 +Mu. Hernan in the preseace of +Hone. +What discussiona did you have in the +presenoe of her want? +of my aunt? +X. GOLDBERGER: +It's the vitreas's aunt- +BY MR. TEINI +of your aunt. +The only one that we've ever discassed or +sad so you were da a conversation with +HE. Hernan and your aunt? +A. +#1I. +And you dlacossed privileged matters during +9- +that conversation? +MR. LEOPOLD: abject 50 the forn. - I think +you might have to educate her on that question. +BY MR. TEIN: +You discussed the lawsalt? +Tea. +Did +sell you about any +conversations that she had with Mr. Herman? +As far as I'# concerned, she's never spoken +or she's never had a conversation. | +She only opered the +dose and then left. She's the one who answered the door. +Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.662.1771 +1655 Pairs Beach Lakes Bvd; Sute 500 -West Palm Beach, EL 33901..... +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 50 +Why did the meeting take place at +л. +I spent the sight that nighe at her house. +And ween was this? +A while apo. +How long ago? +A sseth and a bait ago. +I'm guessing. +A month and a half ago? +So vas it before of after Me. Herman flled +the fifty-tillion-dollar lawsuit against Epstein? +Aftet. +Did you set with an 19l agent nosed +Resbite Kurkendali, a woman? +I don't know. +Did Ma. Karbendall speak to you about +getting reimbursed fron Mr. Ipatein? +I've sever bad a discussion with anyone +about getsing reinbaraed fron Mc. Ipatein. +Have you net with an agent naned Jason +9- +Richards? +A- +Not to sy knowledge. +How about an apust naned Tia Blater? +No, siE. +How about an agent naned Junior Otin? +1655 Paini Boach Lakes Divd, Sute 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 19401.. +10 +12 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ensor & Associates +Page 53 +A. +No- +And we've learned that nary of the girls, +some of whan are as old an 23, were told by the +goverswet that they vould get noney at the end of the +criminal prosecution. Does that aound familiar to you?- +A. +No. sir. +9- +other than ME. Leopold here -- I'm not +asking about Mr. Herman either •- +A- +I hah. +-- did aeyone ever discuss with you that +you could get reinburent for your daragus? +A. +80a 413 +Did you or any benber -- +Are you referring to d +criminal natter or 4 clvil Batter? +BY MR. TEIN: +pld you er any serber -- +Lot ee object to +the fort of the question. +BY MA. TEIN: +Did you or any sember of your fandly ever +get a victin notification letter from anyone? +A- +I so longer live at that residence and I +wouldn't know. +So your teacirony ta that you have never +-1655-Palm. Boach Lakes Bivd, Sute. 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +J +ensor & Associates +Page 52 +mc-ed a victia notification letter, correct? +rect - +8. And your testimony de that you don't know +If your perenta have ever received a victin notificatioa +letter, correct? +Correct- +Jae you given any evidence to prosecusers +or lam anfoecesent in thia case? +What do you suan by evidence? +Will. Anything that you can-touch or feel. +A. +No. +MA. LOPOLD: Objection to the fors of the +questics. +BY ME. TEEN: +So you haven't given anyching physical -- +No. +- any iten to any prosecutor, police +officer or law endorcanent agent, correct? +A. +My cell phone tour yours age or three years +ago, but that's it- +Yeu gave your cell phoot to whom? +A. +Matthe Fagan. +Old ahe keep it? +Ast her. +Jou gare it to ber and then you didn't get +TH: 58T.6820905 = FRE 561.682.1771*- +1555 Palm Beach Lakes Rlvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 15 of 35 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ansor & Associates +irene and Tresten, s +Page 53 +it back at the end or the seeting? +I'= +guessing. I dea': have it. +How much nocey are you hoping to get out of +quentica. +Attorney/client privilege. +BT MA. TEIN: +HOW SCH RA 20L 10022060086:00a +yourself, hoping to gut out of Epstein? +MR. IEOPOLD: Saso, Jana objection, +attorney/ellent privilege. +Don't asaves the question. +BT AR. TEIN: +I'e not asking about what your lawyer told +you. +MR. IROPOLD: 7'= inatracting her not to +saver the question, because any of those +conversations intolve her cothel. +MR. TEIN: Certify that. +MR. LEOPOLD: 71ease. +Now. +deposition, didn't you? +you lied to put out of this +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd., Sute 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 54 +No, sir. +You didn't want to come to court today and +tell the atory that you had told to the police under +onth, did you? +uM. IBOPOLD: Deject to the form of the +question. Tack of foundation, predicate. +THE WITNESS: No. I Haru no problem cosing +here and talking to you. +And to avoid getting served with a lawful +subpoena, you lied about your nace, didn't you? +No. +And in fast, just lying yourself won't +enough, was 1e7 +MA. LEOPOLDI Objection to the for of the +question. +Don't answer it. It'a not a question. +Object to the forn of the question. Lack +of trandation. +HA. TEIN: Are you instructing her not to +MR. LEOPOLD: 1 as. +HE. CHIN: Certify It- +МА. IБОРОЦО: Fluase. +Ph. 561.582.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd., Sute 500 - West Pali Beech, FL 334017 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +аліну нні Талогіріка, вос. +Page 55 +CERTIFIED Q0USTION. +BY MR. TEIN: +0. +You asked your co-workers «- +MR. LEOPOLD: IL'a vague and ambiquous. +BY ME. TEIN: +You asked your co-workees at the +Quarterdeck savern to lie for you, didn't you? +A. +No. I informed ay boss about what was +going on and he told as that he would help in any way +that he can. +Okay. You got your friend +to lie +by switohing rane tags with you, cotrees? +Incorrect. It was a coincidence that sane +night she was not wearing her nace tag: abe was wearing +mine. But I was also not wearing -- I was wearing my +case tag. Everyone itches name tags. It just so +happesa it was a colneidence that same night the people +cana with the papers. +MR. TEIN: Will you pat up Exhibit 28-0017 +MR. GOLDBERGER: And mark 18-D01 for +idencification parposes to this deposition. +MA. LEOPOLD: None of then hare bese sacked +yet. Can un mack them and put then as attachnent +to the depositiona? Becease I think you're above +three photos tow. And this in the only one that +Ph. 551.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bfvd., Sute 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +C +Page 56 +has been marked foe iduntification yet. +ST MR. THIN: +M. IBOPOLD:. Hold on just a second, Just +50 the record in clear -- +MN. TEIN: I's not speaking to yoa. +MS. LBOPOED: Okay. Then don't speak to su +then. +But 1'11 speak to Mr. Goldberger, perhaps. +But at loast for the record, can vo pat on +the record what the previous two photographe wore +marked for identification? +MN. GOLDBERGER: We will sake sure that the +record is cleer at the and of the deposition so +that there's so anbiquicy. +MR. LEOPOLD: Thank you. +BY MR. THIN: +Q. +up on the screen- +Yup- +I've put a photograph narted 18-001 +Do you sue that? +A. +0- +who ja that in the photo? +on the left and ne on the sighe. +right? +your friend at the +Quarterdeck Tavern, Fight? +Ph. 561.692.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 +'1655 Palm Debch Läkes Bld., Sube 500 - West Fam Beach; AL 33401 " + + +9698łZH +_LOEE.7.3009 Wd 280M-005 ROPS. PAM FN57.428P9.WRL5581. +A0 209 9530-5060299 195 4 +-- PAL INTE A +29047 +0 vố dqvdd vv d v qó +52 +EZ +22 +tz +02 +LI +9I +st +ET +OT +- JE[[ • 0I,n0X. +•Dupdes pur seg de aebuTa e Bataspod pur y3eg +200 F, aT PuN ( +an Kes os sn saatnber 200g/ +18804880700 "1 +09 abra +TL01 289 [95 (ARN • [060 29;(9 (4 +• uoTasanb +¿IF 7,507 "TT • 0,3043 +22 +12 +LT +9T +ET +0I +00 bưn= nd v dn +• Buruterdo aos: nof paddose qorsnos +-oa 1o sal = +-- MOUN I +85 abra +Битов 9, иген 1 +aTH Se passIN +•Judoad +•310-5 2051529T0 0 2.92112502 +65 a5ел +чата вE0S окот +-7301309 +42383203 :#0a0ane +• цатм ревлов Витра фани воб забоеца поб -- жд оз Битов +NESL 0N 19 +ISSSNIIN SHI +03500 +RSSAEE SSE +DRA-HOT T +1vvx c ó +J50LTT 03 300UT03 +GuTTenA B23a ni 'anbute e santi +CRa301d e i 3043 +Rep 00z fes not фун троту 1nоб +L5 ebea +6T +ST +SI +II +EZ +Iz +6L +LT +9 L +ET +21 +IT + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 17 of 35 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Порогівданії Талуко, Ін +Page 61 +MR. IROPOLD: Thin in renily big stuff that +you"re going through. But that's fines just ank +your question and nove of. But do it one tine. +If you don't underatard it, I'll let you follow +up. but I'm not going to allow you to ask the saar +queatien cine and egsin and then call her a liar. +Just ask the questiod, get the araver and nove to +the beat tabgeet matter. +KR. TEIN: Ted, I'e aicting right across +the table from you. +MR. LEOPOLD: Yes, sir. +MR. TEIN: Please be quiet. Don't ye11. +MR. INOPOLD: I will not be quie:. +NA. TEIN: Stop yellingwhen I'm yelling +you'll know it. I will not «- +на. ТЕ1Я: ну паве 1s вот +Ma. LEOPOLD: 1 thought your fleat nur was +ME. Tein. +MR. TEIN: You watched no for thirto daya at +the evidentiary hearing where you sat is the back +of the courtrood. You should know who I am. +HA. LEOPOLD: Moll, that's the Inpression +you zuat have made in the courtroon. +I will not be quiet. +1655 Palm Besch Cakes Bive, Suite 500 - West Palm BeNCh, FC 33405 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +15 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ánsor & Associates +Fage 62 +•hat's obnoxioun, Stop bainc +oboowlous, It's stupid. Iet's go abead with the +garlane. +MR. MOPOLD: I will rake the record. +MN. TEIN: Let's get on with the questions. +MR. LEOPOLD: Do you need a break? +(Thereupoo, a recess vas takes.) +Okay. +at the Quarterdeck Saven everything that was going on +and he told you he would heip you any way he could, he +han you in cho kalchen BEve the Process searce 993009e! +A. +Incorrecttan't it true that lying to avoid servien +is a meaningless 1ie to you. +A. I have three. Mould you like to know +Who's the one who lied for you? +And what did +do to lie for you? +Said I wasn't there. +And who did he tell waan't there? +Ask hin. +1655 Palim Beach Lakes Bivd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, PC 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ánsor & Associates +Page 63 +Whore were you vivin +nonecta that you were not at the Quarterdeck Tavern? +basily nachos- +At the Quarterdeck Tavern! +Yes. +what did you do so that +would lle to +the process servers for you? +Nothing. +You just got him to lie for you, didn't +you? +So. I had no influence on him saying 3 +wasn't therese cook thas upon himselt? +Ian't it true that Me. Epateia's procesa +servers bad to ask the polioe to got you out of the +restaurant do that they cold serte you? +M. LEOPOLD: Objection. Jack of +foundation, predicate. +BY NR. IEIN: +0. +Yoe can answer the question. +MR. IEOPOLD: +It you know. Don't guess. +THE WITNESS: No. Can you septat the +MR. TEIN: Don't coach. +MA. LEOPOLD: Don't guess- +* 1655 Paim Beach Lakis Bvd., Sulte 500= West Palm Besch, FL 33405 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +1B +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Коропічу коні Там колірнім, Тол +Page 64 +ME. IEIN: That's a coaching. +MA. LEOPOLD: N0. That's an instruction to +MR. TEIN: No. Yeu don't do that. +THE WITNESS. Can you repeat the guestion? +MR. IEOPOLD: Let no just state for the +BE MR. TIME +2- +Once the police -- 1an't It true that +Hi. Epstein'a process servere had to ask the police to +get you our of the cestaurant 50 that they could serve +you? +a. IncorIct. My boss called the police. +0. Mad once the police shoved up, to stop you +fron lying to aroid service, you nade up another lie that +the process servers had harasaed yos. Isn't that +correct? +Incorrect. +Tou lia all the tine, don't you? +MX. 1E0P0LD: Objectlon. +THE WITNESS: Incorrect. +BY KM. TEIN: +You havu a HySpace page, don't you? +No longer do I hate a Myspace page. I +deleted it- +Ph. 561.662.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 +-1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bld:, Sute 500 -West Palm Beach; Fl: 33401— + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 18 of 35 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +sing and Talks, Inc +Page 65 +When did you delete your Myspace page? +A couple days ago. +Who told you to take your Hy§pace page down +a couplu of days ago? +Tou all of a sadden got sick and tired af +Myspace and just a tew days befoce thia depostion you +decided to delete your Mylpace page, correct? +A.. +Correct. +Q. Is that your testimony under path? +Did you take your Hyspace page down because +you thought the governsens might subpoana 1t? +IncOrreCT. +Hadn't your Myspace page been up for over +these sonths before you took it down? +correct, mat i also nas made cons or +MySpaces over the last years. I just get tired of theo +and delete thon bocsuse -- drana «- and sake new ones. +0. +We're going to talk about that. +So yoa deleted your Myspace page atter you +wore already ander subpoena for this deposition, correct? +Correct - +0. +us to see, +what about the Myspace page dide't you want +Pt. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 +-1655 Paim Beach Lakes Bivd., Sube 500 - West: Palm Beech, FL 33401- +10 +11 +12 +13 +1t +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 66 +Wail, ve're going to conu back to Hyspace +in a second. +You do that. +'= going to ask you sone questions +about why you lie about your age ao often, okay? +KA. LEOPOLD: Objection to the for. +BY KH. TEENI +You lie about your age all the flaw, don't +MR. IROPOLD: Objection, segunentative- +THE WITNESS: Incorrect. +BY MR. TEIN: +Tou lie about your age to get body +piercings, don't you? +You have body piercings, don't you? +A. +Yes- +0- +You have four body piercinga; tan't that +right? +A- +rive. +Other than the piereiago on your cars -- +I'm not talking about that -- +The no: 7e3E 9e7- +Ph. 561.582 0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 +- 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL-33401- +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Reparing sal Thaise. +Page 67 +And where is the coe body piercing? +Belly. +When did you get that? +For ay birthday, with my stepnother and my +father. +And when was that? +When I was 14. +0- +diay. So you had that body piereing when +you set Epstein, correct? +It might have been, or maybe that - yeah, +either ay 14th birthday or ny 15th. I boneatly don't +reneebeE- +Q. Now you're lied about your age to get into +bars by using driver'• Iicenses chat aren't yours, +correct? +A. +never done that? +A. +0. +Q. Are you swearing under oath that yos've +Yes, I swear under oath. +And you've lied about your ago to buy boat, +correct? +A. +Incorrect. +You're swearing under oath that you've +never lied to atores about your aget +I've never lied to a atore about my age or +Ph. 561.552.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 +-- 1655 Palm Beach Lakes @vd.- Sute 500--West Palm Boach, R-33101- +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Papering as Tensrigio, In +lage 68 +anything- +You try to look such older than you are, +don't you? +Incorrect. +0. +And you're lied about your age on your +Myspace pages, dan't you? +Incorrect. +Al1 Flque. Let's look at Exhibit 26-01 +gne. +26-0017 +MR. TRIN: +Yes. +BY MR. TEIN: +On this page you lied to evacyone that you +were 18, didn't you? +A. +Correct. +Let's go to tabibit 33. +MS. BELORLAVER: That's 93-0017 +TEIN: Correct. +ST HE. TEIN: +on thia page you lied to everyone that yoo +vete 19, dida't you? +A- +Incorrect. +на вониві миса аптег ле димасьов. +THE WINESS: +incorrect. +BY MA. THIN: +Ph. 561.662.0905 - Fax: 561.682.1771 +-- 1655 PalmBesch Lakes Blvd, Suite-500 - West-Palm Beach-Fl-33401- + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 19 of 35 +11 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 69 +35w 18a can explane vor answer- +I koow that I hare seen all of these and I +know that thin one it mine. +Can you go down? +MR. LEOPOLD: Just for the record, you"re. +pointing to the photo. +THE WITKESS: I'a pointing to -- +Toa re polating to the one where it says +your age 13 153 +Correct. +Q. that's yours, right? +'Correct. That's mine from a couple years +ago that I have not baen oe, because I don't use that. +Pinase keep going down, pinasa. And I think that's it, +because there'a no ene -- Juat that one is nice. +So the one you poinsed to whece it says +your age ie 10, that's yours, correct? +A. +Correct. +And when you wrote 10 an your age on your +Hyapace pept, that was a 1ie, wasn't 1e7 +Correet. +Bid you lie about your myspace pago back +then because you coulds't post on Myspace unleso you were +187 +Ph. 561.582.0905 - Fax. 561.682.177: +- 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd., Sute 500-West Paim Besch; FL-33401- +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 70 +Correct. +There was a rule many years ago +that you had to be 18 to have a Myapace. +So you lied about your age so you could +post on myspace, right? +Tea. +Q. Let's go back to the top one on this page, +Are you ceseifying now under oath that this +MySpace page where the headline sayz, "Twina do have sore +fun, " and the locacion is given as LoN, abbreviation for +Lomatatches, and the ago in 19, and le say. L +is it your testieony that you did not post +Correct. +Now let's go back to the one that you stre +pointing to before ca this paçe, votee it says your age +in 17 and you liod about your age to pout Hyspace, okay? +th-buh, yea. +A13 right. Why did you tinally put your +true age on your Mylpace profile four days before you +were schedaled to testify before the Grand Jury? +I don't know what you're talking sbout. +Mº. IEOPOED: If you dan't underatand, ask +nas to was the question agains +M. 761N: 090 E9969. +-1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West: Palm Bench, FL-33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +SHOTSM 130001809, +Page 71 +THE WITNERS: I don't know whleh Myspace +you're talking about. +BY MA. TEINI +The Hypace page that you're junt pointing +co. where it says you were 18- +kad you were lying about your age, Elge? +Ce-bah. +Why did you finally post your true age on +your Myspace profile * +- tour daya before you vero scheduled to +testify befere the Grand Jary? +I honeatly don't know wilch Myspace, +because I're bad like a barillion My@paces, and in that +year, I had two, that ook and another one. +and that one's +been deleted. Jo I don't know which one you're seterming +to. +Tou rentaber that you changed your age on +your Myspace page from 10 to your true age just tour daya +before you want and testüfied in the Grand Jury? +A. +So. +You don't remember that. +A. +No. +Do you resenber Detective Recaray? DLd you +-1655-Paim Beach-Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West-Palm-Besch,-7L-33401--- +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +U +Rapeni and Tasters, e +Page 92 +I don't know the names. +How many different detectives bare you bet +with an thin case from Pale Beach? +Probably • good siz or seren, maybe. +pid cne of the detectives cell you before +you testified In the Crand Jury that you should case your +Mylpace age and put your true açe? +A. +No. +Didn't Detectire Recarey have to 0000 CD +your house to pick you up to get you to testify in front +of the Scand Jary? +Possibly maybe Desause I didn't hate a +rider I vas only 14 or 15 at the tise. +2- +Your son dide's drive you? +A. +No. +Stepmon didn't drive you? +I think ay dad. • =y ded: ay dad drove +ne. +Your dad drove you? +A. +yes. d3I. +So your testimony in Detective Recarey did +not drive you, correet? +MR. INOPOLD: Objection. /asked aa +-1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd; Suite-500 - West Palm Beach, FL-33401-/ + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 20 of 35 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +nsor & Associates +Paça 73 +THE vINESS: No. I'a pretty dure zy dad +droe ne, bocesse ne wan crete wisE po- +9- +De ao careceive tell vou to chance yout +ege on your Myspace page, to put your teue age? +80: 335- +Now you aleo lied on your Myspace page +about your incone, dida'e you? +And you Ised, saying that you aade a +quarter sillion dollars a year and higher, correet? +As a joke, yes. +That was a Lie, wean't 157 +And you also lied on your MySpace page, +saying that yoa more sarrled, dido't you? +Possibly. And that sight have been an +Dow you also lie to the polict, don't you? +No. +well, you lied to the police in your +cape-recorded statesent that you gare to Detective +Pagan three years ago, dida's yout +To ay knowledge, no, I did not- +Wel1, yoo lied to the pelico wten you +Ph. 561.682.0905 +- Fax. 561.682.1771 +1555 Palm Beach Lakes Bha, +500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ansor & Associates +га ad Thmarip, Ie +Page 74 +accused Mr. Epstein of attenpting to murder your facher, +dida't you? +No. I sever beard a statusent saying thet +Mr. Epstein cried to merder my facher- +Yoa nada that statesent, dldn't you? +MA. IBOPOLD: Do you have a atateaunt to +show hee? That'a been asked and ansvered. +MA. TEIN: I'a sersy. I dida't hear tbe +vitress' anaver, Me. Leopoldyou told the polica, didn't you, +that Mr. Epstein almost killed your father, didn't you? +No- +Three yeare ago, beforu Me. Epatein even +knew about this irrestigation, you told the police that +Epatein had "alceady cone to my dad'a house and did +something to ay ded'» tires and ay das sinost died. I +didn't want my ded bo get hust, because Jeff aiready +sincat killed hin. - +Didn't you say that? +A. +Not to my knowledge of recallection. I +have nover said anything like that. +That would have been a complece 1ie, +woulds't it have bean? +A. +Yeah. +Pt. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 +1655 Paim Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach. E. 33901 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ansor & Associates +Page 75 +Because Mr. Epstein nover cone to your +dad's house, correat? +A. +Correct. +0- +And to one who worked for Ne. Epstein ever +did sonething to your dad's tires, did they? +objection. Lack of +foundacion, predicato. +Don't guesa. +HY MR. TEIM: +0. +Te'a not true that Me. Epstein alpost +killed your father, io it? +KR. LEOPOLD: Obgection. Asked and +ansvered, lack of foundation, predicato. +BY MR. TEIN: +Q- +You con ansver. +A- +No. +Now you told the police that you didn'e +know who was in the car with you and +on the day +you want to Epsteis'e house, dida't you? +A. +Tes. +0. And that vas a 11e, wasn't 1t? +It's the truth. +Q. +You told the police that there was someone +in the car next to you and you apecifically said you +dida't know ber sae, light? +-Ph-561.682.0905 .Fax.561.682.1771. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +onsor & Associates +Page 76 +A- +0- +Correcta +I do not know hee nano- +You said, "I don't know her nase, but she +was dark Ilke a Spaniah girl." +Those were youT words, +right? +Yosanswered. +MR. IBOPOLD: Objection. Aaked and +BY HEX. SEIN: +0. +who was in the car that day with you and +Again, I do not know. +It was your good friend +wasn't 1e7 +A. +cas with you and +No. I don't know a +you lied to the police about who was in the +, didn"t you? +INCOEENC." +Q. Iet ao nak you sone questions about who you +may have apoles to about this case. All rIght? +A. Go abead. +0. Did you apent to your twin sister +A. Nos In detail, bat of courso she knows; +she's fantly. And yes. +What's her e-mail? +A. +I don't think ahe has an e-asil. +1655 Palm Beach Likes Brid., Süite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401* + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 21 of 35 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +1B +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +16 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +nsor & Associates +Page 77 +A. +- What is her phone munber? +I, goah. I don't know off the top of my +bead. +And what is bar hone address? +She lives with sy son. +In Georgia? +Уед, 81г. +0- +What +about +boyfriend +Bid you +apaak to hin about [patein's cade? +л. +That's my non'a beyfriend. +My sister +doman't have a boyfriend. +Hy won's husband'a nose 13 +so sayte you get then confused. +Do you know his phone number? +A. +No. +Where does he live? +with ay son. +In the same house with her? +Yes. They're married. +So not boyfrlend, husband? +Yeah, husband. +Have you spoken to +about +what happened in ME. Epstein's house? +Not in detall, but he knowa the basics. +ука. +What is bis e-nall? +Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.582.1771 +-1655 Paim Beach Lakes Bld., Sulte 500--West Paim Beach, FL-33401- +Page 79 +0- +what apartment number is it? +I couldn't tell you. +When was the last time you vent theze? +Just vlaited this past weekend. That's the +tiest and last tine I went there- +How about +Have you spokes +to him about your case? +A. No. We no longer spesk. +What's his phone number? Actually, ve +already have his phone nunber and e-mail. +How about +Have you ever +spokes to her about your care? +I don't know an +9. +Have you ever nec +A. +No. But Just to let you know, I don't +really know nases. Il you have pictures of there faces I +could tell you. +All right. let se see if I can refresh +увит пипогу. +Does it retrosh your remory that +is the other girl who sade allegatiens about Epatein, but +refused to show to the Grand Jury whes she had to testify +about then under oath? +No, sir. I have no knowledge of any other +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +1฿ +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +C +Page 78 +I don't know. +0- +0- +What is bis phone nunber? +How 1s that Elevant? +What 1s his phone nurber? +561.719.2652- +What is his hone address? +I don't know. +here does he live? +In Paln Beach Lakes sonewhere- +Ever bees to his house? +Yes. +You don't know what his address 1a? +ME. LEOPOLD: +Objection. +Asked and +She Just said she doesn't know. +MR. TEEN: +Don't coach. +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and +answered. +BY MR. TEIN: +0. +A. +л. +You can answer the question. +I don't know the exact address. +What street is it on? +It's an apartment complex: its not a +What's the nano of the spastment complex? +Something Cave. +Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.582.1771 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd; Sulte 500--West-Palm-Beach, FL-33401- +ánsor & Associates +Tran as spree, Tas +Page 80 +girls In this whole altastion. Ko're not allowed to know +each other. +I didn't get the last four vords. +We're net allowed to know each other. +And what about +Have you +of met her? +No, 51F- +Let's see if I can refresh your memory on +her. She's the other person represented by your Lawyer +Mr. Hernan, who is suing Epatein for fifty nillion +dollars. +I have so knowledge of her. +Never set her? +Sever set her. +A. +0- +A- +I don't know who that la elther. +who knowa +Is that +I don't know, sir. +Do you serumber making a atatement to +Detoctive Pagas that's in the police reports? +No, sir. +2. Havo you coad the police reporte in this +case? +Ph. 561.582.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 +- 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd;, Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL-33401----.. +A. +Ten. +Ph. 561.582.0905 - Fax. 551.682.1771 +1655 PaM Beach Lakes Bivd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach; F: 33401-.- + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 22 of 35 +ansor & Associates +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 81 +0- +mey're on the Internet, right? +Yes, I think. +Vero you surprlsed when the police reports +were released on the Internet containing your statenents +that you had sade to the police? +Tes. +Tou didn't want to see that happen, sight? +No. +So you're saying you don't know a +MR. IBOPOLD: Objection. Asiced and +answered. +BY MR. TEIN: +Does it refresh your monory that be was +sosebody who had gone to jail for drugs and car theft? +NO, 11E. +Someone who knows +No. +becarey? +A. +A. +A. +You den't know if he net with Detective +No, air. +How about +Yes, I renerinE. +I know who that is. +Did you ever speak to +about what +happened at Mr. Epstein'a house? +Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.582.1771 +-1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bld; Sube 500--West Palm Beach; FL: 33401- +Separing and Tassriptim, ins +Page 83 +about this +case? +Q. +A. +Did you speak to +віг- +Have you spoken to +bbout this +case? +A- +I don't know who +0- +Did your parents speak to +A. Ask ny parents. +0. +lat'a see if I can rofresh your menory as +to vto he Is. Okay? +th-hub. +He's the Venicy Fair reporter who made a +financial arrangerant with your father. +A. +I am aware of that. And again, I was not +анаге like that my dad did it until after it was done. +And I don't ksow the detail» about thac. I Just know +what you know about that, 11ke that they talked. +Tell no what you keaw about the financial +arrangesent that +the Vanity Fair reporter, +madu with your father. +A. I don't know about the details at all. +0. +- How much noney did +give to +your father? +I don't even know be gave mory to my dad. +Q. I'n sorry? +- 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd, Suite 500 - Wiest Palm Beach, FL 33401---- +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page B2 +He knows what happened four years ago. +doesn't know this 1# still going on today. +0. +What's his address? I'm sorry. I have his +I don't know. +Tợu know who that 187 +A. +0- +s11ti3g7 +I know who that is, yes. +Ha's the one you stayed out drinking all +night one night last year when your dad reported you +No, sir. +Reneaber the baseball gane you were +sapposed to go to? +A. +No, SiE. +Did you speak to +about this +A. +0. +Nº, віт. +How about +That's my sister's ex-boyfriend. +He's the one with the saved-off shotgun +with the obliterated serial Dunber? +Ask him. I vould not know that +Internation. +Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.582.1771 +- 1655 Palm Beach Lakes-Bivd., Sute 500-Wes: Palm Beach,-FL-33401— +opening and Trigin, Ine +Page 84 +A. +I didn't even know he gave money to my dad. +What do you know about the deal that +has with your facher? +I only know they spoke on the telephone +occe. ' I don't know anything eise. +When was that? +This was a while ago, a year or two -. or a +year ago. I hosestly don't know. +0. +Did +the Vanity Fair +reporter, offer any money to your father? +A. I don't know- +INd +the Vanity Fair +reporter, give you any money? +No, sir. +Q- +Did he offer you any noney? +2. " No, sir. Never spoke to him. +What reporters have you spoken to? +What about your tonily seabera? what +reporters have they spoken to? +The whole Pala Beach County, obvlously, a3 +you can soe in that nurspaper. +Tell me -- Les's go through cach one that +you resenber. Other than the Vanity Fair superter. +what other reporters have any seaber of your +3655 Pain Beach Lakes Blvd., Sulte 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401-- + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 23 of 35 +Reporting we Tansripien, len +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page B5 +tsaily apoken to? +A. +I don't know. And I know sy now. has spoken +to zero. My sister apoke to zero. My father and +stepmother, I wouldn't know. Yoo'd have to ask then. I +don's contact then. +Well, I Just want to know -- I don't want +you to =- I want to know what's in your mind. All right? +MR. LEOPOLD: She just told you. She just +MR. TEIN: Be quiet. +What I want to know is what you krow fron +your personal knowledge. My questios to you is: What +knowledge do you have about tantly serbera of yours +speaking to терохтетв? +MR. IBOPOLD Objection. Asked and +answered. +And if you can't talk professionally, ve're +going to leave. +MR. TEIN: De what you want to do. +KA. LEOPOLD: Ace you going to continue to +calk this way? +MR. TEIN: I'm not going to answer any +question that you ask no, Mr. Leopold. +MR. IEOPOCO: Okay. +1655 Pain Besch Lakes Evd, Suite 500- West Palm Beach, FL-33401- +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Paçe 86 +But you are missopresenting the +record and you are grandstading for your eident +and it's wrong. 50 be quiet. And you know how to +make an objection. Make it. Otherwise stop +talking. +BY NA. TEIN: +MR. LEOPOLD: Excuse zo. +HR TEIN: If you vast to leave the +deposition, leave. But you'll be back hece. +MR. IBOPOLD: Excuse ne. It I could juat +nake the recued, instead of Interrupting Dep +please. That'a what ve do protessionally. +There's a recorder bere. I'a certalaly not being +obstructiondst. I's going to make the cecord. +But un're going to act with sone saablance of +professionalism, hopefully, by ail parties in the +coom. That goes to me, that goes to your +co-counsel sitting bebind you and next to you, the +court reporter and everyone else la the room. +Everyone is encieled to that. +Yeu've asked a goration. She answered the +question faily and she's not going to be harassed +because you don't 11ke the ansver. If you want to +LOLLOW 5P - +- 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd, Suite 500-West Palm Beach, FL. 33401... +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +10 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Beering and Tunaripo, lee +Page 87 +MR. TEIN! +Stop engaging an. Make your +speech and then we'll ask the questions. +MR. IBOPOLD: Well, you won't lat na finish +making the objection, so it's difficult to do +that. Bat if you want to follow with an +appropriate question, teel free to do that. +But +we're not going to harass the witness. +MR. TEIN: I disagree with everything +you've sald. Let's ask the questions. Okay? +MR. INOPOLD: Ask an appropriate quention. +MR. TEEN: Aze you going to stop talking? +I. LEOPOLD: I'n going to make - protect +my cidest and sake appropriate objections. But +there's not a question pending right nov. +BY MR. TEIN: +0. +poken to any reporters? +sN. LEOPOLD: Objection, Anked and +anevered. +BY MR. TEIN: +Q. +Has +reporters? +been given money by any +No. +Has yeur son spoken to any reporters? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and +-1655-Paim Beach Lakes Bivd., Suite 500-West Palm-Beach, FL-33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Fage 88 +anaveced. +THE WITNESS: NO. +BY ME. TEIN: +Q- +Ras your non's husband +spoken to any +reportera? +A- +No. +Q- +Has your noo's husband +ceceived any +noesy from reportera? +A. +No. +Are you sure you don't know +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and +answered. +THE WITNESS: I'a positive. +BY VN. SEIN: +I'll try again to refresh your senory. +Okay- +Done is refresh your assory that abe had +been arresced for drugs and was cooperating with +Deractive Recarey againat Kpateis to got herself a better +deal7 +No. I des't know who she in- +Have you spoken to anyone else who's been +at Epatein'a house? +No. +Without telling ne what was said -- I don't +'1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd., Sulte 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401--• + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 24 of 35 +Page 89 +- want to know about any converastions with any lawyers. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +OR0) +Uh-hah. +0- +-- did you or your parents apeak to any +other law firme besides Mc. Hernan and Me. Leopold's Law +11mma7 +A. +No. +0. +Now without telling ee about anything that +wss said, what -- did one just come to mind? +I was thinking about sonothing else. +9- +What wete you thinking about? +Does feadly court natter? +Okay. Witbout telling ne what was said, +who prepared you for today's deposition? +A. +What do you mean prepared? +Did you talk about this deposition, about +what would happen, with anybody? +Tes- +0. +A. +Don"t cell se what was said. +Okay. +Q- +I'm not anking that. I don't want to know +that. +A. +A. +okay. +Whe prepared you for today's deposition? +ME. Lecpold. +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd., Suite 500-West Palm Beach, FL-33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 90 +0- +Anybody elaw? +Nben did you beet with Mr. Leopold to +prepare for today's deposition? +A. +This norning. +0. +A. +And how long did that meeting laat? +Until it atarted. +9. +Now you told ne that you provisualy bad +read the police reports in this case? +A- +Yes. +Q- +to the polloe? +A. +Have you read your statement that you gave +0. +Yes, Bir. +And In what form was that statenent? +What do you suan? +Was it in the tom of a pollee report or a +transcript +What's the differenoe? +A tranacript has questices and answars on +it. A police copert is just typed out narrative. +A. +• +it'a a police report. +And when did you read the police report? +A. +A few daya ago. I overread it a few daya +899- +0. +Had you read it before that? +1655 Pair Beach Lakes Bivd., Sulte 500 - West Palm Beach, FL: 33401 - +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Avering and Tanna poin, I0о. +Page 91 +A. +No. +0. +Now you told an - again, I don't want to +know what was said. +A. +Uh-huh- +You told no that you net with Mr. Leopold +this morning to prapare for your deposation, right? +Yes. +0. +What did you set up that nesting with +NE. Leopold to take place this saining? +Goa, Ilke, Ilke fire days ago, tour days +ago. +9. +Bo you're aware that Mr. Leopold told un +that he could not atart the deposition thie norning +because be had a court appaarance, Correct? +MR. IBOPOLD: Don't anaver that question. +Celia for attorney/olient comminicatless. +BY MR. TEIN: +Rave you seen the letter that Mr. Seopold +wrote to un stating that ho -- an e-nall that Mr. Ieopold +wrote to Mr. Goldberger stating that he could not be bere +this morning because he had a court appearance? +Pid you +see that e-mail? +MA. LEOPOLD: You can anave: that question. +TAS WITNESS: +HO- +Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 551.682.1771 +1655 Palm Beach-Lakes Bivd., Suite 500-West Paim-Beach, FL-33401-m +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +1B +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ansor & Associates +haponing and Tressertin, des +Page 92 +BY MR, TEIN: +0. +Have you listened to your tape-recorded +statezest to the police? +Yes. +Where did you listen to that? +In, I think, this building. I don't know. +It was here. +9. +When did you liacen to that atatenent? +This morning. +And who was present when you listened to +that statement? +Mr. Leopold -- and I forget your name. +MR. GOLDBERGER: Ms. Belohlavek. +THE WITNESS: Ma. Beloniarek. +sT M3. TEIN: +And you badh't listened to your statenent +before that, correct? +A. +ls, air. +lave you net with lawyere representing +anyone else suing Epstein? +No. 81F. +How nany times have you spoken to officers +with the Pale Beach Police Departnent? +A. +More then I like can count. It's been +angoing for four years, so quite a fer times- +1655 Palm Beach-Lakes-Bivd, Suite 500 - West-Palm Beach, FL-33401~.. + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 25 of 35 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +sing and Trippiplas, las +Page 93 +When was the last time you apoke with +officers of the Fain Beach Police Departeent? +A. +A while ago. I'd say a year ago. +0- +а уваг #90? +Yeah. Maybe a yeas and a half. +Do you renember Detective Recarey? +Do you resenber +Pagan? +Tes. +How many tires have you spoken to Detective +Pagan? +She was the only one I spoke to about this +until for some zeason she wann't on the case anyaorewhen wis that? +The first seating I avur had was with her +and then I think Iike I net with her 1ibe 10 tines or 12 +tines or gorething Iike that, and then I didn't get -- +another investigator queationed se after that. +0. +And who was that? +A. I don't rescribes. +And what type of questions did they ask +you? +A- +Q. +The sane. +The name queations all over again? +1655 Palm Beach Cakes Bivd., Sute 500 = West Paim Beach, FL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ansor & Associates +Page 94 +Basically. +How many taped statements have you given to +the police? +0. +One that I know of. +Just the one with Detective Pagan? +À. +Yes, 51г. +How about to the FBI? Did you give any +statesents to then? +No. Hell, actually, I don't really +saember if that war taped or not, to be honest with you. +I had one beeting with than at my house and don't know if +It was taped. +You were intervieved at +houset +No. +That was by the lawyer. +by the lawyer? +2- +th-bah. +with the FBI take place? +here did the conmernation that you had +A. +at my father's realdence. +Which 1s where? +Cin +2- +in Loxabatchee. +Q. +And when did that take place? +Pt. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 +'1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bld., Suiter 500= West: PalmBeach, FL-33401- +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 95 +A. +I'd have to say Ilke a yvar and a half ago. +• year ago. Ie vas a Long time ago. +(Discusaion beld off the recoed.) +MA. ZEIN: 3e11 ne the last answer, please. +(Thereupon, a portios of the record was cuad +by the reporter-? +ВУ МИ. ЗВІЯ: +you at your father's house? +And who was present when the FBI spoke to +My ateppotber ves there, but she wasn't +around. She made berself like do other thinga. +And how zany FBI agents were there? +A- +I think four. +And you don't rementer any of their narea? +No, sir. +And were there any lanyura there? +A- +Not that I know of. +And none of then gave you thele call phone +numbera7 +A- +No. +0- +a year and a half ago? +It was a while ago. +And the last tine you spoke to the FBI was +MR. ISOPOLD: Objection. Aaked and +anavered. +Pt 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 +'1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd, Suite 500 - West Paim Beach, FL 33401- +9 +10 +11 +12 +'13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +onsor & Associates +Page 96 +BY MR. TEIN: +0- +And the last tino you spobe to the federal +prosacater's office vas when? +I don't know. +'Did asy of the FBI apenta tell you that +• VIllatons had apoken with Mr. Leopold? +A. +No. +Q- +Did any of the TBI agents tell you that +Villafona had spoken with Mr. Bernan? +л. +NO. +Did any FBI agents tell you that Jett +Slonas spoke with Mr. Keenan. +A. +No. +Did any FBi agents tell you that Jett +Sloman apoke with Mr. Leopold? +A- +No. +Do you know whether any of the federal +prosecutore allowed Mr. Herman to review a dratt +indictaent? +A. +I wouldn't know. +0- +Do you know if any al tho federal +prosecutors discussed a draft indictment with Nr. Herman?. +I moaldn't know. +Have you ever e-mailed with any FBI agont +or any federal prosecutor? +Pt. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 +1655 Palm Beach Laker Bvd, "Sulter 500 - West Palm Beach, FL-33401-- + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 26 of 35 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Fage 97 +Have you ever coxt sassaged with asy FBI +agent or any federal prosecutor? +No- +Has the FBI told you about other teatimony? +No. +Has the lEd told you about what other girls +have said? +Have federal prosecutors told you what +other girls have said? +No- +Do yau have any way of getting in touch +with the FBI if you wasted to get in touch with then? +NO. +0- +How about your parents? +to get in touch with the FBI? +A. +I don't know. +Q. And by your pareata, I'm referring to both +sets, okay? +• +Well, I'a referring to only my dad, +because ay nos really doesn't care to know asy of thia +stuft. +So the anaver would be the susu for your +non and +1655 Palm Beach Cakes Bivd,, Sube 500 = West Paim Beach, FL-33401" +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ansor & Associates +Page 98 +Yeah. +9. +Deariz about this case? +Have you spoken to a lawyer named Bust +No. +Do you know who Bart Ocariz 187 +Let's see if I can retreah your memory- +Does it refresh your senory that he's a good friend of +villatona'a boytriend? +I don't know who +Villafona isvillafona is the lead federni +prosecutor that's on the federal part of this case. +Okay? +No. +13 che 9000 88e0 98 +So does it refresh your renosy that Ocariz +Villafona's boyfriend? +Not at all. +0. +Does it refresh your nesory that villafera +tried to get Epstein to pay for beariz to represent yo= +in the tederal case? +No. +0. +Do you know it Detective Recaroy has spoien +with your father? +A. +No. +Do you know It Detective Recarey has spoken +to your stepmother? +Ph. 561.662.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 +-1655 Pelm Beach Lakes Bivd.; Suite 500-West Palm Boach; F-33401-. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +onsor & Associates +Page 99 +3. +No. +How about with +A. Tes, I would koen; and no, +she did not. +Q. Let's put up - let no ask you zone +questione about the photo that you had posted on your +Myspace page before you erased it last week. +Okayt +A. +okay- +MR. TEIN: Do you mind if ve close the door +• second, picase. +MR. LEOPOLD: Exhibit mahur, pluase. +MR. TEIN: Put up 29-005- +Hold on a second. +MR. LEDFOLD: Don't say anything. Shu vas +talking to her counsel. +M. TEIN: Put up 25-006. +MR. LROPOLD: Is that 005 right there? +BY MR. TBIN: +Q- +Who took this photo of you in a darehouse, +sizulating being gang-raped by a bunch of -- +MA. LEOPOLD: Objection. Mischacacterizes +the photograph, and lack of foundation and +Fully explain if you need to. +THE WITNESS: I WIll. +w1655-Palm Beach-Lakes Bhd, Suite 500-West Palm-Beach-FL-33401-. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Hopening and Tuneripal, dea +Page 100 +Firat off, this is not a warehouse. +This +is in +garage. +Second of all, I'm not being gang-taped. +Everyone has their clothing on. +Thiedly, If you'd look at all the other +pictures in that album, I'n deinking -- what's +when you're sick you drink 1e7 +BY MR. TEIN: +You can't ask questices of your counsel. +All right. I'm drinking like Sprite. I'= +not drinking any kind of alcohol, if you would look at my +other pictures in that albun. +You guys picked the possibly worst pictures +out of there to present. And le was Just a goofy +picture. All of these ilde like to be goofy. And that's +what ve were doing. +Who's the nan on the left of the picture +holding his - holding a beer bottle as if Lt wece a +penda towarda your mouch? +A- +9- +Who's the man behind you, right up towards +your backside, with you bent 00ex? +A. +That one? +The right aide. +kissing with his south. +A- +That's +"1655 Palm'Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500--West Palm-Beach, FL-33401— + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 27 of 35 +ansor & Associates +прогіну на Томерім, Ім. +Nepening and Timscripio, Jen +Page 101 +Page 102 +He's the one grabbing towards the grain +THE WIINESS: +=. on the +far left 1s +A. +0. +And there's three other nen in the photo. +what are their rana? +The one on the left with the hast +A- +That's +(photet 1c)- +0- +3m111ng7 +Yes- +BY KR. BEIN: +of +He's the one whose bead is noat the groin +right? +Yes. +And in the aiddle there's a man sniling. +Who's that? +A. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +R. +Who's the ene kissing -- +Don't interrupt. let her +finiah the record. +She's testifying. +MR. SAIN: I know you don't 1ike thla +picture, zy friend. +MR. IEOPOLD: +The piecuro Is fine. +BT MR. TEIN: +0- +who's the coe with the hat? +MR. LEOPOLD: No. Hold on. Stop. +You have to let the witness finish her +anavor. She was in the procone of explaining and +you cut her oft. +Please finish what you wese saying and then +Counsel can ast you whatever he wishes after that. +THE WITNESS: Okay. Tais guy - +MR. INOPOLD: Just naie it do the record 1* +clear who you're referring to. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +That'= +And who's the one in the red hat, kissing? +1. +That's +(phonatiol . +9. +Let ne stop you for a second. +Are you +done? +A. +Yes, I'm dote. +Who 15 +A. +My sister's Iriend. +Well, she's a mutual +friend, but more my sister"s. +9- +What La her last name? +2- +Spell that. +I don't know how to -- +Have you spoken to hus about this case? +No- +Who's +My sister's felend. I don't really speak +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bld., Sute.500. - West Palm.Beach, FL 33401. +1555. Raim Beach Lakes Bivd., Sulte 500 - Wes: Palm. Beach, FL.33401. +Begeting and These pin/o +Page 103 +Page 104 +to hin at all. +No. +What's his aat nabe? +A. +A. +And have you spoken to +about this +case? +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +No, si=. +Have you spoken to +about this case? +Not 1= detail, but yes- +M9. BELONLAVEK: Are ve referring to +What's her last nase? +h. +I don't know bow to spell it. +9. +Is she the person whose house you went to +on New Tear's this year? +I wasn't at her house on New Tear's. +Where were you when you took the picture of +"Can you say blazed, " that's on your website? +A- +I woulde't know or -- wait. Me vere at a +birthday party for some girl'• 16ch birthday. +0. +Wero you drinking at that party? +A. No. There was no alcohol or arything +THE WITNESS: Yen. +MR. TEIN: Yes. +M3. BELOHLAVER: Okay. +BY MR. TEIN: +about this case? +A- +9- +A- +0- +A. +Do you hare a friend nared +I do not have a friend naner +From freatman year? +No. +How about +No. +Have you spoken to +about this case? +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +there- +9. +What does "blaze" mean to you? +It's 1ike - I5 just means like messed up. +But we vezen't, 1f you look at the picture. +0. +Messed up Iike drank, right? +Sure- +Who's +A giel I know, like from 1iko two years +ago. +Pr. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 +1655.Palm Beach Lakes Elvd.,.Suite 500 - West Pair_Beach, FL.33401. +She's the one you wure supposed to be +staying with when you went drinking with +A. +NO. +What's +Last nase? +Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.582.1771 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd., Sute 500 - West Palm Beach, FL. 33401.. + + +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +15 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Reparing and Tressigio, Is. +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 28 of 35 +ensor & Associates +Reposing and Tansripion, ins +Page 105 +A. +Where does she live? +I don't know. +In +Palm. +A- +Uh-huh. +I'm queasing- +Do you know ber phone nunber? +No, I do not. +Let's look at 25-010. +Ben, I'n drinking -- +I'm not asking you about what you're +deinking. +Who are the men in thia photo who are +pretending to gang up on you and stab you with knives? +Who are they? +A. +and +Are these Scenen? +Are +those? +said the +two stabbing with knives. +don't know. +That's +0- +Are these firemen? +A- +No. They"re all co -- except +they'le all on full rights for football. +0- +Go to 025-015. +MR. LEOFOLD: 025 dash? +MR. TEIN: 015- +why I said that. +...1655. Falm.Beach. Lakes Bivd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +19 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 106 +THE WITNESS, Gosh, that's so long ago. +BY ME. THIN: +9. +Who took the photo of you licking the +penis? +A. +My stepmother. +Whose idea -- that was your steppother's +ides? +It was in Buca di Deppo, where she works +currently, and that was before she worked thece. And we +Just thaught it would be funny. +MA. TSIN: 19-007. Can you enlarge that? +BY 1Q. FEIN: +the cook this photo of you simulating you +having sus with a man? +So're not sinolating having sex, and +it's --. +and the persen who took it was, +I'm pretty +ut I know hin es +I don't know his +Last name. +Go to 19-006, please. +Who took this photo of you simulating sex +with a man? +A. +The sano person. And va'so not simulating +having sex, Nr. -- +Did you post that on the Internet? +1655.Falm Beach Lakes. Bivd., Sulte 500.- West Palm,Besch, FL.33401... +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +19 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 107 +A. +Actually, this is an old Myspace I never +finished and I never like did anything. I Just kind of +nade it and left it. +So the answer is yes, you posted this on +A. +Yup- +0. +Go to 25-016. Who took this photo of you +almolating sen with a wonan? +MR. LOPOLD: Object to the forn of the +question. Argumentacive. +THE WITNESS: First eIf, she's pleroing my +belly button or repiercing It, and I'a pretty sure +it was jans Iike ve put up a canera somewhere and +pul a times on it. Te didn't have anybody cake +11. +BY MR. TEIN: +2. +You posted that oo your Nyspace page? +A. +Yeah. +Go to 25-013. In that a photo of you? +A. +Yep- +9- +Who's in the photo with you? +A. +A- +Tep. +Is this you caning out of the shower? +Ph. 561.582.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 +1655.Palm. Beach Lakes Bivd, Sube 500 - West Balm Beach, FL.33401. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +•Hapering and Treieription, Isi +Page 108 +Tes. +0. +Are you clothed in this pleture? +Yesh. +I have a halter dress on. +Where is that picture taken? +In +house. +Did you post that on the Isternet? +A- +Tea. +All right. +M. TEIN: You can take that dows. +BY MR. TEIN: +Now your boyfriend ia +correct? +A. +Yeah. +You lie about your age in peder to conconl +something sbout your relationship with +ian't that correct? +0. +A. +12 years old, isn't bet +0. +And +s a firefighter with the Fals +Suach Fire Departnent, tight7 +Tup- +Q- +Does the Palm Beach Fire Department know +that your boyfriend 1s dating an underage qiel? +Actually, sister, it's legal. +PH. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 551.682.1771 +...1555. Palm Beach Lakes. Bivd., Suite,500.- West Falm Beach, FL 33401... + + +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Ruparzing anel Thanorivden. Ime +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 29 of 35 +tansor & Associates +.Kepening aud Trasuurtprien, 7o0 +Page 109 +Mel1 -- +Just antwer the question, +THE WITNESS: 3e3- +BY MR. TEIN: +dating an underage girl +(adc)? +Yen. +I net everybody in there. +Did they know your aga? +Tes- +Did you 1se about your age so that the fice +department wouldn't think that +is cosmitting a +crine by having & sexual relationshäp with an underage +gir1? +ма. BELGHENE: poJecebon• +ASsres Cacts +not sn emieence. +BI MRal +Q- +You can anaver the question. +A. +Q- +that +No. +Does the Zale Seach Polico Departnent knou +is having a sexcal celationship with an +anderage gir1? +MR. IDOPOLD: Don's guess. Answer if you +know. +THE NITNEBS: Can you repeat tbe queation? +-1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite, 500.- West Palm Beach, FL.33401. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +2% +25 +Fago 110 +BY MR. FEIN: +Doea the Pala Beach Police Depertment know +that +a senber of the Pale Beach Pire Department. +is having a saxual selationship with an underage girl? +A- +I'a guessing no. +Q- +You lie about your twin sister +don't +you7 +NR. IBOPOLD: Objection. +Argurentative. +BT MX. TEIN: +9. +Doe't you? +No. +I have nuver lied tor or to +You lie sbout the fact that she has a drug +habit, right? +No. +I would nuver aocuse ny sister of +having a drug nabir. +Q. +a deug habit? +Do yeu try to conceal the fact that shu has +MN. LEOPOLD: Objection. +Argurestative. +BY ми. TEIN: +Q. +You can answer the qeation. +No. +ky siater does not have a drag bablt. +You iied whes you weat to thu arack house +in Georgia, dida't you? +HR. LROPOLD: Objection. Argunontatire. +Lack of foundation, lack of pradicato. +_1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd, Sulte 500 - West Palm Beach,_FL 33401. +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Seperting ene Tanavycian, hc +Page 111 +TIE NITNESS: Sevar -- what did yoa aay? +ЗУ МА. ТЕІМ: +You lied when you went to the crack bause +in Georgia, didn't you? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Argumentative. +Lack af foundation, leck of predicate. +BY MR. TETN: +A. +You can asaves the question. +I have never been o a crack house. +Who don't you 11e to? +MR. IBOPOLD: Objection, Aegumacativa. +Don't ansvar the question. +MR. TEIN: Certity It. +....CERTITIED QUESTION +BY MR. TEIN: +Toa dan't Lie to +MR. LEOPOLD: objeet.lon. +answered. +do you? +Asked and +Don': anaver the question- +BY NR. TRIN: +No. You cao anewer that question. +MB. LEDBOLD: No. I Juat told ber not to. +Tou've asked that queation about five -- +MR. TEIS: No, I haven's. +HR. LEDPOLO: Don't anaver the question. +1655 Palm Beach. Lakes Bivd, Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401. +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ánsor & Associates +Sepering and Transcipie, 70 +Page 112 +ма. тети: I'li certify it. +...CERTIPIED QUESTION.... +MR. IEOFOLD: For the resord, you have to +stop interrupcing so bocause she can't take dewn +both of us talking at che sase tise. +BY MR. IEIN: +2. +A. +2. +You tell +he truth, don't you? +Excuse na? +You teli +the truth, don't you? +Wheti it's +y0s. I CelI +the truth. +Who's +drog dealer? +A. +My sister does not have a drug dealor. She +lives in Georgia with ay notber. +Okay- +Who ta the deug dealer who dropped +you and +off at 5:45 a.M., in 2006, alter being oue +all night, +the two of you, uaing druga at Pala Beach +coustry Estates where your father called the poltce? +He'a the drug dealer? +Ho 1s a drug dealer. +Q. +Do you resenber +vas arrastad by the +Pale Beuch Folico Deperteest dnd taken to the Juvenile +Assessnent Center that nomming? +I do cenenber that. +9. +Now botore you nassaged Epstein, you were +.1655 Paim Beach Lakes Blvd., Sute 500 - West Paim Beach, FL 33401 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 30 of 35 +ansor & Associates +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 113 +Involuntarily adnitted into a Juvenile edocational +facility; lan't that right? +Did you say involuntarily? +No. I was willing to go. +I =- duly said +0- +And you went there because you were lying +so much, no one could control you! isn't that corruet? +A. +That's very anpastock- +9. +don't you? +A. +Now you lie to your parenta all the tine. +Incorrect. +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Argusantative- +BY MR. TEIN: +Sorry? +A. +Incorrect. +The day you went to Epstein's house you +lied to your father about wheze you were going: 15n'E +that correct? +A. +Correct. +Q- +You adaitted to the police that you told +your father that you were going shopping, didn't you? +A. +Yes. +0- +A- +And that was a lie, wasn't it? +Yes. +Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.582.1771 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.,. Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 114 +0. +and isn't it true that your father has +accused you of lying? +All the tine- +Didn't your father throw you out of the +house Thankagiving of chia past year because you were +lying so much to him? +A- +Yes, he did klek ze out. No, that's not +the reasons why. +Didn't your father throw your sister +out of the house, too? +And he threw her out of the house the week +aise: Thankagivings, Elgat? +A. +I don't know the data, but sure. +Sounds about right? +A- +And the censon he threw bec out of the +house was because she was lying, too? +MR. LEOPOLD: Obdection. Lack of +toundatian. Callo for speculasion. +BY MR. SEIN: +when your counsel coacbes you, you say it's +correct, right? +A. +I've never been coached. +MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. +1655 Palim Beach Lakes Eivd., Suite 500 - West Palm Egach, FL 33401_ +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 115 +BY MR. TEIN: +0- +Okay. When your counsel that It was there +was lack of foundation, you açcou with your counsel. +right? +I was like saying, "Yeah, let's zove on, " +because there was no point to asking that question. +9- +Your father threw +out of the house +because she was lying, correct? +MA. IBOPOLD: Objection. Lack of +foundation. +Hold on. +Let no just nate the +objection. +Lack of foundation, predicate, calls for +apeculation. +BY MR. ISIN: +A42S8T. +A. +I'n not ay siatar. I don't know. +A. +I want to know what you kaow only. +I don"t know. +You don't know. That's your answer? +Yes- +Now your parants filed the police report +regarding Mr. Epstein, right? +Yes. +0. +How your parents are alao lying, azen't +Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.692.1771 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd,, Sulte 500. - West Paim Besch, FL 33401. +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Sagaring and Tapacripe, Ins +Page 116 +they? +Yes- +MR. LEOPOLD: +Just so the record is clear, +the father -- because the sother was up north. +MR. TEIN: Dan's testify, Counsel. +MA. LEOPOLD: 8o the recoad is clear, Just +the father. The aother was -- +I. TEIN: Cornael, dan't coach and +testify, plesse. That's absolately improper. +MR. LEOPOLD: You just asked the wrang +geestion. +MA. TEIN: You can't coach ber that way and +yoa well know it. +MA: LEOPOLD: For tho record, it's the +father. In's cesarried, I think on hia third +marriage- +MR, TEIN: You cannot -- it*a aboolutely, +totally against the rules and you know it. +MA. LEOPOLD: The natural sotber liven in +Georgialawyer. +KA. TEJNI Toa need to besure yourself, +ER. LEOPOLD: The satural mother lives in +Georgia. The father is here locally. +MR. TEIN: stop coaching. Stop talking. +-1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Sutte 500 - West Palm Beach, Fl. 33401.. +... + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 31 of 35 +Morartien ard Traine sine, Ind +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 117 +You object. +You bow Ele Fules. Tou Jang +lectured ne about the roles, Coursel, So why +don't you play by the rales? Or only when chey +Iit you? Why don't you grandstand a little nore +sive un a tive-minute speech, Mr. Leopold. +MR. I3OPOLD: Are you finiahed, for the +MR. TEIN: I's Bot talking to you. De what +MR. LEOPOLD: Don't say anything yot. +BY MR. TEIN: +LEOPOLD: Hold it. Don't say anything +Tour parenta, who filed the police report +are siso liars. +MR. LEOPOLD: +Don't anaver the question. +de'se not godog to acquis untll I pale the record. +I want to put on the record, sow that Coansel +appears to be finished with his cornente for the +record, that the provious question was +inappropriate, was intentienally adaieading. +Bow yeu can ask the question. +BY HA. TEIN: +-1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West. Palm.Beach, FL 33401.. +2 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 11B +Tout parents, Who 11109 Che. Posica supont +in this case, are also proven lars, aren't they? +ET HR. TEIN: +9. +Aren't your pacents llara? +MR. LEOPOLD: Calis for speculation. tack +of predicate. +MR. TEIN: Stop coaching. You know what +that 1s, Inopold. +NR. LEOPOLD: Calla for specalation. Jack +THE WITNESS. +When you say parents, sy mon +is sot, but asce, yeah, ny dad has been co jail +for lying- +BY MR. TEIN: +Your dad went to federal primon for two +years for lying, right? +Correct. +9. +Did he tell you it vas for a financial +fraud? +Yos. +0- +Fos stealing money fron sose financial +SRSELEELCEE +CorreCt. +And do you think your tather la teying to +-1655-Palm-Boach Lakes Blvd., Suite.500.- West Palm.Beach, FL.33401. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +15 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Жареніне цні Тостімт, Зна +Page 119 +ateal your lawault noney away from you? +Don't look to your lawyer for the snewer. +MR. IOPOLD: You can answer if you know +the snaver to it. I have no ides. +THE NITNESS: Teah. +BY NR. TEIN: +And your father flled a lawsult, the firat +lawsuit fo: fitty aillion dollars againat ME. Epatein +lebout consulting you, correct? +Correct. +And your father had a lawyer file the firat +lavault on your bebalf for fifty nillion dollars against +Mr. patein without your knowledge, correct? +A. +Correct. +and you don't trust your lather, de you? +A. +Borell +And you beliere he'a trydng to manipulate +you tor bis ous gain, don't you? +Sort of. +Well, you know that your notber filed a +statesent, an affidavit, saying that you don't trust your +Lather and that you belleve he's trying to manipulate you +for hin cun çains ian't that correct? +A. +Correct- +You agree with that statement, don't yoa? +Pt. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.582.1771 +'1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm. Beach, FL. 33401. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +16 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ánsor & Associates +Sapine and Tassanien, ino +Page 120 +cb-hah. +Yes- +Do you trust your stepsocher? +A. +My stoppother, no. +Tou think she's alao trying to steal your +Epstein Jawsuit moray away from you, don't yeu? +I would like co clarify something- Tou +keep saying ny Ipatein Lawnuit noney. I don't have any +money, and it's just a Lavault at the noment. Bo I Just +dan's trust her. +Okay. You think that your stapnother ie +trying to take advantage of this lawsult to try to get +manuy tron Ma. Epatein that belongs to you, right? +A. +Tes. +Q. Did your stepnocher tell you way she was +arrested? +No. +9. +aver been arrested? +A. +No. +0. +Did your stepnoches tall you that abo's +Did sho tell you she was arrested for +fraud? +Never . +0. +Howchorne Aviation? +Ко- +bid she tell you that she was ficed from +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Paim Beach, FL 33401- + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 32 of 35 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +1฿ +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +wet and Thanang +Page 121 +bid she tell you chat aho was fired fron +Hawthorne Aviation for stealing? +MR. TEIN: +Det'a take a break. +(Thereupon, a receas was takes-] +BY MR. TEIN: +efore you not Jeffrey Epstein, had +you ever had +A. +Yes. +yeah. +How many t1a0a? +Just a few. Twice- +With how many different men? +Two- +Q- +NOW +they? +belag one year older than es, +and then the other person was two years older than me. +What was his sane? +9. +A. +0- +How old ware you when you firat had sexas? +intercourse? +14- +How many -- before you not Epatein, how +many different man had you had any type of sexual +activity with? +Just those two. +1655 Paim Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Faim. Beach, FL 33401, +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Repaning and Tuneription, Nee +Page 122 +Ate you saying you parer kissed a man other +than those two? +MR. LEOPOLD: Objectlon to the form of the +question. +THE WITNESS: Yes, I had kiased people +before. +ST MA. THIN: +Before you net Ipstein, had you ever had +oral sex? +A. +No. +for something of raice? +A. +Ever is your 11te, have you exchanged sex +MR. TEIN: +He're done. +THE WITNESS! I +okay. +MA. LEOPOLD: +We'll read. +MS. BELCHLAVIK: I don't have any +questions. +thank you. +MR. LEOPOLD: Before we go off the record, +st's ay understanding -- Mr. Goldberger can +correct the secord -- but we have stipulated that +colas copies of the documenta that were Identifled +for identification certainiy will be attached to +the deposition and counsel will be taking the +photographe across street so that they can be +' 1655 Paim Beach Lakes Elvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Bach, FL.33401.... +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +15 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Rapering and Taserpine. in +Page 123 +laser color copded so that we have a copy, and I'n +assuming be'll get a copy to the court reporter. +too. to attach, actusily a certified copy to the +deposition. +MA. GOLCAURGER: Done. +MA. LEOPOLD: That's If you agree to that. +If not, then I went to pall wach one oat and put +exhibit labels on then, which un abould do before +ve leave. +AN. GOLDENGER: No're not poing to do +either. I'11 have copies sent to the court +reporter and she can attach chea to the +depositian. +MR. TOROSD: So you'su set going to agree +to what we talked about during the break then. +MR. GOLDBERGER: I's sot quite auce what +your asking ze to do. Let ne finish. +MR. LEOPOLD: dkay. Sure. That's fise. +MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay. If you want te to +go over to Is. Bolohlarek's office and nako copies +and then I'1l give those to the court raporter, +tine. All I'e saying 1s that I would avoid that +process. I would send copies to the court +reporter. But 11 it will seke you bappies - +Ma. LEOFOLD: 1'm not? +1655 Paim.Beach Lakes Bivd, Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +฿ +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +15 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 124 +MR. GOLDBENGER: Let ne finiah. +IN. IBOPOLD: 1'a not interrupting now. +MR. GOLDBERGER: But if it will nako you +happier i1 I go over co Ms. Delonlavek's office +asd nake a copy of thoae photos that vere part of +this deposition and then I'll give then to the +court reporter, I'll be happy to do it. +MR. IBOPOLD: I trast you implicitly. +however you with to do it. +Hoverer, the +docusents, before they leave this roo, seed to +have an exhibit aticky on thea with the +appropriate =- +MR. GOLDBENGER: Mant to go got some? He +den"t have any- +MA. LEOPOLD: I will do that. Excuse me. +Let me flaiah the record, please. You can't do +that to the court reporter. She's going to stroke +out. You can't do that. You have to let to =- +MR. TEIN: Fiaiah your sentence, Ted. - You +are the most Jong-winded lawyer I've eve= seen in +ay 1ite. Finish your seatence. +MB. LEOPOLD: Jack, tell him nos to raise +his voice, please. +MR. TEIN: Findeh your sentence. Is there +going to be a paried at the end of the sentence or +1655. Palm Beach Lakes Blvd, Sube 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 33 of 35 +ónsor & Associates +onsor & Associates +se andi Thasesripris, bac. +tg: and Thansrigim, lse +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 125 +la it just gaing to be conna after corna atter +co shead, lawyer. +NN. LECPOLD: A11 Eighe. The eshibits. I +can's prevent you trom taking thom, but I will +object and I will bu bringing It to the coart for +sanctions. You cannot take the exhibits out of +the rout without then being secked. I wast then +marked, because you cannot identify in the record +what was used. Jod with all due respect to +ME. Goldberger, I de not -- the way this +deposition ia going. I do not want to rely on +Counael Iron Miani to nack the appropriste +#hihits. I w1l1 pot do that. I cancot prevens +you from taking chea. Mat if you do, I will be +bringing the natter to the coart with appropriate +sanctions, because that 1a isproper. Thar 1s +laproper. Nhen you use sonething in a depoaltion, +they are to be narked. Aed you hare refused to do +that throughout for what eve= reason. +MR. TKIN: Tou're weong- Fisiah your +sentence because you re talking about sonething +you bare no Idea. +Every #lagie one is narked, Ted. Every +single one is already norked. But you want to +1655 Paim Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 126 +argoe about everything, Ever single one 1s +alresdy natked. Ien't that silly, Ted? +HM. GOLPEENGER: Thirty yoars of doing thás +and I have never had an argument over this. +MR. TEIN: You've sade -- Ted, you are +obstructienist, you are a liar. You have lied and +misrepzosented things, tor the record. Yeu are +grandecandieg- +MR. IEOPOLDI You seed to back up- +Mu. TBIM: No, no. I'm geing to finish. +ME. LEOPOLD: Tou can finiah, but don't +потог отег пе. +HR. IEIN: Mo one 1s horering over you. +Stop teying to nake a lying recond. +Let se say susething elen. +Don': you dare threaten ne with sanations. +atter you lled in a letter to ay co-counsel about +the fact -- be gudet. Be gulet and let ne finish. +Yos Lied in a lueter to my co-counsel, +Mr. Leopold, in which you sald -- it vas a +ebaplete and utter Ile - that you were +unavailable this aorning becsuse you had a +hearing. +That was a Ila. I have cever seen a +Lawyer deign to do sonething like that. +so you will get the ex +- bu quiet. tet ne +Ph. 561.582.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 +-1655. Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.,, Sulbe 500 - West Paim Beach, FL 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +ánsor & Associates +Wagoning and Treespetl o +Page 127 +Tinish. You behare. +HR. IDOPOLD: Don's point your tinger at +HR. TETN: Listen. Se qulot and I won'e +have a need to point it at you. +MR. LEOPCLDI Don': point your finger at - +MR. IBIN: Mr. Ieopold -- +NN. ABÓPOLD: pen't point your tinger at +se. +MR. TEIN: Mr. Ieopold, let ee tinist. +Mi. IBOFOLD: Don't raiae your voloe +elther. +MA. TEIM: Mr. Leopeld -- +MR. IBOPOLD: Jack, do you want to take +care ot thia? +MN. IKTN: Tet no finish sy sentence. Tho +eshibit» are sarked. Wu are walking out of bere- +You are sentone who alarepcesenta the +reccrd. It is abeolutely atrocioas what you do. +That is not how a lawyer should bebave. +This +deposition ia over. You will gut your exhibita, +Mr- Leopold. +MR. GOLDBERGER: I understand whut you' re +saying, Michael, and I understand Ted'a position. +Just so there's -- ve's* going to hare lota +Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.692.1771 +1655 Paim. Besch Lakes. Bivd., Sulte 500 - West Palm Beach, FL. 33401 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Sesin & Associates +Ruparing as Tuascigie. +Tage 128 +of issoee in this case. Me're going to bare lota +of reasons to dinajree. +I'a going to take it over sov and I'= going +to naie copes and I'm going to çire then to +Ms. Cenaor. If yos vane co go lind sone exhiblt +labels and put tont exhibit labels on it, be ny +guest. But that's what I'm offering to do. +THE MIINESS: Let xo say tvo things, +becasse I an happy to always dissgren, and with +you, I hare no problen, we could always do iE +professionally- I bave not problen- +I want to say twg chings so the secord io +very clear. +siace for whatever reason I have sot been +able to look ae eshibits, because they tave been +refused to have bein ahows to me - +NR. TEIN: That'a a 11e. +HA. IBOPOLD: -- Jack, if you represent +that the docuents have the appropriate exhibit +sumbers or acau identifying markings, 25, 30,000, +whataver they aay be, Liven you can takm chen, nake +copien, send ne a copy, aske auze the court +reporter gets a copy and then send me a bill for +ny copies, that's fine. I dida't know that they +are warked that way beceuse I baven't been able to +1655. Palm. Besch Lakes Blvd. Sutte 500 - West Paim Beachy FL 33401 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 Page 34 of 35 +Reparing and Tratasician, Jes. +opening sed Tenerigin, Is. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 129 +look at thee. +MR. GOLDBERGER: They are barcoded, and tha +minber that we've rade seterence to in tha +duposition coincides with the barcoding. +MA. ISOPOLD: That's fine. Eight by eleven +color laser copies are fine. +MS. BELOELAVER: The State Attorneya Oftice +is not going to charge anybody for color copies I +print out. +MR. LEOBOLD: That's fine. He's going to +take then back to his offloe. +Secondly = and I wil1 be note than happy +to do it. because it sounds like you all know sore +about it than I -- but I'm happy to ges affidavits +from Mr. Fineus, Judge Stern, everybody elee about +what happened with this hearing today, becaune I +know very little about it. But my representations +are what they are. +MA. GOLEBERGER: They stay - +MR. LEOPOLD: Let an just finiah for the +record. +My supresentations or cossents about what +happened, represestation about this bearing thia +morning, I know very decle about it- +MR. GOLDBERGER: +I'll cake your word on +1655. Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL. 33401 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 130 +MR. LEOPOLD: No, no, no. I Just put it on +the record. I will get as affidavit - I'm +assuming it sounds like you peed it -- from Ne. +Fincus. I have so clue about what happesed and +why it was canceled. All I vas told whea I was +out of town yesterday win that the bearing this +morning was cancelled. +MR. GOLDBERGER: I'1] take your word for +it- +MR. LEOPOGD: If you want an affidavit, +1'11 get le toe you. +KA. COLDERGAR: It's a personal inade for +=* because I had to disrupt a vacation and if i= +was done Just because it wasn't convenient for +you, theo I'e offended by that. But it you're +telling me that It was planned and it didn't +happen, I'll take your word tos It. +MR. INOPOLD I sa more than happy to get +you as aftidarit, because I don't know the season +why it was canceled other than the fact that I'= +assuming since ay deposition was taken toe four +hours es Monday tor preparation for the heariag +today, tor whacever resson it was canceled, I sa +told it is being re-noticed. Nhy it was canceled, +1655 Palm. Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Paim Beach, FL. 33401 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 131 +I have so idea, but if your co-counsel wishes an +affidarit to that effect tron Mr. Pincus, I'm more +than happy to get it. But I don't know the reason +why it was canceled. +MR, TEIN: I don't seed it. But what I de +take issue with le rogardless of why it was +canceled, you oved as the courtesy of saying. You +know what? We can start saeller thin morning. +Ma. ISOPOLD: I ove you nothing. +MA. TEIN: I don't care. Don't interrupt +ne. +because of you. +Because Jack canceled his vacacion plana +MR. GOLDBERGER: That's all right, that's +all right. +MR. THIN: Aad you're selfish. And this +deposition ia over. Good-by Mr. Lecpold. +AX. GOLDBERGER: You can go oft the record. +Page 132 +CERTIFICATE +The State of Florida, +County of Pain Beach. +I hereby certify that I have read the +toregoing deposition by ne given, and that the statements +contained herein are trae and correct to the beat of my +knowledge and belial, with the exception of any +corrections or notationa nade on the errata sheet, if one +was executed. +Dated this _ +_day of. +2008. +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Sute 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd., Sute 500 - West Palm Beach, FL. 33401 + + +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Hopening sad Transcripe, es +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2008 + +1 Корти най Такорія, Кас. +Page 133 +DATE: February 25, 2005 +Office of the State Attorney +401 N. Dixie Nigway +west Pain Beach, Florida 33401 +IN BE: +STATE OF FLORIDA - Y- JEFFREY EPOTEIN +2006 CFC9454AXX +Please take cotice that on vednesday. the +20th of Februssy, 2008, you gave your deposition in the +above-referred natter- +At that time, you did not walte +signature. +Ie 1s now necessary that you sign your +deposition. +Please call oar office at the below-listed +number to schedale an appointzent between the hours of +9:00 d.g. and 4:30 p.M., Monday through friday. +It you do not zead and sign the deposition +within a reasonable time, the original, which has already +bees ferwarded to the ordering attorney, say be filed +with the Clerk of the Court. +If you wish to waive your +signature, sign your naze in the blank at the botton of +this letter and return it to us. +Very truly yours, +Judith F. Consor, FFR +Consor 4 Associates Reporting and Transcription +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, +Suite 500 +West Pain Beach, Florida 33401 +I do hereby waive my aignature: +oc via transcript: +JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ- +LAMA BELOHLAVER, ESQ. +MICHAEL I. TEIN, 830- +THEODORE I. LEOPOLD, EBQ. +file copy +Pt. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1773 +1655. Palm Beach Lakes Bivd., Sulte 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Page 134 +ERRATA +IN RE: +STATE-V-JEFFHEY EPSTEIN +DEPOSITION OF: +2008 +SHEEI +TAKEN: February 20th, +ENGE * +DO NOT WRITE ON TRANSCRIPT - ENTER CHAMIRS HERE +LINE E +CHANGE +REASON +19 +20 +21 +Please forvard the original signed errata sheet to this +office so that coples may be diatributed to all parties. +22 +23 +under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read my +deposition and that it is true and correct subject to any +changes in forn or sebasance entered bere. +24 +DATE: _ +_ SIGNATURE DE DEPORTHT:, +25 +Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax, 561.682.1771 +1655 Paim Besch Lakes Bivd, Suite 500 - West Paim Beach, FL 33401 +Empaning and Takergio, fee +Page 135 +THE STATE OF FLORIDA,! +COUNTY OF PALM BOACH. J +the undersigned euthority, certify that +personally appeared before no on the 20th +of February, 2008 and wed duly sworn. +WITNESS ay hand and official seal this 25 day +of February, 2008. +Quaith I Conse +Judith F. Consor, FPR +Notary Publie - State of Plarida +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Ensor & Arsociates +Page 136 +CERTITICATE +The State Of Florida, ) +County of Pals Bauch. +I, Jodith I. Canaos, Court Reporter and Notary +Pabllo in and for the State of Florida at Large, Se +bereby certify that I was suthorized to and did +stenographically report the depealtion of +that a review of the transeript was requested, and that +the toregoing peges, sunbered Icon 1 to 131, +Inclusite, +are a true and correct transcription of my atenographic +notes of sald deposition. +I farther certify that said deposition was +taken at the tise and place hereinabove set forth and +that the taking of said deposition was consenced and +complated as bereinabove set out. +I further cartity that I an not an attorney or +counsel of any of the parties, doc an I a relative or +employee of any attorney or counsel of party conected +with the action, not an I Financially incerested in the +action. +The foregoing certification of this transeript +does not apply to any reproduction of the sage by any +seana unless under the direct costrol and/or direction of +the cortifying reporter. +DATED this 25 day of Tebruary. +Quarth I Consore +Jadith P. Consor, Court Repor +Florida Professional Seporter +Ph. 561.582.0905 - Fax. 561.582.1771 +1685 Palm Beach Lales Bld, Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd, Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb30c4c53c291d4a566c3b4a98ff34947e8c41d8bb673ac0daa66d829f4e2336.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb30c4c53c291d4a566c3b4a98ff34947e8c41d8bb673ac0daa66d829f4e2336.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..864067232bc3adb4ec1d79012c1aa742e7cc8ef2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb30c4c53c291d4a566c3b4a98ff34947e8c41d8bb673ac0daa66d829f4e2336.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -5631, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cb30c4c53c291d4a566c3b4a98ff34947e8c41d8bb673ac0daa66d829f4e2336", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 45, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "1526a2eaba8c45c17c6b29c125d258e0a9719536a5a9c39a22e623e867e69975", + "output_sha256": "48ddc90f118c04217ae094d868eaeadc5f1edd4503951e9b540b057d363a83aa", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb32cb47cd2edfb8323bcc67146f7ac03760ee008c5fbd0fab9fa60f1c58a0ab.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb32cb47cd2edfb8323bcc67146f7ac03760ee008c5fbd0fab9fa60f1c58a0ab.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4d1de98bf709b5303ac94e847793b11fe9d54885 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb32cb47cd2edfb8323bcc67146f7ac03760ee008c5fbd0fab9fa60f1c58a0ab.md @@ -0,0 +1,94 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-29236:508 080rent 158: 571452008 48 AR$7/14|2998 Page 1 of 2 +U.S. District Court +Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) +CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:08-cv-80736-KAM +Internal Use Only +LRJ +Doe v. United States of America +Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra +Cause: no cause specified +Petitioner +Jane Doe +represented by +Date Filed: 07/07/2008 +Jury Demand: None +Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other +Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant +2028 +Hames +Street +Suite 202 +Hollywood, FL 33020 +954-414-8033 +Fax: 924-1530 +Email: BE@kubickidraper.com +LEAD ATTORNEY +ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED +V. +Respondent +United States of America +represented by Ann +So Sosh Australian A nice +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Fax: 820-877 +Email: +LEAD ATTORNEY +ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED +Dexter Lee +United States Attorney's Office +99 NE 4 Street +Miami, FL 33132 +305-961-9320 +Fax: 530-7139 +Email: dexter.lee@usdoj.gov +LEAD ATTORNEY +ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED +Date Filed +07/07/2008 +# +07/07/2008 +07/07/2008 +07/09/2008 +Docket Text +1 +EMERGENCY PETITION for Victim's Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights +Act 18 USC 3771 against United States of America Filing fee $ 350. Receipt#: +724403, filed by Jane Doe.(rb) (Entered: 07/07/2008) +CERTIFICATE OF EMERGENCY by Jane Doe re _1 Complaint (rb) (Entered: +07/07/2008) +ORDER requiring U.S. Attorney to respond to 1 Complaint filed by Jane Doe by +:00 p.m. on 7/9/08. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 7/7/08. (ir) (Entere +17/07/2008 +NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Dexter Lee on behalf of United States of +America (Lee, Dexter) (Entered: 07/09/2008) + + +Case 9•08 v 8936 58 998 4 9 97142998 Page 2 0f2 +07/09/2008 +07/09/2008 +07/09/2008 +07/10/2008 +07/11/2008 +07/11/2008 +07/11/2008 +6 +7 +8 +2 +Sealed Document. (rb) (Entered: 07/10/2008) +Sealed Document. (rb) (Entered: 07/10/2008) +Sealed Document. (rb) (Entered: 07/10/2008) +ORDER SETTING HEARING: Petitioner's Emergency Petition for Enforcement +of Crime Victim's Rights Act set for 7/11/2008 10:15 AM in West Palm Beach +Division before Judge Kenneth A. Marra. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on +7/10/08. (ir) (Entered: 07/10/2008) +REPLY to Response (under seal) re_1 Complaint/Emergency Petition, and +Objection to Government's Motion for Sealing of Pleadings filed by Jane Doe. +(Is) (Entered: 07/11/2008) +linute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kenneth A. Marra +iscellaneous Hearing held on 7/11/2008. Court will issue order to unse +pleadings. Court Reporter: Official Reporting Service- phone number +305-523-5635 (ir) (Entered: 07/11/2008) +ORDER Denying Motion to Seal re 7 Sealed Document, 6 Sealed Document, 8 +Sealed Document. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 7/11/2008. (Is) +(Entered: 07/14/2008) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb32cb47cd2edfb8323bcc67146f7ac03760ee008c5fbd0fab9fa60f1c58a0ab.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb32cb47cd2edfb8323bcc67146f7ac03760ee008c5fbd0fab9fa60f1c58a0ab.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..157b60cea47b3fe29bd509886675bc31f61d7e7e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb32cb47cd2edfb8323bcc67146f7ac03760ee008c5fbd0fab9fa60f1c58a0ab.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cb32cb47cd2edfb8323bcc67146f7ac03760ee008c5fbd0fab9fa60f1c58a0ab", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c4100e8a71cf9f06d6bbfd6271b10a016ff30baacb2e83c16127fd712b06af55", + "output_sha256": "e0828251b4fb645dfa886dd603d0355240a9387ee912f456db0fca52954ce1ab", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb39b4a0153e1abb71071086a762cb215ac80a2edd4b00b8f9063aa5f000f9c7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb39b4a0153e1abb71071086a762cb215ac80a2edd4b00b8f9063aa5f000f9c7.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a0c4935382ca44e239c0a9cc5a42e79ab0952485 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb39b4a0153e1abb71071086a762cb215ac80a2edd4b00b8f9063aa5f000f9c7.md @@ -0,0 +1,458 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 1 of 17 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119- +MARRA/ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232- +MARRA/ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380- +MARRA/ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381- +MARRA/ + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 2 of 17 +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994- +MARRA/ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993- +MARRA +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 3 of 17 +JANE DOE, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/_ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. II, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469- +MARRA/ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591- +MARRA/ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656- +MARRA/ + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM +Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 4 of 17 +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102's REPLY IN +SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY AND RESPONSE IN +OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL AND/OR IDENTIFY JANE DOE NO. +101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102 IN THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS FOR PURPOSES +OF DISCOVERY +Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 (together, "Plaintiffs"), by and +through their undersigned attorneys, hereby file their Reply in Support of Motion to +Proceed Anonymously and Response in Opposition to Motion to Compel and/or Identify +Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of +Discovery, and, as grounds, state as follows: +1. +Exposure of Plaintiffs to the public disclosure of their identity and the +resultant shame and humiliation accompanying their sexual exploitation is wholly +unnecessary and premature, and may cause further damage. Plaintiffs respectfully assert +that this Court should first decide the threshold issues of retroactivity and calculation of +damages. Plaintiffs, and all other victims of Defendant who have filed an action against +Defendant in federal court, will have to litigate these two following threshold issues +being reviewed by the Court in the C.M.A. action against Defendant (Case No. 08-CV- +80811-MARRA/ +): 1) whether the most recent version of the statute, which +provides for a minimum recovery of $150,000 (instead of the previous minimum of +' Plaintiffs respectfully file this Reply in the consolidated action, as the issue at hand pertains to discovery +issues. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 5 of 17 +$50,000) applies to cases arising from incidents predating the 2006 amendment to the +statute; and 2) whether the applicable minimum amount is recoverable per incident and/or +per count, or per victim. Defendant has attempted to force settlements on any victims as +possible without considering the possibility that the minimum amount recoverable under +18 U.S.C. § 2255 is $150,000 per count and/or per incident. Much of this Court's +caseload will be alleviated once the Court resolves these issues related to the minimum +recovery; at that point, many of Defendant's victims will likely agree to settle for the +minimum statutory damages to which they are entitled, thus obviating Defendant's +specified need to destroy his vietims" anonymity and expose them to further harm and +humiliation. +This Court has discretion to deny Defendant's Motion to Compel and/or +Identify Plaintiffs in Third Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery. See Doe v. +Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 184 (5th Cir. Aug. 10, 1981)' ("Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) vests in the +trial court discretion over litigants' requests for protection from 'annoyance, +embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense' in the discovery process.") +(internal quotation omitted). As more fully discussed in Plaintiffs' Response to +Defendant's Motion to Stay, which is adopted and incorporated herein, Defendant waived +his right to contest liability in actions filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Thus, third +party discovery is relevant only if Plaintiffs seek recovery of damages in excess of the +statutory minimum. Additionally, if and when the parties are ready to proceed with +discovery from non-party sources, the Court can put numerous measures in place to +maximize Plaintiffs' anonymity. At the outset, Defendant can obtain records from +" In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this circuit adopted as +binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down before October 1, 1981. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 6 of 17 +various non-party sources through Plaintiffs' counsel, who can demonstrate and certify +that they have obtained the very records being sought, or through an independent special +, who could be given releases by Plaintiffs to obtain such records on behalf of +Defendant to eliminate any question of authenticity or completeness. If Defendant +nevertheless insists on conducting his own third-party discovery (needlessly increasing +the cost of litigating these actions and causing unnecessary delay), subpoenas seeking +documents from sources such as health care providers or employers should not disclose +the type of action or identify Defendant. Because of the highly-publicized nature of +Defendant's crimes as well as his designation as a sexual offender, the mere mention of +Defendant's name in any subpoena or deposition notice will automatically expose the +subject Plaintiff as one of Defendant's victims and may result in unnecessary public +humiliation. Similarly, records custodian depositions do not require the disclosure of the +nature of the action and/or the identity of the defendant in the action.? +3. +Defendant's only purpose in opposing Plaintiffs' motions is harassment. +Defendant's intentions are clear. He seeks to destroy these young women by outing them +as being among his many victims, a pattern of behavior consistent with his status as a +designated sex offender. Defendant openly admits to his desire to reveal the victims' +names in newspapers so that individuals in their community can come forward to assault +their credibility and tarnish their reputations (and, as a result, their dignity). See +Defendant's Response in Opposition to Motion to Proceed Anonymously (DE# 5) at I 6 +("[O]nce the Plaintiff is identified, other individuals come forward in the discovery phase +with information which often directly contradicts allegations as to the events and +" Depending upon claims of Plaintiffs, certain documents will be relevant. At this point, however, +Plaintiffs do not waive their privilege to prevent the release of each of their names under the doctor-patient +relationship. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 7 of 17 +damages. For instance, witnesses may testify that Plaintiff was paid by others for similar +sexual acts she claims Mr. Epstein forced upon her or that she willingly participated in +certain acts(s) that would negate or lessen her damages"). Each of Defendant's victims +whom undersigned counsel represents continues to experience trauma and humiliation +associated with sexual abuse. See Ellen Bass & Laura +, The Courage to Heal: A +Guide for Women Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse 3 (4th ed. 2008) (*The long-term +effects of child sexual abuse can be so pervasive that it's sometimes hard to pinpoint +exactly how the abuse affected you. It can permeate everything: your sense of self, +intimate relationships, sexuality, parenting, working, even your sanity.")* The U.S. +Supreme Court in Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 597 (1977), discussed the grave +nature of the crimes at issue in the cases against Defendant, stating: +[Rape] is highly reprehensible, both in a moral sense and in its almost total +contempt for the personal integrity and autonomy of the female victim ... Short of +homicide, it is the "ultimate violation of self." +Defendant committed crimes constituting the "ultimate violation of self" against minors. +Because of the disdainful nature of these types of crimes, courts, including the Eleventh +Circuit, "have carved out a limited number of exceptions to the general requirement of +disclosure, which permit plaintiffs to proceed anonymously." Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. +for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 685 (11th Cir. 2001) (internal citation omitted). "The +* Although some Plaintiffs no longer live in the Palm Beach area, this should not undermine Plaintiffs' +need for anonymity. As the Court in Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193, 197 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (internal +citation omitted), points out, "[I]t is now possible to determine whether a given individual is a party to a +lawsuit in federal court anywhere in the country by the simplest of computer searches, to access the docket +sheet of any such case electronically, and ... that entire case files will be accessible over the Internet." +Given the ease with which the public could access court files in these cases, it is reasonable that Plaintiffs' +fears extend beyond ostracism in the Palm Beach community. The Palm Beach Post is available online all +over the world. In addition, many of Plaintiffs' family members remain in the Palm Beach area and remain +unaware of their daughter/granddaughter/niece's involvement in Defendant's sordid child sex exploitation +enterprise. Furthermore, Plaintiffs are exposed to harassment through social networking sites such as +Facebook and MySpace as well as other forms of online harrassment. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 8 of 17 +ultimate test for permitting a plaintiff to proceed anonymously is whether the plaintiff has +a substantial privacy right which outweighs the customary and constitutionally-embedded +presumption of openness in judicial proceedings." Id. (internal quotation and citation +omitted). +Cases regarding sexual assault are the paradigmatic examples of the type +of highly sensitive and personal matter that warrant a grant of anonymity. See Doe No. 2 +v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193, 195-98 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (adult plaintiff, who, many years later, +alleged that he was sexually abused by rabbi at private Jewish school when he was a +child, was entitled to proceed anonymously because he feared retaliation and ostracism +from his community; Doe v. +1. 202 F.R.D. 173, 176 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (sexual assault +victim granted use of pseudonym); Doe v. +105 F. Supp. 2d 40, 44 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) +(victim of assault, molestation, and sexual abuse granted anonymity because victim +otherwise psychologically and emotionally unable to proceed with action); Roe v. Borup, +500 F. Supp. 127, 130 (E.D. Wis. 1980) ("It is beyond argument that [a suit involving +charges of sexual abuse of a child] is a highly sensitive issue"; thus, plaintiffs were +entitled to use fictitious names in prosecuting the suit); see also Doe v. Blue Cross & +Blue Shield United of Wis., 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997) ("[F]ictitious names are +allowed when necessary to protect the privacy of children, rape victims, and other +particularly vulnerable parties or witnesses."). The intensely personal nature of sexual +exploitation creates an unusual case, and, in such a case, the general policy of full +disclosure should give way to a policy of protecting privacy in a very private matter. +This protection is especially necessary when the Court is dealing with young women who +recently were sexually abused as minors. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 9 of 17 +5. +Defendant is using the threat of publicity to attempt to intimidate victims +to cause them not to file suit or to settle their claims for the absolute minimum in order +for them to avoid being held up to public ridicule and hostility. His intention to attack the +victims is at the heart of the protection afforded by numerous rape shield statutes, of +which Defendant and his counsel are surely aware. In 1994, Congress amended the +Federal Rules of Evidence to promote the strong social policy of protecting a victim's +privacy and encouraging victims of crime to come forward. 'The reason for extending +Rule 412 to civil cases is equally obvious. The need to protect alleged victims against +invasions of privacy, potential embarrassment, and unwarranted sexual stereotyping, and +the wish to encourage victims to come forward when they have been sexually molested +do not disappear because the context has shifted from a criminal prosecution to a claim +for damages or injunctive relief." Fed. R. Evid. 412 advisory committee's note. Rule +412 now provides that, in civil trials in federal court involving alleged sexual misconduct, +evidence that the victim engaged in other sexual behavior or evidence offered to prove +any alleged victim's sexual predisposition can be admitted only in unusual circumstances, +none of which apply to Plaintiffs' cases. Fed. R. Evid. 412 (a), (b). "The rule aims to +safeguard the alleged victim against the invasion of privacy, potential embarrassment and +sexual stereotyping that is associated with public disclosure of intimate sexual details and +the infusion of sexual innuendo into the factfinding process. By affording victims +protection in most instances, the rule also encourages victims of sexual misconduct to +institute and to participate in legal proceedings against alleged offenders." Fed. R. Evid. +412 advisory committee's note; see also Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145, 149-50 (1991) +(Rape shield statutes represent the valid legislative determination that victims of rape and + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 10 of 17 +attempted rape "deserve heightened protection against surprise, harassment, and +unnecessary invasions of privacy."); United States v. Elbert, 561 F.3d 771, 776-77 (8th +Cir. 2009) (evidence that child plaintiffs had previously engaged in prostitution was +rightfully excluded in federal sex trafficking suit); Stephens v. +, 13 F.3d 998, 1010 +(7th Cir. 1994) (Cummings, C.J., dissenting) ("The Indiana rape shield statute furthers +laudable and pragmatic goals. It protects victims from needless exposure of their sexual +past conduct; [and] ensures that the focus of rape trials remains the guilt or innocence of ' +the accused rather than the sexual history of the complainant."); United States v. Kasto, +584 F.2d 268, 271-72 n.3 (8th Cir. 1978) (*[U]nchastity of a victim has no relevance +whatsoever to [the victim's] credibility as a witness. Such a proposition would +'necessarily imply the absurd (corollary) that the extramarital sexual history of a female +witness would be admissible to impeach her credibility in any case in which she +testified."") (internal citation omitted). Procedural protections such as the rape shield +statutes reduce the embarrassment and anguish of trial, encouraging victims to report +sexual offenses and offendors. "Without the protection provided by rape shield statutes, +victims may find trial an ordeal not worth enduring." Stephens, 13 F.3d at 1010 +(Cummings, C.J., dissenting) (quoting 124 Cong. Rec. H11944 (1978) (statement of Rep. +Elizabeth Holtzman)); see Fed. R. Evid. 412 advisory committee's note ("Too often in +this country victims of rape are humiliated and harassed when they report and prosecute +the rape... [R]ape trials become inquisitions into the victim's morality, not trials of the +defendant's innocence or guilt ...."). Indeed, "many [victims] find the trial almost as +degrading as the rape itself." Fed. R. Evid. 412 advisory committee's note. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 11 of 17 +6. +In addition, Congress enacted the Child Victims' and Child Witnesses' +Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3509) in an effort to provide protection for victims who, while +minors, were victims of physical abuse, sexual abuse, or sexual exploitation, or who have +witnessed a crime committed upon another. One of the primary protections provided by +the statute is the restriction on the disclosure of the name of, or other information +concerning, the victim. See 18 U.S.C. § 3509(d)(3) (2008). Further, pursuant to 18 +U.S.C. § 3509(d)(2), "[a]ll papers to be filed in court that disclose the name of or any +other information concerning a child shall be filed under seal without necessity of +obtaining a court order." +7. +Indeed, numerous states, including Florida and New York, have enacted +laws to protect the anonymity of sexual assault victims. See Fla. Stat. §$ 794.024, +794.026 (2008); N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 50-b (McKinney 2009). In 1994, the Florida +Legislature passed The Crime Victims Protection Act. The legislative stated purpose for +passage of the Act was "to protect the identity of victims of sexual crimes." Fla. AGO +2003-56, 2003 WL 22971082 (Dec. 15, 2003) ("IT]he Legislature intended to make the +identity of a victim of a sexual crime confidential in a court record or proceeding.") +Under Florida Section 794.024 of the Florida Statutes, court records that identify the +name and/or address of a victim of a sexual crime are presumed to be confidential and +exempt from public access. Id. That statute further imposes criminal and civil liability +for the disclosure or communication of information identifying the victim of a sexual +crime. Fla. AGO 2003-56, 2003 WL 22971082 (citing Fla. Stat. §§ 794.024, 794.026 +(2008)). Similarly, upon approving New York's rape shield law, then Governor Mario +stated, "[S]exual assault victims have unfortunately had to endure a terrible + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 12 of 17 +invasion of their physical privacy. They have a right to expect that this violation will not +be compounded by a further invasion of their privacy." 1991 N.Y. Sess. Laws page nos. +2211-12, quoted in Kolko, 242 F.R.D. at 196 (internal citations omitted). +Finally, Defendant should be estopped from outing his victims. Plaintiffs +attempted to utilize the process established by the Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") +with the reasonable expectation that a specific purpose of the NPA was to allow +Defendant's victims to maintain anonymity, only to be subjected to deliberate and +unreasonable delays and Defendant's failure to engage in meaningful, good faith +settlement discussions. This left Plaintiffs no choice but to file suit. Under these +circumstances, Defendant should be estopped from seeking to lift anonymity. +9. +Many of Defendant's victims are awaiting this Court's decision regarding +whether they will be allowed to proceed anonymously before making the difficult +decision as to whether to pursue their claims against Defendant. All of Defendant's +victims and any future victims of sexual exploitation must know that they can protect +what remains of their personal dignity when appealing to the Federal Courts for justice. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully move this Court to grant Plaintiffs' Motion +to Proceed Anonymously and to deny Defendant's Motion to Compel and/or Identify +Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of +Discovery. +Date: May 29, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. +101 and Jane Doe No. 102 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 13 of 17 +By: +s/Katherine W. Ezell +Robert C. Josefsberg +Fla. Bar No. 040856 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Katherine W. Ezell +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +kezell@podhurst.com +City National Bank Building +25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +Telephone: (305) 358-2800 +Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 14 of 17 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this 29th day of May, 2009, we electronically +filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify +that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on +the attached Service List either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated +by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not +authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. +101 and Jane Doe No. 102 +By: +s/Katherine W. Ezell +Robert C. Josefsberg +Fla. Bar No. 040856 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Katherine W. Ezell +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +kezell@podhurst.com +City National Bank Building +25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +Telephone: (305) 358-2800 +Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 15 of 17 +SERVICE LIST +JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Robert Critton, Esq. +Michael J. Pike, Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman LLP +515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 842-2820 +Fax: (561) 515-3148 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +mpike@bclclaw.com +Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Jack Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 659-8300 +Fax: (561) 835-8691 +jagesq @bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A +250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 202-6360 +Fax: (561) 828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Co-Defendant, +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: (561) 686-6300 +Fax: (561) 383-9456 +jsx@searcylaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 16 of 17 +Adam Horowitz, Esq. +Stuart Mermelstein, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +smermelstein@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Case Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,08-80232, 08-80380, 08- +80381, 08-80993, 08-80994 +Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq. +Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq. +Leopold Kuvin, P.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +Phone: (561) 515-1400 +Fax: (561) 515-1401 +skuvin@leopoldkuvin.com +tleopold@leopoldkuvin.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804 +Richard Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A +2290 10" Ave North, Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Phone: (561) 582-7600 +Fax: (561) 588-8819 +lawyerwillits@aol.com +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811 +Brad +Esq. +Law Office of Brad +& Associates, LLC +2028 +Street, Suite 202 +Hollywood, FL 33020 +Phone: (954) 414-8033 +Fax: (954) 924-1530 +bedwards @ira-law.com +be@bradedwardslaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 +Isidro Manuel +Esq. +Elkins & Boehringer + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 17 of 17 +224 Datura Avenue, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 832-8033 +Fax: (561) 832-7137 +isidrogarcia @ bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb39b4a0153e1abb71071086a762cb215ac80a2edd4b00b8f9063aa5f000f9c7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb39b4a0153e1abb71071086a762cb215ac80a2edd4b00b8f9063aa5f000f9c7.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..50860278b80ae79940e65121c1e50bd46e9b6493 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb39b4a0153e1abb71071086a762cb215ac80a2edd4b00b8f9063aa5f000f9c7.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -370, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cb39b4a0153e1abb71071086a762cb215ac80a2edd4b00b8f9063aa5f000f9c7", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 18, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "e465586a14ed22969eb756161a7be4219cdb5c3657816d4eebdb941428f21d9e", + "output_sha256": "39ec647d6c9e31e79b0f993de0f2b887bf917a2ce8ee499590b50f62db95d5c0", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb3fe14f0946d01edf89a436c6fd498c3f551d74dc7ae9772da5f06638e831de.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb3fe14f0946d01edf89a436c6fd498c3f551d74dc7ae9772da5f06638e831de.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b813f9c26aa9ef04932a002c50295fdb3d5a4cc4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb3fe14f0946d01edf89a436c6fd498c3f551d74dc7ae9772da5f06638e831de.md @@ -0,0 +1,166 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2008 Page 1 of 6 +JANE DOE NO. 2, +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA1 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +CASE NO. 08-80232-CIV-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +CASE NO. 08-80380-CIV-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +CASE NO. 08-80381-CIV-MARRAL +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE & DISCOVERY DEADLINES, +REFERRING CASE TO MEDIATION & REFERRING DISCOVERY MOTIONS TO +UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE + + +Case 9:08-cV-80380-KAM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2008 Page 2 of 6 +THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon receipt of the parties' joint scheduling report. +It is thereupon, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: +Trial Date & Location +1. This case is set for trial on the two-week calendar commencing Monday, January 25, +2010. Counsel for all parties shall appear at a calendar call commencing at 10:00 o'clock A.M. on +Friday, January 22, 2010. Unless instructed otherwise by subsequent order, the trial and all other +proceedings in this case shall be conducted at the U.S. Courthouse, 701 Clematis Street, Courtroom +4, Third Floor, West Palm Beach, Florida. +Motion Practice +2. Every motion filed in this case will be accompanied by one proposed original order +granting the motion. The order will contain an up-to-date service list of all attorneys in the case, +including e-mail addresses. +Pretrial Schedule +3. Pretrial discovery will be conducted in accordance with Local Rules 16.1 and 26.1 and +the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No pretrial conference shall be held in this action, unless the +Court determines, either sua sponte or upon motion and order, that a pretrial conference is +necessary. In setting the following deadlines, the Court has considered the parties" suggested +discovery schedule. Dates and other agreements between the parties not otherwise addressed +herein shall be considered part of this Order. To the extent this Order conflicts with the Local +Rules, this Order supercedes the Local Rules. +Amend Pleadings/Add Parties +-December 1, 2008 +Discovery Cutoff +-August 3, 2009 +Substantive Pretrial Motions +- August 31, 2009 +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2008 Page 3 of 6 +Mediation Cutoff +- 60 days before calendar call +Mandatory Pretrial Stipulation +-Fifteen days before calendar call +Motions in Limine +- Fifteen days before calendar call +Responses to Motions in Limine +- Ten days before calendar call +Jury Instructions +- Five days before calendar call +Proposed Findings & Conclusions +- Five days before calendar call +Voir Dire Questions +- Calendar call +Exhibit List for Court +- First day of Trial +(impeachment excepted) +Witness List for Court +- First day of Trial +(impeachment excepted) +Mandatory Pretrial Stipulation +4. Counsel must meet at least one month prior to the beginning of the trial period to confer +on the preparation of a Pretrial Stipulation in accordance with Local Rule 16.1E. +A Pretrial Stipulation lacking substance will not be accepted. Any party causing a unilateral +pretrial stipulation to be filed will be required to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. +Each attorney and each self-represented party is charged with the duty of complying with this +Order. A motion for continuance shall not stay the requirement for the filing of the Pretrial +Stipulation and, unless an emergency situation arises, or good cause is shown, a motion for +continuance will not be considered unless it is filed at least twenty (20) days prior to the calendar +call. Failure to comply with the time schedule may result in dismissal or other sanctions. +Consent Jurisdiction +5. In light of the benefits offered by a trial before a magistrate judge, e.g., trial on a date +certain as opposed to placement on a trial calendar, the parties are urged to consider this option. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2008 Page 4 of 6 +Therefore, within twenty (20) days of the entry of this order each attorney is ordered to meet with +his or her client and discuss this option. Plaintiff's counsel shall monitor this process. If there is +not unanimity in favor of magistrate jurisdiction, plaintiff's counsel need do nothing further. If, +however, there is unanimity in favor of magistrate jurisdiction, plaintiff's counsel shall execute the +form (which can be retrieved from www.flsd.uscourts.gov) entitled "Notice of Right to Consent to +Disposition of a Civil Case by a United States Magistrate Judge," and forward the original, +executed form to defendants' counsel. After completion by all defendants or their counsel, the +original form should be forwarded to the Clerk of the Court, West Palm Beach Division. +Mediation +6. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Local Rule 16.2, this case is referred +to mediation, to the extent not excluded by Local Rule 16.2.C, as follows: +a. The mediation shall be completed sixty (60) days prior to the scheduled calendar +call; +b. The parties shall, within sixty (60) days hereof, agree upon a mediator and advise +the Clerk's office of their choice, failing which the Clerk will designate a mediator from the list of +certified mediators on a blind random basis; +c. Plaintiff's counsel shall be responsible for coordinating the mediation conference +date and location agreeable to the mediator and all counsel of record; +d. Within five (5) days following the mediation conference, the mediator shall file a +Mediation Report indicating who attended the mediation and the result thereof. +Discovery Referred to Magistrate Judge +7. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Magistrate Rules of the Local Rules of the +Southern District of Florida, the above-captioned cause is referred to United States Magistrate +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2008 Page 5 of 6 +Judge Linnea R. +for appropriate disposition of all pretrial discovery motions, and all +motions that relate directly to these motions, such as motions for extension of time, motions for +reconsideration, motions for sanctions, and motions for mental or physical examinations. This +Order does not refer any motion which requests a continuance or extension of the trial or pretrial +scheduling dates. +Exhibits +8. Exhibits must be pre-marked and exchanged prior to execution of the Pretrial +Stipulation. Each exhibit should be marked with a sticker identifying the case number, exhibit +number, and party offering the exhibit. +Jury Instructions and Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law +9. In cases tried before a jury, each party shall submit joint, stipulated proposed jury +instructions and a joint, stipulated proposed verdict form in hard copy form and on 3.5" diskette. +All requested instructions shall be typed on a separate page, and except for Eleventh Circuit Pattern +instructions, must be supported by citations of authority. Any objections to the proposed +instructions shall be stated clearly and concisely and also shall be supported by citations of +authority. +In cases tried before the Court, each party shall file proposed Findings of Fact & +Conclusions of Law in hard copy form and on 3.5" diskette. Proposed Conclusions of Law must be +supported by citations of authority. +Settlement +10. If a case is settled, counsel are directed to inform the Court promptly at (561) 561-514- +3790 and to submit an appropriate Stipulation for Order of Dismissal, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. +41(a)(1). Such an Order must be filed within ten (10) days of notification to the Court, or prior to +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2008 Page 6 of 6 +the Calendar Call, whichever occurs first. Cases are not removed from the trial calendar unless a +stipulation for dismissal is filed with the Court. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Florida, this 29" day of +September, 2008. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies furnished to: +Magistrate Judge Linnea R. | +All counsel of record +6 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb3fe14f0946d01edf89a436c6fd498c3f551d74dc7ae9772da5f06638e831de.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb3fe14f0946d01edf89a436c6fd498c3f551d74dc7ae9772da5f06638e831de.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..68ac5537c43dee3dd623e86f00accf48afabdacd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb3fe14f0946d01edf89a436c6fd498c3f551d74dc7ae9772da5f06638e831de.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cb3fe14f0946d01edf89a436c6fd498c3f551d74dc7ae9772da5f06638e831de", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4cf6933eb18331a6fd35764237fac31cf9e4e8e56f79fafd72c708f066a8415b", + "output_sha256": "52c3942f42f4f2b12d5d773aedc6a4af7d4aae44945e88561d5251acf8515a8f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb44ec3335a2254391f60d5c84e89365249e4797843db35c0f705b4687791f00.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb44ec3335a2254391f60d5c84e89365249e4797843db35c0f705b4687791f00.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e556f69a278cf4fbff3056ed61b52bf48d03ba96 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb44ec3335a2254391f60d5c84e89365249e4797843db35c0f705b4687791f00.md @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 7-3 Filed 01/21/20 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE +Plaintiff, +-against- +DARREN. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their +capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. +EPSTEIN, et.al +Defendant. +1:20-cv-00484 (JGK) +ORDER FOR ADMISSION +PRO HAC VICE +The motion of +Kevin R. Boyle +, for admission to +practice Pro Hac Vice in the above captioned action is granted. +Applicant has declared that he/she is a member in good standing of the bar(s) of the state(s) of +California and Washington D.C. +_; and that his/her contact information is as follows +(please print): +Applicant's Name: +Kevin R. Boyle +Firm Name: +PANISH SHEA & BOYLE, LLP +Address: +11111 Santa Monica Blvd. Ste 700 +City / State / Zip: +Los Angeles, California 90025 +Telephone / Fax: +310-477-1700/310-477-1699 +Applicant having requested admission Pro Hac Vice to appear for all purposes as counsel for +Plaintiff, Jane Doe +in the above entitled action; +IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Applicant is admitted to practice Pro Hac Vice in the above +captioned case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. All attorneys +appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, including the Rules governing +discipline of attorneys. +Dated: +United States District / Magistrate Judge diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb44ec3335a2254391f60d5c84e89365249e4797843db35c0f705b4687791f00.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb44ec3335a2254391f60d5c84e89365249e4797843db35c0f705b4687791f00.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c63cfc0c6b148ec9679fc15def98dcec503b4900 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb44ec3335a2254391f60d5c84e89365249e4797843db35c0f705b4687791f00.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cb44ec3335a2254391f60d5c84e89365249e4797843db35c0f705b4687791f00", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "7587c2172de6c3db28974c2977756a89ca19a09a0660e00e622fd55171b3ed17", + "output_sha256": "e9b93359115d196c5631148d5b926319a15eceae724371ed0b791772758bfa7d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb46d4ce2a1db0b477ca7cfb185c2845be71c9286e3286da97090e8f13853b75.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb46d4ce2a1db0b477ca7cfb185c2845be71c9286e3286da97090e8f13853b75.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7b9c4726f6ab6f3fef5abdfce782f03cbf0cda3f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb46d4ce2a1db0b477ca7cfb185c2845be71c9286e3286da97090e8f13853b75.md @@ -0,0 +1,129 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 85 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFF'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION +FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH SUBPOENA, AND +MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY +Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, files this Reply Memorandum In Support of +Motion for Protective Order, and to Quash Subpoena, and Motion to Consolidate for Purposes of +Discovery, as follows: +DEFENDANT FAILS TO SET FORTH ANY PREJUDICE +OR CONFUSION THAT WOULD MILITATE AGAINST +CONSOLIDATING THESE CASES FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY +In response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate, Defendant asserts that not all common +issues of fact are present and the parties are not identical. These are not reasons to deny +consolidation, particularly the limited consolidation for purposes of discovery sought here.' Rule +42(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., requires only a common question of law or fact, and there need not be an +identity of parties. Defendant also asserts without support or explanation that "confusion will result +and motions in limine will undoubtedly be filed..." In Ramsay v. Broward County Sheriff's +Office, 303 Fed. Appx. 761, 2008 WL 5237162 (11th Cir. 2008), the Court affirmed the District +' In a case relied upon by Defendant, Kelly v. Kelly, 911 F.Supp. 66 (N.D.N.Y. 1996), the issue was +consolidation for purposes of joint trial, so that case is inapposite here. +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2009 Page 2 of 6 +Court's consolidation of two employment discrimination actions, noting that the party opposing +consolidation "has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion by consolidating the two +actions insofar as she has introduced no evidence establishing confusion or prejudice." Id. at *3 & +n. 5. +The risk of confusion or prejudice is generally more likely to arise when there is +consolidation for purposes of trial, which is not being sought in the present cases at this time. See +Hendrix v. Raybestos - Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492, 1495 (11th Cir. 1985). Here, the common +and overlapping motion practice in these cases attests to the efficiencies to be gained by +consolidating for purposes of discovery. Additionally, these cases are on the same or similar +discovery tracks, so there would be no prejudice or confusion arising from the cases being at +different stages of litigation. See Borough of Olyphant v. PPL Corp., 153 Fed. Appx. 80, 2005 WL +2673489 (3d Cir. 2005) (a case cited by Defendant, the Court noted that it has discretion to deny a +motion to consolidate "if it would cause delay in one of the cases or if one of the cases is further +into discovery than the other case"); see also +Motor Credit Co. v. Chiorazzo, 529 F.Supp. 2d +535, 542 (D.N.J. 2008) (denying consolidation of two actions because discovery was nearly +complete in one while the other was in its preliminary stages). +It is within this Court's broad discretion to consolidate: "[Rule 42(a)] is a codification of a +trial court's inherent managerial power to control disposition of the causes on its docket with +economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.' " Hendrix, 776 F.2d at 1495 +(citation omitted). Given the nature of these cases, the common facts alleged and the common issues +of law, consolidation for purposes of discovery would be in the interests of judicial economy and +efficiency. Defendant fails to set forth anything to the contrary. +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2009 Page 3 of 6 +IS THERE SHOULD BE ONLY ONE DEPOSITION FOR EACH PLAINTIFF +In response to Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order to limit Defendant to a single +deposition of each Plaintiff, Defendant fails to set forth any reason why it needs to take two separate +depositions of each Plaintiff. Defendant asserts that it has the right to take both party depositions +and witness depositions, which Plaintiff does not dispute. Where the same person is both party and +witness in related cases, however, it makes eminent sense that there should be only one deposition of +that person. The Court's authority to grant a protective order in this regard falls squarely within +Rule 26(c), which allows such an order to be issued to protect a party from annoyance, +embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. The unnecessary burden and harassment +that would arise from more than one deposition of a plaintiff/victim in these cases is patent and +obvious, particularly since these cases concern sensitive fact issues of sex with minors. +In opposition to the Motion, Defendant makes a vague reference to "proper preparation", but +fails to articulate how its preparation will be prejudiced or otherwise adversely affected by a single +deposition of each Plaintiff.? To the contrary, separate depositions would create an artificial, +awkward dividing line between which questions are of the deponent as a witness and which are of +the deponent as a party, likely giving rise to unnecessary disputes and motion practice. Given the +common and overlapping facts in these cases, there is no reason why a party witness cannot be +questioned in a single sitting on all facts pertinent to Epstein. A protective order is therefore +warranted in these cases so that each Plaintiff has her deposition taken only once. +Conclusion +Based on the foregoing, and for the reasons set forth in Plaintiff's Motion for Protective +" Defendant offers as a "compromise" to limit each Plaintiff to two depositions. This would not +sufficiently ameliorate the problem and concern raised in the Motion. Defendant fails to proffer any +reason why it is necessary to take two separate depositions of the same witness. +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2009 Page 4 of 6 +Order, Motion to Quash Subpoena, and Motion to Consolidate for purposes of discovery, Plaintiff +respectfully requests an Order (i) consolidating these cases for purposes of discovery; (ii) limiting +the Defendant to a single deposition of each Plaintiff; and (iii) such other and further relief this +Court deems just and proper. +Dated: April 27, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By:_ +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiff +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +- 4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2009 Page 5 of 6 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on April 27 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day +to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices +of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who +are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 5- + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2009 Page 6 of 6 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 6- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb46d4ce2a1db0b477ca7cfb185c2845be71c9286e3286da97090e8f13853b75.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb46d4ce2a1db0b477ca7cfb185c2845be71c9286e3286da97090e8f13853b75.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b3a3fc6420dda2f18afb4b8d390b7ce79804754a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb46d4ce2a1db0b477ca7cfb185c2845be71c9286e3286da97090e8f13853b75.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cb46d4ce2a1db0b477ca7cfb185c2845be71c9286e3286da97090e8f13853b75", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f14de336d7ace007695554202d20c9b08c4b12902a958bb06b28c6895c844832", + "output_sha256": "04516416e482df4839645cbf838c742eace9f52ad1b7aea23ba4a512f75b936d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb4853e2b833f0586cf6709e8bef14b04567d354957297e11bdb335b6cbf7420.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb4853e2b833f0586cf6709e8bef14b04567d354957297e11bdb335b6cbf7420.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a977062e9219f7ba843e66f02c105a5b488a6cab --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb4853e2b833f0586cf6709e8bef14b04567d354957297e11bdb335b6cbf7420.md @@ -0,0 +1,166 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 321 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +DEFENDANT'S RE-NOTICE OF INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION +OF PLAINTIFE, +(08-80811) +Defendant, JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, pursuant to Rule 35, Fed. R. Civ. P., notices +the Plaintiff for an independent/psychological medical examination and states: +An appointment for examination of the Plaintiff has been made with Ryan +|I. M.D. of C.W. +M.D., P.A. at 9:00 a.m. on October 21, 2009 at the law firm of +Burman, Critton, Luttier and Coleman, LLP, located at 303 Banyan Boulevard, Ste. 400, +West Palm Beach, FL, 33401. The Plaintiff is to wear comfortable clothing and bring a +sweater. The examination shall consist of an interview and testing and will likely last +until 5:30 p.m. See infra and Notice of Agreement Relative to IME attached at DE (278) +for scope, time and place of IME. See Exhibits attached as well. +2. +Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed that the IME will take place on +October 21, 2009. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 321 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 2 of 4 +Pursuant to Rule 35, if the psychiatrist performing the examination is +called as a witness, the psychiatrist shall not be identified as one appointed by the Court. +4. +The cost of the examination will be originally borne by the Defendant but +is subject to taxation by the Court upon proper motion. +5. +The interview will be videotaped. +6. +Dr. Halls' specialties and qualifications are attached to the Motion +to Compel the IME at DE (228). The time, place, manner, conditions and scope +of the examination are attached to the Notice of Agreement Relative to the IME +at DE (278). All of the above documents have been provided to the Plaintiff's +counsel and, therefore, sufficient notice has been made. +By: +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is +being served this day on all counsel of record identifed on the following Service List in +the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 22 day of September, 2009 +D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 321 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 3 of 4 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Brad +, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Suite 2218 +ort Lauderdale, FL 3330 +Miami, FL 33160 +'hone: 954-522-3456 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +bedwards@rra-law.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +08-80994 +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +801-585-5202 +2290 10*h Avenue North +801-585-6833 Fax +Suite 404 +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Co-sel for Plaint in Related Case No. +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Isidro M.L, Esq. +| Law Firm, P.A. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +Jack Scarola, Esq. +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack P. +ILL, Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, +08-80469 +P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-686-6300 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 321 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 4 of 4 +jsx@searcylaw.com +iph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ect@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +Miami, FL 33130 +305 358-2800 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases +Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb4853e2b833f0586cf6709e8bef14b04567d354957297e11bdb335b6cbf7420.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb4853e2b833f0586cf6709e8bef14b04567d354957297e11bdb335b6cbf7420.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8f02280784778244995a4ba840e6fc98617e4c66 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb4853e2b833f0586cf6709e8bef14b04567d354957297e11bdb335b6cbf7420.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cb4853e2b833f0586cf6709e8bef14b04567d354957297e11bdb335b6cbf7420", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "6422a0e8819818c2e967e755fea4aa17f79bef107a70da296e2fa7b02a709c30", + "output_sha256": "950e7cf896c6f52135b685402c9e3f0e7ce4c17a12320fcb6386d29751fec7cd", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb617d16f67984d837c0ea84eb001e6e514c11c9d923d718a35d5f4ba37ee666.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb617d16f67984d837c0ea84eb001e6e514c11c9d923d718a35d5f4ba37ee666.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3225308f461ccb176df2e9748f5e0187d0d84459 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb617d16f67984d837c0ea84eb001e6e514c11c9d923d718a35d5f4ba37ee666.md @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 3 +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE +CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE +REMEDIES +CASE NO: +08-80736-Ciy-Marra/ + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-8 +Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 2 of 3 ++ FD-302 (Rev. 10-6-95) +- ] - +FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION +Date of transcription 02/08/2008 +On Thursday, +ssistant United States Attorney +January 37120 v +• we met with +ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (USAO) and Attorney MYESHA K. +VESTAPNA, UNITED STATES +•. UNITED +STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ), CRIMINAL DIVISION. +Also present +at the meeting were Special Agents E. NESBITT KUYRKENDALL and JASON +R. RICHARDS, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. +The meeting was +arranged pursuant to a federal investigation regarding the sexual +exploitation of minors. +During the course of the meeting, W +provided the following additional or clarifying information not +previously documented in earlier FD-302s: +(identified as +entire as and his stants, SARAH and +) would +contact Wo +• to set up appointments for EPSTEIN's massages. +According to Wo +would call and say that EPSTEIN was on +a flight and inquire about scheduling work for +Life was not going well for W +• during the time she was +We was buying and taking drugs, +We said that she stayed on +we explained that she wanted to feel numb. +stopped +attending school at age fifteen. +Her parents were addicted to +crack and cocaine. +• was in the +band, a cheerleader, and a straight "A" student. +played the +trumpet for the school band. +When her parent's drug habits got +bad, things went downhill, +they lost everything. +W +became a dancer the day before her sixteenth +birthday +at +She worked there for six months, +up until the employer found put she was underage. +Later, +worked for +which she did for 6 months. +W +stopped +seeing EPSTEIN during that time. +stated that she brought up to twenty, twenty-five, +or thirty different girls. +• said all of the girls but mayb +ten of them were underage. +Some of the females wiprought for +EPSTEIN were dancers. +W said that EPSTEIN did not care for all +of the girls she brought to him. +• explained that EPSTEIN did +not care for some of the dancers, the older females, and the +females with tattoos. +Investigation on +01/31/2008 +File # 31E-MM-108062 +SA E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall +by +SA Jason R. Richards +a West Palm Beach, Florida +Date dictated 01/31/2008 +This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. Is is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; +it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-8 +Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 3 of 3 +FD-302a (Rev. 10-6-95) +31E-MM-108062 +Continuation of FD-302 of +. On 01/31/2008 +_, Page . +• said that during the massages EPSTEIN would push +further and further regarding the sexual activity. +According to +WI +I EPSTEIN never asked, "is this okay, " he would just see how +far one would let him go. +recalled seeing sculptures of naked women and lots +of pictures of +kids in the library. +stated that everybody thought Epstein was a +neurologist. +W +also stated that +I has twin boys. +=. +..... +" - diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb617d16f67984d837c0ea84eb001e6e514c11c9d923d718a35d5f4ba37ee666.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb617d16f67984d837c0ea84eb001e6e514c11c9d923d718a35d5f4ba37ee666.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3fd55b45d57df0f980a339aff0f032ccfa453b9f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb617d16f67984d837c0ea84eb001e6e514c11c9d923d718a35d5f4ba37ee666.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -45, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cb617d16f67984d837c0ea84eb001e6e514c11c9d923d718a35d5f4ba37ee666", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "eba33d4e1262c07fef4926c19a6efb4bf125c3dc1016fcfd28bff0f61659f611", + "output_sha256": "839c4fbbd1efc6f239601154078db23cb82031242e2879dd3f37ead06b9f0b34", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb7df00eac6a0dc0bf79954632f2eed72eb7dcc6026f9935db47d0b2df4c70cf.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb7df00eac6a0dc0bf79954632f2eed72eb7dcc6026f9935db47d0b2df4c70cf.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7d7816bac1cddfed970b35395ac60ffafc23635c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb7df00eac6a0dc0bf79954632f2eed72eb7dcc6026f9935db47d0b2df4c70cf.md @@ -0,0 +1,106 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA_ +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S UNOPPOSED FIRST MOTION TO AMEND +AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his +undersigned attorneys, moves to amend his affirmative defenses as set forth in the +attached Defendant EPSTEIN's First Amended Answer & Affirmative Defenses to +Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Rule 15(a), +Fed. R.Civ.P. (2009); Loc. Gen. Rules 7.1, 15.1 (S.D. Fla. 2009): +1. Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., a party may amend his pleading "only +with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely +give leave when justice so requires." Plaintiff's counsel has consented in writing to +Defendant's proposed amendments set forth in Exhibit A hereto. Plaintiff's written +consent to the amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit B. +2. It is well settled that leave to amend is liberally granted where, as here, there is +no resulting prejudice. The liberal allowance of pleading amendments is a "recognition +that controversies should be decided on the merits whenever practicable." See +generally, 27A Fed.Proc., Lawyers Ed. §62.273. Generally; freely allowed (2008). "In + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 Page 2 of 4 +the absence of any apparent or declared reason-such as undue delay, bad faith or +dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by +amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of +allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.--the leave sought should, as +the rules require, be 'freely given.'" Foman v. +. 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 +L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). +3. In the instant case, Defendant only amended his affirmative defenses. This is +the first amendment sought by Defendant. Defendant's original Answer and Affirmative +Defenses to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was recently filed with this Court on +April 2, 2009. Recently certain constitutional issues have come to the forefront in other +litigation filed against EPSTEIN based on similar allegations regarding the 18 U.S.C. +§2255 claim and the punitive damages claim. Accordingly, Defendant seeks to add +affirmative defenses directed to those claims. See affirmative defenses in Exhibit A +hereto. +4. There will be no resulting prejudice to Plaintiff should leave to amend be granted. +Defendant has not unduly delayed this matter in seeking the amendments. Defendant +by written correspondence sought Plaintiff's permission to amend. As noted, Plaintiff +agreed in writing to the amendments. See Exhibit B hereto. +5. Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to the amendments sought. Upon this Court +entering the order granting Defendant's motion to amend, he will file and serve the +Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. +Loc. General Rule 15.1 (S.D. Fla. 2009). +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 Page 3 of 4 +WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter an order +granting Defendant's motion to amend. +Rule 7.1 Certification +I hereby certify that Defendant's counsel communicated in writing with Plaintiff's +counsel regarding this motion to amend. Plaintiff's counsel agreed in writing to the +proposed attached amendment (See Exhibit A and B). +Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Attorney for Defendant Epstein +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +maved this day on Me of recept identified go the following Service List in the +manner specified by CM/ECF on this l'day of +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #6 +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +By: +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 Page 4 of 4 +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +- 4- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb7df00eac6a0dc0bf79954632f2eed72eb7dcc6026f9935db47d0b2df4c70cf.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb7df00eac6a0dc0bf79954632f2eed72eb7dcc6026f9935db47d0b2df4c70cf.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..32edd7ca8f820f7b1041431683f69e4bb2d5e734 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb7df00eac6a0dc0bf79954632f2eed72eb7dcc6026f9935db47d0b2df4c70cf.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cb7df00eac6a0dc0bf79954632f2eed72eb7dcc6026f9935db47d0b2df4c70cf", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "555eb66bd3603914242f94a2033e77f0c219b5db308c7b40b60bbcb59d9789fb", + "output_sha256": "1d389a4d60997051bf7f0a4aa98cff914aabc9dd12477b9425f20284ea09f989", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb83d70e561947506a15a57f7636192f5bfdf9138d4740b1bed74f928fd8f793.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb83d70e561947506a15a57f7636192f5bfdf9138d4740b1bed74f928fd8f793.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..131dbb8c9b190d6f6f8f015dc7f0bf2ba5b062b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb83d70e561947506a15a57f7636192f5bfdf9138d4740b1bed74f928fd8f793.md @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 12 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 2 +AO 440 (Rev, 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +for the +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiffs) +V. +Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00484 +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their +capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant(s) +) +SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION +To: (Defendant's name and address) +Richard D. Kahn +c/o Bennet ). Moskowitz, attorney +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10002 +A lawsuit has been filed against you. +Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you +are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. CIv +. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 o +the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney, +whose name and address are: Kevin R. Boyle +Robert S. Glassman +Panish Shea & Boyle LLP +11111 Santa Monica, Blvd., Suite 700 +Los Angeles, CA 90025 +If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. +You also must file your answer or motion with the court. +CLERK OF COURT +Date: +Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 12 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 2 +AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2) +Civil Action No. +PROOF OF SERVICE +(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (D) +This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) +was received by me on (date) +• I personally served the summons on the individual at (place) +on (date) +; or +• Ileft the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name) +, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there, +on (date) +, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or +• I served the summons on (name of individual) +designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) +on (date) +; or +, who is +• I returned the summons unexecuted because +• Other (specify): +; or +My fees are $ +for travel and $ +for services, for a total of $ +0.00 +I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. +Date: +Server's signature +Printed name and title +Server's address +Additional information regarding attempted service, etc: diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb83d70e561947506a15a57f7636192f5bfdf9138d4740b1bed74f928fd8f793.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb83d70e561947506a15a57f7636192f5bfdf9138d4740b1bed74f928fd8f793.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..90ac2bc481e3d6b5c19c9d42389c7052c2c64563 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cb83d70e561947506a15a57f7636192f5bfdf9138d4740b1bed74f928fd8f793.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cb83d70e561947506a15a57f7636192f5bfdf9138d4740b1bed74f928fd8f793", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "223aa5d91eeda295d6eafcf6dbf2447d8845784db4b689cc4d0b56926d88612d", + "output_sha256": "fb7a828e28601321759b558a6d755db0954d191817f55cd61ea98d9be579bd0d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cbdbce82dd89a1f79952562bb021740a724cd19b65b41e0c3e1e7f0cde291d27.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cbdbce82dd89a1f79952562bb021740a724cd19b65b41e0c3e1e7f0cde291d27.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7b1ace2f9a4fd6160dd192f0bfd3de4aa2c904cb --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cbdbce82dd89a1f79952562bb021740a724cd19b65b41e0c3e1e7f0cde291d27.md @@ -0,0 +1,1073 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 1 of 41 +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80380-MARRAJ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 2 of 41 +JANE DOE NO. 5, +CASE NO: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 6.: +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80994-MARRAJ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +2 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 3 of 41 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80811-MARRAJ +C.M.A., +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRAJ_ +Vs. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +DOE II, +CASE NO: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/| +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendants. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 4 of 41 +CASE NO: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 09-CV-80656-MARRAI +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +PLAINTIFF, JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTION RESTRAINING +FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF ASSETS, APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO +TAKE CHARGE OF PROPERTY OF EPSTEIN, AND TO POST A $15 MILLION BOND +TO SECURE POTENTIAL JUDGMENT +COMES NOW Plaintiff Jane Doe, by and through undersigned counsel, and +hereby files this Motion for Injunction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64, +for appointment of a receiver to take charge of Epstein's property, and to post a $15 +million bond to secure any potential judgment in this case, for the reasons explained in +the accompanying supporting memorandum. +Plaintiff Jane Doe, by and through her undersigned counsel, files this +memorandum in support of her motion for appointment of a receiver to take charge of +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 5 of 41 +Epstein's property and to post a $15 million bond to secure any potential judgment in +this case. +Epstein is a billionaire who recently has been fraudulently transferring his assets +overseas and elsewhere with the intent to prevent Jane Doe (and possibly numerous +other victims of his sexual abuse) from satisfying any judgment they might obtain +against him. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 guarantees Jane Doe all available +state law pre-judgment remedies to respond to these fraudulent transfers. Florida has +adopted the Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (FUFTA), Fla. Stat. Ann. § 726.101 +et seq., which gives the Court power to appoint a receiver to take charge of assets that +are being fraudulently transferred. Given the serious allegations of sexual abuse against +Jane Doe when she was a minor, this Court should appoint a receiver to control and +account for Epstein's assets and direct the receiver to post a $15 million bond with this +Court on behalf of Epstein to satisfy any judgment that Jane Doe might obtain. +STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS +1. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is the defendant in this action, which involves +claims by Jane Doe that Epstein repeatedly sexually abused her when she was a minor. +Because of the egregious and repeated acts of sexual abuse committed by Epstein, her +complaint seeks damages in excess of $50 million, including punitive damages. +See +Amended Complaint, 112. +2. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is extremely wealthy. According to reputable press +reports in the New York Times and elsewhere, he is a billionaire. He is also the owner +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 6 of 41 +of a Caribbean island in the Virgin Islands (Little St. James Island), where he serves as +a financial advisor to other billionaires. He was previously a financial trader at Bear +Stearns. +It is therefore reasonable to infer that he has a great deal of financial +sophistication. See Affidavit of Paul Cassell at 1| 2 Attachment A to this Pleading. +3. According to reputable press reports, before his recent incarceration +(discussed below), he frequently traveled around the globe in the company of such +famous persons as President Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and Donald Trump. It is +therefore reasonable to infer that he has international contacts, including international +financial contacts. See Affidavit of Paul Cassell at 13. +4. Over the past year, approximately 25 civil suits have been filed in Florida state +courts and Florida federal courts raising similar allegations of sexual abuse by Jeffrey +Epstein against minor girls. These complaints seek damages comparable to those +sought by Jane Doe in this case. See Affidavit of Paul Cassell at 14. Accordingly, +Epstein has currently pending against him lawsuits seeking more than $1 billion in +damages. He thus faces financial ruin. Id. +5. On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein pled guilty to one count of procuring a +person under 18 for prostitution and one count of felony solicitation to prostitution before +the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. +He was sentenced to 18 months in jail. +6. Since those guilty pleas, he has been incarcerated in the Palm Beach County +Detention facility. However, he has also been allowed out on a "work release" program, +where he works at managing his financial interests. Affidavit of Paul Cassell at 15. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 7 of 41 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/. +7. Given the substantial claims against him, his international connections, and +other information, Jane Doe's counsel has been gravely concerned that Epstein will +fraudulently transfer all of his assets to overseas locations to defeat collection of any +judgment that she might obtain against him. Accordingly, as part of discovery in this +case, Jane Doe propounded requests for admissions by Epstein regarding whether he +was fraudulently transferring assets. Rather than answering these requests for +admission about on-going fraudulent transfers of his property, Jeffrey Epstein asserted +his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Affidavit of Paul Cassell at 16. +8. Jeffrey Epstein's net worth is greater than $1 billion. Jane Doe's First +Request for Admissions (RFA's) #5, Attachment B to this Pleading; Epstein's Resp. to +RFA's #5, Attachment C to this Pleading. +9. Since he was incarcerated, Jeffrey Epstein has, directly or indirectly (through +. the services or assistance of other persons) conveyed money and assets in an attempt +to insulate and protect his money and assets from being captures in civil lawsuits filed +against him. Epstein's Resp. to RFAs #6. +10. Epstein owns and controls real estate property in foreign countries, including +the Caribbean. Epstein's Resp. to RFAs #7 and #8. +11. Epstein is currently moving significant financial assets overseas, outside of +the direct territorial reach of federal and Florida courts. Epstein's Resp. to RFA #21. +12. Epstein is transferring these assets with the intent to defeat any judgment +that might be entered against him in this and other similar cases. Epstein's Resp. to +RFA #22. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 8 of 41 +13. Epstein could currently post a $15 million bond to satisfy a judgment in this +case without financial or other difficulty. Epstein's Resp. to RFA #23. +14. Epstein has blocked all discovery, in this and other related cases, regarding +his assets. Affidavit of Paul Cassell at 111l 7, 8. +ARGUMENT +I. EPSTEIN IS FRAUDULENTLY TRANSFERRING HIS ASSETS. +As noted in the material facts above, defendant Epstein is currently making +fraudulent transfers of his assets. In particular, he is currently moving significant +financial assets overseas, outside of the direct territorial reach of Federal and Florida +courts, and is doing so with the specific intent to defeat any judgment that might be +entered against him in this and other similar cases. Statement of Material Facts #11 +and #12. +Because these material facts rest, in part, on Epstein's invocation of his Fifth +Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, it is pertinent to note that Jane Doe is +entitled to an adverse inference from his invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights when +asked whether he was fraudulently transferring his assets overseas. Jane Doe +propounded requests for admission to Epstein that asked specifically about on-going +fraudulent transfers of assets. In response, Epstein asserted his Fifth Amendment right +to refuse to answer incriminating questions. Of course, Epstein's "invocation of his Fifth +Amendment privilege, like the assertion of any privilege, stands in stark opposition to +the otherwise liberal discovery rules, and 'undermine[s] to some degree the trial +system's capacity to ascertain the truth." United States ex rel. DRC, Inc. v. Custer +Battles, LLC, 415 F.Supp.2d 628, 632 (E.D. Va. 2006) (quoting Robert Heidt, The +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 9 of 41 +Conjurer's Circle - The Fifth Amendment Privilege in Civil Cases, 91 YaLe L.J. 1062, +1082 (1982)). As a result, where a witness refuses to testify in a civil case on Fifth +Amendment grounds, the permissible inference is that the witness's testimony, had it +been given, "would not have been favorable to the claim." United States v. A Single +Family Residence, 803 F.2d 625, 629 n.4 (11th Cir. 1986). Of course, the Fifth +Amendment is not violated by such an inference. The concerns animating the Fifth +Amendment right against self-incrimination are not in play "fin a civil suit involving only +private parties" because "no party brings to the battle the awesome powers of the +government, and therefore to permit an adverse inference to be drawn from exercise of +the privilege does not implicate the policy considerations underlying the privilege." +Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S.308, 335 (1976). +An adverse inference is entirely justified in this case. Epstein has remained +silent when asked such straightforward requests for admissions: +• Since being incarcerated you have, directly or indirectly (through the +services or assistance of other persons), conveyed money or assets in an +attempt to insulate or protect your money or assets from being captured in +any civil lawsuits filed against you. RFA's #6. +• You are moving significant financial assets overseas, outside of the direct +territorial reach of the U.S. and Florida Courts. RFA's #21. +• You are making asset transfers with the intent to defeat any judgment that +might be entered against you in this or similar cases. RFA's #22. +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 10 of 41 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON +The silence in the face of these questions speaks far louder than words. As Justice +Brandeis recognized long ago, "Isjilence is often evidence of the most persuasive +character."' Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 319 (1976) (quoting U.S. ex rel. +Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 153-54 (1923)). This is plainly one of those +situations. +In a civil case, drawing an adverse inference is the proper action for a court to +take when a litigant blocks legitimate discovery through exercise of a Fifth Amendment +invocation. "[W]hile there is no doubt that a witness is entitled to assert the privilege in +a civil case, it is also clear that an adverse inference based on a refusal to answer in a +civil case is an appropriate remedy, as it provides some relief for the civil litigant whose +case is unfairly prejudiced by a witness' assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege +without placing the witness in the 'cruel trilemma' of choosing among incrimination, +perjury, or contempt." United States ex rel. DRC, Inc. v. Custer Battles, LLC, 415 +F.Supp.2d 628, 633 (E.D. Va. 2006). The Eleventh Circuit has not hesitated to support +district courts that draw an adverse inference from silence. For example, in United +States v. Two Parcels of Real Property, 92 F.3d 1123, 1129 (11th Cir. 1996), the district +court drew an adverse inference when claimants to real property refused to answer +questions regarding the property. +The Eleventh Circuit affirmed that decision, +explaining that "It]his Court has held ... that the trier of fact may take an adverse +inference against parties to a civil action refusing to testify on Fifth Amendment +grounds. Id. at 1129 (citing United States v. A Single Family Residence, 803 F.2d 625, +629 n.4 (11th Cir. 1986)). Similarly, in Arango v. U.S. Dept. of the Treasury, 115 F.3d +922, 926 (11th Cir. 1997), the Eleventh Circuit explained that "the First Amendment +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 11 of 41 +does not forbid adverse inferences against civil litigants... who assert the privilege +against self-incrimination." +Here an adverse inference is entirely appropriate. In addition to Epstein's refusal +to answer questions, there are strong circumstantial reasons for believing he is hiding +his assets. As explained above, see Statement of Material Facts #1 through #3, +Epstein clearly has the means to hide his assets - he is a sophisticated financial +advisor. And given that the sexual abuse lawsuits brought against Epstein threaten him +with financial ruin - he has a clear motive for hiding his substantial assets. Finally, +Epstein is currently on work release, running his financial affairs from his office - giving +him the clear opportunity to make the necessary arrangements to move his assets to +overseas or other unreachable locations. Thus, there is a "perfect circumstantial +evidence case that [Epstein] ha[s] means, motive, and opportunity" to fraudulently +transfer assets. See United States v. Sparks, 265 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding +probable cause for an arrest based solely on a showing of means, motive, and +opportunity). The fact that this evidence is circumstantial rather than direct proof of the +transfers is irrelevant, because "circumstantial evidence is not less probative than direct +evidence, and, in some cases is even more reliable.'" United States v. Ranum, 96 F.3d +1020, 1026 (7th Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. Hatchett, 31 F.3d 1411, 1421 (7th +Cir. 1994)). +For all these reasons, the Court should conclude that Epstein is fraudulently +transferring assets. +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 12 of 41 +II. +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/, +JANE DOE IS ENTITELD TO THE PROTECTIONS OF THE UNIFORM +FRAUDULENT TRANSFER ACT AS ADOPTED BY FLORIDA +In light of Epstein's fraudulent asset transfers, Jane Doe is entitled to prejudgment remedies to protect her against Epstein's efforts to block her from satisfying +the judgment she is likely to ultimately obtain in this case. Federal Rule of Civil +Procedure 64 guarantees Jane Doe during the course of this suit "all remedies providing +for seizure of person or property for the purpose of securing satisfaction of the judgment +ultimately to be entered in the action" that are "available under the circumstances and in +the manner provided by the law of the state in which the court is held." The Rule goes +on to provide that "'t]he remedies thus available include arrest, attachment, +garnishment, replevin, sequestration, and other corresponding or equivalent remedies, +however designated and regardless of whether by state procedure the remedy is +ancillary to an action or must be obtained by an independent action." This "long-settled +federal law provides] that in all cases in federal court,... state law is incorporated to +determine the availability of prejudgment remedies for the seizure of person or property +to secure satisfaction of the judgment ultimately entered." +v. Cascade Intern., +Inc., 21 F.3d 1520, 1531 (11th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, under this Rule, this Court looks +to Florida law to determine Jane Doe's rights to pre-judgment relief. +To prevent fraudulent transfers of assets before judgment, Florida has adopted +the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 726.101 et seq. Under the +Florida's Uniform Transfer Act (FUFTA), courts are broadly empowered to take action to +block certain "fraudulent transfers" of assets. Jane Doe is accordingly entitled to invoke +the remedies under this Act if Epstein is making "fraudulent transfers" of his assets. +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 13 of 41 +The Act defines a "fraudulent" transfer of assets as one made "[wlith actual intent +to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor." Fla. Stat. Ann. § 726.105(1)(a). +The FUFTA also contains a "quite broad" definition of "transfer." Nationsbank, N.A. V. +Coastal Utilities, Inc., 814 So.2d 1227, 1230 (Fla. Ct. Apps. 2002). It extends to "every +mode, direct or indict, absolute or conditional, voluntary or involuntary, of disposing of or +parting with an asset or an interest in an asset, and includes payment of money, +release, lease, and creation of a lien or other encumbrance." Fla. Stat. Ann. § +726.102(12). This "broad definition includes 'every' mode of disposing of an asset and +does not limit the statute to direct transactions made by the debtor him/herself." +Nationsbank, N.A. v. Coastal Utilities, Inc., 814 So.2d 1230. As noted above, Epstein is +transferring his assets with the intent to defeat any judgment that might be entered +against him in this and other similar cases, see Statement of Material Facts #12, and +therefore is plainly covered by the Act. +The FUFTA extends is protections to "creditors" - such as Jane Doe, who is a +"creditor" of Epstein's within the meaning of the Act. The FUFTA extends its protections +not merely to judgment creditors, but more widely to future creditors who have a "claim," +including a "claim" that has not yet been reduced to judgment. See Fla. Stat. Ann. § +726.102(2) (defining a claim as a "right to payment, whether or not the right is reduced +to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, +undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured."); Fla. Stat. Ann. § (defining +creditor protected by the act as "a person who has a claim"). See generally Freeman v. +First Union Nat. Bank, 865 So.2d 1272, 1277 (Fla. 2004) (noting that the definition of +13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 14 of 41 +claim is "broadly constructed" under the FUFTA). This means that "as is universally +accepted, as well as settled in Florida, a 'claim' under the Act may be maintained even +though contingent and not yet reduced to judgment." Freeman, 865 at 1277 (internal +quotations omitted). In Florida, then, ''tort claimants are as fully protected against +fraudulent transfers as holders of absolute claims." Id. at 1277 (quoting Money v. +Powell, 139 So.2d 702, 703 (Fla. Ct. Apps. 1962). Jane Doe is, of course, a tort +claimant against Epstein. +For all these reasons, Jane is entitled to the full protections of the Florida Uniform +Fraudulent Transfer Act. +III. +UNDER THE UNIFORM FRAUDULENT TRANSFER ACT, JANE DOE IS +ENTITLED TO THE REMEDIES OF APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER +TO TAKE CHARGE OF EPSTEIN'S ASSETS, FILE AN ACCOUNTING +OF THOSE ASSETS WITH THE COURT, AND TO POST A $15 +MILLION BOND +Under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, this Court is given broad powers to +prevent fraudulent transfers of assets. The remedies provided by the Act specifically +include: +1. An injunction against further disposition by the debtor ... of the asset +transferred...; +2. Appointment of a receiver to take charge of the asset transferred or of +other property of the transferee; or +3. Any other relief the circumstances may require. Fla. Stat. Ann. § +726.108(c). +14 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 15 of 41 +Jane Doe seeks one of these specifically provided remedies - namely, +appointment of a receiver to take charge of Epstein's assets. Appointment of a receiver +will serve three important goals: first, if a receiver has control of Epstein's assets, +Epstein's ability to further transfer those assets will be blocked; second, the receiver can +provide an accounting of Epstein's assets, allowing Jane Doe (and the Court) to take +whatever other action may be appropriate; and, third, the receiver can post a bond of +$15 million with the Court so that Jane Doe will have funds to satisfy any judgment that +she might obtain. +The Court should appoint a receiver to account for Epstein's assets. The +appointment of a receiver is directly authorized by the FUFTA. Fla. Stat. Ann. § +726.108(C); see Freeman v. First Union Nat. Bank, 865 So.2d 1272, 1277 (Fla. 2004) +(noting that appointment of a receiver is remedy provided by the FUFTA). A receiver is +the only way to start to block further dissipation of assets - by, first, gaining control over +Epstein's assets and then, second, making an accounting of what assets of Epstein's +remain in this country or are otherwise subject to control by this Court. Given Epstein's +Fifth Amendment invocations and other obstructions regarding any discovery +concerning his assets, see Statement of Material Facts #14, it is currently impossible for +Jane Doe to protect her interests in blocking Epstein's fraudulent transfers. Indeed, one +of the other remedies specifically specified in the Act - "[a]n injunction against further +disposition by the debtor ... of the asset transferred" - is presumably unworkable given +that there is no way to know what assets Epstein possesses, much less where he is +transferring them to. Cf. Special Purpose Accounts Receivable Co-op Corp. v. Prime +One Capital Co., L.L.C., 2007 WL 4482611 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (Marra, J.) (refusing to +15 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 16 of 41 +apply any heightened pleading requirements to UFTA claims "'gliven this lack of access +to information on the part of a plaintiff in a fraudulent transfer case"). Jane Doe +therefore needs a receiver to account for Epstein's assets to the Court. +The receiver should make a report to the Court regarding Epstein's assets so +that Jane Doe can determine what additional further action is required. For example, +Jane Doe might need to take action to set aside various transfers. But even now, it is +clear that the receiver should take one additional step: Once a receiver is appointed +and accounts for Epstein's assets, the receiver should post a $15 million bond on behalf +of Epstein with the Clerk of the Court in order to satisfy any judgment that Jane Doe +might obtain in this case. +A $15 million bond is reasonable. First, given Epstein's tremendous net worth, +he can post a $15 million bond without any financial or other difficulty. See Statement +of Material Facts #13. Second, given the egregious acts of sexual abuse Epstein +committed against Jane Doe (who was a minor at the time) - and the punitive damages +claim present in this case - $15 million is a reasonable bond amount given the nature of +the judgment that Jane Doe is likely to obtain at trial. Jane Doe seeks more than $50 +million damages. See First Amended Complaint, 11 1. Her complaint alleges that Jeffrey +Epstein had a sexual obsession for minor girls. Id. at 1T 10. To satisfy that obsession, +Epstein engaged in an elaborate scheme whereby his assistants recruited minor girls +for the purpose of engaging in prostitution. Id. at fl 11. Her complaint explains that: +Beginning in approximately February 2003 and continuing until +approximately June 2005, the defendant coerced and enticed the +impressionable, vulnerable, and economically deprived then minor [Jane +16 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 17 of 41 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/. +Doe] in order to commit various acts of sexual misconduct against her. +These acts included, but were not limited to, fondling and inappropriate +and illegal sexual touching of the then minor [Jane Doe], sexual +misconduct +and masturbation of Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, in the +presence of the then minor Plaintiff, and encouraging and coercing the +then minor Plaintiff to become involved in prostitution. +Id. at T 18. Jane Doe finally notes that in June 2009, Epstein entered pleas of "guilty" to +various Florida state crimes involving the solicitation of minors for prostitution and the +procurement of minors for the purposes of prostitution, for which Defendant Epstein was +sentenced to 18 months incarceration in Palm Beach County jail to be followed by 12 +months community control (house arrest). Id. at T22. +Jane Doe has propounded various discovery requests regarding these +allegations to Jeffrey Epstein. It is noteworthy that Epstein has asserted a Fifth +Amendment self-incrimination privilege to these requests, rather than provide answers. +For example, Jane Doe has asked Epstein to admit that he committed sexual assault +against Jane Doe when she was minor. Plaintiff's First Request for Admissions to +Defendant Epstein 11. In response, Epstein asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege not +to incriminate himself. +For all these reasons, directing the receiver to post a $15 million bond on behalf +of Epstein is reasonable under the circumstances. +The UFTA "also grants the court equity powers to remedy ... fraud." Invo +Florida, Inc. v. Somerset Venturer, Inc., 751 So.2d 1263, 1267 (Fla. Ct. Apps. 2000). +The FUFTA's provisions are "supplemented]" by "the principles of law and equity." Fla. +Stat. Ann. § 726.111. It is well-settled that "[a]n equitable action requires equitable +relief." Prince v. Tyler, 890 So.2d 246, 251 (Fla. 2004), and "equity will do what ought to +17 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 18 of 41 +be done." Sterling v. Brevard County, 776 So.2d 281, 284 (Fla. Ct. Apps. 2000). The +Court should therefore also exercise its equitable powers to impose the same remedies +that Jane Doe requests. +Of course, in equity, the Court considers the relative positions of the two +claimants. Here, Jane Doe has presented substantial claims of sexual abuse against +her while a minor, while Epstein (who pled guilty to felony charges involving such +conduct) has taken the Fifth Amendment rather than answer questions about his sexual +abuse of Jane Doe. If Jane Doe does not obtain the remedy that she is requesting, +then Epstein may well be able to move all of his assets to unreachable locations, +leaving her with a substantial tort claim and no possible way to satisfy it. On the other +hand, appointing a receiver will not interfere with any legitimate interest of Epstein, +particularly given his phenomenal wealth. +When this Court proceeds in equity, it "will not suffer a wrong to be without a +remedy." Connell v. Mittendorf, 147 So.2d 169, 172 (Fla. Ct. Apps. 1962). This case +cries out for the Court to intercede and take action to avoid allowing a confessed and +wealthy sex offender from concealing his assets and depriving his victims - including +Jane Doe - from satisfying any judgment that they may well obtain against him. A +receiver with control over Epstein's assets is a modest and entirely appropriate step to +take given Epstein's actions. +For the consideration of the Court, a proposed order adopting these remedies is +attached to this pleading. +18 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 19 of 41 +CONCLUSION +WHEREFORE, in view of the fraudulent transfers being made by Jeffrey Epstein +to prevent Jane Doe from satisfying any judgment she might obtain in this case, the +Court should appoint a receiver to take charge of Epstein's property and direct the +receiver to provide the Court with an accounting of Epstein's assets and post a $15 +million bond to secure any potential judgment that Jane Doe might obtain in this case. +DATED this 19" day of June, 2009. +Respectfully Submitted, +s/l +J. +ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER +Las Olas City Centre +401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 522-3456 +Facsimile (954) 527-8663 +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +E-mail: bedwards@rra-law.com +And +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: +801-585-6833 +E-Mail: +cassellp@law.utah.edu +19 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 20 of 41 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 19, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the +manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by +CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to +receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing. +20 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 21 of 41 +SERVICE LIST +Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Isidro Manual +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +iph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@bclclaw.com +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerswillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Adam D. Horowitz +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +William J. Berger +wberger@rra-law.com +21 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 22 of 41 +AFFIDAVIT OF PAUL G. CASSELL, ESQUIRE +1. I, Paul Cassell, have person knowledge of the matters set forth herein. I +am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Utah since 1992. My office is +located at the University of Utah College of Law, where I am a law professor. +Along with other attorneys, I represent plaintiff Jane Doe in this matter. +2. It appears that defendant Jeffrey Epstein is an extremely wealthy +individual. According to reputable press reports, his net worth is in the hundreds +of millions of dollars - if not, indeed, a billion dollars. See, e.g., New York Time, +July 1, 2008, at A2 ("Over the weekend Jeffrey E. Epstein, who after years of +advising billionaires became a billionaire himself, left his estate on Little St. James +Island, with its staff of 70 and its flamingo-stocked lagoon, boarded a private +helicopter and flew to Florida. There, he turned himself in at the Palm Beach +County jail and began serving 18 months for soliciting prostitution."). According +to the Wikipedia entry about Jeffrey Epstein, he is a billionaire and owner of a +private island in the Virgin Island (Little St. James Island), and was a financial +trader at Bear Stearns. He then founded his own financial management firm, J. + +A + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 23 of 41 +Epstein and Col, later called Financial Trust Co., located on his private island in +the U.S. Virgin Island. He reportedly only took billionaire clients. - +3. Other attorneys and I have made repeated efforts to find published +information about defendant Jeffrey Epstein in general and his financial dealings in +particular. The most detailed published source of information about defendant +Jeffrey Epstein that I have been able to locate is an article that was published in +Vanity Fair by Vicky l +Vicky +is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair, a +contributor to CNBC, and a weekly columnist for the London Evening Standard. +The article can be found in the internet at +http://vickyward.com/wordpress/archives/30.1 +4. According to the Vanity Fair article, defendant Jeffrey Epstein became +wealthy by managing the financial assets of other billionaires. He reportedly +limited his clients to those whose net worth was more than $1 billion. Unlike other +fund managers, however, Epstein kept all his deals and clients secret (with one +exception - billionaire Leslie Wexner - who Epstein claims was his mentor). He +has great skills in trading in international currency markets, which helped him +make money for himself and his clients. As a result, it is reasonable to infer that he + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 24 of 41 +has significant financial sophistication, including sophistication about the +international transfer of financial instruments and other assets. +5. According to the Vanity Fair article, defendant Jeffrey Epstein's real +mentor was not Leslie Wexner, but Steven Jude Hoffenberg, who was sent to +federal prison for twenty years for bilking investors out of more than $450 million +in one of the largest Ponzi schemes in American history. Epstein assisted +Hoffenberg with (failed) takeover bids of Pan American World Airways and +Emery Air Freight. +6. According to the Vanity Fair article, before working with Wexner and +Hoffenberg, defendant Jeffrey Epstein worked with Bearn Stearns. He left the firm +very suddenly in 1981 after being questioned by S.E.C. investigators in an insider +trading scandal involving several Italian and Swiss investors. +7. According to the Vanity Fair article, Epstein recently owned (and thus +may still own) a Boeing 727 with a trading room. +8. Vicky | +published a follow-up note to her earlier article in May +2008. It can be found at http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2008/05/vicky- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 25 of 41 +-you.html. According to this note, rumors were circulating (to celebrities +such as Dustin Hoffman, Alec Baldwin, and filmmaker Michael Mailer) that +Epstein was moving all of his considerable assets to Israel. The note also indicated +that, having written the earlier detailed article about Epstein, +was now +frequently viewed as an "expert" on Epstein. +9. According to reputable press reports, Jeffrey Epstein has travelled +internationally with Donald Trump, former President Bill Clinton, and Prince +Andrew. See, e.g., The Daily Mail, Prince Andrew's Billionaire Friend is Accused +of Preying on Girl of 14, Apr. 29, 2007, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article- +451372/Prince-Andrews-billionaire-friend-accused-preying-girl-14.html ("One of +Prince Andrew's closest friends [Jeffrey Epstein] is being investigated by the FBI +for allegedly paying under-age girls for tawdry sexual encounters."). It is therefore +reasonable to infer that he has international contacts, including international +financial contacts. +10. Approximately 25 civil suits have been filed in Florida state courts and +Florida federal courts raising similar allegations against Jeffrey Epstein. These +complaints seek damages comparable to those sought by Jane Doe in this case. +Accordingly, Epstein has currently pending against him lawsuits seeking more than + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 26 of 41 +$1 billion in damages. Even given his great wealth, it appears that the lawsuits +against him could well lead to his financial ruin, unless he is able to conceal his +assets so that the plaintiffs in these cases are unable to reach them. +11. Since his guilty plea in state court, he has been incarcerated in the Palm +Beach County Detention facility. I have been advised, however, that he has +currently been allowed out on a "work release" program, where he works at +managing his financial interests. +12. Because of his overseas contacts, other plaintiff attorneys and I have +been greatly concerned that Epstein might attempt to transfer many of his assets +overseas with the intent to defeat any judgment that might be entered against him. +I have also received reports, that I am attempting to substantiate, that Epstein is +transferring his assets out of the country at this time with the intent to make it +impossible for Jane Doe and other plaintiffs to satisfy any significant judgment that +they might obtain against him. In light of these reports, other attorneys and I have +propounded the requests for admission regarding fraudulent asset transfers +discussed in the pending motion. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 27 of 41 +13. In this case, Epstein has blocked all discovery regarding the current +location of his assets and recent fraudulent transfers of his assets, by asserting a +Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. With other attorneys +working on this case (and related cases), I have wanted to obtain direct, first hand +information regarding Epstein's financial dealings, but have been blocked for +doing so by Epstein. Therefore, I have been forced to rely on reputable press +reports for information about these dealings. +14. In the similar sexual abuse lawsuits filed against Epstein, other plaintiffs +attorneys have advised that Epstein has likewise blocked all discovery regarding +his finances with Fifth Amendment invocations or other interposed obstructions. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Docüment 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 28 of 41 +I swear the foregoing to be truthful under the penalty of perjury. +FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. +PICI +Paul G. Cassell + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 29 of 41 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/ +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT +COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Jane Doe, by and through her undersigned counsel, and files +this her First Request for Admissions to the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and requests said +Defendant admit or deny the following facts, in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil +Procedure: +DEFINITIONS +The term "you" means and refers to the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN. +2. +ADMISSIONS +Your net worth is greater than $10 million. +Your net worth is greater than $50 million. +Your net worth is greater than $100 million. +Your net worth is greater than $500 million. + +B + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 30 of 41 +Your net worth is greater than $1 billion. +6. +Since being incarcerated you have, directly or indirectly (through the services or +assistance of other persons), conveyed money or assets in an attempt to insulate or protect your +money or assets from being captured in any civil lawsuits filed against you. +7. +You own or control, directly or indirectly, real estate property in the Caribbean. +You own or control, directly or indirectly, real estate property in foreign +countries. +9. In the last 2 years you have transferred assets and/or money and/or financial +instruments to countries outside the United States. +10. You have provided financial support to the modeling agency MC2. +11. +You committed sexual assault against Plaintiff, a minor. +12. +You committed battery against Plaintiff. +13. +You digitally penetrated Plaintiff when she was a minor. +14. You offered Plaintiff more money contingent upon her having sex with you or +giving you oral sex. +15. +16. +You intended to harm Plaintiff when you committed these sexual acts against her. +You knew Plaintiff was under the age of 16 when you sexually touched and +fondled her. +17. +You intend to hire investigators to intimidate and harass Plaintiff during this +litigation. +18. +You were engaged in the act of trafficking minors across state or country borders +for the purposes of sex or prostitution between 2000 and the present. +19. +You coerced Plaintiff into being a prostitute and remaining in prostitution. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 31 of 41 +20. +You are guilty of the following offenses against Jane Doe: +A. Procuring a minor for the purpose of prostitution as defined in F.S. 796.03 +B. Battery as defined by Florida Statutes +C. +Sexual Battery +21. +You are moving significant financial assets overseas, outside of the direct +territorial reach of the U.S. and Florida Courts. +22. You are making asset transfers with the intent to defeat any judgment that might +be entered against you in this or similar cases. +23. +You currently have the ability to post a bond of $15 million to satisfy a judgment +in this case without financial or other difficulty. +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has +been provided via United States mail to the following adreses, this 23 day of March, 2009. +Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esquire +Michael J. Pike, Esquire +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP +515 North Flagler Drive +Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +mpike@bclclaw.com +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esquire +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +jagesq@bellsouth.net + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 32 of 41 +Michael R. Tein, Esquire +¡ Tein, P.L. +3059 Grand Avenue +Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 +tein@lewistein.com +Respectfully Submitted, +THE LAW OFFICE OF BRAD +ASSOCIATES, LLC +& +By: +BEeR +Attorney for Plaintiff +Florida Bar No. 542075 +Street +Suite 202 +Hollywood, Florida 33020 +Telephone: +Facsimile: +954-414-8033 +954-924-1530 +E-Mail: +be@bradedwardslaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +Attorney for Plaintif +To Hac Vice +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: +801-585-5202 +Facsimile: +801-585-6833 +E-Mail: +cassellp@law.utah.edu + + +CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 - MARRA/ +JANE DOE, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +- +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S +FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (dated 03/23/09) +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned +attorneys, serves his response to Plaintiff's First Request for Admission, dated March +23, 2009. +1. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified +herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to +this lawsuit and 1 must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +2. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified +herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my + +C + + +•Ease 3:88-C-80 f19-KA5 Bodument 165 Entered On FLSD Bockêt 06/19/2009 Page 34 8 434/031 +Page 2 +attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to +this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +3. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified +herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to +this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +4. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified +herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that i cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to +this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +5. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified +herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to +this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to + + +Page 3 +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +6. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified +herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to +this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +7. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified +herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that | cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to +this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +8. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified +herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that 1 cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to +this lawsuit and i must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States + + +Page 4 +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +9. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified +herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to +this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +10. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified +herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to +this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +11. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified +herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to +this lawsuit and 1 must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would + + +Page 5 +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +12. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified +herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to +this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +13. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified +herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to +this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +14. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified +herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to +this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be + + +Page 6 +15. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified +herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to +this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +16. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified +herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to +this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +17. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified +herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to +this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +18. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified +herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my + + +•a&69!881 men 165 &k&a FL kểt 06/19/2009 Page 39 89999/031 +Page 7 +attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to +this lawsuit and | must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +19. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified +herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to +this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +20. In response to 20 A, B, and C, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional +privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding +this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to +any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and | must accept this advice or risk losing my +Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal +constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed +by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, +would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. +21. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified +herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to +this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to + + +°Easé3:08-68-86ıfŠ-кẤ Bltment 165 £H₴reà 88FFSb-bCk£t 06/19/2009 Page 40 J$ 490/031 +Page 8 +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +22. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified +herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to +this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, | assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +23. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified +herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to +this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +Certificate of Service +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the fgregoing has been sent via U.S. +Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this 18 day of May, 2009. + + +Page 9 +Brad +Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Phone: 954-522-3456 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +bedwards@rra-law.com +Counsel for Plaintiff +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +801-585-5202 +801-585-6833 Fax +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Co-counsel for Plaintiff +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +561-835-8691 Fax +iagesa@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +ROBERT D/ CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bat No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cbdbce82dd89a1f79952562bb021740a724cd19b65b41e0c3e1e7f0cde291d27.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cbdbce82dd89a1f79952562bb021740a724cd19b65b41e0c3e1e7f0cde291d27.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..31b2749025aa978fd4d6af76f0849e405d9a5104 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cbdbce82dd89a1f79952562bb021740a724cd19b65b41e0c3e1e7f0cde291d27.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -2707, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cbdbce82dd89a1f79952562bb021740a724cd19b65b41e0c3e1e7f0cde291d27", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 46, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "3147e401e015d0dc08d39321e5ca4d204bf160271d521734c6233fafb5d4d8a8", + "output_sha256": "7897cb313b4379678fc8f4534d076462a2e2f642d27e005be42893ed2a31285a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc1dff958f9a59339e4b84d6128f17b02652edd6fff3465f37c9fd73dc241f66.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc1dff958f9a59339e4b84d6128f17b02652edd6fff3465f37c9fd73dc241f66.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..de2c80db2a925074d93e8ca3172d6596acf8ca41 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc1dff958f9a59339e4b84d6128f17b02652edd6fff3465f37c9fd73dc241f66.md @@ -0,0 +1,265 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2008 Page 1 of 11 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +/ +MOTION TO SET ASIDE CLERK'S DEFAULT +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c), hereby moves +to set aside the clerk's default entered on June 2, 2008, upon the following +showing of "good cause." +Introduction +The clerk's default was entered prematurely. Service was effected as of +June 2. Accordingly the response is due 20 days later, on or before June 23. See +Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). +The plaintiff, in moving for a clerk's default, implied that service was made +in accordance with either federal or Florida procedure. As discussed below, +however, service was clearly ineffective under the federal and Florida rules of + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2008 Page 2 of 11 +procedure. Accordingly, the only possibility for valid service was service under +New York rules of procedure. Cf. RCP's Lear, LLC v. Taughannock Aviation +Corp., No. 5:07-CV-96, 2008 WL 305103, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2008) +(observing that "[a]s a threshold matter, the court must [first] address the rules +pursuant to which process was served"'). +Service of process was valid under New York's rule for so-called +"substitute-service" (i.e., service in a manner other than delivery in-hand to the +defendant herself or himself), but that statute gives the defendant more time to +respond than do the federal or Florida rules. See id. (acknowledging that Fed. R. +Civ. P. 4(e)(2) has a "'resided therein' requirement," unlike New York's +substituted service statute," NY CPLR 308); NY CPLR 308 (providing that +service is not deemed effected until 10 days after the process-server's affidavit is +filed with the Court). +This is not a motion to quash, or a motion arguing that service was +completely ineffective. To the contrary, we acknowledge that service was effective +under New York procedure, but point out that it was ineffective under Florida and +federal procedure. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) permits service to be +made according to "state law for serving a summons in ... the state ... where +service is made" as an alternative to following the federal service method (i.e., +Rule 4(e)(2)). +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2008 Page 3 of 11 +As shown below, under New York's so-called "substituted-service" rule, +service was effected on June 2, not May 7 (as the plaintiff and the deputy clerk of +court evidently believed). Accordingly, the defendant's response to the complaint +is not due until June 23. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i) (allowing 20 days from +the date of service of process to serve answer).' +Facts and Procedural History +On May 7, 2008, service was delivered at defendant Epstein's house +located at 9 East 71st Street, New York, New York, to Richard Barnett, an +employee. +Mr. Barnett does not reside at that address. See Affidavit of Richard +Barnett (attached as Ex. A). +Upon the plaintiff's motion,' the Clerk of Court entered a clerk's +default on June 2, 2008. [D.E. 7, 8]. +4. +On June 6, the plaintiff filed a motion for judgment upon default." +[D.E.9]. +1 +In this case, the 20th day falls on a Saturday (June 21). The answer is therefore due on +Monday, June 23. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(3) (establishing that when a deadline falls on +Saturday, the "period runs until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday"). +2 +Notably, the plaintiff's attorney never mailed Mr. Epstein a copy of his motion for a +Clerk's entry of default. +The plaintiff's attorney here previously filed an identical action, captioned Jane Doe No. +1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80069-KAM, on behalf of a different plaintiff. That action was +voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff's attorney after a motion to intervene was filed by Jane Doe +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2008 Page 4 of 11 +Overview of Rules for Service of Process +The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize three distinct methods of +service in a diversity action. First, service can be effected in accordance with the +procedures "in the state where the district court is located" (here, Florida). See +Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). Second, service can be effected in accordance with the +procedures "in the state ... where service is made" (here, New York). See Fed. R. +Civ. P. 4(e)(1). Third, service can be effected in accordance with federal +procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (e)(2). Cf. David D. Siegel, Practice Commentary +on Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Commentary C4-22 (observing +that "there is no priority between the [authorized methods of service]") (emphasis +added). +No. 1 (through her mother) indicating that neither Jane Doe No. 1 nor her mother had consented +to the attorney's filing the lawsuit on her behalf. See Case No. 08-80069-KAM [D.E. 9]. +In addition to that action, the same plaintiff's attorney here has filed four other, identical +lawsuits against Jeffrey Epstein on behalf of four plaintiffs that are still pending before this +Court: Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, Case No. 9:08-cv-80119-KAM; Jane Doe No. 3 v. Epstein, +Case No. 9:08-cv-80232-KAM; Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein, Case No. 9:08-cv-80380-KAM; and +Jane Doe No. 5 v. Epstein, Case No. 9:08-cv-80381-KAM. Plaintiff's counsel has sought an +entry of default in each case. In the Jane Doe No. 2 litigation, the deputy clerk, identified on the +docket as "tp," declined to enter a default on the grounds that there had been "Improper Service." +See 9:08-cv-80119-KAM [D.E. 7, 8]. In the Jane Doe No. 3 litigation, the deputy clerk has not +yet ruled upon the plaintiff's motion. See Case No. 9:08-cv-80232-KAM [D.E. 5]. In the Jane +Doe No. 4 and Jane Doe No. 5 litigation, the deputy clerk, identified on both docket sheets as +"ail," entered the default. See Case No. 9:08-cv-80380-KAM [D.E. 7, 8] and Case No. 9:08-cv- +80381-KAM [D.E. 5, 6]. Since then, the plaintiff's attorney has moved for a judgment of default +in those two cases (Jane Doe Nos. 4 and 5). See Case No. 9:08-ev-80380-KAM [D.E. 9] and +Case No. 9:08-cv-80381-KAM [D.E. 7]. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2008 Page 5 of 11 +Thus, when a diversity action is brought in the Southern District of Florida, +and service is made in New York, service is effective when it complies with either +Florida law or New York law, or alternatively, with federal procedure. +As discussed below, because New York does not have a residency +requirement for the person to whom substitute-service is delivered (and Florida +and the federal rules do), service was effective only in accordance with New York +procedure. Cf. RCP's Lear, LLC, 2008 WL 305103, at *4 (resolving parties' +dispute concerning the intended method of service, and applicable procedure). +Stated differently, service did not comply with either federal procedure or Florida +procedure. +New York Procedure-CPLR 308 (no residency requirement) +Under New York law, service of process can be effected by delivering the +summons "to a person of suitable age and discretion at the ... dwelling place or +usual place of abode of the [defendant]," and when the summons is "mailed to the +[defendant] at his or her last known residence or ... mail[ed] ... by first class +mail to the [defendant] at his or her actual place of business" in accordance with +specific technical instructions. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 308(2) (McKinney 2008). As an +additional requirement, "proof of such service shall be filed with the clerk of the +court designated in the summons within twenty days of either such delivery or +mailing, whichever is effected later." Id. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2008 Page 6 of 11 +In accordance with New York procedure, such substituted service "shall be +complete ten days after such filing." Id. (emphasis added). Accordingly, New +York does not use the date of delivery to the person at the defendant's "abode" as +the date service is effected. This was the point of error for the deputy clerk and the +plaintiff's attorney. +Florida Procedure-Fla. Stat. § 48.031 (residency requirement) +Under Florida law, service of process can be effected "by leaving the copies +[of the summons and complaint] at [the defendant's] usual place of abode with any +person residing therein who is 15 years of age or older and informing the person +of their contents." Fla. Stat. § 48.031(1)(a) (2007) (emphasis added). Service is +deemed effected as of the date of delivery. +Federal Procedure-Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (e)(2)(B) (residency requirement) +Service is effective, under federally authorized procedures, when copies of +both the summons and the complaint are "le[ft] ... at the individual's dwelling or +usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides +there." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (e)(2)(B). Again, service is deemed effected as of the +date of delivery. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2008 Page 7 of 11 +Discussion +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's response to the complaint is not due until June +23. Accordingly, the clerk's entry of default was premature. For the following +"good cause," it should be set aside. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c) ("The court may set +aside an entry of default for good cause."). +A. Service was not made on someone who "resided" at the subject address. +Substituted service was attempted on Richard Barnett at a house owned by +Mr. Epstein located at 9 East 71st Street, New York, New York. See Affidavit of +Service [D.E. 6]. Mr. Barnett has never lived there.* (Barnett Aff. I 3.) +B. Because service was not made on someone who "resided" at the subject +address, service was effective only in accordance with New York +procedure. +Of the three possible methods of service in this case-New York service, +Florida service, and federal-rules service—only New York rules allow substituted +service on someone who does not "reside" at the service address. Compare Fla. +Stat. § 48.031(1)(a) (authorizing substituted service of process only on a person +meeting certain criteria who "reside[s]" at the service address), and Fed. R. Civ. P. +* Indeed, in a motion for an order compelling the Clerk to enter default against Mr. Epstein, +filed in connection with the Jane Doe No. 2 litigation, the plaintiff's attorney characterized Mr. +Barnett simply as an "Assistant and House Staff Employee," not a resident of the property. +Case No. 9:08-cv-80119-KAM [D.E. 9 at 2]. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2008 Page 8 of 11 +4 (e)(2)(B) (same), with NY CPLR 308(2) (authorizing so-called "leave-and-mail" +substituted service, which does not require delivery to a person who actually +resides the service address). +Because Mr. Barnett was not a resident of 9 East 71st Street, logically, +service could have been effected only in accordance with New York procedure. +C. Service was effective as of June 2, not earlier. +As noted above, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 permits service according to the law "in +the state ... where service is made," here, New York. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). +While New York permits substitute service on a non-resident at the defendant's +"abode," such substituted service is not complete until 10 days after the affidavit +reciting the method of service is actually filed with the Court. See NY CPLR +308(2). +Although the summons was left with Mr. Barnett at Epstein's New York +home on May 7, the affidavit of service was not filed with the Court until May 22. +Accordingly, under NY CPLR 308(2), service is not deemed complete until 10 +days later, which was June 2. Counting 20 days more, according to Fed. R. Civ. P. +12(a)(1)(A)(i) and 5, Mr. Epstein's response is still not due until June 23. +Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion for default was almost three weeks early and +the default was entered improperly. +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2008 Page 9 of 11 +D. "Actual" notice is irrelevant. +In the related Jane Doe No. 2 case, the plaintiff advances the untenable +position that the service rules are trumped simply because Epstein had "actual +notice" of the complaints. See D.E. 9 at 4, I 9 (Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, Case +No. 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) ("Defendant Epstein had actual notice of the filing of +the Complaint, and the Plaintiff has exercised diligence and good faith in +attempting to serve Defendant Epstein with process. Accordingly, entry of default +is appropriate."). The Eleventh Circuit is clear, however, that "actual notice of a +suit does not dispose of the requirements of service of process." +V. +Warden, FCC Coleman-USP, 259 Fed. Appx. 181, 182 n.2 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing +Mfrs. Hanover Trust Co. v. Ponsoldt, 51 F.3d 938, 940 (11th Cir. 1995)). +Conclusion +We do not dispute that service was effective. We only dispute the date that +it became effective. Since service was ineffective under both Florida law and the +federal-rules alternative (because the recipient of the service did not "reside" at the +address), the only service law that could apply is New York's. New York's rule +for substituted-service does not start the 20-day clock for responding to the +complaint until 10 days after the process-server's affidavit is filed with the Court. +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2008 Page 10 of 11 +Accordingly, the 20-day clock did not start to tick (i.e., service was not +deemed to have been effected) until June 2. Counting time as provided by Fed. R. +Civ. P. 6(a)(3), Epstein has until June 23 to serve a response to the complaint. +WHEREFORE, "good cause" having been showing under Fed. R. Civ. P. +55(c), the clerk's default should be set aside. +Respectfully submitted, +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & +WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Tel: 561 659 8300 +Fax: 561 835 8691 +By: Is/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger +Fla. Bar No. 262013 +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2008 Page 11 of 11 +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7 +Counsel for defendant has conferred in good faith with counsel for the +plaintiff, who opposes the relief requested in this motion. +Is/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 13, 2008, I electronically filed the +foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that +the foregoing document is being served this day on counsel of record identified +below by facsimile and U.S. Mail. +Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Fax: 305 931 0877 +Is/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc1dff958f9a59339e4b84d6128f17b02652edd6fff3465f37c9fd73dc241f66.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc1dff958f9a59339e4b84d6128f17b02652edd6fff3465f37c9fd73dc241f66.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5097232ec62093174438c2da2943ed861a51c597 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc1dff958f9a59339e4b84d6128f17b02652edd6fff3465f37c9fd73dc241f66.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -132, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cc1dff958f9a59339e4b84d6128f17b02652edd6fff3465f37c9fd73dc241f66", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 11, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "94b910834ddb2b6584c8198bcf6be5b6a36ddb8eb4ed84dca8246fdb3712761f", + "output_sha256": "9405512260d4526e057809a45d6dc0c59bfbcf8a2fe0ea39bedaa414de5013a3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc1e4e1b7274803026c299caf8077d4f9d9cba243548f81aa7ee454710768f52.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc1e4e1b7274803026c299caf8077d4f9d9cba243548f81aa7ee454710768f52.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..398bca7320c3fcaff0427bda798e3a4acaf92123 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc1e4e1b7274803026c299caf8077d4f9d9cba243548f81aa7ee454710768f52.md @@ -0,0 +1,187 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 1 of 7 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/. +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/. +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/, + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 2 of 7 +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/JOHNSON +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/ +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +Defendant. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 3 of 7 +JANE DOE, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/ +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. II, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469-MARRAJ +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 4 of 7 +Defendant. +DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S, NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE +WITH COURT ORDER (DE #192) +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, by and through his undersigned attorneys, in compliance with +the Court's Order (DE #192) hereby submits a proposed order on Plaintiff's Motion for +Protective Order (DE #114), and states: +The Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for an Order for Preservation of +Evidence, (DE #192). However the Court determined that the Plaintiff's proposed order was +overly broad and directed that the parties attempt to submit an agreed order. The parties have +worked diligently to provide an agreed order, and have reached common ground on many +sections. However, we were unable to finalize an order. +Therefore, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, is providing his proposed order attached as +Exhibit A. Plaintiff's counsel will be serving their proposed order. +2. +Should the Court allow, counsel for the parties are willing to provide the Court a +brief joint statement setting forth the differences in their proposed order and their respective +positions. However, neither party, absent this Court's permission believed it was appropriate. +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 5 of 7 +using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record +Respectfully syomitted, +By: _ +. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@belclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 6 of 7 +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/| +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz/@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 08-80069, +08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, +, 08-80381, +08-80993, +08-80994 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +ichard H. Willits, P./ +290 10" Avenue Nort +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811 +reclrhw@hotmail.com +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack P.L +, Esq. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-686-6300 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +isx@searcylaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +:cff@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +Brad +Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Phone: 954-522-3456 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +bedwards@rra-law.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +801-585-5202 +801-585-6833 Fax +assellp@law.utah.ed +o-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Do +Isidro M. +1. Esq. +| Law Firm, P.A. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469 +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +305 358-2800 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 09-80591 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 7 of 7 +Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. +Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. +Ricci-Leopold, P.A. +2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +561-684-6500 +Fax: 561-515-2610 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804 +skuvin@riccilaw.com +tleopold@riccilaw.com +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc1e4e1b7274803026c299caf8077d4f9d9cba243548f81aa7ee454710768f52.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc1e4e1b7274803026c299caf8077d4f9d9cba243548f81aa7ee454710768f52.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e8245c4210e4950b0742c39b3e897cc8db98151a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc1e4e1b7274803026c299caf8077d4f9d9cba243548f81aa7ee454710768f52.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -437, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cc1e4e1b7274803026c299caf8077d4f9d9cba243548f81aa7ee454710768f52", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "7604134a0cd026b6b94b4658b4f0cea29bbae8e5494349a2afc1393ae605906f", + "output_sha256": "3d122ef00bbcf2d1ae82b72950dc7bc32f6da7090e9f49f3a448e85a4bf1a332", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc3659515fb8883c7b149d00dbbab5e4f5c7e1767802ceea2356aa615326dadd.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc3659515fb8883c7b149d00dbbab5e4f5c7e1767802ceea2356aa615326dadd.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c26037fc1e29200b1f6f09b8b14c88dcd379a660 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc3659515fb8883c7b149d00dbbab5e4f5c7e1767802ceea2356aa615326dadd.md @@ -0,0 +1,276 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 1 of 10 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119- +MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232- +MARRA/ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380- +MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 2 of 10 +JANE DOE NO. 5, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381- +MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994- +MARRA/ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993- +MARRA/ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 3 of 10 +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. II, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469- +MARRA/ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591- +MARRA/ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 4 of 10 +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656- +MARRA/ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFES JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102's MOTION FOR +LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO +DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY OR. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO UNSEAL +THE NONPROSECUTION AGREEMENT +Pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the +Southern District of Florida, Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 (together, +the "Plaintiffs") by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby file this Motion For +Leave to File Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Response in +Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay and/or Continue Action for Time Certain +Based on Parallel Civil and Criminal Proceedings With Incorporated Memorandum of +Law Under Seal, and, as grounds, state as follows: +Undersigned counsel seek to file this Response in Opposition to Defendant +Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay under seal in order to abide by this Court's August 21, +2008 Order to Compel Production and Protective Order entered in Case No. 08-80736- +CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON (the "Protective Order"). The Protective Order prohibits +Plaintiffs from disclosing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (the "NPA") or its terms to +any third party. The sealed document should be maintained under seal for the duration +of this Court's August 21, 2008 Protective Order. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 5 of 10 +2. +Undersigned counsel recognize that this Court has previously unsealed +documents referring to the NPA. We seek to comply with the Protective Order for this +new and independent filing in an abundance of caution, until directed otherwise by the +Court. +3. +If this Court denies Plaintiffs' instant motion, Plaintiffs seek appropriate +disclosure of the NPA pursuant to this Court's recent order in Case No. 08-80736-CIV- +MARRA +(DE #36) denying Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2's +motion to unseal the NPA. As stated in that Order, the NPA has not been filed with the +Court. Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 would then have "a specific +tangible need to be relieved of the restrictions" of the Protective Order because +consideration of the terms of the NPA is necessary for this Court to resolve Defendant's +Motion to Stay. +WHEREFORE, +1. Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to enter an Order granting +Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 the right to file under seal their +Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay and/or Continue Action for Time +Certain Based on Parallel Civil and Criminal Proceedings With Incorporated +Memorandum of Law. +In the alternative, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to unseal the +Non-Prosecution Agreement in order to allow Plaintiffs to concretely respond to +Defendant's Motion to Stay. +3. +Finally, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to grant such other and +further relief to which this Court finds the Plaintiff otherwise entitled. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 6 of 10 +Date: May 29, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. +101 and Jane Doe No. 102 +By: +s/Katherine W. Ezell +Robert C. Josefsberg +Fla. Bar No. 040856 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Katherine W. Ezell +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +kezell@podhurst.com +City National Bank Building +25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +Telephone: (305) 358-2800 +Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1.A.3 +On May 29, 2009, undersigned counsel conferred with counsel for Defendant in a +good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in this motion, and Defendant's counsel +advised that Defendant opposes this motion. +Date: May 29, 2009 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 7 of 10 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this 29th day of May, 2009, we electronically +filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify +that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on +the attached Service List either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated +by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not +authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. +101 and Jane Doe No. 102 +By: +s/Katherine W. Ezell +Robert C. Josefsberg +Fla. Bar No. 040856 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Katherine W. Ezell +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +kezell@podhurst.com +City National Bank Building +25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +Telephone: (305) 358-2800 +Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 + + +Case 9:09-Cv-80591-KAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 8 of 10 +SERVICE LIST +JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Robert Critton, Esq. +Michael J. Pike, Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman LLP +515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 842-2820 +Fax: (561) 515-3148 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +mpike@bclclaw.com +Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Jack Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 659-8300 +Fax: (561) 835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A +250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 202-6360 +Fax: (561) 828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Co-Defendant, +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: (561) 686-6300 +Fax: (561) 383-9456 +jsx@searcylaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. + + +Case 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 9 of 10 +Adam Horowitz, Esq. +Stuart Mermelstein, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +smermelstein@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Case Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,08-80232, 08-80380, 08- +80381, 08-80993, 08-80994 +Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq. +Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq. +Leopold Kuvin, P.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +Phone: (561) 515-1400 +Fax: (561) 515-1401 +skuvin@leopoldkuvin.com +tleopold@leopoldkuvin.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804 +Richard Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A +2290 10" Ave North, Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Phone: (561) 582-7600 +Fax: (561) 588-8819 +lawyerwillits@aol.com +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80871 +Brad +Esq. +Law Office of Brad +& Associates, LLC +2028 +Street, Suite 202 +Hollywood, FL 33020 +Phone: (954) 414-8033 +Fax: (954) 924-1530 +bedwards @ira-law.com +be@bradedwardslaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 +Isidro Manuel +Esq. +Elkins & Boehringer + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 10 of 10 +224 Datura Avenue, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 832-8033 +Fax: (561) 832-7137 +isidrogarcia @ bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc3659515fb8883c7b149d00dbbab5e4f5c7e1767802ceea2356aa615326dadd.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc3659515fb8883c7b149d00dbbab5e4f5c7e1767802ceea2356aa615326dadd.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f506fa9d8c86a8c034489d632ebb102415a8cd63 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc3659515fb8883c7b149d00dbbab5e4f5c7e1767802ceea2356aa615326dadd.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -375, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cc3659515fb8883c7b149d00dbbab5e4f5c7e1767802ceea2356aa615326dadd", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 11, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "cade0538eeae111ecf3d213f2a74628c6b6a914d620191de6ab3ba82825230f4", + "output_sha256": "788488fc3fb551dc35e40729742d36f7cec1b0e55c60928e106b4a5e32b8cda9", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc39feb92d5e2c4c2e6c109f0b03f9722022225c2857e99df1118a881003a8e6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc39feb92d5e2c4c2e6c109f0b03f9722022225c2857e99df1118a881003a8e6.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..860ae978fafe02b86323997d457977677889e013 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc39feb92d5e2c4c2e6c109f0b03f9722022225c2857e99df1118a881003a8e6.md @@ -0,0 +1,173 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRAI, +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO ATTEND MEDIATION +AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF +(AS TO CMA v. EPSTEIN AND +08-CIV-80811) +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, +moves this Court for an order allowing him to attend mediation in the above-styled +matter and as grounds set forth would state: +The Court entered a no contact order which may apply to +| [DE 238]. +Plaintiff's counsel and plaintiff, +have no objection to Mr. +Epstein attending deposition, mediation and obviously trial. +3. +Therefore, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, in an abundance of caution, +requests that the court enter the attached proposed Agreed Order which shall not + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2009 Page 2 of 4 +Page 2 +preclude him from attending Plaintiff +trial of this case. +deposition, mediation, or the +Rule 7.1 Certification +Defense counsel has spoken with Plaintiff's counsel and he has no objection to +the entry of the proposed agreed order. +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the +manner specified by CM/ECF on this 20 day of _November_ 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +crit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2009 Page 3 of 4 +Page 3 +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Brad +Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Suite 2218 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: 954-522-3456 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +bedwards@rra-law.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +08-80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. +08-80069, 08- Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +80119, 08-80232, +08-80380, 08-80381, Pro Hac Vice +08-80993, 08-80994 +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +801-585-5202 +Richard H. Willits, P.A +801-585-6833 Fax +2290 10* Avenue North +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Suite 404 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Isidro M. +, Esq. +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Law Firm, P.A. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +08-80811 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +Jack Scarola, Esq. +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack P. +,Esg. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +Searcy +Denney +Scarola Barnhart & 08-80469 +Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +561-686-6300 +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +Fax: 561-383-9424 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +jsx@searcylaw.com +Miami, FL 33130 +iph@searcylaw.com +305 358-2800 +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +Fax: 305 358-2382 +riosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2009 Page 4 of 4 +Page 4 +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. +Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. +Leopold, Kuvin, P.A. +2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +561-684-6500 +Fax: 561-515-2610 +skuvin@leopoldkuvin.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-08804 +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases +Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc39feb92d5e2c4c2e6c109f0b03f9722022225c2857e99df1118a881003a8e6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc39feb92d5e2c4c2e6c109f0b03f9722022225c2857e99df1118a881003a8e6.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3b5c0f7d73a8dd38996c078c97f124d81fbae02e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc39feb92d5e2c4c2e6c109f0b03f9722022225c2857e99df1118a881003a8e6.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -127, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cc39feb92d5e2c4c2e6c109f0b03f9722022225c2857e99df1118a881003a8e6", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "1061b977da338eacea9f15324a9876c2f83803d89fc21eb36f6388d7de874752", + "output_sha256": "3444593b009a39a7078ea37afa02b3e0aa45122d43c9543088aaa1c8ccf0f04d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc674e17975c15cc3e53f5f59a08a4a8045400871582f22b18ec65207758c1f1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc674e17975c15cc3e53f5f59a08a4a8045400871582f22b18ec65207758c1f1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0713f2f6c3f7b9eba1c867864bc0b9cc653d990c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc674e17975c15cc3e53f5f59a08a4a8045400871582f22b18ec65207758c1f1.md @@ -0,0 +1,558 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 354 +Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009 Page 1 of 18 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/ +Vs. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, +08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +'LAINTIFF JANE DOE'S REPLY TO RESPONSE [DE 339] TO MOTION Ti +OMPEL ANSWERS TO PLAINTFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIOI +Plaintiff Jane Doe, hereby replies to defendant Jeffrey Epstein's response (DE +339 in consolidated case no. 08-CIV-80119) to her motion to compel answers to her first +request for production. Epstein should be compelled to provide the requested +information, because it is not properly subject to a Fifth Amendment invocation. +SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION +Request No. 5. +Jane Doe withdraws this request. +Requests No. 7, 9 and 10 +Request No. 7: All discovery information obtained by you or your attorneys as a result +of the exchange of discovery in the State criminal case against you or the Federal +investigation against you. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 354 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009 Page 2 of 18 +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under +the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, the intormation sought is privileged and confidential, and +inadmissible to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Federal +Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and § 90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the +request may include information subject to work product or an attorneyclient privilege. +Request No. 9: Any documents or other evidentiary materials provided to local, state, +or federal law enforcement investigators or local, state or federal prosecutors +investigating your sexual activities with minors. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under +the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +States Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, the information +sought is privileged and confidential, and +inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreeither, +rea. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and § 90.410, Fla. Stat. ' +the request may include information subject to work product or an +attorney-client privilege. +Request No. 10: All correspondence between you and your attorneys and state or +federal law enforcement or prosecutors (includes, but not limited to, letters to and from +the States Attorney's office or any agents thereof). +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 354 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009 Page 3 of 18 +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under +the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +States Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and +inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, +Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and § 90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the +request may include information subject to work product or an attorneyclient privilege. +Reply to Epstein's Response: +These requests simply seek information that the federal government gave to +Epstein in the course of its plea discussions with him. Remarkably, Epstein claims that +these materials - which started in the government's possession -- are now somehow +transformed and given Fifth Amendment protection by his mere receipt of them. The +Fifth Amendment does not work such alchemy. +It is true, of course, that the Fifth Amendment covers situations where the act of +producing documents has "communicative aspects of its own, wholly aside from the +contents of the papers produced." Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). +But this "act of production" doctrine has stringent limits. It does not extend, for example, +to a claim by a taxpayer that he would incriminate himself by producing his accountant's +work papers. As the Supreme Court has explained, the government's awareness of +these documents was "a foregone conclusion" and therefore their production could be +required: +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 354 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009 Page 4 of 18 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/_ +It is doubtful that implicitly admitting the existence and possession +of the papers rises to level of testimony within the protection of the Fifth +Amendment. The papers belong to the accountant, were prepared by +him, and are the kind usually prepared by an accountant working on the +tax returns of his client. Surely the Government is in no way relying on the +"truthtelling" of the taxpayer to prove the existence of ... the documents. +The existence and location of the papers are a foregone conclusion. +Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410 (emphasis added). +Courts applying this "foregone conclusion" standard to various fact patterns have +asked whether the government was aware of the documents' existence apart from any +actions of the defendant. Thus, United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), rejected +the Government's argument that it was a foregone conclusion that the defendant +possessed "ordinary business records." The Court noted that the government had no +"prior knowledge" of these records: +Whatever the scope of this "foregone conclusion" rationale, the facts of +this case plainly fall outside of it. While in Fisher the Government already +knew that the documents were in the attorney's possession and could +independently confirm their existence and authenticity through the +accountants who created them, here the Government has not shown that +it had any prior knowledge of either the existence or the whereabouts of +the 13,120 pages of documents ultimately produced by respondent. +Id. at 44 (emphasis added). +In this case, of course, the government's "prior knowledge" of the documents that +Jane Doe seeks is obviously and undeniably a foregone conclusion. The government +itself gave Epstein the documents! Therefore, there is no plausible argument that, in +producing these documents to Jane Doe, Epstein will somehow be incriminating himself +by disclosing to the government something that it does not already know. The +government clearly has prior knowledge of documents that it gave to Epstein. Here, +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 354 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009 Page 5 of 18 +then, the "existence and location of the documents ... are a 'foregone conclusion' and +[Epstein] ... adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government's information by +conceding that he in fact has the documents." In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Dated April +18, 2003, 383 F.3d 905, 910 (9th Cir. 2004). +The D.C. Circuit has recently refused to extend the act of production doctrine to +facts very similar to those here. In United States v. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313 (D.C. Cir. +2006), federal prosecutors sought information about possible crimes committed by a +defense attorney in the course of representing a defendant in a federal case. The +prosecutors subpoenaed the attorney to produce all correspondence between him and +courts and prosecutors in that case. In summarily rejecting an argument that producing +the documents would somehow fall within the act of production doctrine of the Fifth +Amendment, the D.C. Circuit explained that "the government must have known of the +existence of documents ... because it was a party to that correspondence." Id. at 325. +The Circuit further explained that the government's subpoena need not "name every +scrap of paper that is produced. Because the government already had sufficient +knowledge about the ... [case-related] documents, ... [the defense attorney] was +simply surrendering them, not testifying, by complying with those demands in the +subpoena." Id. Other cases similarly reject attempts to use an act of production shield +to turning over documents whose existence is known to the government or is a foregone +conclusion. See, e.g. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct. 29, 1992, 1 +F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993) (rejecting act of production argument because compliance +with subpoena requiring production of a personal calendar "would require mere +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 354 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009 Page 6 of 18 +surrender of the calendar, and not testimony" (internal quotation omitted)); United +States v. Clark, 847 F.2d 1467, 1473 (10th Cir. 1988) (accounting records not subject to +act of production protection; in producing records the defendant would not "authenticate +the documents as being his own or being accurate"); Securities and Exchange +Commission v. First Jersey Securities, Inc., 843 F.2d 74, 76 (2d Cir. 1988) (rejecting act +of production argument regarding bank records because "everybody knew that they +existed"); I"); United States v. Lang, 792 F.2d 1235, 1242 (4th Cir. 1986) (rejecting act +of production argument regarding bank records because an IRS agent "had been given +access to and has examined some or all of the records" and thus the defendants "act of +producing those records would add little or nothing to the sum total of the Government's +knowledge of the existence and location of the summoned records"). +Rather than discuss specific case law about the act of production doctrine, +Epstein retreats into mere generalities. Thus, he asserts that giving to Jane Doe the +discovery produced by the government might disclose witnesses helpful to Jane Doe. +Epstein's Resp. at 7. But this assertion badly confuses how the Fifth Amendment works. +Of course, the government's documents have information that might be harmful to +Epstein's claims of innocence; presumably that is why the government was showing him +the documents in the first place to convince him to plead guilty to a crime. But it is a +"settled proposition that a person may be required to produce specific documents even +though they contain incriminating assertions of fact or belief...." United States v. +Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35(2000). The only question here is whether turning over the +government's own documents to Jane Doe somehow forces Epstein to provide +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 354 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009 Page 7 of 18 +"testimony" to the government - something forbidden by the Fifth Amendment. Epstein +has no such viable claim here. +Epstein also argues that the magistrate judge's earlier omnibus order (doc. # 339 +in case no. 9:08-CV-80119) requires that request for production be denied. This is +untrue for several reasons. First, the earlier requests that were apparently denied' were +broader than the narrow requests made by Jane Doe. The earlier requests included, for +example, a request for all documents "relating to" the federal non-prosecution +agreement (Production Request No. 2), all documents "relating to" Epstein's Florida +guilty plea (Production Request No. 3), and all documents obtained in "investigation +relating to" either the federal or state criminal investigations. See Epstein's Resp. at 8 +(quoting those requests). Such overbroad requests might require Epstein to effectively +make "use of the content of his mind" in identifying which documents were responsive. +See Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 43. But here Jane Doe has propounded far narrower requests +that do not require any mind to pick and choose. Indeed, Jane Doe's request is +significantly narrower that other requests that the United States Supreme Court and +other courts have upheld. See, e.g., Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 394 (1976) +(rejecting Fifth Amendment challenge to subpoena requesting "accountant's workpapers +pertaining to Dr. E.J. Mason's books and records of 1969, 1970, and 1971); United +States v. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313, 325 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (rejecting Fifth Amendment +challenge to subpoena requesting "[a]ny and all correspondence between the Law +" The magistrate judge's order on this point actually states that it was Epstein's motion to quash that was "denied." +See Order at 17 ("Defendant's Motion as it relates to Production Requests 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 20 is +denied." (emphasis added)). Read in context, it appears that the magistrate judge intended to state that the +defendant's motion was granted. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 354 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009 Page 8 of 18 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/_ +Offices of Navron Ponds [the defendant] and courts and prosecutors in the matter of +U.S. v. Jerome Harris" (internal bracketing omitted); United States v. Clark, 847 F.2d +1467, 1473 (10th Cir. 1988) (rejecting Fifth Amendment challenge to subpoena +requesting "all records pertaining to the performance of any accounting service by [one +named person to another named person. +The magistrate judge's earlier order is also not controlling here for a second +reason. That order was entered in a case that has been consolidated with Jane Doe's +case for discovery purposes. But Jane Doe was not a party to the earlier ruling and did +not have the opportunity to provide briefing and argument before the magistrate judge +ruled. In this case, of course, Jane Doe has had that opportunity and has now provided +recent precedents clearly dictating that her specific motion should be granted. See, +e.g., United States v. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313, 325 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Fifth Amendment +privilege does not extend to correspondence to which the government was a party). +Epstein also argues some sort of attorney-client or work-product privilege bars +production of the documents. This argument is frivolous. The attorney-client privilege, +for example, extends only to a "confidential communication" made in the course of +"rendition of legal services to the client." Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(2). Documents given +by the government to Epstein are obviously not confidential communications within the +sense of the attorney client privilege. Similarly, the documents are not work product, +because they do not involve any creation by Epstein's attorneys. See, e.g., Balboa v. +State, 446 So.2d 1134, 1135 (Fla. App. 1984) (opinions, theories, or conclusions of +attorneys are privileged, but statements of witnesses to attorneys are not"). +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 354 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009 Page 9 of 18 +Epstein finally claims that the information is protected by Federal Rules of +Evidence 408 and 410, regarding settlement discussions and plea negotiations. Those +federal rules have no bearing Jane Doe's requests for production number 7 and 9, +which seek respectively discovery provided by the government and "evidentiary +materials" provided by the government. These are simply not "offers to compromise," +Fed. R. Evid. 408, or "plea discussions," Fed. R. Evid. 410, to which the rules apply. +While Rules 408 and 410 do not covers requests number 7 and 9, they +potentially cover Jane Doe's request number 10, seeking correspondence regarding the +plea discussions in this case. These rules, however, provide no valid basis for resisting +Jane Doe's discovery requests. Discovery is, of course, permitted "regarding any +nonprivileged matter that is relevant" to Jane Doe's claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) +(emphasis added). The Rules of Evidence regarding settlement discussions do not +create any privileges. It is possible that Epstein may argue that these rules ultimately +bar the use of certain evidence at trial. If these arguments are made, Jane Doe will +respond in due course.* But under the discovery rules "[r]elevant information need not +be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Thus, discovery is "construed +broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to +3 Epstein also cites several analogous state rules of evidence, which are likewise inapplicable for the +reasons explained regarding the federal rule. +Both rules contains exemptions, allowing such evidence to be used to prove such things as "state of +mind," "bias and prejudice," or other things apart from mere liability for the matter under discussion. See, +.g., United States v. Peed, 714 F.2d 7, 9-10 (4th Cir. 1983) (admitting defendant's offer to return missin +roperty because it appeared motivated by purpose of persuading victim to drop criminal charges rathe +than to compromise civil claim). The Florida rules that Epstein cites, even though not applicable in this +federal case, are also subject to similar exemptions. +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 354 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009 Page 10 of 18 +another matter that could bear on any issue that is or may be in the case." +Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978). The correspondence +with the government agencies may well point Jane Doe in the direction of admissible +evidence, and therefore Epstein should be compelled to provide the correspondence +sought in request number 10. +In a last desperate attempt to thwart production, Epstein appeals to "third-party +privacy rights." Epstein's Resp. at 11. Given the extent to which Epstein's hired +investigators have concluded interrogations of anyone even remotely connected with +this case, this appeal to privacy interests rings rather hollow. In any event, it is odd to +think that the privacy rights of these third persons do not interfere with Epstein himself +(a convicted sex offender) reviewing these materials but forbid equal viewing by +attorneys for a victim who was victimized by him. In any event, none of the authorities +cited by Epstein are remotely similar to the case at hand. Epstein's argument should +therefore be rejected summarily. +Requests No. 8, 11, 14, and 15 +Request No. 8: All financial documents evidencing asset transfers from 2005 to present +for you personally or any company or corporation owned by you. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to eftective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under +the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +States +Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 354 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009 Page 11 of 18 +Request No. 11: Any and all documents reflecting your current net worth. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my tederal constitutional rights under +the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +States Constitution. +Drawing an adverse +• inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +Request No. 14: A sworn statement of your net worth (including a detailed financial +statement depicting all current assets and liabilities). +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all +relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me +that at the present time I cannot select authenticate, and produce documents relevant to +this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. +Request No. 15: All financial statements or affidavits produced by you for any reason, +to any person, company, entity or corporation since 2005. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select +the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 354 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009 Page 12 of 18 +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution; overly broad. +Reply to Epstein's Response: +Epstein's main argument to turning over financial records is that he has +explained in two sealed documents (doc. #282 and doc. #283) why producing financial +records would incriminate him. Of course, because these documents are sealed, Jane +Doe has no way of determining one way or other whether Epstein's assertions are true. +Jane Doe therefore respectfully asks the Court to make its determination of the issue, +mindful of the fact that it is proceeding without the benefit of an adversarial presentation +from Jane Doe. +If the Court concludes that the materials in DE 282 and DE 283 do demonstrate +that Epstein would incriminate himself by discussing his assets - and, in particular, his +recent transfers of assets to overseas locations and elsewhere - then the Court should +consider the information in deciding whether to grant Jane Doe's motion for Preliminary +Injunction Restraining Fraudulent Transfer of Assets [DE165], for reasons that Jane +Doe explains in her concurrently-filed Notice that Additional Evidence of Epstein's +Fraudulent Asset Transfers Will Be Filed shortly and Motion for Consideration by the +Court of Materials in DE 282 and DE 283 in Determining Motion for Appointment of a +Receiver. +Epstein's other generic objections are makeweight and should be rejected. The +financial records are relevant to a variety of issues in the case, including Jane Doe's +efforts to show a conspiracy and to obtain punitive damages. +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 354 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009 Page 13 of 18 +Request No. 12: +Request No. 12: Personal tax returns for all years from 2002 through the present. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time | cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under +the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +States Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution; overly broad. +Reply to Epstein's Response: +Epstein's refusal to turn over his filed tax returns is absurd. For all the reasons +explained earlier in connection with Requests 7, 9 and 10, the government (i.e., the +IRS) already has a copy of these returns. Therefore, it can hardly be incriminating for +Epstein to produce them. +There is an additional, independent reason for rejecting Epstein's refusal to +produce his tax returns. Tax records, including in particular filed tax returns, are +"required records" that are not covered by the Fifth Amendment. See, e.g., Rajah v. +Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 442 (2nd Cir. 2008) ("... a taxpayer's W-2 forms are required +records not subject to the Fifth Amendment because they are a mandatory part of a civil +regulatory regime ...."); In re Doe, 711 F.2d 1187, 1191 (2d Cir. 1983) ("we have little +difficulty applying the required records exception to the W-2... forms" and ordering +production of W-2 forms over Fifth Amendment objection); In re Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, +644-45 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (ordering production of physician's W-2 forms as required +13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 354 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009 Page 14 of 18 +records); In re Grand Jury Empanelled March 19, 1989, 541 F.Supp. 1, 3 (D.N.J. 1981). +(ordering the production of tax returns and W-2 statements to a grand jury), aff'd, 680 +F.2d 327, 336 n. 15 (3rd Cir. 1982) ("[W]e affirm that those subpoenaed documents in +the appellee's possession which are required either to be kept by law or to be disclosed +to a public agency should be produced for the grand jury's inspection."), aff'd in part, +rev'd in part on other grounds sub nom. United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 608 n.3 +(1984). Of course, in all these cases, tax returns were ordered produced even though a +federal statute (cited by Epstein) makes tax returns "confidential." See 26 U.S.C. § +6103. +In all these cases, the confidentiality of provided by the IRS statute was +obviously and properly overridden by the discovery procedures found in Fed. R. Civ. P. +26. +Request No. 13: A photocopy of your passport, including any supplemental pages +reflecting travel to locations outside the 50 United States between 2002 and 2008, +including any documents or records regarding plane tickets, hotel receipts, or +transportation arrangements. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. | intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under +the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +States Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +protections and privileges, the scope of information is so overbroad that it +seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead +14 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 354 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009 Page 15 of 18 +to the discovery of admissible evidence; compiling such information over a +six year period would be unduly burdensome and time consuming. +Reply to Epstein's Response: +Here again, Epstein has no good basis for refusing to turn over something that +the government is aware of and has inspected. Epstein has had to produce his +passport to government immigration agents whenever he leaves or enters the United +States. There is no valid Fifth Amendment basis for refusing the same opportunity to +Jane Doe. +In addition, like income tax records, a passport is a "required record" for which no +Fifth Amendment privilege is available. See Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 442 (2nd +Cir. 2008) ("Just as a taxpayer's W-2 forms are required records not subject to the Fifth +Amendment because they are a mandatory part of a civil regulatory regime, so too are +the passports ... at issue in the current case"). +Request No. 16. +Request No. 16: All medical records of Defendant Epstein from Dr. Stephan Alexander. +Defendant is asserting his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select +authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must +accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under +the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United +States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these +circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my +5 Jane Doe believes that Epstein used overseas travel as a means of obtaining underage girls for sexual +purposes and for avoiding criminal prosecution for such activities. Also, providing a copy of a passport is +hardly "burdensome." Also, given the fact that Epstein is likely to have used the services of a travel agent +or another intermediary, it should not be difficult for him to provide evidence of his overseas travels from +such intermediaries. +15 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 354 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009 Page 16 of 18 +constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate +the Constitution. +Reply to Epstein's Response: +Epstein claims, but does not prove, that he has hired Dr. Stephen Alexander as +an expert witness in this case. He contends that he is therefore no obligated to turn +over Dr. Alexander's records. +Jane Doe understands that Dr. Alexander was Epstein's physician before this +litigation ever started. Therefore, as to all records before such hiring, there is no +protection. Even after such hiring, it would be Epstein's burden to show that certain +medical examinations were done for purposes of litigation to prove work-product +protection - a burden Epstein has not attempted to meet. +Epstein also notes that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act +("HIPAA") requires that records be disclosed in civil discovery only under an order +insuring confidentiality. Jane Doe has no objection to such a confidentiality order. +Finally, Epstein argues that some of the records may be protected by the Florida doctorpatient privilege. Fla. Stat. § 90.503(2). Epstein, however, is required to demonstrate +that the elements of the privilege are satisfied on a document-by-document basis. +Epstein has failed to do this and the documents should therefore be produced (or, in the +alternative, Epstein should make an in camera submission showing how each document +is privileged). +CONCLUSION +For all these reasons, the Court should compel Epstein to answer the requests +for production discussed above. +16 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 354 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009 Page 17 of 18 +DATED October 16, 2009 +Respectfully Submitted, +J. +ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER +Las Olas City Centre +401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +E-mail: bedwards@rra-law.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: +801-585-6833 +cassellp@law.utah.edu +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +| HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 16, 2009 | electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the +manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by +CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to +receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing. +J. +17 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 354 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009 Page 18 of 18 +SERVICE LIST +Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Isidro Manual +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +iph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@bclclaw.com +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerswillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Adam D. Horowitz +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +William J. Berger +wberger@rra-law.com +18 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc674e17975c15cc3e53f5f59a08a4a8045400871582f22b18ec65207758c1f1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc674e17975c15cc3e53f5f59a08a4a8045400871582f22b18ec65207758c1f1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fc2432238e08f2a438ccf4f2aebd0e7751ff88fc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc674e17975c15cc3e53f5f59a08a4a8045400871582f22b18ec65207758c1f1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -643, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cc674e17975c15cc3e53f5f59a08a4a8045400871582f22b18ec65207758c1f1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 22, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "72441d80871849739e6e1cb928b850b4eda2bf56f77011c7977fa48540fb2e90", + "output_sha256": "5fee2ec1b6e565f5256e02c119abb62b5d9c5367167bf4f185295af04f7db46d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc6784d8127c2da246d718dad062423f7795fbcc7b709a08a98486d51f5f7846.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc6784d8127c2da246d718dad062423f7795fbcc7b709a08a98486d51f5f7846.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..74c2b60d573f455471f76885f65b9aa3f71da44b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc6784d8127c2da246d718dad062423f7795fbcc7b709a08a98486d51f5f7846.md @@ -0,0 +1,348 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 1 of 12 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 +V. +UNITED STATES +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S REPLY TO GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO +THEIR MOTION TO HAVE THEIR FACTS ACCEPTED BECAUSE OF THE +GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO CONTEST ANY OF THE FACTS +COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and +through undersigned counsel, to reply to the Government's Response (DE #58) to their Motion +to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts +(DE #49). The victims' proffered facts should all be accepted by the Court. The Government +claims that it can prevail regardless of what the true facts are, so the Court should take the +Government at its word and evaluate the case on the facts presented (without contradiction) by +the Government. Moreover, the Government has refused to confer in good faith with the victims +about the facts, further indicating the accuracy of what the victims propose. Finally, in any +event, the central facts in this case are simply not disputed - i.e., the Government does not +contest that it deliberately concealed from the victims the existence of a non-prosecution +agreement with Epstein. Accordingly, the Court should proceed on at least that basis. +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 2 of 12 +FACTUAL BACKGROUND +While the Government begins its response with a lengthy "background" section, it does +not acknowledge that for 30 months the victims have been trying to narrow the range of disputes +in this case and reach stipulated undisputed facts. In an effort to deflect attention from this main +point, the Government tries to create the impression that the victims' counsel previously agreed +that no additional facts were required to resolve their petition. But the quotation from victims" +counsel is wrenched out of context. As explained in the victims' motion, the Government first +agreed to review facts, then reversed course and said no facts were needed. On August 14, 2008, +a hearing was held, during which a stipulated set of facts was discussed: +THE COURT: So if I can hear from Mr. +or Mr. Cassell first what +the Plaintiffs' position [is] as far as where we stand on the record in terms of +whether I need additional facts, evidence, or there's going to be a stipulation +submitted to me upon which I can rely. +MR. +: Sure. +Your Honor, this is Brad | +I believe that you do have a sufficient +record, in that I don't think that -- I think that we're in agreement that additional +evidence does not need to be taken in the case for Your Honor to make a ruling. +We have actually met with the U.S. Attorney, and we've had meaningful +discussions in an attempt to resolve our issues. I think the only issue, we can +probably agree to this right now, is that the victims are unable at this point in time +to go any further with requesting a remedy from the Court without the full and +complete plea agreement being produced to us from the U.S. Government, and the +U.S. Government's hands are tied in that there's a confidentiality agreement within +that plea agreement that prohibits them from turning that over. +So at this point in time, we would be asking Your Honor to enter an order +amongst ourselves. +August 14, 2008, Tr. at 3-4 (emphases added). As this full passage makes clear, victims' counsel +believed that no more evidence would be needed, because they envisioned a process under which +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 3 of 12 +the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) would be produced and then the parties would negotiate in +good faith to submit a stipulated set of facts to the Court. Unfortunately, after victims' counsel +received the NPA, the Government refused to provide any further information about how the +NPA had been concealed from the victims. That forced the victims to learn the facts surrounding +their case in other ways. +In the fall of 2010, victims' counsel renewed their efforts to reach a stipulated set of facts +in this case, as the Court and the parties had plainly envisioned in the August 14, 2008, hearing. +Indeed, last October victims counsel went so far as to provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office a +very detailed set of proposed facts essentially tracking those in the "summary judgment" motion. +At first the Government promised that it would "agree|] that a factual assertion is correct if we +agree that is what occurred" (doc. #41 at 2). But then, after some brief initial discussions,' the +Government did not provide any more information about proposed facts for months. Then, when +the victims said that they were preparing to file their motion with the Court, the Government +abruptly terminated any further discussions on the facts. In sum, it should be clear that the +Government has refused to negotiate with victims' counsel to arrive at a stipulated set of facts +and has not contested the material facts that the victims believe to be accurate. +DISCUSSION +' During one telephone conference call in October 2010, attorneys for the U.S. Attorney's +Office mentioned that they believed that Epstein lived in Palm Beach, rather than West Palm +Beach. At the conclusion of that conference call, victims counsel understood that Government +counsel would be providing a comprehensive response to all of the victims' proposed facts. But +then, after several months, on March 15, 2011, the Government abruptly said that it would not be +discussing the facts any more. Accordingly, victims' counsel simply filed their proposed facts. +Victims' counsel, of course, remains happy to discuss the correct mailing address of Epstein with +the Government and did not "ignore" this issue, as claimed by the Government (Resp. at 3 n.3). + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 4 of 12 +BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT TAKES THE POSITION THAT THE FACTS +ARE IRREVANT, THE COURT SHOULD PROCEED ON THE BASIS OF THE +VICTIMS' FACTS. +The simplest way for the Court to proceed is to simply take the victims' facts as +undisputed. After all, it is the Government which has now - twice - entered into discussions +about the facts, only to later reverse course and claim discussion of the facts was not needed. +Since the Government believes it can win this case under any set of facts, then they should be +required to proceed on the basis of the facts that the victims have offered. +In any event, the Court need not embark on any kind of complicated fact-finding inquiry +to rule in the victims' favor. Reading through all of the Government's pleadings, it is clear that +the Government is not contesting that it entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein +barring his prosecution for various crimes (including, for example, all crimes committed against +Jane Doe #1). Nor is the Government contesting that it concealed the existence of the NPA from +the victims and their legal counsel for eight months. The Court can easily find - and should find +- that the Government deliberately concealed the NPA from the victims and proceed to consider +whether this affirmative concealment was consistent with the Crime Victims Rights Act.? +Il. +THE GOVERNMENT HAS VIOLATED ITS OBLIGATIONS TO DISCUSS THE +FACTS WITH THE VICTMS. +The Court should accept the victims' facts for the additional reason that the Government +has violated its obligation to confer with the victims about which facts are undisputed. At the +conclusion of the July 11, 2008, hearing, the Court directed that the parties were to confer on +additional facts. See Victims' Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted at 2 (recounting hearing). +2 The victims explain why concealing the agreement violated the CVRA in their +pleadings on their summary judgment motion. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 5 of 12 +And then, at the August 14, 2008, hearing, the Court gave the victims' counsel access to the +NPA with the understanding that negotiations would continue with an eye to reaching undisputed +facts. Since then, the Government has simply not negotiated in good faith, as the Court directed +at the end of the July 11, 2008 hearing. +In addition to the Court's direction, Local Rule 88.10(O) contains a broad provision, +containing the commonsense directive that "ItJhe parties shall make every possible effort in good +faith to stipulate to all facts or points of law the truth or existence of which is not contested and +the early resolution of which will expedite the trial." The Government claims that this provision +is not in play because there is no pending criminal proceeding.? But if this case is not covered by +the rules applicable to criminal cases, then it should be covered by the rules applicable to civil +cases. Indeed, when it seemed convenient for it to do so, the Government previously took the +position that this case was "civil" litigation. See Doc. #41 at 3. But, not surprisingly, just as the +criminal rules contain provisions for narrowing disputes, the civil rules do so as well. Notably, +Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(I), requires both sides in civil litigation to make "initial disclosures" of +various specified information so that the case can proceed rapidly. The victims have made the +initial disclosures required by Civil Rule 26(a)(1), but the U.S. Attorney's Office has refused to +do so. Thus, the Government has taken a "heads we win, tails you lose" approach to reaching +agreement on the facts: The victims cannot use the provisions in the criminal rules for narrowing +3 The Government cites In re Amy Unknown, _ F.3d _, 2011 WL 988882 at *2 (5th +Cir. Mar. 22, 2011), for the proposition that crime victims are not "parties" to the criminal case. +But as In re Amy clearly holds, crime victims can have protected rights within a criminal case +and can assert those rights in the case. Thus, in that case, a crime victim - Amy - was allowed to +enforce her "right" to "restitution" provided in the CVRA. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(6). Of course, +in this case, two crime victims are likewise seeking to enforce their rights provided in the CVRA. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 6 of 12 +factual disagreements because this case is not a criminal case; but the victims cannot use the +provisions in the civil rules to narrow disputes, because the case relates to a criminal nonprosecution agreement. +The Court should not allow such sophistry. This case is either a civil case or a criminal +case, and either way the Government has an obligation to try and narrow the disputed factual +questions. The Government has failed to do so, and the Court should accordingly accept the +facts proffered by the victims. +III. ALL OF THE VICTIMS' FACTS ARE DEEMED ADMITTED BY VIRTUE OF +LOCAL RULE 7.5(D). +Not only has the Government failed to discharge its obligations to narrow the range of +disputes, but it has also failed to controvert any of the victims' proposed material facts presented +in their summary judgment motion as directed by the local rules. Accordingly, by operation of +the local rules, all the victims' facts are deemed admitted. +The Court's local rules make quite clear the well-understood procedure on summary +judgment motions. Initially, the proposed facts of the moving party must "[ble supported by +specific references to pleadings +...and affidavits on file with the Court...." Local Rule +7.5(C)(2). The victims" summary judgment motion carefully and precisely complied with the +local rule - each and every fact was supported by evidence. +Because the victims properly asserted proposed material facts, the local rules then +required the Government to follow the same "paragraph numbering scheme used by the movant," +Local Rule 7.5(C)(3), and to support opposing facts with record evidence, Local Rule 7.5(C) +("statement of material facts submitted either in support of or in opposition to a motion for +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 7 of 12 +summary judgment shall ... [ble supported by specific references to pleadings ... and affidavits +on file with the Court." (emphases added)). The Government, however, has simply not complied +with this requirement for the great bulk of the victims' facts. Therefore, they are all deemed +admitted by operation of the local rules: "All material facts set forth in the movant's statement +filed and supported as required by Local Rule 7.5.C will be deemed admitted unless controverted +by the opposing party's statement, provided that the Court finds that the movant's statement is +supported by evidence in the record." +The Government has briefly recounted a few facts in opposition to a small sliver of the +victims' proposed facts. +See Gov't Resp. to Victims' Motion to Have Facts Accepted at 11-13. +But none of these facts are supported by any evidence at all. The Government should have at +least filed an affidavit in support of these proposed facts. Its reluctance to do so suggests that it +is not confident it can really prove its assertions. In any event, the Government's failure to +properly support its proposed facts as required by the local rules means that the Court should not +accept any of the Government's assertions. +IV. +RULE 6(E) AND THE CONSTITUTION DO NOT PREVENT THE +GOVERNMENT FROM DISCUSSING THE FACTS IN THIS CASE. +Perhaps recognizing that its failure to discuss the facts with the victims is starkly at odds +with conventional lawyering, the Government finally tries to claim that it is somehow forbidden +from doing so by Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and even the United +States Constitution. These arguments are frivolous. +With regard to Rule 6(e), the rule creates secrecy only for grand jury proceedings. The +Government does not explain which parts of the victims' summary judgment motion -- and +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 8 of 12 +which parts of Exhibit A to their motion - are protected grand jury matters. A Word search of +the summary judgment motion produces only one instance of the phrase "grand jury" -- in +paragraph 12 of the statement of facts. The paragraph reads: +In September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office, in an effort to avoid prosecuting +Epstein for his numerous sexual offenses against children, proposed to Epstein's +attorneys that rather than plead to any charges relating to him molesting children, +Epstein should instead plead to a single assault charge involving a telephone call +made by Epstein while he was on his private jet. During this telephone call, +Epstein warned his personal assistant, Lesley Groff, against turning over +documents and electronic evidence responsive to a subpoena issued by a federal +grand jury in the Southern District of Florida investigating Epstein's sex +offenses. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 49, 58. +The fact that Epstein warned his assistant against turning over materials in response to a grand +jury subpoena is simply not a "grand jury matter" to which Rule 6(e) applies. The subpoena had +been issued and its existence was known to Jeffrey Epstein -- what actions he himself took in +response to the issuance of the subpoena obviously were not matters occurring before the grand +jury; instead, they were matters occurring before Epstein and Groff that had nothing to do with +the inner workings of the grand jury. There is abundant caselaw to that effect. See, e.g., United +States v. Frazier, 944 F.2d 820, 825 (11th Cir. 1991) (even a witness who testifies before a grand +jury is not required to keep his testimony secret); Blalock v. United States, 844 F.2d 1546, 1551 +(11th Cir. 1988) ("Rule 6(e)(2) only protects information revealing what has occurred, or will +occur, inside the grand jury room."); see also +v. Mehltretter, 478 F. Supp. 2d 415 (W.D. +N.Y. 2007). +The fact that Epstein's actions are not protected grand jury matters is further proven by the +fact that the Government has already made "disclosure" of these very same facts. The U.S. +Attorney's correspondence found in Exhibit A to the victims' summary judgment motion +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 9 of 12 +involves, obviously enough, communications that the U.S. Attorney's Office made to persons +who are not entitled to receive protected grand jury materials -- namely, criminal defense +attorneys representing Epstein. If it violates grand jury secrecy for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 +to make reference to these matters in their briefs because these matters were protected "grand +jury matters" within the meaning of Rule 6(e), then it likewise violated grand jury secrecy for +government attorneys to make such disclosures to (for example Jay Lefkowitz. Disclosures of +confidential grand jury matters can only be made upon court order. See Fed. R. Crim. P. +6(e)(3)(E). Everything the victims are disclosing in their pleadings has already been disclosed +by attorneys in the U.S. Attorney's Office to persons not authorized to receive confidential grand +jury matters (namely Epstein's defense attorneys). It seems obvious that these government +attorneys did not violate Rule 6(e) by making such disclosures; yet the Government is arguing +that it would violate Rule 6(e) for the victims to do exactly the same thing.* +Nor does the Constitution somehow prevent the Government from negotiating in good faith +regarding the facts of the case. The Government cites In re +656 F.2d 1101, 1106 (5th Cir. +1981), and follow-on cases for the proposition that it violates the Constitution for the +Government to accuse an innocent person of committing a crime for no good reason when he +cannot respond. But In re +is easily distinguishable from this one for five reasons - as +explained at greater length in the victims' Reply to the Government's Response to Use +Correspondence to Prove CVRA Violations at pp. 5-7. The victims specifically incorporate +* Because of this inconsistency between what government lawyers have already disclosed +nd what the Government is now arguing that the victims can disclose, on April 13, 2011 th +ictims' counsel sent an e-mail to the Government respectfully asking them to either explain th +inconsistency or withdraw this part of their argument. The Government has not responded to this +e-mail. +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 10 of 12 +those five arguments by reference here. First, unlike In re +Jeffrey Epstein has not +appeared to assert his own claims. The Government lacks standing to assert his claims for him. +Second, only a small fraction of the proposed facts involve allegations that Epstein committed a +crime (as opposed to the Government violating victims' rights). Third, Epstein has not alleged +that he is in fact innocent of sexually abusing the victims. Fourth, Epstein has a forum in which +he can assert claims of innocence if he would like (namely this lawsuit). Fifth, In re | +involved a situation where it was not "necessary, material, or relevant," to discuss an innocent +person's involvement in a crime, in stark contrast to the situation here where discussion of +Epstein's criminal conduct is obviously central to this case. +Accordingly, there is no +constitutional barrier to the Government responding to the victims' facts. +IV. THE CENTRAL FACTS DEMONSTRATING THAT THE GOVERNMENT +DELIBERATELY CONCEALED THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT +ARE UNDISPUTED. +Finally, it is worth noting that the Government has not specifically rebutted the central +allegations made by the victims. For example, Proposed Fact #18 alleges that the Government +deliberately concealed the non-prosecution agreement from the victims' for many months. +Nothing in this paragraph is covered by grand jury secrecy rules or constitutional due process +limitations. The Court can draw the obvious conclusion that the reason that Government is +avoiding discussing the facts is that it fully realizes that acknowledging this fact will lead swiftly +to a finding that it failed to discharge its duties under the CVRA. The Government should not be +permitted to hide what it has done by failing to create a record in the case. +CONCLUSION +The Court should accept all the facts proffered by the victims. +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 11 of 12 +DATED: May 2, 2011 +Respectfully Submitted, +s/ +. JAFFE, WEISSING, +1. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 524-2820 +Facsimile (954) 524-2822 +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 12 of 12 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +The foregoing document was served on May 2, 2011, on the following using the Court's +CM/ECF system: +Dexter Lee +A. +Villafaña +Assistant U.S. Attorneys +500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Fax: (561) 820-8777 +E-mail: Dexter. eusdai sov +Attorneys for the Government +Roy Black, Esq. +Jackie Perczek, Esq. +Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1300 +Miami, FL 33131 +(305) 37106421 +(305) 358-2006 +G. Weinberg, P.C. +20 Park Plaza +Suite 1000 +Boston, 02116 +(617) 227-3700 +(617) 338-9538 +L. Ackerman, Jr. +Burnett PA +777 S. Flagler Drive, West Tower, Suite 901 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein +(courtesy copy of pleading via U.S. mail) +12 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc6784d8127c2da246d718dad062423f7795fbcc7b709a08a98486d51f5f7846.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc6784d8127c2da246d718dad062423f7795fbcc7b709a08a98486d51f5f7846.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cc3d36d413101dd6221cbda94e412b9e28c31f19 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc6784d8127c2da246d718dad062423f7795fbcc7b709a08a98486d51f5f7846.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -146, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cc6784d8127c2da246d718dad062423f7795fbcc7b709a08a98486d51f5f7846", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 13, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ce45f959ceab892ff4b2ee94f23e3dc23f69888a01db4f2365735593675b9f2a", + "output_sha256": "7a1ebd6dc34b14b113ff2825dd07c6eb569a48524273deb780b8bf9305657279", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc832366cbb406918c79bd8134c105e35f23eaef0ca9ea82563b76b21a5c32b0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc832366cbb406918c79bd8134c105e35f23eaef0ca9ea82563b76b21a5c32b0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..14c98dcba386d29be425e1a4f6b90558e57c6350 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc832366cbb406918c79bd8134c105e35f23eaef0ca9ea82563b76b21a5c32b0.md @@ -0,0 +1,745 @@ +Case 999841807886KAM BROMAN258R EMEREROLS DEt 08729291 Page 11 07f 166 +THE AVAILABILITY OF CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS UNDER THE CRIME +VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT OF 2004 +The rights provided by the Crime Victims' Rights Act are guaranteed from the time that criminal +proceedings are initiated (by complaint, information, or indictment) and cease to be available if all +charges are dismissed either voluntarily or on the merits (or if the Government declines to bring formal +charges after the filing of a complaint). +December 17, 2010 +MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE +ACTING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL +The Crime Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA"), enacted as section 102 of the Justice for All +Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-405, 118 Stat. 2260, 2261-64 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (2006 +& Supp. III 2009)), guarantees victims of federal (and District of Columbia) crimes eight rights. +See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). In connection with an effort to update the Attorney General's +Guidelines for Victims and Witness Assistance, you have asked whether some or all of these +rights must be made available to crime victims before the United States files charges and +whether the rights no longer apply once the relevant charges are declined, dropped, or dismissed. +In 2005, this Office conducted a preliminary review of these questions and concluded that +a person's status as a qualifying crime victim under the Act could reasonably be understood to +commence upon the filing of a criminal complaint, and could reasonably be understood to cease +if the relevant charges are declined, dropped, or dismissed. See E-mail for Rachel Brand et al., +Office of Legal Policy, from Luke Sobota, Office of Legal Counsel (Apr. 1, 2005). That +informal guidance did not foreclose the possibility that other readings of the CVRA might also +be reasonable. We observed, however, that the statutory definition of "crime victim," the nature +of the rights provided under the Act, and the CVRA's legislative history all suggested that the +rights guaranteed by the CVRA were limited in their applicability to pending criminal +proceedings. Having carefully considered written submissions by components of the Department +as well as other federal law enforcement agencies, and for the reasons outlined below, we now +conclude, consistent with our 2005 guidance, that the CVRA is best read as providing that the +rights identified in section 3771(a) are guaranteed from the time that criminal proceedings are +initiated (by complaint, information, or indictment) and cease to be available if all charges are +dismissed either voluntarily or on the merits (or if the Government declines to bring formal +charges after the filing of a complaint).' +' See Memorandum for John E. Bies, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, from +Christine A. Varney, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division (Sept. 27, 2010); E-mail for John Bies, Deputy +Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, from Karen Stevens, Acting Chief, Policy and Strategy +Section, Civil Rights Division (Oct. 4, 2010, 21:06); Memorandum for John E. Bies, Deputy Assistant Attorney +General, Office of Legal Counsel, from Eugene Thirolf, Director, Office of Consumer Litigation, Civil Division +(Sept. 24, 2010); Memorandum for John E. Bies, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, +from Patty M. Stemler, Chief, Appellate Section, Criminal Division (Sept. 30, 2010); Memorandum for Jonathan +Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division (Sept. 27, 2010) (ENRD Memo"); +Memorandum for John Bies, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, from H. Marshall Jarrett, +Director, Executive Office for United States Attorneys (Sept. 29, 2010); Office of the Assistant Attorney General, + + +Case 99984W807R8GKKAAM RRSULMRM258R EINERER ONELS DOt Pagle Page 07f 07f16 +The questions we address are limited to issues of statutory obligation under the CVRA. +We express no opinion as to whether any of the rights identified in 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) should +be provided prior to the filing of a complaint (or after the dismissal of charges) as a matter of +good practice, Departmental policy, or pursuant to the provisions of other victim-related statutes, +such as section 503 of the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 10607 +(2006).? +I. +The CVRA defines a "crime victim" in relevant part as "a person directly and +proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the +District of Columbia." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e). The Act states that crime victims so defined have +the following rights: +(1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. +(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any +public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the +crime or of any release or escape of the accused. +(3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court +proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing +evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be +materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that +proceeding. +(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in +the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole +proceeding. +National Security Division, +Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, from +General, Office of Legal Policy (Sept. 28, 2010); E-mail for John Bies, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office +of Legal Counsel, from Rafael Alberto Madan, General Counsel, Office of Justice Programs (Sept. 29, 2010, 19:23); +E-mail for John Bies, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, from St. Clair Theodore, +Assistant General Counsel, Federal Bureau of Investigation (Sept. 27, 2010, 2:52 PM); Memorandum for John E. +Bies, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, from Wendy H. Goggin, Chief Counsel, Drug +Enforcement Administration (Oct. 6. 2010); E-mail for John Bies, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of +Legal Counsel, from Audrey J. L +_ Associate General Counsel, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of +Homeland Security (Sept. 30, 2010, 3:17 PM); E-mail for John Bies, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office +of Legal Counsel, from L +B. Sterner, Deputy Chief Counsel (Operations), Internal Revenue Service, +Department of the Treasury (Sept. 24, 2010, 9:22 AM). We appreciate the thoroughness and thoughtfulness of these +submissions. +2 This memorandum addresses only the CVRA. It does not address the application of other statutes +providing for rights, services, or restitution for crime victims, including when such other statutes apply or who might +qualify as a "victim" under them. Likewise, we were not asked, and intimate no view on, the question of what +constitutes the "direct and proximate harm" necessary to qualify as a "crime victim" under the CVRA for a given +offense, as opposed to the question of when such rights must be provided. +2 + + +The Availability of Crime Victims' Rights Under The Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 +(5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the +Government in the case. +(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided by law. +(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. +(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the +victim's dignity and privacy. +18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(1)-(8). The CVRA repealed and replaced section 502 of the Crime Control +Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4789, 4820 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 10606 (2000)), +which appeared in a portion of that statute known as the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of +1990 ("VRRA"), and which originally provided crime victims with a very similar list of rights.? +(Other sections of the VRRA remain in force.) +Having identified these rights, the Act provides several avenues for their protection: +by the courts, by Executive Branch officers, and finally by providing standing to victims +themselves. First, the Act states that "li]n any court proceeding involving an offense against a +crime victim, the court shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded [these rights]." 18 U.S.C. +§ 3771(b)(1). Second, the Act provides that "[o]fficers and employees of the Department of +Justice and other departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the detection, +investigation, or prosecution of crime" shall "make their best efforts to see that crime victims are +notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a)," id. § 3771(c)(1), and it requires +"It]he prosecutor" to "advise the crime victim that the crime victim can seek the advice of an +attorney with respect to the rights described in subsection (a)," id. § 3771(c)(2). Third, the Act +authorizes crime victims, or their lawful representatives, as well as "the attorney for the +Government," id. § 3771(d)(1), to assert CVRA rights by motion "in the district court in which a +defendant is being prosecuted for the crime or, if no prosecution is underway, in the district court +3 The VRRA had read as follows: +Rights of Crime Victims.— A crime victim has the following rights: +(I) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity +and privacy. +(2) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused offender. +(3) The right to be notified of court proceedings. +(4) The right to be present at all public court proceedings related to the offense, +unless the court determines that testimony by the crime victim would be +materially affected if the victim heard other testimony at trial. +(5) The right to confer with [the] attorney for the Government in the case. +(6) The right to restitution. +(7) The right to information about the conviction, sentencing, imprisonment, +and release of the offender. +42 U.S.C. § 10606(b)(I)-(7) (2000). The rights provided in the VRRA applied to any victim of crime, defined in +section 503 of that Act as "a person that has suffered direct physical, emotional, or pecuniary harm as a result of the +commission of a crime," 42 U.S.C. § 10607(e)(2) (2006), including a crime under federal, state, or tribal law. +3 +Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/L + + +Case 9998480786KAM BROMAN258R ENtREPOLS D0829291 Page 4407f166 +in the district in which the crime occurred." Id. § 3771(d)(3). The Act directs the district court +"to take up and decide [such a motion] forthwith." Id. The Act provides for expedited +mandamus review by the court of appeals of any decision denying relief, id., and it permits the +"[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize a cause of action for damages," id. +§ 3771(d)(6), and directs that "InJothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the +prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction." Id. +In addition to providing means for judicial enforcement of the rights it guarantees, the +Act directs the Attorney General to "promulgate regulations to enforce the rights of crime +victims and to ensure compliance by responsible offcials with the obligations described in law +respecting crime victims." Id. § 3771(f)(1). These regulations "shall ... designate an +administrative authority within the Department of Justice to receive and investigate complaints +relating to the provision or violation of the rights of a crime victim," id. § 3771(f)(2)(A); "require +a course of training for employees and offices of the Department of Justice that fail to comply +with provisions of Federal law pertaining to the treatment of crime victims," id. § 3771(f)(2)(B); +"contain disciplinary sanctions, including suspension or termination from employment, for +employees of the Department of Justice who willfully or wantonly fail to comply with provisions +of Federal law pertaining to the treatment of crime victims," id. § 3771(f)(2)(C); and "provide +that the Attorney General, or the designee of the Attorney General, shall be the final arbiter of +the complaint, and that there shall be no judicial review of the final decision of the Attorney +General by a complainant," id. § 3771(f)(2)(D). Pursuant to the Act's directive, the Attorney +General has promulgated regulations establishing procedures for crime victims to file complaints +regarding the provision of CVRA rights or other obligations regarding crime victims provided by +law, and to have such complaints adjudicated. See 28 C.F.R. § 45.10 (2010). +Il. +While a number of provisions in the CVRA indicate that the rights it guarantees do not +apply until after the initiation of criminal proceedings, a few provisions could be read to suggest +that at least some of the rights are to be provided before any charges are filed. In our view, the +better reading of the Act—considering its text, structure, purpose, and legislative history—is that +the rights provided by the CVRA are guaranteed only from the time criminal proceedings are +initiated through a complaint, information, or indictment. See, e.g., United Sav. Ass'n of Tex. v. +Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs. Ltd., 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988) ("[s]tatutory construction ... is +a holistic endeavor"). To begin with, there are a number of textual indications that Congress was +focused on providing crime vietims an opportunity to participate in pending criminal +proceedings; these include the use of the term "offense" in the definition of "crime victim" and +the use of a number of terms—e.g., "the accused," "court proceedings," and "in the case"—in +the characterizations of several of the rights in section 3771(a). The nature of the CVRA rights +considered as a whole also reflects a paramount focus on ensuring that crime victims have +standing and an opportunity to be heard in pending criminal proceedings involving conduct that +harmed them. This focus is embodied in the enforcement mechanisms provided in the Act, +which direct courts to ensure that crime victims are afforded their CVRA rights to participate in +pending criminal proceedings and empower crime victims to file motions to enforce these rights +4 + + +Case 99984W80786KAM BROMAN 258R EMEREROLS DOt 08729291 ge55 07f 166 +The Availability of Crime Victims' Rights Under The Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 +directly in such proceedings without intervening or becoming a party. The judicial enforceability +of CVRA rights by victims themselves distinguishes those rights, in the main, from the rights +protected in other victims' rights statutes, and counsels a construction of the Act that clearly +defines the availability of the rights. The CVRA's legislative history likewise reflects the +importance to Congress of ensuring that crime victims be heard in the judicial process, and +that they have standing to protect their interests in such proceedings. By contrast, there is no +indication in the Act or its legislative history that Congress intended to empower crime victims +to initiate independent court proceedings outside the context of a pending criminal proceeding to +enforce their rights under the Act, and thereby compel federal courts to adjudicate the existence +of a Federal offense absent any formal charging decision by the Government, a prospect that +would be in considerable tension with the Act's express disavowal of any intent to "impair ... +prosecutorial discretion." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6). +A. +An analysis of the rights provided by the CVRA logically begins with its definition of +"crime vietim." Only "crime victims" are entitled to the rights articulated in 18 U.S.C. +§ 3771(a), the opening clause of which states that "[a] crime victim has the following rights." +For the purposes of the CVRA, a "crime victim" is defined as "a person directly and proximately +harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of +Columbia." Id. § 3771(e) (emphasis added).* The CVRA's definition of "crime victim," +however, does not conclusively resolve the question of when the rights afforded in section +3771(a) become available. Nevertheless, the definition's requirement that a crime victim be +harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal "offense" naturally suggests that a person's +status as a "crime victim" can only be determined after there has been a formal decision to +charge a defendant with a particular Federal offense. Under this reading, the earliest that a +"crime victim" under the Act could be identified would be upon the filing of a criminal +complaint—that is, at the earliest point at which there is a sworn written statement of probable +cause to believe that a particular defendant committed an identified Federal offense, see Fed. +R. Crim. P. 4, and hence the first point at which it is possible with any certainty to identify a +"crime vietim" directly and proximately harmed by the commission of that offense. As our +2005 informal advice observed, before the filing of a criminal complaint, it is not clear how one +ascertains whether a particular harm is the result of a "Federal offense" or some other sort of +conduct that does not constitute a Federal offense. Consistent with this reading, most courts to +* Hereafter, this memorandum will use "Federal offense" to refer to offenses either under federal law or +the laws of the District of Columbia. +" This reading of the definition of "crime victim" also finds some support in the history of the CVRA's +enactment. As noted, the CVRA repealed and replaced section 502 of the VRRA (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 10606 +(2000)), which originally provided victims of crime with a very similar list of rights, see supra n. 3. The VRRA +defined "victim" broadly as "a person that has suffered direct physical, emotional, or pecuniary harm as a result of +the commission of a crime," 42 U.S.C. $ 10607(e)(2) (2006), including the commission of a crime under federal, +state, or tribal law. Rather than adopt this definition of "crime victim" in the CVRA, Congress relied on a definition +that appears to be taken nearly verbatim from two prior federal victim-oriented statutes that limit rights to restitution +to individuals "directly and proximately harmed" by an "offense." See 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(2) (2006 & Supp. III +2009) (defining "victim" for purposes of the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 ("VWPA"*) as "a person +directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of an offense for which restitution may be ordered"); +18 U.S.C. § 3553A(a)(2) (same for purposes of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act). Congress's apparent +decision to adopt the VWPA's definition of "victim" is potentially significant insofar as it allows us to look for +5 + + +Case 999841807886KAM BROMAN258R ENTREPOLS DEtORA Page 60f166 +consider who qualifies as a "crime victim" under the Act have declined to extend enforceable +rights under the CVRA to alleged victims of conduct that did not lead to criminal proceedings." +B. +Standing alone, the CVRA's definition of "crime victim" is not dispositive of the +questions you have posed. But when we consider other aspects of the Act, including the nature +of the rights conferred, the enforcement mechanisms adopted, the general structure and purposes +of the Act, and the Act's legislative history, they only strengthen the conclusion that the Act +is best understood to confer the rights in section 3771(a) only when a direct and proximate +relationship can be drawn between the victim and an underlying Federal offense with which +a defendant has been charged in a federal criminal proceeding. +To begin with, the rights conferred in 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a), taken together, appear to +contemplate the existence of an ongoing criminal proceeding initiated by the Government. Five +of the eight rights articulated there expressly refer to or necessarily presuppose the existence of +a criminal proceeding. See id. § 3771(a)(2), (3), (4), (6), (7). Three of these reflect the victim's +right to notification of, access to, and opportunity to be heard in public court proceedings +involving release, plea, sentencing, or parole. See id. § 3771(a)(2) ("The right to reasonable, +accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving +the crime or of any release or escape of the accused."); id. § 3771(a)(3) ("The right not to be +excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and +convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the +guidance to decisions interpreting that statute. See Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411, 422 (1990) (holding +that VWPA authorized restitution only for losses caused by the offense of conviction). Indeed, some courts have +interpreted the CVRA based on the assumption that Congress was aware that courts had interpreted the VWPA not +to apply to uncharged conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Turner, 367 F. Supp. 2d 319, 326-27 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) +(*IT]he full Congress passed the [CVRA] knowing that similar language in an earlier victims' rights bill had been +interpreted not to refer to uncharged conduct. ... Since the [VWPA] and the CVRA use similar definitions of +"victim," it appears that the same reasoning would exclude victims of uncharged conduct from the class of those +entitled to participatory rights under the [CVRA].") (footnote omitted). This comports with how courts have +interpreted the CVRA in the context of restitution claims; in that context they have emphasized the statutory +requirement of "direct and proximate harm" caused by the offense of conviction to limit the standing of alleged +crime victims to assert restitution claims under the CVRA. See In re Rendon Galvis, 564 F.3d 170, 175-76 (2d Cir. +2009); In re Stewart 552 F.3d 1285, 1288-89 (11th Cir. 2008); In re Antrobus, 519 F.3d 1123, 1125-26 (10th Cir. +2008); United States v. Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 612 F. Supp. 2d 453, 545 (D.N.J. 2009); United States v. +Sharp, 463 F. Supp. 2d 556, 563-64 (E.D.Va. 2006). However, insofar as restitution, unlike many of the other rights +provided in section 3771(a), necessarily depends on the existence of a predicate conviction, these considerations are +only suggestive. +• See, e.g., Turner, 367 F. Supp. 2d at 326-27 (excluding victims of uncharged conduct from the class of +those entitled to participatory rights under the Act because "the offense charged against a defendant can serve as a +basis for identifying a 'crime victim" as defined in the CVRA"); Searcy v. Paletz, No. 6:07-1389-GRA-WMC, 2007 +WL 1875802, at "6 (D.S.C. June 27, 2007) (inmate does not qualify as a "crime victim" under the CVRA where +there has been a prosecutorial decision not to charge another inmate accused of attacking him); Searcy v. Skinner, +No. 6:06-1418-GRA-WMC, 2006 WL 1677177, at *2 (D.S.C. June 16, 2006) (where Government had declined to +bring a prosecution against an inmate accused of attacking plaintiff, he could not use the CVRA as basis to bring his +own action against inmate). But see United States v. BP Prods. North Am. Inc., No. H-07-434, 2008 WL 501321, at +*11-16 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2008) (finding certain CVRA rights to apply pre-charge but construing them narrowly so +as not to interfere with prosecutorial discretion). +6 + + +Case 99984W80786KAM BROMAN258R EMEREROLS DOt 0829291A Page 7 Of 166 +The Availability of Crime Victims' Rights Under The Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 +victim heard other testimony at that proceeding."); id. § 3771(a)(4) ("The right to be reasonably +heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any +parole proceeding."). Two others, regarding the right to restitution and the right to proceedings +free from unreasonable delay, likewise presume the existence of criminal proceedings against a +defendant. See id. § 3771(a)(6) ("The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law."); +id. § 3771(a)(7) ("The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay."). +Admittedly, the remaining three rights (set out in sections 3771(a)(1), (5) and (8)) would +not necessarily have to be limited to the period after the initiation of a criminal proceeding. +Nevertheless, in our view, the CVRA is best read to contemplate judicial enforcement of these +rights only once the Government has initiated a federal criminal proceeding. +We turn first to the "right to be reasonably protected from the accused." 18 U.S.C. +§ 3771(a)(1). Section 3771(a)(1)'s use of the term "the accused" appears to contemplate that the +Government has already initiated criminal proceedings. "The accused" is a legal term of art that +means a person who has been formally charged with a crime. See Black's Law Dictionary 25 +(9th ed. 2009) ("A person who has been arrested and brought before a magistrate or who has +been formally charged with a crime. +A person against whom legal proceedings have been +initiated."); see also Michigan v. +1. 475 U.S. 625, 632 (1986) ("[A]fter a formal +accusation has been made ... a person who had previously been just a 'suspect' has become an +"accused" within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment ... ."). The single CVRA decision of +which we are aware to address this issue on the merits adopts just such a reading of "accused," +finding the right to reasonable protection afforded in section 3771(a)(1) of the Act to be +applicable only in the context of an ongoing criminal proceeding. See United States v. Rubin, +558 F. Supp. 2d 411, 420 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (*'[A]ccused' must mean accused by criminal +complaint, information or indictment of conduct victimizing the complainant. The right... to be +"reasonably protected from the accused' cannot have ripened before the earliest of one of these +happenings."). +The context in which Congress enacted the CVRA provides an additional reason to +adopt this understanding of its right to protection from the accused. Congress enacted section +3771(a)(1) against the backdrop of a pre-existing requirement in section 503 of the VRRA that, +during the investigation of a crime, designated "responsible officials" at any agency "engaged +in the detection, investigation or prosecution of crime," 42 U.S.C. § 10607(a), shall, "[a]t the +earliest opportunity after the detection of a crime," id. § 10607(b), "arrange for a victim to +receive reasonable protection from a suspected offender," id. § 10607(c)(2) (emphasis added). +This requirement remains in force and, by its terms, can apply before the filing of criminal +charges. The contrast between VRRA's continuing requirement that the Government provide +victims with reasonable protection from a "suspected offender" and the CVRA's "right to be +reasonably protected from the accused," 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(1), strengthens our conclusion that +Congress elected in the CVRA to guarantee crime victims a judicially enforceable right to +protection only after a formal accusation by the Government, i.e., after the initiation of criminal +proceedings. This is particularly so given that the right to protection in the CVRA replaced a +similar right "to be reasonably protected from the accused offender," 42 U.S.C. § 10606(b)(2) +(emphasis added), previously provided in section 502 of the VRRA. Indeed, reading a victim's +entitlement to protection under section 10607(c)(2) and under section 3771(a)(1) as co-terminous +would fail to give meaning to Congress's deliberate choice to use different words in two +7 + + +Case 999844807886KAM BROMAN 28R ENTREROLS DOt 08729291A Page 807f 166 +provisions of the same statutory scheme (as well as in what were originally two parts of the +same enactment). See, e.g.. +v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 145 (1995) (holding that +"a legislature is presumed to have used no superfluous words," and construing words "use" +and "carry" in the same statutory scheme as having separate and non-overlapping meanings) +(quoting +v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 99 U.S. 48, 58 (1878))? +Similarly, the wording of the CVRA's "reasonable right to confer with the attorney for +the Government in the case," 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5), suggests that the right is intended to apply +only once the Government has initiated criminal proceedings. The phrase "in the case" implies +the pendency of a judicial proceeding. See l +1, 538 U.S. 760, 766 (2003) +("'a 'criminal case' at the very least requires the initiation of legal proceedings"); Black's Law +Dictionary at 243 (defining "case" as a "civil or criminal proceeding, action, suit or controversy +at law or in equity"); Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 581, 595 (1871) ("The words +'case' and "cause' are constantly used as synonyms in statutes and judicial decisions, each +meaning a proceeding in court, a suit, or action."); cf. Phar-Mor, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, +22 F.3d 1228, 1233 (3d Cir. 1994) (a "case" within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 1109(b) "is +commenced by the filing of a petition under the Bankruptcy Code"). Congress's use of the +definite article "the" in reference to the word "case" also supports the view that "the case" +implies a specific adversary proceeding rather than an indefinite ongoing investigation. +Cf. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004) (interpreting use of the definite article +"the person" in a provision regarding a habeas corpus custodian to signify that there is usually +only one proper custodian, and not several different ones). +" In a law review article published shortly after passage of the CVRA, one of the Act's sponsors suggested +that the CVRA's right to be "reasonably protected from the accused" might apply "without regard to the existence +of legal proceedings," which could be read to include before a complaint has been filed. Jon Kyl, Steven J. Twist & +Stephen Higgins. On the Wings of Their Angels: The Scott +•. Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna +Gillis, and Nila +Crime Victims' Rights Act, 9| +& Clark L. Rev. 581, 594 (2005). For the reasons outlined +above, we think this is not what Congress intended with respect to the CVRA's judicially enforceable right to +protection (as opposed, perhaps, to the protective "services" that section 503(c)(2) of the VRRA obligates the +Government to provide). If this right were read to apply before the filing of charges, the CVRA would empower +private citizens to go into court, in the absence of any pending charges, and seek a court order for protection, which +would require a judicial determination whether the requisite elements, including the existence of a Federal offense, +are present, without regard for any impact on Governmental resources or on pending and potentially confidential +investigations. As we discuss more fully below, such a reading would be in tension with the long tradition of +executive discretion to initiate criminal proceedings, and with section 3771(d)(6) of the Act, which directs that the +Act not to "be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his +direction." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6). +The legislative record suggests that Congress's principal concern, beyond ensuring protection of victims +during the pendency of criminal charges, was protection after a conviction to ensure the victim could be heard with +respect to a determination regarding parole or early release of a convicted offender. A colloquy between two +original sponsors of the bill reflects this concern: +Ms. Feinstein: One final point. Throughout this act, reference is made to the "accused." Would +the Senator also agree that it is our intention to use this word in the broadest sense to include both +those charged and convicted so that the rights we establish apply throughout the criminal justice +system? +Mr. Kyl: Yes.... +150 Cong. Rec. 7304 (2004) (colloquy of Sens. Feinstein and Kyl) (emphasis added). +8 + + +The Availability of Crime Victims' Rights Under The Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 +That the right to confer is with "the attorney" for the Government in the case reinforces +the conclusion that the right to confer is tied to the existence of a criminal proceeding in which a +Government attorney plays a lead role. Of course, attorneys for the Government may sometimes +play a role during an investigation, particularly once a matter is being presented to a grand jury,® +but typically most investigative work is done by federal agents. If the right to confer were meant +to apply during investigations, it is not clear why Congress would have limited the responsibility +to confer with a crime victim to the attorney for the Government, particularly since there may be +many open investigations where no attorney has been assigned. Congress understood how to +assign responsibilities in connection with protecting victims' rights to officials involved in the +criminal justice process who were not attorneys, including responsibilities that take effect before +the filing of any criminal charges, as it did in the VRRA when it specifically required designated +"responsible officials" at all agencies "engaged in the detection, investigation or prosecution of +crime," 42 U.S.C. § 10607(a), to provide the specified services, including, for example, a duty to +ensure that victims receive "the earliest possible notice of-the status of the investigation of the +crime." Id. § 10607(c)(3)(A). By contrast, limiting the responsibility to confer to a single +Government attorney would make sense if the right to confer relates to issues that arise in the +course of a criminal proceeding, such as potential release, the role of the victim as a witness in +the course of the prosecution, potential plea agreements, sentencing, and restitution efforts, for +which the prosecuting attorney would be the most natural party to confer with victims. +The CVRA's legislative history further bolsters our conclusion that the right to confer +arises once a criminal proceeding has been commenced. Floor statements by both original +sponsors of the Act in the Senate emphasize that the right to confer relates to the conduct of +criminal proceedings after the filing of charges. Senator Feinstein explained that "It]he victim +of crime, or their counsel, should be able to provide any information, as well as their opinion, +directly to the court concerning the release, plea, or sentencing of the accused.... Of course, +in providing victim information or opinion it is important that the victim be able to confer with +the prosecutor concerning a variety of matters and proceedings... This right is intended to be +expansive. For example, the victim has the right to confer with the Government concerning +any critical stage or disposition of the case." 150 Cong. Rec. 7302 (2004) (emphasis added). +Similarly, Senator Kyl stated that "It]his right to confer does not give the crime victim any right +to direct the prosecution. Prosecutors should consider it part of their profession to be available to +consult with crime victims about concerns the victims may have which are pertinent to the case, +case proceedings or dispositions. Under this provision, victims are able to confer with the +Government's attorney about proceedings after charging." Id. (emphasis added). +Some have suggested that the right to confer should be understood to apply to plea +negotiations that take place before the filing of charges. See ENRD Memo at 2-3. And it is true +that a pre-charge negotiated plea agreement may reduce a victim's ability to provide input in a +meaningful way regarding the matters addressed in the agreement. Although much of such precharge negotiations may relate to charging decisions that we believe are beyond the ambit of the +" Strictly speaking, the grand jury foreperson, not an attorney for the Government, is "in charge" of +proceedings before a grand jury. Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(c). Furthermore, such proceedings are confidential as a matter +of law, Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e), and the CVRA's legislative history shows that Congress did not intend to permit crime +victims to attend grand jury proceedings. See 150 Cong. Rec. 22,951 (2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (*the right is +limited to public proceedings, thus grand jury proceedings are excluded from the right"). +9 + + +right to confer, see 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6) ("Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair +the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction."), we +recognize that our reading of the CVRA may in certain circumstances reduce the impact of a +victim's participation in subsequent court proceedings to which the right to confer does apply. +See, e.g., Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) (plea agreement binding on court). Even in such a case, +the CVRA would still ensure that the victim has an opportunity to be heard by the court, and by +the Government, before the court accepts the plea or imposes a sentence, as well as a right to +seek mandamus and attempt to have the plea set aside. And, of course, our view of what the +CVRA requires in no way limits the discretion either of individual prosecutors to confer with +victims about pre-charge plea negotiations or of the Attorney General to direct that prosecutors +do so as a matter of Departmental policy. The question before us, though, is not whether it +would be advisable as a matter of good practice or Departmental policy for Government +attorneys to confer with victims pre-charge when appropriate, but whether Congress created a +judicially-enforceable right for victims pursuant to which they may compel prosecutors to do so. +Noting in the Act or its legislative history suggests Congress intended such a result. +Accordingly, we do not believe the CVRA is best read to obligate the Government to confer with +victims during such pre-charge negotiations with a criminal suspect.? +The eighth CVRA right is "It Jhe right to be treated with fairness and with respect for +the victim's dignity and privacy." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). Unlike the terms of the other seven +CVRA rights, the wording of the right to fairness and dignity does not itself indicate that the +right applies only once criminal charges have been filed. The concepts of "fairness," "dignity," +and "privacy" are certainly implicated directly in judicial proceedings. See, e.g., Nixon v. +Warner Comme'ns, Inc. 435 U.S. 589, 602-03, 608-11 (1978) (addressing tension between +privacy and common law right of public access to court records). But issues of fairness, privacy, +and dignity for victims can arise during the course of a criminal investigation as well. See BP +° The Fifth Circuit's decision in In re +527 F.3d 391 (Sth Cir. 2008), might be read to reach a +contrary result. Determining the significance of In re +on this question, however, is complicated both by the +unusual circumstances of that particular case and by the fact that the parties did not contest whether the right to +confer applied pre-charge. In connection with the underlying criminal matter, shortly before the initiation of +criminal proceedings against a corporate defendant, the Government first filed an ex parte proceeding seeking (and +obtaining) a court order restricting notice to victims under the CVRA until after charges (and a plea agreement) had +been filed and unsealed, arguing that this met the "reasonableness" requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5) because +of the practical difficulties any pre-charge notice would have entailed. See In re +this argument, the Fifth Circuit ruled that such an ex parte proceeding was contrary to the provisions of the CVRA +and unprecedented as a matter of law. Id. It is unclear whether the court's subsequent criticism of the +Government's failure to confer pre-charge was simply a response to the unusual ex parte filing in the case or +reflected a broader view that the CVRA obligates the Government to engage in such pre-charge referrals more +generally. The court appeared to recognize the unique "posture of this case," and was careful not to "speculate on +the applicability to other situations." Id. at 394. In any event, the question of whether the right to confer under the +CVRA applied at all pre-charge (as opposed to the question of the reasonableness of the procedure used in that case) +was not contested or briefed in the district court or on appeal. To the extent that the court of appeals in In re +held that the right to confer under the CVRA can be triggered during the initial investigative phase of the case, and +that CVRA obligates the Government as a general matter to confer with crime victims during pre-charge +negotiations with criminal suspects regarding a potential plea agreement, we respectfully disagree. A number of +subsequent decisions do not follow In re +01, 2008 WL 1744762, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 11, 2008) (victim has rights under the CVRA only once prosecution +has begun); Rubin, 558 F. Supp. 2d at 420 (victims' rights accrue upon filing of the indictment); see also In re +Acker, 596 F.3d 370, 373 (6th Cir. 2010) (whether a victim has rights prior to formal charges being filed is +"uncertain"). +10 + + +The Availability of Crime Victims' Rights Under The Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 +Prods. North Am. Inc., 2008 WL 501321, at *11 ("The right to be treated with fairness and with +respect for the victim's dignity and privacy may apply with great force during an investigation, +before any charging instrument has been filed."); cf. VRRA, Pub. L. No. 101-647, § 506(1), 104 +Stat. 4789, 4822 (1990) ("It is the sense of Congress that the States should make every effort to +adopt the following goals of the Victim of Crime Bill of Rights," including that "[vlictims of +crime should be treated with compassion, respect, and dignity throughout the criminal justice +process."). +This right, however, must be considered in the context of the other rights guaranteed by +the CVRA. Under the well-known canon of statutory interpretation noscitur a sociis, which +means that "words and people are known by their companions," Gutierrez v. Ada, 528 U.S. 250, +255 (2000), "several items in a list sharling] an attribute counsels in favor of interpreting the +other items as possessing that attribute as well," Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368, 371 +(1994). Similarly, here, the range of application of the first seven, more specific rights should +be understood to inform the scope of the potentially more general right to fairness, dignity, and +privacy afforded by section 377l(a)(8). Cf. Jarecki v. G.D. Searle d Co., 367 U.S. 303, 311-12 +(1961) (construing for tax purposes the term "discovery" in the phrase "exploration, discovery +or prospecting" to be limited to the finding of minerals, as suggested by its association with +exploration and prospecting, and therefore inapplicable to income from a patented item). +Reading the right to be treated with fairness and dignity to apply during pending criminal +proceedings is consistent with the discussion concerning the right in the CVRA's legislative +history. Every example of crime victims experiencing unfairness, indignities, or violations of +their privacy discussed in the legislative history refers to situations occurring after the filing of +charges and typically involved a deprivation of one or more of the other rights protected by the +Act as well. For instance, the floor debates reflect concern with the fairness and dignity with +which crime victims are treated during pending criminal prosecutions. See, e.g., 150 Cong. Rec. +7296-97 (2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein) (describing several examples of the failure to notify +crime victims of critical hearings in criminal cases, as well as other instances where crime +victims were problematically excluded from criminal proceedings); id. at 7297 ("This is not the +way criminal justice should be practiced in the United States of America. The time has come to +give victims of crime the right to participate in the system, the right to notice of a public hearing. +the right to be present at that public proceeding, the right to make a statement when appropriate, +the right to have restitution, if ordered by a judge, the right to know when your assailant or +attacker is released from prison, and the right to be treated by our prosecutors and by our +criminal justice system with respect and dignity."); id. at 7298 (statement of Sen. Kyl) (Fair +play for crime victims, meaningful participation ... in the justice system, protection against a +government that would take from a crime victim the dignity of due process—these are consistent +with the most basic values of due process in our society.").' These statements and examples +suggest that Congress was concerned with ensuring fair treatment for crime victims in the +context of pending criminal proceedings, rather than creating a right that could be asserted +1° In the more extensive legislative history for S.J. Res. 1, 108th Cong. (2003) (the proposed constitutional +amendment for which the CVRA emerged as a statutory substitute), the numerous examples of alleged affronts to +fairness, dignity, and privacy suffered by crime victims again uniformly arise from the conduct of criminal +proceedings and relate to perceived failures by courts to allow a crime victim to participate meaningfully in those +proceedings against the alleged victimizer. See generally S. Rep. No. 108-191, at 19-20, 25, 28 (2003). +11 + + +independent of any criminal prosecution. For these reasons, we conclude that the right to +fairness, dignity, and privacy in section 3771(a)(8) of the Act, like the other seven rights, +should be understood as applying only after the filing of criminal charges against a defendant. +C. +In addition to the nature of the rights provided, the structure and purpose of the Act, as +reflected in the mechanisms provided to enforce the rights and the Act's legislative history, also +support our conclusion that the rights are guaranteed only once the Government has initiated +criminal proceedings. The mechanisms Congress established in the CVRA to ensure that crime +victims are afforded their rights, including by providing crime victims standing to assert the +rights directly, all relate to pending criminal proceedings. Three provisions of the Act ensure +that crime victims are provided their rights or have standing to assert them. First, under the +heading "Rights Afforded," the CVRA provides expressly that "li]n any court proceeding +involving an offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the crime victim is +afforded the rights described in subsection (a)." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b)(1). This provision +explicitly empowers—and, indeed, requires—the courts to afford the CVRA rights during +pending criminal proceedings. Second, the Act explicitly provides crime victims the right to +participate in a pending criminal proceeding without intervening or becoming a party to the +litigation by filing a motion on their own behalf. See id. § 3771(d)(3) (providing crime victims +standing to assert their rights under the Act by motion). Third, the Act provides that crime +victims are entitled to seek relief by writ of mandamus from the court of appeals if the district +court denies the relief sought by motion in a pending criminal proceeding. See id. ('If the +district court denies the relief sought, the movant may petition the court of appeals for a writ +of mandamus.")." By contrast, the CVRA includes no provision for crime victims to initiate +independent judicial proceedings by any mechanism, whether by private complaint or petition or +otherwise, to enforce these rights. Taken together, the enforcement mechanisms provided by the +CVRA appear to be designed to ensure that crime victims would have legal standing to be heard +in the context of ongoing criminal proceedings against defendants who have been accused by the +Government of a Federal offense. +The CVRA's legislative history likewise underscores more generally that protecting the +ability of crime victims to participate in pending criminal proceedings was the primary purpose +underlying the Act. Much of the impetus for enactment of the CVRA arose after the Tenth +Circuit issued a decision in United States v. McVeigh, the prosecution of Timothy McVeigh, +the bomber of the federal building in Oklahoma City, limiting the ability of victims to enforce +in court their rights under the VRRA.' The district judge ordered the sequestration of crime +victims from the trial in anticipation of hearing victim-impact statements at sentencing. The +" The Act also assigns "It]he prosecutor" the responsibility to advise crime victims that they "can seek the +advice of an attorney" with respect to their CVRA rights. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(2) (emphasis added). +12 See, e.g., 150 Cong. Rec. 7295 (2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein) ("Nowhere was the need for this +legislation made more clear than during the trials over the Oklahoma City bombing."); see also id. at 22,953 +(statement of Sen. Kyl) ("This legislation is meant to ensure that cases like the McVeigh case, where victims of the +Oklahoma City bombing were effectively denied the right to attend the trial and to avoid federal appeals courts from +determining, as the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals did, that victims had no standing to seek review of their right to +attend the trial under the former victims' law that this bill replaces."). +12 + + +The Availability of Crime Victims' Rights Under The Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 +victims and their families sought mandamus review in the Tenth Circuit, relying, inter alia, on +the language in section 502(b)(4) of the VRRA, granting them a "right to be present at all public +court proceedings related to the offense." 106 F.3d 325, 328-29 (10th Cir. 1997). The Tenth +Circuit denied the mandamus petition, holding that crime victims lacked standing to enforce their +rights under the VRRA in court." Id. at 335 (declaring VRRA enforceable only through the +"best efforts" of the Government); see also Memorandum for Kathryn Turman, Acting Director, +Office for Victims of Crime, from William Michael Treanor, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, +Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Effect of 42 U.S.C. Section 10607 on Proposed Revisions to the +Attorney General's Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance at 4 (Jan. 15, 1999) (VRRA's +"best efforts" obligation does not create judicially enforceable rights). The legislative record is +replete with statements reflecting Congress's particular concern with ensuring that crime victims +would have standing to participate in ongoing criminal proceedings. CVRA supporters +repeatedly expressed concern regarding the failures of the judicial system to account sufficiently +for victims' interests and emphasized the need to give crime victims the opportunity to +participate in such proceedings through judicially-enforceable rights. By contrast, the +legislative history contains no discussion of the possibility of crime victims bringing independent +proceedings to enforce their rights rather than enforcing them in the context of existing, pending +criminal proceedings. +D. +Particularly given the support for our reading in the text of the Act and its legislative +history, we are not persuaded by two arguments that have been presented in support of the view +that the rights afforded in the Act were meant to apply in some circumstances before the filing of +a criminal complaint. +B Although the Tenth Circuit's ruling in McVeigh figures most prominently in the CVRA's legislative +history, Congress was also troubled generally by courts denying victims standing with respect to restitution orders +under the VWPA. See S. Rep. No. 108-191, at 13 (2003) ("In those rare cases when [victims seek restitution] they +face a daunting array of obstacles, including barriers to their even obtaining "standing' to be heard to raise their +challenge denial of restitution order); United States v. Kelley, 997 F.2d 806, 808 (10th Cir. 1993) (same). These +cases rested in part on a series of Supreme Court decisions denying standing to crime victims more generally. +See, e.g., Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83, 86-87 (1981) (because decision to prosecute is solely within discretion +of prosecutor, private citizen has no judicially cognizable right to challenge how prosecutor goes about making +decision to prosecute); Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) ("a private citizen lacks a judicially +cognizable interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another"). +14 The legislative history reflects a clear concern with a failure to provide crime victims with a meaningful +opportunity to participate in criminal proceedings, and consequently the need to create express enforcement +mechanisms for the rights. See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 108-711, at 2 (2004), reprinted in 2004 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2274, +2276 ("Victims of crime often do not feel their voices are heard or that their concerns are adequately addressed in +the judicial process... This legislation addresses these concerns by codifying the rights of victims and providing +the means to enforce those rights."): 150 Cong. Rec. 7296 (2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein) ("In case after case +we found victims, and their families, were ignored, cast aside, and treated as non-participants in a critical event in +their lives. They were kept in the dark by prosecutors to busy to care enough, by judges focused on defendant's +rights, and by a court system that simply did not have a place for them."); id. at 7297 (The time has come to give +victims of crime the right to participate in the system ...."); id. at 7298 (statement of Sen. Kyl) (describing the Act +as providing crime victims "meaningful participation ... in the justice system"). +13 + + +Perhaps the most significant argument that the rights guaranteed by the CVRA may apply +before the pendency of criminal proceedings comes from the venue provision, which provides +that the rights described in subsection (a) shall be asserted in the district court in which a +defendant is being prosecuted for the crime or, if no prosecution is underway, in the district court +in the district in which the crime occurred." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) (emphasis added). The +phrase "if no prosecution is underway," understood colloquially, might be thought to envisage +the possibility that some CVRA rights may be asserted before the pendency of criminal +proceedings against a particular defendant. But "prosecution" is also a legal term of art used to +refer to the levying of formal charges, and not merely the issuance of a warrant upon the filing +of a complaint, and we think the venue provision should be read in light of this understanding, +particularly when considered in the context of the other aspects of the Act discussed above. For +instance, Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that a felony "be prosecuted +by indictment," and therefore any prosecution of a felony must commence with the return of an +indictment by a grand jury, Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(a)(1) (or, if the defendant waives his right to +indictment, the filing of an information by the Government, id. 7(b)). Cf. United States v. +Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 200 (4th Cir. 2006) (stating that, for Sixth Amendment purposes, +"the filing of a federal criminal complaint does not commence a formal prosecution").'S +As a result, a "prosecution" does not necessarily commence simply because criminal proceedings +have been initiated by the filing of a complaint, although an initial appearance must be held +"without unnecessary delay" after a defendant is arrested on a warrant. Fed. R. Crim. P. +5(a)(1)(A) (providing for initial appearance of a person arrested pursuant to a warrant). At such +an initial appearance the magistrate judge informs the defendant of his rights, affords him a +reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel, and makes an initial determination with respect +to the defendant's continued detention. Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(d). Consequently, even before a +"prosecution" is "underway," important rights secured by the CVRA may be at stake, including +the right of crime victims to be heard with respect to the possible release of the defendant. See +18 U.S.C. $ 3771(a)(1), (2), (4). ' Accordingly, we believe the venue provision's reference to +the period when a prosecution is not underway is best read as applying to the period of time +between the filing of a complaint and the initiation of formal charges. +15 See also Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 688-90 (1972) (for purposes of Sixth Amendment right to +counsel, "criminal prosecution" does not commence with filing of complaint and issuance of arrest warrant); +United States v. Pace, 833 F.2d 1307, 1312 (9th Cir. 1987) (filing of complaint and issuance of arrest warrant +do not commence criminal prosecution for Sixth Amendment purposes, but rather, based on Fed. R. Crim. P. 7, +"prosecution commenced when the indictment was handed down"). But see Hanrahan v. United States, 348 F.2d +363, 366 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1965) ("In some cases the formal prosecution may begin with the indictment or information. +But in others, the prosecution may begin with the filing of a complaint.*). +If Moreover, when a defendant is arrested outside of the district where the crime occurred, such initial +proceedings may not occur in the district where the crime occurred. On this reading, the Act's direction that the +victim seek relief in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred," 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3), would +apply during such a period and would sensibly direct the crime victim to the court where the prosecution most likely +would ultimately occur, in conformity with Fed. R. Crim. P. 18 ("the government must prosecute an offense in a +district where the offense was committed"). +1 Given that we read this provision as consistent with our conclusion regarding when CVRA rights +become available, we do not reach the question of whether other periods of time (such as after judgment has been +entered and a prosecution is no longer underway) may also satisfy the venue provision of the Act. +14 + + +The Availability of Crime Victims' Rights Under The Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 +Similarly, in our view, section 3771(c)(1) of the Act—which requires those involved in +the "detection, investigation or prosecution of crime [to] make their best efforts to see that crime +victims are notified of, and accorded, [their CVRA rights]"-—does not indicate that the CVRA +rights apply before the Government initiates criminal proceedings. As we noted in our 2005 +informal advice, these references to detection and investigation tell us about which federal +officials have obligations to ensure the protection of victims' rights, not when those rights arise. +For example, the role of field agents, that is, those centrally responsible for the detection and +investigation of crime, does not stop with the filing of criminal charges. Rather, agents and +detectives play an ongoing role throughout the prosecution of a case, including continued +investigative efforts and interactions with victims, and, where necessary, assisting in providing +protection to victims and witnesses. In particular, agents often develop a relationship of trust +with crime victims during the investigation that continues as they assist crime victims in +negotiating active criminal proceedings. Given this continuing active role that agents typically +play during criminal prosecutions, we find the fact that the CVRA assigns responsibility to them, +together with the attorney for the Government, to notify crime victims of and accord them their +rights under the CVRA to be entirely consistent with our conclusion that those rights arise only +once the Government has initiated criminal proceedings. +Finally, we would note that a contrary view would be in some tension with the CVRA's +express disavowal of permitting any interference with our country's long-standing tradition of +governmental control of prosecutions. +. ' See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6) ("Nothing in this chapter +shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer +under his direction."). Reading the CVRA to empower private individuals to initiate proceedings +in court making allegations that a Federal offense occurred prior to the filing of any criminal +charges by the Government would, at a minimum, create substantial tension with this tradition. +Courts would be required to adjudicate, at a private party's instigation, the factual questions +necessary to conclude that an asserted CVRA right should be enforced, including the existence +of a Federal offense. Such a court proceeding while the Government's investigation of the crime +remains underway, and in the absence of any conclusion by the Government that federal charges +are warranted, would place substantial pressure on the Government's prosecutorial charging +decisions and may even risk, in some circumstances, impairing the Government's ability to build +a viable case. This risk may be particularly apparent in large-scale cases where the Government +intended such an outcome. To the contrary, both section 3771(d)(6) and the legislative record +as a whole suggest that Congress did not intend to impinge upon prosecutorial independence, +18 The principle that the authority to charge criminal offenses is reserved to attorneys for the Government +has deep roots that go back to the founding of our Government under the Constitution. See, e.g., Judiciary Act of +1789, ch. 20, § 35, 1 Stat. 73, 92 (establishing office of United States District Attorney with the exclusive power to +prosecute "all delinquents for crimes and offenses, cognizable under the authority of the United States"); see also +Respect Due to Consuls, 1 Op. Att'y Gen. 41, 43 (1794) (*it will be the duty of the district attorney to reduce the +Constitution to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed") (citing U.S. Const. art. II, § 3). +15 + + +but rather to ensure that once criminal proceedings are initiated, crime victims have rights to be +heard and treated fairly in the process, and standing to enforce those rights. +E. +For these same reasons, we also conclude that rights under the CVRA cease to be +guaranteed if all charges in the case are dismissed either voluntarily or on the merits once the +dismissal becomes final and the criminal proceedings have ended (or if the Government declines +to bring formal charges after the filing of a complaint). As we have explained, the CVRA's +guarantees are premised on the existence of an accused against whom the Government has +initiated criminal proceedings with respect to a particular offense or offenses. Ensuring that +victims' interests are protected during the course of those proceedings is the CVRA's core +purpose. In the absence of a proceeding against a particular accused that animates the CVRA's +guarantees, the rights guaranteed by the Act would not apply. +For these reasons, we conclude that rights of crime victims under the Crime Victims' +Rights Act are not guaranteed until criminal proceedings are initiated by the filing of a criminal +complaint or information, or by the return of an indictment, and cease to be guaranteed if all +charges in the case are declined or dismissed either voluntarily or on the merits. +/sl +JOHN E. BIES +Deputy Assistant Attorney General +16 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc832366cbb406918c79bd8134c105e35f23eaef0ca9ea82563b76b21a5c32b0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc832366cbb406918c79bd8134c105e35f23eaef0ca9ea82563b76b21a5c32b0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..145e5bab84d9b2f150297c25d4656353f12d6e88 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cc832366cbb406918c79bd8134c105e35f23eaef0ca9ea82563b76b21a5c32b0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -1422, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cc832366cbb406918c79bd8134c105e35f23eaef0ca9ea82563b76b21a5c32b0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 18, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ef6f93474bf98d8562e578e8edda87b84c5e0386136d60e42e6a39efb923b028", + "output_sha256": "7025b4a57d6d5ad6846966ad59097804b1817ff180160d5be87ddf5daf5221e3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ccaa1de8d7f70477e6b3fbddc00c104389649e462cb6ec6a5f8543c08fdd2fb0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ccaa1de8d7f70477e6b3fbddc00c104389649e462cb6ec6a5f8543c08fdd2fb0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a8ae74ce2e908d19f43fcb193326bca4f7f1c43a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ccaa1de8d7f70477e6b3fbddc00c104389649e462cb6ec6a5f8543c08fdd2fb0.md @@ -0,0 +1,527 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 1 of 10 +UNITED STATES DISTRICI COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION +CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA +WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA +JANE DOE, et al.. +Plaintiffs, +JUNE 12, 2009 +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING +BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH A. MARRA, +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +APPEARANCES: +FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: +: +1 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +• 15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21- +22 +23 +24 +25 +ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQ. +Mermelstein & Horowitz +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Miami, FL 33160 +For Jane Doe +305.931.2200 +I J. L +I, ESQ• +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Jane Doe 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 +954.522.3456 +ISIDRO M. +ESQ. +Elkins Boehringer +224 Datura Avenue +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Jane DOE II +561.832.8033 +RICHARD H. WILLITS, ESQ. +2290 10th Avenue North +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +For C.M.A. +561.582.7600 +DEFENDANT'S +ALL-STATE LEGAL® + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 2 of 10 +... ! +26 +1 +2 +3 +THE COURT: That's not my concern. So, again, I just +want to make sure that if the cases go forward and if +Mr. Epstein defends the case as +someone ordinarily would defend +a case that's being prosecuted against him or her, that that in +and of itself is not going to cause him to be subject to +c=iminal prosecution. +MR. JOSEFSBERG: I agree, Your Honor. +THE COURT: Any other plaintiff's counsel want to +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +chime in? +10 +MR. WILLITS: Richard Willits on behalf of C.M.A.. +I +11i would join, to weigh in on what Mr. Josefsberg said. +MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, I could not hear. +12 +13 +THE COURT: We'll get him to a microphone. +14 Mr. Willits is speaking. +15 +MR. WILLITS: On behalf of my client, C.M.A., we join +16| in what Mr. Josefsberg said, and we also want to point out +17 +something to the court. +18 +First, we want to make a representation to the Court, +19| +we have no intention of complaining to the U.S. Attorney's +20 +Office, never had that intention, don't have that intention in +21 +22 +the future, but, of course, subject to what occurs in the +future. +23 +I want to point out to the court that Mr. Epstein went +24 +into this situation with his eyes wide open, represented by +25 +counsel, knowing that civil suits had to be coming. If he + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 3 of 10 +27 +2 +didn't know it, his lawyers knew it. +He appears to be having second thoughts now about he +3 +could have negotiated this way or he could have negotiated that +4 +way with the U.S. Attorney's Office. And they want to impose +We don't +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +their second thoughts on the innocent plaintiffs. +think that's fail. +We think it's in the nature of invited +errox, if there was any error whatsoever. +Thank you. +THE COURT: You agree he should be able to take the +10 +ordinary steps that a defendant in a civil action can take and +11] not be concerned about having to be prosecuted? +12 +MR. WILLITS: Of course. And we say the same thing +13 Mr. Josefsberg said. It's all subject to your rulings and the +14 +direction of this Court as to what is proper and what is not +15 +proper. And we're prepared to abide by the rulings of this +Court, and we have no intention of running to the State's +17฿ +Attorney. +18 +19 +THE COURT: The U.S. Attorney? +MR. WILLITS: I'm sorry. The U.S. Attorney. +20 +21 +22 +23 +THE COURT: MX. I +•. +MR. +•: Thank you, Your Honor. +If I may briefly, I think perhaps defense counsel +forgot about this, but on pages 17 and 19 of my memorandum of +24| law in opposition to the motion to dismiss, I did make +25 reference to the non-prosecution agreement, and I did say that + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 4 of 10 ++. : +28 +1 the contesting of the jurisdiction of this Court was a +2| potential +breach of the non-prosecution agreement. +3 +4 +5 +6 +So my client happens to have, and they have filed with +the Court a copy of her state court complaint, given the fact +that the non-prosecution agreement limits the non-contesting of +jurisdiction +to claims exclusively brought under the federal +statute. +8 +9 +10 +11 +I'm going to go ahead and withdraw those contentions +on pages 17 and 19 of my memo of law because it doesn't apply +to my case. So to the extent that I raised this issue with +defense counsel and the Court, I'm going to withdraw that +12 aspect of it. +13 +THE COURT: Can you file something in writing on that +14 | point with the Court? +15 +16 +MR. +: Yes. +THE COURT: What do you say about this issue that +17l +we're here on today? +18 +MR. +I: I think that the problem that I have with +19 +it is that this non-prosecution agreement is being used by +20 defense counsel for the exact opposite purpose that it was +21 +intended. My perception of this thing, and I wasn't around, is +22| that MI. Epstein essentially bought his way out of a criminal +23 prosecution, which is wonderful for the victims in a way, and +24 +25 +wonderful for him, too. +Now he's trying to use the non-prosecution agreement + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 5 of 10 +29 +as a shield against the plaintiffs that he was supposed to make +restitution for. +3 +And, certainly, he can take my client's depo. He's +4 +done extensive discovery in the state court case -- very +5 +intrusive, I might +add. And we don't care, because we can win +6 +this +case +with the prosecution agreement or without the +7 prosecution agreement. We are ready to go forward. +8 +THE COURT: You're not going to assert to the United +9 +States Government that what he's doing in defending the case is +10 +a violation for which he should be further prosecuted? +11 +MR. +| Absolutely not. +12 +THE COURT: Anyone else for the plaintiffs? +13 +MR. HOROWITZ: Judge, Adam Horowitz, counsel for +14 plaintiffs Jane Doe 2 through 7. +15 +I just wanted to address a point that I think you've +16 +articulated it. I just want to make sure it's crystal clear, +17| which is that we can't paint a broad brush for all of the +18 +cases. +19 +20 +The provision relating to MI. Epstein being unable to +contest liability pertains only to those plaintiffs who have +chosen as their sole remedy the federal statute. My clients, +22 +Jane Doe 2 through 1, have elected to bring additional causes +23 +of action, and it's for that reason we were silent when you +24 +said does anyone here find Mr. Epstein to be in breach of the +25 non-prosecution agreement. That provision, as we understand + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 6 of 10 +30 +2 +3 +4 +it, it doesn't relate to our clients. +THE COURT: +Okay. But, again, you're in agreement +with everyone else so far that's spoken on behalf of a +plaintiff that defending the case in the normal course of +conducting discovery and filing motions would not be a breach? +MR. HOROWITZ: Subject to your rulings, of course, +6 +7 yes. +8 +THE COURT: Thank you. +9 +10 +Anyone else have anything to say from the plaintiffs? +Ms. Villafana, if you would be so kind as to maybe +11l help us out. I appreciate the fact that you're here, and I. +12| know you're not a party to these cases and under no obligation +13 +to respond to my inquiries. But as I indicated, it would be +14 +helpful for me to understand the Government's position. +15 +MS. VILLAFANA: Thank you, Your Honor. And we, of +16 +course, are always happy to try to help the Court as much as +17 +possible. But we are not a party to any of these lawsuits, and +18 | in some ways we are at a disadvantage because we don't have +19 +access. My access is limited to what's on Pacer. So I don't +really know what positions Mr. Epstein may have taken either in +21 +23 +24 +correspondence or in discovery responses that aren't filed in +22 the case file. +But your first order was really just what do you think +about a stay, and then the second order related to this hearing +25 +and asked a much more specific question, which is whether we + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 7 of 10 +......! +31 +believe that Mr. Epstein's defense was a breach of the +agreement. +3 +And I've tried to review as many of the pleadings as +possible. +As you know, they're extremely voluminous. And I +5 +haven't been through all of them. But we do believe that there +6 +has been +a breach in the filing that Mr. Josefsberg referred +> to, and contrary to Mr. Critton, we do understand that we have +an obligation to provide notice, and we are providing notice to +9 Mr. Epstein today. +10 +The pleading that we found to be in breach -- the +11 +12 +non-prosecution agreement, sought to do one thing, which was to +place the victims in the same position they would have been if +13 +Mr. Epstein had been convicted of the federal offenses for +14 which he was investigated. +15 +And that if he had been federally prosecuted and +16 +convicted, the victims would have been entitled to restitution, +17 regardless of how long ago the crimes were committed, +18 +regardless of how old they were at the time, and how old they +19 are today, or at the time of the conviction. +20 +And it also would have made them eligible for damages +21 +under 2255. +22 +And so our idea was, our hope was that we could set up +23 +a system that would allow these victims to get that restitution +24 without having to go through what civil litigation will expose +25 them to. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 8 of 10 +32 +1 +You have a number of girls who were very hesitant +2 +about even speaking to authorities about this because of the +3 +trauma that they have +suffered and about the embarrassment that +4 +they were afraid would be brought upon themselves and upon +5 +their families. +6 +we did through the non-prosecution agreement tried +to protect their rights while also protecting their privacy. +8 +So, pursuant to the non-prosecution agreement -- on the other +9 +hand, we weren't trying to hand them a jackpot or a key to a +10 +bank. It was solely to sort of put them in that same position. +11 +So we developed this language that said if -- that +12 provided for an attorney to represent them. Most of the +13 +victims, as you know from the pleadings, come from not wealthy +14 +circumstances, may not have known any attorneys who would be in +15 +a position to help them. +16 +So we went through the Special +procedure that +resulted in the appointment of Mr. Josefsberg, and the goal was +18 +that they would be able to try to negotiate with Mr. Epstein +19 +for a fair amount of restitution/damages. And if Mx. Epstein +20 +took the position, which apparently he has, which is that the +21 +$50,000 or $150,000 floor under 2255 also would be a cap. That +22 +if they were to proceed to file suit in Federal Court to get +23 +fair damages under 2255, Mr. Epstein would admit liability, but +24 he, of course, could fight the damages portion, which means +25 +that, of course, he would be entitled to depositions; of + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 9 of 10 +w... +• • BEER +33 +1 +course, he would be entitled to take discovery, and we don't +2 +believe that any of that violates the non-prosecution +3 +agreement. +4 +The issue with the pleading that he filed, the motion +5 +to dismiss the case, I believe it's Jane Doe 101, represented +6 +by Mr. Josefsberg, is that that is a case that was filed +7 +exclusively under 18 U.S.C., Section 2255. +She met that +8 +requirement. Mr. Epstein is moving to dismiss it, not on the +9 +basis of damages, he is saying that he cannot be held liable +under 2255 because he was not convicted of an offense. +11 +The reason why he was not convicted of an offense is +12 +because he entered into the non-prosecution agreement. So that +13 +we do believe is a breach. +14 +The issue really that was raised in the motion to stay +15 +and that I addressed in our response to the motion to stay is +16 +that Mr. Epstein's -- Mr. Epstein wants to stay the litigation +17 in order to leave, in order to sort of attack the cases of the +18 victims whether they are fully within the non-prosecution or +19 +not, non-prosecution agreement or not, and leave the Government +20 without a remedy if he does, in fact, breach those terms. And +21 +that is why we opposed the stay. +22 +THE COURT: I'm not sure what you mean by that last +23 +statement. +24 +MS. VILLAFANA: Well, because this issue related to +25 +the motion to dismiss on Mr. Josefsberg's client came up after + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 262-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 10 of +*... . ..... +..msui tie +34 +we had filed that response. And what we said in the response +2 +to the motion to stay is that the reason why he wants to stay +3 +the litigation is so that the non-prosecution agreement +4 +terminates based on a period of time, as he puts it. And then +5 +afterwards he would be able to come in here and make all of +6 +these +arguments that clearly violate the non-prosecution +7 agreement but we would be without remedy. +8 +THE COURT: But you're not taking the position that +9 +other than possibly doing something in litigation which is a +10 +violation of an express provision of the non-prosecution +11 +agreement, any other discovery, motion practice, investigations +12 +that someone would ordinarily do in the course of defending a +13 +civil case would constitute a violation of the agreement? +14 +15 +MS. VILLAFANA: No, Your Honor. I mean, civil +litigation is civil litigation, and being able to take +16 +discovery is part of what civil litigation is about. And while +17| there may be, for example, if someone were to try to subpoena +18 +the Government, we would obviously resist under statutory +19 +20 +reasons, all that sort of stuff. But, no, Mr. Epstein is +entitled to take the deposition of a plaintiff and to subpoena +211 +records, etc. +22 +THE COURT: And even if he seeks discovery from a +23 +Government agency, you have the right to resist it under the +24฿ +rules of procedure but that would not constitute a violation, +25 +again unless there's a provision in the prosecution agreement \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ccaa1de8d7f70477e6b3fbddc00c104389649e462cb6ec6a5f8543c08fdd2fb0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ccaa1de8d7f70477e6b3fbddc00c104389649e462cb6ec6a5f8543c08fdd2fb0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a60a3ec0188b80af32e9f71bb88a308208cd9fa9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ccaa1de8d7f70477e6b3fbddc00c104389649e462cb6ec6a5f8543c08fdd2fb0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -668, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ccaa1de8d7f70477e6b3fbddc00c104389649e462cb6ec6a5f8543c08fdd2fb0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 12, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "bda325e7d2cec810a47f178d01bd2c09f071d00dc45b7408d0bfd003545c5a4f", + "output_sha256": "c0fab19c245b27b933d48aed35d2716a53bd57ed04f9e0cac021b26c246dabc2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cccaf8c264b0888007a99fa94130c037c3bf13925436c7a790cc82b4c058b2ea.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cccaf8c264b0888007a99fa94130c037c3bf13925436c7a790cc82b4c058b2ea.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8c28b6a5bd115515a1939e1374150f91215b674f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cccaf8c264b0888007a99fa94130c037c3bf13925436c7a790cc82b4c058b2ea.md @@ -0,0 +1,114 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 172 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2012 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 +V. +UNITED STATES +SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN +SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE OF ROY BLACK, +WEINBERG, +AND JAY LEFKOWITZ +COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and +through undersigned counsel, to provide supplemental authority in support of their response in +opposition (DE 167) to the motion for protective orders filed by defense attorneys Roy Black, +Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz and intervenor Jeffrey Epstein (DE 160, DE 161, and DE +162) (also called "supplemental briefing"). +At issue in these pleadings is whether the victims can obtain discovery of relevant +correspondence between Epstein's counsel and the U.S. Attorney's Office arranging a highly +unusual and secretive non-prosecution agreement - an agreement that the victims allege was +negotiated and entered in violation of their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The +defense attorneys contend that this correspondence is somehow confidential material, an +inaccurate claim that the victims have already responded to at length. See, e.g., Jane Doe #1 and +Jane Doe #2's Response to Supplemental Briefing in Support of Motion to Intervene of Roy +Black, +Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz (DE 167). +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 172 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2012 Page 2 of 4 +The victims now wish to provide the Court with supplemental authority in support of +their position - specifically, a statement from Epstein's own attorneys that correspondence +between a Government attorney and a private party is not confidential material under any theory. +Epstein has pending a civil lawsuit against the victim's attorney, Brad +See Epstein v. +, Case NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG (15th Cir. Court for Palm Beach County, +FL). The lawsuit (frivolously) alleges that +lacked a valid basis for pursuing claims for +his victim clients. +has a malicious prosecution counterclaim lodged. +Recently in that case, a discovery dispute arose. Epstein's attorney in that civil matter +(Tonja Haddad Coleman) sent a communication to +attorney in that matter (Jack +Scarola) containing an admission that communications for Government entities are matters of +public record and thus are not privileged under any theory: +Jack: +Thank you for your response. I am sure you are aware that the law permits you to +respond to a discovery request by stating that "without waiving the objection" you +are producing the documents. However, because I have yet to see the documents, +or your privilege log, I cannot possibly agree to anything, much less concede a +privilege, as it is my understanding that some of the items to which you are +objecting, for example, are electronic communications to/from governmen +entities which, as Mr. +I is likely aware from his days as a governmen +attorney, are legally a matter of public record, will not, in fact, be privileged +under any theory. ... +E-mail from Tonja Haddad Coleman to Jack Scarola, May 8, 2012 (emphasis added). (A copy of +this communication is attached to this pleading as Exhibit "A"). +The victims respectfully submit that this is an admission by Epstein's attorneys that +reinforces the conclusion that the victims are entitled to review the U.S. Attorney's +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 172 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2012 Page 3 of 4 +correspondence in this case. It clearly shows that Epstein's attorneys do not believe, despite +what they have told this court, that emails with the government are privileged under any theory. +DATED: May 21, 2012 +Respectfully Submitted, +S/ +JAFFE, WEISSING, +1. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 524-2820 +Facsimile (954) 524-2822 +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 172 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2012 Page 4 of 4 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +The foregoing document was served on May 21, 2012, on the following using the Court's +CM/ECF system: +Dexter Lee +A. +Villafaña +Assistant U.S. Attorneys +500 S. Australian Ave.., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Fax: (561) 820-8777 +E-mail: Dexter.Lee@usdoj.gov +Anori. is for the Government +Roy Black, Esq. +Jackie Perczek, Esq. +Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1300 +Miami, FL 33131 +(305) 37106421 +(305) 358-2006 +4 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cccaf8c264b0888007a99fa94130c037c3bf13925436c7a790cc82b4c058b2ea.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cccaf8c264b0888007a99fa94130c037c3bf13925436c7a790cc82b4c058b2ea.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bb840b6e25233e3f6987a9f85b20ef304edd9b5e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cccaf8c264b0888007a99fa94130c037c3bf13925436c7a790cc82b4c058b2ea.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cccaf8c264b0888007a99fa94130c037c3bf13925436c7a790cc82b4c058b2ea", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ca3f08b3f798e59f4a715d8088cc424446db6caeb5cd67f99e6bfff383c61453", + "output_sha256": "fe82e1f186ca134a7ef33139879ef3ee76867caeef45955f4139266640ccbf4f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cccd6680988bc5aa7c54071629af18f9dd32038547108e3d869269289f15f783.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cccd6680988bc5aa7c54071629af18f9dd32038547108e3d869269289f15f783.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1d2737971d4625dfb11b168030abc493bcbd23f3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cccd6680988bc5aa7c54071629af18f9dd32038547108e3d869269289f15f783.md @@ -0,0 +1,432 @@ +Filing # 140691263 E-Filed 12/20/2021 02:46:09 PM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION: AG +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER +OF THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff/Petitioner +VS. +DAVE ARONBERG, +SHARON R BOCK. +Defendant/Respondents. +COPY +FINAL JUDGMENT +THIS CAUSE came before the court on the motion for summary judgment of plaintiff CA +Florida Holdings, LLC, publisher of The Palm Beach Post ("the Newspaper"), on Count I of its +complaint in this action. (D.E. # 58) The sole remaining defendant, | +Abruzzo, in his +capacity as the Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County ("the clerk"), filed a response to the +motion on October 1, 2021. (D.E. #75.) The Newspaper filed a reply on October 13, 2021. (D.E. +# 77.) The motion was heard by the court on October 22, 2021. The court has considered the +submissions of the parties, the arguments of counsel, the record in the case, and is otherwise +advised of the premises. Because Count II of the Newspaper's complaint, which is the only other +count, has been disposed of by Order filed June 7, 2020 (D.E. # 33), this is a final judgment in the +case.' +' The court is aware that in an October 22, 2021, article published by the Newspaper it suggested +hat the vour indie ted at the ering a it was he hiad to releas the dead. The News Te +court is not criticizing the Newspaper and has a great deal of respect for the reporter but must +clarify that the court stated that it had not made a decision whether it would order that the grand +jury records would be produced. (Hrg. Tr. at 19:11-16.) The court reiterated, "So, I just wanted +1 +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, I +ABRUZZO, CLERK, 12/20/2021 02:46:09 PM + + +SUMMARY OF THE CASE AND ITS CURRENT STATUS +The Newspaper filed its complaint on November 14, 2019, seeking disclosure and +production of documents, exhibits, testimony transcripts, audio and visual materials, and all other +things ("the Materials") presented to the 2006 grand jury in proceedings instituted by the State +Attorney for the 15* Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida ("the State Attorney") +which resulted in an indictment of Jeffrey Epstein for one count of Felony Solicitation of +Prostitution, No. 50-2006-CF-009454-A XXX-MB, and a subsequent charge of Procuring Person +Under Age 18 for Prostitution, 50-2008-CF-009381-AXXX-MB. In both cases, on June 30, 2008, +Mr. Epstein pleaded guilty to the charge of Procuring Person under Age 18 for Prostitution. He +was sentenced to 12 months of community control in the custody of the Palm Beach County +Sheriff's Office. (2008-CF-009381, D.E. # 11, 12; 2006-CF-009454, D.E. # 89.) +Count I of the Newspaper's complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that section +905.27(1)(c), Florida Statutes, should be interpreted to permit disclosure of the Materials to the +Newspaper so that it may then report on their content as part of its continued investigation and +reporting of matters relating to Mr. Epstein. That count also seeks a declaration ordering disclosure +of the Materials "pursuant to [the court's] inherent authority over grand jury proceedings because +of the exceptional public interest in this case and the compelling circumstances supporting +transparency." (Amended Complaint, 1 71.) +PRELIMINARY PROCEDURAL ISSUE +The court notes that the only other defendant in this case, the State Attorney, has been +dismissed, and there have been no attempts to intervene in this case to take a position against +to make that clear from the outset, that there will be no wholesale turning over of any records if - +and, again, that is a significant word - if the production is ordered." (Hrg. Tr. at 20:9-13, +emphasis added.) +2 + + +disclosure. The clerk's position is that he is merely the custodian of the Materials, and as such he +has no real interest in the issues before the court as identified. The clerk only needs direction from +the court on whether or not he should produce and disclose the Materials. Nonetheless, the clerk +has zealously advocated the position against disclosure based upon grand jury secrecy and +confidentiality because under Rule 2.420(d)(1)(B)(xvi) of the Florida Rules of General Practice +and Judicial Administration, the clerk is required to maintain the confidentiality of grand jury +records. +The clerk is correct that his role as custodian of the Materials is only to follow the court's +on to flow te court's +direction once confidentiality is determined. The clerk's role in this proceeding has been +complicated, or expanded, because the Newspaper filed this action as a civil declaratory judgment +action and has moved for summary judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510. +However, the proper procedure for obtaining disclosure of confidential court records is set forth in +Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420(j), which only requires the +filing of a "motion" seeking disclosure. Fla, R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin Rule 2.420()(2). +Accordingly, the court will treat the Newspaper's complaint and motion for summary +judgment as a motion for disclosure under Rule 2.420(j).- As a result, the court need not determine, +as a matter of law, whether the clerk of the court is a proper party defendant to a declaratory +judgment action for the release of grand jury records. Although the clerk of court is the proper +2 Rule 2.420()(3) requires a party seeking disclosure to serve the motion "on all parties and +reasonably affected non-parties[-]" Of course, that did not occur here and would have been +impossible to carry out, as "reasonably affected non-parties" cannot be determined without +actually seeing the Materials. Because the court is denying the relief sought, however, this issue +is academic. +3 + + +subject of any order directing the release of protected grand jury records issued pursuant to Rule +2.420(i), under the rule it is not a "defendant" or "party" in relation to the requested itself. +The court's determination to treat the Newspaper's claim as a Rule 2.420(j) motion +resolves another issue as well. The Newspaper devotes significant argument to its standing to +prosecute this action, arguing that section 905.27 vests it with a private right of action. (Motion, +11 81-90.). First, the argument of whether section 905.27 creates a private right of action was +already substantively addressed by this court's Order dismissing Count II of the Amended +Complaint. (D.E. # 33). Second, the court sees no reason to question the Newspaper's standing to +bring a Rule 2.420(j) motion, which is available to any member of the public seeking access to +records of the judicial branch. See Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.420(a). +Lastly, even in treating the complaint and motion for summary judgment as a motion under +Rule 2.420(i), there are no disputed fact issues, and the issues before the court are issues of law. +Accordingly, this is a final judgment. +THE UNDISPUTED FACTS +The facts germane to this final judgment are not in dispute and are recounted here. The +2006 grand jury was convened in proceedings instituted by the State Attorney regarding alleged +criminal misconduct of a sexual nature by Jeffrey Epstein, now deceased. Materials were +presented to the grand jury. The United States Department of Justice, by and through the office of +the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, obtained the Materials.? The +" This fact is established by Exhibit 3 to the Newspaper's motion, which is the United State: +Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility Report, "Investigation into the U.S +Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's Resolution of Its 2006-2008 Federal +Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the +Investigation," Nov. 2020 ("the Report"). The Report makes references to the fact that the federal +government obtained and reviewed the Materials. See the Report at 20, n. 23, 26, 38 n. 67, 271 n. +425 and 283. +4 + + +Newspaper operates and does business in Palm Beach County, Florida. The clerk is a duly elected +governmental official, and he and his office have custody of the Materials. +ANALYSIS +The Newspaper appears to have presented questions of first impression regarding both the +interpretation of section 905.27 and the "inherent authority" of the court. Those questions also +implicate issues of constitutional import regarding the historic tension between grand jury secrecy +and the First Amendment. Additionally, the Newspaper presents these questions in the context of +genuine subjects of public interest and concern regarding the prosecutorial process of Mr. Epstein. +Mr. Epstein was a person of great wealth and influence accused of being a sex predator who +engaged in criminal sex trafficking of minors, among other crimes. +The public record establishes that Mr. Epstein entered into a federal non-prosecution +agreement with the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in exchange for a +guilty plea in the then pending state court case to one count of procuring a minor for prostitution, +for which he served less than a year in work-release incarceration at the Palm Beach County Jail.S +Mr. Epstein was federally indicted in 2019 by the United States Attorney for the Southern District +of New York for the same type of conduct during the 2002-2005 time-span preceding the 2006 +state indictment and the 2008 no-prosecution agreement negotiated with the federal prosecutor. +Mr. Epstein was never brought to trial on those 2019 charges, having committed suicide in his +New York jail cell. +4 See the Report, referenced in n. 1, supra. +5 Id. +5 + + +In this Order, the court rules against the Newspaper because the established and binding +maxims of Florida law constrain it to do so. As noted below, federal courts have departed from +the limited prescriptions of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) in granting access to grand +jury records in "special circumstances." E.g., In re Petition of Craig, 131 F.3d 99, 102 (2d Cir. +1997) (recognizing "that there are certain "special circumstances" in which release of grand jury +records is appropriate even outside of the boundaries of [Rule 6(e)]"). Florida law, however, has +yet to recognize such flexibility under either section 905.27 or Rule 2.420(). +(A) +Section 905.27 and the phrase "furthering justice." +The court first addresses the issue whether the Newspaper's claim fits within "the purpose +of ... furthering justice" under section 905.27(1)(c). The full text of sections 905.27(1) and (2) +provide context: +(1) A grand juror, state attorney, assistant state attorney, reporter, stenographer, +interpreter, or any other person appearing before the grand jury shall not disclose +the testimony of a witness examined before the grand jury or other evidence +received by it except when required by a court to disclose the testimony for the +purpose of: +(a) Ascertaining whether it is consistent with the testimony given by the witness +before the court; +(b) Determining whether the witness is guilty of perjury; or +(c) Furthering justice. +(2) It is unlawful for any person knowingly to publish, broadcast, disclose, +divulge, or communicate to any other person, or knowingly to cause or permit to +be published, broadcast, disclosed, divulged, or communicated to any other person, +in any manner whatsoever, any testimony of a witness examined before the +grand jury, or the content, gist, or import thereof, except when such testimony +is or has been disclosed in a court proceeding. When a court orders the +disclosure of such testimony pursuant to subsection (1) for use in a criminal +case, it may be disclosed to the prosecuting attorney of the court in which such +criminal case is pending, and by the prosecuting attorney to his or her assistants, +legal associates, and employees, and to the defendant and the defendant's attorney, +and by the latter to his or her legal associates and employees. When such +6 + + +disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection (1) for use in a civil +case, it may be disclosed to all parties to the case and to their attorneys and by the +latter to their legal associates and employees. However, the grand jury testimony +afforded such persons by the court can only be used in the defense or +prosecution of the civil or criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever. +(Emphasis added.) +Reading subsection 1(c) ("furthering justice") in tandem with subsection (2), it is evident +that the phrase "furthering justice" is to be interpreted in the context of seeking disclosure of grand +jury materials for use in a pending criminal or civil case. The Newspaper acknowledges that it is +not seeking disclosure of the Materials for such a purpose. (Amended complaint, 1| 70; Motion 1 +114.) Instead, the Newspaper advocates a more expansive interpretation of the term "furthering +justice" and also posits that because it is not seeking disclosure of the Materials for use in a criminal +or civil case, it seeks an additional declaration that its intended use of the Materials "is not so +limited" by section 905.27(2). (Id.) The Newspaper wants the ability to publish the Materials and +reference them in its reporting and also to make the Materials available "to the public." (Amended +Complaint, prayer at 21; Motion, T 116.)° +The Newspaper makes strong arguments to advance its more expansive construction of +section 905.27 as part of "furthering justice." Unquestionably, the established matters surrounding +Mr. Epstein's conduct, the circumstances of his resolution of the 2006 state charges and potential +federal charges, and his 2008 guilty plea and incarceration are matters of public interest, and +disclosure of the Materials may arguably fall within the concept of "furthering justice" in the +broadest, social sense of the phrase. Yet, the court's interpretation of the scope of section 905.27 +6 The Newspaper concedes in its submissions that the court could first conduct an in camera review +of the Materials and redact any information the court deems sensitive, such as identities of +"innocent parties." (Amended Complaint, 9 9; Motion, 111 80 n.3, 110 n. 7.) +7 + + +and of the phrase "furthering justice" is governed and constrained by the established rules of +statutory construction. +In interpreting a statute, the court must respect the role of the legislature, the legislative +process, and the language of the statute. "'A court's function is to interpret statutes as they are +written and give effect to each word in the statute."" State v. Sampaio, 291 So. 3d 120, 125 (Fla. +4" DCA 2020) (quoting Fla. Dept. of Revenue v. Fla. Mun. Power Agency, 789 So. 2d 320, 324 +(Fla. 2001). "[W]hen legislation is clear 'our task is to apply the text, not improve upon it.'" +Kaplan v. Epstein, 219 So. 3d 932, 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (quoting Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel +Entertainment Group, 493 U.S. 120, 126 (1989). "It is our [courts"] duty to interpret the law as +given us by the people in the Constitution or by the Legislature. Weare not permitted to substitute +judicial cerebration for law or that which we think the law should be and command that it be +enforced." In re Investigation of Circuit Judge of Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, 93 So. 2d +601, 608 (Fla. 1957). "As courts, we should never forget that in construing acts of the legislature, +we are concerned only with the power of the legislature to enact the law. Our peculiar social and +economic views have no place in such a consideration." Tyson v. Lanier, 156 So. 2d 833, 838 +(Fla. 1963). +Turning to section 905.27, the term "furthering justice" as used in subsection (1)(c) cannot +be read in a vacuum, without regard to the entire text of the statute, and particularly subsection (2). +"Every statute must [also] be read as a whole with meaning ascribed to every portion and due +regard given to the semantic and contextual interrelationship between its parts.'" Indian River +County v. Ocean Concrete, Inc., 308 So. 3d 1010, 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (quoting Fla. Dep't +of Envtl. Prot. v. ContractPoint Fla. +LLC, 986 So. 2d 1260, 1265 (Fla. 2008) (quoting +Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., 604 So. 2d 452, 455 (Fla. 1992)). +8 + + +Subsection (2) clearly limits section 925.27's scope to those instances in which grand jury +testimony or materials need to be disclosed for use in a criminal or civil case. Subsection (2) +provides that once grand jury testimony is disclosed in the course of a court proceeding, it is then +open to unlimited dissemination. But before that occurs, the court must determine that one of the +three needs prescribed in subsection (1) is present in a criminal or civil case that requires +disclosure. There is nothing in section 905.27 that gives a court carte blanche authority to release +grand jury materials in any situation that might bear some relationship to "furthering justice" in its +broadest sense. +Accordingly, the Newspaper's argument that section 905.27 and the term "furthering +justice" permits disclosure of grand jury materials in the situation must be denied here, where there +is no criminal or civil case in which it is to be used. +(B) +The court's "inherent authority." +Alternatively, the Newspaper argues that the court has "inherent authority" to order the +release of the Materials. At several places in its submissions, the Newspaper asserts its "right" or +"entitlement" to disclosure of the Materials under both section 905.27 and the court's "inherent +authority and supervisory powers." (Amended Complaint 1| 70, Motion, 11 86, 113, 114) There +is, however, no First Amendment right to the disclosure of grand jury materials. "A settled +roposition, one that the press does not contes, is this: there is no First Amendmentright of aces +to grand jury proceedings." In re Motions of Dow +& Co., 142 F.3d 496, 499 (D.C. Cir. +1998), cert. denied sub nom. Dow +_& Co., Inc. v. Clinton, 525 U.S. 820 (1998); accord, In +re Sealed Case, 199 F.3d 522, 523 (D.C. Cir. 2000). +The Newspaper provides several passages from state and federal cases generally +recognizing a court's "inherent authority." (Motion, 1| 95.) The Newspaper also cites several +9 + + +federal cases in which grand jury materials were disclosed, yet those cases substantially turn on +Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which governs disclosure of grand jury materials and +contains provisions not present in Florida statutes and rules. (Motion, 1 96.) The Newspaper also +references the recent example of a Kentucky state court releasing portions of grand jury testimony +in the Breonna Taylor case under Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.24, which gives +Kentucky courts broad, unrestricted authority to "at any time ... direct otherwise regarding +disclosure of grand jury materials. (Motion, 11 97-100.) Finally, the Newspaper cites In re +Petition of Craig, 131 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1997), in which the court there set forth a number of factors +to consider in determining whether, under federal law and rule, a federal court may release grand +jury materials for reasons other than those enumerated in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). +The Newspaper argues that this court should apply these factors in exercising its "inherent +authority" to release the Materials. +A court's "inherent authority" has its boundaries. "If a specific statute or rule applies, +the trial court should rely on the applicable rule or statute rather than on inherent authority." +Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So. 2d 221, 227 (Fla. 2002) (addressing inherent authority to sanction +attorney misconduct); accord, Santini v. Cleveland Clinic Florida, 65 So. 3d 22, 38 (Fla. 4th DCA +2011) (finding that trial court erred in relying on inherent authority instead of sanctions statute). +"In a contest between a clear, valid, unchallenged statute and a trial court's general "inherent +authority, " the statute must prevail." Swearingen v. Pretzer, 310 So. 3d 1084, 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA +2020) (Kelsey, J. dissenting). +The Newspaper has provided no Florida authority holding that a trial court may use its +"inherent authority" to order disclosure of grand jury materials in the face of section 905.27, which +governs and enumerates the circumstances under which grand jury materials may be disclosed. +10 + + +Again, the court acknowledges the Newspaper's vibrant and sincere arguments for seeking +disclosure as a matter of public interest and in "furthering justice" in the broader sense of the term. +Nonetheless, "(u)nder fundamental principles of separation of powers, courts cannot judicially +alter the wording of statutes where the Legislature clearly has not done so." Fla. Dept. of Revenue, +789 So. 2d at 324. +Even if "furthering justice" as stated in section 905.27 could be extended beyond the +specific situations prescribed by that statute, still the court cannot do so, here. The court notes the +Order issued by this court (The Honorable Krista Marx) in State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. +50-5006-CF-009454-AXXX (Order, Jan. 4, 2020), in which the court denied the Florida +Department of Law Enforcement's motion for disclosure of the same grand jury materials at issue +here: +Although the term "furthering justice" seems quite broad, the history of the +exception in both common law and modern case law establishes that the exception +is actually quite narrow - it does not encompass any reason that could "further +justice," but rather requires the showing of a particularized and compelling need +which outweighs any interest in maintaining secrecy and cannot be satisfied in +another manner. Brookings v. State, 495 So. 2d 135, 137-38 (Fla. 1986) (holding +that "a party seeking disclosure [of grand jury proceedings] must make a strong +showing of a particularized need in order to outweigh the public interest in secrecy" +(citing United States V. Sells Eng'g, Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 443 (1983) (emphasis +added))). Such a showing must be comprised of "more than a mere surmise or +speculation. " Minton, 113 So. 2d at 365. If a party makes this a showing, then the +trial court may examine the grand jury testimony in camera and make a +determination of its materiality. Id. Disclosure should then be permitted only if +"essential to the attainment of justice." Brookings, 495 So. 2d at 138; Minton, 113 +So. 2d at 365. +This court reiterates that the term "furthering justice", as recognized in the foregoing quote, +still requires the showing of a particularized and compelling need which outweighs any interest in +maintaining secrecy and cannot be satisfied in another manner. The court also finds that such a +showing has not been made here. +11 + + +It is true that "furthering justice" is an amorphous term which can be read to support a +broad range of justifications for disclosure. Black's Law Dictionary offers several contexts in +which the term "justice" has been defined. Id. (11th Ed. 2019). It may well be that the disclosure +of Jeffery Epstein's grand jury records could reveal that fair treatment did not occur and that Mr. +Epstein might have escaped appropriate punishment through some failing of our justice system. +However, the public's generalized interest in investigating that potential injustice must be +considered and weighed against the specific policies in favor of grand jury secrecy —policies that +preserve the safety of grand jurors and witnesses and encourage their frank and unhampered +testimony in all cases submitted to grand jury. See Grand Jury Fall Term, A.D. v. City of St. +Petersburg, Fla. 624 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (citing Minton v. State, 113 So. 2d 361 (Fla. +1959)). Here, the justification for disclosure is derived primarily from the notoriety of the accused +and the public's suspicion of unfair treatment. If that alone were enough to compel disclosure of +grand jury records, it could have an unintended chilling effect on witnesses and jurors considering +the indictment of powerful individuals in future grand jury proceedings. In any event, the +Newspaper in the present case has failed to establish a particularized and compelling need which +outweighs any interest in maintaining grand jury secrecy. +Finally, this court's "inherent power" does not give it carte blanche to ignore legal +precedent or statutory mandate simply because it finds the underlying cause particularly worthy. +Perhaps the citcumstances presented above will induce the Legislature to amend section 905.27 to +grant the courts additional authority or leeway in ruling on unique cases such as this one. +Alternatively, an appeal of this order might persuade a higher court to establish a less restrictive +interpretation of the "furthering justice" exception, the limitations of section 905.27, and the limits +of a court's "inherent authority." Until that time, this court is bound by the fundamental doctrines +12 + + +of statutory construction, separation of powers and stare decisis to rule according to the law as it +exists today. +CONCLUSION +Based upon the constraints imposed upon this court by section 905.27, the court has limited +authority to order the release of grand jury records. No matter how palatable and persuasive the +Newspaper's arguments may be, the court cannot exercise that limited authority here. Nor does +the court's "inherent authority" permit it to broaden the statute's limits. The court commends both +parties' attorneys for their exceptional oral and written presentations. +Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that final judgment is hereby +entered dismissing this action in its entirety. Defendant Joseph Abruzzo, in his capacity as Clerk +of the Circuit Court & Comptroller for Palm Beach County, shall go hence without day. The court +reserves jurisdiction to entertain any motion filed under Rule 1.525, Florida Rules of Civil +Procedure. This is a final, appealable judgment. +DONE and ENTERED in Palm Beach County, Florida. +NOT +Name +onald Hatele +502019CA014681XXXXMB 12/20/2021 +Address +Email +CYNTHIA M GUERRA +n/a +n/a +Clerk_e- +service@mypalmbeachclerk.com +13 + + +Name +DOUGLAS A. WYLER +JAMES CULLEN MOONEY +JESSICA NEER MCDONALD +KENNETH G. TURKEL +LAUREN R. WHETSTONE +Address +Email +961687 GATEWAY BLVD SUITE +201-1 FERNANDINA BEACH, FL doug.wyler@comcast.net +32034 +n/a +jmooney@bajocuva.com, +Iheckman@bajocuva.com +POST OFFICE BOX 229 WEST +PALM BEACH, FL 33401 +CLERK_E- +SERVICE@MYPALMBEACHCLERK.COM, +jnmcdonald@mypalmbeachclerk.com +n/a +kturkel@bajocuva.com, +lisa.meriwether@bajocuva.com, +teri.deleo@bajocuva.com +777 S FLAGLER DR STE 300 E +WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401 +WHETSTONEL@GTLAW.COM, +flservice@gtlaw.com, +sandra.famadas@gtlaw.com +bideaum@gtlaw.com, +thomasd@gtlaw.com, +FLService@gtlaw.com +GRYGIELM@GTLAW.COM +grygielm@gtlaw.com +MARK F. BIDEAU +MICHAEL GRYGIEL +MICHAEL J. GRYGIEL +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +SHANE B. VOGT +n/a +54 STATE STREET 6TH FLOOR +ALBANY, NY 12207 +n/a +1840 CENTURY PARK EAST +SUITE 1900 LOS ANGELES, CA +90067 +n/a +boyajiann@gtlaw.com, +riveraal@gtlaw.com +n/a +shane.vogt@bajocuva.com, +garnold@bajocuva.com +5100 TOWN CENTER CIR SUITE mendelsohns@gtlaw.com, +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN, ESQ +smithl@gtlaw.com, +400 BOCA RATON, FL 33486 +flservice@gtlaw.com +14 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cccd6680988bc5aa7c54071629af18f9dd32038547108e3d869269289f15f783.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cccd6680988bc5aa7c54071629af18f9dd32038547108e3d869269289f15f783.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b775fcb13f1f738c50324b19e91e5eb896a2b770 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cccd6680988bc5aa7c54071629af18f9dd32038547108e3d869269289f15f783.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -168, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cccd6680988bc5aa7c54071629af18f9dd32038547108e3d869269289f15f783", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 14, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ebdfd22c6718ec172b83fec974fa78f33eff1ab2c60eff61f27914fdd6fa1ba2", + "output_sha256": "da2993cbcc3de10b1a46b7d35451bb5e2be809518e83773d2a6d8f9e28bf9459", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ccd64bf84b1bc6b4d4b007b344dd0a515c999fbe95af0e4e85f57fb6ca168468.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ccd64bf84b1bc6b4d4b007b344dd0a515c999fbe95af0e4e85f57fb6ca168468.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..06a071426b33cbd623705585044aa312676d12dd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ccd64bf84b1bc6b4d4b007b344dd0a515c999fbe95af0e4e85f57fb6ca168468.md @@ -0,0 +1,575 @@ +Filing # 142773814 E-Filed 01/27/2022 12:24:02 PM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +Division: AG +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +v. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +) +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida, +) +Defendants. +) +COPY +NOTICE OF APPEAL +NOTICE IS GIVEN that Plaintiff/Appellant, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, Publisher +of The Palm Beach Post ("Plaintiff"), appeals to the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida +this Court's Final Judgment in favor of Defendant/Appellee +Abruzzo, in his capacity as +Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller for Palm Beach County ("Defendant"),' entered +December 20, 2021 and rendered on January 26, 2022.2 The nature of the order to be reviewed is +a final order on summary judgment, which dismissed the action in its entirety. A true and correct +' Defendant is the sole remaining defendant in this case. +- After this Court entered its Final Judgment, Defendant, on January 3, 2022, timely filed a Motion +to Amend Final Judgment (the "Motion"), tolling rendition of the Final Judgment-and, by +extension, the time for Plaintiff to file a Notice of Appeal—until resolution of the Motion. See Fla. +R. App. P. 9.020(h)(1)(D) (a "motion to alter or amend" will "toll rendition" of an order). On +January 20, 2022, Detendant filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Amend Final Judgment, +Which rendered the Final Judgment on that date. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(h)(2)(A) (if authorized +motion directed to a final order is filed, such as a motion to alter or amend here, "the final order +shall not be deemed rendered as to any existing party until all of the motions are either withdrawn +by written notice filed in the lower tribunal or resolved by the rendition of an order disposing of +the last of such motions" (emphasis added)). +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, L +ABRUZZO, CLERK, 01/27/2022 12:24:02 PM + + +copy of the Final Judgment is attached as Exhibit A. A true and correct copy of the Notice of +Withdrawal of Motion to Amend Final Judgment is attached as Exhibit B. +Dated: January 27, 2022 +Respectfully submitted, +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +Attorneys for CA Florida Holdings, LLC, +Publisher of The Palm Beach Post +Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. +5100 Town Center Circle, Suite 400 +Boca Raton, Florida 33486 +Telephone: (561) 955-7629 +Facsimile: (561) 338-7099 +By: Is/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN +Florida Bar No. 849324 +mendelsohns@gtlaw.com +hasenh@gtlaw.com +FLService@gtlaw.com +NOT A CER +-and- +Is/ Michael J Grygiel +MICHAEL J GRYGIEL +(Pro Hac Vice) +54 State St., 6th Floor +Albany, New York 12207 +Telephone: (518) 689-1400 +Facsimile: (518) 689-1499 +grygielm@gtlaw.com +By: Is/ Nina D. Boyajian +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +(Pro Hac Vice) +840 Century Park East, Suite 19( +os Angeles CA 9006° +Telephone: (310) 586 -7700 +Facsimile: (310) 586 =7800 +boyajiann@gtlaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com + + +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 27th day of January 2022, a copy of the foregoing has +been electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein. +/s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN + + + + + +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION: AG +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER +OF THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff/Petitioner +VS. +DAVE ARONBERG, +SHARON R BOCK, +Defendant/Respondents. +COPY +FINAL JUDGMENT +THIS CAUSE came before the court on the motion for summary judgment of plaintiff CA +Florida Holdings, LLC, publisher of The Palm Beach Post ("the Newspaper"), on Count I of its +complaint in this action. (D.E. # 58.) The sole remaining defendant, +Abruzzo, in his +capacity as the Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County ("the clerk"), filed a response to the +motion on October 1, 2021. (D.E. # 75.) The Newspaper filed a reply on October 13, 2021. (D.E. +# 77) The motion was heard by the court on October 22, 2021. The court has considered the +submissions of the parties, the arguments of counsel, the record in the case, and is otherwise +advised of the premises, Because Count II of the Newspaper's complaint, which is the only other +count, has been disposed of by Order filed June 7, 2020 (D.E. # 33), this is a final judgment in the +case.' +' The court is aware that in an October 22, 2021, article published by the Newspaper it suggested +that the court indicated at the hearing that it was inclined to release the records. The Newspaper +may have misheard the court's remarks during the hearing, which lasted nearly two hours. The +ourt is not criticizing the Newspaper and has a great deal of respect for the reporter but mus +•larify that the court stated that it had not made a decision whether it would order that the gran +jury records would be produced. (Hrg. Tr. at 19:11-16.) The court reiterated, "So, I just wanted +1 + + +SUMMARY OF THE CASE AND ITS CURRENT STATUS +The Newspaper filed its complaint on November 14, 2019, seeking disclosure and +production of documents, exhibits, testimony transcripts, audio and visual materials, and all other +things ("the Materials") presented to the 2006 grand jury in proceedings instituted by the State +Attorney for the 15* Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida ("the State Attorney") +which resulted in an indictment of Jeffrey Epstein for one count of Felony Solicitation of +Prostitution, No. 50-2006-CF-009454-A XXX-MB, and a subsequent charge of Procuring Person +Under Age 18 for Prostitution, 50-2008-CF-009381-AXXX-MB. In both cases, on June 30, 2008, +Mr. Epstein pleaded guilty to the charge of Procuring Person under Age 18 for Prostitution. He +was sentenced to 12 months of community control in the custody of the Palm Beach County +Sheriff's Office. (2008-CF-009381, D.E. # 11, 12; 2006-CF-009454, D.E. # 89.) +Count I of the Newspaper's complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that section +905.27(1)(c), Florida Statutes, should be interpreted to permit disclosure of the Materials to the +Newspaper so that it may then report on their content as part of its continued investigation and +reporting of matters relating to Mr. Epstein. That count also seeks a declaration ordering disclosure +of the Materials "pursuant to [the court's] inherent authority over grand jury proceedings because +of the exceptional public interest in this case and the compelling circumstances supporting +transparency." (Amended Complaint, 1 71.) +PRELIMINARY PROCEDURAL ISSUE +The court notes that the only other defendant in this case, the State Attorney, has been +dismissed, and there have been no attempts to intervene in this case to take a position against +to make that clear from the outset, that there will be no wholesale turning over of any records if - +and, again, that is a significant word - if the production is ordered." (Hrg. Tr. at 20:9-13, +emphasis added.) +2 + + +disclosure. The clerk's position is that he is merely the custodian of the Materials, and as such he +has no real interest in the issues before the court as identified. The clerk only needs direction from +the court on whether or not he should produce and disclose the Materials. Nonetheless, the clerk +has zealously advocated the position against disclosure based upon grand jury secrecy and +confidentiality because under Rule 2.420(d)(1)(B)(xvi) of the Florida Rules of General Practice +and Judicial Administration, the clerk is required to maintain the confidentiality of grand jury +records. +The clerk is correct that his role as custodian of the Materials is only to follow the court's +on to flow te court's +direction once confidentiality is determined. The clerk's role in this proceeding has been +complicated, or expanded, because the Newspaper filed this action as a civil declaratory judgment +action and has moved for summary judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510. +However, the proper procedure for obtaining disclosure of confidential court records is set forth in +Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420(j), which only requires the +filing of a "motion" seeking disclosure. Fla, R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin Rule 2.420()(2). +Accordingly, the court will treat the Newspaper's complaint and motion for summary +judgment as a motion for disclosure under Rule 2.420(j).- As a result, the court need not determine, +as a matter of law, whether the clerk of the court is a proper party defendant to a declaratory +judgment action for the release of grand jury records. Although the clerk of court is the proper +2 Rule 2.420()(3) requires a party seeking disclosure to serve the motion "on all parties and +reasonably affected non-parties[.]" Of course, that did not occur here and would have been +impossible to carry out, as "reasonably affected non-parties" cannot be determined without +actually seeing the Materials. Because the court is denying the relief sought, however, this issue +is academic. +3 + + +subject of any order directing the release of protected grand jury records issued pursuant to Rule +2.420(i), under the rule it is not a "defendant" or "party" in relation to the requested itself. +The court's determination to treat the Newspaper's claim as a Rule 2.420(j) motion +resolves another issue as well. The Newspaper devotes significant argument to its standing to +prosecute this action, arguing that section 905.27 vests it with a private right of action. (Motion, +11 81-90.). First, the argument of whether section 905.27 creates a private right of action was +already substantively addressed by this court's Order dismissing Count II of the Amended +Complaint. (D.E. # 33). Second, the court sees no reason to question the Newspaper's standing to +bring a Rule 2.420(j) motion, which is available to any member of the public seeking access to +records of the judicial branch. See Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.420(a). +Lastly, even in treating the complaint and motion for summary judgment as a motion under +Rule 2.420(i), there are no disputed fact issues, and the issues before the court are issues of law. +Accordingly, this is a final judgment. +THE UNDISPUTED FACTS +The facts germane to this final judgment are not in dispute and are recounted here. The +2006 grand jury was convened in proceedings instituted by the State Attorney regarding alleged +criminal misconduct of a sexual nature by Jeffrey Epstein, now deceased. Materials were +presented to the grand jury. The United States Department of Justice, by and through the office of +the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, obtained the Materials.? The +" This fact is established by Exhibit 3 to the Newspaper's motion, which is the United States +Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility Report, 'Investigation into the U.S. +Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's Resolution of Its 2006-2008 Federal +Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the +Investigation," Nov. 2020 ("the Report"). The Report makes references to the fact that the federal +government obtained and reviewed the Materials. See the Report at 20, n. 23, 26, 38 n. 67, 271 n. +425 and 283. +4 + + +Newspaper operates and does business in Palm Beach County, Florida. The clerk is a duly elected +governmental official, and he and his office have custody of the Materials. +ANALYSIS +The Newspaper appears to have presented questions of first impression regarding both the +interpretation of section 905.27 and the "inherent authority" of the court. Those questions also +implicate issues of constitutional import regarding the historic tension between grand jury secrecy +and the First Amendment. Additionally, the Newspaper presents these questions in the context of +genuine subjects of public interest and concern regarding the prosecutorial process of Mr. Epstein. +Mr. Epstein was a person of great wealth and influence accused of being a sex predator who +engaged in criminal sex trafficking of minors, among other crimes. +The public record establishes that Mr. Epstein entered into a federal non-prosecution +agreement with the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in exchange for a +guilty plea in the then pending state court case to one count of procuring a minor for prostitution, +for which he served less than a year in work-release incarceration at the Palm Beach County Jail.S +Mr. Epstein was federally indicted in 2019 by the United States Attorney for the Southern District +of New York for the same type of conduct during the 2002-2005 time-span preceding the 2006 +state indictment and the 2008 no-prosecution agreement negotiated with the federal prosecutor. +Mr. Epstein was never brought to trial on those 2019 charges, having committed suicide in his +New York jail cell. +4 See the Report, referenced in n. 1, supra. +5 Id. +5 + + +In this Order, the court rules against the Newspaper because the established and binding +maxims of Florida law constrain it to do so. As noted below, federal courts have departed from +the limited prescriptions of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) in granting access to grand +jury records in "special circumstances." E.g., In re Petition of Craig, 131 F.3d 99, 102 (2d Cir. +1997) (recognizing "that there are certain "special circumstances" in which release of grand jury +records is appropriate even outside of the boundaries of [Rule 6(e)]"). Florida law, however, has +yet to recognize such flexibility under either section 905.27 or Rule 2.420(). +(A) +Section 905.27 and the phrase "furthering justice." +The court first addresses the issue whether the Newspaper's claim fits within "the purpose +of ... furthering justice" under section 905.27(1)(c). The full text of sections 905.27(1) and (2) +provide context: +(1) A grand juror, state attorney, assistant state attorney, reporter, stenographer, +interpreter, or any other person appearing before the grand jury shall not disclose +the testimony of a witness examined before the grand jury or other evidence +received by it except when required by a court to disclose the testimony for the +purpose of: +(a) Ascertaining whether it is consistent with the testimony given by the witness +before the court; +(b) Determining whether the witness is guilty of perjury; or +(c) Furthering justice. +(2) It is unlawful for any person knowingly to publish, broadcast, disclose, +divulge, or communicate to any other person, or knowingly to cause or permit to +be published, broadcast, disclosed, divulged, or communicated to any other person, +in any manner whatsoever, any testimony of a witness examined before the +grand jury, or the content, gist, or import thereof, except when such testimony +is or has been disclosed in a court proceeding. When a court orders the +disclosure of such testimony pursuant to subsection (1) for use in a criminal +case, it may be disclosed to the prosecuting attorney of the court in which such +criminal case is pending, and by the prosecuting attorney to his or her assistants, +legal associates, and employees, and to the defendant and the defendant's attorney, +and by the latter to his or her legal associates and employees. When such +6 + + +disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection (1) for use in a civil +case, it may be disclosed to all parties to the case and to their attorneys and by the +latter to their legal associates and employees. However, the grand jury testimony +afforded such persons by the court can only be used in the defense or +prosecution of the civil or criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever. +(Emphasis added.) +Reading subsection 1(c) ("furthering justice") in tandem with subsection (2), it is evident +that the phrase "furthering justice" is to be interpreted in the context of seeking disclosure of grand +jury materials for use in a pending criminal or civil case. The Newspaper acknowledges that it is +not seeking disclosure of the Materials for such a purpose. (Amended complaint, 1| 70; Motion 1 +114.) Instead, the Newspaper advocates a more expansive interpretation of the term "furthering +justice" and also posits that because it is not seeking disclosure of the Materials for use in a criminal +or civil case, it seeks an additional declaration that its intended use of the Materials "is not so +limited" by section 905.27(2). (Id.) The Newspaper wants the ability to publish the Materials and +reference them in its reporting and also to make the Materials available "to the public." (Amended +Complaint, prayer at 21; Motion, T 116.)° +The Newspaper makes strong arguments to advance its more expansive construction of +section 905.27 as part of "furthering justice." Unquestionably, the established matters surrounding +Mr. Epstein's conduct, the circumstances of his resolution of the 2006 state charges and potential +federal charges, and his 2008 guilty plea and incarceration are matters of public interest, and +disclosure of the Materials may arguably fall within the concept of "furthering justice" in the +broadest, social sense of the phrase. Yet, the court's interpretation of the scope of section 905.27 +6 The Newspaper concedes in its submissions that the court could first conduct an in camera review +of the Materials and redact any information the court deems sensitive, such as identities of +"innocent parties." (Amended Complaint, 9 9; Motion, 111 80 n.3, 110 n. 7.) +7 + + +and of the phrase "furthering justice" is governed and constrained by the established rules of +statutory construction. +In interpreting a statute, the court must respect the role of the legislature, the legislative +process, and the language of the statute. "'A court's function is to interpret statutes as they are +written and give effect to each word in the statute."" State v. Sampaio, 291 So. 3d 120, 125 (Fla. +4" DCA 2020) (quoting Fla. Dept. of Revenue v. Fla. Mun. Power Agency, 789 So. 2d 320, 324 +(Fla. 2001). "[W]hen legislation is clear 'our task is to apply the text, not improve upon it.'" +Kaplan v. Epstein, 219 So. 3d 932, 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (quoting Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel +Entertainment Group, 493 U.S. 120, 126 (1989). "It is our [courts"] duty to interpret the law as +given us by the people in the Constitution or by the Legislature. Weare not permitted to substitute +judicial cerebration for law or that which we think the law should be and command that it be +enforced." In re Investigation of Circuit Judge of Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, 93 So. 2d +601, 608 (Fla. 1957). "As courts, we should never forget that in construing acts of the legislature, +we are concerned only with the power of the legislature to enact the law. Our peculiar social and +economic views have no place in such a consideration." Tyson v. Lanier, 156 So. 2d 833, 838 +(Fla. 1963). +Turning to section 905.27, the term "furthering justice" as used in subsection (1)(c) cannot +be read in a vacuum, without regard to the entire text of the statute, and particularly subsection (2). +"Every statute must [also] be read as a whole with meaning ascribed to every portion and due +regard given to the semantic and contextual interrelationship between its parts.'" Indian River +County v. Ocean Concrete, Inc., 308 So. 3d 1010, 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (quoting Fla. Dep't +of Envtl. Prot. v. ContractPoint Fla. +LLC, 986 So. 2d 1260, 1265 (Fla. 2008) (quoting +Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., 604 So. 2d 452, 455 (Fla. 1992)). +8 + + +Subsection (2) clearly limits section 925.27's scope to those instances in which grand jury +testimony or materials need to be disclosed for use in a criminal or civil case. Subsection (2) +provides that once grand jury testimony is disclosed in the course of a court proceeding, it is then +open to unlimited dissemination. But before that occurs, the court must determine that one of the +three needs prescribed in subsection (1) is present in a criminal or civil case that requires +disclosure. There is nothing in section 905.27 that gives a court carte blanche authority to release +grand jury materials in any situation that might bear some relationship to "furthering justice" in its +broadest sense. +Accordingly, the Newspaper's argument that section 905.27 and the term "furthering +justice" permits disclosure of grand jury materials in the situation must be denied here, where there +is no criminal or civil case in which it is to be used. +(B) +The court's "inherent authority." +Alternatively, the Newspaper argues that the court has "inherent authority" to order the +release of the Materials. At several places in its submissions, the Newspaper asserts its "right" or +"entitlement" to disclosure of the Materials under both section 905.27 and the court's "inherent +authority and supervisory powers." (Amended Complaint 1| 70, Motion, 11 86, 113, 114) There +is, however, no First Amendment right to the disclosure of grand jury materials. "A settled +roposition, one that the press does not contes, is this: there is no First Amendmentright of aces +to grand jury proceedings." In re Motions of Dow +& Co., 142 F.3d 496, 499 (D.C. Cir. +1998), cert. denied sub nom. Dow +_& Co., Inc. v. Clinton, 525 U.S. 820 (1998); accord, In +re Sealed Case, 199 F.3d 522, 523 (D.C. Cir. 2000). +The Newspaper provides several passages from state and federal cases generally +recognizing a court's "inherent authority." (Motion, 1| 95.) The Newspaper also cites several +9 + + +federal cases in which grand jury materials were disclosed, yet those cases substantially turn on +Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which governs disclosure of grand jury materials and +contains provisions not present in Florida statutes and rules. (Motion, 1 96.) The Newspaper also +references the recent example of a Kentucky state court releasing portions of grand jury testimony +in the Breonna Taylor case under Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.24, which gives +Kentucky courts broad, unrestricted authority to "at any time ... direct otherwise regarding +disclosure of grand jury materials. (Motion, 11 97-100.) Finally, the Newspaper cites In re +Petition of Craig, 131 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1997), in which the court there set forth a number of factors +to consider in determining whether, under federal law and rule, a federal court may release grand +jury materials for reasons other than those enumerated in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). +The Newspaper argues that this court should apply these factors in exercising its "inherent +authority" to release the Materials. +A court's "inherent authority" has its boundaries. "If a specific statute or rule applies, +the trial court should rely on the applicable rule or statute rather than on inherent authority." +Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So. 2d 221, 227 (Fla. 2002) (addressing inherent authority to sanction +attorney misconduct); accord, Santini v. Cleveland Clinic Florida, 65 So. 3d 22, 38 (Fla. 4th DCA +2011) (finding that trial court erred in relying on inherent authority instead of sanctions statute). +"In a contest between a clear, valid, unchallenged statute and a trial court's general "inherent +authority, " the statute must prevail." Swearingen v. Pretzer, 310 So. 3d 1084, 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA +2020) (Kelsey, J. dissenting). +The Newspaper has provided no Florida authority holding that a trial court may use its +"inherent authority" to order disclosure of grand jury materials in the face of section 905.27, which +governs and enumerates the circumstances under which grand jury materials may be disclosed. +10 + + +Again, the court acknowledges the Newspaper's vibrant and sincere arguments for seeking +disclosure as a matter of public interest and in "furthering justice" in the broader sense of the term. +Nonetheless, "(u)nder fundamental principles of separation of powers, courts cannot judicially +alter the wording of statutes where the Legislature clearly has not done so." Fla. Dept. of Revenue, +789 So. 2d at 324. +Even if "furthering justice" as stated in section 905.27 could be extended beyond the +specific situations prescribed by that statute, still the court cannot do so, here. The court notes the +Order issued by this court (The Honorable Krista Marx) in State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. +50-5006-CF-009454-AXXX (Order, Jan. 4, 2020), in which the court denied the Florida +Department of Law Enforcement's motion for disclosure of the same grand jury materials at issue +here: +Although the term "furthering justice" seems quite broad, the history of the +exception in both common law and modern case law establishes that the exception +is actually quite narrow - it does not encompass any reason that could "further +justice," but rather requires the showing of a particularized and compelling need +which outweighs any interest in maintaining secrecy and cannot be satisfied in +another manner. Brookings v. State, 495 So. 2d 135, 137-38 (Fla. 1986) (holding +that "a party seeking disclosure [of grand jury proceedings] must make a strong +showing of a particularized need in order to outweigh the public interest in secrecy" +(citing United States V. Sells Eng'g, Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 443 (1983) (emphasis +added))). Such a showing must be comprised of "more than a mere surmise or +speculation. " Minton, 113 So. 2d at 365. If a party makes this a showing, then the +trial court may examine the grand jury testimony in camera and make a +determination of its materiality. Id. Disclosure should then be permitted only if +"essential to the attainment of justice." Brookings, 495 So. 2d at 138; Minton, 113 +So. 2d at 365. +This court reiterates that the term "furthering justice", as recognized in the foregoing quote, +still requires the showing of a particularized and compelling need which outweighs any interest in +maintaining secrecy and cannot be satisfied in another manner. The court also finds that such a +showing has not been made here. +11 + + +It is true that "furthering justice" is an amorphous term which can be read to support a +broad range of justifications for disclosure. Black's Law Dictionary offers several contexts in +which the term "justice" has been defined. Id. (11th Ed. 2019). It may well be that the disclosure +of Jeffery Epstein's grand jury records could reveal that fair treatment did not occur and that Mr. +Epstein might have escaped appropriate punishment through some failing of our justice system. +However, the public's generalized interest in investigating that potential injustice must be +considered and weighed against the specific policies in favor of grand jury secrecy —policies that +preserve the safety of grand jurors and witnesses and encourage their frank and unhampered +testimony in all cases submitted to grand jury. See Grand Jury Fall Term, A.D. v. City of St. +Petersburg, Fla. 624 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (citing Minton v. State, 113 So. 2d 361 (Fla. +1959)). Here, the justification for disclosure is derived primarily from the notoriety of the accused +and the public's suspicion of unfair treatment. If that alone were enough to compel disclosure of +grand jury records, it could have an unintended chilling effect on witnesses and jurors considering +the indictment of powerful individuals in future grand jury proceedings. In any event, the +Newspaper in the present case has failed to establish a particularized and compelling need which +outweighs any interest in maintaining grand jury secrecy. +Finally, this court's "inherent power" does not give it carte blanche to ignore legal +precedent or statutory mandate simply because it finds the underlying cause particularly worthy. +Perhaps the citcumstances presented above will induce the Legislature to amend section 905.27 to +grant the courts additional authority or leeway in ruling on unique cases such as this one. +Alternatively, an appeal of this order might persuade a higher court to establish a less restrictive +interpretation of the "furthering justice" exception, the limitations of section 905.27, and the limits +of a court's "inherent authority." Until that time, this court is bound by the fundamental doctrines +12 + + +of statutory construction, separation of powers and stare decisis to rule according to the law as it +exists today. +CONCLUSION +Based upon the constraints imposed upon this court by section 905.27, the court has limited +authority to order the release of grand jury records. No matter how palatable and persuasive the +Newspaper's arguments may be, the court cannot exercise that limited authority here. Nor does +the court's "inherent authority" permit it to broaden the statute's limits. The court commends both +parties' attorneys for their exceptional oral and written presentations. +Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that final judgment is hereby +entered dismissing this action in its entirety. Defendant Joseph Abruzzo, in his capacity as Clerk +of the Circuit Court & Comptroller for Palm Beach County, shall go hence without day. The court +reserves jurisdiction to entertain any motion filed under Rule 1.525, Florida Rules of Civil +Procedure. This is a final, appealable judgment. +DONE and ENTERED in Palm Beach County, Florida. +NOT +Name +onald Hatele +502019CA014681XXXXMB 12/20/2021 +Address +Email +CYNTHIA M GUERRA +n/a +n/a +Clerk_e- +service@mypalmbeachclerk.com +13 + + +Name +DOUGLAS A. WYLER +JAMES CULLEN MOONEY +JESSICA NEER MCDONALD +KENNETH G. TURKEL +LAUREN R. WHETSTONE +Address +Email +961687 GATEWAY BLVD SUITE +201-1 FERNANDINA BEACH, FL doug.wyler@comcast.net +32034 +n/a +jmooney@bajocuva.com, +Iheckman@bajocuva.com +POST OFFICE BOX 229 WEST +PALM BEACH, FL 33401 +CLERK_E- +SERVICE@MYPALMBEACHCLERK.COM, +jnmcdonald@mypalmbeachclerk.com +n/a +kturkel@bajocuva.com, +lisa.meriwether@bajocuva.com, +teri.deleo@bajocuva.com +777 S FLAGLER DR STE 300 E +WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401 +WHETSTONEL@GTLAW.COM, +flservice@gtlaw.com, +sandra.famadas@gtlaw.com +bideaum@gtlaw.com, +thomasd@gtlaw.com, +FLService@gtlaw.com +GRYGIELM@GTLAW.COM +grygielm@gtlaw.com +MARK F. BIDEAU +MICHAEL GRYGIEL +MICHAEL J. GRYGIEL +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +SHANE B. VOGT +n/a +54 STATE STREET 6TH FLOOR +ALBANY, NY 12207 +n/a +1840 CENTURY PARK EAST +SUITE 1900 LOS ANGELES, CA +90067 +n/a +boyajiann@gtlaw.com, +riveraal@gtlaw.com +n/a +shane.vogt@bajocuva.com, +garnold@bajocuva.com +5100 TOWN CENTER CIR SUITE mendelsohns@gtlaw.com, +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN, ESQ +smithl@gtlaw.com, +400 BOCA RATON, FL 33486 +flservice@gtlaw.com +14 + + + + + +Filing # 142670628 E-Filed 01/26/2022 10:41:38 AM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION: AG +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +v. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R +BOCK. as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +COPY +Defendants. +CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER'S +NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION TO AMEND FINAL JUDGMENT +Defendant, +Abruzzo, in his official capacity as Clerk of the Circuit Court and +Comptroller, Palm Beach County, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby withdraws his +Motion to Amend Final Judgment [DE 81] filed on January 3, 2022. See Hasan v. Lanny, No. +SC10-1361, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 345 (Fla. 2013) (notice of withdrawal is sufficient to withdraw a +motion prior to it being heard); see also Simpson v. Simpson, 780 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) +(withdrawal of a post-judgment motion removes the toll to file an appeal). + + +Dated: January 26, 2022 +By: +Respectfully submitted, +CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & +COMPTROLLER, PALM BEACH COUNTY +s/ Collin D. +Esq. (FL Bar No. 1018081) +Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller, +Palm Beach County +P.O. Box 229 +West Palm Beach, FL +Tel.: (561) 355-2983 +E-mail: eservice@mypalmbeachclerk.com +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on January 26, 2022 the foregoing document was furnished upon +Stephen Mendelsohn, Esq., Michael J. Grygiel, Esq., and Nina D. Boyajian, Esq., Greenberg +Traurig, P.A. at e-mails: mendelsohns@gtlaw.com; smithl@gtlaw.com; FLService@gtlaw.com; +grygielm@gtlaw.com; boyajiann@gtlaw.com; riveraal@gtlaw.com via the Florida ePortal +System. +NOT +By: +s/ Collin D. +Collin D. +1 Esq. diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ccd64bf84b1bc6b4d4b007b344dd0a515c999fbe95af0e4e85f57fb6ca168468.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ccd64bf84b1bc6b4d4b007b344dd0a515c999fbe95af0e4e85f57fb6ca168468.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..004796bc2cf2b0c1d579a2feacae51bf575afb00 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ccd64bf84b1bc6b4d4b007b344dd0a515c999fbe95af0e4e85f57fb6ca168468.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -346, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ccd64bf84b1bc6b4d4b007b344dd0a515c999fbe95af0e4e85f57fb6ca168468", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 25, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0442d828ee5e81dab017ec7da34cc2fe25eb272ecfbc4bca4e64cf8035a5d32c", + "output_sha256": "8e683ad37c1f1815887189705f31c178e97dd5038aeb2c00050baf4bde26e320", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ccf8b105357848663f58565d0cc90f80ba5118e8d40eaba9d5c4326517524918.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ccf8b105357848663f58565d0cc90f80ba5118e8d40eaba9d5c4326517524918.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..534826b22f5eaafdae503cb2b9c5e702762d654b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ccf8b105357848663f58565d0cc90f80ba5118e8d40eaba9d5c4326517524918.md @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 5-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2008 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEFAULT +It appearing that the Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is in Default for failure to plead or otherwise +defend as required by law, Default is hereby entered as against the said Defendant this +day of +May, 2008. +CLERK OF COURT +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. +www.hermanlaw.com +- 1- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ccf8b105357848663f58565d0cc90f80ba5118e8d40eaba9d5c4326517524918.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ccf8b105357848663f58565d0cc90f80ba5118e8d40eaba9d5c4326517524918.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8d975bee3c4b0a36030c79c667fc441835b85d0c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ccf8b105357848663f58565d0cc90f80ba5118e8d40eaba9d5c4326517524918.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ccf8b105357848663f58565d0cc90f80ba5118e8d40eaba9d5c4326517524918", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "d036fc17df771dd7cdcb294bb154b78c8c7d56dafb70668c6420fd6a537db983", + "output_sha256": "e374f5f9087f2e59c124246d5c5fd94ccf1237cbb6e973819c29ab13edde48b6", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd11cf789785df75c2c782269047d1a765be8bec48d11cab3fd9a6b716c72d75.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd11cf789785df75c2c782269047d1a765be8bec48d11cab3fd9a6b716c72d75.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..102a85a8855677bc426d9bae0ff346a07431499e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd11cf789785df75c2c782269047d1a765be8bec48d11cab3fd9a6b716c72d75.md @@ -0,0 +1,116 @@ +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 10-80309-CIV- +JANE DOE No. 103, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFERY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO AMEND DEFENDANT'S +MOTION TO DISMISS, & FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT & +STRIKE DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 103'S +COMPLAINT Idated 4/5/2010] +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned +counsel, moves to amend by his previously filed Motion To Dismiss, & Motion For More +Definite +Statement & Strike Directed To Plaintiff JANE DOE 103's Complaint, +(hereinafter "Motion To Dismiss"), dated and filed April 5, 2010. In support of his +motion, Defendant states: +1. On April 5, 2010, Defendant previously filed with this Court his Motion To +Dismiss. Defendant seeks dismissal of Count VI, which is brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. +§2255, because Plaintiff is relying on a criminal predicate act enumerated in §2255 that +did not come into effect until after the alleged time period of the alleged conduct by +Defendant involving Plaintiff. 18 U.S.C. §2252A(g), the criminal statute relied upon by +Plaintiff in attempting to assert her §2255 claim in Count VI, was not enacted until 2006; +the allegedly violative conduct by Defendant occurred, according to Plaintiff's own + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 2 of 4 +allegations, beginning in January 2004 until approximately May 2005. As argued in +Defendant's motion to dismiss, Count VI is required to be dismissed because it violates +the constitutional principles against retroactivity. See pages 3-11 of Defendant's motion +to dismiss. +2. Defendant is not seeking to raise a new argument, but is seeking to clarify the +argument made in his motion to dismiss (pp. 3-11). Under the heading - "Motion To +Dismiss" - at page 3-4, in the first paragraph, Defendant states in part that - "However, +subsection (g) of §2252 was not added to the statute until 2006. Thus, to the extent that +Plaintiff is relying on the amended version of §2255, such reliance is improper and Count +VI is required to be dismissed as it relies on a statutory predicate act that did not exist at +the time of the alleged conduct." +3. Defendant seeks to add the following sentences (paragraph) after the first +paragraph, at page 4, to clarify the argument being made. +According to Plaintiff's allegations, the alleged conduct of EPSTEIN +directed to Plaintiff occurred beginning in January 2004 until +approximately May 2005. In Count VI, in attempting to assert a claim +pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255, Plaintiff is relying on subsection, (g)(1) and +(2), of the criminal statute 18 U.S.C. §2252A as the requisite predicate act. +Subsection (g) of §2252A was not even in existence at the time of the +alleged conduct. Subsection (g) was enacted in 2006, effective July 27, +2006. See 2006 Amendments; Pub.L. 109-248, § 701, added subsec. (g). +18 U.S.C.A. § 2252A. As discussed more fully below herein, reliance on +subsection (g) violates the well entrenched constitutional principles +against retroactivity, and, thus, Count VI is required to be dismissed. + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 3 of 4 +4. Defendant also adds a sentence in the introductory paragraph of the Amended +Motion To Dismiss, attached hereto as Exhibit A, simply stating that it is an amended +motion. +5. Such amendment is in the interest of justice and will allow both the Court and the +Plaintiff to understand and address the argument made by Defendant in his motion to +dismiss. +6. Defendant further requests that the Amended Motion To Dismiss, Exhibit A +hereto, be deemed filed as of the date of this motion. +7. Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P.., Defendant sought the consent of the +opposing party as to the above amendment/supplement to his motion to dismiss. +Plaintiff's counsel did not oppose the amendment/supplement. +WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order +granting Defendant's motion and deeming as filed as of the date of this motion +Defendant's Amended Motion To Dismiss, & Motion For More Definite Statement & +Strike Directed To Plaintiff JANE DOE 103's Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit A. +Is/ Robert D. Critton +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +Attorney for Defendant +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is +being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List ir +the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 12' day of April, 2010. +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 4 of 4 +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +305 358-2800 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiff +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +By: /s/ Robert D. Critton +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +crit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd11cf789785df75c2c782269047d1a765be8bec48d11cab3fd9a6b716c72d75.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd11cf789785df75c2c782269047d1a765be8bec48d11cab3fd9a6b716c72d75.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8f1e82a186ebaa53ec0a7fe9bfecaff04e0d6faf --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd11cf789785df75c2c782269047d1a765be8bec48d11cab3fd9a6b716c72d75.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cd11cf789785df75c2c782269047d1a765be8bec48d11cab3fd9a6b716c72d75", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "5b4b9135699e1d93ed1b2e46b0e06c5269dd5a80b8a4d5745e4efbe23b0fc21c", + "output_sha256": "e6b1f35ed84914f17873896bd5d798fca2586ca4117181a4b9e87ecf56734b4c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd53fb13f431644ecb2f6b744ce9df6c498086f7920d9c528f0c910c27c8a33d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd53fb13f431644ecb2f6b744ce9df6c498086f7920d9c528f0c910c27c8a33d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..be3e9402ff962e4f829054d5cee91959d8961bab --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd53fb13f431644ecb2f6b744ce9df6c498086f7920d9c528f0c910c27c8a33d.md @@ -0,0 +1,612 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 1 of 19 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/. +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/. +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 2 of 19 +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/S +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRAIE +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/_ +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 3 of 19 +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRA/, +/ +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA-, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA- +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Reply To Plaintiffs', Jane Does 2-7, Response In Opposition To Epstein's Motion To +Compel And/Or Identify Jane Does In The Style Of This Case And Motion To +Identify Jane Doe In Third-Party Subpoenas For Purposes Of Discovery, Or +Alternatively, Motion To Dismiss Sua Sponte, With Incorporated Memorandum Of +Law +3 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 4 of 19 +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein" or "Defendant"), by and through his +undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Reply to Plaintiffs', Jane Does 2-7, Response in +Opposition to Epstein's Reply To Plaintiffs', Jane Does 2-7, Response In Opposition To +Epstein's Motion To Compel And/Or Identify Jane Doe In The Style Of This Case And +Motion To Identify Jane Doe In Third-Party Subpoenas For Purposes Of Discovery, Or +Alternatively, Motion To Dismiss Sue Sponte, With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law +(the "Motion to Identify"). In support, Mr. Epstein states as follows: +I. +Introduction +Prior to these cases being consolidated, Epstein filed separate Motions to +Identify in each of the cases filed by Jane Does 2-7. (DE 91 - Jane Doe 2, DE 84 - Jane +Doe 3, DE 101- Jane Doe 4, DE 86 - Jane Doe 5, DE 41 - Jane Doe 6, and DE 52 - Jane +Doe 7). Plaintiff filed their collective or omnibus response to the above matters in the +Case No.: 80119, which can be found at DE 114. +2. +Epstein filed his Motion to Identify for the sole purpose of obtaining +discovery related to the allegations in Plaintiffs' respective complaints and to properly +defend and investigate the matters that have been filed against him as would ANY +Defendant. However, Plaintiffs gather together in a continued effort to stonewall and +prevent discovery of their past medical, psychological and employment histories, and for +good reason - Plaintiffs' damages will be substantially reduced due to several preexisting +and diagnosed conditions for which they now attempt to pawn off on Epstein in an effort +to increase their damages. Appalling incidents took place in each of the Plaintiffs' lives +prior to any of their alleged encounters with Epstein including, but not limited to, rape, +sexual abuse, molestation, witnessing close friends or family members committing +4 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 5 of 19 +suicide, certain Plaintiffs having suicidal thoughts, or attempting to commit suicide, +physical and verbal abuse by family members etc... Those incidents (described below) +led to each of the Plaintiffs' respective preexisting conditions and were not highlighted +for the court in Plaintiffs' expert's affidavit attached to Plaintiffs' Opposition Motion +(i.e., the Affidavit of Gilbert W. Kliman, M.D.). Instead of addressing each Jane Doe +individually and highlighting their past experiences prior to Epstein (which are obviously +relevant to damages), Plaintiffs' expert simply touts his credentials in his generalized +affidavit and lists various tests he either performed or intends to perform on Plaintiffs, +thereby joining in on this organized and calculated effort to prevent discovery. In fact, it +appears Dr. Kliman had each Plaintiff complete a questionnaire. Is it Plaintiffs' position +as well the Defendant is not entitled to that information? +3. +In fact, it appears Dr. Kliman had each Plaintiff complete a questionnaire +However, Epstein's expert, Dr. Richard C.W. +has addressed the +medical/psychological histories, criminal histories, family histories and the past life +experiences of each Jane Doe by way of separate affidavit and has provided this court +with sufficient reason to grant Epstein's Motion to Identify.! Each of the Plaintiff's +histories is outlined in Dr. +Affidavits attached hereto and will be discussed in great +detail below. +4. +Next, Plaintiffs make much of the fact that Epstein is attempting to harm +them by way of identifying each of them in the style of their respective cases. While the +undersigned's experience is that once identified in a public pleading drones of individuals +' In making his Affidavits, Dr. hall reviewed voluminous documents (i.e., boxes full of documents +including criminal histories and Dr. Kliman's report/interview). The undersigned is prepared to +provide those documents to the court for in camera inspection should the court require same. +However, in light of the number of documents reviewed by Dr. in making his Affidavits, the +undersigned did not file those documents with the clerk so as not require the clerk additional ano +unnecessary work. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 6 of 19 +come forward with information refuting the Plaintiffs' allegations, Epstein will withdraw +that particular relief if Epstein is permitted to conduct the necessary and regular +discovery related to Plaintiffs' allegations in their complaint (i.e., to identify each Jane +Doe in third-party subpoenas and to issue those subpoenas to third-party treaters and +current and former employers and others such that Epstein can obtain records related +directly to Plaintiffs' claims and damages for severe and permanent traumatic injuries, +including mental, psychological and emotional damages, etc...). Cherentant V. +Nationwide Credit, Inc., 2004 WL 5315889 (S.D. Fla. 2004)(order allowing discovery of +medical records consistent with Plaintiff's allegations in complaint). Failure to allow +Epstein discovery is severely prejudicing Epstein and, therefore, should be considered on +an emergency basis by this court. If regular discovery is not permitted, how can any +defendant be expected to defend the allegations made against him by any Plaintiff, Jane +Doe or otherwise? Without the healthcare provider information and employment history, +it will be impossible to conduct both thorough depositions of the Plaintiffs and a +meaningful independent medical/psychological examination by Epstein's defense expert, +Dr. +This case should be treated no differently than any other case in which a +Plaintiff seeks personal injury damages. +Once again, this court has already ruled that Plaintiffs can only be deposed +once (Case #80119, DE 98 at 95 - "Defendant is limited to a single deposition of each +Plaintiff, during which defendant may depose the Plaintiff as both a party and a +witness."). +However, it appears that Epstein is being compelled to take Plaintiffs' +depositions and independent medical evaluations without ANY medical or employment +histories. +As such, the undersigned will not be able to cross-examine Plaintiffs about +6 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 7 of 19 +their past medical and employment histories and, as a result, Epstein's expert physician +will not have the benefit of that type of questioning and answers thereto before the +compulsory psychological/psychiatric examination of the Plaintiffs. This is not only +unheard-of, but it is inherently unfair, nonsensical, flies directly in the face of the liberal +discovery rules and directly violates Epstein's due process rights. This court has ordered +that we move these cases forward. However, Plaintiffs' strategy is to delay or prevent the +very discovery this court said Defendant should undertake! +6. +Moreover, Plaintiffs agreed at the June 12, 2009 hearing on Defendant's +Motion to Stay that regular discovery could proceed. See Composite Exhibit "A" at +pages 26-30 & 33-34. For instance, the court asked Plaintiffs' attorneys the following +questions: +The Court: I So again, I just want to make sure that if the cases go +forward and if Mr. Epstein defends the case as someone ordinarily would +lefend a case being prosecuted against him or her, that that in and of itself +is not going to cause him to be subject to criminal prosecution? (Ex. "A," +p.26). +sệt sệt sật +The Court: You agree he should be able to take the ordinary steps that a +defendant in a civil action can take and not be concerned about having to +be prosecuted? (Ex. "A," p.27). +*** +The Court: Okay. But again, you're in agreement with everyone else so +far that's spoken on behalf of a plaintiff that defending the case in the +normal course of conducting discovery and filing motions would not be a +breach? (Ex. "A," p.30). +Mr. Horowitz - counsel for Jane Does 2-7: Subject to your rulings, of +course, yes. (Ex. "A," p.30). +*** +The Court: But you're not taking the position that other than possibly +doing something in litigation which is any other discovery, motion +practice, investigations that someone would ordinarily do in the course of +7 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 8 of 19 +defending a civil case would constitute a violation of the agreement? (Ex. +"A," p.34). +Ms. Villafana: No, your honor. I mean, civil litigation is civil litigation, +and being able to take discovery is part of what civil litigation is all +about.... But..., Mr. Epstein is entitled to take the deposition of a Plaintiff +and to subpoena records, etc. (Ex. "A," p.34) +7. +It is clear from the transcript attached as Exhibit "A" that each of the +Plaintiffs' attorneys, including Mr. Horowitz for Jane Does 2-7, expected and conceded +that regular discovery would take place (i.e., discovery, motion practice, depositions, +requests for records, and investigations). Despite the foregoing, Plaintiffs now argue that +they should not be subject to regular discovery procedures by serving subpoenas on +various third-parties which identify each Jane Doe by name for the purpose of obtaining +relevant information related to claims that each of the Plaintiffs have made against +Epstein. The truth is that this is just a front to cover-up each of the Plaintiffs' disturbed +pasts and their preexisting conditions, which will arguably reduce their damages. +Plaintiffs cannot expect this court to limit discovery directed at them simply because of +the allegations they assert in the complaints (i.e., sexual battery). Sexual Battery is a tort, +and discovery has always been permitted on such a cause of action despite the alleged +facts surrounding such a claim. Plaintiffs must keep in mind that as pled, these cases are +personal injury cases seeking personal injury damages. Plaintiffs cannot expect any +special treatment from this court based on their self-serving allegations which merely +seek to limit discovery. +8. +Surprisingly, Plaintiffs' counsel requests that this court substantially limit +the rules of discovery by allowing Plaintiffs to provide Defendant with the requested +information only after same has been in Plaintiff's possession. No authority is provided +8 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 9 of 19 +by Plaintiffs allowing for such a procedure. The undersigned finds it hard to believe that +any firm would ever allow an opposing party to request records for it and mail those +records to the requesting firm only after the opposing firm had an opportunity to review +and filter through same. No valid discovery objections or exemptions exist preventing +necessary and reasonable discovery. To hold otherwise prevents Mr. Epstein from +preparing and defending this matter. Plaintiffs' requests in this regard should be flat-out +denied. +For the courts ease of reference, the transcripts, tapes and pages referenced +Affidavits and referenced throughout this motion are generated from the +in Dr. +interview Dr. Kliman, the Plaintiffs" expert, conducted on each of said Plaintiffs. Should +the court wish to review those transcripts, tapes and interviews, same will be provided +upon request. +II. Reply and Memorandum of Law +The Allegations in the Amended Complaints As to Jane Does 2-7 +10. +The amended complaints filed by Jane Does 2-7 against Jeffrey Epstein +make allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon a minor and seek damages in excess of +$50 million. Jane Does 2-7 allege confusion, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, and +severe psychological and emotional injuries. It is further alleged that they suffered, and +will continue to suffer, severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, +psychological, and emotional damages. Plaintiffs allege intentional infliction of +emotional distress, severe emotional distress, severe mental anguish and pain. They +further allege that they suffered personal injury including mental, psychological and +emotional damage. Dr +Affidavit of Jane Does 2-4, Exhibits "B-G," respectively. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 10 of 19 +b. +Jane Doe Number 2 +11. Plaintiff, Jane Doe 2, reported to Dr. Kliman that as a result of her +relationship with her parents, she "shut herself out to the world". Ex. "B" at 917. She +reports that her parents did not pay attention to her, that her father struck her and her +brothers, that her father assaulted her mother and struck Plaintiff across the face, and that +she was sexually assaulted by her step brother when she forgot to lock her door before +bed and he snuck back into the bed naked and got under the covers; and she also claims +that the incident with her stepbrother is"... a big part of why [she is the way she is.]" Ex. +"B" at 9919, 21, 22, 35, 36, 38 & 39. Plaintiff also reports that when she was 16, her +stepbrother beat her mom, sister and the Plaintiff, and that her stepfather was always +yelling at her, was violent with her mother and would send Plaintiff to bed without dinner +after smacking her across the face. Ex. "B" at 1922, 35 and 36. Plaintiff has been +thinking of hurting herself for three or four years, and she reports seeing a counselor with +her mother relative to the above incidents and her counselor said she was bi-polar or had +obsessive compulsive disorder. Ex. "B" at 9925, 26 & 45. Plaintiff reports drug use at the +age of 12, including marijuana and Xanax, and cocaine use at 18 or 19 years of age. Ex. +"B" at 9928-29 &51. Plaintiff also claims to have been sexually assaulted by her 19- +year-old step brother or someone she knew, and she states she was scared of her +stepbrother because nobody could ever "stop him." Ex. "B" at 9938 and 39. +c. +Jane Doe Number 3 +12. +Plaintiff, Jane Doe 3, reports seeing a therapist in Palm Beach County at +age 11, and believes that she had previously been diagnosed with depression following +her parents' divorce at age I1." Ex. "C" at 9914 and 17. Plaintiff attempted suicide five +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 11 of 19 +times, beginning at age 11, after her parents divorced. She attempted suicide on several +occasions by running a car in a closed garage, by swallowing "a whole bunch of pills" +and by cutting her wrists. Ex. "C at 918 & 32. Between the ages of 9 and 11, Plaintiff's +father was a heavy drinker, was verbally and physically abusive to her and physically +abusive with her sister and her mother causing them to leave the house with their mother. +Ex. "C at 1921 & 33. Plaintiff claims her father suffers from depression and that while +depressed he is distant, has angry spells, and she "worries what he will do... he snaps so +much." Ex. "C" at 922. Plaintiff was teased excessively at school, and began drinking at +age 13 to the point of having blackouts. Ex. "C" at 9922, 27 & 35. At the age of 12, +Plaintiff, and four other children, were given "pot" and molested all in one night by her +best friend's brother, who had just gotten out of jail. Ex. "C" at 929. Then at the age 15, +plaintiff was raped at a graduation party but never told anyone about it. Ex. "C" at 928. +Plaintiff claims that Kevin Hoebee, who molested her, subsequently raped his own sister. +Ex. "C" at 930. Plaintiff clearly had a turbulent family life. Ex. "C" at 934. As a result, +Plaintiff notes she has seen many psychologists. Ex. "C" at 1919-20. +13. Dr. +also notes in paragraph 37 of his Affidavit that Jane Doe 3 gave +information to Dr. Kliman relative to her alleged encounters with Epstein which directly +conflict with her probable cause affidavit and the Palm Beach Police Incident Report. Ex. +"C" at 937. +d. +Jane Doe Number 4 +14. Plaintiff, Jane Doe 4, reports to Dr. Kliman a history of alcohol use and an +ex-boyfriend who drank alcohol and used pills that were "a form of oxycodine [sic] a +form of heroine [sic]." Ex. "'" at 914. Plaintiff obtained a restraining order against her +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 12 of 19 +ex-boyfriend for, among other things, spitting in her face, pushing her and being abusive. +Ex. "D" at 9[15. While in high school, Plaintiff's friend, Chris, died in a motor vehicle +accident, and she was in shock from his death for approximately 1 ½ to 2 years. It still +bothers her today. Ex. "D" at 917. Another close friend of Plaintiff, Jen, died in a motor +vehicle accident which caused Plaintiff shock for approximately 2 months. Ex. "D" at +9917 & 19. On 10/31/04, Plaintiff, while intoxicated, had an altercation with her then +boyfriend, Preston Vinyard. Ex. "D" at 121. When the Police arrived, they found +Plaintiff in her home with no shirt on; and Plaintiff refused to cooperate with the police +and threatened to kill herself. Ex. "D" at 921. Plaintiff's boyfriend, Preston Vinyard, has +choked her, thrown her against a wall and onto the ground, dumped beer on her, threw +cigarettes in her face, and has verbally abused her and threatened her friends and family. +Ex. "D" at 923. Plaintiff has a record of DUT and shop lifting. Ex. "D" at 120 & 22. +Finally, Plaintiff reports talking with two psychiatrists at age 16 or 17 due to family +issues and boyfriend issues, but makes no mention to Dr. Kliman of telling the +psychiatrists of her alleged encounters with Epstein. Ex. "D at 9[16. Moreover, while +Plaintiff denies recruiting other girls relative to her alleged encounters with Epstein, on +page 24 of the Palm Beach Police Report, Plaintiff said she left a note for Epstein that +indicated "for a good time call [Plaintiff] and [friend]" and left the girls' phone numbers. +Ex. "D" at 9|16. +e. +Jane Doe Number 5 +15. Plaintiff, Jane Doe 5, reported to Dr. Kliman that her mother's sisters paid +a male to rape her (the mother) in a closet at school, that her mother had been raped three +times, twice in childhood (which included the mother's uncle) and once on a date. Ex. +12 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 13 of 19 +"E" at 926. Plaintiff reports having suicidal thoughts in the 9 or 10" grade. Ex. "E" at +927. During Plaintiff's sophomore and junior years of high school she drank every +weekend and started trying drugs. Plaintiff's family psychiatric history includes: a history +of a blood relative having been sexually abused, plaintiff's mother was physically abused +by sisters, and plaintiff's father "was very irresponsible as a father figure when [she] was +growing up" and she used drugs. Ex. "E" at I21. Her drug use includes marijuana and +pain pills without prescription. Ex. "E" at |25. Plaintiff's stepfather hit her and, on one +occasion, she even lost her hearing for two weeks. Ex. "E" at 9922 & 24. Plaintiff finds +her childhood hard to remember, unhappy and painful. Ex. "E" at 1124. In addition, +Plaintiff claims "...girls [were] mean to [her] and even rumor[ed] that they would slice +[her] throat when [she] was younger." Ex. "E" at 9|15. Plaintiff's parents eventually +kicked her out of the family home when she was 18-years-old. +Jane Doe Number 6 +16. Plaintiff, Jane Doe Number 6's interrogatories note a diagnosis of PTSD +following an auto accident in 2003. Ex. "F" at 914. A Petition for Involuntary +Assessment for Substance Abuse, dated July 19, 2006, noted a domestic disturbance at +Plaintiff's home with "threats to several family members as well as threats of suicide.. +appeared to be under the influence of Zanax [sic] bars. .. She found her grandmother +dead three weeks ago, may have pushed her over the edge." On January 31, 2007, +Plaintiff pled guilty to grand theft and burglary, and was sentenced to a 30 day substance +abuse program, 9 months community control, and 2 years probation. Ex. "F" at 917 On +February 25, 2007, Plaintiff cutoff her monitoring bracelet and fled her residence +violating probation, and she was arrested on March 9, 2007 and April 2, 2007 and was +13 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 14 of 19 +ordered to undergo a mental health evaluation. Ex. "F" at 917. On August 8, 2007, she +was arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia and violated her probation again. Id. +She was in jail for a period of 30 days until September 6, 2007 when she was found +guilty of the violation of probation and sentenced to remain in jail for evaluation and +treatment and then outpatient treatment as well as parenting classes. Id. Plaintiff was +also charged with possession of a weapon on school property in November 2004. Ex. +"F" at 918. +17. +Plaintiff is also noted to have smoked marijuana with her father since the +age 13 and also did Xanax Ex. "F" at 9919 7 27. Plaintiff was placed in Growing +Together Treatment Center on 3/10/06 and Baker Acted her on 4/7/06. Id. Plaintiff has +also been in several physical altercations with family and friends. Ex. "F" at 20-22. In +particular, back on 8/27/02, Plaintiff was followed home from school by four girls and +allegedly battered by two of the girls. Ex. "F" at 924. +18. +Plaintiff, however, failed to report to Dr. Kliman that she witnessed a +friend get electrocuted, and that her boyfriend shot and killed himself in front of her after +they got into a fight. Ex. "F" at 930. Plaintiff also saw court ordered therapists. Ex. "E" +at 928. +g. +Jane Doe Number 7 +19. +Jane Doe 7 has withheld all pertinent records from discovery. While +various conflicting statements are noted in Dr. +affidavit, Ex. "G", the Defendant is +unable to determine what prior existing conditions Jane Doe 7 had before her alleged +encounters with Epstein. This is a direct result of Plaintiffs' collective efforts to prevent +discovery all together. However, it is clear from Dr. +Affidavit that Jane Doe 7 +14 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 15 of 19 +does have the propensity to lie in an attempt to further her case. +III. Conclusion and Requested Relief +20. +For further elaboration of Plaintiff's history and background, access to all +available records is crucial to understand the impact of any of these events on Plaintiff's. +See Exhibits "B-G." It is critical for an IMB examiner to be able to make a cogent +assessment of any plaintiff and to understand their medical, social, academic, +psychological and psychiatric condition/state prior to any act of alleged victimization. +See Exhibits "B-G." There are a number of variables that combine to determine the +effects of such alleged victimization, including the type and character of the alleged +assault, and key victim variables such as demographics, psychological reactions at the +time of the trauma, previous psychiatric or psychological history, previous victimization +history, current or previous psychological difficulties, and general personality dynamics +and coping style, as well as sociocultural factors such as drug use/abuse; poverty; social +inequity and/or inadequate social support; any previous history of abuse within or outside +the family; whether individuals were abused by strangers, acquaintances or family +members; and whether there was any history of indiscriminate behavior that may have +placed them at increased risk. See Exhibits "B-G." It is important to know if there had +been previous sexual conduct, contact with police or welfare agencies, alcohol or drug +use/abuse, voluntary sexual activity, contraceptive use, genital infections, or apparent +indifference to previous abuse. See Exhibits "B-G." It is also essential to understand the +Plaintiffs' level of emotional support, whether any significant psychiatric illnesses were +present, whether they were taking any medications (prescribed or non-prescribed), +whether there had been previous suicide attempts, thoughts, plans, etc. See Exhibits "B- +15 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 16 of 19 +G." Knowledge of Plaintiffs' relationships with their families and familial factors, +including social disadvantage, family instability, impaired parent/child relationship, and +parental adjustment difficulties is also critical. See Exhibits "B-G." It is, therefore, +crucial that the independent medical examiner has available to him a full and complete +record that includes medical, previous legal, social, criminal, academic, psychological +and psychiatric records/data; psychological tests; laboratory tests; and clinical, hospital, +physician records. See Exhibits "B-G." These, in essence, are the same and similar +records that plaintiff's expert witness (Dr. Kliman) feels are essential for him to do an +appropriate evaluation. See Exhibits "B-G.' To obtain the necessary information, it will +be necessary to identify the plaintiff by name. See Exhibits "B-G." Such identification +will not humiliate the plaintiff since all we are requesting is pertinent information as +noted above relative to their past medical and psychiatric histories and conduct. See +Exhibits "B-G." +21. Cherenfant v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., 2004 WL 5315889 (S.D. Fla. 2004) +allows for the discovery sought in Sections II. a-g above and in Defendant's Motion to +Identify. See also Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26; Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, +352 (1978); Dunbar v. U.S., 502 F.2d 206 (5" Cir. 1974); Rossbach v. Rundle, 128 +F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 200); Fed.R.Civ.Pro 33(b)(4)(Plaintiffs must show that +the requests are unreasonable or burdensome, which they have failed to do in the instant +matter); Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559 (11"" Cir. 1985); +v. Estaleiro Itajai S/A, 541 F.Supp.2d 1344, 1353-54 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (discussing +the rules' intended limited court involvement in discovery). +22. +It is clear that the requested relief/discovery goes to the heart of the +16 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 17 of 19 +Plaintiffs' allegations. Therefore, to prevent meaningful and regular discovery is in direct +contradiction of the Rules allowing for a liberal and broad discovery. In addition, +allowing Plaintiffs' counsel to obtain and produce Defendant's discovery for him is not +only absurd but not contemplated by the law or the Federal Rules. +Wherefore, Epstein requests that he be granted leave to identify Plaintiffs by their +legal names in Third-Party Subpoenas (but not file them in Court or, if required, in a +redacted form), that Plaintiffs' requests to obtain discovery and then provide it to Defendant +through their counsel be denied, or in the alternative, that this court dismiss these actions +Sue Sponte and for such other and further relief as this court deem just and proper. +By: - +MICHÁEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed +Respectfully submited, +CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 18 of 19 +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/J +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 3316 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Brad +Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Phone: 954-522-3456 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +bedwards@rra-law.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80893 +Counsel for Flamis +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +08-80994 +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 10** Avenue North +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80811 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +801-585-5202 +801-585-6833 Fax +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Isidro M. +Esq. +Law Firm, P.A. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +Jack Scarola, Esq. +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack P. Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, 08-80469 +P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +561-686-6300 +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +Fax: 561-383-9424 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +jsx@searcylaw.com +Miami, FL 33130 +jph@searcylaw.com +305 358-2800 +18 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 19 of 19 +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. +Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. +Leopold-Kuvin, P.A +2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +561-684-6500 +Fax: 561-515-2610 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-08804 +skuvin@riccilaw.com +tleopold@riccilaw.com +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases +Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +19 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd53fb13f431644ecb2f6b744ce9df6c498086f7920d9c528f0c910c27c8a33d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd53fb13f431644ecb2f6b744ce9df6c498086f7920d9c528f0c910c27c8a33d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c6ba8ac7599bb3ff04da19614f06a82986040785 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd53fb13f431644ecb2f6b744ce9df6c498086f7920d9c528f0c910c27c8a33d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -228, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cd53fb13f431644ecb2f6b744ce9df6c498086f7920d9c528f0c910c27c8a33d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 19, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8c8e5f54b1d68f8db4766eba5a01d2038e0198b7d9c00028f0ed80e668a229ce", + "output_sha256": "1dcae483d54fb41866cbe9e0c20caf71d9f66b7184088032ff7f10c268bc7399", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd68d24552fcc58bb6a3f693f479555fa7edff532200e850b1143c962e183eb2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd68d24552fcc58bb6a3f693f479555fa7edff532200e850b1143c962e183eb2.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed2c7e260207ededa723b5f4ebe9d4677a4efce4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd68d24552fcc58bb6a3f693f479555fa7edff532200e850b1143c962e183eb2.md @@ -0,0 +1,75 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 7 Filed 10/22/19 +AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +for the +Southern District of New York + +JANE DOE 17 +Plaintiffs) +V. +Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as Joint +Personal Representatives of the Estate of Jeffrey E. +Epstein, Nine East 71st Street Corporation, Laurel, +Inc., Financial Trust Company, Inc., NES, LLC, et al +Defendant(s) +Civil Action No. 19-cv-9610 +) +SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION +To: (Defendant's name and address) DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN, AS JOINT PERSONAL +REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, NINE EAST 71st +STREET CORPORATION, LAUREL, INC., FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, INC., +NES, LLC, MAPLE, INC., LSJE, LLC, HBRK ASSOCIATES, INC., NAUTILUS, INC., +CYPRESS, INC. and JEGE, INC., c/o Troutman Sanders LLP (NYC), 875 Third +A lawsuit has been filed against you. +Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you +are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. +P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of +the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney, +whose name and address are: BUZIN LAW, P.C.,111 Broadway, Suite 1204, New York, NY 10006 +WEISMAN, BRODIE, STARR & MARGOLIES, P.A., 1301 N. Federal Highway, Lake +Worth, FL 33460 +If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. +You also must file your answer or motion with the court. +CLERK OF COURT +Date: +10/22/2019 +Is/ D. Howie +Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk + + +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 7 Filed 10/22/19 Page 2 of 2 +AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2) +Civil Action No. 19-cv-9610 +PROOF OF SERVICE +(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (D)) +This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) +was received by me on (date) +• I personally served the summons on the individual at (place) +on (date) +; or +• I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name) +, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there, +on (date) +, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or +• I served the summons on (name of individual) +designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) +on (date) +; or +, who is +• I returned the summons unexecuted because +• Other (specify): +; or +My fees are $ +for travel and $ +I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. +for services, for a total of $ +0.00 +• +Date: +Server's signature +Printed name and title +Server's address +Additional information regarding attempted service, etc: +Print +Save As... +Reset diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd68d24552fcc58bb6a3f693f479555fa7edff532200e850b1143c962e183eb2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd68d24552fcc58bb6a3f693f479555fa7edff532200e850b1143c962e183eb2.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bd01e15de1ad3f1b42ab5372a67871e1f4665203 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd68d24552fcc58bb6a3f693f479555fa7edff532200e850b1143c962e183eb2.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -35, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cd68d24552fcc58bb6a3f693f479555fa7edff532200e850b1143c962e183eb2", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "d596f3f8d8f4254afb3225cf4d8db72ec2dc3a9ca96ccd344353e39e7f52ae2f", + "output_sha256": "61afa0e397b2b19353dab3f222004b428fec31b465d1c384d8437f2d61023500", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd6a08025c3654212bd180335dd2e81903e80cf65983969ecec4c55c1e6b788c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd6a08025c3654212bd180335dd2e81903e80cf65983969ecec4c55c1e6b788c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e216f68dedaae356c86f7ebfb4df33ead8ac4682 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd6a08025c3654212bd180335dd2e81903e80cf65983969ecec4c55c1e6b788c.md @@ -0,0 +1,139 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2008 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA-JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR STAY +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein respectfully moves for a mandatory stay of this +action under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3509(k). As discussed below, +this action is subject to a mandatory stay based on the existence of two pending +parallel criminal actions. +Introduction +This civil action is a private counterpart to two ongoing criminal actions, one +in Palm Beach state court, the other in Miami federal court. Both cases purport to +arise from the same occurrence: the alleged sexual assault of a minor, Jane Doe +No. 4. A federal statute directly on point provides that when an alleged sexual +assault involving a child victim results in a "criminal proceeding," a commonly + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2008 Page 2 of 6 +derived civil suit "shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the criminal +action." 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) (emphasis added).' A stay of this case is required +until there is no longer a pending criminal action derived from the same underlying +allegations. See 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k). +Discussion +The parallel state criminal action pending in Palm Beach Circuit Court is +still in the discovery phase. State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 2006 CF +09454 AXX (Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County). Meanwhile, there is +also a parallel federal criminal grand jury action pending in the Southern District of +Florida. +In re Grand Jury, No. FGJ 07-103(WPB) (S.D. Fla.) Both cases arise +out of the same occurrence and allege that the minor plaintiff is a victim. +The language of section 3509(k) of title 18, United States Code, is clear: a +parallel "civil action shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the criminal +1. The full text of the mandatory-stay provision reads: +If, at any time that a cause of action for recovery of compensation for +damage or injury to the person of a child exists, a criminal action is +pending which arises out of the same occurrence and in which the +child is the victim, the civil action shall be stayed until the end of all +phases of the criminal action and any mention of the civil action +during the criminal proceeding is prohibited. As used in this +subsection, a criminal action is pending until its final adjudication in +the trial court. +18 U.S.C. § 3509(k). +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2008 Page 3 of 6 +action." 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) (emphasis added). When it comes to statutory +construction, the mandatory nature of the word "shall' is well-settled. See, e.g., +531 U.S. 230, 241 (2001) (noting Congress' "use of a mandatory +'shall' to impose discretionless obligations") (emphasis added); Lexecon Inc. v. +Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35 (1998) (explaining that +"the mandatory 'shall' ... normally creates an obligation impervious to judicial +discretion") (emphasis added). Cf. . +V. +530 U.S. 327, 350 (2000) +("Through the PLRA [Prison Litigation Reform Act], Congress clearly intended to +make operation of the automatic stay mandatory, precluding courts from +exercising their equitable powers to enjoin the stay. And we conclude that this +provision does not violate separation of powers principles.") (emphasis added). +One district court within the Eleventh Circuit, facing the identical issue with +a pending state prosecution, recently construed "the plain language of § 3509(k)" +as "requirling] a stay in a case ... where ... a parallel criminal action [is] +pending." Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MCR/WCS, 2005 WL 950623, at *2 +(N.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2005) (Francis II) (emphasis added). Accord Doe v. Francis, +No. 5:03 CV 260 MCR/WCS, 2005 WL 517847, at *1-2 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2005) +(Francis 1) (staying federal civil action in favor of "a criminal case currently +pending in state court in Bay County, Florida, arising from the same facts and +involving the same parties as the Instant action," noting that "the language of 18 +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2008 Page 4 of 6 +U.S.C. § 3509(k) is clear that a stay is required in a case such as this where a +parallel criminal action is pending which arises from the same occurrence +involving minor victims") (emphasis added). There is no contrary opinion from +any court. +In determining that the federal stay provision is mandatory, the Francis II +court expressed that. there was apparently no case law supporting, or even +"discussing the [avoidance] of a stay [under the command of] § 3509(k)." Francis +II, 2005 WL 950623, at *2. Deferring to the statute as written, the Francis II court +rejected the plaintiffs' argument that some of the alleged victims had already +reached their majority. See id. The court similarly rejected the plaintiffs' +argument that it would be in the victims' best interests to avoid a stay so as to +counteract the victims' "ongoing and increasing mental harm due to the 'frustrating +delay in both the criminal case and [the civil] case.'" Id. The Francis II court, in +adhering to the plain language of the statute, also adhered to the "well established +priority of criminal proceedings over civil proceedings." Cf. United States v. +Hanhardt, 156 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1000 (N.D. III. 2001) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. +50(a)). +Conclusion +Because this civil action arises from the same allegations as two pending +criminal actions, § 3509(k) mandates a stay of this civil action. +4 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80380-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2008 Page 5 of 6 +WHEREFORE, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein respectfully requests that the +Court enter a stay under 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k), coextensive with the state and +federal criminal actions. +Respectfully submitted, +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & +WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Tel: 561 659 8300 +Fax: 561 8358691 +By: Is/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger +Fla. Bar No. 262013 +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2008 Page 6 of 6 +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7 +Counsel for defendant has conferred in good faith with counsel for the +plaintiff, who opposes the relief requested in this motion. +Is/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 20, 2008, I electronically filed the +foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECE. I also certify that +the foregoing document is being served this day on counsel of record identified +below by facsimile and U.S. Mail. +Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Fax: 305 931 0877 +Is/ Jack A. Goldberger +Jack A. Goldberger diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd6a08025c3654212bd180335dd2e81903e80cf65983969ecec4c55c1e6b788c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd6a08025c3654212bd180335dd2e81903e80cf65983969ecec4c55c1e6b788c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..351bafff735388fe7e0fb1e5367a3cdb62dd2874 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd6a08025c3654212bd180335dd2e81903e80cf65983969ecec4c55c1e6b788c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cd6a08025c3654212bd180335dd2e81903e80cf65983969ecec4c55c1e6b788c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e71178c02852e07e7aad75144ec8742955bd1f2c43c916c91aac83a41496bf93", + "output_sha256": "0abad11e34781dfe73c21fe3e46250ae240ca52f8d6fdd69f8718efe33f9a31a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd7503b0b52b8fc22663389a7e03a0d25f41a011399213ce96ccad3b85c43a41.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd7503b0b52b8fc22663389a7e03a0d25f41a011399213ce96ccad3b85c43a41.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..530504c0be4057ddb9c5cca637bd768154d854d8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd7503b0b52b8fc22663389a7e03a0d25f41a011399213ce96ccad3b85c43a41.md @@ -0,0 +1,77 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80381-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE +Plaintiff in the above-captioned case, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby responds +to the Court's Order to Show Cause dated April 28, 2009 (DE 78) by stating that she consents to the +consolidation of cases for discovery purposes. +Dated: May S, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiff +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009 Page 2 of 3 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on May 5, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day +to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices +of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who +are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009 Page 3 of 3 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Via ECF to: +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Via email to: +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related +Case No.08-80591 +Richard Willits, Esq. +Michael Danchuk, Esq. +lawyerwillits@aol.com +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related +Case No. 08-80811 +Jack Scarola, Esq. +jsx @searcylaw.com +Jack +, Esq. +jhp@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related +Case No. 08-80811 +Brad +Esq. +be@bradedwardslaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related +Case No. 08-80893 +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 3- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd7503b0b52b8fc22663389a7e03a0d25f41a011399213ce96ccad3b85c43a41.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd7503b0b52b8fc22663389a7e03a0d25f41a011399213ce96ccad3b85c43a41.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..667d730af18e4477eb58fdbd43ec5fec9d6fb05b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd7503b0b52b8fc22663389a7e03a0d25f41a011399213ce96ccad3b85c43a41.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cd7503b0b52b8fc22663389a7e03a0d25f41a011399213ce96ccad3b85c43a41", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b74514362ac2074e10e99e8328a06eb29c388186423a20412e87162edc9c3138", + "output_sha256": "e21ae74beb790987a0a6c0d6978352f25bb3b7946d159ff6b43e370af4b9fa65", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd7868c1378ea5b57d56eabac6b06fbeed12b519fcefe52e57c9235e08baf739.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd7868c1378ea5b57d56eabac6b06fbeed12b519fcefe52e57c9235e08baf739.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f283a5b86425285cde46a8607d7cbc157a9c38ba --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd7868c1378ea5b57d56eabac6b06fbeed12b519fcefe52e57c9235e08baf739.md @@ -0,0 +1,236 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 1 of 9 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +VS. +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/_ +VS. +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +VS. +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. S, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +VS. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 2 of 9 +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +VS. +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/R +VS. +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/ m + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 3 of 9 +VS. +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. II, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469-MARRA +VS. +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ +VS. +Defendant. +MOTION TO RESCHEDULE HEARING + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 4 of 9 +COMES NOW Robert C. Josefsberg, as co-counsel for Jane Doe 101 and 102, and +respectfully requests either a rescheduling of this Court's hearing (just rescheduled for June, 12, +2009) or in the alternative, permission to appear by telephone at said hearing, on the following +grounds: +1) On Wednesday, June 10, 2009, undersigned counsel, his wife and two granddaughters +will be traveling to Hanover, New Hampshire for counsel's 50* College Reunion, and an +opportunity for his two high school granddaughters to visit colleges in the Northeast. Counsel is +scheduled to return to South Florida on Tuesday, June 16. +2) Counsel is very appreciative and supportive of the Court's scheduling a hearing on the +Defendants' Motion to Stay. That hearing was scheduled (within the last 3 hours) for Friday, +June 12" at 10:00 a.m., right in the middle of Robert Josefsberg's reunion visit. +3) If Robert Josefsberg cannot attend, Jane Doe 101 and 102 will be well represented by +co-counsel who can and will appear in person at said hearing on June 12, 2009. However, +Robert Josefsberg is lead counsel and would prefer to be present during said hearing. +4) In the event that this hearing cannot be rescheduled for June 4, 5, 8 or 9", or June 17", +18"' or 19", Robert Josefsberg requests permission to appear at said June 12th hearing by +telephone. +WHEREFORE, Robert Josefsberg requests the relief requested above. + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 5 of 9 +Dated May 29, 2009. +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 +and Jane Doe No. 102 +By: +s/ Robert C. Josefsberg +Robert C. Josefsberg +Fla. Br No. 040856 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Katherine W. Ezell +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +kezell@podhurst.com +City National Bank Building +25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +Telephone: (305) 358-2800 +Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 6 of 9 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this _ +_ day of May, 2009, we electronically filed the +foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List +either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other +authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically +Notices of Electronic Filing. +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 +and Jane Doe No. 102 +By: +s/Katherine W. Ezell +Robert C. Josefsberg +Fla. Br No. 040856 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Katherine W. Ezell +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +kezell@podhurst.com +City National Bank Building +25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +Telephone: (305) 358-2800 +Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 7 of 9 +SERVICE LIST +JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Robert Critton, Esq. +Michael J. Pike, Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman LLP +515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 842-2820 +Fax: (561) 515-3148 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +mpike@bclclaw.com +Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Jack Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 659-8300 +Fax: (561) 835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 202-6360 +Fax: (561) 828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Co-Defendant, +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack P. +Esq. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: (561) 686-6300 +Fax: (561) 383-9456 +isx @searcylaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 8 of 9 +Adam Horowitz, Esq. +Stuart Mermelstein, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +smermelstein@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,08-80232, 08-80380, 08- +80381, 08-80993, 08-80994 +Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq. +Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq. +Leopold Kuvin, P.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +Phone: (561) 515-1400 +Fax: (561) 515-1401 +skuvin@leopoldkuvin.com +tleopold@leopoldkuvin.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804 +Richard Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 10* Ave North, Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Phone: (561) 582-7600 +Fax: (561) 588-8819 +lawyerwillits@aol.com +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811 +Brad +1, Esq. +Law Office of Brad +& Associates, LLC +2028 +Street, Suite 202 +Hollywood, FL 33020 +Phone: (954) 414-8033 +Fax: (954) 924-1530 +bedwards@rra-law.com +be@bradedwardslaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 +Isidro Manuel +Esq. +Elkins & Boehringer +224 Datura Avenue, Suite 900 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 9 of 9 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 832-8033 +Fax: (561) 832-7137 +isidrogarcia (@ bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd7868c1378ea5b57d56eabac6b06fbeed12b519fcefe52e57c9235e08baf739.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd7868c1378ea5b57d56eabac6b06fbeed12b519fcefe52e57c9235e08baf739.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..192d6bbdff7a99c6903c145af5e38b4a412a440a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd7868c1378ea5b57d56eabac6b06fbeed12b519fcefe52e57c9235e08baf739.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -296, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cd7868c1378ea5b57d56eabac6b06fbeed12b519fcefe52e57c9235e08baf739", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 10, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "5ce622509536a80a2b6b980313df5d97038c5b2aaa59ef1e7f7023b7b988b1b6", + "output_sha256": "1c740873f2ddd6060f745a77b446de24f9a94c23b8fc38bfcab3ec579804e41c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd7c576a654e51ab63b720b1cbdb9c9d8ae1d4436a1381015fc9cf1f0a14bcfb.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd7c576a654e51ab63b720b1cbdb9c9d8ae1d4436a1381015fc9cf1f0a14bcfb.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a09ba03fd312f4dd3749babd291beed6a19ee6a5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd7c576a654e51ab63b720b1cbdb9c9d8ae1d4436a1381015fc9cf1f0a14bcfb.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 8-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/08/2008 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80804-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE, all/a +JANE DOE #1, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN,| +and +Defendants. +ORDER +THIS CAUSE having come to be heard on the Defendant's Motion to Align Response +Date, and this Court being fully advised, it is hereby: +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion is hereby granted. +DONE AND ORDERED in Miami-Dade County, Florida this +day of +_, 2008. +KENNETH A. MARRA +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +-opies furnished to: Michael Tein, Esq +Jack Goldberger, Esq. +Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. +Spencer Kuvin, Esq. +Jason A. +1 Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. +Robert D. Critton, Esq diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd7c576a654e51ab63b720b1cbdb9c9d8ae1d4436a1381015fc9cf1f0a14bcfb.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd7c576a654e51ab63b720b1cbdb9c9d8ae1d4436a1381015fc9cf1f0a14bcfb.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8d2163d85067d440c9099eabc733b705e9466724 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd7c576a654e51ab63b720b1cbdb9c9d8ae1d4436a1381015fc9cf1f0a14bcfb.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cd7c576a654e51ab63b720b1cbdb9c9d8ae1d4436a1381015fc9cf1f0a14bcfb", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "7c533cee6eb6eabc001630a725e966631fcfe3c217e2620be7be233747d81956", + "output_sha256": "09014b978924d16af8214a21f7b33951ad259e676af97d35e6f5cda981563786", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd8223f6b590023b0b3b9a5617cc747aae9908d3fdd6737374d97dfb2189cba4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd8223f6b590023b0b3b9a5617cc747aae9908d3fdd6737374d97dfb2189cba4.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5b9568be812c7a5236170c0ccadd33bd6ab10a92 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd8223f6b590023b0b3b9a5617cc747aae9908d3fdd6737374d97dfb2189cba4.md @@ -0,0 +1,466 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 1 of 17 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/C +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 2 of 17 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/ +vS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +-2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 3 of 17 +DOE II, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102 +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER +REQUESTING POSITION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY [DE 99] +Comes now the United States, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States +Attorney, and files this response to the Court's Order requesting the position of the United +States on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay Proceedings [DE 99]. For the reasons +set forth below, it is the United States' position that a stay of the proceedings is not necessary +and was not contemplated by the Non-Prosecution Agreement between the United States and +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. +-3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 4 of 17 +ISSUE PRESENTED +The United States is not a party to these lawsuits and, accordingly, is not fully aware +of the scope of the proceedings, the range of arguments presented by counsel, and any +correspondence or oral communications between the parties in these civil suits. Based on +the information presented by the Court and a review of Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion +to Stay and/or Continue Action for Time Certain Based on Parallel Civil and Criminal +Proceedings with Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Court File No. 08-CV-80811- +MARRA/JOHNSON DE 51-1), and responses thereto filed by various plaintiffs in their suits, +the undersigned understands that the Court has requested the position of the United States +on the following issue: +Are there "special circumstances" that require the imposition of a stay of the +civil proceedings in the "interests of justice" until the "expiration" of the Non- +Prosecution Agreement ["NPA"] between the United States and Epstein? +By filing this response, the United States does not make itself a party to this litigation +and takes no position with respect to the outcome of any of the civil suits; nor does the +United States take any position regarding Defendant Epstein's performance of his obligations +pursuant to the NPA. The United States also declines to comment on Defendant Epstein's +representations regarding past allegations of violations of the NPA by Epstein. The United +States files this response solely as amicus curiae at the Court's request and does not waive +any procedural or statutory bars to suit. +-4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 5 of 17 +I. +STANDARD FOR IMPOSING A DISCRETIONARY STAY +The Defendant Must Show that the Assertion of His Fifth +Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Would +Automatically Result in the Entry of Summary Judgment Against +Him. +"The decision whether or not to stay civil litigation in deference to parallel criminal +proceedings is discretionary..... A movant must carry a heavy burden to succeed in such an +endeavor." Microfinancial, Inc. v. Premier Holidays Internat'l, Inc., 385 F.3d 72, 77 (Ist +Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). When a defendant facing possible criminal liability invokes +his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination in connection with civil +litigation, a court can stay discovery or the entire civil case. +v. Jenne, 2007 WL 624286 +*1 (S.D. Fl. Feb. 23, 2007) (Cooke, J.). "However, the Constitution does not require a stay +of civil proceedings pending the outcome of related criminal proceedings. Forcing an +individual to risk non-criminal disadvantage by remaining silent for fear of self incrimination +in a parallel criminal proceeding does not rise to the level of an unconstitutional +infringement."" Id. (quoting Shell Oil Co. v. Altina Assocs., Inc., 866 F. Supp. 536, 540 +(M.D. Fl. 1994)). +As this Court has previously explained: +The law regarding stays of civil actions is well-settled in the Eleventh Circuit. +In United States v. Lot 5, Fox Grove, Alachua County, Fla, 23 F.3d 359, 363- +5 (11th Cir. 1994) (*Lot 5" +av ith Cir. 1994) "st 5"), the Cou ariculated the following principles of +criminal action: +[A] blanket assertion of the privilege is an inadequate basis for +the issuance of a stay. +Rather, a court must stay a civil +-5- + + +Case 9:08-cV-80994-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 6 of 17 +proceeding pending resolution of a related criminal prosecution +only when "special circumstances" so require in the "interests +of justice." The court may deny a stay so long as the privilege's +invocation does not compel an adverse judgment against the +claimant. +[T]he standard set by the Eleventh Circuit as to when a stay should be granted +to prevent unconstitutional infringement is more narrow. The law in the +Eleventh Circuit requires consideration of whether, as a result of invoking the +privilege, the defendant faces certain loss of the civil proceeding on summary +judgment if the civil proceeding were to continue. Lot 5, 23 F.3d at 364; +Pervis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 901 F.2d 944 (11th Cir. 1990). +Under this standard, Movants must show that invocation of the privilege in the +instant matter will result in certain loss by automatic summary judgment. +United States v. Two Parcels of Real Property, 92 F.3d 1123, 1129 (11th Cir. +1996): Pervis, 901 F.2d at 946-47. This must be an actual adverse judgment +ind not "merely the loss of the defendant's most 'effective defense." +Securities & Exchange Comm. v. Incendy, 936 F. Supp. at 955 (S.D. Fl. 1996); +Shell Oil Co., 866 F. Supp. at 540-41. +Court-Appointed Receiver of Lancer Mgt. Group LLC v. Lauer, 2009 WL 800144 (S.D. Fl. +Mar. 25, 2009) (Marra, J.). +Thus, before reaching the relative benefit and prejudice to each of the parties caused +by staying the cases, the Court must determine whether, if defendant Epstein were to invoke +his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination' and the Court were to allow an adverse +inference to be drawn therefrom, an adverse judgment against Epstein would be +automatically compelled. The United States respectfully submits that it would not. +'It appears from a brief review of some of Epstein's discovery responses that Epstein has +made a blanket assertion of the privilege. For example, Epstein has asserted his Fifth Amendment +privilege in response to a plaintiff's request to produce the NPA and the United States' list of +identified victims although these documents were provided to Epstein by the United States. +-6- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 7 of 17 +From a review of the Complaints filed by the plaintiffs in these cases, it appears that +some have filed claims based upon Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, some have +filed claims based upon common law torts, and some have filed a combination of the two. +Under general principles of tort law, a plaintiff is required to prove: (1) that the defendant +committed a bad act; (2) that the plaintiff suffered damages; and (3) that the damages were +caused by the defendant's bad act. To succeed on a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, a plaintiff +must show: (1) that the plaintiff is a person who, while a minor, was a victim of an +enumerated offense committed by the defendant; (2) that the person suffered personal injury +as a result of that violation; and (3) the amount of damages she sustained. +Epstein's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege could result in the drawing of +a negative inference only as to the first element under both of these claims. Therefore, to +succeed on summary judgment (or at trial), the plaintiffs would still have to prove that they +suffered personal injury/damages as a result of the defendant's bad act. Cf. In re Financial +Federated Title & Trust, Inc., 252 B.R. 834, 838 (S.D. Fl. Bank. Ct. 2000) (Stay not +warranted in bankruptcy proceeding where criminal indictment was pending because +negative inference related only to defendant's receipt of allegedly fraudulent transfers, but +"Trustee must still carry the burden of proving all of the elements of his complaint for +fraudulent transfers ... includ[ing] fraudulent intent, insolvency, and financial condition at +the time of the transfers to the Defendants."). +While Epstein may believe that his arguments and proof as to the first element are his +"most effective defense," that alone is insufficient to warrant the imposition of a stay of the +-7- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 8 of 17 +litigation. There are two other items for the Court to consider in deciding this issue. First, +pursuant to the terms of the NPA, as to those victims identified by the United States, Epstein +has already made a concession that they are victims of an enumerated offense committed by +Epstein. Thus, this inference is drawn not due to his invocation of the right against selfincrimination but due to his entry into a contractual agreement with the United States for +which the identified victims are third-party beneficiaries.? Second, in Lot 5, the Eleventh +Circuit pointed out the wealth of evidence other than the defendant's testimony that could +be used to defeat a liability claim. See Lot 5, 23 F.3d at 364 ("Thus, Claimant's assertion that +only her own testimony could vindicate her is groundless; other participants to the illegal acts +that gave rise to the forfeiture were available to testify at trial. Claimant's failure to indicate +with precision why she did not use other parties' testimony to substantiate her defense was +fatal."). For example, Epstein could mount a defense using effective cross-examination, +telephone records, travel records, documents within the possession of the plaintiffs or third +parties, and/or the testimony of third parties to rebut the plaintiffs' proof. +"The United States notes that it is not aware of the identities of all of the plaintiffs in the civil +suits. To the extent that any are not "identified victims" under the NPA, this contractual provision +would not apply. +-8- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 9 of 17 +Additional Factors to Consider in Balancing the Prejudice to the +Parties +If the Court is persuaded that the negative inference drawn from Epstein's assertion +of his Fifth Amendment privilege would result in an automatic grant of summary judgment +in favor of the plaintiffs, then the Court must engage in a balancing of equities in determining +whether there are "special circumstances" warranting the imposition of a stay "to prevent +a party from suffering substantial and irreparable prejudice.'" Securites and Exchange +Comm'n v. Incendy, 936 F. Supp. 952, 956 (S.D. Fl. 1996) (quoting S.E.C. v. First Financial +Group of Texas, Inc., 659 F.2d 660, 668 (5th Cir. 1981) (add'I citations omitted). +Examples of "special circumstances" provided by the Supreme Court in +[United States v. Kordel] are: (1) if the Government brought the civil action +solely to obtain evidence for its criminal prosecution, (2) if the Government +failed to advise the defendant in the civil proceeding that it contemplates his +criminal prosecution; (3) if the defendant is without counsel or reasonably +fears prejudice from adverse pretrial publicity or other unfair injury; or (4) any +other special circumstances indicating unconstitutionality or even impropriety. +Incendy at 956 (citing United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 11 (1970)). See also Securities +and Exchange Comm'n v. +261 Fed. Appx. 259, 263 (1 1th Cir. 2008) ("[No "special +circumstances' existed in this case warranting a stay, as there is no record evidence +suggesting the Government had brought the civil case solely to obtain evidence for the +criminal prosecution or that the criminal case against [defendant] was unconstitutional or +inappropriately instituted."). +No "special circumstances" exist here. First, unlike +and Incendy, the United +States Government is not a party to the civil litigation. Each suit is brought on behalf of an +-9- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 10 of 17 +individual plaintiff represented by private counsel. Some of those plaintiffs are adverse to +the United States and have filed suit against the Government based upon its handling of the +criminal case against Epstein. (See In re Jane Doe Litigation, Court File No. 08-80736-Civ- +Marra.) There has been no allegation, and certainly no showing, that the civil litigation is +a ruse to obtain discovery on behalf of the criminal investigation. +As some of the plaintiffs have mentioned, one purpose of the NPA was to place the +identified victims in the same position where they would have been if Epstein had been +convicted after trial of an offense enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255. (See, e.g., Court File No. +08-CV-80119 DE 49-2.) If Epstein had proceeded to trial and been convicted, those victims +would have been entitled to restitution and to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and +would have been entitled to the same sorts of discovery that they now seek. None of the +plaintiffs has contacted the United States about passing on materials gathered through +discovery to any criminal investigators or about seeking discovery that would be relevant +only to the criminal proceedings, rather than to their individual cases. If Epstein has +legitimate concerns that the civil discovery process is being abused in some way, he can ask +the Court for a protective order limiting the scope of discovery or its distribution. +Furthermore, if at some time in the future, Epstein were the subject of a criminal indictment +and he alleged that the evidence to be used against him was gathered improperly, he could +file a motion to suppress or to dismiss the indictment in that criminal action. See, e.g., United +States, ex. rel. Westrick v. Second Chance, 2007 WL 1020808 *4 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2007) +(Defendant in civil False Claims Act suit moved to stay civil action pending criminal +-10- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 11 of 17 +investigation where no indictment had been returned. The district court denied the motion, +noting that while allowing civil discovery to proceed may afford the government [who was +the real party in interest in the civil case] the opportunity to gain evidence that it may not be +entitled to under the more restrictive criminal discovery rules, if and when discovery +becomes necessary, protective orders and other remedial measures may be taken.") (citations +omitted). +By entering into the NPA, with its explicit discussion of 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein +acknowledged that the United States was trying to protect the victims' rights to restitution +and that civil claims would likely follow. Epstein did not bargain for a stay of those +proceedings. Instead, both parties received benefits and gave consideration for the bargain +that was struck - while Epstein is faced with answering discovery requests that he would not +face during criminal proceedings, he also is entitled to the identification of and extensive +discovery from the victims, which he would not have received in the criminal case. Based +upon a review of the discovery requests he has promulgated thus far, it appears that Epstein +is taking full advantage of this benefit and if a criminal case were ever filed, he would, no +doubt, seek to use that information in his defense.? +With respect to the other "special circumstances" mentioned in Incendy, the government +obviously advised Epstein of the potential for criminal charges, and that knowledge led to the +negotiation of the NPA. Epstein also has a number of attorneys listed on the Service List for the +civil cases and has retained a similarly large number of attorneys to handle the criminal investigation +and negotiation of the NPA. Epstein alleges a fear of adverse publicity, but as the plaintiffs have +pointed out, during the course of the state and federal criminal investigations, Epstein's personal +publicist distributed stories to the press impugning the credibility of the victims and other witnesses +and averring that the victims' allegations of abuse were made solely to extract money from the +defendant. In the context of some of the civil suits currently pending, Epstein has asked the Court +-11- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 12 of 17 +Unlike +and Incendy, Epstein also has not been criminally indicted. In some +districts, this alone is virtually dispositive. See, e.g., Sterling Nat'l Bank v. A-1 Hotels +Internat'l, 175 F. Supp. 2d 573, 576-77 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ("district courts in this Circuit +'generally grant the extraordinary remedy of a stay only after the defendant seeking a stay +has been indicted."" (quoting Citibank, N.A. v. L +L, 1993 WL 481335 *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. +18, 1993) (add'1 citations omitted). As one court explained: +the consensus that a party seeking a stay bears a heavier burden when he has +not yet been indicted derives logically from the balancing test set out by the +courts of appeals that have considered the question. When a defendant has +been indicted, his situation is particularly dangerous, and takes a certain +priority, for the risk to his liberty, the importance of safeguarding his +constitutional rights, and even the strain on his resources and attention that +makes defending satellite civil litigation particularly difficult, all weigh in +favor of his interest. Moreover, if the potential prejudice to the defendant is +particularly high post-indictment, the prejudice to the plaintiff of staying +proceedings is somewhat reduced, since the criminal litigation has reached a +crisis that will lead to a reasonably speedy resolution. Furthermore, at that +stage in the criminal proceeding, the contours of the indictment will provide +the Court with a reasonable basis for determining the extent of the threat to the +defendant's Fifth Amendment rights, and the likely extent and timing of the +criminal litigation. +Pre-indictment, these factors must be balanced significantly differently. +Though many of the same risks to the civil defendant are present, the dangers +are at least somewhat more remote, and it is inherently unclear to the Court +just how much the unindicted defendant really has to fear. Conversely, the +delay imposed on the plaintiff is potentially indefinite. There is no telling how +complicated the government's investigation may be, whether the allegations +of the particular civil plaintiff are merely the tip of an iceberg that will result +in a lengthy and open-ended investigation, what priority the government +assigns to the investigation, whether it will result in charges that will have to +to unseal the victims' names so that he may make use similar press efforts to impugn their +credibility. +-12- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 13 of 17 +be litigated, or how time-consuming the resulting criminal case will be. Under +these circumstances, the likelihood that a civil party can make the necessary +showing to obtain the "extraordinary" remedy of a stay is inevitably much +reduced. +Sterling Nat'l Bank, 175 F. Supp. 2d at 577 (internal citations omitted). +The First Circuit has noted that the decision whether to grant a stay "is highly nuanced +... [and] involves competing interests. Balancing these interests is a situation-specific task, +and an inquiring court must take a careful look at the idiosyncratic circumstances of the case +before it." Microfinancial, supra, 385 F.3d at 78. Epstein's case is more idiosyncratic than +most. +As the Court aptly noted in its Order denying Epstein's first motion to stay the civil +proceedings, Epstein has not been indicted and there are no criminal proceedings pending +against him.* The resurrection of criminal proceedings against Epstein lies entirely within +Epstein's own hands, by performing or not performing under the terms of the NPA. This tips +the balance of equities even further in favor of the plaintiffs. Epstein makes allegations that +the U.S. Attorney's Office has unfettered discretion in determining breaches of the NPA, but +this is no different than in any contractual setting. If one party believes that there has been +a breach, it may seek the remedy set forth in the contract. If the other party believes that +*Epstein points to provisions requiring him to maintain certain evidence "inviolate" as proof +that the grand jury investigation is still active. These provisions are meant only to insure that easily +destroyed evidence identified through the investigation, such as computer equipment, that is still in +Epstein's control, will still be available to investigators if Epstein does, in fact, breach the NPA. +Epstein is well aware that litigation concerning those matters have been removed from the Court's +docket, at the insistence of the United States, because it fully halted its investigation in accordance +with the terms of the NPA. +- 13- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 14 of 17 +there has been no breach, it has a remedy at law or equity. In this situation, Epstein would +be entitled to seek dismissal of the indictment. See United States v. Beeks, 167 Fed. Appx +777 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. L +138 Fed. Appx. 965 (9th Cir. 2005); United +States v. +,, 393 F.3d 540 (Sth Cir. 2004). +Epstein argues that because he is seeking a finite period of delay - until the time that +he asserts that the NPA "expires" - and that, thereafter, he will promptly provide full and +complete responses to all discovery, the harm to the plaintiffs is de minimis. With all respect, +this overlooks a number of obvious issues. First, if a stay is imposed until Epstein's +proposed "expiration date," it affords Epstein one of two incentives: (a) to delay any intended +breach until a time when he believes that the United States has no remedy and then to breach +the agreement with impunity (i.e, to use the NPA as a shield and a sword); or (b) to delay the +civil litigation as long as possible (until shortly before the "expiration" of the NPA), and +then, after criminal charges have been filed, to seek a mandatory stay of the civil cases until +the criminal case is resolved. Thus, contrary to the assertions of Epstein, the delay is not +limited but, instead, is "potentially indefinite," as Sterling Bank warns. If the U.S. Attorney's +Office were to proceed criminally, the litigation would likely be very lengthy, and would +result in an even greater delay to the plaintiffs. +'The United States also notes that this finite termination to Epstein's exposure to potential +criminal consequences is illusory. The NPA addresses only certain victims identified during the +course of the government's investigation. To the extent that any of the plaintiffs who have already +filed suit against Epstein do not fall within that group, the NPA does not address potential charges +based upon crimes committed against them. The NPA also does not bind any other state or federal +prosecutor from pursuing charges for criminal acts committed within their jurisdiction(s). The +federal statute of limitations for offenses against children is ten years or the life of the child, +-14- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 15 of 17 +The factors to consider include: "(i) the interests of the civil plaintiff in proceeding +expeditiously with the civil litigation, including the avoidance of any prejudice to the +plaintiff should a delay transpire; (ii) the hardship to the defendant, including the burden +placed upon him should the cases go forward in tandem; (ill) the convenience of both the +civil and criminal courts; (iv) the interests of third parties; ... (v) the public interest:] ... +(vi) the good faith of the litigants (or the absence of it) and (vii) the status of the cases." +Microfinancial, 385 F.3d at 78 (citations omitted). +In considering those factors, the United States respectfully recommends to the Court +that all of the factors weigh against a stay. In making its decision, the Court should consider +that, unlike all of the cases cited herein, Epstein seeks to stay not one suit involving a single +plaintiff, but more than a dozen suits filed by individual plaintiffs. Each of those plaintiffs, +in turn, impliedly asserts that she is a "crime victim" with the "right to full and timely +restitution" and the "right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay." 18 U.S.C. § +3771(a)(6) & (7). As noted above, one of the purposes of the NPA was to provide these +rights to victims identified in the Government's investigation. Thus, this factor weighs more +heavily for the plaintiffs than in the average civil dispute as it embodies both the plaintiffs' +and the public's interests. The victims who were identified in the government investigation, +by and large, were without financial assets and had significant counseling needs that could +whichever is longer. 18 U.S.C. § 3283. Thus, for Epstein (or any other person accused of sexually +abusing children) to "wait out" any chance of criminal liability, the court would have to stay civil +litigation until all of the plaintiffs have died. +- 15- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 16 of 17 +be remedied through obtaining restitution from Epstein. In addition to those needs, they have +legitimate concerns about memories fading, witnesses becoming unavailable, and dissipation +of Epstein's assets while the matter is stayed. On the other hand, while the potential harm +to the defendant normally weighs in the defendant's favor, in this case, Epstein has +significant control over whether the criminal investigation remains in abeyance and whether +criminal charges are ever filed +CONCLUSION +In accordance with the Court's Order, the United States hereby submits that it is not +aware of any "special circumstances" that warrant staying all of the civil cases pending the +"expiration" of the NPA. +By: +Respectfully submitted, +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +S/A. +Villafaña +À. +VILLAFAÑA +Assistant United States Attorney +Florida Bar No. 0018255 +500 East Broward Boulevard, 7th Floor +Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 +Telephone: 954-356-7255 +Facsimile: 954-356-7230 +-16- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 17 of 17 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 28, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. According to the Court's website, counsel +for all parties are able to receive notice via the CM/ECF system. +SA +A. +Villafaña +VILLAFANA +Assistant United States Attorney +-17- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd8223f6b590023b0b3b9a5617cc747aae9908d3fdd6737374d97dfb2189cba4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd8223f6b590023b0b3b9a5617cc747aae9908d3fdd6737374d97dfb2189cba4.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d95a44aea5cd85113abe9a438d785cdc45f74f49 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd8223f6b590023b0b3b9a5617cc747aae9908d3fdd6737374d97dfb2189cba4.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -206, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cd8223f6b590023b0b3b9a5617cc747aae9908d3fdd6737374d97dfb2189cba4", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 18, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4ac01053723f068453255ffbdd44abbb437e5d36eb258e733b3a69ae6ad7fcca", + "output_sha256": "d6f878cbf2f3e2fff56ca11a64a51e8f8f7a492579766e171afbd3b9abe36084", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd89f97e1f859eeea07efa64015cf67e690a4fa7dacea55119b0c83135588e25.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd89f97e1f859eeea07efa64015cf67e690a4fa7dacea55119b0c83135588e25.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..731762ded514ae16e048d2d306df6023ca50894f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd89f97e1f859eeea07efa64015cf67e690a4fa7dacea55119b0c83135588e25.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 508-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2010 Page 1 of 1 +AO S8A (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 2) +Civil Action No. 08-CIV-80119-Marra/s +PROOF OF SERVICE +(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.) +This subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any) +Cassandra Rivera +was received by me on (date) 2/3/10 +* I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named individual as follows: +Individual Service +on (date) 2/3/10 +• I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: +Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also +tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of +$ 45,00 +My fees are $ +for travel and $ +for services, for a total of $ +0.00 +I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. +Date: 2/4/10 +Shallen +EdwardCameron +Server's signature +CertifielProcess Server *401 +Printed name and title +Server's address +Additional information regarding attempted service, etc: +"B" diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd89f97e1f859eeea07efa64015cf67e690a4fa7dacea55119b0c83135588e25.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd89f97e1f859eeea07efa64015cf67e690a4fa7dacea55119b0c83135588e25.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e6b83b2e2ce49751f4b31382fe013350dce174de --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd89f97e1f859eeea07efa64015cf67e690a4fa7dacea55119b0c83135588e25.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cd89f97e1f859eeea07efa64015cf67e690a4fa7dacea55119b0c83135588e25", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "52e5f934c4cebcec65e7272e828fd4b33adaef4a67775148b6fa888935f1ee73", + "output_sha256": "245cafddb34ee94d601382b11c5d6863d9ddd41f3beb19ced6ce0b81b260bb3d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd920e5128534b24b7ebf806d734d7d90ecb473d6577dbcb3649283852a9b4cc.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd920e5128534b24b7ebf806d734d7d90ecb473d6577dbcb3649283852a9b4cc.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..84c46437b0e09e176a1a518c59cd1340a15bd4a4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd920e5128534b24b7ebf806d734d7d90ecb473d6577dbcb3649283852a9b4cc.md @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 51 Filed 05/11/20 Page 1 of 2 +BSF +BOIES +| SCHILLER +FLEXNER +Sigrid S. McCawley +Telephone: (954) 377-4223 +Email: smccawley@bsfllp.com +May 11, 2020 +VIA ECE +The Honorable Debra Freeman +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +New York, NY 10007-1312 +Re: Jane Doe 1000 v. Darren K. Indyke & Richard D. Kahn, 19- 10577-L.JL-DCF +Dear Judge Freeman: +We submit on behalf of Plaintiff Jane Doe 1000 this reply in further support of her letter +motion for a conference to address Defendants' complete failure to participate in discovery to date +(ECF No. 46), and in response to Defendants' letter, filed on May 8, 2020 (ECF No. 47). As set +forth in Plaintiff's opening letter, Defendants refuse to produce documents concerning Jeffrey +Epstein's sex-trafficking conspiracy. Instead, they offer to produce only documents that directly +mention Plaintiff's name, and documents only from limited time periods surrounding the specific +dates on which she was abused. ECF No. 46. Defendants also failed to respond to any of Plaintiff's +Rule 33 interrogatories. Defendants' opposition admittedly offers no "response to the substantive +issues," yet asks the Court to deny Plaintiff's request for a conference because it would somehow +be "an unnecessary waste of the Court's time." ECF No. 47 at 1. The Court should reject +Defendants' transparent delay tactic and order the Defendants to address their discovery +deficiencies immediately. +Defendants' only basis for arguing that a conference would be "premature" is that, on April +30, they promised to serve amended responses to Plaintiff's interrogatories by the end of last week. +But not only did Defendants fail to serve amended interrogatory responses last week (despite +committing to do so), they have never even offered to amend their responses to Plaintiff's Rule 34 +requests for production. Defendants also made clear at a meet and confer held on Tuesday, May +5, that they would not be changing their positions on the threshold disputes identified in Plaintiff's +letter. These disputes, which the parties have already conferred over for hours, are therefore ripe +for the Court's review. +Contrary to Defendants' suggestion, Plaintiff has complied with her obligations to meet +and confer in good faith. She has also already produced hundreds of documents spanning over +10,000 pages. Instead, it is Defendants' obstructionist conduct that requires immediate Court +intervention. Because this case was filed six months ago and the Court's Rule 16 conference took +place back in February, Defendants' failure to produce a single document or meaningfully respond +to discovery requests can only be viewed as an intentional effort to delay discovery. As just one +example, Defendants claim that they "expect" to be able to "supplement" their interrogatory +responses by May 13. But their initial responses, which are attached as exhibits to Plaintiff's +BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP +401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 | (t) 954 356 0011 | (f) 954 356 0022 | www.bsfllp.com + + +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 51 Filed 05/11/20 Page 2 of 2 +opening letter, speak for themselves, and make clear that Defendants have not undertaken +reasonable efforts to comply with their discovery obligations or meet Court-ordered deadlines in +good faith. Where, as here, Defendants (i) refused to answer interrogatories such as "Identify all +email accounts used by Epstein or any of his employees or agents on his behalf"; (i) failed to +provide signatures, pursuant to Rule 33(b)(5), indicating that counsel even discussed the +interrogatories with their clients before serving their responses; and (iii) did not send a single +attorney involved in the drafting of their objections to the parties' April 27 meet and confer, leaving +Defendants unable to explain how their responses were crafted or even articulate what they meant; +it is clear that Defendants are attempting to game the process to maximize delay. Plaintiff's +decision to curtail these dilatory tactics therefore does not fall within what the Court described as +a "pet peeve" at the February 11, 2020, conference. +Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant her request for a conference to address +these issues. +Respectfully submitted, +Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley +Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd920e5128534b24b7ebf806d734d7d90ecb473d6577dbcb3649283852a9b4cc.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd920e5128534b24b7ebf806d734d7d90ecb473d6577dbcb3649283852a9b4cc.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e3db93ccd46f649dd3446e7b83e718d9f8fa3626 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd920e5128534b24b7ebf806d734d7d90ecb473d6577dbcb3649283852a9b4cc.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cd920e5128534b24b7ebf806d734d7d90ecb473d6577dbcb3649283852a9b4cc", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "33790a360b7f9dd070ada870037723a696eeaf3e4932e3bb14e98bf33f08f36f", + "output_sha256": "c84e091778323febbd38e37f17a5e50658308451cad11566b09508098249a107", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd9ce3da07849e9f53579e40f01e12187ce12e09a4b7afaf174aafa0851f94d9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd9ce3da07849e9f53579e40f01e12187ce12e09a4b7afaf174aafa0851f94d9.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..065740c23a0616443d467e2282ca52a1c799b363 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd9ce3da07849e9f53579e40f01e12187ce12e09a4b7afaf174aafa0851f94d9.md @@ -0,0 +1,267 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2009 Page 1 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2. +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +PLAINTIFE, +L, RESPONSE TO THIRD PARTY WITNESS, +IGOR ZINOVIEW'S, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND INCORPORATED +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Plaintiff, +_, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby +files her Response Third Party Witness, Igor Zinoview's, Motion For Protective Order +and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (D.E. 402), and in support thereof states as +follows: +Third party witness, Igor Zinoview, seeks to have this Court enter an order +preventing his deposition from going forward at all, or, in the alternative, limiting the +scope of permissible questioning during same. Mr. Zinoview's deposition is presently +scheduled to be taken on December 18, 2009. +Mr. Zinoview has been employed by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, as his +"driver, bodyguard, and trainer" since November of 2005. See Affidavit of Igor Zinoview + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2009 Page 2 of 8 +(D.E. 402) dated November 9, 2009. Mr. Zinoview argues that his deposition should not +go forward as scheduled because Defendant Epstein has never discussed nor +attempted to discuss with him "any facts or information related to any legal matters in +which he [Jeffrey Epstein] is involved." Id. From Mr. Zinoview's vague assertion springs +the bold yet erroneous argument that "Mr. Zinoview cannot possibly have any +knowledge or information that is presently germane to this action." +3. +It should initially be noted that a "complete prohibition of a deposition is an +extraordinary measure which should be resorted to only in rare occasions." Jennings v. +Family Management, 201 F.R.D. 272 (D.D.C. 2001); See also, Salter v. Upjohn Co., +593 F.2d 649, 651 (5" Circ. 1979)(It is very unusual for trial court to prohibit the taking +of a deposition altogether, and absent extraordinary circumstances, such order would +likely be in error.); Inv. Properties Intern., Ltd. v. IOS, Ltd., 459 F.2d. 705, 708 (2d Circ. +1972)("an order to vacate a notice of taking deposition is generally regarded as both +unusual and unfavorable ... "). Neither Mr. Zinoview's conclusory affidavit nor his +Motion provide anything even approaching the "extraordinary circumstances" necessary +to justify the entry of order precluding his deposition from going forward at all. +4. +Additionally, Mr. Zinoview's vague assertion that he and Defendant +Epstein have never discussed any facts or information related to any legal matters that +Mr. Epstein is involved in does not give rise to requisite "extraordinary circumstances" +either. Detweiler Bros, Inc. v John Graham and Company, 412 F.Supp. 416 (E.D. Wash, +1976)(Plaintiff could not properly seek to prohibit defendant from deposing plaintiff's +employee via a protective order on grounds that employee had no knowledge of matters +at issue.) See also, 8 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. §2037, +and +("A witness + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2009 Page 3 of 8 +ordinarily cannot escape examination by denying knowledge of any relevant facts, since +the party seeking to take the deposition is entitled to test the witness's lack of +knowledge.") +5. +The undersigned, as well as counsel for all of the other victims of Jeffrey +Epstein, are entitled to question and challenge Mr. Zinoview on his purported lack of +knowledge. Mr. Zinoview and plaintiffs' counsel very well might have a difference of +opinion on what constitutes "facts and information related to any legal matters" in which +Defendant Epstein is involved. The victims of Jeffrey Epstein ought not to be forced to +accept Mr. Zinoview's opinion as to what constitutes "facts and information related to +any legal matters" involving Jeffrey Epstein. Instead, plaintiffs should be able to explore +these relevant matters directly with Mr. Zinoview, rather than being forced to rely on his +twenty seven (27) word claim of lacking any knowledge. +6. +Additionally, Mr. Zinoview worked for Defendant Epstein during portions of +the Palm Beach Police Department's months' long investigation which spanned from +March 15, 2005 through February 2006 into the illegal sexual contact committed by +Defendant Epstein against these minor plaintiffs. Accordingly, Mr. Zinoview certainly +might have direct knowledge about what was going on in and around the Epstein +residence during the time period in which he was employed by Defendant Epstein as his +"driver, bodyguard, and trainer" while his employer was being investigated by law +enforcement. Given the Defendant's voracious invocation of his Fifth Amendment +privilege, the plaintiffs have consistently been denied the opportunity to seek any +relevant information directly from Defendant Epstein himself. Rather, plaintiffs have + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2009 Page 4 of 8 +been forced to build their cases against Mr. Epstein by other discovery methods, +including deposing his employees who may have relevant information. +7. Third party witness Igor Zinoview has failed to meet his very high burden +of establishing "extraordinary circumstances." Mr. Zinoview has failed to demonstrate +the "good cause" required by Rule 26(c) to protect a person from "annoyance, +embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense" to overcome the liberal +scope of permissible discovery. The above proposed lines of inquiry of Mr. Zinoview +are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. +Accordingly, to the extent that it seeks to preclude his deposition from going forward at +all, Mr. Zinoview's Motion should be denied +Next, Mr. Zinoview also seeks to prevent questions being posed to him +wherein he is first asked to "assume certain facts about which he has no knowledge," +and then be asked about his "opinions about certain facts." First, it remains to be seen +exactly what facts about which Mr. Zinoview has no knowledge. Second, Mr. Zinoview's +opinions and beliefs about the factual matters surrounding plaintiffs' claims are relevant +to exploring any potential bias and prejudice in favor of his employer and against +Defendant Epstein's victims. For example, if Mr. Zinoview believes that these plaintiffs +are simply inventing their claims against his employer that they were sexually victimized +by Defendant Epstein while they were minor children, it very well might impact his +impartiality as a witness. Third, the undersigned has no present intention of engaging in +this line of questioning unless the proverbial "door" has been opened by Mr. Zinoview +first. Lastly, counsel for Mr. Zinoview is certainly free to invoke the privileges afforded to + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2009 Page 5 of 8 +him by the applicable procedural rules should he feel that his client is being asked +inappropriate questions during the deposition. +9. +In conclusion and for the reasons cited above, Mr. Zinoview's Motion For +Protective Order should be denied in its entirety. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, +respectfully requests that +this Court deny Third Party Igor Zinoview's Motion For Protective Order. +Respectfully submitted, +Is/Jack P. +JACK SCAROLA +Florida Bar No. 169440 +JACK P. +Florida Bar No.: 0547808 +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: +(561) 686-6300 +Fax: +(561) 383-9456 +Attorneys for Plaintiff + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2009 Page 6 of 8 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 28'h +, 2009, I electronically filed the +foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the +foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified below via +transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. +Ls/Jack P. +Jack Scarola +Florida Bar No.: 169440 +Jack P. +Florida Bar No.: 0547808 +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: +(561) 686-6300 +Fax: +(561) 383-9424 +Attorneys for Plaintiff + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2009 Page 7 of 8 +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Brad +, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Suite 2218 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: 954-522-3456 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +bedwards@rra-law.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +08-80893 +Co related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-30119, Paul O. Casell, Bs. +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +Pro Hac Vice +08-80994 +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +801-585-5202 +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +801-585-6833 Fax +2290 104 Avenue North +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Suite 404 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Isidro M. +, Esq. +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Law Firm, P.A. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +08-80811 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +Jack Scarola, Esq. +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack P. +_, Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barhart & Shipley, +P.A. +08-80469 +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +561-686-6300 +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +Fax: 561-383-9424 +isx@searcylaw.com +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +jph(@searcylaw.com +305 358-2800 +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +riosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases +Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2009 Page 8 of 8 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. +Spencer I. Kuvin, Esq. +Leopold, Kuvin, P.A +2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +561-684-6500 +Fax: 561-515-2610 +skuvin@leopoldkuvin.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-08804 +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Ayenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, PL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesg@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd9ce3da07849e9f53579e40f01e12187ce12e09a4b7afaf174aafa0851f94d9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd9ce3da07849e9f53579e40f01e12187ce12e09a4b7afaf174aafa0851f94d9.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bd346b42738c3d1fe38da4b9fd115581b7dcb1a8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cd9ce3da07849e9f53579e40f01e12187ce12e09a4b7afaf174aafa0851f94d9.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -96, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cd9ce3da07849e9f53579e40f01e12187ce12e09a4b7afaf174aafa0851f94d9", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "69fdd4c793bcf3da19e2519cf2b329e4c3f9edba1532734ddecde41b7c79a8db", + "output_sha256": "ed3edde86436c1bd5888676a015caba03f80a9189d812ba72bffe675527ff84c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cda693bd8134b5963c0bb2076b550714a82580663079556542857421f68166e5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cda693bd8134b5963c0bb2076b550714a82580663079556542857421f68166e5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef2ff3d489ed3588519e7d19f82d7f94a05b484a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cda693bd8134b5963c0bb2076b550714a82580663079556542857421f68166e5.md @@ -0,0 +1,290 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 188 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 1 of 11 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +petitioners, +VS. +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, +respondent. +ORDER GRANTING PETITIONERS' MOTION TO PROFFER +GOVERNMENT CORRESPONDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CVRA CLAIMS +& GRANTING MOTION TO UNSEAL CORRESPONDENCE AND RELATED +UNREDACTED PLEADINGS OF PETITIONERS +THIS CAUSE is before the court on the petitioners' motion to use correspondence +generated between the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida +(USAO/SDFL) and counsel for Jeffrey Epstein to prove the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) +violations alleged in this proceeding, joined with motion to unseal petitioners' unredacted pleadings +which reference and incorporate the correspondence [DE 51]; the government's response to the +motion [DE 60]; petitioners' reply to the government's response [DE 74]; intervenors Roy Black, +Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz's opposition to the motion, including motion for protective +order [DE 160, 161]; intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's opposition to the motion, including motion for +protective order [DE 162]; intervenors' notice of supplemental authority in support of asserted +common law privilege [DE 163]; petitioners' response to supplemental briefing of intervenors [DE +167]; intervenors' reply in further support of motion for protective order [DE 169] and petitioners' +supplemental authority in opposition [DE 172]. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 188 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 2 of 11 +The government does not object to petitioners' request to use the correspondence as +evidence in this proceeding, but does oppose, in part, the motion to unseal. More specifically, the +government expresses a concern that certain labeled "facts" included in the "Statement of +Undisputed Facts" filed in support of petitioners' "Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime +Victims' Rights Act" [DE 48] "relate[] to matters occurring before the grand jury" which it is +unable to confirm or deny without doing violence to its obligation of grand jury secrecy under Fed. +R. Crim P. 6(e). ' It also expresses concern that these allegations describe crimes alleged against +Jeffrey Epstein and others for which they were never charged or convicted, contending that the Due +Process Clause requires the court to maintain this information under seal to protect the reputations +of persons who may have been under federal investigation but not charged or convicted. See e.g. In +rel +656 F.2d 1101, 1106 (5'" Cir. 1981)(requiring redaction from records of guilty pleas of +references to name of individual who was not charged or convicted). +Intervenors Jeffrey Epstein and his attorneys object to the petitioners' request for permission +to use the evidence in this proceeding, and object to petitioners' request to unseal the correspondence +and related pleadings on the following grounds: (1) the correspondence is the privileged opinion +'Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 6(e)(2)(B) provides: +Unless these rules provide otherwise, the following persons must not disclose a matter +occurring before the grand jury: +(i)a grand juror; +(il) an interpreter; +(ill) a court reporter; +(iv)an operator of a recording device; +(v)a person who transcribes the recorded testimony; +(vi) an attorney for the government; or +(vii)a person to whom disclosure is made under Rule 6(e) (3)(A)(ii) or (iii). +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 188 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 3 of 11 +work-product of Epstein's legal counsel; (2) the correspondence is protected under grand jury +secrecy principles codified at Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) because its subject matter overlaps with matters +occurring before the grand jury; (3) the correspondence is shielded against disclosure under Fed. R. +Crim. P. 11(f)' and Fed. R. Evid. 410 ' because it consists of and relates to statements made during +the course of plea discussions between Epstein, through counsel, and federal prosecutors; (4) the +correspondence is irrelevant because rescission of Epstein's non-prosecution agreement with the +United States Attorneys' Office for the Southern District of Florida is not an available remedy in this +CVRA proceeding; (5) the court should craft a new common law privilege encompassing plea +discussions under Fed. R. Evid. 501. +At the outset, the court observes that the intervenors' privilege objections to public release +of the correspondence in question were previously rejected by Magistrate Judge Linnea +a discovery order entered in a parallel civil lawsuit, Jane Doe # 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08- +80893-CIV-MARRA. By order entered January 5, 2011 in that proceeding, Magistrate Judge +expressly rejected Epstein's request for the "Court to find the subject correspondence +privileged and on that basis prohibit plaintiffs' counsel from disclosing it in either of the two +'Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f) provides, "The admissibility or inadmissibility of a plea, a plea +discussion, and any related statement is governed by Federal. Rule of Evidence 410." +'Federal Rule of Evidence 410 (a) provides in pertinent part: +(a) Prohibited Uses. In a civil or criminal case, evidence of the following is not +admissible against the defendant who made the plea or participated in the plea +discussions: +(4) a statement during plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting +authority if the discussions did not result in a plea of guilty or they resulted in a +later-withdrawn guilty plea. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 188 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 4 of 11 +proceedings [the pending state court or federal (CVRA) proceedings]. " [Case No. 08-80893, DE +226]. 4 The court finds no reason to revisit that ruling here. +As a threshold matter, "statement[s] during plea discussions" protected under Fed. R. Evid. +410 do not include general discussions of leniency and statements made in the hope of avoiding a +federal indictment - arguably the content of the correspondence at issue here. See e.g. United States +v. Merrill, 685 F.3d 1002 (11" Cir. 2012)(statements made to AUSA during meetings were not +statements made during plea negotiations under Rule 410, where there were no pending charges +against defendant when discussions occurred; general discussions of leniency did not transform +meeting into plea negotiations); United States v. Edelmann, 458 F.3d 791, 804-06 (8'" Cir. +2006)(Rule 410 inapplicable to statements made during preindictment meetings by defendant +seeking to avoid indictment and not reach plea agreement); United States v. Hare, 49 F.3d 447, 450 +(8'" Cir. 1995) (voluntary statements made in hope of improving situation before plea negotiation +has begun or after plea agreement is reached are not statements made "in the course of plea +discussions" protected by Rule 410). +In addition, the communications between Epstein's counsel and federal prosecutors at issue +here ultimately did result in entry of a plea of guilty by Epstein --to specific state court charges -- +thereby removing the statements from the narrow orbit of "statement[s] made during plea +discussions...if the discussions did not result in a guilty plea...." which are inadmissible in +4 +The Magistrate Judge contemporaneously directed that the documents remain under seal +pending ruling by the relevant institutions on the admissibility of the evidence and conditions of +disclosure. The material has accordingly remained under seal in the instant CVRA proceeding +before this court, as one institution charged with adjudication of the parallel victim claims. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 188 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 5 of 11 +proceedings against the defendant making them under Rule 410. See eg United States v. Paden, +908 F.2d 1229, 1235 (5"' Cir. 1990)(statements made during negotiations that resulted in a final plea +of guilty not protected under Rule 410), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1039, 111 S. Ct. 710 (1991). +The court also summarily rejects the government and intervenors' suggestion that the +correspondence is appropriately preserved under seal under the grand jury secrecy rule codified at +Fed. Crim. P. 6(e) because the subject matter of the correspondence happens to coincide with +matters presented to the grand jury. Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2) prohibits particular persons from +disclosing "a matter occurring before a grand jury," and Fed. R. Crim. 6(e)(6) provides that +"[r]ecords, orders and subpoenas relating to grand jury proceedings must be kept under seal to the +extent and as along as necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of'a matter occurring before +a grand jury." +The phrase "matter occurring before the grand jury" encompasses what has occurred, what +is occurring and what is likely to occur before the grand jury, In re Motions of Dow +& Co 142 +F.3d 496 (D. C. Cir. 1998), but it does not cover prosecutors" strategies, recommendations, In re +Sealed Case No. 99-3091 (Office of Independent Counsel Contempt Proceeding), 192 F.3d 995 +(D. C. Cir. 1999)(internal deliberations of prosecutors that do not directly reveal grand jury +proceedings are not Rule 6(e) material), or opinions about an individual's potential criminal liability. +See In re Grand Jury Investigation (Lance), 610 F.2d 202 (5" Cir. 1980)(statements about potential +criminal liability, even if based on knowledge of grand jury proceedings, not covered by Rule 6(e), +provided statement does not reveal the grand jury information on which it is based). This follows +because "it is not the information itself, but the fact that the grand jury was considering that +information which is protected by Rule 6(e)." Anaya v. United States, 815 F.2d 1373, 1379 (10" Cir. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 188 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 6 of 11 +1987). +Thus, Rule 6(e)'s provisions do not extend to the disclosure of information obtained from +a source independent of the grand jury proceeding, such as a parallel or prior government +investigation. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 920 F.2d 242 (4" Cir. 1990); In re Grand Jury Matter +(Catania), 682 F.2d 61, 64 (3d Cir. 1982); United States v. L +, 787 F.2d 111, 115 (3d Cir. +1986) (fact that witness received "target letter" not subject to grand jury secrecy under Rule 6(e) +where it appeared to be expression of opinion of United States Attorney, based on his or her +knowledge of status of criminal investigation). +Next, the court rejects the attorney intervenors' assertion of opinion-work product privilege +as a shield against public release or use of the correspondence as evidence in this CVRA +proceeding. Assuming without deciding that any part of the correspondence in question reflects "the +mental impressions, conclusions, or legal theories" of Epstein's attorneys, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3), +any work product protection which might otherwise attach to this product was necessarily forfeited +when Epstein voluntarily submitted the information to the United States Attorney's Office in the +hopes of receiving the quid pro quo of lenient punishment for any wrongdoings exposed in the +process. +Work product protection is provided only against "adversaries." Thus, disclosure of the +material to an adversary, real or potential, works a forfeiture of work product protection. United +States v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 129 F.3d 681 (1" Cir. 1997). In this case, Epstein's +attorneys' disclosure to the United States Attorney's Office was plainly a disclosure to a potential +adversary. The United States Attorneys' office, at that juncture, was reviewing evidence relating to +Epstein' sexual crimes against minor females within the Southern District of Florida and +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 188 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 7 of 11 +deliberating the filing of relevant federal charges; while Epstein's counsel clearly hoped to avoid +any actual litigation between the United States and Epstein, the potential for such litigation was +plainly there. By voluntarily and deliberating disclosing this material to federal prosecutorial +authorities investigating allegations against Epstein at that time, any work product protection was +necessarily lost. See e.g. In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. Billing Practices Litigation, 293 +F.3d 289 (6" Cir. 2002), cert. dismissed, 539 U.S. 977 (2003); In re Quest Communications +International, Inc., 450 F.3d 1179 (10" Cir. 2006); Westinghouse Electric Corp. v Republic of +Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1428-31 (3d Cir. 1991); In re Subpoena Duces Tecum, 738 F.2d 1367, +1372 (D.C. Cir. 1984). +Finally, the court rejects the intervenors' invitation to craft a new federal common law +privilege governing plea discussions with prosecutorial authorities under the authority conferred by +Fed. R. Evid. 501. " Federal Rule of Evidence 501 instructs federal courts to develop federal +common law privilege according to principles of common law as they may be interpreted "in the +light of reason and experience." The applicable test in assessing whether federal common law +should recognize a new privilege "is whether such a privilege promotes sufficiently important +'Federal Rule of Evidence 501 provides: +The common law - as interpreted by United States courts in the light of reason and +experience - governs a claim of privilege unless any of the following provides otherwise: +• the United States Constitution; +• a federal statute; or +• rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. +But in a civil case, state law governs privilege regarding a claim or defense for which +state law supplies the rule of decision. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 188 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 8 of 11 +interests to outweigh the need for probative evidence." Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 9-19, 116 S. +Ct.1923, 135 L.Ed. 2d 337 (1996); Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47, 100 S. Ct. 906, 63 +L.Ed.2d 186 (1980). +Recognizing that there is a presumption against privileges which may be overcome only +when it would achieve a public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing +all rational means for ascertaining the truth, Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324(11" Cir. 2007), citing +United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 710, 94 S. Ct. 3090, 3108, 41 L.Ed. 2d 1039 (1974)( privileges +are in derogation of the search for truth and should not be lightly created nor expansively construed), +and that the Supreme Court has been "especially reluctant to recognize a privilege in an area where +it appears that Congress has considered the relevant competing concerns but has not provided the +privilege itself," University of Pennsy/vania v E.E.O.C., 493 U.S. 182, 189, 110 S. Ct. 577, 582, 107 +L.Ed.2d 571 (1990)(declining to recognize common law privilege protecting academic peer review +materials), this court declines to recognize a new federal common law privilege over plea +discussions as here urged by the intervenors. +Congress has already addressed the competing policy interests raised by plea discussion +evidence with the passage of the plea-statement rules found at Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f) and Fed. R. +Evid. 410, which generally prohibits admission at trial of a defendant's statements made during plea +discussions, +, " without carving out any special privilege relating to plea discussion materials. +Considering the Congressional forbearance on this issue -- and the presumptively public nature of +"The policy behind Rule 410 is to permit a defendant to freely negotiate without fear that +statements will be used against him. United States v. Knight 867 F.2d 1285 (11th Cir. 1989). +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 188 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 9 of 11 +plea agreements in this District -?, this court declines the intervenors' invitation to expand Rule +410 by crafting a federal common law privilege for plea discussions. See e.g. Adkins v. Christie, +488 F.3d 1324 (11" Cir. 2007)(declining to recognize medical peer review privilege in federal +discrimination cases); Weiss ex rel. Estate of Weiss v. County of Chester, 231 F.R.D. 202 (E. D. Pa. +2005)(declining to recognize medical peer review privilege in §1983 action); | +v. United +Parcel Service, Inc., 206 F.R.D. 686 (M.D. Fla. 2002)(declining to recognize "self-critical analysis" +privilege in Title VII race discrimination case); Aramburu v. Boeing Co., 885 F. Supp. 1434 (D. +Kan. 1995)(same). +Conclusion +Accordingly, the court rejects the privileges asserted by intervenors as bases for maintaining +the correspondence and related pleadings incorporating the correspondence under seal in this +proceeding. Finding the asserted privileges inapplicable, the court finds no legitimate compelling +interest which warrants the continued suppression of this evidentiary material under seal in this +proceeding. See generally United States v. Ochoa-Vasquez, 428 F.3d 1015(11" Cir. 2005)(reversing +order sealing document in drug trafficking conspiracy prosecution in order to protect cooperating +defendants and confidential informants where unsupported by record finding to rebut presumption +of openness of court proceedings),and shall therefore grant petitioners' motion to unseal the +7 +On January 22, 2009 Chief Judge Federico Mereno issued an administrative order requiring +complete remote electronic access to all (unsealed) plea agreements extending to all members of the +public and the bar, contrary to the expressed wishes of the U.S. Department of Justice. See In Re: +Remote Electronic Access to Plea Agreements, Administrative Order 2009-2, United States District +Court, Southern District of Florida (January 22, 2009); Marcia Coyle, Federal Prosecutors Want to +Shutter Public Access to Plea Agreements , The National Law Journal, Sept. 17, 2007 (online)(DOJ +asks Judicial Conference to rescind policy of making plea agreements available on line) +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 188 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 10 of 11 +correspondence. While the court shall also grant the petitioners' motion to use the evidence as proof +of alleged CVRA violations to the extent it shall allow petitioners to proffer the evidence in support +of their CVRA claims, this order is not intended to operate as a ruling on the relevance or +admissibility of any particular piece of correspondence, a matter expressly reserved for +determination at the time of final disposition. +It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: +1. The petitioners' motion to use correspondence between the United States Attorneys' +Office and counsel for Jeffrey Epstein to prove the violations ofthe CVRA alleged in this proceeding +[DE 51] is GRANTED to the extent that the petitioners are granted leave to proffer the evidence in +support of their CVRA claims in this proceeding. The court shall reserve ruling on the ultimate +relevance and admissibility of any particular piece of correspondence until the time of final +disposition. +2. The petitioners' motion to unseal unredacted pleadings incorporating the subject +correspondence [DE# 51] is GRANTED, with the following proviso: The petitioners are directed +to file unredacted pleadings, including attached correspondence, in the open court file. However, +before placing the materials in the court file, petitioners are directed to carefully review each page +of the correspondence in question and to REDACT: (1) all references to victims' names or initials; +(2) all identifying information with regard to internal telephone numbers and/or emails of +government attorneys or employees; (3) all identifying references or names of individuals other +than Epstein relating to uncharged crimes; (4) all correspondence describing and/or attaching +grand jury subpoenas (see US Atty Correspondence +329-356). +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 188 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 11 of 11 +3. The petitioners shall file unredacted pleadings in the court file in conformity with the +above prescriptions within TWENTY (20) DAYS from the date of entry of this order. +4. The motion for protective order submitted by Intervenors Black, Weinberg and Lefkowitz +[160, 161] and motion for protective order submitted by limited Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein [162], +seeking the continued suppression under seal of correspondence relating to plea discussions between +Epstein's counsel and federal government prosecutorial authorities, are DENIED. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Florida this 18" day of June, +2013. +Kenneth Marra +United States District Judge +cC. +All counsel +11 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cda693bd8134b5963c0bb2076b550714a82580663079556542857421f68166e5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cda693bd8134b5963c0bb2076b550714a82580663079556542857421f68166e5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..573124eb41d9ff24656782de15985e3773aa4e01 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cda693bd8134b5963c0bb2076b550714a82580663079556542857421f68166e5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -132, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cda693bd8134b5963c0bb2076b550714a82580663079556542857421f68166e5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 11, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "eac041b6749696ca77f36349aaad30a4989d73650c8ada1eebae6a2e85e3088d", + "output_sha256": "b20e72a10db54970607c8c811e80085ee4968c16e90ba972c9002fe9babeab67", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cdc73b02a1bf1abd3d0167d53fd00dd6208092b9408ebf909409d27a5057ce97.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cdc73b02a1bf1abd3d0167d53fd00dd6208092b9408ebf909409d27a5057ce97.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aec9b3a8d4cc87e1c093c9624c71102294771a68 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cdc73b02a1bf1abd3d0167d53fd00dd6208092b9408ebf909409d27a5057ce97.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +Filing # 108027255 E-Filed 05/27/2020 07:10:17 PM +IT IS CIRCULA +AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORA * +CASE NO: 2019CA014681XXXXMB +DIVISION: AG +CA FLORIDA OLDINGS LLC PUBLISHER +OF THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +VS. +DAVE ARONBER AND SHARON R. BOCK, +Defendants). +DEFENDANT. CLERK & COMPTROLLER, PALM BEACH COUNTY'S NOTICE OF +CHANGE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD AND DIRECTIONS TO CLERK TO UPDATE +ATTORNEY INFORMATION +PLEASE BE ADVISED that pursuant to Administrative Order 2.311-2/13(5) of the Fifteenth +Judicial Circuit, the Defendant, Clerk & Comptroller, Palm Beach County, hereby gives notice that is it +changing the attorney of record in this matter to Nicole Fingerhut, Esq. Attorney Hampton C. Peterson +should be removed as attorney of record +Therefore, the Clerk hereby gives notice that any and all further pleadings, court filings and +correspondence in this action are to be served upon the Clerk & Comptroller by directing them to Nicole +Fingerhut, Esq. at the address below. +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished to all parties as +indicated on the service list in compliance with the Rule 2.516, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, +on this 27 day of May, 2020. +Nicole R. Fingerhut, Esq. +For Sharon R. Bock, Clerk & Comptroller +Post Office Box 229 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Telephone: (561) 355-2983 +E-service: Clerk_E-service@mypalmbeachclerk.com +BY: s/Nicole R. Fingerhut +Nicole R. Fingerhut +Florida Bar No. 98269 +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, 05/27/2020 07:10:17 PM diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cdc73b02a1bf1abd3d0167d53fd00dd6208092b9408ebf909409d27a5057ce97.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cdc73b02a1bf1abd3d0167d53fd00dd6208092b9408ebf909409d27a5057ce97.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..24c6627b306001fc16222cf2b9f8ee1b7d80b548 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cdc73b02a1bf1abd3d0167d53fd00dd6208092b9408ebf909409d27a5057ce97.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cdc73b02a1bf1abd3d0167d53fd00dd6208092b9408ebf909409d27a5057ce97", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "87a9bd86f553ebed9b849d73ae35e3eb1f1fac1a8fc82bbc96dba2d04a3d4ddc", + "output_sha256": "509ad6a1c1d86016b6bb513ebd6abcfd42e6ece9238df49ed2a9cad05f46c345", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cde9fb95b1941c4ee318b5e5d772f3d11e5db51265137a7e84b63c916769f3ba.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cde9fb95b1941c4ee318b5e5d772f3d11e5db51265137a7e84b63c916769f3ba.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0a3dea24fe71a6e4ddbcb43c60404c73ba2c7876 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cde9fb95b1941c4ee318b5e5d772f3d11e5db51265137a7e84b63c916769f3ba.md @@ -0,0 +1,54 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/_ +IN RE: JANE DOES 1 AND 2, +Petitioners. +ORDER TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER +THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Petitioners' ore tenus motion seeking the +production of the Non-Prosecution Agreement between the United States Attorney's Office for the +Southern District of Florida ("USAO"') and Jeffrey Epstein (*Epstein"). After consideration of the +Motion, the arguments of the parties, and the record, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the +Petitioners' Motion is GRANTED. The USAO shall produce the Non-Prosecution Agreement, +including any modifications and addenda thereto, in accordance with the following procedures: +(a) +The USAO shall produce a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, +including any modifications and addenda thereto (collectively referred to as the "Agreement"), to +the attorneys for Petitioners. +(b) +Petitioners and their attorneys shall not disclose the Agreement or its terms +to any third party absent further court order, following notice to and an opportunity for Epstein's +counsel to be heard. +(c) +Before counsel for petitioners show the Agreement to their clients or discuss +the specific terms with them, they must provide a copy of this Order to petitioners, who must review +and acknowledge their receipt of, and agreement to abide by, the terms of the Order. Counsel for +petitioners must promptly provide a copy of that acknowledgment to the USAO. +(d) +If any individuals who have been identified by the USAO as victims of + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2008 Page 2 of 2 +Epstein and/or any attorney(s) for those individuals request the opportunity to review the +Agreement, then the USAO shall produce the Agreement to those individuals, so long as those +individuals also agree that they shall not disclose the Agreement or its terms to any third party +absent further court order, following notice to and an opportunity for Epstein's counsel to be heard +(e) +Prior to producing the documents to any other individuals who have been +identified by the USAO as victims of Epstein and/or any attorneys) for those individuals, a copy +of this Order must be provided to said individuals, who must review and acknowledge their receipt +of, and agreement to abide by, the terms of this Order. Counsel for petitioners must promptly +provide a copy of that acknowledgment to the USAO. +DONE and ORDERED in +in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, +this 21" day of August, 2008. +2 +KENNETH A. MARRA +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +Copies furnished to: all counsel of record +By signing below, I certify that I have reviewed and agree to be bound by the terms of this +Order. +Dated: +Signed by: +Printed Name: +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cde9fb95b1941c4ee318b5e5d772f3d11e5db51265137a7e84b63c916769f3ba.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cde9fb95b1941c4ee318b5e5d772f3d11e5db51265137a7e84b63c916769f3ba.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4fdcf413b25fa6b4a058bdecacacf5419ebae2d8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cde9fb95b1941c4ee318b5e5d772f3d11e5db51265137a7e84b63c916769f3ba.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cde9fb95b1941c4ee318b5e5d772f3d11e5db51265137a7e84b63c916769f3ba", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "efbe69d99aad2cb10f63bc6fbd75656956a32e9750372f8e2097f51e2bd823d4", + "output_sha256": "8471226052732fdbf8144c056bc5bb8de8dda09a793d043edf386e6d304b3c21", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce44ee6f5078e2970e16b8eb87d9ba6eb7361ee2acadfe2f900c851320b6cfa5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce44ee6f5078e2970e16b8eb87d9ba6eb7361ee2acadfe2f900c851320b6cfa5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6ff6f6ac815c0eb002f3a7543b1f7e431b295c78 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce44ee6f5078e2970e16b8eb87d9ba6eb7361ee2acadfe2f900c851320b6cfa5.md @@ -0,0 +1,156 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092, +PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 4 by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files this Response +to Defendant's Motion for Sanctions, and state as follows: +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") has the gall to file a pre-emptive Motion +for Sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel following Epstein's violation of this Court's No- +Contact Order (D.E. 305).' +2. +There is no basis in law or fact for sanctions against the Plaintiff. It is Epstein +who should be sanctioned by this Court as it was Epstein who violated the No-Contact Order and +an express agreement between counsel that Epstein would not attend Jane Doe No. 4's +'Plaintiff filed her own Motion for Sanctions against Jeffrey Epstein on the same date. (D.E. +306). It appears to be Defendant's belief that an award of sanctions should be based on a race to +the courthouse. Plaintiff submits that such motions should be decided on their merits and the +actual conduct of the parties. +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 2 of 6 +deposition, or even be seen by her at any time relative to her deposition. These were express +conditions agreed to by both parties for the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 to take place on +September 16, 2009. See Exhibit "A". Epstein violated this express agreement and condition to +the deposition, distressing and intimidating Jane Doe No. 4, and it is he who should be +sanctioned. +3. As set forth in Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions, Epstein's conduct of coming into +contact with Jane Doe No. 4 at a time and place where he knew or should have known he would +cross paths with Jane Doe No. 4, and then stopping to stare at and intimidate Jane Doe No. 4, is a +violation of this Court's No-Contact Order (D.E. 238). It is also a violation of the No-Contact +Order entered in the criminal case against Jeffrey Epstein. (D.E. 306, Exhibit B). These No- +Contact Orders were written in the broadest of terms, providing that Jeffrey Epstein shall have +neither direct nor indirect contact with any of his victims, including Jane Doe No. 4. Id. +4. +Nevertheless, at 1 p.m. on September 16, 2009, Jeffrey Epstein came into contact +with Jane Doe No. 4 and her counsel at the site of her deposition, and stood mere feet away from +the entrance to the ground-floor office where her deposition was going to be held. +5. +Jeffrey Epstein admits in his motion that he knew the time and location of Jane +Doe No. 4's deposition. His counsel even attaches the aforementioned stipulation of counsel +wherein it was agreed that Jane Doe No. 4's deposition would only go forward if Epstein would +not be seen by the Plaintiff. Yet, Epstein flagrantly violated this agreement by traversing the +lobby of the building, just feet away from where the deposition was being held at the precise +moment Plaintiff was likely to be arriving at her deposition. +6. +Epstein's version of events is even contradicted by the documents he chose to +attach to Defendant's Motion for Sanctions. Epstein describes a fortuitous meeting with Plaintiff +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 3 of 6 +at 1:04 p.m. (D.E. 305, Exhibit "4"). This is not only patently absurd, but it is contradicted by +Defendant's own filings. Counsel for the parties went on the record to announce the cancellation +of the deposition after the altercation in the lobby. According to the court reporter and even +defense counsel, the parties went on the record at 1:03 p.m. See Exhibit "B". Thus, Mr. +Epstein's version that the lobby incident occurred at 1:04 p.m. (when he thought he would not +see Plaintiff) is simply an impossibility? +7. +There is simply no basis for the imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff or her +counsel. Not only was there no bad faith, willful misconduct, or violation of a court order by +Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff did precisely what the parties agreed to before the deposition. The +parties agreed that she would only appear for deposition if she would not see Epstein. See +Exhibit "A". This condition was unambiguous. Id. It was Epstein - and not the Plaintiff -- who +chose to violate this stipulation and the No-Contact Orders.? Accordingly, there is no basis for +sanctions against Plaintiff. +8. +Jane Doe No. 4 was visibly shaken to the point of tears within seconds of being +stared at by Jeffrey Epstein. She began crying uncontrollably and was in no condition for an +otherwise emotional and difficult deposition. Sitting for her deposition at that moment was +simply not an option. Indeed, the likelihood of emotional distress is precisely the reason that the +" Moreover, following the incident in the lobby, Plaintiff's counsel attempted to console his +visibly distraught client. He then entered the deposition room to confer with all counsel as to +what had occurred. It was only after this brief discussion that Plaintiff's counsel went on the +record at 1:03 p.m. to announce the termination of the deposition based on the earlier event. +Accordingly, Plaintiff maintains that these incidents in the lobby occurred at approximately 1:00 +p.m. +3 Epstein attempts to excuse his behavior by arguing that he works in the office building where +the deposition was held. This is irrelevant. It does not vitiate the parties' stipulation or the No- +contact Order. Indeed, Epstein's familiarity with the ingresses and egresses of the office +building make his reckless interaction with Jane Doe No. 4 all the more egregious. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 4 of 6 +parties entered into the stipulation involving Epstein being unseen by Jane Doe No. 4 at her +deposition. +Defendant's proposal that Plaintiff re-sit for deposition in the next ten (10) days is +simply untenable. Plaintiff was wounded by her encounter with Epstein and sought counseling +that same evening. Before she re-appears for deposition, parameters must be in place to ensure +that Epstein does not appear at the deposition or otherwise violate the No-Contact Order. +Epstein is a felon and a registered sex offender. The Court should be reminded that he is a +dangerous felon, who is capable, according to numerous young women, of inflicting substantial +psychological damage. +Dated: September 23, 2009. +Respectfully submitted, +s/ Adam D. Horowitz +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 5 of 6 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on September 23, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via +transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized +manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic +Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009 Page 6 of 6 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +bedwards@rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +6 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce44ee6f5078e2970e16b8eb87d9ba6eb7361ee2acadfe2f900c851320b6cfa5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce44ee6f5078e2970e16b8eb87d9ba6eb7361ee2acadfe2f900c851320b6cfa5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0626f95aca42e1da193c031c222deea3f1b7b6da --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce44ee6f5078e2970e16b8eb87d9ba6eb7361ee2acadfe2f900c851320b6cfa5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ce44ee6f5078e2970e16b8eb87d9ba6eb7361ee2acadfe2f900c851320b6cfa5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "88bf2d66663958ff2ef1096009407dcf9bde4ddd25e28344226acb4664a3dbc0", + "output_sha256": "9d3ba4fbb2af1d15d2b68eaa1f79f6ba983934ebc0668ced589babe1da910c7b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce5605037b6cae5ccb51429a4b17009e0f438a65cb1c2b9e081b1a62e8e8894f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce5605037b6cae5ccb51429a4b17009e0f438a65cb1c2b9e081b1a62e8e8894f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3513f27cb1a5f7e59f54559210fa69ed1308de6b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce5605037b6cae5ccb51429a4b17009e0f438a65cb1c2b9e081b1a62e8e8894f.md @@ -0,0 +1,239 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 Page 1 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/ +IN RE: JANE DOE, +Petitioner. +FILED by_S D.C. +JUL 0 9 2008 +STEVEN US AST CT +5.D. OF FLA. - W.PE +GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO VICTIM'S EMERGENCY PETITION +FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CRIME VICTIM RIGHTS ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 +The United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Response +to Vietim's Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Victim Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, and +states: +THERE IS NO "COURT PROCEEDING" UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b) +Petitioner complains that she has been denied her rights under the Crime Victims Rights +Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. In the emergency petition filed by the victim, she alleges the Government +has denied her rights since she has received no consultation with the attorney for the government +regarding possible disposition of the charges (18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5)); no notice of'any public +court proceedings (18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2)); no information regarding her right to restitution (18 +U.S.C. § 3771(a)(6)); and no notice of rights under the Crime Victim Rights Act (CVRA). +Emergency Petition, 1 S. +The instant case is unique in several respects. First, in 2006, Jeffrey Epstein was charged +with felony solicitation of prostitution in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm +Beach County, Florida. This charge was based upon the offenses alleged in paragraph 1 of the +petition. Second, while Epstein has been under federal investigation, he has not been charged in +7/B + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 Page 2 of 8 +the Southern District of Florida. +Title 18, U.S.C., Section 3771(b)(1) provides in pertinent part that, "li]n any court +proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the crime +victim is afforded the rights described in subsection (a)." There is no "court proceeding" in the +instant case since Epstein has not been charged with violation of any federal statute. No federal +grand jury indictment has been returned, nor has any criminal information been filed. There can +thus be no failure of a right to notice of a public court proceeding or the right to restitution. +In her memorandum, petitioner relies upon In Re_ +, 527 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2008), +where the Fifth Circuit held that the CVRA required the government to "confer in some +reasonable way with the victims before ultimately exercising its broad discretion." Id. at 395. In +, the government sought and obtained an ex parte order permitting it to negotiate a plea +agreement with BP Products North America, without first consulting with the victims, +individuals injured and survivors of those killed in a refinery explosion. A plea agreement was +ultimately negotiated and the victims objected. The appellate court found that the CVRA granted +a right to confer. However, the court declined to grant mandamus relief for prudential reasons, +finding that the district court had the benefit of the views of the victims who chose to participate +at the hearing held on whether the plea agreement should be accepted. Id. at 396. +is legally distinguishable in several respects. For one thing, the court's discussion +of the scope of the right to confer was unnecessary because the court ultimately declined to issue +mandamus relief. +1, 527 F.3d at 395. Also, in offering its view that this right applies precharge, it is noteworthy that the court, in purporting to quote the statute, omitted the last three +words of section 3771(a)(5)("in the case"), words that arguably point in the opposite direction by +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 Page 3 of 8 +suggesting that the right applies post-charge. Further, the court went to great lengths to +emphasize that its holding was limited to the particular circumstances presented in that case (i.e., +the simultaneous filing of a plea agreement and formal charges), which of course, is not the case +here. No federal charges have been filed in the instant case, and this case, unlike +, involves +an agreement to defer federal prosecution in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida and not a +guilty plea. Id. at 394. Finally, the +court expressly declined to "speculate on the [right to +confer's] applicability to other situations." Id. Nothing in § 3771(a)(5) supports the petitioner's +claim that she had a right to be consulted before the Government could enter into a nonprosecution agreement which defers federal prosecution in exchange for state court resolution of +criminal liability, and a significant concession on an element of a claim for compensation under +18 U.S.C. § 2255. +II. +THE GOVERNMENT HAS USED ITS BEST EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH +18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) +The Epstein case was investigated initially by the Palm Beach Police Department in 2006. +Exhibit A, Declaration of Assistant United States Attorney A. +Villafaña, 91 2. +Subsequently, the Palm Beach Police Department sought the assistance of the Federal Bureau of +Investigation (FBI). Id. Throughout the investigation, when a victim was identified, victim +notification letters were provided to the victim by both the FBI Victim-Witness Specialist and +AUSA Villafaña. Id.. 1 3. Petitioner's counsel, Brad +, Esq., currently represents C.W., +T.M., and S.R. The U.S. Attorney's Office victim notification letter to C.W. was provided by the +FBl. and the letter to T.M. was hand-delivered by AUSA Villafaña to her when she was +interviewed in April 2007. FBI victim notification letters were mailed to C.W. and T.M. on +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 Page 4 of 8 +January 10, 2008, and to S.R. on May 30, 2008. Villafaña Decl., 1 3. +Throughout the investigation, AUSA Villafaña and the FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist +had contact with C.W. Villafaña Decl., 9 4. Earlier in the investigation, T.M. was represented by +James Eisenberg, Esq. Consequently, all contact with T.M. was made through Mr. Eisenberg. +In mid-2007, Epstein's attorneys approached the U.S. Attorney's Office in an effort to +resolve the federal investigation. Id., 1 5. At that time, Mr. Epstein had been charged by the +State of Florida with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes § 796.07. Mr. +Epstein's attorneys sought a global resolution of this matter. The United States subsequently +agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, so long as +certain basic preconditions were met. One of the key objectives for the Government was to +preserve a federal remedy for the young girls whom Epstein had sexually exploited. Thus, one +condition of that agreement, notice of which was provided to the victims on July 9, 2008, is the +following: +"Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an +offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, +will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she +would have had, if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and +convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of +implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. +Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared +to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by +Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, +including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if +any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the +parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they +would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No +more; no less." +The Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance (May 2005), Article +- 4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 Page 5 of 8 +IV, Services to Victims and Witnesses, provides the following guidance for proposed plea +agreements: +(3) Proposed Plea Agreements. Responsible officials should make reasonable +efforts to notify identified victims of, and consider victims' views about, +prospective plea negotiations. In determining what is reasonable, the responsible +official should consider factors relevant to the wisdom and practicality of giving +notice and considering views in the context of the particular case, including, but +not limited to, the following factors: +(a) The impact on public safety and risks to personal safety. +(b) The number of victims. +(c) Whether time is of the essence in negotiating or entering a proposed plea. +(d) Whether the proposed plea involves confidential information or conditions. +(e) Whether there is another need for confidentiality. +(f) Whether the victim is a possible witness in the case and the effect that relaying any +information may have on the defendant's right to a fair trial. +Throughout negotiations, Epstein's attorneys claimed that one reason victims came +forward and pressed their claims was their desire for money. They argued that victims might +have an inducement to fabricate or enhance their testimony, in order to maximize their +opportunities to obtain financial recompense. Villafaña Decl., 1 8. The Government was +extremely concerned that disclosure of the proposed terms would compromise the investigation +by providing Epstein the means of impeaching the victim witnesses, should the parties fail to +reach an agreement. In light of the fact (i) that the United States agreed to defer prosecution to a +previously filed state criminal case; (ii) that as a result sentencing would take place in state court +before a state judge; (iii) that if the state resolution failed to meet minimum standards such that a +federal prosecution was warranted, the victims would be witnesses and thus potential +- 5- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 Page 6 of 8 +impeachment issues were of concern; and (iv) the United States was already making efforts to +secure for victims the right to proceed federally under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 even if prosecution took +place in state court, the Government determined that its actions in proceeding with this +agreement best balanced the dual position of the Jane Does as both victims and potential +witnesses in a criminal proceeding. +On Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximately 4:15 p.m., AUSA Villafaña received a copy +of the proposed state plea agreement, and learned that Epstein's state plea hearing was scheduled +for Monday, June 30, 2008, at 8:30 a.m. Villafaña Decl., 9 10. AUSA Villafaña and the Palm +Beach Police Department attempted to provide notification to victims in the short time that they +had. Id. Although all known victims were not notified, AUSA Villafaña did call attorney +to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. AUSA Villafaña did this, even +though she had no obligation to provide notice of a state court hearing. Mr. +advised that +he could not attend but that someone would be present at the hearing. Id. +The Government has complied with 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1) by using its best efforts to +"see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a)." +Specifically, petitioner was afforded the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the +Government under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5). Disclosure of the specific terms of the negotiation +were not disclosed prior to a final agreement being reached because the Government believed +doing so would jeopardize and prejudice the prosecution in the event an agreement could not be +made. Further, although 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2) does not apply to state court proceedings, the +government nonetheless notified petitioner's counsel on June 27, 2008, of the plea hearing in +state court on June 30, 2008. +- 6- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 Page 7 of 8 +Section 3771(d)(6) provides, in relevant part, that "InJothing in this chapter shall be +construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his +direction." The Government exercised its judgment and discretion in determining that there was +a need for confidentiality in the negotiations with Epstein. The significant benefit of obtaining +Epstein's concession that victims suing him under 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a) were "victims" of the +enumerated offenses, despite the fact he has not been convicted in federal court, was of sufficient +importance to justify confidentiality of the negotiations. +III. THE GOVERNMENT'S DISCUSSIONS WITH T.M., C.W., AND S.R. +Attorney Brad +has advised the Government that he represents T.M., C. W., and +S.R. Victim letters were provided to all three individuals. The letters to C. W. and T.M. were +forwarded on January 10, 2008. Villafaña Decl., ° 3. On May 28, 2008, S.R.'s status as a victim +was confirmed when she was interviewed by federal agents. Id. The FBI Victim Witness +specialist sent her a letter on May 30, 2008. Id. +When the agreement was signed in September 2007, T.M. was openly hostile to a +prosecution of Epstein, and S.R. had refused to speak with federal investigators. Id., 17. While +individual victims were not consulted regarding the agreement, none of Mr. +clients +had expressed a desire to be consulted prior to the resolution of the federal investigation. Id. +In October 2007, C. W. was not represented by counsel. Id.. 18. She was given +telephonic notice of the agreement, as were three other victims. Id. These four individuals were +also given notice of an expected change of plea, in state court, in October 2007. +In mid-June 2008, Mr. +contacted AUSA Villafaña to advise that he represented +C. W. and S.R., and requested a meeting. Id., 99. AUSA Villafaña asked Mr. +to send +- 7- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2008 Page 8 of 8 +to her any information that he wished her to consider. Nothing was provided. Id. AUSA +Villafaña also told Mr. +he could contact the State Attorney's Office, if he wished. To +her knowledge, Mr. +did not make the contact. +The Government has acted reasonably in keeping T.M, C. W., and S.R. informed +Petitioner's rights under the CVRA have not been violated. Therefore, her emergency petition +should be denied. +Respectfully submitted, +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +By: +DEXTER A. LEE +Assistant U.S. Attorney +Fla. Bar No. 0936693 +99 N.E. 4" Street +Miami, Florida 33132 +(305) 961-9320 +Fax: (305) 530-7139 +E-mail: dexter.lee @usdoj.gov +Attorney for Respondent +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via facsimile +transmission and U.S. Mail, this day of July, 2008, to: Brad | +, Esq., The Law +Offices of Brad +& Associates, LLC, (954) 924-1530, 2028 +Street, Suite 202, +Hollywood, Florida 33020. +Villafor tor +DEXTER A. LEE +Assistant U.S. Attorney +- 8- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce5605037b6cae5ccb51429a4b17009e0f438a65cb1c2b9e081b1a62e8e8894f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce5605037b6cae5ccb51429a4b17009e0f438a65cb1c2b9e081b1a62e8e8894f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7606c5793b67f01a074c4c9b82f8d9556060dc4d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce5605037b6cae5ccb51429a4b17009e0f438a65cb1c2b9e081b1a62e8e8894f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -100, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ce5605037b6cae5ccb51429a4b17009e0f438a65cb1c2b9e081b1a62e8e8894f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 10, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "bd28b2ff508bd893f6729808d65985305b77ade23eea120f202642ba8a6a840a", + "output_sha256": "4564f2ab6948d7f1391f8c322baede6d4ee7444be0e4f1e9600fa852aa1ef908", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce66648a93b47b21837263902e4b970d7b2711ae308c12edfbdd498475b392d4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce66648a93b47b21837263902e4b970d7b2711ae308c12edfbdd498475b392d4.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f1cfa90ca4e32d3c6481841816ce9fbc2c72a94e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce66648a93b47b21837263902e4b970d7b2711ae308c12edfbdd498475b392d4.md @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 166-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRAJ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 166-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 2 of 4 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRAJ_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRAJ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 166-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 3 of 4 +JANE DOE NO. II, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +/ +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRAJ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +ORDER +THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's +Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Their Reply to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Under +Seal Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay or, in the Alternative, to Unseal the +Non-Prosecution Agreement. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 166-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 4 of 4 +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's +Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Their Reply to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Under +Seal Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay or, in the Alternative, to Unseal the +Non-Prosecution Agreement is hereby GRANTED, making their reply due June 30, 2009. +DONE AND ORDERED in +this +_ day of June, 2009. +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +Copies furnished: +All counsel of record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce66648a93b47b21837263902e4b970d7b2711ae308c12edfbdd498475b392d4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce66648a93b47b21837263902e4b970d7b2711ae308c12edfbdd498475b392d4.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a7eed6d17f9b262834c272a9671b88b484cacea3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce66648a93b47b21837263902e4b970d7b2711ae308c12edfbdd498475b392d4.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ce66648a93b47b21837263902e4b970d7b2711ae308c12edfbdd498475b392d4", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "18f03244b6c047a899a6043ee999a17033e64a367a00b8faf97c529c501bcf25", + "output_sha256": "ce1c6a869f9a9572da7b2a9147666a83982df364d853e80d44f0134184921653", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce70cc541f82d149ca785bdcfa74c99e319f9442975fa482fc52232d834cb4e9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce70cc541f82d149ca785bdcfa74c99e319f9442975fa482fc52232d834cb4e9.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e1e9a43fe1fd8aed424408114a2ce6e76228f529 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce70cc541f82d149ca785bdcfa74c99e319f9442975fa482fc52232d834cb4e9.md @@ -0,0 +1,167 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2009 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE I| +Plaintiff, +) CASE NO.:09-80469-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +and +Defendants. +/ +FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT +1. +Plaintiff, JANE DOE I, hereby sues JEFFREY EPSTEIN and +and states: +JURISDICTION AND VENUE +This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000, exclusive of interest, costs +and attorney's fees. +3. Venue is proper in this Court as all acts occurred in Palm Beach County and +all parties reside and/or do business herein. +PARTIES +4. +Ms. DOE Il is a natural person residing in Palm Beach County, Florida. During +the events giving rise to this claim, she was a minor but has now reached majority. She files +this suit under a pseudonym to protect her privacy because the acts alleged occurred while +she was a minor. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2009 Page 2 of 6 +5. +Defendant EPSTEIN is a natural person, who is an adult, and who resides +and/or does business in Palm Beach County, Florida, and who committed the acts alleged +within the jurisdiction of Palm Beach County, Florida, within the boundaries of the United +States District Court in and for the Southern District of Florida. Defendant +is a +natural person, who is an adult, believed to reside in the State of New York, but who +committed some of the acts alleged within the jurisdiction of Palm Beach County, Florida, +within the boundaries of the United States District Court in and for the Southern District of +Florida. +6. +Defendant EPSTEIN is believed to now reside in Palm Beach, Florida but +claims to be a resident of the U.S. Virgin Islands. +FACTS +7. +Defendant EPSTEIN was, at all times relevant to this action, a part time +resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. All acts complained of herein occurred at his estate +residence in the Town of Palm Beach, Florida. +8. +Defendant EPSTEIN has a history of enticing young women, who are minors +(under 18 years of age), and soliciting them to engage in prostitution for his own sexual +gratification. +Defendant EPSTEIN, in agreement with two (2) persons he employed for this +purpose, +and Defendant +conspired together, and/or with +unnamed others, to solicit young women of the type Defendant EPSTEIN preferred, blonde, +attractive in appearance, and younger than 18 years of age, to provide sexual gratification +for him by engaging in acts of prostitution. +10. +Defendants EPSTEIN and +entered into a criminal conspiracy to +solicit young women for acts of prostitution, including the Plaintiff. +2 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2009 Page 3 of 6 +11. From about June, 2003 until on or about February, 2005, Defendants +EPSTEIN and +persuaded, induced, or enticed the Plaintiff to come to Defendant +EPSTEIN's home and provide Defendant EPSTEIN with "massages" which escalated into +sexual encounters between Defendant EPSTEIN and the Plaintiff designed to fulfill his +unnatural sexual desires for young women or even younger girls who were minors. These +acts included Defendant EPSTEIN's request that he wanted the encounter to be like a +"porn video." Defendant EPSTEIN would script lines for the Plaintiff to say, including calling +out his name and requesting that he perform a certain sexual act "harder,"while he touched +the Plaintiff's vagina with a vibrator or with his fingers; alternately, he would masturbate in +the presence of the Plaintiff after demanding her to disrobe and walk in front of him in +provocative sexual poses. Defendant EPSTEIN would pay the Plaintiff a fee of $200 on +each occasion after he ejaculated while masturbating in the presence of the Plaintiff. +12. Defendant EPSTEIN touched Plaintiffs vagina, or penetrated Plaintiff's +vagina, using his fingers and/or a vibrator on multiple occasions, during the time that +Plaintiff was a minor, causing personal injury to her. +13. +Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 and in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) +Defendants EPSTEIN and +knowingly persuaded, induced, or enticed the Plaintiff +to engage in acts of prostitution, when the Plaintiff was under the age of 18, approximately +on or about the following dates that Plaintiff can document based on payments received: +6/16/03, 7/2/03, 4/9/04, 6/7/04, 7/30/04, 8/30/04, 10/9/04, 10/12/04, 10/30/04 and 11/9/04. +In addition, Plaintiff believes that there were as many as 10 to 20 other additional occasions +during this time frame that Defendant EPSTEIN solicited her and procured her to perform +prostitution services, all during the time that she was a minor. +3 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2009 Page 4 of 6 +14. +Defendants' manner of persuasion, inducement and/or enticement of the +Plaintiff to commit acts of prostitution was knowing and wilful. Defendants in committing the +above offenses did use a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly +persuade, induce or entice Doe Il and other minor females to engage in prostitution, and/or +a commercial sex act, and/or to commit a lewd or lascivious act and/or a sexual battery in +violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422 (b). The facility or means of +interstate and/or foreign commerce includes but is not limited to: telephone and cell phone +communications between Defendants, wherein Defendant EPSTEIN would solicit the +Plaintiff by and through Defendant +, who would, after speaking by telephone and +cell phone with Defendant EPSTEIN, solicit the Plaintiff by telephone and cell phone. +COUNT I: 18 U.S.C. §2255(a) vs. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN +15. Plaintiff brings this claim against Defendant EPSTEIN, and incorporates the +allegations set forth in 11 1-14 herein. +16. Plaintiff seeks damages for personal injury in accordance with 18 U.S.C. +§2255(a) for each of the acts of prostitution set forth above for which Defendant EPSTEIN +solicited the Plaintiff, in the amount of $150,000 for each violation, totaling between 10 and +30 separate occurrences, for a total range of damages between $1.5 million dollars (for 10 +specified violations) to $4.5 million dollars (for up to 30 specified and unspecified violations) +against Defendant EPSTEIN, and a reasonable attomey's fees and costs, as permitted by +the statute. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant EPSTEIN, a +reasonable attorney's fees, the costs of this action, and any other relief deemed just and +proper. +4 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2009 Page 5 of 6 +COUNT II: 18 U.S.C. §2255(a) vs. DEFENDANT +17. Plaintiff brings this claim against Defendant +, and incorporates the +allegations set forth in 19 1-14 herein. +18. +Plaintiff seeks damages for personal injury in accordance with 18 U.S.C. +§2255(a) for each of the acts of prostitution set forth above for which Defendant +conspired with Defendant EPSTEIN to solicited the Plaintiff, in the amount of $150,000 for +each violation, totaling between 10 and 30 separate occurrences, for a total range of +damages between $1.5 million dollars (for 10 specified violations) to $4.5 million dollars (for +up to 30 specified and unspecified violations) against Defendant +, and a reasonable +attorney's fees and costs, as permitted by the statute. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant +, a +reasonable attorney's fees, the costs of this action, and any other relief deemed just and +proper. +A TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE IS HEREBY DEMANDED. +Respectfully submitted, +BY:s/Isidro M. +ISIDRO M. +Florida Bar No. 437883 +| LAW FIRM, P.A. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Telephone: (561) 832-7732 +Telecopier: (561) 832-7137 +e-mail: isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +5 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2009 Page 6 of 6 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +THEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished VIA +CRITTON LUTTIER & COLEMAN +400, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 and to Bruce Reinhart, Esq., BRUCE REINHART, +P.A., Counsel for Defendant +_. 250 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 1400, West Palm +Beach, Florida 33401 this 2nd day of October, 2009. +BY:s/ Isidro M. +ISIDRO M. +6 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce70cc541f82d149ca785bdcfa74c99e319f9442975fa482fc52232d834cb4e9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce70cc541f82d149ca785bdcfa74c99e319f9442975fa482fc52232d834cb4e9.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..73f7653369657d417d8dbea7b5a30a1188fb5f55 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce70cc541f82d149ca785bdcfa74c99e319f9442975fa482fc52232d834cb4e9.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ce70cc541f82d149ca785bdcfa74c99e319f9442975fa482fc52232d834cb4e9", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "9ffc7f50884dfe9b21031499b40c503b732edade3ff0a00c2424ebdddbd67783", + "output_sha256": "423c1fce8272078b988d02919f52e97929fe2ea6c80e8f3505594b75a1d50aa6", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce7aa6a870e0149767983c18e668e2408499aee10d140814e4365d32796fbd1d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce7aa6a870e0149767983c18e668e2408499aee10d140814e4365d32796fbd1d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f635a32977daed11fa769f4883833d5de2406f34 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce7aa6a870e0149767983c18e668e2408499aee10d140814e4365d32796fbd1d.md @@ -0,0 +1,97 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 27-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 1 of 3 +Dep +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15™H +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM +BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +Case No: 502008CA37319XXXX MB AB +B.B., +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE UNDERSIGNED ATTORNEY WILL TAKE THE DEPOSITION OF: +NAME: +DATE AND TIME: +Jean Lue Bruhel +November 3, 2009 +LOCATION: +Esquire Court Reporters +10:00 AM +515 N. Flagler Drive +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +upon an oral examination before a Notary Public or officer authorized by law to take depositions in +the State of New York, The oral examination will continue from day to day until completed. The +depositions are being taken for purposes of discovery, for use at trial or are being taken for such +other purposes as are permitted under the Rules of the Court. +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Notice was mailed this +day of October, 2009 to: Jack A. Goldberger, Esq., 250 Australian Avenue, Suite 1400, West Palm +Beach, FL 334101; Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq., 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm +Beach, FL. 33401; Robert D. Critton, Jr., Michael J. Pike, 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West +Palm Beach, FL 33401. +LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +(561) 513-140 +(561) 515-140 +By:_ +Spencér // +Kuvin, Esq. +Florida Bar No: 089737 +CO. JE, DI + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 27-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 2 of 3 +Depe +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CIVIL DIVISION +L.M., +) +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 502008CA028051XXXXMB AD +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +) +NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attorney for Defendant in the above-styled +cause will take the deposition of Jean Luc Bruhnel on November 3, 2009 at 10:00 +a.m. for the purposes of discovery at the following location: +Esquire Court Reporters +515 N Flagler Dr +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-4321 +Said deposition will be taken before Esquire Court Reporters, a Notary Public or +any officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the State of Florida, and a +person who is neither a relative, nor employee, nor attorney, nor counsel of any of the +parties and who is neither a relative nor employee of such attorney or counsel, and who +is not financially interested in the action. +Said deposition will be taken pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure in such +cases provided. Said oral examination will continue from hour to hour and from day to +day until completed. +D + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 27-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 3 of 3 +Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AD +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served +via U.S. Mail and Facsimile this ZCk day of October, 2009 to: Michael Burman, Esq., & +Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esq., Burman, Critton, et al., 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, +West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Jay Howell, Esq., Jay Howell & Assoc., 644 Cesery +Boulevard, Suite 250, Jacksonville, FL 32211; and Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq., Atterbury +Goldberger et al., 250 Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +and a courtesy copy to Tama Kudman, Esq., 444 PGA Boulevard, Suite 600, West Palm +Beach, Florida 33410. +ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER +Attorneys for Plaintiff +401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 +Telephone (954) 522-3456 +Telecopier (954) 527-8663 +ERR +Florida Bar No. 542075 +bedwards@rra-law.com +William J. Berger +Florida Bar No. 197701 +wberger@rra-law.com diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce7aa6a870e0149767983c18e668e2408499aee10d140814e4365d32796fbd1d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce7aa6a870e0149767983c18e668e2408499aee10d140814e4365d32796fbd1d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..62d474f52f5ae6c5eab4878f61e1992258fef4f8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce7aa6a870e0149767983c18e668e2408499aee10d140814e4365d32796fbd1d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ce7aa6a870e0149767983c18e668e2408499aee10d140814e4365d32796fbd1d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "a736f923a1e322836a2cd0be830cbe51838ce47d76e4bc1975438b4ab92e5a3d", + "output_sha256": "38b57abb1987f74c42295541a548866e9930628d90af0273d3fcb84cf618549b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce7f2dccad3cbdd38a3cd50578663452cc85fce294c7eee8f6905196f817c8a0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce7f2dccad3cbdd38a3cd50578663452cc85fce294c7eee8f6905196f817c8a0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2e1b73647a1bcb230d6d6c3722cdffa7e8a5617c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce7f2dccad3cbdd38a3cd50578663452cc85fce294c7eee8f6905196f817c8a0.md @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 3 Filed 11/14/19 + +AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +for the +Southern District of New York +JANE DOE 1000 +Plaintiffs) +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, +in their capacities as the executors of the +ESTATE OF JEFFREY EDWARD EPSTEIN +Defendant(s) +Civil Action No. +) +SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION +To: (Defendant's name and address) Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn +c/o Bennet J. Moskowitz, attorney +875 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +A lawsuit has been filed against you. +Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you +are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. +P. 12 (a)(2) o (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of +the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney, +whose name and address are: Joshua Schiller +Boies Schiller Flexner LLP +55 Hudson Yards +New York, NY 10001 +(212) 446-2300 +jischiller@bsfllp.com +If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. +You also must file your answer or motion with the court. +CLERK OF COURT +Date: +Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk + + +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 3 Filed 11/14/19 Page 2 of 2 +AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2) +Civil Action No. +PROOF OF SERVICE +(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l)) +This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) +was received by me on (date) +• I personally served the summons on the individual at (place) +on (date) +; 0r +• I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name) +, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there, +on (date) +, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or +• I served the summons on (name of individual) +designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of'organization) +on (date) +; or +, who is +• I returned the summons unexecuted because +• Other (specify): +; or +My fees are S +for travel and S +for services, for a total of $ +0.00 +I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. +Date: +Server's signature +Printed name and title +Server's address +Additional information regarding attempted service, etc: diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce7f2dccad3cbdd38a3cd50578663452cc85fce294c7eee8f6905196f817c8a0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce7f2dccad3cbdd38a3cd50578663452cc85fce294c7eee8f6905196f817c8a0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..15b5edf1530a2de66d4003621026550c19402988 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce7f2dccad3cbdd38a3cd50578663452cc85fce294c7eee8f6905196f817c8a0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -35, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ce7f2dccad3cbdd38a3cd50578663452cc85fce294c7eee8f6905196f817c8a0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "a2dc4f263bebb21506e99adcf47969358024289c17ff567963226b546774a2e6", + "output_sha256": "797f4d8b6a27746c1a25530d9ecaf11242e489e2c4fb70a0d8ea0401405f58b3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce80aafab94b31e78871dd938ad1b62685e958fe1504e13d7909e4cb241a8ffd.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce80aafab94b31e78871dd938ad1b62685e958fe1504e13d7909e4cb241a8ffd.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..98211f67259bce4999c8ebfa061605f4685e9fff --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce80aafab94b31e78871dd938ad1b62685e958fe1504e13d7909e4cb241a8ffd.md @@ -0,0 +1,233 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 307-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 1 of 4 +SBP 00127768 +AO SBA (Rev. 01/09) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition or to Produce Documents in a Civil Action +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +for the +Southern District of Florida +Jane Doe +Plaimig +V. +Jeffrey Epstein +Defendians: +Civil Action Nio. O8-CIV-MARRAJOHNSON +(If the action is pending in another district, state where: +SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION +OR TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS IN A CIVIL ACTION +To: Records Custodian, Bear Steams, 245 Park Avenue, New York, NY +• Testimony: YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at a +deposition to be taken in this civil action. If you are an organization that is not a party in this case, you must designate +one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on your behalf +about the following matters, or those set forth in an attachment: +Place: Esquire Court Reporters, One Penn Plaza, Suite 4715 +New York, NY +Date and Time: +09/22/2009 9:00 am +The deposition will be recorded by this method: +Legal Papers Served +TieNT YOrKT +• Production: You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents, +electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the +material: +AUG Z 0 ZUUS +See Schedule "A" attached to this Suboena. +D] Inter-office Mail +O Certified Mail +• Federal Express +ScHland Delivery +• Fax O U.S. Mail +Reviewed by: +20 lir +The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rule +45 (d) and (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, are +Da: 9/18/9 +CLERK OF COURT +Signature of Clerk or Depriy Clerk +Attorney's signature +The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) +., who issues or requests this subpoena, are: +Brad +Esq., Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, Sutie 1650, 401 East Las Olas Bivd. Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301. +Bedwards@rra-law.com. (954) 522 3456. +"A" + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM • Document 307-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 2 of 4 +AO S8A (Rev. 01/09) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition or to Produce Documents in a Civil Action (Page 2) +Civil Action No. OB-CIV-MARRAJOHNSON +PROOF OF SERVICE +(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.) +This subpoena for (name of individe and ittle, (fany) +was received by me on (date) +• 1 personally served the subpoena on the individual at (place) +On (date) +; or +• 1 left the subpoena at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name) +, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there, +on (date) +"and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or +O I served the subpoena on (maine of individual) +, who is +designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) +On (date) +; or +• I returned the subpoena unexecuted because +D. Other (specify): +; or +Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also +tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of +My fees are $ +for travel and $ +for services, for a total of$ +0.00 +I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. +Date: +Server's signature +Printed name and title +Server's address +Additional information regarding attempted service, etc: + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 307-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 3 of 4 +AO 8BA (Rev. 01/09) Subpoono to Testify at a Deposition or to Produce Documents in a Civil Action (Page 3) +Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), and (e) (Iffective 12/1/07) +(c) Protecting = Person Subject to a Subpoena. +(d) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena. +(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or +(1) Producing Decuments or Blectronically Stored Information. +attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take +These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically +reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a +stored information: +person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this +(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce +duty and impose an appropriate sariction — which may include lost +documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary +earnings and reasonable attorney's fees - on a party or attomey +course of business or must organize and labei them to correspond to +who fails to comply. +the categories in the demand. +(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. +(B) Form Jor Producing Electronically Stored Information Not +(A) Appearance Nor Required, A person commanded to produce +Specified. If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing +documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or +electronically stored information, the person responding must +to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the +produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or +place of production or inspuction unless also commanded to appear +in a reasonably usable form or forms. +for a deposition, hearing, or trial. +(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One +(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or +Fonn. The person responding need not produce the same +tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or +electronically stored information in more than one form. +attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to +(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person +inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or +responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored +to inspecting the premises — or lo producing electronically stored +information from sources that the persoo identifies as not reasonably +information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be +accessible becanse of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel +served before the carlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 +discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show +days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the +that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue +following rules apply: +burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless +(l) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving +order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows +party may move the issuing court for an order compelling production +good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The +or inspection. +court may specify conditions for the discovery. +(il) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and +(2) Claiming Privlege or Proteciion. +the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's +(A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed +officer from significant expense resulting from compliance. +information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to +(3) Quashing or Modifying & Subpoens. +protection as trial-preparation material must: +(A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must +(i) expressly make the claim; and +quash or modify a subpoena that: +(il) describe the nature of the withheld documents, +(l) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; +communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without +(i) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer +revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the +to travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is +parties to assess the claim. +employed, or regularly transacts business in person - except that, +(B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a +subject to Rule 45(c)(3)B)(iil), the person may be commanded to +subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trialaltend a trial. by traveling from any such place within the state where +preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any +the trial is held; +party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. +(ill) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if +After being notified, a party must promptly retum, sequester, or +no exception or waiver applies; or +destroy the specified information and any copies it bas; must not usc +(iv) subjects a person to undue burden. +or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take +reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it +a subpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the +before being notified; and may prompily present the information to +subpoena if it requires: +the court under scal for a determination of the claim. The person +(1) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential rescarch, +who produced the information must preserve the information until +development, or commercial information; +the claim is resolved. +(il) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that +does not describe specific oocurrences in dispute and results from +the expert's study that was not requested by a party; or +(Il) a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to incur +substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial. +(C) Specifying Conditions as an diternative. In the circumstances +(e) Contempt. The issuing court may hold in contempt a person +who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the +subpoena. A nonparty's failure to obey must be excused if the +subpoena purports to require the nonparty to attend or produce at a +place outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii). +described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or +modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under +specified conditions if the serving party: +(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that +cannot be otherwise met without undee hardship; and +(il) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably +compensated. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 307-1 1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17|2009 | + +SCHEDULE "A" +THIS SUBPOENA ENCOMPASSES ALL RECORDS, INFORMATION, DOCUMENTS, +OR MATERIAL THAT IN ANY WAY RELATES TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN, AND IS IN NO +WAY LIMITED BY THE SPECIFIC REQUESTS DELINEATED IN 1-3 BELOW, AND +BEAR STEARS HAS A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO TURN OVER ALL. JEFFREY +EPSTEIN RELATED MATERIALS IN RESPONSE TO THIS SUBPOENA. +The complete Personnel File of Jeffrey Epstein, including all correspondence to and +from Mr. Epstein and/or any third parties, employment application, references, +recommendations, warnings, reports, incident reports, and all other documentation +for the entire time Mr. Epstein began any relationship whatsoever with Bear Stears +through the present (2009). +The complete file of Mr. Epstein's business and/or individual accounts and/or +institutions for which Mr. Epstein was responsible or affiliated from the beginning of +Mir. Epstein's employment relationship with Bear Stearns through the present +(2009). +3. +A complete list of the person(s) with the most knowledge from Bear Stearns of: +a. the hiring of Jeffrey Epstein by Bear Stearns; +b. the employment of Jeffrey Epstein by Bear Steams; +c. the departure of Epstein from employment with Bear Steams Bear +Stears +d. Jeffrey Epstein's relationship with Bear Steams subsequent to his +departure as an employee of Bear Stears; and +e. Jeffrey Epstein's his role as it relates to the prosecution of Bear Stearns +employees or executives. +3 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce80aafab94b31e78871dd938ad1b62685e958fe1504e13d7909e4cb241a8ffd.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce80aafab94b31e78871dd938ad1b62685e958fe1504e13d7909e4cb241a8ffd.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f4d48f9af8667bbeb7c85429b44e218ad1754fd9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/ce80aafab94b31e78871dd938ad1b62685e958fe1504e13d7909e4cb241a8ffd.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -61, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "ce80aafab94b31e78871dd938ad1b62685e958fe1504e13d7909e4cb241a8ffd", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "95baebd889c713ca34153f7268edf5715507ba93e4b55139b7c45993d2723c94", + "output_sha256": "2c23b8d9ba5ad8d79243c73959db5d461fc9ed72279e7233e9f655ce726bfe5a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cea420c3b28728461ec469c73581dd78a5fa5f2f00b7e14611f6d5c06d64c905.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cea420c3b28728461ec469c73581dd78a5fa5f2f00b7e14611f6d5c06d64c905.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2342a7f72f5792e3934505f21b969ddf48bfeb14 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cea420c3b28728461ec469c73581dd78a5fa5f2f00b7e14611f6d5c06d64c905.md @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/06/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO RESPOND +TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES +AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Epstein") by and through his +undersigned attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time in which to +respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories And Production of +Documents, dated March 2, 2009. Local General Rule 7.1 A.1 and Rule 6, Fed. R. Civ. +P. (2009). Defendant seeks an extension until March 25, 2009, to file his response. As +good cause in support of granting the motion, Defendant states: +1. Defendant's response to the motion to compel would be due on March 16, 2009 +(10 days to respond, not including weekends). As certified below, Plaintiff's counsel is +in agreement with the requested extension of March 25, 2009. +2. Plaintiff's counsel also represents other Plaintiffs pursuing claims against +Defendant, EPSTEIN. A total of four of the Plaintiffs have also filed motions to compel +bearing the same dates. In order to fully and adequately respond to this and the other +motions, Defendant is in need of an extension until March 25, 2009. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/06/2009 Page 2 of 4 +Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein +Page 2 +3. In addition to the multiple motions to compel, good cause for the extension also +includes that counsel has been attempting to resolve discovery issues in this and other +cases against Defendant, EPSTEIN; an associate of Defendant's undersigned counsel +who works extensively on this case was out of the office for two weeks during the month +February caring for two of her children who had the flu, and the associate herself also +caught the flu; Defendant's counsel is also in the midst of preparing for two state court +trials - one on a March trial docket and the other specially set in mid-May, (OLD +MARSH GOLF CLUB, INC. v. OLD MARSH PARTNERS, et al, Case No. 50 +2006CA001667XXXXMBAD - set on trial docket beginning March 16, 2009; +CARDIOPULMONARY & PRIMARY CARE ASSOC. OF TREASURE COAST, P.A v. +, M.D., Case No. 562008CA001726, specially set for trial beginning May 13 +through 15, 2009). Discovery in both of these cases is ongoing with several depositions +set to prepare for trial. +4. The requested extension is fair in reasonable under the circumstances as it will +provide time to allow the Defendant, EPSTEIN, to fully and adequately respond to this +and the other motions to compel. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court enter an order granting the +Defendant an extension until March 25, 2009, in which to respond to Plaintiff's Motion to +Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of documents. +Local Rule 7.1 Certification +Counsel for the movant conferred by telephone with counsel for the Plaintiff and +Counsel for Plaintiff is in agreement with the requested extension until March 25, 2009 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 66 +Entered on FLSD Docket 03/06/2009 Page 3 of 4 +Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein +Page 3 +for Defendant to respond to the motion to compel. +Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Attorney for Defendant Epstein +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the +manner specified by CM/ECF on this 0- +day of March, 2009: +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #4 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +ROBERT D/CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/06/2009 Page 4 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA| +JANE DOE NO. 4, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO +RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO +INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS +This matter came before the Court on Defendant's, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Motion +For Extension of Time in Which to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to +Interrogatories and Production of Documents. Having considered Defendant's motion +and Plaintiff's counsel being in agreement with the requested extension, it is HEREBY +ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: +Defendant's motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff's Motion +to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents on or before March +25,2009. +DONE and ORDERED this +_day of +-. 2009. +Kenneth A. Marra +United States District Judge +Courtesy Copies: +Counsel of Record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cea420c3b28728461ec469c73581dd78a5fa5f2f00b7e14611f6d5c06d64c905.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cea420c3b28728461ec469c73581dd78a5fa5f2f00b7e14611f6d5c06d64c905.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4c0ca2c83ca0b19d4a8a7ae163022fcb375536bf --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cea420c3b28728461ec469c73581dd78a5fa5f2f00b7e14611f6d5c06d64c905.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cea420c3b28728461ec469c73581dd78a5fa5f2f00b7e14611f6d5c06d64c905", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4cbf9336abe3eeda9d68e730449ac820b9404d4d77935253c9e537a395d8d3ab", + "output_sha256": "801517acc6f5b72b26061ed862e880e66e0ae8c8fbeb36ee12adef58ab676a4b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cea6924a7d96d39b4c870cdd803320a1e5d52cc9366ce45cc0f00987ac8dd0de.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cea6924a7d96d39b4c870cdd803320a1e5d52cc9366ce45cc0f00987ac8dd0de.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a75f6e6d44425620f896f3bbc78e4868e8c9349d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cea6924a7d96d39b4c870cdd803320a1e5d52cc9366ce45cc0f00987ac8dd0de.md @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 84 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2009 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA| +JANE DOE NO. 4, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +Defendant's Amended Motion For Extension Of Time In Which To Respond To +Plaintiff's Motion For Protective Against Piecemeal Depositions Of Jane Doe. +No.4, Motion To Consolidate Cases For Purposes Of Discovery And Incorporated +Memorandum Of Law +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Epstein") by and through his +undersigned attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time in which to +respond to Plaintiff's Motion For Protective Against Piecemeal Depositions Of Jane +Doe. No.4, Motion To Consolidate Cases For Purposes Of Discovery And Incorporated +Memorandum Of Law("Motion"). Local General Rule 7.1 A.1 and Rule 6, Fed. R. Civ. P. +(2009). Defendant seeks an extension until April 24, 2009 to file his response. As good +cause in support of granting the motion, Defendant states: +1. Defendant's response to the Motion is due on or about April 6, 2009, and an +extension was given to April 13, 2009. +2. Plaintiff's counsel also represents five (5) other Plaintiffs pursuing claims against +Defendant, EPSTEIN, most of which have filed similar Motions. In order to fully and +adequately respond to this and the other motions, Defendant is in need of an extension +until April 24, 2009. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 84 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2009 Page 2 of 3 +Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein +Page 2 +3. In addition to the multiple motions, good cause for the extension also includes +that counsel has been attempting to resolve discovery issues in this and other cases +against Defendant, EPSTEIN; an associate of Defendant's undersigned counsel who +works extensively on this case is currently out of the office and the undersigned was +working on and has filed between 12-15 motions and responses in the various cases +during the time these motions were filed. +4. The requested extension is fair and reasonable under the circumstances as it will +provide time to allow the Defendant, EPSTEIN, to fully and adequately respond to this +and the other motions. In addition, this action is still at its early stages. +5. As certified below, counsel for Defendant conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, and +Plaintiff's counsel is in agreement with the requested extension. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court enter an order granting an +Defendant an extension until April 24, 2009, in which to respond to the Above Motion. +Local Rule 7.1 Statement +Counsel for the movant conferred by telephone with counsel for the Plaintiff and +Counsel for Plaintiff is in agreement with the requested extension until April 24, 2009 for +Defendant to respond to the Motion. +By: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 84 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2009 Page 3 of 3 +Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein +Page 3 +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the +manner specified by CMECF on this to day of lege +_, 2009: +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1400 +Suite 2218 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +Miami, FL 33160 +561-659-8300 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #4 +Respectfuty subrated, +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESO. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cea6924a7d96d39b4c870cdd803320a1e5d52cc9366ce45cc0f00987ac8dd0de.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cea6924a7d96d39b4c870cdd803320a1e5d52cc9366ce45cc0f00987ac8dd0de.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6b62adc8c227a9ff129c64c16a2e8fac3da8cc97 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cea6924a7d96d39b4c870cdd803320a1e5d52cc9366ce45cc0f00987ac8dd0de.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cea6924a7d96d39b4c870cdd803320a1e5d52cc9366ce45cc0f00987ac8dd0de", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "1f2fe542633da0fee66273cd4a482245de0864add4a0470b4f65627274e6905e", + "output_sha256": "c0be03d92e2559e64ef43d63674c36385583d492be29b93deb0119d48a0715b1", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf16cc339d83819fb2297a7bbcb30ee261bd6f68199b997a8adef3402e80f847.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf16cc339d83819fb2297a7bbcb30ee261bd6f68199b997a8adef3402e80f847.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0f596a745372e9e65c9c8f4ea5dbc45ee36eddff --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf16cc339d83819fb2297a7bbcb30ee261bd6f68199b997a8adef3402e80f847.md @@ -0,0 +1,245 @@ +* Filing # 112002684 E-Filed 08/18/2020 03:46:04 PM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Defendants. +COPY® +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +DEFENDANT DAVE ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY FINAL JUDGMENT +AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT THEREOF +Defendant +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, +(hereinafter "Aronberg"), by and through counsel below and pursuant to Rule 1.510 Florida Rules of +Civil Procedure, moves for entry of summary final judgment in his favor as to the remaining claim for +Declaratory Relief in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint', and in support thereof states as follows: +STATEMENT OF THE UNDISPUTED FACTS +The following is a statement of facts material to this motion for summary judgment as to which +there is no genuine issue: +i. +Count I of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, (hereinafter "Complaint"), filed +January 17, 2020, seeks Declaratory Relief pursuant to Section 86.011, Florida Statutes. +Specifically, Plaintiff's Count I seeks a court order "declaring that pursuant to Fla. Stat. +Section 905.27(1)(c) and the Court's inherent authority, The Palm Beach Post may gain access to the +testimony, minutes, and other evidence presented in 2006 to the Palm Beach County grand jury" that +'On June 8, 2020, this Court entered its Order Granting Defendants Motion to Dismiss Count II of the Plaintiff's First +Amended Complaint with Prejudice. +Party JOINT +ID#J19 EV#J19 +DATE ADMITTED: 9/6/2022 +Case No. 2019-CA-014681 +CA/Aronter@ODOZEVI BEACH COUNTY, FL, KEELURERUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 3:44:22 PM +Joint Exhibit +J19 + + +was empaneled during the first Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Epstein"), sex abuse investigation, +(hereinafter "Requested Materials"). Complaint pg. 20 +3. +Pláintiff seeks to use the Requested Matérials "for the purpose of informing the public." +ld. +4. +Plaintiff seeks the above-referenced declaratory relief, including copies of the +Requested Materials, from both Aronberg, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, and +Defendant, Sharon R. Bock, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida, (hereinafter the +"Clerk"). +5. +Neither Aronberg nor the Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, +("SAO"), is in control, custody, or possession of the Requested Materials. Aronberg Aff. 91 3, attached +as Exhibit "A". +6. +The declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff seeks materials that are impossible for +Aronberg or the SAO to produce. Exhibit "A" 14. +Neither Aronberg nor the SAO has the legal authority to obtain and/or deliver the +Requested Materials, Exhibit "A" 1 5, +The undisputed facts set forth above in paragraphs 6-7 have been repeatedly made +evident by Aronberg to the Plaintiff and the public through not only the pleadings and correspondence +in this matter, but also through an office press release and Aronberg's public social media accounts. + +9. +Neither Aronberg nor the SAO has the authority to demand that the Clerk grant the +SAO access to grand jury materials after a criminal case has concluded. Exhibit "A" 9 7. +10. +During Aronberg's administration, neither he nor his office has accessed grand jury +materials from the Clerk's office in this or any other instance. Exhibit "A"98. +2. +CA/Aronberg 000252 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +: +11. +As provided in section 905.17(I), Florida Statutes (2020), the Clerk has sole custody +and possession of the Requested Materials, which can only be released by the Clerk pursuant to an +order of the Court. Exhibit "A" 19. +I. +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Legal Standard Governing Motions For Summary Judgment +"The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to +interrogatories, and admissions on file together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine +issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Rule +1.510, Fla. R. Civ. P. It is appropriate to resolve a declaratory action on summary judgment when, as +here, the decree seeks a legal interpretation of a statute. Rahimi v. Global Discoveries, Ltd., LLC, 252 +So. 3d 804 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). +IL. +The Requested Materials Can Only Be Released By The Clerk Pursuant To A Court +Order +Notably, neither Aronberg nor the SAO is in control, custody, or possession of the Requested +Materials. Exhibit "A" 11 3. Nonetheless, pursuant to Section 905.27(1)(c), Florida Statutes and the +Court's inherent authority, Plaintiff seeks a court order declaring that Aronberg provide copies of the +Requested Materials to The Palm Beach Post for the purpose of informing the public. Complaint pg. +20-21. Plaintiff is seeking declaratory relief alleging its entitlement to the Requested Materials +pursuant to the "furthering justice" exception to grand jury secrecy. § 905.27, Fla. Stat. (2020). +Despite bringing its declaratory relief claim pursuant to Section 905.27, Florida Statutes, "a +single part of a statute should not be read in isolation." Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Loftus, 276 +So. 3d 849, 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). 'Instead, 'all parts of a statute must be read together in örder to +achieve a consistent whole,"" Id. (quoting Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., +604 So. 2d 452, 455 (Fla. 1992). +3 +CA/Arohberg 000258 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +f +Section 905,17(1), Florida Statutes makes clear that grand jury records, like the Requested +Materials in this matter, are to be maintained with the Clerk, and can only be released by the Clerk +pursuant to a court order. To wit: +The stenographic records, notes, and transcriptions made by the court reporter or +stenographer shall be filed with the clerk who shall keep them in a sealed container not +by the grand jury or on order of the court pursuant to s. 905.27. +Section 905.17(1), Florida Statutes (2020). (Emphasis added.) +Text, context, and purpose are the ordinary tools used for discerning statutory meaning, with +the overarching principle being "that judges lack the power to construe an unambiguous statute in a +way which would extend, modify, or limit its express terms of its reasonable and obvious implications. +To do so would be an abrogation of legislative power." Id. Here, the plain language of section 905.17 +is clear and unambiguous and, therefore, controls. See. Horówitz v. Plantation Gen. Hosp. Ltd. P'ship, +959 So. 2d 176, 182 (Fla. 2007). +Accordingly, based on the clear, unambiguous statutory language set forth in section 905.17(1), +only the Clerk, not the State Aftorney, may release grand jury materials pursuant to an order of the +court. Thus, it is apparent that Aronberg and the SAO lack the legal authority to obtain and deliver the +Requested Materials. Exhibit "A" 9 5. Likewise, the declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff seeks +materials that are impossible for Aronberg or the SAO to produce. Exhibit "A" * 4. Again, the Clerk +has sole custody and possession of the Requested Materials. These facts have been repeatedly made +evident by Aronberg to the Plaintiff and the public through not only the pleadings and correspondence +in this matter, but also through an office press release and Aronberg's public social media accounts. +Exhibit "A" 9| 6. +Although the aboye-referenced statutory authority illuminates the fact that only the Clerk may +release grand jury records like the Requested Materials herein, it remains significant to note that neither +4 +CA/Aronber@0D0254 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +• +Aronberg nor the SAO has the authority to demand thạt the Clerk grant the SAO access to grand jury +materials after a criminal case has concluded. Exhibit "A" 1 7. Hence, during Aronberg's +administration, neither he nor his office has accessed grand jury materials from the Clerk's office in +this or any other instance. Exhibit "A 18. +III. Conclusion +The ultimate facts underlying the lawsuit are not in dispute. The Court is fully empowered to +dispose of this matter based on application of the undisputed facts to the plain language of Section +905.17, Florida Statutes, which renders the Plaintiff's action for declaratory relief an impossibility for +Aronberg to perform and that must be denied as a matter of law. +WHEREFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, +Florida, respectfully requests that this motion be granted and that summary final judgment be entered +in his favor consistent with this motion, and hereby respectfully requests that this Court dismiss the +Complaint with prejudice and grant such other relief, including attorney's fees and costs, as this Court +deems fit and proper under the circumstances. +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 18th day of August, 2020, a copy of the foregoing has been +electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e +parties of record herein. +HOLZ & WYLER, LLC +/s/ Douglas A. Wyler +Arthur I. I +_ Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 10249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-1 +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +Primary: iacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net +5 +CA/Aronberge m +A BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +General Counsel for the Florida Prosecuting +Attorney's Association +NOT A CERTIFIED COPY +6 +CA/Aronber@0D025A BEACH COUNTY, FL, M +• ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 3:44:22 PM + + + +NOT A CERTIFIED COPY + +CA/AronbergODO25MI BEACH COUNTY, FL, M + + +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida. +Defendants. +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID ARONBERG +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +Before me, the undersigned authority personally appeared DAVID ARONBERG, being first duly sworn,. +states: +1. +My name is David (Dave) Aronberg, and I am the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial +Circuit/Palm Beach County, Florida, since 2013, and a Defendant in the above-captioned matter.. +2. - Plaintiff is seeking declaratory relief, pursuant to Fla. Stat. 905.21(1)(c) and the Court's +inherent authority, allowing Plaintiff access to the testimony, minutes, and other evidence presented in 2006 +to thẹ Palm Beach County grand jury, (the "Requested Materials"), and to use those materials for the +purpose of informing the public, +Despite Plaintiff's above-described action for declaratory relief, neither myself nor the +Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, ("SAO"), is in control, custody, or possession +of the Requested Materials. +4. +As such, the declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff seeks materials that are impossible +for me or my office to produce. +5. +To be clear, neither myself nor the SAO has the legal authority to obtain and deliver the +Requested Materials. +6. +I have repeatedly made these facts evident to the Plaintiff and the public through not only +the pleadings and correspondence in this matter, but also through an office press release and my public +social media accounts.-. +CA Arokberg 080258 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +7. . +Despite the contentions of Plaintiff, neither myself nor the SAO has the authority to +demand that the Clerk grant the SAO access to grand jury materials after a criminal case has concluded. +8. +Moreover, during my administration, neither myself nor my office has accessed grand jury +materials from the Clerk's office in this or any other instance. +9. As provided in section 905.17(1), Florida Statutes (2020), the Clerk has sole custody and +possession of the Requested Materials, which can only be released by the Clerk pursuant to an order of the +Court. +FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. +By: +@COf +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +Sworn 1p and subscribed before me this 30 day of July, 2020, by DAVID ARONBERG, who is +personally known to me or has shown +as personal identification. +Notary's Stamp or Seal +LATOSHA LOWE-GOODE +Coromission EGG 957813 +Expiras May 24, 2024 +handed The Boder Matery bende +NOT A +CAAronberg 000259 BEACH COUNTY, FL, LI \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf16cc339d83819fb2297a7bbcb30ee261bd6f68199b997a8adef3402e80f847.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf16cc339d83819fb2297a7bbcb30ee261bd6f68199b997a8adef3402e80f847.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1478c0e7a9b2e344e4702ff32989fa7d08c80a53 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf16cc339d83819fb2297a7bbcb30ee261bd6f68199b997a8adef3402e80f847.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -405, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cf16cc339d83819fb2297a7bbcb30ee261bd6f68199b997a8adef3402e80f847", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 13, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f0f51ab9e4eefa3eb6c61215d94110c3ee7359499b024da3343ab7c2d7c7a323", + "output_sha256": "b4b113b68a09ebef6e21ea7796a1ba8fbfe80e0355ab7940cba27cfe9bf620e5", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf17daf9762e5e65e3933073cec24ef7bff5bbfd0519f7fd21adc33158889f2a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf17daf9762e5e65e3933073cec24ef7bff5bbfd0519f7fd21adc33158889f2a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a4d06afaa763c0bca95af48f110f340bdb9c453a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf17daf9762e5e65e3933073cec24ef7bff5bbfd0519f7fd21adc33158889f2a.md @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 103 Filed 03/22/21 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +--X +JANE DOE, +3/22/2021 +Plaintiff, +-against- +20 CIVIL 484 (JGK) +JUDGMENT +DARREN K. INDYKE, RICHARD D. KAHN, +AND GHISLAINE MAXWELL, +Defendants. +It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons +stated in the Court's Order dated March 19, 2021, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for +dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. +Judgment is hereby entered; accordingly, this case is closed. +Dated: New York, New York +March 22, 2021 +BY: +RUBY J. KRAJICK +Clerk of Court +kmango +Deputy Clerk diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf17daf9762e5e65e3933073cec24ef7bff5bbfd0519f7fd21adc33158889f2a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf17daf9762e5e65e3933073cec24ef7bff5bbfd0519f7fd21adc33158889f2a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2e6e08e4e3a71cb08bf9d1c2ef328a185eef53b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf17daf9762e5e65e3933073cec24ef7bff5bbfd0519f7fd21adc33158889f2a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cf17daf9762e5e65e3933073cec24ef7bff5bbfd0519f7fd21adc33158889f2a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ee4e8b028c7419c15811e1d51e0f99e4148cbd140623564c831905a16e277415", + "output_sha256": "354720b97757fe1c918cc74ff6ea024d1f64e1ef6d0561b83a3cf133cb9b7e5a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf2518abb447cd77f0ff403ca451ce5dd718a318abb5642ecaaab105e03c78c1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf2518abb447cd77f0ff403ca451ce5dd718a318abb5642ecaaab105e03c78c1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd3a1684a19e77b66b488035c9e8e722f9645e8c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf2518abb447cd77f0ff403ca451ce5dd718a318abb5642ecaaab105e03c78c1.md @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 143 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2010 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA- +JANE DOE NO. 3, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +/ +NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, in the above-styled cases hereby files his Notice of +Withdrawal. Plaintiff, JANE DOE 3 is in agreement with this Notice. In support thereof: +1. The parties have reached a settlement in this matter. +2. As a result, the following docket entry is hereby moot. +a. DE 141, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment +By: /s/ Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Florida Bar No. 224162 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 143 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2010 Page 2 of 2 +Jane Doe No. 3 v. Epstein +Page 2 +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by +CM/ECF on this 11" day of June, 2010: +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #3 +Jack Alan Goldberger +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +By: Is/ Robert D. Critton, Jr. +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf2518abb447cd77f0ff403ca451ce5dd718a318abb5642ecaaab105e03c78c1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf2518abb447cd77f0ff403ca451ce5dd718a318abb5642ecaaab105e03c78c1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3d52a338dab753f09fa2b159257276bf2abae24d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf2518abb447cd77f0ff403ca451ce5dd718a318abb5642ecaaab105e03c78c1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cf2518abb447cd77f0ff403ca451ce5dd718a318abb5642ecaaab105e03c78c1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "536b0c26b0a0c01654491231c7585b4ec63488f1ad20533f51f6e7af5b4d5405", + "output_sha256": "58cbd484ce287d9e7e88e3efe8b3b59ea938393d8703a03a55ee0bc24e57fa70", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf6db5c0a2bd2a66ef3afe4d239c8c0619527ff0d14ef7ab6f8e1af509790382.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf6db5c0a2bd2a66ef3afe4d239c8c0619527ff0d14ef7ab6f8e1af509790382.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..60f031d3410330831973c9a09fd525f01339fe3f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf6db5c0a2bd2a66ef3afe4d239c8c0619527ff0d14ef7ab6f8e1af509790382.md @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 5-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2008 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80381-CIV-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEFAULT +It appearing that the Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is in Default for failure to plead or otherwise +defend as required by law, Default is hereby entered as against the said Defendant this +_ day of +May, 2008. +CLERK OF COURT +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. +www.hermanlaw.com +- 1- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf6db5c0a2bd2a66ef3afe4d239c8c0619527ff0d14ef7ab6f8e1af509790382.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf6db5c0a2bd2a66ef3afe4d239c8c0619527ff0d14ef7ab6f8e1af509790382.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a3e610d0eb0e1731cdc60f9296b1a4143c93aef1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf6db5c0a2bd2a66ef3afe4d239c8c0619527ff0d14ef7ab6f8e1af509790382.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cf6db5c0a2bd2a66ef3afe4d239c8c0619527ff0d14ef7ab6f8e1af509790382", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e56da0a0c90944b224117abf0164a9caab77cc8c3dd3a0761f6ce917ab0831f3", + "output_sha256": "951621b0cdd0069212d3a72ca47cafccc2a1801a5d7f74553e6d60062d38f7d4", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf708a3c0b9fba9a8aeb8e6c92fd64f4945302ce3579230037132df9b9a3ec19.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf708a3c0b9fba9a8aeb8e6c92fd64f4945302ce3579230037132df9b9a3ec19.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e697b23fccfcdc1df6286d717e28cb0065922255 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf708a3c0b9fba9a8aeb8e6c92fd64f4945302ce3579230037132df9b9a3ec19.md @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 59 Filed 07/31/20 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. +KAHN, in their capacities as executors of the +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, an individual, +Defendants. +20-cv-00484-JGK +-X +MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE +Pursuant to Rule 1.3 of the Local Rules of the United States Courts for the Southern +District of New York, I Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, hereby move this Court for an Order for admission to +practice Pro Hac Vice to appear as counsel for Defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell in the abovecaptioned action. +I submit in support of this Motion the attached Declaration of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca. +Dated: July 31, 2020. +Respectfully submitted, +s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca +Jeffery S. Pagliuca, Colorado Atty, Reg. #12462 +HADDON, +P.C. +150 East 10" Avenue +Denver, CO 80203 +Phone: +303.831.7364 +Fax: +303.832.2628 +jpagliuca@hmflaw.com +Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 59 Filed 07/31/20 Page 2 of 2 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I certify that on July 31, 2020, I filed this Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice with the +Clerk of Court through CM/ECF, which will send notice of the filing to all parties of record. +/s/ Nicole +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf708a3c0b9fba9a8aeb8e6c92fd64f4945302ce3579230037132df9b9a3ec19.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf708a3c0b9fba9a8aeb8e6c92fd64f4945302ce3579230037132df9b9a3ec19.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..71bd8d4180d0c891116e2b168143736777eea97a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf708a3c0b9fba9a8aeb8e6c92fd64f4945302ce3579230037132df9b9a3ec19.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -26, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cf708a3c0b9fba9a8aeb8e6c92fd64f4945302ce3579230037132df9b9a3ec19", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "6a22a79ffc654cadcbb8d925296b0bdbccedf19361926891c9a50722d01f48b9", + "output_sha256": "8d3d948559156178630e4993196e9a25e19a9257c0afcb5ce0741a2d73e5145c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf79016924562ea307db16fc7788330010d199d9fd95fa774a674909f4849acd.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf79016924562ea307db16fc7788330010d199d9fd95fa774a674909f4849acd.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..94d8307045fe537737c508e4a890765b98d0875f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf79016924562ea307db16fc7788330010d199d9fd95fa774a674909f4849acd.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 107 Filed 05/11/21 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +X +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. +KAHN, in their capacities as executors of +the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, an individual, +Defendants. +20-cv-00484-JGK +-X +AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S +APPLICATION FOR COSTS AGAINST PLAINTIFF +I, Laura A. Menninger, declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and under penalty of perjury +that: +1. I am counsel for defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell in Doe v. Indyke, et al., No. 20-CV- +00484-JGK (S.D.N.Y.). I am personally familiar with the costs incurred in connection with the +litigation. +I am submitting this Declaration in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's Bill of Costs and +application for an award of costs against Jane Doe ("Plaintiff") in this action. +3. On January 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Pursuant to +FRCP 41(a)(2). Dkt. 91. Ms. Maxwell responded on January 29 (Dkt. 93), and further litigation +regarding the dismissal occurred over the succeeding months. + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 107 Filed 05/11/21 Page 2 of 3 +4. On March 8, 2021, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order which +determined, inter alia, that granted the dismissal with prejudice subject to certain conditions. +Dkt. 98. Among the conditions were that Ms. Maxwell is permitted to seek her costs related to +this action from Plaintiff. Id. at 7. The parties accepted the Court's conditions and on March 19, +this Court issued an Order dismissing the case and ordering the conditions. Dkt. 102. +5. This Court determined that Ms. Maxwell is the "prevailing party for the purposes of +Rule 54(d). Dkt. 98 at 5. Accordingly she is entitled "under Rule 54(d), [to] 'costs-other than +attorney's fees." Id. (quoting Rule 54(d)). +6. Because discovery was stayed in the case by Magistrate Judge Freeman, the costs +were in fact de minimis. Nevertheless, Ms. Maxwell exercises her right to recovery of those +costs pursuant to Rule 54(d). +7. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1923, Ms. Maxwell is entitled to Docket Fees for +discontinuance of a civil action in the amount of $5. +8. Additionally, Ms. Maxwell incurred $8.70 in search and printing costs from PACER +associated with this case. +9. The total costs sought by Ms. Maxwell therefore is $13.70. +10. The Bill of Costs attached to the Notice and its exhibits evidence the costs incurred +by Ms. Maxwell in defense of this action. +11. Each of the costs claimed are allowed by law, specifically Local Civil Rule 54.1. +Each are correctly stated and were necessarily incurred. +I swear under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and accurate to the best of my +knowledge. +2 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 107 Filed 05/11/21 Page 3 of 3 +Executed on Dated: May 11, 2021. +s/ Laura A. Menninger +Laura A. Menninger +3 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf79016924562ea307db16fc7788330010d199d9fd95fa774a674909f4849acd.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf79016924562ea307db16fc7788330010d199d9fd95fa774a674909f4849acd.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d43210f5422df22064cba16ea96450d77fba950c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf79016924562ea307db16fc7788330010d199d9fd95fa774a674909f4849acd.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cf79016924562ea307db16fc7788330010d199d9fd95fa774a674909f4849acd", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "73e1df5028d81c4935aa3ea597f205a5f194cc637cd297bfa14a201fdbb1ce85", + "output_sha256": "569e8c2fa8b3e7cc3110cdffc07daf739dd41dab75d9a796f1a67d4897cc3710", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf7c3663cd8591290abb1af7aa4562cb546de12b0b8664779b6c4780896ab00d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf7c3663cd8591290abb1af7aa4562cb546de12b0b8664779b6c4780896ab00d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aa24e91f8f067702121557797bd10e3b162903e5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf7c3663cd8591290abb1af7aa4562cb546de12b0b8664779b6c4780896ab00d.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 80-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2010 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80469-MARRA- +JANE DOE II, +Plaintiff, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN and +Defendant. +FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE +THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the parties' Stipulation of Dismissal with +Prejudice IDE +J, filed June +, 2010. The Court has reviewed the Stipulation, the +pertinent portions of the record, and is otherwise advised in the premises. +accordance with the parties' Stipulation, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: +1. The above-styled action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. +2. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. +3. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' +settlement. +4. The Clerk shall CLOSE THIS CASE. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Florida this +_day +of June, 2010. +KENNETH A. MARRA +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +Copies Furnished to: +All Counsel of Record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf7c3663cd8591290abb1af7aa4562cb546de12b0b8664779b6c4780896ab00d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf7c3663cd8591290abb1af7aa4562cb546de12b0b8664779b6c4780896ab00d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..44bcfd431fc9187a21faeef86f8520c1d48ec737 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf7c3663cd8591290abb1af7aa4562cb546de12b0b8664779b6c4780896ab00d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cf7c3663cd8591290abb1af7aa4562cb546de12b0b8664779b6c4780896ab00d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0a05c5f28ea3c86638141efe281e96d6a96aad544ad37b30d848f133732c4c71", + "output_sha256": "eb76c693c07ce8532280b3dee2374572b80c3f0a736b644b6342f9dea133b7ff", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf876f93593e06fedbb75b2c7cadfd3cd9dcd24c52ebb3a40120b8aba8fc2867.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf876f93593e06fedbb75b2c7cadfd3cd9dcd24c52ebb3a40120b8aba8fc2867.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef325e3986693b911144013893110818a81872d9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf876f93593e06fedbb75b2c7cadfd3cd9dcd24c52ebb3a40120b8aba8fc2867.md @@ -0,0 +1,214 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 1 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80381-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 5 ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), brings this Complaint against Jeffrey +Epstein, as follows: +Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue +Jane Doe No. 5 is a citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and is sui +juris. +This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name to protect the identity of the +Plaintiff because this Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon a +minor. +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen and resident of the State of New York. +4. +This is an action for damages in excess of $50 million. +5. +This Court has jurisdiction of this action and the claims set forth herein pursuant to 28 +U.S.C. §1332(a), as the matter in controversy (i) exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs; +and (ii) is between citizens of different states. +6. +This Court has venue of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a) as a substantial +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 2 of 8 +part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. +Factual Allegations +7. +At all relevant times, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") was an adult male, 52 +years old. Epstein is a financier and money manager with a secret clientele limited exclusively to +billionaires. He is himself a man of tremendous wealth, power and influence. He maintains his +principal home in New York and also owns residences in New Mexico, St. +and Palm Beach, +FL. The allegations herein concern Epstein's conduct while at his lavish estate in Palm Beach. +8. +Upon information and belief, Epstein has a sexual preference and obsession for +underage girls. He engaged in a plan and scheme in which he gained access to primarily +economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home, sexually assaulted these girls, and then gave +them money. In or about 2002-2003, Jane Doe, then approximately 15-16 years old, fell into +Epstein's trap and became one of his victims. +Upon information and belief, Jeffrey Epstein carried out his scheme and assaulted +girls in Florida, New York and on his private island, known as Little St. James, in St. +10. Epstein's scheme involved the use of young girls to recruit underage girls. These +underage girls were recruited ostensibly to give a wealthy man a massage for monetary +compensation in his Palm Beach mansion. The girls would be contacted when Epstein was planning +to be at his Palm Beach residence or soon after he had arrived there. Upon information and belief, +Epstein generally sought out economically disadvantaged underage girls from western Palm Beach +County who would be enticed by the money being offered - generally $200 to $300 per "massage" +session - and who were perceived as less likely to complain to authorities or have credibility if +allegations of improper conduct were made. This was an important element of Epstein's plan. +11. +Epstein's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. The underage +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 3 of 8 +victim would be brought to the kitchen entrance of Epstein's mansion, where she would be +introduced to +Epstein's assistant. +would then bring the girl up a flight of +stairs to a room that contained a massage table in addition to other furnishings, and a bathroom. +The girl would then find herself alone in the room with Epstein, who would be wearing only a towel. +He would then remove his towel and lie naked on the massage table, and direct the girl to remove +her clothes. Epstein would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual acts, including +masturbation and touching the girl's vagina. +12. Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, when Jane Doe was approximately +15-16 years old, she was recruited to give Epstein a massage for monetary compensation. Jane and +another girl were brought to Epstein's mansion in Palm Beach, to the kitchen entrance. Once there, +they were introduced to +who led them up the flight of stairs to the room with the +massage table. Jane and the other girl were directed by Epstein to remove their clothes and give +him a massage. Jane and the other girl removed their clothes except for their panties and bras, and +complied with Epstein's instructions. While on the massage table, Epstein masturbated himself +and touched both girls on their vaginas with his hand and with a vibrator. +13. After Epstein had completed the sexual assault, both girls were then able to get +dressed, leave the room and go back down the stairs. Epstein gave both girls money for this +"massage." +14. +As a result of this encounter with Epstein, Jane experienced confusion, shame, +humiliation and embarrassment, and has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries. +COUNT I +Sexual Assault and Battery +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 4 of 8 +15. +Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. +16. +Epstein acted with intent to cause an offensive contact with Jane Doe, or an imminent +apprehension of such a contact, and Jane Doe was thereby put in such imminent apprehension. +17. +Epstein made an intentional, unlawful offer of offensive sexual contact toward Jane +Doe, creating a reasonable fear of imminent peril. +18. +Epstein intentionally inflicted harmful or offensive contact on the person of Jane Doe, +with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent. +19. Epstein tortiously committed a sexual assault and battery on Jane Doe. Epstein's acts +were intentional, unlawful, offensive and harmful. +20. +Epstein's plan and scheme in which he committed such acts upon Jane Doe were +done willfully and maliciously. +21. +As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's assault on Jane, she has suffered and +will continue to suffer severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and +emotional damages. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and such other and further relief as this +Court deems just and proper. +22. +23. +24. +of decency. +COUNT II +Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress +Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. +Epstein's conduct was intentional or reckless. +Epstein's conduct with a minor was extreme and outrageous, going beyond all bounds +-4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 5 of 8 +25. +Epstein committed willful acts of child sexual abuse on Jane Doe. These acts resulted +in mental or sexual injury to Jane Doe, that caused or were likely to cause Jane Doe's mental or +emotional health to be significantly impaired. +26. +Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. Epstein knew or had +reason to know that his intentional and outrageous conduct would cause emotional distress and +damage to Jane Doe, or Epstein acted with reckless disregard of the high probability of causing +severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. +27. +As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's intentional or reckless conduct, Jane +Doe, has suffered and will continue to suffer severe mental anguish and pain. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 5 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for compensatory damages, costs, punitive damages, and such other and further relief as this +Court deems just and proper. +COUNT III +Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422 +28. Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. +29. Epstein used a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, +induce or entice Jane Doe, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or +sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. +30. +On June 30, 2008, Epstein entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida §$ 796.07 +and 796.03, in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case nos. 2008-cf- +009381AXXXMB and 2006-cf-009454AXXXMB), for conduct involving the same plan and +scheme as alleged herein. +31. +As to Plaintiff Jane Doe, Epstein could have been charged with criminal violations of +- 5- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 6 of 8 +Florida Statute §796.07(2) (including subsections (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) thereof), and other +criminal offenses including violations of Florida Statutes §$ 798.02 and 800.04 (including +subsections (5), (6) and (7) thereof). +32. Epstein's acts and conduct are in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422. +33. +As a result of Epstein's violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422, Plaintiff has suffered personal +injury, including mental, psychological and emotional damages. +34. +Plaintiff hired Herman & Mermelstein, P.A.., in this matter and agreed to pay them a +reasonable attorneys' fee. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 5 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. §2255(a), including without limitation, actual +and compensatory damages, costs of suit, and attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as +this Court deems just and proper. +JURY TRIAL DEMAND +Plaintiff demands a jury trial in this action on all claims so triable. +Dated: February 27, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By:_ +s/ Adam D. Horowitz. +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL. Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiff +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +- 6- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 7 of 8 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on February 27, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. 1 also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of +Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those +parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +/s/ Adam D. Horowitz +- 7- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 8 of 8 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +/s/ Adam D. Horowitz +- 8- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf876f93593e06fedbb75b2c7cadfd3cd9dcd24c52ebb3a40120b8aba8fc2867.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf876f93593e06fedbb75b2c7cadfd3cd9dcd24c52ebb3a40120b8aba8fc2867.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c5a4043ce5a2f6c57454359077b9c88b271e5fb5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf876f93593e06fedbb75b2c7cadfd3cd9dcd24c52ebb3a40120b8aba8fc2867.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -96, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cf876f93593e06fedbb75b2c7cadfd3cd9dcd24c52ebb3a40120b8aba8fc2867", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "810cc5475139c336de178317e76ff0bf66f3554452f85e444c46b23b1095b0bf", + "output_sha256": "4ecf453473fb6520812bb22ac6bb42b4efd19bd854d60750c26ae3962b9c604f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf8909b3048721d332dfb1dcd2042aef972fbcee617fe0d999d7f68065c9a0bb.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf8909b3048721d332dfb1dcd2042aef972fbcee617fe0d999d7f68065c9a0bb.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..943fd41594be032d3e2748fbdd8849f634d780a7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf8909b3048721d332dfb1dcd2042aef972fbcee617fe0d999d7f68065c9a0bb.md @@ -0,0 +1,176 @@ +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 328-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 1 of 4 +(ge Um, think he was around like the or for.. +Dr. Kliman: And how old do you think that would make them? +bole Um. Who, the twins? +Dr. Kliman: Yeah. If he's three or four. +SO Um, see I don't know their ages right now, so. +Dr. Kliman: They're five years older than your mother. +Re Yeah. My mom is in the midle. I dont know how much younger my uncle is from my +Dr. Kliman: +So one of the things that I think would be pretty clear is that you find this history +disgusting. +26:20 +Al Minhm. +Dr. Kliman: +And it did not help you. That is, this history was not used in a way that helped you, but +rather made your mother very vulnerable to being mistreated herself. +Yes. +Now, you've mentioned that your father. I think you called him, was that he neglected +you, or...irresponsible. That was the word you used. +Yeah. Irresponsible. +So your mother married an irresponsible man. +Dr. Kliman: +РАМАНАЯ +Dr. Kliman: +27:02 +May They actually got married 'cause she was three months pregnant with me. You know, +she, in the beginning she told me she didn't want to date him. But my cousing +which is my dad's cousin, was friends with my mom. And she hooked my mom and my +dad up when they first met. And my mom at first thought he was too cocky and into +himself. And um, I guess my mom fell for him. And um, she ended up getting pregnant. +And then they got married when she was around two or three months pregnant. And She +just said —I don't know how much is true, 'cause there's always two different sides. But +from her story, he always used to go and sleep with other women and go do all these +drugs and have drugs all in the house, 'cause he was a drug dealer when she was +pregnant with me. And uh, you know, he sold cocaine. And you know, she said she's had +so much crap that when I got, like I was playing with a bag of coke, basically, when I +was a baby. And that's when she was like, "Tm done." And she ended up leaving him. +And my father was on drugs for a while. This is just from hearsay, you know, I don't, +DEFENDANT'S +'12 +ALL-STATE LEGAL +ЕХНІВ, + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 328-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 2 of 4 +you know, I don't know. And um, you know, he, I mean, now he's not doing drugs that I +know of. You know, he works six days a week and he has a lot of money. And um, +28:32 +Per. Kilman: +What does he do? +He's a financial director at a car dealership. But um, he's really high up there. He's been +there for a long time. And um, you know, I don't think he could be capable of doing that +many drugs and keeping a job. +Dr. Kliman: Good. +So, when I was living with him, he just didn't know how to say things to me. And he +would say things to me like, "You f-ing pig, " you know, "you need to learn how to I— +ing clean your room," you know, "You little slut." You know, I have, I'm going to +amount to nothing. My brother is going to become this immaculate lawyer, I'm going to +become a bum on the street. Just a lot of harsh, harsh words that put me down. And he +was never there for me. Like, he never stood up for me. He always, just like, I was just +there. Like as a roommate. You know, I remember one instance. I really don't say +anything about this, but I went to hug him and he just pushed me away. Affectionate, not +at all. Like he doesn't show any affection. +29:38 +Dr. Kliman: +Dr. Kliman: +How long ago was that? +The hugging thing? +Yeah. +Uh...it was probably when I first moved with him. So I was probably like twelve or +thirteen. And uh, you know, I went to go give him a hug and he just sorta like freaked +out. But I know he has like an emotional side, 'cause I've seen him break down. But I +think that he's similar to what I have. He's very kind inside but he shows this cocky +attitude, you know? But, he just, you know, he said a lot of hurtful things to me through +my years in high school. And I understand you get upset, but you know, it really affected +me also. Just made like really, like, I'm not going to amount to anything. +30:28 +Dr. Kliman: +It's interesting that you found it so clearly distressing that Epstein behaved that way. +That he seemed so self-centered. +Mmhm. +Dr. Kliman: +So it's like your nightmare. +Yeah. +'13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 328-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 3 of 4 +Dr. Kliman: +Now, only it came true. +Yeah. +Dr. Kliman: +Now, following up things that you have mentioned in your questionnaires.... You +mentioned that your stepfather hit you so hard on one occasion that you lost hearing in +your ear for two weeks. +Yes. +man. +-Tell.me.about that. +31:42 +Um, well he ended up fracturing my eardrum. So I couldn't hear, I think it was, out of +my right ear. Um, basically, I was grounded as usual. With my stepfather, I was always +grounded. 'Cause he expected such high standards. Like if you were in the military, you +know. And I was just so fed up and I was on the phone with my friend in my bedroom. +Your age now, at that point? +Dr. Kliman: +32:08 +Um, I was probably like ten or eleven. I'm just approximating 'cause I don't, it has to be +around ten or eleven though 'cause that's when I was in Fort Lauderdale. Um, I was on +the phone with my friend. I was on the phone, speaking to her privately, just you know, +"I don't like him. I can't stand this anymore." You know, just talking about my feelings +to my friend. Well, I didn't know, but he was on the other line listening. And he flipped +out. And he like pounded on my door to come in 'cause my door was locked. And you +know, I let him in. And then he literally like, lost it. He was like, "I'm bad to you, and +you don't like me." He took my T.V. and threw it down the stairs. He ripped my phone +out of the wall. Like, out of the jack, literally. And then he like, he just started like, I +don't remember 'cause it was so fast. But he was like hitting me really hard. I don't think +it was punches 'cause like I don't remember having black and blue marks. But he was +like whacking me with both hands really hard. And my mom came in and was like, +astop! Stop! What are you doing?!" And he just kept going and he just kept +freaking out. Like, he has a bad temper. Like scary. And you know, my mom got to the +point where she was like, "Do you want me to leave him?" 'Cause he just left the house +after that scenario. And I was crying my eyes out. And I was like, "I just, I don't care. +Whatever you want to do. I don't care. Whatever." And um, she ended up staying with +him still. So, that was that scenario. And then I went to the doctors to find out, 'cause I +couldn't hear. And she told me, basically, "Don't tell them what happened." You know, +"Just make up a story" or whatever. So I did. And they just said I fractured my eardrum. +But I can hear now from, it was just like for two weeks. +34:00 +Dr. Kliman: +I think the word is probably ruptured. +Ruptured? Okay, that'.. +14 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 328-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 4 of 4 +Dr. Kliman: +Fractured is a good word. He did something to hurt your eardrum. +It might have been ruptured. 'Cause I just think fractured, but... +How about your skull? Did he break your skull? +Dr. Kliman: +34:20 +No...I was in South Carolina, When I moved to South Carolina with them, which is, we +went from Fort Lauderdale to South Carolina, you know, there was instances where, you. +know, he would hit me or throw like the butter at me. And I just, I got to the point where +I couldn't take it anymore, so I'd throw something back at him. 'Cause I've taken it, you +know, a lot. And um, you know, I was going to school and I was like the teacher's aid or +something. You know, where I help her grade tests of younger students, was one of my +classes. And I had like nobody to talk to 'cause I'd just moved there. And I couldn't talk +to my mom. And I couldn't talk to my stepfather 'cause you know, of course, he was the +problem. So I spoke to my teacher. And I didn't know, but any teacher that hears +anything about abuse has to report it. So basically the child services came to the school +to go get my stepfather. And when they took me in the office, I told them that I was +lying. 'Cause I didn't want to start all that drama between my mom and my stepfather. +35:29 +Dr. Kliman: +You had told a teacher or a teacher's aid? +A teacher. I was like the teacher's aid. Like helping her like do the tests. +Dr. Kliman: +Right. +MR So, I basically had to lie and just say, "No. I made it all up." +Dr. Kliman: +So what was it that you had said though? +Um, I think I was just telling her things that have happened. About how he hit me and +tuff like that. I don't recall exactly what it was about. You know, to this day, they stil +wear that he didn't hit me that much. And I have a, you know, I have a memory tha +remembers certain things. +Dr. Kliman: +Yeah. +¿ So it's like, I swear I remember him hitting me a lot. But I think they've talked me out of +it so much, that it's like, I see that he didn't really hit me that much. Do you understand +what I'm saying? +36:15 +Dr. Kliman: +But you remember he did. +I remember he did, yeah. I remember occasions that he's hit me. +" 15 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf8909b3048721d332dfb1dcd2042aef972fbcee617fe0d999d7f68065c9a0bb.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf8909b3048721d332dfb1dcd2042aef972fbcee617fe0d999d7f68065c9a0bb.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..097370b73ab389adecddea8ee786a5519f4b3cda --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cf8909b3048721d332dfb1dcd2042aef972fbcee617fe0d999d7f68065c9a0bb.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cf8909b3048721d332dfb1dcd2042aef972fbcee617fe0d999d7f68065c9a0bb", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "74cb6a8d62aff874b2acd47c9295328b151b6392d31b74f872faa69593deec47", + "output_sha256": "9ec76bbf77a5b2bb51d4391b88d1da37d25453b7a20f719624ef2990c0903521", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfa4adf5e7566cac3822adbc9abfb7fb2a45588da5c043a1e591a6cd4ceb28a4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfa4adf5e7566cac3822adbc9abfb7fb2a45588da5c043a1e591a6cd4ceb28a4.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a82106f837580f7d0b0767567989e3427b86df1f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfa4adf5e7566cac3822adbc9abfb7fb2a45588da5c043a1e591a6cd4ceb28a4.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 52 Filed 11/05/21 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff. +V. +Case No. 1:20-civ-02365-LJL-DCF +DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN, +in their capacities AS EXECUTORS OF THE +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +Defendants. +STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE +PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1) (A)(ii) +IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned counsel +that pursuant to F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the claims in the above-entitled action are hereby +voluntary dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any party as against the others; and, +IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned, that +signatures on this Stipulation via facsimile or email, and in counterpart, shall be deemed good and +sufficient for all purposes, and that this Stipulation may be electronically filed with the Clerk of +the Court without further notice. + + +Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 52 Filed 11/05/21 Page 2 of 2 +Dated: November 5, 2021 +New York, New York +Respectfully submitted, +KAISER SAURBORN & MAIR, P.C +Daniel J. Kaiser, Esq. +William H. Kaiser, Esy +Daniel keise +30 Broad Street, 37th Floor +New York, New York: 10004 +(212) 338-9100 +Attorneys for Plaintiff +TROUTMAN PEPPER +SANDERS LLP +By: Bennet / Monkowetz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +Is/SND +875 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +(212) 704-6000 +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +Attorneys for Defendants +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfa4adf5e7566cac3822adbc9abfb7fb2a45588da5c043a1e591a6cd4ceb28a4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfa4adf5e7566cac3822adbc9abfb7fb2a45588da5c043a1e591a6cd4ceb28a4.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5a633ae2272ca38a4a9abf2d120982edc1c023fe --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfa4adf5e7566cac3822adbc9abfb7fb2a45588da5c043a1e591a6cd4ceb28a4.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cfa4adf5e7566cac3822adbc9abfb7fb2a45588da5c043a1e591a6cd4ceb28a4", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "12d295f7d7539de490d7c7990a57737f020189af0641e80cb72f8b5172eced5f", + "output_sha256": "b700c4ee633b60fd121b7da0b903edda08a53c1f7da3b3db54e8f5bcb36a58cf", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfb6a11d844b4643369d93fad9c11f4a198d7e8b16848eea66faee4da44bec85.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfb6a11d844b4643369d93fad9c11f4a198d7e8b16848eea66faee4da44bec85.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8a8fa3b0d372c2a09e419b04031df8becf6e72f0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfb6a11d844b4643369d93fad9c11f4a198d7e8b16848eea66faee4da44bec85.md @@ -0,0 +1,499 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 44 +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +troutman.com +Filed 04/28/20 Page 1 of 1 +troutman™ +sanders +Bennet J. Moskowitz +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +April 28, 2020 +VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING +Hon. +J. Liman +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl Street +Courtroom 15C +New York, NY 10007 +Re: Jane Doe 1000, 1:19-cv-10577 (LJL) (DCF) +Dear Judge Liman: +We represent Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of +Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, the "Co-Executors"), in the above-referenced action. We write to +supplement the Co-Executors' pending motion to dismiss (ECF Doc. 33) with the enclosed copy +of the Opinion & Order entered today by The Hon. Paul A. Engelmayer in another personal +injury action against the Co-Executors (Mary Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as +executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, and | +1. 19-civ-10758 (PAE) (DCF)). In +His Honor's Opinion & Order, Judge Engelmayer grants the Co-Executors' motion to dismiss the +plaintiff's punitive damages claim against them as a matter of law on grounds applicable to +Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages in this action. +Respectfully submitted, +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) + + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +MARY DOE, +Plaintiff, +-V- +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, +as Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, +and +19 Civ. 10758 (PAE) +OPINION & ORDER +Defendants. +PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: +In this diversity action, plaintiff Mary Doe' brings tort claims under New York law +against, inter alia, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, the executors of the estate of Jeffrey +Epstein ("Indyke and Kahn" or "the executor defendants"). The executor defendants now move +to dismiss Doe's claim against them for punitive damages, on the grounds that, as a matter of +New York law, such damages are categorically unavailable in a personal injury action against the +personal representative of an estate.? For the reasons that follow, the Court grants that motion. +L. +Background +A. +Doe's Complaint +Doe's Complaint, filed on November 20, 2019, alleges a horrific course of sexual and +psychological abuse at Epstein's hands during 2004 and 2005. Cmplt. 11l 1-15 (summary +account); id. 11 38-106 (detailed account). It alleges that Doe came to the United States with her +' Doe has been granted leave to proceed pseudonymously. Dkt. 21. +" Doe also sues +. who is alleged to have served as Epstein's scheduler and assistant. +See Dkt. 1 (Complaint, or "Cmplt.") 1| 19. Doe's bid for punitive damages against | +is not +implicated by this motion. + + +parents as a young refugee from a war-torn country, and was working in pursuit of a promising +career as a model when, in 2004, at age 16, she met Epstein through another model. Id. 12. +Epstein made clear to Doe how important and powerful he was and promised to help her with her +modeling career and college admissions. Id. 9 3. Doe, in turn, "believed she could trust him" +and "that he could change her life." Id. 1|4. Epstein, however, "used his power over Mary to +sexually abuse her, viciously and repeatedly." Id. 9 5. Aided by defendant +Epstein's scheduler and assistant, Epstein "would summon Mary to his Manhattan townhouse, +order her to give him massages, and then subject her to sexual acts, the severity of which +increased over time." Id.; see also id. 9| 19. The Complaint graphically chronicles Epstein's acts +of sexual abuse in the townhouse, which included forcing Doe to perform oral sex on him and +later raping her. Id. 11 7-9; 56-105. +In late 2005, the Complaint alleges, Doe-as a result of an incident at the townhouse +"suddenly saw the truth: she was not even a human being to Epstein, she was an object," and +Epstein was treating her as a prostitute, "one of many girls he treated as sexual objects." Id. +• 11. Doe had a breakdown, almost immediately thereafter left New York City, returned to her +parents' home across the country, and never saw Epstein again. Id. 9| 12. Epstein's abuse caused +Doe to abandon her modeling career and left her humiliated, angry, and suicidal, with debilitating +panic attacks and "dramatic psychological scars." Id. 911 13-14. Epstein's arrest in July 2019 +gave Doe "brief|] hope that he might finally face consequences," but his death in August 2019 at +a federal jail in Manhattan "left Mary with the desolate sense that he has evaded justice yet +again." Id. 9 15. +In this action, Doe brings claims, under New York law, of battery, id. 411 108-13, assault, +id. "il 114-19, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress, id. 99| 120-27, against Indyke +2 + + +and Kahn, solely in their capacities as executors of Epstein's estate, id. 1 18, and against +for her "integral role in operating Epstein's operation of sex trafficking Mary and other girls," id. +1 19. As its basis for personal jurisdiction over the executors, it alleges that "Epstein was subject +to personal jurisdiction at the time of his death," id. ° 22, "because the tortious acts giving rise to +Plaintiff's claims took place in New York State," id. 1 23. The Complaint seeks, in addition to +compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs, "punitive damages in an amount to be +determined at trial." Id. p. 19. +B. The Executors' Partial Motion to Dismiss +On January 21, 2020, the executor defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss, Dkt. 17, +and a supporting memorandum of law, Dkt. 18 ("Def. Mem."). It sought dismissal of the prayer +for punitive damages on the ground that such damages cannot, as a matter of New York law, be +sought against the personal representatives of an estate. On March 3, 2020, Doe filed a +memorandum of law in opposition, Dkt. 28 ("Doe Opp'n"), and a supporting declaration by +Daniel Mullkoff, Esq., Dkt. 29 ("Mullkoff Decl."), which attached Epstein's will. On March 20, +2020, the executor defendants filed a reply. Dkt. 33 ("Def. Reply"). +II. Applicable Legal Standards Under Rule 12(b)(6) +To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead "enough +facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, +550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim will only have "facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads +factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable +for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint is +properly dismissed where, as a matter of law, "the allegations in a complaint, however true, +could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 558. When resolving a +motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint +3 + + +and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Steginsky v. Xcelera Inc., +741 F.3d 365, 368 (2d Cir. 2014). That tenet, however, "is inapplicable to legal conclusions." +Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Pleadings that offer only "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic +recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. +I. Discussion +In moving to dismiss Doe's prayer for punitive damages against them, the executor +defendants argue that New York law applies to this personal injury action and categorically +prohibits an award of punitive damages against the personal representatives of an estate. +Specifically, they note, § 11-3.2(a)(1) of New York's Estates, Powers and Trusts Law ("EPTL") +provides: +No cause of action for injury to person or property is lost because of the death of +the person liable for the injury. For any injury, an action may be brought or +continued against the personal representative of the decedent, but punitive +damages shall not be awarded nor penalties adjudged in any such action brought +to recover damages for personal injury. +EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1) (emphasis added). +Applying this statute, courts have held punitive damages unavailable in personal injury +actions against executors or administrators of estates. These include federal courts determining +the damages available for constitutional-tort claims under New York law, see, e.g., Graham v. +, 224 F.R.D. 59, 63 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) (precluding, based on EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1), +punitive damages claims in § 1983 action against estate administrators, and noting that New +York law is "very clear" on this point); Blissett v. Eisensmidt, 940 F. Supp. 449, 457 (N.D.N.Y. 1996) +(overturning, based on EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1), jury's punitive damages award in § 1983 case +against estate, and noting "strong policy against the assessment of punitive damages against an +estate on account of wrongful conduct of the decedent"), and state courts in personal injury +actions governed by New York law, see, e.g., +v. Nathan, 352 N.Y.S.2d 464, 464 +4 + + +(Ist Dep't. 1974) (affirming dismissal of punitive damages claim because, under EPTL +§ 11-3.2(a)(1), defendant's death precluded recovery of punitive damages from personal +representatives of estate); cf. Flaum v. Birnbaum, 582 N.Y.S.2d 853, 857 (4th Dep't. 1992) +(affirming denial of punitive damages in case against deceased executor; citing EPTL +§ 11-3.2(a)(1) and the "strong policy against the assessment of punitive damages against an +estate on account of the wrongful conduct of the decedent"). +The law of a majority of states is in accord with EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1), as reflected in the +Restatement (Second) of Torts. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908 cmt. a (1979) ("Punitive +damages are not awarded against the representatives of a deceased tortfeasor|-]"); see also Doe +Opp'n at 12 (acknowledging that "a majority of states do not permit punitive damages against +estates"). This majority rule aligns with "[Jhe general rule under federal common law," that "an +action survives the death of a party insofar as it is remedial[.] and not penal[.] in nature." See, e.g., +Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Exeter Holdings, Ltd. v. Haltman, No. 13 Civ. 5475 +(JS) (AKT), 2017 WL 9485707, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2017) (collecting cases), report and +recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 3981299 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2017). +The justification commonly given for precluding punitive damage awards against estates +is that punishment and deterrence- +- the recognized bases for imposing punitive damages on a +tortfeasor—are not advanced by imposing punitive damages on his or her estate. As the New +Mexico Supreme Court explained in adopting the majority rule: "[P]unishment and deterrence +are not accomplished by enabling recovery of punitive damages from the estate of deceased +tortfeasors"; "[w]hen the tortfeasor cannot be punished for his culpable behavior, punitive +damages no longer have the desired effect and, therefore, the victim loses the legal entitlement to +5 + + +recover those damages." Jaramillo v. Providence Wash. Ins. Co., 871 P.2d 1343, 1351 +(N.M. 1994) (canvassing laws of other states). +Doe does not dispute that EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1) precludes punitive damages in a personal +injury action under New York law. Instead, Doe makes three arguments: (1) that defendants' +motion is premature, Doe Mem. at 4; (2) that defendants' motion is improperly styled as a +motion to dismiss, id. at 3; and (3) that the law of the United States Virgin Islands ("USVI"), not +New York law, applies, and permits punitive damages against an estate, id. at 4-13. +Doe's first argument is quickly dispatched. Doe cites cases where courts have declined +to resolve motions to dismiss aimed at prayers for relief, finding such motions premature. See id. +at 4 (citations omitted). But a review of these cases reflects that the motions in those cases were +not based on categorical preclusions of punitive damages. In contrast, where punitive damages +have been unavailable as a matter of law, courts have not hesitated to dismiss prayers for such +damages at the threshold. See, e.g., Murtha v. N.Y. State Gaming Comm'n, No. 17 Civ. 10040 +(NSR), 2019 WL 4450687, at *19 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2019) (dismissing demand for punitive +damages under the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"*) because it "does not +provide for punitive damages"); +v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., No. 18 Civ. 6670 (AT), +2019 WL 4039958, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2019) (granting motion to dismiss demand for +punitive damages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the New York City +Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL") where neither statute permitted a plaintiff to recover punitive +damages); Talarico v. Port Auth. of N.Y. d N.J., 367 F. Supp. 3d 161, 172 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) +(dismissing demand for punitive damages against Port Authority where "the Third Circuit and +the overwhelming majority of district courts within this Circuit have held that punitive damages +are not available against" that defendant (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Canete +6 + + +v. Metro. Transp. Auth., No. 17 Civ. 3961 (PAE), 2018 WL 4538897, at *9 +(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2018) (dismissing demand for punitive damages where such relief was +"precluded as a matter of law"); Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr. v. Gen. Reins. Corp., +No. 16 Civ. 2063 (CM), 2016 WL 5793996, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2016) ("In this case, the +circumstances surrounding the denial of the insurance indemnification claim do not warrant the +rare exception provided for punitive damages under a breach of contract claim. For this reason, +the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim."); SJB ex rel. Berkhout +v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., No. 03 Civ. 6653 (NRB), 2004 WL 1586500, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. July +14, 2004) (dismissing punitive damages claim because such damages are unavailable in § 1983 +actions against municipalities). Provided that New York law applies to this action, this case, too, +involves a categorical preclusion of such damages, under EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1), that can be +adjudicated at the threshold. +Doe's second argument is that the defendant-executors' challenge is improperly brought +as a motion to dismiss. Doe Mem. at 3 & n.3. There is divided case authority on this point. +Courts, including in the cases cited above, have granted motions to dismiss prayers for such +relief. But others have declined to entertain such motions, stating that, "[bJecause punitive +damages are a form of damages, not an independent cause of action, a motion to dismiss a prayer +for relief in the form of punitive damages is 'procedurally premature.'" Farina v. Metro. Transp. +Auth., 409 F. Supp. 3d 173, 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Hunter v. Palisades Acquisition XVI, +LLC, No. 16 Civ. 8779 (ER), 2017 WL 5513636, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2017)); see also, e.g., +Wiederman v. Spark Energy, Inc., No. 19 Civ. 4564 (PGG), 2020 WL 1862319, at *9-10 +(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2020); +v. City of New York, No. 18 Civ. 1937 (VSB), 2020 WL 1644009, +at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2020); Range v. 535 Broadway Grp. LLC, No. 17 Civ. 423 (WHP), +7 + + +2019 WL 4182966, at *7 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2017); Okyere v. Palisades Collection, LLC, +961 F. Supp. 2d 522, 536 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). +The Court has no occasion to resolve this conceptual debate, because the executors' +motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) alternatively can be treated as a motion to strike under +Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). See C. +& A. +, 5C Federal Practice and +Procedure § 1380 (3d ed.) (IT]he technical name given to a motion challenging a pleading is of +little importance inasmuch as prejudice to the nonmoving party hardly can result from treating a +motion that has been inaccurately denominated a motion to strike as a motion to dismiss the +complaint."). And under Rule 12(f), on a motion or sua sponte, a court may strike from a +pleading an "insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous +matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Although motions to strike under Rule 12(f) are generally +"disfavored and granted only if there is a strong reason to do so," +News, L.L.C. v. Am. +Media, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 2227 (PAC), 2013 WL 1746062, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2013) +(internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Roe v. City of New York, 151 F. Supp. 2d 495, 510 +(S.D.N.Y. 2001)); see also Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corp., 551 F.2d 887, 893 (2d +Cir. 1976)), ample authority permits striking prayers for punitive damages where such relief is +unavailable as a matter of law. See, e.g., In re Merrill +Auction Rate Sec. Litig., +851 F. Supp. 2d 512, 544 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (granting motion to strike sections of complaint +asserting punitive damages, because pleadings did not meet high bar for punitive damages in +non-fraud case of breach of fiduciary duty), aff'd sub nom. La. Pac. Corp. v. Merrill +& Co., +571 F. App'x 8 (2d Cir. 2014); Cerveceria Modelo, S.A. de C.V. v. USPA Accessories LLC, +No. 07 Civ. 7998 (HB), 2008 WL 1710910, at *5-9 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2008) (granting motion +to strike prayer for punitive damages for failure to allege level of high moral culpability +8 + + +necessary to sustain punitive damages award in case involving fraud and deceit); Ladenburg +Thalmann & Co. v. Imaging Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 176 F. Supp. 2d 199, 207 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) +(granting motion to strike punitive damages because complaint did not allege, inter alia, egregious +conduct sufficient to sustain such an award); Brady v. Port. Auth. of N.Y. d N.J., No. 93 Civ. 1679 +(NG) (CLP), 1998 WL 724061, at *2-3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 1998) (granting motion to strike +punitive damages claims on grounds that Port Authority was immune from such damages); Nash v. +Coram Healthcare Corp., No. 96 Civ. 0298 (LMM), 1996 WL 363166, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 1996) +(granting motion to strike prayer for punitive damages because complaint did not allege facts +sufficient to support such damages in breach of contract case. +Here, there is practical wisdom in treating defendant's motion as one to strike, if doing so +is necessary to enable the Court to resolve at the jump the viability of Doe's prayer for punitive +damages. With numerous personal injury actions pending against the Epstein estate as a result of +the recent enactment of the New York Child Victims Act, there is value in clarifying-for the +parties and settlors—the damages available in actions where the law permits a sure answer on +this point. +Doe's final argument is that USVI, not New York, law governs whether punitive +damages are available. Because this Court sits in New York, it applies a New York choice of +law analysis to that question. See Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496 +(1941); Md. Cas. Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 332 F.3d 145, 151 (2d Cir. 2003) ("A federal court +sitting in diversity applies the choice-of-law rules of the forum state."). "Where, as here, the +claims sound in tort, New York courts apply an 'interest analysis' to determine choice-of-law +issues." Golden v. Wyeth, Inc., No. 04 Civ. 2841 (JS), 2013 WL 4500879, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. +Aug. 20, 2013). Under that analysis, punitive damages are considered to be conduct-regulating, +9 + + +Case 1194V10753LAEDGEF D06mneh13& Fil0428120 Page 10of17 +and "the law of the jurisdiction where the tort occurred will generally apply." See, e.g., Starr +Indem. & Liab. Co. v. Am. Claims Mgmt., Inc., No. 14 Civ. 0463 (JMF), 2015 WL 2152816, *3 +(S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2015) (quoting Guidi v. Inter-Cont'l Hotels Corp., No. 95 Civ. 9006 (LAP), +2003 WL 1907901, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2003)); Bauta v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., No. 14 Civ. 3725 +(RER), 2019 WL 8060183, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2019). Here, the torts alleged occurred +entirely in New York. The personal injury claims which Doe's Complaint brings arise from +sexual assaults and related conduct that, as alleged, occurred exclusively within New York +City—in and around Epstein's Manhattan townhouse. +Doe counters by noting that, while this rule applies as a general matter, it may be overcome +if there is good reason not to apply it. Doe Mem. at 5 (citing Nat'l Jewish Democratic Council v. +Adelson, 417 F. Supp. 3d 416, 424-25 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)). In arguing that there is reason not to +apply New York law to the punitive damages question here, Doe relies on the doctrine of dépeçage, +under which courts may treat the choice of law analysis for one (or more) issues in a case—in +this instance, the availability of punitive damages —as distinct from the rest of its analysis, here +the applicability of New York law to Doe's tort claims for compensatory damages. Id.; see also +2002 +R. Buchalter Alaska Tr. v. Phila. Fin. Life Assurance Co., 96 F. Supp. 3d 182, +200 (S.D.N.Y. 2015); Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. Ally Fin. Inc., No. 11 Civ. 7010 (DLC), +2012 WL 6616061, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2012). +Doe argues that, although New York may have the greater interest in resolving issues +relating to compensatory damages, the USVI, where the executors are domiciled and where +Epstein's will is to be probated, has the greater interest as to punitive damages, which, unlike +compensatory damages, are defendant-focused. Doe Mem. at 7-8. Doe does not argue that the +executor-defendants themselves merit punishment or are in need of deterrence. Instead, Doe +10 + + +@ase 1194107531AEDGE 006mmeh38 04128120 Page 11 of 17 +argues that Epstein's decision to alter his will shortly before his suicide to provide that it would +be probated in the USVI was strategically motivated. She argues that his executors "should not +be permitted to selectively avail themselves of certain benefits of USVI law but avoid those +aspects of USVI law that they do not like." Id. at 7. +The Court is unpersuaded. Whatever benefits Epstein envisioned for his estate by virtue +of probating his will in the USVI, Doe does not articulate any relevant to this litigation. Other +than conclusorily, Doe does not argue that the decision to probate Epstein's will in the USVI will +have any adverse bearing on a personal injury action brought against the estate in New York that +involves tortious conduct in New York. Doe does not argue, for example, that the probating of +Epstein's will in the USVI stands to insulate his assets from recovery from such a plaintiff, or +otherwise impede her or others victimized in New York from recovering on meritorious claims. +Doe's point that the estate may prosper from being probated in the USVI is disconnected from +her claims. +More fundamentally, Doe does not articulate any concrete interest that the USVI has in +either vindicating the rights of a victim sexually abused in a Manhattan townhouse in 2004 and +2005 or, specially relevant to punitive damages, in assuring that the perpetrator of that abuse is +adequately punished and deterred. In contrast, the Second Circuit has noted the strong interest +that New York has with respect to "conduct-regulating" rules, including regarding damages, with +respect to unlawful behavior within its borders: +"If conflicting conduct-regulating laws are at issue, the law of the jurisdiction +where the tort occurred will generally apply because that jurisdiction has the +greatest interest in regulating behavior within its borders." Cooney v. Osgood +" If anything, the probating of the estate in the USVI may stand to benefit the estate's creditors, +and thereby potentially Doe, to the extent that an estate probated in the USVI may avoid the high +estate-tax rates imposed by New York State. + + +Case 119V107531AEDGEF D06mneh13& Fl0428120 Page 12of17 +Mach., Inc., 81 N.Y.2d 66, 72 (1993). In Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian +Bank, SALL] ... we observed that, under New York law, when the jurisdictions of +the conduct and injury are distinct, it is the place of the allegedly wrongful +conduct that generally has superior "interests in protecting the reasonable +expectations of the parties who relied on the laws of that place to govern their +primary conduct and in the admonitory effect that applying its law will have on +similar conduct in the future." [739 F.3d 45, 50-51 (2d Cir. 2013)] (quoting +[v. Boy Scouts of Am., Inc., 65 N.Y.2d 189, 198 (1985)]) (alterations +omitted). Here, the allegedly wrongful conduct ... took place in New York .... +We therefore conclude that New York's rules on fraud damages and negligent +misrepresentation apply. +AHW Inv. P'ship, MFS v. Citigroup, Inc., 661 F. App'x 2, 5 (2d Cir. 2016). New York's interest +is also reinforced by the fact that Doe's suit is timely only by virtue of the state's recent +enactment of the New York Child Victims Act, which temporarily revived time-barred suits. See +Cmplt. 1 107. +That New York law governs the availability of punitive damages is further reinforced by +Doe's having sued the executor defendants under EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1). It is problematic for her +to cherrypick within that provision, invoking the part that authorizes a personal injury suit +against an executor while disclaiming the balance, which delimits the recovery available in such +a suit." See Blissett, 940 F. Supp. at 457 ("[I]t would be an anomalous situation indeed if +plaintiff were allowed to proceed with this [§] 1983 action against the estate of +because of +[8] 11-3.2(a)(1), while at the same time he was allowed to recover relief in the form of punitive +damages, which clearly is beyond the scope of relief which that statute authorizes."). Such a +result is also inconsistent with the doctrine of dépeçage, where one forum's law is "applied to +regulate certain issues arising from a given transaction or occurrence, while those of another +system regulate the other issues." +v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 492 F. Supp. 2d 308, 328 +* Doe's claims undisputedly all qualify as personal injury claims. See N.Y. Gen. Constr. Law +§ 37-a. (defining "personal injury" as including "an assault, battery, false imprisonment, or other +actionable injury to the person either of the plaintiff, or of another"). Doe does not argue +otherwise. +12 + + +n. 11 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (emphasis added), aff'd sub nom. +v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., +539 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2008). Here, Doe, in selectively drawing upon EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1), seeks +to invoke dépeçage to apply two different sets of laws to a single issue. The doctrine does not +invite such a result. +Finally, Adelson, on which Doe relies in claiming that USVI law governs punitive +damages, is inapposite. Adelson had brought an earlier action in this District for defamation, in +breach of Nevada law, against the National Jewish Democratic Council and its chair (together, +"NJDC"). Adelson, 417 F. Supp. 3d at 420-21. That action had been dismissed pursuant to +Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute. NJDC then sued Adelson, seeking punitive damages under that +same Nevada statute. Id. On Adelson's motion to dismiss the punitive damages prayer, Judge +Oetken held that Nevada's interest was stronger than New York's as to punitive damages, +because Adelson had brought the initial suit under Nevada law and because it had been +dismissed under the Nevada SLAPP statute on which the NJDC now pursued punitive damages. +He reasoned that "because the litigant has attempted to use Nevada's defamation law to chill +First Amendment rights, Nevada has a corresponding interest in punishing the litigant for +maliciously invoking Nevada law and in deterring future litigants from doing the same." +Adelson, 417 F. Supp. 3d at 426 (citing | +65 N.Y.2d at 198). Noting that "[p]unitive +damages are designed to punish the defendant, not to compensate the plaintiff," Judge Oetken +explained that "the choice-of-law inquiry for punitive damages provisions is necessarily +defendant-focused" in this way. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Golden, +2013 WL 4500879, at *3). By contrast, Judge Oetken concluded that New York's interest in the +dispute was "relatively attenuated" and effectively limited to the fact that the suit was filed in +federal district court in Manhattan where, notably, the claims were brought under Nevada +13 + + +Case 119V1753LAEDGEF D06mmeh13& Fl042812 Page 144of17 +defamation law. "After all, New York lacks a particularized interest either in protecting +defendants from liability under Nevada defamation law or in controlling the behavior of litigants +who file in the federal courts. And where the locus jurisdiction has a merely fortuitous +relationship with the case, that jurisdiction's interest in the case is minimal." Id. at 426-27 +(internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Doe's case in this District, in contrast to +Adelson, does not build on a prior litigation in, or based on the law of, the USVI. +In any event, the choice of law debate here appears academic. That is because, while the +USVI does not have a statute on point and USVI courts have not squarely resolved the issue, it is +likely that USVI common law would not permit an award of punitive damages against an estate. +In 2011, the USVI Supreme Court instructed courts to apply what it terms a "Banks analysis" to +determine USVI common law. This entails consideration of "three non-dispositive factors": +(1) whether any USVI court has previously adopted a particular rule; (2) the position taken by a +majority of courts of other jurisdictions; and (3) most importantly, which rule represents the +soundest rule for the USVI. See Gov't of Virgin Islands v. +60 V.I. 597, 600 (2014); +Matthew v. Herman, 56 V.I. 674, 680 (2012); Banks v. Int'l Rental & Leasing Corp., 55 V.I. 967, +979 (2011). The parties differ as to how these factors apply, but the executors' assessment is the +more persuasive. +As to the first Banks factor, USVI courts have repeatedly cited the Restatement (Second) +of Torts § 908 favorably. Twice, albeit in dieta, they have expressly quoted the language in +comment (a) to § 908 that bars an award of punitive damages against the estate of a decedent +tortfeasor. See +v. Dowson Holding Co., 51 V.I. 619, 628 (D.V.I. 2009) ("Punitive +damages are not awarded against the representatives of a deceased tortfeasor nor, ordinarily, in +an action under a death statute." (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908 cmt. a (1979)) +14 + + +(citing +v. Atlas Motor Inn, Inc., 16 V.I. 367, 368-69 (D.V.I. 1979) (interpreting the Virgin +Island's wrongful death statue, 5 V.I.C. § 76, to preclude punitive damages)); Booth v. Bowen, +Civ. No. 2006-217 (CVG), 2008 WL 220067, at *5 (D.V.I. Jan. 10, 2008) (same)'; see also +Pappas v. Hotel on the Cay Time-Sharing Ass'n, 69 V.I. 3, 15 n.8 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2015) (applying +Banks analysis to hold that USVI courts would adopt Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908, and +citing five USVI cases in accord); Powell v. Chi-Co's Distrib. Ine., No. ST-13-TOR-14, +2014 WL 1394183, at *2 n.13 (V.I. Super. Ct. Apr. 3, 2014) (Applying a Banks analysis, the +Court finds that Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908(2) reflects the common law of this +jurisdiction .... [C]onsidering the longstanding application of the Restatement (Second) of +Torts § 908(2) in this jurisdiction and the apparent widespread application of this rule in a +majority of jurisdictions, the Court finds that the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908(2) +represents the soundest rule for the Virgin Islands, and is in accord with local public policy."). +Doe has not cited any contrary authority. +As to the second Banks factor, the parties agree that, consistent with the Restatement, +most U.S. jurisdictions do not permit an award of punitive damages against a tortfeasor's estate. +See, e.g., Crabtree ex rel. Kemp v. Estate of Crabtree, 837 N.E.2d 135, 138 (Ind. 2005) ("[tJhe +majority view denies punitive damages" from a deceased tortfeasor's estate); Jay Zitter, Annotation, +Claim for punitive damages in tort action as surviving death of tortfeasor or person wronged, 30 +A.L.R. 4th 707 (2020); 1 Punitive Damages: Law and Prac. 2d § 9:8 (2019 ed.) ("The prevailing +view appears to be that punitive damages may not be recovered against the estate of a deceased +wrongdoer."). Doe notes that some jurisdictions (like New York) have adopted this result by +" The decisions in +case was the plaintiff, not the defendant. +and Booth were dicta on this point, because the executor in each +15 + + +@ase 119V10753LAEDGEF D06mmeh13& Fil042812 Page 166of17 +statute while others have done so by court decision. Doe Mem. at 12. This distinction, however, +does not appear germane to the Banks inquiry. +As to the third Banks factor, the parties have not cited any evidence beyond USVI +courts having repeatedly cited Restatement § 908 with favor, including in the course of a Banks +analysis —as to which rule would most soundly fit the USVI's interests. Beyond recognizing +that USVI courts appear comfortable with the majority rule, the Court therefore cannot assign +significant independent weight to this factor. Doe notes that the USVI's attorney general, in a +separate lawsuit, is pursuing punitive damages against the Epstein estate based on alleged +predations by Epstein in the USVI. See Mullkoff Decl. Ex. B 11 307-10. Doe further argues +that because the only heir listed in Epstein's will—his brother Mark Epstein—-allegedly knew or +had constructive knowledge of Epstein's pattern of sexual abuse, it is just to deny him recovery +from the estate by exposing the estate to punitive damages awards in cases such as hers. Doe +Mem. at 11. But the decision by a government lawyer to attempt to obtain such damages in a +high-profile case involving allegations of extreme conduct, or the alleged guilty knowledge of an +heir in this case, do not speak to the question that the third Banks factor assays: which rule of law +best durably serves the USVI's interests. The Court therefore has no basis to treats this Banks +factor as countervailing, let alone outweighing, the first two. +CONCLUSION +For the reasons above, the Court grants the defendant-executors' motion to dismiss the +prayer for punitive damages against them. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to +terminate the motion pending at docket 17. +16 + + +@as 119417531AEDGE 006mmeh& Fi042812 Page 177 of 17 +SO ORDERED. +Panl A. Englongu +Paul A. Engelmayer +United States District Judge +Dated: April 28, 2020 +New York, New York +17 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfb6a11d844b4643369d93fad9c11f4a198d7e8b16848eea66faee4da44bec85.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfb6a11d844b4643369d93fad9c11f4a198d7e8b16848eea66faee4da44bec85.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4ae5a49fa541efbf3134238445088c9ddd6ef696 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfb6a11d844b4643369d93fad9c11f4a198d7e8b16848eea66faee4da44bec85.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -216, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cfb6a11d844b4643369d93fad9c11f4a198d7e8b16848eea66faee4da44bec85", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 18, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "65f0b802ca1470a020c3ac3c27bb358b2e3b4c1a10291890a50ccd9bbe7c5d21", + "output_sha256": "de187c527010287300c3b29c3306fb46fee471b82d163c063f00d91820047ef8", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfb8ec25c14e9c7b449cb7a6b35317042fa7c04a7a0b7ee270443cac2949a947.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfb8ec25c14e9c7b449cb7a6b35317042fa7c04a7a0b7ee270443cac2949a947.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..018966e48632bd1249975d3ea20ea5ef959b909c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfb8ec25c14e9c7b449cb7a6b35317042fa7c04a7a0b7ee270443cac2949a947.md @@ -0,0 +1,288 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 1 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-, +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80581, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092. +DEFENDANT'S, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND +TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO. 4 AND MEMORANDUM IN +SUPPORT THEREOF +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, moves this +court for an order granting sanctions pursuant to Rule 30(d)(2) and (3)(A) and (C) (referencing +Rule 37(a)(5)), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and compelling the deposition of Jane Doe No. +4 within fifteen (15) days and as grounds therefore would state: +On August 16, 2009, the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 was noticed for September +16, 2009 to begin at 1:00 p.m. Plaintiff's counsel had advised that Jane Doe No. 4 could not +appear for a deposition prior to that time of day, i.e. 1:00 p.m. +The deposition was originally set at the offices of the undersigned, but Plaintiff's +counsel requested that it be moved to the court reporter's office. The court reporter is Prose +Court Reporting located at 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 115, West Palm Beach, FL +33401. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 2 of 8 +The undersigned's office began attempting to set the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 +on July 21, 2009. Because of the number of attorneys who would be attending (based on the +court's consolidation order) coordinating the video deposition creates logistical problems. +4. +On August 27, 2009, the undersigned wrote a letter to counsel for the Plaintiff +indicating that Mr. Epstein would be present at the deposition. A copy of that letter is attached +as Exhibit 1. +5. +Some 13 days later, counsel for Jane Doe No. 4 filed a motion for protective order +on September 9, 2009 attempting to prohibit Mr.Epstein's presence at the deposition. The +Defendant immediately filed a response (an Emergency Motion) on September 11, 2009 +requesting that the court enter an order allowing Epstein, the Defendant in this matter, to attend +the deposition. This is common procedure. See Exhibit 2, without exhibits. As of the date of +the deposition, the court had not ruled on these motions. +6. +On Monday, counsel for Jane Doe No. 4 and the undersigned spoke, an agreement +was reached that the deposition would proceed as scheduled, and that Mr. Epstein would not be +in attendance other than by telephone or other means. See Exhibit 3. +The deposition was originally scheduled on the 15* Floor and moved by Prose to +a larger ground floor to accommodate the number of people who were to attend +8. +The undersigned and his partner, Mark T. Luttier, had scheduled a meeting with +Mr. Epstein for approximately an hour prior to the deposition. It is well known through multiple +newspaper articles that Mr. Epstein's office at the Florida Science Foundation is located on the +14" Floor in the same building as the court reporter and Mr. Epstein's criminal attorney, Mr. +Goldberger. As well, had the court issued an order prior to the deposition that would have +allowed Mr. Epstein to attend, he was readily available. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 3 of 8 +9. +As of 1:00 p.m., no order had been received from the court, so Epstein's +attorneys, in good faith, decided that Epstein would not attend the deposition (as per the +agreement), if we chose to proceed, which we were doing. The undersigned and Mr. Luttier +specifically waited until just after 1:00 o'clock, the time that the deposition was to start, prior to +leaving with Mr. Epstein. Counsel instructed Mr. Epstein to leave the building. Clearly, +Defendant and his counsel simply wish to have meaningful discovery. +10. The undersigned and Mr. Luttier exited the elevator heading toward the +deposition room and Mr. Epstein and his driver, Igor Zinoviev exited in separate elevator at the +same time and turned to depart from through the front entrance such that he could go to his home +to watch the deposition and assist counsel, from a video feed. +11. Completely unbeknownst and unexpected by anyone, apparently the Plaintiff and +her attorney(s) were at the front door where Mr. Epstein was intending to exit. Upon seeing two +women, one who might be the Plaintiff, Mr. Epstein immediately made a left turn and exited +through a separate set of doors to the garage area. See affidavit of Jeffrey Epstein and Igor +Zinoviev, Exhibit 4 and 5, respectively. +12. The entire incident was completely unknown to the undersigned and Mr. Luttier +until Adam Horowitz, Esq. came in and announced that the deposition was not going to take +place in that Mr. Epstein and his client saw one another, she was upset and therefore the +deposition was cancelled from his perspective. +13. +The undersigned and his partner, Mr. Luttier, had a court reporter and a +videographer present. Additionally, Mr. +on behalf of C.M.A., Adam Langino on behalf of +B.B., William Berger on behalf of three Plaintiffs were present for the deposition. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 4 of 8 +14. Any suggestion that the chance "visual" between Mr. Epstein and Jane Doe No. 4 +was "pre-planned" would be absurd, disingenuous and false. The undersigned counsel went out +of his way to make certain Mr. Epstein would not be in the building after the time the deposition +was set to begin. Had the Plaintiff and her counsel been in the deposition room at the appointed +time, no visual contact would have occurred. +15. +It is possible that Plaintiff's counsel, by filing their motion for protective order on +September 9, 2009 and then advising the undersigned on September 14, 2009 that the deposition +would not go forward unless the undersigned agreed to exclude Mr. Epstein from the deposition, +were not prepared and/or did not want to proceed with the deposition. +16. +The unilateral termination of the deposition was unnecessary, inappropriate and a +substantial waste of attorney time and the costs related to the deposition (court reporter and +videographer). (See Affidavit of Robert D. Critton, Jr., Mark T. Luttier and Deposition +Transcript, Exhibits 6, 7, and 8 respectively). +17. Had the "visual" been premeditated, the cancellation of the deposition may have +been justified, however, under these circumstances, it was grandstanding and improper. In that +the Plaintiff has stated that she voluntary went to JE's home 50 plus times without trauma until +she filed a lawsuit, this brief visual encounter from a distance should not have resulted in the +unilateral cancellation of her deposition. +The costs associated with the court reporter and videographer total $428.80. See + +Memorandum of Law In support of Motion +A substantial amount of administrative time went into the setting up the deposition of +Jane Doe No. 4. Almost two months passed from the time that the Defendant's counsel first +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 5 of 8 +requested a date for the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4. The deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 was to +begin at 1:00 p.m, based on her schedule, and was moved from the undersigned's office to the +office of the court reporter at her counsel's request. +Pursuant to Rule 30(d)(2) and (3)(A) and (C) and its reference to 37(a)(5)), Federal Rules +of Civil Procedure, the court may impose an appropriate sanction, including reasonable expenses +in attorneys fees incurred by any party on a person who impedes or delays the fair examination +of the deponent. In this instance, the brief visual encounter, which was completely unintended +and inadvertent, should not have been grounds for Plaintiff's counsel and Plaintiff refusing to +move forward with the deposition. Furthermore, pursuant to (3)(A) and (C), Plaintiff and +Plaintiff's counsel had no right to unilaterally terminate/cancel the deposition and fail to move +forward. Plaintiff should have continued with the deposition and filed any motion deemed +appropriate post deposition. Therefore, Defendant is asking for the costs associated with the +attendance of the court reporter, her transcript and the presence of the videographer. Defendant +would also request reasonable fees for 2.5 hours at $500 per hour for being required to prepare +this motion and affidavits associated with same. +The records obtained thus far on Jane Doe No. 4, do not reflect any "emotional trauma" +by her own account of some 50 plus visits to the Defendant's home prior to the time that she +hired an attorney. Even in her interview with attorney's handpicked expert, Dr. Kliman, by her +own comments, her significant emotional trauma relates to physical and verbal abuse by a prior +boyfriend, Preston Vineyard, and deaths associated with two close friends, Chris and Jen. +Therefore, the supposed "emotional trauma" caused by a chance encounter resulting in a +"glance" at best, should not be the basis for Plaintiff unilaterally cancelling her deposition. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 6 of 8 +Rule 7.1 A. 3. Certification of Pre-Filing Conference +Counsel for Defendant conferred with Counsel for Plaintiff by telephone and by e-mail; +however, an agreement has not been reached +WHEREFORE, Defendant moves this court for an order granting sanctions to include +attorneys fees and costs as set forth above and costs associated with the attendance of the court +reporter, the transcript and the presence of the videographer and direction that Jane Doe No. 4 +appear for deposition within fifteen (15) days from the date of the court's order at the court +reporter's office. If the court has not issued an order regarding Mr. Epstein's attendance at +Plaintiff's deposition when Jane Doe No. 4 is to appear, the Defendant will agree that Mr. +Epstein will not be present in the building on the date of her scheduled deposition such that no +"inadvertent" contact will occur. +Robert B. +Critton, Jr. +Michael J. Pike +Attorneys for Defendant Epstein +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was hand-delivered to the Clerk +of the Court as required by the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida and electronically +mailed to all counsel of record identified on the following Service List on this_ # day of +September, 2009. +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 7 of 8 +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Brad +1, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Suite 2218 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: 954-522-3456 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +bedwards@rra-law.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08- +80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +80994 +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +801-585-5202 +2290 10# Avenue North +801-585-6833 Fax +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Isidro M. +, Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- +Law Firm, P.A. +80811 +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Jack Scarola, Esq. +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack P. +, Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, +80469 +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +561-686-6300 +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +Fax: 561-383-9424 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +jsx@searcylaw.com +Miami, FL 33130 +jph@searcylaw.com +305 358-2800 +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +09-80591 and 09-80656 +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 8 of 8 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. +Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. +Leopold-Kuvin, P.A +2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +561-684-6500 +Fax: 561-515-2610 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- +08804 +skuvin@riccilaw.com +tleopold@riccilaw.com +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@belisouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +MİKMAN, CANTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/213-0164 Fax +(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +8 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfb8ec25c14e9c7b449cb7a6b35317042fa7c04a7a0b7ee270443cac2949a947.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfb8ec25c14e9c7b449cb7a6b35317042fa7c04a7a0b7ee270443cac2949a947.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fccf14259b12b27383121e57bcee364ce0c051c2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfb8ec25c14e9c7b449cb7a6b35317042fa7c04a7a0b7ee270443cac2949a947.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -106, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cfb8ec25c14e9c7b449cb7a6b35317042fa7c04a7a0b7ee270443cac2949a947", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "d6ea4f5502f6525a46d0e23095be64966bd013c5997394870f5fdedea78225a4", + "output_sha256": "0e8d5b001904fd13a0ebf250a8663ee4bc7e01b5a54a78e7f6d885aa3cf17866", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfc3e545ae2096708b5dba4531358b39f10a11a3e65cd1a257f56921f00b14d8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfc3e545ae2096708b5dba4531358b39f10a11a3e65cd1a257f56921f00b14d8.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..32ff1a34c9a7293e60aca0d39b698850e63232dc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfc3e545ae2096708b5dba4531358b39f10a11a3e65cd1a257f56921f00b14d8.md @@ -0,0 +1,161 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2009 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA1 +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2009 Page 2 of 6 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +vS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80993-MARRA +C.M.A.. +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80811 -MARRAJ +JANE DOE, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/ +DOE II, +VS. +CASE NO.: 08-CV- 80469-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2009 Page 3 of 6 +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al., +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80591-MARRAJ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80656-MARRA/ +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JOINT MOTION FOR STIPULATED HIPAA PROTECTIVE ORDER +Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-7, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby file this +Unopposed Motion for Stipulated HIPAA Protective Order, and state as follows: +In the course of discovery in this case, the parties will be exchanging discovery +concerning the Plaintiffs which is protected by Health Insurance Portability and Accountability +Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"). +These records include sensitive and confidential medical and therapy records. +Accordingly, the parties request the entry of the attached Stipulated HIPAA +Protective Order to protect Plaintiffs' rights under HIPAA and allow Defendant to receive +discovery of protected healthcare information under HIPAA. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2009 Page 4 of 6 +4. +A proposed Agreed Order is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7, respectfully request that this Court enter the +Stipulated HIPAA Protective Order attached as Exhibit "A". +Dated: July 1, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: s/ Adam D. Horowitz +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-8 +By: s/ Robert D. Critton +Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esq. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +Michael J. Pike, Esq. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN, +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2009 Page 5 of 6 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on July 2, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served +this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission +of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for +those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2009 Page 6 of 6 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +bedwards@rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike @bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +/s/ Adam D. Horowitz +6 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfc3e545ae2096708b5dba4531358b39f10a11a3e65cd1a257f56921f00b14d8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfc3e545ae2096708b5dba4531358b39f10a11a3e65cd1a257f56921f00b14d8.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef39a78c55749265918929ee9e66be56a352f148 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfc3e545ae2096708b5dba4531358b39f10a11a3e65cd1a257f56921f00b14d8.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cfc3e545ae2096708b5dba4531358b39f10a11a3e65cd1a257f56921f00b14d8", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "bcb6f9a16bd0e41fed23dea61bd52b4e841ed478b1dcd1c12983bef53d5a47ac", + "output_sha256": "4f7932857b48b4187c185174cd96a73ce02f147dc39eafafc0e7aa41b9ca8ac0", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfc9ff87c963f60e01f1b553e889deee3e63c3d68e20a539fde732a369696570.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfc9ff87c963f60e01f1b553e889deee3e63c3d68e20a539fde732a369696570.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..36bd91eaacca5c9db6e3a27bda1470f489eb11a7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfc9ff87c963f60e01f1b553e889deee3e63c3d68e20a539fde732a369696570.md @@ -0,0 +1,430 @@ +Case 9:08-cV-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 1 of 14 33 +7 +A.C., +V. +IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM +BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 502008CA025129XXXXMB AI +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and +Defendants. +ORDER ON DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & +OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, +DATED FEBRUARY 6, 2009 +THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's +Response & Objections To Plaintiff's First Request For Production, dated +February 6, 2009 and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being +fully advised in these premises, it is hereby +bjections are +RDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's totion is hereby granted +denied +sustained. +DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach County Courthouse, West Palm +Beach, Florida, this +23 day of. +Edward A. Garrison +Circuit Judge +Copies furnished: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ., and MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ., 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach +FL 33401; JACK SCAROLA, ESQ., AND JACK P. +ESQ., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & +West Palm Beach, FL 33409, and JACK A +ESQ., Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1400, 250 +Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +COMPOSITE EXHIBIT "C" +-VENED! + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 2 of 14 +32 +IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM +BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 502008CA025129XXXXMB AI +A.C., +Plaintiff, +V. +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and +Defendants. +_' +DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S AMENDED RESPONSE & +OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, +hereby files his Amended Response and Objections to Plaintiff's First Request For +Production To Defendant, served January 5, 2009 and states: +Introduction +This Amended Response amends Defendant's previously filed Response and +Objections to Plaintiff's First Request for Production, dated February 6, 2009. This +response does not change the legal objections previously raised but rather sets forth a +discussion of the law in support of Defendant's constitutional objections to production, in +particular, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Except for the +discussion of law set forth herein, this response sets forth the identical responses and +objections previously filed and served. Accordingly, Plaintiff is in no way prejudiced by +this Amended Response. +Legal Basis Applicable to Each of Defendant's Objections Set Forth Below +In response to each of the items requested, set forth below, Defendant asserts +his Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 3 of 14 +Page 2 +Privilege extends to the act of production where, as here, it involves a self-incriminating +testimonial communication or "a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. +Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 120 S.Ct. 2037 (2000); Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 +(1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self- +Incrimination, §138 (6'" Ed.). See also Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the +Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due +Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "filt would be incongruous to have +different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same +feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal +court."); Hoffman v. U.S., 71 S.Ct. 814, 818 (1951), and progeny). +The Fifth Amendment Privilege may be invoked in a civil action where a litigant or +witness is being asked to provide information or respond to a question that may +incriminate him in a crime. See generally, DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company. 436 So.2d +1099 (Fla. 4** DCA 1983). The privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted +during discovery when a litigant has "reasonable grounds to believe that the response +would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prove a crime against a litigant." +A witness, including a civil defendant, is entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege +whenever there is a realistic possibility that the answer to a question could be used in +anyway to convict the witness of a crime or could aid in the development of other +incriminating evidence that can be used at trial. Id; Pillsbury Company v. Conboy, 495 +U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608 (1983). + + +Case 9:08-cV-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 4 of 14 +Page 3 +The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the scope of the Fifth +Amendment Privilege includes the circumstances as here "the act of producing +documents in response to a subpoena (or production request) has a compelled +testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 +(2000). In explaining the application of the privilege, the Supreme Court stated: +We have held that "the act of production" itself may implicitly communicate +"statements of fact." +By "producing documents in compliance with a +subpoena, the witness would admit that the papers existed, were in his +possession or control, and were authentic. "EN19 Moreover, as was true in this +case, when the custodian of documents responds to a subpoena, he may be +compelled to take the witness stand and answer questions designed to +determine whether he has produced everything demanded by the subpoena. +EN20 The answers to those questions, as well as the act of production itself, +may certainly communicate information about the existence, custody, and +authenticity of the documents. Whether the constitutional privilege protects +the answers to such questions, or protects the act of production itself, is a +question that is distinct from the question whether the unprotected contents of +the documents themselves are incriminating. +FN19. "The issue presented in those cases was whether the act of +producing subpoenaed documents, not itself the making of a statement, +might nonetheless have some protected testimonial aspects. The Court +concluded that the act of production could constitute protected testimonial +communication because it might entail implicit statements of fact: by +producing documents in compliance with a subpoena, the witness would +admit that the papers existed, were in his possession or control, and were +authentic. United States v. Doe, 465 U.S., at 613, and n. 11, 104 S.Ct. +1237; Fisher, 425 U.S., at 409-410, 96 S.Ct. 1569; id., at 428, 432, 96 +S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States, [487 +U.S.,] at 104, 108 S.Ct. 2284; Lid.,] at 122, 108 S.Ct. 2284 (dissenting +opinion). Thus, the Court made clear that the Fifth Amendment privilege +against self-incrimination applies to acts that imply assertions of fact."... +An examination of the Court's application of these principles in other cases +indicates the Court's recognition that, in order to be testimonial, an +accused's communication must itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate a factual +assertion or disclose information. Only then is a person compelled to be a +'witness' against himself." Doe v. United States, 487 U.S., at 209-210, 108 +S.Ct. 2341 (footnote omitted). + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 5 of 14 +Page 4 +FN20. See App. 62-70. Thus, for example, after respondent had been duly +sworn by the grand jury f +the prosecutor called his attention to +paragraph A of the Subpoena Rider (reproduced in the Appendix, infra, at +2048-2049) and asked whether he had produced "all those documents." +App. 65. +Finally, the phrase "in any criminal case" in the text of the Fifth Amendment +might have been read to limit its coverage to compelled testimony that is used +against the detendant in the trial itself. It has, however, long been settled that +its protection encompasses compelled statements that lead to the discovery of +incriminating evidence even though the statements themselves are not +incriminating and are not introduced into evidence. Thus, a half century ago +we held that a trial judge had erroneously rejected a defendant's claim of +privilege on the ground that his answer to the pending question would not itself +constitute evidence of the charged offense. As we explained: +"The privilege afforded not only extends to answers that would in +themselves support a conviction under a federal criminal statute but likewise +embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to +prosecute the claimant for a federal crime." Hoffman v. United States, 341 +U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.Ct. 814, 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951). +Compelled testimony that communicates information that may "lead to +incriminating evidence" is privileged even if the information itself is not +inculpatory. Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 208, n. 6, 108 S.Ct. 2341, +101 L.Ed.2d 184 (1988). It's the Fifth Amendment's protection against the +prosecutor's use of incriminating information derived directly or indirectly from +the compelled testimony of the respondent that is of primary relevance in this +case. +In summarizing its holding regarding the application of the Fifth Amendment +Privilege to a production request, the Hubbell Court left "no doubt that the constitutional +privilege against self incrimination protects" not only "the target of a grand jury +investigation from being compelled to answer questions designed to elicit information +about the existence of sources of potentially incriminating evidence," but the privilege +also "has the same application to the testimonial aspect of a response to a subpoena +seeking discovery of those sources." At 43, and 2047. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 6 of 14 +Page 5 +EPSTEIN entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with United States +Attorney General's Officer ("USAO") for the Federal Southern District of Florida. The +terms and conditions of the NPA also entailed EPSTEIN entering into a Plea Agreement +with the State Attorney's Office, Palm Beach County, State of Florida. By its terms, the +NPA took effect on June 30, 2008. As well, pursuant to the NPA, any criminal +prosecution against EPSTEIN is deferred as long as the terms and conditions of the +NPA are fulfilled by EPSTEIN. Criminal matters against EPSTEIN remain ongoing until +the NPA expires by its terms in late 2010 and as long as the USAO determines that +EPSTEIN has complied with those terms and conditions. The threat of criminal +prosecution against EPSTEIN by the USAO continues presently and through late 2010. +The USAO possesses the right to declare that the agreement has been breached, give +EPSTEIN's counsel notice, +and attempt to move forward with the prosecution. See +attached Exhibit "A", Affidavit of Jack A. Goldberger, a board certified criminal defense +attorney who has in the past and is currently representing EPSTEIN. +This is precisely the situation that the protection of the Fifth Amendment Privilege +is to apply. By responding to the request as opposed to asserting his constitutional +privilege, EPSTEIN would admit that the documents/items existed, were in his +possession or control, and were authentic. The act of production itself, may certainly +communicate information about the existence, custody, and authenticity of the +documents/items. +"Whether the constitutional privilege protects the answers to such +questions, or protects the act of production itself, is a question that is distinct from the + + +Case 9:08-cV-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 7 of 14 +Page 6 +question whether the unprotected contents of the documents themselves are +incriminating." United States v. Hubbell, supra. +Given the type of documents requested (set forth below), the collection and +production of the of the items demanded would be "tantamount to answering a series of +interrogatories asking a witness to disclose the existence and location of particular +documents/[items] fitting certain broad descriptions." Hubbell, supra at 41-2, and 2046. +Responding to the requests is "the functional equivalent of the preparation of an answer +to either a detailed written interrogatory or a series of oral questions at a discovery +deposition." Id. As stated in Hubbell, "it is undeniable that providing a catalog of +existing documents (items)" fitting within any of the requested documents "could provide +a prosecutor with a 'lead to incriminating evidence,' or 'a link in the chain of evidence +needed to prosecute.'" +Accordingly, Defendant's constitutional objection is required to be upheld. +Specific Requests & Responses, Including Objections +Request No. 1: Any and all evidence required to be maintained by Epstein +and the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, specifically evidence +requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that have been issued in +connection with the investigation referenced in the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and +including certain computer equipment. +Response: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant +documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the + + +Case 9:08-cV-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 8 of 14 +Page 7 +present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this +lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without +waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and +confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution +agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the +request may include information subject to work product or an attorney-client privilege. +Request No. 2: +Any and all documents reflecting or relating to the identity of, +the scheduling of, and/or the payment of any female compensated by or on behalf of +Epstein for providing any service to Epstein that required, contemplated, or included in +the provisions of such service, any physical contact between Epstein and the female, +any act or prostitution, any illicit sexual conduct, the exposure of breast, buttocks or +genitalia, or any commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. §1591(c)(1). +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant +documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the +present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this +lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to + + +Case 9:08-cV-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 9 of 14 +Page 8 +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without +waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and +confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution +agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further +Defendants objects to the production as overly broad and seeking information that is +neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be +reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Plaintiff in +this instance has alleged in her complaint that she was sexually abused by the +Defendant on one occasion sometime in the year 2004. The documents requested +herein have no time period provided, and therefore the information sought is grossly +overbroad. +Request No. 3: Any and all documents reflecting or relating to the identity of +and/or the nature and extent of any other person's participation in the communication +with and/or the scheduling of and/or the payment of any person who participated in any +conduct described in Request #2. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production +request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant +documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 10 of 14 +Page 9 +present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this +lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without +waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and +confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution +agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further +Defendants objects to the production as overly broad and seeking information that is +neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be +reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Plaintiff in +this instance has alleged in her complaint that she was sexually abused by the +Defendant on one occasion sometime in the year 2004. The documents requested +herein have no time period provided, and therefore the information sought is grossly +overbroad. +Certificate of Service +1 HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was send byte s Mail ke +the following addressees on this 19th_ day of_February, 2009: +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Jack P. +1, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +Searcy +Denney Scarola Barnhart & 250 Australian Avenue South +Shipley, P.A +Suite 1400 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 11 of 14 +Page 10 +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-686-6300 Phone +561-383-9424 Fax +Counsel for Plaintiff +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendants Jeffrey Epstein +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER +& COLEMAN, LLP +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 842-2820 +Robert D, Criton, Jr. +Florida Bar #224162 +Michael J. Pike +Florida Bar #617296 +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 12 of 14 +AFFIDAVIT OF JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE +) SS +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +BEFORE ME, the +undersigned authority, personally appeared +having personal knowledge and being duly sworn, deposes and says: +1. +1, Jack A. Goldberger, have personal knowledge of the matters set +forth herein. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida since +1978. I am a partner with the law firm of Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., +located at One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1400, 250 Australian Avenue South, West +Palm Beach, FL 33401. +2. +My practice includes and specializes in the defense of criminal +matters. I am board certified in criminal law. I have been and currently am the +criminal defense attorney for JEFFREY EPSTEIN. +3. +I represented Mr. EPSTEIN in the negotiation of and entering into a +Non-Prosecution Agreement with the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for +the Federal Southern District of Florida. The terms and conditions of the Non- +Prosecution Agreement also entailed the entering of a Plea Agreement with the +State Attorney's Office, Palm Beach County, State of Florida. +(The Non- +Prosecution Agreement shall hereinafter be referred to as the "NPA"). +4. +By its terms, the NPA took effect on June 30, 2008. Also, pursuant +to the terms of the NPA, any criminal prosecution against EPSTEIN is deferred +as long as the terms and conditions of the NPA are fulfilled by EPSTEIN. + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 13 of 14 +5. +The criminal matters against EPSTEIN remain ongoing until the +NPA expires by its terms in late 2010, and as long as the USAO determines +EPSTEIN has complied with those terms and conditions. The threat of criminal +prosecution against EPSTEIN by USAO in the Southern District of Florida +continues presently and through late 2010. +Pursuant to the terms of the NPA, the USAO possesses the right to +declare that the agreement has been breached, give EPSTEIN's counsel notice, +and attempt to move forward with a prosecution. As of the date of this Affidavit, +the USAO has taken the position on a number of occasions that it might consider +the following actions by EPSTEIN to be a breach of the NPA. +• Investigation by EPSTEIN (by and through his attorneys) of this Plaintiff +and the other Plaintiffs in other pending civil cases for purposes of +defending the civil actions; +• EPSTEIN's contesting damages in this action and other civil actions. +• EPSTEIN or his legal representatives making statements to the press +about this Plaintiff or the other Plaintiffs. +• Using the word "jail" instead of "imprisonment" in the plea agreement with +the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office. +7. +EPSTEIN, through counsel, submitted a Freedom of Information +Act request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for documents relating to +this and the other cases; the FBI denied the request stating the materials are at +this time exempt from disclosure because they are in an investigative file, i.e. the +matter is still an ongoing criminal investigation. +Page - 2 - + + +Case 9:08-CV-80381-KAM Document 67-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 14 of 14 +8. +The NPA expires in late 2010. +FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +I hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to +administer +oaths +acknowledgments, +personally +appeared +Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire, known to me to be the person described in and who +executed the foregoing Affidavit, who acknowledged before me that he/she +executed the same, that! relied upon the following form of identification of the +above named person: two tersonally +_, and that an oath was/was +not taken. +this WINESS case in the county and sate last aforesaid +Intary Public Slate of Flonde +LE Rosin +My Commission DD489790 +Expires 11/13/2009 +RINT NAME: +E RoSIr +NOTARY PUBLIC/STATE OF FLORIDA +COMMISSION NO.: DD 489790 +MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: +1|13/2009 +Page - 3 - \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfc9ff87c963f60e01f1b553e889deee3e63c3d68e20a539fde732a369696570.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfc9ff87c963f60e01f1b553e889deee3e63c3d68e20a539fde732a369696570.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed4f83eca555974e5948d84c93f02c427db92c90 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/cfc9ff87c963f60e01f1b553e889deee3e63c3d68e20a539fde732a369696570.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -396, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "cfc9ff87c963f60e01f1b553e889deee3e63c3d68e20a539fde732a369696570", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 16, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "45f530a90e09f1b12889be6f8ac2729af36ffaa5414e902069bcdad65a492a74", + "output_sha256": "c9886597b09bcc043c58240f9bdee116b1b00a79e16b43f8d403bba7627fe860", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d02401569a33b00be0214a910768fab67b3ae38310de7715a7c74aa917d6e32d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d02401569a33b00be0214a910768fab67b3ae38310de7715a7c74aa917d6e32d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..55e512b8400bf72a6d6de202b26eb8d200e4122f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d02401569a33b00be0214a910768fab67b3ae38310de7715a7c74aa917d6e32d.md @@ -0,0 +1,391 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 1 of 13 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO.2, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO.3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO.4, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80381-MARRAL +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 2 of 13 +Page 2 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80994-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80993-MARRA/JOHNSON +vS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., +Defendants. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 3 of 13 +Page 3 +DOE II, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80469-MARRAL +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80591-MARRAJ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.; 08-CV-80656-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Motion To Strike Cases From Current Trial Docket +And Motion to Continue Case And/Or Alternative Motion to Modify Trial and +Scheduling Order Deadlines +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN") by and through his +undersigned attorneys, hereby moves this Court for the entry of an order Striking These +Cases (i.e., C.M.A., Jane Doe (80893) and Jane Does 2-7) From The Current Trial +Dockets), Continuing The Trials And Setting Them On New Trial Dockets At Least +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 4 of 13 +Page 4 +Three Months After The Current Trial Dates As Set Or, Alternatively, Modifying The +Current Trial Schedule To Allow For An Additional 3 Months From Current Dates Within +Which To Complete Discovery, An Additional 2 Months From The Current Dates Within +Which To Complete All Substantive Pretrial Motions and Expert Discovery, An +Additional Month From The Current Dates Within Which To Mediate the Matters and An +Additional Month to Complete the Remaining Scheduling Deadlines under this Court's +Trial Orders. In support, EPSTEIN states: +1. +Procedural Background and Argument, +With Incorporated Memorandum of Law' +1. C.M.A. was filed on February 23, 2008. C.M.A. filed her First Amended +Complaint on February 10, 2009. (C.M.A. DE 39-40). Epstein's Motion to Dismiss same +was filed on March 12, 2009. (C.M.A. DE 47). The Motion to Dismiss remains +outstanding. +2. Jane Doe (80893) was filed on August 13, 2008. On April 17, 2009, Jane Doe +filed her First Amended Complaint. +3. The Jane Doe 2-7 cases were filed between February 6, 2008 and September +10, 2008. Jane Does 2-7 filed their Second Amended Complaints on February 2009. +4. Pursuant to the court's Orders Setting Trial And Discovery Deadlines, Referring +Case To Mediator And Referring Discovery Motions To U.S. Magistrate Judge (the +In an effort not to repeat certain legal arguments set out in various Motions and Replies referenced +below and identified herein by Docket Number, those motions and replies, with legal arguments, are +specifically incorporated herein by reference. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 5 of 13 +Page 5 +"Trial Orders"), these matters are currently set on this court's Trial Dockets commencing +January 25, 2010, February 8, 2010 and February 22, 2010. +5. Pursuant to the Trial Orders, discovery cutoff is August 2009 for C.M.A. and Jane +Does 2-5, and October 2009 for Jane Doe and Jane Does 6-7. Substantive pretrial +motions must be completed in August 2009 for C.M.A. and Jane Does 2-5, and October +2009 for Jane Doe and Jane Does 6-7. Mediation must be completed on November +2009 for Jane Does 2-5, and December 2009 for C.M.A., Jane Doe and Jane Does 6-7. +Finally, Expert discovery must be completed on June 29, 2009 for C.M.A. +6. As to C.M.A., Jane Doe and Jane Does 2-7, each has objected to relevant +discovery. C.M.A. has even refused to produce certain information that she agreed to +produce in discovery. The foregoing delay tactics has prevented Epstein from +conducting meaningful discovery in order to defend these matters and prepare for trial. +At this juncture, Plaintiffs wish for Epstein to try this case without any discovery +whatsoever. See infra. +7. For example, in a diligent effort to obtain discovery, Epstein filed substantive +motions addressing C.M.A.'s objections to discovery, and those motions remain +outstanding.? See (C.M.A. - DE 54 - Motion to Compel Responses to First Request to +Produce and First Set of Interrogatories and DE 70 - Epstein's Reply to Plaintiff's +Opposition Motion thereto). Epstein's Motion to Compel (C.M.A. DE 54) and Reply +2 The same discovery requests were served upon Jane Doe and Jane Does 2-7. Substantive Motions to Compel +seeking production of similar information in those cases were filed and remain outstanding. See Jane Doe DE 27 & +28 and Jane Doe 2-7 (specifically, Jane Doe 2 - DE 67-68, Jane Doe 3 - DE 59-60, Jane Doe 4 - DE 74-75, Jane +Doe 5 - DE 69-70, Jane Doe 6 - DE 24-25, and Jane Doe 7 - DE 26-27). Those Motions are incorporated herein by +reference. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 6 of 13 +Page 6 +(C.M.A. DE 70) are incorporated herein by reference. The Motion and the Reply seek +basic and elementary discovery. For instance, the Motion and the Reply seek: +a. individual +and/or joint income tax returns and supporting +documentation including W-2 and 1099 forms for 2002-2007 and, as +well as all records or documentation relative to the Plaintiff's earnings +for the current year; +b. All bills/expenses +from any medical doctor, chiropractor, +mercies of the haing menta he counsel an +i.e. drugs, +prescriptions, etc.) you claim you incurred as a result of the injuries +which are or may be the subject matter of this lawsuit; +c. All medical reports and/or records from doctors, physicians, +(including psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors), +hospitals, drug or alcohol facilities or any other person or entity who +has rendered treatment to or examined you for any reason after the +incidents) which is the subject matter of this lawsuit; +d. the names, business addresses, +telephone and cell phone +numbers, dates ot employment, immediate supervisor (name and +address) and rates of pay regarding all employers, including selfemployment, for whom you have worked in the past 10 years; this +includes listing all sources of income you have received. Answer this +question by year, i.e. 1998 - 2009; and +e. the names, addresses and phone numbers of all males, excluding +Mr. Epstein, with whom you have had sexual activity since age 10 (by +year) up through your current age. Describe the nature of sexual +activity, the date(s) and whether you received money or other +consideration from the person. +(DE 54 & 70) +8. C.M.A. objected to producing the tax information requested in 4(a) above, which +will show where C.M.A. worked, and she also speciously objected to the companion +interrogatory (4(d) above) wherein she refuses to identify where she worked for the +requested time period. Epstein needs the requested information so his attorneys can +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 7 of 13 +Page 7 +conduct the appropriate discovery on C.M.A.'s supervisors and co-workers (and others +that may be identified during those depositions) in connection with the allegations +C.M.A. has made against Epstein in her 89-page Amended Complaint. By virtue of +C.M.A. and the other Plaintiffs concealing the above information, Epstein has been +prevented from conducting any meaningful discovery, including the taking of any +depositions of C.M.A.'s supervisors, co-workers, acquaintances, friends and other third +parties. +9. As stated above, Jane Doe and Jane Does 2-7 made similar objections which +are the subject of various Motions to Compel. Epstein needs this information to defend +the Plaintiffs' allegations and to prepare for trial. +10. Next, C.M.A. concedes in her Opposition Motion to Discovery (DE 62) that +Epstein is entitled to the information set out in 4(b) & (C) above; however, C.M.A. +refuses to produce the information and/or allow the undersigned to list C.M.A.'s full +name, date of birth and last four digits of her social security number in any third-party +subpoenas in order to obtain those records.? While this case was filed by C.M.A. on +February 23, 2008, Epstein has been prevented from deposing any of the individuals +that treated Plaintiff at one time or another.* This results directly from C.M.A. 's tactics to +delay and prevent meaningful discovery in hopes that C.M.A. will be able to prevent +Epstein from putting on any evidence in defense of his case. The remaining Plaintiffs +3 Attorney, Brad +, in case number 08-CIV-080893, agreed to such a procedure. Counsel for +Jane Does 2-7, Stuart Mermelstein, refuses to agree to such a procedure and, therefore, continues to +substantially delay discovery. Note, many of the Plaintiffs are witnesses in the related cases. Therefore, +Plaintiffs' discovery delays negatively effect the progress and trial preparation of each case +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 8 of 13 +Page 8 +have the same exact goal. Epstein cannot defend this matter with the element of unfair +and prejudicial "surprise" is ever so present. Schearbrook Land and Livestock +Company v. U.S. et. al, 124 F.R.D. 221 (M.D. Fla. 1988). +11. In an effort to move these cases forward and obtain meaningful discovery, +Epstein filed his Motion to Compel and Motion to Compel and/or Identify CMA (and +Jane Does 2-7) in the Style of this Case and Motion to Identify Them in Third-Party +Subpoenas ("Motions to Identify"). The Motions to Identify are incorporated herein by +reference and, for the court's edification, same remain outstanding. Should this Court +grant the Motions to Identify, Epstein will be able to obtain discovery he does not +currently have in his possession and will be able to take certain depositions of +individuals that have yet to be identified. Based upon the court's consolidation order, +the motion to identify equally applies to C.M.A. and the other Plaintiffs. +12. Plaintiffs must be identified in other third-party subpoenas (unrelated to those +discussed above concerning medical treatment) in order for Epstein to conduct +meaningful discovery. Epstein's right to conduct discovery and confront the witnesses +has, up through today's date, been unreasonably and unduly restricted as a result of +Plaintiffs' delay tactics. +13. Finally, the information sought in number 4(e) above has not been produced by +C.M.A. or the remaining Plaintiffs, despite the case law favoring production. United +5 In a state court matter filed against Epstein, E.W. v. Epstein, Case No.: 50-2008-CA-028058 XXXXMB +AD, the undersigned learned through discovery that the Plaintiff in that case worked at Platinum Gold, +Curves Cabaret, Platinum Showgirls, Cheetah, Diamond Dolls, Vegas Cabaret, Spearmint Rhino, T's +Lounge, Pure Platinum, Solid Gold, and The Body Shop. Substantial discovery will take place in that +matter of E.W.:'s co-workers, supervisors and others that may have information regarding the claims she +asserted against Epstein. Epstein should be afforded that same right in the instant matters. +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 9 of 13 +Page 9 +States v. Bear Stops, 997 F.2d 451 (8'' Cir. 1993); Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d 1076 +(Fla. 5"' DCA 1997), rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998). The information sought in +4(e) is relevant and discoverable even if not admissible at trial. See Motion to Compel +and Reply (C.M.A. DE 54 & 70). Once Plaintiffs are required to fully answer the +interrogatories, the answers may yield (at a later deposition or through paper discovery): +(a) the names of individuals that may have information about Plaintiffs that negate the +allegations in their Complaints, (b) how certain acts alleged in their Complaints +materially affected their relationships with others or how those acts did not have such an +affect on those relationships, and (3) whether Plaintiffs suffered from disorders (e.g., +C.M.A.'s claims of bi-polar disorder and manic depression) as a result of other sexual +acts prior to the acts alleged in the Complaints. Here, evidence of Plaintiffs' sexual +activity with others may show that those sexual activities (which could include assaults +once delineated) produced the behaviors that, for instance, C.M.A. attributes to Epstein +(e.g., bi-polar and manic depression disorders). Accordingly, answers to the above +discovery requests go the heart of Plaintiffs' damages or lack thereof. +14. Further, pursuant to this Courts Order (C.M.A. DE 68 and in the related matters), +Epstein is permitted only to take the Plaintiffs' depositions one time, both as a witness in +the other related matters and as a plaintiff in their particular matters. As a result, the +discovery schedule coupled with Plaintiffs' delay tactics and the Order (DE 68) is forcing +Epstein to take each of the Plaintiffs' depositions without the benefit of other discovery +and depositions of individuals that may have knowledge of the claims asserted by +Plaintiffs. As such, in the event Plaintiffs produce information after their depositions, + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 10 of 13 +Page 10 +this Court's order (DE 68) and the Federal Rules effectively prevent Epstein from taking +Plaintiffs' depositions a second time. This is inherently unfair and prejudicial to Epstein. +a. Memorandum of Law +15. Modifying a trial order and the deadlines/schedules thereunder is within the +sound discretion of this court. Under the circumstances outlined above, failure to strike +these cases from the current docket, continue the trials, and/or to modify the court's +scheduling order will prejudice Epstein. Epstein has diligently attempted to comply with +the Court's scheduling order but has effectively been prevented from doing so in light of +the Plaintiffs' delay tactics during discovery. See supra; Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 16(b)(4); Altadis +USA, Inc. v. NPR, Inc., 2004 WL 444533 (M.D. Fla.)(granting motion to extend +discovery and continue trial). +16. Epstein has shown good cause to obtain a continuance of the trial of this matter +and, as well, has shown good cause in order for this court to modity the scheduling +order. Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 16(b)(4)("A [scheduling order] may be modified only for good +cause and with the judge's consent."). Epstein's counsel has complied with Local Rule +7.6 of the U.S. Southern District by executing and providing the attached Affidavit. +Exhibit "A". Epstein cannot, despite his diligence, timely complete discovery by the +times outlined in the current scheduling order as a result of the Plaintiffs' delay tactics. +Thus, as outlined above, failure to strike these cases from the docket, continue this +case to the next available docket and to extend the discovery schedule and remaining +deadlines will prejudice Epstein. Epstein has simply not been given the opportunity to +obtain and/or conduct any meaningful discovery, which violates Epstein's constitutional +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 11 of 13 +Page 11 +due process right to defend himself and to seek the production of information that will +assist in his defense of the allegations in respective complaints. +Plaintiffs cannot +reasonably expect Epstein to try these matters with having only been afforded the +opportunity to take the deposition of one Plaintiff and not conduct any meaningful +discovery on others. +WHEREFORE, Epstein, through his counsel, requests that this court enter and +Order: +a. striking these cases from the current trial docket; +b. continuing the trials of these matters and setting same on new trial +dockets at least three months after the current trial dates; or, alternatively, +c. modifying the current trial schedule to allow for an additional 3 months +from the currently set date within which to complete discovery, an +additional 2 months from the currently set date within which to complete all +substantive pretrial motions, an additional month from the currently set +date within which to mediate this matter; and an additional month to +complete the remaining deadlines under each of the Court's Trial Orders; +and +d. for such other and further relief as this cour deems just and proper. +ROBERT BYCRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 12 of 13 +Page 12 +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the +manner specified by CMECF on this_14 day of May. 2009 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +2290 10* Avenue North +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 404 +Suite 1400 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-582-7600 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. +jagesq@bellsouth.net +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Jack P. +1, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart +& +250 S. Australian Avenue +Shipley, P.A. +Suite 1400 +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-202-6360 +561-686-6300 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +ect@brucereinhartlaw.com +isx@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +iph@searcylaw.com +Co-Counsel for Plaintiff +Respectfully subritted, +ROBÈRT D/CRItION, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 13 of 13 +Page 13 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein) +13 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d02401569a33b00be0214a910768fab67b3ae38310de7715a7c74aa917d6e32d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d02401569a33b00be0214a910768fab67b3ae38310de7715a7c74aa917d6e32d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..efc2e332932a8f4f45b04771792dd0ba3a102795 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d02401569a33b00be0214a910768fab67b3ae38310de7715a7c74aa917d6e32d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -158, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d02401569a33b00be0214a910768fab67b3ae38310de7715a7c74aa917d6e32d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 14, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "560b044b65e6ff8ba88ae18ef71a28dfc3d25a0c4b8413a8ec674cec390acbe4", + "output_sha256": "12999e30456d3a58b08683acf98bbde9f2a5453123e059e68177398cdd39c9b4", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d02976c0856cab842c8f04deee39a2f1f9f61f3bdb828f2ca2c81bfc1915fad9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d02976c0856cab842c8f04deee39a2f1f9f61f3bdb828f2ca2c81bfc1915fad9.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..25312aa3a67e24d1671076d1fb55307449ad5321 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d02976c0856cab842c8f04deee39a2f1f9f61f3bdb828f2ca2c81bfc1915fad9.md @@ -0,0 +1,172 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 318 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF +PLAINTIFF, JANE DOE #3 (80232) +Defendant, JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, pursuant to Rule 35, Fed. R. Civ. P., notices +the Plaintiff for an independent/psychological medical examination and states: +An appointment for examination of the Plaintiff has been made with Ryan +1L. M.D. of C.W. +M.D., P.A. at 9:00 a.m. on November 11, 2009 at the law firm +of Burman, Critton, Luttier and Coleman, LLP, located at 303 Banyan Boulevard, Ste. +400, West Palm Beach, FL, 33401. The Plaintiff is to wear comfortable clothing and +bring a sweater. The examination shall consist of an interview and testing and will likely +last until 5:30 p.m. See infra and Motion attached at DE (317) for scope, time and place +of IME. See Exhibits attached as well. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 318 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2009 Page 2 of 4 +2. +Plaintiff has not provided an available date; however, unless a timely and +valid objection to this Notice is made, the Plaintiff is required by this Rule to be in +attendance at the above-scheduled examination. +Pursuant to Rule 35, if the psychiatrist performing the examination is +called as a witness, the psychiatrist shall not be identified as one appointed by the Court. +The cost of the examination will be originally borne by the Defendant but +is subject to taxation by the Court upon proper motion. +5. +The interview will be videotaped. +6. Dr. Halls' specialties and qualifications are attached to the Motion +to Compel the IME at DE (317). The time, place, manner, conditions and scope +of the examination are attached to the Motion to Compel the IME at DE (317). +See Affidavit attached thereto. All of the above documents have been provided +to the Plaintiff's counsel and, therefore, sufficient notice has +By: +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is +eing served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List i +he manner specified by CM/ECF on this 21 day of September, 200 +CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 318 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2009 Page 3 of 4 +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRAJ] +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +L Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Suite 2218 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: 954-522-3456 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +bedwards@rra-law.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +08-80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +801-585-5202 +2290 10* Avenue North +801-585-6833 Fax +Suite 404 +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80811 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack P. . Esq. +Isidro M. +I Esq. +1|| Law Firm, P.A. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 318 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2009 Page 4 of 4 +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, +08-80469 +P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-686-6300 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +isx@searcylaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +305 358-2800 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +250 Australian Averte Wis, PA. +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Leopold, Kuvin, P.A +2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +561-684-6500 +Fax: 561-515-2610 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-08804 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d02976c0856cab842c8f04deee39a2f1f9f61f3bdb828f2ca2c81bfc1915fad9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d02976c0856cab842c8f04deee39a2f1f9f61f3bdb828f2ca2c81bfc1915fad9.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed59e3325cd3357375e9f7ef95d42fe565afc1c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d02976c0856cab842c8f04deee39a2f1f9f61f3bdb828f2ca2c81bfc1915fad9.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d02976c0856cab842c8f04deee39a2f1f9f61f3bdb828f2ca2c81bfc1915fad9", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8142b3bf7aefeb8a0502afb754b310db30c5c7078d577717e451a5cfe5937b0b", + "output_sha256": "19be99ed47bcfc822fea79c89e6e8165f34c2baf38bf6161c155ca3d2dca66e0", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d031e44410f87cb2eb70d66c20d93dc0e79d7177932903dda54283d05738d68c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d031e44410f87cb2eb70d66c20d93dc0e79d7177932903dda54283d05738d68c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8a7c9de0c066c2233b9aa5862df070556e434568 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d031e44410f87cb2eb70d66c20d93dc0e79d7177932903dda54283d05738d68c.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 543 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 1 of 2 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 542-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2010 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CY-80119-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +MAY 1 2 2010 +STEVEN M. LARIMORE +AGREED ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S +MOTION TO ATTEND MEDIATION +(AS TO JANE DOES 2-8) +This matter came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion to Attend +Mediation and Plainifs counsel being in agreement with the entry of this Order, 4542) +HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: +1. The Court's No Contact Order (DE 238) shall not preclude Defendant, Jeffrey +Epstein, from attending Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-8' mediations or trials of these case. +2. The Parties shall not be required to appear in the same room at the mediation, +and need not have any face-to-face contact. They may remain throughout the course of +the mediation in separate rooms within the mediator's offices. Both the Defendant and +the Plaintiffs shall undertake reasonable efforts to avoid any contact with each other +during the course of the mediation. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 543 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 2 of 2 +Caso 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 542-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2010 Page 2 of 2 +LINGA RIchnson +Courtesy Copies: +Counsel of Record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d031e44410f87cb2eb70d66c20d93dc0e79d7177932903dda54283d05738d68c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d031e44410f87cb2eb70d66c20d93dc0e79d7177932903dda54283d05738d68c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..62f8a6dd43a0e7a669de51e16c77282eaf154355 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d031e44410f87cb2eb70d66c20d93dc0e79d7177932903dda54283d05738d68c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d031e44410f87cb2eb70d66c20d93dc0e79d7177932903dda54283d05738d68c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "7dc02ccbf629c91cbe4b6376f9d939e1e2f8f35eb73811da573e78d504bb5d09", + "output_sha256": "185e060aef6fc0e1401eec0230350117bff76c706822e0ec965e7bdb30e72b67", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0646aca70d5750d5a131b6b2eacaa9dc52f41d0c9bfc2d853d5530dd5dfee69.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0646aca70d5750d5a131b6b2eacaa9dc52f41d0c9bfc2d853d5530dd5dfee69.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a8f7a42e30a55cb0a1dd3fd5d6ce6037d634a97e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0646aca70d5750d5a131b6b2eacaa9dc52f41d0c9bfc2d853d5530dd5dfee69.md @@ -0,0 +1,226 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 218 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2009 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/J +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/J +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/J +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 218 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2009 Page 2 of 6 +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/, +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +J +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/_ +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 218 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2009 Page 3 of 6 +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRA/ +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA-, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA-_ +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/, +UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO SUBMIT +AGREED ORDER PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER(DE 192) +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned +attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time in which to submit an + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 218 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2009 Page 4 of 6 +Agreed Order, if possible, pursuant to this Court's Order dated July 7, 2009 (DE 192) +granting Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe 102's Motion for an Order for +Preservation of Evidence. As good cause in support of granting the motion, Defendant +states: +1. On May 26, 2009, Plaintiffs Jane Doe 101 and Jane Doe 102, filed a Motion for +an Order for Preservation of Evidence with Incorporated Memorandum of Law (DE 114). +2. On June 10, 2009, Defendant Epstein, filed his Response in Opposition to +Plaintiffs' Motion (DE 151). +3. On June 22, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their Reply to Defendant's Response in +Opposition (DE 168). +4. On July 7, 2009, this Court entered an Order directing parties to attempt to submit +an agreed order granting Plaintiffs' Motion on or before July 20, 2009 (DE 192). +5. Both Plaintiff and Defense counsel need an additional five (5) days to attempt to +reach an agreement. +6. As certified below, counsel for Defendant conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs, +and Plaintiffs' counsel is in agreement with the requested extension. +WHEREFORE Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order +granting an extension until July 28, 2009, to file an agreed order. +Local Rule 7.1 Statement +Counsel for the movant conferred by telephone and correspondenge with counsel +for the Plaintiffs and counsel for Plaintiffs' is in agreement with the requested extension +until July 28, 2009 for the parties to file an agreed order. +Robert D. Critton/Esq. +Attorney for Defendant + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 218 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2009 Page 5 of 6 +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is +being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in +the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 24 day of July, 2009 +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Flonda Bar No. 224102 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/] +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Brad +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, FL. 33301 +Phone: 954-522-3456 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +bedwards@rra-law.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +08-80994 +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 218 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2009 Page 6 of 6 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 10" Avenue North +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80811 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack P. +, Esq. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, +P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-686-6300 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +jsx@searcylaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff. C.M.A. +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +801-585-5202 +801-585-6833 Fax +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Isidro M. +Esq. +Law Firm, P.A. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80469 +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +305 358-2800 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases +Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesg@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. +Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. +Ricci-Leopold, P.A. +2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +561-684-6500 +Fax: 561-515-2610 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-08804 +skuvin@riccilaw.com +tleopold@riccilaw.com diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0646aca70d5750d5a131b6b2eacaa9dc52f41d0c9bfc2d853d5530dd5dfee69.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0646aca70d5750d5a131b6b2eacaa9dc52f41d0c9bfc2d853d5530dd5dfee69.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d67421ba94f268481c7b816e1d3b50e2587be826 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0646aca70d5750d5a131b6b2eacaa9dc52f41d0c9bfc2d853d5530dd5dfee69.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d0646aca70d5750d5a131b6b2eacaa9dc52f41d0c9bfc2d853d5530dd5dfee69", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "790ab5d15e3a0de2e1e34589a74405cad4b26d05d37e6bce7fc84e1992aa817c", + "output_sha256": "597549e77d16a57dfb55e1ef495c92a58dde9c2948b3e083578877241c572d4d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d08292d753a2b404ff3c765d3e779536a6e800ca745d3ca8bd1b3f1a0eaf9ac6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d08292d753a2b404ff3c765d3e779536a6e800ca745d3ca8bd1b3f1a0eaf9ac6.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e9ca1987cf33ba8e7420a9fc5acaa0de4fe5fb97 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d08292d753a2b404ff3c765d3e779536a6e800ca745d3ca8bd1b3f1a0eaf9ac6.md @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ +Case 9:10-6V-80309-WAL Dosuments Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2079 Page 1 of Z +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 10-80309-CIV-ZLOCH +JANE DOE NO. 103, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +ORDER +THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the Plaintiff Jane Doe +No. 103's Unopposed Motion To Seal And Proceed Anonymously (DE 2). +The Court has carefully considered the merits of said Motion and is +otherwise fully advised in the premises. +Accordingly, after due consideration, it is +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion To +Seal And Proceed Anonymously (DE 2) be and the same is hereby +GRANTED. It is further +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Clerk of Court be and the same +is hereby DIRECTED to file and maintain under seal permanently +Plaintiff's Identity (DE 3) and she shall be permitted to proceed +anonymously as "Jane Doe No. 103" in the above-styled cause. It is +further +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Clerk of Court be and the same +is hereby DIRECTED to UNSEAL the Plaintiff's Complaint (DE 1), +Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion To Seal (DE 2) and Summons (DE 4) and + + +Case 9:10-EV-80309-WJM DoGument5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2949 Page 2 of 2 +place same in the court file. +DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward +County, Florida, this +qet +day of March, 2010. +Malan 222 +WILLIAM J. ZLOCH +United States District Judge +Copies furnished: +All Counsel of Record +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d08292d753a2b404ff3c765d3e779536a6e800ca745d3ca8bd1b3f1a0eaf9ac6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d08292d753a2b404ff3c765d3e779536a6e800ca745d3ca8bd1b3f1a0eaf9ac6.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c860430e82fd9b9a17be69e93b1e65c0096720ee --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d08292d753a2b404ff3c765d3e779536a6e800ca745d3ca8bd1b3f1a0eaf9ac6.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d08292d753a2b404ff3c765d3e779536a6e800ca745d3ca8bd1b3f1a0eaf9ac6", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "a9e1c8f8224019997a08e5d80fa6bee64f912343ab24e22a67983fea3e7a920a", + "output_sha256": "8493625b0212715d5d39056ed503edef90d661b4120a7bd2f030a118f338a5c9", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0980f6d34b7ab7f4a2c56c82ac22c50ddd66f445cfa2c40f4ebd9ef31c0f1f8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0980f6d34b7ab7f4a2c56c82ac22c50ddd66f445cfa2c40f4ebd9ef31c0f1f8.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eaf9e2c54a5d69dd6e1a08fae91c97cd6eeb5bca --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0980f6d34b7ab7f4a2c56c82ac22c50ddd66f445cfa2c40f4ebd9ef31c0f1f8.md @@ -0,0 +1,221 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 1 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No.3 ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), brings this Complaint against Jeffrey +Epstein, as follows: +Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue +Jane Doe is a citizen and resident of the State of Florida, and is sui juris. +2. +This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name to protect the identity of the +Plaintiff because this Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon her +when she was a minor. +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen and resident of the State of New York. +4. +This is an action for damages in excess of $50 million. +5. +This Court has jurisdiction of this action and the claims set forth herein pursuant to 28 +U.S.C. §1332(a), as the matter in controversy (i) exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs; +and (ii) is between citizens of different states. +6. +This Court has venue of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a) as a substantial +part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 2 of 8 +Factual Allegations +7. +At all relevant times, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") was an adult male, 52 +years old. Epstein is a financier and money manager with a secret clientele limited exclusively to +billionaires. He is himself a man of tremendous wealth, power and influence. He maintains his +principal home in New York and also owns residences in New Mexico, St. +and Palm Beach, +FL. The allegations herein concern Epstein's conduct while at his lavish estate in Palm Beach. +8. +Upon information and belief, Epstein has a sexual preference and obsession for +underage minor girls. He engaged in a plan and scheme in which he gained access to primarily +economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home, sexually assaulted these girls, and then gave +them money. In or about 2004-2005, Jane Doe, then 16 years old, fell into Epstein's trap and +became one of his victims. +Upon information and belief, Jeffrey Epstein carried out his scheme and assaulted +girls in Florida, New York and on his private island, known as Little St. James, in St. +10. +An integral player in Epstein's Florida scheme was +a Palm Beach +Community College student from Loxahatchee, Florida. She recruited girls ostensibly to give a +wealthy man a massage for monetary compensation in his Palm Beach mansion. Under Epstein's +plan, +would be contacted when Epstein was planning to be at his Palm Beach residence +or soon after he had arrived there. Epstein or someone on his behalf directed +to bring +one or more underage girls to the residence. +• upon information and belief, generally +sought out economically disadvantaged underage girls from Loxahatchee and surrounding areas who +would be enticed by the money being offered - generally $200 to $300 per "massage" session - and +who were perceived as less likely to complain to authorities or have credibility if allegations of +improper conduct were made. This was an important element of Epstein's plan. +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 3 of 8 +11. +Epstein's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. Upon arrival at +Epstein's mansion, the victim would be brought to the kitchen. She would then be led up a flight of +stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table in addition to other furnishings. Once the girl was +alone in this room, Epstein would enter wearing only a towel to cover his private area. He then +would lay down on the massage table and perform one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual acts, +including masturbation and touching the girl sexually. +12. +Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, +recruited Jane Doe to +give Epstein a massage for monetary compensation. +brought Jane to Epstein's mansion +in Palm Beach. Jane was led up the flight of stairs to the room with the massage table. She was +alone in the room when Epstein arrived wearing a towel to cover his private parts. He laid down on +the massage table, and sexually assaulted Jane Doe during the massage. In addition, Jeffrey Epstein +masturbated during the massage. +13. +After Epstein had completed the assault, he left the room. Jane was then able to leave +the room and go back down the stairs. She then met +again who brought Jane home. +Jane was paid $200 by Epstein. +was also paid by Epstein for bringing Jane to him. +14. As a result of this encounter with Epstein, the 16-year old Jane experienced trauma, +shock, confusion, shame, humiliation and embarrassment. +COUNT I +Sexual Assault and Battery +15. +Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. +16. +Epstein acted with intent to cause an offensive contact with Jane Doe, or an imminent +apprehension of such a contact, and Jane Doe was thereby put in such imminent apprehension. +17. +Epstein made an intentional, unlawful offer of offensive sexual contact toward Jane +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 4 of 8 +Doe, creating a reasonable fear of imminent peril. +18. +Epstein intentionally inflicted harmful or offensive contact on the person of Jane Doe, +with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent. +19. +Epstein tortiously committed a sexual assault and battery on Jane Doe. Epstein's acts +were intentional, unlawful, offensive and harmful. +20. +Epstein's plan and scheme in which he committed such acts upon Jane Doe were +done willfully and maliciously. +21. As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's assault on Jane, she has suffered and +will continue to suffer severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and +emotional damages. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 3 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and such other and further relief as this +Court deems just and proper. +22. +23. +24. +of decency. +25. +COUNT II +Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress +Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. +Epstein's conduct was intentional or reckless. +Epstein's conduct with a minor was extreme and outrageous, going beyond all bounds +Epstein committed willful acts of child sexual abuse on Jane Doe. These acts resulted +in mental or sexual injury to Jane Doe, that caused or were likely to cause Jane Doe's mental or +emotional health to be significantly impaired. +26. +Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. Epstein knew or had +- 4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 5 of 8 +reason to know that his intentional and outrageous conduct would cause emotional distress and +damage to Jane Doe, or Epstein acted with reckless disregard of the high probability of causing +severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. +27. +As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's intentional or reckless conduct, Jane +Doe, has suffered and will continue to suffer severe mental anguish and pain. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 3 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for compensatory damages, costs, punitive damages, and such other and further relief as this +Court deems just and proper. +COUNT HI +Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422 +28. Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. +29. +Epstein used a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, +induce or entice Jane Doe, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or +sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. +30. +On June 30, 2008, Epstein entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida $$ 796.07 +and 796.03, in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case nos. 2008-cf- +009381AXXXMB and 2006-cf-009454AXXXMB), for conduct involving the same plan and +scheme as alleged herein. +31. +As to Plaintiff Jane Doe, Epstein could have been charged with criminal violations of +Florida Statute §796.07(2) (including subsections (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) thereof), and other +criminal offenses including violations of Florida Statutes $§ 798.02 and 800.04 (including +subsections (5), (6) and (7) thereof). +32. +Epstein's acts and conduct are in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422. +- 5- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 6 of 8 +33. +As a result of Epstein's violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422, Plaintiff has suffered personal +injury, including mental, psychological and emotional damages. +34. +Plaintiff hired Herman & Mermelstein, P.A., in this matter and agreed to pay them a +reasonable attorneys' fee. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 3 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. §2255(a), including without limitation, actual +and compensatory damages, costs of suit, and attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as +this Court deems just and proper. +JURY TRIAL DEMAND +Plaintiff demands a jury trial in this action on all claims so triable. +Dated: February 27, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Adam D. Horowitz. +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiff +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +- 6- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 7 of 8 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on February 27, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of +Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those +parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +- 7- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 8 of 8 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +/s/ Adam D. Horowitz +- 8- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0980f6d34b7ab7f4a2c56c82ac22c50ddd66f445cfa2c40f4ebd9ef31c0f1f8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0980f6d34b7ab7f4a2c56c82ac22c50ddd66f445cfa2c40f4ebd9ef31c0f1f8.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f5342a9b29d1e6bd316baa934f4952034619d046 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0980f6d34b7ab7f4a2c56c82ac22c50ddd66f445cfa2c40f4ebd9ef31c0f1f8.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -96, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d0980f6d34b7ab7f4a2c56c82ac22c50ddd66f445cfa2c40f4ebd9ef31c0f1f8", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "debe07ef7bcee119b65082475b1c0d720db1bcb63b2798b0ae43c9a37edd4bbe", + "output_sha256": "80e676a53900e38d64a5824533c5c0fa319d4b25ab19e720c7aad6b581dde64c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0b558fa450496ab87a47b6e082076c30acf713d727b8b2549a00306b8020fe0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0b558fa450496ab87a47b6e082076c30acf713d727b8b2549a00306b8020fe0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c44a5aed39102e71cdcf5c6dc0d77b71fc490c2e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0b558fa450496ab87a47b6e082076c30acf713d727b8b2549a00306b8020fe0.md @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 221 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 1 of 1 +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Court Judge diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0b558fa450496ab87a47b6e082076c30acf713d727b8b2549a00306b8020fe0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0b558fa450496ab87a47b6e082076c30acf713d727b8b2549a00306b8020fe0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..502bec57816f7f640064882c6c4ff5ae9e0f2a7f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0b558fa450496ab87a47b6e082076c30acf713d727b8b2549a00306b8020fe0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d0b558fa450496ab87a47b6e082076c30acf713d727b8b2549a00306b8020fe0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "57d05480a8676f9d9239be9155d382ad009bda541170df56390083120d0d889d", + "output_sha256": "9ed32a2cf2838828c9c6ad738d899db28d0ebda0bcfe165d583c512cc323aaea", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0de6e3a3f9e2e45436899e7b114d3862b1dcea8efcc4c7509e28dec8bb813fe.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0de6e3a3f9e2e45436899e7b114d3862b1dcea8efcc4c7509e28dec8bb813fe.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3e51f7cccf6fdfe29411068aa11e8c31c2d85dc7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0de6e3a3f9e2e45436899e7b114d3862b1dcea8efcc4c7509e28dec8bb813fe.md @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ +Case 9:08-Cv-80232-KAM Document 85-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 1 of 2 +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ PA +ATTORNEYS AT LAW +Stuart S. Mermelstein +Tel 305.931.2200 +Fax 305.931.0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +18205 Biscayne Blvd. +Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +www.sexabuseattorney.com +March 3, 2009 +Via Facsimile +Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Re: +Jane Does 2-7 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Dear Mr. Critton: +This letter addresses the matters raised in your letter dated February 25, 2009, as follows: +1. +The Plaintiffs agree to withdraw the General Objections set forth in their +interrogatory responses. +2. +The Plaintiffs' responses to interrogatory no. 10 provide as much information as is +available to them at this time. Further specificity regarding the amounts of damages claimed will +necessarily be the subject of expert testimony. Plaintiffs do not have this information. By their +nature, these are not breach of contract or commercial cases in which damages are easily +calculated. +3. +Plaintiffs maintain their objections as stated. It is the Plaintiffs' position that you are not entitled +• +Rule 412 applies to both civil and criminal proceeding. The rule +aims to safeguard the alleged victim against the invasion of +privacy, potential embarrassment and sexual stereotyping that is +associated with public disclosure of intimate sexual details and the +EXHIBIT "A' + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM +Document 85-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 2 of 2 +Robert Critton, Esq. +March 3, 2009 +Page 2 +infusion of sexual innuendo into the factfinding process. By +affording victims protection in most instances, the rule also +encourages victims of sexual misconduct to institute and to +participate in legal proceedings against alleged offenders. +If Rule 412 is to have any meaning, then the protections it affords to victims of sexual +misconduct must be considered and applied in discovery proceedings as well as the trial. +4. +We disagree that the Plaintiffs' answers to request for production no. 14 is evasive. +How would any of the Plaintiffs' know whether photographs and pictures taken of Mr. Epstein +or Mr. Epstein's home exist? All they are required to do in response to document requests is +produce those documents that are responsive and that are in their possession, custody or control. +As we believe it is made clear, none of the Plaintiffs have any documents that are responsive to +request no. 14. +As to Request for Production no. 1, you state in your letter that tax returns are +relevant to "whether Plaintiff has been and continues to be gainfully employed" and "the type of +employment in which Plaintiff engaged in." In a separate interrogatory, you request the +Plaintiffs' complete employment history. Additionally, we have advised you that the Plaintiffs +do not make any claims for lost wages. As a result, we do not understand your argument that the +Plaintiffs' tax returns are relevant. Clearly, the discovery you seek on employment history can +and should be obtained in a more direct means than through the Plaintiff's tax returns, which +necessarily include information that is private and not relevant. +As to the matters discussed above that are in dispute, please be advised that we will +oppose any motion to compel and any request by Defendant for expenses and attorneys' fees. +Stuart S. +SSM/Ir diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0de6e3a3f9e2e45436899e7b114d3862b1dcea8efcc4c7509e28dec8bb813fe.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0de6e3a3f9e2e45436899e7b114d3862b1dcea8efcc4c7509e28dec8bb813fe.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dee247016ac61c8da78d247cf612f1227b947c65 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0de6e3a3f9e2e45436899e7b114d3862b1dcea8efcc4c7509e28dec8bb813fe.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d0de6e3a3f9e2e45436899e7b114d3862b1dcea8efcc4c7509e28dec8bb813fe", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "38e0be8efd53d534f65434de89065b1ecbc84afb70c37828a6d02af9ec51c4cc", + "output_sha256": "89526d7e289f338819f655ff08f84da65ae8f95e90647d859d5bf3468db3485c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0e634d23fb1dbbc11254ea5daaada30bc84a51084a6b68d09ba0f09da3916e3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0e634d23fb1dbbc11254ea5daaada30bc84a51084a6b68d09ba0f09da3916e3.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f11b42efbd00100b6ba3cdfa814d1513bad78dab --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0e634d23fb1dbbc11254ea5daaada30bc84a51084a6b68d09ba0f09da3916e3.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 94-1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 1 of 2 + + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 94-1 Filed 02/04/21 Page 2 of 2 +Epstein VCP +EPSTEIN VICTIMS' COMPENSATION PROGRAM +FOR VICTIMS-SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL ABUSE BY JEFFREY EPSTEIN +February 4, 2021 +RE: Important Update Regarding the Epstein VCP +Dear Robert, +I am writing to inform you that, due to uncertainty about the liquidity of Estate assets to fund the +Program, effective immediately, all compensation determination offers will be held until after the March +25, 2021 claims filing deadline or until such time that I have sufficient certainty that eligible claims can +be timely and fully funded and paid. +Although I sincerely regret having to take this action, I have concluded that it is necessary to protect the +interests of eligible claimants who have not yet resolved their claims through the Program and to +preserve Program integrity. Issuing any compensation offer that cannot be timely and fully funded and +paid, consistent with the way the Program has operated to date, would compromise claimants' interests +and the guiding principles of the Program. +We will continue to accept claim filings through March 25, 2021, review claims, and hold meetings with +claimants so that we can resume the issuance of compensation determination offers as soon as +practicable. We will also continue to pay any compensation determination offers that were issued prior +to this notice. +The Program is funded with Estate assets. Under the Program Protocol, the Estate agreed to "pay all +eligible claims based on the Administrator's determination" and represented that sufficient assets and +liquidity existed to pay all claims. When the available funds fall below a designated threshold amount, +the Estate is required to promptly replenish the funds in order to ensure continuity of operations and +certainty of funding to pay claims. +On February 3, 2021, the Estate informed me that it did not have sufficient liquidity to fully satisfy the +nost recent request for replenishment and that it could not predict when additional liquidity would b +secured, prompting this action. The Estate has advised me that it is working to secure additiona +liquidity to continue to fund the Program and that it is committed to paying all eligible claims in +accordance with the Protocol. +With this development, I felt it was imperative to take immediate action and notify current and +potential claimants and their representatives. Please know that I remain deeply committed to ensuring +that the Program continues to operate with transparency and integrity, and that all eligible claimants +receive the compensation and validation they deserve. +I am continually inspired by the courage and resilience of the victims I have had the privilege of +meeting, and truly regret having to implement these measures and the resulting delay and uncertainty +this may cause. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. +Sincerely, +Jordana A. Feldman +Jordana H. +Administrator diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0e634d23fb1dbbc11254ea5daaada30bc84a51084a6b68d09ba0f09da3916e3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0e634d23fb1dbbc11254ea5daaada30bc84a51084a6b68d09ba0f09da3916e3.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0358bfe26cba24faa5e98b445167c272febce912 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0e634d23fb1dbbc11254ea5daaada30bc84a51084a6b68d09ba0f09da3916e3.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -33, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d0e634d23fb1dbbc11254ea5daaada30bc84a51084a6b68d09ba0f09da3916e3", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "d6729115fb115af81992fb98039a3ea95b35c43a2b73dbe90033dc4ce2286adb", + "output_sha256": "c4796d9c0d42b93917f5becc55077f9cf91efe17a368472e459a20afb809b617", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0f6fc8580bfd93e35a1bf2c577e6ac9d10872dcb7fea7ac0a79ff30bc1fcc46.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0f6fc8580bfd93e35a1bf2c577e6ac9d10872dcb7fea7ac0a79ff30bc1fcc46.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..481d8af0073e89be7c0cab335842793df6e17038 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0f6fc8580bfd93e35a1bf2c577e6ac9d10872dcb7fea7ac0a79ff30bc1fcc46.md @@ -0,0 +1,263 @@ +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 146 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 1 of 11 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA. +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80232-MARRAJ. +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80380-MARRAJ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 146 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 2 of 11 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA, T +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80381-MARRAJ] +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 6. +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80994-MARRALI +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 08-CV-80993-MARRAJ LI +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant +2 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 146 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 3 of 11 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRAJJT +CASE NO: 08-CV-80811-MARRAJ, +C.M.A., +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRAJ I +Vs. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +DOE II, +CASE NO: 09-CV-80469-MARRA| +Plaintiff +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendants. +3 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 146 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 4 of 11 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRAI.__ +• +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/. +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff +CASE NO: 09-CV-80656-MARRAJ|| +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant +RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO STRIKE CASE +FROM CURRENT TRIAL DOCKET +COMES NOW plaintiff Jane Doe, by and through her undersigned counsel, to file +this response in opposition to defendant Jeffrey Epstein's motion to strike her trial date +from the current trial docket. +Epstein argues that a few discovery disputes require +striking the trial date. But these disputes can be resolved before the discovery deadline +expires - particularly given that there are nearly four months remaining until the +discovery cutoff. Moreover, Jane Doe will be gravely harmed by any delay in this matter +because it will give Epstein the opportunity to finish hiding his assets. +4 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 146 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 5 of 11 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/. +Background +Defendant Epstein has filed a boilerplate motion to strike Jane Doe's trial date - +and numerous other consolidated cases involving similar allegations of his sexual abuse +of minors - for an unspecified period of time, delaying what is currently set as a +February 22, 2010, trial date until some later and unspecified date. On May 28, 2009, +the court granted the motion to strike the trial date as to plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 - who +had agreed to the delay for their own reasons. The court set a new trial date of June 1, +2010, for these cases. The court, however, reserved ruling on the motion to continue +Jane Doe's case (and one other plaintiff, C.M.A.). +In recounting the procedural history of this case, Epstein does not disclose that in +this particular case, he has been the one responsible for numerous delays. Indeed, a +quick review of the docket sheet shows the following requests for extensions by +defendant Epstein: +DE 10 (defendant's motion for extension of time to respond to complaint) +(10/1/08) +DE21 (defendant's motion for extension of time to file motions to compel) (3/4/09) +DE39 (defendant's motion extension of time to file reply as to response to +opposition to motion to stay) (4/22/09) +DE41 (defendant's motion for extension of time to file reply as to response in +opposition to motion to compel tax records) (4/27/09) +DE42 (defendant's motion for extension of time to file reply as to response in +opposition to motion to compel on first interrogatories) (4/27/09) +5 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 146 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 6 of 11 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/T +DE44 (defendant's motion for extension of time to file response as to motion to +strike reference to non-prosecution agreement) (4/29/09) +DE52 (defendant's motion for extension to time to file response as to amended +complaint) (5/05/09) +DE60 (motion for extension of time to file response to plaintiff's first amended +complaint) (5/18/09) +It should be noted that Jane Doe, as a matter of civility, has not objected to a +single one of these requests for an extension from defendant Epstein. In none of these +conferences regarding these requests for extension did defense counsel indicate that +he was concerned that the trial date might need to be continued because of any delay in +this case. +Jane Doe has yet to request a single extension of time for any reason. +It may also be relevant to note that Epstein has "taken the Fifth" with regard to +essentially all discovery that Jane Doe has propounded to him in this case. +Epstein Has Failed to Provide any "Exceptional Circumstances" +to Continue the Trial Date +This court, of course, has discretion to continue the trial date. The rules of this +court, however, make clear that "[a] continue of any trial... will be granted only on +exceptional circumstances." Local Rule 7.6 (emphasis added). All defendant Epstein +has shown is a few, run of the mill, discovery disputes - that have arisen months in +advance of the discovery deadline. (The deadline in this case is October 1, 2009 - +roughly four months away.) At the very least, any motion to continue is premature. +6 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 146 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 7 of 11 +Defendant Epstein has failed to provide any good reason for delaying trial in +Jane Doe's case. Most of his pleading focuses on discovery disputes that have arisen +with regard to Jane Does 2-7 or C.M.A. These disputes have absolutely no bearing on +whether Jane Doe's case can be ready for trial by February 22, 2010. +In an effort to provide some sort of "good cause" for rescheduling the trial date, +Epstein's defense counsel has provided an affidavit asserting generally that it will not be +possible to complete discovery in a timely fashion in this case. That same affidavit, +however, acknowledges that some of the discovery disputes that have arisen in other +cases have not arisen in this case. In particular, the affidavit spends a great deal of +time explaining how an objection to disclosing the true names of the plaintiffs in other +cases has (allegedly) made it impossible for Epstein to serve subpoenas and thus +obtain meaningful discovery about other plaintiffs. See Affidavit of Michael J. Pike at 4- +5, Exhibit 1 to Epstein's Motion to Strike Cases from Current Trial Docket. The affidavit +concedes, however, that this objection does not apply to Jane Doe's case. See id. at 5 +("As stated in the motion to strike, Brad +such a procedure relative to third party subpoenas."). +[counsel for Jane Doe] has agreed to +In addition, Jane Doe will be gravely prejudiced if a delay of any sort is +sanctioned in this case. +As the court is well aware, this case involves serious +allegations of sexual abuse of minor. Each passing day with the matter unresolved +adds to the psychological stress that Jane Doe must bear. This is not the kind of case +that where additional time should be allowed to pass. In general, "The compensation +and remedy due a civil plaintiff should not be delayed." +v. FDIC, 427 F.2d 578, +7 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 146 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 8 of 11 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ I +580 (D.C. Cir. 1970). Given the sexual abuse allegations at stake here, that general +admonition applies with even greater force. +Moreover, Jane Doe will be gravely prejudiced if Epstein is allowed to postpone +trial in this matter. As explained at greater length in Jane Doe's soon to be filed +Memorandum in Support of Motion for Injunction Restraining Fraudulent Transfer of +Assets, good cause exists for believing defendant Epstein is currently moving his assets +overseas in an attempt to defeat the satisfaction of any judgment that Jane Doe might +obtain in this case. In addition, it is possible that by delaying the trial until June 2010, +Epstein might be able to escape the supervision of the Florida courts entirely. Epstein +is currently in jail and will serve a one-year term of community control (house arrest) +following his release. Conveniently enough for Epstein, it appears that this term of +community control will expire at around the time of his proposed new trial date. +For all these reasons, the Court should deny the motion to strike Jane Doe's +currently-established trial date. +Dated: June 8, 2009. +Respectfully Submitted, +MOISTEN ONENFELOT ADLER +Las Olas City Centre +401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 522-3456 +Facsimile (954) 527-8663 +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +8 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 146 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 9 of 11 +E-mail: bedwards@rra-law.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: +cassellp@law.utah.edu +9 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 146 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 10 of 11 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 8, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the +manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by +CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties wo hare not authorized to +receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing. +S/ +10 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 146 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 11 of 11 +SERVICE LIST +Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Isidro Manual +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +iph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@bclclaw.com +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerswillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosetsberg(@podhurst.com +Adam D. Horowitz +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +William J. Berger +wberger@rra-law.com +11 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0f6fc8580bfd93e35a1bf2c577e6ac9d10872dcb7fea7ac0a79ff30bc1fcc46.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0f6fc8580bfd93e35a1bf2c577e6ac9d10872dcb7fea7ac0a79ff30bc1fcc46.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..645ef1c4264bad2b75863bcd6c782f87c0365c1f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d0f6fc8580bfd93e35a1bf2c577e6ac9d10872dcb7fea7ac0a79ff30bc1fcc46.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -241, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d0f6fc8580bfd93e35a1bf2c577e6ac9d10872dcb7fea7ac0a79ff30bc1fcc46", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 12, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "6e4d65d706a18a7848b7722fbfb650bd9cabac6db3ed8c79b92c188739f8eca0", + "output_sha256": "d50d12da49883ef683b9f77da01e2a4c0c6c50d78bcc25aa6102c0ed0588a456", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d1123ba4610fa711d57f25ca9e309e7b2822ae432bfc0225468dc89d0c8585e1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d1123ba4610fa711d57f25ca9e309e7b2822ae432bfc0225468dc89d0c8585e1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dd3794abc8959683a9df902f823850b0eca4753a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d1123ba4610fa711d57f25ca9e309e7b2822ae432bfc0225468dc89d0c8585e1.md @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ +Filing # 131329589 E-Filed 07/23/2021 05:06:18 PM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida. +Defendants. +AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID ARONBERG +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +COPY +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +Before me, the undersigned authority personally appeared DAVID ARONBERG, being first duly sworn, +states: +My name is David (Dave) Aronberg, and I am the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial +Circuit/Palm Beạch County, Florida, since 2013, and a Defendant in the above-captioned matter. +2. +Plaintiff is seeking declaratory relief, pursuant to Fla. Stat. 905.21(1)(c) and the Court's +inherent authority, allowing Plaintiff access to the testimony, minutes, and other evidence presented in 2006 +to the Palm Beach County grand jury, (the "Requested Materials"), and to use those materials for the +purpose of informing the public. +Despite Plaintiff's above-described action for declaratory relief, neither myself nor the +Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, ("SAO"), is in control, custody, or possession +of the Requested Materials. +4. +As such, the declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff seeks materials that are impossible +for me or my office to produce. +To be clear, neither myself nor the SAO has the legal authority to obtain and deliver the +Requested Materials. +6. +I have repeatedly made these facts evident to the Plaintiff and the public through not only +the pleadings and corresponderice in this matter, but also through an office press release and my public +social media accounts. +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, +| ABRUZZO, CLERK, 07/23/2021 05:06:18 PM + + +Despite the contentions of Plaintiff, neither myself nor the SAO has the authority to +demand that the Clerk grant the SAO access to grand jury materials after a criminal case has concluded. +8. +Moreover, during my administration, neither myself nor my office has accessed grand jury +materials from the Clerk's office in this or any other instance. +9. +As provided in section 905.17(1), Florida Statutes (2020), the Clerk has sole custody and +possession of the Requested Materials, which can only be released by the Clerk pursuant to an order of the +Court. +FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. +By: . +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30 day of July, 2020, by DAVID ARONBERG, who is +personally known to me or has shown +as personal identification. +NOT A +Notary's Stamp or Seat ruste +LATOSHA LOWE-GOODE +Commistian # GG 957813 +Expires May 23, 2024 +Bonded Thru Budel Natary Sands diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d1123ba4610fa711d57f25ca9e309e7b2822ae432bfc0225468dc89d0c8585e1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d1123ba4610fa711d57f25ca9e309e7b2822ae432bfc0225468dc89d0c8585e1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8b0d07c6fdc6557c68622a36cb4e5769350d07c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d1123ba4610fa711d57f25ca9e309e7b2822ae432bfc0225468dc89d0c8585e1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -25, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d1123ba4610fa711d57f25ca9e309e7b2822ae432bfc0225468dc89d0c8585e1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "707bdfefa135bb7713469df108474213eb567f172ca597d9a6c7534172b595d2", + "output_sha256": "4d7cff4330d17f7b343a3b941861d1fec7d68647c97e1b59ce6ae8b6faec7671", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d1139f3b557bec4736fb24fc23d8bd29330bd4c6eb72cf394b141456834c359a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d1139f3b557bec4736fb24fc23d8bd29330bd4c6eb72cf394b141456834c359a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..07e788fb2f1362f08e50c44c333dded951547f8e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d1139f3b557bec4736fb24fc23d8bd29330bd4c6eb72cf394b141456834c359a.md @@ -0,0 +1,111 @@ +**** CASE NUMBER: 502019CA014681XXXXMB Div: AG **** +Filing # 98869063 E-Filed 11/14/2019 11:06:37 AM +FORM 1.997. CIVIL COVER SHEET +The civil cover sheet and the information contained in it neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings +or other documents as required by law. This form must be filed by the plaintiff or petitioner for the use of the Clerk of +compter ohe purpose of reporting judicial workload data pursuant to section 25.075, Florida Stalutes. (See instructions for +1. +CASE STYLE +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +Case No.: +Judge: +CA Florida Holdings LLC Publisher of PB Post +Plaintiff +Dave Aronberg as State Attorney of Palm Beach Flo, Sharon R Bock as Clerk and Comptroller of PB Cty +Defendant +II. +TYPE OF CASE +• Condominium +• Contracts and indebtedness +• Eminent domain +• Auto negligence +• Negligence - other +Business governance +Business torts +Environmental/Toxic tort +Third party indemnification +Construction defect +Mass tort +Negligent security +Nursing home negligence +Premises liability - commercial +Premises liability - residential +• Products liability +• Real Property/Mortgage foreclosure +Commercial foreclosure $0 - $50,000 +Commercial foreclosure $50,001 - $249,999 +Commercial foreclosure $250,000 or more +Homestead residential foreclosure $0 - 50,000 +Homestead residential foreclosure $50,001- +$249,999 +• Homestead residential foreclosure $250,000 or +more +Non-homestead residential foreclosure $0 - +$50,000 +Non-homestead residential foreclosure +$50,001 - $249,999 +Non-homestead residential foreclosure +$250,00 or more +Other real property actions $0 - $50,000 +Other real property actions $50,001 - $249,999 +Other real property actions $250,000 or more +Professional malpractice +Malpractice - business +Malpractice - medical +Malpractice - other professional +Other + +Antitrust/Trade Regulation +Business Transaction +Circuit Civil - Not Applicable +Constitutional challenge-statute or +ordinance +Constitutional challenge-proposer +amendmen! +Corporate Trusts +Discrimination-employment or other +Insurance claims +Intellectual property +Libel/Slander +Shareholder derivative action +Securities litigation +Trade secrets +Trust litigation +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, 11/14/2019 11:06:37 AM + + +COMPLEX BUSINESS COURT +This action is appropriate for assignment to Complex Business Court as delineated and mandated by the +Administrative Order. Yes • No # +III. +V. +VI. +REMEDIES SOUGHT (check all that apply): +• Monetary; +• Non-monetary declaratory or injunctive relief; +• Punitive +NUMBER OF CAUSES OF ACTION: ( ) +(Specify) +1 - Fla. Section 905.27(1)(c) +IS THIS CASE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT? +• Yes +• No +HAS NOTICE OF ANY KNOWN RELATED CASE BEEN FILED? +• No +COPY +• Yes- If"yes™ list all related cases by name, case number and court: +VII. +IS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT? +• Yes +& No +I CERTIFY that the information I have provided in this cover sheet is accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief, and +that I have read and will comply with the requirements of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425. +Signature s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +FL Bar No.: 849324 +Attorney or party +(Bar number, if attorney) +Stephen A. Mendelsohn +11/14/2019 +(Type or print name) +Date diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d1139f3b557bec4736fb24fc23d8bd29330bd4c6eb72cf394b141456834c359a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d1139f3b557bec4736fb24fc23d8bd29330bd4c6eb72cf394b141456834c359a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bef63d827443c735b468792c6d1122590bef053d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d1139f3b557bec4736fb24fc23d8bd29330bd4c6eb72cf394b141456834c359a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -30, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d1139f3b557bec4736fb24fc23d8bd29330bd4c6eb72cf394b141456834c359a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "abcd82063e6617950f0c30534b30d3fecbcd959e2c250e83bfc6cc405bbb6456", + "output_sha256": "8e0d3a0f75955aa870ee18cfd4dfbdcf00f30603aaf6eaa303c28cab0a2e3ae0", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d14ac50916c58b4c6892fc0f4e9d2112ffb02e4fa41dc62208e315a140d84f09.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d14ac50916c58b4c6892fc0f4e9d2112ffb02e4fa41dc62208e315a140d84f09.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3e858e6b9903800619fc1a187b6e30a6d5a442c1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d14ac50916c58b4c6892fc0f4e9d2112ffb02e4fa41dc62208e315a140d84f09.md @@ -0,0 +1,163 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 30 +Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 4 +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 29 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 4 +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +troutman™ +New York, New York 10022 +troutman.com +sanders +Bennet J. Moskowitz +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +March 27, 2020 +VIA ECF +Hon. John G. Koelti +Daniel | +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +Defendants may croceep +will than mition without a +pre-motion consence. +ordeed. +36 kela +New York, NY 10007-1312 +Re: +3/27/20 +Jane Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as coexecutors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell, Case No. +1:20-cv-00484 (JGK) (DCF) +Dear Judge Koeltl: +We represent Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the +Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, the "Co-Executors"), in the above-referenced action. We +write pursuant to Your Honor's Individual Practices § 2(B) to request a pre-motion conference in +anticipation of filing a motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), to dismiss the time-barred +claims and punitive damages claim in Plaintiff Jane Doe's ("Plaintiff") Complaint (Doc. 9). The +bases for our anticipated motion are as follows. +A. Plaintiff's claims based on alleged torts that occurred outside of New York and +those that occurred when she was an adult, regardless of location, are time-barred. +Many of Plaintiff's claims are time-barred. Plaintiff alleges that Jeffrey E. Epstein, now +deceased, sexually abused her starting in 1994, when she was 14, and until sometime in 1999, +when Plaintiff was an adult, in Florida, New York and New Mexico. (Compl. IT 17-19, 21, 22, 24.) +Plaintiff alleges she was 16 in 1996 (id. at 1| 20); so she turned 18 in 1998. Plaintiff asserts causes +of action for sexual assault, sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and false +imprisonment and seeks punitive damages. (Id. at 111 33-58, 60.) +Plaintiff's claims based on alleged torts occurring outside New York expired long ago, +including torts that occurred while she was a minor, as follows: (Florida) for torts occurring while +she was a minor, the later of within 7 years after she reached age of majority (i.e., by sometime +in 2005), within 4 years after she left the dependency of Mr. Epstein (i.e., sometime in 2003 at the +latest),' or within 4 years from the time she discovered both the injury and the causal relationship +1 Plaintiff alleges she "escaped" from Mr. Epstein in 1999, when she moved to California. (Compl. I| 24.) +Therefore, Plaintiff could not have depended on him after that time. + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 30 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 4 +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 29 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 4 +Hon. John G. Koelt! +March 27, 2020 +troutman™ +Page 2 +sanders +between the injury and the abuse (i.e., by sometime in 2003 at the latest)? (See Fla. Stat. § +95.11(7)); and, within 4 years after Plaintiff reached age of majority (i.e., by sometime in 2002) +(See Fla. Stat. § 95.11 (3)(O)); (New Mexico) for torts occurring while she was a minor, the later +of the "first instant" of Plaintiff's 24th birthday (i.e., sometime in 2004) or 3 years from the date +that Plaintiff first disclosed her childhood sexual abuse to a licensed medical or mental health care +provider in the context of receiving health care (plaintiff makes no allegations in this regard) (See +N.M. Stat. § 37-1-30); and three years after Plaintiff reached age of majority (i.e., sometime in +2001) (See N.M. Stat. § 37-1-8). +Plaintiff's claims that are based on torts that allegedly occurred after she became an adult, +even if they took place in New York, are also time-barred. Under New York law, excluding alleged +torts subject to the New York Child Victims Act ("CVA"),? if any, Plaintiff's causes of action +sounding in battery must be commenced within one year of accrual (see CPLR § 215(3)); or, if +Plaintiff's claims sound in personal injury, within three years (see CPLR § 214(5)). Therefore, +under New York law, Plaintiffs claims arising from her alleged sexual abuse occurring in New +York when she was no longer a minor expired in 2002 at the latest. +Although Plaintiff suggests all of her claims are timely pursuant to the CVA (see, e.g., +Compl. 11 37), she also alleges Mr. Epstein abused her in various locations and until 1999, when +she was over 18 (id. at 111l 19, 22, 24). The Court is not required to reconcile Plaintiff's contradictory +allegations. See Whitley v. Bowden, No. 17-CV-3564 (KMK), 2018 WL. 2170313, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. +May 9, 2018) ("*a court is neither obligated to reconcile nor accept the contradictory allegations in +the pleadings as true in deciding a motion to dismiss.' (citation omitted). +Therefore, Plaintiff's claims based on torts occurring in New York after she reached +majority, as well as her claims based on torts occurring in Florida and New Mexico - regardless +of whether she was a minor at the time - must be dismissed. +B. Each of the jurisdictions where the torts allegedly occurred bars recovery of +punitive damages against a deceased tortfeasor's estate. +Judges in this District regularly dismiss and strike punitive damages claims at the +pleadings stage. See, e.g., The Cookware Co. (USA), LLC v. Austin, No. 15 Civ. 5796, 2016 U.S. +Dist. LEXIS 177691, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2016) (Batts, J.) (granting motion to dismiss claim +for punitive damages without leave to replead because allegations regarding defendant's badfaith conduct were conclusory and did not rise to the required level of malice); SJB v. N. Y.C. Dep't +2 Plaintiff's does not allege belated discovery of her injuries. To the contrary, she alleges she has +experienced pain and suffering daily. (See, e.g., Compl. 111l 25, 36, 42.) Plaintiff further claims she "was +aware of" Mr. Epstein's alleged false imprisonment of her. (Id. at 11 54.) +3 The Child Victims Act created a one-year window period in which civil claims alleging damages "suffered +as a result of conduct which would constitute a sexual offense as defined in article one hundred thirty of the +penal law committed against a child less than eighteen years of age" may be filed despite the statute of +limitations having already run. CPLR § 214-g (emphasis added). + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 30 +Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 4 +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 29 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 4 +Hon. John G. Koeltl +March 27, 2020 +troutman™ +Page 3 +sanders +of Educ., No. 03 Civ. 6653, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13227, at *25-26 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2004) +(Buchwald, J.) (granting motion to dismiss statutorily unavailable punitive damages claims); +Kunica v. St. Jean Fin., 97 Civ. 3804, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11867, at *26 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, +1998) (Sweet, J.) (granting motion to dismiss claim for punitive damages because, even if conduct +alleged in complaint was true, it did not rise to the level necessary to award punitive damages). +See also In re Merrill . +Auction Rate Sec. Litig., 851 F. Supp. 2d 512, 544 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) +(granting motion to strike sections of complaint asserting punitive damages); Nash v. Coram +Healthcare Corp., No. 96 Civ. 0298 (LMM), 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9101, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. June +27, 1996) ("The motion to strike the punitive damages prayer from the Complaint is Granted.). +"IT]he technical name given to a motion challenging a pleading is of little importance ... as +prejudice to the nonmoving party hardly can result from treating a motion that has been +inaccurately denominated a motion to strike as a motion to dismiss the complaint." See C. +& A. +5C Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1380 (3d ed.). +Moreover, it is black-letter law that the place of a tort here, Florida, New Mexico and New +York) generally applies to the issue of punitive damages. When determining what state's law +applies, courts look to the choice of law rules of the forum state. Simons v. Marriott Corp., 92 Civ. +3762 (SWK), 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14365, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 1993). Under New York law, +"bjecause punitive damages are conduct-regulating, 'the law of the jurisdiction where the tort +occurred will generally apply. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v. Am. Claims Mgmt., No. 14-cv-0463- +JMF, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60272, *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2015) (quoting Deutsch v. Novartis +Pharms. Corp., 723 F. Supp. 2d 521, 524 (E.D.N.Y. 2010); Guidi v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp., +No. 95-CV-9006, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6390, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2003)). See also AHW Inv. +P'ship, MFS, Inc. v. Citigroup Inc., 661 F. App'× 2, 5 (2d Cir. 2016) ("It is the place of the allegedly +wrongful conduct that generally has superior 'interests in protecting the reasonable expectations +of the parties who relied on the laws of that place to govern their primary conduct and in the +admonitory effect that applying its law will have on similar conduct in the future.'). +Here, Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages must be dismissed as a matter of law because +none of the jurisdictions where the alleged torts against her occurred permits punitive damages +against the personal representatives of a decedent tortfeasor's estate. See Poindexter v. +Zacharzewski, 18-civ-14155, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189861, at *6 (Nov. 5, 2018 S.D. Fla.) +("Florida law prohibits recovery of punitive damages from the estate of a wrongdoer who is +deceased."); Jaramillo v. Providence Wash. Ins. Co., 117 N.M. 337, 346 (N.M. 1994) +("punishment and deterrence are not accomplished by enabling recovery of punitive damages +from the estate of deceased tortfeasors."); NY EPTL § 11-3.2 (a)(1) ("For any injury, an action +may be brought or continued against the personal representative of the decedent, but punitive +damages shall not be awarded nor penalties adjudged in any such action brought to recover +damages for personal injury." (emphasis added)). That is also the law in most U.S. jurisdictions, +as reflected in the Restatement (Second) of Torts. See Restat. (Second) Of Torts § 908 cmt. a +("Punitive damages are not awarded against the representatives of a deceased tortfeasor."). + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF +Document 30 +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 29 +Hon. John G. Koeltl +March 27, 2020 +Page 4 +Filed 03/27/20 + +Filed 03/27/20 Page 4 of 4 +troutman™ +sanders +Respectfully submitted, +Is/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d14ac50916c58b4c6892fc0f4e9d2112ffb02e4fa41dc62208e315a140d84f09.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d14ac50916c58b4c6892fc0f4e9d2112ffb02e4fa41dc62208e315a140d84f09.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d6c8bbd57d450e6cdd97b2296e4b42b602fd4f43 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d14ac50916c58b4c6892fc0f4e9d2112ffb02e4fa41dc62208e315a140d84f09.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -108, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d14ac50916c58b4c6892fc0f4e9d2112ffb02e4fa41dc62208e315a140d84f09", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "1ca198ad99103a567b11a6db0b307b120167c92c12b299a4b88975193dbe9179", + "output_sha256": "31a4ece535ad083feb0555cdb5d46c1d960907ddfa19c6e5c08d7c5894dcf40d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d15581712fc752074398f30f91514ec9ceb60a9986e6f8facc81aff8afc9d5e0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d15581712fc752074398f30f91514ec9ceb60a9986e6f8facc81aff8afc9d5e0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1785bbb8fa92c44e5dfc7a7ef2278b73012aecb8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d15581712fc752074398f30f91514ec9ceb60a9986e6f8facc81aff8afc9d5e0.md @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 260 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRAJ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRAJ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +VS. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 260 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 2 of 6 +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRAJ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 260 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 3 of 6 +Defendants. +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09- 80469-CIV-MARRAJ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09- 80591-CIV-MARRAJ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102 +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09- +80656-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +OMNIBUS ORDER +THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the following motions: Plaintiff CMA's Motion +for Protective Order Re Treatment Records (D.E. #207); Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 260 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 4 of 6 +Affidavit of Plaintiff (D.E. #213); Plaintiff CMA's Emergency Motion for Protective Order +Regarding the Deposition of Serge Thys (D.E. #245); and, Plaintiff's Request for +Emergency Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order (D.E. #250). Having reviewed +the pleadings filed incident to these matters, and being otherwise duly advised in the +premises, it is hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED AS FOLLOWS: +(1) Plaintiff CMA's Motion for Protective Order Re Treatment Records (D.E. #207) +is STRICKEN AS MOOT in that Plaintiff has notified the Court in her Reply (D.E. #255) of +her withdrawal of the motion; +(2) Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Affidavit of Plaintiff (D.E. #213) is GRANTED; +(3) Plaintiff CMA's Emergency Motion for Protective Order Regarding the +Deposition of Serge Thys (D.E. #245) is DENIED. By this Motion Plaintiff seeks a +protective order to prevent the deposition of Dr. Serge Thys, presently scheduled for +August 31, 2009, from going forward. For the reasons stated in Judge Marra's Order of +August 5, 2009, dealing with the nearly identical issue, said motion as it relates to Dr. Thys, +is denied. +In the same Motion at issue here, styled as an emergency, Plaintiff sought to protect +the taking of Dr. Susan Pope's deposition which was then scheduled for the following day, +August 6, 2009. As Dr. Pope's deposition was scheduled to take place the day after the +filing of the Motion, Judge Marra handled that portion of the Motion on an emergency +basis. Plaintiff's asserted basis for protecting the deposition of Dr. Pope, is the same basis +Plaintiff raises here to protect the deposition of Dr. Thys, namely, Plaintiff's Conditional +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 260 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 5 of 6 +Notice of Intent to Exclusively Rely on Statutory Damages Provided by 18 U.S.C. §2255 +(D.E. #113 in Case No. 08-80811), and the psychotherapist-patient privilege. Neither of +these arguments withstand scrutiny. +In his August 5, 2009 Order, Judge Marra rejected Plaintiff's contention that her +notice of conditional intent could be used as a shield to prevent the deposition of Dr. Pope +from going forward, cogently noting that "[a]bsent an amended pleading or stipulation of +the parties, Plaintiff's unilateral non-binding notice of intent cannot be used to preclude +discovery in this case." (D.E. #246, p.4). In the Order Judge Marra also rejected Plaintiff's +contention that Dr. Pope's deposition should be protected on the basis of the +psychotherapist-patient privilege, noting that blanket assertions of the privilege of the sort +Plaintiff raised there, constitute improper utilizations of the privilege. Instead, Plaintiff was +instructed to assert any psychotherapist-patient privilege she may have during the +deposition "on a question-by-question basis." Id. at 5. The above reasoning equally applies +to the deposition of Dr. Thys. Like Plaintiff was instructed to do during the Dr. Pope +deposition, Plaintiff may assert any psychotherapist-patient privilege she fairly and +reasonably believes she has during the deposition of Dr. Thys, on a question-by-question +basis. Accordingly, Plaintiff CMA's Emergency Motion for Protective Order as it relates to +the Deposition of Dr. Thys is denied; and, +(4) Plaintiff's Request for Emergency Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Protective +Order (D.E. #250) is DENIED. The Court sees no benefit to entertaining oral argument on +the issue and elects to proceed exclusively upon the pleadings once the motion has been +fully brieted. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 260 +Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 6 of 6 +DONE AND ORDERED this August 11, 2009, in +at West Palm Beach, +Florida. +LINNEA R. JOHNSON +JNITED STATÉŚ MAGISTRATE JUDGE +CC: +The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra +All Counsel of Record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d15581712fc752074398f30f91514ec9ceb60a9986e6f8facc81aff8afc9d5e0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d15581712fc752074398f30f91514ec9ceb60a9986e6f8facc81aff8afc9d5e0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b051ce3f33af5d4035d9595ce0a2932392ff91e2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d15581712fc752074398f30f91514ec9ceb60a9986e6f8facc81aff8afc9d5e0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d15581712fc752074398f30f91514ec9ceb60a9986e6f8facc81aff8afc9d5e0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "903fd333ae87792c606a27f62ca92e6c02b94aff0a3f47259e041ba4158024d8", + "output_sha256": "2b38ee4638cabfdb30e9fb6db8e6ce444970e8b648f63fab4eb26e63994a3084", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d15c305edbea33d9a58a48855307a26f0322dc476e834c2ecf0ac11942e37cc4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d15c305edbea33d9a58a48855307a26f0322dc476e834c2ecf0ac11942e37cc4.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5a82d51777ef10247b95fe2377f9610e04cbb80c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d15c305edbea33d9a58a48855307a26f0322dc476e834c2ecf0ac11942e37cc4.md @@ -0,0 +1,148 @@ +Case 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Document 28-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 1 of 4 +PodhurstOrseck +TRIAL & APPELLATE LAWYERS +Aaron S. Podhurst +Robert C. Josefsberg +Joel D. +Steven C. Marks +Victor M. +Jr. +Katherine W. Azel! +Stephen F. Rosenthal +Ricardo M. Martinez-Cid +Ramon A. Rasco +Alexander T. Rundlet +John Gravante, III +Carolina Maharbiz +Robert Orseck (1934-1978) +Walter H. Beckham, Jr. +Karen Podhurst Dern +Of Counsel +May 15, 2009. +Robert D. Critton, Ji., Esq. +Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-2918 +Jack Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Re: +Preservation of Evidence Relevant to Actions for Civil Remedies +Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 +Gentlemen: +As you know, we represent a number of the young woren on the list of names provided +to Messrs. Goldberger and Tein by the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the Jeffrey Epstein Non- +Prosecution Agreement and Addendum. In order to be crystal clear as to whom we represent, we +nave attached a list of our present clients. By this letter, we want to ensure that discoverable +information relating to each of their civil actions is being properly preserved, as is required under +Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. You are required to take the necessary steps to +preserve all paper documents, tangible objects (including, but not limited to, film, videos, DVDs, +photographs, whether in hard copy, negatives or digital images), and electronically stored +information related to any threatened action by my clients, whether found inside or outside of the +United States, including any information held by third partics. Although we may bring a motion +for an order preserving documents and other data from destruction or alteration, your client's +obligation to preserve documents and other data discovery in this case arises independently from +any order on such motion. +As you know, the Non-Prosecution Agreement also requires your client "to maintain [his] +evidence, specifically evidence requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that +have been issued, and including certain computer equipment, inviolate until all of the terms of + +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 33130 +Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 +"B" +www.podhurst.com + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 28-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 2 of 4 +this agreement have been satisfied." We will seek information related to Mr. Epstein's sexual +exploitation of our clients in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2421, 2422, 2423, 2251, 2252, and/or +2252A, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Your client reasonably should have known of +potential criminal prosecution and/or civil litigation since, at least, October 25, 2005. This duty +to preserve evidence extends to evidence beyond that which was seized from Mr. Epstein's +residence on October 25, 2005. It also extends to evidence that was seized on October 25, 2005 +and later returned to him if it may be relevant and discoverable in any of these civil actions. +Because of the nature of these violations, we consider electronically stored information to +be a critical and irreplaceable source of discovery and/or evidence in this matter. You should +anticipate that much of the information subject to disclosure or responsive to discovery in this +cause is stored on your current and former computer systems and other media and devices +(including handheld devices, personal digital assistants, voice-messaging systems, online +repositories and cell phones). Electronically stored information should be afforded the broadest +possible meaning and includes (by way of example and not as an exclusive list) potentially +relevant information electronically, magnetically, optically or otherivise stored as: +1. +2. +3. +4. +5. +6. +7. +8. +9. +10. +11. +12. +13. +14. +15. +16. +17. +Digital communication (e.g., e-mail, voice mail, instant messaging); +E-mail Server Stores (e.g., Lotus Domino NSF or Microsoft Exchange .EDB) +Word-processed documents (e.g., Word or WordPerfect files and drafts); +Spreadsheets and tables (e.g., Excel or Lotus 123 worksheets); +Accounting Application Data (e.g., QuickBooks, Money, Peachtree data); +Image and Facsimile Files (e.g., PDF, TIFF, JPG, GIF images); +Sound Recordings (e.g.,. WAV and .MP3 files); +Video and Animation (e.g., AVI and .MOV files); +Databases (e.g., Access, Oracle, SQL Server data, SAP); +Contact and Relationship Management Data (é.g., Outlook, ACTI); +Calendar and Diary Application Data (e.g., Outlook PST, blog entries); +Online Access Data (e.g., Temporary Internet Files, History, Cookies); +Presentations (e.g., PowerPoint, Corel Presentations); +Network Access and Server Activity Logs; +Project Management Application Data; +Computer Aided Design/Drawing Files; and +Backup and archival files (e.g., Veritas, Zip, GHO). +Blectronically stored information resides not only in areas of electronic, magnetic, and +optical storage media reasonably accessible to you and your client, but also in areas you may +deem not reasonably accessible. You are obliged to preserve potentially relevant evidence from +both sources of electronically stored information, even if you do not anticipate producing such +clectronically stored information. Similarly, you and your client are obligated to preserve all +potentially relevant evidence even if you do not intend to produce such evidence because you +anticipate raising your client's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. +The laws and rules prohibiting destruction of evidence apply to electronically stored +information in the same manner that they apply to other evidence. Because of its format, + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 28-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 3 of 4 +electronically stored information is easily deleted, modified or corrupted. Accordingly, your +client must take every reasonable step to preserve this information until the final resolution of +this matter. Adequate preservation of electronically stored information requires more than +simply refiaining from efforts to destroy or dispose of such evidence. You must intervene to +prevent loss due to routine operations or malfeasance and you must employ proper techniques +and protocols to preserve electronically stored information. Booting a drive, examining its +contents, or running any application may irretrievably alter the evidence it contains and constitute +unlawful spoliation of evidence. Preservation requires preemptive immediate intervention. +With regard to electronically stored information created subsequent to the date of delivery +of this letter, relevant evidence should not be destroyed, and your client is to take appropriate +steps required to avoid destruction of such evidence. +Please forward a copy of this letter to all persons and entities with custodial responsibility +for the evidence referred to in this letter. +Failure to abide by this request could result in penalties and/or sanctions against your +client and could form the basis of legal claims for spoliation. +If this correspondence is in any way unclear, please contact us immediately. We look +forward to receiving written confirmation from you that you have taken the necessary steps to +fulfill these preservation obligations by Thursday, May 21, 2009 in order to alleviate the need for +us to seek a court order. +Sincerely, +pu +Cc: +Roy Black, Esq. +Jay Lefkowitz, Esq. + + +Case 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Document 28-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 4 of 4 +List of Clients Represented by Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +as of May 15, 2009' +We will supplement this list as necessary. diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d15c305edbea33d9a58a48855307a26f0322dc476e834c2ecf0ac11942e37cc4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d15c305edbea33d9a58a48855307a26f0322dc476e834c2ecf0ac11942e37cc4.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..adb2ae898b6a79717540e3516d37ebe12ef91e95 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d15c305edbea33d9a58a48855307a26f0322dc476e834c2ecf0ac11942e37cc4.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -55, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d15c305edbea33d9a58a48855307a26f0322dc476e834c2ecf0ac11942e37cc4", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2b91c883f7eacb301a0172278c554937449c3c590a452177d39d48fd8b67d54c", + "output_sha256": "f1056e7eb2403231cb0149045090c31e4f819ffaafd7e8c99775311a757f3b06", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d15ef98201ae4280061a9324918d445918a28aea785c0de6ad99d8df9204c40e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d15ef98201ae4280061a9324918d445918a28aea785c0de6ad99d8df9204c40e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bc6f3f22790f53e5a21727478d8f2eea3faa5c32 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d15ef98201ae4280061a9324918d445918a28aea785c0de6ad99d8df9204c40e.md @@ -0,0 +1,131 @@ +Filing # 101806609 E-Filed 01/16/2020 05:43:33 PM +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +Div.: AG +v. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Defendants. +COPY +VERIFIED MOTION FOR ADMISSION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE PURSUANT TO +FLORIDA RULE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 2.510 +COMES NOW Nina D. Boyajian, Movant herein, and respectfully represents the +following: +Movant is an attorney and a member of the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, +with offices at 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900, Los Angeles, California 90067, telephone +number (310) 586-7700. +Movant has been retained personally or as a member of the above-named law firm +on or about August 28, 2019, by plaintiff CA Florida Holdings, LLC, publisher of the Palm Beach +Post to provide legal representation in connection with matters related to the above-styled action +now pending before the above-named court of the State of Florida. +Movant is an active member in good standing and currently eligible to practice law +in the following jurisdiction(s): +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, 01/16/2020 05:43:33 PM + + +Court +California State Bar +Superior Courts of California +Central District of California +Northern District of California +Southern District of California +Eastern District of California +District of Colorado +Bar Number + +Admitted +12/04/2006 +12/15/2006 +11/14/2016 +01/30/2009 +07/29/2019 +03/07/2019 +4. +There have been no disciplinary, suspension, disbarment, or contempt proceedings +initiated against Movant in the preceding 5 years. +Movant, either by resignation, withdrawal, or otherwise, never has terminated or +attempted to terminate Movant's office as an attorney in order to avoid administrative, disciplinary, +disbarment, or suspension proceedings. +6. +Movant is not an inactive member of The Florida Bar. +Movant is not now a member of The Florida Bar. +Movant is not a suspended member of The Florida Bar: +Movant is not a disbarred member of The Florida Bar nor has Movant received a +disciplinary resignation from The Florida Bar. +10. +Movant has not previously been disciplined or held in contempt by reason of +misconduct committed while engaged in representation pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial +Administration 2.510. +11. Movant has not filed a motion to appear as counsel in Florida state courts during +the past five years. +12. Local counsel of record associated with Movant in this matter is Stephen A. +Mendelsohn who is an active member in good standing of The Florida Bar and has offices at +2 + + +Greenberg Traurig, P.A., 51 Town Center Circle, Suite 400, Boca Raton, Florida 33486, telephone +number (561) 955-7600. +13. Movant has read the applicable provisions of Florida Rule of Judicial +Administration 2.510 and Rule 1-3.10 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and certifies that. +this verified motion complies with those rules. +14. +Movant agrees to comply with the provisions of the Florida Rules of Professional +Conduct and consents to the jurisdiction of the courts and the Bar of the State of Florida. +WHEREFORE, Movant respectfully requests permission to appear in this court for this +cause only. +DATED this 16th day of January, 2020. +CER +Nina D. Boyajian +Greenberg Traurig, LLP +1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 +Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121 +Telephone: (310) 586-7700 +Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 +Email: boyajiann@gtlaw.com +STATE OF CALIPORNIA +COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES +1, Nina D. Boyajian, do hereby swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that i am the +Movant in the above-styled matter; that I have read the foregoing Motion and know the content +hereof, and the contents are true of my own knowledge and belief +Nina D. Boyajian +3 + + +CERTIFICATE OF LOCAL COUNSEL +I hereby consent to be associated as local counsel of record in this cause pursuant to Florida +Rule of Judicial Administration 2.510. +DATED January 16, 2020. +Ist Stephen A. Mendelsohn +Florida Bar Number: 8493247 +Greenberg Traurig, P.A. +5100 Town Center Circle, Suite 400 +Boca Raton, FL 33486 +Telephone: (561) 955-7600 +Facsimile: (561-338-7099 +Email: sanchezfo@gtlaw.com +NOT A CERTIFIE +4 + + +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 16, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing +motion was served by mail to PHV Admissions, The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Street, +Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2333 accompanied by payment of the $250.00 filing tee made payable +to The Florida Bar. I also certify that the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the +Court using the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal and is being served by e-mail generated by the +EPortal system upon: Douglas A. Wyler, Esq., l +Scholz & Wyler, LL.C, 961687 Gateway +Blvd., Suite 201-1, Fernandina Beach, FL 32304, jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net; and Hampton C. +Peterson, General Counsel, Post Office Box 33402, West Palm Beach, FL: 33402, clerk—e- +service@mypalmbeachclerk.com. +Is/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +Stephen A. Mendelsohn +NOT A CERTIFIED +NOT A CERTIFIED CO +5 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d15ef98201ae4280061a9324918d445918a28aea785c0de6ad99d8df9204c40e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d15ef98201ae4280061a9324918d445918a28aea785c0de6ad99d8df9204c40e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b0d8649c7f57c866d098966fc8d2c07fec29f40c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d15ef98201ae4280061a9324918d445918a28aea785c0de6ad99d8df9204c40e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -143, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d15ef98201ae4280061a9324918d445918a28aea785c0de6ad99d8df9204c40e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 7, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "5a08a94dbb2edcc587eff8af578b0b8f378f8a3df51de7be3306f9a576775d7e", + "output_sha256": "50b915fcdaaa0b2b9f150d113df7327f5e121074b53b3792701db630130a90d3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d16714127723c57e2296655ff2cec69a66a226ca9531d834577ea120f185bcdc.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d16714127723c57e2296655ff2cec69a66a226ca9531d834577ea120f185bcdc.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a5e62f2a303a600c05055adef70de3e18f066d07 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d16714127723c57e2296655ff2cec69a66a226ca9531d834577ea120f185bcdc.md @@ -0,0 +1,2534 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 1 of 56 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 16 of 21 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 16 of 21 +Page 16 +action for damages); Mantooth v. Richards, 557 So.2d 646 (Fla. 4" DCA 1990), per +cunam, (Dismissal of plaintiff's civil complaint affirmed where parental kidnapping +statutes concerned only criminal violations and did not create a civil remedy). +As well, the Count XXXI allegations make absolutely no reference to any +viable common law cause of action; Defendant should not be required to guess or +speculate as to the nature of Plaintiff's cause of action. Even if Defendant were to +speculate as to the supposed cause of action, these causes of action (common law or +otherwise) have not been sufficiently alleged. On its face, in accordance with the +pleading requirements annunciated in Twombly, supra, Count XXX| is completely +lacking as to any common law elements or the underlying factual allegations to support +each element, and thus, Count XXXI is required to be dismissed for failure to state a +cause of action. +In the alternative, Plaintiff should be required to more definitely state whether her +claim is being brought pursuant to federal or Florida statutory law, specifically identify +the statute it is being brought under, or whether her claim is being asserted under +common law. Once Plaintiff identifies the nature of her claim, she is required to +sufficiently allege in accordance with Iwombly, the requisite elements of the identified +claim, along with sufficient factual allegations supporting the elements. +Conclusion +Pursuant to applicable law, Counts I through XXXI of Plaintiff's First Amended +Complaint are required to be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. 18 U.S.C. +does not allow for the Plaintiff C.M.A. to allege separate causes of action against + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 2 of 56 +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 207-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 17 of 21 +Case 9:08-cV-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 17 of 21 +Page 17 +Defendant EPSTEIN, but rather allows Plaintiff to attempt to assert a single civil remedy +if she can prove a violation of any of the statutory enumerated predicate acts. Further, +Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege a requisite predicate act under §2255. In +addition, §2255 does not allow for recovery of punitive damages. Count XXXI is also +subject to dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action, as Plaintiff has +failed to allege a legally viable or recognizable cause of action. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court grant his motion to dismiss +Counts I through XXXI, or alternative motion for more definite statement, and motion to +strike. +• +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day on all counsel of recorg identified on the following Service List in the +manner specified by CM/ECF on this |2 +day of March, 2009: +Richard Horace Willts, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 10* Avenue North +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendants Jeffrey Epstein +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack P. +_ Esq. +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Searcy +Denney Scarola Barnhart & Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A +Shipley, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-686-6300 +West Palm beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 3 of 56 +Document 207-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 18 of 21 +Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 18 of 21 +Page 18 +jsx@searcylaw.com +iph@searcylaw.com +Co-Counsel for Plaintiff +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Detendant +Respectfully submitted, +rit@bclclaw.con +ICHAEL J. PIKE, ESC +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +' ENDNOTE: +U.S.C.A. - Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure, +Chapter 109A. Sexual Abuse +§2241. Aggravated Sexual Abuse. +(c) With children.--Whoever crosses a State line with intent to engage in a sexual act +with a person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or in the special maritime and +territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, +institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a +contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly +engages in a sexual act with another person who has not attained the age of 12 years, +or knowingly engages in a sexual act under the circumstances described in subsections +(a) and (b) with another person who has attained the age of 12 years but has not + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 4 of 56 +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 207-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 19 of 21 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 19 of 21 +Page 19 +attained the age of 16 years (and is at least 4 years younger than the person so +engaging), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not +less than 30 years or for life. If the defendant has previously been convicted of another +Federal offense under this subsection, or of a State offense that would have been an +offense under either such provision had the offense occurred in a Federal prison, unless +the death penalty is imposed, the defendant shall be sentenced to life in prison. +§ 2242. Sexual abuse +Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in +a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in +custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any +Federal department or agency, knowingly- +(1) causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that +other person in fear (other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that +any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping); or +(2) engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is-- +(A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or +(B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating +unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act; +or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years +or for life. +§ 2243. Sexual abuse of a minor or +(a) Of a minor.-Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the +United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which +persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with +the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with +another person who-- +(1) has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years; and +(2) is at least four years younger than the person so engaging; +or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, +or both. +(b) Of a +11.-Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United +States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are +held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of +any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another +person who is-- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 5 of 56 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 20 of 21 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 20 of 21 +Page 20 +(1) in official detention; and +(2) under the custodial, supervisory, or disciplinary authority of the person so +engaging; +or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, +or both. +(C) Defenses.--(1) In a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section, it is a defense, +which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that the +defendant reasonably believed that the other person had attained the age of 16 years. +(2) In a prosecution under this section, it is a defense, which the defendant must +establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that the persons engaging in the sexual +act were at that time married to each other. +(d) State of mind proof requirement.--In a prosecution under subsection (a) of this +section, the Government need not prove that the defendant knew. +(1) the age of the other person engaging in the sexual act; or +(2) that the requisite age difference existed between the persons so engaging. +Chapter 117 Transportation for Illegal Sexual Activity and Related Crimes +§ 2421. Transportation generally +Whoever knowingly transports any individual in interstate or foreign commerce, or in +any Territory or Possession of the United States, with intent that such individual engage +in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a +criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not +more than 10 years, or both. +§ 2423. Transportation of minors +(a) Transportation with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity.- A person who +knowingly transports an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate +or foreign commerce, or in any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United +States, with intent that the individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for +which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title +and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life. +(b) Travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct.-A person who travels in +interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an +alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign +commerce, for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person +shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 6 of 56 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 21 of 21 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 21 of 21 +Page 21 +(c) Engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places.-Any United States citizen or +alien admitted for permanent residence who travels in foreign commerce, and engages +in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or +imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. +(d) Ancillary offenses.-Whoever, for the purpose of commercial advantage or private +financial gain, arranges, induces, procures, or facilitates the travel of a person knowing +that such a person is traveling in interstate commerce or foreign commerce for the +purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct shall be fined under this title, imprisoned +not more than 30 years, or both. +(e) Attempt and conspiracy.--Whoever attempts or conspires to violate subsection (a), +(b), (c), or (d) shall be punishable in the same manner as a completed violation of that +subsection. +(f) Definition.--As used in this section, the term "illicit sexual conduct" means (1) a +sexual act (as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age that woul +be in violation of chapter 109A if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime anc +territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or (2) any commercial sex act (as defined in +section 1591) with a person under 18 years of age. +(g) Defense.--In a prosecution under this section based on illicit sexual conduct as +defined in subsection (f)(2), it is a defense, which the defendant must establish by a +preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant reasonably believed that the person +with whom the defendant engaged in the commercial sex act had attained the age of 18 +years. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 7 of 56 + +Document 113 +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRAWOHNSON +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +.Vs. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN and | +Defendants. +PLAINTIFF, C.M.A.'S, CONDITIONAL NOTICE OF INTENT TO EXCLUSIVELY RELY +ON STATUTORY DAMAGES PROVIDED BY 18 U.S.C. $2255 +Plaintiff, C.M.A., by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files her +Conditional Notice of Intent to Exclusively Rely on Statutory Damages Provided by 18 +U.S.C. §2255, and in support thereof stales as follows: +1. This is an action to recover money damages against Defendant, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for acts of sexual abuse and prostitution committed upon the thenminor, C.M.A. +2. +Plaintiff has plead thirty separate counts against EPSTEIN for separate +incidences of abuse committed by EPSTEIN against Plaintiff pursuant to 18 U.S.C. +§2255. 18 U.S.C. §2255, entitled "Civil remedy for personal injuries", creates a private +right of action for minor children who were the victim of certain enumerated sex +offenses. 18 U.S.C. §2255 also creates a statutory floor for the amount of damages a + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 8 of 56 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 2 of 4 +Case 9:08-cv-B0811-KAM Document 113 +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 2 of 4 +victim can recover for a violation of same. Plaintiff has also alleged a single count of +Sexual Battery against EPSTEIN as well. +3. +There presently exists between the Plaintiff and EPSTEIN a disagreement +as to whether the statutory damage floor established in 18 U.S.C. §2255 is recoverable +for each commission of an enumerated sex offense listed in 18 U.S.C. §2255, or +whether the statutory damage floor can only be enforced once, regardless of how many +times a defendant perpetrates an enumerated sex offense against a minor victim. +4. +This disagreement between the parties is properly the subject of +Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint For Failure to State a Cause +of Action, and Motion For More Definite Statement; Motion to Strike, and Supporting +Memorandum of Law (D.E. 47) which is currently pending before this Court. +In the event that the Court rules that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the +statutory damages created by 18 U.S.C. §2255 for each violation', Plaintiff will be +pursuing only those statutory damages, and will not pursue damages available at +common law. +Should the Court rule however, that the statutory damage floor can only +be applied once, Plaintiff will be pursuing any and all damages available to her, whether +they be pursuant to statute or by common law. +The partles also disagree about the amount the statutory damage floor should be for this case. ' +.S.C. §2265 was amended in 2006 to Increase the floor from $60,000 to $160,000, The parti +essentially disagree about which version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 should apply in this case. +.... + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 9 of 56 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 3 of 4 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM +Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 3 of 4 +Respectfully submitted, +Is/Jack P. +JACK SCAROLA +Florida Bar No. 169440 +JACK P. I +Florida Bar No.: 0547808 +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: +(561) 686-6300 +Fax: +(561) 383-9456 +Attorneys for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 5th, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached +counsel list via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. +Is/lack P. +JACK SCAROLA +Florida Bar No. 169440 +JACKP. +Florida Bar No.: 0547808 +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +(561) 686-6300 +Fax: +(561) 383-9456 +Attorneys for Plaintiff, C.M.A + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 10 of +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-3 + +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 113 +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 + +COUNSEL LIST +Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australlan Avenue S. +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: +(561) 863-9100 +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esquire +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 South Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: +(561)-202-6360 +Fax: +(561)-828-0983 +Robert Critton, Esquire +Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman LLP +• 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33414 +Phone: +(561)-842-2820 +(561)-844-6929 +Richard H. Willts, Esquire +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 10th Avenue North +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Phone: +(561)-582-7600 +(561)-588-8819 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 11 of + +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009, + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80811-MARRAJ +C.M. A., +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN and +Defendants, +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF C.M.A. TO RESPOND TO +DEFENDANT'S FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE AND ANSWER DEFENDANT'S +FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, AND TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS, AND FOR +AN AWARD OF DEFENDANT'S REASONABLE EXPENSES +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attomeys, +moves this Court for an order compelling Plaintiff, C.M.A. to respond to Defendant's +First Request To Produce and to answer Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, and to +overrule her objections asserted in Plaintiffs Response To Defendant's First Request +To Produce, dated February 13, 2009, and in Plaintiff's Notice of Serving Answers To +Interrogatories, dated February 18, 2009. Defendant further seeks an award of his +reasonable expenses, including expenses, associated with the making of this motion. +Rule 37, Fed.R.Clv.P. (2008); Local Gen. Rules 7.1 and 26.1 H (S.D. Fla. 2008). In +support of his motion, Defendant states: +Prior to the filing of this motion, on April 1, 2009, Defendant's counsel +communicated by telephone with Plaintiff's counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the +discovery issues herein. This motion addresses those discovery Items which remain at + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 12 of +56 +...Page 2 of.46 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 18 +Page 2 +issue. Also, rather than file 2 separate motions to compel, Defendant filed one +addressing the production requests and interrogatories because the discovery issues +overlap. +Motion To Compel Responses to Production Requests Nos. 1, 2. 4, 5, and 19, +and Answers to Interrogatories Nos. 2, 18, and 23. +Production Request No. 1 +Individual and/or joint income tax returns and supporting documentation +Including W-2 and 1099 forms for 2002-2007 and, as well as all records or +documentation relative to the Plaintiff's earnings for the current year. +Response: +Objection. Irrelevant, Immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery +of admissible information. +Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery +Plaintif's tax returns and supporting documentation are relevant to Plaintiff's +damages claims and, thus, discoverable. Plaintif's complaint alleges in part that +"beginning in approximately late May or early June of 2002, and continuing until +approximately August of 2003, the Defendant coerced and enticed the impressionable, +vulnerable, and economically deprived then minor Plaintiff to commit various acts of +sexual misconduct." 1st Am. Complaint, T13. (Plaintiff also refused to answer +Interrogatory no. 2 which sought her employment history for the past ten years asserting +the same general objection). +Such Information is both relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. +It is well settled that relevant information is +discoverable, even if not admissible at trial, so long as the discovery is reasonably +calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 26(b)(1), Fed.R.Clv.P.; + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 13 of +..Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM... Document. 207-4... Entered on ELSD Docket 07/20/2009.. Page 3 of 46 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 3 of 18 +Page 3 +Donahay v. Palm Beach Tours. & trans.. Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007). +Discoverability of such information Is governed by Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P., pursuant to +which the scope of discovery is broad. Donahay, supra, at 686, and cases cited therein. +"Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to +the claims or defense of any party involved in the pending action." Id. +Plaintiff's tax returns, along with the requested supporting documentation, for the +six year period, and documents relevant to her current earnings, are relevant to +Plaintiff's damages clalms detailed below herein. Such information would show +Plaintiff's employment and earning history, as well as provide evidence as to how +Plaintiff has been able to function in her daily life before, during and after the alleged +incidents. Was she self-sufficient? Was she able to get out of bed each morning and +support herself? What type of job did she hold? One's ability to earn a living and be +self-supporting +has +not +only a financial component, +but +'also an +emotional/psychological/mental component. +C.M.A.'s First Amended Complaint' attempts to allege 32 counts: Counts +through XXX are purportedly brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 - Civil Remedles for +Personal Injuries; Count XXXI is entitled "Sexual Battery," and Count XXXII, is entitled +"Conspiracy to Commit Tortious Assault only against Defendant, +In her answers to interrogatory nos. 9 and 10, which seek information about +C.M.A.'s damages clalms, Plaintiff answered that: +'Defendant's Motion To Dismiss directed to Plaintif's First Amended Complaint is pending. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 14 of +56 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 4 of 46 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 4 of 18 +Page 4 +I have bi-polar disorder and manic depression. I lost my self-esteem. I began +cutting myself on my arms and legs and developed drug problems. Permanent +injuries are psychological. (Interrog. No. 9). +I am claiming compensation for mental anguish, mental pain, psychic trauma, +and loss of enjoyment of life. These damages will be evaluated by a jury who +will provide their own methods of computation In an amount of at least the +statutory minimum established by 18 U.S.C.A. §2255. (Interrog, No. 10). +In her 15 Amended Complaint, relevant to her damages claims, Plaintiff alleges: +...C.M.A., has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, +pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, +humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion ot her +privacy and other damages .... The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and +psychological expenses ... and will in the future suffer additional medical and +psychological expenses. The Plaintiff C.M.A. has suffered loss of Income, a +loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of capacity to enjoy +life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, C.M.A., will +continue to suffer these losses in the future. +(18* Am. Complaint, Counts I - XXX (18 U.S.C. §2255), 1125, 31, 37, 43, 49, 55, +61, 67, 73, 79, 85, 91, 97, 103, 109, 115, 121, 127, 133, 139, 145, 151, 151, +163, 169, 175, 181, 187, 193; Count XXXI (Sexual Battery), 1199.) +In each of her "Wherefore" clauses, Plaintiff seeks "compensatory damages of at +least the minimum provided by law." 18 U.S.C. §2255, pursuant to which Plaintiff +attempts to bring certain of her claims, allows for recovery of "actual damages." See fin. +2 herein for applicable statutory text.? +As discussed above, the tax returns, and supporting documentation, will provide +direct evidence as to Plaintiff's claimed damages. Such Information does not only go to +(a) +2 Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, +deemed to have sustained damages of no less than $50,000 in value. [Emphasis added.] + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 15 of +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page. 5 of 46. +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 + +C.M.A. v. Epsteln, et al. +Page 5 +compensatory or actual damages or loss of income/loss of capacity to earn income type +damages, but also her emotional/psychological/mental health type damages. In the +telephone communication between counsel for the respective parties, Plaintiff's counsel +indicated that Plaintiff was not seeking loss of income/earning capacity type damages; +(Defendant is not aware that there has been any formal withdrawal of such damages +claimed); notwithstanding, the information sought is still relevant and discoverable +based on the additional damages claimed by Plaintiff. The time period will allow +Defendant to compare how Plaintiff was doing in her life prior to, during, and after the +alleged incident. Again, the type of jobs Plaintiff has been able to hold and her earnings +and ability to support herself clearly have not only a financial component, but an +emotional/psychological/mental health component as well. Accordingly, Plaintiff's +objection is required to be overruled, and Defendant is entitled to the documents +requested. +Production Request No, 2 +2. +All bills/expenses from any medical doctor, chiropractor, psychologists, +psychiatrists, mental health counselors (including any members of the healing arts and +related +, i.e. drugs, prescriptions, etc.) you claim you incurred as a result of the +injuries which are or may be the subject matter of this lawsuit +Response: +None in our possession. These will be provided upon receipt. Discovery is ongoing. +Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery +Plaintiff makes no objection to the documents requested, but has failed to +produce any documents responsive to this request. Clearly, the documents are relevant +and discoverable as they go to proof of Plaintiff's claimed injuries. In the April 1, 2009, + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 16 of +56 +..Document 207-4 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 . Page 6 of 46 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009, Page 6 of 18 +Page 6 +telephone communication Plaintif's counsel indicated that Plaintiff was still not in +possession of such documents. +The First Request for Production was served on +Plaintiff on January 16, 2009. In her answer to interrogatory no. 11, (Notice of Serving +Answers, dated February 18, 2009, identifies a psychiatrist and a counselor/therapist +from whom she claims she is receiving treatment or examination for the injuries for +which [she] seeks damages." See Exhibit A hereto for copy C.M.A.'s answer to +interrogatory no. 11. Regarding the date of treatment from the psychiatrist - she +asserts "I would defer to the Doctor's records." She claims the treatment from the +counselor/therapist has been "since high school" and "ongoing." Defendant is entitled to +the documents sought and Plaintiff is in control of and has the ability to obtain the +requested medical bills and expenses she claims were incurred as result of her injuries +claimed in this action. Plaintiff should be required to immediately produce the requested +documents to Defendant. +• +Production Request No. 4 +All reports, evaluations, recommendations and/or analysis submitted by +any expert which relate to or cover the Incident which is the subject matter of this +lawsuit and/or any injuries, damages or losses you allege were caused by the incident. +Response: +Any reports generated by any retained experts not yet disclosed are protected by the +work product privilege. Notwithstanding same, none. +Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery +Plaintiff, through counsel, in the April 1, 2009, telephone communication, +indicated that she does not have any responsive documents and stands by her +objection. Rule 26 provides In relevant part - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 17 of +56 +Document 207-4. +..Page 7 of 46 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 7 of 18 +Page 7 +2) Disclosure of Expert Testimony. +(A) in General. In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), a party must +disclose to the other parties the Identity of any witness It may use at trial to present +evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705. +(B) Written Report. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, this +disclosure must be accompanled by a written report-prepared and signed by the witness--if +the witness is one retained or specially employed fo provide expert testimony in the +case or one whose dutles as the party's employee regularly involve giving expert testimony. +The report must contain: +(i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and +reasons for them; +(ii) the data or other information considered by the witness in forming them; +(il) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them; +(iv) the witness's qualifications, Including a list of all publications authored in the +previous 10 years; +(v) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous four years, the witness +testifled as an expert at trial or by deposition; and +(vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the +case. +(C) Time to Disclose Expert Testimony. A party must make these disclosures at the +times and in the sequence that the court orders. Absent a stipulation or a court order, the +disclosures must be made: +() at least 90 days before the date set for trial or for the case to be ready for trial; or +suble at theodo none play ay to fulf at re, in a day her the +other party's disclosure. +* +* +(e) Supplementing Disclosures and Responses. +(1) In General. A party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a)-or who has +responded to an Interrogatory, request for production, or request for admission--must +supplement or correct its disclosure or response: +(A) in a timely manner If the party leams that in some material respect the +disclosure or response is incomplete or Incorrect, and if the additlonal or corrective + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 18 of +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM. Document 207-4.. +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009. Page 8 of. 46 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 8 of 18 +Page 8 +information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties, during the +discovery procuss or in writing, or +(B) as ordered by the court. +under Rule 26(a)(3) are due. +Accordingly, Defendant requests that should Plaintiff be in possession of any +such reports, evaluations, recommendations and/or analysis prepared by an expert +expected to testify at trial or deposition, or to be used by an expert expected to testify at +trial or deposition, that such documents be produced as required by Rule 26, +Fed.R.Clv.P. quoted above. +Production Request No. 5 +5. +All medical reports and/or records from doctors, physicians, (including +psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors), hospitals, drug or alcohol +facilities or any other person or entity who has rendered treatment to or examined you +for any reason after the incidents) which is the subject matter of this lawsuit. +Response: +None in our possession. Discovery is ongoing. +Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery +Once again, Plaintiff should be required to immediately produce the requested +documents. In support of ordering immediate production, Defendant realleges and +incorporates his "Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement To Discovery" to request no. 5 +above herein. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 19 of +- Document 207-4 +_Page 9 of 46 +Case 9:08-cV-80811-KAM Document 54 + +Page 9 +Interrogatory No. 2 +List the names, business addresses, telephone and cell phone numbers, +dates of employment, immediate supervisor (name and address) and rates of pay +regarding all employers, including self-employment, for whom you have worked in the +past 10 years; this includes listing all sources of income you have recelved. Answer this +question by year, i.e. 1998 - 2009. +Answer: +Objection. Irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of +admissible evidence. +Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery +Such information is clearly relevant to the damages and injurles claimed by +Plaintiff in this action. +Plaintiff's complaint alleges in part that "beginning in +approximately late May or early June of 2002, and continuing until approximately +August of 2003, the Defendant coerced and enticed the impressionable, vulnérable, and +economically deprived then minor Plaintiff to commit various acts of sexual misconduct." +18t Am. Complaint, 113. (See discussion of Production Request no. 1 above herein). +Such Information is both relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. It is well settled that relevant information is +discoverable, even if not admissible at trial, so long as the discovery is reasonably +calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 26(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.; +Donahay v. Palm Beach Tours & trans., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007). +Discoverability of such information is governed by Rule 26, Fed.R.Clv.P., pursuant to +which the scope of discovery is broad. Donahay, supra, at 686, and cases cited therein. +"Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to +the claims or defense of any party involved in the pending action." Id. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 20 of +56 +...Document 207-4 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009. + + +Page 10 +Plaintiff's employment and earnings history prior to and after the alleged +Incidents are relevant to her claimed damages and injuries. Such Information would not +only evidence Plaintiffs employment and earning history, but also provide evidence as +to how Plaintiff has been able to function in her daily llfe before, during and after the +alleged incidents. Was she self-sufficient? Was she able to get out of bed each +morning and support herself? What type of job did she hold? One's ability to earn a +Iving and be self-supporting has not only a financial component, but also an +emotional/psychological/mental component. +C.M.A.'s First Amended Complaint attempts to allege 32 counts Counts I +through XXX are purportedly brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 - Civil Remedies for +Personal Injuries; Count XXXI is entitled "Sexual Battery," and Count XXXIi is entitled +"Conspiracy to Commit Tortious Assault only against Defendant, +In her answers to interrogatory nos. 9 and 10, which seek information about +C.M.A.'s damages claims, Plaintiff answered that: +I have bi-polar disorder and manic depression. I lost my self-esteem. I began +cutting myself on my arms and legs and developed drug problems. Permanent +injurles are psychological. (Interrog. No. 9). +I am claiming compensation for mental anguish, mental pain, psychic trauma, +and loss of enjoyment of life. +These damages will be evaluated by a jury who +will provide their own methods of computation in an amount of at least the +statutory minimum established by 18 U.S.C.A. §2255, (Interrog. No. 10). +In her 1s' Amended Complaint, relevant to her damages claims, Plaintift alleges: +...C.M.A., has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, +privacy and other damages +psychological expenses. +The Plaintiff C.M.A. has suffered loss of income, a +ETA02745783 + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 21 of +..Page 11 of 46 + +C.M.A. v. Epsteln, et al. +Page 11 +loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of capacity to enjoy +life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, C.M.A., will +continue to suffer these losses in the future. +(15 Am. Complaint, Counts I - XXX (18 U.S.C. §2255), 1125, 31, 37, 43, 49, 55, +61, 67, 73, 79, 85, 91, 97, 103, 109, 115, 121, 127, 133, 139, 145, 151, 157, +163, 169, 175, 181, 187, 193; Count XXXI (Sexual Battery), T199.) +In each of her "Wherefore". clauses, Plaintiff seeks "compensatory damages of at +least the minimum provided by law." 18 U.S.C. §2255, pursuant to which Plaintiff +attempts to bring certain of her claims, allows for recovery of "actual damages." See fn. +2 herein for applicable statutory text. +As discussed above, C.M.A.'s employment and earnings history will provide direct +evidence as to Plaintiff's claimed damages. Such Information does not bnly go to +compensatory or actual damages or loss of income/loss of capacity to earn income type +damages, but also her emotional/psychologlcal/mental health type damages. In the +telephone communication between counsel for the respective parties, Plaintiff's counsel +indicated that Plaintiff was not seeking loss of income/earning capacity type, damages; +(Defendant Is not aware that there has been any formal withdrawal of such damages +claimed); notwithstanding, the Information sought is still relevant and discoverable +based on the additional damages claimed by Plaintiff. The time period will allow +Defendant to compare how Plaintiff was doing in her life prior to, during, arid after the +alleged incident. Again, the type of jobs Plaintiff has been able to hold and her earnings +and ability to support herself clearly have not only a financial component, but an +emotional/psychological/mental health component as well. Accordingly, Plaintiff's + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 22 of +56 +_Page 12 of 46 +Case 9:08-cv-B0811-KAM Document 54 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 * + +Page 12 +objection is required to be overruled, and Defendant is entitled to the informațion sought +in the Interrogatory. +Interrogatory No. 18 +18. +List separately the names, addresses and phone numbers of all males, +excluding Mr. Epstein, with whom you have had sexual activity since age 10 (by year) +up through your current age. Describe the nature of sexual activity, the date(s) and +whether you received money or other consideration from the person. +Answer: +Objection. Relevance and overbroad. +Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery +Plaintiff's only objection is relevancy and overbroad, without any factual support +or showing as required by Rule 26(c) and Local Gen. Rule 26:1 H (S.D. Fla, 2008). +Nowhere does C.M.A. explain how such interrogatory is overbroad. +It is well settled that relevant information is discoverable, even if not admissible at +trial, so long as the discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of +admissible evidence. Rule 26(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Donahay v. Palm Beach Tours & +trans.. Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla, 2007). Discoverability of an alleged +victim's/plaintiff's sexual conduct or activity in civil cases is governed by Rule 26, +Fed.R.Civ.P., pursuant to which the scope of discovery is broad. Donahay, supra, at +686, and cases cited therein. "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not +privileged, which is relevant to the claims or defense of any party involved in the +pending action." Id. +In accordance with Rule 26, the discovery sought regarding Plaintiff's sexual +activity with males and the nature thereof, including whether she received any + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 23 of +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 13 of 46. + +C.M.A. v, Epstein, et al. +Page 13 +compensation or consideration therefore, in interrogatory no. 18, are all relevant to +Plaintiff's damages claims and the type of injury she claims she has suffered. +Defendant has no other means of obtalning such information and obtaining such +Information through Plaintiff will better protect the confidentiality until the Court can +make a determination in accordance with the procedures under Rule 412(c) whether +such information will be admissible at trial. See Rule 412(c), Fed.R.Clv.P. Defendant +will agree to an order keeping the confidentiality of the information obtained through +discovery. +The evidence sought is relevant based on the facts and theories of this action. +C.M.A.'s First Amended Complaint attempts to allege 32 counts. Counts | through XXX +are purportedly brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 - Civil Remedies for Personal +Injuries; Count XXXI-is entitled "Sexual. Battery," and Count XXXII is entitled +"Conspiracy to Commit Tortious Assault only against Defendant, +In her answers to interrogatory nos. 9 and 10, which seek information about +C.M.A.'s damages claims, Plaintiff answered that: +I have bi-polar disorder and manic depression. I lost my self-esteem. I began +cutting myself on my arms and legs and developed drug problems. Permanent +Injuries are psychological. (Interrog. No. 9). +In her 1" Amended Complaint, relevant to her damages claims, Plaintiff alleges: +pain and sulas in the most a dered, an at no togical reute myal a nury, +humillation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 24 of +Case 9:08-CV-801.19-KAM +Document 207-4 . Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009. Page.14 of 46 +.. Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 + +C.M.A. V. Epstein, et al. +Page 14 +psychological expenses ... and will in the future suffer additional medical and +life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, C.M.A., Will +continue to suffer these losses in the future. +(18" Am. Complaint, Counts I - XXX (18 U.S.C. §2255), 1125; 31, 37, 43, 49, 55, +61, 67, 73, 79, 85, 91, 97, 103, 109, 115, 121, 127, 133, 139, 145, 151, 157, +163, 169, 175, 181, 187, 193; Count XXX/ (Sexual Battery), 1|199.) +In each of her "Wherefore" clauses, Plaintiff seeks "compensatory damages of at +least the minimum provided by law." 18 U.S.C. §2255, pursuant to which Plaintiff +attempts to bring certain of her claims, allows for recovery of "actual damages." See fn. +2 herein for applicable statutory text. +C.M.A. also alleges that Defendant's conduct was "sexual assault. and child +abuse of a then minor." T2. She alleges that "beginning in approximately late May or +early June of 2002, and continuing until approximately August of 2003, the Defendant +coerced and enticed the impressionable, vulnerable, and economically deprived then +minor Plaintiff to commit various acts of sexual misconduct." |13. +... These acts included, but were not limited to, fondling and inappropriate and +soliciting and enticing the then minor Plaintiff to engage in sexual acts with +another female in EPSTEIN's presence, and encouraging the then: mino +the purpose of prostitution, and lewd and lascivious assaults upon the person o +the then minor plaintiff. (1 Am. Complaint 113) +The information sought Is clearly relevant to the Injuries and damages claimed by +Plaintiff. +The nature of her clalmed injuries and damages are such that Defendant is + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 25 of +56 +_Document 207-4_ Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 15.0f46. +Case 9:08-Cv-80811-KAM Document 54 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 ' + +C.M.A. V. Epstein, et al. +Page 15 +entitled to evidence which would show the nature of her relationship with males, +whether she has suffered or engaged in other acts of sexual misconduct or activity as +alleged in her complaint, and whether she suffered injury and damages as a result of +the other claimed sexual misconduct or activity. See United States v. Bear Stops, 997 +F.2d 451 (8" Cir. 1993)(Defendant charged with sexual abuse of six year old boy was +entitled to admission of evidence relating to victim's sexual assault by 3 older boys to +establish alternative explanation for why victim exhlbited behavioral manifestations of +sexually abused chiid.). +In further support of Defendant's motion, a copy of Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d +1076 (Fla. 5'* DCA 1997), rev, denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla, 1998), is attached hereto as +Exhibit B as it is on point to the discovery issues in this action, and the relevancy and +discoverability of Plaintiff's history of sexual activity and any payment, therefore. See +interrogatories 8, 22 and 30 propounded in the Balas case and footnote 1 herein. 3 +Additionally and significantly, in other pending state court civil actions against. Defendant +EPSTEIN attempting to assert similar claims and damages, the Circuit Court Judges +have already ruled that such information is discoverable as it is relevant to the damages +claims of Plaintift. See Composite Exhibits G and D hereto. Composite, Exhibit C +are the Orders, dated February 23, 2009, entered in the case of A.C. V. Epstein, and +|. Case No. 502008CA025129 MB AI, 15"* Judicial Circuit, In and For Palm Beach +County, State of Florida, which granted Defendant's motion to compel therein directed +3 In Balas v. Ruzzo, supra, the Plaintiffs alleged a multicount complaint including claims for +"coercion of prostitution" pursuant to 5796.09, Fla. Stat; for battery for the unwanted and +offensive touching of petitioners' bodies; false imprisonment for physically confining the +petitioners against their will; invasion of privacy; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 26 of +56 +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM... Document 207-4. +_Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009... Page 16 of 46 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009; Page 16 of 18 +Page 16 +to discovery identical to interrogatory no. 18 above. (In the A.C. case, the Plaintiff +answered without objection Interrogatories identical to nos. 19, 20, and 21 herein.) +Composite Exhibit D is a portion the transcript from a March 3, 2009 hearing on +Defendant's motion to compel discovery in the case of Jane Doe II v. Epstein, and +1, Case No. 502008CA020614 MB AF, 15* Judicial Circult Court, In and For Palm +Beach County, State of Florida. Again, the Circuit Court Judge determined that the +information sought is relevant to the issue of damages and, thus, discoverable +Accordingly, Plaintiff's objections are required to be overruled and Defendant is +entitled to the discovery sought. +Interrogatory No. 23 +State the names, addresses, ages, phone numbers and dates of a +emales whom you claim were brought by you to Mr. Epstein's home to give him +massage or for any other reason. As to each female, state the amount of money you +claim you were paid to bring each female. +Answer: +A.L. Age: 22 +West Palm Beach, FL +I was pald $100.00 +Legal Argument Supporting Entitlement to Discovery +Counsel for the respective parties also discussed this interrogatory in an effort to +come to a resolution. Plaintiff does not object to the discovery requested. Plaintiff's +counsel indicated that he had a "problem" disclosing the identity of A.L. to the extent +she was a minor at the time. Defendant would agree to an order protecting public +disclosure of the true Identity of A.L. If she were indeed a minor at the time; however, as +part of the order, Plaintiff should also be required to provide Defendant with the full + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 27 of +56 +. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM … Document 207-4 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 .. Page 17 of 46 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 + +C,M.A. v. Epstein, et al. +Page 17 +name of A.L. so that Defendant may conduct meaningful discovery. It is Plaintiff who +claims she brought A.L. to Epstein's home as part of the alleged "scheme." In addition, +Plaintiff failed to provide any date or dates as to when she brought A.L. to Epstein's +home. Plaintiff's counsel indicated they would attempt to provide this information. +Accordingly, in granting Defendant's motion to compel discovery, with respect t +this interrogatory, Plaintiff should be required to provide the full name of AL. (which +Defendant agrees to keep confidential at this time), the date or dates which she brought +A.L. or any female to Epstein's home, and how much she was allegedly paid each time. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court grant Defendant's motion to +compel and award Defendant's reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, +associated with this motion. +Rule 7.1 Certification +I hereby certify that counsel for the respective parties communicated by +telephone in a good faith effort to resolve the discovery issues prior to the filing of this +motion to compel. Some of the issues were resolved or in the process of being +resolved. +Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Attorney for pefendant Epstein +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with +manner specified by CM/ECF on this + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 28 of +.. Document 207-4 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009. Page 18 of 46 +Case 9:08-cv-B0811-KAM Document 54 + +Page 18 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 10# Avenue North +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Alterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Sulte 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesg@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack P. +1, Esq. +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Searcy Denney +Scarola Barnhart & Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +jsx@searcylaw.com +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Iph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +Co-Counsel for Plaintiff +Respectully submitted, +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bolclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 29 of +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009. Page 19 of 46 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 2 +C.M.A, vs. Epstein, et al. +Case No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA +Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's First Interrogatories +• School behavioral problems, received counseling prior to the incident: +8. +Did you consume any alcoholic beverages or take any drugs or medications +within 12 hours before the time of each incidents) described in the complaint? If +so, state the type and amount of alcoholic beverages, drugs, or medication which +were consumed, and when (dates) and where you consumed them. +ANSWER +1. On one occasion I had taken "Morning Glory" and "Angel Trumpets". I +do not recall the date. +2. On another occasion I used cocaine powder. I do not recall the date. +9. +Jescribe each injury (physical, emotional, mental) for which you are claimir +damages in this case, specifying the part of your body that was injured, th +nature of the injury and as to any injuries you contend are permanent, the effects +on you that you claim are permanent. +ANSWER +I have bi-polar disorder and manic depression. I lost my self-esteem. I +began cutting myself on my arms and legs and developed drug problems. +Permanent injuries are psychological. +10. +Please state each item of damage that you claim, and include in your answer; the +count to which the Item of damages relates; the factual basis for each item of +amages; and an explanation of how you computed each item of damage +cluding any mathematical formula use +ANSWER +11. +Discovery is ongoing. +List the names and business addresses of each physician (including psychlatrist, +psychologist, chiropractor or medical provider) who has treated or examined you, +13 + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 30 of +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM. Document 207-4 +Entered on FLSD Docket. 07/20/2009.. Page 20 of 46 +• Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-2 l + +C.M.A. vs. Epstein, et al. +Case No.: DB-CV-80811-CJV-MARRA/ +Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's First Interrogatories +ard each medical facilily where you have recelved any treatment or examination +for the injuries for which you seek damages in this case; and state as to each the +date of treatment or examination and the injury or condition for which you were +examined or treated. +ANSWER +Dr. Serge Thys (Psychiatrist) Date: I do not recall the date. I would defer +2151 45* Street +to the Doctor's records. +West Palm Beach, FL. 33407 +Susan Pope (Counselor/Therapist) Date: Since high school. Ongoing. +Parent Child Center +2001 W. Blue Heron Boulevard +12. +state as to each the dates of examination or treatment and the condition or injury +ANSWER +Good Samaritan Hospital (3/12/04, 3/25/08) +Child Birth +1309 N Flagler Dr +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +St. Mary's Hospital (4/07) +DNC +901 45* Street +West Palm Beach, FL 33407 +Gloria C. Hakkarainen, MD +2926 Y0% Avenue North, Suite 306 +Palm Springs, FL. 33461 +Theodore Ritota, DDS +Dentist +14 +.....a + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 31 of +_Page 21 of 46 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 +Westlaw. +703 5o.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 +(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) +District Court of Appeal of Florida, +Pifth District. +Kimberly BALAS and Teresa Shumate, Petitioners, +V. +Marjorie A. RUZZO, and Exec., Inc., etc., Be- +spondents. +No. 97-82. +Oct. 10, 1997. +Prage if8 +1 of 8 +Page 1 +prostitution for, inter alia, coercion of nrastitution. +The Circuit Court, Brevard County, +* Pound, +J., granted in part defendants' motion to compel discovery. Plaintifis filed petition for writ of certiorari, The District Court of Appeal, W. Sharp, J., held +that evidence of plaintiffs' past prostitution and +their revenues relating to such activities was discoverable. +Petition denled. +Harris, J., concurred specially and filled opinion. +West Headnotes +[1] Pretrial Procedure 307A 0-31 +307A Pretrial Procedure +307AII Depositions and Discovery +307AII(A) Discovery In General +307Ak31 k. Relevancy and Materiality. +Most Cited Cases +Discovery in civil cases must be relevant to subject +matter of case and must be admissible or reasonbly calculated to lead to admissible evidence +West's F.S.A. RCP Rule 1.280(b)(1) +(2] Pretrial Procedure 307A 6-031 +307A. Pretrial Procedure +307 ATI Depositions and Discovery +307AЩ(A) Discovery in General +307Ak31 k. Relevancy and Materiality. +Most Cited Cases +Party may be permitted to discover evidence that +would be inadmissible at trial, if it would lead to +Ale 1.20 Of relevant ovidence. Wosta BS.A. RCP +[3] Pretrial Procedure 307A e36.] +307A Pretrial Procedure +307AII Depositions and Discovery! +307Ak36 Particular Subjects of Disclos- ure +307A36.1 k. In General. Most Cited +Casca +Evidence of plaintiffs past prostitation and their +revenues relating to such activities, including activities with alleged house of prostitution against +which they had filed suit, was discoverable, where +plaintiffs brought action not only for coercion of +prostitution, but also for battery, false imprisonment, Invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of +emotional distress, violation of their civil rights, +and racketeering. +Violent Crime Control and Law +Enforcement Act of 1994, § 40302, 42 U.S.C.A. § +13981; West's F.S.A. 99 772.014, 796.09; West's +F.S.A. RCP Rule 1.280(b(J). +*1076 Richard E. +and Heather Fisher Lindsay, of Spriggs & +Tallahassee, for Petitioners. +Mark S. Peters of Amari, Therlac de Bisenmenger, +P.A.., Cocoa, for Respondents. +W. SHARP, Judge. +© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. +EXHIB. B" +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx7sy=Split&prf-HTMLE&ifim=NotSet&rat 3/26/2009 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 +Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 32 of +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009. +_Page 22 of 46 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 +703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L, Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 +(Cite us: 703 8o.2d 1076) +compelled to disclose Intimate details of their sexual histery. We decline to issue the writ of certiorari. +Balas and Shumate filed suit against Ruzzo and Ex +c, Inc., doing business as "The Boardroom." Ac +cording to Balas and Shumate, The Boardroom operates ostensibly as *1077 a leisure spa but actually +is a house of prostitution. Balas worked at The +Boardroom from December 1993 until February +1996; Shumate worked there from October 1992 +until March 1996. Ruzzo, the sole officer and +shareholder of Exec, Inc., collected about fifty to +sixty percent of each employees' carnings from performing sexual acts. +According to Balas and Shumate, Ruzzo exerted +mental and emotional control over her employees +and thus she was able to exploit them as prostitutes. +Ruzzo reguired her employees to pay her substantial sums of money to attend "metaphysical workshops" conducted by Ruzzo or persons associated +with her. At the work place, the employees were required to participate in religious and quesi-religious +"circles," rituals and incantations. These practices +were allegedly designed to break down the person +alities of the women who worked for Ruzzo and to +dependency and loyalty to herself. At one +time when the earnings of a new employee were +missing and believed to be stolen, Ruzzo required +that the petitioners be strip searched and body carity searched. Ruzzo caused the petitioners to believe their continued employment was dependent on +their submission to these searches and that they +might be arrested on felony charges if they refused +to submit to the searches. +las and Shumate's sccond amended compla +ainst Ruzzo contains seven counts, Count I is +action for coercion of prostitution pursuant to sec- +Lion 796.09, Florida Statutes. Petitioners allege the +requirement that they perform sexual acts to retain +their employment constitutes inducement and coerclon to engage in prostitution. Count Il is a claim +for battery for the unwanted and offensive touching +of the petitioners' bodies. Count Ill is a claim for +false imprisonment for physically confining the pe- +Page 2 OT 8 + +Page 2 +titioners against their will. Count TV alleges that respondents' actions constituted an invasion of petitoners' privacy. Count V is a claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Count VI alleges a civil rights action-that respondents have violated petitioners' right to be free from crimes of violence motivated by gender within the meaning of +42 U.S.C. section 13981. Finally, count VII seeks +civil remedies for criminal practices or racketeering +pursuant to section 772.104, Florida Statutes. The +petitioners claim that they suffered emotional pain, +anguish, humiliation, Insult, indignity; loss of selfesteem, inconvenience, hurt and emotionel distress +They seek an award of general and punitive damages, among other relief. +The discovery to which the petitioners are being r +juired to respond is as follow +I. +Interrogatory 8: Please advise how long have you +been engaged in prostitution.. +II. +Interrogatory 22: State with specificity the man +ner in which the acts as desoribed in your Com +plaint have materially affected how you interact +with your husband, boyfriend, fiancee' [sic] o +any other individual of the opposite sex. +II1. +Request for Production 30: A copy of any photo +graphs, movice or videotapes in which you per +in exchange for money orot ironid scial ects +IV. +Interrogatory 16: Please list the names, addresses, +telephone numbers and rates of pay for all em +players for which you worked, including the +© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sy=Split&prft~HTMIE&ifm=NotSet&imt... 3/26/2009 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 33 of +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 23 of 46 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 +703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L, Weekly D169 +(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) +nature of the work, during the five years immediatoly preceding the date-of employment with the +Boardroom and from the date of your termination +with the Boardroom to the present, providing the +names of your immediate supervisors at each +place of employment and the reason for your +leaving each place of employment. +V. +Interrogatory 26: Please state your total income +while employed at the Boardroom, and state the +source of that income including any income from +other employment or *1078 income earned from +prostitution other than at the Boardroom. +VI. +Request for Production 34: Business records from +any selfemployment or owned business ventures +in the last 5 years, including any records or list of +customers, +"special customer +lists" or "sugar +daddy's list." +[1][2] Discovery in civil cases must be relevant to +the subject matter of the case and must be admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible +evidence. See Allstate Insurance Co. y. Langston, +655 So.2d 91 (Fla.1995); Amente 4. +_ 653 +So.2d 1030 (Fla.1995): +v. Stardust Cruisers, Inc., 690 So.2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). The +concept of relevancy is broader in the discovery +context than in the trial context and a party may he +permitied to discover evidence that would be inadmissible at trial, if it would lead to the discovery of +relevant evidence. Allstate; Amente. Florida Rule of +Civil Procedure 1,280(b)(I) delineates the proper +scope of discovery: +Page 3 of +Page 3 +nature, custody, condition, and location of any +hooks, documents, or other tangible things and +the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. It is not ground +for objection that the information sought will be +Inadmissible. at the trial if the information sought +appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. +Nonetheless, the discovery of certain kinds of information may cause material injury of an irreparable nature. This includes the "cat-out-of-the-bag" +material that could be used to injure another person +or party outside the context of the litigation, material protected by privilege, trade secrets or work +product. Discovery was never intended to be used +as a tactical tool to harass, embarrass or annoy +one's adversary. Rather, pretrial discovery was implemented to simplify the issues in a case, to eliminate the elements of surprise, to encourage the settlement of cases, to avoid the cost of litigation, and +to achieve a balanced search for the truth to ensure +a fair trial. Elkins v. Syker, 672 S0.2d 517 (Fla.1996). +Here the petitioners argue that the information +sought to be discovered regarding prostitution and +their sexual activities was propounded solely to embarrass them and to invade their right to privacy. +The petitioners also claim that this 'information is +privileged under section 796.09 and is not calculated to lead to evidence which would be admissible at trial. +Section 796.09 provides a person with a civil cause +of action for compensatory and punitive damages +against anyone who coerces that person into prostitution, who coerces that person to remain in prostitution, or who uses coercion to collect or receive +any part of that person's earnings derived from +® 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx7sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&ifm-NotSet&mt. 3/26/2009 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 34 of +9. Page 24 of 46 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 +age 4 010 +ade 4 ot +703 So.2d 1076, 22 Pla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 +(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) +Page 4 +ness for the plaintiffs cannot be used against the +plaintifts or winess in any other hrvestigation or +proceeding, except one for perjury. +Section 796.09(5) specifically provides that it is not +a defense that the plaintiff was paid or otherwise +compensated for prostitution, that the plaintiff had +engaged in prostitution prior to any involvement +with the defendant or that the plaintiff made no atterupt to escape from the defendant. Section +796.09(6) provides that convictions for prostitution +or prostitution-related offenses are inadmissible for +the purpose of attacking the plaintiffs credibility. +This legislation was the result of the Florida Su- +preme Court Gender Bias Study Commission, +which conducted an extensive investigation of prostitution in this state, The Commission's activities +included interviews with law enforcement and corrections personnel,*1079 judges, public defenders, +prosecutors, +drug rehabilitation +counselors, social +workers, medical personnel, prostitutes, clients and +pimps. +The Commission found prostitution to be +prevalent and uniform throughout the state and law +enforcement largely unable to deter it under prevailing social attitudes and judicial practices. The +Commission further found that prostitutes are often +victims of economic, +physical, and psychological +coercion, that most persons do not chose to become +prostitutes, but do so to survive, and that ninety +percent of street prostitutes, both adult and children, are controlled by pimps who use a variety of +coercive +methods to maintain this control. The +Commission determined that clients and pimps are +rarely +prosecuted +and, when prosecuted, +receive +light sentences; whereas prostitutes, who are mainly +females, are +frequently prosecuted and receive +harsher treatment in the courts. +The Commission +rocommended changes in the methods of interven +tion in prostitution from punitive to therapeutic +raffic in human flesh by giving the prostitute ac +ess to the judicial system without first having to b +arrested. +Under section 796.09, the petitioners' prior involvement in prostitution and their earnings from prostitution would be Irrelevant. Hence discovery should +not be permitted because such information would +not be admissible at trial nor would it be reasonably +calculated to lead to evidence ultimately admissible +at trial. Even though the scope of discovery is gencrally quite broad, section 796.09 is designed to encourage prostitutes to sue their pimps. Thus the +usually broad scope of discovery may be constric. +ted so that prostitutes will not be embarrassed, harassed or hindered in their actions. +[3] Had the petitioners brought their lawsuit against +Ruzzo and The Boardroom only under section +796.09, evidence of petitioners' past prostitution, +Including with the Boardroom, and their earnings +relating to such activities, may not have been discoverable. However, the petitioners filed a multicount complaint for compensatory i and punitive +damages, +alleging numerous +causes of action +against the respondents. These other. causes carry +no such protection from discovery. Since the information sought by discovery may be relevant or +may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in +one or more of these other causes of action or to +determination of damages, we cannot conclude that +the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in granting this discovery. See +v. TIB Bank of the Keys, 687 So.2d 895 (Fla. 30 +DCA 1997) (by alleging fraud as well as breach of +contract, purchaser placed at issue hier reliance on +venders' assertions, the veracity of financial documents she submitted to the vender, and the state of +her mental health, including memory problems she +was experiencing at the time of the alleged tortious +conduct, thus deposition questions concerning her +state of mind were relevant). +Petition for Writ of Certiorari DENIED. +THOMPSON, J., concurs. +HARRIS, +Lo. FAR, 5, Judge, consuming specially: +оріп- +@ 2009 Thomson Reuters/West, No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx7sv=Split&prfl=HTMLB&ifm-NotSet&mt. 3/26/2009 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 35 of + +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-3 +703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L, Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 +(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) +There is a temptation in cases such as this to inquire +which, the pot or the kelle, is imbued with the +darker hue, Indeed that may ultimately be the question uppermost in the jurors' minds. But the issue +presently before us is simply whether the pot, in order to establish the partics' comparative complexion, may discover the historical condition and the +inherent characteristics of the kettle. +We are here involved with partics that the limited +record before us Indicates were co-conspirators in a +joint effort to violato Florida's laws against prostitution. The defendants are the owner/operators of a +"social club" whose primary service is prostitution; +the plaintiffs are employees of the club who +provide such services. The employees are suing the +owner/operators for, among other counts, taking advantage of their vulnerabilities ("coercing" them to +be prostitutes) through manipulation and exploitation. In order to prepare a defense to the action, defendants havo filed certain interrogatories for the +employees to answer. +These Interrogatorics*1080 +request such information as how long the employees have been engaged in prostitution; how the employees have been affocted by the defendants' conduct; copies of photographs, movies, and videotapes in which the employees have performed sexual acts or simulated sexual acts; the names of previous employers and previous rates of pay; and a +statement of Income received from defendants. +These Interrogatories survived the employees' objections. I agree certiorari should be denied. +The employees' primary cause of action is based on +section 796.09(I), Florida Statutes, which provides: +(1) A person has a cause of action for compensatory +and punitive damages against: +se) A person who corces that person into prostitu- +b) A person who coerces that person to remain in +prostitution, or +{e) A person who uses coercion to collect or receive +Page s qu +Page 5 of +Page 5 +any part of that person's earnings, derived from +prostitation. +The employees resist discovery of their past prostltution or their past or present earning experience on +the basis of subparagraph 5 of section 796.09: +(5) It does not constitute a defense to a complaint +under this section that: +a) The plaintiff was paid or otherwise compensated +for acts of prostitution; +b) The plaintiff engaged in acts of prostitution prior to any involvement with the defendant ... +But the question before us is not whether prior acts +of prostitution (or the receipts of earnings therefrom which might be revealed by answering the interrogatories could be used as a defense to the complaint, but rather whether evidence of such conduct +or such earnings would be relevant in determining +whether the employees were, in fact, "coerced" into +prostitution, into remaining prostitutes, or into sharing the proceeds of their services with defendants. +The relevancy of this information depends, of +course, on what constitutes coercion. +If we apply the definition of "coercion" which is +commonly accepted, then the relevancy of the requested information is apparent and this appeal has +no merit at all. Webster defines "coercion" as: (I) +to restrain or dominate by force, (2), to compel an +act or cholce, or (3) to enforce or bring about by +force or threat. In sexual battery cases, the legislature has adopted the common meaning of the +word "coercion" and has even placed limits on it. It +has provided that consent will not be recognized if +submission is coerced by threats of force or violence if the victim reasonably believes the perpetrat- +© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx7sv=Split&prft=HTMLB&ifm=NotSet8imt... 3/26/2009 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 36 of + +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 +703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L., Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L, Weekly D169 +(Cite as: 703 5o.2d 1076) +sidered as consensual if one exploits a known physical or mental weakness of the-victim-to-achieve his +or her goal or takes advantage of one who is physically helpless or involuntarily intoxicated Fo +Therefore, even in sexual battery cases, before coercion or exploitation will villate consent, the free +will of the victim must be overcome by force or +threat or some unfortunate circumstance suffered +by the victim. +FN1. Section 794.011(4)(b), Florida Statutes. +PN2. Section 794.011(4)(e), Florida Statutes. +FN3. Section 794.011(4)(a),(d),(e), and (t), +Florida Statutes. +But then we get to the definition of "coercion" contained in section 796.09(3): +(3) As used In this section, the term "coercion" +means any practice of dominion, restraint, or inducement for the purpose of or with the reasonably foresceable effect of causing another person +to engage in or remain in prostitation or to relinquish earnings derived from prostitution, and includes, but is not limited to: +(a) Physical force or threats of physical force. +b) Physical or mental torture. +(e) Kidnapping. +*1081 (d) Blackmail. +(e) Extortion or claims of indebtedness. +5) Threats of legal complaint or report of delinquency. +* That to ser by parent or phis f a- +ive action or otherwise +) Promise of legal benefit. +age b ot +Page 6 of +Page 6 +I Promise of greater financial rewards! +J) Promise of marriage. +7) Restraint of Speech or communications with +otbers. +7) Exploitation of a condition of developmental +disability, cognitive limitation, affective disorder, +or substance dependency. +"m) Exploitation of victimization by sexual abuse. +(n) Exploitation of pornographic performance. +o) Exploitation of human needs for food, shelter, +safety, or affection. +The definition urged by the employees heroin is the +"promise of a greater financial reward." Whether +the requested information is relevant to the issue of +coercion in this case will depend on what the legis- +Iature intended by subsection (1) in the meaning of +"coercion." +I agree with Judge Altenbernd's thoughtful analysis +in State v. Brigham, 694 So.2d 793 (1997): +There can be no dispute that the legislature's unusual definition of "percent" is not a common dictionary definition. This is perhaps an appropriate +case in which to remind +ourselves of Leamed +Hand's famous observation that a "mature and developed jurisprudence does not "make a fortress +out of the dictionary." +But even so, one would expect some nexus between +the commonly accepted meaning of a word and the +definition of that word ascribed by the legislature. +If, for example, the legislature defined "canine" as +Including cats, although one might, Jurisprudentially speaking, expect to hear a meow emanate +from a Great Dans, the courts should nevertheless +closely examine the legislative history to see if that +is really what the legislature Intended. The court in +Young w. O'Reafe, 246 lowa 1182, 69 N.W.2d 534, +537 (1955), stated this principle as follows: "But +© 2009 Thomson Reuters/ West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx7sv=Split&prfl=HTMLE&ifm=NotSet&mt. 3/26/2009 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 +Page 37 of +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 27 of 46 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 +703 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L, Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 +(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) +Page 7 +before a definition is construed so as to expand the +meaning of a well-known word to include its-entonym .., the intention of the legislature to that effect must be clear." As Judge +I observed in +Catron w. Roger Bohn, D.C., P.A., 580 So.2d 814, +818 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991): +It is our primary duty to give effect to legislative +intent and, if a literal interpretation of a statute +leads to unreasonable results, then we should exercise our power to interpret reason and logic to it. +****** +Unfortunately, it is apparent that in enacting this legislation, the legislature has, +without redefining +the terms for the purposes of this legislation, often used terms with commonly accepted meanings for purposes at great variance from those +commonly accepted meanings. +In our case, the legislature did define the term for +the purpose of the act. +But because the term +(coercion) as so defined +can be interpreted two +ways-one consistent with the commonly accepted +meaning and one at variance-we should not accept +the "antonym" unless such legislative intent is +clear. A free will decision, even if based on a hope +of financial gain, is the opposite of a coerced decision. +The employees urge that the mere promise of a +greater reward brings them within the act. But if the +mere promise of a greater reward is sufficient to establish coercion, then anyone who makes a voluntary and reasoned exercise of free will motivated by +the hope of economic gain has bean coerced. This +definition removes the element of compulsion implicit in the commonly accepted meaning of coerclon and substitutes therefor the mere desire for finof an opportunity to make a decision with the coereion of that decision. But suherction (D). can alsg +mean *1082 that the promise of'a greater reward is +coercion only U such promised reward is sufficient +to overcome one's natural revulsion to selling one's +body for money. If there is no such revulsion, there +can be no coercion. Becoming a prostitute only because one likes the hours and wages or "because it +beats the heck out of working for a living" simply +should not meet the test of section 79609(1). +At oral argument herein, it was suggested without +contradiction, that at least one of the employees has +a college degree and gave up a well-paying, legitimate job in order to engage in this profession for +the greater reward. Section 796.09 does not appear +to be a general prostitute's relief act. It is based on a +report by the Gender Bias Study Commission which +recommended the equalization of treatment in relation to the prostitute, the client and the "pimp." It is +based on the premise that prostitutes are generally +victims of economic, physical, and psychological +coercion and choose prostitution in order to survive. Further, the Commission was concerned that +90 percent of the street prostitutes are controlled by +"pimps" who use a variety of coercive methods to +maintain control. It seems clear that the legislature +was not intending to depart from the precepts of the +commonly understood meaning of "coercion" and +to redefine it to include both free will decisions and +compelled decisions.. The interpretation urged by +the employees seems at variance with the stated +goal of the legialature and the Gender Bias Commission. +Since there is no cause of action provided for one +who makes a reasoned and voluntaiy exercise of +their free will to enter or continue in the profession +solely for financial rewards (assuming "coercion" is +given the definition more consistent with its comdefendants' establishment, they were coerced into +heir prostitution activities. This equates the giving +@ 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx7sy=Split&prf=HTMLE&ifm-NotSet&mt. 3/26/2009 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 38 of + +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 +703 8o.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D169 +(Cite as: 703 So.2d 1076) +Puge 8 +This is a case of first impression based on a relat- +Ively new statute. As indicated, the legislativo history of the new law suggests that the statute is designed to assist those who were foroed to enter +prostitution in order to keep a roof over their heads +or food on their table. It does not appear to be inended to aid those who voluntarily enter the pro +ission in order to drive a Mercedes instead of a +1. The limited record before us indicates that +even beginning employees of the defendants (those +who do not have an established clientele bring in +$700 a day and can keep 50% of their earnings. +Based on a five-day work week, this would reflect +an income of $87,500 a year oven with a two week +vacation. And the employees herein are not beginners. +There is no indication that the legislature intended +to legalize prostitution or to make it a respectable +profession. It merely Intended to place the prostitute on +the same footing with the client and the +"pimp," If a prostitute voluntarily makes the decision to participate, +free from force, intimidation, +or disadvantageous circumstance, then he or she is +on the same footing as the other participants and +should be treated the same. +Although it might well serve a legitimate public +purpose to permit the cannibalistic demise of such +enterprises (and I am not unsympathetic with this +view), that does not appear to be the policy behind +the current statute. Therefore, in cases where coercion is not present (and this may or may not be +one), the court should continue its tradition of not +interceding in civil conflicts involving transactions +that are either illegal or are against public policy. +See Wechaler . Novak, 157 Fla. 703, 26 So.2d 884 +(1946); +v. Ratiner, 462 So.2d 1157, 1160 +(Pla, 1985) ("An action may lie for Interference with +in the hospital] and which makes one who is a party +thereto, as tac-appellant in the instant case, guilty of +a criminal act for entering into such an agree- ment.") +We are not asked in this proceeding to rule on the +admissibility of the discovered information as evidence at the trial of this cause. We are to determine +only if the information might lead to admissible +evidence. Even *1083 though we deny the Writ I +suggest we certify the following question: +DOES ONE, FREE FROM FORCE, INTIMIDA- +TION, OR DISADVANTAGBOUS CIRCUM- +STANCE, WHO MAKES A REASONED DE- +CISION TO BECOME OR REMAIN A PROSTI- +TUTB OR TO SHARE THE PROCEEDS +THERBOF BECAUSE OF A PROMISE OF A +GREATBR FINANCIAL REWARD HAVE A +CAUSE +OF ACTION UNDER +SECTION +796.09(1), FLORIDA STATUTES? +ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING, FOR CLARI- +FICATION, FOR CERTIFICATION, AND FOR RE- +HEARING EN BANC +W. SHARP, Judge. +Petitioners Balas and Shumate have, filed motions +for rehearing, clarification and certification. We +deny the motions in full except for one regard. We +delete the sentence in the last full paragraph of the +opinion which reads: "These other causes of action +curry no such protection from discovery." +Motion for Clarification GRANTED as stated +above; Motion for Rehearing and Certification +DENIED. +HARRIS and THOMPSON, IJ., concur +Fls.App. 5 Dist.,1997. +Balas v. Ruzzo +03 So.2d 1076, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2375, 23 Fl +• Weekly D16 +END OF DOCUMENT +© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx7sv=Split&prft-HTMIE&ifm=NotSet&imt... 3/26/2009 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 39 of + +Document 54-4 +Entered on ELSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 2 34 +IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM +BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 502008A025129XXXXMB AI +A.C., +V. +Plaintiff, +JEFEREY E. EPSTEIN, and ! +Defendants. +ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO +FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO PLAINTIFF AND TO OVERRULE +PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS, & FOR DEFENDANT'S EXPENSES, +INCLUDING ATTORNEYS' FEES +THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Dofendant Epstein's Motion To +Compel Responses To First Request To Produce To Plaintiff And To Oyerrule +Plaintiff's Objections, & For Defendant's Expenses, Including Attorneys' Fees +and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being fully advised in these +premises, it is hereby +ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion is hereby granted/ +denied as to +#17 + 418, and denced +as to #22 as +phrased. +Response to +be +for sened is/in 1D dap. +Beach, Florida, this 23 day of _ +Circuit Judge +Copies furnished: +F 301; JACK ROLA, E, AND JAKE, 5S B16 Ma, Sair over nur do a Bai Barch, +Shipley, P.A., 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., +west Palm Beach, FL 33409, and JACK A +GOLDBERGER, ESQ., Afterbury Goldberger & Welss, P.A., One Clearlake Centre, Sulte 1400, 250 +Australlan Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +EXHIBIT 'C" +CEVENGDI + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 40 of + +Case 9:08-Cv-80811-KAM Document 54-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 +Page 2 of 2 35 +IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH +JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM +BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 502008CA025129XXXXMB AI +A.Ç., +Plaintiff; +V. +JEFFREY E, EPSTEIN, and I +Defendants. +ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO +INTERROGATORIES AND TO OVERRULE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS, & FOR +DEFENDANT'S EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEYS' FEES +THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion To +Compel Answers To Interrogatories And To Overrule Plaintiff's Objections, & For +Defendant's Expenses, Including Attoreys' Fees, and the Court having heard +argument of counsel and being fully advised in these premises, it is hereby +ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion is hereby granted/ +dealer_ +as to #5, 12$18, denied as +to +#2. +Responser to be sened ufin +10 dap. +Beach, Florida, this _23 day of _ +1 Honda, ND Eday of Palm Brach County Courthouse, West Palm +Edward A. Garrisor +Circuit Judge +Copies furnished: +, ESQ., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & +West Palm Beach, FL 33409, and JACK A. +JENG, DE +CC'. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 41 of + +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM +Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 14 +IN THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 50 2008CA020614XXXXMB AF +JANE DOE II, +Plaintiff, +VS. +• JEFFREY EPSTEIN and I +Defendants. +COPY +COURT REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF +PROCEEDINGS HAD BEFORE +THE HONORABLE DIANA +DATE: +PLACE: +March 3, 2009 +Palm Beach County Courthouse +205 N. Dixie Highway +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +--.... +U.S. Legal' Support +EHIBI "'" + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 42 of + +ase 9:08-cv-80811-KAM +Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 + +2 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +APPEARANCES: +LAW FIRM, P.A. +224 Datura Avenue +Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Counsel for Plaintiff +BY: +ISIDRO M. +, ESQUIRE +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Counsel for Defendant +BY: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR.r +ESQUIRE +10 +• 11 +12 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24° +25 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 43 of +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 33 of 46 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 + +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +฿ +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +16 +17 +18 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +that but I'd just like to do that. +THE COURT: Right. And if you want to +contact the other individuals saying, you know, +I'm the one that's questioning whether or not +these need to be before one judge. You may have +a different perspective than your colleagues who +are prosecuting some of the cases. +I understand the damages. I'm not +saying consolidate. I'm saying transfer.; It's +not a consolidation issue. Everybody gets that +confused for some reason. The words are very +different out of my mouth, your mouth and how +they're written. +So let me go ahead and take a gander at +this. I did read it last night. I'm not sure +that we need to get -- we need names? +MR. CRITTON: Right. Well, here's what some +of the issues are is that, as an example +i- If I +could approach the bench. +THE COURT: +Sure. +MR. CRITTON: This is some of the +Information that we've obtained through discovery +from some of the -- from at least in this: +Instance, it would be this particular Jane Doe. +THE COURT: You know who Jane Doe is I take +U.s. Legal Support +: (561) 835-0220 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 44 of +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 34 of 46 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 + +1 +2 +it? +4 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +12 +13 +14 +16 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. CRITTON: Right. +THE COURT: You know who the Jame Doe is? +MR. CRITTON: Yes, correct. And so this +particular lady has kept in part a diary and +she - which appears to have started some time -- +this is not in any way significant -- but some +time after she learned that she could file a +lawsuit. I think she's also been to Oakwood +Center some time after she learned she could file +a lawsuit and seek damages from Mr. Epstein. +There's no history of this lady +beforehand other than. in some of the Oakwood +records where she was Baker Acted, she started +drinking beer at 16, she started Xanax at 16, +started marijuăna at' +15, that she's sexually +active: +so how she has interacted -- she has a +claim for emotional damages, mental pain and +anguish, psychiatric-type damages. How she's +interacted with friends, with family, the events +'in her life, school, work, her interpersonal +relationships both with men and let's - we'll +use an 'example men here, but other individuals. +She's saying that this event with Mr. Epstein, +V.s. Legal Support +! + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 45 of +56 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 35 of 46 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 +Page 60f14 +1 +2 +4 +5 +7 +9 +11 +12 +13 +14 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +this sexual assault and whatever occurred during +these events is that -- has caused her damage. +And therefore damages in the case such +as the emotional, mental, psychiatric-type +damages are completely subjective, I mean +separate and apart from any medical bills that +may be -- which are clearly intangible. So these +are intangible damages. And the jury is +instructed, you know, you advise the greater +weight of the evidence, what's fair and +reasonable under the circumstances. +So what we would have is basically this +young lady's testimony as to what she claims her +damages are and what the circumstances are with +her situation with Mr. Epstein. She claims on +page 13, you know, I love this guy, I'm dating +this guy Chris. On page 15 -- +THE COURT: Is this part of a diary for +treatment? +MR. CRITTON: I have no idea what it is. It +was just produced in response to discovery. And +she apparently started in, I think this is +December of '08. You know I took Jay Lyntenis' +girl to the zoo, had an amazing day, I love her, +1.e., the girl. We have so much fun. I want a + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 46 of +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 36 of 46 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 + +1 +2 +3 +5 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +25 +baby especially with him. Okay. So I know who +this person is. We are all so open together, I +love him and Jay and bynn, what do I do with +Chris, who is another guy in her life. +All right. This is circumstances where +this young lady is saying, 1ook, Jeffrey Epstein +has ruined my life from a damage standpoint, +okay. Let me depose other individuals with whom +you've had a relationship. And what if it turns +out -- as with some of these girls did -- is they +had relationships of had escapades or +circumstances with individuals, older men similar +to Mx. Epstein well before Mr. Epstein. +And this girl, I don't know one way or +the other, but let's assume she had a situation +where she was assaulted or molested or raped, ' +that all is going to affect her emotional. and her +mental pain and anguish and it will all factor +into evaluating damages. +You know, It's not something that I'm +going to spread around. I'm happy to keep it, +you know, within the confines of the discovery of +this case. But if she says every other| +relationship in my life has been perfect but Jeff +Epstein has done this to me and it has affected +• +v.s. Legal Support + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 47 of + +Document 54-5 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 7 of 14 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +10 +11 +12 +13 +15 +16 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +my ability to trust men and my sexual +relationships with other men, which is part of +her interpersonal relationships, okay, let's talk +to WILl. +THE COURT: +When does your client allege +that she had her first encounter with +Mr. Epstein? +MR: L +• At what age? +THE COURT: Well, what year? +MR. CRITTON: June of '03. +MR. +June of "03, Judge. +'MR. CRITTON: she claims from June of '03 +through November of '04. +MR. A +She was I believe 16 at the +beginning and ended at 17. She was a minor +during all this time. +• THE COURT: June of '03 to now is six years. +Let me hear from Mr. WI +MR. +: Judge, in the criminal case +that was filed against Mr, Epstein, he would not +have had a right to do this type of discovery and +I -- if I could hand up -- +THE COURT: They wouldn't care about' the +women. +MR. +Right. Well, I mean - +i +• U.S. Legal Support + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 48 of +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 38 of 46 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 8 of 14 +16 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +THE COURT: This is damages. There's no -- +they weren't seeking damages at the time. +MR. GARCIA: Right. And we have not alleged +in the complaint or in the answers to +interrogatories that her ability to have a +relationship with a man has been affected by +Mr. Epstein's conduct. +We have alleged that she has been +hospitalized for depression, anxiety but we have +not alleged any damages concerning -- the only +reason this would be relevant is if we were +making a claim at her ability to have either +sexual relations or to have emotional relátions +with men was effected by her experience with +Mr. Epstein. +So this damages' claim is just a smoke +screen to attempt to get evidence to show the +Jury that this woman has had other consensual +relationships with young men that are +approximately her age what I would characterize +as a slut defense. She had it coming to her +because she engaged in other voluntarily +consensual -- +THE COURT: Mr. Critton wouldn't try the +slut defense in my courtroom, I'm sure. +U.5. Legal support + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 49 of +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 39 of 46 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-5 ' Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 9 of 14 +17 +• 1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +9 +10 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. +: Maybe not, but certainly that's +the way this discovery is going. And, Judge, +what -- +THE COURT: +What are the damages you think +your client is seeking? +MR. +i: She is seeking emotional +distress damages for depression and anxiety and +she has been hospitalized at the Oakwood Center. +Her friend - she was on the phone to a friend +who called the sheriff's office because she +thought she was suicidal. The sheriffs +responded. They Baker Acted her that day and +they took her eventually to the Oakwood Center. +THE COURT: How do we know it's not +intertwined with her rejection by three other men +since Mr. Epstein? +MR. +: Well, even if it was related to +her rejection by three other men -- you mean +other men's rejection of her? +THE COURT: Yeah. Well, how do you not know +that? I mean you can't do it until you do +discovery. Has anybody attempted to review the +records from Oakwood to find out what's going on? +MR. CRITTON: It's like a one-time visit +when she was Baker Acted and then there's some +i + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 50 of +Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 40 of 46 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM +Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 10 of 14 +1 +2 +3 +4 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +other -- +THE COURT: She didn't receive treatment? +MR, CRITTON: +She received treatment for +that day and she's been back a couple of times. +She's on medication. Again, I don't know what OF +the extent but she's got -- her medical bills are +de minimis. +Again as an example, Judge, did the +Court have an opportunity to look at the case +that I also attached to the motion? Because +there's a case that's almost on all fours with. +this which I attached to our motion which :1s +called Balles versus Russo. +THE COURT: Right. +MR. CRITTON: It was a case where the +plaintiff was sued -- the plaintiff sued the +former owners of a house of prostitution.' so +that part is different, but within it there were +a number of claims including a sexual assault +claim and they sought emotional pain, humillation +and emotional distress. +Within the complaint that was filed in +this particular case, she is seeking severe +emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, +embarrassment, past and future, compensatory +v.S. Legal Support +• + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 51 of +…_Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 41 of 46 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 + +19 +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +10 +11 +13 +.15 +16 +• +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +humiliation, loss of reputation, mental anguish, +pain and suffering, the same type of damages. +And what the Court said +THE COURT: How old is she now? +MR. 0 +She's 21 now. +MR. CRITTON: She's 21 now. What the Court +said is, you know, if you'd only brought this +claim under 796 evidence of past issues, it's not +an issue. You can't use this defense for +anything, but because you brought these other +claims which include, you know, sexual assault +and you're seeking damages for other causes of +action since the information sought by discovery +may be relevant or may lead to the discovery of +admissible evidence in one or more of the other +causes of action or determination of damages, we +cannot conclude the trial' court parted from +essential requirements of law in granting -- +THE COURT: So in other words, she's not +only seeking - she's seeking current emoțional +damage as a result of this relationship and +you're trying to find out if she had prior +relationships, that perhaps could be intertwined +with it so that it's not just Mr. Epstein's -- +MR. CRITTON: Right. A perfect example is +V.s. Legal Support + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 52 of +Document 207-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 42 of 46 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 + +20 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +฿ +10 +11 +12 +13 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +one of the cases that I have is there's a'young +lady who claims that she was molested in the past +and raped, pretty signiticant Issues, well in +advance of her even meeting with Mr. Epstein. +And they seem to play a large role in heri +psychiatric and psychological evaluation. +We're going to come to the Court in +this case as we have others and ask foI a +psychological evaluation of this lady, and if she +was raped oi if she was molested or just she had +a bad experience or some -- whether it was a +young or old man assaulted her in some fashion, +that may play a role in her damages and what -- +THE COURT: What I'm going to allow for +discovery purposes only not necessarily getting +It in at the time trial are two years before her +first encounter with Mr. Epstein and anything +subsequent. +MR. +1: Judge, I just wanted to say on +the record because I forgot to mention it; +there's also -- I did state an objection to the +identity of people that are unrepresented' in this +courtroon. They have rights too. So what I - +THE COURT: Well, my suggestion is that you +send those people a letter and tell them that + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 53 of + +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 + +21 +2 +4 +5 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +you're going to disclose them and if they have a +problem with it that they come to see me before +you disclose it. +So I'm going to give you 20 days to +respond to this rather than the usual five and +that will give you time to put these people on +notice and if they want to come visit with me and +have a John Doe, I'll have a John Doe hearing +but, you know, this is her case. She's doing it. +She's the one seeking damages, and he is entitled +to be able to confront other individuals to find +out information that may be relevant to the +damages she's seeking or she can drop the +damages. That's her choice. If you seek! +damages, you've got to do it -- if you could put +that in an order so that we have a time for him +to do this. +Just fill out an order, hand it back up +to me and I'll deal with it. +(The proceedings were concluded.) +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 54 of +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 44 of 46 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 54-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 14 of 14 +22 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +10 +11 +13 +14 +15 +16 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE +THE STATE OF FLORIDA, +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH. +I, Teresa Bell, Court Reporter, certify that +I was authorized to and did stenographically report +the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a +true and complete record of my stenographic notes. +I further certify that the proceedings were +taken at the time and place shown herein and that all +counsel and persons as hereinabove shown were present. +I further certify that I am not a relative, +employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, +noI am I a relative or employee of any of the parties! +attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am +I financially interested in the action. +Dated this 11th day oftent old. +TERESA BELLI, +Court Reporter + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 55 of +56 +_Page 45 of 46 +Kikka M. Claudio +From: +Sent: +To: +Subject: +cmecfautosender@fisd.uscourts.gov +April 02, 2009 1:54 PM +fisd_cmect_notice @fisd.uscourts.gov +Activity in Case 9:08-cV-80811-KAM C.M.A. v. Epsteln et al Motion to Compel +This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECR system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to +this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. +***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits +attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of +all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer, PACER access tees +apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first +viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not +apply. +U.S. District Court +Southern District of Florida +Notice of Electronic Filing +The following transaction was entered by Critton, Robert on 4/2/2009 at 1:53 PM EDT and filed on 4/2/2009 +Case Name: +C.M.A. v. Epstein et al +Case Number: +9:08-cv-80811 +Filer: +Jeffrey Epstein +Document Number: 54 +Defendant's MOTION to Compel Response to 1st RTP and 1st Interrogs by Jeffrey Epstein. +Responses due by 4/20/2009 (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B, # (3) Exhibit C, # (4) +Exhibit D)(Critton, Robert) +9:08-cv-80811 Notice has been electronically mailed to: +Bruce Reinhart +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Guy Alan +Jack Alan Goldberger +jagesq@bellsouth.net,nalanis@agwpa.com +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com. c/w@searcylaw.com. kmo@searcylaw.com. s.slater@searcylaw.com, +sas@searcylaw.com. yat@searcylaw.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Michael +| Tein +tein@lewistein.com, kmeyers@lewistein.com, mcapote@lewistein.com +Richard Horace Willits +reelrhw@hotmail.com. lawyerwillits@aol.com +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 245-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 56 of +56 + +Robert Deweese Critton, Jr rcrit@bclclaw.com. bobbie@bclclaw.com +9:08-cv-80811 Notice has not been delivered electronically to those listed below and will be provided by +other means. For further assistance, please contact our Help Desk at 1-888-318-2260.: +The following documents) are associated with this transaction: +Document description:Main Document +Original filename:/a +Electronic document Stamp: +[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1105629215 [Date=4/2/2009] [FileNumber=6195964-0] +[49f0c2d75486f6dбаб101a08с395b2c7992778ee9920e8793е30а05701с38a82a7cd +0c07e4948284cbee2a315cedf37038a790bd53308696a153cec35dd4a2eb]] +Document description:Exhibit A +Original filename:n/a +Electronic document Stamp: +[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1105629215 [Date=4/2/2009] [FileNumber=6195964-1] +[5442dd228c17016a18a93a482a085529427a84c328a0e54754cdf751967853bb92be +ecb01757337952c95593597ccfc9a41571176b352bb55db83a21a343d276]] +Document description:Exhibit B +Original filename:n/a +Electronic document Stamp: +[STAMP deecfStamp_ID=1105629215 [Date=4/2/2009] [FileNumber=6195964-2] +[25 cedd880cca3d8978be178b71f1defe7a045549a477d2d954732020ef014889690 +bad8c2e920f70317c10d9120ceca0890948393fld74268de18e9f188192d]] +Document description: Exhibit C +Original filename:n/a +Electronic document Stamp: +[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1105629215 [Date=4/2/2009] [FileNumber=6195964-3] +[37892711fнff5e10f7c7b9b1c0cad10ac25fl11cfa940376210a3a511f5b8fc66е25 +7a72e8a82ac1f8d04c63aa2721bce8e1445577efdde123db7e50acecc99a]] +Document description: Exhibit D +Original filename:n/a +Electronic document Stamp: +[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1105629215 [Date=4/2/2009] [FileNumber=6195964-4] +[30891fd9cd081f85da5c8b8446571f54389e681aa2a51bf899667fcfbca8f86fccf8 +b5cc59c87a711c75abbeaaf0e4910631813266918731cecdd18b8714e895]] +2 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d16714127723c57e2296655ff2cec69a66a226ca9531d834577ea120f185bcdc.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d16714127723c57e2296655ff2cec69a66a226ca9531d834577ea120f185bcdc.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bd4da1ef696c63d738c8b6144322fe58910ef65d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d16714127723c57e2296655ff2cec69a66a226ca9531d834577ea120f185bcdc.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -5088, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d16714127723c57e2296655ff2cec69a66a226ca9531d834577ea120f185bcdc", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 218, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "c737e405878ed9a89446146d19be49db5c178ff898097e9225c58e20c2c52813", + "output_sha256": "a438743adf5d6441e7b647771c59dadc4641f6c7972a861e2d644ebdd4dd25f0", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d17aa2d0e59ab90eec797f21fffd27f36918b28af3172beba65f00196675729b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d17aa2d0e59ab90eec797f21fffd27f36918b28af3172beba65f00196675729b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ddb9cf641c7b1848500660e12e8f9691c1c0cd01 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d17aa2d0e59ab90eec797f21fffd27f36918b28af3172beba65f00196675729b.md @@ -0,0 +1,140 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 29 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 4 +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +troutman™ +sanders +troutman.com +Bennet J. Moskowitz +bennet.moskowitz(@troutman.com +VIA ECF +Hon. John G. Koeltl +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +New York, NY 10007-1312 +Re: +Jane Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as coexecutors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell, Case No. +1:20-cv-00484 (JGK) (DCF) +Dear Judge Koeltl: +We represent Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the +Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, the "Co-Executors"), in the above-referenced action. We +write pursuant to Your Honor's Individual Practices § 2(B) to request a pre-motion conference in +anticipation of filing a motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), to dismiss the time-barred +claims and punitive damages claim in Plaintiff Jane Doe's ("Plaintiff") Complaint (Doc. 9). The +bases for our anticipated motion are as follows. +A. Plaintiff's claims based on alleged torts that occurred outside of New York and +those that occurred when she was an adult, regardless of location, are time-barred. +Many of Plaintiff's claims are time-barred. Plaintiff alleges that Jeffrey E. Epstein, now +deceased, sexually abused her starting in 1994, when she was 14, and until sometime in 1999, +when Plaintiff was an adult, in Florida, New York and New Mexico. (Compl. 99 17-19, 21, 22, 24.) +Plaintiff alleges she was 16 in 1996 (id. at 1| 20); so she turned 18 in 1998. Plaintiff asserts causes +of action for sexual assault, sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and false +imprisonment and seeks punitive damages. (Id. at 11 33-58, 60.) +Plaintiff's claims based on alleged torts occurring outside New York expired long ago, +including torts that occurred while she was a minor, as follows: (Florida) for torts occurring while +she was a minor, the later of within 7 years after she reached age of majority (i.e., by sometime +in 2005), within 4 years after she left the dependency of Mr. Epstein (i.e., sometime in 2003 at the +latest),' or within 4 years from the time she discovered both the injury and the causal relationship +1 Plaintiff alleges she "escaped" from Mr. Epstein in 1999, when she moved to California. (Compl. 1 24.) +Therefore, Plaintiff could not have depended on him after that time. + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 29 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 4 +Page 2 +troutman" +sanders +between the injury and the abuse (i.e., by sometime in 2003 at the latest) 2 (See Fla. Stat. § +95.11(7)); and, within 4 years after Plaintiff reached age of majority (ie., by sometime in 2002) +(See Fla. Stat. § 95.11 (3)(O)); (New Mexico) for torts occurring while she was a minor, the later +of the "first instant" of Plaintiff's 24th birthday (i.e., sometime in 2004) or 3 years from the date +that Plaintiff first disclosed her childhood sexual abuse to a licensed medical or mental health care +provider in the context of receiving health care (plaintiff makes no allegations in this regard) (See +N.M. Stat. § 37-1-30); and three years after Plaintiff reached age of majority (i.e., sometime in +2001) (See N.M. Stat. § 37-1-8). +Plaintiff's claims that are based on torts that allegedly occurred after she became an adult, +even if they took place in New York, are also time-barred. Under New York law, excluding alleged +torts subject to the New York Child Victims Act ("CVA"), 3 if any, Plaintiff's causes of action +sounding in battery must be commenced within one year of accrual (see CPLR § 215(3)); or, if +Plaintiff's claims sound in personal injury, within three years (see CPLR § 214(5)). Therefore, +under New York law, Plaintiff's claims arising from her alleged sexual abuse occurring in New +York when she was no longer a minor expired in 2002 at the latest. +Although Plaintiff suggests all of her claims are timely pursuant to the CVA (see, e.g., +Compl. 137), she also alleges Mr. Epstein abused her in various locations and until 1999, when +she was over 18 (id. at 11 19, 22, 24). The Court is not required to reconcile Plaintiff's contradictory +allegations. See Whitley v. Bowden, No. 17-CV-3564 (KMK), 2018 WL 2170313, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. +May 9, 2018) ("'a court is neither obligated to reconcile nor accept the contradictory allegations in +the pleadings as true in deciding a motion to dismiss." (citation omitted)). +Therefore, Plaintiff's claims based on torts occurring in New York after she reached +majority, as well as her claims based on torts occurring in Florida and New Mexico - regardless +of whether she was a minor at the time - must be dismissed. +B. Each of the jurisdictions where the torts allegedly occurred bars recovery of +punitive damages against a deceased tortfeasor's estate. +Judges in this District regularly dismiss and strike punitive damages claims at the +pleadings stage. See, e.g., The Cookware Co. (USA), LLC v. Austin, No. 15 Civ. 5796, 2016 U.S. +Dist. LEXIS 177691, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2016) (Batts, J.) (granting motion to dismiss claim +for punitive damages without leave to replead because allegations regarding detendant's badtaith conduct were conclusory and did not rise to the required level of malice); SJB v. N.Y.C. Dept +2 Plaintiff's does not allege belated discovery of her injuries. To the contrary, she alleges she has +experienced pain and suffering daily. (See, e.g., Compl. 4f 25, 36, 42.) Plaintiff further claims she "was +aware of" Mr. Epstein's alleged false imprisonment of her. (Id. at 9 54.) +3 The Child Victims Act created a one-year window period in which civil claims alleging damages "suffered +as a result of conduct which would constitute a sexual offense as defined in article one hundred thirty of the +penal law committed against a child less than eighteen years of age™ may be filed despite the statute of +limitations having already run. CPLR § 214-g (emphasis added). + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 29 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 4 +Page 3 +troutman" +sanders +of Educ., No. 03 Civ. 6653, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13227, at *25-26 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2004) +(Buchwald, J.) (granting motion to dismiss statutorily unavailable punitive damages claims); +Kunica v. St. Jean Fin., 97 Civ. 3804, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11867, at *26 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, +1998) (Sweet, J.) (granting motion to dismiss claim for punitive damages because, even if conduct +alleged in complaint was true, it did not rise to the level necessary to award punitive damages). +See also In re Merrill +Auction Rate Sec. Litig., 851 F. Supp. 2d 512, 544 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) +(granting motion to strike sections of complaint asserting punitive damages); Nash v. Coram +Healthcare Corp., No. 96 Civ. 0298 (LMM), 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9101, at "15 (S.D.N.Y. June +27, 1996) ("The motion to strike the punitive damages prayer from the Complaint is Granted."). +"The technical name given to a motion challenging a pleading is of little importance ... as +prejudice to the nonmoving party hardly can result from treating a motion that has been +inaccurately denominated a motion to strike as a motion to dismiss the complaint." See C. +& A. +1. 5C Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1380 (3d ed.). +Moreover, it is black-letter law that the place of a tort (here, Florida, New Mexico and New +York) generally applies to the issue of punitive damages. When determining what state's law +applies, courts look to the choice of law rules of the forum state. Simons v. Marriott Corp., 92 Civ. +3762 (SWK), 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14365, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 1993). Under New York law, +"[b]ecause punitive damages are conduct-regulating, 'the law of the jurisdiction where the tort +occurred will generally apply. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v. Am. Claims Mgmt., No. 14-cv-0463- +JMF, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60272, *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2015) (quoting Deutsch v. Novartis +Pharms. Corp., 723 F. Supp. 2d 521, 524 (E.D.N.Y. 2010); Guidi v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp., +No. 95-CV-9006, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6390, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2003)). See also AHW Inv. +P'ship, MFS, Inc. v. Citigroup Inc., 661 F. App'x 2, 5 (2d Cir. 2016) ("Ilt is the place of the allegedly +wrongful conduct that generally has superior 'interests in protecting the reasonable expectations +of the parties who relied on the laws of that place to govern their primary conduct and in the +admonitory effect that applying its law will have on similar conduct in the future."). +Here, Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages must be dismissed as a matter of law because +none of the jurisdictions where the alleged torts against her occurred permits punitive damages +against the personal representatives of a decedent tortfeasor's estate. See Poindexter v. +Zacharzewski, 18-civ-14155, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189861, at "6 (Nov. 5, 2018 S.D. Fla.) +("Florida law prohibits recovery of punitive damages from the estate of a wrongdoer who is +deceased."); Jaramillo v. Providence Wash. Ins. Co., 117 N.M. 337, 346 (N.M. 1994) +("punishment and deterrence are not accomplished by enabling recovery of punitive damages +from the estate of deceased tortfeasors."); NY EPTL § 11-3.2 (a)(1) ("For any injury, an action +may be brought or continued against the personal representative of the decedent, but punitive +damages shall not be awarded nor penalties adjudged in any such action brought to recover +damages for personal injury." (emphasis added)). That is also the law in most U.S. jurisdictions, +as reflected in the Restatement (Second) of Torts. See Restat. (Second) Of Torts § 908 cmt. a +("Punitive damages are not awarded against the representatives of a deceased tortfeasor."). + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 29 Filed 03/27/20 Page 4 of 4 +Page 4 +troutman™ +sanders +Respectfully submitted, +Is/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d17aa2d0e59ab90eec797f21fffd27f36918b28af3172beba65f00196675729b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d17aa2d0e59ab90eec797f21fffd27f36918b28af3172beba65f00196675729b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6663dfe61c6d3a16b9f0a8b0c026c6dd8dd1f470 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d17aa2d0e59ab90eec797f21fffd27f36918b28af3172beba65f00196675729b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -217, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d17aa2d0e59ab90eec797f21fffd27f36918b28af3172beba65f00196675729b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 7, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "70a0a3e6708aac3f53fdf0a4ce716fc42b38c950fdc5090771a8b3f6089aac3f", + "output_sha256": "0350d79768e8b342adcd1b8a2dda56dc68b0c246750f130a3e0da5376c176aa3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d1ad54f87911e629487e026a52e4f2a9f6946c0eec97366117f0851a6758b895.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d1ad54f87911e629487e026a52e4f2a9f6946c0eec97366117f0851a6758b895.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9abba6bbce3fdaa68b1654f0219a65dad117d669 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d1ad54f87911e629487e026a52e4f2a9f6946c0eec97366117f0851a6758b895.md @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 188-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2009 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/J +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/J +VS. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 188-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2009 Page 2 of 5 +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/J +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/J +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/J +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/] +Plaintiff, + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 188-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2009 Page 3 of 5 +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA- +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA-_ +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/ +ORDER +This matter came before the Court on Defendant's, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Motion +For Extension of Time in which to Respond to Plaintiff, Jane Does's Motion for + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 188-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2009 Page 4 of 5 +Injunction Restraining Fraudulent Transfers of Assets, Appointment of a Receiver to +Take Charge of Property of Epstein and to Post a $15 Million Bond to Secure Potential +Judgment (DE 165). Having considered Defendant's motion and Plaintiff's counsel +being in agreement with the requested extension, it is HEREBY ORDERED and +ADJUDGED that: +Defendant's motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall Respond to Plaintiff's +Motion for Injunction Restraining Fraudulent Transfers of Assets, Appointment of a +Receiver to Take Charge of Property of Epstein and to Post a $15 Million Bond to Secure +Potential Judgment (DE 165) on or before July 16, 2009. +DONE and ORDERED this +day of +, 2009. +Kenneth A. Marra +United States District Judge +Courtesy Copies: +Counsel of Record + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 188-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2009 Page 5 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +Defendant: +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d1ad54f87911e629487e026a52e4f2a9f6946c0eec97366117f0851a6758b895.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d1ad54f87911e629487e026a52e4f2a9f6946c0eec97366117f0851a6758b895.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..962a653550453f38bfde76b5b9fd461b06770071 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d1ad54f87911e629487e026a52e4f2a9f6946c0eec97366117f0851a6758b895.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -326, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d1ad54f87911e629487e026a52e4f2a9f6946c0eec97366117f0851a6758b895", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "b32b6aa4520b34d9f3c95befc144598e14ab3fd6aff0d07a6c6e610df1a9c3d1", + "output_sha256": "98bce8ae82bc7ad3284aac161ae515085405517a089ae445973772967d21e8e0", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d1d675c11858cbd1b4117be3b8d4f2a4b47aea40008fac87dc0b31f9b6939468.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d1d675c11858cbd1b4117be3b8d4f2a4b47aea40008fac87dc0b31f9b6939468.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f811069dd07c788152f9241fb03b27df94c30db --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d1d675c11858cbd1b4117be3b8d4f2a4b47aea40008fac87dc0b31f9b6939468.md @@ -0,0 +1,283 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 1 of 11 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-80994-CIV-MARRA +Jane Doe No. 6, +Plaintift, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND +MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT +THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Defendant")'s +Motion to Dismiss and Motion for More Definite Statement, Directed to Plaintiff's Jane Doe No. +6's Complaint (DE 8), filed October 14, 2008. Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 6 ("Plaintiff") filed a +response to the motion (DE 9) and Defendant filed a Reply (DE 10). The Court has carefully +reviewed the motion, response, and reply, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. +Background +On September 10, 2008, Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Defendant (DE 1). Plaintiff +brings suit alleging Count I - Sexual Assault and Battery; Count II - Intentional Infliction of +Emotional Distress; and Count III - Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of +18 U.S.C. § 2422. +The facts, as alleged in the Complaint, are as follows: At all relevant times, Defendant +was an adult male. Compl. 9| 8. Defendant engaged in a plan and scheme in which he gained +access to primarily economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home, sexually assaulted these +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 2 of 11 +girls, and then gave them money. Compl. 9|8. In or about 2004, Plaintiff, then approximately 13 +years old, became one of Defendant's victims. Compl. 9|9. Defendant carried out his scheme and +assaulted girls in Florida, New York, and his private island in St. | +Compl. 110. +Defendant's scheme involved the use of young girls to recruit underage girls. Compl. " +11. Under Defendant's plan, underage girls were recruited ostensibly to give a wealthy man a +massage for monetary compensation in his Palm Beach mansion. Id. Defendant generally sought +out economically disadvantaged underage girls from western Palm Beach County who would be +enticed by the money being offered - generally $200 to $300 per "massage" session - and who +were perceived as less likely to complain to authorities or have credibility if allegations of +improper conduct were made. Id. This was an important element of Epstein's plan. Id. +Defendant's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. Compl. 9 12. The +underage victim would be brought or directed to Defendant's mansion, where she would be led +up a flight of stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table in addition to other furnishings. +Id. The victim would then find herself alone in the room with Defendant, who would be wearing +only a towel. Id. Defendant would then remove his towel, lay down naked on the massage table, +and direct the girl to remove her clothes. Id. Defendant would then perform one or more lewd, +lascivious and sexual acts, including masturbation. Id. +Consistent with the foregoing plan, when Plaintiff was approximately 13 years old, she +was recruited by another girl to give Defendant a massage for monetary compensation. Compl. 1 +13. Plaintiff was brought to Defendant's mansion in Palm Beach. Id. Once there, she was led up +the stairs to the room with the massage table. Id. Defendant entered the room and directed +Plaintiff to remove her clothes and to give him a massage. Id. As directed by Defendant, Plaintiff +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 3 of 11 +stripped to her underwear. Id. Defendant then sexually assaulted Plaintiff during the massage. Id. +In addition, Defendant masturbated during the massage. Id. Defendant then paid Plaintiff money. +Id. As a result of this encounter with Defendant, Plaintiff experienced confusion, shame, +humiliation, and embarrassment, and has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries. +Compl. 1 14. +Under Count I - Sexual Assault and Battery, the Complaint alleges as follows: Defendant +made an intentional, unlawful offer of offensive sexual contact toward Plaintiff, creating a +reasonable fear of imminent peril and sexual assault. Compl. 9 16. Defendant intentionally +inflicted harmful or offensive contact on the person of Plaintiff. Compl. 1 17. Defendant +tortiously committed a sexual assault and battery on Plaintiff. Compl. 1 18. Defendant's acts +were intentional, unlawful, offensive and harmful. Id. Defendant's plan and scheme in which +he committed such acts upon Plaintiff were done willfully and maliciously. Compl. 1 19. As a +direct and proximate result of Defendant's assault on Plaintiff, she has suffered and will continue +to suffer severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and emotional +damages. Compl. 920. +Under Count II, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, the Complaint alleges as +follows: +Defendant's conduct was intentional or reckless. Compl. 1 22. Defendant's conduct with +a minor was extreme and outrageous, going beyond all bounds of decency. Compl. 1 23. +Defendant committed willful acts of child sexual abuse on Plaintiff. Compl. 1 24. These acts +resulted in mental or sexual injury to Plaintiff, that caused or were likely to cause Plaintiff's +mental or emotional health to be significantly impaired. Compl. 9 24. Defendant's conduct +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 4 of 11 +caused severe emotional distress to Plaintiff. Compl. 9| 25. Defendant knew or had reason to +know that his intentional and outrageous conduct would cause emotional distress and damage to +Plaintiff, or Defendant acted with reckless disregard of the high probability of causing severe +emotional distress to Plaintiff. Id. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's intentional or +reckless conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer severe mental anguish and +pain. Compl. 126. +Under Count III, Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 U.S.C. § +2422, the Complaint alleges as follows: +Defendant used a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, induce +or entice Plaintiff, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or sexual +activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. Compl. 9 28. As a result of +Defendant's violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422, Plaintiff has suffered personal injury, including +mental, psychological and emotional damages. Compl. 9 30. +Defendant argues in his motion that Counts I and III of the Complaint must be dismissed +for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). +Alternatively, Defendant seeks a more definite statement of Counts I and III. +Plaintiff responds that the Court should deny the motion because the pleadings at issue +contain a short and plain statement of the claims showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief in +accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Plaintiff contends that the specific facts sought by +Defendant may properly be the subject of discovery, but are not necessary for purposes of' +pleading. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 5 of 11 +Standard of Review +In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a +court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most +favorable to the plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007). To satisfy the +pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain a short and +plain statement showing an entitlement to relief, and the statement must "give the defendant fair +notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz v. +Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. +Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007); Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346 (2005). +This is a liberal pleading requirement, one that does not require a plaintiff to plead with +particularity every element of a cause of action. Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 +F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir. 2001). Instead, the complaint need only "contain either direct or +inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under +some viable legal theory." Id. (internal citation and quotation omitted). "A complaint need not +specify in detail the precise theory giving rise to recovery. All that is required is that the +defendant be on notice as to the claim being asserted against him and the grounds on which it +rests." +v. United Food and Comm'l Workers Int'l Union, 866 F.2d 1380, 1384 (11th Cir. +1989). +"While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed +factual allegations, [ ] a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitlement to relief +requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause +of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1964-65 (citations omitted). +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 6 of 11 +"Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the +assumption that all of the complaint's allegations are true." Id. at 1965. Plaintiff must plead +enough facts to state a plausible basis for the claim. Id. +Discussion +Counts I alleges a claim for sexual assault and battery. Under Florida law, It is customary +to refer to the term "assault and battery" as if it were a legal unit, or a single concept; however, +assault and battery are separate and distinct legal concepts, assault being the beginning of an act +which, if consummated, constitutes battery. 3A Fla. Jur 2d Assault §1. "'The essential element +of an assault is the violence offered, and not actual physical contact,' and 'a battery is defined as +an unlawful touching or striking or the use of force against the person of another with the +intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact or apprehension thereof."" McDonald +V. +223 So.2d 553, 555 (Fla. 2"' DCA 1969), quoting 3 Fla.Jur., Assault and Battery, § 3. +Assault is defined as an intentional, unlawful offer of corporal injury to another by force, or force +unlawfully directed toward another under such circumstances as to create a fear of imminent +peril, coupled with the apparent present ability to effectuate the attempt. Lay v. Kremer, 411 +So.2d 1347, 1349 (Fla. Ist DCA 1982). A battery consists of the infliction of a harmful or +offensive contact upon another with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that +such contact is imminent. Paul v. Holbrook, 696 So.2d 1311, 1312 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); +v. Atlantic Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 454 So.2d 52, 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), review +denied, 461 So.2d 116 (Fla. 1985). +Defendant does not contend that Plaintiff failed to allege the above-listed elements of the +torts of assault and battery in Count I. Instead, Defendant argues that, under the standard of +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 7 of 11 +pleading established in Twombly, Plaintiff has failed to set forth sufficient factual allegations to +support the pleading. Defendant's argument, in essence, is that in a post-Twombly pleading, a +heightened fact pleading of specifics is required. However, Twombly did not alter the standard +for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) in the typical case. As the Court explained in CBT Flint +Partners, LLC v. Goodmail Systems, Inc: +In my view, Twombly did not radically alter the elementary rules of civil +procedure that have governed litigation in the federal courts for the past seventy +years. The Court's forced retirement of Conley v. +"no set of facts" +language does not change the fundamental command of Rule 8 as to what a valid +complaint must look like. Indeed, the Court made clear that it was not imposing a +heightened pleading standard. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1974 ("[W]e do not require +heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to +relief that is plausible on its face."). As a general matter, I am loath to assume that +the Supreme Court circumvented the normal channels for amending the Federal +Rules. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 515 (2002) (**A requirement of +greater specificity for particular claims is a result that must be obtained by the +process of amending the Federal Rules, and not by judicial interpretation.") +(quotations omitted). Second, to the extent that Twombly might be plausibly read +to alter the requirements for the sufficiency of a complaint, there should be a +strong presumption in favor of narrowly confining the decision to its facts. Cohens +v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) ( "It is a maxim not to be disregarded, that general +expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which +those expressions are used."). The Court's "new standard" was merely a specific +way to articulate a solution to what it perceived to be a specific pleading problem, +in a specific area of law that inflicted a high cost upon antitrust defendants. It was +not a broad based new license for federal courts to ramp up pleading +requirements. +CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Goodmail Systems, Inc.., 529 F.Supp.2d 1376, 1379 (N.D. Ga. 2007). +In this case, Defendant contends that the pleadings fail to allege the specific facts of +"what was done to [Plaintiff];" "what Epstein said and did, if anything, to create fear and +apprehension in Plaintiff"; and "what was the intentional or harmful contact?" (Mot. 5-6). As to +these issues, the Complaint alleges as follows: Alone with Plaintiff in an upstairs room of +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 8 of 11 +Defendant's mansion, Defendant directed Plaintiff to remove her clothes and to give him a +massage. Compl. 9| 13. Defendant made an intentional, unlawful offer of offensive sexual +contact toward Plaintiff, creating a reasonable fear of imminent peril and sexual assault. Compl. +1 16. Defendant then sexually assaulted Plaintiff during the massage. Compl. 1 12. Defendant +also masturbated during the massage. Id. Defendant intentionally inflicted harmful or offensive +contact on the person of Plaintiff. Compl. 1 17. Defendant tortiously committed a sexual assault +and battery on Plaintiff. Compl. 9| 18. Defendant's acts were intentional, unlawful, offensive and +harmful. Id. +Plaintiff need not set forth more specific facts to support its allegations to satisfy the +notice pleading standard under Rule 8, which requires only that a complaint must set forth a short +and plain statement of the facts upon which the claim is based that is sufficient to give the +defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. The +parties will be afforded a liberal opportunity for discovery "to disclose more precisely the basis +of both claim and defense and to define more narrowly the disputed facts and issues." Conley v. +, 355 U.S. 41, 48 (1957). Defendant's motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement +is DENIED as to Count I. +Counts III alleges a claim for coercion and enticement to sexual activity in violation of 18 +U.S.C. § 2422. That statute states, in pertinent part, +commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United +States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 9 of 11 +18 U.S.C. § 2422(b).' +The Complaint alleges: "Epstein used a facility or means of interstate commerce to +knowingly persuade, induce or entice Jane Doe, when she was under the age of 18 years, to +engage in prostitution or sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal +offense." Am. Compl. 9 28. +First, the Complaint sufficiently alleges the element of using a facility or means of +interstate commerce. See 9 28. More specifics are properly the subject of discovery. +Second, Defendant argues that the Complaint fails to set forth underlying factual +allegations as to the requisite elements that Defendant knowingly persuaded, induced, enticed, or +coerced Plaintiff, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or sexual +activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. Specifically, Defendant +claims that Plaintiff fails to allege with what criminal offense Defendant could have been +charged. See 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The Complaint states a cause of action for violation of 18 +U.S.C. § 2422. However, Defendant's position that Plaintiff must state what part of "to engage +in prostitution or sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense" +upon which is relying Plaintiff is well-taken. +Rule 12(e) permits a party to move for a "more definite statement of a pleading to which +a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot +reasonably prepare a response." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). As explained by another court, "It]he +claim of the plaintiff' in his complaint is sufficiently definite to enable the defendant to know with +' The allegations in the Complaint closely track the language of § 2422(b), making it +clear that this is the subsection upon which Plaintiff is relying. +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 10 of 11 +what it is charged, and it is reasonably able therefrom to respond whether it did the thing +charged." Dennis v. Begley Drug Co. of Tennessee, Inc., 53 F.R.D. 608, 609 (E.D. Tenn. 1971). +As it is written, 9 28 is ambiguous as to whether Plaintiff claims prostitution or another criminal +offense (and if so, what offense) with which Defendant could have been charged. The Court +finds that Defendant is entitled to a more definite statement as to 1|28 in order to provide +Defendant with sufficient notice to frame a responsive pleading. +Conclusion +For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for More +Definite Statement, Directed to Plaintiff's Jane Doe No. 6's Complaint (DE 8) is GRANTED IN +PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: +1. +Defendant's motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement as to Count I is DENIED. +Defendant's motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement as to Count Ill is +GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendant's motion to dismiss is +denied; however, Plaintiff must file another complaint, which includes a more definite +statement as to Count III - Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 +' In its opposition, Plaintiff improperly seeks to rely upon a July 10, 2008 letter from A. +Villafana, Assistant U.S. Attorney to Plaintiff's counsel. This letter was not referenced in +nor attached to the Complaint. It is axiomatic that, at the motion to dismiss stage, the Court must +consider well-pled allegations of the complaint as true and must limit its examination to the four +corners of the complaint. Grossman v. Nationsbank, N.A., 225 F.3d 1228, 1231 (11th Cir. +2000). Thus, the Court will not consider the letter in ruling on the instant motion. +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 11 of 11 +U.S.C. § 2422, as explained in this Order. +DONE AND ORDERED in +Florida, this 12" day of February, 2009. +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +K +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +copies to: +All counsel of record +11 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d1d675c11858cbd1b4117be3b8d4f2a4b47aea40008fac87dc0b31f9b6939468.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d1d675c11858cbd1b4117be3b8d4f2a4b47aea40008fac87dc0b31f9b6939468.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b1e038846b5b676be0baf110bc7af94120be0499 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d1d675c11858cbd1b4117be3b8d4f2a4b47aea40008fac87dc0b31f9b6939468.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -132, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d1d675c11858cbd1b4117be3b8d4f2a4b47aea40008fac87dc0b31f9b6939468", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 11, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "d581e0f17b10bfddbd160da28d9929220004f854e10cc9ab21933019c98283be", + "output_sha256": "900087b1b1c6ed2adda123d5f42fb4623a0afe98824c73319e635992270ab1af", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d21473049f66df87f98f47582877ed469b1446f47be6fb98af370fd16171a799.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d21473049f66df87f98f47582877ed469b1446f47be6fb98af370fd16171a799.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ff45af228e63cb3948bdd0bc980c1ca8407cda55 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d21473049f66df87f98f47582877ed469b1446f47be6fb98af370fd16171a799.md @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 31-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 1 of 3 + + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 31-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008. *ăgẻ 2'0t 3 +Westlaw. +18 U.S.C.A. § 1595 +Page 1 +P +Effective: December 19, 2003 +United States Code Annotated Currentness +Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure (Refs & Annos) +*a Part I. Crimes (Refs & Annos) +• *m Chapter 77. Peonage, Slavery, and Trafficking in Persons (Refs & Annos) +→ § 1595. Civil remedy +(a) An individual who is a victim of a violation of section 1589, 1590, or 1591 of this chapter may bring a civil +action against the perpetrator in an appropriate district court of the United States and may recover damages and +reasonable attorneys fees. +(b)(1) Any civil action filed under this section shall be stayed during the pendency of any criminal action arising +out of the same occurrence in which the claimant is the victim. +(2) In this subsection, a "criminal action" includes investigation and prosecution and is pending until final adjudication in the trial court. +CREDIT(S) +(Added Pub.L. 108-193, § 4(a)(4)(A), Dec. 19, 2003, 117 Stat. 2878.) +HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES +Revision Notes and Legislative Reports +2003 Acts. House Report No. 108-264(Parts I and II), see 2003 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm: News, p. 2408. +LIBRARY REFERENCES +American Digest System +Action Em 5. +Torts Cm 1. +Key Number System Topic Nos. 13, 379. +RESEARCH REFERENCES +Encyclopedias +Am. Jur. 2d Involuntary Servitude and Peonage § 12, Federal Statutes Outlawing Slave Trade; Actions on Vessels in Slave Trade. +Am. Jur. 2d Involuntary Servitude and Peonage § 20, Remedies. +© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?prft=HTMLE&destination=atp&sv-Split.. +7/25/2008 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 31-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 30f 3 +18 U.S.C.A. § 1595 +Page 2 +18 U.S.C.A. § 1595, 18 USCA § 1595 +Current through P.L. 110-282 (excluding P.L. 110-234, 110-246, and 110-275) approved 7-23-08 +Copr. (C) 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works +END OF DOCUMENT +© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. +http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?prft=HTMLE&destination=atp&sv=Split.. +7/25/2008 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d21473049f66df87f98f47582877ed469b1446f47be6fb98af370fd16171a799.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d21473049f66df87f98f47582877ed469b1446f47be6fb98af370fd16171a799.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a7f5a7c51225eb05bde77eac3a3d94aec106f60a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d21473049f66df87f98f47582877ed469b1446f47be6fb98af370fd16171a799.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -49, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d21473049f66df87f98f47582877ed469b1446f47be6fb98af370fd16171a799", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "5769c021795331750469e35f3ebf2eb0e1fc02b080b122e787432b66634f17d5", + "output_sha256": "9c5822a5f21b3a2715343bb479755a191429f062b3005017f605cd7a62125ae0", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d2205f4018813fbee72660147d3820f20d7f6dd906a0715a5505673c811f9da0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d2205f4018813fbee72660147d3820f20d7f6dd906a0715a5505673c811f9da0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a6dc7b1919af6594d19346a652ea7b7380b27141 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d2205f4018813fbee72660147d3820f20d7f6dd906a0715a5505673c811f9da0.md @@ -0,0 +1,12276 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 1 of 60 +Page 139 +JANE DOE NO. 2, +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +-VS- +VOLUME II OF III +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, +08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +VIDEO-CONFERENCED AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF +JANE DOE NO. 4 +Tuesday, October 27, 2009 +11:11 - 6:05 p.m. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 115 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Reported By: +Cynthia +, RPR, FPR +Notary Public, State of Florida +Prose Court Reporting + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 2 of 60 +4 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +20 +21 +24 +25 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +25 +Page 140 +APPEARANCES: +On behalf of the Plaintiff, L. M. and E. W.: +MICHAEL J. WHEELER, ESQUIRE +ROTHSTEIN, ROSENFELDT, ADLER +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Phone: 954.522.3456 +On behalf of Jane Does 1 through 8: +ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQUIRE +STUART S. MERMELSTEIN, ESQUIRE +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Phone: 305.931.2200 +E-mail: Ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +On behalf of C.M.A.: +RICHARD HORACE WILLITS, ESQUIRE +RICHARD H. WILLITS, P.A. +2290 10th Avenue North +Lake Worth, Florida 33461 +Phone: 561.582,7600 +On behalf of the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein: +OBERT D. CRITTON, JR, ESQUI +LARK T. LUTHER, ESQUIR +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTER & COLEMAN, LLP +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Phone: 561.842.2820 +ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Epstein, via video conference +Visual Evidence, Incorporated +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 141 +INDEX +WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS +JANE DOE NO. 4 +CONTINUED +BY MR. LUTTER 142 +1 +2 +4 +• EXHIBITS +- - - + +DESCRIPTION +PAGE +DEFENDANT'S EX. 1 Proposal for Settlement +72 +DEFENDANTS EX. 2 Answers to Interrogatories 232 +DEFENDANTS EX. 3 Petition for Injunction 348 +DEFENDANTS EX. 4 Handwritten Note +384 +DEFENDANTS EX. 5 Psychological/Social History 394 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 142 +*** +CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION +***** +THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the beginning +of Tape Number 2. Were back on the record at +1:59. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. I think when we broke I was talking about +your fourth visit with Mr. Epstein. What occurred +on the fourth visit? +A. Went there to get, give a massage, that +Sarah brought me upstairs. +MR. CRITTON: You need to - excuse me +just a moment. You need to hit the button. +THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. +MR. CRITTON: Thank you. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: All right. +MR. LUTTIER: And is this other guy +calling in or - +MR. CRITTON: No, no, it's part of the +video feed. +MR. LUTTIER: No, but this, whoever was on +this, Willits - +THE COURT REPORTER: He said he was going +Page 143 +to call back in. +MR. CRITTON: Was he going to call back? +MR. WHEELER: Yes. +THE COURT REPORTER: He did say he was +going to call back. Did he -- +MR. WHEELER: He said he would call right +back. +MR. CRITTON: All right. Well, were +still going to start. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Okay. Go ahead, fourth visit. +A. Whenever the massage, he was, like, not +this time he was on the phone the first time. Like +it was more conversation between me and Mr. Epstein. +Q. Did you remain dressed the whole time? +A. Yeah. They, I took my shirt like -- it +progressively got worse. +Q. I am talking about the fourth visit. +A. I think I took my shirt off. +Q. On the fourth visit? +A. Yeah, like, or - +MR. MERMELSTEIN: If you remember. +THE WITNESS: Yeah, I don't remember. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. So, you don't really know if you were -- +2 (Pages 140 to 143) + + +1 +3 +4 +7 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 3 of 60 +Page 144 +A. I remember after the first, like, four +visits, it from after like, after like the first +four visits, it progressively got worse starting +with taking my shirt off, and taking my bra off and +taking my pants off, taking my underwear off. It +just progressively got worse. I can't -- I don't +remember exactly fifth visit, sixth visit, seventh +visit, eighth visit, ninth visit, tenth visit. I +don't remember. +Q. And you don't know when the fourth visit +was, right? +A. No. +Q. And you don't know when the fifth visit +was, right? +A. Unh-unh. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: You are asking specific +dates? +MR. LUTTIER: Yep. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. You need to - +A. I do remember it was my sophomore year. +Q. You remember specifically - +A. My first visit. My first visit was - +No, I said the fifth visit. +A. +, towards the - let's see. It got +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 145 +progressively worse. +(Telephone interruption.) +MR. WILLITS: Is this the deposition? +MR. LUTTIER: Yes, we just started. +MR. WILLITS: Okay. Willits here. +MR. LUTTIER: All right. +MR. WILLITS: I'm going to put the mute +button on. +MR. LUTTIER: Okay. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Do you remember the +question? +THE WITNESS: No, sorry. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q You don't recall when the fourth visit +was, do you, the date? +A. Well, if it progressively got worse after +the fourth visit, then probably beginning of my +junior year. Beginning of my junior -- +Q. The fourth visit was the beginning of - +A. It must have been the beginning of my +junior year. It progressively got worse. +Q. My question was, you don't remember when +the fourth visit was? +A. No. It was the beginning of my junior +усаг. +1 +6 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 146 +Q. The fourth visit was the beginning of your +junior year. And how do you know it was the +beginning of your junior year? +A. Because I know after the fourth visit that +that's, the beginning of my junior year is whenever +Mr. Epstein started -- things started getting to the +point where I would take my shirt off and so on. +Q. And how do you know that it was the +beginning of your junior year when you began to take +your shirt off? +A. Because in the -- after the fourth visit, +I would start taking - I took my shirt off, and +then from - after the fourth visit, after I took my +shirt off, the fifth visit I would take my pants +off, and then I'd be in my bra and underwear, and +then the next visit, I would be -- I would take my +bra off and I would just be in my underwear. And +then after that visit I would take my underwear off, +and then after that visit it was him fingering me, +or him using a vibrator on me. And then after that +visit was him fingering me, or him using a vibrator +and fingering me. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: He is trying to get the +time frame. +THE WITNESS: Yeah. +Page 147 +MR. LUTTIER: My question was how do you +know - +MR. MERMELSTEIN: So if you don't remember +the exact time or the date that's -- +THE WITNESS: Yeah, I don't know. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. You say it was the beginning of your +junior year when you first took your shirt off, +right? +A. Yeah. +Q. How do you know that's when it was, and it +wasn't the middle of your junior year or the end of +your junior year? +A. Because I remember things got sexual, it +was like the middle - or the beginning and the +middle of my junior year. +Q. Was it the beginning or the middle? +A. It was like October, October, like right +before the beginning of the new year. +Q. How do you know that? +A. Because that's whenever like things got +more, like, like, more like sexual, I guess. I +don't know. +Q. Well, I'm asking you how you can identify +that things -- +3 (Pages 144 to 147) + + +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 4 of 60 +8 +Page 148 +A. I don't know what the date is. I'm sorry. +Q. You've got to wait for me to ask the +question. How can you identify when things, to, to +use your words, got more sexual, and say that that +happened in the middle of your junior year? What +is - is there an event that you recall? +A. Yeah. +Q. Well, what, what set of circumstances +allows you to conclude that that happened at the +beginning of your junior year or in October - +A. He started using a vibrator on me. +Q. - as opposed to March of the next year? +A. Because he started using a vibrator on me. +Q. Okay. But what event let's you recall +that that, that is the use of a vibrator, happened +at the beginning of your junior year, for example? +A. Because you don't forget something like +that. +Q. Well, do you have it recorded anywhere? +A. No. +Q. And during this deposition, you told us +you cannot remember dates, right? +A. Not specific dates, no. +Q. So, would it be a fair statement to say +that you don't know exactly when this happened? +Page 149 +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection. She said +you. +Page 150 +1 +THE WITNESS: Do you have a napkin. Thank +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +MR. MERMELSTEIN: You're okay. You're +okay. +MR. CRITTON: Let me just put on the +record, we have been pretty good about the +legal objections and everyone has been very +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +restrictive about the, you know, stick with +form and if it's leading or stuff. +You don't need to tell her, you know, if +you don't remember, you don't remember. I +assume that that's probably what she's been +told before. So let's stick with form and what +your legal objection is as distinct from +coaching by any of us, including me and any +other. +You know, we have been pretty good on +these witnesses, and she's no different than +any other witness in this case. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Okay. I was just trying +to help. She wasn't understanding the question +that was asked. +MR. CRITTON: She's been here for two +hours, three hours. She understands really +well what's going on. So, you know, you +1 +that - +2 +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q Correct? +A Yeah. +Q Could have been -- +MR. MERMELSTEIN: She said she doesn't +remember the date. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. - at the end of your junior year was the +first time it- +A. No, I know it wasn't the end of my junior +усаг. +Q. How do know it wasn't the end of your +junior year? +A. Because you don't forget something as +significant like that happens to you like that. +Q. Well, wait, what you're calling is +significant is removing your shirt to give a +massage, is that what you're calling significant? +A. No, using a vibrator on you. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Let's take a minute. +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +Let's take a minute. Okay. Okay. Take your +time. Let us know when you're ready. Take +your time. +24 +25 +Page 151 +haven't been here, Stuart. She, she knows the +drill, so - +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. So, can you tell me specifically when the +first time you removed your top was? +A. No, I don't know the exact date. +Q. Was it more than ten times after you had +gone to Mr. Epstein? +A. No, it's after like the fourth visit. +Q. And how can you conclude it was after four +visits as opposed to after ten visits? +A. Because I remember going there the +beginning to the fourth visit, and that's why I went +back because it wasn't where I had to take my shirt +off. +Q. Yeah. Now, on whatever visit it was when +you first removed your top, how did that occur? +What was the sequence of events? +A. Nothing like he would - what do you mean, +the sequence of events? +Q. Well, when you went on this - whatever +visit it was that you claim was the first time you +removed your top, did you -- first of all, did you +voluntarily go to the house on that occasion? +A. Yeah. +4 (Pages 148 to 151) + + +1 +2 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +124 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 5 of 60 +Page 152 +Q. Did you go up to the room as you had done +on all the prior occasions? +A. Yeah. +Q. And was Mr. Epstein when you got there, +was he there when you got there? +A. No, he was - no, the room was empty, but +the massage table was there. +Q. So when you got up there were you fully +clothed? +A. Yeah. +Q. What were you wearing? +A. Different clothes every single time. Like +shorts, jeans, tank tops. +Q. I'm talking about this event that you +recall now, that you say you recall the first time +you removed your top. What were you wearing that +time? +A. I don't exactly remember what outfit I was +wearing. +Q. You don't, because you cannot specifically +pinpoint this occasion, can you? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. All you know is at some point in time you +took your top off, isn't that right? +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 153 +A. Yeah. +Q. And is it fair, to be honest with +everybody, you don't know if it was after five +visits or ten visits. You just know at some +point - +A. It was at the beginning - +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to the form. +THE WITNESS: At the beginning of the - +when I first started - +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Asked and answered. Go +ahead. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. All right. You don't -- you can't really +tell us, can you? +A. I don't know the exact date, but I know it +was in the beginning after like the fourth visit. +Q. Well, all right. All right. So at some +point Mr. Epstein comes in the room and you're going +to give him a massage; is that right? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. You've got to say yes. +A. Yes. +Q. So how is it that you got your - you took +your top off? +A. Well, after going there the first couple +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 154 +of times, he was just more friendly and talk, more +talkative. I - he asked me to take my top off. It +was - +Q. And what did you say? +A. Yeah. +Q. Did you say, no? +A. No. +Q. He asked you, right? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. What did he say specifically? +A. Will you take your shirt off. +Q. And what did you say to him? +A. Yeah. +Q. All right. You could have said no, right? +A. Yes. +Q. All right. So you said yes, and what did +you do, take your shirt off? +A. Yes. +Q. And what did you have on under your shirt? +A. A bra. +Q. All right. And then what did you do, give +him a massage? +A. Yeah. +Q. Did you do anything else on that occasion? +A. No. +Page 155 +Q. All right. Did you put your shirt on when +you got done? +A. Yeah. +Q. Then did you leave? +A. Yeah. +Q. Did you get paid 200 bucks? +A. Yeah. +Q. By the way, this money that you made doing +this, did you keep a record of how much you made? +A. No. +Q. Why not? +A. I don't know. I didn't. +Q. Did you report it on your tax return? +A. Tax return? +Q. Yeah, tax return. +A. Yeah, I know what that is. But at that +time, no. I didn't even think about that. I didn't +think that. +Q. Why didn't you report the income you were +making? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, asked and +answered. +MR. LUTTIER: No, she didn't answer that. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Why didn't you report the income that you +5 (Pages 152 to 155) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +124 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 6 of 60 +Page 156 +were making? +A. I didn't even know anything about taxes. +I was 15 years old, 16 years old. +Q. Well, you were at least -- +A. I didn't know anything about -- +Q. You were at least 16 by then, right? +A. Yeah, I didn't have a job. I played +soccer. I didn't, I didn't know anything about +taxes or anything else like that. +Q. Where did you put this money? +A. I spent it. +Q. Did you put it in the bank? +A. No. I don't even think I had a bank +account. +Q. So did you get cash? +A. Yeah. +Q. What did you spend the money on? +A. Clothes. +Q. And did you tell - did you split it up +with your friends? +A. Split what up with my friends? +Q. The money that you were getting paid for +this? +A. No, why would I - no. +Q. Did you -- the 200 bucks that you got when +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 158 +|to Mr. Epstein be a significant event in your +life, or was it just a casual thing? +A. I thought at that point it was casual. +Q. Okay. So, who went with you when you took +there? +A. Just me and her. +Q. Who drove? +A. I think she did. I don't remember. +Q. And what did you tell -- +A. I didn't have a vehicle. +Q. And what did you tell +before +you took her there? +A. I don't remember. +Q. And what did you tell her about what to +expect? +A. I don't remember. +Q. By that point in time, what had you been +doing with Mr. Epstein during your massages? +A. I don't remember when I, when she first +went, so I don't know what I was doing with +Mr. Epstein. +Q. Well, had you taken your top off yet for +Mr. Epstein? +A. I don't know because I don't know when I +first brought her there. +Page 157 +you took +there, did you give her part +of that? +A. No. +Q. What did you spend the money on that you +got paid for taking +there? +A. Went to the mall with her and went +shopping. +Q. With -- and she had the money she had just +gotten from Mr. Epstein? +A. Yeah. +Q. Did you guys have a good time shopping at +the mall that time? +A. Yeah. We were -- +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, +argumentative. +THE WITNESS: - having a good time. We +went shopping. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Did you go right after +had, +had been to Mr. Epstein's on that first occasion to +give him a massage? +A. I'm sure - I don't remember. I know we +went shopping with the money. I don't know if it +was right afterward or if it was the next day. +Q. Well, would, would you taking Lauren +Page 159 +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +125 +Q. Did you tell Lauren -- at that time Lauren +was your best friend? +A. No. She was one of my friends that I just +met. +Q. . she was one of your friends? +• Uh-hul +. You wanted to be honest with her, didr +you, and tell her what to expect? +A. If you're friends. +Q. Right? +A. Yeah. +Q. So, what did you tell her about - +A. I don't remember. +Q. I mean, did you just run into her one day +and say, . do you want to jump in my car with me +and ride over to somebody's house? +A. Did I say that? No. +Q. Well, what did you tell her? +A. I don't remember. +Q. Did you tell her what she was going to do? +A. I don't remember. +Q. Did you even tell her a massage was +involved? +A. I don't remember our conversation about +it. +6 (Pages 156 to 159) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 7 of 60 +Page 160 +Page 162 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Q. Did you tell her we're going to go +fishing? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, +argumentative. +THE WITNESS: Did I tell her that we were +going fishing? No. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. I'm trying to - I'm trying to - help me +understand what -- how it is that, that you get +and take her to Jeffrey Epstein's +house. Why, why did you do that? +A. Why, why did I bring her there? +Q. Yeah. +A. Because Jeffrey wanted -- asked me if I +would bring somebody, another girl. He said, I will +give you $200, like I'm giving +money to +bring new girls up to the house. And he said I +will, if you bring in, if you do, if - he asked me +to do the same thing that Haley was doing. +O. So, what did you do, just bump into +walking around the halls of your +school one afternoon? +A. I asked her if she wanted to go, and she +said yeah. +Q. +so now you remember that you asked - +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 161 +A. Well, if she went there, apparently. +Q. Let me finish my question. Now you recall +that you asked +if she wanted to go to +Mr. Epstein's, correct? +A. I took her there. I didn't drive - I +don't know, I don't know if I drove. I don't know +if she drove, but she went there, and -- +Q. Well, did you ask her if she wanted to go? +A. I don't remember the conversation. +Q. What I'm trying to find out is, was she +just in the car with you and you guys were heading +off to McDonald's - +A. I don't remember. +Q. - and deviated and decided to drive to +Mr. Epstein's, or did you give her some advanced +knowledge that what we're going to do is go to +Mr. Epstein's? +A. I don't remember our conversation, how I +got her to go to Jeffrey Epstein's. I am guessing. +And of course I had asked her if I took her there. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Don't guess. +THE WITNESS: I don't know. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Don't speculate. +THE WITNESS: I don't know. +1 +2 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Can we assume that you told her that +nothing bad was going to happen? +A. I don't know what I told her, so I don't +know. +Q. Do you know whether or not you were honest +with her? +A. Yeah. Well, I don't know, like -- I don't +understand the question. Like, I don't understand +what you're asking. Can you ask it again? +Q. Yeah. Is there something you don't +understand about the word honest? And I can +understand if it's - +A. Yeah, I understand. +Q. Do you know what honest means? +A. Yeah. +Q. It means to tell the truth. +A. Uh-huh. +Q. Okay. Did you tell your friend +the truth before you took her to Epstein's? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +THE WITNESS: I am sure. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. And you thought it was okay, right? +A. There was a -- at that time? +Page 163 +Q. Yep. +A. I think all of +Palm Beach High +School was going at that time, so yeah. +Q. That's not my question. +A. Yes. +Q. You thought it was okay? You thought it +was the right thing to do, right? +A. At that time I thought it was - I didn't +think it was a bad thing. I didn't think - I +thought it was normal. +Q. So, you thought it was a good - L. you +thought it was normal? +A. Not normal, no. I'm sorry, I take that +back. Not normal, but there was a lot of girls that +were going, and so it was something, not something +that - I don't know. It was - I don't even know +how to explain it to tell you the truth. +Q. You were happy to do it to get 200 bucks, +weren't you? +A. No. I was making -- at that time, not - +making $200, yeah, I was happy. +Q. And you didn't think there was anything +wrong with it, right? +A. Not the way it started, no. +Q. Mr. Epstein never asked you to do a single +7 (Pages 160 to 163) + + +1 +2 +3 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 8 of 60 +Page 164 +thing that you didn't agree to do, did he? +A. Every once in a while, yeah, he would. +And when I wouldn't do it he said, Jane Doe No. 4, +what's wrong with you? You have two different +personalities, Jane Doe No. 4 (short form) and Jane +Doe No. 4, like, meaning like, I would do one thing +one minute, and then I was like, no, no, I go. And +he was like,, well, what's wrong with you. Do +you have two different personalities? +Q. Listen to my question. Mr. Epstein never +asked you to do anything that you didn't agree to -- +A. Yes, sometimes he would, and I wouldn't. +Q. Would you wait until I ask the question? +You can't possibly know what I am going to ask +before I ask it, can you? +A. No. +Q. Mr. Epstein never asked you to do anything +that you refused to do, did he? +A. No. +Q. No. And if you said you didn't want to do +something, Mr. Epstein didn't push it, did he? +A. No, he asked me and I would say, no. And +then he would - +Q. And then he respected it? +A. No, and then he would say, well, why not? +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 165 +He said, what's wrong? He is like, it's like you +have two different personalities. When I would say +no, he would be like, +,, well, that's your other +personality, and then he would go I like Jane Doe +No. 4 (short form) better. +Q. And if he (sic) said no, he didn't push +it, did he? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Other than what she just +said? +MR. LUTTIER: Right. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. I mean, if you said no, I don't want to do +something, he didn't make you do it, did he? +A. No, but then the next time I went, I -- +Q. All right. I'm talking about the time - +A. No, no. +Q. - that you say he asked you to do +something you didn't want to do. You said no, and +that was the end of it, wasn't it? +A. Yeah. +Q. So when you took your top off, whenever +you went to give him a massage and took your top +off, you did that voluntarily, correct? +A. Yeah. +Q. Did there come a time that you went, and +1 +2 +4 +5 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 166 +automatically before you did the massage, you took +your top off without Mr. Epstein even asking you to +do that? +A. After the first time, yes. +Q. You did it, you were able -- when +Mr. Epstein came into the room, were you already +without your top on? +A. No. +Q. So, it wasn't even the situation that he +was asking you to take your top off. You just +voluntarily took it off; isn't that correct? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +THE WITNESS: Yeah. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Now, when you say that -- or what you +think was around the fourth time you took your top +off. And on how many occasions did you do massages +for Mr. Epstein where what you did was you removed +your top, not your bra, but just your top? +A. One time. +Q. Just once, is that right? +A. Yeah. +Q. And how can you recall it only happened +one time? +A. Because after that one time of just taking +Page 167 +my shirt off, every single time I went it was +another piece of clothing that was dropping. +Q. All right. So the next time that you went +to Mr. Epstein, after the time that you took your +top off, what occurred? +A. After I took my top off, then I would take +my bra off. +Q. Did he ask you to take your bra off? +A. Yeah. +Q. Did you agree to take it off? +A. Yeah. +Q. Did you tell him no, I don't want to take +my bra off? +A. Yeah -- no. +Q. So he asked and you said okay, right? +A. Yeah. +Q. All right. And then on that occasion when +you took your, your top and your bra off, did +anything else happen or did you just do a massage? +A. Are you talking about the next time or are +you talking - +Q. No, I am talking about the occasion when +you first took your bra off. +A. No. +Q. You just gave him a massage and you picked +8 (Pages 164 to 167) + + +1 +4 +5 +6 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +119 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +3 +8 +9 +110 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 9 of 60 +Page 168 +Page 170 +up another 200 bucks, right? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. All right. Now - +A. Yes, sorry. +Q. - you didn't think there was anything +wrong with taking your top off the first time you +took your top off, did you? +A. No. +Q. And Mr. Epstein, as you said before lunch, +was very nice towards you, was he not? +A. Yeah. +Q. You, you had begun to, to get to know him, +and you would talk with him when you went, right? +A. Yeah. +Q. You never told him that you didn't want to +do what you were doing, did you? +A. No. +Q. Okay. And you kind of liked Mr. Epstein, +didn't you? +A. He was really nice, like friendly. +Q. Never hurt you in any manner physically, +did he? +A. Sexually, yeah. +Q. Physically did he ever injure you in any +manner whatsoever? +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 169 +A. No. +Q. Did he ever hit you? +A. No. +Q. Did he ever spit in your face? +A. No. +Q. Did he ever call you any vile names? +A. No. +Q. Did he ever call you a bitch? +A. No. +Q. Did he ever call you a whore? +A. No. +Q. Did he ever call you a cunt? +A. No. +Q. Ever call you anything like that? +A. No. +Q. Did he ever physically hurt you in any +manner whatsoever? +A. No. +Q. Did he ever demean you in any manner +whatsoever? +A. Demean you? What does that mean? +Q. Yeah, say, say bad things about you or +nake you feel like you were unintelligent or no +worthy. +A. No. +1 +2 +4 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Q. Didn't he build up your ego? +A. Yeah. +Q. And you didn't think there was anything +wrong with anything that you were doing with +Mr. Epstein, did you? +A. No. +Q. And that - and if there -- if you did +think there was something wrong with what you were +doing with Mr. Epstein, you wouldn't have asked your +friend +to go, would you? +A. No. +Q. You certainly wouldn't subject your +friends to something that you didn't think was right +or dangerous, would you? +A. No. +Q. Okay. Now, so there came a time that you +took your bra off and you did that voluntarily, and +on that occasion did you then give Mr. Epstein a +massage topless? +A. Yeah. +Q. Anything else happen on that occasion? +A. No. +Q. The next time that you went to visit +him - +A. Yeah. +Page 171 +Q. - what occurred? +A. My top, my bra and my shorts were off. +Q. Do you know that you were wearing shorts +the next time? +A. Yeah. +Q. How do you know you were wearing shorts? +A. My pants, sorry. I don't know. Like, I'm +just saying, I was just frustrated with everything, +so it was pants -- +Q. You don't really know what you were +wearing, do you? +A. -- capris. +Q. Honestly, you don't really know what you +were wearing, do you? +A. No. +Q. Okay. I appreciate the honesty. All you +can really say is that at some point in time when +you were going to give these massages, there came a +point in time, although you don't know exactly when +it was, that you removed your pants. Would that be +a fair statement? +A. It was after -- it was the fourth time. +First time I took my shirt off, second time my bra +off. Wait, fourth, fifth, sixth -- it was the +seventh occasion. +9 (Pages 168 to 171) + + +2 +3 +7 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 10 of +Page 172 +Q. Seventh occasion. Now, are we into your, +the latter part of your junior year? +A. I - after I went there the first time or +after I went there the second time, instead of Haley +making my appointments, he got my number, so I would +just make the appointments through Sarah instead of +Haley, so I was going like a lot after my second +visit. +Q. Well - +A. It was probably around my - can I +finish -- it was probably around my -- it was like +middle of like my, like my junior year, like October +or like October through January. October, December. +Yeah, January, my junior year. +Q. Did you and Haley have a little argument +about the money situation? +A. No. +Q. Did you wonder why you were making your +appointments directly with Sarah to go see +Mr. Epstein as opposed to through Haley where she +WaS - +A Because -- +Q - getting paid money? +A. Because Haley only got paid money for +every new person that she brought. So that's why +1 +2 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 173 +there were so many girls that had gone there. +Q. Who else did you get paid for bringing +besides +1 +2 +,, Lauren is the only person that I +can remember. I don't think I brought anybody else. +Q. Okay. So there came a time you were +performing massages with, for Mr. Epstein topless. +Did -- were there any occasions after the first +topless massage that you performed a massage for +Mr. Epstein and you weren't topless? +A. After the first, wait, sorry. Ask that +question again. +Q. Once you had gone topless the first time, +was there any massage that you gave him after that +where you were not topless? +A. No. +Q. Okay. So you say there came a time that +you gave Mr. Epstein a massage and you removed your, +either your shorts or your pants? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. Is that a yes? +A. Yes, sorry. +Q. And did -- did you volunteer to do that? +A. Did I volunteer? What do you mean, +volunteer? +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 174 +Q. I mean, did you volunteer without him even +asking, did you do - did you volunteer? +A. Volunteer what? +Q. To remove your pants. +A. He asked me, and I said yes. +Q. And my question is, did you volunteer to +remove your pants at any point without him asking +you? +A. After the first time that I removed my +pants, it was just kind of like routine. It was +just like -- +Q. So, now let's go back -- +A. - so then the answer to that would be no. +Is that what you asked? Is that what you want to +hear? +Q. I will cover this. Let's go back. The +first time Mr. Epstein asked you to remove your bra, +you told us that you removed the bra voluntarily, +right? +A. He asked me, and yes, I did. +Q. And you said yes. Okay. At any point +after that, did he ask you to take your bra off, or +did you just simply take it off? +A. No, I -- sometimes I would take it off and +sometimes he would ask me. +Page 175 +Q. So, sometimes you went there and you just +took your bra off without him even asking, right? +A. Yeah, it was kind of like known that's +what you do. +Q. Well, he didn't tell you that from now on +whenever you come, you're supposed to take your bra +off, did he? +A. No. +Q. Okay. So you just assumed, or you said, +I'm going to -- part of the experience here is I'm +going to take my top and my bra off, right? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. So, there comes a point in time you +say he asks you to remove your pants? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. And you say okay? +A. Yeah. +Q. You didn't tell him no, I don't want to do +that? +A. No. +Q. All right. And you removed your pants +that then gave him a massage wearing what? +A. My underwear. +Q. What kind of underwear were you wearing? +A. I don't remember. Thong. I always wear a +10 (Pages 172 to 175) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +4 +5 +6 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 11 of +Page 176 +thong +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Don't speculate. If you +remember, answer. +THE WITNESS: All I wear -- 1 always, +that's all I wear is a thong. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. And this is -- you're 16 now, 17? Which +are you 16 or -- +A. I was 16. +Q. Sixteen, okay. And then you gave him a +massage that time in your thong? +A. Yeah. +Q. Anything else happen on that occasion? +A. No. He asked me to take my thong off, and +I said no. +Q. Okay. On, on the same occasion that he -- +when he first requested you to take your pants off, +you say on that same occasion he asked you to take +your thong off? +A. Yeah. +Q. And you said, no? +A No. +Q And he didn't push it, right? +A. No. +Q. Okay. So you gave him a massage, you got +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 177 +200 bucks and you left, right? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. Now, are we up over 10 or 15 visits +by now? +A. I'm sure. +Q. So, you have made what, 3,000 bucks doing +this by now, right? +A. Probably. I don't, I don't have a +calculator. +Q. Well, 15 times 200 would be 3,000. +A. Yeah. +Q. Was that the most money you'd ever made? +A. Yeah. +Q. You liked the money, didn't you? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, +argumentative. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Did you like the money? +A. Yeah. +Q. You kept going back to get the money, +didn't you? +A. That and like he was always like promising +me things and like friendly to me. +Q. Well, you, you had all kinds of friends, +didn't you? +1 +2 +5 +6 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 178 +A. Yeah, but he was like -- he was different. +Q. Now, you're -- by the way, when you are +going to see Mr. Epstein during this period of time +that you're describing, you had a boyfriend, didn't +you? +A. A boyfriend on and off. +Q. And you told Mr. Epstein you had a +boyfriend, right? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. And that was this fellow +Preston Vinyard? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. Okay. Was he being nice to you, too, like +Mr. Epstein was? +A. I mean, we were boyfriend and girlfriend. +There was moments where he was nice, but there was +moments where we weren't together. So, no, +Mr. Epstein was nice to me. +Q. Okay. Well, you -- and you're dating +Preston Vinyard, right? +A. On and off. We were never, like. It was +one week we are on, one week off, one week on. +Q. You're spending the night with +Preston Vinyard during this period of time? +A. I was spend -- at my house. +Page 179 +Q. Were you spending the night -- +A. No. +Q. - with Preston Vinyard at any time during +the period of time you've described thus far while +you were doing these massages for Mr. Epstein? +A. Spending the night with him, no. I stayed +in my house. +Q. Now, do you know we took Mr. Vinyard's +deposition yesterday? +A. No. +Q. You were having sex with Mr. Vinyard +during this time that you were giving massages to +Mr. Epstein, weren't you? +A. I had gone to Mr. Epstein's before I had +started physically doing anything with Preston. +Q. We're talking about now you've described +that you were in the, in your junior year of high +school? +A. Yeah, I was. +Q. I just want to make sure we're clear. +Which would be what calendar year, the junior year +of high school? +A. I graduated '05. +Q. 2004, 2003-2004? +A. 2003. +11 (Pages 176 to 179) + + +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 12 of +Page 180 +Page 182 +Q. Okay. That would be the 2003-2004 school +year, right? +A. Yeah. +Q. That is from about August of 2003 to June +of 2004; is that right? +A. Yeah, junior year, 2003-2004, yeah. +Q. Now, it's a fact, is it not, that by the +beginning of your junior year, by the beginning of, +let's say, August of '03, you were having sexual +relations with a Preston Vinyard, weren't you? +A. Yeah. +Q. Didn't have any sexual relations with +Mr. Epstein, did you? +A. No. +Q. Okay. And so getting naked in front of a +man was not a problem for you, right? You had done +that before? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. And were you doing things with +Mr. Vinyard before your soph, your junior year of +high school that you never did with Mr. Epstein? +A. With Preston? +Q. Yeah. +A. I met him, like, I met him my sophomore +year. I met Mr. Epstein before I met Preston. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +/22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 181 +Q. That wasn't my question. Were you doing +things with Mr. Vinyard before your junior year of +high school that you never did with Mr. Epstein? +A. I don't remember. +Q. Well, you had sexual intercourse with +Mr. Vinyard before your junior year of high school, +didn't you? +A. I don't remember. I remember I waited for +like a while before I had sexual intercourse with +Mr. Vinyard. +Q. Well, I just asked you five questions ago +whether or not you had had sexual relations with +Mr. Vinyard -- +A. I said, yeah. +Q. - before you started your junior year of +high school, and you said, yes. +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. What do you understand the word +sexual relations to mean? +A. Intercourse means sexual. +Q. Okay. So, Mr. Vinyard had taken his penis +and inserted it in your vagina before your junior +year of high school; isn't that right? +A. Yeah. I think so, yeah. +Q. Had you given him oral sex before your - +1 +2 +6 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. Yeah. +Q. - junior year of high school? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Again, you know, we have +a standing objection here pursuant to Federal +Evidence 412 on questions of sexual conduct +with persons other than Epstein. So, you're +getting into an area here that, that I am going +to have to direct her not to answer. I am +warning you. +MR. LUTTIER: Well, I don't -- I don't +think there's a court order that prohibits us +from doing anything. I think there are some +subsequent orders that have come out that +pretty clearly indicate that it's an area of +appropriate inquiry, and certainly after +Mr. Kliman's inquiry, it's fair game, but, you +know, so that's our position. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Okay. Let's go back to -- +MR. CRITTON: Wait a minute. I don't know +whether -- are you instructing her not -- just +so the record - +MR. LUTTIER: No, she answered that +question. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: I don't, I don't think +Page 183 +there was a question she hasn't answered. Sol +was just stopping him from the next question, I +guess. +MR. LUTTIER: Well come back to that in a +minute. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Had you been naked in front of any other +male person other than Preston Vinyard before the +first time you took your bra off in front of +Mr. Epstein? +A. Naked? +Q. Yeah, naked. +A. No. Preston, no. +Q. Had you been topless in front of any other +male person before the first time you took your bra +off in front of Mr. Epstein other than +Preston Vinyard? +A. No. +Q. Are you - did you - are you claiming you +lost your virginity to Preston Vinyard? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. On the occasion that you first +removed your pants and giving Mr. Epstein a massage, +did anything else occur on that occasion? +A. Wait. Repeat that question. +12 (Pages 180 to 183) + + +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Document 430-2 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 13 of +Page 184 +Q. On the first time you took your pants off +and you were giving Mr. Epstein a massage in your +thong, did anything else occur during that massage +other than just a massage? +A. No. +Q. All right. +A. He asked me to take my underwear off, and +I said no. +Q. Okay. +A. Did anything else occurred. +Q. All right. Did there come a time that you +came back after that massage and gave Mr. Epstein +another massage? +A. Yeah. +Q. Why did you come back? +A. I don't know. +Q. Isn't it true that you contacted Sarah and +told her you were looking for more work? +A. No. +Q. Do you deny that you ever contacted Sarah +and asked if you could come give Mr. Epstein a +massage? +A. IfI called her and asked? +Q. Yeah, so -- +A. She always called me whenever she was in +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 185 +town. I never knew when Jeffrey was in town. +Q. Listen carefully to my question. Are you +denying - +A. I don't remember. I don't think. I want +to say no, because I don't think I did, but I don't +remember and I don't know. +Q. Isn't it - well, I mean, would you have +any reason to call Mr. Epstein other than, his +number other than to schedule a time to come give +him a massage? +A. Wait. What was that? +Q. Would you have any reason to call +Mr. Epstein other than - +A. No. +Q. - to schedule a massage? +A. No. +Q. You're aware that your cellphone records +can be subpoenaed, right? +A. Yeah. +Q. Is there any other reason why +Mr. Epstein's phone numbers would appear on your +cellphone? +A. He rented me, he rented me a car. +Q. And that was when? +A. My freshman year in college. +1 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 186 +Q. That's when you were at University? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. Did you ever tell anybody that you +were having a good time at Mr. Epstein's? +A. I don't, I don't know. I don't -- +Q. Is it possible you did? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +THE WITNESS: Maybe. I don't know. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. In fact, when you were doing it, not now +that you filed a lawsuit, but back when it was going +on, you did tell people that you were having a good +time at Mr. Epstein's, didn't you? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +THE WITNESS: No, I didn't. I mean, no, +who's going to, like, go out and mom and dad, +guess what? No. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Well, did you tell your mom and dad about +this, by the way? +A. Yeah. +Q. When did you tell them about this? +A. When everything was going on, whenever, +whenever Jeffrey - when cops were getting involve +and the lawyers and FB +Page 187 +Q. Well, when was the first time you told +your mother about this? +A. I don't remember. Probably freshman year +in college. +Q. After you had a visit from the Palm Beach +Police Department? +A. No. I don't remember. I don't remember +right now if - +Q. Which is it? +A. - it was my freshman year in college. I +don't know. +Q. Is it no, or I don't know? +A. I don't know. +Q. When did you first tell your dad about it? +A. I don't know. +Q. Was it after the Palm Beach Police visited +you? +A. I don't know. +Q. Isn't it true you only told your folks +after you thought it was going to come out? +A. Yeah. +Q. Why didn't you want your folks to know +what you had been doing for the last, according to +you, couple of years? +A. I don't know. It isn't something that I +13 (Pages 184 to 187) + + +1 +3 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +4 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +116 +117 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 14 of +Page 188 +Page 190 +would tell my parents. +Q. Your parents were good to you, weren't +they? +A. Yeah. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. They raised you well, didn't they? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection. +THE WITNESS: Yeah. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Taught you the difference between right +and wrong? +A. Uh-huh. Yeah. Sorry. +Q. Did you have any religion when you were +brought up? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. What religion are you? +A. Catholic. +Q. Roman Catholic? +A. (Witness nods head.) +Q. If you could, is that a yes? +A. Yes. +Q. Did you go to church when you were a kid? +A. Yeah. +Q. Did you go to church right on through +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 189 +college? +A. No. +Q. Did there come a time you stopped going to +church? +A. I was traveling a lot for soccer, so +soccer, like, sometimes whenever we were out +somewhere, or we weren't going every Sunday like I +was when I was younger. +Q. But if you didn't go to church it was only +because you were out of town? +A. Yeah, out of town or at a soccer game at +like 9:00 in the morning +Q. Are you still a Roman Catholic? +A. Yeah. +Q. Huh? +A. Yeah. +Q. I mean, you didn't give up your religion +sometime along the way. It was just that if you +were traveling for soccer and you couldn't make +church, you didn't go? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. But when you were at -- down at +1- +A. I go to church every once in a while now, +too. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +Q. Do you now at +University go to church +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +on Sunday? +A. No. +Q. Did you have any - +A. When I would go home and visit family and +stuff like that, we would go together as a family. +Q. Okay. Your mom and your dad and you? +A. Yeah. +Q. Did they provide well for you? Did they +give you the, you know, food, clothing and shelter +when you were, throughout your high school days? +A. Yeah. +Q. Did you want for anything? By that I mean +did you ever have anything that you wanted that they +wouldn't give to you or couldn't give to you? +A. I mean, I never really like asked for +much. I was always playing sports. Maybe I would +ask for a pair of soccer cleats, and dad would give +me. +Q. You were a big soccer player, weren't you? +A. Yeah. +Q. You've been a big soccer player all your +life, haven't you? +A. Uh-huh. Yes. +Q. You played high-level competitive soccer +your whole life? +Page 191 +A. Yeah. +Q. And by high-level competitive soccer, you +were, you were always a member of what we would call +travel teams, were you not? +A. Uh-huh, yes. +Q. And the travel team was something beyond +just playing in the city league. This was the best +of the best that would be on travel teams; isn't +that right? +A. Yes. +Q. And you would travel -- did you travel all +over the State playing soccer tournaments? +A. Yes. ( +Q. And for how long did you do that? +A. I don't know. Couple of, couple of years. +Q. Okay. While you were in high school or +before you were in high school? +A. Before I was in high school. +Q. Okay. And then you went to high school +and played soccer throughout high school? +A. Yes. +Q. Kept, did you keep playing soccer in +travel leagues even while you were in high school? +A. Yes. +Q. Played on some Olympics development team +14 (Pages 188 to 191) + + +1 +2 +4 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 15 of +Page 192 +Page 194 +as well, did you not? +A. Yes. +Q. Dad volunteered for all these soccer +events that you had, did he not? +A. Yes. +Q. They would go on all these soccer events +with you? +A. Yes. +Q. Okay. When you went -- you went to +Palm High School. That was a school that didn't +require you to wear a uniform, did it? +A. No. +Q. You always had nice clothes though that +you could wear to go to school? +A. Yeah. +Q. Always got fed well? +A. Yeah. +Q. Always had a warm bed to stay in? +A. Yes. +Q. Did there come a point in time that you +and your parents fell apart? +A. Yes. +Q. And about when was that? +A. About my sophomore year in high school. +Q. And was that about the time you took up +Page 193 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +with this fellow, Preston Vinyard? +A. That's when I started going to Jeffrey +Epstein's. +Q. Well, you actually had taken up with +Preston Vinyard before you ever went to Jeffrey +Epstein's house, correct? +A. First time I went - first time before I +knew Preston, I went to Jeffrey Epstein's. I went +to Jeffrey Epstein's first before I ever knew +Preston Vinyard. +Q. And how do you know that's true? +A. Because when I first met Preston, I dated +him for, on and off for a couple of years. Like it +was my first love. So, of course, I am going to +remember when I met my first love compared to when I +went to Mr. Epstein's. +Q. Where did you meet your -- as you +described him, because we'll come back to this -- +A. It was like - +Q. Wait a minute. We're going to come back +to this. When did you meet what you've now +described as your first love being Preston Vinyard? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. When was that, what year? +A. My sophomore year. +1 +2 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Q. What year, calendar year? What year? +A. It was the - freshman year is '02, '03, +'04, 2002, 2003. Wait, wait. Am I saying this +right? Freshman, sophomore, junior, senior. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: 2'03, right? +THE WITNESS: 2'03, yeah. 2'03. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. 20037 +A. Uh-huh. Yes. +Q. In fact, you started dating Preston +Vinyard in January of '02, didn't you? +A. I started dating him the ending of my +sophomore year. +Q. January of '02, to be specific; isn't that +right? +A. '02? +Q. Yeah. +A. January? +Q. That's right. +A. No. I didn't start dating him until my +summer, like right whenever I was done with school. +Q. And when did you first have sex with +Mr. Vinyard? +A. When I, probably - I don't remember. +Q. Well, a girl generally remembers the first +Page 195 +time she lost her virginity, doesn't she? +A. I don't remember the exact date. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, +argumentative. +THE WITNESS: I don't remember the exact +date, but it was sometime the ending of my +sophomore - well, done with my sophomore year. +It was the end of my sophomore year, beginning +of my junior year. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Would your recollection about what dates +were involved have been better back in 2004 than it +is now? +A. Yeah, depending on the situation, yeah. +Q. You're, you're aware of the fact that -- +maybe this will refresh your recollection. You are +aware of the fact that you have provided sworn +testimony about when you first dated Mr. Vinyard and +when you first had sex with him, aren't you? +A. No. +Q. So, you've forgotten that? +A. Yeah. +Q. But whatever you gave, in terms of sworn +testimony, whenever you gave it, that was true, was +it not? +15 (Pages 192 to 195) + + +1 +2 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 16 of +Page 196 +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, form, +predicate. +THE WITNESS: I don't know. I don't know +the statement. I don't know. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. And when you took up with this fellow +Preston, your parents weren't too happy about that, +were they? +A. No. +Q. And Preston, did he really just get out of +prison? +A. I don't know. +Q. You don't know if he just got out of +prison? +Q. Do you know if he went to prison? +A. I know he went to jail. +Q. Okay. All right. Well, did he just get +out of jail? +A. I think so. I don't remember. +Q. And was -- +A. He went -- what? +Q. Go ahead. +A. No, I said I think so. I don't remember. +Q. Did your parents have to do some kind of +Page 197 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +formal intervention to try to get you and +Mr. Vinyard split up? +A. No. +Q. How disappointed or how upset was your dad +about your relationship with Mr. Vinyard? +A. He was upset. +Q. And Mr. Vinyard lived down the street from +you, didn't he? +A. He was staying down the street. +Q. And he was what, how old was he when you +met him? +A. How old is he now? Hold on. Give me a +second. 23. +Q. When you first met him he was 23; is that +right? +A. Yeah, I think so, yeah. +Q. Okay. And you were how old? +A. I was 15. +Q. So, it was a 15-year-old dating a +23-year-old? +A. I didn't date him when I was 15. +Q. Say what? +A. I wasn't dating him when I was 15. +Q. Well, you were -- +A. He had another girlfriend. +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 198 +Q. Were you going over to his house? +A. No. +Q. When was the first time you went over to +his house? +A. When I was 16. +Q. Sixteen. Okay. He's 23 and you're 16 +when you first started dating him, right? +A. (No verbal response.) +Q. Correct? +A. Yes, somewhere in that time - I'm pretty +sure it's somewhere in that time frame. +Q. When you went over to his house, where did +you go? Do you remember the address? +A. I don't think the first time I went was to +that address, but I hung out there. +Q. Okay. Well, what was the address? +A. I don't remember the address, but I just +know it was in La Manche. +Q. And that's the same neighborhood you lived +in? +A. Yes. +Q. And by the way, who was living there with +him? +A. Tony. +Q. And it was just he and his buddy living +Page 199 +there, right? +A. And his buddy's mother. +Q. And then his buddy's mother left, right? +A. Yeah. +Q. So, you would go over and visit with him, +when it was just him over there, and your dad didn't +like that, did he? +A. When it was just him over there? +Q. Yep. +A. No, like if Tony would be there, his mom +would be there. +Q. And your dad didn't like that, did he? +A. No. No, probably not. I'm sure - +Q. There's no probably about it. He let you +know he didn't like that, didn't he? +A. He didn't approve of it. +Q. How did you know he didn't approve of it? +A. Well, when I first started dating him, he +didn't know, he didn't really know that -- how old +Preston was. He didn't know that he had a criminal +background until later on - +Q. But you did? +A. - in our relationship. So in the +beginning, if you're talking about when I first went +over there, did my dad like it then? I dont think +16 (Pages 196 to 199) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 17 of +Page 200 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +3 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +my dad would mind then. +Q. Well, when did you let your dad know how +old old Preston was? +A. Probably by junior year, maybe. +Q. And when did you let him know he had a +criminal background? +A. I didn't let him know. +Q. How did your dad - +A. Yeah, I did. I don't think he liked that. +He wasn't happy about it. +Q. And you and he fought about that, didn't +you? +A. Well, no, not fought about it, but got in +arguments about it. +Q. By the way, when you were talking about +being topless in front of men, there were occasions +in your life when you voluntarily got in front of +strange men with no top on, weren't there? +A. No. +Q. Do you recall doing that for the police on +one occasion? +A. No. The police, if I think I know what +you are talking about, I had a restraining order on +Preston, and he had entered my house. And I didn't +know he was in my house and the door was open. When +Page 201 +I was changing in my bedroom out of my clothes, I +walked out to the front because the police were -- +my door was open and the police were standing out +front. And I heard somebody in my bedroom. +So I walked out there covering my chest, +like freaked out, who is at my house and why, like +what is going on. And I walked out and I, and I +realized it was the cops. And I'm like, how, what +are you doing in my house, and they said, well the +door was open. And I said, excuse me, and I like +put my clothes on. +Q. When did this happen? What year was this? +A. I don't remember what year it was. +Q. Why were the police at your house? +A. Because Preston, we had got, we were in +a cab - or, I had gotten a cab ride back to my +house, and Preston was supposed to get a ride back +to his house because he lives in La Manche staying +like right around the corner from me. +And instead of getting - well, I didn't +know that he didn't pay for the cab, I guess, like, +down the street. They had dropped me off first, and +I guess down the street - whenever they were going +to drop him off, he like jumped out of the cab, and +I - they knew where -- they dropped me off at my +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +4 +5 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 202 +house, so the cab driver came back to my house, and +I was already at my house in my, my room changing. +And I guess I must have left the door open and +Preston must have came into my, my house. And the +cops, I don't even - I don't know. I don't even +know. +Q. Wait a minute. You were in a cab with +Preston Vinyard? +A. Yeah. +Q. Did you say you got a restraining order +against him? +A. Yeah. +Q. Why would -- well, what did you get a +restraining order against him for? +A. Because he, because he was abusive. +Q. And what year of high school were you in +when you got the restraining order against the first +love of your life, Mr. Vinyard, who you now say is +abusive to you? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +THE WITNESS: I think it was my junior or +senior year. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. That's while you were going to see +Mr. Epstein, right? +Page 203 +A. That's why I was going to see him? +Q. That's while you were going to see +Mr. Epstein. +A. Yeah. +Q. Mr. Epstein was never abusive towards you, +was he? +A. No. +Q. Okay. So, tell me more about why you got +a restraining order against Mr. Vinyard. What +occurred that made you get that restraining order? +A. Because we were broken up, and I would try +to go leave my house and he would be waiting for me +at my, like, house. Like, I would go try to leave +to go somewhere, and like he would be in another +vehicle with his friend, like wait -- like not +letting me like go somewhere where I want -- like, +letting me go somewhere where I would want to go, +but I mean, like pretty much stalking me. +Q. Did it scare you? +A. No. Well, at the time, yeah. I would +just call his boss and his boss would come pick him +up. It happened one time. +Q. Did you fear it? +A. Did I fear it at the time? Yeah. +Q. Did you tell the court you were in fear of +17 (Pages 200 to 203) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +124 +25 +Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 18 of +Page 204 +Page 206 +your life? +A. Yes. +Q. And it was true when you told the court +that? +A. Yeah. +Q. Jeffrey Epstein never put you in fear of +your life, did he? +A. No. +Q. Now, you say this happened one time that +Mr. Vinyard was, you say, stalking you? +A. Yeah, I think, I'm pretty sure, yeah. +Q. What else? Did Mr. Vinyard do anything +else to you that caused you fear? +A. We -- it was a, an unhealthy relationship. +We got in a lot of arguments, but I don't remember +every single one. +Q. And do you remember my question? +A. Sorry. Say it one more time. +Q. Did Mr. Vinyard do anything else that +caused you any fear? +A. When we argued, yeah. +Q. Well, what did he do? +A. Nothing. He was a big guy, real muscular. +He's big. When someone is arguing in your face, it +kind of throws you. I mean, you get scared, just +Page 205 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +arguing. +Q. Just arguing? +A. Yeah, arguing. +Q. Was he nice to you? +A. Yeah, when he wasn't drinking. +Q. Did he call you any names? +A. Yeah. +Q. What did he call you? +A. Probably every name in the book you can +think of. +Q. Did he ever hurt you physically? +A. Bit my finger. +Q. Anything else? +A. Probably grabbed me to move me. Like, +grabbed me. +Q. Did he ever choke you? +A. Yeah, I think there was an incident where +he choked me. +Q. Did he ever throw you against a wall? +A. Yeah. +Q. Did he ever grab you by your shoulders and +throw you down in your front yard? +A. Yeah. +Q. Did Mr. Epstein do anything like that, +ever? +1 +2 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. No. A lot worse. +Q. Now, this is what, you're a what, +16-year-old girl when Mr. Vinyard's doing this to +you? +A. When I dated him through high school? +Q. Yeah, when he is doing this, when he's +throwing you up against the wall. +A. Junior - yeah, junior year and senior +year, yeah. +Q. I mean, that scared you, didn't it? +A. Yeah. +Q. It was traumatic to you, wasn't it? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form, +argumentative. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. It was traumatic to you, was it not? +A. At the time, yeah. +Q. You didn't have - were all your friends +off getting restraining orders against boyfriends +that were six, seven years older than them? +A. No. +Q. And did you have some other traumatic +things that happened to you in your lifetime? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +Calls for a legal conclusion. +Page 207 +THE WITNESS: At the time, yeah. I have +had a few friends die. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. A few friends? +A. Yeah, well. One friend die, yeah. +Q. Who died? +A. My good friend, or a friend of mine, +Chris. +Q. What happened to him? +A. Got into a DUI accident. +Q. And when did that happen? +A. When did that happen? It might have +happened my freshman year or sophomore -- freshman +year in - in high school. +Q. That was before you met Mr. Epstein, +right? +A. Yeah. +Q. How well did you know this fellow Chris? +A. I met him my freshman year in high school, +and. I think he died when -- my freshman year. I +probably knew him for -- I don't know how long. 1 +don't remember how long I knew him, but maybe a +couple of months. +Q. Did you date him? +A. Boyfriend-girlfriend, no, but I'd go out +18 (Pages 204 to 207) + + +1 +2 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 19 of +Page 208 +Page 210 +on a -- I went on a date with him once. +Q. For two or three months didn't you date +him? +A. No. I went on a date with him. +Q. Did you ever tell anybody ever, at any +time from the day you were born until now that you +dated him for several months? +A. No, he was never my boyfriend. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Did you hear my question? Did you ever +tell anyone, from the time you were born -- +A Yeah, I dated him. +Q. Wait a minute -- from the time you were +born until now that you dated him for several +months? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +THE WITNESS: No. I dated - I went on a +date with him. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Listen carefully to my question. +A. No. +Q. Is your answer to my question no, you +never told anybody that you dated him for several +months? +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 209 +A. I mean, I don't know. I don't think so. +I don't know. I mean, maybe, yeah. +Q. Well, which is it? +A. I don't know. +Q. You don't know? +A. I don't know. +Q. You don't think so? You don't know? +2011 +A. I don't know. +Q. So, anyway, this, this young man got +killed, you say, in some kind of accident? +• Yeah, he got into a -- yeah, a DUI +Q. And who was driving that car? +A. Preston's brother, Brad. +Q. Preston Vinyard, is that your first love's +brother? +A. Yes. +Q. Okay. And that kind of took you - you +took that kind of hard, your, your friend Chris +being killed, didn't you? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +THE WITNESS: Yeah, I mean, that was a +friend of mine, yeah. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Okay. And did you lose another friend +1 +2 +4 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +somewhere along the way? +A. Yeah, I had another friend die. +Q. Who was that? +A. Jennifer. I don't even remember her last +name, though. So that's bad. +Q. When did she die? +A. I don't even -- I don't -- I don't know. +Q. Well, it was after the point in time that +you got into the accident -- +A. It was afterwards. +Q. - with Mr. Vinyard driving the car drunk, +wasn't it? +A. Yeah. +Q. So, let's talk about that for a while. +You got into a car with Mr. Vinyard one time, your +first love of your life, when he was drunk, right? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. And he was driving down a road at an +excessive rate of speed, was he not? +A. Yes. +Q. And I think it was what, 65 miles an hour? +A. It was fast. +Q. And were you drunk too? +A. Yes. +Q. Okay. And you were how old? +Page 211 +A. I don't remember. +Q. Well, you were 17 or less, weren't you? +A. I don't know. I don't remember. +Q. Well, you know - you know, you were -- +that it happened during your, what, sophomore year +in high school? +A. I don't know when it happened. I don't +remember when it happened. +Q. You can't - you are telling us you don't +remember what year it happened? +A. No, I don't. +Q. Well, when did you stop dating Preston? +A. I remember it was around Christmas time, +but I don't remember what year it was. +Q. Okay. And when did you stop dating +Preston? +A. Me and him were on and off for years, so. +Q Okay. +A There was plenty of times when we weren't +dating and plenty of times when we were on. +Q. In any event, you were, as we say, +underage. You were under 21 years of age on this +occasion. +A. Yes. +Q. And by the way, did you have a fake ID? +19 (Pages 208 to 211) + + +1 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 20 of +Page 212 +A. At that time, no. +Q. When did you first get your first fake ID? +A. My senior year or I don't even remember. +Q. Well, which is it? You don't remember or +your senior year? +A. I don't remember. I was going to try to +guess, but I don't remember. +Q. As a matter of fact, your sophomore year +in high school you had a fake ID, didn't you? +A. I don't know. Did I? +Q. Well, I am asking you, +A. No, I don't know. +Q. How did you get the fake ID? +A. I don't know what you are talking about, +so are you asking me? +Q. I am talking about a fake ID. +A. I don't know. My fake -- or Lauren gave +it to me. +Q. Lauren gave it to you. And how did she +get it for you? +A. She was 18. She was -- it was for an ID +for being, to be 18. +Q. And, and how did she get it for you? +A. It was her, it was her picture. +Q. And you -- and you were -- with your name +Page 213 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +on it? +A. No, with her. It's a picture of her, +1 +2 +Q. My question was, did you ever have a fake +ID, that is an ID that identified it as being you +but the wrong birth date? +A. No. +Q. And you were drinking before you were 21, +were you not? +A. Yeah. +Q. And do you recall when you first started +drinking? +A. No. I don't remember the first time I +started drinking but -- no, I don't. +Q. Was it before you were 16? +A. Maybe, yeah. +Q. And how many times were you drunk with old +Preston? +A. I don't even know that answer. I don't +know. +Q. Well, Preston testified yesterday that you +were drunk about twice a week with him. Would you +agree with that estimate from him? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +THE WITNESS: Yeah, probably. +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 214 +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Okay. And that went on for how long a +period? +A. I don't know. +Q. I'm going to ask you, I think I asked you +this - +A. I don't even know how that was twice a +week, because I was playing soccer Tuesday, +Wednesday, Thursday. Friday I'd be gone traveling, +on the weekends I would be gone playing soccer +games. So the only night I had off was Monday. And +I wouldn't even like, I never missed school. So I +don't see how it would be twice a week. +Q. Well, that was while the soccer season was +going on, right? +A. Yeah, I think, whenever I had free time or +whatever, since I was playing soccer and was always +busy, whenever I had a day off I would go hang out +with my friends. +Q. Now, 1 want to go back and ask a question +that I asked you about earlier now that we're +talking about Mr. Vinyard. +A. Yeah. +Q. I want to ask you again, did you ever do +any drug with Mr. Vinyard that you didn't have any +Page 215 +prescription for? +A. Yeah. +Q. What drugs? +A. Coke. +Q. Now, can you tell me why earlier in this +deposition when I asked you if you had done any +illegal drugs, you told me no? +A. Because I don't do drugs now. I didn't +know - when you asked me the question, I didn't +think it was have you ever done. It was, like, do +you do drugs. No, I don't. +Q. And my question to you was whether you had +ever done any drugs, and you said no. +A. Sorry. I didn't understand your question, +then. +Q. Any other questions you didn't understand +this morning? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, to form, +argumentative. +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Do you know of any testimony that you have +given thus far in this deposition that is inaccurate +that you now need to correct? +A No. +20 (Pages 212 to 215) + + +1 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 21 of +Page 216 +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +MR. LUTTIER: And you're sure? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: She doesn't have to make +that determination now. She has the right to +read the transcript and make it then. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. I just want to make sure you understand +there's no tricks. +A. Yeah. +Q. So if you said something you think you +need to correct, I want to give you the opportunity +to do it. +A. Okay. Thank you. +Q So if there is anything - +MR. MERMELSTEIN: She will have that +opportunity well after this, so -- +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. If there is anything that you said that +you either need to correct or supplement, just let +me know. All right? +A. All right. Thank you. +Q. Okay. Now, any other drugs that you did +with Preston besides cocaine? +A. No. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +Q. How about any drugs you have done with +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 217 +anybody else besides Preston other than cocaine. +A. 1, I have smoked pot before, but I don't +smoke -- I've just tried pot. +Q. Any pills that you have taken before that +you didn't have a prescription for? +A. Yeah, I have tried Ecstasy. +Q. Okay. And tell us when you took the +Ecstasy? +A. What do you mean, tell you what? +Q. When was the first time you took Ecstasy? +A. I don't know. I don't know. +Q. Well, what year in high school were you +when you first started taking Ecstasy? +A. I don't know. +Q. Was it your junior year? +A. I don't know. +Q. Was it your sophomore year? +A. I don't know. +Q. For what period of time did you take +Ecstasy? +A. I didn't. It's not like I took it every +day. It's not like I took it every day. On +occasion I tried it. +Q. How many times did you take it? More than +once, didn't you? +1 +5 +6 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 218 +A. You know, like two, two or three times I +tried it in my life. +Q. Where did you get it? +A. I don't even -- I don't know, because I +have only been able - whenever -- wait, when -- I +don't know. +Q. You just know you got it, but you don't +remember when? +A. With friends. Yeah, when I was hanging +out with friends that did it. +Q. Did you ever do any drugs with +A Iam trying to think. +Q I am going let you think about that while +I go take a break and go to the restroom. +A. All right. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Why don't we take five +minutes. +THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at 2:58. +(A brief recess was held.) +THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the +record at 3:10. +MR. LUTTIER: Okay. Would you read the +last question back? +(The requested portion of the record was +Page 219 +read by the reporter.) +THE WITNESS: I don't remember. I am +sure. I'm not sure what specifically doing +drugs, but she's my friend. I hung out with +her a lot. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Well, you did Xanax with her, didn't you? +A. Xanax? +Q. Xanax. +A. Not that I remember. +Q. And you did Ecstasy with her, right? +A. No, not that I remember. I mean, I've +done it. I've done Ecstasy before, I don't -- maybe +it was with her. +Q. And you've done cocaine with her, haven't +you? +A. Yeah. I know I've done cocaine with her, +but I don't think I've done Xanax with her or +Ecstasy. Maybe, I don't -- I mean - +Q. When was the first time you did cocaine +with Lauren? +A. I don't remember. +Q. Well, what year in high school were you? +A. I don't even know if I - I don't even +know if 1 was in high school whenever I did it. +21 (Pages 216 to 219) + + +1 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +5 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +119 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 22 of +Page 220 +Page 222 +Q. Before you were in high school? +A. No. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection. +THE WITNESS: I said I don't think - I +don't, I don't know. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. All right. Do pot with +A. No, I don't smoke, no. +Q. Other than with +1, you did +Ecstasy, correct? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, asked and +answered. You can answer. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. When was the last time you did Ecstasy? +A. Probably like when I graduated high school +or high school. +Q. And were you doing Ecstasy throughout the +time period that you were in high school? +A. No, I have done, no, I've done it like two +or three times. +Q. Okay. And was that before or after you +first met Mr. Epstein? +A. That was - I don't remember whenever, I +don't remember when I did it. I don't know. +Q. So, you don't know if you did it before +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +/23 +24 +25 +Page 221 +you met Mr. Epstein? +A. No, I don't remember. +Q. You had smoked pot before you met +Mr. Epstein, had you not? +A. Yeah. +Q. You had used cocaine before you met +Mr. Epstein, had you not? +A. No, I don't think so. I don't remember. +Q. And how about Xanax, did you do that +before you met Mr. Epstein? +A. No. +Q. Mr. Epstein never gave you any drugs, +correct? +A. No. +Q. Did you ever have any discussions with him +about drug use? +A. No. +Q. Did you ever have discussions with him +about alcohol use? +A. No. +Q. As a matter of fact, Mr. Epstein told you +he doesn't drink any alcohol, didn't he? +A. Did he? I don't remember. +Q. Did you tell others including but not +limited to the police that Mr. Epstein told you he +1 +2 +3 +4 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +didn't use alcohol? +A. Yeah, maybe he told me he didn't do - +drink or do drugs, yeah. +Q. He did tell you those things? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Don't speculate. If you +know. +THE WITNESS: Yeah. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Okay. Now, did you tell your -- the first +love of your life, Mr. Vinyard, about going to +Mr. Epstein's? +A. Did I tell him about it? +Q. Yeah, he was aware that you were going to +Mr. Epstein's, was he not? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection. +THE WITNESS: Was he aware? +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Yes. +A. I don't know. +Q. Well, didn't you tell him about it? +A. It was all in the papers. +Q. No. At the time that you were going to +Mr. Epstein's -- +A. No, I didn't. +Q. - you were supposedly dating Mr. Vinyard, +Page 223 +right? +A. On and off, yes. +Q. All right. Did, did Mr. Vinyard know that +you were going to see Mr. Epstein? +A. No. +Q. Did you tell him that you were going to +see Mr. Epstein? +A. No. +Q. Did you intentionally not tell him that +you were going to see Mr. Epstein? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Why didn't you tell him you were going to +see Mr. Epstein? +A. When we weren't together I would go. +Q. Say what? +A. I didn't tell him. +Q. Did you say when you weren't together you +A. I would go, like, I don't know. I just -- +ask the question again. If what? +). Why didn't you tell -- +Q. Why didn't you tell Preston that you were +22 (Pages 220 to 223) + + +1 +2 +3 +6 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 23 of +Page 224 +going to Mr. Epstein? +A. I didn't because he would probably freak +out. +Q. While you and Preston Vinyard were +together, you didn't go to Mr. Epstein, did you? +A. No, I did. +Q. Now, do you recall in high school there +being any incident of you being in a videotape that +was circulated around the high school? +A. A videotape? +Q. Uh-huh. +A. No. +Q. Do you recall there being something on the +Internet involving you when you were in high school? +A. Picture. +Q. And that was a picture of whom? +A. Me and my friend Tammy. +Q. And what was that picture depicting? +A. I think a picture of me in my underwear +and bra. I don't remember. +Q. And what was Tammy in? +A. Her underwear. +Q. Okay. And -- +A. I don't even remember. +Q. Her underwear or her underwear and bra? +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 225 +A. Her underwear -- I don't remember. I +don't remember what the exact picture was. +Q. But you remember the incident though, +don't you? +A. Yeah, I remember the incident. +Q. And what year in high school were you? +A. A freshman. +Q. Okay. And -- and what was the result of +that picture appearing on the Internet? +A. It was embarrassing. +Q. Embarrassing to you? +A. Yeah. +Q. Was everybody in the school talking about +1 +2 +7 +it? +A. For like two days, and then something else +happened in high school. It was over, dropped. +Q. Were, were people accusing you of being a +lesbian? +A. I don't, I don't -- I don't know. +Q. You mean, nobody, nobody -- to your +knowledge, nobody accused you of being a lesbian? +A. No. +Q. And when you say it was embarrassing to +you, what do you mean? +A. Well, it was embarrassing. I don't even +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 226 +know how the person got the picture. I mean, it was +just -- I mean, everybody seeing you in your bra and +underwear, it was like abase now, but at the time it +was something just like, wow, I don't -- +Q. You, you appeared in videos before, +haven't you? +A. In videos? +Q. Yeah, videos. +A. What kind of videos? +Q. Videos of sexual performances. +A. I have made a homemade video before. +Q. You made one? +A. Yes. +Q. And did you ever make a homemade video +with Mr. Epstein? +A. No. +Q. Okay. When did you make this homemade +video? +A. I don't remember. +Q. Well, how old were you? +A. I don't remember. +Q. Well, you remember the video, right? +A. Yeah. +Q. And, and I assume making a homemade -- +what did this homemade video depict? +Page 227 +A. Me and my boyfriend - +Q. At the beach or -- +A. - making out together. +Q. - having sex? +A. Yeah. +Q. Having sexual intercourse? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. So that would be -- I would assume +that would be an event you remember? +A. Yeah, but I don't remember whenever I made +the - when I took the video. +Q. And do you remember if you made it before +you went to see Mr. Epstein? +A. I made it while I was going there. +Q. Okay. Mr. Epstein didn't ask you to make +the video, did he? +A. No. +Q. Okay. So, what, this would make you 16 +years old? +A. I don't remember how old I was. +Q. Was it before your third visit to +Mr. Epstein? +A. I don't remember. +Q. When did you show it to Mr. Epstein? +A. Part of my senior - I don't even +23 (Pages 224 to 227) + + +1 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +117 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +3 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +124 +25 +Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 24 of +Page 228 +remember. I mean, I don't even - I don't know. +Q. You, you remember when you showed it, +don't you? +A. No, I don't. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Was it your second visit to Mr. Epstein? +A. No, I don't remember. +Q. But it could have been? +A. Maybe. I don't know. I don't - why +would it be - no, it definitely wasn't my second +visit, because my second visit I wouldn't even - I +didn't even take any clothes off, so why would I +bring a video? +Q. I was actually going to ask you that +question myself, +A. No. +Q. You're the only one that can answer that. +A. So, it wasn't my second visit. +Q. Why would you take a video -- +A. It wasn't that -- +Q. Wait, let me finish. +A. Yeah. +Q. - of you having sex with another person +to show Mr. Epstein? +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +110 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 229 +A. Because after I had gone there several +times, Mr. Epstein was a very like sexual, like, +like talk about like, like, for example, like, +like, fukaoerson. And he would always like like +go ask Nadia what's her favorite toy or tell me +about like these sexual classes and like tell me +about how to give a guy head, or like, he would -- +he was always talking sex -- like talking sexual +things with me. +So I, I brought it. I had mentioned to +him about the video, and I brought it in. I think +he asked me to bring it in, or maybe I asked him, do +you want me to bring it in, and he said yes, or if I +brought it in, I don't remember, but that's why I +brought it in, because we would always joke around, +like, sexual -- like he would joke around with me +like sexual, like, things about like, like, I don't +know, just thought it was funny. +Q. So it was joking around with Mr. Epstein? +A. Yeah. +Q. And you were perfectly comfortable doing +that, right? +A. Yeah, at the time, yeah. +Q. You weren't embarrassed by any of it, +right? +3 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 230 +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Correct? You weren't embarrassed by any +of it, correct? +A. Yeah. +Q. You weren't traumatized by it, correct? +A. Traumatized now, yeah. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. At the time you weren't traumatized, were +you? +A. No. +Q. You only got traumatized after you filed +this lawsuit, right? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Right? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Argumentative. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Right? +A. Traumatized afterwards? +Q. Yeah. +A. About the situation he put me in? Yeah. +Q. Yeah, after you filed the lawsuit? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +Page 231 +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. You never went -- +A. It wasn't after I filed the lawsuit. +Q. By the way, before you filed this lawsuit, +did you ever seek any kind of psychological help as +a result of having gone to Mr. Epstein? +A. I was having problems that, when I was +younger, yeah, I went and saw two psychiatrists. +Q. No, I said, did it -- did you go see those +psychiatrists before you went to Mr. Epstein? +A. Before I went to Epstein? +Q. Yeah. +A. No, after. +Q. Are you sure? +A. I don't remember. I don't - I don't +remember what exact dates. I know I went and saw +two psychiatrists, but I don't remember the exact +date whenever I went there. +Q. Well, you went to see two psychiatrists +about the problems you were having with your +parents, didn't you? +A. No. Well, me and my parents were arguing +a lot, but that's because I didn't - my boyfriend, +and plus, I was being supported by another - +24 (Pages 228 to 231) + + +1 +2 +4 +0 (л +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +124 +25 +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 25 of +Page 232 +another man -- another father-like person that was +sitting there paying me money. So I didn't, you +know, my parents and me were arguing about my +boyfriend. I kind of like, you know, my parents +were just -- I don't know, we weren't getting along +and my parents just - yeah. +Q. I can't even make out what your answer to +the question was, +A. Sorry. I am confused. I don't know like +what - +Q. This is a simple question. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Why, why don't you ask +the question again. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. You went to - the psychiatrists that you +went to, you went to them before you ever went to +Mr. Epstein, didn't you? +A. I don't remember when I went. +Q. And you went to see two people, and you +went to see them about problems that you had with +your parents, did you not? +A. Yeah, I went. +Q. Didn't say a single thing about Epstein at +the time because you hadn't even met him, had you? +A. I think I had met him then. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 233 +MR. LUTTIER: Let me see show you your +interrogatories. +Let's mark this as Exhibit 2. These are +just the Answers to Interrogatories, that +she -- +MR. MERMELSTEIN: I understood. +(Defendant's Exhibit No. 2 was marked for +identification.) +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. All right. I've handed you, +, what +is marked as Exhibit 2, your Answers to Defendant's +First Interrogatories. And the first question I +want to ask you is if you turn to the +third-to-the-last page, which would be -- contains +Interrogatory 25 on it. +A. Uh-huh. +Q. Is that your signature? +A. Yeah. +Q. All right. And you see what that +verification clause says above there? +A. What? +Q. Can you read that, what it says? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: No, no, no. He's +talking about this. +THE WITNESS: +Wait, what am I +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 234 +supposed to do, just read? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Do you want her to read +it or, to herself or do you want her to read it +out loud? +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. I mean, you can read it to yourself. You +swore that these answers were correct, right? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. So, these are your statements under +oath, and they're all true, right? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. Let's look at Page 7, Interrogatory +No. 11. And in Answer to Interrogatory 11 you list +three psychiatrists. +A. Uh-huh. +Q. +& Associates Counseling & +Consulting, a Dr. Lisa Niebling and a Dr. Gilbert +Kliman. Now, when you referred -- referenced +carlier that you had been to two psychiatrists, were +you referring to +& Associates and Dr. Lisa +Niebling? +A. Yeah. +Q. And it says in these answers to +interrogatories that you went to +& Associates +one time in 2003. Do you see that? +Page 235 +A. Yes, that's when I was trying to figure +out a good psychiatrist to go and talk to where I +was going to be comfortable. +Q. And, and was your first visit to +& +Associates, in fact, before you went to see +Mr. Epstein? +A. I don't know. I don't remember when I +went. +Q. And did you discuss with anyone at +& Associates when you went there one time anything +at all about Mr. Epstein? +A. I don't remember. I don't think so. I +don't know. +Q. In fact you talked to them about the +conflict you were having with your parents, didn't +you? +A. I don't remember. +Q. And then Lisa Niebling, it says here that +you went to two to three sessions with her in 2003. +Do you see that? +A. Where? +Q. Number 2. +A. Uh-huh. +Q. And, in fact, did you go to her before you +had gone to see Mr. Epstein? +25 (Pages 232 to 235) + + +1 +2 +3 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +/24 +25 +Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 26 of +Page 236 +A. I don't remember when I went to her. +Q. You didn't say a single thing to her about +Mr. Epstein, did you? +A. No, I don't remember. +Q. You were there to see her about the +conflict you were having with your parents, weren't +you? +A. I don't remember. +Q. And the reason you went to these people is +because you and your parents were having problems; +isn't that right? +A. I don't remember. +Q. Now, although you don't remember any of +these answers now, have you told anyone else at any +time in your life that the reason you went to +& Associates and Dr. Lisa Niebling was because of +conflict you had with your parents? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +THE WITNESS: No, I don't think I told +anybody that I went there. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Are you sure about that? +A. Like friends, family. I don't know. +Q By the way- +A I don't remember. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 237 +Q. Who's this Dr. Kliman? +A. Who is that? +Q. Yeah, who is that? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: It's Plaintiff's expert. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q Dr. Kliman, how did you meet Dr. Kliman? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: As, as Plaintiff's +forensic expert. +MR. CRITTON: Whoa, whoa, whoa. No, no, +no. Have you ever heard of form? +MR. LUTTIER: Just wait. Let her answer. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Okay. +MR. CRITTON: Give me a break. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. How did you meet Dr. Kliman? +A. How did I meet him? +Q. Yeah, how did you meet him? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: I have never heard this +question asked about an expert retained for +purposes of litigation. You can answer the +question, but - +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. How did you meet - +4. Through my lawyers +Q. Well, had you ever heard of him before +1 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 238 +your lawyer gave you his name? +A. No. +Q. And when you say through your lawyers, who +are you referring to? +A. Stuart. +Q. Okay. And, and were you told to go see +Dr. Kliman? +A. I was looking for a psychiatrist at the +time, and I had to schedule an appointment with +Dr. Kliman, yes. +Q. Well, Dr. Kliman lives in San Francisco. +A. Uh-huh. +Q. You're not telling us that you looked him +up yourself, are you? +A. No. +Q. Okay. So, when you say you were looking +for a psychiatrist, how long had you been looking +for a psychiatrist? +A. For a while. +Q. Well, let's see, you went to see +Dr. Kliman in what year? 2009 - +A. 2009. +Q. - is that right? +A. I don't know what the exact dates are. +Yes, maybe. +Page 239 +Q. It was after you filed this lawsuit, +right? +A. Yeah. +Q. So, from 2003, which would have been the +last session with either Niebling or +Associates, until 2009 is six years. +A. Uh-huh. +Q. And you couldn't find a psychiatrist in +six years? +A. I wasn't looking for one. +Q. As a matter of fact, your lawyer - +A. Whenever -- +Q. Go ahead. +A. I wasn't looking for one my freshman - or +what was it, my sophomore, junior or senior year in +high school. I wasn't looking for one until +probably my freshman year in college. +Q. Are you sure you were looking for a +psychiatrist in your freshman year at college? +A. Yes. I was going to go to the one in +Boca. I made appointments to go. I just never +ended up showing up. +Q. Did you represent in any of your health +forms at University that you had no +psychological or psychiatric - +26 (Pages 236 to 239) + + +1 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 27 of +Page 240 +A. No. +Q. - problem whatever? +A. At +University? No. +Q. At +University, that's right. +A. No. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: No to what? +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. You never made that representation? +A. You mean, going to -- going to +like getting help at +University? Is that what +you mean? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Can you ask the question +again, because I don't -- I'm not -- I wasn't +clear what she was answering no to. Can you +ask the question again? +MR. LUTTIER: Read that back. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Take your time, by the +way. Just make sure - +(The requested portion of the record was +read by the reporter.) +THE WITNESS: So, had +University ever +helped me psychologically? +MR. LUTTIER: No. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: No, no. Listen to the +question again, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Take +Page 241 +your time. Listen to the question. +(The requested portion of the record was read by +the reporter.) +THE WITNESS: Well, what do you, what do +you mean? +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Well, like when you go to school, they +make you fill out some health questionnaires a lot +of times. Did you ever fill out any questionnaires +at +_ and represent you had no psychological +problems at all? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. Those were true statements when you +made them, right? +A. Yeah. +Q. You wouldn't lie to people that were +giving you health information, would you? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, +argumentative. You can answer. +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Right? +A. Well, I, no. +• okay. So that was your freshman year at +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 242 +A. Yeah. +Q. So, we know at least as of the time you +were a freshman at +you had represented to +other third parties that you had no psychological or +psychiatric problem, right? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. So you weren't looking - +A. Yes. +Q. So you weren't looking for a psychiatrist +then, were you? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, form. +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. So, you only began to look for a +psychiatrist after you filed this lawsuit; isn't +that right? +A. Yeah. +Q. And you only did that because your lawyers +told you to do it, right? +A. No, it wasn't just because of that. I was +looking for one, but why would I tell my school +that? Why would I tell my school or anybody - like +anybody? That's something personal, you don't want +anybody to know anything about that, do you know +what I mean? +Page 243 +Q. How about the truth, how about you want to +be truthful when they give you a health form and ask +you if you have any problems? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, +argumentative. +MR. LUTTIER: That would be - +MR. MERMELSTEIN: We don't have the health +form in front of us. +MR. LUTTIER: That would be -- +MR. MERMELSTEIN: If you want to show it +to us, that would be helpful. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. If, if they gave you a health form and ask +you if have any health problems, you'd want to be +truthful in answering that, wouldn't you? +A. Yeah, I go to a small private school. Do +you think I want somebody knowing that I have been +sexually abused at my school, like a small amount, +you think I want that getting around school? +Q. So, what you're telling me - +A. Why would I, why would I -- +Q. So, what you are telling me is you're not +truthful in health forms when you fill them out. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form, +argumentative. +27 (Pages 240 to 243) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 28 of +Page 244 +Page 246 +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. And, in fact, is that what you're telling +me, you're not truthful in your health forms when +you fill them out? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Same objection. +THE WITNESS: Yeah, I'm truthful. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Well, that's not exactly right, is it? As +a matter of fact, there's some things you haven't +told anybody on your side of the case about your +health background, aren't there? +THE WITNESS: What's that? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Let's talk about Dr. Kliman. You had a +very intensive and exhaustive interview process with +him, did you not? +A. Yeah. +Q. And you went to him after your lawyer told +you to make an appointment with him, right? +A. Yeah. +Q. And he flew all the way from California, +the other side of the country, to come here just to +see you, right? +A. Yeah. +1 +2 +7 +8 +9 +10 +111 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 245 +Q. And you knew your other friends that have +lawsuits against Jeffrey Epstein had gone to him +too, didn't you? +A. Yeah. +Q. And they told you they'd been there and +that you needed to do that as part of your lawsuit? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +THE WITNESS: No, they didn't know. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. And you talked to Jane Doe No. 7 about +going to see a psychologist, didn't you, your friend +Jane Doe No. 7? +A. Yes, I talked to Jane Doe No. 7 about it. +Q. Okay. And that would be Jane Doe No. 7, +so we're sure who that is, that's Jane Doe No. 7, +I'm going to make sure I pronounce her last name, +Doe, right? +A. Yes. +Q. Well, tell me what Jane Doe No. 7 told you +about the psychological exam. +A. Nothing. She just told me she was going +there. She was flying from Orlando to go there. +That's it. +Q. Yeah. And what else did she tell you +about what she was supposed to do when she got +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +there? +A. Nothing, she didn't tell me anything. +Q. And did she tell you who told her to go +there? +A. No. +Q. She just one day out of the blue said, +by the way, I'm flying - +A. I'm assuming it was her lawyer. I don't +know. +Q. She told you that, didn't she? +A. No, she didn't. I don't know who told +her. +Q. Did she, she communicate with you at any +time before or after her examination by the +psychologist in this case as to what she had been +instructed to do? +A. No. +Q. Did she talk to you after she went to the +psychologist in this case? +A. Yes, I talked to her after. +Q. And that was before you went to the +psychologist, right? +A. I don't know when she went. I know she +went and I know she was going, but I don't know +about her, about, anything about her psychologist. +Page 247 +Q. Listen to my question. You talked to her +after she went to her psychological examination in +her lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein, correct? +A. Yes. +Q. That discussion - +A. I talk to her every day. +Q. That discussion happened before you went +to your psychological examination, didn't it? +A. I don't know when hers was. +Q. That's not my question. +A. I don't know. +Q. The discussion -- +A. Then, I don't know. +Q. Listen to me. +A. I don't know when hers was, and I don't - +I know - I don't even remember the exact day when +mine was, so I don't know whenever hers - if hers +was before mine or if mine was before hers. I don't +know when hers was. +Q. I want to make sure you answer my +question. Okay? I don't want to get it gummed up +with what you knew or don't know. You had a +conversation with Jane Doe No. 7 about her +examination with the psychologist in her lawsuit +against Jeffrey Epstein before you went to see +28 (Pages 244 to 247) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +2 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Document 430-2 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 29 of +Page 248 +Dr. Kliman, did you not? +A. No. I don't -- I don't know. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, asked and +answered. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. You don't know or no; which is it? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: She just said it. +THE WITNESS: No, I don't know. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. You don't know. So it may have happened? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. And Jane Doe No. 7 told you what +occurred during her psychological exam, did she not? +A. Yeah. +Q. So you had that knowledge before you saw +Dr. Kliman. +A. I don't know whenever - I don't -- I +don't even know whenever her thing was. It wasn't +before I went. It was after both of us were done +with everything. +Q. Well, done with everything, you guys are +in the middle of lawsuits, aren't you? +A. Yeah, but we don't discuss it 24/7. It's +not like that's our topic of our conversation every +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 249 +Q. Did you tell me you talk to her every day? +A. Pretty much every single day, not every +day, but I -- I'm getting to a point where I'm good +friends with her. I talk to her frequently, not +every single day. +Q. And you and Jane Doe No. 7, both of you +got lawsuits going again Mr. Epstein, right? +A. Yeah, yeah. +Q. Both of you are represented by the same +lawyers? +A. Yeah. +Q. And did she tell you to go to the lawyer +after she had already - +A. No, she didn't tell me anything. +Q. How did you find your lawyer in this case? +A. Because they contacted me. +Q. L +, the law firm contacted you? +A. Yeah. +Q. And what did they say to you when they +contacted you? +A. A lot of lawyers did at that time. +Q. Well, the law firm that's representing you +now, when they contacted you, who was it that +contacted you? +A. It was Jeffrey or Jeff. +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 250 +Q. Okay. And he is a lawyer at the law firm? +A. Yeah. +Q. And is that - is that Mr. Herman? +A. Yes. +Q. Okay. And what did he say when he +contacted you? +A. I don't remember. +Q. Well, did he ask you if you wanted to +become a Plaintiff? +A. Yeah, I'm sure. I'm here. I'm sitting +here now. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Just-- +THE WITNESS: I don't know if victims - +or if I'm a Plaintiff. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Yep. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: And to the extent that +you decided to ask Mr. Herman about legal +advise or to retain him as your lawyer, any +conversations after that point are privileged, +so you can't talk about what was said. All +right? +THE WITNESS: Okay. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: So, so don't talk about +anything, you know, once you've either decided +Page 251 +to ask for legal advice or retain Mr. Herman. +Okay? +THE WITNESS: All right. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. So, but we're talking about before you +retained him. You weren't looking for a lawyer +initially, were you? +A. Yeah, 1 - I was getting a lot, yeah, the +FBI gave me a -- somebody, I mean, not gave me, 1 +asked for somebody's number. And she said she can't +tell me anything, that she can give me this lady's +number to call because I didn't, I didn't know what +to do at all. I called that lady. I didn't do +anything about it. +He had called -- my lawyer - or, my +lawyer contacted me now, and I met with him and that +was it. +Q. Let's go back to the FBI. Who gave you a +number to call? +A. I don't remember who gave me the number. +Somebody that I met with. +Q. The U.S. Attorney? +A. Who is the U.S. Attorney? +Q. The lady - +A. One of the ladies that I was speaking - +29 (Pages 248 to 251) + + +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 30 of +60 +Page 252 +Q. Mellafiano (phonetic) or Velafano +(phonetic) or Villafana or -- +A. I don't know. One of the ladies that I +was speaking to, I said, I need help. I said can +you please give me anybody's number that can better +assist me because she said, look, she said I can't +tell you anything. She wouldn't give me any +information. +Q. And you -- was it this - the Assistant +U.S. Attorney, Ms. Villfana? +A. I don't think -- I don't remember who it +was. +Q. What name did they give you? +A. I don't even remember if they gave me a +number. I don't even - they gave me a number, and +I called the lady and she said that she -- she could +- she wants to, like, help me the best she could, +but I don't even remember. +Q. Was that a lawyer at the office at Bob +Josefsberg? +A. I don't know. +Q. A lawyer in Miami? +A. No, I don't -- I don't know where their -- +their office was at. +Q. Did they tell you that your name was on a +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 253 +list? +A. No, they didn't tell me anything. +Q. So, you called this person, this number +they gave you. Was it a lawyer whose number they +gave you? +A. I don't know who it was. She, I asked her +if she could - I was like, because I wanted to find +out information because I wanted help. And she +said, well, I can't really give you any information, +she said, but you could call this person. +And I don't know who the person was. I +don't know - I don't know the number. I don't know +if it was a lawyer. I don't know anything. And my +lawyer contacted me and I met with my lawyer and +that was it. +Q. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's backup. The, +the - someone from the U.S. Attorney's office +originally gave you a number to call; is that right? +A. Uh-huh. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, asked and +answered. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. But you don't know their name? +A. No, I don't know their name. +Q. Okay. But you know they were from that +1 +5 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 254 +office. +A. Yeah, from -- +Q. Okay. Now - +A. I don't know, I don't know -- +MR. MERMELSTEIN: No, let her finish the +answer. +THE WITNESS: I don't know if it was from +that office. I don't know what level of the +degree they are in. There was people in a +room. There was three people in the room, +including myself. Or not including myself. +Three people, four, four people in the room. I +don't know which person, if she was a +psychiatrist, and like if she was giving me, +like - I don't know what, what they were, like +I don't know what their level of -- like, if +they are State, like, what are you saying, like +State attorney or something or I don't know +what the law, legal term that you guys are +trying to get to, but - +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. This was during your meeting with the FBI, +right? +A. +• Well, when I went down to the court, yeah. +Q. This was your meeting with -- +Page 255 +A. When I called them and asked them - +Q. - the FBI, correct? +A. Yeah. +Q. All right. So during your meeting with +the FBI - +A. But there was two other people in that +room. +Q. During your meeting with the FBI, there +wasn't anybody there that wasn't associated with the +FBI, was there? +A. I don't know. +Q. Well, did you ask? +A. No. +Q. Did you say who are all you people? +A. No, because they, they were there to help +me. +Q. And one of these people give you a number +and you call that number, right? +A. Yeah. +Q. Tell me what discussions you had -- +A. It was - +Q. - with whoever answered the phone at the +other end of this number. +A. It was like a five -- she asked, I said, +can you give me, like, information, can you help me, +30 (Pages 252 to 255) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +124 +25 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 31 of +Page 256 +like, what's going to happen. And she said that +sorry, she can't, like, do anything about it, and +that was it. It was like a five-second +conversation. I didn't even speak to her that long. +Q. Wait a minute. I want to make sure we're +clear. When you keep saying she -- +A. Or he. I don't know, sorry. That person, +it. +Q. This is the person whose number was given +to you by somebody at this FBI meeting, that's the +person we're talking about, you called that number? +A. Yeah. +Q. And you don't remember if the person you +talked to was a male or a female, right? +A. No. +Q. And you don't remember anything about what +was said? +A. No. +Q. But it was a short conversation? +A. Yeah. +Q. And, and you didn't retain whoever it was +you were talking to? +A. What do you mean retain? +Q. You didn't hire them to do anything for +you? +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 257 +A. No. +Q. Okay. And, and that was the only +conversation you had with this person, right? +A. Yeah. +Q. Did they give you another phone number to +call? +A. No. +Q. Did they refer you to anybody? +A. No. +Q. Okay. So, after that point in time, you, +did you do anything to go out and find a lawyer? +A. No. Literally the next day I met with +Jeffrey Herman. +Q. Well, Jeffrey Herman. Now, how did - how +did Mr. Herman come into the picture? How did he +get ahold of you? +A. I don't know. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Mr. Herman just called you out of the +blue, so to speak? +A. I don't remember how -- I don't know if I, +if he called me or if I got a letter. I don't +remember. +1 +2 +5 +Q. Well, you didn't contact him first, right? +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 258 +A. I might have gotten a letter and I might +have contacted him. +Q. You-- +A. I don't remember how we first, how we +first made contact. +Q. Let's go through this slow. Okay? You +did not contact Mr. Herman first, did you? +A. I don't remember. I don't know who +contacted who. +Q. Do you know what I mean by contacting him? +A. Yes, if I called him up or if he called me +up, like, I don't remember. +Q. Well, where did you get his number if you +contacted him first? +A. In the mail maybe. I don't know. +Q. So, you got something from Mr. Herman +advertising to be your lawyer? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection. +THE WITNESS: I don't know. I don't know +if I got something -- I don't know. I don't +know if I got something in the mail, I don't +know. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Well, if you didn't get something in the +mail, how would you have known to call him? +Page 259 +A. I don't know if 1 got something in the +mail or not. I don't know -- I don't know how me +and him first started talking. +Q. Well, how did you - +A. I don't remember. +Q. How did you know to contact Mr. Herman at +all? +A. I don't know. +Q. The fact of the matter is, you were +solicited by him - +A. No. +Q. - were you not? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Mr. Herman, do you know if he's a lawyer +in good standing in the Florida Bar? +A. Yeah. I mean, I've heard he's done some +good stuff. +Q. Do you know if he's a lawyer in good +standing in the Florida Bar -- +A. What do you mean, good standing? +Q. - or if he has been disbarred? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: He hasn't been +disbarred. Objection to form. +31 (Pages 256 to 259) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 32 of +Page 260 +Page 262 +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Do you know if he's a lawyer in good +standing? +A. What do you mean? +Q. By that I mean is he's not suspended, he's +not disbarred. +A. I know he's suspended. +Q. Okay. When did you find out he was a +suspended lawyer? +A. I don't remember. A while ago. +Q. In the first conversation with him? +MR. MERMELSTBIN: Objection to form. +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. In the second conversation with him? +A. I dont remember. +Q. Did you sign a contract with him? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. And did he come meet you? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, asked and +answered +THE WITNESS: Yeah. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Okay. So it wasn't until that happened +that you had any idea of getting a lawyer and filing +Page 261 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +a lawsuit against Mr. Epstein, was there? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +THE WITNESS: No, those were my +intentions. That's why I called that number. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Now, at that time -- +A. My intentions were, like, I had already +called somebody because I wanted help. I didn't +know what to do. +Q. Well, and that was what year? +A. That was before I met with Jeffrey, or +Jeffrey Herman. +Q. Yeah. Well, what year is what my question +was. +A. '05. +Q. '05? +A. '05-'06. +Q. '06? +A. '05-106, like in between that time. +Q. Before or after you got interviewed by -- +A. I don't know. +Q. We know it was after you got interviewed +by the FBI, right? +A. Yeah. So, '05-'06, somewhere in that time +frame. I don't know when. +1 +2 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Q. And by then had you had any discussions +with any of your friends like Jane Doe No. 7 about +whether they had filed a lawsuit? +A. No. +Q. You had no discussions with her? +A. - I'm sure - I don't remember. +Q. Wasn't it Jane Doe No. 7 that told you who +her lawyers were and put you in contact with your +lawyers? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, form. +THE WITNESS: No, no, I don't remember. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Well, which is it, no or I don't remember? +A. No. I mean, there's -- no, I don't know. +I don't know. +Q. Well, did you have - +A. It was such a long while ago, that - that +wasn't even something that I would even begin to +like - no, I don't know. +Q. You, you are giving me more than one +answer. What's the answer to this question? +A. There was so much going on in that time +frame. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: She didn't give you more +than one answer. Objection. +Page 263 +THE WITNESS: I don't know. There was so +much going on in that, that whole situation, +the only people that I had to talk to was my +friend Jane Doe No. 7, so I don't know what we +talked about. I'm sure, I don't know - I +don't know. I don't know what we talked about. +I'm sure I talked to her. She was my best +friend. She was going there, too. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Was she going there -- +A. I don't think so. I don't think I talked +to her about it. I don't remember what I talked to +her about it. I'm sure, like, things were brought +up. I don't remember, and I don't know. +Q. She was going to the lawyers that you +eventually selected before you were going to them, +wasn't she? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +THE WITNESS: I don't know. I don't think +I knew at that time, no. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Well, you know of somebody named Jane Doe +No. 6? +A. Jane Doe No. 6? +Q. Yeah, do you know her? +32 (Pages 260 to 263) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 33 of +Page 264 +Page 266 +A. That name does not ring a bell. +Q. Do you know a Jane Doe No. 8? +A. No. +Q. Do you know an Jane Doe No. 5 or Jane Doe +No. 5? +A. I am awful with names. +Q. Do you know an Jane Doe No. 5? +A. No. +Q. Do you know Jane Doe No. 5? +A. No. +Q. Do you know - you know Jane Doe No. 3, +right? +A. Yeah. +Q. Because we have talked about her. And you +know that she's represented by the same lawyer as +you are, right? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. Did you tell her -- you've got to say yes. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: The question is do you 19 +know that. +THE WITNESS: Do I know that? Yeah. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q And how do you know that? +A. Because I'm friends with her. +Q. Have you had discussions with her about +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 265 +it? +A. I just, no, I haven't. I just found out +through - I am friends with her. I haven't spoke +to her in years. I just hung out with her a month +ago and I found out. +Q. So, a month ago - +A. I found out. +Q. How did you find out? Did she tell you +she was going to the same lawyer you were? +A. No, we - I mean, speaking like a couple +years later, I mean, this whole thing is something +that nobody ever wants to experience, so having +somebody else that's experienced the same thing that +you have and being a friend, you sit there and talk +to that person about it. +Q. Did you understand what my question was? +A. Yes. So, yeah, of course we've talked +about it, yeah. +Q. Did she tell you she was represented by +the same lawyer? +A. No, she didn't tell me. +Q. Did you tell her who you were represented +by? +1 +2 +3 +6 +A. No. +Q. Well, how did it come up that the two of +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +you were, that you found out that you -- +A I don't - +Q - were being represented by the same +lawyer? +A. Well, I didn't know who she was being +represented by. I don't know who she's being - I +know she was in a lawsuit for the whole situation +that went down. +Q. Did you give her name to your lawyers for +them to go consult with her? +A. No. +Q. Did you give the names of any of your +friends to your lawyers to go consult with your +friends? +A. No. +Q. Are you sure? +A. Is that like,, yeah, you need to go +talk to this girl. No. +Q. That's exactly what I'm talking about. +A. No. +Q. Did you say here's some other friends of +mine - +A No. +Q - that went to Jeffrey Epstein, you ought +to go seem them? +Page 267 +A. No. +Q. Did anybody come to you and tell you that +you ought to go see this particular lawyer that you +selected, like any of your friends? +A. No. +Q. Do you know Jane Doe No. 2? +A. No. +Q. Never heard of her? +A. No. +Q. Okay. Okay. Back to Dr. Kliman. The +appointment that you had with Dr. Kliman was all +arranged through your lawyer, wasn't it? +A. Yeah. +Q. You didn't know Dr. Kliman from, as they +would said, the man on the moon, did you? +A. No. +Q. And your lawyer's found him for you and +told you that they had scheduled an appointment for +you to go see him, right? +A. Yeah. +Q. Was the first time you knew anything about +going to any kind of psychologist or psychiatrist, +right? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, form. +THE WITNESS: What do you mean by that? +33 (Pages 264 to 267) + + +1 +I LO +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 34 of +Page 268 +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. The first time you had any appointment +with anybody about Jeffrey Epstein, wasn't it? +A. Yeah. +Q. As a matter of fact, from the point in +time that you first went to Jeffrey Epstein until +the point in time that you walked in and saw +Mr. Kliman for the first time, you'd never been to +any psychologist or psychiatrist and discussed +anything about Jeffrey Epstein, had you? +Q. And had you ever sought any kind of +medical care or attention, whether it was +psychiatric, psychological, mental health counselor, +or any other kind of medical care from the last time +you saw Jeffrey Epstein until the day you walked in +to see Dr. Kliman? +A. Had I seen -- +Q. Any kind of medical care at all as a +result of having gone to see Mr. Epstein? +A. Yeah, yeah. +Q. What medical care did you seek between the +time you last saw Mr. Epstein and the first time you +walked in and met Mr. Kliman? +A. My, my psychiatrist I am seeing now. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 269 +Q. Who is that? +A. Rich Ruepto. +Q. Who? +A. Rich Ruepto. +Q. Rich. What's the last name? +A. I, I don't know how to spell it, but I'II +pronounce it, Rich Ruepto -- +Q. Well, how do you -- +A. - or Ricky Ruepto. Rick, call him Rick. +Q. Well, how do you spell - what's your best +spelling of his last name? +A. R-u-e-p-t-o. +Q. R-u-e-- +A. P-t-o. +Q. And when did you first go to Rick Ruepto? +A. I don't know. Maybe July. +Q. Of what year? +A. Of '09. +Q. And that was -- was that after you had +been to Dr. Kliman? +A. Uh-huh. Yes. +Q. Okay. And why did you suddenly decide to +go to Rick Ruepto after you'd been to Dr. Kliman? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +THE WITNESS: I was trying to make +1 +2 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 270 +appointments before Dr. Kliman, but I was +always busy with soccer and school that I was +never able to see a psychiatrist while I was in +school. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Well, where is -- +A. So, whenever I was out of school, I then +had the time to be able to, to make time to go see +one. +Q. Okay. Well, let's, let's digest that +statement. I want to make sure I understood it. +The only reason you hadn't been to Dr. Ruepto before +July of '09 was your soccer schedule was such that +you couldn't see him; is that right? +A. Well, I didn't want anybody to know what +had happened and had gone on with me, so I can't be +like, _ hey, coach, I'm sorry, can you -- I can't +make it to the game, am I - I have a psychiatrist +appointment. No, I couldn't. +Q. Did you understand my question? +A. Yeah. +Q. I just need you to answer my question. +A. Okay. +MR. LUTTIER: Would you read the question +back? +Page 271 +THE WITNESS: Yeah, I didn't understand +it. +(The requested portion of the record was +read by the reporter.) +THE WITNESS: Yeah. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Okay. So you play soccer from when to +when? +A. September, what is it, August to like +October. +Q. You play during the summer? +A. For the summer league. I don't - +Q. Okay. You started in about August of '05 +at +A. No, I have summers off. +Q. You started in August of '05 at +University, right? +A. Yes. +Q. Okay. You say you played soccer then for +what period in '05 at +A. For what? +Q. Did you -- were you playing in August? +A. August of -- August to October - +Q. Okay. So in October of'05, you were +done - +34 (Pages 268 to 271) + + +1 +2 +3 +5 +6 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +4 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +112 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 35 of +Page 272 +A. - of '05 to November, and maybe, like, +1 +maybe a little bit in November. +2 +Q. Okay. By November of '05, you were done +3 +with soccer for your first year at +4 +A. Yes. +5 +Q. From December until -- school is out, +6 +what, in June? +7 +A. Yeah. +8 +Q. From December until June of '06, you +9 +weren't playing soccer, right? +10 +A. Yeah. +11 +Q. So, why didn't you make an appointment to +12 +see Dr. Ruepto sometime between December and June of +13 +*06? +14 +A. Of going into my sophomore year? +Q. No. Of your freshman year, from December +of '06 - from January of '06 to June of '06, why +didn't you make an appointment to go see Dr. Ruepto? +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +Q. Your schedule would have permitted it, +20 +right? +A. Wait. This is my sophomore year? +Q. No, your freshman year. You started in +about August of '05, right? +A. Yeah. +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 273 +Q. You played soccer until November of '05? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. Right? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. So starting in January of '06 until +June of 06, you could have gone to see Dr. Ruepto +without any conflict - +A. I don't know. +Q. - in your, your soccer schedule, right? +A. Yeah. +Q. So, why didn't you make an appointment to +go see him? +A. I don't know. +Q. You just told me the only reason you +didn't go see Ruepto earlier than after July of '09 +was -- +A. I didn't even realize -- +Q. Wait a minute -- was because of your +soccer schedule. Is that, was that a true +1 +2 +6 +7 +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. Now, starting in June of '06, you +didn't go to +University in the summers, di +you? +A. No. +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 274 +Q. So, from June of '06 until about August of +'06, for that two-month period, you were out of +school - +A. Yeah. +Q. Where did you, where did you live during +that period of time? +A. I think I was staying with Lauren at the +time. +Q. Where? +A. I said I was staying with Lauren during +the summer. +Q. Where? +A. At her dad's house. +Q. +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. By the way, during that time you +were actually living with Lauren at her house, did +you-all talk about Jeffrey Epstein for that +two-month period in the summer of '06? +A. I'm sure. +Q. Had you filed any lawsuit against Jeffrey +Epstein at that time? +A. +7, wait. +,, wait, '06. I'm thinking of +'08. All right. This is my sophomore year. I am +so confused by everything now. '06, repeat your +Page 275 +question or ask the question. +Q. You said you lived with +from +June to July of '06, during the summer after your +freshman year at +University. +A. No. Yeah, me and Lauren, like, yeah. +Q. You said you lived with her at her +parents' house. +A. Yeah, we stayed at her parents' house, +yeah. +Q. Well, had you filed a lawsuit against +Jeffrey Epstein then? +A. Yeah, I think so. Wait. Yeah, yeah, I +think so. +Q. Did you talk to +about it? +A. I'm sure, yeah. +Q. What did you tell her about it? +A. I don't remember. +Q. Did you ever, at any point in your life +right up until today tell anyone that you thought it +was outrageous that anyone would file a lawsuit +against Jeffrey Epstein because everybody knew what +the deal was and knew what they were doing or words +to that effect? +A. I think when everything first happened, me +and Lauren were going a lot. Me and her, we were +35 (Pages 272 to 275) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +124 +25 +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 36 of +Page 276 +just like, I mean, I didn't, I didn't even realize, +like, I didn't even know. And I was like defending +Mr. Epstein. I didn't even, like, think I - I +didn't even, I didn't even - I didn't - I didn't +even realize I was, like -- +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Take your time. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. I just need you to answer my question. +A. I know. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Well, she's getting +emotional. Let her take her time. Okay? +THE WITNESS: Yeah, I said that to Lauren, +because I didn't even think I was doing +anything wrong at the time. I didn't even +realize. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Okay. If you need a +minute, take a minute. Okay. +THE WITNESS: Can I have a napkin or do - +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Yes. Sure. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Now, what was your answer? You did say to +Lauren that you would be outrageous - +A. We, she said we both said it to each +other. We were just, like, I can't believe this is +happening, like, Jeffrey is such a great guy, like, +Page 277 +you know, like, saying all this stuff about, about +him. We didn't - I didn't realize, like, I didn't +even think I was doing anything wrong. I, I didn't +even think I was doing anything wrong. +Q. Wait a minute now. I want to go through +this slowly. You say you and Lauren said this to +each other? +A. Uh-huh. Whenever it first happened, +probably like in my freshman year in college when +everything went down, and we had no -- yeah, I think +I said it to her maybe once. +Q. Now, wait a minute now. You last went to +see Mr. Epstein in October of '05, right? +A. Yeah. +Q. So, now we're talking about June of '06. +A. No, it was not June of 06. That's not +whenever - whenever it first happened I said that +to her. It was like in '05 when everything was +going down. When everything was, like, when the +cops were starting to interview girls and were +starting to get interviewed, that's whenever I said +something. And I never said something to her in '06 +about it. +Q. Did you ever say anything to anyone from +January of '06 until January of "09 - +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +7 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 278 +A. No. +Q. Wait a minute. +A. Sorry. +Q. - from January of '06 to January of "09 +to the effect that it was outrageous for anybody to +sue Jeffrey Epstein, that everybody knew what they +were getting into and did everything voluntarily, or +words - +A. No. +Q. - to that effect? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Are you sure? +A. Yes. +Q. Would you stake your life on it? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form, +argumentative. +THE WITNESS: Yeah, I said it to Lauren. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +In that time period? +A. +1, I don't, I don't remember what time +period it was. +Q. Okay. Well, now are you telling me now +maybe you did say that during that time period? +Page 279 +A. Maybe I did - I don't remember what time +period. I know I've said it to Lauren before. I +don't remember exactly what time, what date, like, +what year. +Q. Here is your choices. You can either say +you did it, you can say you didn't do it, or you can +say you don't remember, right? Those are the only +three choices that there are. Do you agree with me? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +You're asking her when or are you asking her +if? +MR. LUTTIER: I am saying during that time +period. +THE WITNESS: I said that. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Or during the time +period. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. If you don't remember, just tell me -- +A. I don't remember. +Q. - you don't remember. +A. I don't remember. +Q. Which means, just so we're clear so we +don't have a problem with our language, when you say +you don't remember, you're not denying it, you are +just saying you have - +36 (Pages 276 to 279) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 37 of +Page 280 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +4 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +2 +A. I don't remember -- +Q. - no recollection one way or the other. +A. - of the time frame. +Q. Is that right? +A. Yeah, I don't remember the time frame. +Q. Is my statement correct? +A. Yes. +Q. Okay. So every time in this deposition +when you say I don't remember, what that means is it +may have happened, it may not have happened, you +have no recollection, correct? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +THE WITNESS: Yeah, yeah. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Okay. I just want to make sure we're +clear. If we're not clear, I will -- clear it up +for me right now. I want to make sure we have a +clear understanding on this record about what it +means when you say I don't remember. +A. Well, I've already said that I know I have +said that to Lauren, so that's not something that I +don't remember. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Okay. Okay. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. That's not my question. I want to make +Page 281 +sure were clear on - +A. Yeah. +Q. - this record. +A. Yeah. +Q. Let me ask the question. I want to make +sure we're clear on this record that when you say I +don't remember, what you mean is you have no +recollection of the event. You're not denying it +and you're not admitting it; you're saying you have +no recollection at all; is that correct? +A. Yeah. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. All right. Now, isn't it a fact that you +have made this statement to people other than +, between January of "06 and January of 09, +that everybody that went to see Jeffrey Epstein knew +exactly what they were getting into, did it +voluntarily, and it's outrageous that they would sue +him? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +THE WITNESS: Yeah. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Yeah. And who else did you make that +statement to? +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +117 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 282 +A. Jane Doe No. 7. +Q. Uh-huh. And tell us when you told Jane +Doe No. 7 that. +A. I don't remember. +Q. You told her that before you filed this +lawsuit, though, didn't you? +A. No, I don't remember. +Q. Now, I want to tell you that you filed +your lawsuit in 2008. Okay. You can assume that +and I'm sure your counsel will correct me if I'm +wrong, but you didn't file this lawsuit until 2008. +You had a lot of discussions with your friends that +had gone to Jeffrey Epstein before you filed this +lawsuit, didn't you? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Didn't you? +A. Yeah. +Q. And all those conversations were that +everybody knew what they were getting into, and it +was all done voluntarily, and at that time you-all +thought it was crazy that anybody would sue Jeffrey +Epstein, didn't you? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +THE WITNESS: Yeah. +Page 283 +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. That's what you told each other, didn't +you? +A. Some people did. Some people - I don't +remember. I mean, I don't remember who, like, yeah. +Q. And then what happened -- +MR. MERMELSTEIN: If you don't remember +say you don't remember. +THE WITNESS: Yeah, I don't remember, +like - +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Well, you said yeah, right? +A. No, but you're, you're, you're -- I don't +even know if it was a question. +MR. LUTTIER: Well, here, well, let's just +go back and read my question and her answer. +Listen carefully now. +THE WITNESS: Yeah. +(The requested portion of the record was +read by the reporter.) +THE WITNESS: No, not in all of those +conversations. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. In many of them? +A. No. +37 (Pages 280 to 283) + + +1 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +4 +5 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +124 +25 +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 38 of +Page 284 +Q. In any of them? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. That is you represented to your +friends, and you-all sat around and discussed it, +did you not? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Didn't you? +A. Yeah, we brought it up. +Q. Yeah. And when you brought -- tell me +some of the people that were in these groups that +you would discuss it. +A. I don't remember. +Q. You know Jane Doe No. 7 was there, don't +you? +A. Yeah. +Q. You know Lauren was there, don't you? +A. Yeah. +Q. You know that some more people were there, +don't you? +A. No, I don't remember who was all there. +Q. You know that at least the three of you +had the discussion? +A. Yeah. +Q. And in - +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 285 +A. There might have been more, but I don't +1 +2 +remember. +Q. And in that discussion, you-all said that +you-all knew what you were getting into and you did +it voluntarily, didn't you? +A. That's what I said. I don't know - +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. You said it? +A. I know I've said that before. +Q. All right. +A. I don't know if it was -- +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. And when you said - +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Wait. Hold it. She's +in the middle of her answer. +MR. LUTTIER: Okay. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Please finish your +answer. +THE WITNESS: I know I have said that +before. I am not saying that I said that I've +said that in every single - +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Okay. +A. - every conversation, and I'm not saying +5 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 286 +that they've said that and that - that they've +agreed upon what I said. +Q. Okay. But we now have established that +you have said that? +A. Yeah, I've said that, yeah. +Q. And it was true when you said it, wasn't +it? +A. Was it true? +Q. Yeah. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection. +THE WITNESS: Yeah, I, I mean -- +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Okay. +A. - at that time whenever -- +Q. And, and you didn't change your mind about +that until you were interviewed by the FBI and then +a lawyer contacted you about suing Jeffrey Epstein; +isn't that right? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Isn't that right? +A. Wait. Before the FBI - like you're +talking like - I don't even remember whenever I +brought up this conversation, so I don't even know +Page 287 +if it was before or after the FBI. You're bringing +up my, like, lawyer. You're bringing FBI lawyer +caught, like, bringing up all this stuff. I don't +remember whenever I made the statement, so I don't +know if it was before or after I had talked to these +people. +Q. So, you may have made the statement that +everybody knew what they were getting into and did +it voluntarily and it was outrageous to sue +Jeffrey Epstein, even after the point in time -- +A. I don't remember whenever I-- +Q. - you went to you are lawyer; is that +right? +A. I don't remember whenever I made that +statement, so I don't know whether it was before or +after my, my lawyers, and I don't know if it was +before or after I had spoken to the FBI. +Q. Before you filed this lawsuit, you had +represented that everything you did with Jeffrey +Epstein was up front, you knew about it and you did +it voluntarily, didn't you? +A. Yeah. +Q. And that was the truth, wasn't it? +A. Yeah. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +38 (Pages 284 to 287) + + +3 +4 +5 +6 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 39 of +Page 288 +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Jeffrey Epstein never asked you to do +anything that you didn't want to do, did he? +A. He asked me to take my underwear off one +time. +Q. And you said, no, and he didn't press it, +right? +A. No. +Q. Then you went back to him again after +that? +A. Yeah. +Q. And you took your top off without even -- +him even asking, right? +A. Yeah. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: This has all been asked +and answered. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Then you took your, you actually took your +underwear off after that, that is your panties, +didn't you? +A. Yeah. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: All been asked and +answered. +BY MR. MERMELSTEIN: +Q. Did you do it without him asking? +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 289 +A. He asked and I did it - +Q. You didn't say no, did you? +A. - after, after, after saying no several +times. +Q. And each time you said no, he didn't press +it. You left your panties on, right? +A. Finally I, I gave in and I said fine. +Yeah. +Q. Well, that was after you got paid $200 and +then you came back again, and you said no, and he +didn't have you take your panties off, right? +A. (No verbal response.) +Q. Correct? +A. Yeah. +Q. And you got $200 and you came back again, +and you said no, and he didn't have you take your +panties off, right? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, asked and +answered. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Right? +A. Yeah. +Q. And you got paid $200, right? +A. Yeah. +Q. And you came back a fourth time, and again +1 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 290 +he asked you to take your panty's off? +A. Yeah. +Q. Is that right? +A. (No verbal response.) +Q. Is that right? +A. Yeah. +Q. And then did you agree to do it? +A. Yeah. +Q. Voluntarily? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. And then did you come back another +time? +A. Yeah. +Q. And did you take your bra off and take +your panties off? +A. Yeah. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, asked and +answered. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. And give him a massage in the nude? +A. Yeah. +Q. You did it voluntarily without him even +asking on that occasion, didn't you? +A. Yeah. +Q. And thereafter, did you come and give him +Page 291 +massages in the total nude without him even asking +you to take your clothes off? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, asked and +answered. +THE WITNESS: Yeah, some -every other +time. I'm sure he asked several others. I +mean, I'm not saying I was just like - yeah. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Got to the point were you came and just +voluntarily got naked before you gave him the +massage, didn't you? +A. No. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, asked and +answered. +THE WITNESS: Sometimes I'd have my +clothes on, and then he'd ask me take them off, +but after the, after I had my shirt off that +one time, you know, maybe he asked me to take +my shirt off but I would because I already had +my shift off the other time. I'm not saying +that every single time I was just like taking +my shirt off before he even got into the room. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. But you -- +A. But when he asked, I did it, because the +39 (Pages 288 to 291) + + +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +119 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 40 of +Page 292 +time before I had already taken my shirt off. +Q. But there were times that you came and +voluntarily took all your clothes off without him +even asking you, weren't there? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, asked and +answered. +THE WITNESS: I don't know. I don't +remember. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Now you don't know? +A. I'm sure. I- +Q. So, it did happen? +A. I don't remember, so I don't know. +Q. Well, was this a significant, were these +significant events in your life or not? +A. Yeah, they were. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, +argumentative. +THE WITNESS: But I had gone there -- +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. But you can't remember what happened - +THE COURT REPORTER: One at a time. +MR. LUTTIER: Huh? +THE COURT REPORTER: One at a time. +MR. LUTTIER: Okay. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +117 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 293 +BY MR LUTTIER: +Q. You can't remember what happened -- +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Take your time. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. - on these significant events? +A. Yeah, I do, I remember, but it's, I was +going there two or three times a week. So after +going there the first time and it getting +progressively worse, I mean, it was the same, it was +like the same thing every single time I went after +that moment I had taken my clothes off. +So, after I had taken - I remember, so +when I had -- finally when I had all my clothes off, +of course I remember - I mean, I don't remember, +you know, I took all my clothes off that one time +I'm not going to remember the next time, what +happened the three times after you took off your +clothes, did he ask you that time? +Maybe he did. I don't remember, but I'm +sure, maybe I took some of my clothes off without +him asking. Maybe he, you know, after I took all my +clothes off, you know, it was just kind of like +known and given that that is what goes on, like, +that's what happens. +Q. Let, let me make sure that I understood +1 +3 +4 +6 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 294 +what you just said. You don't remember what +happened each time, do you? +A. Yes, I do. +Q. Well, I thought you just said you don't +remember. +A. +After -- no, I do remember. +Q. +1, окау. +A. But I don't remember if he asked me to +take my clothes off every single time, or if 1 +voluntarily did it. +Q. Do you remember -- +A. Yeah, I-- +Q. - or do you not remember? +A. Yeah, I - yes, I voluntarily - +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, asked and +answered. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Okay. You volunteered to take your +clothes off, right? +A. If he asked me, yes. +Q. Well, there were times you came and he +didn't even ask you anything and you took them off, +right? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. And you were comfortable being +Page 295 +naked in front of him. +A. Yeah. +Q. Wasn't the first time you had been naked +in front of a man. +A. Not the first time I was naked in front of +him, I wasn't comfortable. +Q. Did you tell him you weren't comfortable? +A. No. +Q. So, how was he supposed to know? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form, +argumentative, speculation. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. How was he supposed to know? +A. I don't know. +Q. Because every time you said you were +uncomfortable about something or didn't want to do +it, he respected your wishes, did he not? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +THE WITNESS: Yeah, but he was also, like, +complimenting me and saying how beautiful I am, +and saying that I shouldn't be, like, like +embarrassed or uncomfortable, like, you know. +If I, if I would look like it. If I had my +other side, if I looked like I was Jane Doe +No. 4 (short form) instead of Jane Doe No. 4, +40 (Pages 292 to 295) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 41 of +Page 296 +then he would be, like, +д, well, you're +beautiful. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Would you agree with me, you weren't +traumatized because the man said you were beautiful, +were you? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form, +argumentative. +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. He treated you better than the person that +you described as the first love of your life, +Preston Vinyard, didn't he? +A. Yeah. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Preston Vinyard called you a whore, a slut +and a cunt, didn't he? +A. Yeah. +Q. Jeffrey Epstein never did that, did he? +A. No. +Q. He spit in your -- that's Mr. Vinyard spit +in your face, dumped beer all over you - +A. Yeah. +Q. - didn't he? Jeffrey Epstein never did +Page 297 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +that, did he? +A. No. +Q. And it was traumatizing to you what +Preston Vinyard did to you, wasn't it? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form, calls +for a conclusion. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. It would be to anybody. +A. It would be to anybody, yeah. +Q. Okay. All right. +MR. CRITTON: The time. How much time do +you have left? +THE VIDEOGRAPHER: About three. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Now, there were some other traumatic +events that had occurred in your life, haven't there +been? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, that's been +asked and answered. +THE WITNESS: Yeah. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. When you went to see Dr. Kliman, did you +understand that you were - what did you understand +about what you were to tell him? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection. +1 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 298 +THE WITNESS: I wasn't told to tell him +anything. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. What did you understand about what you +were supposed to do when he asked you a question? +A. Nobody told me to tell him anything. +Q. So, when he asked a question, you didn't +know if you were supposed to answer -- +A. I answered honestly. I answered - +whenever he asked me a question about my personal +life, 1, 1 mean, I was supposed to tell him about my +person life nobody knows. +Q. So, let me make sure we have this. You +answered honestly every question Dr. Kliman asked +you; is that right? +A. Yeah. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Now, I want to be fair to you. We got a +transcript of your interview with Dr. Kliman. Are +you aware of that? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. Have you had a chance to review it? +A. No, not like since I've been there. +Q. Now, so now that you know we have a +Page 299 +transcript, I want to make sure we're clear, every +question that Dr. Kliman answered of (sic) you, you +answered truthfully, correct? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +THE WITNESS: Yeah, I think so. I mean, +yeah. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. You told him -- did you tell him about all +the traumatic things that happened to you in your +life? +A. Yeah. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. You say you're Roman Catholic? +A. Yeah. +Q. How many abortions have you had? +A. How many? +Q. Yeah, how many, as in more than one. +A. Yeah. +Q. How many have you had? +A. Three. +Q. Three abortions. And how many did you +tell Dr. Kliman you had? +A. I don't even know if he asked me the +question. +41 (Pages 296 to 299) + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 42 of +Page 300 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +Q. How about the question, have you ever been +2 +pregnant; do you remember being asked that question? +3 +A. No, I don't. +4 +5 +Q. Well, if the transcript shows that you +were asked that question, and if you were honest +with Dr. Kliman like you told us you would, you +would have told him that you had three pregnancies, +wouldn't you? +A. I would have stated that to like my lawyer +though, because -- +Q. No, no, no. I want to know about +Dr. Kliman. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Don't talk about what +you told your lawyer. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Yeah, I don't want to ask you about your +lawyer. I know you tell your lawyer all kinds of +stuff. +A. Uh-huh. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. I want to know whether or not if +Dr. Kliman asked you if you'd ever had any +pregnancies - +A. That is -- +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 301 +Q. - you would have answered him truthfully, +and you would have told him you had three +pregnancies, wouldn't you? +A. I don't - It's something I don't want +anybody to know, in fact, no. +Q. Why not? Why don't you want people to +know -- +A. Why not? +Q. - you went and aborted three kids? Why +wouldn't you want people to know that? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form, +argumentative. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Tell me why you wouldn't want them to know +that. +A. Because it's none of their business. +Q. Does it cause you any upset to know that +you aborted three kids in your life? +A. Of course. +Q. Why does it cause you upset? +Because, somebody's life +). Were you told before each of thes +abortions that you had what they call viable +fetuses? +1 +2 +5 +6 +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 302 +THE WITNESS: What is viable? +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. That is there was a heartbeat in the +fetus. +A. No. +Q. Are you sure? +A. I didn't want to know anything about it. +Q. Are your sure you weren't told you had a +viable fetus? +A. It might have been in the papers that I +signed. I don't - I'm not sure that I - +Q. I want to be fair to you. I want to tell +you we've got your medical records, too, okay? +A. Yeah. +Q. So, the records from your gynecologist, we +have those too. +A. Okay. +Q. Now, were you told before you aborted +these three children -- +A. I don't know. +Q. - that you had a viable tetus? +A. I don't know. I don't remember. +Q. Does it give you any, any emotional pain +that you aborted three fetuses? +A. Yeah, I have had emotional pain about it. +Page 303 +Q. It's contrary to everything you ever +learned as a child as a Roman Catholic, isn't it? +A Yeah. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, +argumentative. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Does your mom know you aborted three kids? +A. No. +Q. Does your dad know you aborted three kids? +A. No. +Q. What do you think they'd think? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form, +argumentative. +THE WITNESS: I don't know. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Do you think they're going to be happy +about that? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form, +argumentative. +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Is it going to cause you a little +emotional upset? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +THE WITNESS: I mean, I have - I have to +42 (Pages 300 to 303) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +9 +10 +11 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 43 of +Page 304 +deal with it when I talk to, when I speak to +them. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. My question is, is it going to cause you +any emotional upset? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +THE WITNESS: I don't know because I +haven't experienced it. I'm sure. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Wouldn't you agree with me that aborting +three fetuses - +A. Yeah. +Q. - would be far more traumatic - +A +It is. +Q - than giving a man a massage in the +nude? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, +argumentative. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Wouldn't you agree with me? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. I want you to tell the ladies and +gentlemen of the jury whether or not aborting three +fetuses is more traumatic than giving a man a +Page 305 +3 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +massage in the nude. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Just tell the ladies and gentlemen in the +camera, yes or no. +A. Yeah. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Did you go get any psychological help for +the fact that you aborted three kids? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form. +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q Are you telling Dr. Ruepto, Rubello (sic), +whatever his name is, that you had three abortions? +A. Have I told him? +Q. Yeah. +A. Yeah. +Q. And did you tell him how you felt about +that? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection. +THE WITNESS: Yeah. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. And when did you tell him that? +A. I don't remember. +1 +2 +3 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 306 +Q. Did you tell him -- +A I don't-- +Q - the first visit? +A. I don't remember what visit I told him, +but I know I told him. +Q. Okay. He is the first guy you ever told, +right? +A. First guy that I ever told? +Q. The first doctor, medical health +professional that you told you had, you aborted +three fetuses, didn't you? +A. Yeah. +Q. You didn't tell Kliman, did you? +A. No. +Q. Didn't want Kliman to know. +A. I didn't want anybody to know that, no. +Q. Because it's embarrassing to you, isn't +it? +A. Yeah. +Q. It makes you feel bad, doesn't it? +A. Yeah. +Q. Tell me how it makes you feel. +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection. +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. How do you feel that you aborted three +Page 307 +babies? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form, asked +and answered. +THE WITNESS: How do I feel? +BY MR. LUTTIER: +Q. Tell me how you feel. +A. How would you feel? +Q. Well, I know how I'd feel, but that's not +the question. +A. Yeah. +Q. I want to know how you feel. +A. It was very upsetting and emotional. +Q. How upsetting? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection to form, +argumentative. +MR. CRITTON: Mark, you have no time. +MR. LUTTIER: Okay. +THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're off the record at +4:10. This is the end of Tape 2. +(A brief recess was held.) +***** +43 (Pages 304 to 307) + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 44 of +A +abase 226:3 +· 140:24 +able 166:5 218:5 +270:3,8 +aborted 301:9,18 +302:18,24 303:7,9 +305:10 306:10,25 +aborting 304:10,24 +abortions 299:16 +299:22 301:23 +305:15 +abused 243:18 +abusive 202:15,19 +203:5 +accident 207:10 +209:10,12 210:9 +account 156:14 +accused 225:21 +accusing 225:17 +ADAM 140:8 +address 198:13,15 +198:16,17 +ADLER 140:3 +admitting 281:9 +advanced 161:15 +advertising 258:17 +advice 251:1 +advise 250:19 +afternoon 160:22 +afterward 157:24 +age 211:22 +ago 181:11 260:10 +262:17 265:5,6 +agree 164:1,11 +167:10 213:23 +279:8 290:7 296:4 +304:10.20 +agreed 286:2 +ahead 143:11 +153:11 196:23 +239:13 +ahold 257:16 +Ahorowitz@sexa.. +140:11 +alcohol 221:19,22 +222:1 +allows 148:9 +amount 243:18 +answer 155:23 +174:13 176:3 +182:8 208:23 +213:19 220:12 +228:18 232:7 +234:13 237:11,20 +241:19 247:20 +254:6 262:21,21 +262:25 270:22 +276:8,21 283:16 +285:16,19 298:8 +answered 153:10 +155:22 182:23 +183:1 220:12 +248:4 253:21 +255:22 260:21 +288:16,23 289:19 +290:18 291:4,14 +292:6 294:16 +297:19 298:9,9,14 +299:2,3 301:1 +307:3 +answering 240:14 +243:15 +answers 141:15 +233:4,11 234:7,23 +236:14 +anybody 173:5 +186:3 208:5,24 +217:1 236:20 +242:22,23,24 +244:10 255:9 +257:8 267:2 268:3 +270:15 278:5 +282:22 297:8,9 +301:5 306:16 +anybody's 252:5 +anyway 209:9 +apart 192:21 +apparently 161:1 +appear 185:21 +APPEARANCES +140:1 +appeared 226:5 +appearing 225:9 +appointment 238:9 +244:20 267:11,18 +268:2 270:19 +272:12,18 273:11 +appointments +172:5,6,19 239:21 +270:1 +appreciate 171:16 +appropriate 182:15 +approve 199:16,17 +area 182:7,14 +argued 204:21 +arguing 204:24 +205:1,2,3 231:23 +232:3 +argument 172:15 +argumentative +157:15 160:4 +177:16 195:4 +206:14 215:19 +230:18 241:19 +243:5,25 278:18 +292:18 295:11 +296:8 301:12 +303:5,13,19 +304:18 307:15 +arguments 200:14 +204:15 +arranged 267:12 +asked 150:22 +153:10 154:2,8 +155:21 160:14,18 +160:23,25 161:3 +161:20 163:25 +164:11,17,22 +165:17 167:15 +170:9 174:5,14,17 +174:20 176:14,18 +181:11 184:7,21 +184:23 190:15 +214:5,21 215:0,9 +220:11 229:12,12 +237:19 248:3 +251:10 253:6,20 +255:1.24 260:20 +288:2,4,15,22 +289:1,18 290:1,17 +291:3,6,13,18,25 +292:5 294:8,15,20 +Page +1 +297:19 298:5,7,10 +298:14 299:24 +300:2,5,23 307:2 +asking 144:16 +147:24 162:10 +166:2,10 174:2,7 +175:2 212:11,15 +279:10,10 288:13 +288:25 290:23 +291:1 292:4 +293:21 +asks 175:14 +assist 252:6 +Assistant 252:9 +associated 255:9 +Associates 234:16 +234:20,24 235:5 +235:10 236:16 +239:6 +assume 150:12 +162:2 226:24 +227:8 282:9 +assumed 175:9 +assuming 246:8 +attention 268:13 +attorney 251:22,23 +252:10 254:18 +Attorney's 253:17 +August 180:4,9 +271:9,13,16,22,23 +271:23 272:24 +Australian 139:17 +automatically +Avenue 139:17 +140:15 +aware 185:17 +195:15,17 222:13 +222:16 298:21 +awful 264:6 +в 141:10 +babies 307:1 +back 142:6 143:1,2 +143:5,7 151:14 +163:14 174:12,16 +177:20 182:19 +183:4 184:12,15 +186:11 193:18,20 +195:12 201:16,17 +202:1 214:20 +218:21,24 240:16 +251:18 267:10 +270:25 283:16 +288:9 289:10,15 +289:25 290:11 +background +199:21 200:6 +244:11 +backup 253:16 +bad 162:3 163:9 +169:22 210:5 +306:20 +bank 156:12,13 +Banyan 140:20 +Bar 259:16,20 +beach 139:18 +140:21 163:2 +187:5,16 227:2 +beautiful 295:20 +296:2,5 +bed 192:18 +bedroom 201:1,4 +beer 296:23 +began 146:9 242:14 +beginning 142:5 +145:17,18,19,20 +145:24 146:1,3,5 +146:9 147:7,15,17 +147:19 148:10,16 +151:13 153:6,8,16 +180:8,8 195:8 +199:24 +begun 168:12 +behalf 140:2,7,13 +140:18 +believe 276:24 +bell 264:1 +best 159:2 191:7,8 +252:17 263:7 +269:10 +better 165:5 195:12 +252:5 296:11 +beyond 191:6 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 45 of +big 190:19,21 +204:23,24 +birth 213:6 +Biscayne 140:9 +bit 205:12 272:2 +bitch 169:8 +blue 246:6 257:21 +Bob 252:19 +Boca 239:21 +book 205:9 +born 208:6,12,15 +boss 203:21,21 +Boulevard 140:4,9 +140:20 +boyfriend 178:4,6 +178:8,15 208:8 +227:1 231:24 +232:4 +boyfriends 206:19 +Boyfriend-girlfri... +207:25 +bra 144:4 146:15 +146:17 154:20 +166:19 167:7,8,13 +167:18,23 170:17 +171:2,23 174:17 +174:18,22 175:2,6 +175:11 183:9,15 +224:20,25 226:2 +290:14 +Brad 209:14 +break 218:15 +237:13 +brief 218:20 307:20 +bring 160:12,15,17 +160:18 228:14 +229:12,13 +bringing 173:2 +287:1,2,3 +broke 142:9 +broken 203:11 +brother 209:14,16 +brought 142:13 +158:25 172:25 +173:5 188:15 +229:10,11,14,15 +263:13 284:9,10 +286:25 +bucks 155:6 156:25 +163:18 168:1 +177:1,6 +buddy 198:25 +buddy's 199:2,3 +build 170:1 +bump 160:20 +BURMAN 140:20 +business 301:16 +busy 214:18 270:2 +button 142:15 +145:8 +C +cab 201:16,16,21 +201:24 202:1,7 +calculator 177:9 +calendar 179:21 +194:1 +California 244:22 +call 143:1,2,5,6 +169:6,8,10,12,14 +185:8,12 191:3 +203:21 205:6,8 +251:12,19 253:10 +253:18 255:18 +257:6 258:25 +269:9 301:23 +called 184:23,25 +251:13,15 252:16 +253:3 255:1 +256:11 257:20,23 +258:11,11 261:4,8 +296:17 +calling 142:20 +149:18,20 +calls 206:25 297:5 +camera 305:5 +capris 171:12 +car 159:15 161:11 +185:23 209:13 +210:11,15 +care 268:13,15,19 +268:22 +carefully 185:2 +208:21 283:17 +case 139:2 150:19 +244:10 246:15,19 +249:15 +291:2,16 292:3 +cases 139:9 +293:11,13,15,18 +cash 156:15 +293:20,22 294:9 +casual 158:2,3 +294:19 +Catholic 188:18,19 +clothing 167:2 +189:13 299:14 +190:9 +303:2 +coach 270:17 +caught 287:3 +coaching 150:15 +cause 301:17,20 +cocaine 216:23 +303:22 304:4 +217:1 219:15,17 +caused 204:13,20 +219:20 221:6 +cellphone 185:17 +Coke 215:4 +185:22 +COLEMAN +certainly 170:12 +140:20 +182:15 +college 185:25 +chance 298:23 +187:4,10 189:1 +change 286:15 +239:17,19 277:9 +changing 201:1 +come 165:25 175:6 +202:2 +182:13 183:4 +chest 201:5 +184:11,15,21 +child 303:2 +185:9 187:20 +children 302:19 +189:3 192:20 +choices 279:5,8 +193:18,20 203:21 +choke 205:16 +244:23 257:15 +choked 205:18 +260:19 265:25 +Chris 207:8,18 +267:2 290:11,25 +209:19 +comes 153:18 +Christmas 211:13 +175:13 +church 188:23,25 +comfortable 229:21 +189:4,9,20,23,25 +235:3 294:25 +circulated 224:9 +295:6,7 +circumstances +communicate +148:8 +246:13 +city 191:7 +compared 193:15 +claim 151:22 +competitive 190:24 +claiming 183:19 +191:2 +classes 229:6 +complimenting +clause 233:20 +295:20 +clear 179:20 240:14 | conclude 148:9 +256:6 279:22 +151:10 +280:16,16,16,18 +conclusion 206:25 +281:1,6 299:1 +297:6 +clearly 182:14 +conduet 182:5 +cleats 190:17 +conference 140:24 +clothed 152:9 +conflict 235:15 +clothes 152:12 +236:6,17 273:7 +156:18 192:13 +confused 232:9 +201:1,11 228:13 +274:25 +Page 2 +consult 266:10,13 +Consulting 234:17 +contact 257:25 +258:5,7 259:6 +262:8 +contacted 184:17 +184:20 249:16,17 +249:20,23,24 +250:6 251:16 +253:14 258:2,9,14 +286:17 +contacting 258:10 +contains 233:14 +CONTINUED +141:6 142:3 +contract 260:17 +contrary 303:1 +conversation +143:14 159:24 +161:9,18 247:23 +248:24 256:4,19 +257:3 260:11,15 +285:25 286:25 +conversations +250:20 282:19 +283:22 +cops 186:24 201:8 +202:5 277:20 +corner 201:19 +correct 149:4 161:4 +165:23 166:11 +193:6 198:9 +215:24 216:11,19 +220:10 221:13 +230:3,4,6 234:7 +247:3 255:2 280:6 +280:11 281:10 +282:10 289:13 +299:3 +counsel 282:10 +Counseling 234:16 +counselor 268:14 +country 244:23 +couple 153:25 +187:24 191:15,15 +193:13 207:23 +265:10 +course 161:20 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 46 of +193:14 265:17 +293:14 301:19 +court 139:1,22 +142:16,25 143:4 +182:11 203:25 +204:3 254:24 +292:22,24 +cover 174:16 +covering 201:5 +crazy 282:22 +criminal 199:20 +200:6 +CRITTON 140:19 +140:20 142:14,17 +142:21 143:2,8 +150:5,23 182:20 +237:9,13 297:11 +307:16 +CROSS 141:4 +cunt 169:12 296:18 +Cynthia 139:21 +C.M.A 140:13 +D +D 140:8,19 141:2 +dad 186:16,19 +187:14 190:6,17 +192:3 197:4 199:6 +199:12,25 200:1,2 +200:8 303:9 +dad's 274:13 +dangerous 170:14 +date 145:15 147:4 +148:1 149:8 151:6 +153:15 195:2,6 +197:21 207:24 +208:1,2,4,19 +213:6 231:19 +279:3 +dated 193:12 +195:18 206:5 +208:7,13,15,18,24 +dates 144:17 +148:22,23 195:11 +231:17 238:24 +dating 178:19 +194:10,12,20 +197:19,23 198:7 +199:18 211:12,15 +211:20 222:25 +day 157:24 159:14 +208:6 214:18 +217:22,22 246:6 +247:6,16 248:25 +249:1,2,3,5 +257:12 268:16 +days 190:10 225:15 +deal 275:22 304:1 +December 172:13 +272:6,9,13,16 +decide 269:22 +decided 161:14 +250:18,25 +Defendant 139:8 +140:18 +Defendant's 141:14 +141:15,16,17,18 +233:7,11 +defending 276:2 +definitely 228:11 +degree 254:9 +demean 169:19,21 +deny 184:20 +denying 185:3 +279:24 281:8 +Department 187:6 +depending 195:14 +depict 226:25 +depicting 224:18 +deposition 139:12 +145:3 148:21 +179:9 215:6,23 +280:8 +described 179:4,16 +193:18,22 296:12 +describing 178:4 +DESCRIPTION +141:13 +determination +216:4 +development +191:25 +deviated 161:14 +die 207:2,5 210:2,6 +died 207:6,20 +difference 188:11 +different 150:18 +236:16 237:1,6,6 +152:12 164:4,9 +237:15 238:7,10 +165:2 178:1 +238:11,21 244:15 +digest 270:10 +248:1,16 267:10 +direct 141:4 142:3 +267:11,14 268:17 +182:8 +269:20,23 270:1 +directly 172:19 +270:12 272:13,18 +disappointed 197:4 +273:6 297:22 +disbarred 259:22 +298:14,20 299:2 +259:24 260:6 +299:23 300:6,12 +discuss 235:9 +300:23 305:14 +248:23 284:12 +dressed 143:15 +discussed 268:9 +drill 151:2 +284:4 +drink 221:22 222:3 +discussion 247:5,7 +drinking 205:5 +247:12 284:23 +213:8,12,14 +285:3 +drive 161:5,14 +discussions 221:15 +driver 202:1 +221:18 255:20 +driving 209:13 +262:1,5 264:25 +210:11,18 +282:12 +drop 201:24 +distinct 150:14 +dropped 201:22,25 +DISTRICT 139:1,1 +225:16 +doctor 306:9 +dropping 167:2 +Doe 139:4,12 141:5 +drove 158:7 161:6 +164:3,5,6 165:4 +161:7 +245:10,12,13,14 +drug 214:25 221:16 +245:15,17,19 +drugs 215:3,7,8,11 +247:23 248:12 +215:13 216:22,25 +249:6 262:2,7 +218:11 219:4 +263:4,22,24 264:2 +221:12 222:3 +264:4,4,7,9,11 +drunk 210:11,16 +267:6 282:1,3 +210:23 213:17,22 +284:14 295:24,25 +DUI 207:10 209:11 +doing 155:8 158:18 | dumped 296:23 +158:20 160:19 +168:16 170:4,9 +E +177:6 179:5,15 +E 141:2,10 +180:19 181:1 +earlier 214:21 +182:12 186:10 +215:5 234:19 +187:23 200:20 +273:15 +201:9 206:3,6 +East 140:4 +219:3 220:17 +Ecstasy 217:6,8,10 +229:21 275:22 +217:13,20 219:11 +276:13 277:3,4 +219:13,19 220:10 +door 200:25 201:3 +220:14,17 +201:10 202:3 +effect 275:23 278:5 +Dr 234:17,17,20 +278:10 +Page 3 +ego 170:1 +eighth 144:8 +either 173:19 +216:19 239:5 +250:25 279:5 +embarrassed +229:24 230:3 +295:22 +embarrassing +225:10,11,23,25 +306:17 +emotional 276:11 +302:23,25 303:23 +304:5 307:12 +empty 152:6 +ended 239:22 +entered 200:24 +Epstein 139:7 +140:18,24 142:10 +143:14 146:6 +151:8 152:4 +153:18 157:9 +158:1,18,21,23 +163:25 164:10,17 +164:21 166:2,6,18 +167:4 168:9,18 +170:5,9,18 172:20 +173:7,10,18 +174:17 178:3,7,14 +178:18 179:5,13 +180:13,21,25 +181:3 182:6 +183:10,16,23 +184:2,12,21 185:8 +185:13 202:25 +203:3,5 204:6 +205:24 207:15 +220:22 221:1,4,7 +221:10,12,21,25 +223:4,7,10,15,20 +224:1,5 226:15 +227:13,15,22,24 +228:7,25 229:2,19 +231:7,11,12 +232:17,23 235:6 +235:11,25 236:3 +245:2 247:3,25 +249:7 261:1 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 47 of +266:24 268:3,6,10 +268:16,20,23 +274:18,22 275:11 +275:21 276:3 +277:13 278:6 +281:17 282:13,23 +286:17 287:10,20 +288:2 296:20,25 +Epstein's 157:20 +160:10 161:4,15 +161:17,19 162:20 +179:14 185:21 +186:4,13 193:3,6 +193:8,9,16 222:11 +222:14,23 +ESQUIRE 140:3,8 +140:8,14,19,19 +established 286:3 +estimate 213:23 +event 148:6,14 +152:14 158:1 +211:21 227:9 +281:8 +events 151:18,20 +192:4,6 292:15 +293:5 297:16 +eventually 263:16 +everybody 153:3 +225:13 226:2 +275:21 278:6 +281:17 282:20 +287:8 +Evidence 140:25 +182:5 +EX 141:14,15,16,17 +141:18 +exact 147:4 151:6 +153:15 195:2,5 +225:2 231:17,18 +238:24 247:16 +exactly 144:7 +148:25 152:18 +171:19 244:8 +266:19 279:3 +281:18 +exam 245:20 +248:13 +examination 142:3 +246:14 247:2,8,24 +example 148:16 +229:4 +excessive 210:19 +excuse 142:14 +201:10 +exhaustive 244:16 +Exhibit 141:13 +233:3,7,11 +expect 158:15 +159:8 +experience 175:10 +265:12 +experienced 265:13 +304:8 +expert 237:4,8,19 +explain 163:17 +extent 250:17 +E-mail 140:11 +E. W 140:2 +F +face 169:4 204:24 +296:23 +fact 180:7 186:10 +194:10 195:15,17 +212:8 221:21 +235:5,14,24 +239:11 244:2,9 +259:9 268:5 +281:14 301:5 +305:10 +fair 148:24 153:2 +171:21 182:16 +298:19 302:12 +fake 211:25 212:2,9 +212:13,16,17 +family 190:4,5 +236:23 +far 179:4 215:23 +304:13 +fast 210:22 +father-like 232:1 +favorite 229:5 +FBI 186:25 251:9 +251:18 254:22 +255:2,5,8,10 +256:10 261:23 +first 143:13 144:1,2 +286:16,23 287:1,2 +144:23,23 147:8 +287:17 +149:11 151:5,17 +fear 203:23,24,25 +151:22,23 152:15 +204:6,13,20 +153:9,25 157:20 +fed 192:16 +158:19,25 166:4 +Federal 182:4 +167:23 168:6 +feed 142:22 +171:23 172:3 +feel 169:23 306:20 +173:8,11,13 174:9 +306:22,25 307:4,6 +174:17 176:17 +307:7,8,11 +183:9,15,22 184:1 +fell 192:21 +187:1,14 193:7,7 +fellow 178:10 193:1 +196:6 207:18 +193:9,12,14,15,22 +194:22,25 195:18 +felt 305:19 +195:19 197:14 +female 256:14 +198:3,7,14 199:18 +fetus 302:4,9,21 +199:24 201:22 +fetuses 301:24 +202:17 209:15 +302:24 304:11,25 +210:16 212:2,2 +306:11 +213:11,13 217:10 +fifth 144:7,13,24 +217:13 219:20 +146:14 171:24 +220:22 222:9 +figure 235:1 +233:12,12 235:4 +file 275:20 282:11 +257:25 258:4,5,7 +filed 186:11 230:13 +258:14 259:3 +230:24 231:4,5 +260:11 267:21 +239:1 242:15 +268:2,6,8,23 +262:3 274:21 +269:15 272:4 +275:10 282:5,8,13 +275:24 277:8,17 +287:18 +293:8 295:3,5 +filing 260:25 +296:12 306:3,6,8 +fill 241:8,9 243:23 +306:9 +244:4 +fishing 160:2,6 +finally 289:7 +293:13 +five 153:3 181:11 +218:17 255:24 +find 161:10 239:8 +five-second 256:3 +249:15 253:7 +flew 244:22 +257:11 260:8 +Florida 139:1,18 +265:8 +139:22 140:5,10 +fine 289:7 +140:16,21 259:16 +finger 205:12 +259:20 +fingering 146:19,21 | flying 245:22 246:7 +146:22 +folks 187:19,22 +finish 161:2 172:11 +food 190:9 +228:22 254:5 +forensic 237:8 +285:18 +forget 148:17 +firm 249:17,22 +149:16 +250:1 +forgotten 195:21 +Page 4 +form 150:9,13 +152:22 153:7 +162:21 164:5 +165:5 166:12 +186:7,14 196:1 +202:20 206:13,24 +208:17 209:21 +213:24 215:18 +216:1 223:11 +230:8,15,25 +236:18 237:10 +242:11 243:2,8,13 +243:24 245:7 +257:18 259:13,24 +260:12 261:2 +262:10 263:18 +267:24 269:24 +278:11,17 279:9 +280:12 281:12,21 +282:15,24 284:6 +285:7 286:19 +287:25 295:10,18 +295:25 296:7,15 +297:5 299:4,12 +301:11,25 303:12 +303:18,24 304:6 +305:2,7,11 307:2 +307:14 +formal 197:1 +forms 239:24 +243:23 244:3 +Fort 140:5 +fought 200:11,13 +found 265:2,5,7 +266:1 267:17 +four 144:1,3 151:10 +254:12,12 +fourth 142:10,11 +143:11,18,20 +144:10 145:14,17 +145:19,23 146:1,4 +146:11,13 151:9 +151:13 153:16 +166:16 171:22,24 +289:25 +FPR 139:21 +frame 146:24 +198:11 261:25 +EFTA02748350R + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 48 of +262:23 280:3,5 +Francisco 238:11 +freak 224:2 +freaked 201:6 +free 214:16 +frequently 249:4 +freshman 185:25 +187:3,10 194:2,4 +207:13,13,19,20 +225:7 239:14,17 +239:19 241:24 +242:3 272:16,23 +275:4 277:9 +Friday 214:9 +friend 159:2 162:19 +170:10 203:15 +207:5,7,7 209:19 +209:23,25 210:2 +219:4 224:17 +245:11 263:4,8 +265:14 +friendly 154:1 +168:20 177:23 +friends 156:20,21 +159:3,5,9 170:13 +177:24 206:18 +207:2,4 214:19 +218:9,10 236:23 +245:1 249:4 262:2 +264:24 265:3 +266:13,14,21 +267:4 282:12 +284:4 +front 180:15 183:7 +183:9,14,16 +200:16,17 201:2,4 +205:22 243:8 +287:20 295:1,4,5 +frustrated 171:8 +fully 152:8 +funny 229:3,18 +G +game 182:16 +189:11 270:18 +games 214:11 +generally 194:25 +gentlemen 304:24 +305:4 +getting 146:6 +156:22 172:23 +180:15 182:7 +186:24 201:20 +206:19 232:5 +240:10 243:19 +249:3 251:8 +260:25 276:10 +278:7 281:18 +282:20 285:4 +287:8 293:8 +Gilbert 234:17 +girl 160:15 194:25 +206:3 266:18 +girlfriend 178:15 +197:25 +girls 160:17 163:14 +173:1 277:20 +give 142:12 149:19 +153:19 154:21 +157:1,21 160:16 +161:15 165:22 +170:18 171:18 +184:21 185:9 +189:17 190:9,14 +190:14,17 197:12 +216:11 229:7 +237:13 243:2 +251:11 252:5,7,13 +253:9 255:17,25 +257:5 262:24 +266:9,12 290:20 +290:25 302:23 +given 181:25 +215:23 256:9 +293:23 +giving 160:16 +179:12 183:23 +184:2 241:17 +254:14 262:20 +304:15,25 +go 143:11 151:24 +152:1153:10 +157:19 160:1,23 +161:3,8,16,19 +164:7 165:4 +170:10 172:19 +174:12,16 182:19 +186:16 188:23,25 +189:9,20,23,25 +190:4,5 192:6,14 +196:23 198:13 +199:5 203:12,13 +203:14,16,17,17 +207:25 214:18,20 +218:15,15 223:16 +223:20,21 224:5 +229:5 231:10 +235:2,24 238:6 +239:13,20,21 +241:7 243:16 +245:22 246:3 +249:12 251:18 +257:11 258:6 +266:10,13,17,25 +267:3,19 269:15 +269:23 270:8 +272:18 273:12,15 +273:23 277:5 +283:16 305:9 +goes 293:23 +going 142:25 143:2 +143:5,9 145:7 +150:25 151:12 +153:18,25 159:20 +160:1,6 161:16 +162:3 163:3,15 +164:14 171:18 +172:7 175:10,11 +177:20 178:3 +182:7 186:11,16 +186:23 187:20 +189:3,7 193:2,14 +193:20 198:1 +201:7,23 202:24 +203:1,2 212:6 +214:5,15 218:14 +222:10,13,22 +223:4,6,10,14 +224:1 227:14 +228:15 235:3 +239:20 240:9,9 +245:11,16,21 +246:24 249:7 +256:1 262:22 +Page +5 +263:2,8,10,15,16 +265:9 267:22 +272:15 275:25 +277:19 293:7,8,16 +303:16,22 304:4 +good 150:6,17 +157:11,16 163:11 +186:4,12 188:2 +207:7 235:2 249:3 +259:16,18,19,21 +260:2 +gotten 157:9 +201:16 258:1 +grab 205:21 +grabbed 205:14,15 +graduated 179:23 +220:15 +great 276:25 +groups 284:11 +guess 147:22 +161:21 183:3 +186:17 201:21,23 +202:3 212:7 +guessing 161:19 +gummed 247:21 +guy 142:19 204:23 +229:7 276:25 +306:6,8 +guys 157:11 161:11 +248:21 254:19 +gynecologist +302:15 +H +H 140:14 141:10 +Haley 160:16,19 +172:4,7,15,20,24 +halls 160:21 +handed 233:10 +Handwritten +141:17 +hang 214:18 +hanging 218:9 +happen 162:3 +167:19 170:21 +176:13 201:12 +207:11,12 256:1 +292:12 +happened 148:5,9 +148:15,25 166:23 +203:22 204:9 +206:23 207:9,13 +211:5,7,8,10 +225:16 247:7 +248:10 260:24 +270:16 275:24 +277:8,17 280:10 +280:10 283:6 +292:21 293:2,17 +294:2 299:9 +happening 276:25 +happens 149:17 +293:24 +happy 163:18,21 +196:7 200:10 +303:16 +hard 209:19 +head 188:20 229:7 +heading 161:11 +health 239:23 +241:8,17 243:2,7 +243:13,14,23 +244:3,11 268:14 +306:9 +hear 174:15 208:11 +heard 201:4 237:10 +237:18,25 259:17 +267:8 +heartbeat 302:3 +held 218:20 307:20 +help 150:21 160:8 +231:6 240:10 +252:4,17 253:8 +255:15,25 261:8 +305:9 +helped 240:22 +helpful 243:11 +Herman 250:3,18 +251:1 257:13,14 +257:15,20 258:7 +258:16 259:6,15 +261:12 +hey 270:17 +high 163:2 179:17 +179:22 180:21 +181:3,6,16,23 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 49 of +182:2 190:10 +213:5,5 +191:16,17,18,19 +idea 260:25 +191:20,23 192:10 +identification +192:24 202:16 +233:8 +206:5 207:14,19 +identified 213:5 +211:6 212:9 +identify 147:24 +217:12 219:23,25 +148:3 +220:1,15,16,18 +I| 139:6 +224:7,9,14 225:6 +III 139:6 +225:16 239:16 +illegal 215:7 +high-level 190:24 +inaccurate 215:23 +191:2 +incident 205:17 +hire 256:24 +224:8 225:3,5 +History 141:18 +including 150:15 +hit 142:15 169:2 +221:24 254:11,11 +Hold 197:12 285:15 +income 155:19,25 +home 190:4 +Incorporated +homemade 226:11 +140:25 +226:14,17,24,25 +indicate 182:14 +honest 153:2 159:7 +information 241:17 +162:6,12,15 300:5 +252:8 253:8,9 +honestly 171:13 +255:25 +298:9,14 +234:16,20 +honesty 171:16 +234:24 235:4,9 +$ 139:21 +236:15 239:5 +HORACE 140:14 +initially 251:7 +HOROWITZ +Injunction 141:16 +140:8,9 +injure 168:24 +hour 210:21 +inquiry 182:15,16 +hours 150:24,24 +inserted 181:22 +house 151:24 +instructed 246:16 +159:16 160:11,17 +instructing 182:21 +178:25 179:7 +intensive 244:16 +193:6 198:1,4,12 +intentionally 223:9 +200:24,25 201:6,9 | intentions 261:4,7 +201:14,17,18 +intercourse 181:5,9 +202:1,1,2,4 +181:20 227:6 +203:12,13 274:13 +Internet 224:14 +274:17 275:7,8 +225:9 +Huh 189:15 292:23 +interrogatories +hung 198:15 219:4 +141:15 233:2,4,12 +265:4 +hurt 168:21 169:16 +234:24 +Interrogatory +205:11 +233:15 234:12,13 +interruption 145:2 +I +ID 211:25 212:2,9 +212:13,16,21 +intervention 197:1 +interview 244:16 +277:20 298:20 +interviewed 261:20 +261:22 277:21 +286:16 +involved 159:23 +186:24 195:12 +involving 224:14 +J +J140:3 +jail 196:17,19 +Jane 139:4,12 +140:7 141:5 164:3 +164:5,5 165:4 +245:10,12,13,14 +245:15,19 247:23 +248:12 249:6 +262:2,7 263:4,22 +263:24 264:2,4,4 +264:7,9,11 267:6 +282:1,2 284:14 +295:24,25 +January 172:13,14 +194:11,14,18 +272:17 273:5 +277:25,25 278:4,4 +281:16,16 +jeans 152:13 +Jeff 140:24 249:25 +Jeffrey 139:7 +140:18,24 160:10 +160:14 161:19 +185:1 186:24 +193:2,5,8,9 204:6 +245:2 247:3,25 +249:25 257:13,14 +261:11,12 266:24 +268:3,6,10,16 +274:18,21 275:11 +275:21 276:25 +278:6 281:17 +282:13,22 286:17 +287:10,19 288:2 +296:20,25 +Jennifer 210:4 +job 156:7 +joke 229:15,16 +joking 229:19 +Josefsberg 252:20 +JR 140:19 +July 269:16 270:13 +273:15 275:3 +jump 159:15 +jumped 201:24 +June 180:4 272:7,9 +272:13,17 273:6 +273:22 274:1 +275:3 277:15,16 +junior 145:18,18 +145:21,24 146:2,3 +146:5,9 147:8,12 +147:13,16 148:5 +148:10,16 149:10 +149:12,15 172:2 +172:12,14 179:17 +179:21 180:6,8,20 +181:2,6,15,22 +182:2 194:4 195:9 +200:4 202:21 +206:8,8 217:15 +239:15 +jury 304:24 +keep 155:9 191:22 +256:6 +kept 177:20 191:22 +kid 188:23 +kids 301:9,18 303:7 +303:9 305:10 +killed 209:10,20 +kind 168:18 174:10 +175:3,24 196:25 +204:25 209:10,18 +209:19 226:9 +231:6 232:4 +267:22 268:12,15 +268:19 293:22 +kinds 177:24 +300:17 +Kliman 234:18 +237:1,6,6,15 +238:7,10,11,21 +244:15 248:1,16 +267:10,11,14 +268:8,17,24 +269:20,23 270:1 +Page 6 +297:22 298:14,20 +299:2,23 300:6,12 +300:23 306:13,15 +Kliman's 182:16 +knew 185:1 193:8,9 +201:25 207:21,22 +245:1 247:22 +263:20 267:21 +275:21,22 278:6 +281:17 282:20 +285:4 287:8,20 +know 143:25 +144:10,13 146:2,4 +146:8 147:2,5,11 +147:20,23 148:1 +148:25 149:12,14 +149:24 150:8,10 +150:17,25 151:6 +152:24 153:3,4,15 +153:15 155:12,16 +156:2,5,8 157:22 +157:23 158:20,24 +158:24 161:6,6,6 +161:22,24 162:4,5 +162:6,8,15 163:16 +163:16 164:14 +168:12 171:3,6,7 +171:10,13,19 +179:8 182:3,17,20 +184:16 185:6 +186:5,8 187:11,12 +187:13,15,18,22 +187:25 190:9 +191:15 193:11 +196:3,3,4,12,13 +196:16,17 198:18 +199:15,17,19,19 +199:20 200:2,5,7 +200:22,25 201:21 +202:5,6 207:18,21 +209:1,2,4,5,6,7,8 +210:7 211:3,4,4,7 +212:10,12,14,17 +213:19,20 214:4,7 +215:9,22 216:20 +217:11,11,14,16 +217:18 218:1,4,6 +218:7 219:17,24 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 50 of +219:25 220:5,24 +220:25 222:6,19 +223:3,21 225:19 +226:1 228:1,10 +229:18 231:17 +232:3,4,5,9 235:7 +235:13 236:23 +238:24 242:2,24 +242:24 245:8 +246:9,11,23,23,24 +246:24 247:9,11 +247:13,15,16,17 +247:19,22 248:2,6 +248:8,10,17,18 +250:13,25 251:12 +252:3,21,23 253:6 +253:11,12,12,12 +253:13,23,24,25 +254:4,4,7,8,13,15 +254:16,18 255:11 +256:7 257:17,22 +258:8,10,15,19,19 +258:20,21,22 +259:1,2,2,6,8,15 +259:19 260:2,7 +261:9,21,22,25 +262:14,15,19 +263:1,4,5,6,6,14 +263:19,22,25 +264:2,4,7,9,11,11 +264:15,20,21,23 +266:5,6,7 267:6 +267:14 269:6,16 +270:15 272:19 +273:8,13 276:2,9 +277:1 279:2 +280:20 283:14 +284:14,17,19,22 +285:6,10,12,20 +286:25 287:5,15 +287:16 291:18 +292:7,10,13 +293:15,21,22 +295:9,13,14,22 +298:8,25 299:24 +300:11,17,22 +301:5,7,10,14,17 +302:7,20,22 303:7 +Page +7 +303:9,14 304:7 +306:5,15,16 307:8 +307:11 +knowing 243:17 +knowledge 161:16 +225:21 248:15 +known 175:3 +258:25 293:23 +knows 151:1 +298:12 +L +La 198:18 201:18 +ladies 251:25 252:3 +304:23 305:4 +lady 251:13,24 +252:16 +lady's 251:11 +Lake 140:16 +language 279:23 +Las 140:4 +Lauderdale 140:5 +Lauren 157:1,5,19 +157:25 158:5,11 +159:1,1 160:10,21 +161:3 162:19 +170:10 173:3,4,4 +212:17,19 213:3 +218:11 219:21 +220:7,9 274:7,10 +274:14,17 275:2,5 +275:14,25 276:12 +276:22 277:6 +278:19 279:2 +280:21 281:15 +284:17 +law 249:17,22 +250:1 254:19 +lawsuit 186:11 +230:14,24 231:4,5 +239:1 242:15 +245:6 247:3,24 +261:1 262:3 266:7 +274:21 275:10,20 +282:6,9,11,14 +287:18 +lawsuits 245:2 +248:22 249:7 +lawyer 238:1 +204:1,7 210:16 +239:11 244:19 +218:2 222:10 +246:8 249:12,15 +236:15 275:18 +250:1,19 251:6,15 +278:16 292:15 +251:16 252:19,22 +296:12 297:16 +253:4,13,14,14 +298:11,12 299:10 +257:11 258:17 +301:18,21 +259:15,19 260:2,9 +| lifetime 206:23 +260:25 264:15 +liked 168:18 177:14 +265:9,20 266:4 +200:9 +267:3,12 286:17 +limited 221:25 +287:2,2,12 300:9 +Lisa 234:17,20 +300:14,17,17 +235:18 236:16 +lawyers 186:25 +list 234:13 253:1 +237:24 238:3 +Listen 164:10 +242:18 249:10,21 +185:2 208:21 +262:8,9 263:15 +240:24 241:1 +266:9,13 287:16 +247:1,14 283:17 +lawyer's 267:17 +Literally 257:12 +leading 150:9 +litigation 237:20 +league 191:7 +little 172:15 272:2 +271:12 +303:22 +leagues 191:23 +live 274:5 +learned 303:2 +lived 197:7 198:19 +leave 155:4 203:12 +275:2,6 +203:13 +lives 201:18 238:11 +left 177:1 199:3 +living 198:22,25 +202:3 289:6 +274:17 +297:12 +LLP 140:20 +legal 150:7,14 +long 191:14 207:21 +206:25 250:18 +207:22 214:2 +251:1 254:19 +238:17 256:4 +lesbian 225:18,21 +262:17 +letter 257:23 258:1 +look 234:12 242:14 +letting 203:16,17 +252:6 295:23 +let's 144:25 148:14 +looked 238:13 +149:22,23 150:13 +295:24 +174:12,16 180:9 +looking 184:18 +182:19 210:14 +238:8,16,17 +233:3 234:12 +239:10,14,16,18 +238:20 244:15 +242:7,9,21 251:6 +251:18 253:16 +lose 209:25 +258:6 270:10,10 +lost 183:20 195:1 +283:15 +lot 163:14 172:7 +level 254:8,16 +189:5 204:15 +lie 241:16 +206:1 219:5 +life 158:2 190:22,25 +231:24 241:8 +200:17 202:18 +249:21 251:8 +275:25 282:12 +loud 234:4 +love 193:14,15,22 +202:18 210:16 +222:10 296:12 +love's 209:15 +lunch 168:9 +LUTTIER 140:19 +140:20 141:6 +142:8,19,23 +143:10,24 144:18 +144:19 145:4,6,9 +145:13 147:1,6 +149:3,9 151:3 +152:23 153:12 +155:23,24 157:18 +160:7 162:1,23 +165:10,11 166:14 +176:6 177:17 +182:10,18,23 +183:4,6 186:9,18 +188:6,10 194:7 +195:10 196:5 +202:23 206:15 +207:3 208:10,20 +209:24 214:1 +215:21 216:2,6,17 +218:23 219:6 +220:6,13 222:8,17 +223:13 228:6 +230:2,9,16,19 +231:2 232:14 +233:1,9 234:5 +236:21 237:5,11 +237:14,22 240:7 +240:16,23 241:6 +241:21 242:13 +243:6,9,12 244:1 +244:7,14 245:9 +248:5,9 250:15 +251:4 253:22 +254:21 257:19 +258:23 259:14 +260:1,14,23 261:5 +262:12 263:9,21 +264:22 268:1 +270:5,24 271:6 +276:7,20 278:13 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 51 of +278:20 279:12,17 +280:14,24 281:13 +281:23 282:16 +283:1,11,15,23 +284:7 285:8,13,17 +285:23 286:12,21 +288:1,17 289:20 +290:19 291:8,23 +292:9,20,23,25 +293:1,4 294:17 +295:12 296:3,10 +296:16 297:7,14 +297:21 298:3,18 +299:7,13 300:15 +300:21 301:13 +302:2 303:6,15,21 +304:3,9,19,22 +305:3,8,13,23 +306:24 307:5,17 +• 186:1 189:22 +189:25 239:24 +240:3,4,9,10,21 +241:10,25 242:3 +271:14,16,20 +272:4 273:23 +275:4 +L.M 140:2 +M +mail 258:15,21,25 +259:2 +making 155:20 +156:1 163:20,21 +172:5,18 226:24 +227:3 +male 183:8,15 +256:14 +mall 157:6,12 +man 180:16 209:9 +232:1 267:15 +295:4296:5 +304:15,25 +Manche 198:18 +201:18 +manner 168:21,25 +169:17,19 +March 148:12 +mark 140:19 233:3 +307:16 +marked 233:7,11 +massage 142:12 +143:12 149:20 +152:7 153:19 +154:22 157:21 +159:22 165:22 +166:1 167:19,25 +170:19 173:9,9,14 +173:18 175:22 +176:11,25 183:23 +184:2,3,4,12,13 +184:22 185:10,15 +290:20 291:11 +304:15 305:1 +massages 158:18 +166:17 171:18 +173:7 179:5,12 +291:1 +matter 212:8 +221:21 239:11 +244:9 259:9 268:5 +212:11 +228:16 232:8 +233:10 +McDonald's +161:12 +mean 151:19 +159:14 165:12 +169:21 173:24 +174:1 178:15 +181:19 185:7 +186:15 189:17 +190:12,15 203:18 +204:25 206:10 +209:1,2,22 217:9 +219:12,19 225:20 +225:24 226:1,2 +228:1 234:6 240:9 +240:11 241:5 +242:25 251:9 +256:23 258:10 +259:17,21 260:4,5 +262:14 265:10,11 +267:25 276:1 +281:7 283:5 +286:11 291:7 +293:9,14 298:11 +299:5 303:25 +254:5 257:18 +meaning 164:6 +258:18 259:13,23 +means 162:15,17 +260:12,20 261:2 +181:20 279:22 +262:10,24 263:18 +280:9,19 +264:19 267:24 +medical 268:13,15 +269:24 276:6,10 +268:19,22 302:13 +276:16,19 278:11 +306:9 +278:17 279:9,15 +meet 193:17,21 +280:12,23 281:12 +237:6,15,16,17,23 +281:21 282:15,24 +260:19 +283:7 284:6 285:7 +meeting 254:22,25 +285:15,18 286:10 +255:4,8 256:10 +286:19 287:25 +Mellafano 252:1 +288:15,22,24 +member 191:3 +289:18 290:17 +men 200:16,18 +291:3,13 292:5,17 +mental 268:14 +293:3 294:15 +mentioned 229:10 +MERMELSTEIN +295:10,18 296:7 +296:15 297:5,18 +140:8,9 142:18 +297:25 298:17 +143:22 144:16 +299:4,12 300:13 +145:10 146:23 +300:20 301:11,25 +147:3 149:1,7,22 +303:4,12,18,24 +150:3,20 152:22 +304:6,17,21 305:2 +153:7,10 155:21 +305:7,11,21 +157:14 160:3 +306:23 307:2,14 +161:21,23 162:21 +met 159:4 180:24 +165:8 166:12 +180:24,25,25 +176:2 177:15 +193:12,15 197:11 +182:3,25 186:7,14 +197:14 207:15,19 +188:5,8 194:5 +220:22 221:1,3,6 +195:3 196:1 +221:10 232:24,25 +202:20 206:13,24 +251:16,21 253:14 +208:9,17 209:21 +257:12 261:11 +213:24 215:18 +268:24 +216:1,3,15 218:17 | Miami 140:10 +220:3,11 222:5,15 +252:22 +223:11 228:5 +MICHAEL 140:3 +230:1,8,15,18,25 +middle 147:12,15 +232:12 233:6,23 +147:16,17 148:5 +234:2 236:18 +172:12 248:22 +237:4,7,12,18 +285:16 +240:6,12,17,24 +miles 210:21 +241:18 242:11 +mind 200:1 286:15 +243:4,7,10,24 +mine 207:7 209:23 +244:5,13 245:7 +247:17,18,18 +248:3,7 250:12,17 +266:22 +250:24 253:20 +minute 149:22,23 +Page 8 +164:7 182:20 +183:5 193:20 +202:7 208:14 +256:5 273:18 +276:17,17 277:5 +277:12 278:2 +minutes 218:18 +missed 214:12 +mom 186:16,19 +190:6 199:10 +303:7 +moment 142:15 +293:11 +moments 178:16,17 +Monday 214:11 +money 155:8 +156:10,17,22 +157:4,8,23 160:16 +172:16,23,24 +177:12,14,18,20 +232:2 +month 265:4,6 +months 207:23 +208:2,7,16,25 +moon 267:15 +morning 189:12 +215:17 +mother 187:2 199:2 +199:3 +move 205:14 +157:1,5,19 +158:1,5,11 160:10 +160:21 161:3 +162:20 170:10 +173:3 213:3 +218:12 220:7,9 +274:14 275:2,14 +281:16 +muscular 204:23 +mute 145:7 +N +N 141:2 +Nadia 229:5 +naked 180:15 183:7 +183:11,12 291:10 +295:1,3,5 +name 205:9 210:5 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 52 of +212:25 238:1 +245:16 252:13,25 +253:23,24 264:1 +266:9 269:5,11 +305:15 +named 263:22 +names 169:6 205:6 +264:6 266:12 +napkin 150:1 +276:18 +need 142:14,15 +144:20 150:10 +215:24 216:11,19 +252:4 266:17 +270:22 276:8,16 +needed 245:6 +neighborhood +198:19 +never 163:25 +164:10,17 168:15 +168:21 178:21 +180:21 181:3 +185:1 190:15 +203:5 204:6 208:8 +208:24 214:12 +221:12 231:3 +237:18 239:21 +240:8 267:8 268:8 +270:3 277:22 +288:2 296:20,25 +new 147:19 160:17 +172:25 +nice 168:10,20 +178:13,16,18 +192:13 205:4 +Niebling 234:17,21 +235:18 236:16 +239:5 +night 178:23 179:1 +179:6 214:11 +ninth 144:8 +nods 188:20 +normal 163:10,12 +163:13,14 +North 140:15 +Notary 139:22 +Note 141:17 +November 272:1,2 +272:3 273:1 +nude 290:20 291:1 +304:16 305:1 +number 142:6 +172:5 185:9 +235:22 251:10,12 +251:19,20 252:5 +252:15,15 253:3,4 +253:12,18 255:17 +255:18,23 256:9 +256:11 257:5 +258:13 261:4 +numbers 185:21 +oath 234:10 +objection 149:1 +150:14 152:22 +153:7 155:21 +157:14 160:3 +162:21 166:12 +177:15 182:4 +186:7,14 188:5,8 +195:3 196:1 +202:20 206:13,24 +208:9,17 209:21 +213:24 215:18 +216:1 220:3,11 +222:15 223:11 +228:5 230:1,8,15 +230:25 236:18 +241:18 242:11 +243:4,24 244:5,13 +245:7 248:3 +253:20 257:18 +258:18 259:13,24 +260:12,20 261:2 +262:10,25 263:18 +267:24 269:24 +278:11,17 279:9 +280:12 281:12,21 +282:15,24 284:6 +285:7 286:10,19 +287:25 289:18 +290:17 291:3,13 +292:5,17 294:15 +295:10,18 296:7 +296:15 297:5,18 +60 +297:25 298:17 +299:4,12 300:20 +301:11,25 303:4 +303:12,18,24 +304:6,17,21 305:2 +305:7,11,21 +306:23 307:2,14 +objections 150:7 +occasion 151:24 +152:21 154:24 +157:20 167:17,22 +170:18,21 171:25 +172:1 176:13,16 +176:18 183:22,24 +200:21 211:23 +217:23 290:23 +occasions 152:2 +166:17 173:8 +200:16 +occur 151:17 +183:24 184:3 +occurred 142:10 +167:5 171:1 +184:10 203:10 +248:13 297:16 +October 139:14 +147:18,18 148:10 +172:12,13,13 +271:10,23,24 +office 252:19,24 +253:17 254:1,8 +• 144:25 159:5,15 +160:25 163:11 +164:8 165:3 229:4 +233:25,25 246:6 +249:17 266:17 +270:17 274:23,23 +278:22 294:7 +296:1 +okay 143:11 145:5 +145:9 148:14 +149:23,23 150:3,4 +150:20 158:4 +162:19,24 163:6 +167:15 168:18 +170:16 171:16 +173:6,17 174:21 +175:9,13,16 +176:10,16,25 +177:3 178:10,13 +178:19 180:1,15 +180:19 181:18,21 +182:19 183:22 +184:9 186:3 190:6 +191:16,19 192:9 +196:18 197:17 +198:6,16 203:8 +209:18,25 210:25 +211:15,18 214:2 +216:13,22 217:7 +218:23 220:21 +222:9 224:23 +225:8 226:17 +227:8,15,18 234:9 +234:12 237:12 +238:6,16 241:13 +241:24 245:14 +247:21 248:12 +250:1,5,23 251:2 +253:25 254:3 +257:2,10 258:6 +260:8,19,24 +267:10,10 269:22 +270:10,23 271:7 +271:13,19,24 +272:3 273:5,22 +274:16 276:11,16 +276:17 278:24 +280:8,15,23,23 +282:9 284:3 +285:17,24 286:3 +286:13 290:11 +292:25 294:7,18 +294:25 297:10 +298:23 302:13,17 +306:6 307:17 +Olas 140:4 +old 156:3,3 197:10 +197:12,17 199:19 +200:3,3 210:25 +213:17 226:20 +227:19,20 +older 206:20 +Olympics 191:25 +once 164:2 166:21 +Page +173:13 189:23 +208:1 217:25 +250:25 277:11 +open 200:25 201:3 +201:10 202:3 +opportunity 216:11 +216:16 +opposed 148:12 +151:11 172:20 +oral 181:25 +order 182:11 +200:23 202:10,14 +202:17 203:9,10 +orders 182:13 +206:19 +originally 253:18 +Orlando 245:22 +ought 266:24 267:3 +outfit 152:18 +outrageous 275:20 +276:22 278:5 +281:19 287:9 +P +page 141:13 233:14 +234:12 +paid 155:6 156:22 +157:5 172:23,24 +173:2 289:9,23 +pain 302:23,25 +pair 190:17 +Palm 139:18 +140:21 163:2 +187:5,16 192:10 +panties 288:19 +289:6,11,17 +290:15 +pants 144:5 146:14 +171:7,9,20 173:19 +174:4,7,10 175:14 +175:21 176:17 +183:23 184:1 +panty's 290:1 +papers 222:21 +302:10 +parents 188:1,2 +:192:21 196:7,25 +231:22,23 232:3,4 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 53 of +232:6,21 235:15 +236:6,10,17 275:7 +275:8 +part 142:21 157:1 +172:2 175:10 +227:25 245:6 +particular 267:3 +parties 242:4 +pay 201:21 +paying 232:2 +penis 181:21 +people 186:12 +225:17 232:19 +236:9 241:16 +254:9,10,12,12 +255:6,14,17 263:3 +281:15 283:4,4 +284:11,19 287:6 +301:6,10 +perfectly 229:21 +performances +226:10 +performed 173:9 +performing 173:7 +period 178:3,24 +179:4 214:3 +217:19 220:18 +271:20 274:2,6,19 +278:21,23,25 +279:2,13,16 +permitted 272:20 +person 172:25 +173:4 183:8,15 +226:1 228:24 +229:3 232:1 253:3 +253:10,11 254:13 +256:7,9,11,13 +257:3 265:15 +296:11 298:12 +personal 242:23 +298:10 +personalities 164:5 +164:9 165:2 +personality 165:4 +persons 182:6 +Petition 141:16 +phone 140:5,11,16 +140:22 143:13 +185:21 255:22 +257:5 +phonetic 252:1,2 +physically 168:21 +168:24 169:16 +179:15 205:11 +pick 203:21 +picked 167:25 +picture 212:24 +213:2 224:15,16 +224:18,19 225:2,9 +226:1 257:15 +piece 167:2 +pills 217:4 +pinpoint 152:21 +Plaintiff 139:5 +140:2250:9,14 +Plaintiff's 237:4,7 +play 271:7,11 +played 156:7 +190:24 191:20,25 +271:19 273:1 +player 190:19,21 +playing 190:16 +191:7,12,22 214:8 +214:10,17 271:22 +272:10 +please 252:5 285:18 +plenty 211:19,20 +plus 231:25 +point 146:7 152:24 +153:5,18 158:3,17 +171:17,19 174:7 +174:21 175:13 +192:20 210:8 +249:3 250:20 +257:10 268:5,7 +275:18 287:10 +291:9 +police 187:6,16 +200:20,22 201:2,3 +201:14 221:25 +portion 218:25 +240:19 241:2 +271:3 283:19 +position 182:17 +possible 186:6 +possibly 164:14 +pot 217:2,3 220:7 +221:3 +predicate 196:2 +pregnancies 300:7 +300:24 301:3 +pregnant 300:2 +prescription 215:1 +217:5 +PRESENT 140:24 +press 288:6 289:5 +Preston 178:11,20 +178:24 179:3,15 +180:10,22,25 +183:8,13,17,20 +193:1,5,8,10,12 +193:22 194:10 +196:7,10 199:20 +200:3,24 201:15 +201:17 202:4,8 +209:15 211:12,16 +213:18,21 216:23 +217:1 223:25 +224:4 296:13,17 +297:4 +Preston's 209:14 +pretty 150:6,17 +182:14 198:10 +203:18 204:11 +249:2 +Previous 223:24 +prior 152:2 +prison 196:11,14 +196:16 +private 243:16 +privileged 250:20 +probably 145:17 +150:12 172:10,11 +177:8 187:3 +194:24 199:13,14 +200:4 205:9,14 +207:21 213:25 +220:15 224:2 +239:17 277:9 +problem 180:16 +240:2 242:5 +279:23 +problems 231:8,21 +232:20 236:10 +Page 10 +241:11 243:3,14 +process 244:16 +professional +306:10 +progressively +143:17 144:3,6 +145:1,16,21 293:9 +prohibits 182:11 +promising 177:22 +pronounce 245:16 +269:7 +Proposal 141:14 +Prose 139:22 +provide 190:8 +provided 195:17 +psychiatric 239:25 +242:5 268:14 +psychiatrist 235:2 +238:8,17,18 239:8 +239:19 242:9,15 +254:14 267:22 +268:9,25 270:3,18 +psychiatrists 231:9 +231:11,18,20 +232:15 234:14,19 +psychological +231:6 239:25 +241:10 242:4 +245:20 247:2,8 +248:13 268:14 +305:9 +psychologically +240:22 +Psychological/So... +141:18 +psychologist +245:11 246:15,19 +246:22,25 247:24 +267:22 268:9 +Publie 139:22 +purposes 237:20 +pursuant 182:4 +push 164:21 165:6 +176:23 +put 145:7 150:5 +155:1 156:10,12 +201:11 204:6 +230:23 262:8 +P-t-o 269:14 +P.A 140:9,14 +p.m 139:14 +Q +question 145:11,22 +147:1 148:3 +150:21 161:2 +162:9 163:4 +164:10,13 173:12 +174:6 181:1 +182:24 183:1,2,25 +185:2 204:17 +208:11,21,23 +213:4 214:20 +215:9,12,14 +218:24 223:22 +228:16 232:8,11 +232:13 233:12 +237:19,21 240:12 +240:15,25 241:1 +247:1,10,21 +261:13 262:21 +264:19 265:16 +270:20,22,24 +275:1,1 276:8 +280:25 281:5 +283:14,16 298:5,7 +298:10,14 299:2 +299:25 300:1,2,5 +304:4 307:9 +questionnaires +241:8,9 +questions 181:11 +182:5 215:16 +R +raised 188:7 +rate 210:19 +read 216:5 218:23 +219:1 233:22 +234:1,2,3,6 +240:16,20 241:2 +270:24 271:4 +283:16,20 +ready 149:24 +real 204:23 +realize 273:17 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 54 of +276:1,5,15 277:2 +realized 201:8 +really 143:25 +150:24 153:13 +168:20 171:10,13 +171:17 190:15 +196:10 199:19 +253:9 +reason 185:8,12,20 +236:9,15 270:12 +273:14 +recall 145:14 148:6 +148:14 152:15,15 +161:2 166:23 +200:20 213:11 +224:7,13 +recess 218:20 +307:20 +recollection 195:11 +195:16 280:2,11 +281:8,10 +record 142:6 150:6 +155:9 182:22 +218:19,22,25 +240:19 241:2 +271:3 280:18 +281:3,6 283:19 +307:18 +recorded 148:19 +records 185:17 +302:13,15 +RECROSS 141:4 +REDIRECT 141:4 +refer 257:8 +referenced 234:18 +referred 234:18 +referring 234:20 +238:4 +refresh 195:16 +refused 164:18 +Related 139:9 +relations 180:10,12 +181:12,19 +relationship 197:5 +199:23 204:14 +religion 188:14,17 +189:17 +remain 143:15 +remember 143:22 +143:23 144:1,7,9 +144:21,22 145:10 +145:22 147:3,14 +148:22 149:8 +150:11,11 151:12 +152:18 157:22 +158:8,13,16,19 +159:13,19,21,24 +160:25 161:9,13 +161:18 173:5 +175:25 176:3 +181:4,8,8 185:4,6 +187:3,7,7 193:15 +194:24 195:2,5 +196:20,24 198:13 +198:17 201:13 +204:15,17 207:22 +210:4 211:1,3,8 +211:10,13,14 +212:3,4,6,7 +213:13 218:8 +219:2,10,12,22 +220:23,24 221:2,8 +221:23 224:20,24 +225:1,2,3,5 +226:19,21,22 +227:9,10,12,20,23 +228:1,2,8 229:14 +231:16,17,18 +232:18 235:7,12 +235:17 236:1,4,8 +236:12,13,25 +247:16 250:7 +251:20 252:11,14 +252:18 256:13,16 +257:22,24 258:4,8 +258:12 259:5 +260:10,16 262:6 +262:11,13 263:12 +263:14 275:17 +278:22 279:1,3,7 +279:18,19,20,21 +279:24 280:1,5,9 +280:19,22 281:7 +282:4,7 283:5,5,7 +283:8,9 284:13,21 +285:2 286:24 +287:4,11,14 292:8 +292:13,21 293:2,6 +293:12,14,14,16 +293:19 294:1,5,6 +294:8,11,13 300:2 +302:22 305:25 +306:4 +remembers 194:25 +remove 174:4,7,17 +175:14 +removed 151:5,17 +151:23 152:16 +166:18 171:20 +173:18 174:9,18 +175:21 183:23 +removing 149:19 +rented 185:23,23 +repeat 183:25 +274:25 +report 155:13,19 +155:25 +Reported 139:21 +reporter 142:16,25 +143:4 219:1 +240:20 241:3 +271:4 283:20 +292:22,24 +Reporting 139:22 +represent 239:23 +241:10 +representation +represented 242:3 +249:9 264:15 +265:19,22 266:3,6 +284:3 287:19 +representing +249:22 +requested 176:17 +218:25 240:19 +241:2 271:3 +283:19 +require 192:11 +respected 164:24 +295:17 +response 198:8 +289:12 290:4 +restraining 200:23 +202:10,14,17 +203:9,10 206:19 +restrictive 150:8 +restroom 218:15 +result 225:8 231:7 +268:20 +retain 250:19 251:1 +256:21,23 +retained 237:19 +251:6 +return 155:13,14 +155:15 +review 298:23 +Rich 269:2,4,5,7 +RICHARD 140:14 +140:14 +Rick 269:9,9,15,23 +Ricky 269:9 +ride 159:16 201:16 +201:17 +right 142:18 143:6 +143:8 144:11,14 +145:6 147:9,18 +148:22 152:25 +153:13,17,17,19 +154:8,14,14,16,21 +155:1 156:6 +157:19,24 159:10 +162:24 163:7,7,23 +165:10,15 166:21 +167:3,15,17 168:1 +168:3,13 170:13 +174:19 175:2,11 +175:21 176:23 +177:1,7 178:8,20 +180:2,5,16 181:23 +184:6,11 185:18 +187:8 188:11,25 +191:9 194:4,5,15 +194:19,21 196:18 +197:15 198:7 +199:1,3 201:19 +202:25 207:16 +210:16 214:15 +216:4,20,21 +218:16 219:11 +220:7 223:1,3 +226:22 229:22,25 +Page 11 +230:14,17,20 +233:10,19 234:7 +234:10 236:11 +238:23 239:2 +240:4 241:14,22 +241:25 242:5,16 +242:19 244:8,20 +244:24 245:17 +246:22 249:7 +250:22 251:3 +253:18 254:23 +255:4,18 256:14 +257:3,25 261:23 +264:12,16 267:19 +267:23 270:14 +271:17 272:10,21 +272:24 273:3,9 +274:24 275:19 +277:13 279:7 +280:4,17 281:14 +283:12 285:11 +286:18,22 287:13 +288:7,13 289:6,11 +289:17,21,23 +290:3,5 294:19,23 +297:10 298:15 +306:7 +ring 264:1 +road 210:18 +ROBERT 140:19 +160:16 +Roman 188:19 +189:13 299:14 +303:2 +room 152:1,6 +153:18 166:6 +202:2 254:10,10 +254:12 255:7 +291:22 +ROSENFELDT +140:3 +ROTHSTEIN +140:3 +routine 174:10 +163:2 192:9 +RPR 139:21 +Rubello 305:14 +Ruepto 269:2,4,7,9 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 55 of +269:15,23 270:12 +272:13,18 273:6 +273:15 305:14 +run 159:14 +R-u-e 269:13 +R-u-e-p-t-o 269:12 +S +S 140:8 141:10 +San 238:11 +Sarah 142:13 172:6 +172:19 184:17,20 +sat 284:4 +saw 231:9,17 +248:15 268:7,16 +268:23 +saying 171:8 194:3 +254:17 256:6 +277:1 279:12,25 +281:9 285:21,25 +289:3 291:7,20 +295:20,21 +says 233:20,22 +234:23 235:18 +scare 203:19 +scared 204:25 +206:10 +schedule 185:9,15 +238:9 270:13 +272:20 273:9,19 +scheduled 267:18 +school 160:22 +163:3 179:18,22 +180:1,21 181:3,6 +181:16,23 182:2 +190:10 191:16,17 +191:18,19,20,23 +192:10,10,14,24 +194:21 202:16 +206:5 207:14,19 +211:6 212:9 +214:12 217:12 +219:23,25 220:1 +220:15,16,18 +224:7,9,14 225:6 +225:13,16 239:16 +241:7 242:21,22 +243:16,18,19 +270:2,4,7 272:6 +274:3 +season 214:14 +second 171:23 +172:4,7 197:13 +228:7,11,12,19 +260:15 +see 144:25 172:19 +178:3 202:24 +203:1,2 214:13 +223:4,7,10,15 +227:13 231:10,20 +232:19,20 233:1 +233:19 234:25 +235:5,20,25 236:5 +238:6,20,20 +244:24 245:11 +247:25 267:3,19 +268:17,20 270:3,8 +270:14 272:13,18 +273:6,12,15 +277:13 281:17 +297:22 +seeing 226:2 268:25 +seek 231:6 268:22 +seen 268:18 +selected 263:16 +267:4 +senior 194:4 202:22 +206:8 212:3,5 +227:25 239:15 +September 271:9 +sequence 151:18,20 +session 239:5 +sessions 235:19 +set 148:8 +Settlement 141:14 +seven 206:20 +seventh 144:7 +171:25 172:1 +sex 179:11 181:25 +194:22 195:19 +227:4 228:24 +229:8 +sexual 147:14,22 +148:4 180:9,12 +181:5,9,12,19,20 +182:5 226:10 +Page 12 +227:6 229:2,6,8 +situation 166:9 +South 139:17 +229:16,17 +172:16 195:14 +SOUTHERN 139:1 +sexually 168:23 +230:23 263:2 +speak 256:4 257:21 +243:18 +266:7 +304:1 +shelter 190:9 +six 206:20 239:6,9 +speaking 251:25 +shift 291:20 +Sixteen 176:10 +252:4 265:10 +shirt 143:16,19 +198:6 +specific 144:16 +144:4 146:7,10,12 +sixth 144:7 171:24 +148:23 194:14 +146:14 147:8 +slow 258:6 +specifically 144:22 +149:19 151:14 +slowly 277:6 +151:4 152:20 +154:11,17,19 +slut 296:17 +154:10 219:3 +155:1 167:1 +small 243:16,18 +speculate 161:23 +171:23 291:17,19 +smoke 217:3 220:8 +176:2 222:5 +291:22 292:1 +smoked 217:2 +speculation 295:11 +shopping 157:7,11 +221:3 +speed 210:19 +157:17,23 +soccer 156:8 189:5 +spell 269:6,10 +short 164:5 165:5 +189:6,11,19 +spelling 269:11 +256:19 295:25 +190:17,19,21,24 +spend 156:17 157:4 +shorts 152:13 171:2 +191:2,12,20,22 +178:25 +171:3,6 173:19 +192:3,6 214:8,10 +spending 178:23 +shoulders 205:21 +214:14,17 270:2 +179:1,6 +show 227:24 +270:13 271:7,19 +spent 156:11 +228:25 233:1 +272:4,10 273:1,9 +spit 169:4 296:22 +243:10 +273:19 +296:22 +showed 228:2 +solicited 259:10 +split 156:19,21 +showing 239:22 +somebody 160:15 +197:2 +shows 300:4 +201:4 243:17 +spoke 265:3 +sie 165:6 299:2 +251:9,21 256:10 +spoken 287:17 +305:14 +261:8 263:22 +sports 190:16 +side 244:10,23 +265:13 +stake 278:16 +295:24 +somebody's 159:16 +stalking 203:18 +sign 260:17 +251:10 301:21 +204:10 +signature 233:17 +soph 180:20 +standing 182:4 +signed 302:11 +sophomore 144:21 +201:3 259:16,20 +significant 149:17 +180:24 192:24 +259:21 260:3 +149:19,20 158:1 +193:25 194:4,13 +start 143:9 146:12 +292:14,15 293:5 +195:7,7,8 207:13 +194:20 +simple 232:11 +211:5 212:8 +started 145:4 146:6 +simply 174:23 +217:17 239:15 +146:6 148:11,13 +single 152:12 +272:15,22 274:24 +153:9 163:24 +163:25 167:1 +sorry 145:12 148:1 +179:15 181:15 +204:16 232:23 +163:13 168:4 +193:2 194:10,12 +236:2 249:2,5 +171:7 173:11,22 +198:7 199:18 +285:22 291:21 +188:13 204:18 +213:11,14 217:13 +293:10 294:9 +215:14 232:9 +259:3 271:13,16 +sit 265:14 +240:25,25 256:2,7 +272:23 +sitting 232:2 +270:17 278:3 +starting 144:3 +250:10 +sought 268:12 +273:5,22 277:20 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 56 of +277:21 +State 139:22 +191:12 254:17,18 +stated 300:9 +statement 148:24 +171:21 196:4 +270:11 273:20 +280:6 281:15,25 +287:4,7,15 +statements 234:9 +241:13 +STATES 139:1 +stay 192:18 +stayed 179:6 275:8 +staying 197:9 +201:18 274:7,10 +stick 150:8,13 +stop 211:12,15 +stopped 189:3 +stopping 183:2 +strange 200:18 +street 197:7,9 +201:22,23 +Stuart 140:8 151:1 +238:5 +stuff 150:9 190:5 +259:18 277:1 +287:3 300:18 +subject 170:12 +subpoenaed 185:18 +subsequent 182:13 +suddenly 269:22 +sue 278:6 281:19 +282:22 287:9 +suing 286:17 +Suite 139:17 140:4 +140:10,15,21 +summer 194:21 +271:11,12 274:11 +274:19 275:3 +summers 271:15 +273:23 +Sunday 189:7 +190:1 +supplement 216:19 +supported 231:25 +supposed 175:6 +201:17 234:1 +245:25 295:9,13 +298:5,8,11 +supposedly 222:25 +sure 157:22 162:22 +177:5 179:20 +198:11 199:13 +204:11 216:2,7 +219:3,3 231:15 +236:22 239:18 +240:18 245:15,16 +217:4 292:1 +293:11,12 +talk 154:1 168:13 +210:14 229:4 +235:2 244:15 +246:18 247:6 +249:1,4 250:21,24 +263:3 265:14 +266:18 274:18 +275:14 300:13 +208:5,12 215:5 +217:7,9 221:24 +222:4,9,12,20 +223:6,9,14,18,23 +223:25 229:5,6 +242:21,22 245:19 +245:24 246:2,3 +249:1,12,14 +251:11 252:7,25 +253:2 255:20 +247:20 250:10 +264:18 265:8,19 +256:5 262:6 263:5 +talkative 154:2 +265:21,22 267:2 +263:7,13 266:16 +talked 235:14 +275:16,19 279:18 +270:11 274:20 +275:15 276:19 +245:10,13 246:20 +282:2,8 284:10 +247:1 256:14 +278:14 280:15,17 +263:5,6,7,11,12 +295:7 297:24 +298:1,6,11 299:8 +281:1,6 282:10 +264:14 265:17 +299:23 300:17 +291:6 292:11 +287:5 +301:14 302:12 +293:20,25 298:13 +talking 142:9 +304:23 305:4,19 +299:1 302:6,8,11 +143:18 152:14 +305:24 306:1,13 +304:8 +165:15 167:20,21 +306:22 307:6 +suspended 260:5,7 +167:22 179:16 +telling 211:9 +260:9 +199:24 200:15,23 +238:13 243:20,22 +swore 234:7 +212:14,16 214:22 +244:2 278:24 +sworn 195:17,23 +225:13 229:8,8 +305:14 +233:24 251:5 +ten 151:7,11 153:4 +T +256:11,22 259:3 +tenth 144:8 +T 140:19 141:10 +266:19 277:15 +term 254:19 +table 152:7 +286:24 +terms 195:23 +take 146:7,9,14,16 +Tammy 224:17,21 +testified 213:21 +146:18 149:22,23 +tank 152:13 +testimony 195:18 +149:23,24 151:14 +Tape 142:6 307:19 +195:24 215:22 +154:2,11,17 +Taught 188:11 +Thank 142:16,17 +160:10 163:13 +tax 155:13,14,15 +150:1 216:13,21 +166:10 167:6,8,10 +taxes 156:2,9 +they'd 245:5 +167:12 174:22,23 +team 191:6,25 +303:11 +174:24 175:6,11 +teams 191:4,8 +thing 158:2 160:19 +176:14,17,18 +Telephone 140:17 +163:7,9 164:1,6 +184:7 217:19,24 +145:2 +232:23 236:2 +218:15,17 228:13 +228:20 240:17,25 +tell 150:10 151:4 +248:18 265:11,13 +153:14 156:19 +293:10 +276:6,11,17 288:4 +158:9,11,14 159:1 | things 146:6 147:14 +289:11,16 290:1 +159:8,12,18,20,22 +147:21,25 148:3 +290:14,14 291:2 +160:1,5 162:17,19 +169:22 177:23 +291:16,18 293:3 +163:17 167:12 +180:19 181:2 +294:9,18 +175:5,18 186:3,12 +206:23 222:4 +taken 158:22 +186:19,22 187:14 +229:9,17 244:9 +181:21 193:4 +188:1 203:8,25 +263:13 299:9 +Page 13 +think 142:9 143:19 +155:17,18 156:13 +158:8 163:2,9,9 +163:22 166:16 +168:5 170:3,8,13 +173:5 181:24 +182:11,12,25 +185:4,5 196:20,24 +197:16 198:14 +199:25 200:9,22 +202:21 204:11 +205:10,17 207:20 +209:1,7 210:21 +214:5,16 215:10 +216:10 218:13,14 +219:18 220:4 +221:8 224:19 +229:11 232:25 +235:12 236:19 +243:17,19 252:11 +263:11,11,19 +274:7 275:12,13 +275:24 276:3,13 +277:3,4,10 299:5 +303:11,11,16 +thinking 274:23 +third 227:21 242:4 +third-to-the-last +233:14 +thong 175:25 176:1 +176:5,11,14,19 +184:3 +thought 158:3 +162:24 163:6,6,8 +163:10,11,12 +187:20 229:18 +275:19 282:22 +294:4 +three 150:24 208:2 +218:1 220:20 +234:14 235:19 +254:10,12 279:8 +284:22 293:7,17 +297:13 299:21,22 +300:7 301:2,9,18 +302:19,24 303:7,9 +304:11,24 305:10 +305:15 306:11,25 +(561) +832-7500 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 57 of +throw 205:19,22 +throwing 206:7 +throws 204:25 +Thursday 214:9 +time 143:13,13,15 +146:24 147:4 +149:11,24,25 +151:5,22 152:12 +152:15,17,24 +155:17 157:11,12 +157:16 158:17 +159:1 162:25 +163:3,8,20 165:14 +165:15,25 166:4 +166:16,20,24,25 +167:1,3,4,20 +168:6 170:16,23 +171:4,17,19,22,23 +171:23 172:3,4 +173:6,13,17 174:9 +174:17 175:13 +176:11 178:3,24 +179:3,4,12 183:9 +183:15 184:1,11 +185:9 186:4,13 +187:1 189:3 +192:20,25 193:7,7 +195:1 198:3,10,11 +198:14 203:20,22 +203:24 204:9,18 +206:17 207:1 +208:6,12,14 210:8 +210:15 211:13 +212:1 213:13 +214:16 217:10,19 +219:20 220:14,18 +222:22 226:3 +229:23 230:10 +232:24 234:25 +235:10 236:15 +238:9 240:17 +241:1 242:2 +246:14 249:21 +257:10 261:6,19 +261:24 262:22 +263:20 267:21 +268:2,6,7,8,15,23 +268:23 270:8,8 +274:6,8,16,22 +276:6,11,14 +278:21,22,25 +279:1,3,12,15 +280:3,5,8 282:21 +286:14 287:10 +288:5 289:5,25 +290:12 291:6,18 +291:20,21 292:1 +292:22,24 293:3,8 +293:10,15,16,18 +294:2,9 295:3,5 +295:15 297:11,11 +307:16 +times 151:7 154:1 +177:10 211:19,20 +213:17217:24 +218:1 220:20 +229:2 241:9 289:4 +292:2 293:7,17 +294:21 +today 275:19 +told 148:21 150:13 +162:2,4 168:15 +174:18 178:7 +184:18 187:1,19 +204:3 208:24 +215:7221:21,25 +222:2 236:14,19 +238:6 242:19 +244:10,19 245:5 +245:19,21 246:3 +246:10,11 248:12 +262:7 267:18 +273:14 282:2,5 +283:2 298:1,6 +299:8 300:6,7,14 +301:2,22 302:8,18 +305:16 306:4,5,6 +306:8,10 +Tony 198:24 +199:10 +top 151:5,17,23 +152:16,25 153:24 +154:2 158:22 +165:21,22 166:2,7 +166:10,16,19,19 +167:5,6,18 168:6 +168:7 171:2 +175:11 200:18 +288:12 +topic 248:24 +topless 170:19 +173:7,9,10,13,15 +183:14 200:16 +tops 152:13 +total 291:1 +tournaments +191:12 +town 185:1,1 +189:10,11 +toy 229:5 +transcript 216:5 +298:20 299:1 +300:4 +traumatic 206:12 +206:16,22 297:15 +299:9 304:13,25 +traumatized 230:6 +230:7,10,13,21 +296:5 +traumatizing 297:3 +travel 191:4,6,8,11 +191:11,23 +traveling 189:5,19 +214:9 +treated 296:11 +tricks 216:8 +tried 217:3,6,23 +218:2 +true 184:17 187:19 +193:11 195:24 +204:3 234:10 +241:13 273:19 +286:6,8 +truth 162:17,20 +163:17 243:1 +287:23 +truthful 243:2,15 +243:23 244:3,6 +truthfully 299:3 +301:1 +try 197:1 203:11,13 +212:6 +trying 146:23 +150:20 160:8,8 +161:10 218:13 +235:1 254:20 +269:25 +Tuesday 139:14 +214:8 +turn 233:13 +twice 213:22 214:7 +214:13 +two 150:23 164:4,9 +165:2 208:2 218:1 +218:1 220:19 +225:15 231:9,18 +231:20 232:19 +234:19 235:19 +255:6 265:25 +293:7 +two-month 274:2 +274:19 +U +Uh-huh 153:20 +154:9 159:6 +162:18 168:2 +173:20 175:15 +178:12 188:13,16 +189:21 190:23 +191:5 193:23 +194:9 210:17 +224:11 233:16 +234:15 235:23 +238:12 239:7 +242:6 253:19 +264:17 269:21 +273:2 277:8 282:2 +300:19 +uncomfortable +295:16,22 +underage 211:22 +understand 160:9 +162:9,9,12,13,14 +181:18 215:14,16 +216:7 265:16 +270:20 271:1 +297:23,23 298:4 +understanding +150:21 280:18 +understands +150:24 +Page 14 +understood 233:6 +270:11 293:25 +underwear 144:5 +146:15,17,18 +175:23,24 184:7 +224:19,22,25,25 +225:1 226:3 288:4 +288:19 +unhealthy 204:14 +Unh-unh 144:15 +uniform 192:11 +unintelligent +169:23 +UNITED 139:1 +University 186:1 +189:25 239:24 +240:3,4,10,21 +271:17 273:23 +275:4 +upset 197:4,6 +301:17,20 303:23 +304:5 +upsetting 307:12 +307:13 +upstairs 142:13 +use 148:4,15 +221:16,19 222:1 +U.S 251:22,23 +252:10 253:17 +V +vagina 181:22 +vehicle 158:10 +203:15 +Velafano 252:1 +verbal 198:8 +289:12 290:4 +verification 233:20 +viable 301:23 302:1 +302:9,21 +vibrator 146:20,21 +148:11,13,15 +149:21 +victims 250:13 +video 140:24 +142:22 226:11,14 +226:18,22,25 +227:11,16 228:14 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 58 of +228:20 229:11 +Videographer +140:24 142:5 +218:19,21 297:13 +307:18 +videos 226:5,7,8,9 +226:10 +videotape 224:8,10 +VIDEOTAPED +139:12 +VIDEO-CONFE... +139:12 +vile 169:6 +Villafana 252:2 +Villfana 252:10 +Vinyard 178:11,20 +178:24 179:3,11 +180:10,20 181:2,6 +181:10,13,21 +visits 144:2,3 +151:11,11 153:4,4 +177:3 +Visual 140:25 +VOLUME 139:6 +voluntarily 151:24 +165:23 166:11 +170:17 174:18 +200:17 278:7 +281:19 282:21 +285:5 287:9,21 +290:9,22 291:10 +292:3 294:10,14 +volunteer 173:23 +173:24,25 174:1,2 +174:3,6 +volunteered 192:3 +294:18 +VS 139:6 +183:8,17,20 193:1 +193:5,10,22 +194:11,23 195:18 +wait 148:2 149:18 +197:2,5,7 202:8 +164:13 171:24 +202:18 203:9 +173:11 182:20 +204:10,12,19 +183:25 185:11 +209:15 210:11,15 +193:20 194:3,3 +214:22,25 222:10 +202:7 203:15 +222:25 223:3 +208:14 218:5 +224:4 296:13,17 +228:22 233:25 +296:22 297:4 +237:11 256:5 +Vinyard's 179:8 +272:22 273:18 +206:3 +274:23,23 275:12 +virginity 183:20 +277:5,12 278:2 +195:1 +285:15 286:23 +visit 142:10,11 +waited 181:8 +143:11,18,20 +waiting 203:12 +144:7,7,8,8,8,8,10 +walked 201:2,5,7 +144:13,23,23,24 +268:7,16,24 +145:14,17,19,23 +walking 160:21 +146:1,4,11,13,14 +wall 205:19 206:7 +146:16,18,19,21 +want 159:15 164:20 +151:9,13,16,22 +165:12,18 167:12 +153:16 170:23 +168:15 174:14 +172:8 187:5 190:4 +175:18 179:20 +199:5 227:21 +185:4 187:22 +228:7,12,12,19 +190:12 203:16,17 +235:4 306:3,4 +214:20,24 216:7 +visited 187:16 +216:11 229:13 +233:13 234:2,3 +242:23 243:1,10 +243:14,17,19 +247:20,21 256:5 +270:11,15 277:5 +280:15,17,25 +281:5 282:8 288:3 +295:16 298:19 +299:1 300:11,16 +300:22 301:4,6,10 +301:14 302:7,12 +302:12 304:23 +306:15,16 307:11 +wanted 159:7 +160:14,23 161:3,8 +190:13 250:8 +253:7,8 261:8 +wants 252:17 +265:12 +warm 192:18 +warning 182:9 +wasn't 147:12 +149:12,14 150:21 +151:14 165:19 +166:9 181:1 +197:23 200:10 +205:5 206:12 +210:12 228:11,19 +228:21 231:4 +239:10,14,16 +240:13 242:20 +248:18 255:9,9 +260:24 262:7,18 +263:17 267:12 +268:3 286:6 +287:23 295:3,6 +297:4 298:1 +way 155:8 163:24 +178:2 186:20 +189:18 198:22 +200:15 210:1 +211:25 231:5 +236:24 240:18 +244:22 246:7 +274:16 280:2 +wear 175:25 176:4 +176:5 192:11,14 +wearing 152:11,16 +152:19 171:3,6,11 +171:14 175:22,24 +Wednesday 214:9 +week 178:22,22,22 +213:22 214:8,13 +293:7 +weekends 214:10 +went 142:12 151:13 +151:21 157:6,6,17 +157:23 158:4,20 +161:1,7 165:14,22 +165:25 167:1,3 +168:13 170:23 +172:3,4 175:1 +191:19 192:9,9 +193:5,7,8,8,16 +196:16,17,22 +198:3,12,14 +199:24 208:1,4,18 +214:2 227:13 +231:3,9,11,12,17 +231:19,20 232:15 +232:16,16,16,18 +232:19,20,22 +234:24 235:5,8,10 +235:19 236:1,9,15 +236:20 238:20 +244:19 246:18,21 +246:23,24 247:2,7 +247:25 248:19 +254:24 266:8,24 +268:6 277:10,12 +281:17 287:12 +288:9 293:10 +297:22 301:9 +weren't 163:19 +173:10 178:17 +179:13 180:10 +188:2 189:7 +190:19 196:7 +200:18 211:2,19 +223:16,19 229:24 +230:3,6,10 232:5 +236:6 242:7,9 +251:6272:10 +292:4 295:7 296:4 +302:8 +West 139:18 +Page 15 +140:21 +we'll 183:4 193:18 +we're 142:6 143:8 +160:1 161:16 +179:16,20 193:20 +214:21 218:21 +245:15 251:5 +256:5,11 277:15 +279:22 280:15,16 +281:1,6 299:1 +307:18 +we've 265:17 +302:13 +whatsoever 168:25 +169:17,20 +WHEELER 140:3 +143:3,6 +whoa 237:9,9,9 +253:16,16,16 +whore 169:10 +296:17 +Willits 140:14,14 +142:24 145:3,5,5 +145:7 +wishes 295:17 +witness 141:4 +143:23 145:12 +146:25 147:5 +150:1,19 153:8 +157:16 160:5 +161:22,24 162:22 +166:13 176:4 +186:8,15 188:9,20 +194:6 195:5 196:3 +202:21 207:1 +208:18 209:22 +213:25 215:20 +219:2 220:4 222:7 +222:16 223:12 +231:1 233:25 +236:19 240:21 +241:4,20 242:12 +244:6,12 245:8 +248:8 250:13,23 +251:3 254:7 +258:19 260:13,22 +261:3 262:11 +263:1,19 264:21 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 59 of +267:25 269:25 +271:1,5 276:12,18 +278:12,19 279:14 +280:13 281:22 +282:25 283:9,18 +283:21 285:20 +286:11,20 291:5 +291:15 292:7,19 +295:19 296:9 +297:20 298:1 +299:5 302:1 +303:14,20,25 +304:7 305:12,22 +307:4 +witnesses 150:18 +wonder 172:18 +word 162:12 +181:18 +words 148:4 275:22 +278:8 +work 184:18 +worse 143:17 144:3 +144:6 145:1,16,21 +206:1 293:9 +Worth 140:16 +worthy 169:24 +wouldn't 164:3,12 +170:9,12 190:14 +214:12 228:12 +241:16 243:15 +252:7 300:8 301:3 +301:10,14 304:10 +304:20 +wow 226:4 +wrong 163:23 +164:4,8 165:1 +168:6 170:4,8 +188:12 213:6 +276:14 277:3,4 +282:11 +X 141:2,10 +Xanax 219:7,8,9,18 +221:9 +Y +yard 205:22 +yeah 143:16,21,23 +146:25 147:5,10 +148:7 149:5 +151:16,25 152:3 +152:10 153:1 +154:5,13,23 155:3 +155:5,7,15,16 +156:7,16 157:10 +157:13 159:11 +160:13,24 162:8 +162:11,14,16 +163:3,21 164:2 +165:20,24 166:13 +166:22 167:9,11 +167:14,16 168:11 +168:14,23 169:22 +170:2,20,25 171:5 +172:14 175:3,12 +175:17 176:12,20 +177:2,11,13,19 +178:1,9 179:19 +180:3,6,6,11,18 +180:23 181:14,17 +181:24,24 182:1 +183:12,21 184:14 +184:24 185:19 +186:2,21 187:21 +188:4,9,13,24 +189:11,14,16 +190:7,11,20 191:1 +192:15,17 194:6 +194:17 195:14,14 +195:22 197:16,16 +199:4 200:9 202:9 +202:12 203:4,20 +203:24 204:5,11 +204:11,21 205:3,5 +205:7,17,20,23 +206:6,8,9,11,17 +207:1,5,5,17 +208:13 209:2,11 +209:11,22,23 +210:2,13 213:10 +213:16,25 214:16 +214:23 215:2 +216:9 217:6 218:9 +219:17 221:5 +222:2,3,7,13 +225:5,12 226:8,23 +227:5,7,10 228:23 +229:20,23,23 +230:5,7,22,23,24 +231:9,13 232:6,22 +233:18 234:8,11 +234:22 237:3,17 +239:3 241:12,15 +242:1,17 243:16 +244:6,18,21,25 +245:4,24 248:11 +248:14,23 249:8,8 +249:11,18 250:2 +250:10 251:8,8 +254:2,24 255:3,19 +256:12,20 257:4 +259:17 260:18,22 +261:13,24 263:25 +264:13,21 265:17 +265:18 266:17 +267:13,20 268:4 +268:21,21 270:21 +271:1,5 272:8,11 +272:25 273:4,10 +273:21 274:4,15 +275:5,5,8,9,12,12 +275:12,15 276:12 +277:10,14 278:19 +280:5,13,13 281:2 +281:4,11,22,24 +282:18,25 283:5,9 +283:12,18 284:2,9 +284:10,16,18,24 +286:5,5,9,11 +287:22,24 288:11 +288:14,21 289:8 +289:14,22,24 +290:2,6,8,10,13 +290:16,21,24 +291:5,7 292:16 +293:6 294:12,14 +294:24 295:2,19 +296:14,19,24 +297:9,20 298:16 +298:22 299:5,6,11 +299:15,18,19 +300:16 302:14,25 +303:3 304:12 +Page 16 +305:6,17,18,22 +306:12,19,21 +307:10 +year 144:21 145:18 +145:21,25 146:2,3 +146:5,9 147:8,12 +147:13,16,19 +148:5,10,12,16 +149:10,13,15 +172:2,12,14 +179:17,21,21 +180:2,6,8,20,25 +181:2,6,15,23 +182:2 185:25 +187:3,10 192:24 +193:24,25 194:1,1 +194:1,2,13 195:7 +195:8,9 200:4 +201:12,13 202:16 +202:22 206:8,9 +207:13,14,19,20 +211:5,10,14 212:3 +212:5,8 217:12,15 +217:17 219:23 +225:6 238:21 +239:15,17,19 +241:24 261:10,13 +269:17 272:4,15 +272:16,22,23 +274:24 275:4 +277:9 279:4 +years 156:3,3 +187:24 191:15 +193:13 206:20 +211:17,22 227:19 +239:6,9 265:4,11 +Yep 144:18 163:1 +199:9 250:16 +yesterday 179:9 +213:21 +young 209:9 +younger 189:8 +231:9 +you-all 274:18 +282:21 284:4 +285:3,4 +$ +$200 160:16 163:21 +289:9,15,23 +0 +02194:2,11,14,16 +03 180:9 194:2 +04 194:3 +05 179:23 261:15 +261:16,17,19,24 +271:13,16,20,24 +272:1,3,24 273:1 +277:13,18 +06 261:17,18,19,24 +272:9,14,17,17,17 +273:5,6,22 274:1 +274:2,19,23,25 +275:3 277:15,16 +277:22,25 278:4 +281:16 +08 274:24 +08-CV-80119-M... +139:2 +08-08380 139:9 +08-80232 139:9 +08-80381 139:9 +08-80811 139:10 +08-80893 139:10 +08-80993 139:10 +08-80994 139:9 +09 269:18 270:13 +273:15 277:25 +278:4 281:16 +09-80469 139:10 +09-80591 139:10 +09-80656 139:10 +09-80802 139:10 +09-81092 139:10 +1 +1140:7 141:14 +1:59 142:7 +10177:3 +10th 140:15 +11234:13,13 +11:11 139:14 +115 139:17 +142 141:6 +15 156:3 177:3,10 + + +Document 430-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 60 of +Page +17 +197:18,21,23 +15-year-old 197:19 +16 156:3,6 176:7,8 +176:9 198:5,6 +213:15 227:18 +16-year-old 206:3 +1650 140:4 +17 176:7 211:2 +18 212:21,22 +18205 140:9 +2 +2 139:4 141:15 +142:6 233:3,7,11 +235:22 267:6 +307:19 +2'03 194:5,6,6 +2:58218:19 +200 155:6 156:25 +163:18 168:1 +177:1,10 +2002 194:3 +2003 179:25 180:4 +194:3,8 234:25 +235:19 239:4 +2003-2004 179:24 +180:1,6 +2004 179:24 180:5 +195:12 +2008 282:9,117 +2009 139:14 238:21 +238:22 239:6 +21211:22 213:8 +2218 140:10 +2290 140:15 +23 197:13,14 198:6 +23-year-old 197:20 +232 141:15 +24/7 248:23 +25233:15 +250 139:17 +27 139:14 +3 +3141:16 264:11 +3,000 177:6,10 +3:10 218:22 +303 140:20 +305.931.2200 +140:11 +33160 140:10 +33301 140:5 +33401 139:18 +140:21 +33461 140:16 +348 141:16 +384 141:17 +394 141:18 +4 +4 139:12 141:5,17 +164:3,5,6 165:5 +295:25,25 +4:10 307:19 +400 140:21 +401 140:4 +404 140:15 +412 182:5 +5 +5141:18 264:4,5,7 +264:9 +561.582.7600 +140:16 +561.842.2820 +140:22 +6 +6 263:23,24 +6:05 139:14 +65210:21 +7 +7234:12 245:10,12 +245:13,14,15,19 +247:23 248:12 +249:6 262:2,7 +263:4 282:1,3 +284:14 +72141:14 +8 +8 140:7 264:2 +9 +9:00 189:12 +954.522.3456 140:5 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d2205f4018813fbee72660147d3820f20d7f6dd906a0715a5505673c811f9da0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d2205f4018813fbee72660147d3820f20d7f6dd906a0715a5505673c811f9da0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9bce332fa232f9ac7a82aeb992533b12097523d6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d2205f4018813fbee72660147d3820f20d7f6dd906a0715a5505673c811f9da0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -5749, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d2205f4018813fbee72660147d3820f20d7f6dd906a0715a5505673c811f9da0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 61, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "04fc2814fe09cf40ce8ff796dfc514b5e470d1daf9e8d756137ff89a5b97705e", + "output_sha256": "88bda1f0dce93ab3534dc88ee23950bdef7b0e9407e78e709ee931e9c0a37acf", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d236c0c5e9b7d0493b764e390bf6efa014c55721595a01dfaf7d4c97a7d124a1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d236c0c5e9b7d0493b764e390bf6efa014c55721595a01dfaf7d4c97a7d124a1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9c47bc4b30c2b4a26572725c749001bc9ab548b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d236c0c5e9b7d0493b764e390bf6efa014c55721595a01dfaf7d4c97a7d124a1.md @@ -0,0 +1,233 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 1 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA1 +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +.! +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 2 of 8 +/ +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRAJ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/| +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +25 West Flagler Stret, Suite 00, Miami, FL. 3130, Milami 305 3582800 Fax 305358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.1346 T + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 3 of 8 +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. II, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +/ +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +NOTICE OF FILING NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT +UNDER SEAL FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW +Plaintiffs, JANE DOE NO. 101 and JANE DOE NO. 102, hereby give notice of filing Non- +Prosecution Agreement, including the Addendum thereto pursuant to the Court's Order to File Non- +-3- +25 West Flagler Stret, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 3130, Miami 305.358 2800 Fax 305358-2382 • Fort Lauderdale 9544634346 T + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 4 of 8 +Prosecution Agreement Under Seal for In Camera Review dated July 6, 2009. +Dated: July 10, 2009. +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 +and Jane Doe No. 102 +By: +Ment C, pufaterg by sur +Lobert C. Josefsber +Fla. Bar No. 040856 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Katherine W. Ezell +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +kezell@podhurst.com +City National Bank Building +25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +Telephone: (305) 358-2800 +Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 +-4- +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 5 of 8 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 10" day of July, 2009, we electronically filed the +foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List +either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other +authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically +Notices of Electronic Filing. +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 +and Jane Doe No. 102 +By: +Bebert C. Asefsbeg by twis +Robert C. Josefsherg +Fla. Bar No. 040856 +riosefsberg@podhurst.com +Katherine W. Ezell +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +kezell@podhurst.com +City National Bank Building +25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +Telephone: (305) 358-2800 +Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 +-s. +25 West flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, F1. 3130, Miami 305.35.2800 Fax 305.35.2382 • Fort Tauderdale 954463.4346 T + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 6 of 8 +SERVICE LIST +JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Robert Critton, Esq. +Michael J. Pike, Esq +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman LLP +515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL. 33401 +Phone: (561) 842-2820/Fax: (561) 515-3148 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +mpike@bclclaw.com +Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Jack Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 659-8300/Fax: (561) 835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 202-6360/Fax: (561) 828-0983 +ccf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Co-Defendant, +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack P. +1, Esq. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: (561) 686-6300/Fax: (561) 383-9456 +isx@searcylaw.com +iph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in related Case No. 08-80811 +-6- +25 West flagler Stret Suite 800, Miami, FL. 3130, Miami 305 358 2800 Fax 305.38.282 • Fort Lauderdale 954463.4346 T + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 7 of 8 +Adam Horowitz, Esq. +Stuart Mermelstein, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: (305) 931-2200/Fax: (305) 931-0877 +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +smermelstein@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,08-80232, 08-80380, 08- +80381, 08-80993, 08-80994 +Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq. +Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq. +Leopold Kuvin, P.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +Phone: (561) 515-1400/Fax: (561) 515-1401 +skuvin@leopoldkuvin.com +tleopold@leopoldkuvin.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804 +Richard Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 10" Ave North, Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Phone: (561) 582-7600/Fax: (561) 588-8819 +lawyerwillits@aol.com +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811 +Brad +Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-4252 +Phone: (954) 522-3456/Fax: (954) 527-8663 +bedwards@rra-law.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 +-7- +25 West Flagler Street, Sulte 800, Miami, FL 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 T + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 193 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009 Page 8 of 8 +Isidro Manuel +, Esq. +Elkins & Boehringer +224 Datura Avenue, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 832-8033/Fax: (561) 832-7137 +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469 +-8- +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 33130, Miami 305.358.2900 Fax 305.359.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954463.4316 7 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d236c0c5e9b7d0493b764e390bf6efa014c55721595a01dfaf7d4c97a7d124a1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d236c0c5e9b7d0493b764e390bf6efa014c55721595a01dfaf7d4c97a7d124a1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b3b170ca5f01f41af18a983c93224e5d6cf8d556 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d236c0c5e9b7d0493b764e390bf6efa014c55721595a01dfaf7d4c97a7d124a1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -370, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d236c0c5e9b7d0493b764e390bf6efa014c55721595a01dfaf7d4c97a7d124a1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "67b7785bfc014638c0e3eeff340f1862ac5fcc220f890cec0ff579dcb79d9938", + "output_sha256": "db8e69acfe08edcd0653f3fa95fb3e92e59e13360ee1ba47229de32ff6f53011", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d2390adad211f805a368d66a7ff7449e3a49e23bfbd48e8babd059129a66df9b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d2390adad211f805a368d66a7ff7449e3a49e23bfbd48e8babd059129a66df9b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f91440dda155b9fbb604d0e60b5477179f8692e7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d2390adad211f805a368d66a7ff7449e3a49e23bfbd48e8babd059129a66df9b.md @@ -0,0 +1,123 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2008 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +NO. 08-80804-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE a/k/a +JANE DOE NO. 1, +Plaintiff, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN. +• and L +Defendants. +ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY +THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and | +Motion to Stay, filed under seal on July 25, 2008. The Court has carefully considered the motion +and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Defendant") seeks a stay of this civil action under a federal +statute which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: +If, at any time that a cause of action for recovery of compensation for +lamage or injury to the person of a child exists, a criminal action is +ending which arises out of the same occurrence and in which the child is +the victim, the civil action shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the +criminal action and any mention of the civil action during the criminal +proceeding is prohibited. As used in this subsection, a criminal action is +pending until its final adjudication in the trial court. +18 U.S.C. § 3509 (k). In his motion, Defendants cite a federal case, In re Grand Jury, No. FGJ +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2008 Page 2 of 5 +07-103(WPB) (S.D. Fla.), that arises out of the same occurrence as this civil action and is +pending so that a stay of this civil case is mandated. The federal "case," according to Defendant, +involves a "deferred-prosecution" agreement whereby the U.S. Attorney agreed to suspend its +investigation of Defendant while "retaining the right to reactivate the grand jury." (Def. Mot. 2.) +Defendant essentially reasons, because the U.S. Attorney could bring criminal charges against +Defendant, that a criminal action is "pending." The Court rejects this definition of a "pending +criminal action." +When interpreting the text of a statute, the Court begins with the plain meaning of the +text. In re +524 F.3d 1175, 1186 (11" Cir. 2008). If the plain meaning of a statute is +clear, the Court should not deviate from that interpretation. Id. Pending is defined as "remaining +undecided" and "awaiting decision." Blacks Law Dictionary (8"' ed. 2004).' Likewise, an +"action" is defined as a "criminal judicial proceeding." Id. Because the U.S. Attorney has not +filed an indictment or an information against Defendant, the Court fails to see how there is an +'Defendant attempts to argue that the fact that grand jury subpoenas are still +"outstanding" and "in abeyance" and that the grand jury will not be dismissed until Defendant +completes his obligations under the state plea agreement means that a "criminal action" is +"pending." (Def. Mot. 4.) Defendant misunderstands the purpose of a grand jury. A grand jury, +as Blackstone writes, is composed of citizens who "inquire, upon their oaths, whether there be +sufficient cause to call upon the party to answer" the charge of criminal activity. Beavers v. +Henkel, 194 U.S. 73, 84 (1904) (quoting William Blackstone, 4 Commentaries *303). The grand +jury's sole purpose is to inquire into whether there is probable cause to bring an individual before +a tribunal to determine his guilt or innocence of an alleged crime. Id. The grand jury is simply +an investigative body. See U.S. v. Alred, 144, F.3d 1405, 1413 (11" Cir. 1998). A "criminal +action" is not instigated by the calling of a grand jury, because a grand jury is convened "to +determine whether a crime has been committed and whether criminal proceedings should be +instituted against any person." U.S. v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 344 (1974). An "action" is +commenced against a person after the grand jury actually finds probable cause to make an +individual answer specific charges and renders a bill of indictment against that individual. Until +a grand jury's investigation is complete and there has been a determination by a lawful authority +that probable cause exists, there can be no criminal action. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2008 Page 3 of 5 +undecided judicial proceeding in federal court against Defendant. +Defendant argues that this statute should be read to include the definition of "criminal +action" used in 18 U.S.C. § 1595(b)(2), which reads as follows: "In this subsection, a criminal +action' includes investigation and prosecution and is pending until final adjudication in the trial +court." Defendant argues that "Congress specifically intended that the term 'criminal action' +would be applied extremely broadly" under § 1595, so Congress "took pains to ensure that courts +would give it the broadest possible construction" and defined "criminal action" as including +investigatory stages. (Def. Reply 9.) Defendants argue that the Court should borrow this +definition. +The Court disagrees. The Court believes that Congress's inclusion of this broader +definition under § 1595 evinces Congressional intent to depart from the normal meaning of the +term "criminal action." This addition to the text suggests that Congress knows the plain +meaning of the term "criminal action" and that Congress decided, under § 1595, that the +definition of "criminal action" should be broader. In contrast, Congress could have made such an +addition to § 3509 had it intended the mandatory stay provision to apply to pre-indictment +investigations, but it did not. In other words, by not broadening the definition of "criminal +action" § 3509, Congress intended that the term should only have its ordinary meaning: that an +indictment or information has been filed naming a specific defendant. Instead, it seems clear that +Congress intended that these two statutory provisions should each have a different scope. +Defendant's argument of statutory construction fails. +"In fact, Congress made this intent clear by stating that this broader definition of a +"criminal action" applied only "in this subsection." +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2008 Page 4 of 5 +The single case cited by Defendant in support of his motion is not on point. In Doe I v. +Francis, No. 5:03CV260/MCR/WCS, 2005 WL 517847 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2005), the stay was +entered because criminal charges had been filed against the defendant in a state court several +months earlier (i.e., the defendants had been indicted by the state attorney). See Memorandum in +Support of Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Outcome of Parallel Criminal Proceedings at 3, +Doe 1 v. Francis, No. 5:03CV260/MCR/WCS (N.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2003). The Court agrees with +Defendant that a stay under § 3509(k) is mandatory when a criminal action is pending; the Court +simply disagrees that the "deferred-prosecution agreement" constitutes a pending criminal action. +The Court also does not believe a discretionary stay is warranted. Defendant did not seek +this relief in his motion; including such a request in the reply brief is inappropriate. Further, the +Court sees no reason to delay this litigation for the next thirty-three months. After all, Defendant +is in control of his own destiny - it is up to him (and him alone) whether the plea agreement +reached with the State of Florida is breached. If Defendant does not breach the agreement, then +he should have no concerns regarding his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The +fact that the U.S. Attorney (or other law enforcement officials) may object to some discovery in +these civil cases is not, in an of itself, a reason to stay the civil action. Any such issues shall be +resolved as they arise in the course of this litigation. +Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: +1. Defendant's Motion to Stay is DENIED. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2008 Page 5 of 5 +2. Defendant's Motion for Hearing (DE 2) is DENIED AS MOOT. +DONE AND ORDERED in +Florida, this 5'' day of August, 2008. +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +K- +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies furnished to: +all counsel of record +5 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d2390adad211f805a368d66a7ff7449e3a49e23bfbd48e8babd059129a66df9b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d2390adad211f805a368d66a7ff7449e3a49e23bfbd48e8babd059129a66df9b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..958db4bba4d887e1e421c2e00afdef263a2864f6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d2390adad211f805a368d66a7ff7449e3a49e23bfbd48e8babd059129a66df9b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d2390adad211f805a368d66a7ff7449e3a49e23bfbd48e8babd059129a66df9b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "366d0b8d2dbe6654d64ab1565524c772b40d9d47412aaec0bd970db112f5c6f4", + "output_sha256": "fd339146027710ac176d67017067e305051a059071ed15e71fcd3612d2d3d27d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d245acd35f67559f73c0b5c578c8b2f9bfe311f53e691e4ee133b902408adf35.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d245acd35f67559f73c0b5c578c8b2f9bfe311f53e691e4ee133b902408adf35.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5277a15ae14b69e7eea54025f161434a8a0103f7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d245acd35f67559f73c0b5c578c8b2f9bfe311f53e691e4ee133b902408adf35.md @@ -0,0 +1,213 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/J +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/.] +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 2 of 6 +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +J +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/_ +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +J +C.M.A., +• +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/] +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 3 of 6 +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRA/ +/ +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA-, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA-| +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/] +NOTICE TO STRIKE +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN") by and through his +undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Notice to Strike: + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 4 of 6 +1. Defendant filed his Motion for Limited Appearance by Telephone (DE 133) on +June 3, 2009. +2. Pursuant to Clerk's instructions on June 3, 2009, Defendant hereby filed his +Notice to Strike DE 133. +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is +being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in +the manner specified by CM/ECE on this &_ day of June, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +ROBERT'D. CRITIÓN, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +crit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +Brad +, Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 5 of 6 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: 954-522-3456 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +bedwards@rra-law.com +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +08-80893 +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +Paul G. Cassell, Esg. +08-80994 +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +801-585-5202 +2290 10" Avenue North +801-585-6833 Fax +Suite 404 +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80811 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Isidro M. +Esq. +Law Firm, P.A. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +Jack Scarola, Esq. +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack P. L +Esq. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80469 +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-686-6300 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +jsx@searcylaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff. C.M.A. +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +305 358-2800 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases +Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesg@bellsouth.net + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 6 of 6 +Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. +Ricci-Leopold, P.A. +2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +561-684-6500 +Fax: 561-515-2610 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-08804 +skuvin@riccilaw.com +tleopold@riccilaw.com +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d245acd35f67559f73c0b5c578c8b2f9bfe311f53e691e4ee133b902408adf35.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d245acd35f67559f73c0b5c578c8b2f9bfe311f53e691e4ee133b902408adf35.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a2a2b908de073fa0e0ca0f0c62abba95fe1e16fa --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d245acd35f67559f73c0b5c578c8b2f9bfe311f53e691e4ee133b902408adf35.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d245acd35f67559f73c0b5c578c8b2f9bfe311f53e691e4ee133b902408adf35", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "481960060d947b7f156b429d01f73a0e14552a83a11af3b788e884fe30dd2d12", + "output_sha256": "62b7ef406bccec4267f1a973c262a4f8da99128d082f7947770860fd36256225", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d24e46124933833440437ee71f6a20450dbb455aa4b3a843d1563134182aae7a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d24e46124933833440437ee71f6a20450dbb455aa4b3a843d1563134182aae7a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d8133e9c817bd671289c02718ef2bbdadaacb379 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d24e46124933833440437ee71f6a20450dbb455aa4b3a843d1563134182aae7a.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 44 +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +troutman.com +Filed 06/03/20 Page 1 of 1 +troutman" +sanders +Bennet J. Moskowitz +bennet.moskowitz(@troutman.com +June 3, 2020 +VIA ECF +Hon. Debra C. Freeman +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +New York, NY 10007 +Re: +Katlyn Doe, 1:19-cv-07771-PKC-DCF; Priscilla Doe, 1:19-cv-07772-ALC-DCF; +Lisa Doe, 1:19-cv-07773 ER-DCF; VE.. 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF; +vane Doe, 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF: +1, 1:19-CV-10475-LGS-DCF; +1, 1:19-CV-10476-PGG-DCF; +* 1:19-CV-10479-ALC-DCF; +Jane Doe 1000, 1:19-CV-10577-LGS-DCF: Jane Doe 15, 1:19-cv-10653-PAE-DCF; +Mary Doe, 1:19-cv-10758-PAE-DCF; | +1. 1:19-CV-10788-GHW-DCF; +Anastasia Doe, 1:19-CV-11869-AJN-DCF; Jane Doe, 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF +Dear Judge Freeman: +We represent Defendants Darren _. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the +Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, the "Co-Executors"), in the above-referenced actions. We +are pleased to inform the Court that, today, the Superior Court of the United States Virgin +Islands entered an order granting the Co-Executors' Motion to establish the Epstein Victims' +Compensation Program. A copy of the Order is attached hereto. +Respectfully submitted, +Is/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d24e46124933833440437ee71f6a20450dbb455aa4b3a843d1563134182aae7a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d24e46124933833440437ee71f6a20450dbb455aa4b3a843d1563134182aae7a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fc8d1d2344d7324fe53e4320b3ee8eb3436f180f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d24e46124933833440437ee71f6a20450dbb455aa4b3a843d1563134182aae7a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d24e46124933833440437ee71f6a20450dbb455aa4b3a843d1563134182aae7a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "244eaee0052d4fb3bdfa90a6642138d1ad6e53a6f4c106319cce68ba0c20b11c", + "output_sha256": "658984498e3e57e4616a987a000c9aa563cd0b391b8fbb36463ede3efc2a7432", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d286fe06dc49d331c1b363a30acd14cbc2aa340242f9132a6897d3626b119961.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d286fe06dc49d331c1b363a30acd14cbc2aa340242f9132a6897d3626b119961.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7217f3277f428cf51fd8d21f47a8d306316b770c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d286fe06dc49d331c1b363a30acd14cbc2aa340242f9132a6897d3626b119961.md @@ -0,0 +1,312 @@ +: +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Pagan +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 - MARRA/ +JANE DOE, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S +FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (dated 03/23/09) +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned +attorneys, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P., 34, and S.D. Fla. 26.1.G., serves his response to +Plaintiff JANE DOE's First Request For Production, dated March 23, 2009. +Request No. 1: +Copies of all telephone records in your or your attorneys' +possession from 2002 through 2005 that in any way relate to you (including all phone +lines owned by you or that were used to contact girls for the purposes of scheduling +massages for you.) +Response: Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me +that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant +to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. +Request No. 2: All massage appointment books, diaries, computer calendars or +scheduling entities, scheduling books or any other writing or correspondence that +contains the names of any of the girls that were called, contacted, scheduled or who + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 2 of 8 +Page 2 +otherwise went to your home located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, for the +purpose of giving you a massage. +Response: Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me +that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant +to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. +Request No. 3: Any and all documentation in your possession that contains +Plaintiff's name or that refers to Plaintiff, directly or indirectly, (includes e-mails, letters, +message pads, diaries, appointment books, computer print outs). +Response: Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me +that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant +to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. +Request No. 4: +Any and all photos, videos, downloaded digital prints or any other +visual depiction of Plaintiff, or of any other known or suspected minor females +introduced to you, directly or indirectly, by Plaintiff. +Response: Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me +that at the present time 1 cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant +to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +ettective representation. Accordingly, 1 assert my tederal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, +Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise +of my constitutional rights, would be +unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 3 of 8 +Page 3 +Request No. 5: +Photos of the inside of your home located at 358 El Brillo Way, +Palm Beach, Florida, that depict the rooms) where the massages took place (including +massage table). +Response: Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me +that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant +to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. +Request No. 6: Any and all documentation of cancelled checks or evidence of +payment to Plaintiff of any kind and for any reason whatsoever. +Response: Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me +that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant +to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. +Request No. 7: All discovery information obtained by you or your attorneys as a +result of the exchange of discovery in the State criminal case against you or the Federal +investigation against you. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request +as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present +time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and | +must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, +Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally +burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would +therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 545-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 4 of 8 +Page 4 +pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence +410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request may include information +subject to work product or an attorney-client privilege. +Request No. 8: +All financial documents evidencing asset transfers from 2005 to the +present for you personally or any company or corporation owned by you. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request +as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present +time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I +must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, +Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally +burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would +therefore violate the Constitution. +Request No. 9: +Any documents or other evidentiary materials provided to local, +state, or federal law enforcement investigators or local, state or federal prosecutors +investigating your sexual activities with minors. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request +as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present +time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and | +must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, +Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally +burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would +therefore violate the Constitution. +In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible +pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence +410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request may include information +subject to work product or an attorney-client privilege. +Request No. 10: All correspondence between you and your attorneys and state or +federal law enforcement or prosecutors (includes, but not limited to, letters to and trom +the State Attorney's office or any agents thereot): + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 5 of 8 +Page 5 +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request +as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present +time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and | +must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, 1 assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, +Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally +burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would +therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional +privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible +pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence +410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. +• Further, the request may include information +subject to work product or an attorney-client privilege. +Request No. 11: Any and all documents reflecting your current net worth. +Response: Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me +that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant +to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, +Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +EE 222 +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. +Request No. 12: Personal tax returns for all years from 2002 through the present. +Response: Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me +that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant +to this lawsuit and 1 must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution; overly broad. +Request No. 13: A photocopy of your passport, including any supplemental pages +reflecting travel to locations outside the 50 United States between 2020 and 2008, + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 6 of 8 +Page 6 +including any documents or records regarding plane tickets, hotel receipts, or +transportation arrangements. +Response: Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me +that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant +to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without +waiving his constitutional protections and privileges, the scope of information is so +overbroad that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to +lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; compiling such information over a six year +period would be unduly burdensome and time consuming. +Request No. 14: A sworn statement of your net worth (including a detailed financial +statement depicting all current assets and liabilities). +Response: Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me +that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant +to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. +Request No. 15: All financial statements or affidavits produced by you for any +reason, to any person, company, entity or corporation since 2005. +Response: Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all +relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me +that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant +to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to +effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the +Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would +unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be +unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution; overly broad. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 7 of 8 +Page 7 +Request No. 16: All medical records of Defendant Epstein from Dr. Stephan +Alexander. +Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request +as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents +regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present +time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I +must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective +representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, +Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. +Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally +burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would +therefore violate the Constitution. +Certificate of Service +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent via U.S +ail and facsimile to the following addressees this 18 day of May, 2009 +Brad | +1. Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Phone: 954-522-3456 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +bedwards@rra-law.com +Counsel for Plaintiff +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +801-585-5202 +801-585-6833 Fax +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Co-counsel for Plaintiff +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +561-835-8691 Fax +jagesg@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 8 of 8 +Jane Doe +v. Epstein, et al. +Page 8 +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d286fe06dc49d331c1b363a30acd14cbc2aa340242f9132a6897d3626b119961.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d286fe06dc49d331c1b363a30acd14cbc2aa340242f9132a6897d3626b119961.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8161ba9358a405fd8cf0318cac62de6544f7dbae --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d286fe06dc49d331c1b363a30acd14cbc2aa340242f9132a6897d3626b119961.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -272, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d286fe06dc49d331c1b363a30acd14cbc2aa340242f9132a6897d3626b119961", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 10, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "dfa2c020ffb8d5d737d38fda350475c4ff27909d1f06caf15d883f67444c0a8f", + "output_sha256": "d489475d978db15ba763573eecbd2fa21a556db6c35f27ae7a15137b4b68e0e6", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d28df7ca5d106db121c607fab7aad4f44a73dd62b5e339b6d98f79ec7b3f632d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d28df7ca5d106db121c607fab7aad4f44a73dd62b5e339b6d98f79ec7b3f632d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..681aa03c9367ef961b0e42770d2b8cbf8e97ebad --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d28df7ca5d106db121c607fab7aad4f44a73dd62b5e339b6d98f79ec7b3f632d.md @@ -0,0 +1,158 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 89 l +Filed 12/22/20 Page 1 of 4 +HADDON +A N +AN +Haddon, +and +L. P.C +Laura A. Menninger +150 East 10th Avenue +Denver, Colorado 80203 +PH 303.831.7364 x 303.832.2628 +www.hmflaw.com +Imenninger@/hmflaw.com +VIA ECF +United States District Court +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +New York, NY 10007-1312 +Re: +Response to Letter of Plaintiff dated December 21 +20-cv-484 (JGK-DCF), Jane Doe v. Darren K. Indyke, et al. +Dear Judge Koeltl: +On behalf of defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, I write in response to plaintiff's +"Letter Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(2)" dated December 21, 2020, +wherein counsel makes a number of factually and legally inaccurate statements. +Plaintiff previously wrote the Court on December 15, 2020, asking for a premotion conference regarding her intent to file a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule +41(a)(2). This Court then issued an endorsement on December 17, 2020, advising +that the parties need not have such a conference if they "submit a stipulation" of +dismissal. In the absence of such a stipulation, the Court set a conference for January +12, 2021 at 3:30 p.m. See Doc. # 85. +Without waiting for that conference and without negotiating with all parties a +stipulation of dismissal, plaintiff now moves prior to the pre-motion conference to +dismiss the case. She does not explain why she should be relieved of the rules requiring +a pre-motion conference, nor her apparent disregard of the conference scheduled in +January. Rather, she files her "Letter Motion to Dismiss" by levying baseless and false +attacks on Ms. Maxwell and her counsel. As explained below, the parties have yet to +complete conferring on the terms of a stipulated dismissal and therefore any ruling on +the Letter Motion to Dismiss is premature. +Plaintiff asserts that "Ms. Maxwell has found one excuse after another not to +stipulate to the enclosed dismissal executed by the other parties." This is not true. +Plaintiff's counsel first advised the defendants on December 11, 2020, that his client +had accepted the offer from the Epstein program. Undersigned counsel inquired + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 89 Filed 12/22/20 Page 2 of 4 +Page 2 +repeatedly of plaintiff whether she would be willing to provide a copy of her signed +and executed release of Ms. Maxwell in exchange for a stipulation to dismiss. +Plaintiff never agreed to provide such a release. Plaintiff instead filed her "Letter +Motion to Dismiss" without mentioning the disputed condition. It is plaintiff's refusal +to answer whether she will provide a complete unredacted version of her signed +release that has caused the delay in the parties' ability to reach agreement on the +terms of a stipulated dismissal. Plaintiff's counsel offered an alternative - a redacted +copy of the signed release - but undersigned counsel advised that she could not +accept that counteroffer without conferring with her client. Ms. Maxwell is in custody +and not able to communicate at will with her counsel. Instead of waiting for that +discussion, plaintiff's counsel filed the Letter. He has not explained why he could not +wait a day or two for counsel to confer with her client and to then continue the +negotiations regarding a stipulated dismissal. Plaintiff, after all, waited (according +to her false allegations) twenty-three years to bring this lawsuit but cannot wait +2-3 days for counsel to confer with her incarcerated client. +If the Court is inclined to rule on the Letter Motion prior to any pre-motion +conference or completion of the parties' conferral, Ms. Maxwell believes under Rule +41(a)(2) that the following "terms" are "proper" and should be included in the dismissal +order: +a) Plaintiff provide a complete, unredacted version of her signed and executed +release that purports to cover any and all claims against Ms. Maxwell so +that she cannot bring a duplicative litigation in any forum; +b) The language included in plaintiff's proposed dismissal concerning Ms. +Maxwell's rights with respect to her ongoing litigation against the Estate +for indemnification be included in the Court's Order. +C) +Plaintiff pay the attorneys' fees and costs incurred by Ms. Maxwell in +litigating this action; +First, Ms. Maxwell requests her counsel be provided a copy of plaintiff's +signed and executed release. In the event plaintiff attempts to sue her again in any +forum at some unknown time in the future, Ms. Maxwell needs a signed and executed +release so that she has a legally enforceable document to seek dismissal of any such +claim. Plaintiff's counsel's representations in correspondence that she is releasing +Ms. Maxwell are insufficient. Ms. Maxwell has had no role in negotiating the terms +of the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program. She is neither a signatory to any of +its terms nor contractually bound by them. Whatever plaintiff was assured by the +Program in terms of confidentiality apparently did not take into account the needs of +third-party beneficiaries of her agreement to release "any employees of the Estate, +Mr. Epstein, or any entities owned or controlled by the Estate." Counsel is unaware + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 89 Filed 12/22/20 Page 3 of 4 +Page 3 +of any legal support for refusing to provide a copy of a release to the released party; +plaintiff's pre-motion letter cites none. +Second, Ms. Maxwell also seeks to ensure that the dismissal is without +prejudice to her ability to seek indemnification from Darren K. Indyke and Richard +D. Kahn, the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Estate") for fees and +costs incurred in defending against this action. Her request for indemnification is +presently subject to pending litigation in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands +District of St. +_& St. John, Case Number ST-20-CV-155 (the +"Indemnification Litigation"). In her proposed stipulation of dismissal under Rule +41(a)(2), plaintiff included the following language: "this action shall be dismissed +with prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs." The broad +language contained in plaintiff's proposed stipulation could arguably act to waive Ms. +Maxwell's ability to recover fees and costs incurred during litigation of this case in +the Indemnification Litigation. Ms. Maxwell requests that the court include a term of +dismissal that expressly preserves Ms. Maxwell's rights to seek fees and costs in the +Indemnification Litigation against the Estate. +Third, the grounds for an award of attorneys' fees and costs are numerous. +First, plaintiff improperly brought this baseless civil suit against Ms. Maxwell, +making claims that are decades old without a shred of documentary or corroborative +support. Ms. Maxwell absolutely denies plaintiff's claims against her; they are false. +Further, in addition to having to file an Answer, Ms. Maxwell was forced to +litigate plaintiff's failure to provide appropriate Rule 26 disclosures to support her +claims or to provide verified discovery responses. See Doc. #s 54, 60, 66. Although +Ms. Maxwell, while incarcerated, managed to provide written discovery responses and +initial disclosures, plaintiff, presumably not in custody, apparently was never able to +quantify her damages nor to verify her interrogatory responses nor justify her failures +to do so. Ms. Maxwell also was forced to litigate her request to stay the proceedings. +Plaintiff refused to agree, even while she stated her intent to pursue the Epstein claims +program. Only after the government intervened in this case to protect against Ms. +Maxwell getting any discovery herein, did Judge Freeman grant a complete stay of the +proceedings. +Plaintiff falsely claims that Ms. Maxwell "push[ed] Plaintiff into the Program." +This also is not true. The grounds for Ms. Maxwell's Motion to Stay depended largely +on the fact that she is currently under indictment based on the same allegations as were +made by plaintiff in this case. Under Second Circuit precedent, a stay of civil +proceedings is appropriate during the pendency of a related indicted criminal case. See +Doc. # 69; see also Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83, 96 (2d +Cir. 2012). Nor did Ms. Maxwell dictate the terms of the Program or its required +release: Ms. Maxwell and her counsel had no role whatsoever in crafting the Epstein +program. + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 89 +Filed 12/22/20 + +Page 4 +F.R.C.P. 41(a)(2) provides "an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's +request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper." (emphasis +supplied). Terms and conditions are generally imposed by the district court under +Rule 41(a)(2) to protect the defendant from prejudice. 9 +, Federal +Practice and Procedure, § 2366 (3d ed.2008). "Courts have imposed a variety +of terms and conditions, including the imposition of costs or attorneys" fees or +requirements that the plaintiff produce documents or agree to allow discovery to be +used in any subsequent action." In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation, 268 F.R.D. +539, 543-44 (E.D. Pa. 2010) (emphasis supplied) (citing 9 +Practice and Procedure, $ 2366). +For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell requests first that the parties be +provided an opportunity to finish conferral on the terms of a potential stipulated +motion to dismiss. Barring that request, Ms. Maxwell asks that the Court enter an +Order dismissing the case on the three terms outlined above. +Respectfully Submitted, +Comang +Laura A. Menninger +CC: Counsel of Record via ECF \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d28df7ca5d106db121c607fab7aad4f44a73dd62b5e339b6d98f79ec7b3f632d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d28df7ca5d106db121c607fab7aad4f44a73dd62b5e339b6d98f79ec7b3f632d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..61a441602c00d7ba1e7c04e038218814579f421e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d28df7ca5d106db121c607fab7aad4f44a73dd62b5e339b6d98f79ec7b3f632d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -202, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d28df7ca5d106db121c607fab7aad4f44a73dd62b5e339b6d98f79ec7b3f632d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 7, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "6bbbb14bb6cdfaeae32936170ee959078e113de74c57c3c7ecf916ec51b6bde3", + "output_sha256": "63caa9765925cc05c8ecd6b349de95ed6bbf1b2cb17fc56144cb42c614e5c158", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d29126c046119e24ba20dd64a6006b0c012dde209c8df631d46d5df9a334c201.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d29126c046119e24ba20dd64a6006b0c012dde209c8df631d46d5df9a334c201.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4806b86f75e15f082a36900496610d61dc396c26 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d29126c046119e24ba20dd64a6006b0c012dde209c8df631d46d5df9a334c201.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 9:09-CV-80591-KAM +Jane Doe 101, +Plaintiff, +VS. +Jeffrey Epstein, +Defendant. +ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LIMITED APPEARANCE OF +MICHAEL D. SHUMSKY, +CONSENT TO DESIGNATION AND REQUEST TO ELECTRONICALLY +RECEIVE NOTICES OF ELECTRONIC FILINGS +THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on the Motion for Limited Appearance of +Michael D. Shumsky and Consent to Designation, requesting, pursuant to Rule 4B of the Special +Rules Governing the Admission and Practice of Attorneys in the United States District Court for +I Southern District of Florida, permission for a limited appearance of Michael D. 5 07 +this matter and request to electronically receive notice of electronic filings. This Court having +considered the motion and all other relevant factors, it is hereby +ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: +The Motion for Limited Appearance, Consent to Designation and Request to +Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filings is GRANTED. Michael D. Shumsky is +granted to appear and participate in this action on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. The Clerk shall +provide electronic notification of all electronic filings to Michael D. Shumsky at +michael.shumsky@kirkland.com. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 Page 2 of 2 +Case No. 9:09-CV-80591-KAM +DONE AND ORDERED in Mar West Palm Beach Florida this_ 7 " +day of_ +June, 2009 +United States District Judge +Copies furnished to: +All Counsel of Record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d29126c046119e24ba20dd64a6006b0c012dde209c8df631d46d5df9a334c201.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d29126c046119e24ba20dd64a6006b0c012dde209c8df631d46d5df9a334c201.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e8279e8c1184b89ae8d341ba61f5c8efda09776a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d29126c046119e24ba20dd64a6006b0c012dde209c8df631d46d5df9a334c201.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d29126c046119e24ba20dd64a6006b0c012dde209c8df631d46d5df9a334c201", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "863e7dc711c0f9a2428e68835ad2c97cd9dd96a1bcb9053e75f9cce6661e7f7d", + "output_sha256": "558445e78832de379f1969a228fbd0431ef18b6a4def94d201480740b6538880", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d2cc1f1ec16fe6fa57c4cd9bcba12690fd861f5bd6da6556c73c97f2b81ce75e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d2cc1f1ec16fe6fa57c4cd9bcba12690fd861f5bd6da6556c73c97f2b81ce75e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e69552a2ef141826ce3d560423515287834e4903 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d2cc1f1ec16fe6fa57c4cd9bcba12690fd861f5bd6da6556c73c97f2b81ce75e.md @@ -0,0 +1,223 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 1 of 9 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/_ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 2 of 9 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 7, +CASE NO.: 08- 80993-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION +TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO FIRST SET OF +INTERROGATORIES AND FOR AN AWARD OF REASONABLE EXPENSES +Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-7, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby file this +Memorandum in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Answer First Set of +Interrogatories and for an Award of Reasonable Expenses, and state as follows: +I. +Introduction +Defendant Epstein served an Interrogatory (# 18) seeking to unearth explicit information on +every bit of possible sexual conduct and activity in chronological order which each Jane Doe might +have engaged in since age 10, including the names and phone numbers of all persons with whom +they had sexual contact.' Plaintiffs properly objected to these interrogatories in that discovery on +' Plaintiffs also object to Interrogatory nos. 19, 20, and 21, served on each of them, which seek the +identities and contact information of any men whom Plaintiffs' claim committed sexual assault or +-2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 3 of 9 +the sexual history of a childhood abuse victim is substantially limited in federal court, "courts should +presumptively issue protective orders barring discovery unless the party seeking discovery makes a +showing that the evidence sought to be discovered would be relevant under the facts and theories of +the particular case and cannot be obtained except through discovery." See Fed. R. Evid. 412, +Advisory Committee Notes to 1994 Amendments, subdivision (c). Defendant has made no such +showing in his Motion to Compel to overcome this presumption. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion +to Compel must be denied in its entirety. +II. Argument +Epstein incorrectly argues that Fed.R.Evid 412 is strictly an evidentiary rule and that Rule +26(b) must be read exclusively to determine whether information about an abuse victim's sexual +history is discoverable. The Rule 412 Advisory Committee Notes, however, instruct that Rule 412 +affects not only the admissibility of evidence at trial, but must also "inform the discovery process." +Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D. Haw. 1996). The Committee Notes state, +in relevant part, as follows: +Courts should presumptively issue protective orders barring +discovery unless the party seeking discovery makes a showing that +the evidence sought to be discovered would be relevant under the +battery, or engaged in lewd and lascivious conduct or exhibition, against them. Unlike interrogatory +no. 18, which asks for information regarding all men other than Epstein with whom the Plaintiffs +have had sexual activity, interrogatory nos. 19-21 are at least limited to criminal conduct. +Nonetheless, these interrogatories are overbroad and unnecessarily infringe on the Plaintiffs' privacy +interests, particularly since they seek identity and contact information of men other than Epstein +whom Plaintiffs claim committed sexual crimes against them. As discussed infra, discovery on a +victim in a case of this nature is tempered by Fed.R.Evid., 412, and, as a result, a party is not entitled +to carte blanche discovery on sexual matters involving the victim. There must be a balancing of +interests based on the discovery sought. Here, Defendant contends that the information it seeks in +interrogatory nos. 19-21 is relevant to Plaintiffs' damages claims, but fails to state in this regard why +the perpetrator's identity and contact information specifically is relevant and should be +discoverable. This discovery should not therefore be allowed. +-3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 4 of 9 +facts and theories of the particular case and cannot be obtained except +through discovery. +Nowhere in Defendant's Motion is it explained how or why this presumption should be +overcome. It is well established under Fed.R.Evid. 412 that a victim's past sexual behavior is +wholly irrelevant to the credibility of her testimony, and that her prior and subsequent sexual activity +with third parties has no bearing on the issue of whether she consented to or complied with the +sexual acts charged. See United States v. +1. 472 F.2d 909, 919 (5th Cir. 1973); Virgin Islands v. +, 634 F.Supp. 933, 936-37 (D. V.I. 1986) (policy of rule disallowing evidence to show +character of assault victim; Dept. of Professional Regulation v. Wise, 575 So.2d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA +1991) (holding that evidence of sexual relations with a person other than an accused is not relevant). +One commentator has noted that once the identity of persons and similarity of circumstances are +removed, "probative value all but disappears." See Ordover, Admissibility of Patterns of Similar +Sexual Conduct: The Unlamented Death of Character for Chastity, 63 Cornell L. Rev. 96, 106 +(1977). The discovery at issue is not limited to sexual contact involving similar circumstances, and +is therefore lacking in probative value. Defendant fails in his Motion to demonstrate otherwise. +Defendant's argument that Rule 412 is merely an evidentiary rule that should be disregarded +in discovery disputes has been routinely rejected in federal courts. See, e.g., Barta v. City and +County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D. Haw. 1996) (granting protective order pursuant to Rule 412 +to prevent a sexual battery and harassment victim from having to disclose off-duty sexual contacts +with persons other than defendant in discovery); Herron v. Eastern Industries, Inc., 2007 WL +2781211 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2007); Gibbons v. Food Lion, Inc.., 1999 WL 33226474 (M.D. Fla. +Feb. 19, 1999); P.J. Herchenroeder v. John +Univ. Applied Physical Lab, 171 F.RD. 179 (D. +Md. 1997) (looking at both Rule 26 and Rule 412 in resolving discovery motion); +v. Zabihi, +166 F.R.D. 500 (D. N.M. 1996) (explaining that "[a]lthough the present motion arises in the context +-4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 5 of 9 +of discovery under Rule 26, the Court must remain mindful of Rule 412 and its implications); +Stalnaker v. Kmart Corp., 1996 WL 397563 (D. Kan. 1996) (noting that Rule 412 "is applicable and +has significance in deciding certain discovery motions*). +As the above-referenced cases make abundantly clear, childhood sexual abuse cases are not +garden-variety litigation subject to traditional broad discovery concerning a victim's sexual history. +Rule 412 is designed to protect victims of sexual misconduct from undue embarrassment and +intrusion into their private affairs. See Fed R.Evid. 412. The committee notes explain that the Rule +is also intended to prevent "sexual stereotyping that is associated with public disclosure of intimate +sexual details and the infusion of sexual innuendo into the factfinding process." Rule 412, Advisory +Committee Notes to 1994 Amendments. Common sense dictates that requiring a sexual abuse +victim to disclose the intimate details sought by Epstein during the discovery process - which then +would presumably lead to additional discovery of the victim's other sexual partners - would be at +least as embarrassing and intrusive during the discovery process as it would be if the victim were +questioned about these facts at trial, if not more. Thus, in order to carry out its purpose, Rule 412 +"must inform the discovery process" and the Court "must impose certain restriction on discovery to +preclude inquiry into areas which will clearly fail to satisfy the balancing test" set forth in Rule 412. +See Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. at 135. +In Barta, the Court confronted this issue in the context of a discovery motion in a civil case. +169 F.R.D. at 133. +A former employee brought a sexual harassment and battery claim against her +former employer and individual employees. Id. The defendants asked questions at deposition which +delved into the plaintiff's sexual conduct outside the workplace. Id. at 134. The Court did not allow +these questions and wait until trial to determine admissibility. Id. at 135. Instead, the Court +sustained the plaintiff's objections. Id. The Court based its decision on Fed.R.Evid. 412. Id. +-5- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 6 of 9 +Although noting that Rule 412 controls the admissibility of evidence, the Court explained that it +must also apply Rule 412 to "impose certain restrictions on discovery to preclude inquiry into areas +which will clearly satisfy the balancing test of 412(b)(2)..." Id. Thus, the Court concluded that the +defendants should not be permitted to inquire into the plaintiff's conduct while she was off-duty, +outside the workplace, and which did not involve the same defendants. The same rationale should +apply here. The Defendant should not be permitted to seek intimate details of Plaintiff's sexual +conduct throughout her life - particularly if it did not involve similar criminal circumstances such as +those involving Epstein. +Defendant attached three Florida state court orders to its Motion, two of which are trial court +decisions. These cases do not serve as precedent for this Court, and in any event, they are not +persuasive. Unlike state courts, federal courts must focus on the interplay between Fed.R.Evid. 412 +and Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b), and in this regard must be concerned with embarrassment to the victim and +protection of her privacy. Indeed, it does not appear that an analogous argument was made in any +of the state court cases relied upon by Defendant. Furthermore, the discovery in Balas v. Russo, 703 +So.2d 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) was far narrower than that which is at issue here. It was limited to +asking plaintiffs for their employment history (which admittedly included prostitution), employment +records, electronic recording of the conduct which was the subject of the complaint, and a +description of her damages. 703 So.2d 1077-78. At no time were the plaintiffs in Balas asked to +disclose their entire sexually history beginning at age 10. Id. Thus, the three state court cases cited +in the Motion are not helpful to the Defendant, and should not deflect attention from the burden +placed on the party in federal court seeking discovery of a victim's other sexual contacts. +Finally, Defendant's request for attorney's fees and costs is completely unwarranted. The +present motion and response involve good-faith, timely and well-founded objections by Plaintiffs to +-6- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 7 of 9 +over-reaching and harassing discovery efforts. Accordingly, Defendant's request for award of +reasonable expenses should be denied. +Conclusion +Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request that Defendant Epstein's Motions to +Compel Plaintiffs to Answer First Set of Interrogatories and for an Award of Reasonable Expenses +be denied in their entirety. +Dated: May 6, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Adam D. Horowitz +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +-7- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 8 of 9 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on May 6, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of +Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those +parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +-8- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 9 of 9 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +/s/ Adam D. Horowitz +-9- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d2cc1f1ec16fe6fa57c4cd9bcba12690fd861f5bd6da6556c73c97f2b81ce75e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d2cc1f1ec16fe6fa57c4cd9bcba12690fd861f5bd6da6556c73c97f2b81ce75e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9e0b58d9d35ffe9d75ac18b009699dfadf1aea09 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d2cc1f1ec16fe6fa57c4cd9bcba12690fd861f5bd6da6556c73c97f2b81ce75e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -108, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d2cc1f1ec16fe6fa57c4cd9bcba12690fd861f5bd6da6556c73c97f2b81ce75e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "fef9b15fba5ba220ad7db828573a9f686f4c7e178f1a4f2e95e40f89c7388014", + "output_sha256": "98c6cfd50d1930be308bfc54b75404978583b5a101374dcaa6d7102c16b6b501", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d2ff0dd2ffd1f32da6658a9dc14ee79b9550e9bea8f973581363031c798c3aa1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d2ff0dd2ffd1f32da6658a9dc14ee79b9550e9bea8f973581363031c798c3aa1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cb2f9ec21d1f31bc48c7dd0deec93d7c3e62c4aa --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d2ff0dd2ffd1f32da6658a9dc14ee79b9550e9bea8f973581363031c798c3aa1.md @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 94 +Filed 02/04/21 Page 1 of 2 +PANISH +SHEA & +BOYLE +LLP +February 4, 2021 +VIA ECE +Hon. John G. Koeltl +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl Street +New York, NY 10007 +Re: Doe v. Indyke, et al., 1:20-cv-000484-JGK-DCF +Update Regarding Settlement and Plaintiff's Pending Motion to Dismiss +Dear Judge Koeltl: +On October 16, 2020, the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (EVCP) made an +offer of compensation to Plaintiff who accepted that offer on November 29, 2020. As the Court +was previously made aware, a condition of payment of the settlement to Plaintiff was that she +had to dismiss this pending action with prejudice. Plaintiff promptly attempted to do so by +securing a stipulation for dismissal among the parties. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell refused to +stipulate. On December 21, 2020, Plaintiff wrote this Court requesting that it dismiss the case +with prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(2) (ECF 87). In response to that letter, the Court +scheduled a status conference for December 23, 2020. Following the status conference, the +Court set a briefing schedule for Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss. Pursuant to that briefing +schedule, Plaintiff filed her Motion to Dismiss on January 15, 2021 (ECF 91). Her reply brief is +due tomorrow. +Today, however, we received a letter from the EVCP Fund Administrator, Jordy +1. entitled "Important Update Regarding the Epstein VCP." That letter is enclosed for +the Court's reference. +states, in pertinent part, "I am writing to inform you that, due +to uncertainty about the liquidity of Estate assets to fund the Program, effective immediately, all +compensation determination offers will be held until after the March 25, 2021 claims filing +deadline or until such time that I have sufficient certainty that eligible claims can be timely and +fully funded and paid." +In light of this unanticipated development, Plaintiff is requesting that the Court continue +her Motion to Dismiss and defer its ruling on it until after we know whether or not the settlement +reached among the parties will be honored by the EVCP. +11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 • Los Angeles, California 90025 • 310.477.1700 phone • 310.477.1699 fax • www.psblaw.com + + +Case 1:20CV-00484-JGK-DCF Document 94 Filed 02/04/21 PARISHI +SHEA & +BOYLE™ +Hon. John G. Koelti +Daniel C +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +February 4, 2021 +Page 2 +In addition, based on the questionable actions taken by Ms. Maxwell to delay the +settlement by refusing to allow a case against her to be dismissed with prejudice, as well as the +Estate's insistence that she must be dismissed even though the settlement was to be 100% from +Estate assets, Plaintiff requests that the Court conduct a hearing with all interested parties +(including the EVCP administrator) to determine if there have been any collusive efforts, plans +or intentions by those involved to disenfranchise Plaintiff and the other sex abuse victims of +Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in this litigation. +Respectfully submitted, +PANISH SHEA & BOYLE +Is/ Robert Glassman +Robert Glassman +Encl. diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d2ff0dd2ffd1f32da6658a9dc14ee79b9550e9bea8f973581363031c798c3aa1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d2ff0dd2ffd1f32da6658a9dc14ee79b9550e9bea8f973581363031c798c3aa1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fe4809e0665bd68801420521fbeed42d23e346b2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d2ff0dd2ffd1f32da6658a9dc14ee79b9550e9bea8f973581363031c798c3aa1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d2ff0dd2ffd1f32da6658a9dc14ee79b9550e9bea8f973581363031c798c3aa1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "494d6c703c47f6207b06f09913fa9bd49c966f8a2eb48e1a5b4d661e9dc6f9fb", + "output_sha256": "1d6506ab948cb2d9dcebdc3ed74ff9dff2aad2bfccf1a0a115fd54cbe200f7c2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d364864c888874bf7a92bddff8b6deb0c62568fcb658a1187e76d89ef596ee4e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d364864c888874bf7a92bddff8b6deb0c62568fcb658a1187e76d89ef596ee4e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ac65f7b6d0e1b2ac386c0b02a1418e3b2d2c7860 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d364864c888874bf7a92bddff8b6deb0c62568fcb658a1187e76d89ef596ee4e.md @@ -0,0 +1,33148 @@ +Filing # 125411406 E-Filed 04/22/2021 11:42:00 AM +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +DIVISION: AG +v. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida, +Defendants. +COPY +APPENDIX TO MOTION OF PLAINTIFF CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC +FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Excerpts from the March 19, 2010 deposifion of Detective | +Recarey (Volume I and +6. +II) +Excerpts from the April 27, 2010 deposition of Detective +Recarey (Volume III and +IV) +November 2020 Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility Report +Excerpts from the November 23, 2009 video-taped deposition of Michael Reiter (Volume +I and ID +y 1, 2006 Michael S. Reiter, Chief of Police, letter to Barry E. Krischer, State Attorney +Indictment +Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement +8. +9. +Plea Deal +July 8, 2019 Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney, letter to The Honorable Henry +Pitman re: United States v. Jeffrey Epstein; Case No. 19 CR 490 (RMB) +Greenberg Traurig, P.A, • 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000 • Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Tel 954.765.0500 • Fax 954.765.1477 • www.gtlaw.com +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, I +ABRUZZO, CLERK, 04/22/2021 11:42:00 AM + + +10. +July 8, 2019 Department of Justice U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New +York Press Release "Jeffrey Epstein Charged in Manhattan Federal Court With Sex +Trafficking Of Minors" +August 27, 2019 Hearing Transcript from United States District Court of the Southern +District of New York, United Sates of America v. Jeffrey Epstein; Case No. 19 CR 490 +(RMB) +12. +Palm Beach Post articles +13. +June 3, 2020 Hearing Transcript on the Motion to Dismiss in Circuit Court of Palm Beach +County, CA Florida Holdings LLC Publisher of the Palm Beach Post v. Dave Aronberg, +Sharon R. Bock; Case No. 50-2019-A-014681 +Dated: April 22, 2021 +Respectfully submitted, +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +Attorneys for CA Florida Holdings, LLC, +Publisher of The Palm Beach Post +Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. +401 East Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 2000 +ort Lauderdale, Florida 3330 +'elephone: (954) 768-822: +Facsimile: (561) 338-7099 +By: /s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN +Florida Bar No. 849324 +mendelsohns@gtlaw.com +smithl@gtlaw.com +FL.Service@gtlaw.com +By: Is/ Michael J Grygiel +MICHAEL J. GRYGIEL +(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) +54 State St., 6th Floor +Albany, New York 12207 +Telephone: (518) 689-1400 +Facsimile: (518) 689-1499 +grygielm@gtlaw.com +Greenberg Traurig. P.A. • 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000 • Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 • Tel 954.765.0500 • Fax 954.765.1477 • www.gtlaw.com +2 + + +By: Is/ Nina D. Boyajian +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +134o Century Park last, Sic. 1900 +Los Angeles, California 90067 +Telephone: (310) 586-7700 +Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 +boyajiann@gtlaw.com +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 22* day of April, 2021, a true and correct copy of the +foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the State of Florida e-filing system, +which will send a notice of electronic service for all parties of record herein +/s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN +Greenberg Traurig. P.A. • 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000 • Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 • Tel 954.765.0500 • Fax 954.765.1477 • www.gtlaw.com +3 + + +Appendix 1 + + +Page 1 +CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/| +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +- VS- +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +VOLUME I OF II +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, +08-80994 +08-80993, 08-80811, +08-80893, +09-80469 +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +DEPOSITION OF +DETECTIVE +TRECAREY +Friday, March 19, 2010 +9:37 - 5:12 p.m. +150 Australian Avenue Sout} +Suite 1500 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Reported By: +Cynthia +I, RPR, FPR +Notary Public, State of Florida +Prose Court Reporting +Job No.: 1509 + + +Page 2 +1 +2 +3 +в.В. +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL +CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE No. 502008CA037319XXXXMB AB +Plaintiff, +-vs- +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +AND +VOLUME I OF II +Defendants. +DEPOSITION OF +DETECTIVE JOSEPH RECAREY +Friday, March 19, 2010 +5:37-5:12 p.m. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1500 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Reported By: +Cynthia +1, RPR, FPR +Notary Public, State of Florida +Prose Court Reporting +Job No.: 1509 + + +Page 31 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15) +(16) +17) +18 +(19) +20) +21) +22 +(23) +(24 +25) +l. I understand. Now, it's obviously not +public at that point. You're keeping the +investigation private? +A. Correct. +e. But nonetheless all those documents that +you would have reviewed from Ms. Pagan would have +been business records of the police department at +the time? +A. Correct. +l. I understand. Now, when you reviewed this +information from Detective Pagan, could you walk us +through exactly what I +had explained occurred to +her? +MR. PIKE Form. +THE WITNESS: (She was taken to) +Mr. Epstein's house for the purpose of making) +(money providing_a massage.) +MR. KUVIN: Okay. +THE WITNESS: Once she got there, she was) +(taken upstairs to the bedroom area. At that) +(time what my understanding was is they were +(taken to the bedroom area through the stairwell +where Mr. Epstein was awaiting to do a massage.) +MR. KUVIN: (Okay.) +THE WITNESS: The massage began.) (At some) + + +2 +5 +8) +(10) +(11) +12) +(13) +14) +15) +(16) +17) +18) +(19) +(20) +21) +22) +(23) +(24 +25) +Page 32 +(point during the massage Mr. Epstein -- this is) +(all off recollection by the way.) +(MR. KUVIN:) (If you want to use the) +incident report, what we're referring to would +(be on Pages 11 through roughly 15 of the +incident report --) +MR. PIKE: (Just -) +MR. KUVIN: - if you need it to help +(refresh your recollection. +MR. PIKE: (Just so the record is clear,) +we're still on the one question. There is a) +(form objection on the same answer.) +THE WITNESS:/ It was -- I haven't found +(exactly where she goes into the story, however) +I know --) +MR. KUVIN: I think it's at Page 14. +THE WITNESS: -- where there was some +touching_involved, and Mr. Epstein then, I) +(believe, introduced a massager.) +(BY MR. KUVIN:) +2.) A vibrator?) +A.) (Correct.) +(l.) Okay.) (Was she asked to take her clothes) +off according to what she told the police +(department?) +(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. + + +Page 33 +5 +(10) +(11) +12) +(13) +(14) +15) +(16) +(17) +18 +19) +(20 +21) +(22) +23) +24 +(25) +MR. PIKE: (Form.) +THE WITNESS: (Yes.) +(BY MR. KUVIN:) +2) And how old was she at the time?) +MR. PIKE: Form. +THE WITNESS: (Fourteen.) +(BY MR. KUVIN:) +l.) Was there an investigation as to how| +(actually was taken to the home? (In other words did +(you determine who took her there?) +(A.) (Correct.) +2) Who was that?) +A. Haley_ Robsond +(MR. PIKEB Form. +(BY MR. KUVIN:) +l.) Did Ms. Pagan interview Ms. Robson?) +A.) Nor she did not.) +2• Nót at this point?) +A.) +No.) +Did you ultimately interview Ms. Robson? +(Yes, I did. +l.) With respect to what) +(explained,_I +would like to walk through this if I could for a) +(minute. +MR. PIKE: What page are you on? + + +Page 34 +5 +MR. KUVIN: (Fourteen.) +(BY MR. KUVIN:) +(Q.) Was there another woman that she described) +(in the home at Epstein's house?) +MR. PIKE: Form.) +THE WITNESS:) (Yes.) (She described aytall) +(blonde female which I believe was Nadia. +8) +10) +(11) +(12) +(13) +14) +15) +16) +17) +18 +19 +(20) +21) +22) +(23) +(24 +25 +(BY MR. KUVIN: +2• Okay• And what did +do → +MR. PIKE: Form.) +(BY MR. KUVIN:) +Q. - as far as whaty she described to you?) +(MR. PIKE: (Same objection.) +THE WITNESS: If I can just - I am going) +(to --) +MR. KUVIN: (Yeah, take a 1o0k.) +THE WITNESS: Nadia was the one who took +(her upstairs, I believe. +MR. PIKE: Form.) +(BY MR. KUVIN:) +l. Upstairs in Mr. Epstein's house?) +MR. PIKE: Same objection.) +THE WITNESS: (Yes.) + + +Page 35 +5 +6) +8) +(BY MR. KUVIN:) +(The same home that we described before on) +(El Brillo Way?) +(MR. PIKE: (Form.) +THE WITNESS: (Yes.) +(BY MR. KUVIN:) +All right.) Let's walk through some of +(this.) When she gets upstairs, the woman leaves the +(room?) +(10) +(11) +(12) +(13) +14) +15) +(16) +17) +18) +19) +20) +21) +22 +23) +(24 +25) +MR. PIKE: (Form.) +THE WITNESS: Correct? +(BY MR. KUVIN:) +Q. Okay. At that point does she tell you +that Mr. Epstein comes in? +MR. PIKEd Form. +THE WITNESS: This is what she's informing) +Officer Pagan. +(BY MR. KUVIN:) +Pagan,_yes? +(A.) (Yes. +MR. PIKE: (Same objection.) +(BY MR. KUVIN:) +l.) All right.) (And what does Mr. Epstein do) +(at that point according_to what)| +explained? +MR. PIKE: (Form.) + + +Page 36 +THE WITNESS: (He told her to remove, take) +5 +8) +(10) +(11) +(12) +(13) +14) +(15) +(16) +17) +18 +19) +20) +21) +22 +(23) +(24 +25) +(off her clothes.) +(BY MR. KUVIN:) +Q. Okay» And she's 14 at this point? +MR. PIKE: Form.) +THE WITNESS: (Correct.) +(BY MR. KUVIN:) +2. What did) +(explain was his demeanor,) +Mr. Epstein's demeanor with respect to asking her to +(take off her clothes? +MR. PIKE: Form.) +THE WITNESS: I believe he was stern when +he instructed her to remove her clothing. +(BY MR. KUVIN:) +l.) What was he dressed in?) +MR. PIKE: Form. +THE WITNESS: (In a towel. +(BY MR. +KUVIN: +Could you explain to us exactly what) +(Mr. Epstein supposedly_instructed her to do -- +MR. PIKE: (Form.) +(BY MR. KUVIN:) +l.) - and then what he did?) +MR. PIKE: Same objection. +THE WITNESS: He instructed her to provide) +(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. + + +10) +11) +(12) +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 37 +(a massage pointing to the specific lotion for) +(her to use.) He laid on the table face down.) +As she was providing_the massage, he asked her) +(to get onto his back. (She straddled herself +(along his back and advised that her exposed) +(buttocks was touching his bare buttocks.) +MR. PIKE: Form, move to strike. +(BY MR. KUVIN:) +Q.) What happened next?) +MR. PIKE: (Form.) +THE WITNESS: (He turned over onto his back) +(and was masturbatingd +BY MR. KUVIN: +2. Okay. Did he masturbate to conclusion +according to her? +MR. PIKE: Form. +THE WITNESS: It doesn't state in the +report! +BY (MR. +KUVIN: +l. Okay. Did I +describe what her reaction +was to what was occurring at this point? +MR. KUVIN: Form. +THE WITNESS: She was disgusted by his +actions but didn't say anything. + + +Page 106 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +BY MR. KUVIN: +2. Okay. And what does she describe occurs +between her, +Mr. Epstein, if +anything? +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +(19) +(20) +21) +22) +(23) +(24 +25 +MR. PIKE: Form. +THE WITNESS: It was oral sex performed on +her. There was strap-on penises utilized. +Y +There was other sexual toys being used, a +vibrator. +BY MR. KUVIN: +2. Does she describe whether or not +Mr. Epstein actually puts his fingers inside of her +vagina or not? +A. Yes. +MR. PIKE! Form. +BY MR. KUVIN: +What does she state about that? +MR. PIKE: Form. +THE WITNESS: That Mr. Epstein inserted +(his fingers in her vagina in an attempt to make) +(her climax as she was masturbating_him.) +(BY MR. KUVIN:) +All of this while she was how old? +Sixteen.) +Q. All right. At some point you have to stop + + +Page 112 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +(13) +14) +15) +(16) +17) +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. KUVIN: +e. - any lawful reason why you could think +of why a 16-year-old girl could describe +Mr. Epstein's penis? +MR. PIKE: Form. +THE WITNESS: +No. +BY MR. KUVIN: +2. Did Ms. Jane Doe No. 103 describe +whether +or not she had an ongoing sexual relationship with +Mr. Epstein and +at all? +Yes, she did. She stated that - +MR. PIKE: Form. +THE WITNESS: She stated that when she +would come over, there was, she would have +either relations with Nadia or -- and at one +(point she even stated there were some +(photographs taken of her in the tub with Nadia. +MR. PIKE: Form. +BY (MR. +KUVIN: +l. Did you ever recover those photographs? +A. No. +MR. PIKE: Form, move to strike the +previous response. +MS. EZELL: Mr. Kuvin, excuse me. I was +trying to object to the form of the previous + + +Page 114 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22) +23) +(24 +25) +second paragraph from the bottom. +A. I know, but do you want to me to use her name +or use the redacted portions of it? +l. Yes. We're discussing Ms. Jane Doe No. +103 at this point. +A. "Jane Doe No. 103 advised one day, Jane Doe +No. 103 was unable to state the exact date this incident +occurred." +l. I'm sorry. +Read it to yourself and I will +just ask you questions. +A. Okay. +e. Sorry about that okay. +Did Ms. Jane Doe +No. 103 describe to you an incident that occurred in +the massage room at Mr. Epstein's home? +Yes. +MR. PIKE: +Form. +BY MR. KUVIN:, +And what did she describe to you with +respect to Epstein and her and any contact that he +may have had with her? +MR. PIKE: Form. +THE WITNESS: She stated that she had gone +up to the bedroom and that both +and +Epstein were in the bedroom. (They were already) +(naked. She had removed her clothing. There + + +5 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +no? +Page 115 +was an appointed time when her and Nadia began) +kissing, touching on the massage table.) (She +(stated that she had achieved climax.) +(All the while this was occurring) +Mr. Epstein was masturbating.) (At one +(point Mr. Epstein put her onto the massage) +(table and inserted his penis into her) +vagina. +BY MR. KUVIN: +l. Did she say whether or not this was +consensual or not? +MR. BIKE: Form: ( +THE WITNESS: This was not consensual. +BY MR. KUVIN: +And what did she say occurred happened at +that point? +MR. PIKE: Form. +THE WITNESS: +She said this occurred for +very quick. He removed himself from her +vagina. +BY MR. KUVIN: +l. Did she say whether or not she told him +Yes. +MR. PIKE: Form, move to strike. + + +Page 119 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22) +(23) +(24 +25) +Yes. +l. All right. And you were present? +A. Yes. +l. Tell us, if you would, how you found the +state of the home when you arrived on that date for +the inspection? +MR. PIKE: Form. +MR. KUVIN: Or for the execution of the +warrant, excuse me. +THE WITNESS: It was determined, obviously +when we were in the house, that the house was +somewhat sanitized. +MR. PIKE: Form. +MR. KUVIN& Describe what you mean. +Ithink we just got disconnected. +Ms. +Ezeli. +(A brief recess was held.) +MR. KUVIN: We lost you, Kathy. +MS. EZELL: Sorry. Lost you for a minute. +BY MR. KUVIN: +2) All right.) (You mentioned before we took a) +(quick break there that you felt that the house was,) +(or you determined that the house was somewhat) +(sanitized.) +Can you describe what you mean by that? +MR. PIKE: (Form.) + + +1 +5) +8 +(10) +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 120 +THE WITNESS: The CPU's were removed.) The +CPU's being the computers. (The towers were +(removed. The wires were just left. (The) +(cabinet in which they claimed all the oils were +(being_ kept were, was empty except for one +(bottle that was way in the back.) The drawer in) +the bedroom where they claimed all the toys) +(were was empty. That's what I meant by - +MR. KUVIN: (Sanitized?) +THE WITNESS: (Witness nods head.)) +BY MR. KUVIN: +l. Okay. During the inspection that you did +or the warrant, execution of the warrant, did you +determine whether of not there were any internal +security cameras in the home? +A. Yes, +there were. +MR. PIKE: Form. +BY MR. KUVIN: +And do you recall whether there were any +located based on your inspection in the upstairs +area of the home? +MR. PIKE: Form. +THE WITNESS: Not in the upstairs area. +There was a covert clock in the downstairs +office area and there was another covert clock + + +Page 130 +CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +-vS- +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +VOLUME II OF TI +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, +08-80994 +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, +09-80469 +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, +09-81092 +YDEPOSITION OF +DETECTIVE +RECAREY +Friday, +ach 19, 2010 +9:37 - 5:12 p.m. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1500 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +10, +Reported By: +Cynthia +RPR, FPR +Notary Public, State of Florida +Prose Court Reporting +Job No.: 1509 +601-051-976-2934 +tronically signed by cynthia honkins 1601-051-974-2934 + + +Page 131 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL +CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE. No. 502008CA037319XXXXMB AB +в.В. +Plaintiff, +- vS- +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +AND +Defendants. +VOLUME II OF II +COPY +DEPOSITION OF +DETECTIVE JOSEPH RECAREY +Friday: +March 19, 2010 +6:37 - 5:12 p.m. +250 Australian +Avenue South +Suite 1500 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Reported By: +Cynthia +, RPR, FPR +Notary Public, State of Florida +Prose Court Reporting +Job No.: +1509 +tronically signed by cynthia +tronically immed to contain hanks 0105172930 + + +Page 132 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +CASE NO. 10-80309 +JANE DOE NO. 103, +Plaintiff, +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +-vs- +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +DEPOSITION OF +DETECTIVE JOSEPH RECAREY +Friday, March 19, 2010 +9:37 - 5:12 p.m. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1500 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Reported By: +Cynthia +RPR, FPR +Notary Public, +State of Florida +Prose Court Reporting +Job No.: 1509 +601-051-976-2934 +tronically simmer by cunthia honking 501-051-976-2934 + + +Page 150 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. PIKE: Form. +THE WITNESS: I was told it was Roy +Black's office that had them. +BY MR. KUVIN: +l. Gotcha. All right. Let's keep going +here. Item 58 was another massage table that was +taken as evidence? +A. Correct. +MR. PIKE: Form. +BY MR. KUVIN: +l. You saw that massage table? +A. Yes, siI. +Okay? Let's look at the next page,) six of +(six. It says a (green photograph with a naked girl. +Do you recall where that was taken from? +That was taken out of the, I believe, +master) +(bedroom. +MR. PIKE: Form. +BY MR. +(KUVIN: +Could you tell by looking at the +(photograph whether it was an underage girl? +MR. PIKE: Form. +(BY MR. (KUVIN: +¡ mean, was (it a young_girl, a mature +(girl, 61d?) +tronically signed by cynthia honkins (801-051-97-2434) + + +Page 151 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Cronically simal by cynthia hanks 10-051-978-28341 +A. No. it was a young_girl. +MR. PIKE: Same objection. +(THE WITNESSE +Very young_girl. +(BY MR. (KUVIN: +2 Could you tell the age from the photo? +MR PIKE: Form. +THE WITNESS? +(Younger than ten. +BY MR. KUVIN: +e. +Could you find any photographs of girls +that were victims during the investigation? Did you +find any photographs of girls that were victims +during the investigation? +MR. PIKE: Form. +THE WITNESS: +There were photographs taken +during the search warrant, topless females that +were taken. +But, no, +I did not locate one of +the victims in the photos. +MR. KUVIN: Okay. +If we look at what +we'll mark as Exhibit 5, appears to be a +supplement of the chain of custody log, two +pages. +Make sure I have got it. It's three +pages actually. +(Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 5 was marked for +identification.) + + +Page 157 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +(25) +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. KUVIN: +l. Narrative 18, it looks like you made +telephone contact with another +• looks like WE, +I assume it means +female, on November 8. +you recall which girl that may have been? +MR. PIKE: Form. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q. Let me ask it this way: +Was this a +recounting of the incident with Ms. Jane Doe No. +Do +103? +No. +l. This is a different girl? +This is a different girl. +MR. PIKE! Form to both questions. +THE WITNESS: +This was a different girl +and I am trying to remember who it was. +BY MR KUVIN: +Do you recall the name +? +Yes. +e. +Is that who this was? +MR. PIKE: Form. +THE WITNESS: Yes, it was. +BY MR. KUVIN: +(e. +Okay. And apparently she had reported +tronical simad by cunthia hankins 140-051-97-2a34) + + +Page 158 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15- +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +(sexual intercourse with Mr. Epstein? +A. That is correct. +MR. PIKE: Form, leading: +(BY MR. (KUVIN: +l. Did she report any sexual contact with +Mr. Epstein? +A. Yes, she did. +0. What type? +MR. PIKED Form +COPY +THE WITNESS: +She was paid to have vaginal +(intercourse. +MR. PIKE? Form, move to strike. +(BY MR. (KUVIN: +Did you determine how old she was when she +(reported having this vaginal intercourse with +Mr. Epstein? +MR. PIKE: Form. +THE WITNESS: Sixteen years of age. +MR. PIKE: Spencer, can you hold on? +MR. KUVIN: Yes, sir. +MR. PIKE: Let's go off the record for a +second. +(A discussion was held off the record.) +MS. EZELL: If I could interject, I was +fumbling on mute and I wanted to move to strike +tronially signed by rynthia mankin 601-051-976-234) + + +1 +6 +8. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +:20 +21. +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 180 +prepared dinner for them. At the conclusion of +dinner, they went upstairs to do the massage. +(Mr. Epstein left the deposition room.) +THE WITNESS! And that was the time that I +believe +learned of this massage. +BY MR. (KUVIN: +And how did +(initially +ct +to +(Chat?) +MR. PIKE: Form. +THE WITNESS:) She had asked +why they) +were going to do the massage instead of the +modeling. +(BY MR. KUVIN: +@ All Fight. Did +(have to get or did +she get undressed +according to her? +A. Yes, she did. +MR. PIKE: Form. +(BY MR. (KUVIN: +And did she tell you whether or not she +(gave Mr. Epstein a massage while he was naked? +MR. (PIKE: Form +THE WITNESS: (Yes.) +(BY MR. KUVIN: +0. Did she explain to you whether Mr. Epstein +touched her? +MR. (PIKE Form. + + +Page 181 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +(THE WITNESS: (Yes, (he did. +(BY MR. (KUVIN: +Q Where?) +A. I believe he stroked her vagina. +2: Do you recall whether she discussed if he +touched her breasts as well?) +MR. PIKE: Form. +THE WITNESS: He may have. +I'm trying to +(recall? +I believe so. +(BY MR. (KUVIN:) +Okay. What did she tell you Mr.) Epstein) +was doing during this massage?) +(MR. (PIKE: +Form. +(THE WITNESS: Masturbated. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Did he, did she tell you whether he +ejaculated eventually? +MR. PIKE: Form. +THE WITNESS: I believe he did. +MR. PIKE: And leading. +BY MR. KUVIN: +e. Did +discuss anything with you about +threats made by Mr. Epstein to her? +MR. PIKE: Form. That would be double +hearsay. +601-051-976-293 +ronical signed by rentia ki-293 + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 183 +THE WITNESS: She stated that if she spoke +of this to anyone, bad things could happen. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Did Ms. +(tell you that she was afraid? +[MR. (PIKE? +Form. +THE WITNESS: Yes. +(BY MR. (KUVIN: +Did she explain why she was afraid? +[MR. PIKE: Form.) +THE WITNESS: (Yes, she did, +She explained +(that because he was very wealthy.) (you know, +that he could pay someone to hurt her or her +(family? +BY MR. KUVIN: +e. Did Ma. +explain whether or not she +received any additional contact from Mr. Epstein or +one of his +agents? +MR. PIKE: +Form. +THE WITNESS: I believe she went another +time to the house. +BY MR. KUVIN: +All right. If you would take a look at +Page 20 of 22. It says here: +stated that +several days later she received a telephone call +from +who coordinated for +to return +Strominalty sinal be rynthia hake 1801-051-97-39241 + + +Page 187 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5. +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +tronically signed by cynthia +ironimal simad he punthia honking (801-051-975-2934) +BY MR. KUVIN: +- e. And what occurred during this second time +she was at the home - +MR. PIKE: Form. +BY MR.. KUVIN: +l. - according to her? +A. She returned to the home with +and another +massage was conducted: +All right. And did this massage involve +Mr. Epstein again getting naked? +A. Correct. +(MR. (PIKED +Form. +BY_MR. (KUVIN: +Did this massage, according to her, +involve any touching by Mr. Epstein of her? +(MR. BIKED +Form. +(THE WITNESS: Yes. +(BY MR. KUVIN +Where did she tell you that Mr. Epstein +touched her? +(MR. +PIKE: Form. +THE WITNESS: She informed me that (her) +(vagina was touched digitally while_he_was +(masturbating + + +Page 188 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. KUVIN: +l. Okay. Did she describe during the second +time whether or not Mr. Epstein climaxed? +MR. PIKE: Form. +THE WITNESS: Yes, +she did. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q. And did she recount for you whether or not +Mr. Epstein made another threat to her at the +conclusion of this massage? +MR. PIKE: +(Form. +Who are we talking) +about? +MR. (KUVIN: +THE WITNESSE +Yes! +(BY MR. KUVIN: +What did she tell you? +MR. PIKE: Form. +THE WITNESS: +She said that she was not to +speak of this to anyone: bad things could +happen. +BY MR. IKUVIN: +When you talked to her, was she afraid, +Ibless you, was she afraid that Mr. Epstein would do +something to her or her family? +(Yes. +She was afraid that someone would hurt +either her or her family: +(601-051-976-2934 +tronically signed by rynthia honkins 501-051-976-2924 + + +Page 299 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +stuck around just to assist the victims. +BY MR. +And when you talk about the statement that +you provided, did you present testimony related to +• all of the minor females that you discovered to have +come in contact with Jeffrey Epstein or only the +four or five names that ultimately were at the end +of your probable cause affidavit? +MR. PIKE: Form and compound. +THE WITNESS: As far as my testimony at +the grand jury, I only answered the questions +that were asked of me by the state. At that +point it was Lanna Belohlavek. +I'm sorry about the last name. I don't +know how to spell her last name. +BY MR. +And in talking with the State Attorney's +Office during the investigation, did you indicate to +them the number of underage females that you were +laware had come in contact sexually with Mr. Epstein? +(MR. PIKE: +Form and assumes facts not fin +evidence. +THE WITNESS: Yes, they were aware of the +(probable cause affidavit which indicated all +the facts. +ctronically signed by rinthia i +honkins (801-051-076-234) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 301 +between the Palm Beach Police Department and the +State Attorney's Office? +A. Yes, there was. +2. And -- +A. This case was originally brought to their +(attention very early on in the investigation to which +(they were, (you know, (very gung-ho, very Lette +g0, let's +do this. up until, up until. up until the meeting with +(Alan Dershowitz and the State Attorney. (And then it, (it) +(all took a turn. +Were you at that meeting? +I attended one meeting where I believe it +(Dershowitz. (Krischer, and Belohlavek. +(MR. (PIKE +object to form. +(BY MR. +What was said during that meeting? +MR PIKE: +All right. With regard to this +(Kine of questioning. I fust want to be clear) +that I have form objections to this line of +questioning: And the fact that under various +Federal Rules, [believe it's 408, 410 as well +las various rules under Florida Evidence Code, +(some of these discussions are protected as +(potential plea negotiations. (So,) having_said +(that...) +ctronically signed by cynthia +(601-051-976-2934) +ctronically sinned hu cunthis honking (A01-051-976-2934) + + +Page 302 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +(BY MR. +What was said during these, this meeting) +that you attended?) +Several of the girls' MySpaces were discussed. +(MySpace being the social network. They all had! +(MySpaces. And the girls, the girls were actually who +had the MySpaces had inputted, (you know, various +different things regarding alcohol use or marijuana use +or that (kind of thing? +And what was brought up at that meeting as +to the relevance of whether or not these females +that had been to Jeffrey Epstein's house while +underage used alcohol or drugs? What was the point +of that? +(MR. PIKED Form. +(THE WITNESS: +(To show that the character) +of the girls were not, was not to be believed. +(BY MR. EDWARDS: +Okay? +It was specifically to attack their +credibility? +MR. PIKE? Form, move to strike. +THE WITNESS: Correct. +BY MR. +So, at that point in time who was making +those arguments on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein? +tronical slamed by cynthia mankins 180-951-97-234) + + +Appendix 2 + + +V +Page 319 +CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VOLUME III OF IV +-VS- +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-803814 +08-80994 +0-0993, 08-0811, 0-08, +09-80469 +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, +09-81092 +) DEPOSITION OF +DETECTIVE +RECAREY +Tuesday, April 219, 2010 +10:03 - 5:12 p-m. +505 South Flagler Drive +Suite 1100 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Reported By: +Jeana Ricciuti, RPR, FPR, CLR +Notary Public, State of Florida +Prose Court Reporting +Job No.: 1509 +Certified Copy: +Electronicaly aigned by Jean Ricit 801-280-428-9381) +C5062637-abe1-452c-a836-bc614e314d7a + + +Page 401 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +OI -- +BY MR. WEINBERG: +Well, let's start with that time, when +Mr. Epstein was the customer. Were any of the women +(going to his house engaging in prostitution, (in your +opinion? +Op +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MS. (ARBOUR: +(Form. +THE WITNESS: In my opinion? +BY MR. WEINBERG: +(Yes. +No. +And that included those who were going to his +¡house who were above 18 as well as below 18,) correct? +(MS. (ARBOUR: +(Form. +THE WITNESS: Like I was told, people that I +(interviewed that were above 18, what happened +between them were between two consenting adults. +BY MR. WEINBERG: +And so to your mind, (it's not the giving of +money. it's the negotiated agreement that constitutes +the essential element that distinguishes prostitution +from simply a consensual act as long as the people who +engaged in it were both over 18? +(MS. ARBOUR: +(Form. +Electronically signed by Jeana Ricciuti (601-280-428-9381 +lectronically signed by Jeana Ricciuti (601-280-428-9381 + + +Page 402 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +I2 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +(BY MR. WEINBERG: +Correct? +MS. ARBOUR: +Same objection +THE WITNESS: +The negotiation part, for Y +(BY MR WEINBERG +So absent the negotiation, +there (is ho +prostitution? +IMS. (ARBOUR +Form. +THE WITNESS! +No... +BY MR. WEINBERG: +e. And therefore, in your opinion, the women +going to see Mr. Epstein were not going there pursuant +to a prostitution agreement,ycorrect? +Correct. +e. They were going there as consenting adults or +even consenting minors to do something other than +prostitution? +MS! ARBOUR: +Form. +THE WITNESS: They were going there to provide +the massage but, you're right, it wasn't +prostitution. +BY MR. WEINBERG: +Q. And in fact, had some of these girls that went +there who were under 18, had they been over 18, then +this entire case would have been a consenting massage +Electronically signed by Jean Ricit (01-280428-938) +cБ062637-abe1-452c-a836-bc6140314d7a + + +Page 476 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +December of 2005, correct? +A. Uh-huh. +l. So it began in March and it continued through +December of 2005, correct? +A. Yes. +l. The first time you formalized a probáble +cause +affidavit was May 1, 2006, correct? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. And that probable cause affidavit resulted. +several months later when the State Attorney was +presenting a case to the grand jury? +A. That was -- that whole fiasco with the State +Attorney's office where originally we were going to go +(to the grand jury. then we postponed it, land then wel +were going to go back to the grand jury.) ther wel +(postponed it, and then they said no, we want a probable +cause affidavit: So I (submitted it as a probable cause) +(affidavit. and they came back and said no, we want to go +(back to the grand jury --) +To cut through it, there was some, to put it +mildly, miscommunication between the State Attorney's +office and the Palm Beach Police Department? +MR. +: Object to the form. +MS. ARBOUR: Form. +MR. +Mischaracterizes his testimony. +Electronialy lined by Jean REcit 801-20-2-98 1) +c5062637-abe1-452c-aB38-bc614e314d7a + + +Page 477 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. WEINBERG: +l. Let me go back and start again. In April, +they told you they were going to conduct a grand jury +and subpoenas went out to certain people, okay? +A. It was prior to April, I believe. I think we +were in March. +2. So in March, the grand jury subpoenas were +served for an April appearance. Does that chronology +make sense? +A. I think that's when the discussions were back +and forth about grand jury. +e. And Ms. Jane Doe 103 was served with a grand +jury subpoena? +drove up and I served her with a grand jury +subpoena. +And that grand jury was postponed or canceled, +correct? +Yes. +And a second grand jury was thereafter +(convened during the summer of 2006) correct, months +after the first one? +Yes. +e. +And taking that timeline, between the grand +jury for which you subpoenaed Ms. Jane Doe 103 the first +time and the grand jury that ultimately returned - was +Electronically signed by Jean Recit 01-2042-9381 + + +Page 484 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +written by Chief Reiter and sent to whom? +A. They were sent to some of the parents of the +victins. +l. If I represent to you that at least some of +those letters were dated in May of 2006, would that jog +your memory as to when this meeting with Special Agent +Ortiz occurred? +A. I believe it would have been after those +letters. +e. But before the return of the State grand jury +indictment? +A. I don't believe it was before the grand jury. +I believe it was after the grand jury. +l. So your best memory, therefore, would be that +it would be after both the letters and the grand jury? +Correct. +You had different conversations with the State +Attorney during this period, with one or more of the +State attorneys? +Yeah, Assistant State attorneys. +e. +Which Assistant State attorney do you recall +talking to? +Lanna Belohlavek. +Do you recall any conversation with +Ms. Belohlavek wherein you discussed whether or not your +Electronical sine by Jean Rel 01202-98 + + +Page 485 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +witnesses were or were not victims? +MS. ARBOUR: Form.) +(THE WITNESS: I recall her picking and +(choosing who she wanted to refer to as a victim.) +(Most of my conversations with her I know were +documented in the report. +(BY MR. WEINBERG: +Do you recall words to the effect that you +were frustrated with her because one of her opinions +were that there was no victims in this case? +(MS. ARBOUR: Form.) +THE WITNESS: I did recall that conversation, +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +(yes. +BY MR. WEINBERG: +(0. (And what do you recall of that conversation?) +I recall her, after viewing some of the +(materials that were supplied to her by Dershowitz,) she +(started to claim that the victims were not victims based +on the materials that were supplied by the MySpaces. +The victims were not victims? +That's what she was claiming. +2. And this is the State Attorney's statements to +(you based on her investigation which included her review) +of materials provided to her by Defense Counsel +(Professor Alan Dershowitz? +Electronically signed by Jeana Ricciuti (601-280-428-9381) +Electronically signed by Jeana Ricciuti (601-280-428-9381) + + +Page 486 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MS (ARBOUR: Form. +THE WITNESS: I wouldn't consider what she did +her investigation. I think she just looked at +these girls' MySpace accounts. +I wouldn't consider) +that an investigation.). +BY MR. WEINBERG: +Q. But she had in her possession at +this time +your incident report? +MS. ARBOUR: +THE WITNESS: +FOIIN. +Yes. +BY MR. WEINBERG: +Your probable cause affidavit? +MS. ARBOUR: Form, +THE WITNESS: +I' don't know if it was drafted +yet. +BY MR. WEINBERG: +But she had the raw materials of your many +interviews over many months, +•correct? +MS. ARBOUR: Form. +THE WITNESS: Yes. +BY MR. WEINBERG: +She had the results of the search, did she +not? +Yes. +She had the message pads available to her, did +Electronicaly signed by Jean Richi (80-20-426-381 + + +Page 491 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Yes. +Was amongst them Ms. +Yes. +? +Who else? +A. I believe this was it. I think that was the +initial - they were going to do it in sections, +and +they were going to pick those girls to go first. +e. And the criminal offense that she was +investigating at the time was felony solicitation? +MS. ARBOUR: Form. +THE WITNESS: I don't know what she was +looking into. I know what I was seeking. +BY MR. WEINBERG: +2. You and her had disagreements about witnesses +and charges, correct? +Yes +Q. +And you had disagreements about whether or not +the witnesses that you denominated victims and she said +weren't victims, you had disagreements over their +(credibility. did you not? +Not over their credibility. It was over, +like, the MySpace pages I had the feeling that she was +trying to -- +I don't mean to interrupt, but I want to stick +to conversations and evidence and not feelings, so -- +Electronically signed by Jeana Ricciuti (601-280-428-9381, +Electronically signed by Jeana Ricciuti (601-280-428-9381 + + +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 492 +(MR +Go ahead and finish your answer, +sir. Don't let him interrupt you. You can finish +your answer +THE WITNESS: I had the feeling that she was +trying to brush this case under the carpet. +That +was my -- +BY MR. WEINBERG: +e. You believed that she was minimizing the case, +correct? +(Non-verbal response). +Q. And you believed that +Nóne of the reasons she +was minimizing the case was her/review of the MySpace +pages of some of your witnesses, correct? +I know that the attitude of the State +Attorney's office was very pro-assisting us from the +very beginning. +Once Mr. Dershowitz became involved in +the investigative stage, everything changed. +So let's talk about these MySpace pages for a +minute. +MySpace pages are an Internet site where the +witnesses herself would put information out there that +was available to whoever accessed the site, correct? +MS. ARBOUR: Form. +THE WITNESS: MySpace is a social network that +you can basically create anything that you want to +create on a MySpace page. +lectronically signed by Jeana Ricciuti (601-280-428-9381 +lectronically signed by Jeana Ricciuti (601-280-428-9381 + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +Page 496 +that the case wasn't -- it wasn't -- in my eyes, (it +wasn't any justice served. +BY MR. WEINBERG: +l. Your disagreements with the State Attorney's +• charge decision led you to go outside the State law +enforcement community and transmit information about +MI. Epstein to Federal authorities? +MS. ARBOUR: Form, asked and answered. +THE WITNESS: And also to see if there was any +Federal nexus pertaining to the case. +BY MR. WEINBERG: +l. But you sought to determine if there was a +Federal nexus relating to this case as a result of your +disagreements with the charge decisions that were being +made by your State Attorney, correct? +MS. ARBOUR: Form. +THE WITNESS: I believe so. +MR. WEINBERG: Why don't we take a break and +have lunch. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. WEINBERG: +(A luncheon recess was taken.) +Entronical signed ay dan Rei (60-20-42-38) +(561) B32-7506 + + +Page 499 +CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +-VS- +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +VOLUME IV OF TY +Related cases: +08-80232, +08-08380, 08-80381, +08-80993, +08-80811, +08-80893, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, +08-80994 +09-80469 +09-81092 +NOT. +Reported By: +Jeana Ricciuti, RPR, FPR, CIR +Notary Public, State of Florida +Prose Court Reporting +DETECTIVE +RECAREY +Tuesday, April 27, 2010 +10:03 - 5:23 p.m. +505 South Flagler Drive +Suite 1100 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +ectronically signed by Jeana Ricciuti (601-280-428-938 +ectronically signed by Jeana Riccluti (601-280-428-938 +bdcd1876-c72e-432d-8cf0-b19ae656129f + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 537 +A. I'm trying to recall what we discussed. I +served her with a subpoena and instructed her to call +the phone number that was on there to make arrangements. +Q. How long were you with her in Tallahassee on +this occasion? +A. I'd say about 40 minutes, 50 minutes. +l. And did you decide that you were to be the +person to serve the subpoena as contrasted to any of the +different people working under or with you? +A. Yes, I am the one who seryed the other search +warrant -- subpoenas. +So you served all of the subpoenas? +Uh-huh. +2. And was that the only reason to go to +Tallahassee that day? +(A.) +Î (spoké to her also regarding some phone calls +that she +had received which she felt was threatening in +(nature. +(And what were the results of those +(conversations? +She had received a phone call from +indicating to her that those that are with Mr. Epstein +will be compensated and those that go against him +basically would be dealt with. +We're talking about March or April of 2006, +Electronically signed by Jeana Ricciuti (601-280-428-9381) +Electronically signed by Jeana Ricciuti (601-280-428-9381) +bdcd1876-c72e-432d-Bcf0-b19ae6561291 + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 541 +time, did she have a conversation with you regarding the +second subpoena's conflicting with her finals schedule? +Correct. +And she made a phone call to you to complain +(about the service? +A +Correct. +Q And what was the conversation between Jane Doe +(103 and you on that occasion?) +A. It was (finals week and she could not leave and +(not take her final to come down for the grand jury. ! +recommended that she contact the state Attorney's office +land make recommendations through the State Attorney's +(office. +And did you have any followup with her to see +(if she had been formally excused fron the grand jury by +the State Attorney?) +No, I did not. +Did you learn that she didn't show up at the +(grand jury?) +(Yes. +2. Did you learn that she had not been excused by +the State Attorney? +A. I don't think she officially came out and told +me that she was not excused. +e. But you do know that she failed to appear? +Electronically signed by Jeana Riccluti (601-280-428-9381) +Electronically signed by Jeana Ricciuti (601-280-428-9381 +bdcd1876-c72e-432d-8cf0-b19ao6561291 + + +Page 556 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +(Non-verbal response). +l. The time he was on work release, no request? +A. None. +2. The time he was on probation, community +control? +A. No. +l. So you've never received an FBI request to, in +any way, investigate Mr. Epstein? +A. No. +Surveille Mr. Epstein? +A. No. +2. Report to them any of your knowledge of +Mr. Epstein's ongoing conduct? +No. +e. Same question for the US Attorney's office: +Have they ever +initiated a call to you at any time after +Mr. Epstein went to jail asking you to do anything in +connegtion to their ongoing investigation of +Mr. +Epstein? +A. Absolutely not. +Q. And what about Probation? Has Probation ever +asked you to initiate any surveillance or investigation +of Mr. Epstein? +A. No. +Aside from that one day that i saw him +walking_on the -- along_South Ocean Boulevard, that was! +Electronicaly signed by deans RICH: 801-280-42 9381) +bdcd1876-c72e-432d-8cf0-b19ae656129/ + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Electronically signed by Joana Ricciuti (601-280-428-9381) +Electronically signed by Jeana Ricciuti (601-280-428-9381) +Page 557 +fit. +That was the only -- and I didn't even contact +(Probation. +I believe Captain Frick (phonetic)) is the +one who contacted Probation and something Sloan +(phonetic)D +Q. Are you aware of any - putting yourself aside +and putting this one incident aside, are you aware of +the Palm Beach Police Department having any ongoing- role +in the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein? +As far as today? +Yes, as of today. +No. +2. How about at any time over the past year, +starting with the time he was out on work release and +thereafter on community control -- +There did no -- +e. +-- house arrest? +"investigation, not that I'm aware of. +б. +Is the one occasion the only time that you or +anyone working with you spoke to Probation about +Mn. Epstein's ongoing activities? +That was the only time I think - +e. That you were involved? +A. Yes. +l. And is it the only time that you are aware +that anyone else has had communications to and from the + + +Page 627 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. Yes, there was. +Q. How about Jane Doe 7? +A. Yes. +l. How about a girl that we haven't discussed +named Jane Doe 5? +A. No. +Q. How about a girl named Jane Doe 6? +No. +2. How about Jane Doe 8? +A. No. +l. At any time during your investigation, did you +speak to Jane Doe 5? +A. No. +Did you speak to a girl named Jane Doe 6? +e. +No. +Did you ever speak to a girl named Jane Doe 8? +No y +You were asked some questions earlier about a +(private investigator following_you and pulling_your +trash I believe you said. +(Yes. +Can you tell me more about that? +MR. PIKE: Form. +THE WITNESS: +Sometime during the +(investigation, (it was discovered that we had +Electronicaly signed by Jeana Ricit 801-280-428 9381) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 628 +private investigators following myself and former +Chief Reiter. +When I would leave work and I'd g9 +visit my children, [ would notice a car two lengths +behind me doing the exact same moves [ did. If I +(sped up. (he sped up: (if I slowed down, he slowed! +down. +I (purposely) -- I purposely drove way under the +speed limit just to see if he would go around! No +cars around us and he stayed right behind me. ] +made several U-turns, he did the same exact thing! +So it was clearly evident I was being followed. +I did manage-to oblain a driver's license +plate number and it came back to a private +(investigator. +I was actually called by one of the PIs, which +the phone number came back to the Law Office of Roy +Black in Miami. +As (far as my trash being_pulled, (it became +Clearly evident the day after Thanksgiving where +there is no trash pickup in my neighborhood, (at my) +(house, the day after Thanksgiving, (it's a holiday. +everybody's cans were (full and mine is empty? +IMR. PIKE: Form. Move to strike. +(BY MS. (ARBOUR: +Did you ever do any research to determine the +Electronicaly signed by an Recit 801-20-42-9381 +bdcd1876-c720-432d-8cf0-b19ae656129f + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 629 +identity of the private investigators that you believed +were following_you? +A. (Yes. +I did obtain -- based on their license +(plate, I was able to obtain who they were and which PI +firm they represent. +Did you ever speak to any -- +MR. PIKE: Same objection. +IBY MS. (ARBOUR: +0. Did you ever speak to any representatives of +that PI firm? +No. +(Do you have any information about who, (if +(anyone, hired them to follow you? +A. Aside from that one phone call that came back +(to Roy Black's office. +O. And that was the investigator's calling_you or +(you were ca +the investigators? +No. They actually called me by mistake. +Okay. So you didn't actually speak to anyone? +No. They asked me who I was, and I said who +are you, and they hung up. I had the number on my) +caller ID. I cross referenced the phone number and it +came back to it. +l. And to the best of your recollection, all of +this occurred sometime in that September to May 2006 -- +lectronically signed by Jeana Ricciuti (601-280-428-9381 +lectronically signed by Jeana Riccluti (601-280-428-938 + + +Appendix 3 + + +DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE +COPY +OFFICE OF +PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY +REPORT +Investigation into the +U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's +Resolution of Its 2006-2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of +Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation +November 2020 +NOTE: THIS REPORT CONTAINS SENSITIVE, PRIVILEGED, AND PRIVACY +ACT PROTECTED INFORMATION. DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THE REPORT OR +ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE OFFICE OF +PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. + + + + +EXECUTIVE SUMMARY +The Department of Justice (Department) Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) +investigated allegations that in 2007-2008, prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the +Southern District of Florida (USAO) improperly resolved a federal investigation into the criminal +conduct of Jeffiey Epstein by negotiating and executing a federal non-prosecution agreement +(NPA). The NPA was intended to end a federal investigation into allegations that Epstein engaged +in illegal sexual activity with girls.' OPR also investigated whether USAO prosecutors committed +professional misconduct by failing to consult with victims of Epstein's crimes before the NPA was +signed or by misleading victims regarding the status of the federal investigation after the signing +OVERVIEW OF FACTUAL BACKGROUND +The Palm Beach (Florida) Police Department (PBPD) began investigating Jeffrey Epstein +in 2005, after the parents of a 14-year-old girl complained that Epstein had paid her for a massage. +Epstein was a multi-millionaire financier with residences in Palm Beach, New York City, and +other United States and foreign locations. The investigation led to the discovery that Epstein used +personal assistants to recruit girls to provide massages to him, and in many instances, those +massages led to sexual activity. After the PBPD brought the case to the State Attorney's Office, a +Palm Beach County grand jury indicted Epstein, on July 19, 2006, for felony solicitation of +prostitution in violation of Florida Statute § 796.07/However, because the PBPD Chief and the +lead Detective were dissatisfied with the State Attorney's handling of the case and believed that +the state grand jury's charge did not address the totality of Epstein's conduct, they referred the +matter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in West Palm Beach for a possible federal +investigation. +The FBI brought the matter to an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA), who opened a file with +her supervisor's approval and with the knowledge of then U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta. +She worked with two FBI case agents to develop a federal case against Epstein and, in the course +of the investigation, they discovered additional victims. In May 2007, the AUSA submitted to her +supervisors a draft 60-count indictment outlining charges against Epstein. She also provided a +lengthy memorandum summarizing the evidence she had assembled in support of the charges and +addressing the legal issues related to the proposed charges. +For several weeks following submission of the prosecution memorandum and proposed +indictment, the AUSA's supervisors reviewed the case to determine how to proceed. At a +July 31, 2007 meeting with Epstein's attorneys, the USAO offered to end its investigation if +Epstein pled guilty to state charges, agreed to serve a minimum of two years' incarceration, +registered as a sexual offender, and agreed to a mechanism through which victims could obtain +monetary damages. The USAO subsequently engaged in additional meetings and communications +with Epstein's team of attorneys, ultimately negotiating the terms of a state-based resolution of the +federal investigation, which culminated in the signing of the NPA on September 24, 2007. The +As used in this Report, including in quoted documents and statements, the word "girls" refers to females who +were under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged conduct. Under Florida law, a minor is a person under the age + + +NPA required Epstein to plead guilty in state court to the then-pending state indictment against +him and to an additional criminal information charging him with a state offense that would require +him to register as a sexual offender-specifically, procurement of minors to engage in prostitution, +in violation of Florida Statute § 796.03. The NPA required Epstein to make a binding +recommendation that the state court sentence him to serve 18 months in the county jail followed +by 12 months of community control (home detention or "house arrest"). The NPA also included +provisions designed to facilitate the victims' recovery of monetary damages from Epstein. In +exchange, the USAO agreed to end its investigation of Epstein and to forgo federal prosecution in +the Southern District of Florida of him, four named co-conspirators, and "any potential +co-conspirators." Victims were not informed of, or consulted about, a potential state resolution or +the NPA prior to its signing. +The signing of the NPA did not immediately lead to Epstein's guilty plea and incarceration, +however. For the next nine months, Epstein deployed his extensive team of prominent attorneys +to try to change the terms that his team had negotiated and he had approved, while simultaneously +seeking to invalidate the entire NPA by persuading senior Department officials that there was no +federal interest at issue and the matter should be left to the discretion of state law enforcement +officials. Through repeated communications with the USAO and senior Department officials, +defense counsel fought the government's interpretation of the NPA's terms. They also sought and +obtained review by the Department's Criminal Division and then the Office of the Deputy Attorney +General, primarily on the issue of federal jurisdiction over what the defense insisted was "a +quintessentially state matter." After reviewing submissions by the defense and the USAO, on +June 23, 2008, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General informed defense counsel that the +Deputy Attorney General would not intervene in the matter. Only then did Epstein agree to fulfill +his obligation under the NPA, and on June 30, 2008, he appeared in state court and pled guilty to +the pending state indictment charging felony solicitation of prostitution and, pursuant to the NPA, +to a criminal information charging him with procurement of minors to engage in prostitution. +Upon the joint request of the defendant and the state prosecutor, and consistent with the NPA, the +court immediately sentenced Epstein to consecutive terms of 12 months' incarceration on the +solicitation charge and 6 months incarceration on the procurement charge, followed by 12 months +of community control. Epstein began serving the sentence that day, in a minimum-security Palm +Beach County facility. A copy of the NPA was filed under seal with the state court. +On July 7, 2008, a victim, identified as "Jane Doe," filed in federal court in the Southern +District of Florida an emergency petition alleging that the government violated the Crime Victims' +Rights Ack (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, when it resolved the federal investigation of Epstein +without consulting with victims, and seeking enforcement of her CVRA rights.? In responding to +the petition, the government, represented by the USAO, revealed the existence of the NPA, but did +not produce it to the petitioners until the court directed it to be turned over subject to a protective +order; the NPA itself remained under seal in the federal district court. After the initial filings and +hearings, the CVRA case was dormant for almost two years while the petitioners pursued civil +cases against Epstein. +Emergency Victim's Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's [sic] Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771, +Doe v. United States, Case No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2008). Another victim subsequently joined +the litigation as "Jane Doe 2." + + +Soon after he was incarcerated, Epstein applied for the Palm Beach County Sheriff's work +release program, and the Sheriff approved his application. In October 2008, Epstein began +spending 12 hours a day purportedly working at the "Florida Science Foundation," an entity +Epstein had recently incorporated that was co-located at the West Palm Beach office of one of +Epstein's attorneys. Although the NPA specified a term of incarceration of 18 months, Epstein +received "gain time," that is, time off for good behavior, and he actually served less than 13 months +of incarceration. On July 22, 2009, Epstein was released from custody to a one-year term of home +detention as a condition of community control, and he registered as a sexual offender with the +Florida Department of Law Enforcement. After victims and news media filed suit in Florida courts +for release of the copy of the NPA that had been filed under seal in the state court file, a state judge +in September 2009 ordered it to be made public. +By mid-2010, Epstein reportedly settled multiple civil lawsuits brought against him by +victims seeking monetary damages, including the two petitioners in the CVRA litigation. During +the CVRA litigation, the petitioners sought discovery from the USAO, which made substantial +document productions, filed lengthy privilege logs in support of its withholding of documents, and +submitted declarations from the AUSA and the FBI case agents who conducted the federal +investigation. The USAO opposed efforts to unseal various records, as did Epstein, who was +permitted to intervene in the litigation with respect to certain issues. Nevertheless, the court +ultimately ordered that substantial records relating to the USAO's resolution of the Epstein case +be made public. During the course of the litigation, the court made numerous rulings interpreting +the CVRA. After failed efforts to settle the case, the parties cross motions for summary judgment +remained pending for more than a year. +In 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Acosta to be Secretary of Labor. At his +March 2017 confirmation hearing, Acosta was questioned only briefly about the Epstein case. On +April 17, 2017, the Senate confirmed Acosta's appointment as Labor Secretary. +In the decade following his release from incarceration, Epstein reportedly continued to +settle multiple civil suits brought by many, but not all, of his victims. Epstein was otherwise able +to resume his lavish lifestyle, largely avoiding the interest of the press. On November 28, 2018, +however, the Miami Herald published an extensive investigative report about state and federal +criminal investigations initiated more than 12 years earlier into allegations that Epstein had coerced +girls into engaging in sexual activity with him at his Palm Beach estate. The Miami Herald +Herald, the government also immunized from prosecution Epstein's co-conspirators and +concealed from Epstein's victims the terms of the NPA. Through its reporting, which included +interviews of eight victims and information from publicly available documents, the newspaper +painted a portrait of federal and state prosecutors who had ignored serious criminal conduct by a +wealthy man with powerful and politically connected friends by granting him a "deal of a lifetime" +that allowed him both to escape significant punishment for his past conduct and to continue his +Julie K. +"Perversion of Justice," Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018. https://www.miamiherald.com/ +news/local/article220097825 html. +iii + + +abuse of minors. The Miami Herald report led to public outrage and media scrutiny of the +government's actions.4 +On February 21, 2019, the district court granted the CVRA case petitioners' Motion for +Partial Summary Judgment, ruling that the government violated the CVRA in failing to advise the +victims about its intention to enter into the NPA. The court also found that letters the government +sent to victims after the NPA was signed, describing the investigation as ongoing, "mislead [sic] +the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility." The court also highlighted +the inequity of the USAO's failure to communicate with the victims while at the same time +engaging in "lengthy negotiations" with Epstein's counsel and assuring the defense that the NPA +would not be "made public or filed with the court." The court ordered the parties to submit +additional briefs regarding the appropriate remedies. After the court's order, the Department +recused the USAO from the CVRA litigation and assigned the U.S. Attorney's Office for the +Northern District of Georgia to handle the case for the government. Among the remedies sought +by the petitioners, and opposed by the government, was rescission of the NPA and federal +prosecution of Epstein. +On July 2, 2019, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York obtained +a federal grand jury indictment charging Epstein with one count of sex trafficking of minors and +one count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors. The indictment alleged that from +2002 until 2005, Epstein created a vast network of underage vietims in both New York and Florida +whom he sexually abused and exploited. Epstein was arrested on the charges on July 6, 2019. In +arguing for Epstein's pretrial detention, prosccutors asserted that agents searching Epstein's +Manhattan residence found thousands of photos of nude and half-nude females, including at least +one believed to be a minor. The court ordered Epstein detained pending trial, and he was remanded +to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons and held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in +Manhattan. +Meanwhile, after publication of the November 2018 Miami Herald report, the media and +Congress increasingly focused attention on Acosta as the government official responsible for the +NPA. On July 10, 2019, Acosta held a televised press conference to defend his and the USAO's +actions. Acosta stated that the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office "was ready to allow Epstein to +walk free with no jail time, nothing." According to Acosta, because USAO prosecutors considered +this outcome unacceptable, his office pursued a difficult and challenging case and obtained a +resolution that put Epstein in jail, forced him to register as a sexual offender, and provided victims +with the means to obtain monetary damages. Acosta's press conference did not end the +controversy, however, and on July 12, 2019, Acosta submitted to the President his resignation as +See, e.g., Ashley Collman, "Stunning new report details Trump's labor secretary's role in plea deal for +billionaire sex abuser," The Business Insider, Nov. 29, 2018; Cynthia McFadden, "New Focus on Trump Labor +Secretary's role in unusual plea deal for billionaire accused of sexual abuse," NBC Nightly News, Nov. 29, 2018; Anita +Kumar, "Trump labor secretary out of running for attorney general after Miami Herald report," McClatchy Washington +Bureau, Nov. 29, 2018; Emily Peck, "How Trump's Labor Secretary Covered For A Millionaire Sex Abuser," +Huffington Post, Nov. 29, 2018; Julie K. +• et al., "Lawmakers issue call for investigation of serial sex abuser +Jeffrey Epstein's plea deal," Miami Herald, Dec. 6, 2018. +Doe v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 21, 2019) (Opinion and Order, 9:08-80736-CIV- +Marra). +iv + + +Secretary of Labor. In a brief oral statement, Acosta explained that continued media attention on +his handling of the Epstein investigation rather than on the economy was unfair to the Labor +Department. +On August 10, 2019, Epstein was found hanging in his cell and was later pronounced dead. +The New York City Chief Medical Examiner concluded that Epstein had committed suicide. +As a result of Epstein's death, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of +New York filed a nolle prosequi to dismiss the pending indictment against Epstein. On +August 27, 2019, the district court held a hearing at which more than a dozen of Epstein's +victims-including victims of the conduct in Florida that was addressed through thé NPA-spoke +about the impact of Epstein's crimes. +The court dismissed the Epstein indictment on +August 29, 2019. +After Epstein's death, the federal district court in Florida overseeing the CVRA litigation +denied the petitioners their requested remedies and closed the case as moot. Among its findings, +the court concluded that although the government had violated the CVRA, the government had +asserted "legitimate and legally supportable positions throughout this litigation," and therefore had +not litigated in bad faith. The court also noted it expected the government to "honor its +representation that it will provide training to its employees about the CVRA and the proper +treatment of crime victims," as well as honoring its promise to meet with the victims. +On September 30, 2019, CVRA petitioner "Jane Doe I" filed in her true name a petition +for a writ of mandamus in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, seeking +review of the district court's order denying all of her requested remedies. In its responsive brief, +the government argued that "as a matter of law, the legal obligations under the CVRA do not attach +prior to the government charging a case" and thus, "the CVRA was not triggered in [the Southern +District of Florida] because no criminal charges were brought." Nevertheless, during oral +argument, the government conceded that the USAO had not been "fully transparent" with the +petitioner and had "made a mistake in causing her to believe that the case was ongoing when in +fact the NPA had been signed." On April 14, 2020, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals denied +the petition, ruling that CVRA rights do not attach until a defendant has been criminally charged. +On August 7, 2020, the court granted the petition for rehearing en banc and vacated the panel's +opinion; as of the date of this Report, a briefing schedule has been issued, and oral argument is set +for December 3, 2020. +Il. +THE INITÍATION AND SCOPE OF OPR'S INVESTIGATION +After the Miami Herald published its investigative report on November 28, 2018, +Asion, Federal Sas an hadral of the Sente Seemary 3,200 lette on ering thiney +Herald's report and requesting that OPR "open an investigation into the instances identified in thi +reporting of possible misconduct by Department of Justice attorneys." On February 6, 2019, the +Department of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs advised Senator Sasse that OPR had opened + + +an investigation into the matter and would review the USAO's decision to resolve the federal +investigation of Epstein through the NPA.° +After the district court issued its ruling in the CVRA litigation, on February 21, 2019, OPR +included within the scope of its investigation an examination of the government's conduct that +formed the basis for the court's findings that the USAO violated the CVRA in failing to afford +victims a reasonable right to confer with the government about the NPA before the agreement was +signed and that the government affirmatively misled victims about the status of the federal +investigation. +During the course of its investigation, OPR obtained and reviewed hundreds of thousands +of records from the USAO, the FBI, and other Department components, including the Office of +the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Division, and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. +The records included emails, letters, memoranda, and investigative materials. OPR also collected +and reviewed materials relating to the state investigation and prosecution of Ep +- OPR also +examined extensive publicly available information, including depositions, pleadings, orders, and +other court records, and reviewed media reports and interviews, articles, podcasts, and books +relating to the Epstein case. +In addition to this extensive documentary review, OPR conducted more than 60 interviews +of witnesses, including the FBI case agents, their supervisors, and FBI administrative personnel; +current and former USAO staff and attorneys; current and former Department attorneys and senior +managers, including a former Deputy Attorney General and a former Assistant Attorney General +for the Criminal Division; and the former State Attorney and former Assistant State Attorney in +charge of the state investigation of Epstein. OPR also interviewed several victims and attorneys +representing victims, and reviewed written submissions from victims, concerning victim contacts +with the USAO and the FBI. +OPR identified former U.S. Attorney Acosta, three former USAO supervisors, and the +AUSA as subjects of its investigation based on preliminary information indicating that each of +them was involved in the decision to resolve the case through the NPA or in the negotiations +leading to the agreement. OPR deems a current or former Department attorney to be a subject of +its investigation when the individual's conduct is within the scope of OPR's review and may result +in a finding of professional misconduct. OPR reviewed prior public statements made by Acosta +and another subjeet. All five subjects cooperated fully with OPR's investigation. OPR requested +that all of the subjects provide written responses detailing their involvement in the federal +investigation of Epstein, the drafting and execution of the NPA, and decisions relating to victim +notification and consultation. OPR received and reviewed written responses from all of the +subjects, and subsequently conducted extensive interviews of each subject under oath and before +a court reporter. Each subject was represented by counsel and had access to relevant +contemporaneous documents before the subject's OPR interview. The subjects reviewed and +provided comments on their respective interview transcripts and on OPR's draft report. OPR +6 +The federal government was closed from December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019. After initiating its +investigation, OPR also subsequently received other letters from U.S. Senators and Representatives inquiring into the +status of the OPR investigation. +vi + + +carefully considered the comments and made changes, or noted comments, as OPR deemed +appropriate; OPR did not, however, alter its findings and conclusions. +Finally, OPR reviewed relevant case law, statutes, regulations, Department policy, and +attorney professional responsibility rules as necessary to resolve the issues presented in this case +and to determine whether the subjects committed professional misconduct. +As part of its investigation, OR examined the interactions between state officials and the +federal investigators and prosecutors, but because OPR does not have jurisdiction over state +officials, OPR did not investigate, or reach conclusions about, their conduct regarding the state +investigation? Because OPR's mission is to ensure that Department attorneys adhere to the +standards of professional conduct, OPR's investigation focused on the actions of the subject +attorneys rather than on determining the full scope of Epstein's and his assistants' criminal +behavior. Accordingly, OPR considered the evidence and information regarding Epl +and his +assistants' conduct as it was known to the subjects at the time they performed their duties as +Department attorneys. Additional evidence and information that came to light after June 30, 2008, +when Epstein entered his guilty plea under the NPA, did not affect the subjects' actions prior to +that date, and OPR did not evaluate the subjects' conduct on the basis of that subsequent +information. +OPR's investigation occurred approximately 12 years after most of the significant events +relating to the USAO's investigation of Epstein, the NPA, and Epstein's guilty plea. As a result, +many of the subjects and witnesses were unable to recall the details of events or their own or +by extensive, contemporaneous emails among the prosecutors and communications between the +government and defense counsel. These records often referred to the interactions among the +participants and described important decisions and, in some instances, the bases for them. +III. OVERVIEW OF OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK +OPR's primary mission is to ensure that Department attorneys perform their duties in +accordance with the highest professional standards, as would be expected of the nation's principal +law enforcement agency. Accordingly, OPR investigates allegations of professional misconduct +against current or former Department attorneys related to the exercise of their authority to +In August 2019, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced that he had directed the Florida Department of +Law Enforcement to open an investigation into the conduct of state authorities relating to Epstein. As reported, the +investigation focuses on Epstein's state plea agreement and the Palm Beach County work release program. +8 +OPR was cognizant that Acosta and the three managers all left the USAO during, or not long after resolution +of, the Epstein case, while the AUSA remained with the USAO until mid-2019. Moreover, as the line prosecutor in +the Epstein investigation and also as co-counsel in the CVRA litigation until the USAO was recused from that +litigation in early 2019, the AUSA had continuous access to the USAO documentary record and numerous occasions +to review these materials in the course of her official duties. Additionally, in responding to OPR's request for a written +response, and in preparing to be interviewed by OPR, the AUSA was able to refresh her recollection with these +materials to an extent not possible for the other subjects, who were provided with relevant documents by OPR in +preparation for their interviews. +vii + + +investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice.? OPR also has jurisdiction to investigate allegations +of misconduct against Department law enforcement agents when they relate to a Department +attorney's alleged professional misconduct. +In its investigations, OPR determines whether a clear and unambiguous standard governs +the challenged conduct and whether a subject attorney violated that standard. Department +attorneys are subject to various legal obligations and professional standards in the performance of' +their duties, including the Constitution, statutes, standards of conduct imposed by attorney +licensing authorities, and Department regulations and policies. OPR finds misconduct when it +concludes by a preponderance of the evidence that a subject attorney violated such a standard +intentionally or recklessly. Pursuant to OPR's analytical framework, when OPR concludes that +(1) no clear and unambiguous standard governs the conduct in question or (2) the subject did not +intentionally or recklessly violate the standard that governs the conduct, then it concludes that the +subject's conduct does not constitute professional misconduct. In some cases, OPR may conclude +that a subject attorney's conduct does not satisfy the elements necessary for a professional +misconduct finding, but that the circumstances warrant another finding. In/such cases, OPR may +conclude that a subject attorney exercised poor judgment, de a mistake, or otherwise acted +inappropriately under the circumstances. OPR may also determine that the subject attorney's +conduct was appropriate under the circumstances. '° +IV. ISSUES CONSIDERED +In this investigation, OPR considered two distinct sets of allegations. The first relates to +the negotiation, execution, and implementation of the NPA. The second relates to the USAO's +interactions with Epstein's victims and adherence to the requirements of the CVRA. The two sets +of issues are described below and are analyzed separately in this Report. +A. The Negotiation, Execution, and Implementation of the NPA +In evaluating whether any of the subjects committed professional misconduct, OPR +considered whether any of the NA's provisions violated a clear or unambiguous statute, +professional responsibility rule or standard, or Department regulation or policy. In particular, OPR +considered whether the NPA violated standards relating to (1) charging decisions, (2) declination +of criminal charges, (3) deferred or non-prosecution agreements, (4) plea agreements, (5) grants +28 C.F.R. § 0,39a(a)(I). OPR has authority to investigate the professional conduct of attorneys occurring +during their employment by the Department, regardless of whether the attorney left the Department before or during +OPR's investigation. Over its 45-ycar history, OPR has routinely investigated the conduct of former Department +attorneys. Although former Department attorneys cannot be disciplined by the Department, OPR's determination that +a former Department attorney violated state rules of professional conduct for attorneys could result in a referral to an +appropriate state attorney disciplinary authority. Furthermore, findings resulting from investigations of the conduct +of Department attorneys, even former employees, may assist Department managers in supervising future cases. +10 +In some instances, OPR declines to open an investigation based upon a review of the initial complaint or after +a preliminary inquiry into the matter. In December 2010, one of the attorneys representing victims in the CVRA +litigation raised allegations that Epstein may have exerted improper influence over the federal criminal investigation +and that the USAO had deceived the victims of Epstein's crimes about the existence of the NPA. Pursuant to its +standard policy, OPR declined to open an investigation into those allegations at that time in deference to the +then-pending CVRA litigation. +viii + + +of immunity, or (6) the deportation of criminal aliens. The potentially applicable standards that +OPR considered as to each of these issues are identified and discussed later in this Report. OPR +also examined whether the evidence establishes that any of the subjects were influenced to enter +into the NPA, or to include in the NPA terms favorable to Epstein, because of an improper motive, +such as a bribe, political consideration, personal interest, or favoritism. OPR also examined and +discusses in this Report significant events that occurred after the NPA was negotiated and signed +that shed additional light on the USAO's handling of the Epstein investigation. +B. The District Court's Conclusion That the USAO Violated the CVRA +To address the district court's adverse judicial findings, OPR assessed the manner, content, +and timing of the government's interactions with victims both before and after the NPA was +signed, including victim notification letters issued by the USAO and the FBI and interviews +conducted by the USAO. OPR considered whether any of the subject attorneys violated any clear +and unambiguous standard governing victim consultation or notification. OPR examined the +government's lack of consultation with the victims before the NPA was signed, as well as the +circumstances relating to the district court's finding that the USAO affirmatively misled Epstein's +victims about the status of the federal investigation after the NPA was signed. +V. OPR'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS +OPR evaluated the conduct of each subjeot and considered his or her individual role in +various decisions and events. Acosta, however, made the pivotal decision to resolve the federal +investigation of Epstein through a state-based plea and either developed or approved the terms of +the initial offer to the defense that set the beginning point for the subsequent negotiations that led +to the NPA. Although Acosta did not sign the NPA, he participated in its drafting and approved +it, with knowledge of its terms. During his OPR interview, Acosta acknowledged that he approved +the NPA and accepted responsibility for it. Therefore, OPR considers Acosta to be responsible for +the NPA and for the actions of the other subjects who implemented his decisions. Acosta's overall +responsibility for the government's interactions or lack of communication with the victims is less +clear, but Acosta affirmatively made certain decisions regarding victim notification, and OPR +evaluates his conduct with respect to those decisions. +Findings and Conclusions Relating to the NPA +With respect to all five subjects of OPR's investigation, OPR concludes that the subjects +did not commit professional misconduct with respect to the development, negotiation, and +approval of the NPA. Under OPR's framework, professional misconduct requires a finding that a +subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard governing +the conduct at issue. OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard that required Acosta to indict +Epstein on federal charges or that prohibited his decision to defer prosecution to the state. +Furthermore, none of the individual terms of the NPA violated Department or other applicable +standards. +As the U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the "plenary authority" under established federal law and +Department policy to resolve the case as he deemed necessary and appropriate, as long as his +decision was not motivated or influenced by improper factors. Acosta's decision to decline to +ix + + +initiate a federal prosecution of Epstein was within the scope of his authority, and OPR did not +find evidence that his decision was based on corruption or other impermissible considerations, +such as Epstein's wealth, status, or associations. Evidence shows that Acosta resisted defense +efforts to have the matter returned to the state for whatever result state authorities deemed +appropriate, and he refused to eliminate the incarceration and sexual offender registration +requirements. OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta's "breakfast meeting" with one +of Epstein's defense counsel in October 2007 led to the NPA, which had been signed weeks earlier, +or to any other significant decision that benefited Epstein. The contemporaneous records show +that USAO managers' concerns about legal issues, witness credibility, and the impact of a trial on +the victims led them to prefer a pre-charge resolution and that Acosta's concerns about the proper +role of the federal government in prosecuting solicitation crimes resulted in his preference for a +state-based resolution. Accordingly, OPR does not find that Acosta engaged in professional +misconduct by resolving the federal investigation of Epstein in the way he did or that the other +subjects committed professional misconduct through their implementation of Acosta's decisions. +Nevertheless, OPR concludes that Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation +through the NPA constitutes poor judgment. Although this decision was within the scope of +Acosta's broad discretion and OPR does not find that it resulted from improper factors, the NPA +was a flawed mechanism for satisfying the federal interest that caused the government to open its +investigation of Epstein. In Acosta's view, the federal government's role in prosecuting Epstein +was limited by principles of federalism, under which the independent authority of the state should +be recognized, and the federal responsibility in this situation was to serve as a "backstop" to state +authorities by encouraging them to do more. However, Acosta failed to consider the difficulties +inherent in a resolution that relied heavily on action by numerous state officials over whom he had +no authority; he resolved the federal investigation before significant investigative steps were +completed; and he agreed to several unusual and problematic terms in the NPA without the +consideration required under the circumstances. In sum, Acosta's application of federalism +principles was too expansive, his view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too +narrow, and his understanding of the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use +the NPA. Furthermore, because Acosta assumed a significant role in reviewing and drafting the +NPA and the other three subjects who were supervisors left the USAO, were transitioning to other +jobs, or were absent at critical junctures, Acosta should have ensured more effective coordination +and communication during the negotiations and before approving the final NPA. The NºA was a +unique resolution, and one that required greater oversight and supervision than Acosta provided. +B.A +Findings and Conclusions Relating to the Government's Interactions with +Victims +OPR further concludes that none of the subject attorneys committed professional +misconduct with respect to the government's interactions with victims. The subjects did not have +a clear and unambiguous duty under the CVRA to consult with victims before entering into the +NPA because the USAO resolved the Epstein investigation without a federal criminal +charge. Significantly, at the time the NPA was signed, the Department did not interpret CVRA +rights to attach unless and until federal charges had been filed, and the federal courts had not +established a clear and unambiguous standard applying the CVRA before criminal charges were +brought. In addition, OR did not find evidence that the lack of consultation was for the purpose +of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the lack of consultation was part of a series of government + + +interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of the government's +treatment of the victims, reflected poorly on the Department as a whole, and is contradictory to the +Department's mission to minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of a crime endure. +OPR determined that none of the subjects was responsible for communications sent to +certain vietims after the NPA was signed that described the case as "under investigation" and that +failed to inform them of the NPA. The letters were sent by an FBI administrative employee who +was not directly involved in the investigation, incorporated standard form language used by the +FBI when communicating with victims, and were not drafted or reviewed by the subjects. +Moreover, the statement that the matter was "under investigation" was not false because the +government in fact continued to investigate the case in anticipation that Epstein would not fulfill +the terms of the NPA. However, the letters risked misleading the victims and contributed to victim +frustration and confusion by failing to provide important information about the status of the +investigation. The letters also demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies +responsible for communicating with Epstein's victims and showed a lack of attention to and +oversight regarding communication with victims. +After the NPA was signed, Acosta elected to defer to the State Attorney the decision +whether to notify victims about the state's plea hearing pursuant to the state's own victim's rights +requirements. +Although Acosta's decision was within his authority and did not constitute +professional misconduct, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he failed to +make certain that the state intended to and would notify victims identified through the federal +investigation about the state plea hearing. His decision left victims uninformed about an important +proceeding that resolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO had +communicated with victims for months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that the +Department intentionally sought to silence the victims. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were +made aware of a court proceeding that was related to their own cases, and thus he failed to ensure +that victims were treated with forthrightness and dignity. +OPR concludes that the decision to postpone notifying victims about the terms of the NPA +after it was signed and the omission of information about the NPA during victim interviews and +conversations with victims' attorneys in 2008 do not constitute professional misconduct. +Contemporaneous records show that these actions were based on strategic concerns about creating +impeachment evidence that Epstein's victims had financial motives to make claims against him, +vidence that could be used against victims at a trial, and were not for the purpose of silencin +ictims. Nonetheless, the failure to reevaluate the strategy prior to interviews of victims an +discussions with victims' attorneys occurring in 2008 led to interactions that contributed to +victims' feelings that the government was intentionally concealing information from them. +After examining the full scope and context of the government's interactions with victims, +OPR concludes that the government's lack of transparency and its inconsistent messages led to +victims feeling confused and ill-treated by the government; gave victims and the public the +misimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein's counsel to keep the NPA secret +from the victims; and undercut public confidence in the legitimacy of the resulting agreement. The +overall result of the subjects' anomalous handling of this case understandably left many victims +feeling ignored and frustrated and resulted in extensive public criticism. In sum, OPR concludes +xi + + +that the victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by the +Department. +VI. +ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT +The Report is divided into three chapters. In Chapter One, OPR describes the relevant +federal, state, and local law enforcement entities involved in investigating Epstein's criminal +conduct, as well as the backgrounds of the five subjects and their roles in the events in question. +OPR provides a brief profile of Epstein and identifies the defense attorneys who interacted with +the subjects. +In Chapter Two, OPR sets forth an extensive account of events relating to the federal +investigation of Epstein. The account begins with the initial complaint in March 2005 by a young +victim and her parents to the local police—a complaint that launched an investigation by local law +enforcement authorities—and continues through the mid-2006 opening of the federal +investigation; the September 2007 negotiation and signing of the NPA; Epstein's subsequent +efforts to invalidate the NPA through appeals to senior Department officials; Epstein's June 2008 +guilty plea in state court; and, finally, efforts by the AUSA to ensure Epstein's compliance with +the terms of the NPA during his incarceration and until his term of home detention ended in July +2010. After describing the relevant events, OR analyzes the professional misconduct allegations +relating to the decisions made regarding the development and execution of the NPA. OPR +describes the relevant standards and sets forth its findings and conclusions regarding the subjects' +Chapter Three concerns the government's interactions with victims and the district court's +findings regarding the CVRA. OPR describes the relevant events and analyzes the subjects' +conduct in light of the pertinent standards. +OPR sets forth the extensive factual detail provided in Chapters Two and Three, including +internal USAO and Department communications, because doing so is necessary for a full +understanding of the subjects' actions and of the bases for OPR's conclusions. +10, +xii + + +TABLE OF CONTENTS +EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .. +OVERVIEW OF FACTUAL BACKGROUND +II. +THE INITIATION AND SCOPE OF OPR'S INVESTIGATION. +III. OVERVIEW OF OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK +IV. ISSUES CONSIDERED... +The Negotiation, Execution, and Implementation of the NPA +B. +The District Court's Conclusion That the USAO Violated the CVRA +V. +OPR'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS +Findings and Conclusions Relating to the NPA +B. Findings and Conclusions Relating to the Government's Interactions +with Victims.... +VI. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT +CHAPTER ONE: SIGNIFICANT ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS +THE FEDERAL AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES +A. The Department of Justice, the U.S, Attorney's Office for the +Southern District of Florida, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.. +B. The State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies.. +II. THE SUBJECT ATTORNEYS AND THEIR ROLES IN THE EPSTEIN CASE +III. JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND'HIS DEFENSE ATTORNEYS.. +A. Jeffrey Epstein... +B. Epstein's Defense Attorneys. +CHAPTER TWO: THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT +PART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND +II. +OVERVIEW +MARCH 2005 - MAY 2006: EPSTEIN IS INVESTIGATED BY THE PALM +BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE PALM BEACH COUNTY +STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE…..... +The Initial Allegations and the PBPD Investigation.. +B. +The State Attorney's Office Decides to Present the Case to a State +Grand Jury +C. +Florida State Procedure for Bringing Criminal Charges. +PPD Chief Reiter Becomes Concerned with the State Attorney's Office's +Handling of the State Investigation and Seeks a Federal Investigation +xiii +...V +.. vii +viii +viii +. ix +.. ix +ix +.. xii +..1 +1 +1 +..4 +..4 +.. 8 +..8 +..8 +.11 +11 +11 +.14 +.15 +16 + + +III. +THE FBI AND THE USAO INVESTIGATE EPSTEIN, AND THE +DEFENSE TEAM ENGAGES WITH THE USAO +May 2006 - February 2007: The Federal Investigation Is Initiated, +and the USAO Opens a Case File +The PBPD Presents the Matter to the FBI and the USAO. +May 2006: The USAO Accepts the Case and Opens a Case File... +July 14, 2006: Villafaña Informs Acosta and Sloman about the Case. +Late July 2006: The State Indicts Epstein, and the USAO +Moves Forward with a Federal Investigation +October 2006 - February 2007: Epstein's Defense Counsel +Initiate Contact with Villafaña, Lourie, and Sloman, and +Press for a Meeting ... +6. +February 2007: Defense Counsel Meet with Lourie and +Villafaña and Present the Defense Objections to a Federal Case +B. +February - May 2007: Villafaña and the FBI Continue to Investigate; +Villafaña Drafts a Prosecution Memorandum and Proposed Indictment +for USAO Managers to Review. +C. May - June 2007: Miami Managers Consider the Prosecution Memorandum +and Proposed Charges........... +D. Defense Counsel Seek a Meeting with Senior USAO Managers, which +Villafaña Opposes. C +E. June 2007: Villafaña Supplements the Prosecution Memorandum +F. The June 26, 2007 Meeting with Defense Counsel .. +IV. ACOSTA DECIDES TO OFFER EPSTEIN A TWO-YEAR STATE PLEA TO +RESOLVE THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION +June -July 2007: The USAO Proposes a State Plea Resolution, +which the Defense Rejects... +Acosta's Explanation for His Decision to Pursue a +State-based Resolution. +July 2007: Villafaña and Menchel Disagree about the +Proposed State Resolution +B. +Villafaña Attempts to Obtain the Computer Equipment Missing from +Epstein's Palm Beach Home, but the Defense Team Opposes Her Efforts. +C. +July 2007: The Defense Continues Its Efforts to Stop the +Federal Investigation. +Acosta Decides on a Resolution That Includes a Two-Year Term of +Incarceration +The July 26, 2007 Meeting in Miami. +xiV +16 +16 +17 +18 +..18 +.20 +22 +.24 +27 +.30 +.33 +33 +35 +36 +40 +.45 +48 +.48 + + +The Subjects' Explanations for the Decision to Offer Epstein +a Sentence with a Two-Year Term of Incarceration. +E. +Villafaña Drafts a "Term Sheet" Listing the Requirements of a Potential +Agreement with the Defense. +V. THE USAO PRESENTS EPSTEIN WITH KEY TERMS OF A DEAL: PLEAD +GUILTY TO STATE CHARGES REQUIRING A TWO-YEAR TERM OF +INCARCERATION AND SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION, AND AGREE +TO A MEANS FOR THE VICTIMS TO OBTAIN MONETARY DAMAGES +July 31, 2007: The USAO Presents Its Proposal to the Defense Team, +which Makes a Counteroffer. +B. +In an August 3, 2007 Letter, the USAO States That a Two-Year Term of +Imprisonment Is the Minimum That Will Vindicate the Federal Interest +C. +August - September 2007: Epstein Hires Additional Attorneys, Who +Meet with Acosta... +Acosta Agrees to Meet with Epstein's New Attorneys +Leading to the Meeting with Defense Counsel, Investigative +Steps Are Postponed, and the Defense Continues to Oppose +Villafaña's Efforts to Obtain the Computer Evidence... +September 7, 2007: Acosta, Other USAO Attorneys, and +FBI Supervisors Meet with Epstein Attorneys Starr, Lefkowitz, +and +VI. +SEPTEMBER 2007: THE PLEA NEGOTIATIONS INTENSIFY, AND IN THE +PROCESS, THE REQUIRED TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IS REDUCED +The Incarceration Term Is Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months... +September 12, 2007: The USAO and Defense Counsel Meet with +the State Attorney ... +C. +The Evidence Does Not Clearly Show Why the Term of Incarceration +Was Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months to 18 Months... +The Parties Continue to Negotiate but Primarily Focus on a Potential Plea +to Federal Charges .... +E. +F. +The Parties Appear to Reach Agreement on a Plea to Federal Charges +Defense Counsel Offers New Proposals Substantially Changing the +Terms of the Federal Plea Agreement, which the USAO Rejects +G. +Villafaña and Lourie Recommend Ending Negotiations, but Acosta +Urges That They "Try to Work It Out" +H. Acosta Edits the Federal Plea Agreement, and Villafaña Sends a +Final Version to the Defense. +49 +51 +53 +54 +..55 +59 +59 +60 +.62 +63 +64 +66 +.68 +.72 +.73 +.76 +.77 +XV + + +The Defense Rejects the Federal Plea Agreement, Returns to the NPA +"State-Only" Resolution, and Begins Opposing the Sexual Offender +Registration Requirement ..... +J. +K. +The USAO Agrees Not to Criminally Charge "Potential Co-Conspirators" +The USAO Rejects Defense Efforts to Eliminate the Sexual Offender +Registration Requirement .... +L. +The Defense Adds a Confidentiality Clause. +VII. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007: ACOSTA MAKES FINAL EDITS, AND THE +NPA IS SIGNED +VIII. POST-NPA NEGOTIATIONS.. +September - October 2007: Sloman's Concerns about Selection ofan +Attorney Representative Lead to a Proposed NPA Addendum..... +B. +October 12, 2007: Acosta and Defense Attorney Lefkowitz +Meet for Breakfast...... +C. +Acosta Agrees to the Defense Request to Postpone Epl +Guilty Plea; +the Parties Continue to Negotiate Issues concerning the Attorney +Representative and Finally Reach Agreement on the NPA Addendum +D. Epstein Further Delays His Guilty Plea... +E. +Epstein Seeks Departmental Review of the NPA's § 2255 Provision +Relating to Monetary Damages for the Vietims... +F. +Despite Affirming the NPA, Defense Counsel Intensify Their Challenges +to It and Accuse Villafaña of Improper Conduct +1. +December 7 and U1, 2007: Starr and Lefkowitz Send to +Acosta Letters and "Ethics Opinions" Complaining about +the Federal Investigation and Villafaña +As a Result of the Starr and Lefkowitz Submissions, the New +USAO Criminal Chief Begins a Full Review of the Evidence, +and Acosta Agrees to Meet Again with Defense Counsel. +The Defense Notifies Acosta That It May Pursue a Department +Review of the USAO's Actions. +Acosta Attempts to Revise the NPA § 2255 Language concerning +Monetary Damages, but the Defense Does Not Accept It +5. +January 7, 2008: Acosta and Sloman Meet with | +Makes Additional Allegations of USAO Misconduct +Who +6. +Acosta Asks CEOS to Review the Evidence.. +IX. FEBRUARY - JUNE 2008: THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW +February - May 15, 2008: Review by CEOS and the Criminal Division +.78 +..79 +.81 +.83 +84 +87 +.87 +89 +94 +94 +.98 +98 +.99 +99 +.100 +..101 +.102 +103 +104 +xvi + + +B. May - June 23, 2008: Review by the Office of the Deputy +Attorney General................ +..108 +X. JUNE 2008 - JUNE 2009: EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS PLEAS AND +SERVES HIS CUSTODIAL SENTENCE +A. June 30, 2008: Epstein Enters His Guilty Pleas in State Court... +B. Epstein Is Placed on Work Release +XI. POST-RELEASE DEVELOPMENTS +PART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS +I. OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK +II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT. +A. The United States Attorneys' Manual. +110 +.111 +113 +117 +.. 119 +. 119 +.. 120 +.120 +USAM Provisions Relating to the Initiation and Declination +of a Federal Prosecution. +USAM § 9-2.031: The Petite Policy +USAM Provisions Relating to Plea Agreements +USAM Provisions Relating to Non-Prosecution Agreements.. +USAM Provisions Relating to Grants of Immunity. +6. +USAM/C.F.R. Provisions Relating to Financial Conflicts of Interest...125 +B. +Other Department Policies... +Department Policies Relating to the Disposition of Charges. +Department Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal Aliens. +C. +Case Law.. +1. +Prosecutorial Discretion +Plea Agreement Promises of Leniency towards a Third Party +State Bar Rules. +FRPC 4-1.1 - Competence ... +FRPC 4-1.3 - Diligence. +FRPC 4-4.1 - Candor in Dealing with Others +FRPC 4-8.4 - Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice.. +PART THREE: ANALYSIS +IL. +OVERVIEW .... +.120 +.122 +..123 +..124 +.125 +..125 +..125 +..127 +127 +..127 +.128 +.129 +..130 +.130 +..130 +.131 +133 +133 +ACOSTA REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE TERMS OF THE NPA AND IS +ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT +133 +xvii + + +OPR FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SUBJECTS VIOLATED A CLEAR AND +UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE OR +STANDARD, OR DEPARTMENT REGULATION OR POLICY, IN +NEGOTIATING, APPROVING, OR ENTERING INTO THE NPA +U.S. Attorneys Have Broad Discretion to Resolve Investigations or +Cases as They Deem Appropriate, and Acosta's Decision to Decline +to Prosecute Epstein Federally Does Not Constitute Professional +Misconduct. +B. +No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Precluded Acosta's Use of a +Non-Prosecution Agreement to Resolve the Federal Investigation +of Epstein +C. +The NPA's Individual Provisions Did Not Violate Any Clear and +Unambiguous Standards ...... +Acosta Had Authority to Approve an Agreement That Required +Epstein to Plead to Offenses Resulting in an 18-Month Term of +Incarceration ............ +The USAO's Agreement Not to Prosecute Unidentified "Potential +Co-Conspirators" Did Not Violate a Clear and Unambiguous +Department Policy .... +The NPA Did Not Violate Department Policy Relating to +Deportation of Criminal Aliens +IV. +THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBJECTS WERE +INFLUENCED BY IMPROPER MOTIVES TO INCLUDE IN THE NPA +TERMS FAVORABLE TO EPSTEIN OR TO OTHERWISE EXTEND +BENEFITS TO EPSTEIN........ +... +OPR Found No Evidence of Criminal Corruption, Such as Bribery, Gratuity, +or Illegal Political or Personal Consideration... +B. +Contemporaneous Written Records and Witness and Subject Interviews +Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the Subjects Were +Improperly Influenced by Epstein's Status, Wealth, or Associations +1. +The Contemporaneous Records Did Not Reveal Evidence +Establishing That the NPA Resulted from Improper Factors +The Subjects Asserted That They Were Motivated by +Reasonable Strategic and Policy Considerations, Not +Improper Influences. +Subject and Witness Interviews and Contemporaneous Records +Identified Case-Specific Considerations Relating to Evidence, +Legal Theories, Litigation Risk, and a Trial's Potential Impact +on Victims. +Other Significant Factors Are Inconsistent with a Conclusion That +the Subjects' Actions Were Motivated by Improper Influences. +xviii +134 +135 +136 +.137 +.137 +..139 +..140 +. 140 +..141 +.142 +..142 +.143 +144 +.149 + + +OPR Does Not Find That the Subjects' Preexisting Relationships with +Defense Counsel, Decisions to Meet with Defense Counsel, and Other +Factors Established That the Subjects Acted from Improper Influences or +Provided Improper Benefits to Epstein +1. +The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects Extended +Any Improper Benefit to Epstein because of Their Preexisting +Relationships with His Attorneys +The Subjects Asserted That Their Relationships with Defense +Counsel Did Not Influence Their Actions +The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects' Meetings with +Defense Counsel Were Improper Benefits to Epstein +The Evidence Shows That the Subjects' Decisions to Meet with +Epstein's Legal Team Were Warranted by Strategic Considerations.. +The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta Negotiated a +Deal Favorable to Epstein over Breakfast with Defense Counsel +F. +Negotiations DoNor isablish That Viley Leonizer suge NPA +Intended to Give Epstein Preferential Treatment or Were Motivated by +Favoritism or Other Improper Influences +G. +The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta, Lourie, or Villafaña +Agreed to the NPA's Provision Promising Not to Prosecute "Potential +Co-conspirators" in Order to Proteet Any of Epstein's Political, Celebrity, +or Other Influential Associates.. +H. +OPR's Investigation Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That Epstein +Cooperated in Other Federal Investigations or Received Special Treatment +on That Basis............. +V. ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY RESOLVING THE FEDERAL +INVESTIGATION THROUGH THE NPA +Acosta's Decision to Resolve the Federal Investigation through a State Plea +under Terms Incorporated into the NPA Was Based on a Flawed Application +of the Petite Policy and Federalism Concerns, and Failed to Consider the +Significant Disadvantages of a State-Based Resolution +B. +The Assessment of the Merits of a Potential Federal Prosecution Was +Undermined by the Failure to Obtain Evidence or Take Other Investigative +Steps That Could Have Changed the Complexion of the Case +C. +OPR Was Unable to Determine the Basis for the Two-Year Term of +Incarceration, That It Was Tied to Traditional Sentencing Goals, or +That It Satisfied the Federal Interest in the Prosecution +D. Acosta's Decisions Led to Difficulties Enforcing the NPA +E. Acosta Did Not Exercise Sufficient Supervisory Review over the Process.. +xix +.150 +150 +.151 +155 +..155 +.160 +163 +.166 +.168 +169 +.170 +.175 +.179 +..182 +..182 + + +CHAPTER THREE: ISSUES RELATING TO THE GOVERNMENT'S INTERACTIONS +AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH VICTIMS +PART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND +I. OVERVIEW .... +II. THE CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771... +A. History. +B. Enumerated Rights... +III. THE DEPARTMENT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CVRA'S DEFINIȚION OF +"CRIME VICTIM" AT THE TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION +A. April 1, 2005 Office of Legal Counsel "Preliminary Review"..... +B. +2005 Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance. +IVUSAO AND FBI VICTIM/WITNESS NOTIFICATION PRACTICE AT THE +TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION +A. USAO Training. +B. The Automated Victim Notification System ...... +C. FBI Victim Notification Pamphlets ..... +V. THE INTRODUCTORY USAO AND FBI LETTERS TO VICTIMS +A. August 2006: The FBI Victim Notification Letters. +B. August 2006: The USAO's Letters to Victims... +C. USAO and FBI Letters Are Hand Delivered... +VI. AUGUST 2006 - SEPTEMBER, 2007: FBI AND USAO CONTACTS WITH +VICTIMS BEFORE THE NPA IS SIGNED +A. The Case Agents and Villafaña Solicit Some Victims' Opinions about +Resolving the Federal Investigation.. +B. Before the NPA Is Signed, Villafaña Expresses Concern That Victims +Have Not Been Consulted..... +V. +July 2007: Villafaña's Email Exchanges with Menchel. +Villafaña Asserts That Her Supervisors Gave Instructions Not +to Consult Victims about the Plea Discussions, but Her Supervisors +Do Not Currently Recall Such Instructions +September 6, 2007: Villafaña Informs Sloman, Who Informs +Acosta, of Oosterbaan's Opinion That Consultation with Victims +Was Required +VII. +SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 - JUNE 30, 2008: AFTER THE NPA IS SIGNED, THE +USAO MAKES VARIOUS VICTIM NOTIFICATION DECISIONS +189 +189 +.. 189 +.. 189 +...189 +..191 +.. 192 +..192 +.193 +. 194 +..194 +..195 +..196 +196 +..196 +...198 +.200 +200 +.201 +.202 +202 +204 +204 +206 +XX + + +September - October 2007: The Case Agents Notify Some Victims about +the NPA, but Stop When the Case Agent Becomes Concerned about +Potential Impeachment.... +207 +B. +October 2007: Defense Attorneys Object to Government Victim +Notifications.. +.210 +October - November 2007: The FBI and the USAO Continue to +Investigate, and the FBI Sends a Notice Letter to One Victim Stating +That the Case is "Under Investigation" +.211 +The USAO Informs the Defense That It Intends to Notify Victims by +Letter about Epstein's State Plea Hearing and the Resolution of the Federal +Investigation, but the Defense Strongly Objects to the Notification Plan.. +B. +December 19, 2007: Acosta Advises the Defense That the USAO Will +Defer to the State Attorney the Decision Whether to Notify Victims of the +State Plea Hearing, but the USAO Would Notify Them of the Federal +Resolution, "as Required by Law" +.216 +January - June 2008: While the Defense Presses Its Appeal to the +Department in an Effort to Undo the NPA, the FBI and the USAO +Continue Investigating Epstein... +.220 +Villafaña Prepares to Contact Victims in Anticipation That +Epstein Will Breach the NPA... +.220 +The FBI Uses VNS Form Letters to Re-Establish Contact with +Victims.... +Villafaña, the FBI, and the CEOS Trial Attorney Interview Victims +.221 +.224 +February - March 2008: Villafaña Takes Additional Steps to +Prepare for a Prosecution of Epstein, Arranges for Pro Bono +Altorneys for Victims, and Cautions about Continued Delay +227 +5. +ch → April 2008: Villafaña Continues to Prepare for Filing +Federal Charges +227 +VIII. USAO SUPERVISORS CONSIDER CVRA OBLIGATIONS IN AN UNRELATED +MATTER AND IN LIGHT OF A NEW FIFTH CIRCUIT OPINION. +. 228 +JUNE 2008: VILLAFAÑA'S PRE-PLEA CONTACTS WITH THE +ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE VICTIMS WHO LATER BECAME +THE CVRA PETITIONERS …... +229 +X. JUNE 2008: EFFORTS TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT THE JUNE 30, 2008 +PLEA HEARING.. +231 +XI. JUNE 30, 2008: EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS GUILTY PLEAS IN A STATE +COURT HEARING AT WHICH NO VICTIMS ARE PRESENT +XII. SIGNIFICANT POST-PLEA DEVELOPMENTS +. 234 +. 235 +Immediately After Epstein's State Guilty Pleas, Villafaña Notifies Some +Victims' Attorneys... +.235 +xxi + + +B. +July 7, 2008: The CVRA Litigation Is Initiated +.236 +C. July 2008: Villafaña Prepares and Sends a Victim Notification Letter +to Listed Victims. +.237 +July - August 2008: The FBI Sends the Victim Notification Letter to +Victims Residing Outside of the United States. +.238 +E. +August - September 2008: The Federal Court Orders the USAO to +Disclose the NPA to Victims, and the USAO Sends a Revised Victim +Notification Letter................ +.239 +F. +2010 - 2011: Department and Congressional Actions Regarding +Interpretation of the CVRA.. +G. +The CVRA Litigation Proceedings and Current Status +PART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS +STATUTORY PROVISIONS ….... +A. The CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 +241 +.242 +• 247 +247 +.247 +B. The Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (VRRA), 34 U.S.C. § 20141, +Services to Victims (formerly cited as 42 USCA § 10607). +248 +Il. +DEPARTMENT POLICY: THE 2005 ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES +FOR VICTIM AND WITNESS ASSISTANCE (2005 GUIDELINES).. +III. FLORIDA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. +A. FRPC 4-4.1 - Candor in Dealing with Others +B. FRPC 4-8.4 - Conduet Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice.. +PART THREE: ANALYSIS.. +I. OVERVIEW .. +249 +..253 +.253 +.253 +. 255 +. 255 +II. THE SUBJECTS DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS +STANDARD BY ENTERING INTO THE NPA WITHOUT CONSULTING +THE VICTIMS +. 255 +At the Time, No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Required the USAO +to Notify Victims Regarding Case-Related Events until after the Filing +of Criminal Charges.... +256 +B. +OPR Did Not Find Evidence Establishing That the Lack of Consultation +Was Intended to Silence Victims... +258 +III. +LETTERS SENT TO VICTIMS BY THE FBI WERE NOT FALSE +STATEMENTS BUT RISKED MISLEADING VICTIMS ABOUT THE +STATUS OF THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION. +• 261 +The USAO Was Not Responsible for Victim Notification Letters Sent +by the FBI in October 2007, January 2008, and May 2008 Describing +the Status of the Case as "Under Investigation" +.262 +xxii + + +B. Because the Federal Investigation Continued after the NPA Was Signed, +the FBI Letters Were Accurate but Risked Misleading Victims regarding +the Status of the Federal Investigation +IV. ACOSTA'S DECISION TO DEFER TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S +DISCRETION WHETHER TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT EPSTEIN'S STATE +COURT PLEA HEARING DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR OR UNAMBIGUOUS +STANDARD; HOWEVER, ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY +FAILING TO ENSURE THAT VICTIMS IDENTIFIED IN THE FEDERAL +INVESTIGATION WERE ADVISED OF THE STATE PLEA HEARING +A. Acosta's Decision to Defer to the State Attorney's Discretion Whether +to Notify Victims about Epstein's State Court Plea Hearing Did Not +Violate Any Clear or Unambiguous Standard. +B. Acosta Exercised Poor Judgment When He Failed to Ensure That +Victims Identified in the Federal Investigation Were Informed of the +State Plea Hearing... +V. +VILLAFAÑA DID NOT COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IN HER +ORAL COMMUNICATIONS TO VICTIMS AND VICTIMS' ATTORNEYS, IN +WHICH SHE DESCRIBED THE CASE AS "UNDER INVESTIGATION" +BUT DID NOT DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THE NPA TO SOME +VICTIMS. +VI. +THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO TREAT VICTIMS FORTHRIGHTLY AND +WITH SENSITIVITY WHEN IT FAILED TO TIMELY PROVIDE VICTIMS +WITH IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESOLUTION OF THE +FEDERAL INVESTIGATION. +CONCLUSION... +METHODOLOGY .. +Exhibit 1: State Indictment +Exhibit 2: September 6, 2007 Draft Non-Prosecution Agreement +Exhibit 3: September 24, 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement +Exhibit 4: Addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement +Exhibit 5: State Information +263 +265 +.265 +269 +273 +.. 280 +.. 283 +287 +XxiIi + + +xxiv + + +CHAPTER ONE +SIGNIFICANT ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS +THE FEDERAL AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES +The Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District +of Florida, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation +The Department of Justice (Department) is a cabinet-level executive branch department +federal criminal law through investigations and prosecutions of violations of federal criminal +statutes. It also engages in civil litigation. During the period relevant to this Report, the +Department had approximately 110,000 employees in 40 components. The Department's +headquarters are in Washington, D.C., and it conducts most of its work through field locations +around the nation and overseas. +The prosecution of federal criminal laws is handled primarily through 94 U.S. Attorney's +Offices, each headed by a presidentially appointed (with advice and consent of the U.S. Senate) +U.S. Attorney who has independent authority over his or her office but is overseen by the Attorney +General through the Deputy Attorney General. ' The Department's Criminal Division, headed by +an Assistant Attorney General, includes components with specialized areas of expertise that also +prosecute cases, assist in the prosecutions handled by U.S. Attorney's Offices, and provide legal +expertise and policy guidance. Among the Criminal Division components mentioned in this +Report are the Appellate Section, the Office of Enforcement Operations, the Computer Crime and +Intellectual Property Section, and, most prominently, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section +(CEOS). +CEOS, based in Washington, D.C., comprises attorneys and investigators who specialize +in investigating and prosecuting child exploitation crimes, especially those involving technology, +and they assist U.S. Attorney's Offices in investigations, trials, and appeals related to these +offenses. CEOS provides advice and training to federal prosecutors, law enforcement personnel, +and government officials. CEOS also works to develop and refine proposals for prosecution +policies, legislation, government practices, and agency regulations. +The U.S. Attorneys' Manual (USAM) (revised in 2018 and renamed the Justice Manual) +is a compilation of Department rules, policies, and guidance governing the conduct of Department +employees. It includes requirements for approval by, or consultation with, the Criminal Division +Two U.S. Attorney's Offices, in the judicial districts of Guam and of the Northern Mariana Islands, are +headed by a single U.S. Attorney. The Attorney General and the U.S. District Court have authority to appoint acting +and interim U.S. Attorneys. + + +or other divisions having responsibility for specific criminal enforcement, such as the Civil Rights +Division. In this Report, OR applies the USAM provisions in effect at the relevant time. +During the period most relevant to this Report, the Attorney General was Michael +Mukasey, the Deputy Attorney General was Mark Filip, and the Assistant Attorney General for +the Criminal Division was Alice Fisher. The Chief of CEOS was Andrew Oosterbaan. +The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO) handles federal +matters in the Southern District of Florida judicial district, which covers the counties of Miami- +Dade, Broward, Monroe, Palm Beach, [ +, St. Lucie, Indian River, Okeechobee, and +Highlands, an area of over 15,000 square miles. During the period relevant to this Report, the +USAO had a staff of approximately 200 Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) and 200 support +personnel. The main office is in Miami; staffed branch offices are located in Fort Lauderdale, +West Palm Beach (covering Palm Beach County), and Fort Pierce; and an unstaffed branch office +is located in Key West. The West Palm Beach USAO office is approximately 70 miles from the +Miami office. The USAO is headed by the U.S. Attorney; the second-in-command is the First +Assistant U.S. Attorney (FAUSA), who serves as principal advisor to the U.S. Attorney and +supervises all components of the USAO, including the Criminal, Civil, and Appellate Divisions, +each of which is headed by a Chief. During the period relevant to this Report, the West Palm +Beach office consisted of two criminal sections and was headed by a Managing AUSA. +The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the principal federal law enforcement agency +and is part of the Department. It maintains field offices that work with U.S. Attorney's Offices. +The FBI field office in Miami, headed by a Special Agent in Charge, has satellite offices, known +as Resident Agencies, one of which is located in West Palm Beach and covers Palm Beach County. +The Epstein investigation was handled by Special Agents assigned to a particular West Palm Beach +esident Agency squad, headed by a Supervisory Special Agent. FBI responsibility for advising +rime victims of their rights and of victim services available to them is handled by non-agen +Victim Specialists. +The following chart shows the Department's organizational structure during the period +relevant to this Report: +2 + + +SOLICITOR +GENERAL +OFFICE OF THE +SOLICITOR +GENERAL +OFFICE OF +JUSTICE +PROGRAMS +EXECUTIVE +OFFICE FOR THE +UNITED STATES +OFFICE OF +DISPUTE +RESOLUTION +ASSOCIATE +ATTORNEY GENERAL +COMMUNITY +ORIENTED +POLICING +SERVICES +OFFICE OF +INFORMATION +AND PRIVACY +FORDIGN CLAIMS +SETTLEMENT +COMMISSICN +CIVIL RIGHTS +DIVISION +ANTITRUST +DIVISION +TAX DIVISION +OFFICE OF +VIOLENCE +AGAINST +WOMEN +U.S. Department of Justice +2006 - 2008 +Attorney +General +Deputy +Attorney General +COPY +CIVIL DIVISION +ENVIRONMENT +AND NATURAL +RESOURCES +DIMSON +COMMUNITY +RELATIONS +SERVICE +OFFICE OF +LEGAL POLICY +OFFICE OF +LEGIŞLATIVE +AFFAIRS +OFFICE OF INTER- +GOVERNMENTAL +AND PUBLIC +LIASON +OFFICE OF +PUBUC +AFFAIRS +OFFICE OF +LEGAL +COUNSEL +FEDERAL +BUREAU OF +INVESTIGATION +DECUTIVE +OFFICE FOR +UNITED STATES +ATTORNEYS +UNITEL +STATE +ATTORNEYS +BUREAU OF +ALCOHOL +TOBACCO. +FIRLARMS, & +EXPLOSVES +CRIMINAL +DIVISION +BUREAU OF +PRISONS +UNITED STATES +MARSHALS +SERVICE +US. NATIONAL +CENTRAL +BUREAU +INTERPOL +OFFICE OF THE +FEDERAL +DETENTION +TRUSTEE +3 +NATIONAL +SECURITY +DIVISION +OFFICE OF THE +INSPECTOR +GENERAL +JUsTICE +MANAGEMENT +DIVISION +EXECUTIVE +OFFICE FOR +IMNIGRATION +REVIEW +OFFICE OF +PROFESSIONAL +RISPONSEBIUTY +OFFICE OF THE +PARDON +ATTORNEY +UNITED STATES +PAROLE +COSEVISSION +NATIONAL DRUG +INTELUGENCE +CENTER +FROFESSIONAL +RESPONSIBELTY +ADVISORY +OFFICE + + +B. The State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies +Florida state criminal prosecutions are primarily managed by an Office of State Attorney +in each of the state's 20 judicial circuits, headed by a State Attorney who is elected to a four-year +term. Palm Beach County constitutes the 15th Judicial Circuit. Barry Krischer was the elected +State Attorney for that circuit from 1992 until January 2009. During the period relevant to this +Report, the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office, based in the City of West Palm Beach, +had more than 100 attorneys and several investigators, and a Crimes Against Children Unit headed +by Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek. +The incorporated Town of Palm Beach occupies the coastal barrier island off the city of +West Palm Beach. Its law enforcement agency is the Palm Beach Police Department (PBPD). +Michael Reiter, who joined the PBPD in 1981, served as PBPD Chief from 2001 to February 2009. +The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office (PBSO), based in the City of West Palm Beach, is +the largest law enforcement agency in the county. Through its Department of Corrections, the +PBSO operates the Main Detention Center and, during the period relevant to this Report, housed +minimum-security detainees, including those on work release, at its Stockade facility. The current +Sheriff has served continuously since January 2005. +II. THE SUBJECT ATTORNEYS AND THEIR ROLES IN THE EPSTEIN CASE +R. Alexander Acosta was appointed Interim U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of +Florida in June 2005, at age 36. In June 2006, President +W. Bush formally nominated +Acosta, and after Senate confirmation, Acosta was sworn in as the U.S. Attorney in October 2006. +After graduating from law school, Acosta served a federal appellate clerkship; an 18-month +term as an associate at the firm of Kirkland & Ellis in Washington, D.C.; approximately four years +as a policy fellow and law school lecturer; and nearly two years as a Deputy Assistant Attorney +General in the Department's Civil Rights Division. He was presidentially appointed in 2002 as a +member of the National Labor Relations Board, and in 2003 as Assistant Attorney General in +charge of the Department's Civil Rights Division, where he served from August 2003 until his +appointment as Interim U.S. Attorney, and where he oversaw, among other things, the prosecution +of human trafficking and child sex-trafficking cases. As U.S. Attorney, Acosta's office was in the +USAO's Miami headquarters, although he traveled to the USAO's branch offices. +During Acosta's tenure as U.S. Attorney, the USAO initiated the federal investigation of +Epstein, engaged in plea discussions with Epstein's counsel, and negotiated the federal nonprosecution agreement (NPA) that is the subject of this Report. Acosta made the decision to +resolve the federal investigation into Epstein's conduct by allowing Epstein to enter a state plea. +Acosta was personally involved in the negotiations that led to the NPA, reviewed various iterations +of the agreement, and approved the final agreement signed by the USAO. Acosta continued to +provide supervisory oversight and to have meetings and other communications with Epstein's +attorneys during the nine-month period between the signing of the NPA on September 24, 2007, +and Epstein's entry of guilty pleas in state court pursuant to the terms of the agreement, on June 30, +2008. On December 8, 2008, after the presidential election and while Epstein was serving his state +prison sentence, Acosta was formally recused from all matters involving the law firm of +4 + + +Kirkland & Ellis, which was representing Epstein, because Acosta had begun discussions with the +firm about possible employment. +After leaving the USAO in June 2009, Acosta became the +of the Florida International +University College of Law. In April 2017, Acosta became the U.S. Secretary of Labor, but he +resigned from that post effective July 19, 2019, following public criticism of the USAO's handling +of the Epstein case. +Jeffrey H. Sloman joined the USAO in 1990 as a line AUSA. In 2001, he became Deputy +Chief of the USAO's Fort Lauderdale branch office Narcotics and Violent Crimes Section, and in +2003, became the Managing AUSA for that branch office. In early 2004, Sloman was appointed +Chief of the USAO's Criminal Division. In October 2006, Sloman became the FAUSA, and +Sloman's office was located with Acosta's in the Miami office's executive suite. +As FAUSA, Sloman was responsible for supervising the Civil, Criminal, and Appellate +Divisions, and he was part of the supervisory team that oversaw the Epstein investigation. +Although Sloman had relatively little involvement in the decisions and negotiations that led to the +NPA and did not review it before it was signed, he personally negotiated an addendum to the NPA, +which he signed on behalf of the USAO in October 2007. After subordinates Matthew Menchel +and Andrew Lourie left the USAO, Sloman directly engaged with the line AUSA, +Villafaña, +on Epstein matters, and participated in meetings and ofher communications with defense counsel. +After Acosta was formally recused from the Epstein matter in December 2008, Sloman became +the senior USAO official supervising the matter. When Acosta left the USAO, Sloman became +the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and in January 2010, the Attorney +General appointed Sloman to be the Interim U.S. Attorney for the district. Sloman left the USAO +to enter private practice in June 2010. +Matthew I. Menchel joined the USAO in 1998 after having served as a New York County +(Manhattan) Assistant District Attorney for 11 years. After several years as a line AUSA, Menchel +became Chief of the USAO's Major Crimes Section. In October 2006, Menchel became the Chief' +of the USAO's Criminal Division, based in Miami. As Criminal Division Chief, Menchel was +part of the supervisory team that oversaw the Epstein investigation, and he participated in meetings +and other communications with defense counsel. Menchel participated in the decision to extend a +two-year state-based plea proposal to Epstein and communicated it to the defense. Shortly after +that plea offer was extended to Epstein in early August 2007, and before the precise terms of the +NPA were negotiated with defense counsel, Menchel left the USAO to enter private practice. +Andrew C. Lourie joined the USAO as a line AUSA in 1994, after having served for three +years as an AUSA in New Jersey. During his 13-year tenure at the USAO, Lourie served two +terms on detail as the Acting Chief of the Department's Criminal Division's Public Integrity +Section, first from September 2001 until September 2002, and then from February 2006 until July +2006. Between those two details, and again after his return to the USAO in July 2006, Lourie was +a Deputy Chief of the USAO's Criminal Division, serving as the Managing AUSA for the West +Palm Beach branch office. Lourie was part of the supervisory team that oversaw the Epstein +investigation and negotiated the NPA, participating in meetings and other communications with +defense counsel. During September 2007, while the NPA was being negotiated, Lourie +transitioned out of the USAO to serve on detail as the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General +5 + + +for the Department's Criminal Division, a position in which he served as Chief of Staff to Assistant +Attorney General Alice Fisher. Lourie left the Department in February 2008 to enter private +practice. +Ann +C. Villafaña joined the USAO in September 2001 as a line AUSA. She served +in the Major Crimes Section in Miami until January 2004, when she transferred to the West Palm +Beach branch office. Villafaña handled the majority of the child exploitation cases in West Palm +Beach, along with other criminal matters. In 2006, she was designated as the USAO's first +coordinator for Project Safe Childhood, a new Department initiative focusing on child sexual +exploitation and abuse.? +In 2006, Villafaña assumed responsibility for the Epstein investigation. As the liné AUSA, +Villafaña handled all aspects of the investigation. Villafaña determined the linés of inquiry to +pursue, identified the witnesses to be interviewed, conducted legal research to support possible +charges, and sought guidance from others at the USAO and in the Department/ Villafaña, along +with the FBI case agents and the FBI Victim Specialist, had direct contact with Epstein's victims. +She handled court proceedings related to the investigation. She drafted a prosecution +memorandum, indictment, and related documents, and revised those documents in response to +comments from those in her supervisory chain of command. Villafaña participated in meetings +between members of the USAO and counsel for Epstein, and prepared briefing materials for +management in preparation for those meetings and in response to issues raised during those +meetings. Although Acosta made the decision to utilize a non-prosecution agreement to resolve +the federal investigation and approved the terms of the NPA, Villafaña was the primary USAO +representative negotiating with defense counsel and drafting the language of the NPA, under her +supervisors' direction and guidance, and she signed the NPA on behalf of the USAO. Thereafter, +Villafaña monitored Epstein's compliance with the NPA and addressed issues relating to his +conduct. After two victims pursued a federal civil lawsuit seeking enforcement of their rights +under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771 ("the CVRA litigation" or "the +CVRA case"), in July 2008, Villafaña served as co-counsel to the lead attorney representing the +USAO until February 2019, when the USAO was recused from handling the litigation.? Villafaña +left the USAO in August 2019 to join another federal government agency. +The following chart shows the USAO positions filled by the subjects, or other USAO +personnel, during the period of the Epstein investigation. +Project Safe Childhood is a nationwide initiative launched by the Department in May 2006 to combat the +growing epidemic of technology-facilitated child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by the U.S. Attorneys' Offices +and CEOS, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute +individuals who exploit children via the internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. +After the district court issued its February 21, 2019 opinion finding misconduct on the part of the government, +the Department re-assigned the CVRA case to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia. +6 + + +Mate Sue tomsy +United Statevatomsy +orth keter +Assis ant +2006 +USAO Roles and Responsibilities in Epstein Investigation +Mid-2006 through Mid-2009 +2007 +2008 +Alexander Acosta +Matthew Menchel +Andrewons +circu +7 +2009 +:my22.0000 +fate vales don +socitalion + + +III. JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND HIS DEFENSE ATTORNEYS +A. Jeffrey Epstein +Jeffrey Epstein was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1953.4 Although he did not graduate +from college, he taught physics and mathematics to teens at an elite private school in Manhattan +from 1974 until 1976. Through connections made at the school, he was hired at the Wall Street +firm of Bear Stearns, where he +from junior assistant to a floor trader to become a limited +partner before leaving in 1981. An enigmatic individual whose source of wealth was never clear, +Epstein reportedly provided wealth management and advisory services to a business entrepreneur +through whom Epstein acquired a mansion in midtown Manhattan, where he resided. In the early +1990s, Epstein acquired a large residence in Palm Beach, Florida. He also owned a private island +in the U.S. Virgin Islands, a ranch in New Mexico, and a residence in Paris, France. He traveled +among his residences in a private Boeing 727 jet. +Epstein reportedly was an investor, founder, or principal in myriad businesses and other +entities, in numerous locations. Although frequently referred to as a billionaire, the sources and +extent of his wealth were never publicly established during his lifetime. He associated with +prominent and wealthy individuals from business, political, academic, and social circles, and +engaged in substantial philanthropy. Epstein maintained a large corps of employees, including +housekeeping staff and pilots, as well as numerous female personal assistants, several of whom +traveled with him. +B. Epstein's Defense Attorneys +Jeffrey Epstein employed numerous criminal defense attorneys in responding to the +allegations that he had coerced girls into engaging in sexual activity with him at his Palm Beach, +Florida estate. As different law enforcement entities became involved in investigating the +allegations, he added attorneys having particular relevant knowledge of, or connections with, those +entities. At the outset of the state investigation, Epstein retained nationally prominent Miami +criminal trial attorney Roy Black. He was also represented by a local criminal defense attorney +who was a former Palm Beach County Assistant State Attorney, and by nationally prominent +Harvard Law School professor and criminal defense attorney Alan Dershowitz, who was a selfdescribed close friend of Epstein. After initial plea negotiations with the State Attorney's Office, +Epstein replaced the local attorney with Jack Goldberger, a prominent West Palm Beach criminal +defense attorney whose law partner was married to the Assistant State Attorney handling the +Epstein case; once Epstein hired Goldberger, the Assistant State Attorney was removed from the +Epstein case on the basis of that conflict of interest. Another prominent attorney who began +representing Epstein during the state investigation was New York City attorney Gerald Lefcourt, +Epstein's background has been extensively researched and reported in the media. See, e.g., Landon +Jr., "Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery," New York, Oct. 28, 2002; Vicky +_ "The Talented Mr. +Epstein," Vanity Fair, Mar. 2003; James Barron, +Epid Accusations New Forkmes, ey 9, 201,4 Wisets Votko, stiey Epstein's Dark raçalerinally Cras and +Forbes, July 12, 2019. +After Epstein's death, his net worth was estimated to be approximately $577 million, based on his will and +trust documents. https://time.com/5656776/jeffrey-epstein-will-estate/. +8 + + +whose law firm website cites his "national reputation for the aggressive defense" of "high-profile +defendants in criminal matters." +In late 2006, after the USAO opened its investigation, Epstein hired Miami criminal +defense attorneys who were former AUSAs. One, Guy +, had also served as the U.S. +Attorney for the Southern District of Florida and as Director of the Department's Executive Office +for United States Attorneys, the component charged with providing close liaison between the +Department and the U.S. Attorneys. Another, Lilly Ann +, had served in the USAO and +as a Deputy Chief in the Major Crimes Section before leaving in 2005. In August 2007, +immediately after the USAO offered the terms that ultimately led to the NPA, two attorneys from +the firm of Kirkland & Ellis, one of the largest law firms in the country, contacted the USAO on +Epstein's behalf: Kenneth Starr, former federal judge and Solicitor General, who was serving as +of Pepperdine University School of Law while of counsel to the firm; and Jay Lefkowitz, i +litigation partner who had served in high-level positions in the administrations of Presidents +H.W. Bush and +W. Bush. They were joined by nationally prominent Boston +criminal defense attorney +Weinberg. +After the NPA was signed, former U.S. Attorney +Joe D. Whitley joined the defense team, as did the former Principal Deputy Chief of CEOS and +another former U.S. Attorney, who was also a retired federal judge. +CERTIFI + + +10 + + +THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT +PART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND +OVERVIEW +In the following sections in this chapter, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) +instances, the emails not only describe meetings and identify the participants, but also set forth the +issues under discussion, the alternatives considered, and the basis for certain decisions. When +helpful to explain the actions taken by the subjects, OPR also includes the subjects' explanations +as provided in their written responses to, or interviews with, OPR, or explanations provided by +witnesses. +A timeline of key events is set forth on the following page. +II. MARCH 2005 - MAY 2006: EPSTEIN IS INVESTIGATED BY THE PALM +BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE PALM BEACH COUNTY STATE +ATTORNEY'S OFFICE +A. The Initial Allegations and the PBPD Investigation +In March 2005, the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported to the PBPD that a man had paid +their daughter $300 to give him a massage in his Palm Beach home. The PBPD began +investigating Epstein, identified as the recipient of the massage, and two of his personal assistants, +who were also implicated by the complainant. The investigation soon expanded beyond the initial +claim, to encompass allegations that during 2004 and 2005, Epstein, through his female assistants +As previously noted, "girls" refers to females under the age of 18. Epstein's contacts with girls and young +women previously had come to the attention of the PBPD. In March 2004, a PBPD officer documented a telephone +complaint that a 17-ycar-old girl had been giving Epstein topless massages at his residence for several months for +$200 per massage. The girl claimed that there were nude photos of other girls throughout Epstein's home and offered +to cooperate with a police investigation. The PBPD report relating to this complaint described the information as +"unverified," and it was not pursued. +On November 28, 2004, the police received and recorded information that young women had been observed +coming and going from Epstein's residence. The police suspected Epstein was procuring prostitutes, but because the +PBPD did not have evidence that the women seen entering Epstein's home were minors, and typically did not +investigate prostitution occurring in private residences, it did not open an investigation into the matter. +11 + + +Timeline of Key Events for Federal Epstein Investigation - May 2006 through October 2008 +May 23 - Villafada opens +federal investigation into +Jeffrey Epstein +July 14 - Villafana +irst briefing to +costa and Stoma +then all prents counsel +that deaton +4029:9000000000 +Oct 2 - Sloman becomes +First Assistant United +ates Attorney; Mench +comes Criminal Chi +May | Jan| Jel| 10g sep +Ost| Nor Der +2006 +2007 +2008 +Mail: Minin +complete drai +prosecutor memorind um +That go some Manch! +brenkit meeting +with Weiwitz +050900-N9 +Addendim agned +FORE-D-DOJ +paro epsti +wayen tate based resolation +indent palet precise +12 + + +and some of the victims as well, regularly recruited local high-school-age girls to give him +massages in his home that, in some cases, led to sexual activity. +Through their interviews with victims, the police learned more about Epstein's conduct. +Some girls had only one encounter with Epstein, while others had many encounters with him. The +nature of the massages varied. According to victims, some girls remained fully clothed while they +massaged Epstein, some wore only their underwear, and some were fully nude. Victims stated +that during these massages, Epstein masturbated himself. Some victims alleged that he touched +them during the massage, usually fondling their breasts or touching their vaginas directly or +through their clothing. Some victims reported that Epstein used a vibrator to masturbate them, and +some stated that he digitally penetrated them. Some victims who stated that they saw him more +often alleged that Epstein engaged in oral and vaginal sex with them. According to one victim, an +Epstein female assistant participated, on at least one occasion, in sexual activity with the victim at +Epstein's direction. +Although the allegations varied in the specific details, for the most part they were consistent +in describing a general pattern of conduct by Epstein and several of his assistants. According to +the information provided to, and evidence gathered by, the PBPD, Ep +assistants scheduled +up to three massage appointments each day, often contacting the girls to make an appointment +while Epstein was en route to Palm Beach from one of his other residences. Typically, when a girl +arrived at Epstein's home for a massage, she was taken upstairs to the +bedroom and +bathroom area by one of Epstein's assistants, who set up a massage table and massage oils. When +the assistant left the room, Epstein entered, wearing only a robe or a towel. After removing his +clothing, Epstein lay face down and nude on the massage table, instructed the girl to remove her +clothing, and then explained to her how he wished her to perform the massage. During the +massage, Epstein masturbated himself, often while fondling the girl performing the massage. +When Epstein climaxed, the massage was over. Usually, Epstein paid the girl $200 for the +massage, and if she had not been to his home before, Epstein asked for her phone number to contact +her in the future. Epstein encouraged the girls who performed these massages to find other girls +interested in performing massages for him, and promised that if a girl brought a friend along to +perform a massage, each girl would receive $200. Several of the victims acknowledged to the +PBPD that they had recruited other girls on Epstein's behalf. +The evidence regarding Epstein's knowledge of the girls' ages was mixed. Some girls who +of the females who came to Epstein's residence appeared to be underage. +Epstein was aware of the PBPD investigation almost from the beginning. He retained local +criminal defense counsel, who in turn hired private investigators. In October 2005, the PBPD, +with the assistance of the State Attorney's Office, obtained a search warrant for Epstein's +residence. When police arrived at Epstein's home on October 20, 2005, to execute the warrant, +According to the PBPD records, investigators obtained no allegations or evidence that any person other than +this female assistant participated in the sexual activity with the girls. +13 + + +they found computer monitors and keyboards in the home, as well as disconnected surveillance +cameras, but the computer equipment itself-including video recordings and other electronic +storage media—were gone. Nonetheless, the PBPD retrieved some evidence from Epstein's home, +including notepads on which Epstein's assistants documented messages from many girls over a +two-year span returning phone calls to confirm appointments. The police also found numerous +photographs of naked young females of indeterminate age. Police photographs taken of the interior +of Epstein's home corroborated the victims' descriptions to police of the layout of the home and +bedroom and bathroom area. The police also found massage tables and oils, one victim's +high school transcript, and items the police believed to be sex toys. +B. The State Attorney's Office Decides to Present the Case to a State Grand Jury +State Attorney Barry Krischer explained to OPR that the Epstein case was unusual in that +police brought the case to his office without having made an arrest. Krischer was unfamiliar with +Epstein, and the case was assigned to the Crimes Against Children Unit. PBPD Chief Michael +Reiter stated in a 2009 civil deposition that when the PBPD initially brought the case to the State +Attorney's Office in 2005, Krischer was supportive of the investigation and told Reiter, "Let's go +for it," because, given the nature of the allegations, Epstein was "somebody we have to stop." +Krischer told OPR, however, that both the detectives and the prosecutors came to recognize that +"there were witness problems." +Assistant State Attorney and Crimes Against Childrén Unit Chief Lanna Belohlavek told +OPR that she and an experienced Assistant State Attorney who initially worked with her on the +case "were at a disagreement" with the PBPD "over what the state... could ethically charge." +According to Belohlavek, she did not believe the evidence the police presented would satisfy the +elements of proof required to charge Epstein with the two felony crimes the police wanted filed, +unlawful sexual activity with a minor (Florida Statute § 794.05(I)) and lewd and lascivious +molestation of a minor (Florida Statute § 800.04(5)), and the police "were not happy with that." +In addition, victims had given contradictory statements to police, and the original complainant, +who could have supported a charge réquiring sexual offender registration, recanted her allegation +of sexual contact. Belohlavek offered Epstein a resolution that would result in a five-year term of +probation, which he rejected.? +Records publicly released by the State Attorney's Office show that, beginning in early +2006, attorneys for Epstein sought to persuade the state prosecutors to allow Epstein to plead "no +contest" rather than guilty. To that end, the defense team aggressively investigated victims and +presented the State Attorney's Office with voluminous material in an effort to undermine some of +the victims' credibility, including criminal records, victims' social media postings (such as +MySpace pages) about their own sexual activity and drug use, and victim statements that appeared +to undercut allegations of criminal activity and Epstein's knowledge of victims' ages. Krischer +Belohlavek stated that she did not consider charging procurement of a minor for prostitution the charge +Epstein ultimately pled to pursuant to the NPA—because the police had not presented it. +In April 2006, the State Attorney's Office offered Epstein an opportunity to plead guilty to the third degree +felony of aggravated assault with the intent to commit a felony, with adjudication withheld and five years of probation +with no unsupervised contact with minors. +14 + + +told OPR that Epstein's local counsel brought attorney Alan Dershowitz to see Krischer and the +Assistant State Attorney, but Dershowitz was "overly aggressive" and threatened, "We're going +to destroy your witnesses; don't go to court because we're going to destroy those girls." According +to Krischer, Dershowitz so "tainted the waters" that Epstein also hired local attorney Jack +Goldberger, with whom Krischer had "a working relationship." Because the husband of the +Assistant State Attorney was Goldberger's law partner, Belohlavek recused the Assistant State +Attorney to remove "even the appearance of any kind of conflict" of interest, and Belohlavek took +over the case. Goldberger, together with Gerald Lefcourt, a nationally known New York criminal +defense attorney also representing Epstein, then directed their efforts at Belohlavek and Krischer +to dissuade the office from prosecuting Epstein, largely by attacking the credibility of the victim +witnesses. +Meanwhile, the State Attorney's Office took the unusual step of preparing to present the +case to a grand jury. Krischer told OPR that under state law as it existed until changed in 2016, +his office prosecuted minors as young as 14 for prostitution.'° The possibility that Epstein's +victims themselves could have been prosecuted caused "great consternation within the office," and +according to Krischer, resulted in the decision to put the case before the grand jury. " Belohlavek +told OPR that her office took the allegations against Epstein "seriously, because ... it was an +organized scheme to involve young girls by offering them money. And I wouldn't say that we ... +thought they were prostitutes... [but] I think there was solicitation." However, she said, although +Epstein's "behavior was reprehensible, ... I'm limited by • y. the state statutes as to what I can +charge." Krischer told OPR, "There were so many issues involving the victim-witnesses that to +my mind, in consultation with my [prosecutors], the only way to achieve, to my mind, real justice +was to present the case to the grand jury and not to direct-file" criminal charges against Epstein. +C. Florida State Procedure for Bringing Criminal Charges +Federal criminal procedure requires that a felony charge—that is, any charge punishable +by imprisonment for one year or more— be brought by a grand jury unless waived by a defendant.!? +Under Florida law, however, a grand jury is required to bring criminal charges only in a death +penalty case. ' For all other cases, a State Attorney has concurrent authority to file criminal +charges by means of a doeument called an "information" or to seek a grand jury indictment. +Although Florida criminal cases are routinely charged by information, state grand juries are often +utilized in sensitive or high-profile cases, such as those involving allegations of wrongdoing by +public officials. '* Florida grand jury proceedings are subject to strict secrecy rules that, among +10 +Belohlavek told OPR that prostitution was a misdemeanor charge, and she did not handle misdemeanors. +Because the Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation into the State Attorney's Office' +landling of the Epstein case was pending at the time OPR interviewed Krischer, he declined to further explain to OPI +his office's prosccutive decisions. +12 +13 +U.S. Const. amend. V; Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(a), (b). The sole exception under the rule is felony criminal +contempt, which need not be charged by indictment. Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(a)(I). +Fla. Const. Art. I, § 15(a). +The Florida Bar, The Grand Jury, Reporters Handbook - The Grand Jury, available at https://www floridabar. +org/news/resources/rpt-hbk/rpt-hbk-13/. +15 + + +other things, prohibit anyone from being present while grand jurors deliberate and vote, and +proscribe the release of the notes, records, and transcripts of a grand jury.' +PBPD Chief Reiter Becomes Concerned with the State Attorney's Office's +Handling of the State Investigation and Seeks a Federal Investigation +In 2006, PBPD Chief Reiter perceived that Krischer's attitude had changed and, according +to Reiter's statements in his 2009 deposition, Krischer said that he did not believe the victims wer +credible. Reiter was disturbed when Krischer suggested that the PBPD issue a notice for Epstein +to appear in court on misdemeanor charges, leading Reiter to begin questioning Krischer's +objectivity and the State Attorney's Office's approach to the case. As Reiter explained in his +deposition: +This was a case that I felt absolutely needed the attention of the State +was pretty clear to me that Mr. Krischer did not want to prosecute +this case. +On May 1, 2006, Reiter submitted to Krischer probable cause affidavits and a case filing +past age elain and ipe used to his perter as in is aramia let via was later cine +public, Reiter criticized Krischer, noting that he found the State Attorney's Office's "treatment of +these cases [to be] highly unusual."16 Reiter urged Krischer "to examine the unusual course that +your office's handling of this matter has taken" and to consider disqualifying himself from +prosecuting Epstein. ' +III. THE FBI AND THE USAO INVESTIGATE EPSTEIN, AND THE DEFENSE +TEAM ENGAGES WITH THE USAO +A. May 2006 - February 2007: The Federal Investigation Is Initiated, and the +USAO Opens a Case File +In early 2006, a West Palm Beach FBI Special Agent who worked closely with +AUSA Ann Marie Villafaña on child exploitation cases—and who is referred to in this Report as +"the case agent" +—mentioned to Villafaña in "casual conversations" having learned that the PBPD +was investigating a wealthy Palm Beach man who recruited minors for sexual activity. The case +agent told Villafaña that the PBPD had reached out to the FBI because the State Attorney's Office +was considering either not charging the case or allowing the defendant to plead to a misdemeanor +15 +16 +Fla. Stat. § 905.27 (2007). +See Larry +17 +way." +"Palm Beach chief focus of fire in Epstein case," Palm Beach Post, Aug. 14, 2006. +serly ei die in ore interio de clin i or receive decis +16 + + +charge. Villafaña suggested meeting with the PBPD, but the case agent explained that before +formally presenting the case to the FBI, the PBPD wanted to see how the State Attorney's Office +decided to charge Epstein. +The PBPD Presents the Matter to the FBI and the USAO +In May 2006, the lead Detective handling the state's investigation met with Villafaña and +the FBI case agent to summarize for them the information learned during the state's +investigation.'® At the time, neither Villafaña nor the case agent had heard of Epstein or had any +knowledge of his background. +According to Villafaña, during this meeting, the Detective expressed concern that "pressure +had been brought to bear on ... Krischer by Epstein's attorneys," and he and Chief Reiter were +concerned the state would charge Epstein with only a misdemeanor or not at all. '9 The Detective +explained that the defense had hired private investigators to trail Reiter and the Detective, had +raised claims of various improprieties by the police, and, in the view of the PBPD, had orchestrated +the removal of the Assistant State Attorney initially assigned to handle the matter, who was viewed +as an aggressive prosecutor, by hiring a defense attorney whose relationship with the Assistant +State Attorney created a conflict of interest for the prosecutor. Further, given the missing computer +equipment and surveillance camera videotapes, the Detective believed Epstein may have been +"tipped off" in advance about the search warrant. +During the meeting, Villafaña reviewed the U,S. Code to see what federal charges could +be brought against Epstein. She focused on 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 (enticement of minors into +prostitution or other illegal sexual activity and use of a facility of interstate or foreign commerce +to persuade or induce a minor to engage in prostitution or other illegal sexual activity) and 2423 +(travel for purposes of engaging in illegal sexual conduct). As they discussed these charges, the +Detective told Villafaña that Epstein and his assistants had traveled out of the Palm Beach +International Airport on Epstein's private airplane, and flight logs sometimes referred to +passengers as "female" without a name or age, which the Detective suspected might be references +to underage girls. However, the Detective acknowledged that he was unable to confirm that +suspicion and did not have firm evidence indicating that Epstein had transported any girls interstate +or internationally. Nevertheless, Villafaña believed Epstein could be prosecuted federally, in part +because of his own interstate and international travel to the Southern District of Florida to abuse +girls. Villafaña discussed with the Detective and the case agent the additional investigation needed +to prove violations of the federal statutes she had identified. She told them that if the evidence +supported it, the case could be prosecuted federally, but she assured them that opening a federal +investigation would not preclude the State Attorney's Office from charging Epstein should it +choose to do so. +18 +The Detective died in May 2018. +19 +In his 2009 deposition, Reiter testified that after he referred the Epstein matter to the FBI, a Town of Palm +Beach official approached Reiter and criticized his referral of the investigation to the FBI, telling Reiter that the victims +were not believable and "Palm Beach solves its own problems." +17 + + +May 2006: The USAO Accepts the Case and Opens a Case File +On May 23, 2006, Villafaña prepared the paperwork to open a USAO case file. Villafaña +told OPR that several aspects of the case implicated federal interests and potentially merited a +federal prosecution: (1) the victimization of minors through the use of facilities of interstate +commerce (the telephone and airports); (2) the number of victims involved; (3) the possibility that +Epstein had been producing or possessing child pornography (suggested by the removal of the +computer equipment from his residence; and (4) the possibility that improper political pressure +had affected the State Attorney Office's handling of the case. The investigation was named +"Operation Leap Year" because the state investigation had identified approximately 29 girls as +victims of Epstein's conduct.2 +Villafaña told OPR that from the outset of the federal investigation, she understood that +the case would require a great deal of time and effort given the number of potential victims and +Epstein's financial resources. Nonetheless, Villafaña was willing to put in the effort and believed +that the FBI was similarly committed to the case. Villafaña discussed the case with her immediate +supervisor, who also "thought it would be a good case" and approved it to be opened within the +USAO's file management system, and on May 23, 2006, it was formally initiated. +July 14, 2006: Villafaña Informs Acosta and Sloman about the Case +Because Villafaña was not familiar with Epstein, she researched his background and +learned that he "took a scorched earth approach" to litigation. Villafaña was aware that Epstein +had hired multiple lawyers to interact with the State Attorney's Office in an effort to derail the +state case, and she believed he would likely do the same in connection with any federal +investigation. +Therefore, Villafaña arranged to meet with U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and Jeffrey +Sloman, who at the time was the Criminal Division Chief.?' Villafaña told OPR that she had never +before asked to meet with "executive management" about initiating a case, but the allegations that +Epstein had improperly influenced the State Attorney's Office greatly troubled her. Villafaña +explained to OPR that she wanted to ensure that her senior supervisors were "on board" with the +Epstein investigation. In addition, she viewed Sloman as a friend, in whom she had particular +confidence. At this point, although Villafaña's immediate supervisor was aware of the case, +Villafaña did not inform Andrew Lourie, who was then in charge of the West Palm Beach office +and her second-line supervisor, about the matter or that she was briefing Acosta and Sloman. +Villafaña met with Acosta and Sloman in Miami on July 14, 2006. She told OPR that at +the meeting, she informed them that the PBPD had identified a group of girls who had provided to +20 +Villafaña opened "Operation Leap Year" during the same month in which the Department launched its +"Project Safe Childhood" initiative, and Acosta designated Villafaña to serve as the USAO's Project Safe Childhood +coordinator. +Although Acosta had been formally nominated to the U.S. Attorney position on June 9, he was not confirmed +by the Senate until August 3, 2006, and was not sworn in until October 2006. In September 2006, Acosta announced +the appointments of Sloman as FAUSA and Matthew Menchel as Chief of the USAO's Criminal Division, and they +assumed their respective new offices in October 2006. +18 + + +Epstein massages that were sexual in nature, and that Epstein had used "various types of pressure" +to avoid prosecution by the state, including hiring attorneys who had personal connections to the +State Attorney. Villataña said that part of her goal in speaking to Acosta and Sloman at the outset +of the federal investigation was to sensitize them to the tactics Epstein's legal team would likely +employ. Villafaña explained, "When you have a case that you know people are going to be getting +calls about ... you just want to make sure that they know about it so they don't get ... a call from +out of the blue." According to Villafaña, she told Acosta and Sloman that the FBI was willing to +put the necessary resources into the case, and she was willing to put in the time, but she "didn't +want to get to the end and have [the] same situation occur" with a federal prosecution as had +occurred with the state. She told OPR, "I remember specifically saying to them that I expected +the case would be time and resource-intensive and I did not want to invest the time and the FBI's +resources if the Office would just back down to pressure at the end." According to Villafaña, +Acosta and Sloman promised that "if the evidence is there, we will prosecute the case." In a later +email to Lourie and her immediate supervisor, Villafaña recounted that she spoke with Acosta and +Sloman because she "knew that what has happened to the state prosecution can happen to a federal +prosecution if the U.S. Attorney isn't on board," but Acosta and Sloman had given her "the +light" to go forward with the Epstein investigation. +Both Acosta and Sloman told OPR that they did not recall the July 2006 meeting with +Priously each open that at the time the federal finvestigation was intiated, he had no +Acosta told OPR that he understood from the outset that the case involved a wealthy man +who was "doing sordid things" with girls, and that it "seemed a reasonable matter to pursue" +federally. Epstein's wealth and status did not raise any concern for him, because, as Acosta told +OPR, the USAO had prosecuted "lots of influential folks." When asked by OPR to articulate the +federal interest he perceived at the time to be implicated by the case, Acosta responded, "the +exploitation of girls or minor females." Regarding Villafaña's view that she had been given a +light" to proceed with the investigation, Acosta told OPR that he would not likely have +explicitly told Villafaña to "go spend your time" on the case; rather, his practice would have been +simply to acknowledge the information she shared about the case and confirm that a federal +investigation "sound[ed] reasonable." +Sloman told OPR that he could not recall what he initially knew about the Epstein +the USAO, noting that as of July 2006, the USAO had recently prosecuted wealthy and politically +connected lobbyist Jack Abramoff. +22 +Lourie told OPR that when he first heard about the Leap Year investigation, he likewise was unaware of +Epstein. On July 24, 2006, Villafaña emailed to Sloman a link to a Palm Beach Post article that described Epstein as +a "Manhattan money manager" and "part-time Palm Beacher who has socialized with Donald Trump, Bill Clinton and +Kevin Spacey." Sloman forwarded the article to Acosta. +19 + + +Late July 2006: The State Indicts Epstein, and the USAO Moves +Forward with a Federal Investigation +Several days after Villafaña spoke with Acosta and Sloman, on July 19, 2006, Assistant +State Attorney Belohlavek presented the case to the state grand jury.? Krischer told OPR that +"the whole thing" was put before the grand jury. According to a statement made at the time by the +State Attorney's Office spokesman, the grand jury was presented with a list of charges from highest +to lowest, without a recommendation by the prosecutor, and deliberated with the prosecutor out of +the room. 24 The state grand jury returned an indictment charging Epstein with one count of felony +solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statute § 796.07, a felony under state law because +it alleged three or more instances of solicitation.?5 The indictment did not identify the person or +persons solicited and made no mention of the fact that Epstein had solicited minors, 26 On July 23, +2006, Epstein self-surrendered to be arrested on the indictment, but was not detained, and the +charges were made public. +Villafaña told OPR that she decided to move forward with the federal investigation at that +point because she believed the State Attorney's Office would permit Epstein to enter a plea to a +reduced misdemeanor charge and that once he entered a guilty plea, the Department's Petite policy +might preclude a federal prosecution.? Villafaña told OPR that at the time, she "definitely +believed that we were going to proceed to [a federal] indictment, assuming that ... we had +sufficient evidence." +23 +Villafaña and the FBI obtained and examined records of the state grand jury proceeding, and Lourie reviewed +them. Because the grand jury records have hot been ordered relcased publicly, OPR does not discuss their substance +in this Report. +24 +Larry +• "Police say lawyer tried to discredit teenage girls," Palm Beach Post, July 29, 2006, citing +statement by State Attorney's Office spokesman Michacl Edmondson. +25 +Indictment in State v. Epstein, 2006CF9454AXX (July 19, 2006), attached as Exhibit 1 to this Report. +26 +In pertinent part, the state indictment read, "[BJetween the Ist day of August [2004] and October 31, 2005, +[Epstein] did solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution lewdness, or assignation, ... on three +it impossible to identify from the charging document which victim or victims served as the basis for the charge in the +state indictment. Belohlavek explained to OPR that the charge did not list specific victims so that she could go forward +at trial with whichever victim or victims might be available and willing to testify at that time. +27 +The Petite policy is a set of guidelines used by federal prosecutors when considering whether to pursue federal +charges for defendants previously prosecuted for state or local offenses. The Constitution does not prohibit the federal +government from prosecuting defendants who have been charged, acquitted, or convicted on state charges based on +the same criminal conduct. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the long-standing principle that the prohibition +against double jeopardy does not apply to prosecutions brought by different sovereigns. See, e.g., Gamble v. United +States, 587 U.S. _ +, 139 S. Ct. 1960, 1966-67 (2019) (and cases cited therein); Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S +187, 195 (1959) (and cases cited therein); and United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382 (1922). Nonetheless, to +better promote the efficient use of criminal justice resources, the Department developed policies in 1959 and 1960 to +guide federal prosecutors in the use of their charging discretion. See Chapter Two, Part Two, Section II.A.2, for a +more detailed discussion of the Petite policy. +20 + + +On July 24, 2006, Villafaña alerted Sloman, who informed Acosta, that the State Attorney's +Office had charged and arrested Epstein.? On that same day, the FBI in West Palm Beach formally +opened the case, assigning the case agent and, later, a co-case agent, to investigate it. Villafaña +told Sloman that the FBI agents "are getting copies of all of the evidence and we are going to +review everything at [the] FBI on Wednesday," and she noted that her target date for filing federal +charges against Epstein was August 25, 2006. Acosta emailed Sloman, asking whether it was +"appropriate to approach [State Attorney Krischer] and give him a heads up re where we might +go?" Sloman replied, "No for fear that it will be leaked straight to Epstein."29 +Although Lourie learned of the case at this point from Sloman, and eventually took a more +active role in supervising the investigation, Villafaña continued to update Acosta and Sloman +directly on the progress of the case.3° Villafaña's immediate supervisor in West Palm Beach had +little involvement in supervising the Epstein investigation, and at times, Villafaña directed her +emails to Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie without copying her immediate supervisor. In the +immediate supervisor's view, however, "Miami" purposefully assumed all the "authority" for the +case, which the immediate supervisor regarded as "highly unusual."31 +By late August 2006, Villafaña and the FBI had identified several additional victims and +obtained "some flight manifests, telephone messages, and cell phone records that show the +communication and travel in interstate commerce" by Epstein and his associates. Villafaña +reported to her supervisors that the State Attorney's Office would not provide transcripts from the +state grand jury voluntarily, and that she would be meeting with Chief Reiter "to convince him to +relinquish the evidence to the FBI." Villafaña also told her supervisors that she expected "a +number of fights" over her document demands, and that some parties were refusing to comply +"after having contact with Epstein or his attorneys." +Villafaña's reference to anticipated "fights" and lack of compliance led Sloman to ask +whether she was referring to the victims. Villafaña responded that the problems did not involve +victims, but rather a former employee of Epstein and some business entities that had objected to +document demands as overly burdensome. Villafaña explained to Sloman and Lourie that some +victims were "scared and/or embarrassed," and some had been intimidated by the defense, but +"everyone [with] whom the agents have spoken so far has been willing to tell her story." Villafaña +On the same day, Sloman emailed Louric, whom Villatana had not yet briefed about the case, noting that +Operation Leap Year was *a highly sensitive case involving some Palm Beach rich guy." +29 +During his OPR interview, Sloman did not recall what he meant by this remark, but speculated that it was +likely that "we didn't trust the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office," and that he believed there may have been "some +type of relationship between somebody in the [State Attorney's Office] and the defense team." +After Villafaña sent a lengthy substantive email about the case to her immediate supervisor, Louric, Sloman, +and Acosta on August 23, 2006, Lourie emailed Sloman: "Do you and Alex [Acosta] want her updating you on the +case?" Sloman responded, "At this point, I don't really care. If Alex says something then I'll tell her to just run it +through you guys." +OPR understood "Miami" to be a reference to the senior managers who were located in the Miami office, +that is, Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel. Records show, and Villafaña told OPR, that she believed Epstein's attorneys +"made a conscious decision to skip" her immediate supervisor and directed their communications to the supervisory +chain above the immediate supervisor—Louric, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta. +21 + + +also informed Sloman and Lourie that the FBI was re-interviewing victims who had given taped +statements to the PBPD, to ensure their stories "have not changed," and that "[a]ny discrepancies +will be noted and considered." She conceded that "'g]etting them to tell their stories in front of a +jury at trial may be much harder," but expressed confidence that the two key victims "will stay the +course." She acknowledged that the case "needs to be rock solid." +The case agent told OPR that in this initial stage of the investigation, the FBI "partnered +up very well" with the USAO. She recalled that there was little higher-level management oversight +either from the FBI or the USAO, and "we were allowed to do what we needed to do to get our +job done." This included continuing to identify, locate, and interview victims and Epstein +employees, and obtaining records relating to Epstein's travel, communications, and financial +transactions. The case agent viewed the case as "strong." +October 2006 - February 2007: Epstein's Defense Counsel Initiate +Contact with Villafaña, Lourie, and Sloman, and Press for a Meeting +Just as Epstein had learned of the PBPD investigation at its early stage, he quickly became +aware of the federal investigation, both because the FBI was interviewing his employees and +because the government was seeking records from his businesses. One of Epstein's New York +attorneys, Gerald Lefcourt, made initial contact with Villafaña in August 2006. As the +investigation progressed, Epstein took steps to persuade the USAO to decline federal +prosecution.32 As with the state investigation, Epstein employed attorneys who had experience +with the Department and relationships with individual USAO personnel.33 One of Epstein's +Miami lawyers, Guy L +,, a former career AUSA and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of +Florida, made an overture on Epstein's behalf in éarly November 2006.34 +telephoned +Villafaña, a call that Sloman joined at Villafaña's request. +offered to provide Villafaña +32 +Villafaña told OPR that Epstein's lawyers wanted to stop the investigation "prematurely." +33 +Chapter One, Section III.B, of this Report identifies several of the attorneys known to have represented +Epstein in connection with the federal investigation, along with a brief summary of their connections to the +Department, the USAO, or individuals involved in the investigation. At least one former AUSA also represented +34 +Lewis served in the USAO for over 10 years, and was U.S. Attorney from 2000 to 2002. He then served for +two years as Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the Department's administrative office serving the +U.S. Attorneys. +Early in the investigation, Lourie voluntarily notified the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer that +Lourie was friends with +and also had a close friendship with +_law partner, who also was a former AUSA +and also represented Epstein. Lourie requested guidance as to whether his relationships with +and +law +partner created either a conflict of interest or an appearance of impropriety mandating recusal. The Professional +Responsibility Officer responded that Lourie's relationships with the two men were not "covered" relationships under +the conflict of interest guidelines but deferred to Sloman or Menchel "to make the call." Thereafter, Sloman authorized +Lourie to continue supervising the case. During his OPR interview, Lourie asserted that his personal connection to +did not influence his handling of the case. +22 + + +""anything' she wanted" without the necessity of legal process. +and Sloman to discuss the Epstein investigation, but Villafaña declined. +asked to meet with Villafaña +Shortly thereafter, Lilly Ann +a former AUSA, contacted Sloman and advised him +that she also represented Epstein. +was employed by the USAO from 2000 to September +2005 and had been a Deputy Chief of the USAO's Major Crimes section at the time Menchel was +the Chief. According to Sloman's contemporaneous email recounting the conversation, when +indicated to him that his participation in +call with Villafaña led the defense team +to believe that the matter had been "elevated" within the USAO, Sloman tried to "disabuse" her of +that notion. +said that Epstein "wanted to be as transparent and cooperative as possible" +in working with the USAO. Despite the fact that +had already made contact with the USAO +on Epstein's behalf, +sent a letter to Villafaña on November 15, 2006, in which she asserted +that she and Gerald Lefcourt were representing Epstein and asked that the USAO direct all contact +or communications about Epstein to them. In response, Villafaña requested that the defense +provide documents and information pertinent to the federal investigation, including the documents +and information that Epstein had previously provided to the State Attorney's Office, and +"computers, hard drives, CPUs [computer processing units], and any other computer media" +removed from Epstein's home before the PBPD executed its search warrant in October 2005. In +January 2007, +contacted Villafaña to schedule a meeting but Villafaña responded that +she wanted to receive and review the documents before scheduling a meeting with +Immediately after receiving Villafaña's response, Sanchez bypassed Villafaña and phoned +Lourie, with whom she had worked when she was an AUSA, to press for a meeting. Lourie agreed +to meet with +and Lefcourt. Lourie explained to Villafaña that +was concerned +that federal charges were "imminent," wanted to meet with the USAO and "make a pitch," and +promised that once given the opportunity to do so, if the USAO "wanted to interview Epstein, that +would be a possibility." Villafaña told Lourie that +had not yet provided the documents +she had promised, and Villafaña wanted "the documents not the pitch." Lourie explained to OPR, +however, that it was his practice to grant meetings to defense counsel; he considered it "good for +us" to learn the defense theories of a case and believed that "information is power." Lourie further +explained that learning what information the defense viewed as important could help the USAO +form its strategy and determine which counts relating to which victims should be charged. Lourie +also believed that as a general matter, prosecutors should grant defense requests to make a +presentation, because "[p]art of [thel process is for them to believe they are heard." In addition to +agreeing to a meeting, Lourie sent +a narrowed document request, which responded to +is complaint that the USAO's earlier request was overbroad but which retained the +demand for the computer-related items removed from Epstein's home. The meeting was scheduled +for February 1, 2007, and Lourie asked +to provide the documents and materials to the +USAO by January 25, 2007. +Villafaña did not agree with Lourie's decision to meet with +and Lefcourt. Indeed, +two days after Lourie agreed to the meeting, Villafaña alerted him that she had spoken again with +and learned that Epstein was not going to provide the requested documents. As Villafaña +told Lourie, "I just get to listen to the pitch and hear about how the girls are liars and drug users." +She told OPR that in her view, "it was way too early to have a meeting," she already knew what +the defense would say, and she could not see how a meeting would benefit the federal investigation. +She explained to Lourie the basis for her objections to the meeting, but Lourie "vehemently" +23 + + +disagreed with her position. Villafaña and a West Palm Beach AUSA with whom she was +consulting about the investigation, and who served for a time as her co-counsel, both recalled +meeting with Lourie in his office to express their concerns about meeting with defense counsel. +They perceived Lourie to be dismissive of their views." According to Villafaña, Lourie believed +that a meeting with the defense attorneys would be the USAO's chance to learn the defense's legal +theories and would position the USAO to arrange a debriefing of Epstein, through which the USAO +might learn information helpful to a prosecution. Villafaña told OPR, however, that while this +strategy might make sense in a +-collar crime case, she did not believe it was appropriate or +worthwhile in a child exploitation case, in which the perpetrator would be unlikely to confess to +the conduct. Villafaña also told OPR that she did not believe the USAO could extract information +about the defense legal theories without telling the defense the precise crimes the USAO intended +to charge, which Villafaña did not want to reveal. +6. +February 2007: Defense Counsel Meet with Lourie and Villafaña and +Present the Defense Objections to a Federal Case +At the February 1, 2007 meeting with Lourie and Villafaña, Sanchez and Lefcourt set out +arguments that would be repeated throughout the months-long defense campaign to stop the federal +investigation. In support of their arguments, the defense attorneys provided a 25-page letter, along +with documents the defense had obtained from the state's investigative file and potential +impeachment material the defense had developed relating to the victims. +In the letter and at the meeting, defense counsel argued that (1) the allegations did not +provide a basis for the exercise of federal jurisdiction; (2) the evidence did not establish that +Epstein knew girls who provided him with massages were minors; (3) no evidence existed proving +that any girl traveled interstate to engage in sex with Epstein; (4) the USAO would violate the +Petite policy by initiating federal prosecution of a matter that had already been addressed by the +state; and (5) there were "forensic barriers' to prosecution, referring to witness credibility issues. +The letter suggested that "misleading and inaccurate reports" from the PBPD "may well have +affected" the USAO's view of the case. The letter also claimed that the State Attorney's Office +had taken into account the "damaging histories of lies, illegal drug use, and crime" of the state's +two principal victims (identified by name in the letter), and argued that "with witnesses of their +ilk," the state might have been unable "to make any case against Epstein at all." Lourie told OPR +that he did not recall the meeting, but Villafaña told OPR that neither she nor Lourie was persuaded +by the defense presentation at this "listening session." +B. +February - May 2007: Villafaña and the FBI Continue to Investigate; +Villafaña Drafts a Prosecution Memorandum and Proposed Indictment for +USAO Managers to Review +Correspondence between Villafaña and defense counsel show that Villafaña carefully +considered the defense arguments concerning the victims' credibility, and she reviewed audiotapes +24 + + +of the state's victim interviews and partial transcripts provided by defense counsel. 36 Villafaña +also pursued other investigative steps, which included working with the FBI to locate an expert +witness to testify about the effect of sexual abuse on victims. She also continued collecting records +relating to Epstein's business entities, in part to help establish the interstate nexus of Epstein's +activity. On several occasions, Villafaña sought guidance from CEOS, which had considerable +national expertise in child exploitation cases, about legal issues relating to the case, such as +whether charges she was considering required proof that the defendant knew a minor victim's age. +USAO procedures generally required that a proposed indictment be accompanied by a +prosecution memorandum from the AUSA handling the case. The prosecution memorandum was +expected to explain the factual and legal bases for the proposed charges and address any significant +procedural, factual, and legal issues of which the AUSA was aware; witness-related issues; +expected defenses; and sentencing issues. Routine prosecutions could be approved by lower-level +supervisors, but in high-profile or complex cases, proposed indictments might require review and +approval by the Criminal Division Chief, the FAUSA, or even the U.S. Attorney. +Accordingly, Villafaña drafted an 82-page prosecution memorandum directed to Acosta, +Sloman, Menchel (who had replaced Sloman as the USAO's Criminal Division Chief the previous +October, when Sloman became the FAUSA), Lourie, and her immediate supervisor, dated May 1, +2007, supporting a proposed 60-count indictment that charged Epstein with various federal crimes +relating to sexual conduct with and trafficking of minors. The prosecution memorandum set forth +legal issues and potential defenses relating to each proposed charge; explained why certain other +statutes were rejected as proposed charges; described the evidence supporting each count and +potential evidentiary issues; and addressed the viability and credibility of each of the victims who +were expected to testify at trial. +Villafaña's immediate supervisor told OPR that she read the prosecution memorandum, +had only a few small edits to the indictment, and advised Lourie that she approved of it. The +immediate supervisor told OPR that she viewed the case as prosecutable, but recognized that the +case was complex and that Villataña would need co-counsel. +In his OPR interview, Lourie recalled thinking that the prosecution memorandum and +proposed indictment "were very thorough and contained a lot of hard work," but that he wanted to +employ a different strategy for charging the case, focusing initially only on the victims that +presented "the toughest cases" for Epstein—meaning those about whom Epstein had not already +raised credibility issues to use in cross-examination. Lourie told OPR that although he had some +concerns about the case—particularly the government's ability to prevail on certain legal issues +and the credibility challenges some of the victims would face—he did not see those concerns as +insurmountable and was generally in favor of going forward with the prosecution. +Although indictments coming out of the West Palm Beach office usually did not require +approval in Miami, in this case, Lourie understood that "[b]ecause there was front office +involvement from the get-go," he would not be the one making the final decision whether to go +36 +Lefcourt and +_ provided the recordings during a follow-up meeting with Lourie and Villafaña on +February 20, 2007, and thereafter furnished the transcripts. +25 + + +forward with charges in this case. Lourie forwarded a copy of the prosecution memorandum to +Menchel. Lourie's transmittal message read: +did a 50 [sic] page pros memo in the Epstein case. I am going +to start reading it tonight... It's a major case because the target is +one of the richest men in the country and it has been big news. He +has a stable of attorneys, including Dershowitz, [Roy] Black, +Lefcourt, L +, and Lily [sic] | +. Jeff Sloman is familiar +with the investigation. The state intentionally torpedoed it in the +grand jury so it was brought to us. I am going to forward the pros +memo to you so you can start reading it at the same time I do. The +FBI is pushing to do it in Mid [sic] May, which I think is not critical, +but we might as well get a jump on it. I have some ideas about the +indictment (needs to be ultra lean with only clean victims), so l am +not sending that yet. +Lourie explained to OPR that by "clean" victims, he meant those for whom the defense did not +have impeachment evidence to use against them. +A few days later, Lourie emailed Menchel, asking if Menchel had read the prosecution +memorandum. Lourie directed Menchel's attention to parficular pages of the prosecution +memorandum, noting that the "keys" were whether the USAO could prove that Epstein traveled +for the purpose of engaging in sexual acts, and the fact that some minor victims told Epstein they +were 18.3? Lourie asked for Menchel's "very general opinion as to whether this is a case you think +the office should do," and reminded Menchel that the State Attorney's Office "went out of their +way to get a no-bill on this ... and thus only charged adult solicitation, which they would bargain +away to nothing." +During his OPR interview, Menchel said that Lourie's email transmitting the prosecution +memorandum was his "official introduction" to the case and at that point in time, he had never +heard of Epstein and had no information about his background. He recalled that the USAO had +been asked to review the case because the state had not handled it appropriately. Menchel told +OPR, however, that he had little memory about the facts of the case or what contemporaneous +opinions he formed about it. +Acosta told OPR that he could not recall whether he ever read Villafaña's prosecution +memorandum, explaining that he "would typically rely on senior staff," who had more +prosecutorial experience, and that instead of reading the memorandum, he may have discussed the +case with Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie, who he assumed would have read the document. Acosta +37 +In various submissions to the USAO, the defense contended that the federal statute required proof that +engaging in a sexual act was the "paramount or dominant purpose" of Epstein's travel, but that Epstein's travel was +motivated by his desire to live outside of New York for over half of each year for tax purposes. The defense also +asserted that the federal statutes at issue required proof that the defendant knew the victims were under 18, but that +Epstein "took affirmative steps to ensure that every woman was at least 18 years of age." In her prosecution +memorandum, however, Villafaña set forth her conclusion that the statute only required proof that engaging in a sexual +act was one of the motivating factors for the travel. She also concluded that the statutes did not require proof that the +defendant knew the victims were minors. +26 + + +recalled generally having conversations with Sloman and Menchel about the Epstein case, but he +could not recall with specificity when those conversations took place or the details of the +discussions. +Sloman told OPR that because of his broad responsibilities as FAUSA, he left it to +Menchel, as a highly experienced trial attorney and the Criminal Division Chief, to work directly +with Acosta, and Sloman recalled that it was Menchel and Lourie who conducted a "granular +review" of the charging package. Acosta confirmed to OPR that Sloman and Menchel "were a +team" who became involved in issues as needed, and if Sloman perceived that Menchel was taking +the lead on the Epstein matter, Sloman may have deferred to Menchel. +C. +May - June 2007: Miami Managers Consider the Prosecution Memorandum +and Proposed Charges +When she submitted the prosecution memorandum, Villafaña intended to file charges by +May 15, 2007, and the FBI planned to arrest Epstein immediately thereafter. Villafaña, however, +had not obtained authorization to indict on that schedule. The managers in Miami wanted time to +analyze the lengthy prosecution memorandum and consider the potential charges and charging +strategy. Just a few days after he received the prosecution memorandum, and after learning that +the FBI was planning a press conference for May 15, Sloman advised Villafaña that "[t]his Office +has not approved the indictment. Therefore, please do not commit us to anything at this time."38 +On May 10, 2007, with Menchel's concurrence, Lourie sent a copy of Villafaña's +prosecution memorandum to CEOS Chief Andrew Oosterbaan, who in turn sent it to his deputy +and another CEOS attorney, asking them to assess the legal issues involved in the case and +describing it as a "highly sensitive" case involving "a high profile, very rich defendant."" After +CEOS reviewed the materials, Oosterbaan responded to Lourie with an email stating that the +memorandum was "exhaustive" and well done" and noting that Villafaña "has correctly focused +on the issues as we see them." He summarized CEOS's analysis of the application of key facts to +the statutes she proposed charging, concurring in Villafaña's assessments but noting that further +research was needed to determine whether certain statutes required proof of a defendant's +knowledge of victims' ages, Oosterbaan offered to assign a CEOS attorney to work with Villafaña +on the case. Lourie forwarded Oosterbaan's email to Menchel and Villafaña. +Meanwhile, contemporaneous emails show that Lourie, at least, was already considering +an early resolution of the case through a pre-indictment plea agreement.4° After Lourie spoke with +Lourie later reported to Menchel that the FBI had "wanted to arrest [Epstein] in [the] Virgin Islands during a +beauty pageant ... where he is a judge." The case agent recalled that she and her co-case agent were disappointed +with the decision, and that the Supervisory Special Agent was "extremely upset" about it. After the federal +investigation began, and except for his sclf-surrender to face the state indictment in July 2006, Epstein largely stayed +away from West Palm Beach, only returning occasionally. +Before becoming Chief of CEOS, Oosterbaan was an AUSA at the USAO for about ten years and was good +friends with Lourie. +40 +In her prosecution memorandum, Villafaña argued against pre-charge plea negotiations, arguing that it "may +undermine our arguments for pretrial detention." Menchel, however, told OPR that he did not consider strengthening +a bail argument to be a valid ground to decline to meet with defense counsel about a case. +27 + + +the FBI squad supervisor on May 9, 2007, to explain that charges against Epstein would not be +quickly approved, he reported to Menchel that the FBI was "not happy" about the delay, adding, +"I did not even tell them I think we should bring [Epstein] in, once we decide to charge him, and +offer a pre-indictment deal, figuring a judge might never agree to such a deal post indictment. That +would have sent them thru the roof." Lourie explained to OPR that he thought a judge, after seeing +an indictment charging the full nature and scope of Epstein's conduct, might not agree to a plea +involving substantially less time or to dismiss substantive charges.* +Lourie told OPR that despite Oosterbaan's favorable opinion of the case, "[t]his was ... a +bit of uncharted territory," involving facts that were unlike the case law Oosterbaan had cited. +Although Lourie had some concerns about the legal issues and about the witnesses, he "probably" +did not see any impediment to going forward with the case; in fact, Lourie "was not in favor of +walking away, which is what the defense wanted [the USAO] to do." But while Lourie "thought +we could have won and we could have prevailed through appeal," he "didn't think the odds were +nearly as good as you want in a criminal case, and ... the things that we had to gain [through a +plea agreement] were much more than [in] a normal criminal case," in which the only cost of a +loss would be that the defendant did not go to jail. Lourie told OPR that to the best of his +recollection, he thought a plea agreement would be a good result, and although the government +might have to "give up some jail time," there were other benefits to a plea, such as the ability to +require Epstein to register as a sex offender and the availability of monetary damages for the +victims. Lourie recalled "thinking that this case should settle and we should set it up so we can +settle it" by, for example, charging Epstein by complaint and then negotiating a plea to limited +charges in a criminal information. Villafaña told OPR that she agreed with Lourie that a criminal +complaint charging an "omnibus conspiracy containing "all of the information related to what the +case was about" would be a good way to "get things moving" toward a pre-indictment plea. +Although Lourie and Villafafia believed a pre-indictment plea agreement was a desired +resolution, there was no guarantee that Epstein would agree to plead guilty, and they continued to +work together to shape an indictment. On May 10, 2007, Lourie emailed Villafaña: +[M]arie +I believe that Ep +att[orneys] are scared of the victims they +don't know. Epstein has no doubt told them that there were many. +Thus I believe the f[ir]st indictment should contain only the victims +they have nothing on at all. We can add in the other ones that have +myspace [sic] pages and prior testimony in a [superseding +idictment). I thinker the first strike we should make all thei +ightmares come true. +42 +Lourie's references to MySpace pages and "prior testimony" referred to the impeachment information +brought forward by defense counsel. +28 + + +Lourie followed up his email to Villafaña with one to Menchel, in which Lourie reiterated +the potential benefits of a pre-indictment plea, explaining that he and Villafaña believed "the best +thing to do is charge Epstein by complaint, assuming we decide to charge him. ... The +[sentencing] guidelines will be in the 20 year range, so we would need to plead him to one or two +conspiracies to cap him and there is no telling if a judge would go for that once we indict."* +Menchel responded that he and Acosta would read the prosecution memorandum and "[w]e can +discuss after that." +Later that afternoon, Villafaña sent Lourie an email, which Lourie forwarded to Menchel, +explaining that a "conservative calculation" of Epstein's potential sentencing exposufe under the +U.S. Sentencing Guidelines would be 168 to 210 months, and that in her view, the facts warranted +an upward departure from that range. Villafaña told OPR that although Lourie proposed some +changes to the draft indietment, at that point no one had told her that the evidence was insufficient +to support the proposed charges or that the office did not want to go forward with the case. +In an email to Acosta and Menchel on May 11, 2007, Lourie recommended charging +Epstein by complaint and seeking a pre-indictment plea: +My current thoughts are that we should charge him. Not sure that I +agree with the charging strategy as it is now, but at this point I think +we only need to get on the same page as fo whether the statutes cover +the conduct and whether the conduct is the type we should charge. +I think the answer to both is yes, although there is some risk on some +of the statutes as this is uncharted territory to some degree. We can +decide later what the [charging document] should look like precisely +and which victims should be charged. +I also think if we choose to go forward, we should start with a +complaint, arrest him, detain him ... and then try to see if he wants +a pre-indictment resolution. That would give us more control [over] +a plea than if we indict him and need the court's approval to dismiss +counts. We will need to cap him with conspiracy counts to make a +plea attractive and the court could give us a hard time with that if we +try to dismiss indicted counts. +Although her supervisors were communicating among themselves about the case, Villafaña +was unaware of those discussions and was frustrated that she was not receiving more feedback. +She continued preparing to charge Epstein. Two weeks after submitting the prosecution +memorandum, on May 14, 2007, Villafaña informed Lourie and Menchel by email that Epstein +was flying to New Jersey from the Virgin Islands, and she asked whether she could file charges +the next day. Menchel responded that "[y]ou will not have approval to go forward tomorrow," +and explained that Acosta "has your [prosecution] memo," but was at an out-of-town conference, +adding, "This is obviously a very significant case and [A]lex wants to take his time making sure +43 +Lourie told OPR that he was referring to one or two counts of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the general +"omnibus" federal conspiracy statute that carries a maximum sentence of five years. +29 + + +he is comfortable before proceeding." Menchel told Villafaña he had "trouble understanding" why +she was in a "rush" "given how long this case has been pending."44 +OPR questioned Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta about the timeline for reviewing +the prosecution memorandum and the proposed charges. Acosta and Menchel believed Villafaña's +timeline was unrealistic from the start. Acosta told OPR that Villafaña was "very hard charging," +but her timeline for filing charges in the case was "really, really fast." Menchel described Villafaña +as "out over her skis a little bit" and "ahead of" Acosta in terms of his analysis of the case.45 +Menchel said it was clear to him that Acosta "was going to be the one making the call" about +whether to go forward with charges, and Acosta needed more time to make a decision. Menchel +told OPR, "This [was] not a case [we were] going to review in two weeks and make a decision +on." Sloman told OPR that although he did not conduct a "granular review" of the proposed +charges, he believed Menchel and Lourie had done so and "obviously" had concluded that "the +facts and the law didn't suggest that the right thing to do was to automatically indiet." Lourie told +OPR that he believed "the case was moving ahead." +Villafaña continued to seek direction from her managers. On May 15, 2007, she emailed +Sloman, noting that "fi]t seemed from our discussion yesterday that pestering Alex [Acosta] will +like the current draft, a complaint to allow for pre-indictment negotiations, an indictment +drastically different from the current draft?" Sloman responded only, "Taken care of."46 +D. Defense Counsel Seek a Meeting with Senior USAO Managers, which +Villafaña Opposes +Meanwhile, Epstein's defense counsel continued to seck additional information about the +federal investigation and a meeting with senior USAO managers, including Acosta. In a May 10, +2007 email to Menchel, Lourie reported that Epstein's attorneys "want me to tell them the statutes +Villafaña explained to OPR that the "rush" related to her concern that Epstein was continuing to abuse girls: +"In terms of the issuc of why the hurry, because child sex offenders don't stop until they're behind bars. That was our +time concern." Menchel, however, told OPR that he did not recall Villafaña offering this explanation to him. OPR +notes that in their respective statements to OPR and in their comments on OPR's draft report, Menchel and Villafaña +expressed contradictory accounts or interpretations of certain events. When it was necessary for OPR to resolve those +conflicts in order to reach its findings and conclusions, OPR considered the extensive documentary record and the +testimony of other subjects and witnesses, to the extent available. +45 +Sloman similarly recalled that Menchel thought Villafaña was "ahead of where the office was internally" and +that caused "discontent" between Villafaña and Menchel. Villafaña was not the only one, however, who was surprised +that the indictment was not approved immediately. The case agent told OPR that it seemed "everything changed" +after Villafaña submitted the prosecution memorandum, and the momentum towards an indictment abated. Villafaña's +immediate supervisor told OPR that from her perspective, it appeared "Miami didn't want the case prosecuted." +However, Menchel rebuked Villafaña in his July 5, 2007 cmail to her for having "led the agents to believe that [filing +charges in] this matter was a foregone conclusion." +46 +Sloman could not recall during his OPR interview what he meant by this remark, but he speculated that he +had spoken to Menchel, and Menchel was going to take care of it. +30 + + +we are contemplating so Dershowitz can tell us why they don't apply."4 Lourie told Menchel, "I +don't see the downside," but added, i +is against it." Menchel responded that it was +"premature" to provide the information. During his OPR interview, Menchel could not specifically +recall why he believed it was "premature" to provide the defense with the requested information, +but speculated that it was too soon after the prosecution memorandum had been circulated for +Acosta to have made a decision about how he wanted to proceed. This recollection is consistent +with the May 2007 emails reflecting that Acosta wanted time to consider the proposed prosecution. +On May 22, 2007, defense counsel Lefcourt emailed Lourie a letter to "confirm" that +Epstein's attorneys would be given an opportunity to meet with Lourie before the USAO reached +a final decision on charging Epstein. Lourie forwarded the letter to Menchel and Sloman, but +noted that Epstein's defense team was "really ready for the next level," rather than another meeting +with him. Lourie suggested that Menchel meet with defense counsel, adding. "Whether Alex +would be present or grant them another meeting after that is his call." Lourié also emailed +Lefcourt, clarifying that Lourie had not promised to call Epstein's counsel before filing charges, +and suggesting that Epstein's counsel make their next presentation to Menchel. +Although Lourie's emails show that he had no objection to more senior USAO managers +meeting with defense counsel, Villafaña opposed such a meeting. Several emails indicate that +Menchel traveled to West Palm Beach to meet with Lourie and Villafaña on the afternoon of +May 23, 2007.48 On that same date, Villafaña drafted an email, which she planned to send to +Sloman and Menchel, expressing her disagreement with meeting with defense counsel. Although +the email was written for Sloman and Menchel, Villafaña sent it as a draft only to her immediate +supervisor, seeking her "guidance and counsel" as to how to proceed. +Hi Jeff and Matt - I just want to again voice my disagreement with +promising to have a meeting or having a meeting with Lefcourt or +any other of Epstein's attorneys. As I mentioned, this is not a case +where we will be sitting down to negotiate whether a defendant will +serve one year versus two years of probation. This is a case where +the defendant is facing the possibility of dozens of years of prison +time. Just as the defense will defend a case like that differently than +they would handle a probation-type case, we need to handle this case +differently. Part of our prosecution strategy was already disclosed +at the last meeting, and I am concerned that more will be disclosed +at a future meeting. +My co-chair ... who has prosecuted more of these cases than the +rest of us combined and who actually worked on the drafting of +ome of the child exploitation statutes, also opposes a meeting. We +lave been accused of not being "strategic thinkers" because of our +47 +Dershowitz had joined Lefcourt and +| in representing Epstein for the federal case. +48 +During her OPR interview, Villafaña could not recall the meeting with specificity, but believed the purpose +cold PR that he could not remember anything specifi about the mei with pscin's couns. Menchel, similarly. +31 + + +opposition to these meetings, but we are simply looking at this case +as a violent crime prosecution involving stiff penalties rather than as +collar or public corruption case where the parties can +amicably work out a light sentence. 49 +With respect to the "policy reasons" that Lefcourt wants to discuss, +those were already raised in his letter (which is part of the indictment +package) and during his meeting with Andy and myself. Those +reasons are: (1) he wants the Petit [sic] policy to trump our ability +arguments will be persuasive, a meeting will not be beneficial to the +prosecution, it will only benefit the defense. With respect to +Lefcourt's promised legal analysis, that also has already been +provided. The only way to get additional analysis is to expose to the +defense the other charges that we are considering. In my opinion +this would seriously undermine the prosecution. +The defense is anxious to have a meeting in order to delay the +investigation/prosecution, to find out more about our investigation, +and to use political pressure to stop the investigation. +I have no control over the Office's decisions regarding whether to +meet with the defense or to whom the facts and analysis of the case +will be disclosed. However, if you all do decide to go forward with +these meetings in a way that is detrimental to the investigation, then +I will have to ask to have the case reassigned to an AUSA who is in +agreement with the handling of the case. +After receiving this draft, the immediate supervisor cautioned Villafaña, "Let's talk before +this is sent, please."50 Villafaña told OPR that the supervisor counseled Villafaña not to send the +email to Sloman or Menchel because Villafaña could be viewed as insubordinate. She also told +Villafaña that if Villafaña did not stay with the case, "the case would go away" and Epstein "would +never serve a day in jail." +Villafaña told OPR that at that point in time, she believed the USAO was preparing to file +charges against Epstein despite agreeing to accommodate the defense request for meetings. She +also told OPR, on the other hand, that she feared the USAO was "going down the same path that +the State Attorney's Office had gone down." Villafaña believed the purpose of the defense request +In commenting on OPR's draft report, Menchel's counsel noted Menchel's view that the nature of : +lefendant's crimes and potential penalty does not affect whether prosecutors are willing to meet with defense counse +to discuss the merits of a case. +The immediate supervisor recalled telling Villafaña that she and Villafaña were "not driving the ship," anc +once "the bosses" made the decision, "there's nothing else you can do." +32 + + +for meetings was to cause delay, but "the people in my office either couldn't see that or didn't +want to see that," perhaps because of "their lack of experience with these types of cases" or a +misguided belief "that [Epstein's] attorneys would not engage in this behavior." Villafaña told +OPR that she "could not seem to get [her supervisors] to understand the seriousness of Epstein's +behavior and the fact that he was probably continuing to commit the behavior, and that there was +a need to move with necessary speed." Nonetheless, Villafaña followed the guidance of her +immediate supervisor and did not send the email. +Like Lourie, Menchel told OPR that he believed meeting with defense counsel was good +practice. Menchel told OPR that he saw "no downside" to hearing the defense point of view. +Defense counsel might make a persuasive point "that's actually going to change our mind," or +alternatively, present arguments the defense would inevitably raise if the case went forward, and +Menchel believed it would be to the USAO's advantage to learn about such arguments in advance. +Menchel also told OPR that he did not recall Villafaña ever articulating a concern that Epstein was +continuing to offend, and in Menchel's view, Epstein was "already under a microscope, at least in +Florida," and it would have been "the height of stupidity" for Epstein to continue to offend in those +circumstances. +E. June 2007: Villafaña Supplements the Prosecution Memorandum +While Villafaña's supervisors were considering whether to go forward with the proposed +charges, Villafaña took additional steps to support them. On June 14, 2007, she supplemented the +prosecution memorandum with an addendum addressing "credibility concerns" relating to one of +the victims. In the email transmitting the addendum to Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and her +immediate supervisor, Villafaña reported, "another Jane Doe has been identified and interviewed," +and the "different strategies" about how to structúre the charges left Villafaña unsure whether "to +make ….. changes now or wait until we have received approval of the current charging strategy." +The addendum itself related to a particular victim referred to as the minor who "saw Epstein most +frequently" and who had allegedly engaged in sexual activity with both Epstein and an Epstein +assistant. In the addendum, Villafaña identified documents she had found corroborating four +separate statements made by this victim. +Villafaña told OPR, that the only victim about whom any supervisor ever articulated +specific credibility issues was the victim discussed in the addendum. Lourie told OPR that he had +по specific recollection of the addendum, but it was "reasonable" to assume that the addendum +addressed one particular victim because no one had identified specific concerns relating to any +other victim. Villafaña's immediate supervisor similarly told OPR that to her recollection, the +discussions about credibility issues were generic rather than tied to specific victims. +F. +The June 26, 2007 Meeting with Defense Counsel +with +Menchel agreed to meet with defense counsel on June 26, 2007, communicating directly +about the arrangements. At Menchel's instruction, on June 18, 2007, Villafaña sent +a letter to defense counsel identifying what she described as "the statutes under consideration."51 +Villafaña sent copies of this letter to both Menchel and +Villafaña told OPR that she objected to +sending this information to the defense. Although Menchel did not recall directing Villafaña to send the letter to +33 + + +On that same day, Villafaña emailed Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and her immediate supervisor +complaining that she had received no reply to her query about making changes to the proposed +indictment and asking again for feedback. During his OPR interview, Lourie observed that +Villafaña's request for feedback reflected her desire to "charge this case sooner than ... everybody +else," but Acosta was still considering what strategy to pursue. Sloman told OPR that he did not +know whether Villafaña received any response to her request, but he believed that at that point in +time, Menchel and Lourie were evaluating the case to make a decision about how to proceed. +The day before the June 26 meeting, defense counsel Lefcourt transmitted to the USAO a +19-page letter intended to provide "an overview of our position and the materials we plan to present +in order to demonstrate that none of the statutes identified by you can rightly be applied to the +conduct at issue here." Reiterating their prior arguments and themes, defense counsel strongly +contested the appropriateness of federal involvement in the matter. Among other issues, Lefcourt's +letter argued: +• Voluntary sexual activity involving "young adults-16 or 17 years of age"-was +"strictly a state concern." +• Federal statutes were not meant to apply to Circumstances in which the defendant +reasonably believed that the person with whom he engaged in sexual activity was +18 years of' age. +• One of the chief statutes the USAO had focused upon, 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), was +intended to address use of the internet to prey upon child victims through 'internet +trolling," but Epstein did not use the internet to lure victims. +• The "travel" statute, 18 U,S.C. § 2423(b), prohibits travel "for the purpose of" +engaging in illicit sexual conduct, but Epstein traveled to Florida to visit family, +oversee his Florida-based flight operations, and "engage in the routine activities of +daily living." +Lefcourt also argued again that "irregularities" had tainted the state's case and would "have a +significant impact on any federal prosecution."52 +Lourie sent to Menchel, with a copy to Villafaña, an email dividing the defense arguments +into "weaker" and "stronger" points. Lourie disagreed with the argument that 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) +was limited to "internet trolling," and described this as "our best charge and the most defensible +for federal interest." On the other hand, Lourie believed the defense argument that Epstein did not +travel to Florida "with the purpose'" of engaging in illicit sex with a minor was more persuasive. +Lefcourt, he told OPR that he "wouldn't take issue" with Villafaña's claim that he had done so. Menchel also told +OPR that he did not recall Villafaña objecting at that point to providing the information to the defense. +Lefcourt claimed there were deficiencies in the PBPD search warrant and "material misstatements and +omissions" in the PBPD probable cause affidavit. As an example, he contended that the police had lacked probable +cause to search for videotapes, "since all the women who were asked whether they had been videotaped denien +knowledge of any vidcotaping." (Emphasis in original). +34 + + +Lourie opined that the government could argue "that over time [Epstein] set up a network of illegal +high school massage recruits that would be difficult to duplicate anywhere else," which supported +the conclusion that the massages must have been a motivating purpose of his travel, if not the sole +purpose. However, Lourie expressed concern about "getting to the jury" on this issue and noted +that he had not found a legal case factually on point. Villafaña told OPR that she disagreed with +Lourie's analysis of the purpose of travel issue and had discussed the matter with him. 53 Villafaña +also recalled that there were aspects of the defense submissions she and her colleagues considered +"particularly weak." +On June 26, 2007, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, Villafaña, the case agent, and the West Palm +Beach squad supervisor met at the Miami USAO with Epstein attorneys Dershowitz, Black, +Lefcourt, and | +• Dershowitz led the defense team's presentation. From the USAO +perspective, the meeting was merely a "listening session."4 Echoing the arguments made in +Lefcourt's letter, Dershowitz argued that the USAO should permit the state to handle the case +because these were "traditionally state offenses." The case agent recalled being uncomfortable +that the defense was asking questions in an attempt to gain information about the federal +investigation, including the number of victims and the types of sexual contact that had been +involved. +Villafaña told OPR that when Epstein's attorneys left the meeting, they appeared to be +"under the impression that they had convinced us not to proceed." But Menchel told ÖPR, "[T]hey +obviously did not persuade" the USAO because "we ..) didn't drop the investigation." According +to Villafaña, Lourie, and Menchel, during a short post-meeting discussion at which Lourie +expressed concern about the purpose of travel issue and Menchel raised issues related to general +credibility of the victims, the prevailing sense among the USAO participants was that the defense +presentation had not been persuasive. Villafaña told OPR that she "left [the meeting] with the +impression that we were continuing towards" filing charges. +IV. ACOSTA DECIDES TO OFFER EPSTEIN A TWO-YEAR STATE PLEA TO +RESOLVE THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION +USAO internal communications show that in July 2007, Acosta developed, or adopted, the +broad outline of an agreement that could resolve the federal investigation. The agreement would +leave the case in state court by requiring Epstein to plead guilty to state charges, but would +accomplish three goals important to the federal prosecutors: Epstein's incarceration; his +registration as a sexual offender; and a mechanism to provide for the victims to recover monetary +Villafaña also told OPR that Lourie had, at times, expressed concern about the prosecution's ability to prove +Epstein's knowledge of the victims' ages, particularly with regard to those who were 16 or 17 at the time they provided +massages. +54 +In his written response to OPR, Menchel indicated that he had no independent recollection of the June 26, +2007 meeting. In his OPR interview, Menchel said that although he had little memory of the meeting, to the best of +his recollection the USAO simply listened to the defense presentation, and in a contemporancous email, Menchel +opined that he viewed the upcoming June 26 meeting as "more as [the USAO] listening and them presenting their +position." +35 + + +damages. " During a two-month period, the subject attorneys were involved to varying degrees in +converting the broad outline into specific terms, resulting in the NPA signed by Epstein on +September 24, 2007. The subjects, including Acosta, were generally able to explain to OPR both +the larger goals and the case-related factors they likely considered during the process of +conceptualizing, negotiating, and finalizing this resolution. However, the contemporaneous emails +and other records do not reflect all of the conversations among the decision makers, and their +deliberative and decision-making process is therefore not entirely clear. In particular, Menchel +and Acosta had offices located near each other and likely spoke in person about the case, but +neither had a clear memory of their conversations. Therefore, OPR could not determine all of the +facts surrounding the development of the two-year state plea resolution or the NPA. +In the following account, OPR discusses the initial key decision to resolve the federal +investigation through state, rather than federal, charges, and sets forth many of the numerous +communications that reflect the negotiations between the parties that led fo the final NPA. OPR +questioned each of the subjects about how the decision was reached to pursue a state resolution, +and OPR includes below the subjects' explanations. +The subjects' memories of particular +conversations about this topic were unclear, but from their statements to OPR, a general consensus +emerged that there were overlapping concerns about the viability of the legal theories, the +willingness of the victims to testify, the impact of a trial on the victims, the overall strength of the +case that had been developed at that time, and the uncertainty about the USAO's ability to prevail +at trial and through appeal. In addition, Acosta was concerned about usurping the state's authority +to prosecute a case involving an offense that was traditionally handled by state prosecutors. Based +on this evidence, OPR concludes that Acosta may well have formulated the initial plan to resolve +the matter through a state plea. In any event, Acosta acknowledged to OPR that, at a minimum, +he approved of the concept of a state-based resolution after being made aware of the allegations +and the evidence against Epstein as set forth in Villafaña's prosecution memorandum. +Furthermore, Acosta approved of the final terms of the NPA. +A. June - July 2007: The USAO Proposes a State Plea Resolution, which the +Defense Rejects +A few days after the June 26, 2007 meeting, +emailed Villafaña, advising her that +Epstein's defense team would submit additional material to the USAO by July 11, 2007, and hoped +"to be able to reach a state-based resolution shortly thereafter "56 In a July 3, 2007 email, Villafaña +told Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and her immediate supervisor that she intended to initiate plea +discussions by inviting +"to discuss a resolution of the federal investigation that could +55 +State laws require that a person convicted of specified sexual offenses register in a database intended to allow +law enforcement and the public to know the whereabouts of sexual offenders after release from punitive custody, and, +in some cases, to restrict such individuals" movements and activities. The Florida Sexual Offender/Predator Registry +is administered by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act +of 2006 established a comprehensive, national sex offender registration system called the Sex Offender Registration +and Notification Act (SORNA), to close potential gaps and loopholes that existed under prior laws and to strengthen +the nationwide network of sex offender registrations. +56 +In this email, +also requested a two-week extension of time for compliance with the USAO's demands +for records, which included a demand for the computer equipment that had been taken from Epstein's residence before +the October 2005 state search warrant and that Villafaña had been requesting from the defense since late 2006. +36 + + +include concurrent time." The email primarily concerned other issues, and Villafaña did not +explain what the resolution she had in mind would entail." Villafaña requested to be advised, +"[ilf anyone has communicated anything to Epstein's attorneys that is contrary to this." Villafaña, +who was aware that Menchel and Lourie had been in direct contact with defense counsel about the +case, explained to OPR that she made this request because "people were communicating with the +defense attorneys," and she suspected that those communications may have included discussions +about a possible plea. +In response to Villafaña's email, Menchel notified Villafaña that he had told +*a +state plea [with] jail time and sex offender status may satisfy the [U.S. Attorney)," but +had responded that it "was a non-starter for them."58 During his OPR interview, Menchel had no +independent recollection of his conversation with +Land did not remember why the defense +deemed the proposal a "non-starter." However, Menchel explained that he would not have made +without Acosta's knowledge. He also pointed out that in numerous emails +before the June 26, 2007 meeting, he repeatedly noted that Acosta was still deciding what he +wanted to do with the Epstein case. Acosta agreed, telling OPR that although he did not remember +a specific conversation with Menchel concerning a state-based resolution, Menchel would not have +discussed a potential resolution with +"without having discussed it with me." +Acosta's Explanation for His Decision to Pursue a State-based +Resolution +Subsequent events showed that the decision to resolve the case through state charges was +pivotal, and OPR extensively questioned Acosta about his reasoning. In his OPR interview, Acosta +explained the various factors that influenced his decision to pursue a state-based resolution. Acosta +said that although he, Sloman, and Menchel "believed the victims" and "believed [Epstein] did +what he did," they were concerned "about some of the legal issues... and some of the issues in +terms of testimony."" Acosta also recalled discussions with his "senior team" about how the +victims would "do on the stand?" +Acosta told OPR that "from the earliest point" in the investigation, he considered whether, +because the state had indicted the case, the USAO should pursue it. +57 +Villafana explained to OPR that she intended to recommend a plea to a federal conspiracy charge and a +substantive charge, "consistent with the Ashcroft Memo, which would be the most readily provable offense," with "a +recommendation that the sentence on the federal charges run concurrent with the state sentence, or that [Epstein] +would receive credit for time in state custody towards his federal release date." See n.65 for an explanation of the +Ashcroft Memo. +58 +Villafaña was then in trial and on July 4, 2007, likely before reading Menchel's email, Villafaña responded +to defense counsel regarding the demand for records and also noted, "If you would like to discuss the possibility of a +federal resolution ….. that could run concurrently with any state resolution, please leave a message on my voicemail." +59 +In commenting on OPR's draft report, Sloman stated he had no involvement in assessing the Epstein case or +deciding how to resolve it, and that OPR should not identify him as among the people upon whom Acosta relied in +reaching the two-year-state-plea resolution through the NPA. However, Sloman also told OPR that he had little +recollection of the Epstein case, while Acosta specifically recalled having discussed the case with both Sloman and +Menchel. +37 + + +[The prosecution] was going forward on the part of the state, and so +here is the big bad federal government stepping on a sovereign ... +state, saying you're not doing enough, [when] to my mind ... the +whole idea of the [P]etite policy is to recognize that the []state... +is an independent entity, and that we should presume that what +they're doing is correct, even if we don't like the outcome, except +in the most unusual of circumstances. +Acosta told OPR that "absent USAO intervention," the state's prosecution of Epstein would have +become final, and accordingly, it was "prudent" to employ Petite policy analysis. As Acosta +explained in a public statement he issued in 2011, "the federal responsibility" in this unique +situation was merely to serve as a "backstop [to] state authorities to ensure that there [was] no +miscarriage of justice." Furthermore, Acosta saw a distinction between a case that originated as +a federal investigation and one that had already been indicted by the state but was brought to the +federal government because of a perception that the state charge was inadequate. In the latter +circumstance, Acosta viewed the USAO's role only as preventing a "manifest injustice."6! Acosta +explained that "no jail time" would have been a manifest injustice. But it was his understanding +that if Epstein had pled guilty to state charges and received a two-year sentence to a registrable +offense, +"it would never have come to the office in the first place," and therefore would not be +viewed as a manifest injustice. +Acosta also told OPR he was concerned that a federal prosecution in this case would result +in unfavorable precedent, because the Epstein case straddled the line between "solicitation" or +"prostitution," which Acosta described as a traditional state concern, and "trafficking," which was +an emerging matter of federal interest. Acosta, contended that in 2006, "it would have been +extremely unusual for any United States Attorney's Office to become involved in a state +solicitation case, even one involving underage teens," because solicitation was "the province of +state prosecutors." Acosta told OPR, *I'm not saying it was the right view -- but there are at least +some individuals who would have looked at this and said, this is a solicitation case, not a trafficking +case." Acosta was concerned that if the USAO convicted Epstein of a federal charge, an appeal +might result in an adverse opinion about the distinction between prostitution and sex trafficking. +Acosta also fold OPR that he was concerned that a trial would be difficult for Epstein's +victims. In Acosta's estimation, a trial court in 2007 might have permitted "victim shaming," +which would have been traumatic for them. In addition, the fact that the state grand jury returned +a one-count indictment with a charge that would not require jail time suggested to Acosta that the +state grand jury found little merit to the case. ®2 Acosta told OPR: +60 +Letter from R. Alexander Acosta "To whom it may concern" at 1 (Mar. 20, 2011), published online in The +Daily Beast. +Acosta was referring to the Petite policy provision allowing the presumption that a prior state prosecution +ıs vindicated the relevant federal interest to be "overcome ... if the prior [state] sentence was manifestly inadequa +light of the federal interest involved and a substantially enhanced sentence... is available through the contemplat +federal prosecution." USAM § 9-2.031.D. +Acosta told OPR he was unaware that USAO prosecutors believed the State Attorney's Office had +deliberately undermined the case before the state grand jury. Menchel told OPR that he understood that the State +38 + + +I do think it's important to look back on this, and try to be in the +shoes of the thought process in 2006 and '07 when trafficking +prosecutions were fairly new, when ... more so than today, some +jurors may have looked at this as prostitution, and ... [a] judge's +tolerance for victim shaming may have ... caused more hesitation +on the part of victims.... +Finally, Acosta told OPR that a state-based resolution offered more flexibility in fashioning +a sentence, because he believed prosecutors would have difficulty persuading a federal district +court in the Southern District of Florida to approve a federal plea for a stipulated binding sentence +that differed from the otherwise applicable federal sentencing guidelines range. 64 +In summarizing his thinking at the time, Acosta told OPR, +The way the matter came to the office was, the state wasn't doing +enough. It didn't provide for prison time. It didn't provide for +registration, and then you had the restitution issue. There were legal +issues .... There were witness issues. And . We could go to trial +... and we may or may not prevail. Alternatively, we could look at +a pre-indictment resolution, and at various points, the office went +back and forth between a federal pre-indictment resolution, and a +state pre-indictment resolution. +Acosta told OPR that, in the end, "there was a preference for deferring to the state" because, in +part, the facts of the Epstein case at the time appeared to constitute solicitation or prostitution +rather than trafficking, and a federal prosecution would be "uncharted territory." Acosta explained +that he did not view it as problematic to defer resolution of the case to the state, although as the +Epstein case played out, the federal role became "more intrusive" than he had anticipated, because +the defense tried to get the state to "circumvent and undermine" the outcome. +Attorney's Office could have proceeded against Epstein by way of an information, but decided to go into the grand +jury because the State Aftorney's Office "didn't like the case" and wanted "political cover" for declining the case or +proceeding on a lesser charge. +63 +Menchel told OPR, however, that the federal judges in West Palm Beach were highly regarded and were +generally viowed as "pro-prosecution." +64 +Acosta said that "dismissing a number of counts and then doing a [RJule 11 is not something that [South +Florida federal district] judges tend to do." Other subjects also told OPR that the federal judges in the Southern District +of Florida were generally considered averse to pleas that bound them on sentencing, commonly referred to as "Rule +11 (c) pleas." +Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) allows the parties to agree on a specific sentence as part of +a plea agreement. The court is required to impose that sentence if the court accepts the plea agreement; if the court +does not accept the agreed upon plea and sentence, the agreement is void. Villafaña told OPR that Rule 11(c) pleas +were "uncommon" in the Southern District of Florida, as the "judges do not like to be told ... what sentence to +impose." Menchel similarly told OPR that the USAO viewed federal judges in the Southern District of Florida as +averse to Rule 11(c) pleas, although Menchel had negotiated such pleas. Villafaña told OPR that she had never offered +a Rule 11(c) plea in any of her cases and had no experience with such pleas. +39 + + +Menchel could not recall who initially suggested a state plea, but noted to OPR that his +own "emails ... make clear that this course of action was ultimately decided by Alex Acosta." He +referenced, among others, his May 14, 2007 email to Villafaña informing her that Acosta was +deciding how he wanted to handle the case. Menchel surmised that a state resolution accomplished +two things that Acosta viewed as important: first, it resolved any Petite policy concerns, and +second, it afforded more flexibility in sentencing than a federal plea would have allowed. Menchel +told OPR that the state plea proposal did not reflect any minimization of Epstein's conduct and +that any state plea would have been to an offense that required sexual offender registration. He +told OPR, "I don't think anybody sat around and said, you know, it's not that big a deal. That was +not the reaction that I think anybody had from the federal side of this case." Rather, Menchel said, +"The concern was if we charge him [as proposed], there's going to be a trial." +July 2007: Villafaña and Menchel Disagree about the Proposed State +Resolution +Villafaña told OPR that she was angry when she received Menchel's) July email explaining +that he had proposed to +resolving the federal investigation through a state plea. In +Villafaña's view, the proposed state resolution "didn't make any sense" and "did not correspond" +to Department policy requiring that a plea offer reflect *the most serious readily provable +offense."6S In her view, a plea to a state charge "obviously" would not satisfy this policy. Villafaña +also told OPR that in her view, the USAM required the USAO to confer with the investigative +agency about plea negotiations, and Villafaña did not believe the FBI would be in favor of a state +plea. Villafaña also believed the CVRA requited attorneys for the government to confer with +victims before making a plea offer, but the victims had not been consulted about this proposal. +Villafaña told OPR she had met with some of the victims during the course of the investigation +who had negative impressions of the State Attorney's Office, and she believed that "sending them +back to the State Attorney's Office was not something" those victims would support. +i1s bolev was set forth in a september 22. 2005 memorandum from then Alfornev General John Asherd +garding "Department Policy Concerning Charging Criminal Offenses. Disposition of Charges, and Sentencin +(known as the "Ashcroft Memo"), which provided, in pertinent part: +[In all federal criminal cases, federal prosecutors must charge and pursuc the +most serious, readily provable offense or offenses that are supported by the facts +of the case, except as authorized by an Assistant Attorney General, United States +Attorney, or designated supervisory attorney in the limited circumstances +described below. The most serious offense or offenses are those that generate the +most substantial sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines, unless a mandatory +minimum sentence or count requiring a consecutive sentence would gencrate a +longer sentence. A charge is not "readily provable" if the prosecutor has a good +faith doubt, for legal or evidentiary reasons, as to the Government's ability readily +to prove a charge at trial. Thus, charges should not be filed simply to exert +leverage to induce a plea. Once filed, the most serious readily provable charges +may not be dismissed except to the extent permitted elsewhere in this +Memorandum]. +See also Chapter Two, Part Two, Section II.B.1. +40 + + +In light of these concerns, Villafaña emailed Menchel, expressing her strong disagreement +with the process: +[t is inappropriate for you to enter into plea negotiations without +consulting with me or the investigative agencies, and it is more +inappropriate to make a plea offer that you know is completely +unacceptable to the FBI, ICE [Immigration and Customs +Enforcement], the victims, and me. These plea negotiations violate +the Ashcroft memo, the U.S. Attorney[s'] Manual, and all of the +various iterations of the victims' rights legislation. Strategically, +you have started the plea negotiations as though we are in a position +of weakness, anxious to make the case go away, by telling the +defense that we will demand no federal conviction. We left the +meeting on June 26th in a stronger position than when we entered, +and your statement that a state resolution would satisfy us takes +away that advantage. If you make it seem like the U.S. Attorney +doesn't have faith in our investigation, Epstein has no incentive to +make a deal. +Second, your discussion makes it appear that my investigation is for +"show" only and completely undermines my ability to deal with +Epstein's attorneys directly.... +-... +raised by Epstein's counsel and will convince you all of the strength +of the case. +In the meantime, please direct all communications from Epstein's +counsel to me. +Menchel told OPR he realized Villafaña was "very anxious" to file charges in the case. +Villafaña had put a "tremendous" amount of effort into the investigation, and Menchel "was not +unsympathetic at all to her desires" to pursue a federal case. However, as Menchel told OPR, +Villafaña's supervisors, including Acosta, were "trying to be a little bit more dispassionate," and +her urgency was "not respectful" of Acosta's position. Menchel viewed the tone of Villafaña's +email as "highly unacceptable," and her understanding of applicable law and policy incorrect. In +particular, Menchel pointed out that although the Ashcroft Memo requires prosecutors to charge +the "most readily provable offense," there is nevertheless room for "flexibility," and that the U.S. +Attorney has discretion—directly or through a designated supervisor such as Menchel—to waive +the policy. +41 + + +66 +Menchel's reply email began with a rebuke: +Both the tone and substance of your email are totally inappropriate +and, in combination with other matters in the past, it seriously calls +your judgment into question. +As you well know, the US Attorney has not even decided whether +to go forward with a prosecution in this matter, thus you should have +respected his position before engaging in plea negotiations. +Along that same line, despite whatever contrary representations you/ +made to the agents in this matter, it was made clear to you by the US +Attorney and the First Assistant from the time when you were first +authorized to investigate Mr. Epstein that the office had concerns +about taking this case because of petit [sic] policy and a number of +legal issues. Despite being told these things, you prepared a pros +memo and indictment that included a definitive date for indictment. +It has come to my attention that you led the agents to believe that +the indictment of this matter was a foregone conclusion and that our +decision to put off that date and listen to the defense attorneys" +concerns is indicative of the office having second thoughts about +indicting. As you well knew, you were neyer given authorization +by anyone to seek an indictment in this case. "6 +In the email, Menchel went on to explain the circumstances of his conversation with +and respond to Villafaña's complaints: +Lilly +called me before, not after, the June 26th meeting. It +was an informal discussion and not in the nature of an official plea +offer but rather a feeling out by both sides as to what it might take +to resolve the matter. As you are also well aware, the only reason +why this office even agreed to look into the Epstein matter in the +first instance was because of concerns that the State had not done an +adequate job in vindicating the victims' rights. As you and the +agents conceded, had Epstein been convicted of a felony that +that my discussion with Lilly +Attorney's full knowledge. Had Lilly +pursuing this avenue further, I certainly would have raised it with all +the interested individuals in this case, including you and the agents. +In any event, I fail to see how a discussion that went nowhere has +hurt our bargaining position. I am also quite confident that no one +Menchel also sent this message to Sloman and copied Lourie. +42 + + +on the defense team believes that the federal investigation in this +matter has been for show. +Nor are your arguments that I have violated the Ashcroft memo, the +USAM or any other policy well taken. As Chief of the Criminal +Division, I am the person designated by the US Attorney to exercise +appropriate discretion in deciding whether certain pleas are +appropriate and consistent with the Ashcroft memo and the USAM +- not you. +As for your statement that my concerns about this case hurting +Prose Sate Chich od are any the ds torme i letter had +you are correct, matters of policy are always within his purview anc +ny decisions in that area ultimately rest with him +Finally, you may not dictate the dates and people you will meet with +about this or any other case. If the U.S. Attorney or the First +Assistant desire to meet with you, they will let you know. Nor will +I direct Epstein's lawyers to communicate only with you. If you +want to work major cases in the district you must understand and +accept the fact that there is a chain of command - something you +disregard with great regularity. +Villafaña acknowledged to OPR that as Criminal Division Chief, Menchel had authority to +deviate from the Ashcroft Memo requiring that guilty pleas be to the most serious readily provable +offense. She disagreed, however, with his representation about her initial meeting with Acosta +and Sloman regarding the Epstein investigation, noting that Menchel had not been at that +meeting. Villafaña told OPR that no one had communicated to her the "concerns" Menchel +mentioned, and she had not been given an opportunity to respond to those concerns. 69 +A week later, Villafaña replied to Menchel's email, reiterating her concerns about the +process and that filing charges against Epstein was not moving forward: +Hi Matt. - My trial is over, so I now have [ ] time to focus back on +this case and our e-mail exchange. There are several points in your +Neither Menchel nor Villafaña could recall for OR to what concerns they were referring. In commenting +on OPR's draft report, Acosta's attorney noted that Acosta's concerns were "the possibility that bringing a case with +serious evidentiary challenges pressing novel legal issues could result in an outcome that set back the development of +trafficking laws and result in an aggregate greater harm to trafficking victims." +68 +Menchel confirmed to OPR that he was not involved in the decision to initiate the federal investigation. +Villafaña characterized Menchel's email as "meant to intimidate" and told OPR that she felt "put in [her] +place" by him. She perceived that Menchel was making it clear that she should not "jump the chain of command." +Menchel, however, asserted to OPR that Villafaña had a "history of resisting supervisory authority" that warranted +his strong response. +43 + + +e-mail that I would like to address, and I also would like to address +where we are in the case. +First, I wanted to address the comment about jumping the chain of' +discuss it with you. +The statement that I have not respected Alex's position regarding +the prosecution of the case demonstrates why you hear the +frustration in the tone of my e-mail. For two and a half months I +have been asking about what that position is. I have asked for +direction on whether to revise the indictment, whether there are +other issues that Alex wants addressed prior to deciding, whether +there is additional investigation that needs to be done, etc. None of +that direction has been forthcoming, so I am left with ... Victims, +and agents all demanding to know why we aren't presenting an +indictment. Perhaps that lack of direction is through no fault of +yours, but I have been dealing with a black box, so I do not know to +whom I should address my frustration. My recollection of the +original meeting with Alex and Jeff is quite different than your +summary. In that meeting, I summarized the case and the State +Attorney's Office's handling of it. I acknowledged that we needed +to do work to collect the evidence establishing a federal nexus, and +I noted the time and money that would be required for an +investigation. I said that I was willing to invest that time and the +FBI was willing to invest the money, but I didn't want to get to the +end and then have the Office be intimidated by the high-powered +lawyers. I was assured that that would not happen. Now I feel like +thére is a +ceiling that prevents me from moving forward while +ridina shariot. Aditomaily, the Fi has ides ined evi morie +victims. If the case is not going to go forward, I think it is unfair to +give hope to more girls. +nvestigation has been opened with the plan NOT to indict. And +lave never presented an indictment package that has resulted in +leclination. I didn't treat this case any differently. I worked witl +he agents to gather the evidence, and I prepared an indictmen +package that I believe establishes probable cause that a series of +rimes have been committed. More importantly, I believe there is +44 + + +proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Epstein's criminal culpability. +Lastly, I was not trying to "dictate" a meeting with the U.S. Attorney +or anyone else. I stated that I "would like" to schedule a meeting, +asking to have the same courtesy that was extended to the defense +attorneys extended to the FBI and an Assistant in the Office. With +respect to your questions regarding my judgment, I will simply say +that disagreements about strategy and raising concerns about the +forgotten voices of the victims in this case should not be classified +as a lapse in judgment. This Office should seek to +I spirited +debate about the law and the use of prosecutorial discretion . +[M]y first and only concern in this case (and my other child +exploitation cases) is the victims. If our personality differences +threaten their access to justice, then please put someone on the case +whom you trust more, and who will also protect their rights. +In the meantime, I will be meeting with the agents on Monday to +begin preparing a revised indictment package containing your +suggestions on the indictment and responding to the issues raised by +Epstein's attorneys. ... If there are any specific issues that you or +the U.S. Attorney would like to see addressed, please let me know.?° +Villafaña did not get the meeting with Acosta that she requested. She viewed Menchel's +message as a rejection of her request to make a presentation to Acosta, and she told OPR that even +though she regarded Sloman as a friend, she did not feel she could reach out even to him to raise +her concerns." Menchel, however, told OPR that he did not "order" Villafaña to refrain from +raising her concerns with Acosta, Sloman, or Lourie, and he did not believe his email to Villafaña +foreclosed her from meeting with Acosta. Rather, "the context of this exchange is, she is running +roughshod over the U.S. Attorney, and what I am saying to her is, there is a process. You're not +in charge of it. I'm not in charge of it. [Acosta's] in charge of it." Acosta, who was apparently +not aware of Villafaña's email exchange with Menchel, told OPR that from his perspective, +Villafaña was not "frozen out" of the case and that he would have met with her had she asked him +directly for a meeting. +B. +Villafaña Attempts to Obtain the Computer Equipment Missing from +Epstein's Palm Beach Home, but the Defense Team Opposes Her Efforts +As the USAO managers considered in July 2007 how to resolve the federal investigation, +one item of evidence they did not have available to assist in that decision was the computer +equipment removed from Epstein's home before the PBPD executed its search warrant. Although +Villafaña took steps to obtain the evidence, defense counsel continued to oppose her efforts. +70 +Menchel forwarded this email to Sloman. +71 +Villafaña told OPR that she later spoke to Menchel, asking Menchel to redirect +_to Villafaña, but that +Menchel responded it was not Villafaña's "place" to tell him to whom he should direct communications. +45 + + +Early in the federal investigation, Villafaña recognized the potential significance of +obtaining the missing computer equipment. Villafaña told OPR that she and the FBI agents went +through every photograph found in Epstein's house, but found none that could be characterized as +child pornography. Nevertheless, Villafaña told OPR that investigators had learned that Epstein +used hidden cameras in his New York residence to record his sexual encounters, and she believed +he could have engaged in similar conduct in his Palm Beach home. In addition, the computer +equipment potentially contained surveillance video that might have corroborated victim statements +about visiting Epstein's home. More generally, in Villafaña's experience, individuals involved in +child exploitation often possessed child pornography.? Villafaña's co-counsel, who had +substantial experience prosecuting child pornography cases, similarly told OPR, "Epstein was a +billionaire. We knew his house was wired with video, it would be unusual [for] someone with his +capabilities not to be video recording" his encounters. +As the investigation continued, Villafaña took various steps to acquire the computer +equipment removed from Epstein's Palm Beach residence. As noted previously in this Report, in +her initial request to Epstein's counsel for documents, she asked defense counsel to provide "[t]he +computers, hard drives, CPUs, and any other computer media (including CD-ROMs, DVDs, +floppy disks, flash drives, etc.) removed from" the residence. Although Lourie subsequently +narrowed the government's request for documents, the request for computer equipment remained. +The defense, however, failed to comply with the request. +Villafaña learned that the computer equipment wás in the possession of a particular +individual. After consulting the Department's Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section +and Office of Enforcement Operations about the appropriate legal steps to obtain the computer +equipment, Villafaña described her plan in an email to Menchel. She asked Menchel for any +comments or concerns, but OPR did not find an email response from him, and Menchel told OPR +that he did not recall Villafaña's efforts to obtain the computer equipment. +In May 2007, following the plan she had outlined to Menchel, Villafaña initiated action +requiring production of the computer equipment by a particular date. In her email to Villafaña on +June 29, 2007, L +requested a two-week extension, indicating that she hoped a "state-based +resolution" to the case would soon be reached.? Villafaña advised her supervisors of the request, +and responded to Sanchez that she "would like to get the computer equipment as soon as possible." +Nonetheless, Villafaña eventually agreed to an extension. +Meanwhile, Epstein attorney Roy Black wrote separately to Villafaña, demanding to know +whether Villafana had complied with applicable Department policies before seeking the computer +In addition, Villafaña became aware that in August 2007, FBI agents interviewed a minor victim who stated +that she had been photographed in the nude by Epstein's assistant, who told the vietim that Epstein took pictures of +This email led Villafaña to ask her supervisors if any of them had discussed with the defense a possible +resolution of the case, which resulted in Villafaña's exchange of emails with Menchel about their respective views of +the case. See Section IV.A.2 in this Part. +46 + + +equipment.?4 After further communications on this issue involving Black, +Villafaña, and +Lourie, Black took legal action that effectively halted production of the computer equipment to the +USAO until the issue could be decided by the court—which, as explained below, never happened +because the parties entered into the NPA. +C. July 2007: The Defense Continues Its Efforts to Stop the Federal Investigation +In addition to their efforts to stop the government from obtaining the computer equipment, +defense counsel also sent letters to the USAO, dated July 6, 2007, and July 25, 2007, reiterating +their objections to a federal investigation of Epstein. The July 25, 2007 letter included a lengthy +"case analysis chart" purporting to support the defense argument that Epstein had committed no +federal offense. The July 25 letter also noted that the defense had been consulting with the former +Principal Deputy Chief of CEOS, reporting that she "supports our position without reservation that +this is not a matter upon which the federal statu[t]es should be brought to bear."75y +While the defense was reiterating its objections to the federal investigation, CEOS +expressed its endorsement of Villafaña's legal analysis and proposed charges. On July 18, 2007, +CEOS Chief Oosterbaan emailed Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie, stating that he had read +Villafaña's prosecution memorandum "closely," and noting that "Is]he did a terrific job. As we +opined to Andy [Lourie] back in May, [CEOS] agree[s] with her legal analysis. Her charging +I have also reviewed the arguments contained in the letters from +defense counsel. Their legal analysis is detailed and comprehensive, +but I find none of their arguments persuasive. That is not to say that +all the arguments are completely devoid of merit. I expect the judge +to consider some of the arguments closely. Nevertheless, while the +law applicable here is not always crystal clear, the balance of +available precedént favors us. From the prosecution memorandum +it is clear that Marie has anticipated the strongest legal arguments, +scrutinized the applicable law, and has charged the case accordingly. +And, while with this prosecution the government clearly faces a +strong and determined defense team, it is a challenge well worth +facing. Ialso happen to know that there is absolutely no concern ... +about facing the challenges this case presents. +In closing, Oosterbaan renewed his offer to have CEOS "help you with this prosecution," and to +send "whatever and whoever you need" to assist. +with similar facts." +47 + + +D. Acosta Decides on a Resolution That Includes a Two-Year Term of +Incarceration +The next critical step in the development of the NPA was the decision to propose a twoyear term of imprisonment. Although presented to the defense as the "minimum" the USAO would +accept, in actuality the two-year proposal became only the starting point for the negotiations, with +the result that the defense continued to chip away at it as the negotiations continued. The +contemporaneous emails make no mention of any rationale for the decision to propose two years +as the government's beginning negotiating position, and nobody with whom OPR spoke was able +to recall how the decision was made. As discussed below, Acosta did offer OPR an explanation, +but OPR was unable to find contemporaneous evidence supporting it.? +While the defense was communicating its objections to the federal investigation to +Villafaña, Lourie, Menchel, and Sloman, Villafaña continued moving toward filing charges. On +July 19, 2007, the day after receiving Oosterbaan's email supporting a potential prosecution, +Villafaña emailed Lourie and Menchel seeking approval to take further investigative steps +regarding three of Epstein's assistants. However, Menchel directed Villafaña to "hold off... until +we decide what course of action we are going to take on [E]pstein which should happen next +week." Menchel told OPR that he did not specifically recall why he asked Villafaña to wait, but +he assumed it was because Acosta was deciding what course of action to take on the case. +On Monday, July 23, 2007, Menchel submitted a resignation notice to Acosta, stating that +he would be leaving the USAO effective August 6, 2007.? +1. The July 26, 2007 Meeting in Miami +Early on the morning of Thursday, July 26, 2007, Villafaña informed Menchel that she was +preparing a new draft indictment containing revisions he had suggested, including removal of all +but three of the "travel counts" and "a large number of [the] overt acts," and the addition of overt +acts and counts relating to two additional vietims; she would not, however, have the revised +indictment ready in time "for our discussion today" at their 2:00 p.m. meeting. Menchel told OPR +that the fact that he had both proposed revisions to the indictment and also directed Villafaña to +delay the investigative steps, involving the assistants indicated that he was "trying to do something" +with the case, but was waiting for Acosta to decide the "underlying issue" of whether to proceed +with federal charges. +Acosta made that decision on or before July 26, 2007. On that afternoon, Villafaña met in +Miami with Menchel. She told OPR that Sloman, as well as the FBI case agents and their +supervisors, were also present, with Lourie participating by telephone. Villafaña told OPR that +she expected that the meeting, requested by Menchel, would address the direction of the +investigation. However, Villafaña told OPR that after everyone had assembled, Menchel entered +the room and stated that Acosta "has decided to offer a two-year state deal." According to +76 +See Section IV.D.2 in this Part. +77 +As early as May 4, 2007, Menchel had informed Acosta that he was intending to leave the USAO to enter +private practice. +48 + + +Villafaña, Menchel left the meeting after almost no discussion, leaving Villafaña "shocked and +stunned." +Menchel told OPR that he did not recall the July 26, 2007 meeting. Nonetheless, he +strongly disputed Villafaña's description of events, asserting that it would have been "directly at +odds with his management style" to convene such a meeting, announce Acosta's decision, and +leave without discussion. Acosta told OPR that he had "decided and endorsed this resolution at +some point," but he did not recall being aware that Menchel was going to announce the decision +at the July 26 meeting; in addition, although Acosta did not recall the circumstances of Menchel's +relaying of that decision, he said it "would have been consistent with" his decision for Menchel to +do so. Neither Sloman nor Lourie recalled the meeting. The FBI case agent recalled attending a +meeting at the USAO in Miami with her co-case agent and supervisors, together with Villafaña, +Lourie (by telephone), Menchel, and Sloman, at which they discussed how to proceed with the +Epstein case. According to the case agent, at this meeting the FBI insisted that Epstein be +registered for life as a sexual offender, and the co-case agent advocated for waiting until the court +had ruled on the USAO's ability to obtain Epstein's computer equipment. +Regardless of exactly how Acosta's decision regarding the two-year term was +communicated to Villafaña and the FBI agents, and regardless of who initially proposed the +specific term, the record shows that Acosta ultimately made the decision to offer Epstein a +resolution that included a two-year term of imprisonment, as he acknowledged.? +The Subjeets' Explanations for the Decision to Offer Epstein a Sentence +with a Two-Year Term of Incarceration +Villafaña asserted that she was not consulted about the specific two-year term before the +decision was made."º Villafaña told OPR that she had worked hard to develop a strong case, and +none of her supervisors had identified to her any specific problem with the case that, in her view, +explained the decision to extend an offer for a two-year sentence. Villafaña also told OPR that +Menchel provided no explanation for this decision during the July 26, 2007 meeting, and Villafaña +did not ask for an explanation because she accepted his statement that it was Acosta's decision. +Villafaña described the proposal as "random," and told OPR, "[W]e're all [sentencing] guidelines +people, so 24 months just makes no sense in the context of the guidelines. There's no way to get +to 24 months with this set of offenses. "80 +78 +OPR notes that Villafaña did not appear hesitant to send emails to her supervisors setting forth her views and +objections, and there is no reference before this meeting in any of her emails indicating that a decision had been made +to offer a two-year term of incarceration. Therefore, given that a meeting had been arranged involving Menchel and +Villafaña, and possibly most of the other primary USAO and FBI participants, it seems logical that Acosta made a +decision to resolve the case with a two-ycar state plea not long before the meeting. +OPR found no evidence in the documentary record indicating that Villafaña had knowledge of Acosta's +decision or the two-year term before the July 26, 2007 meeting at which she said she learned of it. +80 +From the time the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines went into effect in 1987, they have been the mechanism for +calculating federal criminal sentences. Since 2005, the Guidelines have been non-binding, but the federal courts are +required to consider them. As noted in the commentary to USAM § 9-27.710, +49 + + +Sloman also told OPR that he did not know how the decision to offer a two-year plea offer +was reached, but he believed that Acosta made the decision based on recommendations from +Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña. He opined to OPR that the decision was likely based on an +assessment by Menchel and Lourie of the litigation risks presented by the case. Sloman added +that he did not know how a two-year sentence might have related to specific charges or to either +state or federal sentencing guidelines. Lourie likewise told OPR he did not recall how the two-year +term was decided upon, or by whom, but he speculated that it may have been presented by the +defense as the most Epstein would accept, and that the decision would have been reached by +Acosta following "extended consideration, research, and discussion," among Acosta, Sloman, +Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña. +Menchel told OPR that he did not recall discussing a two-year plea deal with Acosta or +who reached the decision that two years was an appropriate sentence. Menchel also told OPR, +however, that he recalled believing that if the USAO had filed the contemplated federal charges, +Epstein would have felt he had "nothing to lose" and "undoubtedly" would have chosen to take +the case to trial. Menchel recalled believing there was a real risk that the USAO might lose at trial, +and in so doing, might cause more trauma to the victims, particularly those who were reluctant to +testify. Menchel told OPR that he did not believe that anyone at the time looked at two years "as +a fair result in terms of the conduct. I think that was not the issue. The issue was whether or not +if we took this case to trial, would we risk losing everything." and "if we .... felt we could have +gotten more time, we would have, without having to press it to the trial." +Acosta told OPR that "I had decided and endorsed" the two-year resolution "at some +point," and that it resulted from "back and forth" discussion "over the course of some days or a +week or two." As noted earlier in this Report, Acosta viewed the USAO's role in this case merely +as a "backstop" to the state's prosecution, which he explained to OPR was "a polite way of sayingl +*]encouraging the state to do a little bit more.[']". +Acosta said that he understood two years' +imprisonment to have represented the sentence Epstein faced under one of the original charges the +PBPD was considering at the outset of the state investigation. Acosta also told OPR that he +the attorney for the government has a continuing obligation to assist the court in +its determination of the sentence to be imposed. The prosecutor must be familiar +with the guidelines generally and with the specific guideline provisions applicable +to his or her case. In discharging these duties, the attorney for the government +should ... endeavor to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information +upon which the sentencing decisions will be based. +81 In Sloman's view, Menchel and Lourie were "two of the finest trial lawyers" in the USAO. +Lourie noted that Sloman and Menchel were "two extraordinarily experienced people in [Acosta's] front +office who had tried... gobs and gobs of cases." +In commenting on OPR's draft report, Acosta's attorney asserted that OPR's use of Acosta's quote, "a little +bit more," "unfairly minimized" Acosta's and the USAO's efforts to achieve justice in this case. Acosta's attorney +also asserted that the phrase was "clearly soft-spoken understatement," that the terms obtained were "substantially +more onerous than the state's alternative resolution," and that Acosta was "clearly declining the invitation to take the +State to task and soft-pedaling an obvious distinction." +84 +OPR examined this assertion and was unable to verify that the proposed two-year term of imprisonment +corresponded with the charges that the PBPD considered at the outset of the state investigation or with the charge in +50 + + +understood that the PBPD would not have asked the FBI to investigate Epstein if the state had +pursued the appropriate charges. In other words, in Acosta's view, "[T]his was, rightly or wrongly, +an analysis that distinguished between what is necessary to prevent manifest injustice, versus what +is the appropriate federal outcome to that." Acosta told OPR that he believed he had discussed his +concerns about the case with Lourie, Sloman, or Menchel, although he could not recall any specific +conversation with them. +E. Villafaña Drafts a "Term Sheet" Listing the Requirements of a Potential +Agreement with the Defense +A meeting with defense counsel was scheduled for Tuesday, July 31, 2007. Villafaña told +OPR that between July 26 and July 30, 2007, she had "some sort of discussion" with her +supervisors that resulted in her creation of a "term sheet" identifying the proposed terms for +resolving the federal investigation through state charges. Sometime during that period, Villafaña +lett a voicemail message for Menchel. During their OPR interviews, neither Villataña nor +Menchel could recall what Villafaña said in that message. On July 30, 2007, Menchel emailed +Villafaña: +the interests of the victims, we will seck [federal charges] conveys +that we are serious. While Lilly [Sanchez] has represented in the +past that this would likely not happen, I never conveyed it in quite +these terms before. In any event, this is the course of action that the +US Attorney feels comfortable taking at this juncture. +The following day, July 31, 2007, Villafaña emailed a one-page "Terms of Epstein +Non-Prosecution Agreement" to Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie. Villafaña told OPR she had never +before seen or heard of a non-prosecution agreement and that it was a concept "completely foreign" +to her. S Villafaña told OPR that the idea of styling the two-year state plea agreement with Epstein +the state indictment. OPR considered various potential state charges involving various numbers of victims and found +no obvious reasonable state sentencing guidelines calculation that would have resulted in a two-year sentence. +85 +Deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements were standard, though infrequently used, vehicles for +resolving certain federal criminal cases against corporate entities. A 2008 Departmental memorandum explained: +The terms "deferred prosecution agreement" and "non-prosecution agreement" +have often been used loosely by prosecutors, defense counsel, courts and +commentators. As the terms are used in these Principles [of Federal Prosecution +of Business Organizations], a deferred prosecution agreement is typically +predicated upon the filing of a formal charging document by the government, and +the agreement is filed with the appropriate court. In the non-prosecution +agreement context, formal charges are not filed and the agreement is maintained +by the parties rather than being filed with a court. Clear and consistent use of +these terms will enable the Department to more effectively identify and share best +practices and to track the use of such agreements. These Principles do not apply +51 + + +as a "non-prosecution agreement" came from Acosta, although Menchel may have communicated +that terminology to her. According to Villafaña, she asked that it include a mechanism for the +victims to be provided monetary compensation through 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in lieu of the restitution +that would have been available if Epstein were pleading guilty to federal charges. Acosta told +OPR that he "developed and approved" the term sheet." +Before the document was presented to defense counsel, two terms were dropped from +Villafaña's draft—one providing that the agreement would apply only to already-identified +victims, and another requiring the deal to be accepted, and Epstein to plead guilty, within the +month. The final term sheet was as follows: +ED COP +to plea agreements, which involve the formal conviction of a corporation in a +Memorandum from Acting Deputy Attorney General Craig S. Morford to Heads of Departmental Components and +United States Attorneys at n.2 (Mar. 7, 2008), available at https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resourcemanual-163-selection-and-use-monitors. Villafaña did not have significant experience prosecuting corporate entities. +March 6, 2013. provided as follows: +Any person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section +2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of +this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation, regardless +of whether the injury occurred while such person was a minor, may sue in any +appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such +person sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any +person as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained +damages of no less than S150,000 in value. +Villafaña also told OPR that she asked that the terms include the requirement that Epstein plead to an offense that +required him to register as a sexual offender; however, sex offender status was also mentioned in Menchel's July 3, +2007 email to Villafaña recounting his preliminary discussions with +52 + + +CONFIDENTIAL PLEA NEGOTIATIONS +TERMS OF EPSTEIN NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT +Epstein pleads guilty (not nolo contendere) to an Information filed by the +Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office charging him with: +(a). +lewd and lascivious battery on a child, in violation of Fl. Stat. +800.04(4); +(b). +(c) +solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of FI. +Stat. 796.03; and +engaging in sexual activity with minors at least sixteen years of age, +in violation of FI. Stat. 794.05. +Epstein and the State Attorney's Office make a joint, bindin +recommendation that Epstein serve at least two years in prison, without an +opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing; and without +probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment. +Epstein agrees to waive all challenges to the information filed by the State +and the right to appeal. +Epstein agrees that, if any of the vietins identified in the federal +investigation file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest. +After Epstein enters his state court plea and is sentenced, the FBI and the +U.S. Attorney's Office will close their investigations. +THE USAO PRESENTS EPSTEIN WITH KEY TERMS OF A DEAL: PLEAD +GUILTY TO STATE CHARGES REQUIRING A TWO-YEAR TERM OF +INCARCERATION AND SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION, AND AGREE +TO A MEANS FOR THE VICTIMS TO OBTAIN MONETARY DAMAGES +Although the USAO term sheet was presented to Epstein's defense team on July 31, 2007, +it took almost another two months to reach a final agreement in the form of the NPA. The +contemporaneous emails show that over the course of those two months, defense counsel offered +multiple counter-proposals to the USAO's stated terms, and alternated between working out the +state plea disposition and seeking an alternative federal plea arrangement. The emails make clear +that as the negotiations intensified in September 2007, the prosecutors became increasingly +frustrated, particularly with what they perceived as the defense tactic of agreeing to terms and +provisions but then backtracking or altering the agreed-upon terms in subsequent communications. +It is apparent that the defense persistence achieved some measure of success, at least concerning +53 + + +the period of imprisonment, because the USAO failed to hold firm to its proposal of "at least two +Years, particularly the requiremen, hat pstein regist a set dal offendeposals to change othe +July 31, 2007: The USAO Presents Its Proposal to the Defense Team, which +Makes a Counteroffer +Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, Villataña, and the case agents met with Epstein attorneys +Lefcourt, +- and Black on July 31, 2007, with Menchel "leading the meeting" for the +USAO.87 +The USAO presented the term sheet, and Villafaña distributed a federal sentencing +guidelines calculation showing that if prosecuted federally, Epstein faced a sentencing range of +188 to 235 months' incarceration. +Villafaña recalled that during the meeting, Epstein's attorneys opposed the requirement of +sexual offender registration, argued that Epstein would not be safe in prison, suggested that Epstein +serve a sentence of home confinement or "community control"88 in lieu of incarceration, and +emphasized that a state resolution provided greater sentencing flexibility. 89 Villafaña told OPR +that when Epstein's attorneys expressed concern during the meeting about Epstein's security in a +state prison and argued for a home confinement sentence, Menchel suggested Epstein plead to a +federal charge so that he could serve his time in a federal facility. A few days after the meeting, +Villafaña emailed Menchel, stating that she had "figured out a way to do a federal plea with a 2-1/2 +year cap." +Although Acosta had authorized a plea to state charges, emails and other correspondence +show that during the negotiations, the parties also considered structuring a plea around federal +87 +Villafaña was the only witness with whom OPR spoke who had a substantive memory of this meeting. +88 +According to the Florida Department of Corrections fact sheet for defendants subjected to community control, +The Community Control supervision program was created as a diversion to +incarceration or imprisonment; therefore it is an intensive supervision program +where you are confined to your home unless you are working, attending school, +performing public service hours, participating in treatment or another special +activity that has been approved in advance by your officer. The program was +designed to build accountability and responsibility along with providing a +punishment alternative to imprisonment. While on Community Control +supervision (also known as "house arrest") you will not be allowed to leave your +home to visit family or friends, go out to dinner or to the movies, go on vacation, +or many of the other activities you are used to being able to do ..., but it does +allow you to continue to work to support yourself and your family or attend school +in lieu of being incarcerated and away from loved ones. +Florida Dept. of Corrections, Succeeding on Community Control at 1, http://www.dc.state.fl.us/cc/ccforms/ +Succeeding-on-Community-Control.pdf. +89 +Villafaña told OPR that she was concerned about a state resolution because the defense team "had a lot of +experience with the state system. We did not." Villafaña anticipated there would be ways to "manipulate" a state +sentence and the USAO would be "giving up all control," and she told OPR that she discussed this concern with +Lourie, although she could not recall when that discussion occurred. +54 + + +charges in addition to state charges. On behalf of the defense team, +July 31, 2007 meeting with an August 2, 2007 letter to Menchel: +We welcomed your recognition that a state prison sentence is neither +appropriate for, nor acceptable to, Mr. Epstein, as the dangers of the +state prison system pose risks that are clearly untenable. We +acknowledge that your suggestion of a plea to two federal +misdemeanors was an attempt to resolve this dilemma. Our +proposal is significantly punitive, and if implemented, would, we +believe, leave little doubt that the federal interest was demonstrably +vindicated.° +followed up on the +added, "We must keep in mind that Jeffrey Epstein is a 54-year-old man who has never +been arrested before. He has lived an otherwise exemplary life." +The "significantly punitive" proposal described in the defense letter involved no period of +mandatory incarceration. Instead, +suggested two years of home confinement, with regular +reporting to and visits from a community control officer; payment of restitution, damages, court +and probationary costs, and law enforcement costs; random drug testing; community service; +psychological counseling; and a prohibition on unsupervised contact with the victims. The letter +specifically referred to the victim damages-recovery procedure that the government had proposed +under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and represented that Epstein was "prepared to fully fund the identified +group of victims which are the focus of the [USAO] - that is, the 12 individuals noted at the +meeting on July 31, 2007." Under the defense proposal, the state would incarcerate Epstein only +if he failed to comply with the terms of supervised custody. +also advised that the defense +team was seeking a meeting with Acosta. +B. +In an August 3, 2007 Letter, the USAO States That a Two-Year Term of +Imprisonment Is the Minimum That Will Vindicate the Federal Interest +Villafaña told OPR that she and her managers agreed the counteroffer was unacceptable, +and she conferred with Lourie or Menchel about the government's response. Villafaña drafted for +Menche's signature a letter asserting that the USAO considered a two-year term of imprisonment +to be the minimum sentence that would "vindicate" the federal interest in the Epstein investigation. +Villafaña's draft stated that the USAO "has never agreed that a state prison sentence is not +appropriate for Mr. Epstein," but was willing to allow Epstein to enter a guilty plea under Federal +Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) to a federal felony charge with a binding recommendation +for a two-year term of incarceration. Villafaña specified that Epstein would also be required to +concede liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 for all of the victims identified during the federal +investigation, "not just the 12 that formed the basis of an initial planned charging instrument." +90 +The USAO countered, however, that it "never agreed that a state prison sentence is not appropriate" and that +"a plea to two federal misdemeanors was never extended or meant as an offer." Records show that throughout the +Epstein matter, the USAO attorneys identified instances when defense attorneys misstated or otherwise did not +accurately describe events or statements. Accordingly, in evaluating the subject attorneys' conduct, OPR did not rely +on uncorroborated defense assertions. +55 + + +Menchel made several substantive changes to Villafaña's draft letter. He specified that "a +two-year term of state imprisonment" was the minimum sentence that would satisfy the federal +interest in the case. (Emphasis added.) With regard to the option of a federal plea, Menchel wrote +that the USAO "would be willing to explore a federal conviction" and retained the reference to a +Rule 11(c) plea. Menchel also removed the reference to the specific state offenses to which Epstein +would be required to plead guilty. Menchel forwarded the redraft to Acosta, suggesting that they +speak about it the next morning, as well as to Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña. +The final letter, as shown on the following pages, was identical to Menchel's redraft, except +that it omitted all reference to a federal plea under Rule 11(c)." +NOT A CERTIFIED COP +Menchel told OPR that he did not disfavor Rule 11(c) pleas but knew that the USAO believed the judges +were generally averse to them. He did not recall why the provision was dropped from the letter, but "assumed" it was +a decision by Acosta. In a September 6, 2007 email, Villafaña told Sloman that she and Menchel had discussed a +Rule 11(c) plea, but she opined that Menchel "must have asked Alex about it and it was nixed." Villafaña told OPR +that Louric, too, had told her Acosta did not want to do a Rule 11(c) plea. +56 + + +ALEXANDER ACOST +NITED STATES ATTORNE +U.S. Department of Justice +United States Attorney +'Southern District of Florida +SNE Greet +Aani, FL. 13132 +(305) 961-9100 - Telephone +(303) 330-6444-Fccrimile +August 3, 2007 +VIA EAO +Lilly Ann +, Esq. +COPY +Re: Leffrey Epstein +Dear Lilly; +Thank jou for your letier of August 2ªd regarding your proposal on how to resolve the +Epsicin matter. +As we explaincd at our meeting on July 31, 2007, the Office believes that the federal +interest will not be vindicated in the absence of a two-ycar term of state imprisonment for +Mr. Epstein. That offer was not meant as a starting point for negotiatiöns, it is the minimum. +terin of imprisonment that will obviate the need for federal prosecution. The Office has +never agreed that a state prison sentence is not appropriate for Mr. Epstein. Rather we: +simply stated that if Mr. Epstein preferred to serve his sentence in a federal penitentiary, we: +would be willing to explore a federal conviction that may allow that in lieu of any state +resolution: Further, as I made clear in our follow up telephone conversation after the +mecting, a plea to tivo fedcral misdemeanors was riever extended or meant as an offer. +We also would reiterate that the agreement to Section 2255 liability applies to all of +the minor girls identified during the federal investigation; not just the 12 that form the basis +of an initial planned charging instrument. +in favor of state prosecution. +57 + + +AUGUST 3, 2007 +PAGE 2 +_ESQ:. +•Please let us know your client's decision by no later than August 17. I have conferred +with U.S. Atfomey Acosta who has asked me to communicate that the two-year term of +incarceration is a non-negotiable minimum to vindicate a federal interest, and, at this time; +he is not inclined to meet with counsel for Mr. Epstein. +:Sincerely, +•R. Alexander Acosta +United States Attorncy +Matthew Menchel +Chief, Criminal Division +cc: Roy Black +Gerald B. Lefcourt +R, Alçxander Acosta. +Jeffrey Sloman +Andrew Lourie +Villafaña +Menchel told OPR that in his view, the two-year sentence established a "floor" for +negotiations and if Epstein rejected the offer, subsequent offers would require him to accept more +jail time rather than less. Menchel told OPR that the USAO was "leaving our options open" by +retaining the option of a federal plea because he thought the defense was "trying ... to get him +into a federal penitentiary." The letter's deadline of August 17, 2007, for acceptance of the +government's offer was intended to accommodate Villafaña's request that the deadline provide +letter on Friday, August 3, 2007, which was his last day at the USAO before joining a private law +The following Monday, August 6, 2007, Villafaña contacted Menchel by email at his new +firm to inquire whether the letter to Epstein's counsel had gone out on Friday. Villafaña explained +Menchel told OPR that the timing of the letter to +with his impending departure from the USAO. +I was a "total coincidence," and had nothing to do +58 + + +to OPR that she "wanted to know whether this letter went out. Because ... if the letter didn't go +out we can make this all go away and restart." Menchel confirmed to her that he had sent the letter +out by email. +Later that day, the West Palm Beach FBI squad supervisor told Sloman that he understood +Epstein had rejected the USAO's proposal, and he asked when Epstein would be charged. +Villataña told OPR that the squad supervisor "yelled at" Sloman about the USAO's decision not +to prosecute Epstein federally. Sloman similarly told OPR that the squad supervisor "like +[Villafaña] ... [a]nd the agents felt very strongly about the case."93 +C. August - September 2007: Epstein Hires Additional Attorneys, Who Meet +with Acosta +Arat are Me with penis er a P +Villafaña told OPR that Epstein's team was "incensed" that Acosta would not meet with +them and that the USAO had set such a short deadline to respond to its offer. Around this time, +Epstein added to his team Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz, two prominent attorneys from the law +firm Kirkland & Ellis, whom Acosta knew from his employment a decade earlier as an associate +at the firm. On the evening of August 6, 2007, Sloman emailed Acosta: "Just saw Menchel. I +didn't know Kirkland made a call into you. You were right. Unbelievable." During their OPR +interviews, neither Acosta nor Sloman remembered the call from Kirkland & Ellis and could +provide no additional information about the contact®S, A reply email from Acosta to Sloman +indicates that the Kirkland & Ellis attorneys were considering elevating to the Department their +objections to the USAO's involvement in the Epstein matter. In that email, Acosta stated, "They +are likely to go to DC. We should strategize a bit. We are not changing positions, and that should +The next day, Acosta wrote to Sloman: +[Epstein's] attorneys want to go to DC on the case, on the grounds +of a process foul, i.e., that I have not met with them. I'm concerned +that this will delay matters. +1am thinking of heading this off, by (i) agreeing to meet to discuss +general legal policy only (the only matter in which DC has arguable +93 +In an email to Lourie reporting the conversation, Sloman reported that he told the squad supervisor that "it's +a tad more complicated" and commented, "The guy is killing me." The squad supervisor told OPR that he did not +remember this exchange with Sloman, but he recalled the agents being "upset" with the proposed resolution of the +case and he likely would have told Sloman, "When do we indict? Why don't we just move forward?" +Acosta told OPR that as a junior associate with Kirkland & Ellis from September 1995 to March 1997, h +ad worked on at least one matter cach with Starr and Lefkowitz, and since that time, he had professiona +acquaintanceships with both. +Menchel told OPR that he did not remember the timing of the call, but he did remember an occasion on which +he entered Acosta's office as Acosta was finishing a phone conversation, and Acosta stated, "[T]hat was Ken Starr," +and told Menchel the call related to the Epstein case. +59 + + +jurisdiction), while making clear that we are not talking about the +details of the case, and (ii) asking [CEOS Chief] Oosterba[an] to +participate by teleconference, thereby intercepting the DC meeting. +Thoughts? +Acosta told OPR that he had no concern about Departmental "scrutiny of the NPA scheme" and +that "'i]f anything," he was concerned whether the Department might direct the USAO to "drop +this case. "96 +Leading to the Meeting with Defense Counsel, Investigative Steps Are +Postponed, and the Defense Continues to Oppose Villafaña's Efforts to +Obtain the Computer Evidence +On August 8, 2007, Villafaña informed Acosta that she had spoken with Oosterbaan, who +was willing to join a meeting with the defense; although he could not do so in person until after +August 21, he was willing to participate by phone in order "to stay firm on our August 17th +deadline." Villafaña also reiterated that she wanted to contact Epstein's assistants in New York +and to interview some of Epstein's colleagues and former employees there. Noting that "there was +some concern about [taking the proposed investigative steps] while we are trying to negotiate a +plea," Villafaña asked Acosta for guidance. Lourie also emailed Acosta and Sloman, asking that +the USAO "stick to our deadline if possible." Lourie pointed out that CEOS "has no approval +authority" and opined it was "a bit extreme to allow the defense to keep arguing this [case] to +different agencies." Acosta replied, "This will end up [at the Department] anyhow, if we don't +meet with them. I'd rather keep it here. Brin(gling [the Chief of CEOS] in visibly does so. If our +deadline has to slip a bit... it's worth it" +As a result, the investigative steps were postponed. On August 10, 2007, Villafaña emailed +Lourie inquiring whether she could "still go ahead" with the New York trip and whether she could +oppose Black's request to stay the litigation concerning the government's efforts to obtain +Epstein's computer equipment until after Acosta's meeting with the defense team. Villafaña was +reluctant to delay the litigation and reported to Lourie that agents recently had interviewed a girl +who began seeing Epstein at age 14 and who was photographed in the nude by an Epstein assistant. +On August 13, 2007, Villafaña advised Black that the USAO was not willing to agree to a stay of +the litigation. However, +reached out to Lourie on August 22, 2007, and obtained his +agreement to a joint request for a stay until the week after Acosta's meeting with defense counsel, +which was scheduled for September 7, 2007. +Villafaña told OPR that, in her opinion, the defense efforts to put off the litigation +oncerning the computers was "further evidence of the importance of [this] evidence." Villafañ +uspected the computers contained evidence that "would have put this case completely to bed.' +97 +Menchel told OPR, on the other hand, "there could be a lot of reasons why" defense counsel would resist +"turn[ing] over an entire computer." +60 + + +She believed that access to the computer evidence would strengthen the government's negotiating +position, but that her supervisors "did not seem to recognize that." Villafaña said she did not +understand why her supervisors were uninterested in determining what the computers contained. +Instead, they instructed Villafaña to "keep calling the judge" to ask for a delay in the litigation +proceedings. +Sloman told OPR that he recalled an issue about the computers, but did not recall "what +the thinking was at the time" about pursuing that evidence or why Villafaña was "ordered to stand +down." Acosta, Menchel, and Lourie all told OPR that they did not recall Villafaña's effort to +obtain the computer evidence or that there had been litigation relating to it. Lourie, however, told +OPR that the computers might have contained "very powerful evidence" that possibly "could have +changed our advice to [Acosta], or his decision making." In his OPR interyiew, Menchel was +uncertain whether the computer evidence would have been useful, but also acknowledged to OPR, +"You always want more as a prosecutor." +On August 31, 2007, in preparation for the upcoming September 7, 2007 meeting with +defense counsel that he planned to attend, CEOS Chief Oosterbaan traveled to West Palm Beach +to meet with Villafaña and the case agents and to examine the case file. He explained to OPR that +he wanted to see the file before meeting with the defense so that he could best represent] the +interests of the prosecution team," and that he was in favor of going forward with the case. +According to Villafaña, during his review of the file, Oosterbaan told her that the case was "really +On September 6, 2007, the day before the meeting with defense counsel, Sloman sent +Villafaña an email asking, "Please refresh my recollection. What is the "deal' on the table?" +Sloman told OPR that his question reflected the fact that in his capacity as FAUSA, he was +involved in "a hundred other things" at that time. Villafaña sent Sloman the term sheet and +explained to him, "You and Matt [Menchel] and I had also discussed a possible federal plea to an +Information charging a 371 conspiracy, with a Rule 11 plea with a two-year cap, but I think Matt +must have asked Alex about it and it was nixed." Villafaña continued: +There are three concerns that I hope we can address tomorrow. First, +that there is an absolute drop-dead date for accepting or rejecting +because it is strategically important that we indict before the end of +September, which means... September 25th. Second, the agents +and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval, whicl +as Drew [Oosterbaan] politely reminded me, is required under the +law. And third, I do not want to make any promises about allowing +Epstein to self-surrender because I still believe that we have a good +chance of getting him detained.°9 +98 +Sloman noted that with the attention given to the Epstein investigation, it seems like ... this was the only +case [in the office], but there were other cases." +61 + + +Villafaña added that the PBPD Chief had alerted the FBI that an upcoming news article would +report that Epstein was "going to plead to a state charge" and the PBPD Chief "wanted to know if +the victims had been consulted about the deal." Sloman forwarded Villafaña's email to Acosta +with a note that read simply, "fyi." +Later that evening, Villafaña circulated to Sloman, Lourie, and Oosterbaan two alternative +documents: a draft federal plea agreement and a draft NPA. 100 The draft federal plea agreement, +following the USAO's standard format, called for Epstein to plead guilty to a five-year conspiracy +under 18 U.S.C. § 371 to entice minors to engage in prostitution, an offense requiring registration +as a sexual offender, with a Rule 11(c) binding sentence of two years' imprisonment. The draft +NPA contained the terms presented to the defense team on July 31, 2007, and called for Epstein to +enter a state plea by September 28, 2007. Villafaña told OPR that because she had never seen a +non-prosecution agreement before, she relied on a template she found either using USAO or the +Department's internal online resources, but she did not do any additional research regarding the +use of non-prosecution agreements. 'l +Seembers Meet with Cosein the is are reys and al +On Friday, September 7, 2007, Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña, Villafaña's co-counsel, +Oosterbaan, and one or two supervisory FBI agents met at the USAO's West Palm Beach office +with defense attorneys +and, for the first time, Starr and Lefkowitz.'' This was Acosta's +first meeting with Epstein's defense team. Villafaña understood the purpose of this meeting was +to afford Epstein's counsel an opportunity to "make a pitch" as to why the case should not be +prosecuted federally. Villafaña recalled that at a "pre-meet" before defense counsel arrived, +Acosta did not express concern about the viability of the prosecution or the strength of the case. +Acosta told OPR that the meeting was not "a negotiation," but a chance for the defense to +present their arguments, which were made by Starr and focused primarily on federalism. Villafaña +similarly recalled that the meeting mainly consisted of the defense argument that the Epstein case +should remain a state +iter in which the USAO should not interfere. Both Villafaña and her +co-counsel recalled that Starr addressed himself directly to Acosta, and that Starr, who had held +Senate-confirmed positions in the government, commented to Acosta that he and Acosta were "the +only people in this room who have run the [gantlet] of confirmation by the Senate." Acosta di‹ +ot recall the comment, but he told OPR, "[Black in July, we had decided that we were going +100 +The initial draft NPA is attached as Exhibit 2 to this Report. +101 +OPR was unable to identify a template upon which she might have relied. +Lourie was not present. During September 2007, he was traveling between Florida and Washington, D.C., +as he transitioned to his new detail post as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Chief of Staff to the head +of the Department's Criminal Division, Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher. He served in that detail until he left +the Department in February 2008. +62 + + +forward, that either there is this pre-indictment resolution, or we go forward with an indictment. +The September meeting did not alter or shift our position." 103 +Villafaña told OPR that after hearing the defense argument, Acosta reiterated that the +federal interest in the case could be vindicated only by a state plea to an offense that required +sexual offender registration, resulted in a two-year term of incarceration, and was subject to the +18 U.S.C. § 2255 process for providing compensation to the victims. When defense counsel +objected to the registration requirement, Acosta held firm, and he also rejected the defense proposal +for a sentence of home confinement. In a subsequent email exchange with Criminal Division +Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker, who supervised CEOS, Oosterbaan reported +that the meeting was "non-eventful," noting that defense counsel argued "federalism" and might +approach Criminal Division Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher to present that argument +directly to her. +VI. SEPTEMBER 2007: THE PLEA NEGOTIATIONS INTENSIFY, AND IN THE +PROCESS, THE REQUIRED TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IS REDUCED +Acosta had dispensed with the August 17, 2007 plea deadline specified in Menchel's +August 3, 2007 letter, in order to allow the defense to meet with him. After that meeting, and +although Villafaña continued to plan to file charges on September 25, no new plea deadline was +established, and the negotiations continued through most of September. +The defense used that time to push the USAO to make concessions. Because Acosta was +not willing to compromise on the issue of sexual offender registration or providing a means +through which the victims could seek monetary damages, the negotiations focused on the term of +imprisonment. As the contemporaneous emails show, the USAO did not hold to its position that +a two-year term of imprisonment was "the minimum" that the USAO would accept. To reach an +agreement with the defense on Epstein's)sentence, the USAO explored possible pleas in either +federal or state court, or both, and Villafaña spent considerable time and effort working with +defense counsel on developing alternative pleas with various outcomes. In the course of that +process, the agreement was revised to require that Epstein accept a sentence of 18 months, with +the understanding that under the state's sentencing procedures, he would likely serve just 15 +months. +The Incarceration Term Is Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months +Shortly after the September 7, 2007 meeting, Epstein attorney Gerald Lefcourt, who had +not been present at the meeting, spoke with both Acosta and Lourie, and made a new counteroffer, +proposing that Epstein serve 15 months in jail followed by 15 months in home confinement. On +the afternoon of Monday, September 10, 2007, Villafaña emailed Sloman, identifying issues she +wanted to discuss with him, including her concern that defense counsel was pushing for a +resolution that would allow Epstein to avoid incarceration and possibly sexual offender +registration. Villafaña stated that Lefcourt's counteroffer was "a reasonable counteroffer in light +of our starting position of 24 months," but added that it was "a really low sentence." Villafaña +103 +Sloman echoed this point, telling OPR that Starr's presentation focused on the issue of federalism, but the +USAO had already decided to defer prosecution to the state and after the meeting, the USAO continued on that path. +63 + + +noted that the revised charges involved 19 victims, so the defense proposal for a 15-month sentence +amounted to less than one month per victim. Villafaña requested that "whatever the U.S. Attorney +decides to do," the agreement with Epstein should "follow ... a version of my written nonprosecution agreement" in order to "avoid any state shenanigans and ... keep the defense on a +strict timeline." +Later that day, Villafaña circulated to Acosta and Sloman a revised NPA that called for a +20-month jail sentence to be followed by 10 months of home confinement. This redrafted NPA +contained a provision that specified, "With credit for gain time, Epstein shall serve at least +17 months in a state correctional institution."104 Acosta reviewed the revised NPA and amended +it to include a statement clarifying that it was Epstein's obligation "to undertake discussions with +the State of Florida to ensure compliance with these procedures." Villafaña sent her version of the +revised NPA to Lefcourt that afternoon and forwarded Acosta's proposed change to him the +following day, after she learned of it. +On September 11, 2007, the court contacted Villafaña to inquite whether the USAO would +circulated a revised indictment to her co-counsel and Oosterbaan, seeking their feedback before +sending it "through the chain of command." Villafaña also sent Oosterbaan the revised NPA and +told him she was "still shooting for 9/25" to bring charges, assuming the defense declined the +USAO's offer. Oosterbaan responded, "The counter-offering is unfortunate, but I suppose it's +understandable."105 +That afternoon, Lourie asked Villafaña, "What is our latest offer?" Villafaña responded, +"Plead to the three specified [state] charges, a 30-month sentence, split 20 in jail and 10 in +"community control,' and agree that the girls are victims for purposes of damages. We also put in +deadlines for a plea and sentencing date." +B. September 12, 2007: The USAO and Defense Counsel Meet with the State +Attorney +ind another USAO supervisor who would be replacing Lourie as manager of the USAO's Wes +'alm Beach office, and Epstein attorneys Lefkowitz, Lefcourt, and Goldberger met with Stat +Attorney Barry Krischer and Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek. Other than Villafaña, +ew of the participants had any memory of the meeting or the results of it. The available evidenc +dicates that the USAO made additional concessions during the meetin +104 +Through "gain time," Florida inmates can earn a reduction in their sentence for good behavior. +105 +Oosterbaan told OPR that he did not recall having read the NPA at this juncture and "had no involvement +with it." +64 + + +Villafaña told OPR that during the meeting, the group discussed the draft NPA, but she did +not think they gave a copy to Krischer and Belohlavek. Neither Krischer nor Belohlavek expressed +concern about proceeding as the USAO was proposing. According to Villataña, Belohlavek +explained that a plea to the three state counts identified in the draft NPA would affect the state's +sentencing guidelines, and that it would be better for the guidelines calculation if Epstein pled +guilty to just one of the three counts. Villafaña recalled that when Belohlavek confirmed that +Epstein would be required to register as a sexual offender if he pled to any one of the three charges, +Lourie, speaking for the USAO, agreed to allow Epstein to enter his plea to just one state charge +in addition to the pending state indictment, and the defense attorneys selected the charge of +procurement of minors to engage in prostitution.!° Lourie, however, disputed Villafaña's +recollection that he made the final decision, stating that it was "illogical" to conclude that he had +the authority to change the terms of agreement unilaterally.'? +During the meeting, defense counsel raised concerns about Epstein serving time in state +prison. Villafaña also told OPR that Lourie, the other supervisor, and she made clear during the +meeting that they expected Epstein to be incarcerated 24 hours a day, seveh days a week, during +the entirety of his sentence, and they did not "particularly care" whether if was in a state or local +facility. Belohlavek explained to OPR that in order for Epstein to serve his time in a county +facility, rather than state prison, his sentence on each charge could be no more than 12 months, so +that, for example, consecutive terms of 12 months and 6 months-totaling 18 months—could be +served in the county jail. Villafaña told OPR: +Our thing was incarceration 24 hours a day. So during this meeting, +I remember [the defense] talking abouty... a one year count followed +by a six-month count ... that [Epstein] could serve them back to +back but at the county jail, rather than having to go to a state facility. +But then I said, "But if you do that, it's still going to have to be round +the clock incarceration." And Barry Krischer said yes. And [he] +said that to avoid [Epstein being extorted while incarcerated], he +would be kept in solitary confinement. +Villafaña did not recall whether she and Lourie agreed to an 18-month sentence during that +meeting, but she told OPR that in her view, allowing Epstein to serve his sentence in the county +jail was not a "concession" because he would be incarcerated regardless. +Neither Lourie nor the other USAO supervisor present could recall any substantive details +of the September 12, 2007 meeting, and Krischer and Belohlavek told OPR they did not remember +the meeting at all. Krischer did, however, recall that he was "not offended at all" when he learned +of the proposed federal resolution, requiring Epstein to plead to both the pending state indictment +and an additional charge requiring sexual offender registration, explaining to OPR that Epstein +"was going to plead guilty to my indictment, we were going to add an additional charge, he was +106 +107 +Later, the defense would claim that they had mistakenly understood that the selected charge would not +involve sexual offender registration. +As noted below, a contemporaneous email indicates that shortly after the meeting, Lourie and Villafaña spoke +with Acosta and Sloman, who concurred with the agreement. +65 + + +going to become a registered sex offender, and he was going to go actually do time-which he +hadn't done up to this point." Krischer asked, "Why would I turn that down?" Krischer also noted +that at that time, sexual offender registration "was not the norm" in Florida, and he recognized that +"it was clearly something that was important to the U.S. Attorney's Office."I0s +Acosta told OPR that he did not recall if he learned what transpired at the September 12 +meeting, nor did he recall why the USAO team agreed to permit Epstein to plead guilty to only +one charge. Acosta told OPR, however, that he recognized that Villafaña and Lourie needed "some +degree of discretion to negotiate"; that "in the give and take" of negotiations, they might propose +a concession; and he was comfortable with the concession as long as the charge to which Epstein +ultimately pled "captured the conduct" in an "appropriate" way. +Although Epstein's attorneys expressed interest in Epstein serving his time in a county +facility (rather than state prison), one of Epstein's attorneys alternatively expressed interest in +Epstein serving his time in a federal facility, and along with discussions about the possible state +resolution, the USAO and Epstein's counsel also discussed a possible federal plea with a sentence +running concurrently to the sentence Epstein would receive on the already indicted state charge. +Later that day, Villafaña sent Lefkowitz an email advising that she and Lourie had talked with +Acosta and Sloman, and they were "all satisfied in principle with the agreement."109 The next day, +September 13, 2007, Villafaña sent an email to Acosta, Sloman, Lourie, and two other supervisors, +identifying potential federal offenses that would yield a two-year sentence. Villafaña also emailed +defense counsel, stating that she had been "spending some quality time with Title 18"—referring +to the code of federal criminal statutes—to make sure there would be a "factual basis" for any +federal plea, and identifying the federal statutes she was considering. +C. The Evidence Does Not Clearly Show Why the Term of Incarceration Was +Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months to 18 Months +OPR reviewed the contemporaneous records and asked Acosta, Villafaña, and Lourie to +explain how the jail term Epstein would have to accept came to be reduced from two years to 18 +months. Lourie had no recollection of the process through which the term of incarceration was +reduced. Villafaña and Acosta offered significantly different explanations. +Villafaña told OPR: +We had this flip flop between is it going to be a state charge, is it +going to be a federal charge, is it going to be [a] state charge, is it +going to be a federal charge? And to get to a federal charge, there +was no way to do 24 months that made any sense. So somehow it +ended up being 20 months and then it got to be 18 months. And +these were calls that if I remember correctly, Jay Lefkowitz was +108 +Belohlavek, however, told OPR that sexual offender registration "was a common occurrence" for enumerated +state crimes, but the state crime charged in the state indictment against Epstein was not one of them. +109 +The email does not indicate what the parties meant by "the agreement." +66 + + +having directly with Alex Acosta, and Alex Acosta agreed to 18 +months. +Villafaña further explained to OPR: +Regarding going from 24 months to 20 months, I recall a discussion +so Epstein should be allowed to plead to 20 months' in the state. +Epstein's counsel represented that he wouldn't get gain time lik +hat in the [s]tate, and someone above me agreed. Later, of course +as shown in the agreements, Epstein's counsel (Jay Lefkowitz) got +Alex to agree that Epstein should be allowed to earn gain time in the +[s]tate, so the 20 months in the state became at least 17 months. +Regarding going from 20 months' to 18 months, ... this came from +a negotiation between Epstein's counsel and Andy of Alex where +the federal statutory max could only be 24 or 18, so 18 was agreed +to. I also recall that, after Epstein's counsel decided that they +wanted to proceed with an NPA and only a state guilty plea, I asked +Alex why we didn't return to 20 months because the reason why we +went to 18 months was because that was the only way to end up with +a federal statutory maximum.'° +However, a subsequent account of the history of negotiations with Epstein's attorneys, +drafted by Villafaña for Acosta several weeks after the September 12, 2007 meeting with the State +Attorney's Office, stated that "a significant compromise" reached at the meeting "was a reduction +in the amount of jail time - from [the originally proposed] twenty-four months down to eighteen +months, which would be served at the Palin Beach County Jail rather than a state prison facility." +Acosta also noted to OPR that Villafaña was engaged in a "tough negotiation," and he was willing +to allow her the discretion to reduce the amount of incarceration time without him "secondguessing" her. Acosta acknowledged that he "clearly approved it at some point." +Based on this record, OPR could not definitively determine when, how, or by whom the +decision was made to reduce the required term of imprisonment from 24 months to 18 months. It +than what had been discussed with respect to state charges. In the end, the evidence shows that +Acosta approved of a reduced term of incarceration from 24 months to 18 months, and the USAO +understood at the time that the state gain time requirement would further reduce the actual amount +of time Epstein would spend incarcerated. +110 +By "federal statutory maximum," Villafaña referred to 12-month and 6-month misdemeanors. +67 + + +The Parties Continue to Negotiate but Primarily Focus on a Potential Plea to +Federal Charges +During the remainder of September, Villafaña conducted plea negotiations and drafted the +final NPA, mainly with Epstein attorney Jay Lefkowitz. In a September 13, 2007 email to CEOS +Chief Oosterbaan, Villafaña reported that the plea negotiations were "getting fast and furious." +She said that the defense wanted to establish a "victim's fund" through which Epstein could make +payments to the victims, rather than having the victims file individual § 2255 court actions for +damages, which she speculated was "to keep this stuff out of the public [c]ourt files." +According to the email documentation, by Friday, September 14, 2007, the parties had +moved toward a "hybrid" federal plea agreement, incorporating a plea to state charges, which +would allow Epstein to serve his sentence for all the charges concurrently in a federal prison. +Villafaña informed Acosta, Sloman, Lourie, and other colleagues that negotiations with Lefkowitz +had resulted in a tentative agreement for Epstein to plead to two federal charges: harassment to +prevent a witness from reporting a crime (18 U.S.C. § 1512(d)(2), which was then a one-year +misdemeanor), and simple assault on an airplane (18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(5), a six-month +misdemeanor). Villafaña reported that Lefkowitz "put in a pitch for only 12 months, I put in a +pitch that [Epstein] plead to 24 with a 20-month recommendation, and we decided that we would +be stuck with the 18 months." +Later that day, Villafaña sent to Lefkowitz a draft "hybrid" plea agreement and information +mirroring the agreement in principle she had described to her supervisors, but which she noted had +"not yet been blessed" by them. The agreement provided that Epstein would plead guilty to the +two federal charges for which the parties would jointly recommend that he be sentenced to the +statutory maximum penalty of 18 months' imprisonment followed by 2 years of supervised release, +and that he would also plead guilty to the state registrable offense of procurement of minors to +engage in prostitution, for which Epstein and the State Attorney's Office would make a joint, +binding recommendation that he be sentenced to serve at least 20 months in prison followed by 10 +months of community control (home confinement). Although not specified in the draft agreement, +the negotiations evidently expected the federal and state terms would run concurrently. In addition +to payment of restitution, Epstein would not oppose jurisdiction or victim status for any of the +victims identified in the federal investigation—at that point specified as numbering 40—who +elected to file suit for damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. A guardian ad litem would be appointed +to communicate with the defense on the victims' behalf. +Lourie, however, quickly made clear that he was not in favor of the proposal. In response +to Villafaña's email about the potential federal charges, but after Villafaña sent the proposal to +Lefkowitz, Lourie told her, "The assault [charge] sounds like a stretch and factually [is] sort of +silly."''' Lourie also told Sloman, Acosta, and another supervisor that he did not "like the assault +charge" and believed that it would not "go smooth with every judge." Acosta responded, "If we +need[,] let's find a different charge." On Saturday, September 15, 2007, Villafaña emailed +Lefkowitz, using her personal email address, reporting that she had "gotten some negative reaction +111 +The charge was to be based on "an incident in which Epstein "put great pressure' +... on [one of his female +assistants] to call the girls to set up appointments." +68 + + +to the assault charge" and suggesting a different factual scenario to support a federal charge. '2 At +this point, Sloman left on vacation, and he informed Acosta and Villafaña that in his absence +Lourie had agreed "to help finalize this." Lourie spent the following work week at his new post +at the Department in Washington, D.C., but communicated with his USAO colleagues by phone +and email. +In a Sunday, September 16, 2007 email, Villafaña informed Lefkowitz that she had drafted +a factual proffer to accompany a revised "hybrid" federal plea proposal. In that email, Villafaña +also noted that she was considering filing charges in the federal district court in Miami, "which +will hopefully cut the press coverage significantly." This email received considerable attention 12 +years later when it was made public during the CVRA litigation and was viewed as evidence of +the USAO's efforts to conceal the NPA from the victims. Villafaña, however, explained to OPR +that she was concerned that news media coverage would violate the victims' privacy. She told +OPR, "[If [the victims] wanted to attend [the plea hearing], I wanted them to be able to go into +the courthouse without their faces being splashed all over the newspaper," and that such publicity +was less likely to happen in Miami, where the press "in general does not care about what happens +in Palm Beach." +Lefkowitz responded to Villafaña with a revised version of her latest proposed "hybrid" +plea agreement, in a document entitled "Agreement." Significantly, this defense proposal +introduced two new provisions. The first related to four female assistants who had allegedly +facilitated Epstein in his criminal scheme. The defense sought a government promise not to +prosecute them, as well as certain other unnamed Epstein employees, and a promise to forego +immigration proceedings against two of the female assistants: +Epstein's fulfilling the terms and conditions of the Agreement also +precludes the initiation of any and all criminal charges which might +otherwise in the future be brought against [four named female +assistants] or any employee of [a specific Epstein-owned corporate +entity] for any criminal charge that arises out of the ongoing federal +investigation +.. Further, no immigration proceeding will be +instituted against [two named female assistants] as a result of the +ongoing investigation. +The second new provision related to the USAO's efforts to obtain Epstein's computers: +Epstein's fulfilling the terms and conditions of the Agreement +Agreement. Each [legal process] will be withdrawn upon the +execution of the Agreement and will not be re-issued absent reliable +69 + + +evidence of a violation of the agreement. Epstein and his counsel +agree that the computers that are currently under [legal process] will +be safeguarded in their current condition by Epstein's counsel or +their agents until the terms and conditions of the Agreement are +Later that day, Villafaña sent Lefkowitz a lengthy email to convey two options Lourie had +suggested: "the original proposal" for a state plea but with an agreement for an 18-month sentence, +or pleas to state charges and two federal obstruction-of-justice charges. Villafaña also told +Lefkowitz she was willing to ask Acosta again to approve a federal plea to a five-year conspiracy +with a Rule 11(c) binding recommendation for a 20-month sentence. Villafaña explained: +As to timing, it is my understanding that Mr. Epstein needs to bé +sentenced in the state after he is sentenced in the federal case, but +not that he needs to plead guilty and be sentenced after serving his +federal time. Andy recommended that some of the timing issues be +addressed only in the state agreement, so that it isn't obvious to the +judge that we are trying to create federal jurisdiction for prison +purposes. +With regard to prosecution of individuals other than Epstein, Villafaña suggested standard +federal plea agreement language regarding the resolution of all criminal liability, "and I will +mention "co-conspirators,' but I would prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes +and all of the other persons that we could charge." Villafaña told OPR that she was willing to +include a non-prosecution provision for Epstein's co-conspirators, who at the time she understood +to be the four women named in the proposed agreement, because the USAO was not interested in +prosecuting those individuals if Epstein entered a plea. Villafaña told OPR, "[W]e considered +Epstein to be the top of the food chain, and we wouldn't have been interested in prosecuting anyone +indi. Sal, id not cons, in thensity case agein rait doe try no protect the la tal +OPR that her reference to "all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge" +related to her concern that if the plea agreement contained information about uncharged conduct, +the court might ask for more information about that conduct and inquire why it had not been +charged, and if the government provided such information, Epstein's attorneys might claim the +agreement was breached. '3 +With regard to immigration, Villafaña told OPR that the USAO generally did not take any +position in plea agreements on immigration issues, and that in this case, there was no evidence that +either of the two assistants who were foreign nationals had committed fraud in connection with +their immigration paperwork, and I think that they were both in status. So there wasn't any reason +OPR understood Villafaña's concern to be that if the government were required to respond to a court's inquiry +into additional facts, Epstein would object that the government was trying to cast him in a negative light in order to +influence the court to impose a sentence greater than the agreed-upon term. +70 + + +for them to be deported."II4 As to whether the foreign nationals would be removable by virtue of +having committed crimes, Villafaña told OPR she did not consider her role as seeking removal +apart from actual prosecution. +Villafaña concluded her email to Lefkowitz by expressing disappointment that they were +not "closer to resolving this than it appears that we are," and offering to meet the next day to work +on the agreement: +Can I suggest that tomorrow we either meet live or via +teleconference, either with your client or having him within a quick +phone call, to hash out these items? I was hoping to work only al +half day tomorrow to save my voice for Tuesday's hearing ..% if +necessary, but maybe we can set a time to meet. If you want to meet +"off campus" somewhere, that is fine. I will make sure that I have +all the necessary decision makers present or "on call," as well.!!S +Villafaña told OPR that she offered to meet Lefkowitz away from the USAO because conducting +negotiations via email was inefficient, and Villafaña wanted "to have a meeting where we sat down +and just finalized things. And what I meant by off campus is, sometimes people feel better if you +go to a neutral location" for a face-to-face meeting +On the morning of Monday, September 17/2007, thé USAO supervisor who was taking +over Lourie's duties as manager of the West Palm Beach office asked Villafaña for an update on +the plea negotiations, and she forwarded to him the email she had sent to Lefkowitz the previous +afternoon. Villafaña told the manager, +"As you can see ... there are a number of things in their +last draft that were unacceptable. All of the loopholes that I sewed up they tried to open." +Shortly thereafter, Villafaña alerted the new manager, Acosta, and Lourie that she had just +spoken with Lefkowitz, who advised that Epstein was leaning towards a plea to state charges under +a non-prosecution agreement, and she would be forwarding to Lefkowitz "our last version of the +Non-Prosecution Agreement." Acosta asked that Villafaña "make sure they know it[']s only a +draft" and reminded her that "[Jhe form and language may need polishing." Villafaña responded, +"Absolutely. There were a lot of problems with their last attempt. They tried to re-open all the +loopholes that I had sewn shut." Villafaña sent to Lefkowitz the draft NPA that she had provided +to Lefcourt on September 11, 2007, noting that it was the "last version" and would "avoid [him] +having to reinvent the wheel." She also updated the FBI case agents on the status of negotiations, +noting that she had told her "chain of command ... that we are still on for the [September] 25th +[to bring charges] ..., no matter what." +After receiving the draft NPA, Lefkowitz asked Villafaña to provide for his review a factual +proffer for a federal obstruction of justice charge, and, with respect to the NPA option, asked, "[f +114 +According to the case agents, the West Palm Beach FBI office had an ICE agent working with them at the +beginning of the federal investigation, and the ICE agent normally would have looked into the immigration status of +any foreign national, but neither case agent recalled any immigration issue regarding any of the Epstein employees. +115 +Lefkowitz was based in New York City but traveled to Miami in connection with the case. +71 + + +we go that route, would you intend to make the deferred [sic] prosecution agreement public?" +Villafaña replied that while a federal plea agreement would be part of the court file and publicly +accessible, the NPA "would not be made public or filed with the Court, but it would remain part +of our case file. It probably would be subject to a FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request, +but it is not something that we would distribute without compulsory process."l Villafaña told +OPR that she believed Epstein did not want the NPA to be made public because he "did not want +people to believe him to have committed a variety of crimes." As she explained to OPR, Villafaña +believed the NPA did not need to be disclosed in its entirety, but she anticipated notifying the +victims about the NPA provisions relating to their ability to recover damages. +E. The Parties Appear to Reach Agreement on a Plea to Federal Charges +Negotiations continued the next day, Tuesday, September 18, 2007. Responding to +Villafaña's revised draft of the NPA, Lefkowitz suggested that Epstein plead to one federal charge +with a 12-month sentence, followed by one year of supervised release with a requirement for home +detention and two years of state probation, with the first six months of the state sentence to be +served under community control. Villafaña replied, "I know that the U.S. Attorney will not go +below 18 months of prison/jail time (and I would strongly oppose the suggestion)." Shortly +thereafter, Villafaña emailed Acosta, Lourie, and the incoming West Palm Beach manager: +Hi all - I think that we may be near the end of our negotiations with +Mr. Epstein, and not because we have reached a resolution. +mentioned yesterday, I spent about 12 hours over the weekend +drafting Informations, changing plea agreements, and writing +factual proffers. I was supposed to receive a draft agreement from +them yesterday, which never arrived. At that time, they were +leaning towards pleading only to state charges and doing all of the +time in state custody. +Late last night I talked to Jay Lefkowitz who asked about Epstein +pleading to two twelve-month federal charges with half of his jail +time being spent in home confinement pursuant to the guidelines. I +told him that I had no objection to that approach but, in the interest +of full disclosure, I did not believe that Mr. Epstein would be eligible +because he will not be in Zone A or B.'? This morning Jay +Lerkowitz called and said that I was correct but, if we could get +Mr. Epstein down to 14 months, then he thought he would be +eligible. +My response: have him plead to two separate Informations. On the +first one he gets 12 months' imprisonment and on the second he gets +FOIA requires disclosure of government records upon request unless an exemption applies permitting the +government to withhold the requested records. See 5 U.S.C. § 552. +117 +Sentences falling within Zones A or B of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines permit probation or confinement +alternatives to imprisonment. +72 + + +twelve months, with six served in home confinement, to run +consecutively. +I just received an e-mail asking if Mr. Epstein could just do 12 +months imprisonment instead. +As you can see, Mr. Epstein is having second thoughts about doing +jail time. I would like to send Jay Lefkowitz an e-mail stating that +holiday to get [prepared] for Tuesday... [September 25] , when 1 +plan to [file charges], and it gives the office sufficient time tó review +the indictment package. +Do you concur? +A few minutes later, the incoming West Palm Beach | +nager emailed Lourie, suggesting that +Lourie "talk to Epstein and close the deal."118 +Within moments, Lourie replied to the manager, with á copy to Villafaña, reporting that he +had just spoken with Lefkowitz and agreed "to two fed[eral] obstruction[] charges (24 month cap) +with nonbinding recommendation for 18 months. When [Epstein] gets out, he has to plead to state +offenses, including against minor, registrable, and then take one year house arrest/community +confinement." By reply email, Villafaña asked Lourie to call her, but there is no record of whether +they spoke. +F. Defense Counsel Offers New Proposals Substantially Changing the Terms of +the Federal Plea Agreement, which the USAO Rejects +Approximately an hour after Lourie's email reporting the deal he had reached with +Lefkowitz, Lefkowitz sent Villafaña a revised draft plea agreement. Despite the agreement Lourie +believed he and Lefkowitz had reached that morning, Lefkowitz's proposal would have resulted +in a 16-month federal sentence followed by 8 months of supervised release served in the form of +ome detention. Lefkowitz also inserted a statement in his proposal explicitly prohibiting th +JSAO from requesting, initiating, or encouraging immigration authorities to institute immigratio +proceedings against two of Epstein's female assistants. +Villafaña circulated the defense's proposed plea agreement to Lourie and two other +supervisors, and expressed frustration that the new defense version incorporated terms that were +"completely different from what Jay just told Andy they would agree to." Villafaña also pointed +out that the defense "wants us to recommend an improper calculation" of the sentencing guidelines +The manager told OPR that he probably meant this as a joke because in his view the continued back-andforth communications with defense counsel "was ridiculous," and the only way to "get this deal done" might be to +have a direct conversation with Epstein. +73 + + +and had added language waiving the preparation of a presentence investigation (PSI) "so he can +keep all of his information confidential. I have already told Jay that the PSI language ... was +unacceptable to our office." Of even greater significance, in a follow-up email, Villafaña noted +that the defense had removed both the requirement that Epstein plead to a registrable offense and +the entire provision relating to monetary damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. +In the afternoon, Villafaña circulated her own proposed "hybrid" plea agreement, first +internally to the management team with a note stating that it "contains the 18/12 split that Jay and +Andy agreed to," and then to Lefkowitz. Regarding the prosecution of other individuals, she +included the following provision: "This agreement resolves the federal criminal liability of the +defendant and any co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida growing out of any criminal +conduct by those persons known to the [USAO] as of the date of this plea agreement," Including +but not limited to the conspiracy to solicit minors to engage in prostitution. +In her email to Lefkowitz, transmitting the plea agreement, Villafaña wrote: +Could you share the attached draft with your colleagues./It is in +keeping with what Andy communicated to me was the operative +"deal." The U.S. Attorney hasn't had a chance to review all of the +language, but he agrees with it in principle. +[The West Palm Beach manager] and I will both be available at 2:00. +... One of my suggestions is going to be (again) that we all sit down +together in the same room, including Barry [Krischer] and/or Lanna +[Belohlavek], so we can hash out the still existing issues and get a +signed document. +Villafaña also emailed Acosta directly, telling him she planned to meet with Epstein's +attorneys to work on the plea agreement, and asking if Acosta would be available to provide final +approval. Acosta replied, +apprat's . Acosta septiod, donth thinks should be part of a orations. reathe elieve i was +important for him "to not get involved" in negotiations, and added, "You can meet, like I did in +September, [to] reaffirm the position of the office, [and] back your AUSA, but ultimately, I think +your trial lawyer needs discretion to do their job." Villafaña told OPR, however, that she did not +understand Acosta to be giving her discretion to conduct the negotiations as she saw fit; rather, she +believed Acosta did not want to engage in face-to-face negotiations because "he wanted to have +an appearance of having sort of an arm's length from the deal."I!9 Villafaña replied to Acosta's +119 +As noted throughout the Report, Villafaña's interpretation of her supervisors' motivations for their actions +often differed from the supervisors' explanations for their actions. Because it involved subjective interpretations of +individuals' motivations, OPR does not reach conclusions regarding the subjects' differing views but includes them +as an indication of the communication issues that hindered the prosecution team. See Chapter Two, Part Three, +Section V.E. +74 + + +message, "That is fine. [The West Palm Beach manager] and I will nail everything down, we just +want to get a final blessing." +Negotiations continued throughout the day on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, with +Villafaña and Lefkowitz exchanging emails regarding the factual proffer for a plea and the +scheduling of a meeting to finalize the plea agreement's terms. During that exchange, Villafaña +made clear to Lefkowitz that the time for negotiating was reaching an end: +I hate to have to be firm about this, but we need to wrap this up by +Monday. I will not miss my [September 25 charging] date when this +has dragged on for several weeks already and then, if things fall +apart, be left in a less advantageous position than before the +egotiations. I have had an 82-page pros memo and 53-pag +ndictment sitting on the shelf since May to engage in thes +negotiations. There has to be an ending date, and that date is +Monday. +Early that afternoon, Lourie—who was participating in the week's negotiations from his +new post at the Department in Washington, D.C.—asked Villafaña to furnish him with the last +draft of the plea agreement she had sent to defense counsel, and she provided him with the "18/12 +split" draft she had sent to Lefkowitz the prior afternoon. After reviewing that draft, Lourie told +Villafaña it was a "[glood job" but he questioned certain provisions, including whether the +USAO's agreement to suspend the investigation and hold all legal process in abeyance should be +in the plea agreement. Villafaña told Lourie that she had added that paragraph at the "insistence" +of the defense, and opined, "I don't think it hurts us." Villafaña explained to OPR that she held +this view because "Alex and people above me had already made the decision that if the case was +resolved we weren't going to get the computer equipment." +At 3:44 p.m. that afternoon, Lefkowitz emailed a "redline" version of the federal plea +agreement showing his new revisions, and noted that he was "also working on a deferred [sic] +prosecution agreement because it may well be that we cannot reach agreement here." The defense +redline version required Epsteinto plead guilty to a federal information charging two misdemeanor +counts of attempt fo intentionally harass a person to prevent testimony, the pending state +indictment charging solicitation of prostitution, and a state information charging one count of +coercing a person to become a prostitute, in violation of Florida Statute § 796.04 (without regard +to age). Neither of the proposed state offenses required sexual offender registration. Epstein +would serve an 18-month sentence and a concurrent 60 months on probation on the state charges. +The redline version again deleted the provisions relating to damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and +replaced it with the provision requiring creation of a trust administered by the state court. It +retained language proposed by Villafaña, providing that the plea agreement "resolves the federal +criminal liability of the defendant and any co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida +growing out of any criminal conduct by those persons known to the [USAO] as of the date of this +plea agreement," but also re-inserted the provision promising not to prosecute Epstein's assistants +and the statement prohibiting the USAO from requesting, initiating, or encouraging immigration +proceedings. It also included a provision stating the government's agreement to forgo a +presentence investigation and a promise by the government to suspend the investigation and +withdraw all pending legal process. +75 + + +G. Villafaña and Lourie Recommend Ending Negotiations, but Acosta Urges +That They "Try to Work It Out" +In the late afternoon of Wednesday, September 19, 2007, Villafaña expressed her +increasing frustration to her supervisors. She emailed the defense redline version of the plea +Lourie immediately emailed Acosta the following: +sends us a document that is the opposite. I suggest we simply tell +him that his counter offer is reiected and that we intend to move +forward with our case. +Acosta replied: +Why don't we just call him. Tell him +You agree, and then change things. +That's not acceptable, and is in bad faith. Stop it or we'll +indict. +Try to work it out. +It seems that we are close, and it'Is worth trying to overcome what +has to be painfully ... annoying negotiating tactics. +Acosta explained to OPR that he recognized, +[t]his negotiation was a pain, but if it was the right position, the fact +that you've got annoying counsel on the other side doesn't it make +it less of a right position. You tell them stop being annoying, you +try to work it out, and if not, then you indict. +In response to Acosta's instruction, Lourie responded, "Ok will do." He also forwarded to +Acosta the latest version of the USAO draft "hybrid" plea agreement that Villafaña had sent to +Lefkowitz the previous day, which Lourie had requested and obtained from Villafaña earlier that +afternoon. +76 + + +everything, but I really do not think that Mr. Epstein is going to engage in serious negotiations +until he sees the Indictment and shows up in mag [federal magistrate judge] court." She suggested +charging Epstein on a federal conspiracy charge, and if he refused to plead to that offense, +superseding with additional charges and going to trial. She complained that after seven weeks of +there can be no plea agreement." +H. +Acosta Edits the Federal Plea Agreement, and Villafaña Sends a Final Version +to the Defense +The next day, Thursday, September 20, 2007, Villafaña emailed Assistant State Attorney +Belohlavek and informed her: +Our deadline is Monday evening for a signed agreement and +arraignment in the federal system. At this time, things don't look +promising anyway, but I will keep you posted. In their latest draft, +they changed what they agreed to plead to in the state from +solicitation of minors for prostitution (a registrable offense) to +forcing adults into prostitution (a non-registrable offense). We will +not budge on this issue, so it is looking unlikely that we will reach a +mutually acceptable agreement. If that changes, I will let you know. +Acosta sent Lourie "[sJome thoughts" about the USAO version of the proposed "hybrid" +federal plea agreement he had received from Lourie the evening before, commenting that "it seems +very straightforward" and "we are not changing our standard charging language" for the +defense. 20 Noting that the draft was prepared for his signature, Acosta told Lourie that he did not +to Villafaña with a transmittal message simply reading, "I think Alex's changes are all good ones. +Please try to incorporate his suggestions, change the signature block to your name and send as +final to Jay." Lourie also noted to Acosta and Villafaña that he believed the defense would want +to go back to the initial offer of a state plea with a non-prosecution agreement. When Villafaña +sent the revised plea agreement to Lefkowitz later that afternoon, she advised him that if the +defense wanted to return to the original offer of a state plea only, the draft NPA she had sent to +him on September |7, 2007, would control. +The USAO had standard federal plea agreement language, from which this "hybrid" plea agreement had +substantially diverged. +forward with it." +77 + + +The Defense Rejects the Federal Plea Agreement, Returns to the NPA +"State-Only" Resolution, and Begins Opposing the Sexual Offender +Registration Requirement +After having spent days negotiating the federal charges to be included in a plea agreement, +by the afternoon of September 20, 2007, the defense rejected the federal plea option, and the parties +resumed negotiations over the details of an NPA calling for Epstein to plead to only state charges. +Through multiple emails and attempts (some successful) to speak directly with Acosta and other +supervisors, defense attorneys vigorously fought the USAO's insistence that Epstein plead to a +state charge requiring sexual offender registration. +After receiving the federal plea agreement, Lefkowitz spoke with Villafaña. She reported +to Acosta and Lourie that Lefkowitz told her the defense was "back to doing the state-chargesonly agreement" and wanted until the middle of the following week to work out the details, but +that she had told defense counsel that "we need a signed agreement by tomorrow [Friday] or we +are [filing charges] on Tuesday." +Lefkowitz emailed Villafaña about the draft NPA that she had sent to him, pointing out +nat it called for a 20-month jail sentence followed by 10 months of community control, rather tha +8 months in jail and 12 under community control, and to ask if the USAO had "any flexibility +on the § 2255 procedure. Villafaña responded: +The 18 and 12 has already been agreed to by our office, so that is +not a problem. On the issue about 18 [U.S.C. §] 2255, we seem to +be miles apart. Your most recent version not only had me binding +the girls to a trust fund administered by the state court, but also +promising that they will give up their [$] 2255 rights. +I reviewed the e-mail that 1 sent you on Sunday with the comments +on some of your other changes. In the context of a non-prosecution +agreement, the office may be more willing to be specific about not +pursuing charges against others. However, as I stated on Sunday, +the Office cannot and will not bind Immigration. +Also, your timetable will need to move up significantly. As [State +Attorney] Barry [Krischer] said in our meeting last week, his office +can put together a plea agreement, [and an] information, and get you +all before the [state] judge on a change of plea within a day. +Villafaña alerted Krischer that evening that negotiations were "not going very well" and +that defense counsel "changed their minds again, and they only want to plead to state charges, not +concurrent state and federal." She added, "If we cannot reach ... an agreement, then I need to +[charge] the case on Tuesday [September 25] and I will not budge from that date." +In response to Villafaña's report of her conversation with Lefkowitz about the defense +preference for a "state-charges-only agreement," Lourie alerted her that, "He wants to get out of +[sexual offender] registration which we should not agree to." Lourie emailed Acosta: +78 + + +I think Jay [Lefkowitz] will try to talk you out of a registrable +offense. Regardless of the merits of his argument, in order to get us +down in time they made us an offer that included pleading to an +offense against a minor (encouraging a minor into prostitution) and +touted that we should be happy because it was registrable. For that +reason alone, I don't think we should consider allowing them to +come down from their own offer, either on this issue or on time of +incarceration. +Lefkowitz attempted to reach Acosta that night, but Acosta directed Villafaña to return the +call, and told Lourie that he did not want to open "a backchannel" with defense counsel. Lourie +instructed Villafaña, "U can tell [Jay that [A]lex will not agree to a nonregistration offense." +On the morning of Friday, September 21, 2007, Villafaña emailed Acosta informing him +that "it looks like we will be filing charges against] Mr. Epstein on Tuesday," reporting that the +charging package was being reviewed by the West Palm Beach manager, and asking if anyone in +the Miami office needed to review it. Villafaña also alerted Lourie that she had spoken that +morning to Lefkowitz, who "was waffling" about Epstein pleading to a state charge that required +sexual offender registration, and she noted that she would confer with Krischer and Belohlavek +"to make sure the defense doesn't try to do an end run." +That same morning, Epstein attorney Sanchez, who had not been involved in negotiations +for several weeks, emailed Sloman, advising, "[] want to finalize the plea deal and there is only +one issue outstanding and [I] do not believe that [A]lex has read all the defense submissions that +would assist in his determination on this point ... /U]pon resolution, we will be prepared to sign +as soon as today." From his out-of-town vacation, Sloman forwarded the email to Acosta, who +eplied, "Enjo[y] vacation. Working with [Marie on this." Sloman also forwarde +mail to Lourie and asked, "Do you know what she's talking about?" Lourie responded tha +"has not been in any négotiations. Don't even engage with yet another +39 +J. The USAO Agrees Not to Criminally Charge "Potential Co-Conspirators" +Lefkowitz, in the meantime, sent Villafaña a revised draft NPA that proposed an 18-month +sentence in the county jail, followed by 12 months of community control, and restored the +provision for a frust fund for disbursement to an agreed-upon list of individuals *who seck +reimbursement by filing suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255." This defense draft retained the +provision promising not to criminally charge Epstein's four female assistants and unnamed +employees of the specific Epstein-owned corporate entity, but also extended the provision to "any +potential co-conspirators" for any criminal charge arising from the ongoing federal investigation. +This language had evolved from similar language that Villafaña had included in the USAO's +earlier proposed draft federal plea agreement. '22 Lefkowitz also again included the sentence +122 +The language in the USAO's draft federal plea agreement stated, "This agreement resolves the federal +criminal liability of the defendant and any co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida growing out of any +criminal conduct by those persons known to the [USAO] ...." +79 + + +precluding the government from requesting, initiating, or recommending immigration proceedings +against the two assistants who were foreign nationals. +At this point, Lefkowitz again sought to speak to Acosta, who replied by email: "I am +happy to talk. My caveat is that in the middle of negotiations, u try to avoid[] undermining my +staff by allowing 'interlocutor[ly' appeals so to speak so I'd want [M]arie on the call[.] I'll have +her set something up." +Villafaña sent to Lefkowitz her own revised NPA, telling him it was her "attempt at +combining our thoughts," but it had not "been approved by the office yet." She inserted solicitation +of minors to engage in prostitution, a registrable offense, as the charge to which Epstein would +lead guilty; proposed a joint recommendation for a 30-month sentence, divided into 18 month +in the county jail and 12 months of community control; and amended the § 2255 provision.!? +Villafaña's revision retained the provision suspending the investigation and holding all legal +process in abeyance, and she incorporated the non-prosecution provision while slightly altering it +to apply to "any potential co-conspirator of Epstein, including" the four named assistants, and +deleting mention of the corporate entity employees. Finally, Villafaña deleted mention of +immigration proceedings, but advised in her transmittal email that "we have not and don't plan to +ask immigration" proceedings to be initiated. 124 +Later that day, Villafaña alerted Lourie (who had arrived in Florida from Washington, D.C. +early that afternoon) and the new West Palm Beach manager (copying her first-line supervisor and +co-counsel) that she had included language that defense counsel had requested "regarding +promises not to prosecute other people," and commented, "I don't think it hurts us." There is no +documentation that Lourie, the West Palm Beach manager, or anyone else expressed disagreement +with Villafaña's assessment. Rather, within a féw minutes, Villafaña re-sent her email, adding +that defense counsel was persisting in including an immigration waiver in the agreement, to which +Lourie responded, "No way. We don't put that sort of thing in a plea agreement." Villafaña replied +to Lourie, indicating she would pass that along to defense counsel and adding, "Any other +thoughts?" When Lourie gave no further response, Villafaña informed defense counsel that Lourie +had rejected the proposed immigration language. +OPR questioned the subjects about the USAO's agreement not to prosecute "any potential +co-conspirators."( Lourie did not recall why the USAO agreed to it, but he speculated that he left +that provision in the NPA because he believed at the time that it benefited the government in some +In particular, Lourie conjectured that the promise not to prosecute "any potential +co-conspirators" protected victims who had recruited others and thus potentially were +co-conspirators in Epstein's scheme. Lourie also told OPR, "I bet the answer was that we weren't +going to charge" Epstein's accomplices, because Acosta "didn't really want to charge Epstein" in +123 +Villafaña noted that she had consulted with a USAO employee who was a "former corporate counsel from a +hospital about the § 2255 language, and thought that the revised language addresses the concern about having an +unlimited number of claimed victims, without me trying to bind girls who I do not represent." +124 +Villafaña gave OPR an explanation similar to that given by the case agents that an ICE Special Agent had +been involved in the carly stages of the federal investigation of Epstein, and Villafaña believed the agent knew two of +Epstein's female assistants were foreign nationals and would have acted appropriately on that information. Villafaña +also said that the USAO generally did not get involved in immigration issues. +80 + + +federal court. Sloman similarly said that he had the impression that the non-prosecution provision +was meant to protect named co-conspirators who were also victims, "in a sense," of Epstein's +conduct. Although later press coverage of the Epstein case focused on Epstein's connection to +prominent figures and suggested that the non-prosecution provision protected these individuals, +Sloman told OPR that it never occurred to him that the reference to potential co-conspirators was +directed toward any of the high-profile individuals who were at the time or subsequently linked +with Epstein.!? Acosta did not recall the provision or any discussions about it. He speculated +that if he read the non-prosecution provision, he likely assumed that Villafaña and Lourie had +"thought this through" and "addressed it for a reason." The West Palm Beach manager, who had +only limited involvement at this stage, told OPR that the provision was "highly unusual," and he +had "no clue" why the USAO agreed to it. +Villafaña told OPR that, apart from the women named in the NPA, the investigation had +not developed evidence of "any other potential co-conspirators. So, . . • we wouldn't be +prosecuting anybody else, so why not include it? ... I just didn't think that there was anybody +that it would cover." She conceded, however, that she "did not catch the fact that it could be read +as broadly as people have since read it." +K. The USAO Rejects Defense Efforts to Eliminate the Sexual Offender +Registration Requirement +On the afternoon of Friday, September 21, 2007, State Attorney Krischer informed +Villafaña that Epstein's counsel had contacted him and Epstein was ready to agree "to all the +terms" of the NPA-except for sexual offender registration. According to Krischer, defense +counsel had proposed that registration be deferred, and that Epstein register only if state or federal +law enforcement felt, at any point during his service of the sentence, that he needed to do so. +Krischer noted that he had "reached out" to Acosta about this proposal but had not heard back +from him. Villafaña responded, "I think Alex is calling you now." Villafaña told OPR that, to her +knowledge, Acosta called Krischer to tell him that registration was not a negotiable term. 26 +Later that afternoon, Villafaña emailed Krischer for information about the amount of "gain +time" Epstein would earn in state prison. +Villafaña explained in her email that she wanted to +include a provision in the NPA specifying that Epstein "will actually be in jail at least a certain +number of days fo make sure he doesn't try to 'convince' someone with the Florida prison +authorities to let him out early." Krischer responded that under the proposal as it then stood, +Epstein would serve 15 months. He also told Villafaña that a plea to a registrable offense would +not prevent Epstein from serving his time "at the stockade"— the local minimum security detention +facility. ' +Sloman also pointed out that the NPA was not a "global resolution" and other co-conspirators could have +been prosecuted "by any other [U.S. Attorney's] office in the country." +126 +127 +Krischer told OPR that he did not recall meeting or having interactions with Acosta regarding the Epstein +case or any other matter. +The State Attorney concluded his email: "Glad we could get this worked out for reasons I won't put in +writing. After this is resolved I would love to buy you a cup at Starbucks and have a conversation." Villafaña +responded, "Sounds great." When asked about this exchange during her OPR interview, Villafaña said: "Everybody +81 + + +At some point that day, Acosta spoke with Lefkowitz by phone regarding the need for +Epstein to plead to a registrable offense. Throughout the weekend, with Villafaña's Monday +deadline looming, defense counsel pressed hard to eliminate the sexual offender requirement. On +Saturday, September 22, 2007, l +sent a series of emails to Lourie. In the first, she provided +details from a press report about a Florida public official who the previous day had pled guilty to +child sex abuse charges and was sentenced to a term of probation. She noted that she "spoke to +[MJatt [Menchel]" and asked Lourie to call her. Two hours later she sent Lourie a second, lengthy +email, strongly objecting to the registration requirement, and outlining "all arguments against +registration [as a sexual offender] in this case." In this email, +claimed that there had been +a "miscommunication" during the September 12, 2007 meeting, and that "we only ag to the +solicitation with minors because we believed and [Krischer] and [Belohlavek] confirmed it was +NOT registrable." +complained that lifetime sexual offender registration was a "life +sentence" that was "uncalled for," "does not make sense," and was "inappropriate" to impose +"simply [because] the FBI wants it, in return for all there [sic] efforts." She listed numerous +reasons why Epstein should not have to register, including his lack of a prior record or history of +sexual offenses; the lack of any danger of recidivism; the ease with which he could be "tracked" +without registering; and that it would be "virtually impossible to comply" with four separate state +registration requirements. A few minutes later, +I sent Lefcourt's phone number to Lourie +"in case you want to speak to him directly." +In another email sent less than two hours later, Sanchez told Lourie she was writing again +because "you are a very fair person. This resolution in the Epstein case is not reasonable. [!]t is a +result of a misunderstanding at a meeting." She stated that Epstein's attorneys had "consistently +emphasized their goal of 18 months in a federal camp" and "[e]veryone knew that a registerable +offense precluded" a camp designation. Sanchez added, "Therefore it would have been wholly +inconsistent with that primary goal of (Epstein's] safety to lightly concede to registration at that +meeting." +| concluded, "[Imposing a life sentence on him is not something anyone will +eventually be proud of. Please reconsider and help me get a fair result." +Lourie responded to none of the +emails, but he did reach out to Acosta for a phone +conversation. By email late that night, at 10:26 p.m., Lefkowitz asked Lourie to phone him. +The next day, Lefkowitz emailed Acosta—with copies to Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña— +to "follow up on our conversation Friday," asking Acosta again to reconsider the requirement that +Epstein plead to a registrable offense. Lefkowitz wrote that there had been a "misunderstanding" +at the September 12, 2007 meeting: +Before the meeting, Mr. Krischer and Ms. Belohlavek, a sex +prosecutor for 13 years, told us that solicitation of a minor ... is not +a registerable offense. However, as it turned out, [it] is a registerable +offense and our discussion at the meeting was based on a mistaken +assumption. We suggest that Mr. Epstein enter two pleas—one to +the Indictment and a second to a non-registerable charge. +has offered to buy me a cup of coffee. I have had coffee with no one." Krischer told OPR that the "reasons" to which +he referred related to the pressure he had been getting from Chief Reiter about the Epstein case. +82 + + +Lefkowitz set forth arguments similar to those +had presented to Lourie, as to why +registration "based on the facts alleged in this case ... simply does not make sense." In the event +that Acosta did not agree to their proposed charges, Lefkowitz offered as an alternative "to stipulate +sentencing" should Epstein ever again commit a federal sex offense against minors. As Lefkowitz +Lourie, and Villafaña discussed the matter in a conference call. +Lefkowitz also sent a revised version of the NPA to Villafaña that omitted identification of +the charge to which Epstein would plead guilty. Later that day, Lefkowitz emailed Acosta: +I got a call from [Marie who said you had rejected our proposal. +Does that mean you are not even prepared to have [Epstein] commit +now to plead to the registerable offense near the end of his 18 month +sentence and then be sentenced to 12 month[s] community control +for that charge? I thought that was exactly what you proposed +[F]riday (although you wanted, but were not able, to do it with some +kind of federal charge). +But that still gives you a registerable sex offense, 30 months total, +and 18 in jail. +How can that not satisfy you-while still ensuring that [E]pstein is +not unduly endangered in jail? +Acosta responded, "I do not mean to be difficult, but our negotiations must take place with the +AUSAs assigned to the case." Acosta added that he had spoken with Lourie and Villafaña, and +they had "discretion to proceed as they believe just and appropriate." Acosta copied Villafaña, +and she emailed Acosta to thank him "for the support." +L. The Defense Adds a Confidentiality Clause +Throughout that Sunday evening, Lefkowitz had numerous email exchanges with +Villafaña, and apparently a conference call with Lourie (who was returning to Washington, D.C.) +and Villafaña. Later that evening, Lefkowitz sent Villafaña a new version of the NPA that, for the +first time, included a confidentiality term: +It is the intention of the parties to this Agreement that it not be +isseminated or disclosed except pursuant to court order. In th +vent the Government must disclose this Agreement in response t +a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, the +Government agrees to provide Epstein notice before the disclosure +of this Agreement. +After making additional revisions, Villafaña sent this NPA to Acosta and Lourie as the +"final" version, asking Acosta to let her know what he thought of it. Among her revisions, she +changed the confidentiality provision to the following: +83 + + +The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of +any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of +Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding +the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein +before making that disclosure. ? +VII. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007: ACOSTA MAKES FINAL EDITS, AND THE NPA IS +SIGNED +The contemporaneous emails show that Villafaña continued to update Acosta as the parties +negotiated the final language and that Acosta reviewed and edited the NPA. Shortly after midnight +on Monday, September 24, 2007, Acosta sent Villafaña "[s]mall edits" to the "final" NPA she had +sent to him. Among his changes was language modifying provisions that appeared to require the +State Attorney's Office or the state court to take specific actions, such as requiring that Epstein +enter his guilty plea by a certain date. Acosta explained in his email, "I'm not comfortable with +a age ta repared patch and a pate time screami +recommendation to the state court, and required Epstein to use his "best efforts" to enter his guilty +plea and be sentenced by the specified dates. Acosta also instructed Villafaña to restore a reference +to Epstein's wish "to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal liabilities." Lourie, +who had returned to the Department in Washington, D.C., had a phone conversation with +Lefkowitz and sent additional comments on the final draft to Acosta and Villafaña. Villafaña sent +a new revision, incorporating edits from Acosta and Lourie, to Lefkowitz later that morning. +On the afternoon of September 24, 2007, Villafaña circulated the new "final" version of +the NPA to Acosta, Sloman, Lourie, and other supervisors, and asked Lefkowitz to send her the +signed agreement. After Lefkowitz electronically transmitted to Villafaña a copy of the NPA +signed by Epstein, she emailed her immediate supervisor and her co-counsel: "They have scanned +and emailed the signed agreement. It is done." +In his transmittal email, Lefkowitz asked Villafaña to "[p]lease do whatever you can to +keep this from becoming public." Villafaña responded: +Thave forwarded your message only to Alex, Andy, and [the West +Palm Beach manager]. I don't anticipate it going any further than +that. When I receive the originals, I will sign and return one copy +to you. The other will be placed in the case file, which will be kep +confidential since it also contains identifying information about the +girls. +When we reach an agreement about the attorney representative for +the girls, we can discuss what I can tell him and the girls about the +128 +In commenting on OPR's draft report, Lourie observed that because the NPA contained names of uncharged +co-conspirators and other protected information, the USAO would have a duty to redact the information before +disclosing the NPA. +84 + + +agreement. I know that Andy promised Chief Reiter an update when +a resolution was achieved... [The West Palm Beach manager] is +calling, but [he] knows not to tell Chief Reiter about the money +issue, just about what crimes Mr. Epstein is pleading guilty to and +the amount of time that has been agreed to. [He] also is telling Chief +Reiter not to disclose the outcome to anyone. +OPR questioned Villafaña about this email. She explained that she generally kept +confidential the terms of the resolution of any case. She understood that "the way that the [Epstein] +case was resolved" needed to remain confidential, but the victims could be informed about what +happened because by the NPA's terms, they needed to know what the agreement was about. +Villafaña emailed the West Palm Beach manager, asking him to tell PBPD Chief Reiter +"the good news" but "leave out the part about damages," and explained that she wanted to meet +with the victims herself to explain how the damages provision would work. Villafaña also told +him that Lourie had asked that Reiter share information about the NPA only with the PBPD +Detective who had led the state investigation of Epstein. 29 Villafaña forwarded to Acosta, Lourie, +and the West Palm Beach manager Lefkowitz's email asking that the USAO try to keep the NPA +from becoming public. Acosta responded that the agreement "already binds us not to make public +except as required by law under [the Freedom of Information Act]," and asked, "[W]hat more does +he want?" Villafaña replied, "My guess is that if we tell anyone else (like the police chief or FBI +or the girls), that we ask them not to disclose." Soon thereafter, Acosta emailed Lourie, Villafaña, +and the West Palm Beach manager to set up a call to discuss "who we tell and how much," adding, +"Nice job with a difficult negotiation." +The final NPA, as signed by Epstein, his attorneys Lefcourt and +and Villafaña, +contained the following pertinent provisions: +Charges: +Epstein would plead guilty to the pending Palm Beach County indictment, +plus one count of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, a +registrable offense. +Sentence: +The parties would make a joint, binding recommendation for a 30-month +sentence divided as follows: consecutive terms of 12 months and o months +in the county jail, without opportunity for withholding adjudication or +te of 2 month ganda +entencing and without community control or probation, tollowed b +2 months of community control, consecutive. "3 +Damages: +As long as the identified victims proceeded exclusively under 18 U.S.C. +§ 2255, Epstein would not contest federal court jurisdiction or the victims' +status as victims. The USAO would provide to Epstein a list of individuals +129 +The West Palm Beach manager told OPR that he called Chief Reiter, who was "fine" with the outcome. +130 +Withholding adjudication or sentencing referred to a special sentence in which the judge orders probation +but does not formally convict the defendant of a criminal offense. See Fla. Stat. § 948.01 (2007). +85 + + +Timing: +Immunity: +Other: +Breach: +Disclosure: +it had identified as victims.'! The USAO, with the good faith approval of +pstein's counsel, would select an attorney representative for the victim +hom Epstein would pay +Epstein would make his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced +by October 26, 2007. The USAO had no objection to Epstein self-reporting +to begin serving his sentence by January 4, 2008. +The USAO would not initiate criminal charges against "any potential +co-conspirator of Epstein," including four named personal assistants. +Epstein was obligated to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's +Office to ensure compliance with this agreement. +Epstein waived his right to appeal. +Epstein agreed that he would not be afforded any benefits with respect to +gain time or other rights, opportunities, and benefits not available to any +other inmate. ( +The federal investigation would be suspended and all pending legal process +held in abeyance unless and until Epstein violated any term of the +agreement. Evidence "requested by or directly related to" the pending legal +process, "including certain computer equipment," would be kept inviolate +until all the NPA terms had been satisfied +The USAO would be required to notify Epstein of any alleged breach of the +greement within 90 days of the expiration of the term of hom +onfinement, and would be required to initiate prosecution within 60 day +thereafter. +The parties "anticipate[d]" that the agreement would not be made part of +any public record, and if the USAO received a Freedom of Information Act +request or compulsory process commanding disclosure of the agreement, i +would provide notice to Epstein before making any disclosure. '3 +That evening, Lefkowitz emailed Lourie to express concern about the notification he +understood would be given to Chief Reiter, stating, "I am very concerned about leaks unduly +prejudicing Jeffrey [Epstein] in the media."I33 He added, "I have enjoyed working with you on +he USAO had not informed the defense of the victims' identities at this point. The parties anticipated th +e USAO would send Epstein's attorneys a list of victims when Epstein fulfilled his obligation under the NPA +enter his state guilty pleas. +132 +The final NPA is attached as Exhibit 3 to this Report. +86 + + +this matter." Lourie responded with an assurance that the Reiter notification was only "so he does +not find out about it in the paper," and he concluded: "I enjoyed it as well. Mr. Epstein was +fortunate to have such excellent representation." +VIII. POST-NPA NEGOTIATIONS +Almost immediately after the NPA was signed, conflicts arose about its terms, and the +difficult negotiation process began anew. The USAO quickly realized that there were numerous +issues concerning the monetary damages provision that were not resolved in the NPA, and the +parties differed in their interpretations of the § 2255 provision, in particular the role and duties of +the attorney representative for the victims. As negotiations regarding the damages provision +continued, the defense was able to delay having Epstein enter his guilty plea in state court. +September - October 2007: Sloman's Concerns about Selection of an +Attorney Representative Lead to a Proposed NPA Addendum +The first controversy centered on the appointment of an attorney representative for the +victims. Initially, Villafaña reached out to a private attorney who was one of several suggested to +her for that role. Villafaña notified Lefkowitz that she was recommending the attorney to serve as +the victims' representative and suggested a phone conference to discuss what information the +USAO could disclose to the attorney about the case. Villafaña told Lefkowitz that she had never +met the attorney, but he had been recommended by "a good friend in our appellate section" and by +one of the district judges in Miami. 34 Over the next few days, Villafaña exchanged messages with +the attorney about the possibility of his serving as the attorney representative. She also exchanged +emails with Lefkowitz, passing along procedural questions raised by the attorney. +By this time, Lourie had fully transitioned to his detail at the Department's Criminal +Division. Sloman, who had been on vacation during the week the NPA was finalized, returned to +the office, reviewed the final agreement, and immediately expressed his disapproval of the +provision authorizing the USAO to select an attorney representative for the victims, which he +believed might raise the appearance of a conflict of interest. Instead, he proposed that a special +make the selection. Although evidently frustrated by Sloman's belated proposal, Villafaña +conveyed to Lefkowitz the suggestion that a special +be appointed to select the attorney +representative, rather than having the USAO make the selection. '35 +• She provided Lefkowitz with +probe into possible federal criminal violations in exchange for the guilty plea to the new state charge, with the +Charges: Jeffrey Epstein may serve about 18 months in prison for soliciting prostitutes," ABC News, Oct. 11, 2007. +The "good friend" was an AUSA whom Villafaña was dating. The defense subsequently raised this as i +nisconduct issue, alleging that Villafaña was "closely associated" with the individual nominated for the victims +representative position. +In a separate email to the proposed attorney representative, Villafaña commented, "TOJf course they tell me +this now." +87 + + +a proposal regarding the special +responsibilities, along with a draft letter to send to the +special +explaining the procedure for selecting an attorney representative. +Lefkowitz objected to this proposal in a letter to Villafaña, pointing out that the NPA did +not provide for the appointment of a special +More importantly, Lefkowitz used the +discussion of the special +as an opening to press for other alterations to the language of the +NPA or, at least, to its interpretation. Focusing on the attorney representative, Lefkowitz argued +hat the attorney's role should be viewed as limited to negotiating settlements and that the attorne +vas precluded from filing lawsuits on behalf of victims who could not reach a negotiate +settlement with Epstein. Lefkowitz proposed: +[T]he selected attorney should evaluate the claims of each identified +individual, negotiate a total fund amount with Mr. Epstein, then +distribute the monies based on the strength of each case. For those +identified individuals who elect not to settle with Mr. Epstein, they +may proceed on their own, but by doing so, they would not be suing +under § 2255 as contemplated by [the NPA] and therefore may not +continue to be represented by the selected attorney. +Lefkowitz also objected to Villafaña's draft letter to the special +asserting that it was +essential for the defense to participate in crafting a "mutually acceptable communication" to the +victims. Going further, Lefkowitz claimed that any contact between the USAO and the victims +about the § 2255 provision would violate the agreement's confidentiality provision. Lefkowitz +admonished the government not to contact the victims "to inform them of the resolution of the +case, including [the] appointment of the selected attorney and the settlement process." +Villafaña forwarded Lefkowitz's letter to Sloman, complaining that the defense +interpretation of the § 2255 procedure violated the clear language of the NPA and asking, "Can I +please just indict him [Epstein]?" Days later, +emailed Sloman, and then sent a follow-up +letter, asking that Sloman "help resolve" the issue regarding the attorney representative's role, and +arguing that Epstein had never intended by signing the NPA to promise to pay fees for the victims' +civil lawsuits in the event a settlement could not be reached. When Villafaña explained to Sloman +her views on Sanchez's arguments, Sloman responded, "I suggest that you communicate your +proposal back to [Sanchez]. The more 'voices' they hear the more wedges they try to drive +between us." Villafaña agreed, noting that "[t]here are so many of them over there, I am afraid we +are getting triple-teamed."136 +Villafaña sent +and attorney +representate. Then dation yesterday, expressing serious a sire it o collas s +view of the process for victims to claim § 2255 damages under the NPA. Lefkowitz reiterated the +defense position that the attorney representative's role was meant to be limited to negotiating +settlements for the victims, rather than pursuing litigation. Lefkowitz claimed that a requirement +136 +Villafaña also alerted Sloman that a newspaper was reporting that defense counsel was writing a letter to +Acosta asking for reconsideration of the requirement that Epstein register as a sexual offender. Villafaña commented, +"It appears they don't understand that a signed contract is binding." +88 + + +that Epstein pay the victims' legal fees incurred from contested litigation would "trigger profound +ethical problems," in that the attorney representative would have an incentive to reject settlement +offers in order to incur more fees. In addition, Lefkowitz rejected Villataña's view that Epstein +had waived the right to challenge § 2255 liability as to victims who did not want to settle their +claims, and contended that any such victims "will have to prove, among other things, that they are +victims under the enumerated statutes." Finally, Lefkowitz again argued that the USAO should +not discuss the settlement process with the victims who were to be identified as eligible for +settlement under § 2255: +Ms. Villafaña proposes that either she or federal agents will speak +with the [victims] regarding the settlement process. We do not think +it is the government's place to be co-counsel to the [victims], nor +should the FBI be their personal investigators. Neither federal +agents nor anyone from your Office should contact the [victims] to +inform them of the resolution of the case, including appointment of +the attorney representative and the settlement process. Not only +would that violate the confidentiality of the Agreement, but +Mr. Epstein also will have no control over what is communicated to +the [victims] at this most critical stage. We believe it is essential +that we participate in crafting a mutually acceptable communication +to the [victims]. We further believe that communications between +your Office or your case agents and the [victims] might well violate +Rule 6(e)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The +powers of the federal grand jury should not, even in appearance, be +utilized to advance the interests of a party to a civil lawsuit. 137 +Lefkowitz concluded, "I look forward to resolving these open issues with you during our 4:30 call +today. "138 +Villafaña was at that time on sick leave, and Sloman and Acosta exchanged emails about +crafting an addendum to the NPA to address the method of appointing an attorney representative +and to articulate the representative's duties. The next day, October 11, 2007, Sloman exchanged +emails with Lefkowitz about the text of a proposed addendum. +B. +October 12, 2007: Acosta and Defense Attorney Lefkowitz Meet for Breakfast +On the morning after his scheduled afternoon phone call with Lefkowitz, Acosta exchanged +emails with Lefkowitz, arranging to meet for breakfast the following day, on October 12, 2007, at +a Marriott hotel in West Palm Beach. Contemporaneous records show that Acosta was previously +cheduled to be in West Palm Beach for a press event on October 11 and to speak at the Palr +each County Bench Bar conference the following midday, and that he stayed overnight at th +Marriott. +137 +138 +Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(c)(2)(B) relates to secrecy of federal grand jury matters. +OPR did not locate any emails indicating what happened on the call. +89 + + +However, as with Villafañia's publicly released emails to Lefkowitz, this meeting between +Acosta and Lefkowitz drew criticism when the media learned of it during the CVRA litigation. It +was seen either as further evidence of the USAO's willingness to meet with Epstein's attorneys +while simultaneously ignoring the victims, or as a meeting at which Acosta made secret +agreements with the defense. +Two letters written later in 2007 refer to the breakfast meeting. In a December 2007 letter +to +, Acosta stated that he had "sua sponte proposed the Addendum to Mr. Lefkowitz at an +October meeting in Palm Beach .... in an attempt to avoid what I foresaw would likely be a +litigious selection process."139 In an October 23, 2007 letter from Lefkowitz to Acosta, less than +two weeks after the breakfast meeting, Lefkowitz represented that during the meeting, Acosta +assured me that [the USAO] would not intervene with the Staté +Attorney's Office regarding this matter; or contact any of the +identified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil +claimants and their respective counsel in this matter; and that neither +[the USAO] nor the [FBI] would intervene regarding the sentence +Mr. Epstein receives pursuant to a plea with the State, so long as the +However, two days after receiving this letter, Acosta revised a response letter drafted by +Sloman, adding the term "inaccurate" to describe Lefkowitz's claims that Acosta had promised +not to intervene with the State Attorney's Office, contact individual witnesses or claimants, or +intervene regarding Epstein's sentence. '41 The draft response stated, "[S]uch a promise equates to +the imposition of a gag order. Our Office cannot and will not agree to this."142 +Acosta told OPR that he did not remember the breakfast meeting, but he speculated that +the meeting may have been prompted by defense complaints that Villafaña had recommended "her +boyfriend's partner" to serve as attorney representative. '43 Acosta said that "the way this was +reported [in the press] was that I negotiated [the NPA] over breakfast," which was inaccurate +because the NPA had been signed weeks before the breakfast meeting. 144 When asked about +139 +In fact, Sloman and Lefkowitz had been working on language for the Addendum before Acosta's breakfast +meeting with Lefkowitz. It is possible that Acosta was not aware of Sloman's efforts or had forgotten about them +when writing the December 7, 2007 letter. +This letter is discussed further in the following section of this Report. +COPR did not find evidence establishing that the response was ever sent. +Sloman's initial draft response referred to a conversation the previous day in which Acosta had "clarified" +Lefkowitz's claims about what Acosta had purportedly said in the October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting. +As noted previously, the attorney whom Villafaña recommended was a friend of another AUSA whom +Villafaña was then dating, but had no professional relationship with either Villafaña or the other AUSA. +For example, the Miami Herald's November 2018 investigative report stated that "on the morning of the +breakfast meeting, a deal was struck—an extraordinary plea agreement that would conceal the full extent of Epstein's +rimes and the number of people iulick... [The deal called a non-prosecution agreement essentially shu +own an ongoing FBI probe ..• +_ *Perversion of Justice: How a future Trump cabinet member gave +a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime," Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018. The NPA, however, was finalized and signed +90 + + +Lefkowitz's description of their breakfast meeting discussion, Acosta told OPR that there were +"several instances" in which Lefkowitz and other defense counsel mischaracterized something he +or an AUSA said, in a way that was misleading. +Emails show that, immediately after the breakfast, Acosta phoned Sloman, who then +emailed to Lefkowitz a revision to the Addendum language they had been negotiating and who +also later reported to Villafaña that Lefkowitz's "suggested revision has been rejected." Other +emails show that the parties continued to be at odds about the proposed language for the NPA +addendum for several days after the breakfast meeting. +C. Acosta Agrees to the Defense Request to Postpone Epstein's Guilty Plea; the +Parties Continue to Negotiate Issues concerning the Attorney Representative +and Finally Reach Agreement on the NPA Addendum +A week after his breakfast meeting with Acosta, Lefkowitz—citing a scheduling conflict— +sent Acosta an email seeking his agreement to postpone Epstein's entry of his guilty plea in state +court from October 26, 2007, the date agreed to in the NPA, to November 20, 2007. In his email, +Lefkowitz reported that the State Attorney's Office had agreed to the postponement, and he noted +that Acosta had said during the breakfast meeting that he "didn't want to dictate a schedule to the +state. "145 +Acosta solicited input from Sloman, who later that day emailed Lefkowitz and agreed +to the postponement. +With Lourie having departed from the USAO, Sloman became more involved in +negotiating the NPA addendum than he had been in the negotiations leading to the NPA, and he +quickly came up against the problem Villafaña and Lourie had faced: the defense attorneys +continued to negotiate provisions to which they had seemingly already agreed. Between October +12 and 19, 2007, in a series of email exchanges and phone conversations, Acosta, Sloman, +Villafaña, and Lefkowitz continued working on language for the NPA addendum addressing the +process for selection of the attorney representative and describing which of the representative's +activities Epstein would be required to reimburse. Although it appeared that progress was being +made towards reaching agreement on the terms of an addendum, on October 19, 2007, Lefkowitz +emailed Sloman identifying "areas of concern" with a proposal the USAO had made days before. +Sloman forwarded this email to Acosta, noting that it "re-ploughs some of what we accomplished +this week," and raised "unnecessary" issues. Sloman reported to Acosta that a victim in New York +had filed a civil lawsuit against Epstein, and Villafaña was concerned that "this may be the real +reason for the delay in the ... plea. She thinks that [Epstein] ... want[s] to knock that lawsuit out +before the guilty plea to deter others." Sloman also alerted Acosta that newspaper reports +indicated that Epstein had planted false stories in the press in an attempt to discredit the victims. +almost three weeks before the breakfast meeting occurred. OPR discusses the breakfast meeting further in its analysis +at Chapter Two, Part Three, Section IV.E.2. +145 +Assuming Acosta made the remark Lefkowitz attributed to him, it was consistent with the position Acosta +had taken before the NPA was signed. As noted previously, during the NPA negotiations, Acosta had instructed +Ciliata to mit languine teasing the sap torme potie de dine Diur by his train ear, best he or that +"we as federal prosccutors are not going to walk in and dictate to the state attorney." +91 + + +On October 22, 2007, Sloman responded to the issues Lefkowitz had raised, rejecting some +defense proposals but agreeing to modify certain language in the proposed addendum to "satisfy +your concern."46 Noting that the addendum and a revised letter to the special | +attached, Sloman ended by stating, "[T]his needs to be concluded. Alex and I believe that this is +as far as we can go. Therefore, please advise me whether we have a deal no later than COB +tomorrow …..." +Nonetheless, the next day, Lefkowitz sent Acosta a three-page letter reiterating the Epstein +team's disagreements with the USAO's interpretation of the NPA. Lefkowitz noted, however, that +Epstein had "every intention of honoring the terms of [the NPA] in good faith," and that the defense +letter was not intended to be "a rescission or withdrawal from the terms of the [NPA]." Lefkowitz +added: +I also want to thank you for the commitment you made to me during +egard to this matter, and assured me that your Office would no +ntervene with the State Attorney's Office regarding this matter; o +so long as that sentence does not violate state law. Indeed, so long +as Mr. Epstein's sentence does not explicitly violate the terms of the +Agreement, he is entitled to any type of sentence available to him, +including but not limited to gain time and work release. +Sloman forwarded the letter to Villafaña, commenting, "Wait [until] you see this one." +Villafaña replied: +Welcome to my world. I love the way that they want to interpret +this agreement. +146 +The defense raised issues concerning the attorney representative, the statutory limit on damages, and +inclusion of certain victims. +92 + + +.... +Why don't we agree to mutual recission [sic] and indict him? +Acosta also weighed in, sending both Villafaña and Sloman an email with a subject line +that read "This has to stop," in which he stated: +Just read the letter. += +We specifically refused to include the provision saying that +we would not communicate. If I recall the conference call, we told +him we could not agree to a gag order using those words. +The purpose of the agreement was not an out of court +settlement. Seems that they can't take no. Let's talk re how to +proceed. I'm not sure we will ever agree on a letter [to the special +about how to select an attorney representative] at this point. +Notwithstanding Acosta's assessment and prediction, after Sloman sent to Lefkowitz a new +draft addendum and they spoke by phone, the parties reached agreement on the addendum's +terms. '47 +On October 25, 2007, Sloman sent a letter to the person whom the USAO had selected to +serve as special +, outlining the special master's duties. A few days later, on October 29, +2007, Epstein and his attorneys Lefcourt and Sanchez signed the NPA addendum. 148 Villafaña's +name was printed as the USAO representative, but at Villafaña's request, Sloman signed the +addendum for her on behalf of the USAO +Villafaña later emailed Stoman thanking him for "the advice and the pep talk," which +apparently related to the defense attorneys' allegation of impropriety concerning her initial +selection of the private attorney to assist the victims. Villafaña explained to Sloman: +The funny thing is that I had never met (and still haven't met) or +spoken to [the private attorney] before I asked him if he would be +willing to take on this case.... But as soon as you mentioned the +aper hat the Special say where the a saler route. I asis ory +agreed that the Special +that the defense's attacks on me could harm the victims. +accomplished." +147 +Acosta and Villafaña were copied on this email. +The Addendum is attached as Exhibit 4 to this Report. +93 + + +D. Epstein Further Delays His Guilty Plea +The addendum did not bring the case to conclusion. Instead, the matter entered a new, +protracted phase, which involved the upper echelons of the Department of Justice. Despite the +fact that Epstein and his attorneys had signed the NPA, they pursued a new strategy of appealing +to senior Department managers with the goal of setting aside the NPA entirely. Although +ultimately unsuccessful, the strategy delayed the entry of Epstein's guilty plea by months. +On October 29, 2007, Villafaña emailed Sloman, raising several issues that she wanted +Sloman to address with Lefkowitz. Among other things, Villafaña pointed out that the NPA +required Epstein to use his "best efforts" to comply with the agreement, but he had failed to comply +with the timeline established by the NPA when he sought and obtained a plea hearing +postponement from October 26 to November 20. Responding to Lefkowitz's attempts to limit the +USAO's communications with various entities and individuals, Villafaña noted that the USAO +needed to be able to communicate with the State Attorney's Office and the victims' attorney "to +[e]nsure that Epstein is abiding by the terms of the agreement." +That same day, Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek informed Sloman that the state judge +assigned to the case had scheduled Epstein's plea and sentence in early January 2008. Belohlavek +assured Sloman that the "plea and sentence will definitely occur before the January 4th date that +was agreed on by all for the sentencing."4' Nonetheless, emails over the course of the next month +show that the USAO, the State Attorney's Office, and defense counsel continued to communicate +regarding the date of the guilty plea, with the USAO asserting that a proposed January 7, 2008 +date for the entry of Epstein's guilty plea was "unacceptable," while the defense contended that +Epstein had not agreed to any date. Finally, after multiple communications referring to various +potential dates, on December 7, 2007, Epstein attorney Jack Goldberger issued a Notice of +Hearing, setting the case for January 4, 2008, 50 +Epstein Seeks Departmental Review of the NPA's § 2255 Provision Relating to +Monetary Damages for the Victims +With Epstein's plea hearing delayed, he launched a new effort to undermine the validity of +the NPA, this time within the Department. On November 16, 2007, Epstein attorney Kenneth Starr +called the office of Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Alice Fisher and left a +message that he was calling regarding Epstein. SI +At Fisher's request, Lourie, who in late +September 2007 had begun serving his detail as Fisher's Principal Deputy and Chief of Staff, +returned the call. Fisher told OPR that she had no recollection of this call, and Lourie also could +149 +150 +The NPA had required Epstein's plea and sentencing to occur by October 26, 2007, but provided that Epstein +could report to begin serving his sentence on January 4, 2008. +State v. Epstein, No. 2006-CF-9454, Notice of Hearing (Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Dec. 7, 2007). +151 +In a meeting with Acosta and Sloman on November 21, 2007, Lefkowitz informed them that Starr had placed +a call to Fisher. +94 + + +not recall for OPR the substance of his conversation with Starr, other than that it was likely about +Epstein's wish to have the Department review the case. '52 +On November 28, 2007, Starr requested, by letter, a meeting with Fisher. In his letter, Starr +argued that the USAO improperly had compelled Epstein to agree to pay civil damages under +18 U.S.C. § 2255 as part of a state-based resolution of a criminal case. On the same day, Lefkowitz +emailed Sloman, complaining about the USAO's plan to notify victims about the § 2255 provision +and alerting Sloman that Epstein's counsel were seeking a meeting with the Assistant Attorney +General "to address what we believe is the unprecedented nature of the section 2255 component" +of the NPA. After Lourie sent to Sloman a copy of the Starr letter, Sloman forwarded it to +Villafaña, asking her to prepare a chronology of the plea negotiations and how the § 2255 provision +evolved. Villafaña responded that she was "going through all of the ways in which they have tried +to breach the agreement to convince you guys to let me indict." +In Washington, D.C., Lourie consulted with CEOS Chief Obsterbaan, asking for his +thoughts on defense counsel's arguments. At the same time, at Lourie's request, Villafaña sent +the NPA and its addendum to Lourie and Oosterbaan. Oosterbaan responded to Lourie that he was +"not thrilled" about the NPA; described Epstein's conduct as unusually "egregious," particularly +because of'its serial nature; and observed that the NPA was "pretty advantageous for the defendant +and not all that helpful to the victims." He opined, however, that the Assistant Attorney General +would not and should not consider or address the NPA "other than to say that she agrees with it." +During her OPR interview, Fisher did not recall reading Starr's letter or discussing it with +Oosterbaan, but believed the comment about her agree[ing] with it" referred to a federal +prosecution of Epstein, which she believed was appropriate. She told OPR, however, that she +"played no role in" the NPA and did not review or approve the agreement either before or after it +was signed. +As set forth in more detail in Chapter Three of this Report, Villafaña planned to notify the +victims about the NPA and its § 2255 provision, as well as about the state plea hearing, and she +provided a draft of the notification letter to Lefkowitz for comments. On November 29, 2007, +Lefkowitz sent Acosta a letter complaining about the draft notification to the victims. Lefkowitz +asked the USAO to refrain from notifying the victims until after defense counsel met with Assistant +Attorney General Fisher, which he anticipated would take place the following week. Internal +emails indicate that Lourie contacted Oosterbaan about his availability for a meeting with Starr, +but both Fisher and Lourie told OPR that such a meeting never took place, and OPR found no +evidence that it did +Acosta promptly responded to Lefkowitz by letter, directing him to raise his concerns about +victim notification with Villafaña or Sloman. Acosta also addressed Epstein's evident efforts to +stop the NPA from being enforced: +152 +In a short email to Fisher, the next day, Lourie reported simply: "He was very nice. Kept me on the phone +for [a] half hour talking about [P]epperdine," referring to the law school where Starr served as +95 + + +[S]ince the signing of the September 24th agreement, more than two +months[] ago, it has become clear that several attorneys on your +legal team are dissatisfied with that result. +•••• +[You], Professor Dershowitz, former Solicitor [General] Starr, +former United States Attorney +and Messrs. +Black, Goldberger and Lefcourt previously had the opportunity to +review and raise objections to the terms of the Agreement. The +Agreement, in essence presenting collateral challenges to portions +of the Agreement. +It is not the intention of this Office ever to require a defendant to +enter a plea against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed +to trial. If your client is dissatisfied with his Agreement, or believes +that it is unlawful or unfair, we stand ready to unwind the +Agreement. +In a separate, seven-page letter to Starr, with Villafaña's and Sloman's input, Acosta +responded to the substance of Starr's November 28 letter to Assistant Attorney General Fisher. +Fisher told OPR that she did not recall why Acosta, rather than her office, responded to the letter, +but she conjectured that "probably I was trying to make sure that somebody responded since [the +Criminal Division wasn't] going to respond. '153 +In his seven-page letter, sent to Starr on December 4, 2007, Acosta wrote: +The Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office +and Mr. Epstein, responds to Mr. Epstein's desire to reach a global +resolution of his state and federal criminal liability. Under this +Agreement, this District has agreed to defer prosecution for +enumerated sections of Title 18 in favor of prosecution by the State +of Florida, provided ... Mr. Epstein satisfies three general federal +interests: +(1) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a "registerable" +offense; (2) that this plea include a binding recommendation for a +sufficient term of imprisonment; and (3) that the Agreement not +harm the interests of his victims. +Acosta explained in the letter that the USAO's intent was "to place the identified victims +in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more +10 less." Acosta documented the USAO's understanding of the operation of the NPA's § 225: +153 +The USAO may have been asked to respond because Starr's letter raised issues that had not been previously +raised with the USAO, and it would normally fall to the USAO to address them in the first instance. +96 + + +provision, recounted the history of NPA negotiations, and described the post-signing efforts by +Epstein's counsel to challenge portions of the NPA. Acosta's letter concluded: +Although it happens rarely, I do not mind this Office's decision +being appealed to Washington, and have previously directed our +prosecutors to delay filings in this case to provide defense counsel +with the option of appealing our decisions. Indeed, although I am +confident in our prosecutors' evidence and legal analysis, I +nonetheless directed them to consult with the subject matter experts +in [CEOS] to confirm our interpretation of the law before approving +their [charges]. I am thus surprised to read a letter addressed to +Department Headquarters that raises issues that either have not been +raised with this Office previously or that have been raised, and in +fact resolved, in your client's favor. +I am troubled, likewise, by the apparent lack of finality in this +Agreement. The AUSAs who have been negotiating with defense +counsel have for some time complained to me regarding the tactics +used by the defense team. It appears to them that as soon as +resolution is reached on one issue, defense counsel finds ways to +challenge the resolution collaterally. My response thus far has been +that defense counsel is doing its job to vigorously represent the +client. That said, there must be closure on this matter. Some in our +Office are deeply concerned that defense counsel will continue to +mount collateral challenges to provisions of the Agreement, even +after Mr. Epstein has entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the +agreement difficult, if not impossible, to unwind. +I would reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force +the hand of a defendant to enter into an agreement against his +wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial. Although time +is of the essence ... I am directing our prosecutors not to issue +victim notification letters until this Friday ... to provide you with +time to review these options with your client. ... We expect a +written decision by [December 7, 2007] at 5 p.m., indicating +whether the defense team wishes to reaffirm, or to unwind, the +Agreement. +Acosta explained to OPR that he did not view his letter as "inviting" Departmental review, +but he believed the Department had the "right" to address Epstein's concerns. Moreover, the +USAO's only option at that time was to declare Epstein in breach of the NPA, which would have +prompted litigation as to whether Epstein was, in fact, in breach. Acosta noted that defense counsel +repeatedly proclaimed Epstein's intent to abide by the agreement, making any USAO effort to +declare him in breach more difficult. In fact, the day after receiving Acosta's letter, Starr and +Lefkowitz responded to Acosta (with copies to Sloman and Assitant Attorney General Fisher) that +97 + + +the defense "[first and foremost" reaffirmed the NPA and that Epstein "has no intention of +unwinding the agreement." +On December 7, 2007— the deadline set by Acosta in his December 4, 2007 letter to Starrthe defense transmitted to the USAO a one-sentence "Affirmation" of the NPA and its addendum, +signed by Epstein. 154 +Despite Affirming the NPA, Defense Counsel Intensify Their Challenges to It +and Accuse Villafaña of Improper Conduct +December 7 and 11, 2007: Starr and Lefkowitz Send to Acosta Letters +and "Ethics Opinions" Complaining about the Federal Investigation +and Villafaña +On the same day that the defense team sent Epstein's "Affirmation" to the USAO, Starr +and Lefkowitz sent to Acosta two "independent ethics opinions"-one authored by prominent +criminal defense attorney +and former U.S. Attorney Joe Whitley, which assessed purported +improprieties in the federal investigation of Epstein, and the other, by a prominent retired federal +judge and former U.S. Attorney, arguing against the NA's use of the civil damages recovery +provision under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 "as a proxy for traditional eriminal restitution." +Days later, on December 11, 2007, Starr sent a letter to Acosta transmitting two lengthy +submissions authored by Lefkowitz presenting substantive challenges to the NPA and to the +"background and conduct of the investigation." These submissions repeated arguments previously +raised by the defense but also asserted new issues. In one submission, 20 pages long, Lefkowitz +addressed the "improper involvement" of federal authorities in the investigation and criticized +Villafaña for a number of alleged improprieties, including having engaged in "unprecedented +federal overreaching" by seeking to prosecute Epstein federally, "insist[ing]" that the State +Attorney's Office "charge Mr. Epstein with violations of law and recommend a sentence that are +significantly harsher than what the State deemed appropriate," and requiring that Epstein plead +guilty to a registrable offense, a "harsh" condition that was "unwarranted." 55 +Lefkowitz also argued that the federal investigation relied upon a state investigation that +was "tainted" by the lead PBPD Detective's misrepresentation of key facts in affidavits and +interview summaries, leading the USAO to make its charging decision based on flawed +information that "compromised the federal investigation." Finally, Lefkowitz criticized federal +involvement in the state plea process as a violation of "the tenets of the Petite Policy." In a second, +13-page submission, Lefkowitz reiterated Epstein's complaints about the § 2255 component of the +VPA, arguing, among other things, that federal prosecutors "should not be in the business of +helping alleged victims of state crimes secure civil financial settlements." +The Affirmation read: "I, Jeffrey E. Epstein do hereby re-affirm the Non-Prosecution Agreement and +Addendum to same dated October 30, 2007." +155 +Villafaña sent Lefkowitz a five-page letter responding to the accusations made against her personally. +98 + + +Notwithstanding these voluminous submissions, Lefkowitz added that Epstein +"unconditionally re-asserts his intention to fulfill and not seek to withdraw from or unwind" the +NPA. +As a Result of the Starr and Lefkowitz Submissions, the New USAO +Criminal Chief Begins a Full Review of the Evidence, and Acosta +Agrees to Meet Again with Defense Counsel +After reviewing Starr's and Lefkowitz's letters, Sloman notified Villafaña that "in light of +the recent Kirkland & Ellis correspondence" he had asked Robert Senior, who had succeeded +lenchel as Chief of the USAO's Criminal Division, to review de novo the evidence underlyin +le proposed revised indictment, and Sloman asked Villafaña to provide Senior With all the stat +and FBI investigative materials. +In the meantime, Acosta agreed to meet with Starr and other Epstein defense attorneys to +discuss the defense complaints raised in Lefkowitz's December 11, 2007 submissions. 156 The +meeting took place in Miami on December 14, 2007. The defense team included Starr, +Dershowitz, Lefcourt, and Boston attorney | +Weinberg. The USAO side included Acosta, +Sloman, Villafaña, and another senior AUSA, with the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and +Assistant Special Agent in Charge also present. In addition to previously raised arguments, during +this meeting, Epstein's attorneys raised a new argument that the state charge to which Epstein +had agreed to plead guilty did not apply to the facts of the case. +The Defense Notifies Acosta That It May Pursue a Department Review +of the USAO's Actions +Shortly after the December 14, 2007 meeting, Lefkowitz notified Acosta that if the issues +raised at the meeting could not be resolved promptly, the defense team may "have no alternative +but to seek review in Washington." Acosta notified Assistant Attorney General Fisher that the +defense team might make an appeal to her, and he asked her to grant such a request for review and +"to in fact review this case in an expedited manner [in order] to preserve the January 4th plea date." +Starr and Lefkowitz then sent to Acosta a lengthy letter, with numerous previously submitted +defense submissions, reviewing issues discussed at the meeting, and advising that Epstein sought +a "prompt, independent, expedited review" of the evidence by "you or someone you trust." The +letter reiterated Epstein's position that his conduct did not amount to a registrable offense under +state law or a violation of federal law, and with respect to the NPA's § 2255 provision, that it was +"improper" to require Epstein to pay damages "to individuals who do nothing but simply assert a +claim" under the statute. +As Assistant Attorney General Fisher's Chief of Staff, Lourie had informed Starr that Fisher hoped Starr +would speak to Acosta to "resolve the[] fairly narrow issues" raised in Starr's correspondence with Acosta. Acosta +had the Starr and Lefkowitz submissions of December 11 forwarded to Fisher. +99 + + +Acosta Attempts to Revise the NPA § 2255 Language concerning +Monetary Damages, but the Defense Does Not Accept It +Acosta undertook to respond to defense counsel's continuing concern about the § 2255 +provision. He sent to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker language that he +proposed including in a revision to the NPA's § 2255 implementation section. Mandelker +forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division, who responded to Mandelker and +Acosta that he did not have "any insight" to offer. On December 19, 2007, after Acosta and +Sloman had a phone conversation with Starr and Lefkowitz, Acosta sent to +a letter +proposing to resolve "our disagreements over interpretation[]" by replacing the existing language +of the NPA relating to § 2255 with a provision that would read: +Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an +offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, +will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she +would have had, if Mr. Epstein [had] been tried federally and +convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing +this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's +attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to +name ... as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any +judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority +determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, +Shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these +identified victims in the +e position as they would have been had +Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial, No more; no less. +Acosta also noted that he had resisted his prosecutors' urging to declare the NPA breached by the +defense delays. '57 +Lefkowitz responded by letter a few days later, suggesting that Acosta's proposal raised +"several troubling questions" and that "the problem arises from the incongruity that exists when +attempting to fit a federal civil remedies statute into a criminal plea agreement."158 In a follow-up +letter to Acosta, to address the USAO's concern that Epstein was intentionally delaying the entry +of his guilty plea, Defkowitz asserted that "any impediment to the resolution at issue is a direct +cause of the disagreements between the parties," and that defense counsel had "at all times made +and will continue to make sincere efforts to resolve and finalize issues as expeditiously as +possible." +Acosta told OPR that despite this assurance from defense counsel, he was "increasingly +frustrated" by Epstein's desire to take an "11th hour appeal" to the Department so soon before the +As described in detail in Chapter Three, Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter also addressed defense objections +to notifying the victims about the NPA and the state plea. +158 +After Starr and Lefkowitz had another conversation with Acosta and Sloman, Lefkowitz sent a second letter +to Acosta reiterating concerns with the § 2255 provision and asserting that the provision was inherently flawed and +becoming truly unmanageable." In the end, the defense team rejected Acosta's December 19, 2007 NPA modification +letter. +100 + + +scheduled January 4, 2008 plea hearing. As soon became apparent, Acosta was unable to achieve +an expedited review so that Epstein could plead guilty and be sentenced by +January 4, 2008, and the plea and sentencing date was rescheduled. On January 2, 2008, Sloman +spoke with Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek, who confirmed that the change of plea hearing +had been postponed. In an email reporting this to Acosta and Villafaña, Sloman said that Epstein's +local defense attorney Goldberger had told Belohlavek the postponement was because the facts +"did not fit the proposed state charge," and that Belohlavek told Sloman she agreed with that +assessment. 159 The next day, Villafaña sent to Acosta and Sloman a local newspaper article +reporting that Epstein's state plea hearing was reset for March and in exchange for it the federal +authorities would drop their investigation of him. Acosta also sent to Sloman and Villafaña an +email memorializing a statement made to him by Lefkowitz in a phone call that day: "'I +[Lefkowitz] may have made a mistake 6 months ago. [Belohlavek] told us solicitation [is] not +registrable. It turns out that the actual offense charged is. " 160 +5. +January 7, 2008: Acosta and Sloman Meet with +- Who Makes +Additional Allegations of USAO Misconduct +On January 7, 2008, Acosta and Sloman met with defense attorney +at her request. +According to meeting notes made by Sloman, among other things, +alleged that the +USAO's media spokesperson had improperly disclosed details of the Epstein case to a national +news reporter, and +"suggested that the USAO could avoid any potential ugliness in DC +by agreeing to a watered-down resolution for Epstein* Affer Acosta excused himself to attend +another meeting and Sloman refused to speak further with +"without a witness present." +she left. Later that day, Acosta and Sloman spoke by phone with Starr, Lefkowitz, and +who expressed concern about the "leak" to the news media, reiterated their objections to the NPA, +and pressed for the "watered-down resolution," which they specified would mean allowing Epstein +to plead to a charge of coercion instead of procurement, avoid serving time in jail, and not register +as a sexual offender. A note in the margin of Sloman's handwritten notes of the conversation +reads: "We're back to where we started in September." +That evening, Villafaña expressed concern that the delay in resolving the matter was +affecting the USAO's ability to go forward with a prosecution should Epstein renege on his +agreement, and she outlined for Acosta and Sloman the steps she proposed to take while Epstein +was pursuing Departmental review. Those steps included re-establishing contact with victims, +interviewing victims in New York and one victim who lived in a foreign country, making contact +with "potential sources of information" in the Virgin Islands, and re-initiating proceedings to +obtain Epstein's computers. +In thé meantime, USAO Criminal Division Chief Robert Senior performed a "soup to nuts" +review of the Epstein investigation, reviewing the indictment package and all of the evidence +Villafaña had compiled. He told OPR that he could not recall the reason for his review, but opined +159 +160 +Belohlavek told OPR that she did not recall this incident, but she noted that the PBPD report did set forth +facts supporting the charge of procurement of a minor. +Although the meeting Lefkowitz had with Lourie, Villafaña, Krischer, and Belohlavek to discuss the state +resolution was only four months prior, not six, Lefkowitz's reference was likely to the September 12, 2007 meeting. +101 + + +that it was to establish whether, if the plea fell apart, he, as Chief, would agree "that we can go +forward with" the charges. He did recall being concerned, after completing the review, that "we +did not have... a lot of victims ... lined up and ready to testify" and that some victims might "not +be favorable for us." Nevertheless, he concluded that the proposed charges were sound, and he +told Acosta that he would approve proceeding with a federal case. +6. +Acosta Asks CEOS to Review the Evidence +Notwithstanding Senior's favorable review, Acosta and Sloman told Starr and Lefkowitz +that they "appreciated]" that the defense wanted a "fresh face" to conduct a review, and noted that +the Criminal Chief had not undertaken the "in-depth work associated with the issues raised by the +defense." They told the defense team that Acosta had asked CEOS to "come on board and that +CEOS Chief Oosterbaan would designate an attorney having "a national perspective" to conduct +a fresh review in light of the defense submissions. Oosterbaan assigned a CEOS Trial Attorney +who Villafaña understood was to review the case and prepare for trial in the event Epstein did not +"consummate" the NPA. The CEOS Trial Attorney traveled to Florida to review the case +materials, and to meet with Villafaña to discuss the case and interview some of the victims. After +one such meeting, Villafaña wrote to Acosta and Sloman: +We just finished interviewing three of the girls. I wish you could +have been there to see how much this has affected them. +One girl broke down sobbing so that we had to stop the interview +wice within a 20 minute span, She regained her composure enoug +o continue a short time, but she said that she was having nightmare +about Epstein coming after her and she started to break down again, +so we stopped the interview, +The second girl. +• told us that she was very upset about the 18 +month deal she had read about in the paper. She said that 18 months +was nothing and that she had heard that the girls could get +restitution, but she would rather not get any money and have Epstein +spend a significant time in jail. +These girls deserve so much better than they have received so far, +and I hate feeling that there is nothing I can do to help them. '61 +The CEOS Trial Attorney had substantial experience prosecuting child exploitation cases. +She told OPR that in her view, the victim witnesses in this case presented a number of challenges +for a prosecution: some of the victims did not want to admit they had sexual contact with Epstein; +some had recruited other victims to provide Epstein massages, and thus could have been charged +as accomplices; some had "drug histories and .... things like that"; some could appear to have beer +"complicit"; and there was no evidence of physical violence against the victims. She did not regard +161 +Villafaña added, "We have four more girls coming in tomorrow. Can I persuade you to attend?" +102 + + +these victim issues as insurmountable but, based on these alone, the CEOS Trial Attorney +considered a potential prosecution of Epstein to be a "crap shoot." In addition, she told OPR that +there were novel legal issues in the case that also presented difficulties, although she believed these +difficulties could be overcome. Shortly after the CEOS Trial Attorney met with the victims, +however, "things just stopped" when Oosterbaan instructed her to cease her involvement in the +case and CEOS engaged in the Criminal Division review sought by Epstein's defense team. +IX. FEBRUARY - JUNE 2008: THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW +Epstein's defense attorneys sought a broad review from the Department, one that would +encompass the defense complaints about federal jurisdiction, specific terms in the NPA, and the +various allegations of professional misconduct by USAO attorneys and other personnel. The +Department, however, only reviewed the issue of federal jurisdiction and never reviewed the NPA +or any specific provisions. I62 Nonetheless, the process took several months as the defense +appealed first to CEOS and the Department's Criminal Division, and then to the Office of the +Deputy Attorney General. The chart set forth on the following page shows the positions and +relationships among the individuals in those offices involved in communicating with the USAO +or defense beginning in November 2007 or in those offices reviews, which continued through +June 2008. +162 +On February 28, 2008, USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior sent to the Civil Rights Division written +notification of the USAO's "ongoing investigation of a child exploitation matter" involving Epstein and others "that +may result in charges of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591." USAM § 8-3.120 required a U.S. Attorney to notify the +Civil Rights Division, in writing, "[ajt the outset of a criminal investigation ... that may implicate federal criminal +ivil rights statutes, ... and in no event later than ten days before the commencement of the examination of witnesse: +efore a grand jury." The provision also required notification to CEOS in cases involving sex trafficking of minors +The written notification was to identify the targets of the investigation, the factual allegations to be investigated, the +statutes which may have been violated, the U.S. Attorney's assessment of the significance of the case, whether the +case was of "national interest," and the U.S. Attorney's proposed staffing of the matter. +Villáfaña became aware of this requirement in late February 2008, and she prepared a written notification +that was edited by Sloman, who discussed it with Acosta. After briefly summarizing the facts, Senior advised: +The Office anticipates charges of violations of Title 18, United States Code, +Sections 371, 2422, 2423, and 1591. The investigation of the case by the City of +Palm Beach Police Department has resulted in press coverage because of the +titillating nature of the facts, but we see this case as similar to other "child +prostitution" cases charged by our office, and not a matter of "national interest" +as defined by the U.S. Attorney's Manual. +In the notification, Senior stated that CEOS "has been involved and is currently reviewing the matter," he +anticipated the case would be staffed by USAO and Department personnel, and "lilf we determine that the case should +be [charged], a copy [of the charging document] will be forwarded to you." OPR did not locate a response from the +Civil Rights Division to the notification. +103 + + +Criminal Division +Office of the Deputy +Attorney General +Alteighe +Generall +Markflip +DeputyAttoney +Geredi +Andrewtaurie" +rincipalDeputy +Assant Attorey +Cereall +bireRoth +Senior Assoatte +Deput Allomey +General +SigalMandalker +Depusy Asshant +Along/ General +Anthrew +Costerbaan +Chief ceos +ERTIFIED +Quntivate Reb 2003 +February - May 15, 2008: Review by CEOS and the Criminal Division +On February 21, 2008, soon after the CEOS Trial Attorney met with victims, Oosterbaan +spoke with Lefkowitz about CEOS's role. In a subsequent email to Villafaña, Sloman, and Senior, +Oosterbaan explained: +I told [Lefkowitz] that all I want to do is help the process move +forward, and if they think we best help the process by taking a fresh +1 want to do. 1 old him tasi hat's what they want -i7 that is what +will help the process to move forward - then I don't think it's +advisable for CEOS to partner with the USAO on the case. He wants +to think about that (and probably talk to his co-counsel about +104 + + +whether it is better to have us partnered in the case or just serve a +review function) and he said he'd get back to me later today. +Oosterbaan told OPR that this email reflects that he likely told Acosta that he intended to +limit CEOS's role to review only, and Acosta asked him to "make sure the defense is okay with +that," to preempt a possible defense complaint about CEOS's involvement in the review. +Oosterbaan explained to OPR that "the defense ke[pt] bringing up new arguments and new +it, tell us and the USAO was saying] look if we're going to do this, i' you've got a problem with +By February 25, 2008, Lefkowitz told Oosterbaan, who informed Sloman, that the CEOS +role should be "review only." Lourie had just then left the Department to enter private practice, +and Oosterbaan continued to keep his direct supervisor, Deputy Assistant Attorney General +Mandelker, informed of the defense team contacts. Sloman emailed Lefkowitz that CEOS was +"ready to proceed immediately" with a review of the matter. Sloman advised Lefkowitz that "in +the event CEOS decides that a federal prosecution should not be undertaken against Mr. Epstein, +this Office will close its investigation," but that, "should CEOS disagree with Mr. Epstein's +position, Mr. Epstein shall have one week to abide by [the NPA]." Sloman forwarded this email +to Villafaña, who responded, "Why would we possibly let him keep the same deal after all he has +The defense soon signaled that the CEOS review would not end Epstein's requests for the +Department's involvement. On February 29, 2008, Defkowitz requested a defense meeting with +Oosterbaan on March 12, 2008.I's Starr spoke to Assistant Attorney General Fisher and "made it +clear that [the defense team would] want an audience with her if [CEOS] decid[ed] to support the +prosecution." On March 6, 2008, Acosta alerted Sloman and Oosterbaan that Starr and Lefkowitz +had called him to express "concern about Oosterbaan's participation in the case, and indicated +that "they may ask for more senior involvement." Acosta "informed them that they certainly had +the right to ask whomever they wanted for whatever they thought appropriate, and that whatever +process would be given them was up to whomever they asked." +The next day, Lefkowitz followed up with Acosta in an email: +to prosecute this case himselfi] we may well find it necessary to +time to engage in a thorough review." +105 + + +appeal an adverse determination by him within the DOJ. Ken [Starr] +and I appreciate that you understand this and have no objection to +our seeking appellate review within DOJ. +Starr, Lefkowitz, and +Weinberg attended the March 12, 2008 meeting, as well as +the former Principal Deputy Chief of CEOS, who had joined the Epstein defense team. +Oosterbaan, Mandelker, and a current CEOS Deputy Chief represented the Department. The +current CEOS Deputy Chief told OPR that it was primarily a "listening session" with Starr doing +most of the presentation. Oosterbaan told OPR that he recalled "some back and forth" because the +defense team was saying "some outrageous things." Both Oosterbaan and his Deputy Chief were +disturbed that the former CEOS Principal Deputy Chief, who had been an aggressive advocate for +child exploitation prosecutions, was supporting the defense position, although according to the +CEOS Deputy Chief, the former Principal Deputy Chief gave only a "weak pitch" that was not +effective. +After the meeting, Starr and Lefkowitz made multiple written submissions to the Criminal +Division. One submission provided a lengthy list of USAO actions that "have caused us serious +concern," including the following: +"Federal involvement in a state criminal prosecution without any +communication with state authorities". 164 +the issuance of legal process and document requests for items that +"had no connection to the conduct at issue"; +the nomination "of an individual closely associated with one of the +Assistant United States Attorneys involved in this case" to serve as +the victims' attorney representative; +the "insistence" on a victim notification letter inviting the victims to +make sworn statements at Epstein's sentencing; and +the purported existence of a "relationship" between Sloman and a +law. turm representing several of the alleged victims in civil suits +against Epstein. 165 +164 +This complaint appeared to be at odds with Villafaña's understanding that the defense objected to USAO +communications with the state authorities. In November 2007, Sloman noted to Lefkowitz, "Your recent +correspondence attempting to restrict our Office from communicating with the State Attorney's Office... raises +concern." In a March 2008 email reporting to CEOS about the state case, Villafaña noted that she did not know +a Man in meat our or to Fos +whether a state "misdemeanor deal [was] back on the table because the defense demanded that we have no contact +with the State Attorney's Office, so I haven't spoken with the [Assistant State Attorney] in over 6 months." Villafaña +later reported to Acosta and Sloman that when Krischer complained to her that the USAO had not been communicating +with him, she explained to Krischer that "it was the defense who were blocking the channels of communication." +In approximately 2001, Sloman briefly left the USAO and for a few months was in private practice with a +Miami attorney, whose practice specialized in plaintiffs' sexual abuse claims. During 2007-2008, the attorney +106 + + +In another letter, Starr renewed the defense accusation that the USAO improperly disclosed +information about the case to the media, and accused Sloman and Villafaña of "encouraging civil +litigation" against Epstein. Finally, in a letter to Assistant Attorney General Fisher on +May 14, 2008, Starr thanked her for having spoken with him the previous day, reiterated the +defense team's various complaints, and asked her to meet with him, Lefkowitz, and Whitley. +Meanwhile, Oosterbaan's Deputy Chief drafted a decision letter to be sent from Oosterbaan +to Lefkowitz, and over the course of several weeks, it was reviewed by and received input from +Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker and Assistant Attorney General Fisher, as well as +the Criminal Division's Appellate Section (regarding certain legal issues) and Office of +Enforcement Operations (regarding the Petite policy). Oosterbaan told OPR that, notwithstanding +the defense submissions on a wide variety of issues and complaints, CEOS's review was limited +to determining whether there was a basis for a federal prosecution of Epstein. +Oosterbaan's letter, sent to Lefkowitz on May 15, 2008, notified the defense team that +CEOS had completed its independent evaluation of whether prosecution of Epstein for federal +criminal violations "would contradict criminal enforcement policy interests." The letter specified +that CEOS's review addressed the "narrow question" of whether a legitimate basis existed for a +federal prosecution, and that CEOS did not conduct a de novo review of the facts, analyze issues +relating to federal statutes that did not pertain to child exploitation, or review the terms of the NPA +or the prosecutorial misconduct allegations. The letter stated that based on its examination of the +material relevant to its limited review of the matter, CEOS had concluded that "federal prosecution +in this case would not be improper or inappropriate" and that Acosta "could properly use his +discretion to authorize prosecution in this case. +On May 19, 2008, Lefkowitz reached out to Acosta to request a meeting and specifically +asked that Acosta "not shunt me off to one of your staff." Lefkowitz made several points in support +of the request for a meeting: (1) CEOS's letter acknowledged that federal prosecution of Epstein +would involve a "novel application" of relevant federal statutes; 16° (2) CEOS's conclusion that +federal prosecution would not be "an abuse of discretion" was "hardly an endorsement" of the +case;!' (3) CEOS did not address Epstein's prosecutorial misconduct allegations; and (4) "critical +new evidence," in the form of recent defense counsel depositions of victims confirmed "that +represented Epstein victims. The Epstein defense team alleged in the letter that Sloman's past association with the +attorney caused Sloman to take actions to favor victims' potential civil lawsuits against Epstein. +166 +Oosterbaan's letter stated, "Mr. Acosta can soundly exercise his authority to decide to pursue a prosecution +even though it might involve a novel application of a federal statute." This statement referred to a defense argument +based on a prior Departmental expression of concern about a Congressional proposal to expand federal law to *adult +focused on the commercial sexual exploitation of children"-even if wholly local—and "the exploitation of adults +through force, fraud, or coercion." He then observed that the fact "that a prosecution of Mr. Epstein might not look +precisely like the cases that came before it is not dispositive." +Oosterbaan began his letter, however, by making it clear that CEOS had considered "the narrow question as +to whether there is a legitimate basis for the U.S. Attorney's Office to proceed with a federal prosecution of +Mr. Epstein." +107 + + +federal prosecution is not appropriate in this case."I68 Lefkowitz alluded to the possibility of +seeking further review of the matter by the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney General, should +the defense be unable to "resolve this matter directly with" Acosta. +Acosta declined the request to respond personally and directed Lefkowitz to communicate +with the "trial team." That same day, Sloman sent Lefkowitz a letter asking that all further +communication about the case be made to Villafaña or her immediate supervisor, and reiterating +that Acosta would not respond personally to counsel's email or calls. Sloman noted that the USAO +had "bent over backwards to exhaustively consider and re-consider" Epstein's objections, but +"these objections have finally been exhausted." Sloman advised that the USAO would terminate +the NPA unless Epstein complied with all of its terms by the close of business on +June 2, 2008. +B. May - June 23, 2008: Review by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General +Also on May 19, 2008, Starr and Whitley co-authored a letter to Deputy Attorney General +Mark Filip asking for review "of the federal involvement in a quintessentially state matter."I69 In +the letter, they acknowledged that CEOS had recently completed "a very limited review" of the +Epstein case, but contended that "full review of all the facts is urgently needed at senior levels of +the Justice Department." They argued that federal prosecution of Epstein was "unwarranted," and +that "the irregularity of conduct by prosecutors and the unorthodox terms of the [NPA] are beyond +any reasonable interpretation of the scope of a prosecutor's responsibilities." They followed up +with a second letter on May 27, 2008, in which they asserted "the bedrock need for integrity in the +enforcement of federal criminal laws" and "the profound questions raised by the unprecedented +extension of federal laws ... to a prominent public figure who has close ties to President Clinton" +required Departmental review. On this latter point, they argued that Epstein "entered the public +arena only by virtue of his close personal association with former President Bill Clinton," and that +there was "little doubt" that the USAO "never would have contemplated a prosecution in this case +if Mr. Epstein were just another 'John.'" This was the first defense submission mentioning +Epstein's connection to President Clinton and raising the insinuation that the federal involvement +in the investigation was due to politics. +In the May 27, 2008 letter to the Deputy Attorney General, Starr and Whitley used the +existing June 2, 2008 deadline for the entry of Epstein's guilty plea to argue that it made the need +for review of the case "all the more exigent." John Roth, a Senior Associate Deputy Attorney +General who was handling the matter, instructed the USAO to rescind the deadline, and on +May 28, 2008, Sloman notified Lefkowitz that the USAO had postponed the deadline pending +completion of the review by the Deputy Attorney General's office. 0 Meanwhile, the Criminal +168 +Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220, defendants are permitted to depose victims, and Epstein's +counsel utilized that procedure aggressively and expansively to conduct sworn interviews of multiple victims, +including victims who were not part of the state prosecution, to learn information about the federal investigation. +169 +In addition to having served as U.S. Attorney in two different districts, Whitley had served as Acting +Associate Attorney General, the Department's third-highest position. +On May 28, 2008, Attorney General Mukasey was in Miami for unrelated events and had lunch at the USAO +with Acosta and other senior managers. OPR found no indication that the Epstein matter was discussed. +108 + + +Division forwarded to Roth the prior defense submissions, describing them as "an enormous +amount of material" regarding the Epstein matter. On June 3, 2008, Sloman sent to Roth a lengthy +letter from Sloman to the Deputy Attorney General, recounting in detail the history of negotiations +with Epstein's counsel culminating in the NPA, and addressing Epstein's claims of professional +misconduct. Among the documents submitted with the letter were the prosecution memorandum, +one of the proposed charging documents, and the NPA with its addendum and Acosta's +December 19, 2007 letter to +As the review was ongoing in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, State Attorney +Krischer mentioned to the USAO's West Palm Beach manager that Krischer and Epstein's local +defense attorney Jack Goldberger had arrived at a resolution of Epstein's case that would involve +a 90-day jail term, but Krischer provided no further information. Upon learning of this, Villafaña +wrote to her immediate supervisor: "Please tell me that you are joking. Maybe we should throw +him [Epstein] a party and tell him we are sorry to have bothered him." Villafaña and her immediate +supervisor later had phone and email exchanges with Krischer and with Epstein's local counsel to +insist that the state plea comply with the terms of the NPA, or "we will consider it a breach of the +agreement and proceed accordingly."I71 +Deputy Attorney General Filip told OPR he had never heard of Epstein before receiving +Starr's letter. Following the office's standard protocol, Starr's letter was handled by John Roth, +an experienced senior federal prosecutor who had served some years before as an AUSA in the +USAO. Roth also told OPR that he had never before heard of Epstein. Roth explained to OPR +that he did not conduct an independent investigation, interview witnesses, or meet with Epstein's +counsel, and instead limited his review to written materials submitted by Epstein's attorneys and +by Sloman to the Deputy Attorney General's office, as well as materials that the defense team and +the USAO had previously provided to CEOS and the Criminal Division front office, and that +CEOS furnished to him. Roth discussed the matter with two senior staff colleagues, as well as +with the Deputy Attorney General, who also reviewed the submissions. +Roth told OPR that it was his understanding that Epstein had reneged on the NPA, and +because he believed the NPA was a "dead letter," he did not review the terms of the agreement or +ratify it post hoc. On the other hand, Deputy Attorney General Filip told OPR he understood that +the NPA was still in effect and that Epstein was trying to undermine the federal jurisdictional basis +for the agreement. Apart from addressing Epstein's federalism arguments, however, Deputy +attorney General Filip did not believe it was the "mission" of the Office of the Deputy Attorne +Jeneral to review the Epstein case de novo or to examine the NPA's terms or determine whethe +the NPA reached the "right balance" between state and federal punishment. He told OPR, "[Wle +heard an appeal.... [Epstein] wanted a meeting to argue for relief. We didn't give him a meeting +and we didn't give him [any] relief." Deputy Attorney General Filip told OPR that no one in his +office who looked at Epstein's arguments "felt that it was a sympathetic appeal." In particular, he +told OPR that defense counsel's argument that there was no basis for a federal prosecution was +"ludicrous," and the assertion that the USAO's investigation of Epstein was politically motivated +"just seemed unserious." +171 +Villafaña urged Sloman, "Someone really needs to talk to Barry." +109 + + +On Monday, June 23, 2008, Roth sent a brief letter to Starr and Lefkowitz informing them +that the office had "completed a thorough review" of the USAO's handling of the Epstein matter +and did not believe intervention by the Deputy Attorney General was warranted in view of the +"considerable discretion" vested by the Department in U.S. Attorneys. He added, "Even if we +were to substitute our judgment for that of the U.S. Attorney, we believe that federal prosecution +of this case is appropriate." +Immediately after receiving a copy of Roth's letter, Villafaña notified defense counsel that +Epstein would have until close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008, to comply with the NPA +by entering his guilty plea, being sentenced, and surrendering to begin serving his sentence. On +June 26, 2008, Roth alerted the Office of the Attorney General that Epstein's counsel might try to +contact the Attorney General to request additional review and urged the Attomey General not to +take defense counsel's calls. Roth told OPR that he was concerned that Epstein's team would try +to take a further appeal in order to delay resolution of the case. +Meanwhile, Starr sent a concluding email to Acosta, acknowledging they had reached "the +end of a long and arduous road" and adding, "While I am obviously very unhappy at what I believe +is the government's treatment of my client, a man whom I have come to deeply admire, I recognize +that we have filed and argued our "appellate motions' and lost... I would like to have ... some +closure with you on this matter so that in the years to come, neither of us will harbor any ill will +over the matter." +X. JUNE 2008 - JUNE 2009: EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS PLEAS AND SERVES HIS +CUSTODIAL SENTENCE +On Friday, June 27, 2008, Villafaña renewed her requests to Epstein's local attorneys +Goldberger and Black for a copy of the state plea agreement reached with the State Attorney's +Office, noting that their failure to provide it was a material breach of the NPA. After receiving +and reviewing the plea agreement form, which was not yet signed, Villafaña sent another letter to +Goldberger and Black, informing them that the proposed sentencing provision did not comply with +the requirements of the NPA. Specifically, as written, the plea agreement called for a sentence of +12 months in "the Palm Beach County Detention Facility," followed consecutively by "18 months +Community Controf" with a special condition that the defendant serve "the first 6 months [of +community control] in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility." Villafaña objected to the +community control provision, reminding Goldberger and Black that the NPA required Epstein to +"make a binding recommendation of eighteen months imprisonment, which means confinement +twenty-four hours a day at the County Jail." In a subsequent email to Sloman, Villafaña recounted +that she had spoken about the issue with Goldberger, who "*swore' that Epstein would be in +custody 24-hours-a-day during the community confinement portion of his sentence." Villafaña +added that Goldberger "let it slip that Epstein would not be at the jail, he would be at the stockade +....Since we specifically discussed this at the meeting with [the State Attorney] months ago that +Epstein would be at [the jail], this certainly violates the spirit of the [NPA] agreement."172 +Villafaña told Sloman, "[S]omething smells very bad." +172 +The Main Detention Center for Palm Beach County is a facility housing maximum, medium, and minimum +custody adult males, as well as juvenile and special population male and female inmates. +See +110 + + +The next day, Villafaña asked Goldberger to change the plea agreement by inserting the +word "imprisoned" after "6 months," and Goldberger agreed to do so. Villafaña, however, did not +ask that the agreement be amended to clarify that the reference to "the Palm Beach County +Detention Facility" meant the jail, rather than the Stockade. The final signed plea agreement form +further clarified the sentence, providing that after serving 12 months in the Palm Beach County +Detention Facility, Epstein would be "sentenced to 6 months in the Palm Beach County Detention +Facility ... to be served consecutive to the 12 month sentence," followed by "12 months +Community Control." The word "imprisoned" was hand written after "6 months" but then crossed +out and replaced by "jail sentence. "173 +A. June 30, 2008: Epstein Enters His Guilty Pleas in State Court +procurement of a minor to engage in prostitution. 74 At the plea hearing, which Villafaña and the +FBI case agent attended as spectators, Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek did not proffer the facts +of the case; instead she only recited the charging language in the indictment and the criminal +information: +[BJetween August 1, 2004 and October 31, 2005, the defendant in +Palm Beach County did solicit or procure someone to commit +[prostitution] on three or more occasions. And . . . between +August 1, 2004 and October 9, 2005, the defendant did procure a +minor under the age of 18 to commit prostitution in Palm Beach +County also. +175 +The court found this to be "a sufficient factual basis to support the pleas," and engaged in +a colloquy with Belohlavek regarding Ep +victims: +The Court: +Are there more than one victim? +Be +vek: +There's several. +http://www.pbso.org/inside-pbso/corrections/general/. The "Stockade" was a "lower security 'camp-style' facility" +co-located with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office. Both were administered by the Sheriff's Office. +Plea in the Circuit Court, signed June 30, 2008, and filed in court. Villafaña complained to Goldberger when +she learned later about the change from "imprisoned" to "jail sentence." +174 +The Information is attached as Exhibit 5. +175 +State v. Epstein, case nos. 06-CF-9454 and 08-CF-9381, Transcript of Plea Conference at 41-42 (Fifteenth +Judicial Circuit, June 30, 2008) (Plea Hearing Transcript). Belohlavek told OPR that reciting the statutory language +of the charge as the factual basis for the plea was the typical practice for a state court plea. +111 + + +The Court: +Ms. Belohlavek: +The Court: +Are all the victims in both these cases in +agreement with the terms of the plea? +I have spoken to several myself and I have +spoken to counsel, through counsel as to the +other victim, and I believe, yes. +And with regard to the victims under age +eighteen, is that victim's parents or guardian +in agreement with the plea? +Ms. Belohlavek: +That victim is not under age 18 any more and +that's why we spoke with her counsel. +The Court: +And she is in agreement with the plea? +Ms. Belohlavek: Yes.176 +When the court asked if the plea was "in any way tied to any promises or representations +by any civil attorneys or other jurisdictions," Goldberger and Belohlavek, with Epstein present, +spoke with the judge at sidebar and disclosed the existence of the "confidential" non-prosecution +agreement with the USAO, and the court ordered that a copy of it be filed under seal with the court. +After the court accepted Epstein's guilty pleas, and imposed sentence on him pursuant to +the plea agreement, Epstein was taken into custody to begin serving his sentence immediately. +In the aftermath of the plea, numerous individuals familiar with the investigation expressed +positive reactions to the outcome, and Villafaña received several congratulatory messages. +Oosterbaan wrote, "Congratulations, Marie-at long last! Your work on this matter was truly +exceptional, and you obtained a very significant result that will serve the victims well." One senior +colleague who was familiar with the case noted, "This case only resolved with the filthy rich bad +guy going to jail because of your dedication and determination." Another wrote, "If it had not +been for you, he would have gotten away with it." The CEOS Trial Attorney who had worked +briefly with Villafaña told her, "But for your tenacity, he'd be somewhere ruining another child's +life." One victim's attorney stated, "[G]reat job of not letting this guy off." But Villafaña was not +satisfied with the outcome, responding to one colleague, "After all the hell they put me through, I +don't feel like celebrating 18 months. He should be spending 18 years in jail." +Acosta later publicly stated that the FBI Special Agent in Charge called him "to offer +congratulations" and "to praise our prosecutors for holding firm against the likes of Messrs. Black, +Plea Hearing Transcript at 20, 42. OPR was unable to determine to which victims Belohlavek was referring, +and Belohlovek did not recall during her OPR interview, but it is possible that she was referring only to the victims of +the charged crimes rather than to all of the victims identified in either the state or federal investigations. Belohlavek +told OPR that because of the nature of the charges (that is, involving prostitution), she did not know whether +"technically under the law" the girls were "victims" whom she was required to notify of the plea hearing. +112 + + +Dershowitz, Lefkowitz and Starr."I" In that same later public statement, Acosta noted that he +received communications from Dershowitz, Starr, and Lefkowitz, who "all sought to make peace" +with him; Acosta referred to it as "a proud moment." +On July 7, 2008, an Epstein victim filed an emergency petition against the Department, in +federal court in Miami, alleging violation of her rights under the CVRA; a second victim joined +the petition soon thereafter. The history of the litigation and issues relating to it are discussed in +Chapter Three of this Report. +B. Epstein Is Placed on Work Release +A few days after Epstein's guilty plea, Villafaña reported to Sloman that Epstein was +incarcerated at the low-security Stockade, rather than the Main Detention Center where county +prisoners were usually housed. She also told Sloman that according to the Sheriff's Office, Epsteir +was eligible for work release. Although the USAO had made clear that it expected Epstein to be +incarcerated 24 hours a day, every day, the subject of work release had not been addressed +explicitly during the NPA negotiations, and the NPA itself was silent on the issue. Epstein's +acceptance into the work release program as a convicted sextal offender was seen by many as +another special benefit given to Epstein. Because the decision to allow Epstein into the work +release program was made by the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office, OPR did not investigate whether +any state, county, or Sheriff's Office rules were violated. OPR did examine the USAO's +consideration of work release prior to signing the NPA and its subsequent unsuccessful efforts to +ensure that Epstein remained incarcerated 24 hours a day. +The first specific reference to work release was made weeks after the NPA was signed, +when Lefkowitz asserted, in his October 23, 2007 letter to Acosta, that, "so long as Mr. Epstein's +sentence does not explicitly violate the terms of the [NPA] he is entitled to any type of sentence +available to him, including but not Timited to gain time and work release." +In November 2007, Sloman had an exchange of letters with Lefkowitz about the USAO's +understanding that Epstein had agreed to serve his full jail term in "continuous confinement," +pointing out that the NPA "clearly indicates that Mr. Epstein is to be incarcerated." Sloman noted +that Florida's Department of Corrections's rules did not allow individuals registered as sexual +offenders to participate in work release, and thus Epstein would not be eligible for a work release +program. Sloman conclided that the USAO "is putting you on notice that it intends to make certain +that Mr. Epstein is "treated no better and no worse than anyone else' convicted of the same +rison in a are ion in as granto din Man. Epstein case, the USAO would investigate the +However, also in November, State Attorney Krischer told Sloman that Epstein was, in fact, +eligible to petition for work release because his sexual offender registration would not take place +177 +Letter from R. Alexander Acosta "To whom it may concern" (Mar. 20, 2011), published online in The Daily +Beast. The FBI Special Agent in Charge told OPR that he had no recollection of such a call, but acknowledged that +it could have occurred. +178 +Sloman provided a draft of this letter to Acosta for his approval before the letter was sent to Lefkowitz. +113 + + +until after Epstein completed his sentence, but that Krischer would oppose such a petition "if it is +in the agreement."|79 On November 16, 2007, the case agents met with Belohlavek and asked if +the State Attorney's Office would oppose a request that Epstein be granted work release. +Belohlavek was noncommittal, and when the agents asked that she include language in the state's +plea agreement prohibiting Epstein from participating in work release, she responded that she +would have to discuss the issue with the State Attorney, 180 Krischer later told OPR that work +release was "within the control of the Sheriff's Office, not my office." The state's plea agreement +with Epstein did not address the issue of work release. +The day after Epstein entered his June 30, 2008 plea, Villafaña and her immediate +supervisor met with a Palm Beach Sheriff's Office official to discuss work release. According to +Villafaña, the official told them, "Epstein would be eligible for work release and will be placed on +work release," a statement that contradicted the information the case agents had been given by a +jail supervisor the previous November, as well as statements made by defense attorney Jack +Goldberger to Villafaña just days before the plea was entered, when he "specifically told +[Villafaña] that [Epstein] would not get work release." Villafaña alerted the Sheriff's Office +official that although Epstein told the court during his plea proceeding that he had worked "every +Science Foundation" was the office of Epstein's attorney Jack Goldberger. Villafaña and her +supervisor asked that the Sheriff's Office notify the USAO if Epstein applied for work release. +Acosta told OPR that he was aware Villafaña was trying to ensure that Epstein did not get +work release, and he would not have contradicted her efforts. Acosta explained that the USAO +expected Epstein would be "treated just like everyone else," but that, as shown by "our subsequent +communications with the [S]tate [A]ttorney's [Office," having Epstein on work release "was not +what our office envisioned." +In August 2008, Villataña spoke with defense attorney Black about ensuring Epstein's +compliance with the NPA, and raised the issue of work release. Villafaña later reported to Acosta +and Sloman that Black assured her he had "reminded the team that... 18 months IN JAIL is a +material term of the agreement." +The USAO never received notice of Epstein's work release application. On October 10, +2008, less than three-and-a-half months after Epstein entered his guilty plea, the Palm Beach +Sheriff's Office placed him into the work release program, permitting him to leave the Stockade +According to Sloman, Krischer explained that even without registration Epstein would be "treated" as a "sex +offender" and that "just like any other sex offender, he can petition the court for work release." +180 +In the November 16, 2007 email, on which she copied Acosta, Villafaña also indicated that she was +"reviewing all of the statutes" to determine whether there was any impediment to a state judge granting Epstein work +release. In a subsequent email, the FBI case agents informed Villafaña that they had also spoken with a "jail +supervisor," who advised them that although Epstein, as a sexual offender, would not qualify for work release, the +judge could nevertheless order him placed on work release if he was sentenced to a year or less of incarceration. +181 +During the plea hearing, Epstein told the court he was "President" of the Florida Science Foundation, it had +been in existence for 15 years, and he worked there "every day." Plea Hearing Transcript at 27-29. +114 + + +for up to 12 hours per day, six days per week, to work at the "Florida Science Foundation" office +in West Palm Beach. 182 In mid-November 2008, Villafaña learned that Epstein was on work +release. She notified Acosta, Sloman, and the USAO Criminal Division Chief of this development +in an email, and asked, "Can I indict him now?" +On November 24, 2008, Villafaña sent defense attorney Black a letter, notifying him that +the USAO believed Epstein's application to and participation in the work release program +constituted a material breach of the NPA. Villafaña reminded Black that she had "more than a +dozen e-mails" expressing the USAO's "insistence" that Epstein be incarcerated for 18 months, +and that her June 27, 2008 letter to counsel made clear that this meant "confinement for twentyfour hours a day." Villafaña noted that Goldberger had not inserted the word "imprisoned" into +the plea agreement, as he had agreed to do, but instead inserted the term "jail sentence." Villafaña +told counsel: +The [USAO's] Agreement not to prosecute Mr. Epstein was based +upon its determination that eighteen months' incarceration (i.e., +confinement twenty-four hours a day) was sufficient to satisfy the +federal interest in Mr. Epstein's crimes. Accordingly, the U.S. +Attorney's Office hereby gives notice that Mr. Epstein has violated +the [NPA] by failing to remain incarcerated twenty-four hours a day +for the eighteen-month term of imprisonment, The United States +will exercise any and all rights it has under the [NPA] unless +Mr. Epstein immediately ceases and desists from his breach of this +agreement. +According to Villafaña, the FBI case agent spoke with the Stockade's work release +coordinator and reported back that that the work release coordinator told her he had been led to +believe the government knew Epstein had applied for the program, and that he had been threatened +with legal action if he did not allow Epstein to participate in work release. +On November 26, 2008, the USAO advised the Department that Acosta was recused from +all matters involving the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, which was still heavily involved in the +Epstein case, because Acosta was discussing with the firm the possibility of employment. ' As a +result, Sloman became the senior USAO official responsible for making final decisions related to +Epstein. +Also on November 26, 2008, Black responded to Villafaña's letter, acknowledging that +Epstein was serving his sentence in the Palm Beach County Work Release Program, but denying +that Epstein was in breach of the NPA. '84 Black noted that the NPA did not prohibit work release; +the NºA expressly provided that Epstein was to be afforded the same benefits as any other inmate; +182 +183 +Michele Dargan and David Rogers, "Palm Beach sex offender Jeffrey Epstein "treated differently,'" Palm +Beach Daily News, Dec. 13, 2008. +The recusal was formally approved by the Department on December 8, 2008. +Black forwarded the email to Sloman, noting that Villafaña "is very concerned about anything Epstein does" +and that the defense team would "abide by" Sloman's decision on the issue. +115 + + +Florida law treated work release as part of confinement; and the Palm Beach County Sheriff's +Office had discretion to grant work release to any inmate. Black also claimed that Acosta +"recognized that Mr. Epstein might serve a portion of his sentence through the Work Release +Program" and pointed out that the December 6, 2007 draft victim notification letter sent to +Lefkowitz for review specifically referred to the victim's right to be notified "if [Epstein] is +allowed to participate in a work release program." +On December 3, 2008, in advance of a scheduled meeting with Black, Villafaña sent +Sloman and Criminal Division Chief Senior an email about Epstein's participation in the work +release program: +It appears that, since Day 1, Goldberger and Krisher [sic] ... have +been scheming to get Epstein out on work release. For example, the +indictment incorrectly charges Epstein for an offense that would +have made him ineligible for work release if it had been charged +correctly. (Remember that Krisher [sic] also went along with letting +us believe that Epstein was pleading to a registrable offense when +Epstein's folks and Krisher [sic] believed that... the offense was +not registrable.) Krisher [sic] and Goldberger also told us that +Epstein would be housed at the Palm [Beach County] Jail, not the +Stockade, but he would not have been eligible for work release if at +the jail... +As part of his work release, Epstein, has hired off-duty Sheriff's +deputies to provide him with "protection." It appears that he is +paying between $3000 and $4100 per week for this service, despite +the work release rules barring anyone from the Sheriff's Office (and +the Sheriff's Office itselt) from having "any business transactions +with inmates... while they are in the custody or supervision of the +Sheriff.... +33 +Villafaña added that she and her immediate supervisor believed that the USAO "should not budge +on the 24-hour-a-day incarceration" requirement. Referring to the CVRA litigation, Villafaña also +pointed out that two victims had brought suit against the USAO "for failing to keep them informed +about the investigation," and the office had "an obligation to inform all of the victims upon +Epstein's release." +On December 11, 2008, Villafaña wrote to the Corrections Division of the Palm Beach +County Sheriff's Office to express the USAO's view that Epstein was not eligible for work release +and to alert the Sheriff's Office that Epstein's work release application contained several +inaccuracies and omitted relevant information. Villafaña pointed out that Epstein's application +identified his place of employment as the "Florida Science Foundation," and the telephone number +listed in the application for the "Florida Science Foundation" was the telephone number to the law +firm of Epstein's attorney Jack Goldberger. Villafaña also noted that the individual identified in +the work release file as Epstein's "supervisor" at the "Florida Science Foundation" had submitted +publicly available sworn filings to the Internal Revenue Service indicating that Epstein worked +only one hour per week and earned no compensation, but that same individual had represented to +116 + + +the Sheriff's Office that Epstein's duties required him to work six days a week for 12 hours per +day. Finally, Villafaña pointed out that Epstein's purported "supervisor"—who as the +Foundation's vice president was subordinate to Epstein, the Foundation's president—had +promised to alert the Sheriff's Office if Epstein failed to comply with his work schedule, but the +"supervisor" lived and worked in the New York metropolitan area and was unable to monitor +Epstein's activities on a day-to-day basis. The Sheriff's Office neither acknowledged nor +responded to Villafaña's letter. +In March 2009, Sloman met in Miami with Dershowitz for, as Dershowitz characterized it +in a subsequent email, "a relaxed drink and conversation," which included a discussion of the +Epstein case. After that encounter, Dershowitz emailed Sloman, expressing appreciation for +Sloman's "assurance that the feds will not interfere with how the Palm Beach sheriff administers" +Epstein's sentence "as long as he is treated like any similarly situated inmate." Sloman responded: +Regarding Mr. Epstein, the United States Attorney's Office will not +interfere with how the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office administers the +sentence imposed by the Court. That being said, this does not mean +that the USAO condones or encourages the PBSO to mitigate the +terms and conditions of his sentence. Furthermore, it does not mean +that, if contacted for our position concerning alternative custody or +in-home detention, we would not object. To be clear, if contacted +we will object. Naturally, I also expect that no one on behalf of +Mr. Epstein will use my assurance to you to affirmatively represent +to PBSO that the USAO does not objeet to an alternative custody or +home detention. +A week later, Dershowitz emailed Sloman again, this time expressing appreciation for +Sloman's "willingness to call the sheriff and advise him that your office would take no position +on how he handled Epstein's sentence,? as long as Epstein did not receive special treatment, but +adding, "[LJet's put any call off for a while." +Epstein's sentence required that he be confined to his home for a 12-month period +following his release from prison. On July 22, 2009, almost 13 months after he began serving his +sentence, Epstein was released from the Stockade and placed on home confinement.'®5 At this +time, he registered as a sexual offender. +XI. +POST-RELEASE DEVELOPMENTS +In the summer of 2009, allegations surfaced that Epstein had cooperated with the U.S. +Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York's investigation of investment bank Bear +Stearns, and that he had been released early from his 18-month imprisonment term because of that +n Florida, what is commonly referred to as house arrest is actually the Community Control supervisior +rogram. Florida Statute § 948.001(3) defines the program as "a form of intensive, supervised custody in th +community." +117 + + +cooperation. ' When Villafaña spoke with attorneys in the Eastern District of New York, +however, an AUSA there told Villafaña that "[t]hey had never heard of" Epstein, and he had not +cooperated with the Bear Stearns case. 18 During her OPR interview, Villafaña told OPR that to +her knowledge, the rumor of Epstein's cooperation was "completely false." +Villafaña and the USAO continued to monitor Epstein's compliance with the terms of the +NPA. In August 2009, Villafaña alerted her supervisors that Epstein was in apparent violation of' +his home detention —he had been spotted walking on the beach, and when stopped by the police, +he claimed that he was walking "to work" at an office nearly eight miles from his home. Villafaña +passed this information along to the Palm Beach County probation office. By letter dated +September 1, 2009, Black wrote to Sloman seeking the USAO's agreement to transfer supervision +of the community control phase of Epstein's sentence to the U.S. Virgin Islands, where Epstein +maintained his "primary residence." In response, Villafaña notified Black that the USAO opposed +such a request and would view it as a violation of the NPA. Three months later, Sloman met with +Dershowitz and, among other issues, informed him that the USAO opposed carly termination of +Epstein's community control supervision and would object to a request to transfer Epstein' +supervision to the U.S. Virgin Islands. +After serving his year on home detention in Florida, Epstein completed his sentence on +July 21, 2010. +186 +187 +The New York AUSA had emailed Villafaña, "We're the prosecutors in [the Bear Stearns case] . ... We +saw the below article from the New York Post and wanted to ask you about this defendant, Epstein, who we had never +heard of until this morning. We've since learned that he is pretty unsavory." Villafaña reported to Sloman and other +supervisors that she "just got off the phone with the prosecutors from the Bear Stearns case in [the Eastern District of] +New York. They had seen the NY Post article that claimed that Epstein got such a low sentence because he was +cooperating with the feds on the Bear Stearns prosecution. They had never heard of him." In a second email, she +confirmed, "There has been absolutely no cooperation here or in New York, from what they told me." +Black later wrote a letter to Villafaña claiming that Epstein had "specific authorization to walk to work," the +distance between his home and office was "less than three miles," and when the matter was "fully investigated," +Epstein was found to be in "total compliance" with the requirements of his sentence. +118 + + +PART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS +OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK +An attorney intentionally violates an obligation or standard when the attorney (1) engages +in conduct with the purpose of obtaining a result that the obligation or standard unambiguously +prohibits; or (2) engages in conduct knowing its natural or probable consequence, and that +consequence is a result that the obligation or standard unambiguously prohibits. An attorney acts +in reckless disregard of an obligation or standard when (1) the attorney knows or should know, +based on his or her experience and the unambiguous nature of the obligation or standard, of an +obligation or standard; (2) the attorney knows or should know, based on his or her experience and +the unambiguous applicability of the obligation or standard, that the attorney's conduct involves a +substantial likelihood that he or she will violate, or eause a violation of, the obligation or standard; +and (3) the attorney nonetheless engages in the conduct, which is objectively unreasonable under +all the circumstances. Thus, an attorney's disregard of an obligation is reckless when it represents +a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that an objectively reasonable attorney would +observe in the same situation. +If OPR determines that an attorney did not engage in professional misconduct, OPR +determines whether the attorney exercised poor judgment, engaged in other inappropriate conduct, +made a mistake, or acted appropriately under all the circumstances. An attorney exercises poor +judgment when, faced with alternative courses of' action, he or she chooses a course of action that +is in marked contrast to the action that the Department may reasonably expect an attorney +exercising good judgment to take. Poor judgment differs from professional misconduct in that an +attorney may act inappropriately and thus exhibit poor judgment even though he or she may not +have violated or acted in reckless disregard of a clear obligation or standard. In addition, an +attorney may exhibit poor judgment even though an obligation or standard at issue is not +sufficiently clear and unambiguous to support a professional misconduct finding. A mistake, on +the other hand, results from an excusable human error despite an attorney's exercise of reasonable +care under the circumstances. +An attorney who makes a good faith attempt to ascertain the obligations and standards +imposed on the attorney and to comply with them in a given situation does not commit professional +misconduct. Evidence that an attorney made a good faith attempt to ascertain and comply with +the obligations and standards imposed can include, but is not limited to, the fact that the attorney +reviewed materials that define or discuss one or more potentially applicable obligations and +standards, consulted with a supervisor or ethics advisor, notified the tribunal or the attorney +representing a party or person with adverse interests of an intended course of conduct, or took +119 + + +affirmative steps the attorney reasonably believed were required to comply with an obligation or +standard. +II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT +The United States Attorneys' Manual +Among its many provisions, the United States Attorneys' Manual (USAM) includes +authority and contribute to the fair, evenhanded administration of the Federal criminal laws," and +to promote public confidence that important prosecutorial decisions will be made "rationally and +Because the USAM is designed to assist in structuring the decision-making process of +government attorneys, many of its principles are cast in general terms, with a view to providing +guidance rather than mandating results. Id.; see also USAM § 9-27.120, comment ("It is expected +that each Federal prosecutor will be guided by these principles in carrying out his/her criminal law +("Under the Federal criminal justice system, the prosecutor has wide latitude in determining when, +whom, how, and even whether to prosecute for apparent violations of Federal criminal law."). +However, USAM § 9-27.130 provides that AUSAs who depart from the principles of federal +prosecution articulated in the USAM y be subject to internal discipline. In particular, USAM +§ 9-27.130 states that each U.S. Attorney should establish internal office procedures to ensure that +prosecutorial decisions are made at an appropriate level of responsibility and are consistent with +the principles set forth in the USAM, and that serious, unjustified departures from the principles +set forth in the USAM are followed by remedial action, including the imposition of disciplinary +sanctions when warranted and deemed appropriate. +U.S. Attorneys have "plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters" and may +modify or depart from the principles set forth in the USAM as deemed necessary in the interest of +fair and effective law enforcement within their individual judicial districts. USAM $§ 9-2.001, +9.27-140. The USAM provisions are supplemented by the Department's Criminal Resource +Manual, which provides additional guidance relating to the conduct of federal criminal +prosecutions. +Y 1. +Federa Prosecuto +USAM Provisions Relating to the Initiation and Declination of a +Federal prosecutors do not open a case on every matter referred to them. USAM § 9-2.020 +explicitly authorizes a U.S. Attorney "to decline prosecution in any case referred directly to +189 +In 2018, the USAM was revised and reissued as the Justice Manual. In assessing the subjects" conduct, OPR +lies upon the standards of conduct in effect at the time of the events in issue. Accordingly, unless otherwise note +itations in this Report are to the 1997 edition of the USAM, as revised through January 200 +120 + + +him/her by an agency unless a statute provides otherwise." Whenever a U.S. Attorney closes a +case without prosecution, the file should reflect the action taken and the reason for it. USAM +§ 9-27.220 sets forth the grounds to be considered in making the decision whether to commence +or decline federal prosecution. A federal prosecutor should commence or recommend prosecution +if he or she believes that admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a +conviction of a federal offense, unless (1) the prosecution would serve no federal interest; (2) the +person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction; or (3) there exists an adequate +alternative to prosecution. A comment to this provision indicates that it is the prosecutor's task to +determine whether these circumstances exist, and in making that determination, the prosecutor +"should" consult USAM §§ 9-27.230, 9-27.240, or 9-27.250, as appropriate. +USAM § 9-27.230 sets forth a non-exhaustive list of considerations that a federal +prosecutor should weigh in determining whether a substantial federal interest would be served by +initiating prosecution against a person: +Federal law enforcement priorities; 190 +The nature and seriousness of the offense; 191 +The deterrent effect of prosecution; +The person's culpability in connection with the offense; +5. +6. +The person's history with respect to criminal activity; +The person's willingness to cooperate in the investigation +or prosecution of others; and +The probable sentence or other consequences if the person +is convicted. +The USAM contemplates that, on occasion, a federal prosecutor will decline to open a case +in deference to prosecution by the state in which the crime occurred. USAM § 9-27.240 directs +that in evaluating the effectiveness of prosecution in another jurisdiction, the federal prosecutor +should weigh "all relevant considerations," including the strength of the other jurisdiction's +interest in prosecution, the other jurisdiction's ability and willingness to prosecute effectively, and +the probable sentence or other consequences the person will be subject to if convicted in the other +jurisdiction. A comment to this provision explains: +A comment to this provision directs the prosecutor to consider carefully the extent to which a federal +prosecution would be consistent with established federal prosecutorial priorities. +A comment to this provision explains that an assessment of the nature and seriousness of the offense mus +also include consideration of the impact on the victim. The comment further cautions that when restitution is at issue +"care should be taken ... to ensure against contributing to an impression that an offender can escape prosecution +121 + + +Some offenses, even though in violation of Federal law, are of +particularly strong interest to the authorities of the state or local +jurisdiction in which they occur, either because of the nature of the +offense, the identity of the offender or victim, the fact that the +investigation was conducted primarily by state or local +investigators, or some other circumstance. Whatever the reason, +when it appears that the Federal interest in prosecution is less +substantial than the interest of state or local authorities, +consideration should be given to referring the case to those +authorities rather than commencing or recommending a Federal +prosecution. +Another comment cautions that in assessing whether to defer to state or local authorities, "the +Federal prosecutor should be alert to any local conditions, attitudes, relationships or other +circumstances that might cast doubt on the likelihood of the state or local authorities conducting a +thorough and successful prosecution." +USAM § 9-27.260 identifies impermissible considerations relating to the decision whether +to initiate or decline a federal prosecution. Specifically, the decision may not be based on +consideration of the person's race, religion, sex, national origin, or political association, activities, +or beliefs; the prosecutor's "own personal feelings" about the person or the victim; or the possible +effect of the decision on the prosecutor's own professional or personal circumstances. When +opting to decline federal prosecution, the prosecutor should ensure that the reasons for that decision +are communicated to the investigating agency and reflected in the office files. USAM § 9-27.270. +USAM § 9-2.031. The Petite Policy +Although the Constitution does not prohibit prosecutions of a defendant by both state and +federal authorities, even when the conduct charged is identical in both charging jurisdictions, the +Department has a long-standing policy, known as the Petite policy, governing federal prosecutions +charged after the initiation of a prosecution in another jurisdiction based on the same or similar +conduct, 92 The general principles applicable to the prosecution or declination decision are set +forth in USAM § 9-2.031,, "Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy ('Petite Policy')," which +contains guidelines for a federal prosecutor's exercise of discretion in determining whether to bring +Redal prosecution bane on the subsies aly same tere has bieni a pried inap or staterat +prosecution resulting in an acquittal, a conviction, including one resulting from a plea agreement, +or a dismissal or other termination on the merits after jeopardy has attached." +In circumstances in which the policy applies, a prosecutor nonetheless can initiate a new +federal prosecution when three substantive prerequisites exist. The prerequisites are as follows: +(1) The matter must involve a substantial federal interest. The determination whether +a substantial federal interest is involved is made on a case-by-case basis. Matters +192 +See Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 27-29 (1977); Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529 (1960). +122 + + +that come within the national investigation and prosecution priorities established +by the Department are more likely to satisfy this requirement than other matters. +The prior prosecution must have left the substantial federal interest "demonstrably +unvindicated." In general, the Department presumes that a prior prosecution has +vindicated federal interests, but that presumption may be overcome in certain +circumstances. As relevant here, the presumption may be overcome when the +choice of charges in the prior prosecution was based on factors such as +incompetence, corruption, intimidation, or undue influence. The presumption may +be overcome even when the prior prosecution resulted in a conviction, if the prior +sentence was "manifestly inadequate in light of the federal interest involved and a +substantially enhanced sentence-including forfeiture and restitution as well as +imprisonment and fines—is available through the contemplated federal +prosecution." +The government must believe that the defendant's conduct constitutes a federal +offense, and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and +sustain a conviction. +However, the satisfaction of the prerequisites does not require a prosecutor to proceed with a +federal investigation or charges nor is the Department required to approve the proposed +prosecution. +The Petite policy cautions that whenever a matter involves overlapping federal and state +jurisdiction, federal prosecutors should consult with their state counterparts "to determine the most +appropriate single forum in which to proceed to satisfy the substantial federal and state interests +involved." If a substantial question arises as to whether the Petite policy applies to a particular +prosecution, the prosecutor should submit the matter to the appropriate Assistant Attorney General +for resolution. Prior approval from the appropriate Assistant Attorney General must be obtained +before bringing a prosecution governed by this policy. +3. USAM Provisions Relating to Plea Agreements +Federal prosecutors have discretion to resolve an investigation or pending case through a +plea agreement. USAM $$ 9-27.330; 9-27.400. Negotiated pleas are also explicitly sanctioned +by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1).'93 Regardless of whether the plea agreement is +offered pre-charge or post-charge, the prosecutor's plea bargaining "must honestly reflect the +totality and seriousness of the defendant's conduct." USAM § 9-27.400, comment. 194 The +importance of selecting a charge that reflects the seriousness of the conduct is echoed in USAM +§ 9-27.430, which directs the prosecutor to require a defendant to plead to an offense that +represents the most serious readily provable charge consistent with the nature and extent of the +As previously noted, Rule 11(c)(1)(C) permits the parties to agree to resolve the case in exchange for a +specific sentence, subject to the court's acceptance of the agreement. +See also USAM § 9-27.300 ("Once the decision to prosecute has been made, the attorney for the government +should charge ... the most serious offense that is consistent with the nature of the defendant's conduct, and that is +likely to result in a sustainable conviction."). +123 + + +defendant's criminal conduct, has an adequate factual basis, makes likely the imposition of an +appropriate sentence and order of restitution, and does not adversely affect the investigation or +prosecution of others. USAM § 9-27.420 specifies: +In determining whether it would be appropriate to enter into a plea +agreement, the attorney for the government should weigh all +relevant considerations, including: +1. +The defendant's willingness to cooperate in the +investigation or prosecution of others; +The defendant's history with respect to criminal +activity; +The nature and seriousness of the offense or offenses +charged; +The defendant's remorse or contrition and his/her +willingness to assume responsibility for his/her conduct; +5. +The desirability of prompt and certain disposition of +the case; +The likelihood of obtaining a conviction at trial; +The probable effect on witnesses; +8. +The probable sentence or other consequences if the +defendant is convicted; +9. +The public interest in having the case tried rather +than disposed of by a guilty plea; +10. +› The expense of trial and appeal; +11. +The need to avoid delay in the disposition of other +pending cases; and +12. +The effect upon the victim's right to restitution. +USAM Provisions Relating to Non-Prosecution Agreements +USAM § 9-27.600 authorizes government attorneys to enter into a non-prosecution +agreement in exchange for a person's cooperation. The provision explains that a non-prosecution +agreement is appropriate for this purpose when, in the prosecutor's judgment, the person's timely +cooperation are maval ble or wary in the publicive: codother to this frobision the is irel +such "other means" include seeking cooperation after trial and conviction, bargaining for +124 + + +cooperation as part of a plea agreement, or compelling cooperation under a "use immunity" order. +The comment observes that these alternative means "are clearly preferable to permitting an +offender to avoid any liability for his/her conduct" and "should be given serious consideration in +the first instance." USAM §§ 9-27.620 and 9-27.630 set forth considerations a prosecutor should +take into account when entering into a non-prosecution agreement. Generally, the U.S. Attorney +has authority to approve a non-prosecution agreement. USAM § 9-27.600 comment. However, +USAM § 9-27.640 directs that a government attorney should not enter into a non-prosecution +agreement in exchange for a person's cooperation without first obtaining the approval of the +appropriate Assistant Attorney General, or his or her designee, when the person is someone who +"is likely to become of major public interest." +These USAM provisions do not address the uses of non-prosecution agreements in +circumstances other than when needed to obtain cooperation. +USAM Provisions Relating to Grants of Immunity +Nothing in the USAM directly prohibits the government from using the criminal exposure +of third parties in negotiating with a criminal defendant. Instead, the provision that addresses +immunity relates only to the exchange of limited immunity for the testimony of a witness who has +asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, See USAM §$ 9-23.100 et seq. +6. +USAM/C.F.R. Provisions Relating to Financial Conflicts of Interest +Department employees are expected to be aware of, and to comply with, all ethics-related +laws, rules, regulations, and policies. See, generally, USAM § 1-4.000 et seq. Specifically, a +government attorney is prohibited by criminal statute from participating personally and +substantially in any particular matter in which he has a financial interest or in which such an +interest can be imputed to him. See 18 U.S.C. § 208 and 5 C.F.R. §$ 2635.401-402. In addition, +a Department employee should seek advice from an ethics official before participating in any +matter in which his impartiality could be questioned. If a conflict of interest exists, in order for +the employee to participate in the matter, the head of the employee's component, with the +concurrence of an ethics official, must make a determination that the interest of the government in +the employee's participation outweighs the concern that a reasonable person may question the +integrity of the Department's programs and operations. The determination must be made in +writing. See 5 C.F.R. §5 2635.501-502. +B. +Other Department Policies +1. +Department Policies Relating to the Disposition of Charges +Department. Over the span of several decades, each successive Attorney General has articulated +those priorities in policy memoranda issued to all federal prosecutors. As applicable here, on +september 22 +Stepanent alicy neering Charging Criminal Offenses, dispostion of charges, ding +Sentencing" (Ashcroft Memo). The Ashcroft Memo, which explicitly superseded all previou +Departmental guidance on the subject, set forth policies "designed to ensure that all federal +125 + + +prosecutors adhere to the principles and objectives" of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the +Sentencing Guidelines, and the PROTECT Act "in their charging, case disposition, and sentencing +practices. 195 +The Ashcroft Memo directed that, 'in all federal cases, federal prosecutors must charge +and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense or offenses that are supported by the facts of +the case," except as authorized by an Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Attorney, or designated +supervisory authority in certain articulated limited circumstances. The Ashcroft Memo cautioned +that a charge is not "readily provable" if the prosecutor harbors a good faith doubt, based on either +the law or the evidence, as to the government's ability to prove the charge at trial. The Ashcroft +Memo explains that the "basic policy" "requires federal prosecutors to charge and pursue all +charges that are determined to be readily provable" and would yield the most substantial sentence +The policy set forth six exceptions, including a catch-all exception that permits a prosecutor +to decline to pursue readily provable charges "in other exceptional circumstances" with the written +or otherwise documented approval of an Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Attorney, or "designated +supervisory attorney." As examples of circumstances in which such declination would be +appropriate, the Ashcroft Memo cites to situations in Which a U.S. Attorney's Office is +"particularly over-burdened," the trial is expected to be of exceptionally long duration, and +proceeding to trial would significantly reduce the total number of cases the office could resolve. +Thre Ament of Memo extent lyites it the are est be sediny the pursuant to a plea +agreement only to the extent consistent" +On January 28, 2005, Deputy Attorney General James Comey issued a memorandum +entitled "Department Policies and Procedures Concerning Sentencing." That memorandum +reiterated that federal prosecutors "must continue to charge and pursue the most serious readily +provable offenses," and defined that ferm as the offenses that would "generate the most substantial +sentence" under the Sentencing Guidelines, any applicable mandatory minimum, and any +statutorily required consecutive sentence. +Importantly, although the Ashcroft and Comey memoranda limit an individual line +prosecutor's ability to decline "readily provable" charges in their entirety, no such restriction is +placed upon the U.S. Attorneys, who retained authority to approve exceptions to the policy. In +addition, the policy applies to "readily provable" charges, thus inherently allowing a prosecutor +195 +The Ashcroft Memo was issued before the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 +(2005), which struck down the provision of the federal sentencing statute that required federal district judges to impose +a sentence within the applicable Federal Sentencing Guidelines range. Those Guidelines were the product of +the United States Sentencing Commission, which was created by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. The +Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003, Pub. +L. 108-21, 117 Stat. 650, was directed at preventing child abuse. It included a variety of provisions designed to +improve the investigation and prosccution of violent crimes against children. Among other things, the PROTECT Act +provided for specific sentencing considerations for certain sex-related offenses, such as those involving multiple +occasions of prohibited sexual conduct or those involving material with depictions of violence or with specified +numbers of images. +126 + + +flexibility to decline to bring a particular charge based on a "good faith doubt" that the law or +evidence supports the charge. +Department Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal Aliens +On April 28, 1995, the Attorney General issued a memorandum to all federal prosecutors +entitled "Deportation of Criminal Aliens," directing federal prosecutors to actively and directly +become involved in the process of removing criminal aliens from the United States. In pertinent +part, this memorandum notes that prosecutors can make a major contribution to the expeditious +deportation of criminal aliens by effectively using available prosecution tools for dealing with +alien defendants. These tools include (1) stipulated administrative deportation orders it +connection with plea agreements; (2) deportation as a condition of supervised release under +18 U.S.C. § 3853(d); and (3) judicial deportation orders pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d). The +memorandum further directs: +All deportable criminal aliens should be deported unless +extraordinary circumstances exist. Accordingly, absent such +circumstances, Federal prosecutors should seek the deportation of +deportable alien defendants in whatever manner is deemed most +appropriate in a particular case. Exceptions to this policy must have +the written approval of the United States Attorney. +See also USAM § 9-73.520. A "criminal alien" is a foreign national who has been convicted of a +crime. 196 +Stipulated administrative deportation orders can be based "on the conviction for an offense +to which the alien will plead guilty," provided that the offense is one of those enumerated in +8 U.S.C. § 1251 as an offense that causes an alien to be deported. Under 8 U.S.C. +§ 1251(a)(2)(A)(i), any alien who is convicted of a crime of "moral turpitude" within five years +after the date of entry (or 10 years in the case of an alien provided lawful permanent resident +status), and is either sentenced to confinement or confined to prison for one year or longer, is +deportable. +C. Case Law +1. +Prosecutorial Discretion +On many occasions, the Supreme Court has discussed the breadth of the prosecutor's +discretion in deciding whether and whom to prosecute. In Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 +(1978), the Court considered the propriety of a prosecutor's threat during plea negotiations to seek +more serious charges against the accused if the accused did not plead guilty to the offense +originally charged. The defendant, Hayes, opted not to plead guilty to the original offense, and +196 +According to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, "The term "criminal alien' refers to aliens who have +been convicted of one or more crimes, whether in the United States or abroad, prior to interdiction by the U.S. Border +Patrol." See U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP Enforcement Statistics, +Criminal Alien Statistics Fiscal Year 2020, available at https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcementstatistics/criminal-alien-statistics. +127 + + +the prosecutor indicted him on more serious charges. Hayes was thereafter convicted and +sentenced under the new indictment. The state court of appeals rejected Hayes's challenge to his +conviction, concluding that the prosecutor's decision to indict on more serious charges was a +legitimate use of available leverage in the plea-bargaining process. Hayes filed for review of his +conviction and sentence in federal court, and although Hayes lost at the district court level, the +U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that the prosecutor's conduct constituted +impermissible vindictive prosecution. +The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit's ruling. The Court opined that "acceptance +of the basic legitimacy of plea bargaining necessarily implies rejection of any notion that a guilty +plea is involuntary in a constitutional sense simply because it is the end result of the bargaining +process." Id. at 363. A long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe a crime has been +committed, "the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a +grand jury, rests entirely in his discretion." Id. at 364 (emphasis added). The Court explained that +selectivity in enforcement of the criminal law is not improper unless based upon an unjustifiable +standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification. Id. +These principles were reiterated in Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (1985), a case +involving the government's policy of prosecuting only those individuals who reported themselves +as having failed to register with the Selective Service system. The petitioner in Wayte claimed +that the self-reported non-registrants were "vocal" opponents of the registration program who were +being punished for the exercise of their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court rejected this +argument, stating that the government has "broad discretion" in deciding whom to prosecute, and +that the limits of that discretion are reached only when the prosecutor's decision is based on an +unjustifiable standard. Id. at 607-08. Because the passive enforcement policy was not intended to +have a discriminatory effect, the claim of selective prosecution failed. +In Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), the Supreme Court considered whether a state +prosecutor acting within the scope of his duties could be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation +of the defendant's constitutional rights when the defendant alleged that the prosecutor and others +had unlawfully conspired to charge and convict him. The Court held that 'in initiating a +prosecution and in presenting the State's case," conduct that is "intimately associated with the +judicial phase of the criminal process," the prosecutor enjoyed absolute immunity from a civil suit +for damages. Id. at 430-31. In Harrington v. Almy, 977 F.2d 37 (Ist Cir. 1992), the court applied +Imbler to a challenge to a prosecutor's decision not to prosecute. The court noted that "given the +avallability of immunity for the decision to charge, it becomes even more important that +symmetrical protection be available for the decision not to charge." Id. at 41 (emphasis in +original). +Finally, in an analogous area of the law, in Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), the +Supreme Court concluded that an agency's decision not to undertake an enforcement action is not +reviewable under the federal Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 500-706. +Plea Agreement Promises of Leniency towards a Third Party +Case law regarding promises made during plea negotiations not to prosecute a third-party +arises in two contexts. First, defendants have challenged the voluntariness of the resulting plea +128 + + +when prosecutors have used third parties as leverage in plea negotiations. Numerous courts have +made clear, however, that a plea is not invalid when entered under an agreement that includes a +part it flea is cy towared tied a. oried pase to prose or tat at 2a hird +_. 909 F.2d 738, 741-42 (2d Cir. +1990) (rejecting claim that plea was involuntary because of pressure placed upon a defendant by +the government's insistence that a defendant's wife would not be offered a plea bargain unless he +pled guilty; L +| v. Kemp, 760 F.2d 1244, 1248 (11th Cir. 1985) (in order to satisfy "heavy +burden" of establishing that the government had not acted "in good faith," a defendant challenging +voluntariness of his plea on grounds that the prosecutor had threatened to bring charges against +the defendant's pregnant wife had to establish that government lacked probable cause to believe +the defendant's wife had committed a crime at the time it threatened to charge her); Stinson v. +State, 839 So. 2d 906, 909 (Fla. App. 2003) ("In cases involving ... a promise not to prosecute a +third party, the government must act in good faith ... [and] must have probable cause to charge +the third party."). +The second context concerns situations in which courts have enforced prosecutors' +promises of leniency to third parties. For example, in State v. Frazier, 697 So. 2d 944 (Fla. App. +1997), as consideration for the defendant's guilty plea, the prosecutor agreed and announced in +open court that the government would dismiss charges against the defendant's niece and nephew, +who had all been charged as a result of the same incident. When the state reneged and attempted +to prosecute the niece and nephew, the trial court dismissed the charges against them, and the state +appealed. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that under contract law +principles, the niece and nephew were third-party beneficiaries of the plea agreement and were +therefore entitled to enforce it. +Apart from voluntariness or enforceability concerns, courts have not suggested that a +prosecutor's promise not to prosecute a third party amounts to an inappropriate exercise of +prosecutorial discretion. +D. State Bar Rules +During the period relevant to this Report, the five subject attorneys were members of the +bar in several different states and were subject to the rules of professional conduct in each state in +the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Local Rules) and the choice-of-law +provisions of each applicable bar. Local Rule 11.1(f) incorporates rules governing the admission, +197 +198 +The subjects' membership in state bars other than Florida would not affect OPR's conclusions in this case. +These rules have been in effect since December 1994. +129 + + +is subject to all rules of the court.' Attorney Admission Rule 6(b)(2)(A) makes clear that +attorneys practicing before the court are subject to the Florida Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct +(FRPC). Moreover, the choice-of-law provisions contained within the relevant state's rules of +professional conduct make the FRPC applicable to their conduct. +1. FRPC 4-1.1 - Competence +FRPC 4-1.1 requires that a lawyer provide competent representation to a client. 200 +Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation +reasonably necessary for the representation. A comment to the rule clarifies that the factors +relevant to determining a lawyer's competence to handle a particular matter include "the relative +complexity and specialized nature of the matter, the lawyer's general experience, the lawyer's +training and experience in the field in question, the preparation and study the lawyer is able to give +the matter, and whether it is feasible to refer the matter to, or associate or consult with, a lawyer +of established competence in the field." The comment further notes that "[i]n many instances the +required proficiency is that of a general practitioner." With respect to particular matters, +competence requires inquiry into and analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem. +The comment to Rule 4-1.1 explains that "[t]he required attention and preparation are determined +in part by what is at stake; major litigation and complex transactions ordinarily require more +extensive treatment than matters of lesser complexity and consequence." +FRPC 4-1.3 - Diligence +FRPC 4-1.3 specifies that a lawyer should act with reasonable diligence and promptness in +representing a client. A comment to this rule explains, "A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf +of a client despite opposition, obstruction, or personal inconvenience to the lawyer and take +whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client's cause or endeavor." A +lawyer must exercise "zeal" in advocating for the client, but is not required "to press for every +advantage that might be realized for a client." +FRPC 4-4.1 - Candor in Dealing with Others +FRPC 4-4.1 prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact +or law to a third person during the course of representation of a client. A comment to this rule +explains that [misrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or +omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements," and "[w]hether a particular +statement should be regarded as one of fact can depend on the circumstances." +see also 28 U.S.C. § 530B(a), providing that government attorneys are subject to state laws and state an +ocal federal court rules governing attorneys in each state where the government attorney engages in his duties +200 +The federal prosecutor does not have an individual "client," but rather represents the people of the United +States. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 547 (duties of U.S. Attorney); 28 C.F.R. § 0.5(b) (the Attorney General represents +the United States in legal matters). +130 + + +FRPC 4-8.4 - Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice +FRPC 4-8.4(c) states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, +deceit, or misrepresentation. +FRPC 4-8.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct in connection with the practice +of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. +In Florida Bar v. Frederick, 756 So. 2d 79, 87 (Fla. 2000), the court noted that FRPC +4-8.4(d) is not limited to conduct that occurs in a judicial proceeding, but can be applied to +"conduct in connection with the practice of law." In Florida Bar v. Shankman, 41 So. 3d 166, 172 +(Fla. 2010), for example, an attorney's continuous hiring and firing of firms to assist in the client's +matter resulted in delayed resolution of the case and constituted a violation of FRPC 4-8.4(d) due +to the delay in the administration of justice and the increased costs to the client. 201, +NOT A CERTIFIED CO +OPR also examined FRPC 4-3.8, Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor. Nothing in the text of that rule, +however, was relevant to the issues addressed in this Report. A comment to FRPC Rule 4-3.8 notes that Florida has +adopted the American Bar Association (ABA) Standards of Criminal Justice Relating to the Prosecution Function. +These "standards," however, are not binding rules of conduct but rather provide guidance to prosecutors. Indeed, the +ABA has expressly stated that these standards "are not intended to serve as the basis for the imposition of professional +discipline, to create substantive or procedural rights for accused or convicted persons, to create a standard of care for +civil liability, or to serve as a predicate for a motion to suppress evidence or dismiss a charge." OPR does not consider +the ABA standards as binding on the conduct of Department prosecutors. +131 + + +132 + + +PART THREE: ANALYSIS +OVERVIEW +Following the Miami Herald report in November 2018, media scrutiny of and public +attention to the USAO's handling of its Epstein investigation has continued unabated. At the heart +of the public's concern is the perception that Epstein's 18-month sentence, which resulted in a 13- +month term of actual incarceration, was too lenient and inadequately punished Epstein's criminal +conduct. Although many records have been released as part of civil litigation stemming from +Epstein's conduct, the public has received only limited information regarding the decision-making +process leading to the signed NPA. As a result, questions have arisen about Acosta and his staff's +motivations for entering into the NPA. Publicly released communications between prosecutors +and defense counsel, the leniency of the sentence, and an unusual non-pl +cution provision in the +NPA have led to allegations that Acosta and the USAO gave Epstein a "sweetheart deal" because +they were motivated by improper influences, such as their preexisting and personal relationships +with his attorneys, or even corrupt influences, such as the receipt of personal benefits from Epstein. +Through its investigation, OPR has sought to answer the following core questions: (1) who +was responsible for the decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA and for its +specific terms; (2) did the NPA or any of its provisions violate Department policies or other rules +or regulations; and (3) were any of the subjects motivated to resolve the federal investigation by +improper factors, such as corruption or favoritism. To the extent that available records and witness +interviews shed light on these questions, OPR shows in detail the process that led to the NPA, from +the initial complaint to the USAO through the intense and often confusing negotiation process. +After a thorough and detailed examination of thousands of contemporaneous records and extensive +interviews of subjects and witnesses, OPR is able to answer most of the significant questions +concerning the NPA's origins and development. Although some questions remain, OPR sets forth +its conclusions and the bases for them in this Part. +II. ACOSTA REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE TERMS OF THE NPA AND IS +ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT +Although Acosta did not sign the NPA, he approved it, with knowledge of its terms. He +revised drafts of the NPA and added language that he thought appropriate. Acosta told OPR that +he either was informed of, or had access to information concerning, the underlying facts of the +case against Epstein. OPR did not find any evidence suggesting that any of his subordinates misled +him about the facts or withheld information that would have influenced his decision, and Acosta +did not make such a claim to OPR. As Acosta affirmed in his OPR interview, the "three pronged +resolution, two years ..., registration and restitution, ... ultimately that was approved on my +authority. ... [U]itimately, I approved it, and so, I... accept that. I'm not ... pushing away +responsibility for it." +In making its misconduct assessments, OR considers the conduct of subjects individually. +Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña were involved in the matter to varying degrees, at +133 + + +different points in time, and regarding different decisions. Menchel, for example, participated in +formulating the USAO's initial written offer to the defense, but he had no involvement with actions +or decisions made after August 3, 2007. Sloman was absent during part of the most intense +negotiations in September 2007 and did not see the final, signed version of the NPA until he +returned. Villafaña and Lourie participated in the negotiations, and Lourie either made decisions +during the September 12, 2007 meeting with the defense and State Attorney's Office, or at least +indicated agreement pending Acosta's approval. In any event, whatever the level of Sloman's, +Menchel's, Lourie's, and Villafaña's involvement, they acted with the knowledge and approval of +Acosta. +Under OPR's analytical framework, an attorney who makes a good faith attempt to +ascertain the obligations and standards imposed on the attorney and to comply with them in a given +situation does not commit professional misconduct. Evidence that an attorney made a good faith +attempt to ascertain and comply with the obligations and standards imposed can include, but is not +limited to, the fact that the attorney consulted with a supervisor. 202. In this regard, OPR's +framework is similar to a standard provision of the professional conduct rules of most state bars, +which specify that a subordinate lawyer does not engage in misconduet if that lawyer acts in +accordance with a supervisory lawyer's reasonable resolution of an arguable question of +professional duty. See, e.g., FRPC 4-5.2(b). Therefore, in addition to the fact that OPR did not +find a violation of a clear and unambiguous standard as discussed below, OPR concludes that +Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña did not commit professional misconduct with respect to +any aspect of the NPA because they acted under Acosta's direction and with his approval. +III. OPR FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SUBJECTS VIOLATED A CLEAR AND +UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE OR +STANDARD, +OR DEPARTMENT REGULATION OR POLICY, IN +NEGOTIATING, APPROVING, OR ENTERING INTO THE NPA +A central issue OPR addressed in its investigation relating to the NPA was whether any of +the subjects, in developing, negotiating, or entering into the NPA, violated any clear and +unambiguous standard established by rule, regulation, or policy. OPR does not find professional +misconduct unless a subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous +standard. OPR considered three specific areas: (1) standards implicated by the decision to decline +a federal court prosecution; (2) standards implicated by the decision to resolve the federal +investigation through a non-prosecution agreement; and (3) standards implicated by any of the +NPA's provisions, including the promise not to prosecute unidentified third parties. As discussed +below, OPR concludes that in each area, and in the absence of evidence establishing that his +decisions were based on corrupt or improper influences, the U.S. Attorney possessed broad +discretionary authority to proceed as he saw fit, authority that he could delegate to subordinates, +and that Acosta's exercise of his discretionary authority did not breach any clear and unambiguous +standard. As a result, OPR concludes that none of the subject attorneys violated a clear and +The failure to fully advise a supervisor of relevant and material facts can warrant a finding that the subordinate +attorney has not acted in "good faith." OPR did not find evidence supporting such a conclusion here, and Acosta did +not claim that he was unaware of material facts needed to make his decision. +134 + + +unambiguous standard or engaged in professional misconduct in developing, negotiating, or +entering into the NPA, including its addendum. +U.S. Attorneys Have Broad Discretion to Resolve Investigations or Cases as +They Deem Appropriate, and Acosta's Decision to Decline to Prosecute +Epstein Federally Does Not Constitute Professional Misconduct +The U.S. Attorneys exercise broad discretion in enforcing the nation's criminal laws.203 +As a general matter, federal prosecutors "are designated by statute as the President's delegates to +help him discharge his constitutional responsibility to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully +executed." United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996) (quoting U.S. Const. art. II, +§ 3). Unless based on an impermissible standard such as race, religion, or other) arbitrary +so long as it is not based upon improper factors."). +Department policy guidance in effect at the time the USAO was handling the Epstein case +helped ensure "the reasoned exercise of prosecutorial authority," but did not require "a particular +prosecutorial decision in any given case." USAM $§ 9-27.001, 9-27.120 (comment). Rather than +mandating specific actions, the USAM identified considerations that should factor into a +prosecutor's charging decisions, including that the defendant was "subject to effective prosecution +in another jurisdiction." USAM § 9-27.220. Importantly, U.S. Attorneys had "plenary authority +with regard to federal criminal matters" and could modify or depart from the principles set forth +in the USAM as deemed necessary in the interest of fair and effective law enforcement within their +individual judicial districts. USAM §§ 9-2.001, 9-27.140. As stated in the USAM, "[t]he United +States Attorney is invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest +discretion in the exercise of such [prosecutive] authority," which includes the authority to decline +prosecution. USAM § 9-2.001. +In addition, the USAM contemplated that federal prosecutors would sometimes decline +federal prosecution in deference to a state prosecution of the same conduct and provided guidance +in the form of factors to be considered in making the decision, including the strength of the other +jurisdiction's interest in prosecution, the other jurisdiction's ability and willingness to prosecute +effectively, and the probable sentence or other consequences if the person is convicted in the other +jurisdiction. USAM § 9-27.240.204 A comment to this provision stated that the factors are +"illustrative only, and the attorney for the government should also consider any others that appear +relevant to hi[m]/her in a particular case." +203 +See, e.g., Wayle, 470 U.S. at 607; United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 380 n.11 (1982); +Bordenkircher, 434 U.S. at 364; Imbler, 424 U.S. 409. +The discretionary authority under USAM § 9-27.240 to defer prosecution in favor of another jurisdiction i +listinet from the Petite policy, which establishes guidelines for the exercise of discretion in determining whether t +bring a federal prosecution based on conduct substantially the same as that involved in a prior state or federal +proceeding. See USAM § 9-2.031. +135 + + +As the U.S. Attorney, and in the absence of evidence establishing that his decision was +motivated by improper factors, Acosta had the "plenary authority" under federal law and under the +USAM to resolve the case as he deemed necessary and appropriate. As discussed in detail below, +OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta, or the other subjects, were motivated or +influenced by improper considerations. Because no clear and unambiguous standard required +Acosta to indict Epstein on federal charges or prohibited his decision to defer prosecution to the +state, OPR does not find misconduct based on Acosta's decision to decline to initiate a federal +prosecution of Epstein. +B. No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Precluded Acosta's Use of a +Non-Prosecution Agreement to Resolve the Federal Investigation of Epstein +OPR found no statute or Department policy that was violated by Acosta's decision to +resolve the federal investigation of Epstein through a non-prosecution agreement. Y +The prosecutor's broad charging discretion includes the option of resolving a case through +a non-prosecution agreement or a related and similar mechanism, a deferred prosecution +agreement. United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733 (D.C. Cir. 2016). These agreements +"afford a middle-ground option to the prosecution when, for example, it believes that a criminal +conviction may be difficult to obtain or may result in unwanted collateral consequences for a +defendant or third parties, but also believes that the defendant should not evade accountability +altogether." Id. at 738. As with all prosecutorial charging decisions, the choice to resolve a case +through a non-prosecution agreement or a deferred prosecution agreement "resides fundamentally +with the Executive" branch. Id. at 741. +OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard in the USAM prohibiting the use of a nonprosecution agreement in the circumsfances presented in Epstein's case. The USAM specifically +authorized and provided guidance regarding non-prosecution agreements or deferred prosecution +agreements made in exchange for a person's timely cooperation when such cooperation would put +the person in potential criminal jeopardy and when alternatives to full immunity (such as +testimonial immunity) were "impossible or impracticable." USAM § 9-27.600 (comment). 205 The +"cooperation" contemplated was cooperation in the criminal investigation or prosecution of +another person. In certain circumstances, government attorneys were required to obtain approval +from the appropriate Assistant Attorney General before entering into a non-prosecution agreement +in exchange for cooperation. +Epstein, however, was not providing "cooperation" as contemplated by the USAM, and the +USAM was silent as to whether a prosecutor could use a non-prosecution agreement in +circumstances other than in exchange for cooperation in the investigation or prosecution of +another. Notably, although the USAM provided guidance and approval requirements in cases +volving cooperation, the USAM did not prohibit the use of a non-prosecution agreement in oth +tuations. Accordingly, OPR concludes that the USAM did not establish a clear and unambiguol +obligation prohibiting Acosta from ending the federal investigation through a non-prosecution +USAM § 9-27.650 required that non-prosecution agreements in exchange for cooperation be fully +memorialized in writing. Although this requirement was not applicable for the reasons given above, the NPA complied +by fully memorializing the terms of the agreement. +136 + + +agreement that did not require Epstein's cooperation nor did the USAM require Acosta to obtain +Departmental approval before doing so. +C. The NPA's Individual Provisions Did Not Violate Any Clear and +Unambiguous Standards +Although Acosta, as U.S. Attorney, had discretion generally to resolve the case through a +non-prosecution agreement that deferred prosecution to the state, OPR also considered whether a +clear and unambiguous standard governed any of the individual provisions of the NPA. +Specifically, OPR examined Acosta's decision to permit Epstein to resolve the federal +investigation by pleading guilty to state charges of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution +and solicitation to prostitution, with a joint, binding recommendation for an 18-month sentence of +incarceration. Because, as noted above, OPR found no clear guidance applicable to nonprosecution agreements not involving cooperation, OPR examined Departmental policies relating +to plea offers to assess the propriety of the NPA's charge and sentence requirements. OPR also +examined the provision declining to prosecute Epstein's unidentified "potential co-conspirators," +to determine whether that provision violated Departmental policy regarding grants of immunity. +Finally, OPR considered whether there was a clear and unambiguous obligation under the +Department's policy regarding the deportation of criminal aliens, which would have required +further action to be taken against the two Epstein assistants who were foreign nationals. +After considering the applicable rules and policies, OPR finds that Acosta's decision to +resolve the federal investigation through the NPA did not violate any clear and unambiguous +standards and that Acosta had the authority to resolve the federal investigation through a state plea +and through the terms that he chose. Accordingly, OPR concludes that Acosta did not commit +professional misconduct in developing, negotiating, or approving the NPA, nor did the other +subjects who implemented his decisions with respect to the resolution. 206 +1. +Acosta Had Authority to Approve an Agreement That Required +Epstein to Plead to Offenses Resulting in an 18-Month Term of +Incarceration +Federal prosecutors have discretion to resolve a pending case or investigation through a +plea agreement, including a plea that calls for the imposition of a specific, predetermined sentence. +USAM $$ 9-27,330, 9-27.400; see also Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1). +206 +OPR also considered whether Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Louric, or Villafaña failed to comply with +professional ethics standards requiring that attorneys exercise competence and diligence in their representation of a +client. Attorneys have a duty to provide competent, diligent representation to their clients, which generally requires +the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. See, e.g., FRPC +4-1.1, 4-1.3. The requirement of diligence obligates an attorney to exercise "zeal" in advocating for the client, but +does not require the attorney "to press for every advantage that might be realized for a client." See FRPC 4-1.3 +(comment). Although OPR criticizes certain decisions made during the USAO's investigation of Epstein, those +decisions, even if flawed, did not violate the standard requiring the exercise of competence or diligence. The subjects +exhibited sufficient knowledge, skill, preparation, thoroughness, and zeal during the federal investigation and the NPA +negotiations to satisfy the general standards established by the professional responsibility rules. An attorney may +attain a flawed result but still exercise sufficient competence and diligence throughout the representation to meet the +requirements of the standard. +137 + + +Longstanding Department policy directs prosecutors to require the defendant to plead to the most +serious readily provable charge consistent with the nature and extent of the defendant's criminal +conduct, that has an adequate factual basis, is likely to result in a sustainable conviction, makes +likely the imposition of an appropriate sentence and restitution order, and does not adversely affect +the investigation or prosecution of others. See USAM §§ 9-27.430, 9-27-300, 9-27.400 +(comment). The genesis of this policy, the Ashcroft Memo, specifically requires federal +prosecutors to charge and pursue all readily provable charges that would yield the most substantial +sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. However, the Ashcroft Memo articulates an important +exception: a U.S. Attorney or a "designated supervisory attorney" may authorize a plea that does +not comport with this policy. 207 Moreover, the Asheroft Memo explains that a charge is not +"readily provable" if the prosecutor harbors "a good faith doubt," based on either the law or the +evidence, as to the government's ability to prove the charge at trial. +By its plain terms, the NPA arguably does not appear to satisfy the "most serious readily +provable charge" requirement. The draft indictment prepared by Villafaña proposed charging +Epstein with a variety of federal crimes relating to sexual conduct with and trafficking of minors, +and Epstein's sentencing exposure under the federal guidelines was in the range of 168 to 210 +months' imprisonment. The original "term sheet" +presented to the defense proposed a "nonnegotiable" requirement that Epstein plead guilty to three state offenses, in addition to the original +state indictment, with a joint, binding recommendation for a) two-year term of incarceration. +Instead, Epstein was permitted to resolve his federal criminal exposure with a plea to the state +indictment and only one additional state offense, and an 18-month sentence. +As discussed more fully later in this Report, Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie +perceived risks to going forward to trial on the federal charges Villafaña outlined in the prosecution +memorandum and identified for OPR concerns with both the evidence and legal theories on which +a federal prosecution would be premised. On the other hand, Villafaña felt strongly that federal +charges should be brought, and the CEOS Chief reviewed the prosecution memorandum and twice +opined that the charges were appropriate. OPR found it unnecessary to resolve the question +whether federal charges against Epstein were readily provable, however, because Acosta had +207 +In addition to specified "Limited Exceptions," this authorization is available in "Other Exceptional +Circumstances," as follows: +Prosecutors may decline to pursuc or may dismiss readily provable charges in +other exceptional circumstances with the written or otherwise documented +approval of an Assistant Attorney General, United States Attorney, or designated +supervisory attorney. This exception recognizes that the aims of the Sentencing +Reform Act must be sought without ignoring the practical limitations of the +federal criminal justice system. For example, a case-specific approval to dismiss +charges in a particular case might be given because the United States Attorney's +Office is particularly over-burdened, the duration of the trial would be +exceptionally long, and proceeding to trial would significantly reduce the total +number of cases disposed of by the office. +However, such case-by-case +exceptions should be rare; otherwise the goals of fairness and equity will be +jeopardized. +Ashcroft Memo at § I.B.6. See also USAM §§ 9-2.001 and 27.140 (U.S. Attorneys" authority to depart from the +USAM). +138 + + +authority to deviate from the Ashcroft Memo's "most serious readily provable offense" +requirement. +Although Acosta could not recall specifically how or by whom the decision was made to +allow Epstein to plead to only one of the three charges identified on the original term sheet, or how +or by whom the decision was made to reduce the sentencing requirement from two years to 18 +months, Acosta was aware of these changes. He reviewed and approved the final NPA before it +was signed. Department policy gave him the discretion to approve the agreement, notwithstanding +any arguable failure to comply with the "most serious readily provable offense" requirement. +Furthermore, the Ashcroft Memo does not appear to preclude a U.S. Attorney from deferring to a +state prosecution, so it is not clear that the Memo's terms apply to a situation involving state +charges. Accordingly, OPR concludes that the negotiation of an agreement that allowed Epstein +to resolve the federal investigation in return for the imposition of an 18-month state sentence did +not violate a clear and unambiguous standard and therefore does not constitute professional +misconduct. +The USAO's Agreement Not to Prosecute Unidentified "Potential +Co-Conspirators" Did Not Violate a Clear and Unambiguous +Department Policy +Several witnesses told OPR that they believed the government's agreement not to prosecute +unidentified "potential co-conspirators" amounted to "transactional immunity," which the +witnesses asserted is prohibited by Department policy. Although "use immunity" protects a +witness only against the government's use of his or her immunized testimony in a prosecution of +the witness, and is frequently used by prosecutors, transactional immunity protects a witness from +prosecution altogether and is relatively rare. +OPR found no policy prohibiting a U.S. Attorney from declining to prosecute third parties +or providing transactional immunity. One section of the USAM related to immunity but applied +only to the exchange of "use immunity" for the testimony of a witness who has asserted a Fifth +Amendment privilege. See USAM § 9-23.100 et seq. Statutory provisions relating to immunity +also address the same context, See 18 U.S.C. § 6002; 21 U.S.C. § 884. Moreover, apart from +voluntariness or enforceability concerns, courts have not suggested that a prosecutor's promise not +to prosecute a third party amounts to an inappropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See, +negotiating or approving this provision violated a clear and unambiguous standard or constituted +professional misconduct. +Notwithstanding this finding, in Section IV of this Part, OPR includes in its criticism of +Acosta's decision to approve the NPA his approval of this provision without considering its +potential consequences, including to whom it would apply. +139 + + +The NPA Did Not Violate Department Policy Relating to Deportation +of Criminal Aliens +During the negotiations, the USAO rejected a defense-offered provision prohibiting the +USAO from "request[ing], initiat[ing], or in any way encourag[ing] immigration authorities to +institute immigration proceedings" against two female assistants. However, OPR considered +whether the April 28, 1995 memorandum imposed any obligation on the USAO to prosecute +Epstein's two female assistants who were known to be foreign nationals—as Villafaña urged in +her prosecution memorandum—and thus trigger their removal, or conversely, whether it precluded +the USAO from agreeing not to prosecute them as part of a negotiated resolution. OPR found +nothing in the policy that created a clear and unambiguous standard in either regard. +The Attorney General's April 28, 1995 memorandum regarding "Deportation of Criminal +Aliens" directed federal prosecutors to become involved actively and directly in the process of +removing criminal aliens from the United States, and, along with USAM § 9-73.520, provided that +"[a]ll deportable criminal aliens should be deported unless extraordinary circumstances exist." +However, Epstein's two assistants were not "deportable" unless and until convicted of a crime that +would have triggered their removal. But neither the policy memorandum nor the USAM imposed +an obligation on the USAO to prosecute or secure a conviction against a foreign national nor did +either provision preclude the USAO from declining to prosecute an alien using the same broad +discretion that otherwise applies to charging decisions. +The policy guidance also requires "prompt and close coordination" with immigration +officials in cases involving alien defendants and specifies that prosecutors must notify immigration +authorities before engaging in plea negotiations with alien defendants. OPR learned during its +investigation that an ICE agent participated in the Epstein investigation in its early stages. +Moreover, because the USAO never engaged in plea negotiations with the two female assistants, +who, in any event, had not been charged and were therefore not "defendants," no further +notification was required. +IV. THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBJECTS WERE +INFLUENCED BY IMPROPER MOTIVES TO INCLUDE IN THE NPA TERMS +FAVORABLE TO EPSTEIN OR TO OTHERWISE EXTEND BENEFITS TO +EPSTEIN +OPR investigated whether any of the subjects—Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, or +Villafaña—was influenced by corruption, bias, or other improper motive, such as Epstein's wealth, +status, or political associations, to include terms in the NPA that were favorable to Epstein, or +whether such motives otherwise affected the outcome of the federal investigation. OPR +considered the case-specific reasons the subjects identified as the motivation for the USAO's +July 31, 2007 "term sheet" and Acosta's approval of the NPA in September 2007. OPR also +thoroughly examined various factors forming the basis for allegations that the subjects were +motivated by improper influences, including the subjects' preexisting relationships with defense +counsel; the subjects' numerous meetings with Epstein's team of nationally known attorneys; +emails between the subjects—particularly Villafaña-and defense counsel that appeared friendly, +casual, and deferential to defense counsel; and inclusion in the NPA of a broad provision declining +140 + + +to prosecute all of Epstein's co-conspirators. These factors are analyzed in the following +discussions throughout this Section of the Report. +As a threshold matter, OPR's investigation of the subjects' decisions and actions in the +Epstein matter uncovered no evidence of corruption such as bribery, gratuity, or illegal political or +personal consideration. In addition, OPR examined the extensive contemporaneous documentary +record, interviewed witnesses, and questioned the subject attorneys. The evidence shows three +sets of issues influenced Acosta's decision to resolve the case through the NPA. The first—of +main concern to Acosta—involved considerations of federalism and deference to state authority. +The second arose from an assessment by Acosta's senior advisers-Sloman, Menchel, and +Lourie-that the case carried substantial litigation risks, including both witness issues and what +some viewed as a novel application of certain federal statutes to the facts of the Epstein case. 208 +The third was Acosta's aim of obtaining a greater measure of justice for victims of Epstein's +conduct and for the community than that proposed by the state. +Although the NPA and the process for reaching it can be criticized, as OPR does, OPR did +not find evidence supporting a conclusion that the subjects were motivated by a desire to benefit +Epstein for personal gain or because of other improper considerations, such as Epstein's wealth, +status, or associations. That is not to say that Epstein received no benefit from his enormous +wealth. He was able to hire nationally known attorneys who had prestige, skill, and extensive +experience in federal and state criminal law and in conducting negotiations. He had the resources +to finance an aggressive approach to the case that included the preparation of multiple written +submissions reflecting extensive research and analysis, as well as multiple in-person meetings +involving several of his attorneys and USAO personnel. He assembled a defense team well versed +in the USAO and the Department, with the knowledge to maneuver through the Department's +various levels and offices, a process unknown to many criminal defense attorneys and infrequently +used even by those familiar with the Department's hierarchy. Access to highly skilled and +prominent attorneys is not unusual in criminal cases involving corporations and their officers or +certain other +collar defendants, but it is not so typical for defendants charged with sex crimes +or violent offenses. Nonetheless, while recognizing that Epstein's wealth played a role in the +outcome because he was able to hire skilled and assertive attorneys, OPR concludes that the +subjects were not motivated to resolve the federal investigation to Epstein's benefit by improper +factors. +A. OPR Found No Evidence of Criminal Corruption, Such as Bribery, Gratuity, +or Illegal Political or Personal Consideration +Some public criticism of the USAO's handling of the Epstein matter implied that the +subjects' decisions or actions may have been motivated by criminal corruption, although no +specific information substantiating such implications was identified. Throughout its investigation, +Sloman was included in numerous emails discussing the merits of and issues relating to the investigation, participated +in meetings with the defense team, and, according to Acosta, was one of the senior managers whom Acosta consulted +in determining how to resolve the Epstein investigation. +141 + + +OPR was attentive to any evidence that any of the subjects was motivated by bribes, gratuities, or +other illegal political or personal considerations, and found no such indication.209 Witnesses, +including law enforcement officials, were specifically asked whether they had any information +indicating such corruption, and all—notwithstanding the harsh criticism by some of those same +agent told OPR that she did not believe there had been any illegal influence, and that if she had +agent and the FBI supervisors up through the Special Agent in Charge likewise told OR that they +were unaware of any indication that a prosecutor acted in the matter because of illegal factors such +as a gratuity or bribe or other corrupt influence, and that any such indication would immediately +have been referred for criminal investigation by the FBI. +B. +Contemporaneous Written Records and Witness and Subject Interviews Did +Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the Subjects Were Improperly +Influenced by Epstein's Status, Wealth, or Associations +Although Epstein's name is now nationally recognized, in 2006 and 2007, he was not a +familiar national figure or even particularly well known in Florida. All five subjects told OPR that +when they first learned of the investigation, they had not heard of Epstein. Similarly, the FBI case +agent told OPR that when the investigation began, no one in the FBI appeared to have heard of' +Epstein, and other witnesses also told OPR that they were initially unfamiliar with Epstein. +However, news reports about Epstein's July 2006 arrest, on the state indictment, which were +contemporaneous with the beginning of the federal investigation, identified him as a wealthy Palm +Beach resident with influential contacts, including William Clinton, Donald Trump, Kevin Spacey, +and Alan Dershowitz, and other "prominent businessmen, academics and scientists."210 Villafaña, +Lourie, Sloman, and Acosta learned of this press coverage early in the investigation, and thus +understood that Epstein was wealthy and associated with notable public figures.?!' The FBI case +agent also told OPR that "we knew who had been on his plane, we knew ... some of his +connections." +1. +The Contemporaneous Records Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing +That the NPA Resulted from Improper Factors +OPR found no evidence in the extensive contemporaneous documentary record that the +terms of the NPA resulted from improper factors, such as Epstein's wealth or influential +former President Clinton in one pre-NPA letter, but that reference was made in the context of a +OPR's jurisdiction does not extend to the investigation of allegations of criminal activity. IfOPR had found +indication of criminal activity, it would have referred the matter to the appropriate Department investigative agencies. +210 +Larry +"Billionaire solicited prostitutes three times, indictment says," Palm Beach Post, July 24, 2006; +Nicole Janok, "Consultant to the rich indicted, jailed," Palm Beach Post, July 24, 2006. +211 +Lourie later made Menchel aware of Epstein's prominence in the course of forwarding to Menchel the initial +prosecution memorandum. +142 + + +narrative of Epstein's philanthropic activities, rather than presented as a suggestion that Epstein's +association to the former President warranted leniency and, in any case, the USAO rejected the +defense argument that the matter should be left entirely to the state's discretion.212 The defense +submission to the Deputy Attorney General contained a direct reference to Epstein's connection +to former President Clinton, but that submission was made well after the NPA was negotiated and +signed, and in it, counsel contended that the USAO had treated Epstein too harshly because of his +association with the former President. 213 +The Subjects Asserted That They Were Motivated by Reasonable +Strategic and Policy Considerations, Not Improper Influences +In addition to reviewing the documentary evidence, OPR questioned the five subject +attorneys, all of whom denied being personally influenced by Epstein's wealth or status in making +decisions regarding the investigation, in the decision to resolve the case through an NPA, or in +negotiating the NPA. Villafaña, in particular, was concerned from the outset of the federal +investigation that Epstein might try to employ against the USAO the same pressure that she +understood had been used with the State Attorney's Office, and she proactively took steps to +counter Epstein's possible influence by meeting with Acosta and Sloman to sensitize them to +Epstein's tactics. Both Acosta and Sloman told OPR that the USAO had handled cases involving +wealthy, high-profile defendants before, including the Abramoff case. Acosta told OPR, "[W]e +tried to treat [the case] fairly, not looking at ... how wealthy is he, but also not saying we need to +do this because he is so wealthy." Menchel expressed a similar view, telling OPR that he did not +believe "it's appropriate to go after somebody because of their status one way or the other." Lourie +told OPR that Epstein's status may have generated more "front office" involvement in the case, +but it did not affect the outcome, and Sloman "emphatically disagree[d]" with the suggestion that +the USAO's handling of the case had been affected by Epstein's wealth or influential connections. +Other witnesses corroborated the subjects testimony on this point, including the FBI case agents, +who told OPR that no one ever communicated to them that they should treat Epstein differently +because of his wealth. The CEOS Chief told OPR that he did not recall anyone at the USAO +expressing either qualms or enthusiasm about proceeding against Epstein because of his wealth +and influence. +OPR takes note of but does not consider dispositive the absence of any affirmative +evidence that the subjects were acting from improper motivations or their denial of such +motivations. Of more significance, and as discussed more fully below, was the fact that +contemporáneous records support the subjects' assertions that the decision to pursue a pre-charge +resolution was based on various case-specific legal and factual considerations.214 OPR also +In the pre-NA letter to the USAO, counsel recited a litany of Epstein's purported good deeds and charitable +works, including a trip Epstein took to Africa with former President Clinton to raise awareness of AIDS, and counsel +also noted that the former President had been quoted by New York Magazine describing Epstein as *a committed +philanthropist." +in the letter to the Deputy Attorney General, counsel suggested that the prosecution may have bee +politically motivated" due to Epstein's "close personal association with former President Bill Clinton.' +OPR also considered that all five subjects provided gencrally consistent explanations regarding the factors +that influenced Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA. Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and +Villafaña all had long careers with the Department, and OPR considers it unlikely that they would all have joined with +143 + + +considered that the USAO's most pivotal decisions—to resolve the case through an NPA requiring +Epstein to serve time in jail, register as a sexual offender, and provide monetary damages to +victims—had been made by July 31, 2007, when the USAO presented its "term sheet" to the +defense. This was before Acosta had ever met with defense counsel and when he had not indicated +any plans to do so. It also was well before Acosta's October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting with +defense counsel Lefkowitz, which received strong public and media criticism. OPR also +considered significant the fact that although the USAO made numerous concessions in the course +of negotiating the final NPA, the USAO did not accede to the defense request that the USAO end +federal involvement altogether and return the matter to the state authorities to handle as they saw +fit, and the USAO refused to eliminate its requirement that Epstein register as a sexual offender, +despite a strong push by the defense that it do so. +Subject and Witness Interviews and Contemporaneous Records +Identified Case-Specific Considerations Relating to Evidence, Legal +Theories, Litigation Risk, and a Trial's Potential Impact on Victims +Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie told OPR that they did not recall the specific content +of discussions about the challenges presented by a potential federal prosecution or reasons for +Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA, but they and Villafaña +identified for OPR several case-specific factors, unrelated to Epstein's wealth or associations, that +either did or likely would have been included in those discussions and that OPR concludes likely +influenced Acosta's decision-making. +These considerations included assessment of the +evidentiary risks and the potential impact of a trial on the victims. For the most part, however, +these factors appear more aptly to pertain to the decision to resolve the case through a pre-charge +disposition, but do not directly explain why Acosta chose to resolve the federal investigation +through a guilty plea in state court. That decision appears to have stemmed from Acosta's concerns +about intruding into an area he believed was traditionally handled by state law enforcement +authorities. +through the NPA: +mite the dirit our in 207, i concie with the cite +Prior to the Office making its decision to direct me to engage in +Acosta to improperly benefit Epstein or would have remained silent if they suspected that Acosta, or any of their +colleagues, was motivated by improper influences. +144 + + +and guaranteed sexual offender registration by Epstein ... were +among the factors [that led to the NPA].215 +During her OPR interview, Villafaña similarly described the victims' general reluctance to +go forward with a trial: +[W]hen we would meet with victims, we would ask them how they +wanted the case to be resolved. And most of them wanted the case +to be resolved via a plea. +Some of them wanted him not to be +prosecuted at all. Most of them did not want to have to come to +court and testify. They were very worried about their privacy +rights.216 +In his written response to OPR, Lourie stated that although he did not specifically recall +the issues Villafaña set forth in her declaration, he believed they would have been important to the +USAO in 2007. Lourie also told OPR that he generally recalled concerns within the USAO about +the charges and a potential trial: +[M]y vague recollection is that I and others had concerns that there +was a substantial chance we would not prevail at both trial and on +appeal after a conviction, resulting in no jail time, no criminal +215 +Doe v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla.), Declaration of A. +Villafaña in Support of +Government's Response and Opposition to Petitioners' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for +Summary Judgment at 8-9 (Junc 2, 2017). +These concerns are also reflected in a 2017 declaration filed by the FBI case agent in the CVRA litigation, +in which she stated, "During interviews conducted from 2006 to 2008, no victims expressed a strong opinion that +Epstein be prosecuted." She further described the concerns of some of the victims: +Throughout the investigation, we interviewed many [of Epstein's] victims... +A majority of the victims expressed concern about the possible disclosure of their +identities to the public. A number of the victims raised concerns about having to +testify and/or their parents finding out about their involvement with Mr. Epstein. +Additionally, for some victims, learning of the Epstein investigation and possible +exposure of their identities caused them emotional distress. Overall, many of the +victims were troubled about the existence of the investigation. They displayed +feelings of embarrassment and humiliation and were reluctant to talk to +investigators. Some victims who were identified through the investigation refused +even to speak to us. Our concerns about the victims" well-being and getting to +the truth were always at the forefront of our handling of the investigation. +In addition, during the CVRA litigation, an attorney representing several victims filed a pleading to protect +the anonymity of his clients by preventing disclosure of their identities to the CVRA petitioners. See Response to +Court Order of July 6, 2015 and United States" Notice of Partial Compliance (July 24, 2015). It is noteworthy that in +2020, when OPR attempted to contact victims, through their counsel, for interviews or responses to written questions +regarding contacts with the USAO, OPR was informed that most of the victims were still deeply concerned about +remaining anonymous. One victim described to OPR how she became distraught when, during the USAO's +investigation, the FBI left a business card at her parents' home and, as a result, her parents learned that she was a +victim of Epstein. At the time, the victim was a teenager; was "nervous, scared, and ashamed"; and did not want her +parents to know about the case. +145 + + +record, no restitution, no sex offender status, publication at a trial of +the names of certain victims that didn't want their names revealed +and the general difficulties of a trial for the victims and their +families. +Although his emails showed that, at the time, he advocated for prosecution of Epstein, +Lourie told OPR it was also his general recollection that "everybody at the USAO working on the +matter had expressed concerns at various times about the long-term viability of a federal +prosecution of Epstein due to certain factual and legal hurdles, as well as issues with the +cooperation and desires of the victims." +Similarly, Menchel—who had experience prosecuting sexual assault crimes recalled +understanding that many of the victims were unwilling to go forward and would have experienced +additional trauma as a result of a trial, and some had made statements exonerating Epstein. +Menchel told OPR he believed that if the USAO had filed the proposed charges against Epstein, +Epstein would have elected to go to trial. In Menchel's view, the USAO therefore had to weigh +the risk of losing at trial, and thereby re-traumatizing the victims, against the benefits gained +through a negotiated result, which ensured that Epstein served time in jail, registered as a sexual +offender, and made restitution to his victims. +Sloman also recalled witness challenges and concerns about the viability of the +government's legal theories. He told OPR: +[It seemed to me you had a tranche of witnesses who were not going +to be reliable. You had a tranche [of] witnesses who were going to +be severely impeached. People who loved Jeffrey Epstein who +thought he was a Svengali +, who were going to say I told him I +was 18 years old. +You had witnesses who were scared to death of the public light +being shown on them because their parents didn't even know -- had +very vulnerable victims. You had all of these concerns. +Acosta told OPR that he recalled discussions with his senior managers about the victims' +general credibility and reluctance to testify and the evidentiary strength of the case, all of which +factored into the resolution. He acknowledged that his understanding of the facts was not +"granular" and did not encompass a detailed understanding of each victim's expected testimony, +but he trusted that his "team" had already "done the diligence necessary" to make +recommendations about the evidentiary strength of the case. Acosta recalled discussing the facts +with Sloman and Menchel, and possibly Lourie, none of whom had as detailed an understanding +of the facts as Villafaña. Nevertheless, OPR credits Acosta's statement that he reasonably +believed, based on his conversations with others who expressed this view, that a trial would pose +significant evidentiary challenges. +Other witnesses corroborated the subjects' testimony regarding witness challenges, +including the FBI co-case agent, who recalled during his OPR interview that some of the victims +had expressed concern for their safety and "a lot of them d[id]n't want to take the stand, and +146 + + +d[id]n't want to have to relive what happened to them."217 The co-case agent told OPR that one +of the "strategies" for dealing with the victims' fear was "to keep them off the stand," and he +generally remembered discussions about resolving the Epstein case in a way that protected the +victims' identities. In addition, the CEOS Trial Attorney who briefly worked with Villafaña on +the case after the NPA was signed told OPR that in her meetings with some of the victims, she +formed the impression that they were not interested in the prosecution going forward. The CEOS +Trial Attorney told OPR that "[the victims] would have testified," but would have required an +extensive amount of "victim management" because they were "deeply embarrassed" about +potentially being labeled as prostitutes. The CEOS Trial Attorney also told OPR that "there were +obvious weaknesses in the case," from an evidentiary perspective.?18 +The contemporaneous records also reflect discussions of, or references to, various legal +and factual issues or other concerns about the case. For example, in an early email to Menchel, +Lourie noted that two key issues raised by Villafaña's proposed charges were whether the USAO +could prove that Epstein traveled for the purpose of engaging in sex acts, and the fact that some +minor victims had told Epstein they were 18. He later opined to Acosta and Menchel that "there +is some risk on some of the statutes [proposed in Villafaña's prosecution memorandum] as this is +uncharted territory to some degree." In his July 5, 2007 email to Villafaña, Menchel cited Acosta's +and Sloman's "concerns about taking this case because of [the Pletit policy and a number of legal +issues" and Acosta's concerns about "hurting Project Safe Childhood." Defense counsel raised +myriad legal and factual challenges in their voluminous letters to the USAO. Defense submissions +attacked the legal theories for a federal prosecution and detailed factors that could have +undermined victims' credibility, including victim statements favorable to Epstein and evidence of +victim drug and alcohol use, as well as the fact that some victims recruited other victims and +purportedly lied to Epstein about their ages. +Acosta also recalled that although his "team" had expressed concern about the "trial +issues," his own focus had been on "the legal side of things." Notably, during his prior tenure as +the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department's Civil Rights Division, Acosta had +been involved in efforts to address sex trafficking. He told OPR that one of the "background +issues" that the Civil Rights Division addressed under his leadership, and which influenced his +view of the Epstein case, was the distinction between sex trafficking and solicitation of +prostitution. Specifically, he was concerned about avoiding the creation of potentially unfavorable +federal precedent on the point of delineation between prostitution, which was traditionally a matter +of state concern, and sex trafficking, which remained a developing area of federal interest in +2007.219 +217 +In an affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation, the co-case agent noted that in carly 2007, when he located a +victim living outside of the United States, she claimed only to "know Jeffrey Epstein," and stated that she "moved +away to distance herself from this situation," and "asked that [the agent] not bother her with this again." +218 +In April 2007, a victim who was represented by an attorney paid by Epstein participated in a video-recorded +interview with the FBI, with her attorney and his investigator present. This victim denied being involved in, or being +a victim of, criminal activity. Later, the victim obtained new counsel and joined the CVRA litigation as "Jane Doe #2." +219 +In his March 20, 2011 letter, addressed "To whom it may concern," and published online in The Daily Beast, +Acosta described "a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosccutors" by "an army of legal superstars." Most +of the allegations made against the prosecutors occurred after the NPA was signed and certainly after Acosta approved +147 + + +The USAO might have been able to surmount the evidentiary, legal, and policy issues +presented by a federal prosecution of Epstein. Villafaña, in particular, believed she could have +prevailed had she taken the case to trial, and even after the NPA was negotiated, she repeatedly +recommended declaring Epstein in breach and proceeding with an indictment, because she +continued to have confidence in the case. Oosterbaan and others also believed that the +government would succeed at trial. Furthermore, the victims were not a uniform group. Some of' +them were afraid of testifying or having their identities made public; others wanted Epstein +prosecuted, but even among those, it is not clear how many expressed a willingness to testify at a +trial; and still others provided information favorable to Epstein. In the end, Acosta assumed +responsibility for deciding how to resolve the Epstein investigation and weighing the risks and +benefits of a trial versus those of a pre-charge disposition. His determination that a pre-charge +disposition was appropriate was not unreasonable under the circumstances. +Although evidentiary and witness issues explain the subject supervisors' concerns about +winning a potential trial and why the USAO would have sought some sort of pre-charge +disposition, they do not fully explain why Acosta decided to pursue a state-based resolution as +opposed to a traditional federal plea agreement. OPR did not find in the contemporaneous records +a memorandum or other memorialization of the reasoning underlying Acosta's decision to offer a +state-based resolution or the terms offered to the defense on July 31, 2007. +According to Acosta, "In 2006, it would have been extremely unusual for any United States +Attorney's Office to become involved in a state solicitation case, even one involving underage +teens," because solicitation was "the province of state prosecutors." Acosta told OPR that he +developed "a preference for deferring to the state" to "make it clear that [the USAO was] not +stepping on something that is a purely local matter, because we [didn't] want bad precedent for +the sake of the larger human trafficking issue." Acosta also told OPR that it was his understanding +that the PBPD would not have brought the case to federal investigators if the State Attorney's +Office had pursued a sanction against Epstein that included jail time and sexual offender +registration. Acosta viewed the USAO's role in the case as limited to preventing the "manifest +injustice" that, in Acosta's view, would have resulted from the state's original plea proposal. +Acosta acknowledged that if the investigation had begun in the federal system, he would not have +viewed the terms set out in the NPA as a satisfactory result, but it was adequate to serve as a +"backstop" to the state's/ prosecution, which he described as "a polite way of sayingl, +'Jencouraging the state to do a little bit more.[']" In sum, Acosta told OPR that the Epstein case +lay in "uncharted territory," there was no certainty that the USAO would prevail if it went to trial, +and a potentially unfavorable outcome had to be "weighed against a certain plea with registration +that would make sure that the public knew that this person was a sex offender." +Acosta told OPR that he discussed the case primarily with Sloman and Menchel, and both +told OPR that while they did not share Acosta's federalism concerns, they recalled that Acosta had +the terms offered to the defense on July 31, 2007. Therefore, any allegations against the prosecutors could not have +played a significant role in Acosta's decisions as reflected in the term sheet. +220 +Sloman told OPR that Villafaña "always believed in the case." +148 + + +been concerned about policy and federalism issues.?2' Sloman told OPR that although he did not +remember specific conversations, he generally recalled that Acosta had been "sensitive to" Petite +policy and federalism concerns, which Sloman described as whether the USAO was "overstepping +our bounds by taking what is a traditional state case that was in the State Attorney's Office that +was resolved by the State Attorney's Office at some level." During his OPR interview, Menchel +remembered that Acosta approached the case from "a broader policy perspective" and was worried +about "the impact that taking the case in federally may have on ... other programs," although +Menchel did not recall specifically what those programs were. +C. Other Significant Factors Are Inconsistent with a Conclusion That the +Subjects' Actions Were Motivated by Improper Influences +OPR considered additional aspects of the Epstein case that were inconsistent with a +suggestion that Acosta's decision to offer the July 31, 2007 terms was driven by corruption, a +desire to provide an improper benefit to Epstein, or other improper influences. +First, OPR considered highly significant the fact that if Acosta's primary motivation was +to benefit Epstein, he had an option even more favorable to Epstein available to him. The NPA +required Epstein to serve time in jail and register as a sexual offender, and provided a mechanism +for the victims to seek monetary damages—outcomes unlikely if the matter had been abandoned +and sent back to the state for whatever result state authorities deemed appropriate. Epstein's +attorneys had vehemently argued to the USAO that there was no federal interest in the investigation +and that his conduct was exclusively a matter of state concern. If the USAO had declined to +intervene in the case, as Epstein's counsel repeatedly and strongly argued it should, the state would +have meted out the sole punishment for his behavior. Under the state's original plan, Epstein likely +would have received a sentence of probation. Menchel described such a result as a mere "slap on +the wrist," with "no jail time, no felony sex offense, no sexual offender registration, [and] no +restitution for the victims." Instead ofacceding to Epstein's proposal, however, the USAO devised +a resolution of the federal investigation that, although widely criticized as inadequate to address +the seriousness of Epstein's conduct, hevertheless penalized Epstein more than a guilty plea to the +state's original charge, standing alone, would have done. +Acosta's affirmative decision to +intervene and to compel a moré stringent and just resolution than the state had proposed, rather +than exercising his discretion to quietly decline prosecution, is strong circumstantial evidence that +he was not acting for the purpose of benefiting Epstein.' Similarly, despite defense counsel's +repeated requests to eliminate the sexual offender registration requirement, Acosta refused to +Sloman stated that although Acosta "was sensitive to [P]etite policy concerns, federalism concerns, ... I was +not." Menchel commented, "I don't think it would have been a concern of mine." +Menchel also pointed out during his OPR interview that Acosta was Republican and "had nothing to gain" +by showing favoritism to Epstein, who had been portrayed in the media as "this big Democratic donor." Villafaña +recounted for OPR an exchange between the USAO team and a defense attorney who argued in one meeting that— +we were prosecuting [Epstein] because he was Jewish. We then pointed out that +a number of members of [the USAO] chain of command were Jewish. Then he +said, well we're prosecuting him because he was a Democrat. And again, we +pointed out that a number of us were Democrats. So then it went to, we were +prosecuting him because he was wealthy.... That one didn't work so well. +149 + + +reconsider the provision. Acosta could certainly have modified or eliminated the provision entirely +if his motivation was to benefit Epstein or Epstein's attorneys. +Second, Epstein himself was not satisfied with the NPA. Immediately after signing the +agreement, he sought to have the Department nullify it by declaring federal involvement in the +investigation inappropriate. In addition to repeatedly attacking the NPA in his submissions to the +Department, Epstein added to his evidentiary challenges and federalism claims allegations of +misconduct and improper bias on the part of specific USAO personnel. Epstein's dissatisfaction +with the NPA, and his personal attacks on individual prosecutors involved in negotiating the +agreement, appear inconsistent with a conclusion that the subjects designed the NPA for Epstein's +benefit. +OPR Does Not Find That the Subjects' Preexisting Relationships with Defense +Counsel, Decisions to Meet with Defense Counsel, and Other Factors +Established That the Subjects Acted from Improper Influences or Provided +Improper Benefits to Epstein +In evaluating the subjects' conduct, OPR considered various other factors featured in media +accounts to show that the subjects provided improper benefits to Epstein or which purportedly +suggested that the subjects acted from improper influences. OPR examined these factors but did +not find that they supported a finding that the subjects were influenced by favoritism, bias, or other +improper motivation. +The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects Extended Any +Improper Benefit to Epstein because of Their Preexisting Relationships +with His Attorneys +Epstein's wealth enabled him to hire multiple attorneys who had preexisting personal +connections to some of the government attorneys involved in his case, in the State Attorney's +Office, in the USAO, and elsewhere in the Department. Based on the attorneys Epstein selected +to represent him, a reasonable inference can be drawn that Epstein believed that hiring attorneys +with relationships to the prosecutors would be beneficial to him. One of the first attorneys who +contacted the USAO on Epstein's behalf was Guy +a former AUSA in and U.S. Attorney +for the Southern District of Florida. Villafaña and Lourie had worked for +- and Lourie was +close friends with one of +law partners. Epstein also retained Lilly Ann +L a former +AUSA who had been Menchel's deputy and with whom he had socialized. Later, when Epstein +was seeking Acosta's personal involvement in the case, Epstein hired Kenneth Starr and Jay +Lefkowitz, prominent attorneys from Kirkland & Ellis with whom Acosta was acquainted from +his previous employment with that firm. +Villafaña told OPR that she believed Acosta "was influenced by the stature of Epstein's +attorneys." Critically, however, other than the information regarding Menchel that is discussed in +the following subsection, neither Villafaña nor any of the other individuals OPR interviewed +identified any specific evidence suggesting that Acosta, or any of the other subjects, extended an +improper favor or benefit to Epstein because of a personal relationship with defense counsel (or +for any other improper reason). Villafaña explained how, in her view, the "legal prowess" of +Epstein's attorneys had an impact on the case: +150 + + +[O]ne of the issues in the case was the ... defense's ability to +describe the case or characterize the case as being legally complex. +It was not as legally complex as they made it out to be. But because +they were able to convince members of our office that it was +somehow extremely novel and legally complex, the issue became +who was likely to succeed in arguing these legal issues. And +because of that, the legal prowess, if you will, of the attorneys [ ] +[became] something to consider. +I think that the ability of Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr and Jay +Lefkowitz to convince Alex Acosta that I didn't know what I was +talking [about] also, all came into play. So I think there were a +number of factors and it all came together. +Although Villafaña was critical of Acosta's consideration of the defense arguments, she +conceded that the defense team's tactics demonstrated effective advocacy. Certainly, throughout +the case, Epstein's attorneys prepared lengthy memoranda analyzing the evidence and arguing +nuanced legal points concerning federalism, the elements of numerous federal criminal statutes, +and the evidence relevant to those statutes, but it is not unusual or unreasonable for prosecutors to +carefully consider well-crafted legal arguments from defensé counsel. +There is little question that Epstein's extensive team of attorneys was able to obtain +negotiated benefits for Epstein—although the USAO never wavered from its three core +requirements, it did agree to a reduction in prison time from its original offer, and it granted Epstein +certain other concessions during the negotiations. Epstein's wealth provided him with skilled, +experienced negotiators who continually sought various incremental concessions, and with +attorneys who knew how to obtain Department review of a USAO matter, thereby delaying +undesired outcomes for as long as possible.?23 Despite Epstein's evident intentions, however, OPR +did not find evidence warranting a conclusion that the NPA or its terms resulted from the subjects' +relationships with the attorneys he had selected to represent him. +The Subjects Asserted That Their Relationships with Defense Counsel +Did Not Influence Their Actions +Acosta, Menchel, Sloman, and Lourie each asserted that Epstein's choice of counsel did +not affect his handling of the case. Menchel told OPR that once in private practice, former +colleagues often became adversaries. In Menchel's view, such preexisting relationships were +iseful because they afforded a defense attorney initial credibility and an insight into the issues +prosecutor would likely view as areas of concern, which enabled the defense attorney to "tailor" +arguments in a way that would maximize their persuasive impact on the USAO. Menchel told +OPR, however, that these advantages did not "move the needle in any major way," and he +"reject[ed] the notion" that anyone in the USAO had been "swayed" because of preexisting +223 +As Chief Reiter later observed in his deposition testimony, "IT]he Epstein case was an instance of a many +million dollars defense and what it can accomplish." +151 + + +friendships or associations with any of Epstein's attorneys. In fact, Menchel told OPR that he and +his USAO colleagues viewed Epstein's attempt to exert influence through his choice of counsel as +"ham-fisted" and "clumsy." +Sloman told OPR that although he became aware that Lourie was friends with Guy +and +| law partner, he was unaware of personal relationships between any of his other +colleagues and any of Epstein's attorneys, but that in any event his attitude regarding cases +involving former colleagues "was that we would give them process, but we didn't pull any punches +with them." In Sloman's view, preexisting relationships with defense counsel did not "change the +equation" because as AUSAs, he and his colleagues were motivated by what they perceived to be +best for the case. +Lourie told OPR that his preexisting associations with Epstein's attorneys "didn't influence +anything." Notably, at the outset of the Epstein case, Lourie sought guidance from the USAO's +Professional Responsibility Officer about the propriety of his role as a supervisor in the +investigation, because of his acquaintance with | +and long-time friendship with +law +partner. OPR considered Lourie's caution in seeking and obtaining the Professional Responsibility +Officer's advice as an indication that he was alert to his ethical responsibilities regarding +relationships with defense counsel, including avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest. +Acosta said during his OPR interview that he "developed" the three criteria reflected on +the term sheet—a sentence of incarceration, sexual offender registration, and monetary damages +for the victims-before he engaged directly with any of Epstein's attorneys and before Epstein +added Starr and Lefkowitz, the Kirkland & Ellis attorneys, to his team. Acosta pointed out that +the USAO continued to insist on a resolution that satisfied all three of those criteria even after +Kirkland & Ellis became involved in the case. +them to address their communications to Villafaña, Sloman, and other subordinates. After his +October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz, Acosta immediately communicated with +Sloman about their conversation. In late 2008, when Acosta anticipated leaving the USAO and +was considering pursuing employment with Kirkland & Ellis, he recognized the conflict of interest +and instructed Sloman to stop copying him on emails relating to the Epstein matter. On Acosta's +behalf, the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer sought and obtained formal Department +approval of Acosta's recusal from the case based on the fact that he had "begun to discuss possible +employment" with Kirkland & Ellis. These actions support Acosta's assertion that he was +cognizant of his ethical responsibilities concerning relationships with defense counsel. 224 +224 +In addition, in May 2008, the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer consulted with the Department's +Professional Responsibility Officer about whether Acosta should recuse from the Epstein matter because he was +considering seeking a visiting professorship at Harvard Law School in 2009, and Dershowitz—a Harvard Law School +professor—was representing Epstein as a private, paying client, and not as any part of a Harvard Law School clinic +or law school teaching program" and "should have no role in deciding whether Mr. Acosta is offered any position as +a visiting professor." The Department advised that these facts provided no basis for recusal. +152 + + +In its review of the documentary record, OPR examined an email written by Villafaña in +2018, more than a decade after the NPA was negotiated, in which she suggested that the two-year +sentence requirement in the initial "term sheet" provided to the defense was developed by Menchel +as a favor to defense attorney l +.. OPR examined the facts surrounding this allegation and +determined that there was no merit to it. Specifically, in December 2018, after the Miami Herald +investigative report renewed public attention to the case, Villafaña recounted in an email to a +supervisory AUSA, a conversation she recalled having had with Sloman about the case.225 In the +email, Villafaña stated that she had not been a participant in discussions that led to Acosta's +decision to offer a two-year plea deal, but she added the following: "Months (or possibly years) +later, I asked former First Assistant Jeff Sloman where the two-year figure came from. He said +that Lily [sic] Ann +(attorney for Epstein) asked Mr. Menchel to 'do her a solid' and +convince Mr. Acosta to offer two years." +OPR questioned both Villafaña and Sloman about the purported "do her a solid" remark. +Villafaña told OPR that she had been aware that Menchel and Sanchez were friends. During her +OPR interview, Villafaña explained: +[A] lot later, I asked Jeff. I said, you know, "Jeff, where did this two +years come from?" And he said, "Well, I always figured that ... +Lilly asked Matt to do her a solid," which I thought was such a +strange term, ... "and to get her a good deal so that she would be in +Epstein's good graces" and that that's where the two years came +from. Although strangely enough, then several years after that, Jeff +Sloman asked me where the two years came from, and I had to +remind him of that conversation. So Jeff doesn't know where the +two years came from. +Because the email had been expressed in more definitive terms, OPR asked Villafaña +whether Sloman had affirmatively asserted that the two-year deal was a favor from Menchel to +defense counsel, or whether he had stated that he merely "figured" that was the case, but Villafaña +could not recall precisely what Sloman had said. At a follow-up interview, Villafaña again said +that she was unable to recall whether Sloman's specific statement was "Lilly asked Matt to do her +a solid, and he did it," or "I always figured Matt just wanted ... to do her a solid." Villafaña stated +that she was unaware of any information that "expressly [indicated] that there was any sort of +exchange of. (.. a favor in either direction." +During his OPR interview, Sloman did not recall making such a remark, although he could +not rule out the possibility that Villafaña, for whom he repeatedly expressed great respect, "heard +that in some fashion." He told OPR that if he did say something to Villafaña about Menchel having +done "a solid" for Epstein's counsel, he could not have meant it seriously, and he explained, "[I]t's +not something that I would have believed. Him doing her a solid. I mean that's the furthest thing +from my recollection or impression even after years later." +Villafaña's email stemmed from a congressional inquiry received by the Department concerning the Epstein +investigation and the NPA, to which the USAO had been asked to assist in responding. In her email, Villafaña +addressed several issues that she perceived to be the "three main questions" raised by the press coverage. +153 + + +Menchel told OPR that when he and +were in the USAO, they had a social +relationship, which included, in 2003, "a handful of dates over a period of two to three weeks. We +decided that ... this was probably best not to pursue, and we mutually agreed to not do that. 226 +Apart from that, he stated they were "close" and "hung out," and he asserted that this was known +"changed dramatically" +when she left the office for private practice, and that by the time he became involved in the Epstein +investigation, he had dated and married his wife, and his contact with +would "most likely" +have been at office events and when she attended his wedding." Menchel added, "[T]hat was +three and a half years [prior] for a very brief period of time, and I don't think I gave it a moment's +thought." +When asked by OPR about the basis for the decision to make an offer of a two-year term +of incarceration, Menchel said that he did not recall discussions about the two-year offer and did +not recall how the office arrived at that figure. In response to OPR's question, Menchel stated that +his relationship with +¿did "[nJot at all" affect his handling of the Epstein case. Moreover, +Menchel asserted that the contemporaneous documentary record supports a conclusion that it was +Acosta, not Menchel, who made the decision to resolve the case with the two-year term. +OPR carefully considered the documentary record on this point, as well as the statements +to OPR from Menchel, Villafaña, Sloman, and Acosta, and concludes that there is no evidence +supporting the suggestion that the plea was instigated by Menchel as a favor to defense counsel. +The USAO's first plea overture to defense counsel, which fook place sometime before June 26, +2007, occurred when Menchel spoke with Sanchez about the possibility of resolving the federal +case with a state plea that required jail time and sexual offender registration. According to the +email, "li]t was a non-starter" for the defense. In the lengthy email exchange with Villafaña in +early July 2007, Menchel told her that his discussion with +about a state-based resolution +was made with Acosta's "full knowledge." Acosta corroborated this statement, telling OPR that +although he did not remember a specific conversation with Menchel concerning a state-based +resolution, he was certain Menchel would not have discussed this potential resolution with defense +counsel "without having discussed it with me."2 Moreover, the defense did not immediately +226 +Acosta, Sloman, and Lourie each told OPR that in 2007, he was not aware that Menchel had previously dated +OPR questioned the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer regarding whether Menchel had an +obligation to inform his supervisors of his dating relationship. The Professional Responsibility Officer said that it +would depend on "how long the relationship was and how compromised the individual felt he might appear to be," +but he would have expocted Menchel to raise the issue with Acosta. The Professional Responsibility Officer told OPR +that if he had been approached for advice at the time, he would have asked for more facts, but "[gliven the sensitivity +of the [Epstein] matter, [my advice] would probably have been to tell him to step back and let somebody else take it +over." Menchel told OPR that if his relationship with +had turned into something more than a handful of +dates, he would have advised his supervisors. Although OPR does not conclude Menchel's prior relationship with +| influenced the Epstein investigation, OPR assesses that it would have been prudent for Menchel to have +informed his supervisors so they could make an independent assessment as to whether his continued involvement in +the Epstein investigation might create the appearance of a loss of impartiality. +227 +Menchel's Outlook records also indicate he scheduled lunch with +on at least one occasion, in carly +2006, after she left the USAO. +228 +In addition, Villafaña recalled Menchel stating at the July 26, 2007 meeting that "Alex has decided to offer +a two year state deal." +154 + + +accept the two-year proposal when it was made, but instead continued to press for a sentence of +home confinement, suggesting that the defense had not requested the two-year term as a favor and +did not view it as such. The defense had previously rejected the state's offer of a sentence of +probation, and there is no indication in the contemporaneous records that Epstein viewed any jail +sentence favorably and certainly that did not appear to be the view of the defense team in the early +stages of the negotiations. +As discussed below, after extensive questioning of the subjects about the basis for the twoyear offer, and a thorough review of the documentary record, OPR was unable to determine the +reasoning underlying the decision to offer two years as the term of incarceration, as opposed to +any other term of years. Nonetheless, OPR concludes from the evidence that Acosta was aware of +and approved the initial offer to the defense, which included the two-year term of incarceration. +The only evidence suggesting that the offer of two years stemmed from an improper motivation of +Menchel's was a single second-hand statement in an email drafted many years later. Sloman, the +purported declarant, told OPR that he could not recall whether he made the statement, but he firmly +disputed that the email accurately reflected either the reason for the two-year proposal or his +understanding of that reason. +Villafaña herself could remember little about the critical +conversation with Sloman, including whether she had recorded accurately what Sloman had said. +Given the lack of any corroborating evidence, and the evidence showing Epstein's vigorous +resistance to the proposal, OPR concludes that there is no evidence to support the statement in +Villafaña's 2018 email that Menchel had extended a two-year plea deal as a favor to one of +Epstein's attorneys. +E. +The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects' Meetings with Defense +Counsel Were Improper Benefits to Epstein +OPR considered whether decisions by Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie to meet with +defense counsel while possible charges were under consideration or during the period after the +NPA was signed and before Epstein entered his state guilty pleas evidenced improper favoritism +toward or the provision of an improper benefit to the Epstein defense team. +1. +The Evidence Shows That the Subjects' Decisions to Meet with +Epstein's Legal Team Were Warranted by Strategic Considerations +Although pre-indictment negotiations are typical in +-collar criminal cases involving +financial crimes, witnesses told OPR that pre-charge meetings with defense counsel are infrequent +in sex offense cases. As the lead prosecutor, Villafaña vehemently opposed meeting with Epstein's +attorneys and voiced her concerns to her supervisors, but was overruled by them. In Villafaña's +view, the significance of the early meetings granted to the defense team was that, but for those +meetings, the USAO would not have offered the disposition set forth in the July 31, 2007 "term +sheet" and, moreover, "that term sheet would never have been offered to anyone else." +OPR's investigation established that while the defense attorneys persistently contacted the +subjects through emails, correspondence, and phone calls, relatively few in-person meetings +actually occurred with the USAO personnel involved in the matter. As shown in the chart on the +following page, while the case was under federal investigation and before the NPA was signed, +the subject supervisors and defense counsel had five substantive meetings about the case- +155 + + +including one called by the USAO to offer the NPA term sheet resolution and a sixth meeting +together with the State Attorney and the lead state prosecutor to discuss the state plea. Acosta +Date +Pre-NPA +Feb. 1, 2007 +Feb. 20. 2007 +Jine 26, 2007 +July 31, 2007 +Sept. 7, 2007 +Sept. 12, 2007 +¡USAO Participants +" Defense +Participants +Lefcourt / +Topic/Purpose +Lourie / Villafaña +Lourie / Villafaña +Sloman / Menchel / +Lourie / Villafana +Sloman / Menchel / +Lourie / Villafaña +Acosta / Oosterbaan / +Sloman / Villafaña / +Villafaña's co-counsel +Lourie / Lourie +successor / Villafana +Post-NPA +Oct. 12, 2007. +AcostaR +Nov. 21, 2007 +Sloman (possibly +(unscheduled) +Acosta) +Dec. 14; 2007 +Acosta / Sloman / +Villafaña / another +senior AUSA +Jan. 7, 2008 +(1) Acosta / Sloman +(2) Acosta / Sloman +(conference call) +Lefcourt / +Dershowitz / Black +/ Lefcourt / Sanchez +Defense presents investigation +propriet sid redemil +Defense presents witness issues +Defense presents legal issues, +investigation improprieties, and. +federal jurisdiction issues +USAO presents NPA term sheet +Black/ Lefcourt/ +Sanchez +Starr / Lefkowitz / +•Sanchez +Defense presents counteroffer +Lefkowitz/ Lefcourt | Joint meeting with Krischer / +Belohilavek re state plea +provision of NPA +Lefkowitz +Defense discussion of NPA +terms and likely appeal to +Department +Lefkowitz (possibly +Defense discussion of victims" +Dershowitz) +attorney representative +procedure +Starr / Weinberg / +Defense presents federal +Dershowitz/ +jurisdiction issues, legal issues, +Lefcourt +and request for de novo review +(1) | +Defense presents USAO +(2) Stair / +improprieties and "watered- +Lefkowitz/ Sanchez +down" resolution +In addition, all of the subjects took phone calls from various defense attorneys, and although numerous +documentary records refer to such calls, there may have been others for which OPR located no record. +156 + + +OPR explored the subject supervisors' reasoning for accommodating the defense requests +for in-person meetings and whether such accommodation was unusual. OPR questioned each of +the four supervisory subject attorneys about his rationale for engaging in multiple meetings with +the defense. +Lourie could not recall his reasoning for meeting with Epstein's defense counsel, but he +told OPR that his general practice was to meet with defense counsel when asked to do so. Lourie +recognized that some prosecutors—like Villafaña—viewed meeting with the defense as a sign of +"weakness," but in Lourie's view, "information is power," and as long as the USAO did not share +information with the defense but rather listened to their arguments, meetings were "all power to +us." Lourie explained that by meeting with the defense, "[Jou're getting the information that +they think is important; that they're going to focus on. The witnesses that they think are liars.... +And so you can form all of that into your strategy." Lourie also told OPR that giving defense +counsel the opportunity to argue the defense position is an important "part of the process" that +helped ensure procedural fairness, allowing them to "believe that they are getting heard." When +asked whether he afforded the same access to all defendants, Lourie responded, "I don't recall ever +getting ... so many requests for meetings ... and so many appeals and so many audiences that +[Epstein's attorneys] got. But this was I think the first time that that's really happened." +Menchel, too, told OPR that his general view was that "ethically it's appropriate" to give a +defense attorney "an audience," and there was no real "downside" to doing so. Menchel added, +"[W]hat happens a lot of times is the government will carve around those points that are being +raised by the defense, and it's good to know" what the defense will be. +During his OPR interview, Acosta rejected the notion that his meeting with defense counsel +was unusual or outside the norm. He told OPR that his initial meeting with the defense team, +before the NPA was signed, was "not the first and only time that I granted a meeting ... to defense +attorneys" who requested one. Acosta did not believe it was "atypical" for a U.S. Attorney to meet +with opposing counsel, particularly as a case was coming to resolution. Sloman corroborated +Acosta on this point, telling OPR that Acosta typically met with defense attorneys, and that the +USAO handled requests for meetings from Epstein's counsel "in the normal course." Furthermore, +Acosta said that notwithstanding that meeting and all the other "process" granted to the defense +by the USAO and the Department, "we successfully held firm in our positions" on the key elements +of the resolution that is, the requirements that Epstein be incarcerated, register as a sexual +offender, and provide monetary damages to the victims. +OPR examined the circumstances surrounding each subject's decisions to have the +individual meetings with defense counsel to determine if those meetings had a neutral, strategic +purpose. The first meeting, on February 1, 2007, followed a phone call between Lourie and one +of Epstein's attorneys, in which the attorney asked for a chance to "make a pitch" about the +victims' lack of credibility and suggested that Epstein might agree to an interview following that +pitch. Villafaña objected to meeting with the defense, but she recalled that Lourie told her she was +not being a "strategic thinker," and that he believed the meeting could lead to a debriefing of +Epstein. The meeting did not result in a debriefing of Epstein, but in advance of the follow-up +meeting on February 20, 2007, defense counsel gave the USAO audio recordings of the state's +witness interviews. Contemporaneous documents indicate that Lourie was unpersuaded by the +defense arguments. After Villafaña circulated the prosecution memorandum, Lourie suggested +157 + + +preparing a "short" charging document "with only "clean' victims that they have not dirtied up +into the government's charging strategy. +The two February 2007 Villafaña/Lourie-level meetings focused on witness issues and +claims of misconduct by state investigators, but in late May 2007, defense attorneys requested +another meeting-this time with higher-level supervisors Menchel and Sloman-to make a +presentation concerning legal deficiencies in a potential federal prosecution. The tequest was +granted after Lourie recommended to Menchel and Sloman that "[i]t would probably be helpful to +us... to hear their legal arguments in case we have missed something." The requested meeting +took place on June 26, 2007. Before the meeting, at Menchel's direction, Villafaña provided to +the defense a list of statutes the USAO was considering as the basis for federal charges. Defense +counsel used that information to prepare a 19-page letter, submitted to the USAO the day before +the June 26 meeting, as "an overview" of the defense position. In an email to his colleagues, +Lourie evaluated the defense submission, noting its weaker and stronger arguments.| +contemporaneous email indicates that Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña viewed the meeting itself as +primarily a "listening session."231 After the meeting, Epstein's team submitted a second lengthy +letter to the USAO detailing Epstein's "federalism" arguments that the USAO should let the state +handle the matter. +Menchel apparently scheduled the next meeting with defense counsel, on July 31, 2007, to +facilitate the USAO's presentation to the defense team of the "term sheet" describing the proposed +terms of a non-prosecution agreement. +By early August, after the Kirkland & Ellis attorneys—Starr and Lefkowitz—joined the +defense team, Acosta believed they would likely "go to DC on the case, on the grounds... that I +have not met with them." A meeting with the defense team was eventually scheduled for +September 7, 2007, when Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña, and Oosterbaan met with Starr, Lefkowitz, +• In an email to Sloman, Acosta explained that he intended to meet with the defense, +with Oosterbaan participating, "to discuss general legal policy only." In another email to Sloman +and Lourie, Acosta explained, "This will end up [in the Department] anyhow, if we don't meet +with them. I'd rather keep it here. Bringing [the CEOS Chief] in visibly does so. If our deadline +has to slip a bit to do that, it's worth it." Acosta told OPR that the meeting "was not a negotiation," +but a chance for the defense to present their federalism arguments. Acosta said that he had already +decided how he wanted to resolve the case, and "[t]he September meeting did not alter or shift our +position." +Lourie also recommended that the initial charging document "should contain only the victims they have +nothing on at all." +231 +During her OPR interview, the FBI case agent recalled that defense counsel asked questions about th +overnment's case, including the number of victims and the type of sexual contact involved, and that during a brea +in the meeting, she engaged in a "discussion" with Menchel about providing this information to the defense. She did +not recall specifics of the discussion, however. +158 + + +The meeting of USAO representatives and Epstein's defense attorneys, together with the +State Attorney and the lead state prosecutor on September 12, 2007, was a necessary part of the +NPA negotiation process. +Even after the NPA was signed, the defense continued to request meetings and reviews of +the case, both within the USAO and by the Department's Criminal Division and the Deputy +Attorney General. Although limited reviews were granted, during this period there was only one +substantive meeting with Acosta, on December 14, 2007.232 This meeting occurred in lieu of the +meeting Starr had requested of Assistant Attorney General Fisher, most likely because the defense +submissions to the Department's Criminal Division had raised issues not previously raised with +the USAO and the Department determined that Acosta should address those in the first instance. 233 +Acosta told OPR that he did not ask for the Department review, but he also did not want to appear +as if he "fear[ed]" that review. Acosta's nuanced position, however, was not clear to the +Department attorneys who responded to Epstein's appeals and who perceived Acosta to be in favor +of a Department review, rather than merely tolerant of it. Notably, though, none of those meetings +or reviews resulted in the USAO abandoning the NPA, and Epstein gained no substantial +advantage from his continued entreaties. +In sum, in evaluating the subjects' conduct, OPR considered the number of meetings, their +purpose, the content of the discussions, and decisions made afterwards. OPR cannot say that the +number of meetings, particularly those occurring before the NPA was signed, was so far outside +the norm—for a high profile case with skilled defense attorneys-that the quantity of meetings +alone shows that the subjects were motivated by improper favoritism. In evaluating the subjects' +conduct, OPR considered that the meetings were held with different levels of USAO managers and +that the explanations for the decisions to participate in the meetings reflected reasonable strategic +goals. Although OPR cannot rule out the possibility that because Acosta, Menchel, Lourie, or +Sloman knew or knew of the defense attorneys, they may have been willing to meet with them, it +is also true that prosecutors routinely meet with defense attorneys, including those who are known +to them and those who are not. Furthermore, meetings are more likely to occur in high profile +cases involving defendants with the financial resources to hire skilled defense counsel who request +meetings at the highest levels of the USAO and the Department. Most significantly, OPR did not +find evidence supporting a conclusion that the meetings themselves resulted in any substantial +benefit to the defense. At each meeting, defense counsel strongly pressed the USAO—on factual, +legal, and policy grounds—to forgo its federal investigation and to return the matter to the state to +proceed as it saw fit. The USAO never yielded on that point. Accordingly, OPR did not find +evidence supporting a conclusion that Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, or Villafaña met with +defense counsel for the purpose of benefiting Epstein or that the meetings themselves caused +Acosta or the other subjects to provide improper benefits to Epstein. +232 +Acosta's October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz is discussed separately in the following section. +Starr and other defense attorneys only obtained one meeting at the Department level, with Deputy Assistant +Attorney General Mandelker and CEOS Chief Oosterbaan in March 2008. Although Starr requested a meeting wit! +Assistant Attorney General Fisher and another with Deputy Attorney General Filip, those requests were not granted +159 + + +The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta Negotiated a Deal +Favorable to Epstein over Breakfast with Defense Counsel +OPR separately considered the circumstances of one specific meeting that has been the +subject of media attention and public criticism. The Miami Herald's November 2018 reporting on +the Epstein investigation opened with an account of the October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting that +defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz arranged to have with Acosta at the West Palm Beach Marriott +hotel. According to the Miami Herald article, "a deal was struck" at the meeting to allow Epstein +to serve "just 13 months" in the county jail in exchange for the shuttering of the federal +investigation, and Acosta also agreed to "conceal" the full extent of Epstein's crimes from the +victims and the public. 24 Although public criticism of the meeting has focused on the fact that +the meeting occurred in a hotel far from Acosta's Miami office, the evidence shows that Acosta +traveled to West Palm Beach on October 11 for a press event and stayed overnight at the hotel, +near the USAO's West Palm Beach office, because at midday on October 12 he was to speak at +the Palm Beach County Bench Bar Conference. After carefully considering the evidence +surrounding the breakfast meeting, including contemporaneous email communications and witness +accounts, OPR concludes that Acosta did not negotiate the NPA, or make any significant +concessions relating to it, during or as a result of the October breakfast meeting. +Epstein and his attorneys signed the NPA on September 24, 2007—more than two weeks +before the October 12 breakfast meeting. The signed NPA contained all of the key provisions +resulting from the preceding weeks of negotiations between the parties, and despite a later +addendum and ongoing disputes about interpreting the damages provision of the agreement, those +key provisions remained in place thereafter/ Acosta told OPR that throughout the negotiations +with the defense, he sought three goals: (1) Epstein's guilty plea in state court to an offense +requiring registration as a sexual offender; (2) a sentence of imprisonment; and 3) a mechanism +through which victims could obtain monetary damages from Epstein. As noted previously, the +USAO's original plea offer in Menchel's August 3, 2007 letter expressed a "non-negotiable" +demand that Epstein agree to a two-year term of imprisonment, and the final NPA required only +an 18-month sentence, but the decision to reduce the required term of imprisonment from 24 to 18 +months was made well before Acosta's breakfast meeting with counsel. The NPA signed on +September 24, 2007, required 18 months' incarceration, sexual offender registration, and a +mechanism for the victims to obtain monetary damages from Epstein, and OPR found that these +terms were not abandoned or materially altered after the breakfast meeting. +At the time of Acosta's October breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz, two issues involving +he NPA were in dispute. Neither of those issues was ultimately resolved in a way that materiall +changed the key provisions of the NPA. First, at Sloman's instigation, the USAO sought to changi +the mechanism for appointing an attorney representative for the victims. This USAO-initiated +request had prompted discussions about an "addendum" to the NPA. Sloman sent the text of a +proposed NPA addendum to Lefkowitz on October 11, 2007.235 Although OPR found no decisive +234 +235 +Julie K. +"Perversion of Justice: How a future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the +deal of a lifetime," Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018. +In his December 19, 2007, letter to defense attorney | +, Acosta represented that he had proposed the +addendum at the breakfast meeting, but it is clear the addendum was being developed before then. +160 + + +proof that this led to the breakfast meeting, email exchanges between Lefkowitz and Acosta show +that it was under discussion at the time they were scheduling the meeting. Shortly after the +breakfast meeting, Sloman, in Miami, sent an email to Lefkowitz (copying Acosta and Villafaña), +noting that he "just got off the phone with Alex" and offering a slightly revised portion of the +addendum relating to the mechanism for selection of the attorney representative. Sloman later +clarified for Villafaña that "Jay's suggested revision has been rejected." +A second area of continuing negotiation arose from the defense claim that Epstein's +obligation under the NPA to pay the attorney representative's fees did not obligate him to pay the +fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Although this was at odds with the USAO's +interpretation of the provision, the USAO and defense counsel reached agreement and clarified the +provision in the NPA addendum that was finalized several weeks after the October breakfast +meeting. Although the revised provision was to Epstein's advantage, the revision concerned +attorney's fees and did not materially impede the victims' ability to seek damages from Epstein +under § 2255. The fact that the negotiations continued after the breakfast meeting indicates that +Acosta did not make promises at the meeting that resolved the issue. +OPR found limited contemporaneous evidence concerning the discussion between Acosta +and Lefkowitz. In a letter sent to Acosta on October 23, 2007, two weeks after the breakfast +meeting, Lefkowitz represented that Acosta made three significant concessions during the meeting. +Specifically, Lefkowitz claimed that Acosta had agreed (J) not to intervene with the State +Attorney's Office's handling of the case, (2) not to contact any of the victim-witnesses or their +counsel, and (3) not to intervene regarding the sentence Epstein received. Acosta told OPR that +he did not remember the breakfast meeting and did not recall making the commitments defense +counsel attributed to him. Acosta also told OPR that Lefkowitz was not a reliable narrator of +events, and on several occasions in written communications had inaccurately and misleadingly +characterized conversations he had with Acosta. +Of more significance for OPR's evaluation was a contemporaneous document—an +October 25, 2007 draft response to Lefkowitz's letter, which Sloman drafted, and Acosta reviewed +and edited for signature by Sloman—that disputed Lefkowitz's claims. The draft letter stated: +I specifically want to clarify one of the items that I believe was +inaccurate in that October 23rd letter. Your letter claimed that this +Office +would not intervene with the State Attorney's Office +ESE +intervene regarding the sentence Mr. Epstein +receives pursuant to a plea with the State, so long as +that sentence does not violate state law. +As we discussed and, hopefully, clarified, and as the United States +Attorney previously explained in an earlier conference call, such a +161 + + +promise equates to the imposition of a gag order. Our Office cannot +and will not agree to this. +It is the intent of this Office to treat this matter like any other case. +Acosta told OPR that this was a polite way of chastising Lefkowitz for mischaracterizing +what Acosta said during the breakfast meeting. Although OPR could not find evidence that the +letter was sent to Lefkowitz, OPR nonetheless considers it persuasive evidence that Acosta, shortly +after the breakfast meeting, disagreed with Lefkowitz's description of their discussions and had +discussed those disagreements with Sloman. +Nevertheless, OPR examined the three specific concessions that Lefkowitz described in +the October 23 letter, to determine whether evidence reflected that Acosta had made them during +the breakfast meeting. First, Lefkowitz claimed that Acosta agreed during the breakfast meeting +that he did not intend to interfere with the state's handling of the case. Contemporaneous +documents show that well before the breakfast meeting, Acosta had expressed the view that he did +not want to "dictate" actions to the State Attorney or the state court. For example, during the NPA +negotiations, Acosta asked Villafaña to "soften" certain language that appeared to require the State +Attorney's Office or the state court to take specific actions, such as requiring that Epstein enter his +guilty plea or report to begin serving his sentence by a certain date. Although Acosta may have +made a statement during the breakfast meeting expressing his disinclination to interfere with the +state's proceedings, such a statement would have been a reiteration of his prior position on the +subject, rather than any new concession. +Lefkowitz also claimed in his October 23, 2007 letter that Acosta agreed not to contact any +of the victims or potential witnesses or their counsel. For the reasons discussed more fully in +Chapter Three, OPR concludes that the decision not to notify the victims about the NPA did not +stem from the breakfast meeting, buf rather reflected an assessment of multiple issues and +considerations discussed internally by the subjects who participated in that decision: Acosta, +Sloman, and Villafaña. +Finally, Lefkowitz's October 23 letter suggested that Acosta had agreed not to intervene +regarding the sentence Epstein received from the state court, and it asserted that Epstein was +"entitled to any type of sentence available to him, including but not limited to gain time and work +release." Later communications between the USAO and defense counsel, however, show clearly +that Acosta did not abandon the NPA's explicit sentencing provision. The NPA required Epstein +to make a joint recommendation with the State Attorney's Office for an 18-month jail sentence, +although the parties understood that he would receive the same "gain time" benefits available to +all state inmates. After the October breakfast meeting, Sloman and Villafaña, on behalf of the +USAO, repeatedly made clear that it would hold Epstein to that requirement, and the USAO also +subsequently insisted that Epstein was ineligible for work release. For example, in a November 5, +2007 letter, Sloman requested confirmation from defense counsel that "Epstein intends to abide by +his agreement to plead guilty to the specified charges and to make a binding recommendation that +the Court impose a sentence of 18 months of continuous confinement in the county jail." Shortly +before Epstein entered his plea in June 2008, Villafaña wrote to the State Attorney to remind him +that the NPA required Epstein to plead in state court to an offense that required an 18-month +162 + + +sentence of incarceration, and the USAO would consider a plea that differed from that requirement +a breach of the NPA and would "proceed accordingly." +The guilty plea Epstein entered in state court in June 2008 was consistent with the dictates +of the NPA, and pursuant to that plea, the court imposed a sentence of 18 months' incarceration. +Epstein, however, applied for and was accepted into the work release program, and was able to +serve a substantial portion of his sentence outside of the jail. The NPA did not reference work +release nor authorize Epstein to receive such benefits during his tenure at the Palm Beach County +Stockade. Moreover, Villafaña received assurances from defense counsel that Epstein would serve +his entire sentence of confinement "in custody." Responsibility for the decision to afford Epstein +work release privileges during his incarceration rested with state officials, who had the sole +authority for administering the work release program. +After considering the substantial record documenting the decisions made after Acosta's +October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz, OR found nothing in the record to suggest +that the meeting resulted in a material change to the NPA, affected the sentence Epstein served +pursuant to the NPA, or contributed to state officials' decision to permit him to participate in work +release. +F. Villafaña's Emails with Defense Attorney Lefkowitz during the NPA +Negotiations Do Not Establish That Villafaña, or Other Subjects, Intended to +Give Epstein Preferential Treatment or Were Motivated by Favoritism or +During the CVRA litigation, the petitioners obtained from Epstein's attorney, and filed +under seal, a redacted series of email exchanges between Epstein attorney Lefkowitz and Villafaña +(and others with Acosta and Sloman) during September 2007 when the NPA was being finalized, +and thereafter. These emails had been redacted to delete most of Lefkowitz's side of the +communications, and consequently they did not reflect the full context of Villafaña's +communications to Lefkowitz. The redacted emails were later unsealed and made public over +Epstein's objections. 236 Media coverage pointed to the content and tone of Villafaña's emails as +proof that Villafaña and the USAO worked in concert with Epstein's attorneys to keep the +"sweetheart" deal a secret from the victims and the public. Statements in several emails in +particular were cited as evidence of the USAO's improper favoritism towards Epstein. In one +example, Villafaña told Lefkowitz that she was willing to include in the NPA a provision agreeing +not to prosecute others, but would "prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and +all of the other persons that we could charge." She also offered to meet with him "off campus'" +to finalize negotiations. She also proposed, "[o]n an 'avoid the press' note," that filing federal +charges against Epstein in Miami rather than West Palm Beach would substantially reduce press +coverage. +236 +The USAO did not object to the unscaling but requested additional redactions of portions that would reveal +protected information. United States' Response to Petitioners' Motion to Use Correspondence to Prove Violations of +the [CVRA] and to Have Their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed (Apr. 7, 2011). The court declined to order the +additional redactions. +163 + + +OPR asked Villafaña about these emails and about the tenor of her interactions with +Lefkowitz during the NPA negotiations and with other defense attorneys generally. Villatana +acknowledged that their tone was collegial and collaborative, and explained that generally, the +tone of these emails reflected her personality and her commitment to complete the task her +supervisors had assigned to her: +If you were to pull all my e-mails on every case, you would find +that that is how I communicate with people. I'm a Minnesota girl, +and I prefer not to be confrontational until I have to be. And I can +be when I need to be. But my instructions from my supervisors were +to engage in these negotiations and to complete them. So I felt that +agreement and, keeping in mind the terms that ... our office had +agreed to, and do that in a way that is civil. So... although my +language in the kind of introductory or prefatory communications +with Mr. Lefkowitz was casual and was friendly, when you look at +the terms and when he would come back to me asking for changes, +my response was always, "No, I will not make that change." +Villafaña denied any intention to keep the victims uninformed about the NPA or to provide +an improper benefit for Epstein, and she explained the context of the emails in question. The email +in which Villafaña expressed reluctance to "highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all +of the other persons that we could charge" was written in response to a defense proposal to include +in the federal plea agreement the parties were then considering a promise by the government not +to prosecute Epstein's assistants and other employees. Lefkowitz had proposed that the plea +agreement state, "Epstein's fulfilling the terms and conditions of the Agreement also precludes the +initiation of any and all criminal charges which might otherwise in the future be brought against +[four named female assistants] or any employee of [a specific Epstein-owned corporate entity] for +any criminal charge that arises out of the ongoing federal investigation." Villafaña told OPR that +the USAO was not intending to charge Epstein's assistants and was not aware of anyone else who +could be charged, and thus did not oppose the request not to prosecute third parties. However, +Villafaña was concerned that an overly detailed federal plea agreement would prompt the court to +require the government to provide further information about the uncharged conduct, which might +lead Epstein to claim the government breached the agreement by providing information to the +court not directly connected to the charges to which he was pleading guilty. Villafaña was not the +only one to express concern about how deeply a federal court might probe the facts, and whether +such probing would interfere with the viability of a plea agreement. In an earlier email, Lourie +had suggested charging Epstein by complaint to allow the USAO more flexibility in plea +negotiations and avoid the problem that a court might not accept a plea to a conspiracy charge that +required dismissal of numerous substantive counts. +As to Villafaña's offer to meet with Lefkowitz "off campus" to resolve outstanding issues +in the NPA negotiation, she explained to OPR that she believed a face-to-face meeting at a +"neutral" location—with "all the necessary decision makers present or 'on call""— might facilitate +completion of the negotiations, which had dragged on for some time. +164 + + +With regard to her comment about "avoid[ing] the press," Villafaña told OPR that her goal +was to protect the anonymity of the victims. She said that the case was far more likely to be +covered by the Palm Beach press, which had already written articles about Epstein, than in Miami, +and "if [the victims] wanted to attend [the plea hearing], I wanted them to be able to go into the +courthouse without their faces being splashed all over the newspaper." +In evaluating the emails, OPR reviewed all the email exchanges between Villafaña, as well +as Sloman and Acosta, and Lefkowitz and other defense counsel, including the portions redacted +from the publicly released emails (except for a few to or from Acosta, copies of which OPR did +not locate in the USAO records). OPR also considered the emails in the broader context of +Villafaña's overall conduct during the federal investigation of Epstein. The documentary record, +as well as witness and subject interviews, establishes that Villafaña consistently advocated in favor +of prosecuting Epstein and worked for months toward that goal. She repeatedly pressed her +supervisors for permission to indict Epstein and made numerous efforts to expand the scope of the +case. She opposed meetings with the defense team, and nearly withdrew from the case because +her supervisors agreed to those meetings. Villafaña objected to the decision to resolve the case +through a guilty plea in state court, and she engaged in a lengthy and heated email exchange with +Menchel about that subject. When she was assigned the task of creating an agreement to effect +that resolution, Villafaña fought hard during the ensuing negotiations to hold the USAO's position +despite defense counsel's aggressive tactics. +OPR also considered statements of her supervisors regarding her interactions with defense +counsel. Sloman, in particular, told OPR that reports that Villafaña "was soft on Epstein ... +couldn't have been further from the truth." Sloman added that Villafaña "did her best to implement +the decisions that were made and to hold Epstein accountable." Lourie similarly told OPR that +when he read the district court's February 2019 opinion in the CVRA litigation and the emails +from Villafaña cited in that opinion, he was "surprised to see how nice she was to them. And she +winds up taking it on the chin for being so nice to them. When I know the whole time she was the +one who wanted to go after him the most." The AUSA who assisted Villafaña on the investigation +told OPR "everything that [Villafaña] did ... was, as far as I could tell, [ ] completely pro +prosecution." +Because the emails in question were publicly disclosed without context and without other +information showing Villafaña's consistent efforts to prosecute Epstein and to assist victims, a +public narrative developed that Villafaña colluded with defense counsel to benefit Epstein at the +expense of the victims. After thoroughly reviewing all of the available evidence, OPR finds that +narrative to be inaccurate. The USAO's and Villafaña's interactions with the victims can be +criticized, as OPR does in several respects in this Report, but the evidence is clear that any missteps +Villafaña may have made in her interactions with victims or their attorneys were not made for the +purpose of silencing victims. Rather, the evidence shows that Villafaña, in particular, cared deeply +about Epstein's victims. Before the NPA was signed, she raised to her supervisors the issue of +consulting with vietims, and after the NPA was signed, she drafted letters to notify victims +identified in the federal investigation of the pending state plea proceeding and inviting them to +appear. The draft letters led defense counsel to argue to Department management that Villafaña +and Sloman committed professional misconduct by "threaten(ing] to send a highly improper and +unusual 'victim notification letter' to all" of the listed victims. Given the full context of Villafaña's +conduct throughout her tenure on the case, OPR concludes that her explanations for her emails are +165 + + +entitled to significant weight, and OPR credits them. OPR finds, therefore, that the emails in +question do not themselves establish that Villafaña (or any other subject) acted to improperly +benefit Epstein, was motivated by favoritism or other improper influences, or sought to silence +victims. +G. +The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta, Lourie, or Villafaña Agreed to +the NPA's Provision Promising Not to Prosecute "Potential Co-conspirators" +in Order to Protect Any of Epstein's Political, Celebrity, or Other Influential +Associates +OPR examined the decision by the subjects who negotiated the NPA—Villafaña, Lourie, +and Acosta—to include in the agreement a provision in which the USAO agreed not to prosecute +"any potential co-conspirators of Epstein," in addition to four named individuals, to determine +whether that provision resulted from the subjects' improper favoritism towards Epstein or an +improper effort to shield from prosecution any of Epstein's known associates. Other than various +drafts of the NPA and of a federal plea agreement, OPR found little in the contemporaneous +records mentioning the provision and nothing indicating that the subjects discussed or debated it— +or even gave it much consideration. Drafts of the NPA and of the federal plea agreement show +that the final broad language promising not to prosecute "any potential co-conspirators of Epstein" +evolved from a more narrow provision sought by the defense./The provision expanded as Villafaña +and defense counsel exchanged drafts of, first, a proposed federal plea agreement and, then, of the +NPA, with apparently little analysis and no substantive discussion within the USAO about the +provision. 237 +As the NPA drafting process concluded, Villafaña circulated to Lourie and another +supervisor a draft that contained the non-prosecution provision, telling Lourie it was "some of +[defense counsel's] requested language regarding promises not to prosecute other people," and +commenting only, "I don't think it hurts us." In a reply email, Lourie responded to another issue +As set forth in OPR's factual discussion, early in the negotiations over a federal plea agreement, the defense +sought a non-prosecution provision applicable to only four female named assistants of Epstein and to unnamed +employees of one of his companies. Villafaña initially countered with "standard language" referring to unnamed +"co-conspirators" so as to avoid highlighting] for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that +we could charge." Nonetheless, drafts of the NPA sent by Lefkowitz after Villafaña's email continued to include +language referring to the four named assistants and unnamed employees. Villafaña, however, internally circulated +drafts of a federal plea agreement that included language stating, "This agreement resolves the federal criminal liability +of the defendant and any co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida growing out of any criminal conduct by +those persons known fo the [USAO] as of the date of this plea agreement." The federal plea agreement draft revised +by Lourie and Acosta on September 20, 2007, included that language. When the defense team reverted to negotiation +of state charges, Villafaña advised them, "In the context of a non-prosecution agreement, the [USAO] may be more +willing to be specific about not pursuing charges against others." The next day, Lefkowitz sent a revised draft NPA +referring to the four named assistants, "any employee" of the named company, and "any unnamed co-conspirators for +any criminal charge that arises out of the ongoing federal investigation." The language was finally revised by Villafaña +to stansi prosecution of "any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to [the four named +In commenting on OPR's draft report, Villafaña's counsel and Lourie both noted that the non-prosecution +provision could bind only the USAO, and Lourie further opined that it was limited to certain specified federal charges +and a time-limited scope of conduct. Although the non-prosecution provision in the NPA did not explicitly contain +such limitations, those limitations were included in other parts of the agreement. +166 + + +Villafaña had raised (defense counsel's attempt to insert an immigration waiver into the +agreement), but Lourie did not comment on the provision promising not to prosecute coconspirators or ask Villafaña to explain why she believed the provision did not harm the +government's interests. In a subsequent email about the draft NPA, Villafaña asked Lourie for +"[a]ny other thoughts," but there is no indication that he provided further input. OPR found no +document that suggested Villafaña and Lourie discussed the provision further, or that the other +individuals who were copied on Villafaña's email referencing the provision-her immediate +supervisor, the supervisor designated to succeed Lourie as manager of the West Palm Beach office, +and Villafaña's co-counsel—commented on or had substantive discussions about it. Villafaña told +OPR that because none of the three supervisors responded to her observation that the nonprosecution provision "doesn't hurt us," Villafaña assumed that they agreed with her assessment. +Villafaña told OPR that she could not recall a conversation specifically about the provision +agreeing not to prosecute "any potential co-conspirators," but she remembered generally that +defense counsel told her Epstein wanted "to make sure that he's the only one who takes the blame +for what happened." Villafaña told OPR that she and her colleagues believed Epstein's conduct +was his own "dirty little secret." Villafaña said that press coverage at the time of Epstein's 2006 +arrest did not allege that any of his famous contacts participated in Epstein's illicit activity and that +none of the victims interviewed by the case agents before the NPA was signed told the investigators +about sexual activity with any of Epstein's well-known contacts about whom allegations arose +many years later.2 Villafaña acknowledged that investigators were aware of Epstein's longtime +relationship with a close temale friend who was a well-known socialite, but, according to +Villafaña, in 2007, they "didn't have any specific evidence against her."239 Accordingly, Villafaña +believed that the only "co-conspirators" of Epstein who would benefit from the provision were the +four female assistants identified by name.240 Villafaña also told OPR that the focus of the USAO's +investigation was Epstein, and the office was not inclined to prosecute his four assistants if he +entered a plea.24' Because Villafaña was unaware of anyone else who could or would be charged, +she perceived no reason to object to a provision promising not to prosecute other, unspecified +"co-conspirators." Villafaña told OPR that given her understanding of the facts at that time, it did +not occur to her that the reference to other "potential co-conspirators" might be used to protect any +of Epstein's influential associates. +Lourie, who was transitioning to his detail at the Department's Criminal Division at the +time Villafaña forwarded to him the draft NPA containing the non-prosecution provision, told OPR +that he did not know how the provision developed and did not recall any discussions about it. +Villafana told OPR that "none of ... the victims that we spoke with ever talked about any other men being +involved in abusing them. It was only Jeffrey Epstein." +The FBI had interviewed one victim who implicated the female friend in Epstein's conduct, but the conduct +involving the then minor did not occur in Florida. +240 +The FBI had learned that one of Epstein's female assistants had engaged in sexual activity with at least one +girl in Epstein's presence; this assistant was one of the named individuals for whom the defense sought the +government's agreement not to prosecute from the outset. Villafaña explained to OPR that this individual was herself +believed to also have been at one time a victim. +Villafaña told OR that the USAO had decided that girls who recruited other girls would not be prosecuted. +167 + + +Lourie described the promise not to prosecute "potential co-conspirators" as "unusual," and told +OPR that he did not know why it was included in the agreement, but added that it would be "unlike +me if I read that language to just leave it in there unless I thought it was somehow helpful." Lourie +posited that victims who recruited other underage girls to provide massages for Epstein +"theoretically" could have been charged as co-conspirators. He told OPR that when he saw the +provision, he may have understood the reference to unnamed "co-conspirators" as "a message to +any victims that had recruited other victims that there was no intent to charge them." +Acosta did not recall any discussions about the non-prosecution provision. But he told +OPR that Epstein was always "the focus" of the federal investigation, and he would have viewed +the federal interests as vindicated as long as Epstein was required to face "meaningful +consequences" for his actions. Acosta told OPR that when he reviewed the draft NPA, "[t]o the +extent I reviewed this co-conspirator provision, I can speculate that my thinking Would have been +the focus is on Epstein| ] ... going to jail. Whether some of his employees go to jail, or other, +lesser involved [individuals], is not the focus of this." Acosta also told OPR that he assumed +Villafaña and Lourie had considered the provision and decided that it was appropriate. Finally, +Sloman, who was not involved in negotiating the NPA, told OPR that in retrospect, he understood +the non-prosecution provision was designed to protect Epstein's four assistants, and it "never +dawned" on him that it was intended to shield anyone else, +This broad provision promising not to prosecute "any potential co-conspirators" is +troubling and, as discussed more fully later in this Report, OPR did not find evidence showing that +the subjects gave careful consideration to the potential scope of the provision or whether it was +warranted given that the investigation had been curtailed and the USAO lacked complete +information regarding possible co-conspirators. Villafaña precipitously revised a more narrow +provision sought by the defense. Given its evolution from a provision sought by the defense, it +appears unlikely to have been designed to protect the victims, and there is no indication that at the +time, the subjects believed that was the purpose. However, the USAO had not indicated interest +in prosecuting anyone other than the four named female assistants, and OPR found no record +indicating that Epstein had expressed concern about the prosecutive fate of anyone other than the +four assistants and unnamed employees of a specific Epstein company. Accordingly, OPR +concludes that the evidence does not show that Acosta, Lourie, or Villafaña agreed to the nonassociates. 24 Provision to protect any of Epstein's political, celebrity, or other influential +OPR's Investigation Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That Epstein +Cooperated in Other Federal Investigations or Received Special Treatment on +That Basis +One final issue OPR explored stemmed from media reports suggesting that Epstein may +have received special treatment from the USAO in return for his cooperation in another federal +As previously stated, Sloman was on vacation when Villafaña included the provision in draft plea agreements +ind did not monitor the case or comment on the various iterations of the NPA that were circulated during his absenc +lenchel left the USAO on August 3, 2007, before the parties drafted the NPA +168 + + +investigation. 43 Media reports in mid-2009 suggested Epstein was released from his state +incarceration "early" because he was assisting in a financial crimes investigation in the Eastern +District of New York involving Epstein's former employer, Bear Stearns. At the time, Villafaña +was notified by the AUSAs handling the matter that they "had never heard of" Epstein and he was +providing "absolutely no cooperation" to the government. In 2011, Villafaña reported to senior +colleagues that "this is urban myth. The FBI and I looked into this and do not believe that any of +it is true." Villafaña told OPR that the rumor that Epstein had cooperated with the case in New +York was "completely false." Acosta told OPR that he did not have any information about Epstein +cooperating in a financial investigation or relating to media reports that Epstein had been an +"intelligence asset."244 +In addition to the contemporaneous record attesting that Epstein was not a cooperating +witness in a federal matter, OPR found no evidence suggesting that Epstein was such a cooperating +witness or "intelligence asset," or that anyone-including any of the subjects of OPR's +investigation—believed that to be the case, or that Epstein was afforded any benefit on such a +basis. OPR did not find any reference to Epstein's purported cooperation, or even a suggestion +that he had assisted in a different matter, in any of the numerous communications sent by defense +counsel to the USAO and the Department. It is highly unlikely that defense counsel would have +omitted any reason warranting leniency for Epstein if it had existed. +Accordingly, OPR concludes that none of the subjects of OPR's investigation provided +Epstein with any benefits on the basis that he was a cooperating witness in an unrelated federal +investigation, and OPR found no evidence establishing that Epstein had received benefits for +cooperation in any matter. +V. ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY RESOLVING THE FEDERAL +INVESTIGATION THROUGH THE NPA +Although OPR finds that none of the subjects committed professional misconduct in this +matter, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he agreed to end the federal +investigation through the NPA. Acosta's flawed application of Petite policy principles to this case +and his concerns with overstepping the boundaries of federalism led to a decision to resolve the +federal investigation through an NPA that was too difficult to administer, leaving Epstein free to +manipulate the conditions of his sentence to his own advantage. The NPA relied on state +authorities to implement its key terms, leading to an absence of control by federal authorities over +the process. Although the prosecutors considered certain events that they addressed in the NPA, +such as gain time and community control, many other key issues were not, such as work release +and mechanisms for implementing the § 2255 provision. Important provisions, such as promising +not to prosecute all "potential co-conspirators," were added with little discussion or consideration +by the prosecutors. In addition, although there were evidentiary and legal challenges to a +243 +See, e.g., Julie K. +"Perversion of Justice: How a future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex +abuser the deal of a lifetime," Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018. +When OPR asked Acosta about his apparent equivocation during his 2019 press conference, in answering a +media question about whether he had knowledge of Epstein being an "intelligence asset," Acosta stated to OPR that +"the answer is no." Acosta was made aware that OPR could use a classified setting to discuss intelligence information. +169 + + +successful federal prosecution, Acosta prematurely decided to resolve the case without adequately +addressing ways in which a federal case potentially could have been strengthened, such as by +obtaining Epstein's missing computer equipment. Finally, a lack of coordination within the USAO +compounded Acosta's flawed reasoning and resulted in insufficient oversight over the process of ' +drafting the NPA, a unique document that required more detailed attention and review than it +received. These problems were, moreover, entirely avoidable because federal prosecution, and +potentially a federal plea agreement, existed as viable alternatives to the NPA resolution. +In evaluating Acosta's conduct, OPR has considered and taken into account the fact that +some of Epstein's conduct known today was not known in 2007 and that other circumstances have +changed in the interim, including some victims' willingness to testify. OPR has also evaluated +Acosta's decisions in a framework that recognizes and allows for decisions that are made in good +faith, even if the decision in question may not have led to the "best" result that potentially could +have been obtained. Nonetheless, after considering all of the available evidence and the totality +of the then-existing circumstances, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment in that he +chose an action or course of action that was in marked contrast to that which the Department would +reasonably expect of an attorney exercising good judgment. +A. Acosta's Decision to Resolve the Federal Investigation through a State Plea +under Terms Incorporated into the NPA Was Based on a Flawed Application +of the Petite Policy and Federalism. Concerns, and Failed to Consider the +Significant Disadvantages of a State-Based Resolution +The Department formulated the Petite policy in response to a series of Supreme Court +opinions holding that the Constitution does not deny state and federal governments the power to +prosecute for the same act. Responding to the Court's concerns about the "potential for abuse in +a rule permitting duplicate prosecutions," the Department voluntarily adopted a policy of declining +to bring a federal prosecution following a completed state prosecution for the same conduct, except +when necessary to advance a compelling federal interest. See Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. +at 28. On its face, the Petite policy applies to federal prosecutions that follow completed state +prosecutions. USAM § 9-2.031 ("This policy applies whenever there has been a prior state ... +prosecution resulting in an acquittal, a conviction, including one resulting from a plea agreement, +or a dismissal or other termination of the case on the merits after jeopardy has attached."). When +a state investigation or prosecution is still pending, the policy does not apply. Indeed, even when +a state prosecution has resulted in a decision on the merits, the policy permits a subsequent federal +prosecution when three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: a "substantial federal interest" +exists, "the result in the prior state prosecution was manifestly inadequate in light of the federal +interest involved," and there is sufficient admissible evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction +on federal charges. The policy also does not apply when "the prior prosecution involved only a +minor part of the contemplated federal charges." +No one with whom OPR spoke disputed that the federal government had a substantial +interest in prosecuting Epstein. In her prosecution memorandum, Villafaña identified five federal +statutes that Epstein had potentially violated. The CEOS Chief described Villafaña's assessment +of these statutes as "exhaustive," and he concurred with her analysis of their applicability to the +facts of the case. Epstein's crimes involved the sexual exploitation of children, interstate travel, +and the use of a facility of interstate commerce, all of which were areas of federal concern. +170 + + +Notably, in the early 2000s, the Department had begun pursuing specific initiatives to combat child +sex trafficking, including Project Safe Childhood, and Congress had then recently passed the +PROTECT Act. Acosta himself told OPR that the exploitation of minors was "an important federal +interest," which in Epstein's case was compounded by the "sordidness" of the acts involved and +the number of victims. +It is also clear that because the state case against Epstein was still pending and had not +reached a conviction, acquittal, or other decision on the merits, the Petite policy did not apply and +certainly did not preclude a federal prosecution of Epstein. He had been charged with one state +charge of solicitation to prostitution on three occasions, involving one or more other persons +without regard to age—a charge that would have addressed only a scant portion of the conduct +under federal investigation. Acosta acknowledged to OPR that the Petite policy "on its face" did +not apply. Moreover, the State Attorney did not challenge the federal government's assumption +of prosecutorial responsibility, and despite having obtained an indictment, held back on proceeding +with the state prosecution in deference to the federal government's involvement. In these +circumstances, the USAO was free to proceed with a prosecution sufficient to ensure vindication +of the federal interest in prosecuting a man who traveled interstate repeatedly to prey upon minors. +The federal government was uniquely positioned to fully investigate the conduct of an individual +who engaged in repeated criminal conduct in Florida but who also traveled extensively and had +residences outside of Florida. Even if the Petite policy had applied, OPR has little doubt that the +USAO could have obtained authorization from the Department to proceed with a prosecution under +the circumstances of this case.245 +Despite the undeniable federal interest in prosecuting Epstein, the fact that the Petite policy +did not apply, and the State Attorney's willingness to hold the state prosecution in abeyance +pending the federal government's assumption of the case, Acosta viewed the federal government's +role in prosecuting Epstein as limited by principles of federalism. * In essence, Acosta believed +that a federal prosecution would have interfered improperly with the state's authority. He +explained his reasoning to OPR: +In 2008, tho Office of Enforcement Operations, the office charged with reviewing Petite policy waiver +requests, opined that even if the Petite policy applied with respect to the victims of the indicted state charges, it would +not apply to federal prosecution of charges relating to any other victim. The office also noted that if other factors +existed, suchás use of the internet to contact victims, those factors might warrant a waiver of the policy, if it did apply. +246 +In commenting on OPR's draft report, Acosta's counsel argued that OPR inappropriately bifurcated Acosta's +concerns from those of the other subjects. However, OPR's investigation made clear that, although Acosta shared his +subordinates* concerns about the strength of the case, victim-witness credibility, and the novelty of some legal +theories, he alone focused on federalism issues. Acosta's counsel also asserted that OPR "misunderstands and +devalues Secretary Acosta's very real and legitimate interest in the development of human trafficking laws," and +counsel further noted Acosta's concerns that "bringing a case with serious evidentiary challenges pressing novel legal +issues could result in an outcome that set back the development of trafficking laws and resulted in an aggregate greater +harm to trafficking victims." Although OPR carefully considered counsel's arguments and agrees that it was +appropriate to consider any implications the proposed prosecution of Epstein might have for the Department's antitrafficking efforts, OPR does not believe that those concerns warranted resolving the matter through the NPA, which, +for the reasons discussed in this Section, failed to satisfy the federal interest and allowed Epstein to manipulate the +state system to his benefit. +171 + + +[The prosecution] was going forward on the part of the state, and so +here is the big bad federal government stepping on a sovereign ... +state, saying you're not doing enough, [when] to my mind ... the +whole idea of the [P]etite policy is to recognize that the []state... +is an independent entity, and that we should presume that what +they're doing is correct, even if we don't like the outcome, except +in the most unusual of circumstances. +Acosta told OPR that "absent USAO intervention," the state's prosecution of Epstein +would have become final, and accordingly, it was "prudent" to employ Petite policy analysis. In +Acosta's view, "the federal responsibility" in this unique situation was merely to serve as a "backstop [to] state authorities to ensure that there [was] no miscarriage of justice."247 Acosta told OPR +that he understood the PBPD would not have brought Epstein to the FBI's attention if the State +Attorney had pursued charges that required Epstein's incarceration. Acosta therefore decided that +the USAO could avert a "manifest injustice" by forcing the state to do more and require Epstein +to serve time in jail and register as a sexual offender. +Acosta's reasoning was flawed and unduly constricted. Acosta's repeated references to a +"miscarriage of justice" or "manifest injustice" echoes the "manifestly inadequate" language used +in the Petite policy to define the circumstances in which the federal government may proceed with +a criminal case after a completed state prosecution. Nothing in the Petite policy, however, requires +similar restraint when the federal government pursues)a case in the absence of a completed state +prosecution, even if the state is already investigating the same offense. The goal of the Petite +policy is to prevent multiple prosecutions for the same offense, not to compel the federal +government to defer to a parallel state interest in a case, particularly one in which state officials +involved in the state prosecution expressed significant concerns about it, and there were questions +regarding the state prosecutor's commitment to the case. Acosta told OPR that "there are any +number of instances where the federal government or the state government can proceed, and state +charges are substantially less and different, and ... the federal government ... stands aside and +lets the state proceed." The fact that the federal government can allow the state to proceed with a +prosecution, however, does not mean the federal government is compelled to do so, particularly in +a matter in which a distinct and important federal interest exists. Indeed, the State Attorney told +OPR that the federal government regularly takes over cases initiated by state investigators, +typically because federal charges result in "the best sentence." +Epstein was facing a substantial sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines. 248 +Despite the Ashcroft Memo's directive that federal prosecutors pursue "the most serious readily +provable offense," Acosta's decision to push "the state to do a little bit more" does not approach +that standard. In fact, Acosta conceded during his OPR interview that the NPA did not represent +an "appropriate punishment" in the federal system, nor even "the best outcome in the state system," +and that if the investigation of Epstein had originated with the FBI, rather than as a referral from +the PBPD, the outcome might have been different. As U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the authority to +247 +Daily Beast. +248 +Letter from R. Alexander Acosta "To whom it may concern" at 1 (Mar. 20, 2011), published online in The +Villafaña estimated that the applicable sentencing guidelines range was 168 to 210 months' imprisonment. +172 + + +depart from the Ashcroft Memo. He told OPR, however, that he did not recall discussing the +Ashcroft Memo with his colleagues and nothing in the contemporaneous documentary record +suggests that he made a conscious decision to depart from it when he decided to resolve the federal +investigation through the NPA. Instead, it appears that Acosta simply failed to consider the tension +between federal charging policy and the strong federal interest in this case, on the one hand, and +his broad reading of the Petite policy and his general concerns about "federalism," on the other +hand. OPR concludes that Acosta viewed the federal government's role in prosecuting Epstein +too narrowly and through the wrong prism. +Furthermore, Acosta's federalism concerns about intruding on the state's autonomy +Dining and he won the lal he enema +to obtain during the state's own prosecution. Acosta acknowledged during his OPR interview that +his "attempt to backstop the state here[] rebounded, because in the process, it... ended up being +arguably more intrusive." +Acosta's concern about invading the state's authority led to additional negative +consequences. Acosta revised the draft NPA in several respects to "soften" its tone, by substituting +provisions requiring Epstein to make his "best efforts" for language that appeared to dictate certain +actions to the state. In so doing, however, Acosta undermined the enforceability of the agreement, +making it difficult later to declare Epstein in breach when he failed to comply. +OPR found no indication that when deciding to resolve the federal prosecution through a +mechanism that relied completely on state action, Acosta considered the numerous disadvantages +of having Epstein plead guilty in the state court system, a system in which none of the subjects had +practiced and with which they were unfamiliar. Villafaña recognized that there were "a lot of ways +to manipulate state sentences," and she told OPR that she was concerned from the outset of +negotiations about entering into the NPA, because by sending the case back to the state the USAO +was "giving up all control over what was going on." Villafaña also told OPR that defense counsel +"had a lot of experience with the state system. We did not." Epstein's ability to obtain work +release, a provision directly contrary to the USAO's intent with respect to Epstein's sentence, is a +clear example of the problem faced by the prosecutors when trying to craft a plea that depended +on a judicial system with which they were unfamiliar and over which they had no control. +Although the issue of gain time was considered and addressed in the NPA, none of the subject +altorneys negotiating the NPA realized until after the NPA was signed that Epstein might be +eligible for work release. Acosta, in particular, told OPR that "if it was typical to provide that kind +of work release in these cases, that would have been news to me." Because work release was not +anticipated, the NPA did not specifically address it, and the USAO was unable to foreclose Epstein +from applying for admission to the program. +The Petite policy only applies to the Department of Justice and federal prosecutions. It does not prevent state +173 + + +The sexual offender registration provision is yet another example of how Acosta's decision +to create an unorthodox mechanism that relied on state procedures to resolve the federal +investigation led to unanticipated consequences benefitting Epstein. Acosta told OPR that one of +the core aspects of the NPA was the requirement that Epstein plead guilty to a state charge +requiring registration as a sexual offender. He cited it as a provision that he insisted on from the +beginning and from which he never wavered. However, the USAO failed to anticipate certain +factors that affected the sexual offender registration requirement in other states where Epstein had +a residence. In selecting the conduct for the factual basis for the crime requiring sexual offender +registration, the state chose conduct involving a victim who was at least 16 at the time of her +interactions with Epstein, even though Epstein also had sexual contact with a 14-year old victim. +The victim's age made a difference, as the age of consent in New Mexico, where Epstein had a +residence, was 16; therefore, Epstein was not required to register in that state. As a 2006 letter +from defense counsel Lefcourt to the State Attorney's Office made clear, the defense team had +thoroughly researched the details and ramifications of Florida's sexual offender registration +requirement; OPR did not find evidence indicating similar research and consideration by the +USAO. +Finally, Acosta was well aware that the PBPD brought the case to the FBI's attention +because of a concern that the State Attorney's Office had sticcumbed to "pressure" from defense +counsel. Villafaña told OPR that she informed both Acosta and Sloman of this when she met with +them at the start of the federal investigation. Although Acosta did not remember the meeting with +Villafaña, he repeatedly told OPR during his interview that he was aware that the PBPD was +dissatisfied with the State Attorney's Office's handling of the case. Shortly before the NPA was +signed, moreover, additional information came to light that suggested the State Attorney's Office +was predisposed to manipulating the process in Epstein's favor. Specifically, during the +September 12, 2007 meeting, at the state prosecutor's suggestion, the USAO team agreed, with +Acosta's subsequent approval, to permit Ep +to plead guilty to one state charge of solicitation +of minors to engage in prostitution, rather than the three charges the USAO had originally +specified. The state prosecutor assured Lourie that the selected charge would require Epstein to +register as a sexual offender. Shortly thereafter, the USAO was told by defense counsel that despite +out—that a plea to that partícular offense would not require him to register as a sexual offender. +Yet, despite this evidence, which at least suggested that the state authorities should not have been +considered to be a reliable partner in enforcing the NPA, Acosta did not alter his decision about +proceeding with a process that depended completely on state authorities for its successful +execution. +OPR finds that Acosta was reasonably aware of the facts and circumstances presented by +this case. He stated that he engaged in discussions about various aspects of the case with Sloman +and Menchel, and relied upon them for their evaluation of the legal and evidentiary issues and for +their assessment of trial issues. Acosta was copied on many substantive emails, reviewed and +revised drafts of the NPA, and approved the final agreement. Yet, rather than focusing on whether +the state's prosecution was sufficient to satisfy the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein, Acosta +focused on achieving the minimum outcome necessary to satisfy the state's interest, as defined in +part by the state's indictment, by using the threat of a federal prosecution to dictate the terms of +174 + + +Epstein's state guilty plea.250 As U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the authority to resolve the case in +this manner, but OPR concludes that in light of all the surrounding circumstances, his decision to +do so reflected poor judgment. Acosta's application of Petite policy principles was too expansive, +his view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too narrow, and his understanding of +the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use the NPA.?! +The Assessment of the Merits of a Potential Federal Prosecution Was +Undermined by the Failure to Obtain Evidence or Take Other Investigative +Steps That Could Have Changed the Complexion of the Case +The leniency resulting from Acosta's decision to resolve the case through the NPA is also +troubling because the USAO reached agreement on the terms of the NPA without fully pursuing +evidence that could have changed the complexion of the case or afforded the USAO significant +leverage in negotiating with Epstein. Acosta told OPR that his decision to resolve the federal +investigation through the NPA was, in part, due to concerns about the merits of the case and +concerns about whether the government could win at trial. Yet, Acosta made the decision to +resolve the case through a state-based resolution and extended that proposal to Epstein's defense +attorneys before the investigation was completed. As the investigation progressed, the FBI +continued to locate additional victims, and many had not been interyiewed by the FBI by the time +of the initial offer. In other words, at the time of Acosta's decision, the USAO did not know the +full scope of Epstein's conduct; whether, given Epstein's other domestic and foreign residences, +his criminal conduct had occurred in other locations; or whether the additional victims might +implicate other offenders. In addition, Villafana planned to approach the female assistants to +attempt to obtain cooperation, but that step had not been taken.252 Most importantly, Acosta ended +the investigation without the USAO having obtained an important category of potentially +significant evidence: the computers removed from Epstein's home prior to the PBPD's execution +of a search warrant. +The PBPD knew that Epstein had surveillance cameras stationed in and around his home, +which potentially captured video evidence of people visiting his residence, and that before the state +Acosta told OPR that he undefstood that if Epstein had pled to the original charges contemplated by the state, +he would have received a two-year sentence, and in that circumstance, the PBPD would not have brought the case to +the FBI. OPR was unable to verify that charges originally contemplated by the state would have resulted in a twoyear sentence. OPR's investigation confirmed, however, that the PBPD brought the case to the FBI because the PBPD +Chief was dissatisfied with the state's handling of the matter. +251 +In commenting on OPR's draft report, Acosta's attorney stated that Acosta "accepted] OPR's conclusion +that deferring prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein to the State Attorney rather than proceeding with a federal indictment or +a federal plea was, in hindsight, poor judgment." Acosta also acknowledged that the USAO's handling of the matter +"would have benefited from more consistent staffing and attention. No one foresaw the additional challenges that the +chosen resolution would cause. And the [NPA] relied too much on state authorities, who gave Epstein and his counsel +too much wiggle-room." Acosta's counsel also noted that Acosta welcomed the public release of the Report, "did not +challenge OPR's authority, welcomed the review, and cooperated fully." +252 +Although the FBI interviewed numerous employees of Epstein and Villafaña identified three of his female +assistants as potential co-conspirators, at the time that the USAO extended the terms of its offer, there had been no +significant effort to obtain these individuals' cooperation against Epstein. The FBI attempted unsuccessfully to make +contact with two female assistants on August 27, 2007, as Epstein's private plane was departing for the Virgin Islands, +but agents were unable to locate them on board the plane. +175 + + +search warrant was executed on that property, the computer equipment associated with those +cameras had been removed. Villafaña knew who had possession of the computer equipment. +Surveillance images might have shown the victims' visits, and photographic evidence of their +appearance at the time of their encounters with Epstein could have countered the anticipated +argument that Epstein was unaware these girls were minors. The surveillance video might have +shown additional victims the investigators had not yet identified. Such images could have been +powerful visual evidence of the large number of girls Epstein victimized and the frequency of their +visits to his home, potentially persuasive proof to a jury that this was not a simple "solicitation" +case. +Epstein's personal computers possibly contained even more damning evidence. Villafaña +told OPR that the FBI had information that Epstein used hidden cameras in his New Yorkresidence +to record his sexual encounters, and one victim told agents that Epstein's assistant photographed +her in the nude. Based on this evidence, and experience in other sex cases involving minors, +Villafaña and several other witnesses opined to OPR that the computers might have contained +child pornography. Moreover, Epstein lived a multi-state lifestyle; it was reasonable to assume +that he may have transmitted still images or videos taken at his Florida residence over the internet +to be accessed while at one of his other homes or while traveling. The interstate transmission of +child pornography was a separate, and serious, federal crime that could have changed the entire +complexion of the case against Epstein. 253 Villafaña told OPR, "I]f the evidence had been what +we suspected it was ... [it would have put this case completely to bed. It also would have +completely defeated all of these arguments about interstate nexus." +Because she recognized the potential significance of this evidence, Villafaña attempted to +obtain the missing computers. After Villafaña learned that an individual associated with one of +Epstein's attorneys had possession of the computer equipment that was removed from Epstein's +home, she consulted with Department subject matter experts to determine how best to obtain the +evidence. Following the advice she received and after notifying her supervisors, Villafaña took +legal steps to obtain the computer equipment. +Epstein's team sought to postpone compliance with the USAO's demand for the +equipment. In late June 2007, défense attorney +requested an extension of time to comply; +in informing Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie of the request, Villafaña stressed that "we want to get +equipment. That litigation was still pending at the end of July, when Acosta decided to resolve +253 +18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) provides, in pertinent part: +BaBE +176 + + +the federal investigation in exchange for a plea in state court to a charge that carried a two-year +sentence. The FBI co-case agent told OPR that, in a meeting to discuss the resolution, at which +the FBI was present, the co-case agent specifically suggested that the USAO wait to pursue a +resolution until after the litigation was resolved, but this suggestion was "pushed under the rug" +without comment. Although the co-case agent could not recall who was present, the case agent +recalled that Menchel led the meeting, which occurred while the litigation was still pending. +Even after the NPA two-year state plea resolution was presented to the defense, Villafaña +continued to press ahead to have the court resolve the issue concerning the defense production of +the computer equipment. On August 10, 2007, she asked Lourie for authorization to oppose +Epstein's efforts to stay the litigation until after an anticipated meeting between the USAO and the +hearing was re-set for September 18, 2007. As negotiations towards the NPA progressed, +however, the hearing was postponed indefinitely. Ultimately the NPA itself put the issue to rest +by specifying that all legal process would be held in abeyance unless and until Epstein breached +the agreement. +Villafaña told OPR that she had learned through law enforcement channels that the defense +team had reviewed the contents of Epstein's computers. She told OPR that, in her view, "the fact +that the defense was trying desperately to put off the hearing ... was further evidence of the +importance of the evidence." +OPR questioned Acosta about the decisions to initiate, and continue with, the NPA +negotiations while the litigation concerning the computers was still pending, and to agree to +postpone the litigation rather than exhausting all efforts to obtain and review the computer +evidence. Acosta told OPR that he had no recollection of Villafaña's efforts to obtain the missing +computers, but he believed that "there was a desire to move quickly as opposed to slowly" +regarding the plea. +Menchel, Sloman, and Lourie also all told OPR that they did not remember Villafaña's +efforts to obtain the computers or recalled the issue only "vaguely." Menchel expressed surprise +to OPR that a prosecutor could obtain "an entire computer" through the method utilized by +Villafaña, telling OPR, "I had not heard of that." However, the contemporaneous records show +that Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie had each been aware in 2007 of Villafaña's efforts to obtain +Epstein's missing computer equipment. +Villafaña kept Menchel, in particular, well informed of her efforts to obtain the computer +equipment. She sent to Menchel, or copied him on, several emails about her plan to obtain the +computer equipment; specifically, her emails on May 18, 2007, July 3, 2007, and July 16, 2007, +all discussed her proposed steps. Villafaña told OPR that Lourie was involved in early discussions +about her proposal to obtain the evidence. Lourie also received Villafaña's July 16, 2007 email +discussing the computer equipment and the plan to obtain it, and on one occasion he spoke directly +177 + + +with one of Epstein's defense attorneys about it. Sloman told OPR during his interview that he +"vaguely" remembered the computer issue. The documentary evidence confirms that he had at +least some contemporaneous knowledge of the issue—when asked by Villafaña whether to put off +a September 12, 2007 hearing on the litigation, he told her to do so. Finally, as noted previously, +the FBI co-case agent proposed at a meeting with USAO personnel that the USAO wait until the +Contemporaneous records show that Acosta was likely aware before the NPA was signed +of the USAO's efforts to obtain custody of Epstein's computers and that after the NPA was signed, +he was informed about the use of legal process for obtaining the computer equipment. The NPA +itself provides that "the federal ... investigation will be suspended, and all pending [legal process] +will be held in abeyance," that Epstein will withdraw his "motion to intervene and to quash certain +[legal process]," and, further, that the parties would "maintain ... evidence subject to [legal +process] that have been issued, and including certain computer equipment, inviolate" until the +NPA's terms had been fully satisfied, at which point the legal process would be "deemed +withdrawn." (Emphasis added.) Acosta's numerous edits on the NPA's final draft suggest that he +gave it a close read, and OPR expects that Acosta would not +Le approved the agreement without +understanding what legal process his office was agreeing to withdraw, or why the only type of +evidence specified was "certain computer equipment." In addition, Acosta told OPR that he +worked closely with Sloman and Menchel, consulted with them, and relied on their counsel about +the case. Among other things, Acosta said he discussed with them concerns about the law and the +evidentiary issues presented by a federal criminal trial. Therefore, although it is possible that +Sloman made the decision to postpone the hearing concerning the USAO's efforts to obtain the +computer equipment without consulting Acosta, once Acosta reviewed the draft NPA, Acosta was +on notice of the existence of and the ongoing litigation concerning Epstein's missing computer +equipment. +Villafaña knew where the computers were; litigation over the demand for the equipment +was already underway; there was good reason to believe the computers contained relevant—and +potentially critical-information; and it was clear Epstein did not want the contents of his +computers disclosed. Nothing in the available record reveals that the USAO benefitted from +abandoning pursuit of this evidence when they did, or that there was any significant consideration +of the costs and benefits of forgoing the litigation to obtain production of the computers.254 +Instead, the USAO agreed to postpone and ultimately to abandon its efforts to obtain evidence that +could have significantly changed Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation with a state +guilty plea or led to additional significant federal charges. By agreeing to postpone the litigation, +the USAO gave away leverage that might have caused the defense to come to an agreement much +earlier and on terms more favorable to the government. The USAO ultimately agreed to a term in +the NPA that permanently ended the government's ability to obtain possible evidence of significant +crimes and did so with apparently little serious consideration of the potential cost. +254 +If the USAO had significant concerns about its likelihood of prevailing, postponing the litigation to use it as +leverage in the negotiations might have been strategically reasonable. Lourie suggested in his response to his interview +transcript that the court might have precluded production of the computers. However, OPR saw no evidence indicating +that Villafaña or her supervisors were concerned that the court would do so, and Villafaña had consulted with the +Department's subject matter experts before initiating her action to obtain the equipment. +178 + + +To be clear, OPR is not suggesting that prosecutors must obtain all available evidence +before reaching plea agreements or that prosecutors cannot reasonably determine that reaching a +resolution is more beneficial than continuing to litigate evidentiary issues. Every case is different +and must be judged on its own facts. In this case, however, given the unorthodox nature of the +state-based resolution, the fact that Acosta's decision to pursue it set the case on a wholly different +track than what had been originally contemplated by his experienced staff, the nature and scope of +Epstein's criminal conduct, the circumstances surrounding the removal of the computers from +Epstein's residence, and the potential for obtaining evidence revealing serious additional criminal +conduct, Acosta had a responsibility to ensure that he was fully informed about the consequences +of pursing the course of action that he proposed and particularly about the consequences flowing +from the express terms of the NPA. In deciding to resolve the case pre-charge, Acosta lost sight +of the bigger picture that the investigation was not completed and viable leads remained to be +pursued. The decision to forgo the government's efforts to obtain the computer evidence and to +pursue significant investigative steps should have been made only after careful consideration of +all the costs and benefits of the proposed action. OPR did not find evidence that Acosta fully +considered the costs of ending the investigation prematurely. 255 +C. +OPR Was Unable to Determine the Basis for the Two-Year Term of +Incarceration, That It Was Tied to Traditional Sentencing Goals, or That It +Satisfied the Federal Interest in the Prosecution +The heart of the controversy surrounding the Epstein case is the apparent undue leniency +afforded him concerning his sentence. After offering a deal that required a "non-negotiable" +24-month term of incarceration, Acosta agreed to resolve it for an 18-month term of incarceration, +knowing that gain time would reduce it further, and indeed, Epstein served only 13 months. +Epstein ultimately did not serve even that minimal sentence incarcerated on a full-time basis +because the state allowed Epstein into its work release program within the first four months of his +sentence. As Lourie told OPR, "[E]verything else that happened to [Epstein] is exactly what +should have happened to him. +.. He had to pay a lot of money. He had to register as a sex +offender," but "in the perfect world, [Epstein] would have served more time in jail." +Due to the passage of time and the subjects' inability to recall many details of the relevant +events, OPR was unable to develop a clear understanding of how the original two-year sentence +requirement was developed or by whom. Two possibilities were articulated during OPR's subject +interviews: (1) the two years represented the sentence Epstein would have received had he pled +guilty to an unspecified charge originally contemplated by the state; or (2) the two years +represented the sentence the USAO determined Epstein would be willing to accept, thus avoiding +the need for a trial. As to the former possibility, Acosta told OPR that his "best understanding" of +the two-year proposal was that it correlated to "one of the original state charges." He elaborated, +In commenting on OPR's draft report, Acosta's attorney objected to OPR's conclusion that Acosta knew or +should have known about the litigation regarding the computers and that he should have given greater consideration +to pursuing the computers before the NPA was signed. Acosta's attorney asserted that Acosta was not involved in +that level of "granularity"; that his "small thoughts' edits" on the NPA were limited and focused on policy; and that +it was appropriate for him to rely on his staff to raise any issues of concern to him. For the reasons stated above, OPR +nonetheless concludes that having developed a unique resolution to a federal investigation, Acosta had a greater +obligation to understand and consider what the USAO was giving up and the appropriateness of doing so. +179 + + +"I'm reconstructing memories of ... 12 years ago. I can speculate that at some point, the matter +came up, and I or someone else said ... what would the original charges have likely brought? And +someone said this amount." Acosta told OPR that he could not recall who initially proposed this +method, but he believed that it likely did not result from a single specific discussion but rather +from conversations over a course of time. Acosta could not recall specifically with whom he had +these discussions, other than that it would have been Lourie, Menchel, or Sloman. Villafaña was +not asked for her views on a two-year sentence, and she had no input into the decision before it +was made. Villafaña told OPR that she examined the state statutes and could not validate that a +state charge would have resulted in a 24-month sentence. OPR also examined applicable state +statutes and the Florida sentencing guidelines, but could not confirm that Epstein was, in fact, +facing a potential two-year sentence under charges contemplated by the PBPD +On the other hand, during his OPR interview, Lourie "guess[ed]" that "somehow the +defense conveyed ... we're going to trial if it's more than two years." Menchel similarly told +OPR that he did not know how the two year sentence was derived, but "obviously it was a number +that the office felt was palatable enough that [Epstein] would take" it. Sloman told OPR that he +had no idea how the two-year sentence proposal was reached. +The contemporaneous documentary record, however, provides no indication that Epstein's +team proposed a two-year sentence of incarceration or initially suggested, before the USAO made +its offer, that Epstein would accept a two-year term of incarceration. As late as July 25, 2007— +only days before the USAO provided the term sheet to defense counsel-Epstein's counsel +submitted a letter to the USAO arguing that the federal government should not prosecute Epstein +at all. Furthermore, after the initial "term sheet" was presented and negotiations for the NPA +progressed, Epstein's team continued to strongly press for less or no time in jail. +The USAO had other charging and sentencing options available to it. The most obvious +alternative to the two-year sentence proposal was to offer Epstein a plea to a federal offense that +carried a harsher sentence. If federally charged, Epstein was facing a substantial sentence under +the federal sentencing guidelines, 168 to 210 months' imprisonment. However, it is unlikely that +he would have agreed to a plea that required a guidelines sentence, even one at the lower end of +the guidelines. Menchel told OPR that he and his colleagues had been concerned that Epstein +would opt to go to trial if charged and presented with the option of pleading to a guidelines +sentence, and as previously discussed, there were both evidentiary and legal risks attendant upon +a trial in this case. If federally charged, Epstein's sentencing exposure could have been managed +by offering him a plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c) for a stipulated sentence, +which requires judicial approval. Acosta rejected this idea, however, apparently because of a +perception that the federal district courts in the Southern District of Florida did not view Rule 11(c) +pleas favorably and might refuse to accept such a plea and thus limit the USAO's options. +Another alternative was to offer Epstein a plea to conspiracy, a federal charge that carried +a maximum five-year sentence. Shortly after Villafaña circulated the prosecution memorandum +to her supervisors, Lourie recommended to Acosta charging Epstein by criminal complaint and +offering a plea to conspiracy "to make a plea attractive." Similarly, before learning that Menchel +had already discussed a state-based resolution with Epstein's counsel, Villafaña had considered +offering Epstein a plea to one count of conspiracy and a substantive charge, to be served +concurrently with any sentence he might receive separately as a result of the state's outstanding +180 + + +indietment. Given Epstein's continued insistence that federal charges were not appropriate and +defense counsel's efforts to minimize the amount of time Epstein would spend in jail, it is +questionable whether Epstein would have accepted such a plea offer, but the USAO did not even +extend the offer to determine what his response to it would be. +Weighed against possible loss at trial were some clear advantages to a negotiated resolution +that ensured a conviction, including sexual offender registration and the opportunity to establish a +mechanism for the victims to recover damages. These advantages, added to Acosta's concern +about intruding on the state's authority, led him to the conclusion that a two-year state plea would +be sufficient to prevent manifest injustice. Menchel told OPR, "I don't believe anybody at the +time that this resolution was entered into was looking at the two years as a fair result in terms of +the conduct. I think that was not the issue. The issue was whether or not if we took this case to +trial, would we risk losing everything?" +During the course of negotiations over a potential federal plea, the USAO agreed to accept +year term. The subjects did not have a clear memory of why this reduction was made. Villafaña +made during the negotiating process by Villafaña and Lourie, telling OPR that he understood his +attorneys needed flexibility to reach a final deal with Epstein. +OPR found no contemporaneous documents showing the basis for the two-year term. +term, as opposed to other possible and lengthier terms, was settled on for the initial offer. The +term was not tied to statutory or guidelines sentences for potential federal charges or, as far as +OPR could determine, possible state charges. Furthermore, while the USAO initially informed the +defense that the two-year term was "non-negotiable," Acosta failed to enforce that position and +rather than a "floor" for negotiations, it became a "ceiling" that was further reduced during the +negotiations. OPR was unable to find any evidence indicating that the term of incarceration was +tied either to the federal interest in seeking a just sentence for a serial sexual offender, or to other +traditional sentencing factors stich as deterrence, either of Epstein or other offenders of similar +crimes. +Instead, as previously noted, it appears that Acosta primarily considered only a +punishment that was somewhat more than that to which the state had agreed. As a result, the +disproportionate to the seriousness of Epstein's conduct. +In sum, it is evident that Acosta's desire to resolve the federal case against Epstein led him +to arrive at a target term of incarceration that met his own goal of serving as a "backstop" to the +state, but that otherwise was untethered to any articulable, reasonable basis. In assessing the case +only through the lens of providing a "backstop" to the state, Acosta failed to consider the need for +a punishment commensurate with the seriousness of Epstein's conduct and the federal interest in +addressing it. +181 + + +D. Acosta's Decisions Led to Difficulties Enforcing the NPA +After the agreement was reached, the collateral attacks and continued appeals raised the +specter that the defense had negotiated in bad faith. At various points, individual members of the +USAO team became frustrated by defense tactics, and in some instances, consideration was given +to whether the USAO should declare a unilateral breach. Indeed, on November 24, 2008, the +USAO gave notice that it deemed Epstein's participation in work release to be a breach of the +agreement but ultimately took no further action. Acosta told OPR: "I was personally very +frustrated with the failure to report on October 20, and had I envisioned that entire collateral attack, +I think I would have looked at this very differently." +Once the NPA was signed, Acosta could have ignored Epstein's requests for further review +by the Department and, if Epstein failed to fulfill his obligations under the NPA to enter his state +guilty plea, declared Epstein to be in breach and proceeded to charge him federally. When +questioned about this issue, Acosta explained that he believed the Department had the "right" to +address Epstein's concerns. He told OPR that because the USAO is partjof the Department of +Justice, if a defendant asks for Departmental review, it would be "unseemiy" to object. During his +OPR interview, Sloman described Acosta as very process-oriented, which he attributed to Acosta's +prior Department experience. Sloman, however, believed the USAO gave Epstein "[too much +process," a result of the USAO's desire to "do the right thing" and to the defense team's ability to +keep pressing for more process without triggering a breach of the NPA. Furthermore, Epstein's +defense counsel repeatedly and carefully made clear they were not repudiating the agreement. +Acosta told OPR that the USAO would have had to declare Epstein in breach of the NPA in order +to proceed to file federal charges, and Epstein would undoubtedly have litigated whether his effort +to obtain Departmental review constituted a breach: Acosta recalled that he was concerned, as was +Sloman, that a unilateral decision to rescind the non-prosecution agreement would result in +collateral litigation that would further delay matters and make what was likely a difficult trial even +harder. +Acosta's and Sloman's concerns about declaring a breach were not unreasonable. A court +would have been unlikely to have determined that defense counsel's appeal of the NPA to the +Department and unwillingness to set a state plea date while that appeal was ongoing was sufficient +to negate the agreement. However, some of the difficulty the USAO faced in declaring a breach +was caused by decisions Acosta made before and shortly after the NPA was signed. For example, +and significantly, it was Acosta who changed the language, "Epstein shall enter his guilty plea and +be sentenced not later than October 26, 2007" to "Epstein shall use [his] best efforts to enter his +guilty plea and be sentenced not later than October 26, 2007." (Emphasis added.) Acosta also +agreed not to enforce the NPA's October 26, 2007 deadline for entry of Epstein's plea, and he told +defense counsel that he had no objection if they decided to pursue an appeal to the Department. +Following these decisions, the USAO would have had significant difficulty trying to prove that +Epstein was not using his "best efforts" to comply with the NPA and was intentionally failing to +comply, as opposed to pursuing a course to which the U.S. Attorney had at least implicitly agreed. +E. Acosta Did Not Exercise Sufficient Supervisory Review over the Process +The question at the center of much of the public controversy concerning the USAO's +handling of its criminal investigation of Epstein is why the USAO agreed to resolve a case in which +182 + + +the defendant faced decades in prison for sexual crimes against minors with such an insignificant +term of incarceration, and made numerous other concessions to the defense. As OPR has set forth +in substantial detail in this Report, OPR did not find evidence to support allegations that the +prosecutors sought to benefit Epstein at the expense of the victims. Instead, the result can more +appropriately be tied to Acosta's misplaced concerns about interfering with a traditionally state +crime and intruding on state authority. Acosta was also unwilling to abandon the path that he had +set, even when Villafaña and Lourie advocated to end the negotiations and even though Acosta +himself had learned that the state authorities may not have been a reliable partner. +Many of the problems that developed might have been avoided had Acosta engaged in +greater consultation with his staff before making key decisions. The contemporaneous records +revealed problems with communication and coordination among the five key participants. Acosta +was involved to a greater extent and made more decisions than he did in a typical case. Lourie +told OPR that it was "unusual to have a U.S. Attorney get involved with this level of detail." +Menchel told OPR, "I know we would have spoken about this case a lot, okay? And I'm sure with +Jeff as well, and there were conversations -- a meeting that I had with Marie and Andy as well." +Lourie similarly told OPR: +Well, ... he would have been talking to Jeff and Matt, talking to me +to the extent that he did, he would have been looking at the Pros +Memo and ... the guidance from CEOS, he would have been +reading the defense attorney's letters, maybe talking to the State +Attorney, I don't know, just +all these different sources of +information he was -- I'm comfortable that he knew the case, you +know, that he was, he was reading everything. Apparently, he, you +know, read the Pros Memo, he read all the stuff'.... +At the same time, Acosta was significantly removed, both in physical distance and in levels +in the supervisory chain, from the individuals with the most knowledge of the facts of the case— +Villafaña and, to a lesser extent, Louze. Lourie normally would have signed off on the prosecution +memorandum on his own, but as he told OPR, he recognized that the case was going to go through +the front office "[b]ecause there was front office involvement from the get go." Yet, although +Acosta became inyolved at certain points in order to make decisions, he did not view himself as +overseeing the investigation or the details of implementing his decisions. OPR observed that as a +consequence, management of the case suffered from both an absence of ownership of the +investigation and failures in communication that affected critical decisions. +On occasion, Villafaña included Acosta directly in emails, but often, information upon +which Acosta relied for his decisions and information about the decisions Acosta had made +traveled through multiple layers between Acosta and Villafaña. Villafaña did draft a detailed, +analytical prosecution memorandum, but it is not clear that Acosta read it and instead may have +relied on conversations primarily with Menchel and later with Sloman after Menchel's departure. +Despite these discussions, though, it is not clear that Acosta was aware of certain information, such +as Oosterbaan's strong opinion from the outset in favor of the prosecution or of Villafaña's +concerns and objections to a state-based resolution or the final NPA. Acosta interpreted the state +indictment on only one charge as a sign that the case was weak evidentially, but it is not clear that +when making his decision to resolve the matter though a state-based plea, he knew the extent to +183 + + +which Villafaña and Lourie believed that the state had intentionally failed to aggressively pursue +a broader state indictment. +One example illustrates this communication gap. In a September 20, 2007 email to Lourie +asking him to read the latest version of the proposed "hybrid" federal plea agreement (calling for +Epstein to plead to both state and federal charges), Acosta noted, "I don't typically sign plea +agreements. We should only go forward if the trial team supports and signs this agreement. I +didn't even sign the public corruption or [C] cartel agreements, so this should not be the first." +(Emphasis added.) In his email to Villafaña, Lourie attached Acosta's email and instructed +Villafaña to "change the signature block to your name and send as final to Jay [Lefkowitz]." +(Emphasis added.) Villafaña raised no objection to signing the agreement. Acosta told OPR that +he wanted to give the "trial team" a chance to "speak up and let him know" if they did not feel +comfortable with the agreement. Villafaña, however, told OPR that she did not understand that +she was being given an opportunity to object to the agreement; rather, she believed Acosta wanted +her to sign it because he was taking an "arm's length" approach and signaling this "was not his +deal." The fact that the top decision maker believed he was giving the line AUSA an opportunity +to reflect and stop the process if she believed the deal was inappropriate, but the line AUSA +believed she was being ordered to sign the agreement because her boss wanted to distance himself +from the decision, reflects a serious communication gap. +As another example, at one point, Villafaña, frustrated and concerned about the decisions +being made concerning a possible resolution, requested a meeting with Acosta; in a sternly worded +rebuke, Menchel rejected the request. Although Menchel told OPR that he was not prohibiting +Villafaña from speaking to Acosta, Villafaña interpreted Menchel's email to mean that she could +not seek a meeting with Acosta. As a consequence, Acosta made his decision about a state +resolution and the term of incarceration without any direct input from Villafaña. Acosta told OPR +that he was unaware that Villafaña had sought a meeting with him and he would have met with +her if she had asked him directly. OPR did not find any written evidence of a meeting involving +both Acosta—-the final decision maker-and Villafaña-the person most knowledgeable about the +facts and the law-before Acosta made his decision to resolve the case through state charges or to +offer the two-year term, and Villafaña said she did not have any input into the decision. Although +a U.S. Attorney is certainly not required to have such direct input, and it may be that Menchel +presented what he believed to be Villafaña's views, OPR found no evidence that Acosta was aware +of Villafaña's strong views about, and objections to, the proposed resolution. 256 +Two logistical problems hindered effective communication. First, the senior managers +involved in the case—Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel—had offices located in Miami, while the +offices of the individuals most familiar with facts of the case-Villafaña and, to a lesser extent, +Lourie—were located in West Palm Beach. Consequently, Villafaña's discussions with her senior +In her 2017 Declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafaña stated that, given the challenges of obtaining +victims' cooperation with a federal prosecution, "I believed and still believe that a negotiated resolution of the matter +was in the best interests of the [USAO] and the victims as a whole. The [USAO] had also reached that same +conclusion." Several subjects pointed to this statement as indicating that Villafaña in fact supported the NPA. In her +OPR interview, however, Villafaña drew a distinction between resolving the investigation through negotiations that +led to what in her view was a reasonable outcome, which she would have supported, and "this negotiated resolution"- +that is, the NPA—which she did not support. +184 + + +managers required more effort than in other offices, where a line AUSA can more easily just stop +by a supervisor's office to discuss a case. 257 +Second, key personnel were absent at varying times. Menchel's last day in the office was +August 3, 2007, the day he sent to the defense his letter making the initial offer, and presumably +in the immediate period before his departure date, Menchel would have been trying to wrap up his +outstanding work. Yet, this was also the time when Acosta was deciding how to resolve the matter. +Similarly, in the critical month of September, the NA and plea negotiations intensified and the +NPA evolved significantly, with the USAO having to consider multiple different options as key +provisions were continuously added or modified while Villafaña pressed to meet her late- +September deadline. Although Lourie was involved with the negotiations during this period, he +was at the same time transitioning not only to a new job but to one in Washington, D.C., and was +traveling between the two locations. Sloman was on vacation in the week preceding the signing, +when many significant changes were made to the agreement, and he did not participate in drafting +or reviewing the NPA before it was signed. Accordingly, during the key negotiation period for a +significant case involving a unique resolution, no one involved had both a thorough understanding +of the case and full ownership of the decisions that were being made. Villafaña certainly felt that +during the negotiations, she was only implementing decisions made by Acosta. Acosta, however, +told OPR that when reviewing the NPA, "I would have reviewed this for the policy concerns. Did +it do the ... bullet points, and my assumption, rightly or wrongly, would have been that Andy and +would have looked at this, and that this was appropriate." +The consequences flowing from the lack of ownership and effective communication can +be seen in the NPA itself. +As demonstrated by the contemporaneous communications, the +negotiations were at times confusing as the parties considered multiple options and even revisited +proposals previously rejected. Meanwhile, Villafaña sought to keep to a deadline that would allow +her to charge Epstein when she had planned to, if the parties did not reach agreement. In the end, +Acosta accepted several terms with little apparent discussion or consideration of the ramifications. +The USAO's agreement not to prosecute "any potential co-conspirators" is a notable +example. +As previously noted, the only written discussion about the term that OPR found was +Villafaña's email to Lourie and the incoming West Palm Beach manager, with copies to her +co-counsel and direct supervisor, stating that she did not believe the provision "hurts us," and +neither Acosta, Lourie, nor Villafaña recalled any further discussion about the provision. Although +OPR did not find evidence showing that Acosta, Lourie, or Villafaña intended the scope of the +provision to protect anyone other than Epstein's four assistants, the plain language of the provision +precluded the USAO from prosecuting anyone who engaged with Epstein in his criminal conduct, +within the limitations set by the overall agreement. This broad prosecution declination would +likely be unwise in most cases but in this case in particular, the USAO did not have a sufficient +investigative basis from which it could conclude with any reasonable certitude that there were no +other individuals who should be held accountable along with Epstein or that evidence might not +be developed implicating others. Prosecutors rarely promise not to prosecute unidentified third +257 +In his OPR interview, Acosta commented that although Menchel's office was on the same floor as Acosta's, +he was in a different suite, which "affects interaction." +185 + + +parties. 28 The rush to reach a resolution should not have led the USAO to agree to such a +significant provision without a full consideration of the potential consequences and justification +for the provision. It is highly doubtful that the USAO's refusal to agree to that term would have +itself caused the negotiations to fail; the USAO's rejection of the defense proposal concerning +immigration consequences did not affect Epstein's willingness to sign the agreement. The +possibility that individuals other than Epstein's four female assistants could have criminal +culpability for their involvement in his scheme could have been anticipated and should have caused +more careful consideration of the provision. +Similarly, the confidentiality provision was also accepted with little apparent consideration +of the implications of the provision for the victims, and it eventually became clear that the defense +interpreted the provision as precluding the USAO from informing the victims about the status of +the investigation. Agreeing to a provision that restricted the USAO's ability to disclose or release +information as it deemed appropriate mired the USAO in disputes about whether it was or would +be violating the terms of the NPA by disclosing information to victims or the special +Decisions about disclosure of information should have remained within the authority and province +of the USAO to decide as it saw fit. +There is nothing improper about a U.S. Attorney not having a meeting with the line AUSA +or other involved members of the prosecution team before he or she makes a decision in a given +case; indeed, U.S. Attorneys often make decisions without having direct input from line AUSAs. +And Acosta did have discussions with Menchel, and possibly Sloman, before making the critical +decision to resolve the matter through a state plea, although the specifics of those discussions could +not be recalled by the participants due to the passage of time. This case, however, was different +from the norm, and Acosta was considering a resolution that was significantly different from the +usual plea agreement. Contemporaneous records show that Acosta believed the case should be +handled like any other, but Acosta's decision to fashion an unorthodox resolution made the case +unlike any other, and it therefore required appropriate and commensurate oversight. Acosta may +well have decided to proceed in the same fashion even if he had sought and received a full briefing +258 +CEOS Chief Oosterbaan told OPR this provision was "very unusual." Principal Associate Deputy Attorney +General John Roth commented, "don't know how it is that you give immunity to somebody who's not identified. I +just don't know how that works." Villafaña's co-counsel told OPR: +It's effectively transactional immunity which I didn't think we were supposed +to do at the Department of Justice.... I've never heard of anything of the sort.... +[Wle go to great lengths in most plea agreements to go and not give immunity for +example, for crimes of violence, ... for anything beyond the specific offense +which was being investigated during the specific time periods and for you and +nobody else. I mean on rare occasion I've seen cases where say someone was +dealing drugs and their wife was involved.... And they've got kids.... [and] it's +understood that the wife probably could be prosecuted and sent to jail too, but you +know the husband's willing to go and take the weight.... This is not one of +Deputy Attorney General Filip called the provision "pretty weird." Menchel's successor as Criminal Chief told OPR +that he had never heard of such a thing in his 33 years of experience as a prosecutor. A senior AUSA with substantial +experience prosecuting sex crimes against children commented that it was "horrendous" to provide immunity for +participants in such conduct. +186 + + +from Villafaña and others, but given the highly unusual procedure being considered, his decision +should have been made only after a full consideration of all of the possible ramifications and +consequences of pushing the matter into the state court system, with which neither Villataña nor +the other subjects had experience, along with consideration of the legal and evidentiary issues and +possible means of overcoming those issues. OPR did not find evidence indicating that such a +meeting or discussion with the full team was held before the decision was made to pursue the +state-based resolution, before the decision was made to offer a two-year term of incarceration, or +before the NPA, with its unusual terms, was signed. As Acosta later recognized and told OPR, +"And a question that I think is a valid one in my mind is, did the focus on, let's just get this done +and get a jail term, mean that we didn't take a step back and say, let's evaluate how this train is +moving?" +Many features of the NPA were given inadequate consideration, including core provisions +like the term of incarceration and sexual offender registration, with the result that Epi +was able +to manipulate the process to his benefit. Members of his senior staff held differing opinions about +some of the issues that Acosta felt were important and that factored into his decision-making. +There does not seem to be a point, however, at which those differing opinions were considered +when forming a strategy; rather, Acosta seems to have made a decision that everyone beneath him +followed and attempted to implement but without a considered strategy beyond attaining the three +core elements. As the U.S. Attorney, Acosta had authority to proceed in this manner, but many of +the problems that developed with the NPA might have been avoided with a more thoughtful +approach. As Acosta belatedly recognized, "[!]f I was advising a fellow U.S. Attorney today, 1 +would say, think it through."25 +No one of the individual problems discussed above necessarily demonstrates poor +judgment by itself. However, in combination, the evidence shows that the state-based resolution +was ill conceived from the start and that the NPA resulted from a flawed decision-making process. +From the time the USAO opened its investigation, Acosta recognized the federal interest in +prosecuting Epstein, yet after that investigation had run for more than a year, he set the +investigation on a path not originally contemplated. Having done so, he had responsibility for +ensuring that he received and considered all of the necessary information before putting an end to +a federal investigation into serious criminal conduct. Acosta's failure to adequately consider the +full ramifications of the NPA contributed to a process and ultimately a result that left not only the +line AUSA and the FBI case agents dissatisfied but also caused victims and the public to question +the motives of the prosecutors and whether any reasonable measure of justice was achieved. +Accordingly, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment in that he chose a course of +action that was in marked contrast to the action that the Department would reasonably expect an +attorney exercising good judgment to take. +In commenting on OPR's draft report, Acosta's attorney acknowledged that "[t]he matter would have +benefited from more consistent staffing and attention." +187 + + +188 + + +ISSUES RELATING TO THE GOVERNMENT'S INTERACTIONS +AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH VICTIMS +PART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND +OVERVIEW +Chapter Three describes the events pertaining to the federal government's interactions and +the FBI's interactions with victims before and after the signing of the NPA, beginning with the +FBI's initial contact with victims through letters informing them that the FBI had initiated an +investigation. A timeline of key events is provided on the following page. +II. THE CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 +A. History +In December 1982, the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime issued a final report +outlining recommendations for the three branches of government to improve the treatment of crime +victims. The Task Force concluded that victims have been "overlooked, their pleas for justice +have gone unheeded, and their wounds personal, emotional and financial-have gone +unattended."260 Thereafter, the government enacted various laws addressing victims' roles in the +criminal justice system: the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, the Victims of Crime Act +of 1984, the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (VRRA), the Violent Crime Control and +Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the +Victim Rights Clarification Act of 1997, and the Justice for All Act of 2004.261 +The CVRA, enacted on October 30, 2004, as part of the Justice for All Act, was designed +to protect crime victims and to make them "full participants in the criminal justice system."262 The +CVRA resulted from a multi-year bipartisan effort to approve a proposal for a constitutional +amendment guaranteeing victims' rights, some of which had previously been codified as a victims' +260 +President's Task Force on Victims of Crime Final Report at ii (Dee. 1982). +261 +See Pub. L. No. 97-291 (Victim and Witness Protection Act) (1982); Pub. L. No. 98-473 (Victims of Crime +Act) (1984); Pub. L. No. 101-647 (Victims' Rights and Restitution Act) (1990); Pub. L. No. 103-322 (Violent Crime +ontrol and Law Enforcement Act) (1994); Pub. L. No. 104-132 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Ac +996); Pub. L. No. 105-6 (Victim Rights Clarification Act) (1997); and Pub. L. No. 108-405 (Justice for All Ac +(2004). +262 +Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, +234 (4th Cir. 2007); and Justice for All Act. +189 + + +Timeline of Key Events for Crime Victims' Rights Act Analysis +DeA Monitic +Aug 10 - FBI +begins interviewing +victims +Aug 24 - Villafada e-mail +to supervisors indicating +that she sent victim +notification letters to all +of the girls" +Aug 28 - FBI begins +sending VNS letters +to victims +Sep-Dec +2006 +compen then thin: +inceltant? +250: the +півметілаа. +300: FED +2007 +2018 +Samarash with +Somen lorrart sratos +Late cuto man pooling +women sata +0a0505:1930 get: +imam set lends +190 +Additional Key Dates +Dẹc 17; 2010 - DOJ. +Office of Legal +Counsel issues opinion. +regarding CVRA +Oct 2011 - DOJ revises +AG Guidelines +May 29, 2015 - CVRÁ +amended io include two +new rights +Feb 21; 2019 - Dist. Ct. +issues opinion finding +U.S. violated the +CVRA +Jut 6, 2019 - Epstein +arrested on SNY +charges. +Aug 10, 2019 - Epstein +dies in custody +Sep 16, 2019 - Dist. Cr. +• closes CVRA case and +lenies petitioners +guest for remedie +Apr 14, 2020 - 11d +Circuit Court of +Appeals denies: +Mandamus petition +Aug 7,2020 - +Petitioners* petition fo +ébéaring en banc + + +Bill of Rights in the VRRA. 263 Following multiple Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee +hearings and various revisions of the proposed amendment, the Senators determined that such an +amendment was unlikely to be approved and, instead, they presented the CVRA as a compromise +measure. 264 +B. +Enumerated Rights +The CVRA defines the term "crime victim" as "a person directly and proximately harmed +1s are a of the comision of a teal dril stein infericio, the CRafted rian. +(1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. +(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public +court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or +of any release or escape of the accused. +(3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court +proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing +evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be +materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that +(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the +district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole +proceeding. +(5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the +Government in the case. +See 150 Cong. Rec, S4260-01 at 1, 5 (2004). The VRRA identified victims' rights to (1) be treated with +fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy; (2) be reasonably protected from the accused offender; +(3) be notified of court procodings; (4) be present at all public court proceedings that relate to the offense, unless the +court determines that testimony by the victim would be materially affected if the victim heard other testimony at trial; +(5) confer with an attorney for the Government in the case; (6) restitution; and (7) information about the conviction, +sentencing, imprisonment, and release of the offender. 42 U.S.C. § 10606(b) (1990). The relevant text of the VRRA +is set forth in Chapter Three, Part Two, Section 1.B of this Report. +150 Cong. Rec. S4260-01 at 1, 5 (2004). Although nine congressional hearings were held between 1996 and +2003 concerning amending the Constitution to address victims" rights, neither chamber of Congress voted on +legislation proposing an amendment. United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), GAO-09-54, Report +to Congressional Committees: Crime Victims" Rights Act - Increasing Awareness, Modifying the Complaint Process +and Enhancing Compliance Monitoring Will Improve Implementation of the Act at 16 (Dec. 2008) (GAO CVRA +Awareness Report). +265 +The relevant text of the CVRA is set forth in Chapter Three, Part Two, Section I.A of this Report. +191 + + +(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. +(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. +(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the +victim's dignity and privacy. +Although many of the rights included in the CVRA already existed in federal law as part +of the VRRA, the CVRA afforded crime victims standing to assert their rights in federal court or +by administrative complaint to the Department, and obligated the court to ensure that such rights +were afforded. The passage of the CVRA repealed the rights portion of the VRRA (42 U.S.C. +§ 10606), but kept intact the portion of the VRRA directing federal law enforcement agencies to +provide certain victim services, such as counseling and medical care referrals (42 U.S.C. +§ 10607(c)). Department training emphasizes that the VRRA obligates the Department to provide +ricine set rest which attach pon ine ingot an of a grime, wile tie CRA contains court- +In 2015, Congress amended the CVRA and added the following two rights: 266 +(9) The right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain +or deferred prosecution agreement. +(10) The right to be informed of the rights under this section and the +services described in section 503(c) of the Victims' Rights and +Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C, 10607(c)) and provided contact +information for the Office of the Victims' Rights Ombudsman of the +Department of Justice. +Ill. +THE DEPARTMENT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CVRA'S DEFINITION OF +"CRIME VICTIM" AT THE TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION +A. April 1, 2005 Office of Legal Counsel "Preliminary Review" +In 2005, Department management requested informal guidance from the Department's +Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) regarding interpretation of the CVRA's definition of "crime +victim."20% On April 1, 2005, OLC provided "preliminary and informal" guidance by email +concluding that "the status of a 'crime victim' may be reasonably understood to commence upor +the filing of a complaint, and that the status ends if there is a subsequent decision not to indict or +prosecute the Federal offense that directly caused the victim's harm."*268 +266 +H. Rep. No. 114-7 (Jan. 27, 2015). +267 +OLC is responsible for providing legal advice to the President, Department components, and other executive +branch agencies. +The OLC 2005 Informal Guidance is summarized in a Memorandum Opinion to the Acting Deputy Attorney +General from Deputy Assistant Attorney General John E. Bies (Dec. 17, 2010), published as Office of Legal Counsel, +192 + + +OLC concluded that because the CVRA defines ''crime victim' as a 'person directly and +proximately harmed by the commission of a Federal offense,' ... the definition of victim is thus +tethered to the identification of a "Federal offense,' an event that occurs with the filing of a +complaint." OLC further concluded that because the House Report stated that the CVRA codifies +the "*rights of crime victims in the Federal judicial system' and a complaint "commences the +"judicial process' and places an offense within the judicial system,'" the legislature must have +intended for CVRA rights to commence upon the filing of a complaint. +OLC also found that the language of the CVRA rights supported its interpretation. For +example, the first right grants a victim protection from "the accused," not a suspect. Additionally, +the second, third, and fourth rights refer to "victim notification, and access to, public proceedings +involving release, plea, sentencing or parole-none of which commence prior to the filing of a +complaint." +B. 2005 Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance +In May 2005, the Department updated its Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and +Witness Assistance (2005 Guidelines) to include the CVRA.269 The 2005 Guidelines specifically +cited the CVRA requirement that agencies "engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution +of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded" their +CVRA rights, which in 2005 encompassed the initial eight CVRA rights. +The 2005 Guidelines provided detail regarding implementation of the Department's CVRA +duties and divided criminal cases into an "investigation stage," a "prosecution stage," and a +"corrections stage." The individuals responsible for notifying crime victims of their CVRA rights +varied depending on the stage of the proceedings. +During the "investigation stage" of cases in which the FBI was the investigating agency, +the Special Agent in Charge was responsible for identifying the victims "[a]t the earliest +opportunity after the detection of a crime" and notifying them of their rights under the CVRA and +services available under the VRRA and other federal statutes. +[D]uring the investigative stage, [the Department] mandates +compliance with the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act, 42 U.S.C +§ 10607, which requires federal officials to, among other things, +identify victims, protect victims, arrange for victims to receive +reasonable protection from suspected offenders, and provide +The Availability of Crime Victims' Rights Under the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 (Dec. 17, 2010) ("OLC +Availability of Crime Victims' Rights (2010)") and available at https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/ +opinions/2010/12/31/availability-crime-victims-rights.pdf. "That [2005] informal guidance did not foreclose the +possibility that other definitions would also be reasonable." OLC Availability of Crime Victims' Rights (2010) at I. +269 +The 2005 Guidelines are set forth in relevant part in Chapter Three, Part Two, Section II of this Report. The +Department promulgated the guidelines in response to a congressional directive in a predecessor statute to the CVRA, +which instructed the Attorney General to develop and implement such guidelines. Victim and Witness Protection Act, +Pub. L. No. 97-291, § 6, 96 Stat. 1248 (1982). The 2005 Guidelines were superseded in October 2011, as explained +below. +193 + + +information about available services for victims. Therefore, even +as some CVRA rights.270 +The 2005 Guidelines stated that the "prosecution stage" of the case began when "charges +ars fied an prostition is pengines senteponsibal pr meding est ors to sey in rose +listrict the prosecution is pending +victims are notified" of their rights under the CVRA. +During the prosecution stage, the 2005 Guidelines required the U.S. Attornéy, or a +designee, to notify crime victims of case events, such as the filing of charges; the release of an +offender; the schedule of court proceedings; the acceptance of a guilty plea or nolo contendere or +rendering of a verdict; and any sentence imposed. The 2005 Guidelines required the responsible +official to "provide the victim with reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court +proceeding ….. that involves the crime against the victim." +The 2005 Guidelines specifically required federal prosecutors to "be available to consult +with victims about [their] major case decisions," such as dismissals, release of the accused, plea +negotiations, and pretrial diversion. In particular, the 2005 Guidelines required the responsible +official to make reasonable efforts to notify identified, viçtims of, and consider victims' views +about, prospective plea negotiations. Nevertheless, the 2005 Guidelines cautioned prosecutors to +"consider factors relevant to the wisdom and practicality of giving notice and considering [the +victim's] views" in light of various factors such as "[w]hether the proposed plea involves +confidential information or conditions" and "[w]hether the victim is a possible witness in the case +and the effect that relaying any information may have on the defendant's right to a fair trial." +Lastly, the 2005 Guidelines stated that "[a] strong presumption exists in favor of providing rather +than withholding assistance and services to victims and witnesses of crime." +following a conviction. Depending on the agency having custody of the defendant, the U.S. +Tha convictions De in a bol +The "corrections stage" involved both pretrial detention of the defendant and incarceration +Attorney or other agencies were responsible for victim notifications during this stage. +IV. +USAO AND FBI VICTIM/WITNESS NOTIFICATION PRACTICE AT THE TIME +OFTHE EP +INVESTIGATION +USAO Training +As U.S. Attorney, Acosta disseminated the May 2005 updated Guidelines to USAO +personnel with a transmittal memorandum dated February 27, 2006, stating that he expected each +recipient "to read and become familiar with the [2005] Guidelines." Acosta noted in the +memorandum that the USAO had recently held an "all office training" addressing the 2005 +Guidelines and that new USAO attorneys who missed the training were required to view a +videotaped version of the training "immediately." Acosta further noted that the USAO's +270 +GAO CVRA Awareness Report at 66. +194 + + +victim/witness staff were "ready to assist you with the details of victim notification, and other +areas for which United States Attorney[']s Offices are now explicitly responsible under the act." +The USAO's Victim Witness Program Coordinator told OPR that the USAO provided annual +mandatory office-wide training on victim/witness issues and training for new employees. +B. The Automated Vietim Notification System +Both the FBI and the USAO manage contacts with crime victims through the Victim +Notification System (VNS), an automated system maintained by the Executive Office for United +States Attorneys. The 2005 Guidelines mandated that "victim contact information and notice to +victims of events ... shall, absent exceptional circumstances (such as cases involving juvenile or +foreign victims), be conducted and maintained using VNS." The VNS is separate from agency +case management systems maintained by the FBI and the USAO. Both the FBI and the USAO +use the VNS to generate form letters to victims at various points in the investigation and the +prosecution of a criminal case. Although each form letter can be augmented to add some limited +individual matter-specific content, the letters contain specific language concerning the purpose of +the contact that cannot be removed (such as the arrest of the defendant or the scheduling of a +sentencing hearing). 271 +In the usual course of a criminal case, the FBI collets victim contact information during +the investigation stage, which it stores in its case management system. The FBI's Victim Specialist +exports the victim information data from the FBI's case management system into the VNS +database. Victim information stored in the VNS is linked to the investigation's VNS case number. +At the time of the Epstein investigation, the FBI's Vietim Specialist could use the VNS to generate +seven different form notification letters: (1) initial notification; (2) case is under investigation; +(3) arrest of the defendant; (4) declination of prosecution; (5) other; (6) advice of victim rights; +and (7) investigation closed. +After a charging document has been filed and the "prosecution stage" begins, the USAO's +Victim Witness Specialist assumes responsibility for victim notification.272 The USAO imports +data from its case management system into the VNS and links to the previously loaded FBI VNS +data. The USAO's Victim Witness Specialist uses the VNS to generate form letters providing +notice of case events, such as charges filed; an arraignment; a proposed plea agreement; change of' +plea hearings; sentencing hearings; and the result of sentencing hearings. +272 +The FBI and the USAO have different titles for the individual who maintains victim contact: the FBI title is +"Victim Specialist," and the USAO title is "Victim Witness Specialist." +195 + + +C. FBI Victim Notification Pamphlets +The 2005 Guidelines recommended that "victims be given a printed brochure or card that +briefly describes their rights and available services ... and [contact information for] the victimwitness coordinator or specialist...." At the time of the Epstein investigation, FBI agents +nationwide routinely followed a practice of providing victims with pamphlets entitled, "Help for +Victims of Crime" and "The Department of Justice Victim Notification System." The "Help for +Victims of Crime" pamphlet contained a listing of the eight CVRA rights. The pamphlet stated: +"Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the indictment of an individual for the crime, +and it will be the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you +are afforded those rights." The case agent in the Epstein investigation told OPR that she provided +victims with the FBI pamphlet upon the conclusion of an interview. The pamphlet entitled "The +Department of Justice Victim Notification System" provided an overview of the VNS and +instructions on how to access the system. +V. THE INTRODUCTORY USAO AND FBI LETTERS TO VICTIMS +A. August 2006: The FBI Vietim Notification Letters +On August 8, 2006, shortly after the FBI opened its investigation into Epstein, the Victim +Specialist for the West Palm Beach FBI office, under the case agent's direction, prepared a "Victim +Notification Form" naming 30 victims in the Epstein investigation and stating that "additional +pertinent information" about them was available in the VNS.273 Thereafter, the Victim Specialist +entered individual victim contact information she received from the case agent into the VNS +whenever the case agent directed the Victim Specialist to generate an initial letter to a particular +victim. The FBI case agent told OPR that formal victim notification was "always handled by the +[FBI's Victim Specialist] "274 +According to the VNS records, beginning on August 28, 2006, the FBI Victim Specialist +used the VNS to generate FBI letters to be sent to the victims, over her signature, identifying the +eight CVRA rights and inviting victims to provide updated contact information in order to receive +current status information about the matter. The FBI letters described the case as "currently under +investigation" and noted that "[t]his can be a lengthy process and we request your continued +patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." The letters also stated that some of the +CVRA rights did not take effect until after an arrest or indictment: "We will make our best efforts +to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring +after the arrest or indictment of an individual for the crime, and it will become the responsibility +of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights." A +sample letter follows. +These 30 were drawn from the PBPD investigative file and included individuals that the PBPD had not +designated as victims and individuals the PBPD had identified but not interviewed. +274 +The case agent told OPR, "[O]nce we identify a victim, then we bring [the FBI Victim Specialist] in, and as +far as anything pertaining to victim rights.... and any resources, federal resources these victims may need comes from +[her], the Victim Specialist." +196 + + +U.S. Department of Justice. +Feden! Bureau of nycsigation +-FBI -West Palin Beach +Suite 500 +S05. Seudi Flagler Drive +West Palma Beach, FL 33401 +Pbone (561) 833-7517 +Fas: (561) 803-79704 +August 28.200G +Dear +• Your name was refered to tle FBIs Victim Assistance Program as being a possibla victim of i federl +¡ crime, We appreciate your assistance and cooperation while we are invertigatiog this case. We would like to +make you diyare of the victim serices that may be available to you and to enswer any questions you may hate +regarding tie criminal justice process throughout the invertigation. Out program is part of the FBI's effort to. +• ensure the victims aro treated with respect and are provided information bout their rights ander federal law. +These rights include notification of the siatus of the case: The entlosed trochires provide information about the +•FBIs Victim Assistance Prozim, resuurces and instructions for accessiog the Victim Noticalion Sisent +(VNS). VNS is designed to provide you with informatiori regarding the stans of your case. +This case is currendy bader Invesigaton. This can be a lengthy process end ive request your connued +pattence wille We conduct athorough lovestigaton, +As a crime Victim, you have lhe following riglishmilar 18 United Stales Coile § 3771: (1) The right to be +seasonably protected fom the acool; (9) The right to recsonable, uccule, und timely notice of any public: +court procteding, nt any pardle proceeding, involving the crime of of ar release or escape of the docused; (3) +The right rot to be excluded from any such publie court proceeding unless the coart, after receiying clear and +,corviricing øvidenes, determines that testimony by the vicim would be matrially aliered if the victim hesid +other lesliezuay el that proceeding; (1) The right to te reasonably heard it any public prosceding in the district, +court involvlog release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceding: (5) The reasonable right to confer with the +attomey foc the Goveriment in the case: (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided In lary: (7) Tha +right to proceedings free for unreasonble delay: (8). The right to be irated with faimess and with respect fộr +" the victin's digaity and privicy: +We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described, Most of these rights +pertain to events occurring after the arrest or indictment of an individual for the crime, aad it will become the +anonsbiary orine proscouting United States Attorsey's Ottice to ensure you are necorded those rights. You +y also seck the advice of a private atfomey, with respect to these rights. +The Victim Notificasion System (VNS) is desigued to provide you with direct infonnation regarding the +casens it proceeds through the criminal justice systent. You may obrain curient information about this matter on +the Infamet at WWW.NotifV.USDOIGOV or from the VNS Call Centerat +In addition, you may we the Call Center or. +Internet to update your contact information andor change your decisien about participation in the netification +program: If you update your information to Include a current enail address, VNS will send frionnation to that. +address. You will need the following Victim Identicallon Number (VIN) +and Persana Ideatification +Number (PIN) | +anytime you contect the Call Center and the frat time you log on to vors on the Intemet un +da te at time you necess be VS Interst slic, you will be prompted to cuter your last name (or. +bosiness name) as currently contained in VNS. The name yui abould enter is +197 + + +If you have eastions queations wilch involve this riatter, please contact the office listed alive Wagn +responsibility to keep y'our contact infor +•Stucusy. +• Victim Specialist • +VNS data logs, correspondence maintained in the FBI's case management system, and FBI +it general is ted the tiniestion ones or the dring are intered or re +case agents, but its practice was not uniform. 275 +B. August 2006: The USAO's Letters to Victims +During the time that the FBI Victim Specialist was preparing and sending FBI victim +notification letters, Villafaña was also preparing her own introductory letter in anticipation of +meeting with each victim receiving the letter. Villafaña told OPR that she was "generally aware +that the FBI sends letters" but believed the FBI's "process didn't ... have anything to do with my +process." Villafaña told OPR the "FBI had their own victim notification system and their own +guidelines for when information had to be provided and what information had to be provided." +Moreover, Villafaña "didn't know when [FBI] letters went out" or "what they said."276 +Nevertheless, Villafaña told OPR that she did not intend for the letters she drafted to interfere with +the FBI's notification responsibilities. +whom they would be sent. Although these letters contained CVRA rights information, Villafaña +mainly intended to use them as a vehicle to "introduce" herself and let the victims know the federal +investigation "would be a different process" from the State Attorney's Office investigation in +which "the victims felt they had not been particularly well-treated." Villafaña told OPR that in a +case in which she "needed to be talking to young girls frequently and asking them really intimate +OPR found no uniformity in the time lapse between the FBI's interview of a victim and the issuance of an +FBI letter to that particular victim, as the span of time between the two events varied from a few days to months. +Furthermore, not every victim interviewed by the FBI received an FBI letter subsequent to her interview, and some +FBI letters were sent to victims who had not been interviewed by the case agents. Finally, OPR's review of FBI VNS +data revealed some letters that appeared to have been generated in the VNS and not included in the FBI case file. OPR +could not confirm whether such letters were mailed or delivered. +Villafaña, who did not have supervisory authority over the FBI's Victim Specialist, told OPR that she did +not review the FBI notification letters and did not see them until she gathered them for production in the CVRA +litigation, which was initiated after Epstein pled guilty on June 30, 2008. +198 + + +questions," she wanted to "make sure that they ... feel like they can trust me." Villafaña directed +the FBI case agents to hand deliver the letters "as they were conducting interviews." Villafaña +told OPR that the USAO had "no standardized way to do any victim notifications prior to" the +filing of federal charges, and therefore Villafaña did not use a template or VNS-generated letter +for content, but instead used a letter she "had created and crafted [herself] for another case."277 +The letters contained contact information for Villafaña, the FBI case agent, and the +Department's Office for Victims of Crime in Washington, D.C., and itemized the CVRA rights. +The USAO letters described the case as "under investigation" and stated that the victim would be +notified "[ilf anyone is charged in connection with the investigation." The letters stated that, in +addition to their rights under the CVRA, victims were entitled to counseling, medical services, and +potential restitution from the perpetrator, and that, upon request, the government would provide a +list of counseling and medical services.28 Lastly, the letters advised that investigators for the +defense might contact the victims and those who felt threatened or harassed should contact +Villafaña or the FBI case agent. +Although the USAO letters did not contain any language limiting CVRA rights to the postarrest or indictment stage, Villafaña told OPR that she did not intend for the letters to activate the +USAO's CVRA obligations, which she believed attached only after the filing of a criminal charge. +with an introduction from the agents [who were hand delivéring them]." Later, in the course of +the CVRA litigation, Villafaña stated that she and the investigative team "adopted an approach of +providing more notice and assistance to potential victims than the CVRA may have required, even +before the circumstances of those individuals had been fully investigated and before any charging +decisions had been made. "279 +Villafaña informed Lourie and Sloman about the letters, but the letters were not reviewed +by any of Villafaña's supervisors, who considered such correspondence to be a non-management +task. Acosta told OPR, +"T've had no other case where I'm even aware of victims being notified, +because I assume it all operates without it rising to management level." Similarly, Menchel told +OPR, +277 +Villáfana told OPR that she thought that "at one point," she showed the letter to the USAO's Victim Witness +Specialist who "said it was fine." The USAO's Victim Witness Specialist told OPR that because the USAO did not +file a charging document in the Epstein matter, the USAO did not obtain VNS information from the FBI and did not +assume responsibility for victim contact. The USAO's Victim Witness Specialist had no contact with Epstein's +victims, and OPR's examination of VNS data revealed no USAO case number linked to the FBI's VNS data +concerning the Epstein investigation. OPR did locate some victim contact information in the VNS relating to the +USAO's case number associated with the Epstein-related CVRA litigation filed in July 2008. +Through its administration of the Crime Victims Fund, the Department's Office for Victims of Crime +supports programs and services to help victims of crime. +Villafaña informed OPR that, as the USAO Project Safe Childhood Coordinator [focusing on prosecutions +of individuals who exploit children through the internet], she "treated the [Guidelines] as a floor and tried to provide +a higher standard of contact." +199 + + +[A]s Chief of the Criminal Division of the USAO, I did not consider +it to be within my purview to ensure that appropriate victim +notifications occurred in every matter investigated or brought by the +Office. I also recall that the USAO employed one or more victimwitness coordinators to work with line prosecutors to ensure that +appropriate victim notifications occurred in every matter +investigated or brought by the Office. +C. USAO and FBI Letters Are Hand Delivered +The FBI case agent told OPR that the FBI made its notifications "at the time that we met +[with] the girls." The case agent recalled that she hand delivered the USAO letters and FBI letters +to some victims following in-person interviews, and in the instances when she did not provide a +victim with a letter, she provided an FBI pamphlet containing CVRA rights information similar to +that set forth in the FBI letters, 280 The co-case agent also recalled that he may have delivered a +few" letters to victims. The FBI Victim Specialist told OPR that she mailed some FBI letters to +victims and she provided some FBI letters to the case agent for hand delivery. +Nevertheless, the case agent told OPR that she "did not sit there and go through every +right" with the victims. She stated, however, "[I]n the beginning whether it was through [the FBI +Victim Specialist| giving the letter, me giving a letter, the pamphlet, I believed that the girls knew +that they were victims and had rights, and they had a resource, [the FBI Victim Specialist], that +they could call for that." The FBI case agent further explained that once the case agents connected +the FBI Victim Specialist with each victim, the Victim Specialist handled the victims? "rights and +resources." +VI. AUGUST 2006 - SEPTEMBER 2007: FBI AND USAO CONTACTS WITH +VICTIMS BEFORE THE NPA IS SIGNED +Early in the investigation, Villafaña informed her supervisors that, up to that point, +"everyone whom the agents have spoken with so far has been willing to tell her story. Getting +them to tell their stories in front of a jury at trial may be much harder." Between August 2006 and +September 24, 2007, when the NPA was signed, the FBI case agents interviewed 22 victims. On +a few occasions, Villafaña met with victims together with the FBI. Villafaña's May 1, 2007 draft +indictment included substantive crimes against multiple victims, and Villafaña described the +circumstances of each of their encounters with Epstein in her prosecution memorandum. +There is some evidence indicating that during interviews, some of the victims expressed to +the FBI case agents and Villafaña concerns about participating in a federal trial of Epstein, and +those discussions touched upon, in broad terms, the victims' views regarding the desired outcome +of the investigation. Before the USAO entered into the NPA, however, no one from the +280 +The case agent told OPR, +onclusion, or ... +information for the FBI's Victim Specialist].* +200 + + +government informed any victim about the potential for resolving the federal investigation through +a state plea. +The Case Agents and Villafaña Solicit Some Victims' Opinions about +Resolving the Federal Investigation +Villafaña told OPR that when she and the case agents met with victims, "we would ask +them how they wanted the case to be resolved."281 +And most of them wanted the case to be resolved via a plea. Some +of them wanted him not to be prosecuted at all. Most of them did +not want to have to come to court and testify. They were very +worried about their privacy rights. Some of them wanted him to go +to jail. But... [some of them talked about bad experiences with +the State Attorney's Office. And so, I felt like sending them back to +the State Attorney's Office was not something that they would have +supported. +Villafaña told OPR that she also recalled that some victims *expressed... concern about +their safety," and were worried that Epstein would find out about their participation in the +investigation. In her 2017 declaration submitted in the CVRA litigation, Villafaña stated that the +two CVRA petitioners "never communicated [their] desires to me or the FBI case agents and my +role was to evaluate the entire situation, consider the input received from all of the victims, and +victims "fear[ed] having their involvement with Epstein revealed and the negative impact it would +have on their relationships with family members, boyfriends, and others." +In the FBI case agent's 2017 declaration filed in the CVRA litigation, she stated, "During +interviews conducted from 2006 to 2008, no victims expressed a strong opinion that Epstein be +prosecuted." She further described the concerns of some of the victims: +Throughout the investigation, we interviewed many [of Epstein's] +victims .... A majority of the victims expressed concern about the +possible disclosure of their identities to the public. A number of the +victims raised concerns about having to testify and/or their parents +finding out about their involvement with Mr. Epstein. Additionally, +281 +Villafaña created for OPR a chart listing victims identified in the state and federal investigations, with +notations indicating several with whom Villafaña recalled discussing their opinions about resolving the case. The +chart, however, does not indicate what the victims said, and Villafaña told OPR that the information contained in the +chart was based on her memory of her interactions with each victim. OPR was unable to determine the details or +extent of any such discussions occurring before September 24, 2007, because Villafaña did not have contemporaneous +notes of the interviews, and the FBI reports and corresponding notes of the interviews did not contain information +about the victims' desired outcomes. The victims who provided information to OPR did not recall discussing potential +resolution of the federal investigation with anyone from the government. +In the declaration, Villafaña stated, "Jane Doe 2 specifically told me that she did not want Epstein +prosecuted." +201 + + +for some victims, learning of the Epstein investigation and possible +exposure of their identities caused them emotional distress. Overall, +many of the victims were troubled about the existence of the +investigation. They displayed feelings of embarrassment and +humiliation and were reluctant to talk to investigators. Some +victims who were identified through the investigation refused even +to speak to us. Our concerns about the victims' well-being and +getting to the truth were always at the forefront of our handling of +the investigation. +The case agent told OPR that although she encountered victims who were +"strong" and +"believable," she did not encounter any who vigorously advocated for the prosecution of Epstein. +Rather, "they were embarrassed," "didn't want their parents to know," and "wanted to forget."283 +As of September 24, 2007, the date the NPA was signed, Villafaña informed Epstein +attorney Lefkowitz that she had compiled a preliminary list of victims including "34 confirmed +minors" and 6 other potential minor victims who had not yet been interviewed by the FBI.284 +Although the government had contacted many victims before the NPA was signed, Villafaña +acknowledged during the CVRA litigation that "individual victims were not consulted regarding +the agreement." +Before the NPA Is Signed, Villafaña Expresses Concern That Victims Have +Not Been Consulted +Before the NPA was signed, Villafaña articulated to her supervisors concerns about the +government's failure to consult with victims. +1. +July 2007: Villafaña's Email Exchanges with Menchel +In July 2007, Villafaña learned that Menchel had discussed with defense counsel +a possible state resolution to the federal investigation of Epstein. Villafaña was upset by this +information, and sent a strongly worded email to Menchel voicing her concerns. (A full account +of their email exchange is set forth at Chapter Two, Part One, Section IV.A.2.) In that email, she +told him that it was inappropriate [for you] to make a plea offer that you know is completely +unacceptable to the FBI, ICE, the victims, and me. These plea negotiations violate ... all of the +283 +"he case agent also noted that the victim who became CVRA petitioner Jane Doe #2 had expressed in he +pril 2007 video-recorded FBI interview her opinion that "nothing should happen to Epstein. +202 + + +various iterations of the victims' rights legislation."285 Villafaña explained to OPR her reference +to the victims: +[M]y concern was that [Menchel] was violating the CVRA which +allegations of not abiding by our obligations by engaging in these +›lea negotiations without letting us know about it. 28 +In his reply to Villafaña's email, and after noting that he found her email "totally +inappropriate," Menchel denied that he had violated any Departmental policy, and he noted that +"[a]s Chief of the Criminal Division, I am the person designated by the U,S. Attorney to exercise +appropriate discretion in deciding whether certain pleas are appropriate and consistent with" +Departmental policy. Perceiving Menchel's rebuke as a criticism of her judgment, Villafaña +responded, "[RJaising concerns about the forgotten voices of victims in this case should not be +classified as a lapse in judgment" and that her "first and only concern in this case... is the victims." +Menchel told OPR that he did not view his conversation with +as a plea offer, +asserted that he was not obligated to consult with victims during preliminary settlement +negotiations, and noted that he left the USAO before the NPA was fully negotiated or signed. +Menchel told OPR that "you have discussions - with [the] defense all the time, and the notion +that even just having a general discussion is something that must be vetted with victims... is not +even ... in the same universe as to how I think about this." Menchel also observed that on the +very day that Villafaña criticized him for engaging in settlement negotiations without consulting +her, the FBI, or the victims, Villafaña had herself sent an email to +offering "to discuss the +possibility of a federal resolution of Mr. Epl +case that could run concurrently with any state +resolution," without having spoken to the victims about her proposal. 287 +285 +Villafaña told OPR that "some victims, I felt strongly, would have objected to [a state-only disposition]." +Villafaña stated to OPR that at the time Menchel engaged in such negotiations, he would only have been aware of the +victim information contained in her prosecution memorandum, which included information about the effects on the +victims" but did not likely contain information as to "how they would like the case resolved." Villafaña asserted that +Menchel "never reached out to any of the victims to find out what their position would be." Menchel told OPR that +the allegations in Villafaña's email that he violated the Ashcroft Memo, USAM, and the CVRA were "way out of line +in terms of what the law is and the policies are." +286 +As discussed, the Department's position at the time was that the CVRA did not apply before charges were +filed against a defendant. +In commenting on OPR's draft report, Villafaña's counsel asserted that her email to +was intended +only to determine whether Epstein was interested in opening plea negotiations. +203 + + +Villafaña Asserts That Her Supervisors Gave Instructions Not to +Consult Victims about the Plea Discussions, but Her Supervisors Do +Not Currently Recall Such Instructions +Villafaña told OPR that during an "early" meeting with Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel, +which took place when "we were probably just entering into plea negotiations," she raised the +government's obligation to confer with victims.288 +Initially, Villafaña told OPR she was +instructed, "Don't talk to [the vietims]. Don't tell them what's happening," but she was not told +why she should not speak to the victims, and she could not recall who gave her this instruction. In +a subsequent OPR interview, Villafaña recalled that when she raised the issue of notification +during the meeting, she was told, "Plea negotiations are confidential. You can't disclose them."289 +Villafaña remained uncertain who gave her this instruction, but believed it +y have been Acosta. +Neither Acosta, Sloman, nor Menchel recalled a meeting at which Villafaña was directed +not to notify the victims. Acosta told OPR that the decision whether to solicit the victims' view +"is something [that] I think was the focus of the trial team and not something that I was focused +on at least at this time," and he did not "recall discussions about victim notification until after the +NPA was signed." Sloman also told OPR that he did not recall a meeting at which victim +notification was discussed. Menchel wrote in his response to OPR, /'I have no recollection of any +discussions or decisions regarding whether the USAO should notify victims of its intention to enter +into a pre-charge disposition of the Epstein matter." Furthermore, Menchel told OPR he could not +think of a reason why the issue of victim notification would have arisen before he left the USAO, +because "we were way off from finalizing or having anything even close to a deal," and it would +have been "premature" to consider notification 290 +September 6, 2007: Villafaña Informs Sloman, Who Informs Acosta, +of Oosterbaan's Opinion That Consultation with Victims Was +Required +On September 6, 2007, in a lengthy email to Sloman responding to his question about the +government's then-pending offer to the defense, Villafaña raised the victim consultation issue, +advising that, "the agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval, which as +[CEOS Chief Oosterbaan] politely reminded me, is required under the law" and that "the [PBPD] +288 +Villafana could not recall the specific date of the meeting, but Menchel left the USAO on August 3, 2007. +289 +Villafaõa also recalled Menchel raising a concern that "telling them about the negotiations could cause +victims fo exaggerate their stories because of their desire to obtain damages from Epstein." +In commenting on OPR's draft report, Menchel's counsel reiterated his contention that Villafaña's claim +about a meeting involving Menchel in which she was instructed not to consult with victims was inaccurate and +inconsistent with other evidence. OPR carefully considered the comments but did not conclude that the evidence to +which Menchel's attorney pointed necessarily refuted Villafaña's assertion that she had received an instruction from +a supervisor not to inform victims about the plea negotiations. However, it is also true that OPR did not find any +reference in the emails and other documents dated before the NPA was signed to a meeting at which victim +consultation was discussed or to a specific instruction not to consult with the victims. This is one of several events +about which Menchel and Villafaña disagreed, but given OPR's conclusion that the Department did not require +prosecutors to consult with victims before charges were brought, OPR does not reach a conclusion regarding the +alleged meeting and instruction. +204 + + +Chief wanted to know if the victims had been consulted about the deal."291 Sloman forwarded this +email to Acosta. Villafaña recalled that Sloman responded to her email by telephone, possibly +after he had spoken to Acosta, and stated, "[Jou can't do that now." Villafaña did not recall +Sloman explaining at the time the reason for that instruction. +Villafaña told OPR that shortly before the NPA was signed, Sloman told her, "[Wle've +been advised that ... pre-charge resolutions do not require victim notification." Sloman did not +recall any discussions, before the NPA was signed, about contacting the victims or conferring with +them regarding the potential resolution of the case. Sloman told OPR that he "did not think that +we had to consult with victims prior to entering into the NPA," and "we did not have to seek +approval from victims to resolve a case. We did have an obligation to notify them of the resolution +in…. filed cases." Sloman said that no one other than Villafaña raised the notification issue, and +because the USAO envisioned a state court resolution of the matter, Sloman "did not think that we +many of vital rig directed to pat the eins about PIE +attorney who assumed Lourie's supervisory duties after Lourie transitioned to his detail in the +Department told OPR that he did not recall any discussions regarding victim notification and he +"assumed that was being handled."3 +Acosta did not recall the September 6, 2007 email, but told OPR that "there is no +requirement to notify [the victims], because it's not a plea, it's deferring in favor of a state +prosecution." Acosta told OPR that he could not recall any "pre-NPA discussions" regarding +victim notification or any particular concern that factored into the decision not to consult with the +victims before entering into the NPA. 294 Ultimately, Acosta acknowledged to OPR, "[C]learly, +given the way it's played out, it may have been much better if we had [consulted with the victims]." +CEOS Chief Oosterbaan told OPR that he disagreed with the USAO's stance that the +CVRA did not require pre-charge victim consultation, but in his view the USAO "posture" was +not "an abuse of discretion" or "an ethical issue," but rather reflected a "serious and legitimate +Villafaña told OPR that she referred to Oosterbaan in the email because "he was the head of CEOS and +because I think they were tired of hearing me nag them [to notify the victims]." As previously noted, Villafaña's +statement that victim approval had to be obtained was incorrect. Even when applicable, the CVRA only requires +consultation with victims, not their approval of a plea agreement. Moreover, Villafaña's comments concerning the +pre-charge application of the USAO's CVRA obligation to consult with the victims appear at odds with her statement +to OPR that the CVRA applied to the USAO only after a defendant was charged and that she did not intend to activate +the USAO's CVRA obligations when she sent letters to victims in August 2006. +292 +Lourie noted that during this period, he had left Florida and was no longer the supervising AUSA in the +office, but was "help[ing] [] out" from offsite because he had "historical knowledge" of the case. +293 +The AUSA who for a time served as Villafaña's co-counsel on the Epstein investigation similarly did not +"know anything about" discussions in the USAO regarding the need to inform victims of the likely disposition of the +case. The AUSA stated that he stopped working on the case "months earlier" and that he "didn't have anything to do +with the [NPA] negotiations." +294 +Villafaña told OPR that she was not aware of any "improper pressure or promise made to [Acosta] in order +to ... instruct [her] not to make disclosures to the victim[s]." +205 + + +disagreement" regarding the CVRA's requirements.? Oosterbaan's disagreement was based on +policy considerations, and he told OPR that "from a policy perspective," CEOS would not "take a +position that you wouldn't consult with [the victims]." Oosterbaan also told OPR that whether or +not the law required it, the victims should have been given an opportunity "to weigh in directly," +but he did not fault the USAO's motivations for failing to provide that opportunity: +The people I know, Andy [Lourie], Jeff [Sloman], ... were trying +to do the right thing. ... [T]hey weren't acting unethically. I just +... to do anything improper ... it was more of this question of ... +you can let the victims weigh in on this, you can get their input on +this and maybe it doesn't sway you. You still do what you're going +to do but ... it's hard to say it was a complete, completely clean +exercise of ... prosecutorial discretion when [the USAO] didn't +really know what [the victims] would say. +Sloman told OPR, "I don't think we had a concern about entering into the NPA at that point +in terms of notifying victims... I was under the perception that once the NPA was entered into +and [Epstein] was going to enter a guilty plea in state court that we were going to notify the +victims." +VII. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 - JUNE 30, 2008: AFTER THE NPA IS SIGNED, THE +USAO MAKES VARIOUS VICTIM NOTIFICATION DECISIONS +The contemporaneous emails +ke clear that once the NPA was signed, Villafaña and the +case agents planned to inform the vietims about the resolution of the federal investigation. +However, the emails also show that the USAO was unclear about how much information could be +given to the victims in light of the NPA's nondisclosure provision and consulted with Epstein's +defense counsel regarding victím notifications. As a result, although the expectation in the +USAO was that the victims would be informed about the NPA, the monetary damages provision, +and the state plea, the USAO became entangled in more negotiations with the defense attorneys, +who strongly objected to the government's notification plan. In addition, Villafaña and the case +agents grew concerned that notifying the victims about the NPA monetary damages provision +would damage the victims' credibility if Epstein breached the NPA and the case went to trial. In +the end, Acosta decided to defer to the State Attorney's discretion whether to notify the victims +about the state plea, and information about the NPA and the monetary damages provision was not +provided to victims until after Epstein pled guilty in June 2008. +Oosterbaan stated that, in retrospeet, "maybe I should have been more aggressive with how ... I dealt with +[the USAO]." +The NPA nondisclosure provision stated: "The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part +fany public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory proces +ommanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure. +206 + + +September - October 2007: The Case Agents Notify Some Victims about the +NPA, but Stop When the Case Agent Becomes Concerned about Potential +Impeachment +In transmitting the signed NPA to Villafaña on September 24, 2007, defense attorney +Lefkowitz asked Villafaña to "do whatever you can to prevent [the NPA] from becoming +public."297 Villafaña forwarded this email to Acosta, Lourie, and the new West Palm Beach +about the NPA, "this is the State Attorney[']s show."298 Acosta added, "In other words, what more +does he want?"' Villafaña responded, "My guess is that if we tell anyone else (like the police chief +or FBI or the girls), that we ask them not to disclose." Lourie agreed, noting that "there really is +no reason to tell anyone all the details of the non pros or provide a copy. The [PBPD] Chief was +only concerned that he not get surprised by all this. "299 Acosta responded that he would set up a +call on September 26, 2007, to talk "about who we can tell and how much."300 +Also on September 24, 2007, Villafaña emailed the new West Palm Beach manager to +inform him that once the attorney representative was appointed for the victims, she planned to +"meet with the girls myself to explain how the system [for obtaining relief under 18 U.S.C. § 2255] +will work." Villafaña also emailed Lefkowitz stating that she planned to discuss with him "what +I can tell [the attorney representative] and the girls about the agreement," and she assured +Lefkowitz that her office "is telling Chief Reiter not to disclose the outcome to anyone." Villafaña +also provided Lefkowitz with a list of potential candidates for the attorney representative position +and advocated for an attorney representative who would minimize press coverage of the matter. +On September 26, 2007, Villafaña emailed Lefkowitz to request guidance on informing the +victims about the NPA: "Can you give mé a call ... I am meeting with the agents and want to +give them their marching orders regarding what they can tell the girls." Villafaña told OPR that +because the government and the defense had not agreed on the attorney representative for the +victims, she reached out to the defense at the direction of either Acosta or Sloman in order to +coordinate how to inform the victims about the resolution of the case and the fact that there would +be an attorney to assist them in recovering monetary damages from Epstein. Villafaña told OPR +that the defense responded to her email by complaining to her supervisors that she should not be +297 +Villafana had assured Lefkowitz that the NPA "would not be made public or filed with the Court, but it would +remain part of our case file. It probably would be subject to a FOLA request, but it is not something that we would +distribute without compulsory process." +Acosta told OPR that he believed that the NPA "would see the light of day" because the victims would have +to "hear about [their § 2255 rights] from somewhere" and "given the press interest, eventually this would be FOIA'd.' +300 +OPR was unable to determine whether the call took place. +207 + + +involved in such notifications. According to Villafaña, Sloman then directed her to have the case +agents make the victim notifications. +Accordingly, Villafaña directed the case agents to "meet with the victims to provide them +with information regarding the terms of the [NPA] and the conclusion of the federal investigation." +The case agent told OPR, "[T]here was a discussion that | +and I had as +to ... how we would tell them, and what we would tell them, and what that was I don't recall, but +it was the terms of the agreement." Villafaña believed that if "victims were properly notified of +the terms [of the NPA] that applied to them, regarding their right to seek damages from [Epstein], +and he paid those damages, that the rest of the [NPA] doesn't need to be disclosed." Villafaña +"anticipated that [the case agents] would be able to inform the victims of the date of the state court +change of plea [hearing], but that date had not yet been set by state authorities at the time the first +victims were notified [by the FBI]." Villafaña told OPR that it was her belief that because the +USAO had agreed to a confidentiality clause, the government could not disclose the NPA to the +general public, but victims could be informed "because by its terms they needed to be told what +the agreement was about." Villafaña told OPR that no one in her supervisory chain expressed a +concern that if victims learned of the NPA, they would try to prevent Epsteín from entering a plea. +Within a week after the NPA was signed, news media began reporting that the parties had +reached a deal to resolve the Epstein case. For example, on October 1, 2007, the +New York Post reported that Epstein "has agreed to plead guilty to soliciting underage prostitutes +at his Florida mansion in a deal that will send him to prison for about 18 months," and noted that +Epstein would plead guilty in state court and that "the feds have agreed to drop their probe into +possible federal criminal violations in exchange for the guilty plea to the new state charge. "301 +The case agent recalled informing some victims that "there was an agreement reached" and +"we would not be pursuing this federally." In October 2007, for example, the case agents met with +victim +"to advise her of the main terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement." +According to the case agent, during that meeting, the case agents told +"that an agreement had +been reached, Mr. Epstein was going to plead guilty to two state charges, and there would not be +a federal prosecution."302 However, in a declaration filed in 2015 in the CVRA litigation, +described the conversation differently: +(T]he agents explained that Epstein was also being charged in State +court and may plea [sic] to state charges related to some of his other +victims. I knew that State charges had nothing to do with me. +Dan Mangan, 'Unhappy Ending' Plea Deal—Moneyman to Get Jail For Teen Sex Massages," New York +Post, Oct. 1, 2007. See also "Model Shop Denies Epstein Tie," New York Post, Oct. 6, 2007; "Andrew Pal Faces Sex +List Shame," Mail on Sunday, Oct. 14, 2007; "Epstein Eyes Sex-Rap Relief," New York Post, Oct. 9, 2007; "Sex Case +'Victims' Lining Up," New York Post "Page Six," Oct. 15, 2007; Darch Gregorian and Mathew Nestel, "I Was Teen +Prey of Pervert Tycoon," New York Post, Oct. 18, 2007. The following month, the Palm Beach Post reported the end +of the federal investigation as well. See *Epstein Has One Less Worry These Days," Palm Beach Post, Nov. 9, 2007; +"How Will System Judge Palm Beach Predator?," Palm Beach Post "Opinion," Nov. 16, 2007. +The co-case agent recalled meeting with the victims about the resolution of the case, but could not recall the +specifics of the discussions. +208 + + +During this meeting, the Agents did not explain that an agreement +had already been signed that precluded any prosecution of Epstein +for federal charges against me. I did not get the opportunity to meet +or confer with the prosecuting attorneys about any potential federal +deal that related to me or the crimes committed against me. +My understanding of the agents' explanation was that the federal +investigation would continue. I also understood that my own case +would move forward towards prosecution of Epstein. +In addition, the case agent spoke to two other victims and relayed their reactions to +Villafaña in an email: +Jane Doe #14 asked me why [Epstein] was receiving such a lite [sic] +jail sentence and Jane Doe #13 has asked for our Victim Witness +coordinator to get in touch with her so she can receive some much +needed [p]rofessional counseling. Other than that, their response +was filled with emotion and grateful to the Federal authorities for +pursuing justice and not giving up. 303 +The case agent told OPR that when she informed one of these victims, that individual cried and +expressed "a sense of relief." Counsel for "Jane Doe #13" told OPR that while his client recalled +meeting with the FBI on a number of occasions, she did not recall receiving any information about +Epstein's guilty plea. In a letter to OPR, "Jane Doe #14's" attorney stated that although her client +recalled speaking with an FBI agent, she was not told about the NPA or informed that Epstein +would not face federal charges in exchange for his state court plea. +After meeting with these three victims, the FBI case agent became concerned that, if +Epstein breached the NPA and the case went to federal trial, the defense could use the victims' +knowledge of the NPA's monetary damages provision as a basis to impeach the victims.304 The +case agent explained to OPR that she became "uncomfortable" talking to the victims about the +damages provision, and that as the lead investigator, +"if we did end up going to trial... [if] +Mr. Epstein breached this that I would be on the stand" testifying that "I told every one of these +girls that they could sue Mr. Epstein for money, and I was not comfortable with that, I didn't think +it was right." +Similarly, the co-case agent told OPR, "[T]hat's why we went back to +[Villafaña] +and said we're not comfortable now putting this out there ... because ... it's likely that [the case +agent] and Yare going to have to take the stand if it went to trial, and this could be a problem." +Villafaña told OPR that the case agents were concerned they would be accused of "offering a bribe +303 +The case agent did not record any of the victim notifications in interview reports, because "it wasn't an +interview of them, it was a notification. ... [I]f there was something ... relevant [that] came up pertaining to the +investigation, or something that I thought was noteworthy ... I might have [recorded it in an interview report]." +304 +Within limitations set by the Federal Rules of Evidence, a defendant may attack the credibility of a witness +through evidence of bias, which may include the witness having received money, or expecting to receive money, from +the government, the defendant, or other sources as a result of the witness's allegations or testimony. +209 + + +for [victims] to enhance their stories" and that the defense would try to have Villafaña or the case +agents removed from the case. +Both the lead case agent and Villafaña told OPR that after the FBI raised with Villafaña +the concern that notifying the victims would create potential impeachment material in the event of +a breach and subsequent trial, they contacted the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer for +advice. +Villafaña recalled that during a brief telephone consultation, the Professional +Responsibility Officer advised her and the case agent that "it's not really that big a concern, but if +you're concerned about it then you should stop making the notification. "305 In her 2017 CVRA +declaration, the case agent stated that after conferring with the USAO, the case agents stopped +notifying victims about the NPA. +B. +October 2007: Defense Attorneys Object to Government Victim Notifications +While the case agents and Villafaña considered the impact that notifying the victims about +the resolution of the case might have on a potential trial, defense counsel also raised concerns +about what the victims could be told about the NPA. As discussed in Chapter Two, after the NPA +was signed on September 24, 2007, the USAO proposed using a special +to select the +attorney representative for the victims, which led to further discussions about the § 2255 provision. +On October 5, 2007, when defense attorney Lefkowitz sent Villafaña a letter responding to the +USAO's proposal to use a special +, he cautioned that "neither federal agents nor anyone +from your Office should contact the identified individuals to inform them of the resolution of the +case" because such communications would "violate the confidentiality of the agreement" and +would prevent Epstein from having control over "what is communicated to the identified +individuals at this most critical stage." Lefkowitz followed this communication with an October +10, 2007 letter to Acosta, arguing that "[n]either federal agents nor anyone from your Office should +contact the identified individuals to inform them of the resolution of the case."300 Rather, +Lefkowitz wanted to "participate in crafting a mutually acceptable communication to the identified +individuals." +On October 23, 2007, Villafaña raised the issue of victim notification with Sloman, stating: +We also have to contact the victims to tell [them] about the outcome +of the case and to advise them that an attorney will be contacting +them regarding possible claims against Mr. Epstein. If we don't do +that, it may be a violation of the Florida Bar Rules for the selected +attorney to "cold call' the girls. +As discussed in greater detail in Chapter Two, on October 23, 2007, Lefkowitz sent Acosta +a letter stating that Epstein expected to enter a guilty plea in state court on November 20, 2007, +305 +The Professional Responsibility Officer told OPR that he did not recall the case agent contacting him about +victim notification, nor did he recall being involved in the Epstein matter before the CVRA litigation was instituted +in July 2008 and he was assigned to handle the litigation. Villafaña told OPR that they consulted the Professional +Responsibility Officer over the telephone, the call took no more than "five minutes," and the Professional +Responsibility Officer had no other exposure to the case and thus "wouldn't have [any] context for it." +306 +Lefkowitz also argued that direct contact with the victims could violate grand jury secrecy rules. +210 + + +and thanking Acosta for agreeing on October 12, 2007, not to "contact any of the identified +matter vals, potential withesses, or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this +Shortly thereafter, Sloman drafted a response to Lefkowitz's letter, which Acosta +revised to clarify the "inaccurate" representations made by Lefkowitz, in particular noting that +Acosta did not agree to a "gag order" with regard to victim contact. The draft response, as revised +by Acosta, stated: +You should understand, however, that there are some +communications that are typical in these matters. As an example, +ur Office has an obligation to contact the victims to inform ther +that either [the Special +, or his designee, will be contact[ing +them. Rest assured that we will continue to treat this matter as we +would any similarly situated case. 308 +In a November 5, 2007 letter, Sloman complained to Lefkowitz that private investigators +working for Epstein had been contacting victims and asking whether government agents had +discussed financial settlement with them. Sloman noted that the private investigators' "actions are +troublesome because the FBI agents legally are required to advise the victims of the resolution of +the matter, which includes informing them that, as part of the resolution, Mr. Epstein has agreed +to pay damages in some circumstances." The same day, Villafaña emailed Sloman expressing her +concern that "if we [file charges] now, cross-examination will consist of- 'and the government told +you that if Mr. Epstein is convicted, you are entitled to a large amount of damages, right?"309 +C. +October - November 2007: The FBI and the USAO Continue to Investigate, +and the FBI Sends a Notice Letter to One Vietim Stating That the Case is +"Under Investigation" +Although Villafaña and the FBI case agents decided to stop informing victims about the +NPA, the FBI continued its investigation of the case, which included locating and interviewing +potential victims. In October and November 2007, the FBI interviewed 12 potential new victims, +8 of whom had been identified in a "preliminary" victim list in use at the time Epstein signed the +307 +Villáfaña later emailed Sloman stating that she planned to meet with the case agents to have a "general +discussion about staying out of the civil litigation." +Sloman's draft also stated that Acosta had informed the defense in a previous conference call that the USAO +would not accept a "gag order." OPR recovered only a draft version of the communication and was unable to find +any evidence that the draff letter was finalized or sent to defense counsel. +309 +Subsequent records also referred to the prosecutors" concerns about creating impeachment evidence and that +such concerns played a role in their decision not to notify victims of the NPA until after Epstein pled guilty. In August +2008, the AUSA handling the CVRA litigation emailed Villafaña, Acosta, and Sloman expressing his understanding +that the "victims were not consulted [concerning the NPA] ... because [the USAO] did not believe the [CVRA] +applied." Acosta responded: "As I recall, we also believed that contacting the victims would compromise them as +potential witnesses. Epstein argued very forcefully that they were doing this for the money and we did not want to +discuss liability with them, which was [a] key part of [the] agree[ment]." +211 + + +NPA.° The FBI reports of the victim interviews do not mention the NPA or indicate that the +victims were asked for their input regarding the resolution of the case. Villafaña acknowledged +that she and the case agents did not tell any of the "new" post-NPA-signing victims about the +agreement because "at that point we believed that the NPA was never going to be performed and +that we were in fact going to be [charging] Mr. Epstein." +On October 12, 2007, the FBI Victim Specialist sent a VNS form notice letter to a victim +the case agents had interviewed two days earlier. This letter was identical to the VNS form notice +letter the FBI Victim Specialist sent to other victims before the NPA was signed, describing the +case as "under investigation" and requesting the victim's "patience." The letter listed the eight +CVRA rights, but made no mention of the NPA or the § 2255 provision. Villafaña told OPR she +was unaware the FBI sent the letter, but she knew "there were efforts to ke sure that we had +identified all vietims of the crimes under investigation." In response to OPR's questions about the +accuracy of the FBI letter's characterization of the case as "under investigation," Villafaña told +OPR that the NPA required Epstein to enter a plea by October 26, 2008, and "at this point we +weren't actively looking for additional charges," but "the investigation wasn't technically +suspended until he completed all the terms of the NPA." +The USAO Informs the Defense That It Intends to Notify Victims by Letter +about Epstein's State Plea Hearing and the Resolution of the Federal +Investigation, but the Defense Strongly Objects to the Notification Plan +In anticipation of Epstein's state court plea, Villafaña reported on November 16, 2007, to +Acosta, Sloman, and other supervisors that she had learned, from FBI agents who met with +Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek, that the State Attorney's Office wanted the USAO to notify +victims of the state plea hearing. +[Belohlavek] would still liké us to do the victim notifications. The +State does not have a procedure (like we do federally) where the +Court has to provide a separate room for victims who want to attend +judicial proceedings, so I do not know how many victims will +actually want to be present.3"' +Belohlavek told OPR that she did not recall the conversation referenced by the FBI nor any +coordination between her office and federal officials to contact or notify victims about Epstein's +state plea hearing. +On November 19, 2007, Villataña decided that to avoid any misconduct accusations from +the defense about the information given to victims, she "would put the victim notification in +writing." She provided Sloman with a draft victim notification letter, in which among other things, +310 +Not all the individuals interviewed qualified for inclusion on the victim list. For example, one would not +cooperate with investigators; a second claimed to have simply massaged Epstein with no sexual activity; and a third +claimed she had no contact with Epstein. +Villafaña told OPR that she understood the state took the position that because "there was either only one or +two victims involved in their case," they "could not do victim notifications to all of the victims." +212 + + +she would inform victims of the terms of the resolution of the federal case, including Epstein's +agreement to plead guilty to state charges and serve 18 months in county jail, and the victims' +ability to seek monetary damages against Epstein. The letter also would invite victims to appear +at the state court hearing and make a statement under oath or provide a written statement to be +filed by the State Attorney's Office. Sloman and Villafaña exchanged edits on the draft victim +notification letter, and Villafaña also informed Sloman that "[t]here are a few girls who didn't +receive the original letters, so I will need to modify the introductory portion of the letter for +those. "312 +Sloman informed Lefkowitz of the government's need to meet its "statutory obligation +(Justice for All Act of 2004) to notify the victims of the anticipated upcoming events and their +rights associated with the agreement" and his intent to "notify the victims by letter after COB +Thursday, November 29." Lefkowitz objected to the proposal to notify the victims, asserting that +it was "incendiary and inappropriate" and not warranted under the Justice for All Act of 2004. He +argued that the defense "should have a right to review and make objections to that submission +prior to it being sent to any alleged victims." He also insisted that if any notification letters were +sent to "victims, who still have not been identified to us, it should happen only after Mr. Epstein +has entered his plea" and that the letter should come from the attorney representative rather than +the government. On November 28, 2007, at Sloman's instruction, Villafaña provided Lefkowitz +with the draft victim notification letter, which would advise victims that the state court plea was +to occur on December 14, 2007.33 +In a November 29, 2007 letter to Acosta, Lefkowitz strongly objected to the proposed draft +notification letter, arguing that the government was not obligated to send any letter to victims until +after Epstein's plea and sentencing. Lefkowitz also contended that the victims had no right to +appear at Epstein's state plea hearing and sentencing or to provide a written statement for such a +proceeding. In a November 30, 2007 reply letter to Lefkowitz, Acosta did not address the +substance of Lefkowitz's arguments, but accused the defense team of "in essence presenting +collateral challenges" delaying effectuation of the NPA, and asserted that if Epstein was +dissatisfied with the NPA, "we stand ready to unwind the Agreement" and proceed to trial. Shortly +thereafter, Acosta informed defense counsel Starr by letter that he had directed prosecutors "not to +issue victim notification letters until this Friday [December 7] at 5 p.m., to provide you with time +to review these options with your client." In the letter, Acosta also refuted defense allegations that +Villafaña had acted improperly by informing the victims of the potential for receiving monetary +damages, stating that "the victims were not told of the availability of Section 2255 relief during +the investigation phase of this matter." +On December 5, 2007, Starr and Lefkowitz sent a letter to Acosta, with copies to Sloman +and Assistant Attorney General Fisher, "reaffirm[ing]" the NPA, but taking "serious issue" with +312 +On November 28, 2007, two months after the NPA was signed, the lead case agent informed Villafaña that +aly 15 of the then-known victims had received victim notification letters from either the FBI or the USAO. ( +ecember 6, 2007, the lead case agent reported to Villafaña that she was "still holding many of the original V/ +letters addressed to victims from the USAO." +Villafaña understood the state prosecutors had set the December 14, 2007 date, and emailed them for +confirmation, stating, "I]f the matter is set for the 14th, please let me know so I can include that in my victim +notifications." +213 + + +the USAO's interpretation of the agreement and "the use of Section 2255." The Starr and +Lefkowitz letter asserted it was "wholly inappropriate" for the USAO to send the proposed victim +notification letter "under any circumstances," and "strongly urg[ed]" Acosta to withhold the +notification letter until after the defense was able "to discuss this matter with Assistant Attorney +General Fisher." +The following day, Sloman sent a letter to Lefkowitz, with copies to Acosta and Villafaña, +asserting that the VRRA obligated the government to notify victims of the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 +proceedings as "other relief" to which they were entitled. Sloman also stated that the VRRA +obligated the government to provide the victims with information concerning restitution to which +they may be entitled and "the earliest possible" notice of the status of the investigation, the filing +of charges, and the acceptance of a plea.314 (Emphasis in original). Sloman added: +Just as in 18 U.S.C. § 3771 [the CVRA], these sections are not +Prosecution Agreement resolves the federal investigation by +allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense. The victims +identified through the federal investigation should be appropriately +informed, and our Non-Prosecution Agreement does hot require the +U.S. Attorney's Office to forego [sic] its legal obligations. 315 +Sloman also addressed the defense objection to advising the victims to contact Villafaña or the +FBI case agent with questions or concerns: "Again, federal law requires that victims have the +"reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in this case.'" Sloman advised +the defense: "The three victims who were notified prior to your objection had questions directed +to Mr. Epstein's punishment, not the civil litigation. Those questions are appropriately directed to +law enforcement." +Along with this letter, Sloman forwarded to Lefkowitz for comment a revised draft victim +notification letter that was substantially similar to the prior draft provided to the defense. The +letter stated that "the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been completed," Epstein would +plead guilty in state court, the parties would recommend 18 months of imprisonment at sentencing, +and Epstein would compensate victims for damage claims brought under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. The +letter provided specific information concerning the upcoming change of plea hearing: +As ] mentioned above, as part of the resolution of the federal +investigation, Mr. Epstein has agreed to plead guilty to state charges. +Mr. Epstein's change of plea and sentencing will occur on +December 14, 2007, at +_ a.m., before Judge Sandra K. MeSorley, +314 +See 42 U.S.C. § 10607(c)(1)(B) and (c)(3). +Emphasis in original. Sloman also stated that the USAO did not seek to "federalize" a state plea, but "is +simply informing the victims of their rights." Villafaña informed OPR that Sloman approved and signed the letter, +but she was the primary author of the document. OPR notes that Villafaña was the principal author of most +correspondence in the Epstein case, and that following the signing of the NPA, regardless of whether the letter went +out with her, Sloman's, or Acosta's signature, the three attorneys reviewed and edited drafts of most correspondence +before a final version was sent to the defense. +214 + + +in Courtroom 11F at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 North +Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida. Pursuant to Florida +Statutes Sections 960.001(1)(k) and 921.143(1), you are entitled to +be present and to make a statement under oath. If you choose, you +can submit a written statement under oath, which may be filed by +the State Attorney's Office on your behalf. If you elect to prepare a +written statement, it should address the following: +the facts of the case and the extent of any harm, including +social, psychological, or physical harm, financial losses, loss +of earnings directly or indirectly resulting from the crime for +which the defendant is being sentenced, and any matter +relevant to an appropriate disposition and sentence, FlaTy +Stat. [8] 921.143(2). +Sloman told OPR that he was "proceeding under the belief that we were going to notify [the +victims], even though it wasn't a federal case. Whether we were required or not." Sloman also +told OPR that while "we didn't think that we had an obligation to send them victim notification +letters ... I think ... +and ... the agents ... were keeping the victims apprised at some +level." +On December 7, 2007, Villafaña prepared letters containing the above information to be +sent to multiple victims and emailed Acosta and Sloman, requesting permission to send them.316 +Sloman, however, had that day received a letter from Sanchez, advising that Epstein's plea hearing +was scheduled for January 4, 2008, and requesting that the USAO "hold off" sending the victim +notification letters until "we can further discuss the contents." Also that day, Starr and Lefkowitz +submitted to Acosta the two lengthy "independent ethics opinions" supporting the defense +arguments against the federal investigation and the NPA's use of 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Sloman +responded to Villafaña's request with an email instructing her to "Hold the letter."317 Sloman told +OPR that he "wanted to push the [vietim notification] letter out," but his instruction to Villafaña +was "the product of me speaking to somebody," although he could not be definitive as to whom. +Sloman further told OPR that once the NPA "looked like it was going to fall apart," the USAO +"had concerns that if we g[a]ve them the victim notification letter ... and the deal fell apart, then +the victims would be instantly impeached by the provision that you're entitled to monetary +compensation." +On December 10, 2007, Villafaña contacted the attorney who at the time represented the +victim who later became CVRA petitioner "Jane Doe #2" to inform him that she "was preparing +victim notification letters." In her 2017 declaration filed in the CVRA litigation, Villafaña noted +that she reached out to Jane Doe #2's counsel, despite the fact that the USAO no longer considered +316 +The FBI case agent had emailed Villafaña the day before stating, "The letter that is currently being revised +needs to take into account that several victims have never been notified by your office or mine." The case agent also +stated, "I do not feel that [the defense] should have anything to do with the drafting or issuing of this letter. My +primary concern is that we meet our federal obligations to the victims in accordance with federal law." +317 +Villafaña told OPR that she did not recall asking Sloman for an explanation for not sending the letters; rather, +she "just remembered] putting them all in the Redweld and putting them in a drawer and being disgusted." +215 + + +her a victim for purposes of the federal charges, and continued to treat her as a victim because she +wanted "to go above and beyond in terms of caring for the victims.*318 +E. +December 19, 2007: Acosta Advises the Defense That the USAO Will Defer to +the State Attorney the Decision Whether to Notify Victims of the State Plea +Hearing, but the USAO Would Notify Them of the Federal Resolution, 'as +Required by Law" +On December 11, 2007, Starr transmitted to Acosta two lengthy submissions authored by +Lefkowitz presenting substantive challenges to the NPA and to "the background and conduct of +the investigation" into Epstein. Regarding issues relevant to victim notification, in his transmittal +letter, Starr asserted that the "latest episodes involving [8] 2255 notification to the alleged victims +put illustratively in bold relief our concerns that the ends of justice, time and time again, are not +being served." By way of example, Starr complained the government had recently inappropriately +rovided "oral notification of the victim notification letter" to one girl's attorney, even though i +ras clear from the girl's recorded FBI interview that she "did not in any manner view herself as +In his submissions, Lefkowitz argued that the government was not required to notify +victims of the § 2255 provision: +Villafaña's decision to utilize a civil remedy statute in the place of +a restitution fund for the alleged victims eliminates the notification +requirement under the Justice for All Act of 2004, a federal law that +requires federal authorities to notify victims as to any available +restitution, not of any potential civil remedies. Despite this fact, +[she] proposed a Victims Notification letter to be sent to the alleged +federal vietims. +Lefkowitz also argued that a victim trust fund would provide a more appropriate +nechanısm for compensating the victims than the government's proposed use of 18 U.S.C. § 2255 +and a trust fund would not violate Epstein's due process rights. Lefkowitz took issue with the +government's "assertion" that the USAO was obligated to send a victim notification letter to the +alleged victims, or even that it was appropriate for the USAO to do so. Lefkowitz further argued +that the goverment misinterpreted both the CVRA and the VRRA, because neither applied to a +public, state court proceeding involving the entry of a plea on state charges. +In a letter from Villafaña to Lefkowitz, responding to his allegations that she had +committed misconduct, she specifically addressed the "false" allegations that the government had +As noted previously, in April 2007, this victim gave a video-recorded interview to the FBI that was favorable +Epstein, and she subsequently obtained different counsel. +216 + + +informed victims "of their right to collect damages prior to a thorough investigation of their +allegations against Mr. Epstein": +None of the victims were informed of the right to sue under +Section 2255 prior to the investigation of the claims. Three victims +were notified shortly after the signing of the [NPA] of the general +terms of that Agreement. You raised objections to any victim +notification, and no further notifications were done. Throughout +this process you have seen that I have prepared this case as though +it would proceed to trial. Notifying the witnesses of the possibility +of damages claims prior to concluding the matter by plea or trial +would only undermine my case. If my reassurances are insufficient +the fact that not a single victim has threatened to sue Mr. Epstein +should assure you of the integrity of the investigation. +On December 14, 2007, Villafaña forwarded to Acosta the draft victim notification letter +previously sent to the defense, along with two draft letters addressed to State Attorney Krischer; +Villafaña's transmittal email to Acosta had the subject line, "The letters you requested." One of +the draft letters to Krischer, to be signed by Villafaña, was to advise that the USAO had sent an +enclosed victim notification letter to specified identified victims and referred to an enclosed "list +of the identified victims and their contact information, in case you are required to provide them +with any further notification regarding their rights under Florida law."3l9 The second draft letter +to Krischer, for Acosta's signature, requested that Krischer respond to defense counsel's +allegations that the State Attorney's Office was not comfortable with the proposed plea and +sentence because it believed that the case should be resolved with probation and no sexual offender +registration. OPR found no evidence that these letters were sent to Krischer. 320 +A few days later, in an apparent effort to move forward with victim notifications, Villafaña +emailed Sloman, stating, "[Is there] anything that I or the agents should be doing?" Villafaña told +Sloman that "[the FBI case agent] is all worked up because another agent and [a named AUSA] +are the subject of an OPR investigation for failing to properly confer with and notify victims [in +an unrelated matter]. We seem to be in a Catch 22."321 OPR did not find a response to Villafaña's +email. +In their December 14, 2007 meeting with Acosta and other USAO personnel and in their +lengthy follow-up letter to Acosta on December 17, 2007, Starr and Lefkowitz continued to press +their objections to the USAO's involvement in the Epstein matter. They requested that Acosta +319 +The draft victim notification letter was identical to the draft victim notification letter sent to the defense on +December 6, 2007, except that it contained a new plea date of January 4, 2008. +320 +Moreover, the letters were not included in the publicly released State Attorney's file, which included other +correspondence from the USAO. See Palm Beach State Attorney's Office Public Records/Jeffrey Epstein, available +at http://sa15.org/stateattorney/NewsRoom/indexPR.htm. +OPR was unable to locate any records indicating that such allegations had ever been referred to OPR +Ving aid ral harges an Ca wa 2 nast redo viet nistications and confer at fores "gat we can't go forward on +217 + + +review the appropriateness of the potential federal charges and the government's "unprecedentedly +expansive interpretation" of 18 U.S.C. § 2255. +In a December 19, 2007 response to the defense team, Acosta offered to revise two +paragraphs in the NPA to resolve "disagreements" with the defense and to clarify that the parties +intended Epstein's § 2255 liability to "place these identified victims in the same position as they +would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." Acosta also advised +that although the USAO intended to notify the victims of the resolution of the federal investigation, +the USAO would leave to the State Attorney the decision whether to notify victims about the state +proceedings: +I understand that the defense objects to the victims being given +notice of [the] time and place of Mr. Epstein's state court sentencing +hearing. I have reviewed the proposed victim notification letter and +the statute. I would note that the United States provided the draft +letter to the defense as a courtesy. In addition, First Assistant United +States Attorney Sloman already incorporated in the letter several +edits that had been requested by defense counsel. Tagree that [the +CVRA] applies to notice of proceedings and results of investigations +of federal crimes as opposed to the state crime. We intend to provide +victims with notice of the federal resolution, as réquired by law. We +will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether +he wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings, +although we will provide him with the information necessary to do +so if he wishes. +Acosta told OPR that he "would not have sent this letter without running it by [Sloman], if +not other individuals in the office," and tecords show he sent a draft to Sloman and Villafaña. +Acosta explained to OPR that he was not concerned about deferring to Krischer on the issue of +whether to notify the victims of the state proceedings because he did not view it as his role, or the +role of the USAO, "to direct the State Attorney's Office on its obligations with respect to the state +outcome."2 Acosta further explained to OPR that despite the USAO's initial concerns about the +State Attorney's Office's handling of the Epstein case, he did not believe it was appropriate to +question that office's ability to "fulfill whatever obligation they have," and he added, "Let's not +assume ... that the State Attorney's Office is full of bad actors." Acosta told OPR that it was his +understanding "that the victims would be aware of what was happening in the state court and have +an opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing." Acosta also told OPR that the state would +Sloman's handwritten notes from a December 21, 2007 telephone conference indicate that Acosta asked the +defense, "Are there concerns re: 3771 lang[uage]." to which Lefkowitz replied, "The state should have their own +mechanism." At the time of the Epstein matter, under the Florida Constitution, upon request, victims were afforded +the "right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of, and to be present at" a defendant's plea and sentencing. Fla. +Const. art. I, § 16(b)(6). Similarly, pursuant to state statute, "Law enforcement personnel shall ensure" that victims +are given information about "[t]he stages in the criminal or juvenile justice process which are of significance to the +victim-J" Fla. Stat. § 960.001(1)(a) (2007). Victims were also entitled to submit an oral or written impact statement. +Fla. Stat. § 960.001(1)(k) (2007). Moreover, "in a case in which the victim is a minor child," the guardian or family +of the victim must be consulted by the state attorney "in order to obtain the views of the victim or family about the +disposition of any criminal or juvenile case" including plea agreements. Fla. Stat. § 960.001(1)(g) (2007). +218 + + +have "notified [the victims] that that was an all-encompassing plea, that that state court sentence +would also mean that the federal government was not proceeding." +Sloman told OPR that he thought Acosta and Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney +General Sigal Mandelker had agreed that the decision whether to notify the victims of the state +court proceedings should be "left to the state."32 Mandelker, however, had no memory of advising +Acosta to defer the decision to make notifications to the State Attorney, and she noted that the +"correspondence [OPR] provided to me from that time period" discussing such a decision +"demonstrates that all of the referenced language came from Mr. Acosta and/or his team, and that +I did not provide, suggest, or edit the language." Sloman told OPR that he initially believed that +"the victims were going to be notified at some level, especially because they had restitution rights +under § 2255"; but, his expectations changed after "there was an agreement made that we were +going to allow the state, since it was going to be a state case, to decide how the victims were going +to be notified." +Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek told OPR that she did not at any time receive a victim +list from the USAO. She further said she did not receive any request from the USAO with regard +to contacting the victims. +In response to Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter, Lefkowitz asserted that the FBI should +not communicate with the victims, and that the state, not the USAO, should determine who can be +heard at the sentencing hearing: +[Jour letter also suggests that our objection to your Office's +proposed victims notification letter was that the women identified +as victims of federal crimes should not be notified of the state +proceedings. That is not true, as our previous letter clearly states. +Putting aside our threshold contention that many of those to whom +[CVRA] notification letters are intended are in fact not victims as +defined in the Attorney General's 2000 Victim Witness +Guidelines—a status requiring physical, emotional or pecuniary +injury of the [victim]—it was and remains our position that these +women +y be notified of such proceedings but since they are +neither witnesses nor victims to the state prosecution of this matter, +they should not be informed of fictitious "rights" or invited to mak‹ +sworn written or in-court testimonial statements against Mr. Epsteir +at +323 +In his June 3, 2008 letter to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip, Sloman wrote, "Acosta again consulted +rith DAAG Mandelker who advised him to make the following proposal [to defer notification to the State Attorney +ffice]." OPR found no other documentation relating to Mandelker's purported involvement in the decisio +219 + + +decision as to who can be heard at a state sentencing is, amongst +many other issues, properly within the aegis of state decision +making.324 +Following a conversation between Acosta and Lefkowitz, in which Acosta asked that the +defense clarity its positions on the USAO proposals regarding, among other things, notifications +to the victims, Lefkowitz responded with a December 26, 2007 letter to Acosta, objecting again to +notification of the victims. Lefkowitz argued that CVRA notification was not appropriate because +the Attorney General Guidelines defined "crime victim" as a person harmed as a result of an +offense charged in federal district court, and Epstein had not been charged in federal court. +Nevertheless, Lefkowitz added that, despite their objection to CVRA notification, "[W]e do not +object (as we made clear in our letter last week) that some form of notice be given to the alleged +victims." Lefkowitz requested both that the defense be given an opportunity to review any notice +sent by the USAO, and that "any and all notices with respect to the alleged victims of state offenses +should be sent by the State Attorney rather than [the USAO]," and he agreed that the USAO +"should defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding all matters with regard to those +victims and the state proceedings." +Months later, in April 2008, Epstein's attorneys complained in a letter to Mandelker that +Sloman and Villafaña committed professional misconduct by threatening to send a "highly +improper and unusual 'victim notification letter' to all" victims. +F. +January - June 2008: While the Defense Presses Its Appeal to the Department +in an Effort to Undo the NPA, the FBI and the USAO Continue Investigating +Epstein +As described in Chapter Two of this Report, from the time the NPA was signed through +the end of June 2008, the defense employed various measures to delay, or avoid entirely, +implementation of the NPA. Ultimately, defense counsel's advocacy resulted in the USAO's +decision to have the federal case reviewed afresh. A review of the evidence was undertaken first +by USAO Criminal Chief Robert Senior and then, briefly, by an experienced CEOS trial +attorney. A review of the case in light of the defense challenges was then conducted by CEOS +Chief Oosterbaan, in consultation with his staff and with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal +Mandelker and Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher, and then by the Office of the Deputy +Attorney General. Each review took weeks and delayed Epstein's entry of his state guilty plea. +As set forth below, during that time, Villafaña and the FBI continued investigating and +working toward potential federal charges. +1. +Villafaña Prepares to Contact Victims in Anticipation That Epstein +Will Breach the NPA +On January 3, 2008, the local newspaper reported that Epstein's plea conference in state +court, at that point set for early January, had been rescheduled to March 2008, at which time he +would plead guilty to felony solicitation of prostitution, and that "in exchange for the guilty plea, +The 2000 Guidelines were superseded by the 2005 Guidelines. +220 + + +"federal authorities are expected to drop their probe into whether Epstein broke any federal +laws."*325 +Nevertheless, as Epstein's team continued to argue to higher levels of the Department that +there was no appropriate federal interest in prosecuting Epstein and thus no basis for the NPA, and +with his attorneys asserting that "the facts had gotten better for Epstein," Villafaña came to believe +that Epstein would likely breach the NPA. 326 In January 2008, Villafaña informed her supervisors +that the FBI "had very tight contact with the victims several months ago when we were prepared +to [file charges], but all the shenanigans over the past few months have resulted in no contact with +the vast majority of the victims." Villafaña then proposed that the FBI "re-establish contact with +all the victims so that we know we can rely on them at trial."327 Villafaña told OPR that at this +point, [w]hile the case was being investigated] and prepared for indictment, I did not prepare or +send any victim notification letters—there simply was nothing to update. I did not receive any +victim calls during this time." +The FBI Uses VNS Form Letters to Re-Establish Contact with Victims +On January 10, 2008, the FBI Victim Specialist mailed VNS generated victim notification +letters to 14 victims articulating the eight CVRA rights and inviting recipients to update their +contact information with the FBI in order to obtain current information about the matter.328 The +case agent informed Villafaña in an email that the Victim Specialist sent a "standard form [FBI] +letter to all the remaining identified victims." These 2008 létters were identical to the FBI form +letters the Victim Specialist had sent to victims between August 28, 2006, and October 12, 2007. +Like those previous letters, most of which were sent before the NPA was signed on September 24, +2007, the 2008 letters described the case as "currently under investigation" and noted that "[t]his +can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough +investigation." The letters also stated: +325 +Michele Dargan, "Jeffrey Epstein Plea Hearing Moved to March," Palm Beach Daily News "The Shiny +Sheet," Jan. 3, 2008. +326 +Epstein's attorneys used discovery proceedings in the state case to depose federal victims, and as they learned +unflattering details or potential impeachment information concerning likely federal victims, they argued for the +exclusion of those victims from the federal case. For example, defense attorneys questioned one victim as to whether +the federal prosecutors or FBI agents told her that she was entitled to receive money from Epstein. See Exhibit 9 to +Villafaña Junc 2, 2017/Declaration: Deposition of [REDACTED], State v. Epstein, Case No. 2006-CF-9454, at 44, +50, 51 (Fcb. 20, 2008). One victim's attorney told OPR that the defense attorneys tried to "smear" victims by asking +highly personal sexual questions about "terminations of pregnancies ... sexual encounters ... masturbation." +Epstein's attorney used similar tactics in questioning victims who filed civil cases against their client. For example, +the Miami Herald reported that, "One girl was asked about her abortions, and her parents, who were Catholic and +knew nothing about the abortions, were also deposed and questioned." See Julie +"Perversion of Justice: Cops +Worked to Put a Serial Sex Abuser in Prison. Prosecutors Worked to Cut Him a Break," Miami Herald, Nov. 28, +2018. +327 +Villafaña also told her supervisors that she wanted the FBI to interview two specific victims. +328 +The Victim Specialist later generated an additional letter dated May 30, 2008. After Epstein's June 30, 2008 +state court pleas, she sent out substantially similar notification letters to two victims who resided outside of the United +States. +221 + + +We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights +described. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the +arrest or indictment of an individual for the crime, and it will become +the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office +to ensure you are accorded those rights. You may also seek the +advice of a private attorney with respect to these rights. +The FBI case agent informed Villafaña that the Victim Specialist sent the letters and would follow +up with a phone call "to offer assistance and ensure that [the victims] have received their letter." +A sample letter is shown on the following pages. +Villataña told OPR that she did not recall discussing the content of the letters at the time +they were sent to the victims, or reviewing the letters until they were collected for the CVRA +litigation, sometime after July 2008. Rather, according to Villafaña, "The decisión to issue the +letter and the wording of those letters were exclusively FBI decisions.* Nevertheless, Villafaña +asserted to OPR that from her perspective, the language regarding the ongoing investigation "was +absolutely true and, despite being fully advised of our ongoing investigative activities, no one in +my supervisory chain ever told me that the case was not under investigation." Villafaña identified +various investigative activities in which she engaged from "September 2007 until the end of June +2008," such as collecting and reviewing evidence; interviewing new victims; re-interviewing +victims; identifying new charges; developing new charging strategies; drafting supplemental +prosecution memoranda; revising the charging package; and preparing to file charges. Similarly, +the FBI case agent told OPR that at the time the letters were sent the "case was never closed and +the investigation was continuing." The co-case agent stated that the "the case was open ... it's +never been shut down." +received one of the January 10, 2008 FBI letters; much later, in the +course of the CVRA litigation, she stated that her "understanding of this letter was that [her] case +was still being investigated and the FBI and prosecutors were moving forward on the Federal +prosecution of Epstein for his crimes against [her]."329 +CVRA petitioner Jane Doe #2 also received a January 10, 2008 FBI letter that was sent to her counsel. +222 + + +U.S. Dopartment of Justice +Federal Bureau of Invostigation +FBI - West Palm Beach +Sulle 500. +506 South Flagler Drive +Wost Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 833-7517 +Fax: (561) 833-7970 +January 10, 2008 +Re: Caso Number: +Dear +COPY +This case Is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your +continued pallence while we conduct a thorough invesligatlon. +As a crime victim, you have the following rights under 18 United Statos Code § 3771: (1) The right to +be reasonably protected from the accused: (2) The right to reasonablo, accurate, and timely notice of any +publte court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, Involving the crime or of any release or escape of the +accused; (3) The right not to be excluded from any such publto court proceeding, unless the court, after +recelving cleer and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if +the viallm heard other fostmony at that procoding; (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public +proceeding In the distlet court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parola proceeding; (5) Tho +reasonable right to confer with the altomey for the Govermont In the case; (6) The right to fuli and timely +restitution as provided in law; (7) The right to procoedings freo from unreasonable dolay; (8) The right lo ba +We will make our best efforte to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights +pertain to events occurring after the arrest or Indictment of an Individual for the crime, and it will become the +responsibilily of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to onsure you are accorded those rights, You +may also seek the advice of a private atterney with rospect to thee righte. +The Victim Notification System (VNS) Is designed to provide you with direct Information regarding the +case as ll proconds through the criminal Justico system. You may obtain curtant information about this malter +on the Internet at WWW.Nollfy.USDOJ.GOV or from the VNS Call Cenler at +In addition, you may use tho Call +center or internet to update your contact Information and/or change your decision about participation in tho +notification program. if you update your information to include a current emall address, VNS will send +Informallon to that address. You will need the following Vidlim Identification Number (VIN) | +and +Personal Identification Number (PIN) L +anylime you contact the Call Center and the first time you log on to +VNS on tho Intorot. In addition, the first time you access the VNS Infernet site, you will be prompted to enter +your last name (or business name) as currently contained in VNS. The hame you should enter is +223 + + +If you have additional questions which Involva this matter, please contact the office listed above, When +ou call, please provide the fle number located at the top of this lelter. Please remember, your participatior +a shonily lo kep ort colad formation cur entorder to continua to receive notifications, it is yo +Sincerely, +Victim Specialist. +Villafaña, the FBI, and the CEOS Trial Attorney Interview Victims +As Villafaña resumed organizing the case for charging and trial, the FBI case agent +provided Villafaña with a list of "the 19 identified victims we are planning on using in" the federal +charges and noted that she and her co-case agent wanted to further evaluate some additional +victims. 330 In Washington, D.C., CEOS assigned a Trial Attorney to the Epstein case in order to +bring expertise and "a national perspective" to the matter.331. +On January 18, 2008, one attorney representing a victim and her family contacted Sloman +by telephone, stating that he planned to file civil litigation against Epstein on behalf of his clients, +who were frustrated with the lack of progress in the state's investigation" of Epstein. The attorney +asked Sloman if the USAO "could file criminal charges even though the state was looking into the +matter," but Sloman declined to answer his questions concerning the investigation.332 In late +January, the New York Post reported that the attorney's clients had filed a $50 million civil suit +against Epstein in Florida and that "Epstein is expected to be sentenced to 18 months in prison +when he pleads guilty in March to a single charge of soliciting an underage prostitute."333 +Between January 31, 2008, and May 28, 2008, the FBI, with the prosecutors, interviewed +additional victims and reinterviewed several who had been interviewed before the NPA was +signed.334 In late January 2008, as Villafaña and the CEOS Trial Attorney prepared to participate +The case agent also informed Villafaña that she expected to ask for legal process soon in order to obtain +additional information/ +The CEOS Trial Attorney told OPR that she was under the impression that she was brought in to help prepare +for the trial bocause the "plea had fallen through." +332 +Because Sloman and the attorney were former legal practice partners, Sloman reported the interaction to +Acosta, and the USAO reported the incident to OPR shortly thereafter. OPR reviewed the matter as an inquiry and +determined that no further action was warranted. +Dareh Gregorian, "Tycoon Perved Me at 14 - $50M Suit Hits NY Creep Over Mansion Massage," New York +Post, Jan. 25, 2008. +334 +An FBI interview report from May 28, 2008, indicates that one victim "believes Epstein should be prosecuted +for his actions." +224 + + +in FBI interviews of +and other victims, Villafaña informed CEOS Chief Oosterbaan that she +anticipated the victims "would be concerned about the status of the case." +On January 31. 2008, Villafaña, the CEOS Trial Attorney, and the FBI interviewed three +victims, including +Prior to the interview, +had received the FBI's January 10. 2008 +letter stating that the case was under investigation; however, according to the case agent, +and +two other victims had also been told by the FBI, in October 2007, that the case had been resolved. +In her 2015 CVRA-case declaration, +_stated that after receiving the FBI letter, she believed +that the FBI was investigating the case, and she was not told "about any [NPA] or any potential +resolution of the federal criminal investigation I was cooperating in. If I had been told of a[n +NPA], I would have obiected." In Villafaña's 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafaña +recalled interviewing | +on January 31, 2008, along with FBI agents, and Villafaña told OPR +she "asked [ +] whether she would be willing to testify if there were a trial." Villafaña recalled +responding that she "hoped Epstein would be prosecuted and that she was willing to +testify. *335 +After the first three victim interviews on January 31, 2008, Villafafa described for Acosta +and Sloman the toll that the case had taken on two of the victims: +One girl broke down sobbing so that we had to stop the interview +twice... she said she was having nightmares about Epstein coming +after her and she started to break down again so we stopped the +interview. +The second girl ... was very upset about the 18 month deal she had +read about in the paper. 336 She said that 18 months was nothing and +that she had heard that the girls could get restitution, but she would +rather not get any money and have Epstein spend a significant time +in jail. 337 +Villafaña closed the email by requesting that Acosta and Sloman attend the interviews with victims +scheduled for the following day, but neither did so.338 Acosta told OPR that it "wasn't typical" +335 +The FBI report of the interview did not reflect a discussion off +intentions. +336 +See Darch Gregorian, "Tycoon Perved Me at 14 - $50M Suit Hits NY Creep Over Mansion Massage," New +York Post, Jan. 25, 2008. As early as October 2007, the New York Post reported the 18-month sentence and that +"It]he feds have agreed to drop their probe into possible federal criminal violations in exchange for the guilty plea to +the new state charge." Dan Mangan, "Unhappy Ending' Plea Deal - Moneyman to Get Jail For Teen Sex Massages," +New York Post, Oct. 1, 2007. +337 +Acosta told OPR, "The United States can't unwind an agreement just because ... some victim indicates that +they don't like it." The CEOS Trial Attorney recalled that she did not "think that any one of these girls was interested +in this prosecution going forward." Furthermore, as previously noted, the CEOS Trial Attorney also opined that "[the +victims] would have testified for us," but the case would have required an extensive amount of "victim management," +as the girls were "deeply embarrassed" that they "were going to be called prostitutes." +338 +OPR located FBI interview reports relating to only one February 1, 2008 victim interview. Although +Villafaña's emails indicated that two additional victims were scheduled to be interviewed on February 1, 2008, OPR +located no corresponding reports for those victim interviews. OPR located undated handwritten notes Villafaña +225 + + +for him, as U.S. Attorney, to attend witness interviews, and further, that no one in the USAO "was +questioning the pain or the suffering of the victims." Sloman told OPR that he himself had "never +gone to a line assistant's victim or witness interview." +Villafaña told OPR that although three of the victims interviewed during this period had +been notified by the FBI in October 2007 about the resolution of the case, at this point Villafaña +did not specifically tell these victims that "there was a signed non-prosecution agreement that had +these terms." Villafaña also told OPR she "didn't talk about money" because she "didn't want +there to be an allegation at the time of trial ... that [the victims] were either exaggerating their +claims or completely making up claims in order to increase their damages amount." Rather, +according to Villafaña, she told the three victims that "an agreement had been reached where +[Epstein] was going to be entering a guilty plea, but it doesn't look like he intends to actually +perform ... [and] now it looks like this may have to be charged, and y have to go to trial." +Villafaña recalled "explaining that the case was under investigation," that they "were preparing +the case [for charging] again," and "expressing our hope that charges would be brought." Villafaña +recalled one victim "making a comment about the amount of [imprisonment] time and why was it +so low" and Villafaña answered, "that was the agreement that the office had reached.""39 +With regard to the victims Villafaña interviewed who had not received an FBI notification +in October 2007, Villafaña recalled discussing one victim's safety concerns but not whether they +discussed the agreement. She recalled telling another Vietim that "we thought we had reached an +agreement with [Epstein] and then we didn't," but was "pretty sure" that she did not mention the +agreement during the interview of the third victim. Villafaña explained that she likely did not +discuss the agreement because +at that point I just felt. Jike it was nonexistent. [The victim] didn't +know anything about it beforehand, and as far as I could tell it was +going to end up being thrown on the heap, and I didn't want to -.... +if you tell people, look, he's already admitted that he's guilty, +like, I didn't want that to color her statement. I just wanted to get +the facts of the case. +The CEOS Trial Attorney told OPR that she did not recall any discussion with the victims +about the NPA or the status of the case. She did remember explaining the significance of the +prosecution to one victim who "did not think anything should happen" to Epstein. The FBI case +agent told OPR that she did not recall the January 2008 interviews. OPR located notes to an FBI +interview report, stating that one of the victims wanted another victim to be prosecuted. Attorneys +for the two victims other than +who had been notified by the FBI in October 2007 about the +resolution of the case informed OPR that as of 2020, their clients had no memory of meeting with +authored concerning one of the two victims that contained no information regarding a discussion of the status of the +investigation or the resolution of the case. Through her attorney, this victim told OPR that she did not recall having +contact with anyone from the USAO. +339 +Villafaña did not recall any other specific questions from victims. +340 +The CEOS Trial Attorney noted that CEOS did not issue victim notifications; rather, such notifications were +generally handled by a Victim Witness Specialist in the assigned USAO. +226 + + +prosecutors and did not recall learning any information about Epstein's guilty plea until after the +plea was entered on June 30, 2008. +When asked whether she was concerned that her statements would mislead the victims, +Villafaña told OPR: +From my perspective we were conducting an investigation and it +vas an investigation that was going to lead to an indictment. Yo +interviewing +witnesses, I was issuing [lega +process], ... I was doing all [these] things to take the case to a +ederal indictment and a federal trial. So to me, saying to a victim +he case is now back under investigation is perfectly accurate +for a Prosecution of Epstein, Arages or ronal steps tor Pry arr +or a Prosecution of Epstein +Vietims, and Cautions about Continued Delay +In February 2008, Villafaña revised the prosecution memorandum and supplemental +memorandum. Villafaña removed some victims known to Epstein from the PBPD investigation +and others subject to impeachment as a result of civil suits they filed against Epstein, added newly +discovered victims, and made changes to the proposed indictment. +While the defense appealed the USAO's decision to prosecute Epstein to higher levels of +the Department, Villafaña sought help for victims whom defense investigators were harassing and +attempting to subpoena for depositions as part of Epstein's defense in civil lawsuits that some +victims had brought against him, as well as purportedly in connection with the state criminal case. +Villafaña reported to her supervisors that she was able to locate a "national crime victims service +organization" to provide attorneys for the victims, and the FBI Victim Specialist contacted some +victims to provide contact information for the attorneys. 341 During this period, an attorney from +the victims service organization was able to help +avoid an improper deposition. +Villafaña also informed her supervisors, including Sloman, that "one of the victims tried to commit +suicide last week," and advocated aggressively for a resolution to the case: "I just can't stress +enough how important it is for these girls to have a resolution in this case. The 'please be patient' +answer is really wearing thin, especially when Epstein's group is still on the attack while we are +forced to wait on the sidelines." +March - April 2008: Villafaña Continues to Prepare for Filing Federal +Charges +Villafaña continued to revise the proposed charges by adding new victims and by removing +others who had filed civil suits against Epstein. Villafaña also prepared search warrants for digital +The FBI Victim Specialist informed Villafaña that she spoke "directly to seven victims" and informed them +are afForded theirinses, ind rmation ha reso job referral tim Specialist is to ensure that victims l ofa Federal crime +227 + + +camera memory cards seized by the PBPD in order to have them forensically examined for deleted +images that could contain child pornography.342 +By early April 2008, as the defense pursued its appeal to the Department's Criminal +Division, Acosta predicted in an email to Villafaña and Sloman that federal charges against Epstein +were "more and more likely." Villafaña asked Oosterbaan for help to "move this [Criminal +Division review] process along," noting that the defense continued to undermine the government's +case by deposing the victims "under the guise of 'trial prep' for the state case" and that the "agents +and the victims" were "losing their patience." +On April 24, 2008, Villafaña emailed Sloman and USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior +asking whether she had the +e concerns she had +expressed to Oosterbaan. Villafaña further cautioned that, although she was planning to file +charges on May 6, if that was not going to happen, "then we all need to meet with the victims, the +agents, and the police officers to decide how the case will be resolved and to provide them with an +explanation for the delay." Because the Department's Criminal Division did not conclude its +review of Epstein's appeal by May 6, however, Villafaña did not file charges that day. +VIlI. USAO SUPERVISORS CONSIDER CVRA OBLIGATIONS IN AN UNRELATED +MATTER AND IN LIGHT OF A NEW FIFTH CIRCUIT OPINION +During the period after the NPA was signed, and before Epstein complied with the NPA +by entering his state guilty pleas, the USAO supervisors were explicitly made aware of a conflict +between the Department's position that CRA's vietims' rights attached upon the filing of a +criminal charge and a new federal appellate ruling to the contrary. The contemporaneous +communications confirm that in 2008, Acosta and Sloman were aware of the Department's policy +regarding the issue. +Unrelated to the Epstein investigation, on April 18, 2008, Acosta and Sloman received a +citizen complaint from an attorney who requested to meet with them regarding his belief that the +Florida Bar had violated his First Amendment rights. The attorney asserted that the CVRA +guaranteed him "an absolute right to meet" with USAO officials because he believed that he was +the victim of a federal crime. Acosta forwarded the message to the USAO Appellate Division +Chief, who informed Acosta and Sloman that, according to the 2005 Guidelines, "our obligations +under [the CVRA] are not triggered until charges are filed." On April 24, 2008, the Appellate +Division Chief emailed Acosta and Sloman, stating that she had "confirmed with DOJ that [her] +reading of [the 2005 Guidelines] is correct and that our obligations under [the CVRA] are not +triggered until a case is filed."343 +On May 7, 2008, the Appellate Division Chief sent Acosta and Sloman a copy of a U.S. +Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit opinion issued that day, In re +holding that a victim's +342 +The forensic examination did not locate useful evidence on the memory cards. +The Appellate Division Chief advised Acosta that Acosta could inform the complainant that, prior to the +initiation of charges, the investigating agency was responsible for carrying out the Department's statutory obligations +to the victim. +228 + + +CVRA rights attach prior to the filing of criminal charges.344 The Appellate Division Chief noted +that, although the holding conflicted with the 2005 Guidelines, the "court's opinion makes sense." +involved a federal prosecution arising from a 2005 explosion at an oil refinery +operated by BP Products North America, Inc. (BP) that killed 15 people and injured more than +170. Before bringing criminal charges, the government negotiated a guilty plea with BP without +notifying the victims. The government filed a sealed motion, alerting the district court to the +potential plea and claiming that consultation with all the victims was impractical and that such +notification could result in media coverage that would undermine the plea negotiations. The court +then entered an order prohibiting the government from notifying the victims of the pending plea +agreement until after it had been signed by the parties. Thereafter, the government filed a criminal +information, the government and BP signed the plea agreement, and the government mailed notices +of the plea hearing to the victims informing them of their right to be heard. One month later, 12 +victims asked the court to reject the plea because it was entered into in violation of their rights +under the CVRA. The district court denied their motion, but concluded that the CVRA rights to +confer with the prosecutor in the case and to be treated with fairness and respect for the victim's +dignity and privacy vested prior to the initiation of charges.345 The district court noted that the +legislative history reflected a view that "the right to confer was intended to be broad," as well as +being a "mechanism[]" to ensure that victims were treated with fairness. +In denying the victims relief, the Fifth Circuit nevertheless concluded that the district court +"failed to accord the victims the rights conferred by the CVRA."346 In particular, the Fifth Circuit +cited the district court's acknowledgement that "I Jhere are clearly rights under the CVRA that +apply before any prosecution is underway." The Fifth Circuit also noted that such consultation +was not "an infringement" on the government's independent prosecutorial discretion, but "it is +only a requirement that the government confer in some reasonable way with the victims before +ultimately exercising its broad discretion." In the wake of the +opinion, two Department +components wrote separate memoranda to the Solicitor General with opposing views concerning +whether the CVRA right to confer with the prosecution vests prior to the initiation of a prosecution. +IX. +JUNE 2008: VILLAFANA'S PRE-PLEA CONTACTS WITH THE ATTORNEY +REPRESENTING THE VICTIMS WHO LATER BECAME THE CVRA +PETITIONERS +According to an affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation by her attorney, +retained Edwards in June 2008 to represent her "because she was unable to get anyone from +the [USAO] to tell her what was actually going on with the federal criminal case against Jeffrey +Epstein. +"347 Villafaña told OPR that +did not contact her directly and she was not aware of +344 +345 +346 +In re +\ 527 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2008). The Fifth Circuit opinion was not binding precedent in Florida, +which is within the Eleventh Circuit. +United States v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321, at *11 (S.D. Tex. 2008). Victims who +wished to be heard were permitted to speak at the plea hearing. +- 527 F.3d at 394. +347 +Before Epstein's state court plea hearing, L +also began representing the victim who became Jane Doe +#2. Although OPR focuses on Villafaña's communications with +in this section, OPR notes that Villafana +229 + + +an instance in which +the FBI case agents. +"asked a question that wasn't answered" of anyone in the USAO or of +contacted Villafaña by email and telephone in mid-June, stating that he had +"information and concerns that [he] would like to share."348 In his affidavit, +alleged that +during multiple telephone calls with Villafaña, he "asked very specific questions about what stage +the investigation was in," and Villafaña replied that she could not answer his questions because +the matter "was an on-going active investigation[.]". +_attested that Villafaña gave him "the +mpression that the Federal investigation was on-going, very expansive, and continuously growing +both in the number of identified victims and [in] complexity."34 +In her written response to OPR, Villafaña said that she "listened more than [she] spoke" +during these interactions with +which occurred before the state court plea: +Given the uncertainty of the situation - Epstein was still challenging +our ability to prosecute him federally, pressing allegations of +prosecutorial misconduct, and trying to negotiate better plea terms, +while the agents, my supervisors, and I were all moving towards +[filing charges] - I did not feel comfortable sharing any information +about the case. It is also my practice not to talk about status before +the grand jury. +In her 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafaña explained that during these +exchanges, Villafaña did not inform Edwards of the existence of the NPA because she "did not +know whether the NPA remained viable at that time or whether Epstein would enter the state court +guilty plea that would trigger the NPA."350 Villafaña told OPR that she did not inform +also had interactions with other victims' attorneys. For example, another attorney informed OPR that he spoke to +Villafaña two to five times concerning the status of the case and cach time was told that the case was under +investigation. The attorney noted, "[W]e never got any information out of [Villafaña]. We were never told what was +happening or going on to any extent." Villafaña's counsel told OPR that Villafaña did not have any interaction with +the attorney or his law partner until after Epstein's state court plea hearing, and that in her written communications +responding to the attorney's inquiries, she provided information to the extent possible. OPR found no documentation +that Villafaña's communications with the attorney occurred prior to June 30, 2008. Villafaña also had more ministerial +interactions with other victims' counsel, as well as contact regarding their ongoing civil cases. For example, in March +200vide hivictit aldogy informed vilim and his mprise canie ming tic tail nd realist that the go steinst +airplane, Villafaña responded that she was unable to provide the requested information, but asked that counsel keep +her updated about the civil litigation. +348 +Villafaña later stated in a July 9, 2008 declaration filed in the CVRA litigation that, although she invited +to provide her with information, "[nothing was provided." +349 +did not respond to OPR's request to interview him, although he did assist OPR in locating other +attorneys who were representing victims. +The government later admitted in court filings that Villafaña and +"discussed the possibility of +federal charges being filed in the future and that the NPA was not mentioned." Doe, Government's Response to +Petitioners' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Petitioners' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment +at 14, 9101 (June 6, 2017). +230 + + +about the NPA because it was "confidential" and because the case was under "investigation and +leading towards" the filing of charges. Villafaña recalled mentioning the conversation to her +supervisors and the case agents because she "thought he was somebody who could be of assistance +to us and... could perhaps persuade Alex Acosta that this was a case that was meritorious and +should be prosecuted." +Nevertheless, when OPR asked Villafaña why she did not inform +of the same +information that the FBI and she had provided to +in October 2007 and January 2008, +Villafaña explained that she felt "prohibited": +At the time that I spoke with him, you know, there had been all of +this ... letter writing or all of these concerns and instructions that I +had been given by Alex [Acosta] and Jeft [Sloman] not to disclose +things further and not to have any involvement in victim +notification, and so I felt like that prohibited me from telling him +about the existence of the NPA. +X. JUNE 2008: EFFORTS TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT THE JUNE 30, 2008 PLEA +HEARING +The Epstein team's appeals through the Department ended on June 23, 2008, when the +Deputy Attorney General determined that "federal prosecution of this case is appropriate" and +Epstein's allegations of prosecutorial misconduct did not rise to a level that would undermine such +a decision. Immediately thereafter, at Sloman's instruction, Villafaña notified Lefkowitz that +Epstein had until "the close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008, to comply with the terms and +conditions of the agreement ... including entry of a guilty plea, sentencing, and surrendering to +begin his sentence of imprisonment." That same day, Villafaña made plans to file charges on July +1, 2008, if Epstein did not enter his guilty plea by the June 30 deadline. +On Friday, June 27, 2008, Villafaña received a copy of the proposed state plea agreement +and learned that the plea hearing was scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on Monday, June 30, 2008. Also on +that Friday, Villafaña submitted to Sloman and Criminal Division Chief Senior a "final final" +proposed federal indictment of Epstein. +Villataña and the FBI finalized the government's victim list that they intended to disclose, +Reiter "is going to notify victims about the plea."352 +351 +Villafaña further stated, "I requested permission to make oral notifications to the victims regarding the +upcoming change of plea, but the Office decided that victim notification could only come from a state investigator, +and Jeff Sloman asked PBPD Chief Reiter to assist." +352 +Sloman replied, "Good." +231 + + +Villafaña told OPR that before the state plea hearing, she sent Reiter a list of the victims, +including their telephone numbers, to notify and asked him to destroy the list. Villafaña recalled +that Reiter told her that he would "try to contact as many as he could" and that he would destroy +the list afterwards. Villafaña did not recall being "asked [to] provide a list of all our victims to the +State Attorney's Office." +In his 2009 deposition, Reiter stated that Villafaña sent him a letter "around the time of +sentencing," listing the victims in the federal investigation, and that she asked him to destroy the +letter after he reviewed it. Reiter recalled that he requested the list because he was aware that the +state grand jury's indictment of Epstein did not include all of the victims that the PBPD had +identified and he "wanted to make sure that some prosecution body had considered all of our +victims.'*353 +In her 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafaña stated that she and the PBPD +"attempted to notify the victims about [the June 30] hearing in the short time available to us."54 +In her 2008 declaration, however, Villafaña conceded that "all known victims were not notified." +Villafaña told OPR that +was the only victim attorney she was authorized to +contact—she thought probably by Sloman +-about the June 30, 2008 plea hearing because +"had expressed a specific interest in the outcome." Villafaña recalled, "I was told that I could +inform l +] of [the plea date], but I still couldn't inform him of the NPA."355 In her 2008 +declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafaña stated that she called +and informed him of +the plea hearing scheduled for Monday; Villafaña stated that +told her that he could not +attend the hearing but "someone" would be present. In a later filing in the CVRA litigation, +however, +asserted that Villafaña told him only that "Epstein was pleading guilty to state +solicitation of prostitution charges involving other victims—not Mr. +clients nor any of +the federally-identified victims."336 Edwards further claimed that because Villafaña failed to +inform him that the "guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal +prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement," his clients did not attend the hearing. Villafaña told +OPR that her expectation was that the state plea proceeding would allow +and his clients +the ability to comment on the resolution: +353 +Reiter showed the letter to the lead Detective so he could "confirm that all of the victims that we had for the +state case were included on that." The Detective "looked at it and he said they're all there and then [Reiter] destroyed +it." The Detective recalled viewing the list in Reiter's office, but he could not recall when Reiter showed it to him. +354 +The FBI co-case agent told OPR that "I don't think the [FBI] reached out to anyone." +355 +Villafaña told OPR that she thought that it was Sloman who gave her the instructions, but she could not +"remember the specifics of the conversation." +356 +Villafaña stated that she "never told Attorney +that the state charges involved 'other victims,' and +neither the state court charging instrument nor the factual proffer limited the procurement of prostitution charge to : +specific victim." Although +criticized Villafaña's conduct in his CVRA filings, in his recently publisher +book, +he victims and tr[ied]... to bring down Jeffrey Epstein." +•described Vilfaia as a "kindhearted prosecutor who tried to do right." noting that she clicle is +with Brittany +Pursuit at 380 (Gallery Books 2020). +232 + + +[M]y expectation of what was going [to] happen at the plea was that +it would be like a federal plea where there would be a factual proffer +that was read, and where the judge would ask if there were any +victims present who wanted to be heard, and that at that point if Brad +wanted to address the court or if his clients wanted to +address the court, they would be given the opportunity to do so. 357 +Sloman told OPR that he did not recall directing Villafaña to contact anyone about the plea +hearing or directing her specifically not to contact anyone about it. Acosta told OPR that he +believed the state would notify the victims of the "all-encompassing plea" resolving the federal +case "and [the victims would] have an opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing." +Nevertheless, Acosta did not know whether the state victims overlapped with the federal victims +or whether the USAO "shared that list with them." Villafaña told OPR that she and Acosta +"understood that the state would notify the state victims" but that neither of them were aware "that +the state only believed they had one victim."'58 Villafaña told OPR that there was "very little" +communication between the USAO and the State Attorney's Office, and although she discussed a +factual proffer with the State Attorney's Office and "the fact that... the federal investigation had +identified additional victims," she did not recall discussing "who the specific people were that they +considered victims in the state case. "359 +Sloman told OPR that the "public perception .. that we tried to hide the fact of the results +of this resolution from the victims" was incorrect. He explained: +[E]ven though we didn't have a legal obligation, I felt that the +victims were going to be notified, and the state was going ... to +fulfill that obligation, and even as another failsafe, [the victims] +would be notified of.. the restitution mechanism that we had set +up on their behalf^ +Sloman acknowledged that although neither the NPA terms nor the CVRA prevented the USAO +from exercising its discretion to notify the victims, +it was [of] concern that this was going to break down and ... result +in us prosecuting Epstein and that the victims were going to be +witnesses and if we provided a victim notification indicating, hey, +youre going to get $150,000, that's ... going to be instant +impeachment for the defense. +Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek told OPR that federal victims who were not a party to the state case +would not have been able to simply appcar at the state plea hearing and participate in the proceedings. Rather, such a +presentation would have required coordination between the USAO and the State Attorney's Office and additional +investigation of the victims" allegations and proposed statements by the State Attorney's Office. +In an email a few months carlier, Villafaña noted, "The state indictment [for solicitation of adult prostitution] +is related to two girls. One of those girls is included in the federal [charging document], the other is not." +As noted in Chapter Two, Villafaña had stopped communicating with the State Attorney's Office regarding +the state case following Epstein's defense team's objections to those communications. +233 + + +When asked why the USAO did not simply notify the victims of the change of plea hearing, +Sloman responded that he "was more focused on the restitution provisions. I didn't get the sense +that the victims were overly interested in showing up ... at the change of plea." +Also, in late June, Villafaña drafted a victim notification letter concerning the June 30, +2008 plea.360 Villafaña told OPR that, because "Mr. Acosta had agreed in December 2007 that we +would not provide written notice of the state change of plea, the written victim notifications were +prepared to be sent immediately following Epstein's guilty plea."36l As she did with prior draft +victim notification letters, Villafaña provided the draft to the defense for comments. 362 +Although Epstein's plea hearing was set for June 30, 2008, Villa faña took steps to facilitate +the filing of federal charges on July 1, 2008, in the event he did not plead guilty in state court. +OPR reviewed voluminous Epstein-related files that the State Attorney's Office made +available online, but OPR was unable to locate any document establishing that before the hearing +date, the state informed victims of the June 30, 2008 plea. On March 12, 2008, the State Attorney's +Office issued trial subpoenas to three victims and one non-law enforcement witness commanding +the individuals to "remain on call" during the week of July 8, 2008. However, the Palm Beach +County Sheriff was unable to serve one of the victims in person because the victim was away [at] +college." +XI. JUNE 30, 2008: EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS GUILTY PLEAS IN A STATE COURT +HEARING AT WHICH NO VICTIMS ARE PRESENT +On June 30, 2008, Epstein appeared in state court in West Palm Beach, with his attorney +Jack Goldberger, and pled guilty to an information charging him with procuring a person under 18 +for prostitution, as well as the indictment charging him with felony solicitation of prostitution. The +information charged that between August I, 2004, and October 9, 2005, Epstein "did knowingly +and unlaw fully procure for prostitution, or caused to be prostituted, [REDACTED], a person under +the age of 18 years," and referred to no other victims. The indictment did not identify any victims +and alleged only that Epstein engaged in the charged conduct on three occasions between August +1, 2004, and October 31, 2005. Although the charges did not indicate whether they applied to +multiple victims, during the hearing, Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek informed the court that +"[t]here's several" victims. When the court asked Belohlavek whether "the victims in both these +cases [were] în agreement with the terms of this plea," Belohlavek replied, "I have spoken to +several myself and T have spoken to counsel, through counsel as to the other victim, and i believe, +360 +Sloman forwarded the draft victim notification letter to Acosta, who responded with his own edited version +stating, *What do you think?" Villafaña edited it further. +According to Villafaña, either Acosta or Sloman made the decision to send the notifications following the +state plea and to share the draft notification letters with the defense. +234 + + +yes." The court also asked Belohlavek if the juvenile victim's parents or guardian agreed with the +plea, and Belohlavek stated that because the victim was no longer under age 18, Belohlavek spoke +with the victim's counsel, who agreed with the plea agreement. 363 +Both Villafaña and the FBI case agent were present in the courtroom gallery to observe the +plea hearing. Later that day, Villafaña met with Goldberger and gave him the list of 31 individuals +the government was prepared to name as victims and to whom the § 2255 provision applied. +In her 2015 CVRA case declaration, +stated that, "I did not have any reason to attend +that hearing because no one had told me that this guilty plea was related to the FBI's investigation +of Epstein's abuse of me." She stated that she "would have attended and tried to object to the +judge and prevent that plea from going forward," had she known that the state plea "had some +connection to blocking the prosecution of my case." Similarly, CVRA petitioner Jane Doe #2 +stated that "no one notified me that [Epstein's] plea had anything to do with my case against him." +An attorney who represented several victims, including one whom the state had +subpoenaed for the potential July trial, told OPR that he was present in court on June 30, 2008, in +order to serve a complaint upon Epstein in connection with a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of +one of his clients. The USAO had not informed him about the plea hearing. 364 Moreover, the +attorney informed OPR that, although one of the victims he represented had been interviewed in +the PBPD's investigation and had been deposed by Epstein's aftorneys in the state case (with the +Assistant State Attorney present), he did not recall teceiving any notice of the June 30, 2008 plea +hearing from the State Attorney's Office.365 +Similarly, another of the victims the state had +subpoenaed for the July trial told OPR through her attorney that she received subpoenas from the +State Attorney's Office, but she was not invited to or aware of the state plea hearing. Belohlavek +told OPR that she did not recall whether she contacted any of the girls to appear at the hearing, +and she noted that given the charge of solicitation of prostitution, they may not have "technically" +been victims for purposes of notice under Florida law but, rather, witnesses. On July 24, 2008, the +State Attorney's Office sent letters to two victims stating that the case was closed on June 26, 2008 +(although the plea occurred on June 30, 2008) and listed Epstein's sentence. The letters did not +mention the NPA or the federal investigation. +XII. SIGNIFICANT POST-PLEA DEVELOPMENTS +Immediately After Epstein's State Guilty Pleas, Villafaña Notifies Some +Victims' Attorneys +Villafaña's contemporaneous notes show that immediately after Epstein's June 30, 2008 +guilty pleas, she attempted to reach by telephone five attorneys representing various victims in +363 +Villafaña, who was present in court and heard Belohlavek's representation, told OPR that she had no +information as to whether or how the state had notified the victims about the plea hearing. +364 +Villafaña did contact this attorney's law partner later that day. +365 +When interviewed by OPR in 2020, this same attorney indicated that he was surprised to learn that despite +the fact that his client was a minor at the time Epstein victimized her, she was not the minor victim that the state +identified in the information charging Epstein. +235 + + +civil suits that were pending against Epstein.366 Villafaña also emailed one of the pro bono +attorneys she had engaged to help victims avoid defense harassment, informing him that the federal +investigation had been resolved through a state plea and that Epstein had an "agreement" with the +USAO "requir[ing] him to make certain concessions regarding possible civil suits brought by the +victims." Villafaña advised Goldberger: "The FBI has received several calls regarding the [NPA]. +I do not know whether the title of the document was disclosed when the [NPA] was filed under +seal, but the FBI and our Office are declining comment if asked." +B. July 7, 2008: The CVRA Litigation Is Initiated +On July 3, 2008, victims' attorney +spoke to Villafaña by telephone about the +resolution of the state case against Epstein "and the next stage of the federal prosecution."367 In +asserted that during this conversation, +Villafaña did not inform him of the NPA, but that during the call, he sensed that the USAO "was +beginning to negotiate with Epstein concerning the federally identified crimes? However, in an +email Villafaña sent after the call, she informed Sloman that during the call, +stated that +"his clients can name many more victims and wanted to know if we can get out of the deal." +Villafaña told Sloman that after she told +that the government was bound by the +agreement, assuming Epstein completed it, +asked that "if there is the slightest bit of +hesitation on Epstein's part of completing his performance, that he and his [three] clients be +allowed to consult with [the USAO] before making a decision. 368 +That same day, I +wrote a letter to Villafaña, complaining that Epstein's state court +sentence was "grossly inadequate for a predator of this magnitude" and urged Villafaña to "move +forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes +Mr. Epstein has committed." +On July 7, 2008, Edwards filed his emergency petition in the U.S. District Court for the +Southern District of Florida on behalf of +• who was then identified only as "Jane +Doe " and Wane Doe ined by a second pid ha, and they were read violated firedents ats +claimed that the government had violated his clients' rights +under the CVRA by negotiating to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein without consulting +with the victims. The petition requested that the court order the United States to comply with the +CVRA. The USAO opposed the petition, arguing that the CVRA did not apply because there were +366 +According to Villafaña's handwritten notes from June 30, 2008, Villafaña left a message for two of the +attorneys. +367 +In his 2017 affidavit filed in the CVRA casc, +June 30, 2008, but noted that it could possibly have occurred on July 3, 2008. +recalled that his telephone conversation occurred on +368 +Sloman responded, "Thanks." +Later attempts by two additional victims to join the ongoing CVRA litigation were denied by the court. +236 + + +no federal charges filed against Epstein as a result of the government's agreement in mid-2007 to +defer prosecution to the state. 370 +C. July 2008: Villafaña Prepares and Sends a Victim Notification Letter to Listed +Victims +On July 8, 2008, Villafaña provided Goldberger with an updated victim list for 18 U.S.C. +§ 2255 purposes, noting that she had inadvertently left off one individual in her June 30, 2008 +letter. Villafaña also informed the defense that, beginning the following day, she would distribute +notifications to each of the 32 victims and their counsel informing them that Epstein's attorney +would be the contact for any civil litigation, if the victim decided to pursue damages. Finally, the +letter informed the defense that the government would consider a denial by Epstein that any "one +of these victims is entitled to proceed under 18 U.S.C. § 2255" to be considered a breach of the +terms of the NPA. +After exchanging emails and letters with the defense concerning the content of the notice +letter, Villafaña drafted a letter she sent, on July 9 and 10, to nine vietims who had previously +retained counsel. The letter informed the victims and their counsel that, "[i]n light of" Epstein's +this state plea and sentence, subject to certain conditions." The letter included a reference to the +18 U.S.C. § 2255 provision of the NPA, and although the defense had never agreed to it, used +language from Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Epstein defense attorney +clarifying +the damages provision. The paragraph below was described as "[o]ne such condition to which +Epstein has agreed": +Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an +offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, +will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she +would have had, if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and +convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing +this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's +attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to +On July 10, 2008, Villafaña sent Goldberger a "Final Notification of Identified Victims," +highlighting the defendant's obligations under the NPA concerning victim lawsuits pursuant to +As described in Section XII.G of this Part, the matter continued in litigation for years and resulted in the +district court's February 21, 2019 opinion concluding that the government violated the victims' rights under the CVRA +by failing to consult with them before signing the NPA. +237 + + +18 U.S.C. § 2255 and again listing the 32 "individuals whom the United States was prepared to +name as victims of an enumerated offense."371 The same day, Villafaña sent Goldberger a second +letter, noting that the defense would receive copies of all victim notifications on a rolling basis. +Villafaña informed her managers that the FBI case agents would reach out by telephone to +the listed victims who were unrepresented, to inform them that the case was resolved and to +confirm their addresses for notification by mail. With regard to the content of the telephone calls, +Villafaña proposed the following language to the case agents: +We are calling to inform you about the resolution of the Epstein +investigation and to thank you for your help. +Mr. Epstein pled guilty to one child sex offense that will require him +to register as a sex offender for life and received a sentence of 18% +months imprisonment followed by one year of home confinement. +Mr. Epstein also made a concession regarding the payment of +restitution. +All of these terms are set out in a letter that AUSA Villafaña is going +to send out. Do you have a lawyer? Get name or address. If not»l +organizations are able to help you at no cost to you. (Provide names +and phone numbers) +Also ask about counseling and let them know that counseling is still +available even though the investigation is closed. +On July 21, 2008, Villafaña sent the letter to the 11 unrepresented victims whose addresses +the FBI had by that time confirmed. Villafaña provided Epstein's defense counsel with a copy of +the letter sent to each victim, directly or though counsel (with the mailing addresses redacted). +D. July - August 2008: The FBI Sends the Victim Notification Letter to Vietims +Residing Outside of the United States +While attempting to locate and contact the unrepresented victims, the FBI obtained contact +information for two victims residing outside of the United States. On July 23 and August 8, 2008, +respectively, the FBI Victim Specialist transmitted an automated VNS form notification letter to +each victim through the FBI representative at the U.S diplomatic mission for each country. This +A month later, in an August 18, 2008 letter to the USAO, the defense sought to limit the government's victim +list to those victims who were identified before the September 24, 2007 execution of the NPA. Villafaña also raised +with Acosta, Sloman, and other supervisors the question whether the USAO had developed sufficient evidence to +include new victims it had identified since creation of the July 2008 list and whether Jane Doe #2, who had previously +given a statement in support of Epstein, should be added back to the list. Ultimately, Villafaña sent the defense a +letter confirming that the government's July 10, 2008 victim list was "the final list." +238 + + +letter was substantially identical to the previous FBI victim notification letter the FBI had sent to +victims (in 2006, 2007, and 2008) in that it identified each recipient as "a possible victim of a +federal crime" and listed her eight CVRA rights. +The letter did not indicate that Epstein had pled guilty in state court on June 30, 2008, or +that the USAO had resolved its investigation by deferring federal prosecution in favor of the state +plea. Rather, like the previous FBI VNS-generated letter, the letter requested the victims' +"assistance and cooperation while we are investigating the case." +For each of the two victims residing outside of the United States, Villafaña also drafted a +notification letter concerning the June 30, 2008 plea and the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 process, which were +to be hand delivered along with the FBI's letters. However, FBI records do not reflect whether +the USAO's letter was delivered to the two victims. +E. August - September 2008: The Federal Court Orders the USAO to Diselose +the NPA to Victims, and the USAO Sends a Revised Victim Notification Letter +On August 1, 2008, the petitioners in the CVRA litigation filed a motion seeking access to +the NPA. The USAO opposed the motion by relying on the confidentiality portion of the NPA.372 +On August 21, 2008, the court ordered the government to provide the petitioners with a copy of +the NPA subject to a protective order. In addition, the court ordered the government to produce +the NPA to other identified victims upon request: +(d) If any individuals who have been identified by the USAO as +victims of Epstein and/or any attorney(s) for those individuals +request the opportunity to review the [NPA], then the USAO shall +produce the [NPA] to those individuals, so long as those individuals +also agree that they shall not disclose the [NPA] or its terms to any +third party absent further court order, following notice to and ar +opportunity for Epstein's counsel to be heard[.J373 +In September 2008, the USAO sent a revised notification letter to victims, and attorneys +for represented victims, concerning Epstein's state court guilty plea and his agreement to not +contest liability in victim civil suits brought under 18 U.S.C. § 2255.374 The September letter +apricad on alre seierenced tanged by pim into 18 UJ.S.C. $ iz that that foe greena had +proposed in Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Epstein attorney | +had not accepted. 3?5 As a result of the defense objection, Villafaña determined that she was +Pursuant to paragraph 13 of the NPA, Villafaña made Epstein's attorneys aware of the petitioners' request +for the NPA. +373 +Doe, Order to Compel Production and Protective Order at 1-2 (Aug. 21, 2008). +374 +The USAO also sent a notification letter to additional victims who had not received a notification letter in +July. +375 +This issue is discussed more fully in Chapter Two. +239 + + +obligated to amend her prior letter to victims to correct the reference to the December letter. 376 +Accordingly, the September letter contained no information about the parties' intent in +implementing 18 U.S.C. § 2255, but merely referred to the NPA language concerning Epstein's +waiver of his right to contest liability under the provision. In addition, the September letter +described the appointment of a special +. the special | +selection of an attorney to +represent the victims in their 18 U.S.C. § 2255 litigation against Epstein, and Epstein's agreement +to pay the attorney representative's fees arising out of such litigation. The letter also clarified that +Epstein's agreement to pay for attorneys' fees did not extend to contested litigation against him. +The government also intended for the letter to comply with the court's order concerning +providing victims with copies of the NPA. The initial draft included a paragraph advising the +victims that they could receive a copy of the NPA: +In addition, a judge has ordered that the United States make +available to any designated victim (and/or her attorney) a copy of +the actual agreement between Mr. Epstein and the United States, so +long as the victim (and/or her attorney) reviews, signs, and agrees to +be bound by a Protective Order entered by the Court. If [the victim] +would like to review the Agreement, please let me know, and I will +forward a copy of the Protective Order for her signature. +The government shared draft versions of the September letter with Epstein's counsel and +responded to criticism of the content of the proposed letter. For example, in response to the above +language regarding the August 21, +, 2008 court order in the CVRA litigation, the defense argued +that there was "no court order requiring the government to provide the alleged 'victims' with notice +that the [NPA] is available to them upon request and doing so is in conflict with the confidentiality +provisions of the [NPA]." In response, and in consultation with USAO management, Villafaña +revised the paragraph as follows: +In addition, there has been litigation between the United States and +two other victims regarding the disclosure of the entire agreement +between the United States and Mr. Epstein. [The attorney selected +by the special +I can provide further guidance on this issue, or +if you select another attorney to represent you, that attorney can +review the Court's order in the [CVRA litigation]. +On September 18, 2009, a state court judge unsealed the copy of the NPA that had been +filed in the state case. +376 +in the letter, Villafaña expressed frustration with defense counsels' claim relative to the December 19, 200 +etter that was included in the July 2008 notification letter, noting that the July 2008 letter had been approved b +defense counsel before being sent. +377 +See Susan Spencer-Wendel, "Epstein's Secret Pact With Fed Reveals 'Highly Unusual' Terms," Palm Beach +Post, Sept. 19, 2009. +240 + + +F. +2010 - 2011: +Interpretation of the CVRA +Department and Congressional Actions Regarding +In connection with the Department's 2010 effort to update its 2005 Guidelines, the Office +of the Deputy Attorney General convened a Victim of Crimes Working Group that asked OLC to +revisit its 2005 preliminary review concerning the definition of "crime victim" under the CVRA +and solicited input concerning the issue from Department components and federal law enforcement +agencies. In response, OLC issued a December 17, 2010 opinion entitled, The Availability of +Crime Victims' Rights Under the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004. Based on the CVRA's +language, relevant case law, and memoranda opinions from Department components, OLC +reaffirmed its 2005 conclusion that CVRA rights do not vest until a criminal charge has been filed +(by complaint, information, or indictment) and the rights cease to be available if all charges are +dismissed either voluntarily or on the merits (or if the [glovernment declines to bring formal +charges after the filing of a complaint). "378 +After OLC issued its opinion, the Department revised the 2005 Guidelines in October 2011 +but did not change its fundamental position that the CVRA rights did not vest until after criminal +charges were filed. The 2011 revision did, however, add language concerning victim consultation +before a defendant is charged: "In circumstances where plea negotiations occur before a case has +been brought, Department policy is that this should include reasonable consultation prior to the +filing of a charging instrument with the court."379 The use of the word "should" in the 2011 +Guidelines indicates that "personnel are expected to take the action ... unless there is an +appropriate, articulable reason not to do so."380 Nevertheless, the required consultation "may be +general in nature" and "does not have to be specific to a particular plea offer." The revisions +also specified that AUSAs were to ensure that vietims had a right to be reasonably heard at plea +proceedings.382 +On November 2, 2011, U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, a co-sponsor of the CVRA, sent a letter to +Attorney General Eric Holder, arguing that the 2011 Guidelines revisions "conflict[ed] quite +clearly with the CVRA's plain language" because the 2011 Guidelines did "not extend any rights +to victims until charges have been filed." The Department's response emphasized that the +378 +OLC "express[ed] no opinion" as to whether it is a matter of "good practice" to inform victims of their CVRA +rights prior to the filing of a complaint or after the dismissal of charges. +379 +See 2011 Guidelines, Art. V, 1 G.2, available at https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olp/docs/ +g guidelines2012. pdf. In its 2011 online training video regarding the Guidelines, the Department encouraged suc +onsultation, when reasonable, but it also continued to maintain that there was no CVRà right to confer for pro +indictment plea negotiations. +380 +See 2011 Guidelines, Art. I, 1 B.2. +381 +See 2011 Guidelines, Art. V, 1 G.2. +382 +The 2005 Guidelines contained no specific provision requiring AUSAs to ensure that victims were able to +exercise their right to be reasonably heard at plea proceedings, only at sentencing. See 2005 Guidelines, Art. IV, +9C.3.b.(2). However, the 2005 Guidelines generally require AUSAs to use their best efforts to comply with the +CVRA, and the CVRA specifically affords victims the right to be heard at plea proceedings. The 2011 revision +remedied this omission. +241 + + +Department had made its "best efforts in thousands of federal and District of Columbia cases to +assert, support, and defend crime victims' rights." The response also referenced OL's December +2010 opinion concluding that CVRA rights apply when criminal proceedings are initiated, noting +that "the new AG Guidelines go further and provide that Department prosecutors should make +reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of, and consider victims" views about, prospective +plea negotiations, even prior to the filing of a charging instrument with the court."383 +In 2015, Congress amended the CVRA, and added the following two rights: +(9) The right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain +or deferred prosecution agreement. +(10) The right to be informed of the rights under this section and the +services described in section 503(c) of the Victims' Rights and +Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 10607(c)) and provided contact +information for the Office of the Victims' Rights Ombudsman of the +Department of Justice. +G. The CVRA Litigation Proceedings and Current Status +While the CVRA litigation was pending in the Southern District of Florida, numerous +federal civil suits against Epstein, brought in the same district, were transferred to the same judge +as "related cases," as a matter of judicial economy pursuant to the Local Rules. As the parties +agreed on settlements in those civil cases, they were dismissed. 384 Several of the victims who had +settled their civil cases filed a pleading in the CVRA litigation asking the court to "maintain their +anonymity" and not "further disseminatel]" their identities to the CVRA petitioners." +In the CVRA case, the petitioners claimed that the government violated their CVRA rights +to confer by (1) negotiating and signing the NPA without victim input; (2) sending letters to the +victims claiming that the matter was "under investigation" after the NPA was already signed; and +(3) not properly informing the victims that the state plea would also resolve the federal +investigation. In addition, the petitioners alleged that the government violated their CVRA right +to be treated with fairness by concealing the NPA negotiation and also violated their CVRA right +to reasonable notice by concealing that the state court proceeding impacted the enforcement of the +NPA and resolved the federal investigation. +mie about the is beause tus are did no are prin age: 0 tie to mice or +383 +157 Cong. Rec. S7359-02 (2011) (Kyl letter and Department response). +384 +Epstein also resolved some county court civil cases during this time period as well. In addition, numerous +othes, ase it no id i ass i of the coul. Cation to edicap than hatre old only here are are +he resolved. +385 +Doe, Response to Court Order of July 6, 2015 and United States Notice of Partial Compliance at 1 (July 24, +2015). +242 + + +letters to victims sent after the NPA was signed were not misleading in stating that the matter was +"under investigation" because the government continued to investigate given its uncertainty that +Epstein would plead guilty; and (3) Villafaña contacted the petitioners' attorney prior to Epstein's +state plea to advise him of the hearing. Nonetheless, Villafaña told OPR that, while there were +valid reasons for the government's position that CVRA rights do not apply pre-charge, "[T]his is +a case where I felt we should have done more than what was legally required. I was obviously +prepared to spend as much time, energy and effort necessary to meet with each and every [victim]." +Over the course of the litigation, the district court made various rulings interpreting the +provisions of the CVRA, including the court's key conclusion that victim CVRA rights "attach +before the Government brings formal charges against a defendant." The court also held that +(1) "the CVRA authorizes the rescission or "reopening' of a prosecutorial agreement, including a +non-prosecution agreement, reached in violation of a prosecutor's conferral obligations under the +statute"; (2) the CVRA authorizes the setting aside of pre-charge prosecutorial agreements"; +(3) the CVRA's "reasonable right to confer" "extends to the pre-charge state of criminal +investigations and proceedings"; (4) the alleged federal sex crimes committed by Epstein render +the Doe petitioners "victims" under the CVRA; and (5) "questions pertaining to [the] equitable +defense[s] are properly left for resolution after development of a full evidentiary record." +On February 21, 2019, the district court granted the petitioners' Motion for Partial +Summary Judgment, ruling that "once the Government failed to advise the victims about its +intention to enter into the NPA, a violation of the CVRA occurred." The government did not +dispute the fact that it did not confer with the petitioners prior to signing the NPA, and the court +concluded that "[a]t a bare minimum, the CVRA required the Government to inform Petitioners +that it intended to enter into an agreement not to prosecute Epstein." The court found that the post- +NPA letters the government sent to victims describing the investigation as ongoing "misled the +victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility" and that "fi]t was a material +omission for the Government to suggest to the victims that they have patience relative to an +investigation about which it had already bound itself not to prosecute."380 +The court relied on Dean and BP Products to support its holding and noted that the +government's action with respect to the NPA was especially troubling because, unlike a plea +agreement for which the victims could voice objection at a sentencing hearing, "[o]nce an NPA is +entered into without notice, the matter is closed and the victims have no opportunity to be heard +regarding any aspect of the case." The court also highlighted the inequity of the USAO's failure +to communicate with the victims while it simultaneously engaged in "lengthy negotiations" with +Epstein's counsel and assured the defense that the NPA would not be "made public or filed with +the Court." +Although the USAO defended its actions by citing the 2005 Guidelines for the +Department's position that CVRA rights do not attach until after a defendant is charged, the court +was "not persuaded that the [G]uidelines were the basis for the Government's decision to withhold +information about the NPA from the victims." The court found that the government's reliance on +The court did not resolve the factual question as to whether the victims were given adequate notice of +Epstein's state court plea hearing. +243 + + +the 2005 Guidelines was inconsistent with positions the USAO had taken in correspondence with +Epstein's attorneys, in which the government acknowledged that "it had obligations to notify the +victims." The court ordered the parties to submit additional briefs regarding the appropriate +remedies. Accordingly, the petitioners requested multiple specific remedies, including rescission +of the NPA; a written apology to all victims from the government; a meeting with Acosta, +Villafaña, and her supervisors; access to government records, including grand jury materials; +training for USAO employees; and monetary sanctions and attorneys' fees. 387 +Following Epstein's indictment on federal charges in New York and subsequent death +while in custody, on September 16, 2019, the district judge presiding over the CVRA case denied +the petitioners' motion for remedies and closed the case, stating that Epstein's death "rendered the +most significant issue that was pending before the Court, namely, whether the Government's +violation of Petitioners' rights under the CVRA invalidated the NPA, moot."383 The court did not +order the government to take corrective measures, but stated that it "fully expects the Government +will honor its representation that it will provide training to its employees about the CVRA and the +proper treatment of crime victims."389 The court also denied the petitioners" request for attorneys' +fees, finding that the government did not act in bad faith, because, "[a]lthough unsuccessful on the +merits of the issue of whether there was a violation of the CVRA, the Government asserted +legitimate and legally supportable positions throughout this litigation." +On September 30, 2019, +appealed the district court's rejection of the requested +remedies, through a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the +Eleventh Circuit.390 In its responsive brief, the government expressed sympathy for +"regret|] [for] the manner in which it communicated with her in the past."39) Nevertheless, the +government argued that, as a matter of law, the legal obligations under the CVRA do not attach +no orio the chargement charging a case The ious, the Reach or veered in sit ease +the New York prosecution in which Epstein had been indicted, "[p]etitioner and other Epstein +387 +Doe, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Submission on Proposed Remedies (May 23, 2019). +388 +Doe, Opinion and Order (Sept. 16, 2019). Among other things, the court rejected the petitioners" contention +that it did not address whether the government had violated the victims" CVRA right to be treated with fairness and +o receive fair notice of the proceedings, noting that "It]hese rights all flow from the right to confer and wer +compassed in the Court's ruling finding a violation of the CVRA. +The Departmont's Office of Legal Programs provided a training entitled Crime Victims' Rights in the Federal +System to the USAO on January 10, 2020. +390 +See Iw re +No. 19-13843, Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act, +18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) (Sept. 30, 2019). +391 +_ Brief of the United States of America in Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Under the Crime +Victims Rights Act at 14 (Oct. 31, 2019). As previously noted, at this point, the litigation was being handled by the +U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia. +244 + + +victims deserve to be treated with fairness and respect, and to be conferred with on the criminal +case, not just because the CVRA requires it, but because it's the right thing to do." During oral +argument on January 16, 2020, the government apologized for the USAO's treatment of +The issue is whether or not the office was fully transparent with +about what it is that was going on with respect to the NPA, +and they made a mistake in causing her to believe that the case was +ongoing when in fact the NPA had been signed. The government +should have communicated in a straightforward and transparent way +with +, and for that, we are genuinely sorry. 393 +On April 14, 2020, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied +petition for a writ of mandamus, concluding that "the CVRA does not apply before the +commencement of criminal proceedings—and thus, on the facts of this case, does not provide the +petitioner here with any judicially enforceable rights. *94 The court conducted a thorough analysis +of the language of the statute, the legislative history, and previous court decisions. The court +distinguished In re +as "dictum" consisting of a "three-sentence discussion ... devoid of any +analysis of the CVRA's text, history, or structural underpinnings." The court noted that its +interpretation of the CVRA was consistent with the Department's 2010 OLC opinion concerning +victim standing under the CVRA and the Department's efforts in "implementing regulations." +Finally, the court raised separation of powers concerns with Wild's (and the dissenting judge's) +interpretation of vietim standing under the CVRA, noting that such an interpretation would +interfere with prosecutorial discretion. +Nevertheless, the court was highly critical of the government's conduct in the underlying +case, stating that the government "[s]eemingly . . defer[red] to Epstein's lawyers" regarding +information it provided victims about the NPA and that its "efforts seem to have graduated from +passive nondisclosure to (or at least close to) active misrepresentation." The court concluded that +although it "seems obvious" that the government "should have consulted with petitioner (and other +victims) before negotiating and executing Epstein's NPA," the court could not conclude that the +government was obligated to do so. In addition, the dissenting judge filed a lengthy and strongly +worded opinion asserting that the majority's statutory interpretation was "contorted" because the +"plain and unambiguous text of the CVRA does not include [a] post-indictment temporal +restriction." +On May 5, 2020, +filed a petition for rehearing en banc. On August 7, 2020, the court +frapor the poling s fortil has been sued and ariad umeans se pries or 3, 2020 of this. +393 +394 +Audio recording of Oral Argument, +• No. 19-13843 (Jan. 16, 2020). +In re +955 F.3d 1196, 1220 (11th Cir. 2020). +245 + + +246 + + +PART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS +STATUTORY PROVISIONS +Pertinent sections of the CVRA and the VRRA, applicable during the relevant time period, +are set forth below. +A. The CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 +(a) Rights of Crime Victims. —A crime victim has the following rights: +(1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. +(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any +parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. +(3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after +receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be +materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding. +(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving +release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding +(5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case. +(6) The right to full and timely restitution as proyided in law. +(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. +(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. +(C) Best Efforts To Accord Rights, +(1) Government.—Officers and employees of the Department of Justice ... shall make their +best efforts to sce that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in +subsection (a). +.... +(e) Definitions. +..•• +(2) Crime victim.— +(A) In general. — The term "crime victim" means a person directly and proximately +harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of +Columbia. +247 + + +B. The Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (VRRA), 34 U.S.C. § 20141, +Services to Victims (formerly cited as 42 USCA § 10607) +(b) Identification of victims +At the earliest opportunity after the detection of a crime at which it may be done without +interfering with an investigation, a responsible official shall— +(1) identify the victim or victims of a crime; +(2) inform the victims of their right to receive, on request, the services described in subsection +(c); and +(3) inform each victim of the name, title, and business address and telephone number of the +responsible official to whom the victim should address a request for each of the services +described in subsection (c). +(c) Description of services +(1) A responsible official shall— +(A) inform a victim of the place where the victim may receive emergency medical and +social services; +(B) inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled +under this or any other law and manner in which such relief may be obtained; +(C) inform a victim of public and private programs that are available to provide counseling, +treatment, and other support to the victim; and +(D) assist a victim in contacting the persons who are responsible for providing the services +and relief described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C). +(2) A responsible official shall arrange for a victim to receive reasonable protection from a +suspected offender and persons acting in concert with or at the behest of the suspected offender. +(3) During the investigation and prosecution of a crime, a responsible official shall provide a +victim the earliest possible notice of— +(A) the status of the investigation of the crime, to the extent it is appropriate to inform the +victim and to the extent that it will not interfere with the investigation; +(B) the arrest of a suspected offender; +(C) the filing of charges against a suspected offender; +(D) the scheduling of each court proceeding that the witness is either required to attend or, +under section 10606(b)(4) of Title 42, is entitled to attend; +(E) the release or detention status of an offender or suspected offender; +(F) the acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or the rendering of a verdict after +trial; and +(G) the sentence imposed on an offender, including the date on which the offender will be +eligible for parole. +248 + + +(4) During court proceedings, a responsible official shall ensure that a victim is provided a +waiting area removed from and out of the sight and hearing of the defendant and defense +witnesses. +...• +(e) Definitions +... • +II. +(2) the term "victim" means a person that has suffered direct physical, emotional, or pecuniary +harm as a result of the commission of a crime .... +DEPARTMENT POLICY: THE 2005 ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR +VICTIM AND WITNESS ASSISTANCE (2005 GUIDELINES) +In 2005, the Department revised its guidelines for victim and witness assistance in order to +incorporate the provisions of the CVRA. The purpose of the 2005 Guidelines was "to establish +guidelines to be followed by officers and employees of Department of Justice investigative +prosecutorial, and correctional components in the treatment of victims of and witnesses to crime. +The relevant portions of the 2005 Guidelines are as follows: +Article IV: Services to Victims and Witnesses^ +A. Investigation Stage +The investigative agency's responsibilities begin with the report of the crime and extend +through the prosecution of the dase. In some instances, when explicitly stated, the +investigative agency's fesponsibility for a certain task is transferred to the prosecuting +agency when charges are filed. +2. Identification of Victims. At the earliest opportunity after the detection of a crime at +which it may be done without interfering with an investigation, the responsible official of +the investigative agency shall identify the victims of the crime. +3. Description of Services. +a. Information, Notice, and Referral +(1) Initial Information and Notice. Responsible officials must advise a victim +249 + + +service providers, and lists the names and telephone numbers of the victim-witness +coordinator or specialist and other key officials. A victim must be informed of— +(a) His or her rights as enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). +(b) His or her right entitlement, on request, to the services listed in 42 U.S.C. +§ 10607(c). +(c) The name, title, business address, and telephone number of the responsible +official to whom such a request for services should be addressed. +(d) The place where the victim may receive emergency medical or social +services. +(e) The availability of any restitution or other relief (including crime victim +compensation programs) to which the victim may be entitled under this or any +other applicable law and the manner in which such relief may be obtained. +(f) Public and private programs that are available to provide counseling, +treatment, and other support to the victim. +* • * • +(i) The availability of services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, +or stalking. +(i) The option of being included in VNS. +(k) Available protections from intimidation and harassment. +3) Notice during the investigation. During the investigation of a crime, i +esponsible official shall provide the victim with the earliest possible notice +concerning +a) The status of the investigation of the crime, to the extent that it is +appropriate and will not interfere with the investigation +(b) The arrest of a suspected offender. +B. Prosecution Stage +The prosecution stage begins when charges are filed and continues through postsentencing +legal proceedings, including appeals and collateral attacks. +250 + + +1. Responsible Officials. For cases in which charges have been instituted, the responsible +official is the U.S. Attorney in whose district the prosecution is pending. +2. Services to Crime Victims +•••• +b. Information, Notice, and Referrals +(1) Notice of Rights. Officers and employees of the Department of Justice shall +make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of the rights enumerated +in 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). +(2) Notice of Right To Seek Counsel. The prosecutor shall advise the crime victim +that the crime victim can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights +described in 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). +(3) Notice of Right To Attend Trial. The responsible official should inform the +crime victim about the victim's right to attend the tfial regardless of whether the +victim intends to make a statement or present any information about the effect of +the crime on the victim during sentencing. +(4) Notice of Case Events. During the prosecution of a crime, a responsible official +shall provide the victim, using VNS (where appropriate), with reasonable notice +of— +(a) The filing of charges against a suspected offender. +(b) The release of escape of an offender or suspected offender. +(c) The schedule of court proceedings. +telephone or expedited means. This notification requirement relates to +postsentencing proceedings as well. +(11) +The responsible official shall also give reasonable notice of the +scheduling or rescheduling of any other court proceeding that the victim or +witness is required or entitled to attend +(d) The acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or the rendering of +a verdict after trial. +251 + + +(e) If the offender is convicted, the sentence and conditions of supervised +release, if any, that are imposed. +-••• +(6) Referrals. Once charges are filed, the responsible official shall assist the victim +in contacting the persons or offices responsible for providing the services and relief +[previously identified]. +c. Consultation With a Government Attorney +(1) In General. A victim has the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the +Government in the case. The victim's right to confer, however, shall not be +construed to impair prosecutorial discretion. Federal prosecutors should be +available to consult with victims about major case decisions, such as dismissals, +release of the accused pending judicial proceedings (when such release is for +noninvestigative purposes), plea negotiations, and pretrial diversion. Because +victims are not clients, may become adverse to the Government, and may disclose +whatever they have learned from consulting with prosecutors, such consultations +may be limited to gathering information from victims and conveying only +nonsensitive data and public information. Consultations should comply with the +prosecutor's obligations under applicable rules of professional conduct. +Representatives of the Department should take care to inform victims that neither +the Department's advocacy for victims nor any other effort that the Department +may make on their behalf constitutes or creates an attorney-client relationship +between such victims and the lawyers for the Government. +Department personnel should not provide legal advice to victims. +(2) Prosecutor Availability. Prosecutors should be reasonably available to consult +with victims regarding significant adversities they may suffer as a result of delays +in the prosecution of the case and should, at the appropriate time, inform the court +of the réasonable concerns that have been conveyed to the prosecutor. +(3) Proposed Plea Agreements. Responsible officials should make reasonable +efforts to notify identified victims of, and consider victims' views about, +prospel she l condia factor levam to the wisdem and pace chity of gilg +notice and considering views in the context of the particular case, including, but not +limited to, the following factors: +(a) The impact on public safety and risks to personal safety. +(b) The number of victims. +(c) Whether time is of the essence in negotiating or entering a proposed plea. +252 + + +(d) Whether the proposed plea involves confidential information or conditions. +(e) Whether there is another need for confidentiality. +(f) Whether the victim is a possible witness in the case and the effect that +relaying any information may have on the defendant's right to a fair trial. +III. FLORIDA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT +A. FRPC 4-4.1 - Candor in Dealing with Others +FRC 4-4.1 prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact +or law to a third person during the course of representation of a client. A comment to this rule +explains that "[m]isrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or +omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements," and "[w]hether a particular +statement should be regarded as one of fact can depend on the circumstances." +B. +FRPC 4-8.4 - Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice +FRPC 4-8.4(c) states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, +deceit, or misrepresentation. +FRPC 4-8.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct in connection with the practice +of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. +As previously noted, courts have determined that FRPC 4-8.4(d) is not limited to conduct +that occurs in a judicial proceeding, but can be applied to "conduct in connection with the practice +of law." Frederick, 756 So. 2d at 87; see also Shankman, 41 So. 3d at 172. +253 + + +[Page Left Intentionally Blank] +254 + + +PART THREE: ANALYSIS +OVERVIEW +In addition to criticism of Acosta's decision to end the federal investigation by means of +the NPA, public and media attention also focused on the government's treatment of victims. In +the CVRA litigation and in more recent media reports, victims complained that they were not +informed about the government's intention to end its investigation of Epstein because the +government did not consult with victims before the NPA was signed; did not inform them of +Epstein's state plea hearing and sentencing, thereby denying them the opportunity to attend; and +actively misled them through statements that the federal investigation was ongoing. The district +court overseeing the CVRA litigation concluded that the government violated the Crime Victims' +Rights Act and "mis|[ed] the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility" and +that "[ilt was a material omission for the Government to suggest to the victims that they have +patience relative to an investigation about which it had already bound itself not to prosecute. *395 +The government's conduct, which involved both FBI and USAO actions, led to allegations that +the prosecutors had purposefully failed to inform victims of the NPA to prevent victims from +complaining publicly or in state court. +OPR examined the government's course of conduct when interacting with the victims, +including the lack of consultation with the victims before the NPA was signed; Acosta's decision +to defer to state authorities the decision to notify victims of Epstein's state plea; and the decision +to delay informing victims about the NPA until after Epstein entered his plea on June 30, 2008. +OPR considered whether letters sent to vietims by the FBI after the NPA was signed contained +false or misleading statements. OPR also evaluated representations Villafaña made to victims in +January and February 2008, and to an attorney for a victim in June 2008. +Il. +THE SUBJECTS DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS +STANDARD BY ENTERING INTO THE NPA WITHOUT CONSULTING THE +VICTIMS +its intention to enter into the NPA, a violation of the CVRA occurred." OPR considered this +Doe v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1219, 1221 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2019). +255 + + +As discussed below, OPR concludes that none of the subject attorneys violated a clear and +unambiguous duty under the CVRA because the USAO resolved the Epstein investigation without +a federal criminal charge. In September 2007, when the NPA was signed, the Department did not +interpret CVRA rights to attach unless and until federal charges had been filed, and the federal +courts had not established a clear and unambiguous standard applying the CVRA before criminal +charges were brought. Pursuant to OPR's established analytical framework, OPR does not find +professional misconduct unless a subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and +unambiguous standard. Accordingly, OPR finds that the subject attorneys' conduct did not rise to +the level of professional misconduct. OPR nevertheless concludes that the lack of consultation +was part of a series of government interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court +condemnation of the government's treatment of the victims, reflected poorly on the Department as +a whole, and is contradictory to the Department's mission to "minimize the frustration and +confusion that victims of a crime endure in its wake."396 +A. At the Time, No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Required the USAO to +Notify Vietims Regarding Case-Related Events until after the Filing of +Criminal Charges +Although the rights enumerated in the CVRA are clear on their face, the threshold issue of +whether an individual qualifies as a victim to whom CVRA rights attach was neither clear nor +unambiguous at the time the USAO entered into the NPA with Epstein in September 2007. At that +time, the Department interpreted the CVRA in a way that differed markedly from the district +court's later interpretation in the CVRA litigation. +The CVRA defines a "crime victim" +"a person directly and proximately harmed as a +result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia." On April +1, 2005, soon after the CVRA was enacted, OLC concluded that "the status of a 'crime victim' +may be reasonably understood to commence upon the filing of a criminal complaint, and that the +status ends if there is a subsequent decision not to indict or prosecute the Federal offense that +directly caused the victim's harm." Beginning with the 2005 OLC guidance, the Department has +consistently taken the position that CVRA rights do not apply until the initiation of criminal +charges against a defendant, whether by complaint, indictment, or information. OLC applied its +definition to all eight CVRA rights in effect in 2005, but noted that the obligation created by the +eighth CVRA right-to "treat[] victims with fairness and respect"—is "always expected of Federal +fficials, and the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 [(VRRA)] indicates that this righ +pplies "throughout the criminal justice process. ''397 Consistent with the OLC interpretation, i +May 2005, the Department issued the 2005 Guidelines to implement the CVRA. +The 2005 Guidelines assigned CVRA-related obligations to prosecutors only after the +initiation of federal charges. Specifically, the 2005 Guidelines stated that during the "prosecution +stage," the "responsible official" should make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of, +396 +2005 Guidelines, Foreword. +397 +Nevertheless, the portion of the VRRA referenced in the OLC 2005 Informal Guidance, 42 U.S.C. § 10606, +had been repealed upon passage of the CVRA. +256 + + +and consider victims' views about, prospective plea negotiations.398 The "prosecution stage" +began when charges were filed and continued through all post-sentencing legal proceedings. 399 +At the time the parties signed the NPA in September 2007, few courts had addressed victim +standing under the CVRA. Notably, district courts in New York and South Carolina had ruled that +standing attached only upon the filing of federal charges. 4o0 Two cases relied upon by the court +in its February 2019 opinion- +_and its underlying district court opinion, BP Products-were +decided after the NPA was signed. +The CVRA litigation and proposed federal legislation—both pending as of the date of this +Report—show that the interpretation of victim standing under the CVRA continues to be a matter +of debate. 401 In a November 21, 2019 letter to Attorney General William Barr, a Congressional +Representative stated that she had recently introduced legislation specifically to "[c]larify that +victims of federal crimes have the right to confer with the Government and be informed about key +pre-charging developments in a case, such as ... non-prosecution agreements."402 The CVRA +litigation arising from the Epstein case shows the lack of clarity regarding when CVRA rights +apply: the district court concluded that CVRA rights applied pre-charge, but a sharply divided +panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals came to a contrary conclusion, a decision that has +now been vacated while the entire court hears the case en banc. +Because the Supreme Court had not addressed the issue of when CVRA rights apply, the +lower courts had reached divergent conclusions, and the Department had concluded that CVRA +rights did not apply pre-charge, OPR concludes that the subjects' failure to consult with victims +before signing the NA did not constitute professional misconduct because at that time, the CVRA +did not clearly and unambiguously require prosecutors to consult with victims before the filing of +Tederal criminal charges. 403 +2005 Guidelines, Art. IV, / B.2.c.(3). +Under the 2005 Guidelines, the term "should" means that *the +employee is expected to take the action or provide the service described unless there is an appropriate, articulable +reason not to do so." Id., Art. II, 1C. +399 +Id., Art. IV, 1 B.I. +400 +Searcy v. Paletz, 2007 WL 1875802, at *5 (D.S.C. June 27, 2007) (an inmate is not considered a crime victim +for purposes of the CVRA until the government has filed criminal charges); United States v. Turner, 367 F. Supp. 2d +319, 326-27 (E.D.N.Y, 2005) (victims are not entitled to CVRA rights until the government has filed charges, but +courts have discretion to take a more inclusive approach); and United States v. Guevara-Toloso, 2005 WL 1210982, +at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 23, 2005) (order sua sponte) (in case involving a federal charge of illegal entry after a felony +conviction, the court determined that victims of the predicate state conviction were not victims under the CVRA). +401 +See +, 955 F.3d at 1220; +[Crime Victims' Rights Reform Act of 2019, H.R. 4729, 116th +Cong. (2019). +402 +165 Cong. Rec. E1495-01 (2019). +403 +Violations of an unambiguous obligation concerning victims' rights could result in a violation of the rules of +professional responsibility. For example, in Attorney Griev. Comm'n of Md. v. L +109 A.3d 1184 (Md. 2015), the +Court of Appeals of Maryland concluded that a prosecutor's failure to provide any notice to the minor victim's +family about the resolution of a sex abuse case during the ten months the prosocutor was responsible for the matter +was a "consistent failure" amounting to "gross negligence in the discharge of the prosecutorial function" that deprived +the victim of his rights under the Maryland Constitution. The court found violations of Maryland Rules of Professional +257 + + +In +the Eleventh Circuit panel compared the language of the CVRA to the language +of the VRRA, noting that the VRRA "clearly extends victim-notice rights into the pre-charge +phase" and opining that the government "may well have violated" the VRRA with regards to its +investigation of Epstein. As a predecessor to the CVRA, the VRRA afforded victims various rights +and services; however, it provided no mechanism for a victim to assert such rights in federal court +or by administrative complaint. Like the CVRA, the rights portion of the VRRA established the +it portion of the RA was repeated up pain or to +CVRA and was not in effect at the time of the Epstein investigation. +The portion of the VRRA directing federal law enforcement agencies to provide certain +victim services such as counseling and medical care referrals remained in effect following passage +of the CVRA. Furthermore, two of the VRRA requirements—one requiring a responsible official +to "inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled," and +another requiring that a responsible official "shall provide a victim the earliest possible notice of +the status of the investigation of the crime, to the extent it is appropriate to inform the victim and +to the extent that it will not interfere with the investigation"— may have applied to the Epstein +investigation. However, the VRRA did not create a clear and unambiguous obligation on the part +of the subject attorneys, as the 2005 Guidelines assigned the duty of enforcing the two +requirements to the investigative agency rather than to prosecutors. Moreover, the VRRA did not +require notice to victims before the NPA was signed because, at that point, the case remained +"under investigation," and the victims did not become entitled to pursue monetary damages under +the NPA until Epstein entered his guilty pleas in June 2008. Once Epstein did so, and the victims +identified by the USAO became entitled to pursue the § 2255 remedy, the USAO furnished the +victims with appropriate notification. +OPR Did Not Find Evidence Establishing That the Lack of Consultation Was +Intended to Silenee Victims +During her OPR interviews, Villafaña recalled more than one discussion in which she +raised with her supervisors the issue of consulting with the victims before the NPA was signed on +September 24, 2007. Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie, however, had no recollection of' +discussions about consulting victims before the NPA was signed, and Menchel disputed +Villafaña's assertions. OPR found only one written reference before that date, explicitly raising +the issue of consultatión. Given the absence of contemporaneous records, OPR was unable to +conclusively determine whether the lack of consultation stemmed from an affirmative decision +made by one or more of the subjects or whether the subjects discussed consulting the victims about +the NPA before it was signed. Villafaña's recollection suggests that Acosta, Menchel, and Sloman +may have been concerned with maintaining the confidentiality of plea negotiations and did not +believe that the government was obligated to consult with victims about such negotiations. OPR +Conduct 1.3, lack of diligence, and 8.4(d), conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The holding in _ +was based on Article 47 of the Maryland Constitution and various specific statutes affording victims the right, among +others, to receive various notices and an opportunity to be heard concerning "a case originating by indictment or +information filed in a circuit court." However, both the underving statutory provisions and, significantly, the facts +are substantially different from the Epstein investigation. In +the criminal defendant had been arrested and +charged before entering a plea. +258 + + +did not find evidence showing that the subjects intended to silence victims or to prevent them from +having input into the USAO's intent to resolve the federal investigation. +Although the contemporaneous records provide some information about victim notification +decisions made after the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, the records contain little about +the subjects' views regarding consultation with victims before the NPA was signed. In a +September 6, 2007 email primarily addressing other topics, as the plea negotiations were beginning +in earnest and almost three weeks before the NPA was signed, Villafaña raised the topic of victim +consultation with Sloman: "The agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their +approval, which as [CEOS Chief Oosterbaan] politely reminded me, is required under the law. ... +[A]nd the [PBPD] Chief wanted to know if the victims had been consulted about the deal."404 +Sloman forwarded the email to Acosta with a note stating, "fyi." Villafaña recalled that after she +sent the email, Sloman told her by telephone, "[Y]ou can't do that now."405 Villafaña also told +OPR that shortly before the NPA was signed, Sloman told her, "[W]e've been advised that ... precharge resolutions do not require victim notification." Villafaña also recalled a discussion with +Acosta, Menchel, and Sloman, during which she stated that she would need to get victims' input +on the terms being proposed to the defense, and she was told, "Plea negotiations are confidential. +You can't disclose them."40g +None of the other subjects recalled a specific discussion before the NPA was signed about +the USAO's CVRA obligations. Menchel told OPR he believed the USAO was not required to +consult with victims during the preliminary "general discussion" phase of settlement negotiations; +moreover, he left the USAO before the terms of the NPA were fully developed. +Sloman told OPR that he "did not think that we had to consult with victims prior to entering +into the NPA" and "we did not have to seek approval from victims to resolve a case." Sloman +believed the USAO was obligated only to notify victims about resolution of "the cases that we +handled, filed cases." Sloman recalled that because the USAO envisioned a state court resolution +of the matter, he did not "think that that was a concern of ours at the time to consult with [the +victims] prior to entering into ... the NPA." +Lourie told OPR that he did not recall any discussions about informing the victims about +the terms of the NPA or any instructions to Villafaña that she not discuss the NPA with the victims. +He stated that everything the USAO did was "to try and get the best result as possible for the +victims.... [O]nce you step back and look at the whole forest..., you will see that.... If you +look at each tree and say, well, you didn't do this right for the victim, you didn't tell the victim +this and that, you're missing the big picture." +As noted, the Department's position at the time was that the CVRA did not require consultation with victims +because no criminal charges had been filed. In addition, Villafaña's reference to victim "approval" was inaccurate +because the CVRA, even when applicable, requires only "consultation" with victims about prosecutorial decisions. +405 +Villafaña did not recall Sloman explaining the reason for the decision. +406 +Villafaña also told OPR that she recalled Menchel raising a concern that "telling them about the negotiations +could cause victims to exaggerate their stories because of their desire to obtain damages from Epstein." Villafaña was +uncertain of the date of the conversation, but Menchel's presence requires it to have occurred before August 3, 2007. +259 + + +Acosta told OPR that there was no requirement to notify the victims because the NPA was +"not a plea, it's deferring in favor of a state prosecution." Acosta said, "[W]hether or not victims' +views were elicited is something I think was the focus of the trial team and not something that I +was focused on at least at this time." Acosta could not recall any particular concern that factored +into the decision not to consult with the victims before entering into the NPA, but he acknowledged +to OPR, "[C]learly, given the way it's played out, it may have been much better if we had +[consulted with the victims]. "407 +As indicated, the contemporaneous records reflect little about decisions made regarding +victim consultation prior to when the NPA was signed. Villafaña raised the issue in writing to her +supervisors in early September, but there is no evidence showing whether her supervisors +affirmatively rejected Villafaña's contention that the USAO was obligated to consult with victims, +ignored the suggestion, or failed to address it for other reasons, possibly because of the extended +uncertainty as to whether Epstein would ever agree to the government's plea proposal. OPR notes +that its subject interviews were conducted more than a decade after the NPA was signed, and the +passage of time affected the recall of each individual OPR interviewed. Although Villafaña +recalled discussions with her supervisors about notifying victims, her supervisors did not, and +Menchel contended that Villafaña's recollection is inaccurate. Assuming the discussions occurred, +the timing is unclear. Sloman was on vacation before the NPA was signed, so a call with Villafaña +about victim notification at that point in time appears unlikely. Any discussion involving Menchel +necessarily occurred before August 3, 2007, when it was unclear whether the defense would agree +to the government's offer. Supervisors could well have decided that at such an early stage, there +was little to discuss with victims. +To the extent that Villafaña's supervisors affirmatively made a decision not to consult +victims, Villafaña's recollection suggests that the decision arose from supervisors' concerns about +the confidentiality of plea negotiations and a belief that the government was not obligated to +consult with victims about a pre-charge disposition. That belief accurately reflected the +Department's position at the time about application of the CVRA. Importantly, OPR did not find +evidence establishing that the lack of consultation was for the purpose of silencing victims, and +Villafaña told OPR that she did not hear any supervisor express concerns about victims objecting +to the agreement if they learned of it. Because the subjects did not violate any clear and +unambiguous standard in the CVRA by failing to consult with the victims about the NPA, OPR +concludes that they did not engage in professional misconduct. +However, OPR includes the lack of consultation in its criticism of a series of government +interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of the government's +treatment of the victims. Although the government was not obligated to consult with victims, a +more straightforward and open approach would have been consistent with the government's goal +to treat victims of crime with fairness and respect. This was particularly important in a case in +which victims felt excluded and mistreated by the state process. Furthermore, in this case, +consulting with the victims about a potential plea would have given the USAO greater insight into +the victims' willingness to support a prosecution of Epstein. The consultation provision does not +407 +Villafaña told OPR that she was not aware of any "improper pressure or promise made to [Acosta] in order +to ... instruct [her] not to make disclosures to the victim[s]." +260 + + +require victim approval of the prosecutors' plans, but it allows victims the opportunity to express +their views and to be heard before a final decision is made. The lack of consultation in this case +denied the victims that opportunity. 408 +III. LETTERS SENT TO VICTIMS BY THE FBI WERE NOT FALSE STATEMENTS +BUT RISKED MISLEADING VICTIMS ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE +FEDERAL INVESTIGATION +After the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, Villataña and the FBI separately +communicated with numerous victims and victims' attorneys, both in person and through letters. +Apart from three victims who likely were informed in October or November 2007 about a +resolution ending the federal investigation, victims were not informed about the NPA or even more +generally that the USAO had agreed to end its federal criminal investigation of Epstein if he pled +guilty to state charges until after Epstein entered his guilty plea in June 2008. Despite the +government's agreement on September 24, 2007, to end its federal investigation upon Epstein's +compliance with the terms of the NPA, the FBI sent to victims in October 2007, January 2008, and +May 2008, letters stating that the case was "currently under investigation." In its February 21, +2019 opinion in the CVRA case, the district court found those letters "mis|[ed] the victims to +believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility" and that "[ilt was a material omission for +the Government to suggest to the victims that they have patience relative to an investigation about +which it had already bound itself not to prosecute."409 +In the discussions throughout this section, OPR examines the government's course of +conduct with victims after the NPA was signed, As set forth in the previous subsection, OPR did +not find evidence supporting a finding that Acosta, Sloman, or Villafaña acted with the intent to +silence victims. Nonetheless, after examining the full scope and context of the government's +interactions with victims, OPR concludes that the government's inconsistent messages concerning +the federal investigation led to victims feeling confused and ill-treated by the government. +In this section, OPR examines and discusses letters sent to victims by the FBI that were the +subject of the district court's findings. OPR found no evidence that Acosta, Sloman, or Villafaña +was aware of the content of the letters until the USAO received them from the FBI for production +for the CVRA litigation. OPR determined that the January 10, 2008 and May 30, 2008 letters that +the district court determined to be misleading, as well as the October 12, 2007 letter OPR located +during its investigation, were "standard form letter[s]" sent by the FBI's Victim Specialist. As +noted previously in this Report, after the NPA was signed, Villafaña and the FBI agents continued +to conduct their investigation in anticipation that Epstein would breach the NPA; absent such a +408 +Villafaña told OPR that she recalled speaking to several victims along with FBI agents before the NPA was +signed and "ask[ing] them how they wanted the case to be resolved." FBI interview reports indicate that Villafaña +was present with FBI agents for some of the interviews occurring well in advance of the NPA negotiations. See 2005 +Guidelines, Art. IV, 1 B.2.c (1) (consultations may be limited to gathering information from victims and conveying +only nonsensitive data and public information). However, Villafaña did not meet with all of the victims identified in +the federal investigation, including the CVRA litigation petitioners, and the government conceded during the CVRA +litigation that it entered into the NPA without conferring with the petitioners. Doe, 359 F. Supp. 3d at 1218. +409 +Doe, 359 F. Supp. 3d at 1219, 1221. +261 + + +breach, however, Epstein would enter his state guilty plea and the federal investigation would end. +Thus, the statement that the case was "currently under investigation" was literally true, but the +omission of important contextual information about the existence of the NPA deprived the victims +of important information about the exact status of the investigation. +The USAO Was Not Responsible for Victim Notification Letters Sent by the +FBI in October 2007, January 2008, and May 2008 Describing the Status of +the Case as "Under Investigation" +The 2005 Guidelines charged the FBI with informing the victims of CVRA rights and +available services during the "investigative stage" of a case. During the Epstein investigation, the +FBI case agents complied with the agency's notification obligation by hand delivering pamphlets +to victims following their interviews and through computer-generated letters sent to the vietims by +the FBI's Victim Specialist. The FBl's notification process is independent of the USAO's. The +USAO has its own Victim Witness Specialist who assumes the responsibility for victim +notification after an indictment or complaint moved the case into the "prosecution stage." +The FBI's Victim Specialist used the VNS to prepare the October 2007, January 2008, and +May 2008 letters, a system the FBI regularly employs to comply with its obligations under the +2005 Guidelines to inform the victims of their rights and other services during the "investigative +stage." The +language of that letter, however, was generic and failed to communicate the +unique case-specific status of the Epstein investigation at that time. The FBI Victim Specialist +who sent the letters acted at the case agent's direction and was not aware of the existence of the +NPA at the time she created the letters. 410 Neither FBI case agent reviewed any of the letters sent +by the FBl's Victim Specialist.''' According to Villafaña, "The decision to issue the letters and +the wording of those letters were exclusively FBI decisions." Although the FBI case agents +informed Villafaña after the fact that the FBl's Victim Specialist sent her "standard form letter," +Villafaña had never reviewed an FBI-generated victim notification letter and was not aware of its +contents.412 Villafaña told OPR she was unaware of the content of the FBI letters until they were +collected for the CVRA litigation, sometime after July 2008. +The case agent told OPR that she did not recall specifically directing the Victim Specialist to send a letter, +but acknowledged that "she would come to us before she would approach a victim." +411 +The case agent told OPR that she had no role in drafting the letters and believed them to be *standard form +letters." Similarly, the co-case agent told OPR, "I can't think that I've ever reviewed any of them ... they just go +from the victim coordinator." +412฿ +Villafaña's lack of familiarity with the language in the FBI letters led to some inconsistency in the +information provided to victims concerning their CVRA rights. Beginning in 2006, the FBI provided to victims +standard letters advising victims of their CVRA rights but which also noted that only some of the rights applied +pre-charge. During this period, Villafaña also crafted her own introductory letters to the victims to let them know of +their CVRA rights and that the federal investigation "would be a different process" from the prior state investigation +in which "the victims felt they had not been particularly well-treated by the State Attorney's Office." Villafaña told +OPR that in a case in which she "need[ed] to be talking to young girls frequently and asking them really intimate +questions," she wanted to "make sure that they ... feel like they can trust me." Villafaña's letter itemized the CVRA +rights, but it did not explain that those rights attached only after a formal charge had been made. The letter was hand +262 + + +B. +Because the Federal Investigation Continued after the NPA Was Signed, the +FBI Letters Were Accurate but Risked Misleading Victims regarding the +Status of the Federal Investigation +As described previously, given Epstein's appeal to the Department and continued delay +entering his guilty plea, Villafaña and other subjects came to believe that Epstein did not intend to +comply with the NPA and that the USAO would ultimately file charges against Epstein. By April +2008, Acosta predicted in an email that charging Epstein was "more and more likely." As a result, +Villafaña and the case agents continued their efforts to prepare for a likely trial with additional +investigative steps. Among other actions, Villafaña, her supervisors, CEOS, and the case agents +engaged in the following investigative activities: +• The FBI interviewed victims in October and November 2007 and between January and +May 2008, and discovered at least six new victims. +• In January 2008, CEOS assigned a Trial Attorney to bring expertise and "a national +perspective" to the matter. +• In January and February 2008, Villafaña and the CEOS Trial Attorney participated in +victim interviews. +• Villafaña revised the prosecution memorandum to focus "on victims who are unknown to +Epstein's counsel." +• The USAO informed the Department's Civil Rights Division "pursuant to USAM +[8] 8-3.120," of the USAO's "ongoing investigation of a child exploitation matter" +involving Epstein and others. +• Silla by Epsri sa bone eat represena in for vilis rise depositions were being +• Villafaña prepared a revised draft indictment. +• Villafaña sought and obtained approval to provide immunity to a potential government +witness in exchange for that witness's testimony. +• Even after Epstein's state plea hearing was set for June 30, 2008, Villafaña took steps to +facilitate the filing of federal charges on July 1, 2008, in the event he did not plead guilty. +Villafaña told OPR that from her perspective, the assertion in the FBI victim letter that the +case was "currently under investigation" was "absolutely true." Similarly, the FBI case agent told +OPR that at the time the letters were sent the "case was never closed and the investigation was +delivered, along with the FBI's own victim's rights pamphlet and notification letter, to victims following their FBI +interviews. +413 +According to the 2017 affidavit filed by +CVRA-case attorney, +Villafaña secured assisted +in "avoiding the improper deposition." +263 +the pro bono counsel that + + +continuing." The co-case agent also told OPR that, as of the time of his OPR interview in 2019, +the "the case was open ... it's never been shut down." +OPR found no evidence that the FBI's victim letters were drafted with the intent to mislead +the victims about the status of the federal investigation. The "ongoing investigation" language +generated by the VNS was generic template language in use nationwide at the time and identical +to that contained in standard form notification letters the FBI generated and distributed from +August 2006 through the 2007 signing of the NPA.414 Nevertheless, the FBI's letters omitted +federal prosecution would go forward only if Epstein failed to fulfill his obligations under an +agreement he had reached with the USAO. Victims receiving the FBI's letter would logically +conclude that the federal government was continuing to gather evidence to support a federal +prosecution. CVRA petitioner +stated during the CVRA litigation that her "understanding of +this letter was that [her] case was still being investigated and the FBI and prosecutors were moving +forward on the Federal prosecution of Epstein for his crimes against" her. Furthermore, when the +fact that the USAO had agreed to end its federal investigation in September 2007 eventually came +to light, the statement in the subsequent letters contributed to victims' and the public's conclusions +that the government had purposefully kept victims in the dark. +In sum, OPR concludes that the statement in the FBI yictim letters that the matter was +"currently under investigation" was not false because the USAO and the FBI did continue to +investigate and prepare for a prosecution of Epstein. The letters, however, risked misleading the +victims, and contributed to victim frustration and confusion, because the letters did not provide +important information that would have advised victims of the actual status of the investigation. +Nonetheless, OPR found no evidence that Villafaña or her supervisors participated in drafting +those letters or were aware of the content of the FBI's letters until the Department gathered them +for production in the CVRA litigation. The use of FBI form letters that gave incomplete +information about the status of the investigation demonstrated a lack of coordination between the +federal agencies responsible for communicating with Epstein's victims and showed a lack of +attention to and oversight regarding communication with victims. Despite the fact that the case +was no longer on the typical path for resolving federal investigations, form letters continued to be +sent without any review by prosecutors or the case agents to determine whether the information +provided to the victims was appropriate under the circumstances. 415 +414 +The Department of Justice Inspector General's Audit Report of the Department's Victim Notification System +indicates that letters the FBI system generated in 2006 contained | +language for the notification events of "Initial +(Investigative Agency)" and "Under Investigation" and letters generated in 2008 contained | +language for the +notification events of "Advice of Victims Rights (Investigative" and "Under Investigation." +After Epstein entered his guilty pleas, the FBI sent a similar form letter requesting "assistance and +cooperation while we are investigating the case to the two victims living outside the United States. +264 + + +IV. ACOSTA'S DECISION TO DEFER TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S +DISCRETION WHETHER TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT EPSTEIN'S STATE +COURT PLEA HEARING DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR OR UNAMBIGUOUS +STANDARD; HOWEVER, ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY +FAILING TO ENSURE THAT VICTIMS IDENTIFIED IN THE FEDERAL +INVESTIGATION WERE ADVISED OF THE STATE PLEA HEARING +As set forth in the factual discussion, within a few weeks of the NPA's signing, it became +clear that the defense team disagreed with, and strongly objected to, the government's plan to +inform victims of their ability to recover monetary damages from Epstein, under the 18 U.S.C. +§ 2255 provision of the NPA, and about Epstein's state court plea hearing. The USAO initially +took the position that it was obligated to, and intended to, inform victims of both the NPA, +including the § 2255 provision, and Epstein's change of plea hearing and sentencing, so that +victims who wanted to attend could do so. +In November and December 2007, Epstein's attorneys challenged the USAO's position +regarding victim notification. Ultimately, Acosta made two distinct decisions concerning victim +notifications. Consistent with Acosta's concerns about intruding into state actions, Acosta elected +to defer to state authorities the decision whether to notify victims about the state's plea hearing +pursuant to the state's own victim's rights requirements. Acosta also determined that the USAO +would notify vietims about their eligibility to obtain monetary damages from Epstein under § 2255, +a decision that was implemented by letters sent to vietims after Epstein entered his state pleas. +This decision, which postponed notification of the NPA until after Epstein entered his guilty pleas, +was based, at least in part, on Villafaña's and the case agents' strategic concerns relating to +preserving the victims' credibility and is discussed further in Section V, below. +In this section, OPR analyzes Acosta's decision to defer to the state the responsibility for +notifying victims of Epstein's plea hearing and sentencing. OPR concludes that neither the CVRA +nor the VRRA required the government to notify victims of the state proceeding and therefore +Acosta did not violate any statutes or Department policy by deferring to the discretion of the State +Attorney whether to notify victims of Epstein's state guilty pleas and sentencing. However, OPR +also concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment because by failing to ensure that the state +intended to and would notify victims of the federal investigation, he failed to treat victims +forthrightly and with the sensitivity expected by the Department. Through counsel, Acosta +"strongly disagree[d]" with OPR's conclusion and argued that OPR unfairly applied a standard +"never before expected of any U.S. Attorney." OPR addresses Acosta's criticisms in the +discussion below. +› Acosta's Decision to Defer to the State Attorney's Discretion Whether to +Notify Victims about Epstein's State Court Plea Hearing Did Not Violate Any +Clear or Unambiguous Standard +In November 2007, Villafaña sought to avoid defense accusations of misconduct +concerning her interactions with the victims by preparing a written notice to victims informing +them of the resolution of the federal case and of their eligibility for monetary damages, and inviting +them to appear at the state plea hearing. Villafaña and Sloman exchanged edits of the draft letter +and, at Sloman's instruction, she provided the draft to defense attorney Lefkowitz, who, in turn, +265 + + +strongly objected to the government's plan to notify victims of the state proceedings, which he +described as "highly inappropriate" and an "intrusion into state affairs, when the identified +individuals are not even victims of the crime for which Mr. Epstein is being sentenced." +Thereafter—at a time when the USAO believed Epstein's plea to be imminent—Villafaña +drafted, and Sloman signed, the December 6, 2007 letter to Lefkowitz rejecting the defense +arguments regarding notification and reiterating the USAO's position that the victims identified in +the federal investigation be invited to appear at the state plea hearing. The letter took an expansive +view of the applicable statutes by contending that both the CVRA and the VRRA required the +USAO to notify the victims of the state proceedings: +[T]hese sections are not limited to proceedings in a federal district +court. Our Non-Prosecution Agreement resolves the federal +investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense. +The victims identified through the federal investigation should be +appropriately informed, and our Non-Prosecution Agreement does +not require the U.S. Attorney's Office to forego [sic] its legal +obligations. 416 +The letter also asserted that the VRRA obligated the USAO to provide the victims with +information concerning restitution to which they may be entitled and "the earliest possible" notice +of the status of the investigation, the filing of charges, and the acceptance of a plea. Along with +the letter, Sloman forwarded a revised draft victim notification letter to Lefkowitz for his +comments. This draft victim notification letter stated that the federal investigation had been +completed, Epstein would plead guilty in state court, the parties would recommend 18 months of +imprisonment at sentencing, and Epstein would compensate victims for monetary damages claims +brought under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. The draft victim notification letter provided specific information +concerning the upcoming change of plea hearing and invited the victims to attend or provide a +written statement to the State Aftorney's Office. When Lefkowitz asked Sloman to delay sending +victim notifications until after a discussion of their contents, Sloman instructed Villafaña, who was +preparing letters for transmittal to 30 victims, to "Hold the letter." During his OPR interview, +Sloman recalled that he had "wanted to push the letter out," but he "must have had a conversation +with somebody" about whether the CVRA applied, and based on that conversation he directed +Villafaña to hold the letter. +266 + + +Thereafter, in his December 19, 2007 letter to defense counsel mainly addressing other +matters, Acosta informed the defense that the USAO would defer to the State Attorney's discretion +the responsibility for notifying victims about Epstein's state plea hearing: +I understand that the defense objects to the victims being given +notice of [the] time and place of Mr. Epstein's state court [plea and] +sentencing hearing. +I have reviewed the proposed victim +notification letter and the statute. I would note that the United States +provided the draft letter to the defense as a courtesy. In addition, +First Assistant United States Attorney Sloman already incorporated +in the letter several edits that had been requested by defense counsel. +I agree that Section 3771 applies to notice of proceedings and results +regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the +state proceedings, although we will provide him with the +information necessary to do so if he wishes. +(Emphasis added.) +Acosta told OPR that he "would not have sent this [letter] without running it by [Sloman], +if not other individuals in the office." Acosta explained that it was "not for me to direct the State +Attorney, or for our office to direct the State Attorney's Office on its obligations with respect to +the state outcome." Acosta acknowledged that the USAO initially had concerns about the state's +handling of the case, but he told OPR, "that doesn't mean that they will not fulfill whatever +obligation they have. Let's not assume... that the State Attorney's office is full of bad actors." +Sloman initially believed that "the victims were going to be notified at some level, especially +because they had restitution rights under [$] 2255"; but his expectations changed after "there was +an agreement made that we were going to allow the state, since it was going to be a state case, to +decide how the victims were going to be notified."417 Sloman told OPR he had been "proceeding +under the belief that we were going to notify the victims," even though "this was not a federal +case," but once the NPA "looked like it was going to fall apart," the USAO "had concerns that if +we g[a]ve them the victim notification letter ... and the deal fell apart, then the victims would be +instantly impeached by the provision that you're entitled to monetary compensation." +OPR could not determine whether the State Attorney's Office notified any victims in +advance of the June 30, 2008 state plea hearing. Krischer told OPR that the State Attorney's Office +had a robust and effective victim notification process and staff, but he was not aware of whether +or how it was used in the Epstein case. Belohlavek told OPR that she could not recall whether +victims were notified of the hearing nor whether the state law required notification for the +discussing the issue of victim notification, and OPR found no other documentation indicating that Mandelker played +a role in the deferral decision. +267 + + +particular charges and victims at issue. Once the hearing was scheduled, Sloman told Villafaña to +contact PBPD Chief Reiter about notifying the victims, and on June 28, 2008, she reported back +to Sloman that Reiter "is going to notify victims about the plea."418 Villafaña recalled that she +sent Reiter a list of the girls identified as victims during the federal investigation, and Reiter said +he would "contact as many as he could." The contemporaneous records do not show how many +or which victims, if any, Reiter contacted, and no victims were present in the courtroom. No victim +who provided information to OPR, either in person or through her attorney, recalled receiving +notice of the plea hearing from federal or state officials. At the time Epstein pled guilty in state +court, no one in the USAO knew exactly who, if anyone, Reiter or the State Attorney's Office had +notified about the proceeding. Accordingly, Villafaña, who was present in the courtroom for the +hearing, had no knowledge to whom Belohlavek referred when she told the court that the victims +were "in agreement with the terms of this plea."419 +OPR considered whether Acosta's decision to defer to the State Attorney's Office the +decision to notify victims of the scheduled date for Epstein's plea hearing constituted professional +misconduct. OPR could not conclude that the CVRA or VRRA provisions in question, requiring +notice of any public proceeding involving the crime against the victim or that the victim is entitled +to attend, unambiguously required federal prosecutors to notify victims of state court proceedings. +Furthermore, as discussed previously, OLC had issued guidance stating that the CVRA did not +apply to cases in which no federal charges had been filed. *20 Moreover, the section of the VRRA +requiring notice of court proceedings that the victim is "entitled to attend" referred specifically to +proceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 10606(b)(4), which, at the time of the Epstein case, had become +part of the CVRA (18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2)). 421 +Because Acosta had no clear or unambiguous duty to inform victims identified in the +federal investigation of the state plea hearing, OPR concludes that his decision to defer to the State +Attorney the decision to notify victims of the state's plea hearing and the responsibility for doing +so did not constitute professional misconduct. *22 +418 +Sloman replied, "Good." In her written response to OPR, Villafaña stated, "I requested permission to make +oral notifications to the victims regarding the upcoming change of plea, but the Office decided that victim notification +could only come from a state investigator, and Jeff Sloman asked PBPD Chief Reiter to assist." +419 +Plea Hearing Transcript at 42. +OLC 2005 CVRA Informal Guidance; see also United States v. Guevara-Toloso, No. 04-1455, 2005 WL +1210982, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 23, 2005) (in case involving a federal charge of illegal entry after a felony conviction, +the court determined that victims of the predicate state conviction were not victims under the CVRA). +421 +In +the Eleventh Circuit panel noted that the petitioner argued "only in passing" that the government +violated her CVRA right "to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding ... involving the +crime"; however, the court concluded this provision "clearly applies] only after the initiation of criminal +proceedings." +1, 955 F.3d at 1205 n. 7, 1208. +The government's letter to victims, following Epstein's guilty pleas, informing them of the resolution of the +case by state plea and the availability of § 2255 relief, also appear to satisfy the potentially applicable VRRA +requirements to "inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled," and to "provide +a victim the carliest possible notice of the status of the investigation of the crime, to the extent it is appropriate to +268 + + +B. Acosta Exercised Poor Judgment When He Failed to Ensure That Victims +Identified in the Federal Investigation Were Informed of the State Plea +Hearing +Although Acosta (or the USAO) was not required by law or policy to notify victims of the +state's plea hearing, he also was not prohibited by law or policy from notifying the victims that +the federal investigation had been resolved through an agreement that included pleas to state +charges. As the contemporary records indicate, Acosta consistently expressed hesitancy to +interfere in the state's processes or to "dictate" actions to the State Attorney. His decision that the +USAO refrain from notifying victims about the state plea hearing and defer to the State Attorney's +judgment regarding whether and whom to notify was consistent with this view. However, OPR +found no evidence that Acosta's decision to defer victim notification "to the discretion of the State +Attorney" was ever actually communicated to any state authorities or that Acosta recognized that +the state, absent significant coordination with federal authorities, was unlikely to contact all of the +victims identified in the state and federal investigations or that the state would inform the victims +that it did notify that the state plea hearing was part of an agreement that resolved the federal +investigation into their own cases. +Even taking into account Acosta's views on principles of federalism and his reluctance to +interfere in state processes, Acosta should have recognized the problems that would likely stem +from passing the task of notifying victims to the State Attorney's Office and made appropriate +efforts to ensure that those problems were minimized. Appropriate notification would have +included advising victims identified in the federal investigation that the USAO had declined to +bring charges and that the matter was being handled by the State Attorney, and, at a minimum, +provided the victims with Belohlavek's contact information. Acosta could have interacted with +the State Attorney, or instructed Villafafa or othérs to do so, to ensure the state intended to make +notifications in a way that reached the most possible victims and that it had the information +necessary to accomplish the task. Instead, Acosta deferred the responsibility for victim notification +entirely to the State Attorney's discretion without providing that office with the names of +individuals the USAO believed were victims and, apparently, without even informing the state +prosecutors that he was deferring to them to make the notifications, if they chose to do so. +Epstein was required by the NPA to plead to only two state charges, and even assuming +that each charge was premised on a crime against a different victim, and the solicitation charge +involved three separate victims, there were thus only at most four victims of the charged state +offenses. Without at least inquiring into the state's intentions, Acosta had no way of determining +whether the state intended to notify more than those few victims. Moreover, the federal +investigation had resulted in the identification of several victims who had not been identified by +inform the victim and to the extent that it will not interfere with the investigation." See 42 U.S.C. §§ 10607(c)(1)(B) +and (c)(3)(A). +423 +Through counsel, Acosta argued that OPR's criticism of him for "electing to "defer" the notification +obligation to the state" was inappropriate and "a non sequitur" because "where no federal notification obligation +exists, it cannot be deferred." OPR's criticism, as explained further below, is not with the decision itself, but rather +with the fact that although Acosta intended for the federal victims to be notified of the state plea hearing, and believed +that they should receive such notification, he nonetheless left responsibility for such notification to the state without +ensuring that it had the information needed to do so and without determining the state's intended course of action. +269 + + +the PBPD during its investigation into Epstein's conduct. Absent information from the USAO, +the state would not have been in a position to notify those additional victims of the state plea +proceeding, even if the State Attorney had decided to include other victims identified during the +state investigation. Furthermore, at the time he made his decision, Acosta had already been advised +by Villafaña that Belohlavek, in November 2007, had requested that the USAO notify victims, +presumably those identified during the federal investigation, about the state plea hearing. +Acosta told OPR that it had been his understanding at the time of Epstein's plea that the +victims would be made aware of the proceeding and would have an opportunity to speak. Acosta +also told OPR that he expected the state would have "notified [the victims] that that was an allencompassing plea, that the state court sentence would also mean that the federal government was +or to provide the State Attorney's Office with a complete list of victims identified during the +federal investigation. OPR located a draft letter to the State Attorey's Office that Villafaña +prepared and forwarded to Acosta in December 2007, which did provide such information, but +OPR found no evidence that the letter was ever sent, and it was not among materials publicly +released from the State Attorney's Office. 424 OPR also found evidence that both Sloman and +Villafaña interacted with the State Attorney's Office in the months leading up to the June 30, 2008 +plea hearing, but there is no indication that they discussed victim notification issues with that +office, and Villafaña's last minute request to PBPD Chief Reiter to notify victims indicates that +the USAO had not coordinated with the State Attorney's Office. Belohlavek told OPR that no one +from the USAO provided her with a list of victims of coordinated any notification of victims to +appear at the hearing. +Krischer and Belohlavek were thus evidently unaware that Acosta had decided to leave it +to them to decide whether to notify victims about the state proceeding. In the absence of some +discussion of which or how many victims the state intended to notify, what the state intended to +tell them about Epstein's plea, and whether the state intended to let the victims speak at the plea +hearing, Acosta had no way to ensure that his assumption about victim notification was accurate. +In other words, Acosta failed to plan for how all of the identified victims of Epstein's crimes, both +federal and state, "would be aware of what was happening in the state court and have an +opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing." +OPR did not find evidence that Acosta acted for the purpose of excluding victims from the +plea hearing, and Acosta's assumption that the state would handle victim notification appropriately +was not unsupported. State prosecutors are subject to victim notification requirements under the +Florida Constitution, and the state prosecution offices have victim witness personnel, resources, +and processes to help accomplish notification. However, Acosta was aware-through the +prosecution memoranda, the draft indictment, and email communications from Villafaña-that the +USAO's investigation had expanded beyond those victims identified in the original PBPD +The text of the letter indicated that Epstein's attorneys asked the USAO not to inform victims of "any rights +they may have as victims of the charges filed by the State Attorney's Office" and that the USAO was providing the +State Attorney's Office with a list of the 33 identified federal victims "in case you are required to provide them with +any further notification regarding their rights under Florida law." +270 + + +investigation. Because the state indictment and information appeared to pertain to far fewer than +the total victims identified in either the state or the federal investigation, and no one at the USAO +was certain which victims were covered by the state charges, it should have been apparent to +Acosta that without advance planning between the USAO and the State Attorney's Office, there +was a substantial risk that most of the victims identified in the federal investigation would not +receive notice of the hearing.*25 Notification to the broadest possible number of identified victims +could only have been successful if there was appropriate communication between the USAO and +the state prosecutors, communication that had previously been lacking regarding other significant +issues relating to Epstein. Villafaña and Sloman's hastily arranged effort to enlist in the +notification process PBPD Chief Reiter, who likely played little role in complying with the state's +victim notification obligations in a typical case, was not an adequate substitute for careful planning +and coordination with the State Attorney's Office. *2 +Even if the State Attorney's Office had notified all of the identified victims of the upcoming +plea hearing, there was no guarantee that such notification would have included information that +the state plea was resolving not just the state's investigation of Epstein, but the federal investigation +as well. The State Attorney was not obligated by state statutes to inform the victims of the status +of the federal investigation, and there was little reason to assume Krischer, or one of his staff, +would voluntarily do so, thereby putting the State Attorney's Office in the position of fielding +victim questions and concerns about the outcome. Furthermore, as both the USAO and the defense +had differing views as to who could lawfully participate in the state plea hearing, there is no +indication that Acosta, Sloman, or Villafaña took steps to confirm that, if victims appeared, they +could actually participate in the state court proceeding when they were not victims of the charged +crimes. 427 +Through counsel, Acosta asserted to OPR that because Villafaña and Sloman both told +OPR that they believed that state officials would notify the victims, "OPR identified no reason +why Secretary Acosta should have distrusted his team on these points." Acosta's counsel further +Krischer told OPR that the state's notification obligation extended to all victims identified in the state +investigation. Nonetheless, which victims were encompassed in the state's investigation was unclear. The PBPD's +probable cause affidavit included crimes against only 5 victims, not the 19 identified in the state +investigation. According to state records made public, the state subpoenaed to the grand jury only 3 victims. After +Epstein's guilty plea, the state sent notification letters to only 2 victims. Belohlavek told OPR that because of the +nature of the charges, she did not know whether "technically under the law" the girls were "victims" she was required +to notify of the plea hearing. +The State Attorney's Office had its own procedures and employees who handled victim notification, and +Belohlavck told OPR that the Chief of the Police Department would not regularly play a role in the state victim +notification process. +427 +Although Villafaña's notes indicate that she researched Florida Statutes §§ 960.001 and 921.143 when she +drafted unsent letters to victims in November and December 2007 inviting them to participate in the state plea hearing +pursuant to those statues, the caselaw was not clear that all federal victims would have been allowed to participate in +the state plea hearing. In Lefkowitz's November 29, 2007 letter to Acosta, he argued that the statutes afforded a right +to speak at a defendant's sentencing or to submit a statement only to the victims of the crime for which the defendant +was being sentenced. In April 2008, a Florida District Court of Appeal ruled against a defendant who argued that +Florida Statute § 921.143(1) did not allow the testimony of the victim's relatives at the sentencing hearing. The court +ruled that § 921.143(1) "should not be read as limiting the testimony Rule 3.720(b) allows trial courts to consider at +sentencing hearings." +271 + + +argued that Acosta should have been able to rely on his staff to accomplish the victim notification +task, and thus had no responsibility to personally confirm that Chief Reiter would notify the +victims of the hearing. 428 Acosta is correct that under usual circumstances, USAO management +played no role in the victim notification process; however, in this case, the issue of victim +notification had been elevated from a rote administrative task to a major area of dispute with the +defense. Acosta personally involved himself by resolving the notification dispute with defense +counsel in his December 19, 2007 letter. Villafaña provided Acosta with a draft letter to state +officials that would have opened a dialogue concerning the notification of all the victims identified +in the federal investigation. OPR found no evidence, however, that Acosta sent the letter or any +similar communication to the State Attorney's Office or that he provided Villafaña and Sloman +with instructions concerning victim notification other than those contained in his December 19, +2007 letter. Having inserted himself into the notification process, Acosta had a responsibility to +ensure that his expectation that the victims would be notified could be accomplished through the +state process. +Many victims only learned of Epstein's state court pleas when they later received a letter +from the USAO informing them that those pleas had resolved the federal investigation, and some +victims only learned of the state court pleas and sentencing from the news media. In the end, +although Villafaña and Sloman hastily attempted to ensure victim notification through Chief +Reiter, their effort was too little and too late to ensure that victims had the opportunity to attend +the plea hearing or were given sufficient information about its significance to their own cases. *29 +Although Acosta may have conferred with others about the decision to defer the responsibility for +notifying victims to the State Attorney, Acosta was responsible for choosing this course of action. +OPR concludes that under these unique circumstances, its criticisms are warranted because Acosta +personally decided to change the process initiated by his staff, and although he expected that the +federal victims would be notified, he did not take the necessary steps to ensure that they would be. +Acosta could have authorized disclosure of the plea hearing to victims, even if he did not believe +the CVRA required it, to ensure that the yictims identified in the federal investigation were aware +of the state court proceeding. Because the state pleas ended the federal investigation into Epstein's +conduct, ensuring that the victims were notified of the state plea hearing would have been +consistent with the Department's overarching commitment to treat victims with fairness, dignity, +and sensitivity. Acosta's failure to prioritize notification and coordinate communication about the +As noted, in his comments on OPR's draft report, Acosta's counsel strongly objected to OPR's finding of +poor judgment with respect to victim notification, arguing that OPR "unwarrantedly applies a standard never before +expected of any US Attorney," and inappropriately criticizes Acosta for "not personally confirming that the State +Attorney had the information needed" to notify the victims and for "not personally confirming" that Chief Reiter had +actually notified the victims. For the reasons discussed, the issuc is not whether Acosta "personally" took certain +specific steps but that he stopped his staff from implementing a notification plan they had devised, and instead, shifted +responsibility for notification to another entity while failing to consider how or even whether that entity would be able +to accomplish the notification that Acosta expected to happen. +429 +OPR notes that Villafaña contacted Reiter soon after the state plea hearing was scheduled, and the resulting +window of time for Reiter to make any notifications was short. Had the USAO coordinated with the State Attorney +at some point in time closer to Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter and decision, the USAO could have ensured that +the State Attorney had an appropriate notification process in place to act quickly when the hearing was scheduled and +that issues concerning the victims' appearance at the hearing were appropriately considered by state authorities. +Similarly, if the USAO believed that Reiter should make the notifications, it could have coordinated with Reiter in the +months that the matter was under review by the Department. +272 + + +resolution of the case to ensure Epstein's victims were given an opportunity to attend the plea +hearing, and to possibly speak about the impact of Epstein's crimes, presented a glaring contrast +with Acosta's responsiveness to the demands of Epstein's attorneys, which included the unusual +courtesy of allowing them to preview and respond to the USAO's draft victim notifications. This +contrast added to the victims' perception that they had been treated unfairly, a view shared by the +public. +Nothing in the documentary record suggests that Acosta thought through the issue of +determining which victims would be notified by the state, or that he took any steps to ensure that +all of the known federal victims received information about the state plea hearing. Instead, as with +his decision to resolve the federal investigation through a state-based resolution, Acosta exercised +poor judgment when he made critical decisions affecting the federal investigation and the victims, +but also failed to consider the full consequences of those decisions or what was needed to +implement them. Acosta's failure to consider these issues before simply leaving the responsibility +for making notifications entirely to the State Attorney's discretion reflected poorly on the USAO +and the Department as a whole. It left victims in the dark about an important proceeding that +resolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO had communicated with +victims for months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that the Department intentionally +sought to silence the victims by keeping them uninformed about the NPA and the resulting state +proceeding. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were afforded an opportunity to attend a hearing +that was related to their own cases and thus failed to ensure that victims were treated with +forthrightness and dignity. +V. VILLAFANA DID NOT COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IN HER +ORAL COMMUNICATIONS TO VICTIMS AND VICTIMS' ATTORNEYS, IN +WHICH SHE DESCRIBED THE CASE AS "UNDER INVESTIGATION" BUT DID +NOT DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THE NPA TO SOME VICTIMS +From September 24, 2007, when the NPA was signed, until after Epstein's June 30, 2008 +state court plea, the case agents, acting under Villafaña's direction, directly informed only three +victims that the government had signed an NPA and that, if Epstein complied with its terms, the +federal investigation would be closed. During this time period, Villafaña and the case agents +interacted with several victims and their attorneys, and Villafaña contacted victims' attorney +Edwards to encourage him to attend the state court plea hearing, but she did not inform +victims or Edwards of the NPA or the resolution of the federal investigation. +As described in Part One of this chapter, after the NPA was signed, the FBI case agent and +co-case agent began notifying victims about the NPA. 430 After speaking to three victims, however, +the FBI case agent became concerned that informing the victims about the NPA and the monetary +damages provision would create potential impeachment material for the victims and the agent +should Epstein breach the NPA and the case proceed to indictment and trial. As the case agent +told OPR, "I would ... have to testify that I told every one of these girls that they could sue +Mr. Epstein for money, and I was not comfortable with that, I didn't think it was right." The case +Although +disputed that she was informed of the resolution of the federal case, the case agent's email to +Villafaña from this time period reflects that at least one victim understood that the federal case was resolved and that +she was unhappy with the resolution. +273 + + +agent and Villafaña consulted with the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer about the +matter, and thereafter stopped notifying the victims about the NPA and their ability to pursue +monetary damages according to its terms. +Villafaña advised Sloman by email of her concerns regarding the potential impeachment +evidence, telling him, "One thing I am concerned about is that, if we [file charges] now, crossexamination will consist of-'and the government told you that if Mr. Epstein is convicted, you are +entitled to a large amount of damages right?" Explaining the decision in her later CVRA +declaration, Villafaña said that after Epstein's attorneys "complained that the victims were +receiving an incentive to overstate their involvement with Mr. Epstein in order to increase their +damages claims," she "concluded that informing additional victims could compromise the +witnesses' credibility at trial if Epstein reneged on the agreement." Acosta was aware of these +concerns as he referred to them in an August 2008 email, "[W]e also believed that contacting the +victims would compromise them as potential witnesses. Epstein argued very forcefully that they +were doing this for the money, and we did not want to discuss liability with them, which was [a] +key part of [the] agree[ment]." +The case agents interviewed victims in October and November 2007, but did not inform +them about the NPA. 431 On January 31, 2008, the FBI agents, Villafaña, and the CEOS Trial +Attorney interviewed three victims, including Courtney Wild, and they interviewed at least one +more victim the next day. 432 +and two others had been contacted by the FBI in the fall of +2007 and may have been informed about the resolufion of the federal investigation. +Villafaña told OPR that during the January 3ł, 2008 interviews, she did not specifically +tell the victims that "there was a signed non-prosecution agreement that had these terms." She +stated that she would not use "terminology" such as "NPA" because "most people don't understand +what that means." Instead, with respect to the three victims who, according to Villafaña, had been +informed by the FBI about the resolution, she stated that an agreement had been reached where +[Epstein] was going to be entering a guilty plea, but it doesn't look [like] he intends to actually +perform ….. [and] now it looks like this may have to be charged ... and may have to go to trial." +Villafaña recalled telling some victims that Epstein "was supposed to enter a plea in state court" +that would end the investigation, but she did not recall distinguishing between the "federal +investigation versus a state investigation." Villafaña told OPR she explained "the case was under +investigation," she and the agents "were preparing ... again" to file charges, and they hoped "that +shares was de bad sue discusions with al last one victim interie du on this dime Period +send gild rather or rey any obey th hav most deal she sigh read abone in the apital, +however, did not recall telling all of the victims interviewed at this time of the state plea; rather, +she likely only told those who knew about the resolution from the FBI. In her own 2015 CVRA- +case declaration, +stated that she "was not told about any [NPA] or any potential resolution of +431 +432 +FBI agents also interviewed victims in March and May of 2008, without prosecutors, and did not inform the +victims of the NPA. +Two additional victims were scheduled to be interviewed on February 1, 2008, but the evidence is unclear as +to whether the interviews occurred. +274 + + +the federal investigation I was cooperating in. If I had been told of a[n NPA], I would have +objected." +further stated in her declaration that, "Based on what the FBI had been telling me, +I thought they were still investigating my case." +Neither the CEOS Trial Attorney nor the FBI case agent recalled the specifics of the victim +interviews. The FBI reports memorializing each interview primarily addressed the facts elicited +from the victim regarding Epstein's abuse and did not describe any discussion about the status of +the case or the victim's view about the prosecution of Epstein. 433 +When asked whether she was concerned that failing to tell victims about the NPA when +she was interviewing them would mislead victims, as previously noted, Villafaña told OPR that +she believed she and the agents were conducting an investigation because they continued +"interviewing witnesses" and "doing all these things" to file charges and prepare for a federal trial. +As Villafaña stated, "So to me, saying to a victim the case is now back under investigation is +perfectly accurate." +Villafaña was also aware that some victims were represented by counsel in connection with +civil lawsuits against Epstein, but did not proactively inform the victims' attorneys about the NPA. +In a 2017 affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation, victims' attorney Bradley +alleged that +during telephone calls with Villafaña, he "asked very speoific questions about what stage the +investigation was in," and Villafaña replied that she could not answer his questions because the +matter "was an on-going active investigation." Edwards stated that Villafaña gave him "the +impression that the Federal investigation was on-going, very expansive, and continuously growing, +both in the number of identified victims and complexity." +also stated, "A fair +characterization of each call was that I provided information and asked questions and Villafaña +listened and expressed that she was unable to say much or answer the questions I was asking." +In her written response to OPR. Villafaña stated that she "listened more than [she] spoke" +during her interactions with Edwards and that due to the "uncertainty of the situation" and the +possibility of a trial, she "did not feel comfortable sharing any information about the case." +Villafaña also told OPR that because of "all of these concerns and instructions that I had been +given by Alex [Acosta] and Jeff [Sloman] not to disclose things further and not to have any +involvement in victim notification," she felt "prohibited" from providing additional information +to +Sloman told OPR that although neither the NPA terms nor the CVRA prevented the USAO +from exercising its discretion to notify the victims, "[It was [of] concern that this was going to +433 +As noted above, the FBI agent's notes for one victim's interview reported that she wanted another victim to +be prosecuted. +When asked why the USAO did not simply notify the victims of the change of plea hearing, Sloman +responded that he "was more focused on the restitution provisions. I didn't get the sense that the victims were overly +interested in showing up ... at the change of plea." +275 + + +not plead guilty in October 2007 as the USAO expected, it was a "very open question" whether +the case would go to trial, and Acosta thought that "where there is no legal requirement[.] [t]here +has to be discretion to judge how much you can tell the victims and when." +Epstein's attorneys' conduct during the period between the signing of the NPA and +Epstein's entry of his state guilty pleas illustrated the risk that Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña all +identified. As Epstein's counsel deposed victims related to the state court criminal charges and +civil cases against Epstein, counsel suggested that the victims were motivated to testify against +Epstein by the government's promises of financial gain. For example, during a February 20, 2008 +state deposition of a victim, defense counsel asked her whether the federal prosecutors or FBI +agents told her that she was entitled to receive money from Epstein. 435 In her 2017 declaration in +the CVRA litigation, Villafaña identified that line of questioning as a motiyating factor in the +government's decision to stop notifying the victims about the potential for 18 U.S.C. § 2255 +recovery. +On June 27, 2008, the Friday before Epstein's Monday, June 30, 2008 state court guilty +plea hearing, Villafaña contacted +to inform him about that upcoming hearing. Villafaña +told OPR she "was not given authorization to contact" any victim's attorney other than +about the scheduled state plea hearing. 436 In his 2017 affidavit prepared for the CVRA litigation, +stated that Villafaña "gave the impression that she was caught off-guard herself that +Epstein was pleading guilty or that this event was happening at all." +said in a 2016 court filing that Villafaña told him only that "Epstein was pleading +guilty to state solicitation of prostitution charges involving other victims—not Mr. Edward's +clients nor any of the federally-identified victims" Villafaña stated in her 2017 declaration that +she "never told Attorney +that the state charges involved 'other victims,' and neither the +state court charging instrument nor the factual proffer limited the procurement of prostitution +charge to a specific victim." Villafaña told OPR she "strongly encouraged | +land his +clients to attend" the plea hearing but "could not be more explicit" because she was not "authorized +by the Office to disclose the terms of the NPA." In his 2017 affidavit, +acknowledged +that "Villafaña did express that this hearing was important, but never told me why she felt that +way." +claimed that Villafaña's failure to inform him that the "guilty pleas in state court +would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement" +resulted in his clients not attending the hearing. +himself was out of town and not able to +435 +As previously noted, the defense used Florida criminal procedure to depose potential federal victims to learn +information concerning the federal investigation even though those individuals were not involved in the state +prosecution. For example, in a March 2008 email, Villafaña informed her managers that she spoke to a victim who +had received a subpoena "issued in connection with the state criminal case, which, as you know, doesn't involve most +of the vietims in our case (including the girl who was subpoenaed)." Villafaña further observed that because Epstein +is "going to plead to the solicitation of adults for prostitution charge [in state court], [the act of subpoenaing the victim] +seems to be a clear effort to find out about our case through the state case." +Villafaña's June 30, 2008 handwritten notes reflect that, at the time of Epstein's state court guilty plea, +Villafaña was aware of the identities of a least five other attorneys representing Epstein's victims. In her written +response to OPR, Villafaña stated, "I requested permission to make oral notifications to the victims regarding the +upcoming change of plea, but the Office decided that victim notification could only come from a state investigator, +and Jeff Sloman asked PBPD Chief Reiter to assist." On Saturday, June 28, 2008, Villafaña emailed Sloman to inform +him that PBPD Chief Reiter "is going to notify victims about the plea." Sloman replied, "Good." +276 + + +attend the hearing. In his affidavit, +asserted, "[T]here was no possible way I could have +believed that this state plea could affect the federal investigation or the rights of my clients in that +federal investigation. +the Eleventh Circuit panel stated that the government "seemingly" deferred to +Epstein's attorneys' requests not to notify the victims about the NPA, and that in sending the +January and May 2008 FBI letters, the government's efforts "seem to have graduated from passive +nondisclosure to (or at least close to) active misrepresentation."437 Although both the appellate +court and district court focused on the FBI's letters for which OPR concludes that neither Villafaña, +Sloman, nor Acosta was responsible, OPR considered the courts' analyses in evaluating whether +similar representations Villafaña made to the victims whom she interviewed on January 31 and +February 1, 2008, and to +were misleading. Therefore, OPR considered whether +Villafaña's statements that the matter was "under investigation" and her failure to inform all of the +victims whom she interviewed or +about the NPA violated FRPC 4-4.1(a), 4-8.4(c), or +FRPC 4-4.1(a) prohibits an attorney from "knowingly mak[ing] a false statement of +material fact or law to a third person" during the representatión of a client. The FRPC defines +"knowingly" as "denot[ing] actual knowledge of the fact in question" and states that such +knowledge may be "inferred from circumstances."438 The comment to FRPC 4-4.1 states that +"[m]isrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that +are the equivalent of affirmative false statements." The comment references FRPC 4-8.4 "[flor +dishonest conduct that does not amount to a false statement." Like FRPC 4-4.1(a), Rule 4-8.4(c) +requires evidence that the attorney knew the statement in question was false. Under FRPC +4-8.4(c), the intent requirement can be satisfied "merely by showing that the conduct was +deliberate or knowing" and the "motive underlying the lawyer's conduct is not determinative; +instead the issue is whether he or she purposefully acted. "439 In Feinberg, the court concluded that +the prosecutor violated FRPC 4-4.1 and 4-8.4(c) and (d) by deliberately making untruthful +statements to a defense attorney, despite evidence that the prosecutor intended to help the +defendant by making the statements 40 In this case, Villafaña was fully aware of the signed NPA +when she interviewed the victims on January 31 and February 1, 2008, and when she spoke to +on the telephone, but she did not inform them specifically of the signed NPA. The +question is whether this omission amounted to a knowing false statement or misrepresentation. +One difficulty is determining what Villafaña actually said during conversations that +patien we January an alary 203, Viat i contended that she discused the agree +with them, even if she did not specifically refer to it as the NPA or discuss all of its terms, and as +437 +955 F.3d at 1199-1200. +438 +See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-Preamble: A Lawyer's Responsibilities, "Terminology." +439 +Florida Bar v. +284 So. 3d 393, 396 (Fla. 2019) (citing Florida Bar v. Berthiaume, 78 So. 3d 503, +510 n.2 (Fla. 2011); Florida Bar v. Riggs, 944 So. 2d 167, 171 (Fla. 2006); Florida Bar v. | +866 So. 2d 41,46 +(Fla. 2004)). +440 +Florida Bar v. Feinberg, 760 So. 2d 933, 937-38 (Fla. 2000). +277 + + +previously noted, there is some contemporaneous evidence supporting her assertion. Villafaña's +mention of the agreement, even if not described in specific terms, would have been sufficient to +apprise those victims of the status of the federal investigation. +Nevertheless, Villafaña did not recall discussing the NPA specifically or in general terms +with other victims interviewed at that time, nor did she do so with +or any other victim's +attorney. OPR therefore considered whether the omission of information about the existence of +the NPA during these interactions +to the level of professional misconduct in violation of FRPC +4-4.1 or 4-8.4.441 +OPR evaluated Villafaña's conduct in light of the comment to FRPC 4-4.1: +A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a +client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an +opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if +the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that +the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by +partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the +equivalent of affirmative false statements. +The victims and their attorneys were certainly not "opposing parties]" to the USAO, but the +comment indicates that the rule recognizes that omissions made during discussions with third +parties, even of relevant facts, are not always treated as false statements. +Here, the evidence does not show that Villafaña knowingly made an affirmative false +statement to the victims or +or that her omissions were "the equivalent of affirmative false +statements" about material facts. First, Villafana told OPR that she believed the investigation was +ongoing and her statement to that effect truthful, and as discussed earlier in this Chapter, the +evidence shows that Villafaña and the agents did continue to investigate the case until Epstein +entered his guilty plea in state court in June 2008. Villafaña's email correspondence with her +supervisors reflects her strong advocacy during that timeframe to declare Epstein in breach and to +charge him. The evidence similarly does not show that Villafaña knowingly made any affirmative +false statement to Edwards when she informed him of the state court plea, although she declined +to provide additional information in response to his questions. 442 +Second, in reaching its conclusion, OPR considered the full context in which Villafaña +interacted with the victims and +• Prosecutors routinely make decisions about what +information will be disclosed to witnesses, including victims, for a variety of strategic reasons. In +many cases, prosecutors must make difficult decisions about providing information to witnesses, +441 +In Florida Bar v. Joy, the court affirmed a referee's conclusion that Joy violated FRPCs 4-4.1(a) and 4-8.4(c) +"for making false statements by omission of material facts in his representations [to counsel]." Florida Bar v. Joy, +679 So. 2d 1165, 1166-68 (Fla. 1996). See also Florida Bar re Webster, 647 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1994) (petition for +reinstatement denied due to "misrepresentation by omission"). +In Feinberg, 760 So. 2d at 938, the court found that an Assistant State Attorney lacked candor and violated +ethics rules when, after meeting with a defendant outside his attorney's presence, the prosecutor falsely stated to the +defense attorney that he (the prosecutor) had not met with the defendant. +278 + + +and they often cannot fully reveal either the facts or the status of an investigation, even with +victims. The 2005 Guidelines advise that in consulting with a victim, prosecutors may be limited +in their disclosures: "Because victims are not clients, may become adverse to the Government, +and may disclose whatever they have learned from consulting with prosecutors, such consultations +may be limited to gathering information from victims and conveying only nonsensitive data and +public information."443 +Villafaña's concern about generating potential impeachment evidence by informing +victims of their potential to recover monetary damages from Epstein was not unreasonable. +Indeed, the case agents initially raised the impeachment issue, and after considering the problem, +Villafaña agreed with the agents' concerns. Villafaña raised those concerns with the USAO's +Villafaña had sought to notify the victims in writing of the NPA soon after it was signed, her +supervisor, the U.S. Attorney, had decided otherwise. When authorized to inform +of the +scheduled change of plea hearing, she did so. Although she did not inform +that the plea +was part of a global resolution that would end the federal investigation, the evidence does not show +that Villafaña acted for the purpose of deceiving Edwards or preventing him from attending the +hearing. Had she sought to exclude him from the state proceedings, she could have elected not to +at all, or she could have discouraged him from attending the state proceedings. +Rather, as +confirmed, Villafaña told him the hearing was "important." Villafaña sought +to strike a difficult balance of securing Edwards's (and his clients') attendance at the state court +plea, while obeying her management's directive that informing victims of the resolution of the +federal investigation should not be done until completion of the state plea. +Therefore, after carefully considering all of the circumstances, OPR concludes that the +evidence does not establish that Villafaña violated her obligations under FRPC 4-4.1 or 4-8.4(c) +or (d). 44 Nonetheless, as discussed below, Villafaña's interactions with victims and victims' +attorneys without informing them of the NPA and the potential conclusion of the federal +investigation contributed to the likelihood that the victims would feel that the government was +2005 Guidelines, Art. IV, 1 B.2.c(1). As noted, some victims continued to express favorable views of Epstein +during interviews with the government and they, or their attorneys, could have provided information to Epstein about +the government's communications. For example, within a day of Villafaña contacting a victim's attorney about a +potential victim notification letter, Starr complained to Acosta that the government had recently inappropriately +provided "oral notification of the victim notification letter" to one girl's attorney, even though it was clear from the +girl's recorded FBI interview that she "did not in any manner view herself as a victim." +The case most directly on point is _ +. 109 A.3d 1184, in which the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed +a violation of Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) based on a prosecutor's failure to notify the victim of the +resolution of a sex abuse case. However, as noted previously, in +_ the criminal defendant had been arrested and +charged before entering a plea, and various specific statutes afforded victims the right to receive notices and an +opportunity to be heard concerning "a case originating by indictment or information in a circuit court." In this case, +for the reasons previously discussed, Villafaña did not have a clear and unambiguous obligation to inform the victims +or +of the NPA. +279 + + +intentionally concealing information from them and was part of a series of interactions with +victims that led to condemnation of the government's treatment of victims. 445 +VI. +THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO TREAT VICTIMS FORTHRIGHTLY AND +WITH SENSITIVITY WHEN IT FAILED TO TIMELY PROVIDE VICTIMS +WITH IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESOLUTION OF THE +FEDERAL INVESTIGATION +Although OPR does not conclude that any of the subjects committed professional +misconduct, either by failing to consult with the victims before the NPA was signed or in +interactions afterwards, OPR's findings are not an endorsement of the government's course of +action. The government's interactions with victims confused and frustrated many of the victims, +particularly the two CVRA petitioners and the two victims who had unsuccessfully attempted to +join in the CVRA litigation. As a result, the victims' and the public's perception of the matter is +that the prosecutors worked with Epstein's attorneys to disenfranchise and silence the victims. It +is unfortunate, and appears fundamentally unfair to the victims, that Acosta and Sloman (after +Menchel and Lourie departed) took the unusual step of deciding to vet the USAO victim +notification letters with the defense after the NPA was signed, but failed to go beyond the +requirements of the CVRA or the 2005 Guidelines to consult with the victims before the NPA was +signed. This result is contrary to the Department's intent, as set forth in the 2005 Guidelines, that +Department employees work to "minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of crime +endure in its wake." When considering the entirety of the government's interactions with victims, +OPR concludes that victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by +the Department. +criticisms of the government's conduct were based on interactions that are similar +to and generally representative of the government's interactions with other Epstein victims and +that demonstrate an overall lack of sensitivity to the victims by the government. +experienced +a series of confusing and inconsistent communications in her interactions with Villafaña and the +case agents. +received Villafaña's letter in June 2007 stating inaccurately that she was a +federal victim entitled to CVRA rights. She was interviewed by the FBI in August 2007 but was +not told that a potential outcome was a state plea. Shortly after the September 24, 2007 signing of +the NPA, the FBI contacted her to inform her of the resolution of the federal case. Nonetheless, +on January 10, 2008, the FBI sent her a victims' rights letter indicating that the case was under +investigation and that some of her CVRA rights may not apply until after the defendant was +charged. On January 31. 2008, Villafaña re-interviewed | +• along with a CEOS attorney and +the FBI agents, and told +that the case was under investigation, but did not specifically mention +the NPA, although she may have mentioned a possible resolution. In mid-June 2008, when +contacted Villafaña on +behalf, Villafaña informed him that the case was under +investigation but did not mention the NPA. Just before Epstein's June 30, 2008 state court plea, +OPR notes that, similar to Villafaña, Sloman interacted with a victim's attorney during the time period +between the signing of the NPA and Epstein's state guilty plea. In January 2008, Sloman received a telephone call +from his former law partner, who represented one of the victims and who asked Sloman whether the federal +government could bring charges against Epstein. +Sloman, concerned about the potential for conflict of interest +allegations due to his prior business relations with the attorney, refused to answer any questions regarding Epstein. +Because Sloman refused to provide any information, OPR found no basis for finding that Sloman misled the attorney. +280 + + +Villafaña informed +about the state plea, but did not mention the NPA or the fact that the +state pleas would resolve the federal investigation. +then filed the CVRA petition and +learned about the NPA signed months earlier and that the federal investigation of Epstein had +concluded with Epstein's state guilty pleas. +only received access to the NPA when a judge +permitted it in August 2008 pursuant to a protective order. After considering this series of +interactions, it is not surprising that +came away from the experience feeling confused and +believing she had been misled. +OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that Villafaña, Acosta, Sloman, +Menchel, or Lourie opted not to consult with the victims in order to protect Epstein or shield the +NPA from public scrutiny. Although neither Sloman nor Acosta could recall a specific discussion +of CVRA obligations before the NPA was signed, both recalled knowing that victim consultation +was not required, and Menchel also told OPR that consultation was not required, at least not up to +the point when he left the USAO. The evidence is clear that Villafaña sought at various points to +consult with and to notify victims about the details of the NPA but was constrained before the +NPA was signed by managers who either made a decision to not consult victims or did not address +the issue after it was raised, and after the signing by her own concern about creating possible +impeachment evidence that would damage the victims' credibility at a possible trial. +Nonetheless, a more open and straightforward approach with the victims, both before and +after the signing of the NPA, would have been the better praefice. Before the NPA was signed, +victims could have been asked for their views about the general terms the USAO was +contemplating offering, including that a plea to state charges was one of the options being +considered; asked for their views in general about a guilty plea; or, at a minimum, asked to share +their views of how the case should be resolved. Even if the USAO ultimately determined to +proceed with the NPA, the government would have had the benefit of the victims' thoughts and +concerns, particularly on the issue of punishment, and victims would have felt included in the +process. OPR found no evidence that the benefits of victim consultation were discussed or +considered before the NPA was signed. +After the NPA was signed, no one from the government explained the agreement to the +majority of the victims until months later and only after the entry of Epstein's guilty plea. +Although the evidence supports Villafaña's assertion that she acted from a good faith belief that +Epstein might breach the NPA and a potential trial would be harmed if information about the NPA +was divulged to the vietims and their counsel, she, Sloman, and Acosta failed to consider how the +desire to shield the victims from that potential impeachment might impact the victims' sense of +the openness and fairness of the process. As _ +stated during the CVRA litigation, she believed +she had been "mistreated in the process." When deciding not to inform the victims of the NPA to +avoid creating impeachment evidence, Villafaña, Sloman, and Acosta do not appear to have +carefully considered possible alternatives to, or all of the ramifications of, that decision, nor did +they revisit the decision before Villafaña met the victims in person to discuss a potential trial or +spoke to l +or other attorneys representing victims. 46 Furthermore, more attention needed +It is not at all clear whether a court would have permitted impeachment of the victims concerning one +provision in a plea agreement that otherwise could not be used as evidence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f) (*The +admissibility or inadmissibility of a plea, a plea discussion, and any related statement is governed by Federal Rule of +Evidence 410."). In any case, the victims could have been impeached regarding the possibility of their obtaining +monetary damages through either a civil suit or through 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (if Epstein were convicted after a trial), +281 + + +to be paid to the FBI's communications to ensure that the victims were receiving accurate and +timely information that was consistent with the status of the case and with the USAO's +communications with victims. 447 +The decision not to inform victims and their attorneys about the existence of the NPA gave +victims and the public the misimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein's counsel +to keep the agreement secret from the victims. Moreover, the lack of openness about the NPA +gave the impression that the USAO lacked sensitivity for the victims in resolving the matter and +undercut public confidence in the legitimacy of the resulting plea agreement. The overall result of +the subjects' anomalous handling of this case left at least some of the victims feeling ignored and +frustrated, failed to promote their healing process, and resulted in extensive public criticism. +Although OPR credits Villafaña's statements that she wanted to go beyond her obligations in +dealing with victims, the end result nonetheless was that communications with victims were not +prioritized by the USAO. In part this was due to the fact that interactions with victims are generally +handled by staff in the USAO and the FBI who are trained and have expertise in dealing with +victims and other witnesses. However, decisions made by Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña also +contributed to the problems. The government, as it ultimately acknowledged in the CVRA +litigation, could have, and should have, engaged with the victims in a more transparent and unified +fashion. +OPR recognizes that the Epstein investigation occurred soon after the passage of the +CVRA. In the years since, the Department's prosecutors and personnel have become more familiar +with its provisions. OPR encourages the Department as a whole to take the issues discussed above +into account when providing training and direction to its employees regarding victims' rights to +ensure that in the future, Department attorneys' actions promote victim inclusion whenever +possible. 48 For example, although the division of responsibility between the FBI and the USAO +for communicating with victims works efficiently and appropriately in the average case, the USAO +failed to consider that in a case involving a pre-charge disposition, the victims were receiving +inconsistent and confusing communications from the separate entities. In certain cases, such as the +Epstein case, prosecutors may need to provide more oversight when multiple Department +components are communicating with victims to avoid providing confusing and contradictory +messages. +independent of the NPA provision. OPR also notes that impeachment regarding the NPA provision may have +permitted the government to rehabilitate the victims through their prior statements to law enforcement. In other words, +while the USAO's view concerning potential impeachment was not unreasonable, more extensive consideration of the +case agent's concerns might have led the prosecutors to conclude that the risk of the information being used to +significantly damage the credibility of the victims was low. +447 +In addition to the FBI letters previously discussed, another example of the inconsistent communication can +be seen in letters that were to be sent after Epstein entered his guilty plea to two victims residing in foreign countries. +Although OPR was unable to confirm that the two victims actually received the letters, it appears from the records +OPR reviewed that the government intended to provide them with a standard FBI letter stating that the case was under +investigation while also providing them with a USAO letter stating that the case had been resolved through Epstein's +state guilty plea. +448 +OPR understands that the Department is in the process of revising the 2011 Guidelines. +282 + + +CONCLUSION +In November 2018, the Miami Herald published an extensive investigative report about +state and federal criminal investigations initiated more than 12 years earlier into allegations that +Jeffrey Epstein, a wealthy financier with residences in Florida, New York, and other United States +and foreign locations, had coerced girls into engaging in sexual activity with him at his Palm +Beach, Florida estate. The Miami Herald reported that in 2007, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern +District of Florida, R. Alexander Acosta, entered into an "extraordinary" deal with Epstein that +permitted Epstein to avoid federal prosecution and a potentially lengthy prison sentence by +pleading guilty in state court to "two prostitution charges," immunized from prosecution Epstein's +co-conspirators, and concealed from Epstein's vietims the terms of the NPA. +Following the Miami Herald's report, and after receiving a Congressional request to +investigate, OPR initiated an investigation into the allegations that prosecutors in the USAO +improperly resolved the federal investigation into the criminal conduct of Jeffrey Epstein by +negotiating and executing the NPA. OPR subsequently included in its inyestigation allegations +stemming from judicial criticism of the government's conduct relating to federal prosecutors' and +law enforcement agents' interactions with Epstein's victims. In July 2008, a victim, later joined +by a second victim, filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida an emergency petition +for enforcement of her rights under the CVRA. In February 2019, the district court found that the +government violated the CVRA by failing to advise victims about its intention to enter into the +NPA. The court also found that letters the government sent to victims after the NPA was signed, +describing the investigation as ongoing, were misleading. +During the course of its investigation, OPR obtained and reviewed hundreds of thousands +of records from the USAO, the FBI, and other Department of Justice components. The records +included emails, letters, memoranda, and investigative materials. OPR also collected and reviewed +materials relating to the state inyestigation and prosecution of Epstein, including sealed pleadings, +grand jury transcripts, and grand jury audio recordings; examined extensive publicly available +information, including depositions, pleadings, orders, and other court records; and reviewed media +reports and interviews, artieles, podcasts, and books relating to the Epstein case. OPR conducted +more than 60 interviews of witnesses, including the FBI case agents, their supervisors, and FBI +administrative personnel; current and former USAO staff and attorneys; current and former +Department attorneys and senior managers; and the former State Attorney and Assistant State +Attorney in charge of the state investigation of Epstein. OPR also interviewed or received written +information from several victims and attorneys representing victims concerning victim contacts +with the USAO and federal law enforcement. +OPR identified the following five former USAO attorneys as subjects of its investigation +based on information indicating that each of them was involved in the decision to resolve the case +hrough the NPA or in the negotiations leading to the agreement: former U.S. Attorne +r. Alexander Acosta, and former AUSAs Jeffrey H. Sloman, Matthew I. Menchel, Andrew C +Lourie, and Ann +C. Villafaña. Each subject submitted written responses detailing their +involvement in the federal investigation of Epstein, the drafting and execution of the NPA, and +decisions relating to victim notification and consultation. OPR conducted extensive interviews of +all five subjects. The subjects also submitted comments on OPR's draft report. +283 + + +OPR evaluated the conduct of each subject based on his or her individual role in various +decisions and events and assessed that conduct pursuant to OPR's analytical framework. OPR +found that Acosta made the pivotal decision to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein through +a state-based plea and either developed or approved the terms of the initial offer to the defense that +set the beginning point for the subsequent negotiations that led to the NPA. Although Acosta did +not sign the NPA, he participated in its drafting and approved it, with knowledge of its terms. +Therefore, OPR considers Acosta to be responsible for the NPA and for the actions of the other +subjects who implemented his decisions. +Based on its extensive investigation, OPR concludes that the subjects did not commit +professional misconduct with respect to the development, negotiation, and approval of the NPA. +Under OPR's framework, professional misconduct requires a finding that a subject attorney +intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard governing the conduct at +issue. OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard that required Acosta to indict Epstein on +federal charges or that prohibited his decision to defer prosecution to the state. Furthermore, none +of the individual terms of the NPA violated Department or other applicable standards. +As the U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the "plenary authority" under established federal law and +Department policy to resolve the case as he deemed necessary and appropriate, as long as his +decision was not motivated or influenced by improper factors.) Acosta's decision to decline to +initiate a federal prosecution of Epstein was within the scope of his authority, and OPR did not +find evidence that his decision was based on corruption or other impermissible considerations, +such as Epstein's wealth, status, or associations. Evidence shows that Acosta resisted defense +efforts to have the matter returned to the state for whatever result state authorities deemed +appropriate, and he refused to eliminate the incarceration and sexual offender registration +requirements. OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta's "breakfast meeting" with one +of Epstein's defense counsel in October 2007 led to the NPA, which had been signed weeks earlier, +or to any other significant decision that benefited Epstein. The contemporaneous records show +that USAO managers' concerns about legal issues, witness credibility, and the impact of a trial on +the victims led them to prefer a pre-charge resolution and that Acosta's concerns about the proper +role of the federal government in prosecuting solicitation crimes resulted in his preference for a +state-based resolution. Accordingly, OPR does not find that Acosta engaged in professional +misconduct by resolving the federal investigation of Epstein in the way he did or that the other +subjects committed professional misconduct through their implementation of Acosta's decisions. +Nevertheless, OPR concludes that Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation +through the NPA constitutes poor judgment. Although this decision was within the scope of +Acosta's broad discretion and OPR does not find that it resulted from improper factors, the NPA +was a flawed mechanism for satisfying the federal interest that caused the government to open its +investigation of Epstein. In Acosta's view, the federal government's role in prosecuting Epstein +was limited by principles of federalism, under which the independent authority of the state should +be recognized, and the federal responsibility in this situation was to serve as a "backstop" to state +authorities by encouraging them to do more. However, Acosta failed to consider the difficulties +inherent in a resolution that relied heavily on action by numerous state officials over whom he had +no authority; he resolved the federal investigation before significant investigative steps were +completed; and he agreed to several unusual and problematic terms in the NPA without the +consideration required under the circumstances. In sum, Acosta's application of federalism +284 + + +principles was too expansive, his view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too +narrow, and his understanding of the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use +the NPA. Furthermore, because Acosta assumed a significant role in reviewing and drafting the +NPA and the other three subjects who were supervisors left the USAO, were transitioning to other +jobs, or were absent at critical junctures, Acosta should have ensured more effective coordination +and communication during the negotiations and before approving the final NPA. The NPA was a +unique resolution, and one that required greater oversight and supervision than Acosta provided. +OPR further concludes that none of the subject attorneys committed professional +misconduct with respect to the government's interactions with victims. The subjects did not +intentionally or recklessly violate a clear and unambiguous duty under the CVRA by entering into +the NPA without consulting with victims, because the USAO resolved the Epstein investigation +without a federal criminal charge. Significantly, at the time the NPA was signed, the Department +did not interpret CVRA rights to attach unless and until federal charges had been filed, and the +federal courts had not established a clear and unambiguous standard applying the CVRA before +criminal charges were brought. In addition, OPR did not find evidence that the lack of consultation +was for the purpose of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the lack of consultation was part of a series +of government interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of +the government's treatment of the victims, reflected poorly on the Department as a whole, and is +contradictory to the Department's mission to minimize the frustration and confusion that victims +of a crime endure. +OPR determined that none of the subjects was responsible for communications sent to +certain vietims after the NPA was signed that described the case as "under investigation" and that +failed to inform them of the NPA. The letters were sent by an FBI administrative employee who +was not directly involved in the investigation, incorporated standard form language used by the +FBI when communicating with victims, and were not drafted or reviewed by the subjects. +Moreover, the statement that the matter was "under investigation" was not false because the +government in fact continued to investigate the case in anticipation that Epstein would not fulfill +the terms of the NPA. However, the letters risked misleading the victims and contributed to victim +frustration and confusion by failing to provide important information about the status of the +investigation. The letters also demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies +responsible for communicating with Epstein's victims and showed a lack of attention to and +oversight regarding communication with victims. +After the NPA was signed, Acosta elected to defer to the State Attorney the decision +whethem to no. vicingh costa date s ple has in in his a to tristates did it cos right. +professional misconduct, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he failed to +make certain that the state intended to and would notify vietims identified through the federal +investigation about the state plea hearing. His decision left victims uninformed about an important +roceeding that resolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO ha +ommunicated with victims for months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that th +Department intentionally sought to silence the victims. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were +made aware of a court proceeding that was related to their own cases, and thus he failed to ensure +that victims were treated with forthrightness and dignity. +285 + + +OPR concludes that the decision to postpone notifying victims about the terms of the NPA +after it was signed and the omission of information about the NPA during victim interviews and +conversations with victims' attorneys in 2008 do not constitute professional misconduct. +victims. Nonetheless, the failure to reevaluate the strategy prior to interviews of victims and +discussions with victims" attorneys occurring in 2008 led to interactions that contributed to +victims' feelings that the government was intentionally concealing information from them. +After examining the full scope and context of the government's interactions with victims, +OPR concludes that the government's lack of transparency and its inconsistent messages led to +victims feeling confused and ill-treated by the government; gave victims and the public the +misimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein's counsel to keep the NPA secret +from the victims; and undercut public confidence in the legitimacy of the resulting agreement. The +overall result of the subjects' anomalous handling of this case understandably left many victims +feeling ignored and frustrated and resulted in extensive public criticism. In sum, OPR concludes +Department. +TIFIE +286 + + +METHODOLOGY +Document Review +As referenced in the Executive Summary, OPR obtained and reviewed hundreds of +thousands of pages of documents from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of +Florida (USAO), other U.S. Attorney's offices, the FBI, and other Department components, +including the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Division, and the Executive +Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA). The categories of documents reviewed by OPR, and their +sources, are set forth below. +1. +USAO Records +The USAO provided OPR with access to all of its records from its handling of the Epstein +investigation and the CVRA litigation. The records included, but were not limited to, boxes of +material that Villafaña updated and maintained through the course of both actions, which contained +pleadings from the Epstein investigation, the CVRA litigation, and other related cases; extensive +compilations of internal and external correspondence, including letters and emails; evidence such +as telephone records, FBI reports, material received from the state investigation, and other +confidential investigative records; court transcripts; investigative transcripts; prosecution team +handwritten notes; research material; and draft and final case documents such as the NPA, +prosecution memoranda, and federal indictments. +The USAO also provided OPR with access to filings, productions, and privileged material +in the CVRA litigation; Outlook data collected to respond to production requests in that case; a set +of Epstein case documents maintained by Acosta and Sloman; computer files regarding the Epstein +case collected by Sloman; Villafaña's Outlook data; Acosta's hard drive; and the permanently +retained official U.S. Attorney records of Acosta held by the Federal Records Center. +EOUSA Records +EOUSA provided OPR with Outlook data from all five subjects and six additional +witnesses. This information, dating back to 2005, included all inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, and +saved emails, and calendar entries that it maintained. EOUSA provided OPR with over 850,000 +Outlook records in total (not including email attachments or excluding duplicate records). OPR +identified key time periods and fully reviewed those records. OPR applied search terms to the +remainder of the records and reviewed any responsive documents. +Aftér reviewing the emails, OPR identified a data gap in Acosta's email records: his inbox +contained no emails from May 26, 2007, through November 2, 2008. This gap, however, was not +present with respect to Acosta's sent email. OPR requested that EOUSA investigate. During its +investigation, EOUSA discovered a data association error that incorrectly associated Acosta's data +with an unrelated employee who had a similar name. Once the data was properly associated, +EOUSA found and produced 11,248 Acosta emails from April 3, 2008, through the end of his +tenure at the USAO. However, with respect to the remaining emails, EOUSA concluded that the +emails were not transferred from the USAO when, in 2008 and 2009, Outlook data for all U.S. +287 + + +Attorney's Offices was migrated to EOUSA's centralized system to be maintained. The USAO's +data was migrated between March and June 2008. +EOUSA and OPR separately confirmed with the USAO that it was unable to locate any +additional emails. OPR questioned Acosta, as well as numerous administrative staff, about the +email gap. Acosta and the witnesses denied having any knowledge of the problem, or that they or, +to their knowledge, anyone else made any efforts to intentionally delete the emails. In addition, at +OPR's request, EOUSA conducted an analysis of records migrated from four other U.S. Attorney's +Offices and found that each office provided data that also contained significant gaps in their U.S. +Attorney email records, although the time periods varied for each office. OPR found no evidence +indicating that the gap in Acosta's emails was caused by any intentional act or for the purpose of +concealing evidence relating to the Epstein investigation and concludes that it was most likely the +result of a technological error. +Although a gap in Acosta's email inbox from May 26, 2007, through April 2, 2008, +emained, OPR was nonetheless able to examine a significant number of Acosta's emails from thi +ime due to the extensive case files kept by the USAO; the availability of Acosta's sent emai +which did not contain a similar gap; and the availability of emails of other USAO subjects and +witnesses who were included on emails with Acosta. +Federal Bureau of Investigation Records +OPR worked with the FBI's Palm Beach Office, including with two case agents and the +Victim Witness Specialist who worked on the Epstein matter, to obtain relevant FBI documents. +In addition, the FBI searched its Automated Case Support system and also provided documentation +concerning its victim notification system. +4. Criminal Division Records +The Office of the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division provided OPR with +Outlook data for the four individuals from that Office who examined issues connected to the +USAO's Epstein investigation. The data included the individuals' inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, +and saved emails, and calendar entries. +CEOS also provided OPR with Outlook data for the four individuals from that office who +worked on, or examined issues connected to, the USAO's Epstein investigation. The data included +is shared had drive and provided documend, that were foreial Eleant orR sidesiekor. +5. +Office of the Deputy Attorney General Records +OPR obtained Outlook data for the three individuals from the Office of the Deputy +Attorney who examined issues connected to the USAO's Epstein investigation, including the +former Deputy Attorney General. The data included the individuals' inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, +and saved emails, and calendar entries. +288 + + +6. +U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida Records +The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida provided OPR with records +related to its review of evidence against Epstein, after he concluded his Florida state sentence, +when the Department recused the USAO in August 2011 from "all matters, to include the +investigation and potential prosecution, relating to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual activities with +minor females," and assigned the matter to the Middle District of Florida U.S. Attorney's Office +for further consideration. The records included a declination of the matter due to the NPA. +U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia Records +The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia provided OPR with records +related to its work on the CVRA litigation after the recusal of the USAO. +8. +Public Records +OPR obtained and reviewed a variety of public records, including publicly released records +of the Palm Beach Police Department, the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit, +and the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office; documents pertaining to the CYRA litigation and other court +proceedings involving Epstein and related individuals; and books and media reports. +B. +Information from Subjects, Witnesses, and Victims +Subjects +OPR requested that all five subjects provide written responses detailing their involvement +in the federal investigation of Epstein, the drafting and execution of the NPA, and decisions +relating to victim notification and consultation. In addition, OPR conducted extensive interviews +of each subject under oath and before a court reporter. Each subject was represented by counsel +and had access to relevant contemporaneous documents before the subject's OPR interview. The +subjects reviewed and provided comments on their interview transcripts and on OPR's draft report. +Witnesses +OPR conducted more than 60 interviews of witnesses, including the FBI case agents, their +supervisors, and FBI administrative personnel. OPR interviewed current and former USAO staff +and attorneys and current and former Department attorneys and senior managers, including former +Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip and former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal +Division Alice Fisher. OPR also interviewed former State Attorney Barry Krischer and former +Assistant State Attorney Lanna Behlolovick. +Communications with Victims and Victims' Attorneys +OPR contacted attorneys known to represent 26 victims among the 30 surviving individuals +who were identified in the USAO's July 2008 listing of 32 victims the USAO was prepared to +include in federal charges against Epstein and who accordingly were entitled to the benefits of the +18 U.S.C. § 2255 monetary damages provision of the NPA. OPR contacted the attorneys to invite +289 + + +the victims to provide OPR with information regarding their contacts with, and notification +received from, the FBI and USAO, during the period before the NPA was signed or before +Epstein's state plea hearing, about the status of the federal investigation, about Epstein's state plea, +or about the NPA. OPR received information from or pertaining to 13 victims. +290 + + + +NOT A CERTIF +State Indictment + + + + +D +INDICTMENT +A.TRUEBILL 06: 9454 CF05 +R +Aiz +IN THE NAME OF AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA 5 +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL +35 += +177 +CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA +For Palm Beach County, at the Spring Term thereof, in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Six, to-wit: +The Grand Jurors of the State of Florida; inquiring in and for the body of said County of Palm Beach, upon their +oaths do present that JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN in the County of Palm Beach aforesaid, in the Circult and State +aforesaid, +COUNT ONE +FELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION +on or about or between the ist day of August in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Four and October 31, +2005, did solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit próstitution lewdness, or assignation; contrary to +Florida Statute 796.07(1) on three or more occasions between August 01, 2004 and October 31, 2005, +contrary to Florida Siatute 796.07(2)(f) and (4)(c). (3 DEG FEL)(LEVEL 1) +against the form of the statute; to the evil example of all others, and against the peace and dignity of the State +of Florida: +I hereby certify that 1 haye, pyjige the erred dung yeturning this indictment as authorized and required by law. +I hereby certily that the +regoing is a true copy +B The record in'iny-bilice. +porter +. 20- +• DEPUTY CLERK +Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of the State +eL Florida, prosecuting for the said +State +GRAND JURY FOREPERSON +CATE +July +19,2000 +Jeffrey E. Epstein, Race: +Sex: Male, DOB: +SS#: +; Issue Warrant + + + + +EXHIBI 207 +September 6,2007 +Draft Non-Prosecution +Agreement + + + + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT +IT APPEARING that Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein") is reported to have +committed offenses against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around +October 2005, including: +(1) +knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to commit +an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means of interstate +or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to +engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section +2422(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371; +knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel in +interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as +defined in 18 U.S.C/§ 2423(f), with minor females, in violation of Title 18, +United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States +Code, Section 2423(e); +using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly +persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in violation of +Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2; +traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual +conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females; in violation of +Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and +knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, enticing, +and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had not attained +the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as +defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(I); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, +Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and +IT APPEARING that Epstein has accepted responsibility for his behavior by his +Паує 1 оф 4 + + +signature on this Agreement; and +IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background, that +the interest of the United States and Epstein's own interest and the interest of justice will be +served by the following procedure; +THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the +Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in +favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following +conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set out below. +Should Epstein violate any of the conditions of this Agreement, the United States +Attorney may at any time initiate prosecution against Epstein for any offense. In this case, the +United States Attorney will furnish Epstein with notice specifying the conditions of the +Agreement which he has violated. +After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for +the offenses set out on page 1 of this Agreement will be instituted in this District, and the +charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed. +Neither this Agreement nor any other document filed with the United States Attorney as +part of this Agreement will be used against Epstein, except for impeachment purposes, in +connection with any prosecution for the above-described offenses. +Terms of the Agreement: +1. +Epstein shall plead guilty (not nolo contendere) to an Information filed by +the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm +Beach County (hereinafter, the "State Attorney's Office") charging +violations of the following Florida Statutes: +(a) +lewd and lascivious battery on a child, in violation of Fl. Stat. +800.04(4); +(b) +solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of FI. +Stat. 796.03; and +(c) +engaging in sexual activity with minors at least sixteen years of +age, in violation of Fl. Stat. 794.05. +Epstein and the State Attorney's Office shall make a joint, binding +recommendation that Epstein serve at least two years in prison, without +any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing; and without +probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment. +Поує 2 оф 4 + + +Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State +Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and +sentence. +Epstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal +investigation file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not +ontest the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern Distric +f Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein will no +ontest that the identified victims are persons who, while minors, wer +ictims of violations of Title 18. United States Code. Sections(s) 242 +and/or 2423. +5. +The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of the +identified victims, which will not exceed forty, after Epstein has signed +this agreement and entered his guilty plea. The United States shall make +a motion with the United States District Court for the Southern District of +Florida for the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the identified +victims and Epstein's counsel +_y contact the identified victims through +that counsel. +6. +Epstein shall enter his guilty plea and be sentenced not later than +September 28, 2007, and shall begin service of his sentence not later than +October 15, 2007. +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is +material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach of +any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement and to +investigate and prosecute Epstein for any and all federal offenses. +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that +the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal +prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further is +aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court may +dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting a charge to +the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein hereby +requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such +prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to the +date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be deemed +to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such prosecution +on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules +of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to a +speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute of limitations for a +period of months equal to the period between the signing of this agreement and the breach of this +Паує 3 оф 4 + + +agreement. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the Fifth Amendment +and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that all felonies must be charged +in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees and consents that, if a +prosecution against him is instituted, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed by the +United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury. +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and +explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this +non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. +Dated: +Jeffrey Epstein +Dated; +Roy Black, Esq +Counsel to Jeffrey Epstein +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Dated: +Villafaña +Assistant United States Attorney +Паує 4 оф 4 + + +EXHIBIT 301* +September 24, 2007 +Non-Prosecution +Agreement + + + + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +/ +NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT +IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Office has charged Epstein by indictment +with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07; +IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of +Investigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any +offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or +around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including: +(1) +knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to +commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means +of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice +minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States +Code, Section 2422(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section +371; +knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel +in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as +defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, in violation of Title 18, +United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States +Code, Section 2423(e); +(3)Y +using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly +persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in +violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2; +traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual +conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females; in violation + + + +of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and +knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, +enticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had +not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a +commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1); in violation of Title +18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and +IT APPEARING that Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal +iability and Epstein understands and acknowledges that, in exchange for the benefit +rovided by thisagreement, he agreesto comply with is terms, including undertaking certain +IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background by +both State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State +Attorney's Office, that the interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the +Defendant will be served by the following procedure; +THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for +the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be +deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the +following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below. +If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that, +during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this +Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the +expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely +notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate its +prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of the violation. Any +notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the +United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of +the Agreement. +After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution +fern the tenget of the join in laidion by he Federal Bureau otherestension antane +United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury +investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be +dismissed. + + + +Terms of the Agreement: +Epstein shall plead guilty (not nolo contendere) to the Indictment as +6. +796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an Information filed +by the State Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that +requires him to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation of +minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section +796.03; +Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a +thirty (30) month sentence to be divided as follows: +(a) +Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) +months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without +any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and +without probation +or community control in lieu of +imprisonment; and +(b) +Epstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (12) months of +community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail +as described in Term 2(a), supra. +This agreement is contingent upon a Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit +accepting and executing the sentence agreed upon between the State +Attorney's Office and Epstein, the details of which are set forth in this +agreement. +The terms contained in paragraphs 1 and 2, supra, do not foreclose +Epstein and the State Attorney's Office from agreeing to recommend +any additional charge(s) or any additional term(s) of probation and/or +incarceration. +Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State +Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and +sentence, except a sentence that exceeds what is set forth in paragraph +(2), supra. +Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all + + + +9. +10. +11. +proposed agreements with the State Attorney's Office prior to entering +into those agreements. +The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of +individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. +§ 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced +Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultatior +with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall +select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for +by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals +through that representative. +If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to +file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the +jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District +of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives +his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages +up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and +Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed +exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other +claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. +Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names +appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on +this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such +damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any +criminal or civil liability. +Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an +admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional +or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the +list provided by the United States. +Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under +18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in paragraph (8), supra, neither Epstein's +signature on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or +settlements by Epstein are to be construed as admissions or evidence of +civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other +defense as to any person, whether or not her name appears on the list +provided by the United States. +Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be + + + +12. +sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no +objection to Epstein self-reporting to begin serving his sentence not +later than January 4, 2008. +Epstein agrees that he will not be afforded any benefits with respect to +Florida. At the United States' request, Epstein agrees to provide an +accounting of the gain time he earned during his period of +incarceration. +13. +The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any +public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information +Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of +the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that +disclosure. +Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the +State Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that +it is his obligation to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office and to use his +best efforts to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary +to satisfy the United States' interest. Epstein also understands that it is his obligation to use +his best efforts to convince the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein's binding +recommendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, and understands that the failure to +do so will be a breach of the agreement. +In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation +in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions +of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges +against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to +• Further, upon execution of this +agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Grand Jury +investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Grand Jury subpoenas will be held +in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement. The +defendant likewise agrees to withdraw his pending motion to intervene and to quash certain +grand jury subpoenas. Both parties agree to maintain their evidence, specifically evidence +requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that have been issued, and +including certain computer equipment, inviolate until all of the terms of this agreement have +been satisfied. Upon the successful completion of the terms of this agreement, all +outstanding grand jury subpoenas shall be deemed withdrawn. + + + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is +material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach +of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement +and to investigate and prosecute Epstein and any other individual or entity for any and all +federal offenses. +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that +the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal +prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further +is aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court +may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting +a charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein +hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such +prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to +the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be +deemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such +prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of +the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the +United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute +of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this +agreement and the breach of this agreement as to those offenses that were the subject of the +grand jury's investigation. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the +Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all +felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees +and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted for any offense that was the +subject of the grand jury's investigation, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed +by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury as +to any such offense. +/// +"11 + + + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read +and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non- +Prosccution Agreement and agrees to comply wịth them. +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNIȚED STATES ATTORNEY +Dated: +Da. terror +By: +VILLAFAÑA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Dated: +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Dated: + + + +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read +and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he underslands the conditions of this Non- +Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Dated: 9/27/07 +By: +ASSISTANT U.S. AȚTORNEY +Dated: +Darod: 9/24/07 +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +RALS EFCOURT/150. +OUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Dated: +, ESQ. + + + +Dated: +Dated:_ +Dated:_ +Dated: 9-34-07 +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEX +By: +[VILLAFANA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN + + + + + + +Addendum to the +Non-Prosecution Agreement + + + + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +ADDENDUM TO THE NON PROSECUTION AGREEMENT +IT APPEARING that the parties seek to clarify certain provisions of page 4, paragraph 7 +of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (hereinafter "paragraph 7"), that agreement is modified as +follows: +7A. The United States has the right to assign to an independent third-party the responsibility +for consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, selecting +the attorney representative for the individuals identified under the Agreement. If the +United States elects to assign this responsibility to an independent third-party, both the +United States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney +representative suggested by the independent third-party prior to the final designation of +the attorney representative. +7B. +The parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-party +regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to +pay such attorney representative his of her regular customary hourly rate for representing +such victims subject to the provisions of paragraph C, infra. +7C. +Pursuant to additional paragraph 7A, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney +representative selected by the independent third party. This provision, however, shall not +obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Thus, +if after consideration of potential settlements, an attorney representative elects to file a +contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. s 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested +remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the costs of the attorney +representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable +attorneys fees and costs such as those contained in s 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney + + +By signing this Addendum; Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and +explained to him: Epstein, heroby, states that he understands the clarifications to the Non- +Prosecuțion Agreement and agrees to comply with them. +Dated: 10/30/67 +•By: +•R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA. +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Jeffry Moman FAISA +VILLAFANA +ASSIS +TANIU.S. ATTORNEY +LEY EPSTEIN +Dated: +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ: +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN: +Dated: +; ESQ: +ATTORNEY FORDEFFREY EPSTEIN + + +•R. ALEXANDER AÇOSTA. +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Dated: 10/30/07 +FAUSA +G A MARIE VILLAFANA +ASSISTANT U.S: ATTORNEY. +Dated: +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Dated: +ESQ: + + +•By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and +explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non +Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them: +Dated: 10/30/07 +By: +'R: ALEXANDER ACOSTA +• UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Nihi +14 Housa FAUCA +VILLAFANA +AS +ISTANT U.S ATTORNEY. +Dated: +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Dated: +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Dated: 10-29-07 +LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ: +ATTORNEY FOR JEPFREY EPSTEIN + + + +State Information +NOT A CERTIF + + + + +IN TACIRCUT COURT ACH COUNTY STATE OF FLORIUTT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA +08 CF 9381 +ARISES FROM BOOKING NO.:: + +VS. +JEFFREY E EPSTEIN, W/M, +INFORMATION FOR: +PROCURING PERSON UNDER 18 FOR PROSTITUION +03 П +In the Name and by Authority of the State of Florida: +through his undersigned Assistant State Attorey, charges that JEFFREY E EPSTEIN on or about or between +the 1" day of August in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Four and October 9, 2005, did knowingly and +unlaw fully procure for prostitution, or caused to be prostituted, +,, a person under the age of 18 years, +contrary, to Florida Statute 796.03. (2 DEG FEL) +FL. BAR NO. 0776726 +Assistant State Attorney +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +Appeared before me, LANNA BELOHLAVEK Assistant State Altorney for Palm Beach County, +Florida, personally known to me, who, being first duly swom, says that the allegations as set forth in the +foregoing information are based upon facts that have been sworn to as true, and which, if true, would constitute +the offense therein charged, that this prosecution is instituted in good faith, and certifies that testimony under +Assistant State Attomey +Swori to and subscribed to before me thicket +day of June, 2008. +sanarie +Дела +ARCOMASON OATA DARES +NOTARY PUBLIC, State of Florida +LB/dp: +ECIC REFERENCE NUMBERS: +1) FELONY SOLICITAȚION OF PROSTITUTION 3699 +STATE OF FLORIDA • PALM BEACH COUNTY +I hereby certily that the +foregoing is a true copy +me record in my office +HIS 2 2000 +• 20. +SHARON R. BOCK +B& COMPTROLLE +HY: +САД + + + + +Appendix 4 + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 1 +IN THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 502008CA037319 XXXX MB AB +3 +5 +B.B. Plainti, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +VOLUME I +VIDEO-TAPED DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL REITER +A WITNESS +TAKEN BY THE PLAINTIFF +16 +17 +18 +19 +DATE: November 23, 2009 +TIME: 10:12 a.m. - 7:38 p.m. +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page +2 +I-N-D-E-X +November 23, 2009 +MICHAEL REITER +DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS +By Mr. Kuvin +8 +352 +By Mr. +By Mr. Critton +155 +190 +364 +1 +3 +6 +EXHIBITS +Marked +Paintif's Exhibit No. 1 +Paints Fit eligence Report 4128(34 +Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2 +Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 3 +99 +(Letter to Barry Krischer) +Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 4 +(Photographs of El Brillo Way) +Plaintiff's Exhibit No_5 +(Photo of 358 El Brillo Way) +Defendant's Exhibit No. 6 +(Subpeona Duces Tecum) +Plaintifi's Exhibit No. 7 +(Moncy Transfers) +Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 8 +131 +132 +218 +356 +357 +(Flight Summary) +Certified Question: Page 160, Line 10 +10 +11 +12 +13 +Letter to John Randolph, Esq. +Errata Sheets (to be forwarded upon completion) +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page +The deposition of MICHAEL REITER, a witness in the +above-entitled and numbered cause was taken before me, +Vanessa G. Archer, Court Reporter, Notary Public for the +State of Florida at Large, at 2925 PGA Boulevard, Palm Beach +Gardens, Florida, on the 23rd day of November, 2009, +pursuant to Notice in said cause for the taking of said +deposition on behalf of the Plaintiff. +APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF B.B.: +SPENCER T. KUVIN, ESQ. +LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 +APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS' JANE DOES 2-8: +ADAM HOROWITZ, ESQ. +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, PA. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF C.A. +JACK +LESQ. +SEARCY, DENNET, SCAROLA, BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A! +139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevar +Nest Palm Beach, Florida 33404 +APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF: +ISIDRO GARCIA, Esq. +GARCIA LAW FIRM, P.A. +The Harvey Building +224 Datu +• Street. Surte 900 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Page 4 +APPEARING ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT: +ROBERT D. CRITTON, ESQ. +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LIP. +Ses Palm Beach, Ponds 34 00 +JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQ. +ATTENBURY, GOLDBERGER, +250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +APPEARING ON BEHALF OF WITNESS: +JOANNE +L ESQ. +JOHN RANDOLPH, ESQ. +_ JOHNSTON & STUBBS, P.A. +505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 110 +Nest Palm Beach, Florida 3340 +ALSO PRESENT: JEFFREY EPSTEIN +VIDEO MA EVERAL DOWNY +601 North Dixie Highway, Suite A +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +& WEISS, P.A +1 (Pages 1 to 4) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +(11) +(12) +(13) +(14) +(15) +(16) +(17) +(18) +(19) +(20) +(21) +(22) +(23) +(24) +(25) +(6) +(7) +(8) +(9) +(10) +(11) +(12) +(13) +(14) +(15) +(16) +(17) +(18) +(19) +(20) +(21) +(22) +(23) +(24) +(25) +Page 53 +And at what point did you learn that +Mr. Epstein, in fact, did become aware of the +investigation? +A I think the point that I actually knew +that it was, it was reported to me by one of the +detectives that one of the victims had been +contacted by a private investigator that the +department believed was employed by a lawyer of - +employed by Mr. Epstein. +1QL On that topic, at some point did you +(become aware that Mr. Epstein was actually) +(investigating you?! +(MR. CRITTON: Form.) +(THE WITNESS: Yes.) +(BY MR. KUVIN:) +[Q/ [Tell me about that? +(A_Well I heard through various individuals) +(that one of his lawyers, Mr. Dershowitz, had been +(contacting private investigators in the area to! +(perform background investigations on me. I know) +(that there was a public records law demand filed by) +(several private investigators on the Town of Palm +(Beach for my personnel records. And I actually ran +(into one of the private investigators very early) +on - you asked me when I first became aware.-- +Page 54 +Page 55 +(A) (No.)] +(Q) First time ever? +(MR. CRITTON: Form. +BY MR. KUVIN:| +IQ [First time you can recall it going to this +extent? +_IAl_|The only time I ever recall anyone ever +going to this extent.! +1Q How long were you aware there was +surveillance on you personally? +|A|_ Well, you know, I just took the approach +(that I have nothing to hide, and 1 just lived my! +(life so I tried not to look around every corner. I) +felt like it was around three months.) +IQL_|At any time during the investigation, did +(you become aware that investigators were also! +surveilling and investigating potential victims?! +_AL That had been reported to us by victims.) +(And the lead investigator in the case also felt likel +(he was being surveilled, people were picking up his +(trash and so on. +(Q) (Is that Detective Recarey?) +Ar(Ycs.) +Q +So there was a time that your officers +became aware it was being investigated on? +Page 56 +Q +Yeah. +IA!_ - that basically told me that. I also +(I mean I saw surveillance a number of times. +didn't know precisely who had hired those persons, +(but I mean I had surveillance for a fairly long) +(period of time.) +(Q) (There was surveillance you noticed on you? +(A) (Yes.| +(Q) (Do you know why?! +[Al_|No, no, I don't. It would be an +assumption. In general sense, you know, there's an +(attack on the case and if that doesn't work there's) +(an attack on the investigators. I don't know. I) +(don't know. Shouldn't say that.! +MR. CRITTON: Form, move to strike. +(BY MR. KUVIN:)] +'Q!_You were working as a police officer for +(wenty-eight years and then as a chief -- well -) +(A) (And two years prior to that actually.) +(Q)_(Right. During your entire history as al +police officer, can you ever recall someone going to +(that length? In other words, a suspect conducting +(an investigation on you such as the lengths that! +(occurred in this case which include surveillance on +(you?! +(5 +(6) +(7) +(8) +(9) +(10) +(11) +(12) +(13) +(14) +(15) +(16) +(17) +(18) +(19) +(20) +(21) +(22) +(23) +24 +25 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: One officer, one detective. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q To the extent they were picking up his +trash? +A Yes. +Q Were you aware of that ever occurring in +your career to officers working under you? +A I didn't say it never occurred to this +degree. +Q Got you. +A I think if you're asking the question do I +know of any other law enforcement officers who know +as part of their job somebody investigated them and +picked up their trash, not that I can specifically +recall. +Q Okay. +A Other than the police department itself, +we've had private investigators take trash at the +police department itself, we've caught people doing +that. +• Obviously at some point Mr. Epstein was +tipped off as to the investigation because of the +investigators that you became aware of. Did you +ultimately know how he became tipped off? +14 (Pages 53 to 56) + + +1 +2 +3 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 69 +Q How did you keep that information when you +were there? +A It was a letter that I received from the +U.S. Attorney. +Q Hang on, back up, you misunderstood my +question. I'm talking about the state, your +investigation. In other words, what did you match +the forty some odd victims in the U.S. Attorney's +letter with in your list? I'm looking for your +list. +A The incident reports. +Q Okay. How many incident reports did you +all generate? +A I don't recall if the latter victim, or +victims, generated a new case number or if they're +included in this. It seems like it probably +generated a new case number but I can't say for +sure. But Detective Recarey would know. +Q Okay. All right. Would all of the +potential victims that were being investigated by +your department prior to let's say July of 2006, +have been listed in this incident report we've +marked as Exhibit 2? Were there any additional +incident reports? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +Page 70 +THE WITNESS: For the time period that +that covers -- +BY MR. KUVIN: +& Yeah. For the time period of January 27 +of'05 through the last page of this Exhibit 2 is +July 12 of'06. +A I think there was only one report. +Q Okay. +A When you mention victims, and that's sort +of a subjective word, there were individuals that we +felt their activity had constituted a crime but they +were not cooperative. +Q Right. +A You know, they're not victims but they're +in here and the numbers change if you want to add +all them in. +• Okay. And what I'm just trying to find +is, is in this particular report we've marked as +Exhibit 2, it has, if I recall, seventeen victims +listed and it goes through the date of July of "06. +Do you know how many girls approached the department +later on, total number? +A Definitely one and possibly more, I'm not +sure exactly. But once I realized that they had +been considered by the federal investigation, I knew +1 +2 +(6) +7) +9 +(10) +(11) +(12) +(13) +(14) +(15) +(16) +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +4 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 71 +we had no further involvement. So it wasn't +something that I would be completely informed about. +QL_Okay. At any point did someone, anyone, +(come to you and either formally or informally ask +(you to back off the investigation, stop the +(investigation, or alter your investigation in any) +(way?) +[A)_(I had individuals suggest that the! +(department's approach to the investigation and my) +(referral of the investigation to the FBI was more! +(horse power than the investigation deserved. And I) +(had other individuals suggest that- yeah, the term +back off probably fits, yes.) +(Q) (Who?! +(A)_[I think that Barry Krischer would be +included in that description. +Q Who else? +A I had people in the community in Palm +Beach that either e comments directly to me or to +others who relayed them to me that I didn't need to +take the tact in the investigation that we did, +which is completely investigate it and then refer it +to the FBI after the state case was resolved. +Q Do you remember any of those people that +mentioned it either to you directly or through your +Page 72 +department? +A Well it wouldn't be, I think, appropriate +for me to list individuals that I don't know +first-hand said that. I had many people relate +conversations of another on the cocktail party +circuit that suggested that we approach this in a +way that wasn't necessary. I had one individual who +actually came to see me a couple of times about +this. +Q Who was that? +A Jerry GoldSmith. +Q Okay. What did he say? +A He said that this wasn't necessary, this +was a case that really was very minor. The victims +had lifestyles that don't make them -- shouldn't +make them believable to the police department. And +he said that I shouldn't have referred it to the FBI +and Palm Beach solves its own problems, why did I do +that, why am I after Jeffrey Epstein. A couple of +occasions that was the general topic of the +discussion. +• Did you know who Mr. Goldsmith was? +A Yes. I know them all. +Q Lives on the island? +A As far as I know, yes. +18 (Pages 69 to 72) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 93 +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: That's not my role as Police +Chief. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q How did you ultimately learn what was +going to happen with respect to the federal +investigation; who told you that for the first time? +A +Well it changed so many different times. +9 The final outcome when it had been agreed upon, +Assistant U.S. Attorney +Villafana shared with +me in a general sense that there was a +non-prosecution agreement and told me what +Mr. Epstein would plea to in state court, and just +in a very general sense. +Q What were your thoughts about what +occurred with respect to the federal investigation? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q In other words, did you respond to her and +tell her what you were thinking? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: I had been telling her what +my thoughts were about the investigation and +the prosecution all along. I don't think when +she told me what was going to happen -- did I +Page +:94 +make a comment about it? +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Yes. +A If that's what your question is, yes. All +along my concern was that he would be classified as +a sexual offender and all of the provisions that +travel along with that so there wouldn't be +opportunity, or be far less opportunity, for +additional victims to take place. And I think I +shared with her some sense of relief that that was a +part of the plea. Beyond that, there really wasn't +a need to say anything else. +Q Did you discuss with her the fact that the +feds were not going to prosecute; in other words, +the federal government weren't going to prosecute +the case? +A +You know, I guess I have to sort of pose +this question that this is part of the, I suppose, +the work product of the U.S. Attorney's Office. Is +this the kind of thing that I should be talking +about? I mean is this privileged from the federal +end for me to talk about the conversations I had +with the United States Attorney? +MR. RANDOLPH: I think if you have any +discomfort at all in regard to whether it is, +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +2 +3 +4 +5 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +(23) +(24) +(25) +Page 95 +that you should not answer that question. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q I certainly don't think once your +investigation is closed that there's any problem +with having the discussion if it's a closed +investigation, which it is now. +Well let me ask that. Is your +investigation closed with respect to Mr. Epstein? +A I'm retired. So as far as I know when I +left it was a closed investigation, yes. +Q Okay. So when you left, the investigation +with respect to Mr. Epstein was closed? +A Yes. I don't know if the federal +investigation is closed. +Q Fair enough. +You didn't though learn of any new +investigation with respect to the Town of Palm +Beach's duties after you left, did you? +A No. +Q So as far as you know, as you sit here +today, the Town of Palm Beach's investigation is +over as far as you know? +A Yes. +MR. KUVIN: Then at that point, once the +investigation's closed, I certainly don't see +Page 96 +that there's any privilege with respect to +those communications that he may have had on a +closed investigation. +MR. RANDOLPH: He's not stating a concern +in regard to the closed investigation of the +town, he's stating his concern in regard to a +federal investigation and stated he does not +know whether there's any ongoing investigation +in that regard, I believe, and he has concerns +revealing that. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Well with respect to your communications +with the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding your now +closed investigation, do you recall discussing with +them the non-prosecution agreement, let's just start +there? Generally, did you discuss that with them? +A Yes, I discussed that with them. And it's +different iterations as it went along. They shared +some portion of the information. I still today have +not seen the non-prosecution agreement but they +shared some of the provisions with me. +Q_ Okay. Based upon what was shared with +(you, did you at any point discuss your +(dissatisfaction with that agreement in any regard? +(A) (Yes.) +24 (Pages 93 to 96) + + +1 +19 +(1O) +(11) +(12 +(13 +14 +(15) +(16) +(17 +(18) +(19) +(20) +(2 +1) +2 +2) +(23) +(24) +(25) +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 97 +(Q) (Why? +(A)_(Well I had been told by the U.S.) +2 +(Attorney's Office that typically these kinds of +3 +cases with one victim would end up in a ten-year) +4 +sentence. And they told me early on that they had,) +5 +(I guess in earlier iterations of agreement, tried to) +6 +get some sort of a fund set up which I understand +7 +(there are provisions for in federal law to] +8 +compensate the victims. And I think I remember. +9 +asking that when they told me that the agreement had +(been signed, and I think it was changed a time or) +(10) +(11) +(two and they told me that that was not a part of it.) +(12 +Because I always felt that this case,! +(13 +(it was all about the victim, that's reason to dol +14 +(this. And I did -- I think they told me that this +(15) +(fund had not been a part of the final version and 1) +(16 +(told them that I was disappointed in that. But they) +(17 +(didn't really give me the details of it, they gave) +(18 +(me an overall explanation and they said it was going +(19) +(to be sealed.) +(20) +(And I understand it's been unsealed +(21) +but I haven't - I haven't read it. Along the way 1) +(22) +gave general comment when they would inform me about! +(23) +(parts of' it. Because they asked for my input, I) +(24) +(would give them general comment about the parts of +(25) +Page 98 +(it that were important to me. And the part that was +(important to me is the classification as a sexual +(oflender.) +• Okay. Did you, at any time, learn why +(1 +they entered into a non-prosecution agreement as +opposed to prosecuting the forty some odd cases? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Never gave you an explanation on that? +A No. +Q You know the name Ken Starr? +A Yes. +Q Did you learn that name with respect to +this investigation at all? +A From the news media. And I think maybe +the U.S. Attorney's Office mentioned to me that he +either represents or did represent Mr. Epstein. +Q Do you know what discussions were had with +Ken Starr regarding the federal investigation at +all; did you ever become aware of that? +A No. +Q Do you know what influence Mr. Starr may +have exerted on the U.S. Attorney's Office and the +DC Office at all regarding this investigation, if +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +(23) +(24) +(25) +Page 99 +any? +A No. +Q At some point you sent a letter to State +Attorney Barry Krischer. Let me show you what we'll +mark as Exhibit 3. Let me give you a chance to just +read through this letter again to help refresh your +recollection. +I've read it. +(At this point, in May of 2006, I'm +(assuming based on what you told us before, that you +(had had some conversations with Barry Krischer) +(directly at this point by phone, cofrect, prior to +this letter?) +_(AI_(I had conversations in person and by) +(phone.) +IQOkay. But nonetheless in May, May 1,) +(2006, you felt the need to write this letter; is +that correct? +(A) (Yes.) +(Q) (Can you tell us why? +(Al (Well 1 felt the handling and just) +(continued to feel that the way the State Attorney's +Office handled this case was extremely unusual. I) +(felt that Mr. Krischer's -- I knew that Mr. Krischer +was making decisions about this case. I felt that +Page 100 +(his objectivity was lacking, and I felt that the +(appropriate way after reading the statute that +(governed the assignment of cases to other circuits, +(I felt that his action met the standard. I used] +(some of the words from the statute in here. And I +(attempted to call him and he wouldn't return my) +(phone calls.) +The detective attempted to contact -- +his contact in the State Attorney's Office, Lanna +Belohlavek, however you pronounce that, I apologize +if I have it wrong, and she wouldn't return his +calls. So I wrote the letter in hope that he would +think about his situation and realize that his +objectivity was insufficient to prosecute the case +and ask the governor to appoint someone else. And I +felt like that was necessary for a fair prosecution +of our case that we submitted to him. +Q Could you tell us, explain to us, why you +felt that his objectivity may be lacking in regards +to this prosecution? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q_ In other words, what evidence did you see +(here uncover that you felt made it potentially) +(non-objective?! +25 (Pages 97 to 100) + + +(6) +(7) +(8) +(9) +(10) +(11) +(12) +(13) +(14) +(15) +(16) +(17) +(18) +(19) +(20) +(21) +(22) +(23) +(24) +(25) +(1) +(6) +(7) +(8) +(9) +(10) +(11) +(12) +(13) +(14) +(15) +(16) +(17) +(18) +(19) +(20) +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 101 +(MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: Well, carly on I had -- when +(I first told him about the case and I realized|_ +(that it was a serious case, there were multiple) +(victims, that the suspect was very well known,) +(I told him about it. And we were -- it was in! +(person, I talked to him after a meeting that he +(and I were both involved in. And I had known) +(him to be a victim advocate and to protect the +(rights of children. Well I know that he even +(wrote a portion of the statute that addresses) +those issues. And when I told him about it +(originally he said let's go for it, this is an) +(adult male in his fifties who's had sexual) +(contact with children of the ages of the) +(victims. He said this is somebody who we have +(to stop. And whatever we need, he said, in the +(State Attorney's Office, we have a unit that's) +(equipped to investigate and prosecute these|_ +(kinds of cases. I think he probably mentioned) +(Lanna's name to me and anything that you need +(and, you know, this is basically a case that +needs to be prosecuted.! +!And I didn't have too many facts carly on +(when I talked with him, but I knew that there +Page +102) +(were multiple victims and to our detectives] +(they were believable. So when time went on and +(Mr. Epstein became aware of the investigation) +and his lawyers contacted the State Attorney's +Office, they told me that.! +I And from that point on, and/i believe it +(was Mr. Dershowitz initially, the tone and) +(tenor of the discussions of this case with) +(Mr. Krischer changed completely. One point he +(suggested that we write him a notice to appear +(which would be for a misdemeanor. He just +(completely changed from not only our firstl +(conversation about this and he didn't know the +(name Jeffrey Epstein, till when he had been! +(informed on Mr. Epstein's reputation and his) +(wealth, and I just thought that very unusual.) +(I feel like I know him or knew him very +well, the State Attorney, and I just felt like! +(he could not objectively make decisions about +(this case; that is why I wrote it.) +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Was there anything that you learned +through discussions with him that led you to believe +maybe his objectivity had been altered in some +regards; in other words, anything he told you +Page 103 +2 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +directly? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: He told me that he had +conversations with Mr. Dershowitz. I know Roy +Black. At least the news media reporter was +involved in this and I think that he said that +he had a conversation with him. I think Roy +Black had another case with that circuit around +the same time and maybe even other lawyers that +represented Mr. Epstein, and they were +obviously discussing the case. And he +basically told me that he looked at Facebook +pages of some of the victims and that he felt +like they were incredible. +And I have never felt like prosecutions, +evidence should be weighed outside of the +judicial process. I just don't -- we wouldn't +cover our ears and eyes when a person under +investigation's lawyer would bring forward +exculpatory evidence, but on the other hand +we're not the weigher of fact in these things. +We reach the standard of probable cause and +beyond, and that's when a judge, or in this +particular case a State Attorney, should make +those decisions. +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +(14) +(15) +(16) +(17) +(18) +(19) +(20) +(21) +(22) +(23) +(24) +(25) +Page 104 +And he had been meeting with them without +the presence of our investigators. I don't +mean he personally but at least -- probably he +personally but definitely members of his +office, and he hadn't been sharing that +information with us. +He hadn't, you know -- he characterized it +with me but he didn't show us the things, at +least not exhaustively, that had been given to +him by Mr. Epstein's attorneys. I just felt +like that was wrong. Those are the reasons. +BY MR. KUVIN: +1Q _ Have we exhausted the reasons why you felt +(that this case, at least you put in your letter,! +(was the handling of this case was highly unusual?) +(Was there anything else that you felt was highly) +(unusual regarding the investigation?! +Well the Dahlia Weiss being involved in) +this case with her husband as a lawyer for -- I'm! +(not saying that anything happened there, but there's +(certainly an appearance of impropriety. I felt like +that alone should have been reason enough. First of +(all for her to be disqualified as soon as she became) +(aware that a law firm that -- not disqualified but +(removed from the case as soon as she became aware +26 (Pages 101 to 104) + + +1) +(6) +(7) +(8) +(9) +(10) +(11) +(12) +(13) +(14) +(15) +(16) +(17) +(18) +(19) +(20) +(21) +(22) +(23) +(24) +(25) +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 105 +that her husband's law firm had represented Mr.) +Epstein. And maybe even done damage to the point +(that because that happened it should be handled by +(another circuit.) +(This was a case that I felt) +absolutely needed the attention of the State) +(Attorney's Office, that needed to be prosecuted in +(state court. It's not generally something that's! +(prosecuted in a federal court. And I knew that it +(didn't really matter what the facts were in this!_ +(case, it was pretty clear to me that Mr. Krischer +(did not want to prosecute this case. +1Q Did he, in fact, make that clear to you at +(some point verbally?! +IA!_|Not in those exact words. But the +(suggestion that multiple victims and some of the +(crimes, felonies, that he should write a notice to +(appear for a misdemeanor and the scheduling of a +(grand jury on an issue like this is extremely rare.) +(The fact that he and I had an) +(excellent relationship. I was the speaker at his) +(swearing in ceremony. And that he wouldn't return +(my phone calls, I mean it was clear to me by his) +(actions that he could not objectively look at this +(case.) +Page 107 +record at 1:44. This is the beginning of tape +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. KUVIN: +@ Okay. When we left off we were talking +about Barry Krischer's office. And before I move on +from that subject I just have one other question. +Are you aware of any contact that was +made with Mr. Krischer's office from anyone in the +democratic party or the DNC at all? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: Relative to this case? +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Yes, relative to the Epstein case? +A No. +Q Are all of the officers that were involved +in the investigation listed or contained within the +incident report that we've marked as Exhibit 2, and +were there any additional officers that were +involved that may not be listed in there? +A Typically and generally when you say +involyed, I mean that could encompass all sorts of +different people. It might be -- I don't even know +that this was the case but it might ask the patrol +officer in the area to collect license tags from a +street or something like that. I mean if they +Page 106 +Page 108 +Q At some point, did you feel, or did you +become aware, that maybe he had been threatened in +2 +some regard, either regarding his job or personally +3 +in any regard? +4 +A No. +5 +MR. CRITTON: Form. +6 +BY MR. KUVIN: +7 +Q You're aware that obviously his position +8 +is an elected position? +9 +A lam aware. +10 +Q Did you know whether or not he had had any +11 +discussions with anyone about his political career +12 +if this case did not go a certain way; did you ever +13 +become aware of that in any regard? +14 +MR. CRITTON: Form. +15 +THE WITNESS: No. He had already publicly +16 +announced he wasn't running for re-election. +17 +MR. KUVIN: All right. This is actually a +18 +good stopping point for a quick lunch if you +19 +want to take a quick one, I just have to eat. +20 +I'm hopefully not far from concluding. +21 +THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're off the record at +22 +12:35. This is the end of tape 2. +23 +(Recess) +24 +THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the +25 +aren't writing a report and they aren't doing +something that's probably important later on as a +witness, they might not appear in there. But the +detectives who conducted the investigation are +listed in there from what I recall the last time I +read it, and it's been a while, but as far as I +know. +Q At any point, did you have to remove for +any reason anyone in your department from the +investigation for any reason? +A No. It took place over a fairly long +period of time so people were transferred and so on, +but I didn't personally remove someone for any +reason. +Q And it may not have been you personally, +but just to make sure that it encompasses all +potential iterations of that question, was anyone +removed for any reason other than just someone +transferring out? +A Do you mean for -- I think you have to +explain that. +Q Were any of the investigating police +officers removed for any potential conflicts, +refusal to follow direction, any reason, other than +just a transfer out of the department for some +27 (Pages 105 to 108) + + +Page 141 +Q If we look at the bottom of page 67, +2 +3 +second paragraph down -- sorry, second paragraph +from the bottom, excuse me, it says here letter to +Mr. Dershowitz sent advised he was looking into the +5 +6 +7 +allegation that one of the private investigators +used by the private attorneys of Epstein, attempted +to impersonate or state that they were police +officers from Palm Beach. Do you recall hearing +about that? +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +24 +25 +A I didn't recall, not till I read this. +Q Okay. Apparently there was a package sent +to both ASA Lanna Belohlavek and ASA Dahlia Weiss at +the State Attorney's Office. Do you see that? +A I see that sentence, yes. +Q Did you see that package that was sent? +A I don't remember that I did. I wouldn't +normally. +Q If we turn to page 73, top of the page it +has the name of a Dr. +Bard. Do you see that +in the first paragraph? +A I do. +Q Did you ever come to learn who Dr. +23 Bard was other than what might be stated in here? +A I read this at one time so I was informed +of it, but I had not recalled the name until I read +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +(23) +(24) +(25) +Page 143 +A No. +Q If you turn to page 79, it appears that on +the date of February 16, 2006, there's a meeting +that takes place between the investigator +Recarey and two women, +and a +Do you see that? +MR. CRITTON: Are we at 79? +MR. KUVIN: Yeah. +THE WITNESS: Yes. +BY MR. KUVIN: +@ Okay. Did you learn any additional +information regarding those two women other than +what might be in here, in the report? +A No, not personally. +• This may go along with what you discussed +at the beginning with respect to not really +prosecuting what technically would be a criminal act +for prostitution in a home. But it appears from +this information here that these two girls were paid +for sexual contact with Mr. Epstein, at least +according to what Detective Recarey investigated. +‹Were there any additional +(investigations ongoing regarding allegations of +(prostitution at the home?! +(MR. CRITTON: Form! +Page 142 +Page 144 +1 it again here. +(1) +(THE WITNESS: The only way I can answer +Q No additional information regarding +(that question is I don't consider) +3 Dr. Bard? +4 +A No. +(fifteen-year-olds, sixteen-year-olds who are +(paid money to engage in sexual contact +5 +Q And with respect to the next paragfaph it +(prostitution, by the legal definition of the +6 mentions a woman by the name of Johanna Sjoberg, +7 spelled S-J-O-B-E-R-G. Do you see that? +(6) +(law, for purposes of prosecuting them. I +8 +A I see it, yes. +8 +really don't know what you're getting at beyond +that. I mean that's -- I don't know how else +Q Do you recall anything in particular with +9 +to answer that. +10 respect to Ms. Sjoberg? +10 +11 +BY MR. KUVIN: +A No. +(11) +Q Mayhe I phrased it wrong But these +12 +Q If we turn to page 74 for a moment, there +(12) +(girls, +were apparently) +13 +14 +are, at the bottom of the page, last paragraph, four +(13) +separate telephone numbers listed for a Cingular +(14) +(over the age of eighteen. These were girls that! +(were over the age of majority that were apparently) +15 +wireless, one of which is listed to a Janusz, +(15) +(paid for sexual contact with Mr. Epstein.] +16 +J-A-N-U-S-Z, Banasiak. Do you know who Janusz +(16) +_ Were there any ongoing investigations +17 +Banasiak is? +(17) +18 +A +No. Only from what it says here. +(18) +(regarding solicitation for prostitution against +Mr. Epstein regarding girls over the age of +19 +20 +Q No additional information though? +(19) +A +No. +(20) +(eighteen?! +IAl_No. These kinds of situations are not). +21 +22 +Q +at the bottom of the +(21) +prosecutable. The State Attorney's Office some +page, do you see that name? +(22) +lyears earlier even suggested that we no longer do +23 +A +I see it. +(23) +24 +Q +(sting operations for prostitution because they| +Any additional information that you're +(24) +(didn't want to prosecute them. This is a case where +25 +aware of regarding her? +(25) +(you have willing participants after the fact and no! +36 (Pages 141 to 144) +Pleasanton, +Greenhill, Meek and Associates + + +Page 145 +1) +(physical evidence. +(No, the resources of the department) +(are not dedicated for these kind of semi-victimless) +(crimes in private residences unless it presents some +6 +(other problem.) +Q +! Okay. If we turn to page 81, bottom of +8 +the page dated April 10 of 2006. Second to last +paragraph it references - +MR. CRITTON: I'm sorry, Spencer, what +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +page? +MR. KUVIN: 81. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Additional subpoenas from the State +Attorney's Office requesting information from Dollar +Rent a Car and Jet Aviation. Do you see that? +A Yes. +Q Do you recall seeing any of the records +that were produced in response to this subpoena to +Dollar Rent a Car or Jet Aviation? +A +No. +Q Turn to page 84 if you would. Top of page +84 there's discussion -- and this goes back to the +initial note as begun on April 14, 2006 and actually +begins on page 82 -- regarding grand jury subpoenas +and discussions with the State Attorney's Office. +Page 146 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +If we go to page 84 though, it talks +about the quote, unquote, deal being offered to +Mr. Epstein. And if you look at paragraph one here, +in the middle of the paragraph it says however, L +expressed that was only my opinion and that thé +final approval would come from the Chief of Police. +She explained to have Chief Reiter call Barry +Krischer about the deal. Do you see that? +A Ido. +Q Did Officer Recarey talk to you about the +deal? +A There were so many potential deals, deals +being the plea agreement, that had been suggested, I +don't know which one they're talking about here. +Q Bottom of page 83, if you read the last +paragraph it'll explain it, might help refresh your +recollection. +A +Well after reading this it refreshed my +recollection on one of the different proposed +agreements, which -- +Q Okay. +A - I guess some of which they asked for +our input. And what this reflects is that in this +particular case with all of its unusual twists and +turns, I told Detective Recarey that he should not +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +3 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 147 +offer an opinion on behalf of the department of +whether we think any deal is appropriate, that I +would want to reserve that for myself. So that's +what happened here. +Q Okay. All right. +Do you recall having direct +conversation with Barry Krischer about this +particular deal that's discussed here on pages 83 +and 84? +In other words, it looks here on page +83 to be a deal where the offer is one count of +aggravated assault with intent to commit a felony, +five years probation with adjudication withheld, +which was conveyed to Mr. Epstein's attorneys at the +time, Guy Fronstin and Mr. Dershowitz. +A I always told Barry Krischer when we had +conversations about how this would resolve itself +that my biggest concern, really my main concern was +that Mr. Epstein be classified as a sexual offender +to reduce the likelihood that this would continue in +the future. Inever formed an opinion or +communicated it to him about how many years of this +of how many years of that, so on, other than to tell +him that I felt like a Notice to Appear was not the +appropriate way to resolve this. +Page 148 +Q Okay. All right. Bottom of page 84 +there's a documented call with Officer Recarey, +Detective Recarey. Says here on May 3rd, 2006 at +approximately 2:54 p.m., I, meaning Detective +Recarey, received a telephone call from ASA Dahlia +Weiss on my cellular telephone. ASA Weiss advised +she has been taken off the Jeffrey Epstein case +because her husband is employed with Attorney Jack +Goldberger. Do you see that? +A Yes. +MR. CRITTON: Is there a date there, +Spencer, of reference? +MR. KUVIN: Yes, May 3rd, 2006. +MR. CRITTON: Thank you. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Is that the first time that -- or shortly +after that call that you became aware of the +relationship between ASA Weiss and Mr. Goldberger's +office? +A Like I said earlier, I became aware of the +relationship prior to learning of her being taken +off the case, so I would have known about the +relationship before this day. +Q It appears, and I don't want you to guess, +so all I want to know is whether you had a +37 (Pages 145 to 148) + + +1 +2 +3 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 149 +conversation with Detective Recarey about this, +whether he said anything directly to you that she +was removed as opposed to removing herself +voluntarily from the case? +MR. CRITTON: Form. You're asking him to +speculate. +MR. KUVIN: No, I'm not, I'm asking for +any conversation he had with Detective Recarey. +THE WITNESS: I don't remember. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Okay. Page 85, again going down to the +date of May 15, 2006, there's a reference to a +contractor by the name of David Norr, N-O-R-R, and +apparently he was surveilled for a short period of +time. +A Let me find that. +Q Sure. Middle of the page. +A Okay. +Q Do you recall whether your department +obtained any records regarding the renovations that +were going on at Mr. Epstein's home; blue prints, +construction diagrams, anything like that, documents +from the contractor? +A No. +• No, you didn't, or no - +Page 150 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 151 +with Mr. Indyke? +A No. +Q There appear to be a number of +corporations. El Zorro Ranch Corporation, New York +Strategy Group, Ghislaine, G-H-I-S-L-A-I-N-E, +Corporation, J. Epstein and Company and the +Financial Strategy Group. Do you see those? +A I do. +• Do you recall anything, seeing any +documents or information regarding those companies? +A I've read this report before. And if it's +in the report I read it previously, but I don't have +anything independent of the report, nor do I recall +any more than what you've shown me here. +Q I'm just looking to see whether or not you +saw any corporate printouts or corporate documents +or anything like that that might have been obtained +online or through other sources? +A I did not get involved in this +investigation at that level. +Q Okay. Last entry here of July 12, 2006, +it says here Belohlavek -- and spelled for the +benefit of the court reporter, we've used it before, +but just for her sake it's B-E-L-O-H-L-A-V-E-K-- +stated State Attorney Barry Krischer made the +Page 152 +A No, I don't recall. It would have been +easily available to us from the building department. +2 +determination to go to the Grand Jury to hear the +case. +Q Right, building and zoning? +3 +Did you, or do you recall discussing +A I have no idea if we did. +directly with him why he was taking this to a Grand +Q Turn to page 86. Top of the page on May +Jury as opposed to just charging Mr. Epstein, his +22nd, 2006, I received several phone calls +office doing it themselves? +throughout the day from Mr., and then it's blacked +A No. +out, who stated he had been followed aggressively by +8 +Q You agree with me that that would be out +a private investigator. Who was that? +9 +of the ordinary based on the charges that were +A I don't know. +10 +brought? +Q It appears if you go further down that the +11 +MR. CRITTON: Form. +vehicle that was following this person was traced by +12 +THE WITNESS: My experience, yes. +Florida tag I35-XGA to a Mr. Zachary Bechard of +13 +BY MR. KUVIN: +Candor Investigations, Do you see that? +14 +A Yes. +15 +Q Do you agree with me that you learned that +it was Mr. Krischer that made that decision himself? +Q Did you come to learn anything about that +16 +MR. CRITTON: Form. +particular investigative agency? Independent of +17 +what might be in the report. +18 +THE WITNESS: That's my understanding. +BY MR. KUVIN: +A No, not that I can recall. +(19) +Q Page 87, last page. Middle of the page +(20) +Q Did you ever get any explanation from! +(anyone, not just him, but anyone, as to why they did +references Epstein's corporation attorney, a +(21) +that? +gentleman by the name of Darren Indyke, I-N-D-Y-K-E +(22) +(MR. CRITTON: Form. +Do you see that? +(23) +A Not yet. Okay, yes. +(24) +(THE WITNESS: Sometime after the fact, the +(Grand Jury, maybe even possibly long after the) +Q Do you recall having any conversations +(25) +(fact, he told me that it was a political -- not! +38 (Pages 149 to 152) + + +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 153 +(a political, but it was a noteworthy +(investigation, a noteworthy prosecution.) And +in these kind of controversial situations, an +independent body of the Grand Jury, it was +appropriate to have them exam him. He called +other grand juries for things, I can't say +similar, but a homicide that had racial +overtones and so on, and he made reference to +that, that that was his choice to deal with +these kinds of things. That could have been as +recent as, you know, within the last year and a +half or so. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Do you recall your department being +involved in any other high profile type of +investigations; for example, the investigation that +involved a radio personality that lives in Palm +Beach and the investigation of a potential boater +fraud as a result of another author or radio +personality on Palm Beach, or was this the only high +profile investigation you can recall working on in +your history in the city, or the town? +A Involved in the department and personally +been involved in many high profile investigations. +Q Many being more than ten? I'm just trying +Page 154 +to get an idea -- +A +The standard rules don't really help me. +We used to joke about how very small things in Palm +Beach would become noteworthy in the news media, +that they would be meaningless everywhere else. +Q Right. +A If you mean national political interest, +at that level profile, yes, at least ten, probably +more than ten. +Q In your experience in dealing with even +those high profile investigations, was this one +different? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: It wasn't different in the +amount of, you know, at the level of profile of +had we been involved in that before where it +gets international news media coverage and all +of the things that come with that. It was +different in the respect that probably what +should have remained a state case had to become +a federal case, which they ended it and it all +ended in an agreed plea in the state case. It +was different for me in that I asked the State +Attorney to remove himself from the case, you +know. It was different from many different +Page 155 +1 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +perspectives but not necessarily the news media +coverage. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q Was it handled any differently than you +handled other high profile cases that you may have +handled in the past? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +BY MR. KUVIN: +Q From your perspective? +A I don't think it was handled any +differently by the Palm Beach Police Department than +from any of the other high profile cases. +Q Okay. I appreciate it. That's all the +questions I have at this point. I'm going to turn +it over to the other plaintiff attorneys who may +have a few for vou. +• I don't have any. Thank you, +sir. +THE WITNESS: You're welcome. +MR. GARCIA: I just have a couple here. +CROSS-EXAMINATION. +BY MR. GARCIA: +Q Chief, my name is Sid +I represent +one of the plaintiffs in the case. I think we met +before in another case, another deposition years +Page 156 +ago. +Just want to ask you a few questions +3 +4 +beginning with the -- asking basically your opinion +as to why Mr. Krischer did not pursue the case with +the diligence that you thought he should have +6 +pursued it with? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +8 +THE WITNESS: I'm not sure 1 understand +9 +the question. +10 +BY MR. +11 +& In other words, you talked about that you +12 +sent a letter to Mr. Krischer asking him to +13 +disqualify his office from the case. Why do you +14 +believe that he did not pursue the case with the +15 +zeal that you thought he should pursue it with? +16 +A I don't know. +17 +MR. CRITTON: Form. +18 +BY MR. +19 +Q What is your opinion of why he didn't +20 +pursue it that way? +21 +MR. CRITTON: Form. +22 +23 +THE WITNESS: That's not my role. I +haven't formed an opinion on that, I don't know +24 +why. +25 +39 (Pages 153 to 156) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +(21) +(22) +(23) +(24) +(25) +(I) +(6) +(7) +(8 +(9) +(10) +(11) +(12) +(13) +(14) +(15) +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 157 +Page 159 +BY MR. +Q Did you think that - were you aware or +did you become aware at some point that Mr. Epstein +was a contributor to the democratic party? +A Yes. +Are you aware that Mr. Krischer has ties +to the democratic party? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: Yes. +BY MR. +Q Did you suspect at any point in time that +there was a connection between Mr. Epstein's +political connections with the democratic party and +Mr. Krischer's refusal or neglect to prosecute in +this case with the zeal he should have pursued it +with? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: I didn't allow myself to +explore that +BY MR. +Q (Did you have any discussions with Mr.) +Krischer about that issue, whether or not! +(Mr. Epstein was receiving favorable treatment from +(the State Attorney's Office because of Mr. Epstein's) +(political connections? +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +criminal charges against Mr. Epstein, correct? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: Yes. +BY MR. +Q This is not a situation where there was +maybe a boyfriend/girlfriend situation, an age +difference and the victim was not cooperating in the +investigation; is that correct? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: That's correct. +BY MR. +Q Did you challenge him on that issue? +A Yes. +Q And what was his response? +A He continued to reiterate that the case, +that it was his ethical obligation. And he had told +me this before about other cases that we had +discussed, Palm Beach Pofice Department cases and +other cases, that he has an ethical responsibility +to feel -- to be reasonably certain that the case is +winnable before he prosecutes it. And he said that +becatise of all of those reasons and others involving +some of the reputation and Facebook pages and so on +of certain victims, that he couldn't feel that he +could be successful in the prosecution. +Page 158 +Page 160 +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: I asked him why he was +(treatine the case in the way that he did. +BY MR. +Q) And what was his response? +(A)_(His response was that the victims wefent) +credible in his mind. I don't know - I don't mean) +(all the victims weren't credible but some of the!_ +(victims weren't credible. He didn't believe that - +(sixteen and seventeen-year-old victims, he told me,) +(were -- he said it was the policy of the Statel +(Attorney's Office not to charge molestation type +(cases or even a sex type battery case when it was +(consensual. His answer to that question was about +(the merits of the case.) +Q So he told you it was the policy of the +State Attorney's Office not to charge victims of +lewd and lascivious who were sixteen and seventeen +years old? +A +Well when it was a consensual - I know +it's kind of a misnomer because they can't legally +consent to it, but he said when it was practically a +consensual situation it was their general policy not +to prosecute those kinds of cases, yes. +Q But these victims were willing to press +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Q Did he show you any of the Facebook pages +that he had considered? +A He did not. +Q You said when he presented this case to +the Grand Jury he gave you some explanation as to +why he presented it that way. Did your detectives +and investigators, were they subpoenaed to appear +before the Grand Jury? +A At least one detective was. +Q You know who that was? +A I have to ask my lawyer the question of +whether or not I can answer that because Grand Jury +material, I know, always remains sealed. I don't +know if I do something improper by identifying that +person alone without -- I don't know what they said, +I wasn't in the Grand Jury. +Q I think the testimony would remain +privileged or confidential, but the Grand Jury did +return an indictment; is that correct? +A That's my understanding, yes. +Q So I'm not asking you to -- you don't have +access to the testimony I'm assuming? +A That's correct. +Q I'm just asking you for the identity of +the person who was subpoenaed to appear before the +40 (Pages 157 to 160) + + +VOLUME II +VIDEO-TAPED DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL REITER +A WITNESS +TAKEN BY THE PLAINTIFF +COPY +DATE: November 23, 2009 +TIME: 10:12 a.m. - 7:38 p.m. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 186 +IN THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 502008CA037319 XXXX MB AB +B.B. Painti, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Page 188 +I-N-D-E-X +November 23, 2009 +MICHAEL REITER +DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS +By Mr. Kuvin +8 +352 +By Mr. +By Mr. Critton +155 +190 +364 +EXHIBITS +Marked +Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1 +16 +Palm Each PD Intelligence Report 1128(34) +Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2 +Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 3 +99 +(Letter to Barry Krischer) +Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 4 +(Photographs of El Brillo Way) +Plaintiff's Exhibit No_5 +(Photo of 358 El Brillo Way) +Defendant's Exhibit No. 6 +(Subpeona Duces Tecum) +Plaintifi's Exhibit No. 7 +(Moncy Transfers) +Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 8 +131 +132 +218 +356 +357 +(Flight Summary) +Certified Question: Page 160, Line 10 +Letter to John Randolph, Esq. +Errata Sheets (to be forwarded upon completion) +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 187 +сл д +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +Page 189 +The deposition of MICHAEL REITER, a witness in the +above-entitled and numbered cause was taken before me, +Vanessa G. Archer, Court Reporter, Notary Public for the +State of Florida at Large, at 2925 PGA Boulevard, Palm Beach +Gardens, Florida, on the 23rd day of November, 2009, +pursuant to Notice in said cause for the taking of said +deposition on behalf of the Plaintiff. +APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF B.B.: +SPENCER T. KUVIN, ESQ. +LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 +APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS JANE DOES 2-8: +ADAM HOROWITZ, ESQ. +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A +18205 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +APPEARING SOLOF PLAINTIFE: C.A. +JACK| +_ ESQ. +SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF: +ISIDRO +Esq. +LAW FIRM, P.A. +The Harvey Building +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +1 (Pages 186 to 189) + + +Page 298 +Q You're talking about a little over a year, +2 a dozen or so communications between at least calls +3 to or from Ms. Villafana to you? +A Right. +5 +Q What are we talking about? +6 +A Do you want me to guess about the number? +7 +8 +& No, lasked for your best estimate and you +said approximately a dozen calls. +9 +A The best estimate is a guess in this case. +10 +Q So what did you do, did you call up and +11 +say what's going on with regard to the Epstein +12 +matter? +13 +A Sometimes when we hadn't heard from them +14 +for months or when Detective Recarey would call the +15 +FBI and the FBI would say I'm not -- +16 +• I'm sorry, he has to change the tape. +17 +THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're off the record at +18 +5:50. This is the end of tape 5. +19 +(Off the record) +20 +THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the +21 +22 +record at 5:58. This is the beginning of tape +6. +23 +BY MR. CRITTON: +24 +Q Mr. Reiter, has there ever been an +25 +occasion, another occasion, when you've been the +1 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +(6) +(7) +10(00 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 300 +(with them that you were disappointed with the manner +(in which the State Attorney had prosecuted or had +(handled the Epstein matter?) +(MR. +Objection, asked and answered. +(MR. KUVIN: Twice, join.) +(THE WITNESS: Yeah. I don't know that I +(used that exact word. I didn't feel as though) +justice had been sufficiently served.) +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q Had there ever been another instance where +the State Attorney had either filed charges, had +gone to a Grand Jury, as they did in the Epstein +case, and then you subsequently contacted either the +FBI or the U.S. Attorney's Office and/or they +contacted you? +A I'll try to stay with you better this +time. Could you - +Q In this particular instance Mr. Krischer +took the Epstein charges, or the allegations, to a +Grand Jury, the Grand Jury came back with an +indictment and he subsequently was arrested. You +subsequently had contact with the FBI and the FBI +and the USAO did their own independent +investigation, correct? +A Yes. ( +Page 299 +Chief, when you were Chief of Police, where you went +to the FBI and/or the FBI called you about pursuing +a prosecution because you felt what the state had +done was not adequate or not acceptable to you? +A No. +Q This was the first and only occasion, +correct? +A Well that was kind of a complicated set of +situation, circumstances. But what you described, +this is the first time that I was not -- didn't +think that justice was sufficiently served and that +the FBI contacted me to initiate an investigation. +That unusual thing, yes, that's true. +Q And in fact you were in large part relying +on the report that had been done in the +investigation that had been done by the Palm Beach +Police Department? +A Yes. +Q Had there ever been an occasion where -- +let me strike that. +At any time, did you tell the FBI not +to discuss the case with the State Attorney's +Office? +Page 301 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +Q Had you ever had another circumstance like +that during the time that you had been the Chief or +the Assistant Chief or a police officer for the Town +of Palm Beach; that is, where the State Attorney had +filed either charges that you didn't agree with or +had taken it to a Grand Jury, Grand Jury had come +Ô Did you tell the FBI when you first met +7 +8 +9 +10 +(11) +(12) +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +back and had returned an indictment and then you +went to the FBI or the FBI contacted you, or was +this the first and only occasion? +(A)_This was the first occasion in which I +(ever had a case go to a State Grand Jury that wasn't +(a homicide. There have been other instances that +the case bogged down in the state prosecution and it +was clear that the most appropriate place to be +would be a federal prosecution. And the case was +eventually investigated by the FBI or the DEA or the +Secret Service or somebody being prosecuted by the +US Attorney. +Q In that particular situation though, did +the state work -- the State Attorney's Office work +with the FBI or the U.S. AO's office to bring the +federal charges because it got bogged down in the +state investigation and/or process? +A Yes, typically that's how it would go. +Q So the state was then actively involved +29 (Pages 298 to 301) +Pleasanton, +Greenhill, Meek and Associates + + +Appendix 5 + + +THE RI PALME +TOWN OF PALM BEACH +POLICE DEPARTMENT +A NATIONAL AND STATE ACCREDITED LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY +May 1, 2006 +FLORIDA +¿POLICE +PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL +Mr. Barry E. Krischer, State Attorney +Office of the State Attorney +Fifteenth Judicial Circuit +401 North Dixie Highway +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Dear Mr. Krischer, +COPY +Please find enclosed the probable cause affidavits and case filing packages thus far +resulting from the Palm Beach Police Department's investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, +and +The submission of these documents are both in response to +Assistant State Aitorney Lanna Belohlavek's request for them and to serve as the Palm +Beach Police Department's presentation for prosecution. +I know that you agree that it is our shared responsibility to seek justice and to serve the +public interest by discharging our duties with fairness and accountability. I must renew my +prior observation to you that I continue to find your office's treatment of these cases highly +unusual. It is regrettable that I am forced to communicate in this manner but my most +recent telephone calls to you and those of the lead detective to your assigned attorneys +have been unanswered and messages remain unreturned. +After giving this much thought and consideration, I must urge you to examine the unusual +course that your office's handling of this matter has taken and consider if good and +sufficient reason exists to require your disqualification from the prosecution of these +cases. +Sincerely, +MichalS. Reites +Michael S. Reiter +Chief of Police +MSRint +345 South County Rowl • Palm Beach, Florida 33480-4443 • (561) 838-5460) - Fax (561) 815-4700 - www.palmhcachpolice.com + + + +OBTS Number +ARREST / NOTICE TO APPEAR. +Juvenile Referral Report • +Apency Name +10 5 0 0 6 1001 +PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT +haroe Typ +hock as many +as apply. +02: Traffic Falony +*• 4. Tratic Misdemeanor +Location of Anest (Including Name of Business) +Date of Arrest +Time of Arrest +Booking Dale +Booking Time +tame (Last, First, Middle +PSTEIN, JEFFREY +E Alas (hame, DOB, Soc. Sec.r, Esc.) +Race +B - Black +Hide d: mena. W2053 6001050 +Scars, Marks, Tatoos, Unique Physical Fealures (Localion. Type, Description) +250 +Brillo WAY +J. +i Arresi +3 Request for Warrant +2 NTA. +4 Roquest for Capia +3 +Juvenile +Agency. Report Number (N,TA.'s only) +I Weapon Seized +Clearance: +WAY HAlM BEArIFL +Location of Vehicle +Complexion +MED +425 MASON AVE +Number, Sta +42004133 UN +Co-Defendant Name (Last, First, Mode): +Co-Defendant Name (Last, First, Mode) - +PALEEAL STOL 359201321, 852-4117. +10021 +Phone +•) +10032 Pe +INS Number +Race +Sex +Race +Date of Brth +Sex +Parent +Name (Last) - +Cher Custodian +Address (Street, Apl. Number) +(Fast) +. (Oty) +Date of Brth +(Modie] +(Staie) +. (Zip) +TOT JAC +To keep he duenie Cour Cers Of one 355256, formed of any reing or are and or parent was town. +Date +School Allended +• Yes: by: (Name) +• No: (Reason) +Property Crime? +Description of Property +Value of Property +• Yes +• No. +S. Sell +R. Smuggle: +K. Dispensa/ +M. Manufa churer +B. Barbiturate +Hallucinoge +P. Possess +7 Fake. +D. Delivi +Distribule +Produce/ +c. Cocaine +Cultivate +A. Amphetamine +Heroin +Manual +O. Opium/Denv +pescaplan +SEY ACTE W/MINDE +Domestic +OY EN +444.99, 12), +Amount / Unil +Oftense 1 +05-368 +Warrant / Capias Number +GENIE /LASCIVIOLE +Mote Consi +Domestic +OY EN +50104, 15),. +Amount /Uni +085 368 +Warrant /Caplas Number +Counts +Domestic +Statute Violation Number +Alcohol Infiuence +Dren Influence +Residence Type +1. Caly +3 Flonda +2. County +i. Out of State +Address Source +PENNESTOR. +PREmE USA +82 A Laro +3. Felon +4. Misdemeano +15 Juven e +1. Artes +13. Felony +4. Misdemeanor +15. Juvenile +Residence Phone +Business Phone +(. +) +Time +Grade +Charge Description +rug Activity Drug Type +Charge Description +rug Activity Drug Type +Amount / Unit +Ampunt / Unl +Equipment +S. Synthese +Viclation of ORD • * +Bond +Violation ol ORD F +Band +Violation of ORDE +Offense I +Bond +Counts +Domestc Statute Violation Number +Victation of ORD R +VV8 N +Ottense # +Warrant / Capias Number +Bond +Location (Coun, Room Number, Address) +J instrucion No. 1 +Mandalory Appearance in Court +] instruction No, 2 +You need nal appear in Court but mus +somply with instructions on Reverse Side +Court Dale and Time +I UNDERSTAND THAT SHOULD I WILLFULLY FAIL TO +FLD for alher Aponcy +Ime: +1 Dangerous +| Suicidal +ake Deputy +Sonalure of Delendant (or Juvenile and Parent / Cusiodian) +Signature of Areslidg-Oiç +Dale Signed +Name Vanficalion (Printed by Arrestoe). +(PRINT) +• Resisted Arrest- +• Other; a +- ID. # Pouch +Transporting Officer. +ID : +Agency +Witness here if subyect signed with an "**. +PAGE +_OF- +DISTRIBUTION: +- COURT COPY +- STATE ATTORNEY YELLOW - AGENCY +PINK - JAIL. +:GOLD - DEFENDANT (N.TA's ONLY) + + +Police Case#: 05-368 (1) +Defendant: +Race/Sex: +DOB: +Charges: +Jeffrey Epstein +Male +01-20-1953 +Unlawful Sexual Activity with a Minor (4) counts +Lewd and Lascivious Molestation +From March 15, 2005, through February 2006, the Palm Beach Police Department conducted a sexual +battery investigation involving Jeffrey Epstein, +Sworn taped statements were +ake reid are ite perin 38 El Brio Way, Palm Bach Sover of the veins actre recruited by ance +brought to the residence by +to perform massages for Epstein, for which +received +monetary compensation. During the visit they would be introduced to +Epstein's assistant, who in +turn would record their telephone numbers and name. The victims would be brought to Epstein's bedroom to +provide the massage. Epstein would enter the room and order the victims to remove their clothing to provide the +massage. As the victims complied and provided the massages, Epstein would rub his fingers on their vaginas. +On occasion, Epstein would introduce a massager/vibrator and rub the victims vaginas as they provided the +massage. On three separate occasions, Epstein had intercourse and inserted his penis/fingers in the victims +vaginas. At the conclusion of the massages the victims were paid sums of money ranging from $200 - $1,000. +The facts, as reported, are as follows: +On 03/15/2005, A fourteen year old +female, hereinafter referred to ast +dob +and +her family reported unlawful sexual activity which occurred at a residence within the Town of Palm Beach. +reported that a subject known to her as "Jeff" had touched her vaginal area with a vibrator/massager while within +his residence. "Jeff" was later identified as Jeffrey Epstein through a photo line up. +During a sworn taped interview, +stated that +dob 04/09/1986, a cousin off. +boyfriend and classmate at d +worked for a wealthy man and did sexual favors for +him. She also admitted that +ad offered her an opportunity to make money. During the beginning o +the month of February 2005, +xplained that she was first approached by +to go with her to Epstein's +stated that Robson along with a Hispanic female, later identified at +pick her up at +her father's house on a Sunday. +as not sure of the exact dates but knew it was a Sunday. +Brold her +father that they were going shopping but in reality +drove them to Palm Beach. During the drive a +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +1perty +signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County +Palma Beach +05101/2006 +Ponal aeza + + +- conversation occurred between +and +whereas +she should say she was eighteen. It was later confirmed by the +on February 6, 2005. According tod +Kather, +reportedly told +that if Jeff asked her age, +•father that +picked his daughter up +drove a pick up truck. +described Epstein's house as a two-story pink house with a Cadillac Escalade parked in the +driveway. She recalled that Jeff's house was on a dead end street. Upon arriving at the house? +stated that +they walked up a driveway, past what appeared to be a small guard/security room. A male approaching them +asking what they wanted. +stated they were there to see Epstein. The male allowed them to continue +walking up to the house.d +stated the man told them that Epstein was not there but was expected back. He +allowed them to enter the house, via the kitchen. He offered them something to drink while they waited inside. +Shortly thereafter, Epstein and his assistant, described as +female with blond hair and later identified as +, entered the kitchen. Epstein introduced himself to +described Epstein as being +approximately forty-five years old, having a long face and bushy eyebrows, with graying hair. +and Epstein left the kitchen leaving +alone in the kitchen, They returned a short time later. +They all spoke briefly in the kitchen. +was instructed to follow +upstairs. +becalled walking up a +flight of stairs, lined with photographs, to a room that had a massage table in it. Upon entering the room there +was a large bathroom to the right and a hot pink and +sofa in the room. There was a door on each side of +the sofa. ( +•recalled there being a mural of a naked woman in the room, as well as several photographs of +naked women on a shelf. +told the victim that Epstein would be up in a second. +Epstein entered the room wearing only a towel and tolde +o take off her clothes. ( +stated Epstein +was stern when he told her to take off her clothes. +said she did not know what to do as she was the only one +there in the room so she took off her shirt leaving her bra on. Epstein had removed his towel and told the to +take off everything. +stated Epstein was nude when he took his towel off, placing it on the floor as he laid +down on the table. +stated she then removed her pants leaving her thong panties on. Epstein then instructed +her to give him a massage pointing to a specific lotion for her to use. Asd +began to give Epstein the massage, +he told her to get on his back. +•stated she straddled herself on Epstein's back whereby her exposed buttocks +were touching Epstein's bare buttocks. C +•said Epstein was specific in his instruction to her on how to massage +him, telling her to go clockwise or counter clockwise. Epstein then turned over and instructed to massage his +chest. +avas now standing on the ground and resumed massaging Epstein's chest area. • +onto the small of her back as she massaged his chest and shoulder area. Epstein then turned to his side and +started to rub his penis in an up and down motion. Epstein then pulled out a purple vibrator and began to +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +On 1fure +Signature of Policé Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Page 2of 22 + + +massage @ vaginal area. stated there was no penetration as the vibrator was on top of her underwear. +•recalled Epstein ejaculating because he had to use the towel to wipe himself as he got off the table. Epstein +then left the room and +•got dressed. She went back downstairs where she met with +•said she +was paid three hu +Hollars in cash from Epstein. Before she Epstein askede +Sto leave her phone +number. As +and +were leaving the house, +told ( +• she received two hundred +dollars that day for bringing her. +During the course of the investigation, parental consent was granted ford +to assist with the +investigation. At our direction conducted controlled taped phone calls to ! +cellular telephone 561- +308-0282. +•spoke with +in an attempt to arrange another meeting with Epstein. +sked +what did she need to do to make more money. +[stated, "the more you do, the more you get paid." +had subsequently called back +and left a voice mail message for her indicating that she had set up an +appointment ford +to go to Epstein's house at 11:00 am on April 5, 2005. This message was recorded from +• voice mail. +Based on the above, trash pulls were established at Epstein's residence with Supervisor Tony Higgins of +the Sanitation Bureau of the Town of Palm Beach. The trash pull from April 5, 2005 revealed a telephone +message for Epstein which stated Haley and +• name at 11:00 am. This was the time frame +had +informed +to be ready to go work at Epstein's house, +On October 3, 200S, Sgt Frick and I went to +residence and viewed her vehicle parked in the +driveway, a red Dodge Neon. Sgt. Frick and I knocked on the door and met with +was +told that we were investigating a claim involving Jeffrey Epstein of El Brillo Way, in Palm Beach +was +asked if she would accompany us back to the police station for further questioning. She was also told that at the +conclusion of the interview she would be returned home. +voluntarily came with us back to the Palm +Beach Police Department. +Upon our arrival at the police station, +was brought to the interview room in the Detective Bureau +where I obtained a taped, sworn statement. I began the interview by asking +how she became +acquainted with Epstein. +stated that approximately two years ago, just after she turned 17 years of age, +she was approached by a friend named Molly at the Canopy Beach Resort in +Beach. +was asked +if she wanted to make money. She was told she would have to provide a massage and should make $200.00. +thought about the offer and agreed to meet with Jeffrey. +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +SignaturekA +Arresting Officer +05/81/2006 +Pagebof 22 + + +Molly (Unknown last name) and Tony (Unknown last name) picked +up and she was taken to +Epstein's house. Upon her arrival to the house she was introduced to Epstein in the kitchen of the house. She +was also introduced to a +female known to her as Sarah. She was led upstairs to the main bedroom known +to her as Jeff Epstein's bedroom. Sarah arranged the massage table and covered the table with a sheet. She +brought out the massage oils and laid them next to the massage bed. Sarah, then left the room and informed +Jeff would be in, in a minute. Jeff entered the bedroom wearing only a towel. He removed the towel +and laid nude on the massage table. He laid on the table onto his stomach and picked a massage oil for +to rub on him. During the massage, +stated "He tried to touch me and I stopped him." I asked how he +tried to touch her. +stated that Epstein grabbed her buttocks and she felt uncomfortable. +told +Epstein, I'll massage you but I don't want to be touched. +stated she performed the massage naked. At +the conclusion of the massage, Epstein paid +$200. +After the massage Epstein stated to +that he understood she was not comfortable, but he would +pay her if she brought over some girls. He told her the younger the better. +stated she once tried to bring +a 23 year old female and Epstein stated that the female was too old. +stated that in total she only +remembers six girls that she brought to see Epstein, each time she was paid $200. +stated she had +brought the following girls: +(al6 year old female), +(a 16 year old +female) and y +said that at the time she brought these girls to Epstein's house they were all14 +through 16 years of age. I asked +which one was the youngest. +advised ( +was the youngest as +she was fourteen when the massage occurred. +stated every girl she brought knew what to expect when +they arrived. They were told they would provide a massage, possibly naked, and allow some touching. I asked +her if +was aware. She stated every girl she brought knew what to expect. She explained she knew that +wanted to make money. She approached +and explained about going to work for Jeff, +lagreed and +arrangements were made to bring her to Epstein's house on a weekend. +stated that she and +(Later identified ast +picked up +at her house. +stated that at that time she was driving +a red pickup truck. They traveled to Epstein's house and entered through the kitchen door. They met with the +house chef and Epstein's assistant Sarah. +was introduced to Epstein while they were in the kitchen area. +Sarah led +upstairs and Epstein went upstairs. When the massage was over +Aeturned to the kitchen area. +stated she was paid $200.00 for bringing to Epstein's house. +stated +•told her she was +paid $300.00 for the massage. +stated that +was the last person she brought to Epstein's house. She had changed her cellular +number to avoid being contacted by Sarah. She continued stating that she had no direct contact with Epstein +State of Florida +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +05X01/2806 +PageHof 22 + + +when he was going to travel to Palm Beach. +said when Epstein announces to his assistant, Sarah, that +he is traveling to Palm Beach, Sarah would then contact +to arrange girls to "work" for Epstein. +stated that once her parents discovered that she was visiting Epstein, they disapproved of the encounters with him +and she stopped. +further stated that Sarah still tries to call +house and leaves messages. +Sgt Frick entered the room and explained to +that based on her own statements, she had +implicated herself by bringing underage girls to Epstein's house. +provided cellular telephone numbers for +the girls she had mentioned previously. Additionally, she also provided possible addresses and areas in which +they lived. +As +was being taken home in the vehicle, a tape recorder was placed within the vehicle to record +any conversations within the vehicle. During the drive back to her home, +made the comment "I'm like +a Heidi Fleiss." (Hollywood Madam who sent girls to clients for sexual favors in California). +was +dropped off at her house without incident. +On October 3, 2005, Sgt Erick and I went to speak with +a sixteen year-old female who was +brought to Epstein's residence by +We met with +mother at their front door. We explained +the ongoing investigation and asked to speak with! +as we had information that she had "worked" for Jeff. +Mrs. •introduced us to her husband and allowed us entry into the home. We sat in the dining room and met +with +Date of Birthd +As she was under the age of eighteen, Mrs! +was advised we would be +speaking with her. She expressed if her daughter had information, she wanted to assist. We interviewed +• who +denied having any inappropriate encounters with Jeff (Epstein). She stated she had gone to Jeff's house with +approximately eight months ago and sat in the kitchen with the house chef, but nothing happened +As the parents were present during the interview, we felt that +was withholding information from us. She made +several comments as to putting the entire incident behind her. I left my telephone number and advised should she +wish to speak with me again to telephone me. Sgt Frick and I thanked Mrs. for her time and left the area. She +stated she would ask +again after we left as to what happened at Epstein's house. I informed her that d +had +my telephone number and hopefully she would call. +On October 4, 2005, +Det Dawson and I drove to the +During a sworn taped statement, +when she was seventeen years old, she was taken to a house by +because they both attend & +•home and met withd +and +stated approximately a year ago +• stated she knows +She was told she could make money working +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of palm Beach +Signaturd/Arresting Officer +Date: 05/01/2606 +Page5of 22 + + +for Jeff. She was told she would have to provide a massage to Jeff. +• stated upon her arrival to the house +she was brought to the kitchen area by +They met with the house chef who was already in the kitchen +area. C +•stated +would wait for her in the kitchen. +was introduced to Sarah, Jeff's +assistant, who brought her upstairs to the +bedroom. Sarah prepared the room and massage table for a +massage. Epstein entered the room wearing only a towel and she provided a massage. +stated she kept +her clothes on during the massage. She advised sometime during the massage, Epstein grabbed her buttocks and +pulled her close to him. +• said she was uncomfortable by the incident involving Jeff. At the conclusion of +the massage, she was paid $200.00 for the massage. I asked +if she has any formal training in massages to +which she replied no. I asked her if! +received any monies for taking her to perform the massage. +stated +had received money for taking her there but was unsure in the amount. +stated she +returned to Epstein's house on another occasion with +and another girl, +• stated +she waited in the kitchen with +while +• was taken upstairs by Sarah. +stated she only did the +massage once as she was uncomfortable with the whole experience. +At the conclusion of the interview, the tape was stopped. I was informed that Sarah had attempted to +reach +via cell phone. A voice mail message on October 4, 2005 at 10:59 am, revealed a female voice +who identified herself as Sarah who requested +•to call her back reference the police questioning. +provided the incoming telephone number as +•stated she inadvertently told +about the police investigation becausel +had called her to tell her about how she just received a rental car +from Jeff Epstein. +Shad called her to tell her that she was given a rental car, a 2005 Silver Nissan Sentra, +to utilize to visit family and visit Epstein. +asked her what was going on at the house that the police would +be asking questions. +stated +then called Jeff and Sarah and asked what was going on +reference the ongoing police investigation. +According to +Sarah has since then been trying to contact her +to ask about the police questions. I instructed ( +not to contact Sarah and do not provide any more +information to +as she would notify Jeff Epstein and Sarah what was transpiring. +On October4, 2005, I made telephone contact with +who had left several messages for me to contact +her. During the message, she advised she was not completely truthful when we met in person but would like to +speak with me to advise what had happened. She further advised she did not want to speak of this incident in +front of her mother. At approximately 3:48 pm I made telephone contact with & +During a taped recorded +statement +stated the following: approximately a year ago, when she was sixteen years of age, +took her +to Epstein's house twice. She knows +because they both attende +The first +time she went, +drove to the house. They entered through the kitchen area where she was +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Signature of Police Officer (F +State of Florida +Signature/Ar +esting Officer +Pagelof 22 + + +introduced to Sarah and Epstein. She was taken upstairs to a bedroom by Sarah who set the room up with a +massage bed and brought out the oils to use. Epstein then entered the room wearing a towel. He laid on the +table and picked out a lotion for to rub on him. At one point during the massage he tried to remove her shirt, +at which point she became very upset and discontinued the massage. Both and Epstein had a verbal +disagreement, at which time she left without being paid. She got with +who was sitting in the +kitchen and told her "let's go." ‹ +advised she received no money for that day. Oxalso said that +had told her if she was uncomfortable with what was going on, to let him know and he'll stop. She knew that the +more you do the more you get paid. advised that several weeks later she agreed to be taken a second time +by +Once they arrived at the residence, +sat in the kitchen and Sarah took her +upstairs to the +bedroom again. Sarah set the room up with a massage bed and brought out the oils to +use. Epstein then entered the room wearing a towel. He laid on the table and picked out a lotion for Clo rub +on him. At one point during the massage he tried to touch her buttocks. Ast +was wearing tight jeans and had a +tight belt on Epstein was unable to touch her buttocks. Epstein then rolled onto his back during the massage and +then attempted to touch her breastse +When became upset again and told Epstein she didn't want to be touched. +discontinued the massage and was paid $200.00. € +then went downstairs where +was waiting +for her. She told +she wanted to leave. +said she never returned to the house. +stated she is aware +that her friend, +was also at the house and had a problem with Epstein. +I later researched +dob +and met with her at her residence. During a sworn +taped statement, +stated the following: on or about November 2004, she was approached at +by +, a fellow student. +askedd +if she wanted to make money. +She agreed and was told she would provide a massage to wealthy man in Palm Beach. +picked her up +and drove her to a house in Palm Beach. She was brought into the kitchen area of the house. She further stated +that fellow +•students C +•and +came with them. They were +brought into the kitchen where she was introduced to Epstein and other females. +stated she was +introduced to a female helper of Epstein, the female was described as +female (unknown name ), with +blond hair. She stated that the assistant was familiar with +• The assistant brought her upstairs into a +bedroom area. The assistant set up the massage table and put out lotions to be used. She told +Epstein would be available in a minute. Epstein entered the room wearing only a towel. Epstein removed his +towel, and laid naked on the massage table and picked a lotion to rub on his thighs and back. +• further +stated during the massage, Epstein asked her to remove her clothes. She complied and removed her pants and +blouse.' +• didn't remember if she had removed her bra but feels that she did. • +awas certain that she +stayed in her thong underwear. +continued the massage and at one point she climbed onto the massage +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Cho I pendepe +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida + + + +Probable:Cause Affidavit +table, straddling Epstein to massage his back: While doing this her buttocks were touching Epsteins. € +was instructed to return to the ground at which time Epstein turned to have his chest rubbed. Ge +•advised she +was sure he was masturbating based on his hand movements going up and down on his penis area. +eD did +not want to look at his penis area because she was uncomfortable. Epstein removed a large +vibrator which +was next to the massage table and turned it on. +stated Epstein began rubbing the vibrator over her thong +underwear on her vaginal area. Shortly thereafter, Epstein ejaculated and removed himself from the table. He +walked over to where the shower was and opened the +door. She waited as he was taking a shower in her +direct view. When I asked a how old she was when this occurred, she stated she had just turned +seventeen. At the conclusion of the showere +was paid either $350.00 or $400.00. She stated she +wasn't sure, but knows it was close to $400.00. +b stated she never returned to provide a massage for +Epstein. +At approximately 2:10 pm; Det Dawson and I met with d +Pat her residence: As A +was only seventeen years of age, I had notified her mother, that she would be interviewed reference an ongoing +investigation in Palm Beach: I assured her that her daughter was not a suspect. I explained the possibility of her +being either a witness or victim. Mrs advised she wanted & +to cooperate and consented to the interview: +During a sworn taped statement,. +Bastated the following: at the age of sixteen, during the month of +September 2004, she was approached by Haley Robson for a chance to make money. was friends with +associates of +and knew the same people. had been previously told by her friends from datell +what +did for Epstein, Robson called a person known to as Sarah and +scheduled the appointment. +picked e +"hip and drove her to Palm Beach to a street called "Brillo Way". +They drove to the end of the street and entered a large driveway. They entered the kitchen area of the house and +mẹt with Epstein. +sivas introduced to Jeff Epstein: +led E upstairs to the main bedroom area andi +set up the room with a massage table and set out the oils. G +bstated that while going up the stairs and into the +bedroom she observed numerous photographs of naked young girls. Robson dimmed the lights and turned on +soft music. +exited the room and Epstein entered the room wearing only a towel. Epstein picked oils and +instructed her to rub his legs, under his buttocks, back and chest area. Epstein asked her to get comfortable. a +advised she did not remove her clothes. She was wearing tight jeans and a cropped tank top exposing her belly. +area. During the massage, Epstein removed his towel and laid on the massage table naked: As rubbed +Epstein's chest area, he attempied to reach down her pants to touch her buttocks area höwever was unable to. +due sọ due to the tightriess of the jeans and a tight belt. Badvised Epstein began to masturbate as she rubbed +his ches!. Epstein moaned as she rubbed his chest. She observed he was continuing to masturbate and +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me.. +State of Florida +Signature of Police Officer (F +Pagebor 22 + + +attempted to reach up her tank top and touch her breasts. +* pulled back and Epstein stopped, however he +kept masturbating until he climaxed. He cleaned himself with the towel he was previously wearing. was +paid $200.00 for the massage and left the area. She met with +who was waiting in the kitchen area and +left the house. +then explained she never provided another massage for Epstein. She did however, go to the house +with +and +pas they took another friend of +. advised she was present when +went to work for Epstein. She advised she rode over and sat in the kitchen area with +to +wait for! +advised while they waited for +• the house chef prepared lunch for them as it was +almost lunchtime when they went. When +• was finished with the massage they left the area. I asked if +ever told her what would be expected when she provided a massage. +stated yes, +told her +that a massage would be expected, possibly naked and possibly some touching involved. +has no formal +training in providing massages. +spoke about a third and last time she went to Epstein's house. +drove another girl, +(sixteen years of age) who is! +s friend, to Epstein's house. +stated +knew that +had made money massaging Epstein and wanted to make money herself. +took them in the kitchen +area of the house and introduced | +to Sarah. +and Sarah took +upstairs to the main bedroom. +advised she doesn't know what happened as! +did not speak about what happened in the room. +received +$100.00 from +for going with her to Epstein's house and récommending +On October 6, 2005, at 11:45 am, I met with +•dob +, at +Jand +explained to her why we there to interview her/ She advised she was aware of the ongoing investigation. +stated she had préviously spoken with! +who told her she was interviewed by detectives. During a +sworn taped statement, +stated she knew that +worked for Jeff Epstein in Palm Beach. +advised she originally had been taken to the Epstein house by +whom she met when they both +attended +She began going to the house when she was sixteen years of age and +stated she had been there a lot of times to provide massages over the past two years. I asked her if she had +formal training in providing massages, whiche +stated she had not. +•advised she was told what was +expected of her by providing massages and she would have to remove clothing but if she felt uncomfortable just +to say so and Epstein would stop pushing the issue. C +began providing massages and advised she kept her +clothes on. She considered Epstein a pervert and he kept pushing to go further and further. +explained she +would keep telling him she had a boyfriend and would not be right to her boyfriend. It wasn't until recently that +•began removing her clothes and staying in her thong underwear to provide a massage. +explained +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +County of Palm B +cach +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +05/0172006 +Page 9of 22 + + +Epstein wanted to be rubbed on his back and recently he began turning over and have her rub his chest as he +masturbated. He would try to touch her breasts as she rubbed his chest. i stated "Jeff would try to get away +with more and more on each massage" C +A stated Epstein would try to touch her more and on one occasion +he attempted to use a massager/vibrator on her. +drovel maxo the house for the original massage. Ed +left Sarah her.cell phone number and every time Epstein would come into town, Sarah would call her for an +appointment to "work". Each time she went, Sarah would meet her at the kitchen door area. She would bring +her upstairs and prepare the massage table. Mr advised Epstein would ask her, questions about herself. Epstein +kneiv she was a soccer player and would be attending a I asked Af Epstein knew her real +age it stated Epstein did and didn'! care. The most recent massage she provided was on October 1, 2005. +During the massage, she asked Epstein if she could borrow one of his vehicles to visit her family and boyfriend in +Orlando, Florida. Epstein had told her she could borrow one of his vehicles but later stated he would rent her a +car. She continued with the massage as Epstein gräbbed her buttocks and caressed the buttocks cheeks. I. +asked&. +if she was wearing undergarments to which she replied her thong underwear. Once he tried to touch +her breasts, she would pull away from him and he would stop. +avas asked if he ever used a vibrator on her. +Avas aware of the vibrator but advised she never would allow him to use the vibrator on her. She described +the vibrator as the large. +vibrator. with a huge head on the tip of the vibrator. She stated he kept the vibrator +in a closet near the massage table. +@ stated thạt on October 3, 2005, she was contacted by Epstein's assistant, Sarah, who informed her +that Jeff Epstein had rented her a new Nissan Sentra and she should come by the house to pick it up. Sarah +informedea +• she would have the car for a month. • +•stated Epstein Knew her car was not working properly +and that she had missed appointments in the past because of her car being inoperable l explained the car is +currently parked next to the +Plan Gym field. I asked her if she ever took any one to the house. Che +explained she tooke +ba friend of hers who attended &. n +who has +relocated to Orlando to attend college. I asked if she ever allowed another female in the room. +Dadvised: no +one was brought into the room with hier +At the conclusion of the interview, Det Dawson and I went to the gym area ofe +located the Silver Nissan Sentra bearing Florida tag X98-APM: The vehicle is registered to Dollar Rent a Car +out of the Palm Beack International Airport. The vehicle was rented by Janusz Banasiack, later learned to be +Epstein's houseman, and paid with Epstein's credit card. +On September 11, 2005, w/fE52, dob 6 +a was arrested by the Palm Beach Police Department: +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1"! day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +15/07/2006 +PagelOof 22 + + +for misdemeanor possession of marijuana. During the arrest ! +told the arresting officer that she had information +about sexual activity taking place at the residence of Jeffrey Epstein. Additionally, during the ongoing trash pulls +from Epstein's residence, discarded papers were found which contained +name and cell phone number. +On October, 11, 2005, Det Dawson and I met with +and obtained a sworn taped statement. +explained she had been going to Epstein's house since 2002, when she was sixteen years of age. Since then she +has gone to the house hundreds of times. • +•stated she became his "number one girl." She explained that on +her first visit she was brought to the house by fellowe +classmate, +said she was brought through the kitchen area where she met +for the first time. +was led to +the +bedroom, Epstein s room. explained that as she was walking up the stairs she observed several +photographs of naked women along the walls and tables of the house. ‹ +•further explained that she was +brought into the bedroom, where Sarah prepared the room by setting up the massage table and provided the oils +for her to rub on Epstein. +explained she remembered the steam room area, which contained two large +showers. Epstein entered the room from the steam room area and introduced himself. Epstein lay on the table +and told her to get comfortable. d +removed her skirt and kept her shirt on. Epstein then instructed her to +remove her shirt. +removed her shirt and remembered she was not wearing a bra. +•stated she provided +the massage wearing only her panties. She continued rubbing his legs, thighs and feet. ‹ +advised he turned +over onto his back. Epstein touched her breasts and began to masturbate. Epstein ejaculated which meant the +massage was over. At the conclusion of the massage, +was paid $200.00. They walked together downstairs +where +and +were waiting. +stated +received an unknown amount of +money for taking her to Epstein. Epstein instructed to leave her cellular telephone number so that he could +contact her when he is in town. +stated that during her many visits a routine was established between her and Epstein. She would enter +the house and get naked in the bedroom. She would then start with a back massage. Epstein would roll on to his +back and allow her to massage his chest area. +•stated Epstein would then began to masturbate himself and at +the same time would insert his fingers in her vagina and masturbate her with his fingers. +explained Epstein +would continue this process until he ejaculated. He would then utilize a vibrator/massager on her vagina untila +climaxed. badvised that during her frequent visits, Epstein asked for her real age, stated she was sixteen. +Epstein advised her not to tell anyone her real age. C +Padvised that things escalated within the home as Epstein +• would instruct and pay to have intercourse with his female friend, +explained the +intercourse included using strap on dildos, large rubber penis' and other devices that Epstein had at his disposal. +Epstein would watch them have intercourse and masturbate himself. Occasionally, Epstein would then join in +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +Signature of Police Officer (FIS.S. 117.10) +Signature Arrosting Officer +Pagellof 22 + + +Agency ORI FLO 500600 +during the female on female intercourse and provide oral sex to both Gland +the time Dwas sixteen years of age. +n. This occurred' during +Badvised this continued to escalate during two years. The routine became familiar to &D Epstein's +assistant Sarah would telephone her every time Epstein was in the Town of Palm Beach and would place +appointments for her to visit and work for Epstein. Each time something new was introduced, additional monies +were produced and offered for Bto allow the acts to happen. +consented to perform all these acts but was +adamant that there was an understanding with Epstein that no vaginal penetration would occur with his penis. +explained that Epstein's penis was deformed; explained that his penis was oval shaped, +9 claimed when +Epstein's penis ias erect, it was thick toward the bottom but was thin and small toward the head portion. & +called Epstein's penis "egg-shaped." 3 stated Epstein would photograph Marcinkova and her naked and +having sex and proudly display the photographs within the home. stated during one visit to Epstein's house +in which she provided a massage to Epstein, his female friend, Nada Marcinkova, was also present. Ce +provided the massage in which +and her would fondle each others breasts and kiss for Epstein to +enjoy. Towards the'end of this massage, Epstein grabbed & +• and turned her over onto her stomach on the +. massage table and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina. Skiy stated Er +• began to pump his penis in her +vagina. d +* became upset over this. She said her head was being held against the table forcibly, as he continued +to pump inside her. She screamed "No!" and Epstein stopped. She told him that she did, not want to have his +penis inside of her: Epstein did not ejaculate inside of her and apologized for his actions and subsequently paid +her a thousand dollars for that visit. (2 stated she knows he still displays her photographs through out the house: +On October 12, 2005; Det Dawson and I met with e +y, dob y +*who stated during +a sworn taped statement, that nothing happened between her and Epstein. L +@appeared nervous during the +interview. I assured her that I have spoken with other people who advised differently. W +stated on several +occasions she provided a massage to Epstein. She stated she was brought to the Epstein house in March of +2005. 00 +pa classmate at Easi +Are approached her and asked her if she +wanted to. "work". +So made the arrangements with Sarah, Epstein's assistant. Care who has no formal. +training in providing massages, stated she provided a massage, fully clothed for $200.00. As I sensed hesitancy. +in her answers, I asked if she had been contacted by anyone from Epstein's organizations or his house. +a stated she was interviewed already by a private investigator for Epstein. He identified himself as "Paul" +and inquired about the police investigation, and left his telephone number 305-710-5165 for additional contact. +So provided no additional information, as it appeared her responses were almost scripted: +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally Known to mẹ. +State of Florida. +County of Palm Belch +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Page|Zof 22 + + +On November 6, 2005, at approximately 3:30 pm, I met with ( +•dobl +, at the +Palm Beach Police Department. L was identified as a potential witness/victim through information +obtained during the trash pulls. During the sworn taped statement, +› advised she was at Jeffrey Epstein's +house one time, approximately two months ago. She was approached by a girl, +who was dating +→ roommate, for an opportunity to make some quick money. +•advised she needed to make some +quick cash to make the rent that month. She agreed to go to the house. She had been told by +the massage would have to be done in her underwear. She advised +drove with her and brought her into the +house. They walked into the kitchen area, and took the stairs upstairs. +• further stated she was brought +into a master bedroom area. She advised she recalled seeing portraits of naked women throughout the room. A +massage table was already out near the sauna/shower area in the +wearing only a towel and introduced himself as "Jeff." At Epstein's direction, +bedroom. Epstein entered the room +• removed their +clothing down to their panties, Epstein laid on his stomach area and they provided a massage on his legs and feet +area. I asked +• if she had any formal massage training and she replied "no." I +advised she was +topless and the panties she wore were the boy shorts lace panties. She and +• continued the massage until the +last ten minutes of the massage, Epstein, told. +to leave the room so that +could finish the massage. +got dressed, and left the room as Epstein turned over onto his back. Epstein then removed the towel and +laid naked. Epstein requested that& +rub his chest area./ +stated as she did this, Epstein, began +masturbating. +• stated Epstein pulled down her boy short panties, and he produced a large +vibrator +with a large head. She stated it was within his reach in a drawer in his +bathroom. He rubbed the vibrator +on her vaginal area. +advised he never penetrated her vagina with the vibrator. He continued to rub her +vagina with the vibrator as he continued to masturbate. +• stated she was very uncomfortable during the +incident but knew it was almost over. Epstein climaxed and started to remove himself from the table. He wiped +himself with the towel he had on previously and went into the shower area. +got dressed and met with +in the kitchen area. Epstein came into the kitchen and providede +$200.00 for bringing +and +paid $200.00 to +for providing the massage. d +was told to leave her telephone number with Sarah +for future contact. +provided her cellular telephone number. +was asked if she was recently +contacted about this investigation by anyone from the Epstein organization. She replied she was called but it was +for work. She stated she was called by Sarah for her to return to "work" for Epstein. +•stated "work" is +the term used by Sarah to provide the massages and other things. +advised she declined as she was not +comfortable in providing that type of "work." +On November 7, 2005, Det +and I met withe +sworn taped statement, +•stated she met Jeffrey Epstein through +, dob 0E +• During a +when they were still +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +C1. fadin +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +Signature/Arresting Officer +Page130122 + + +Agency ORI# FLO, 500600 +attending +n would approach females whö wished to work for Epstein. +Clapstated she was offered to work for Epstein but declined. +@explained that "work" means give +massages. She was asked about any formal'training in providing massages which she said: "no." 4 +& said +she accompanied Robson and other females who were taken to Epstein's house to provide massages. +further. stated she had been to the house approximately 4 or 5 times in the past year: She accompanied +with f +Dande +• Each time the girls were taken +over, they were previously told they would have to provide a massage, possibly naked. They were also told that +should Epstein require them to do anything extra, and they were not comfortable just to tell him and he would +StOP: +CaP stated +I received $200.00 for each girl she brought over to massage Jeffrey Epstein: +When I askedi which girl appeared to be the youngest, she réplied, & +• who was really young, fifteen years oldfat +the most. C +» further stated each time she went to the house, she sat in the kitchen and waited with +until the massage was over. She further stated that the +* would make lunch or a snack for them as they +waited. I asked her if there was anything that caught her attention within the home.! +a stated there were a +lot of naked, girls in photographs throughout the house. +Or November 8; 2005, at approximately 2:00pm.; I met with & +-dob +at the +Palm Beach Police Department. During a sworn taped statement, +@ stated she had met Epstein +approximately two years ago when she was first approached by Faley +, a classmate ate +Be. Robson approached her about working for Epstein and providing a massage to him for $200:00; +had made the arrangements however was unable to take her the day the arrangements were made. +had +Ptake T +TRialso attended +@ and was familiar +with Epstein. +recalled she was brought there and entered through the back kitchen door. She had met +with an assistant Sarah and another assistant Adrianna. Sarah brought her upstairs as she observed several +photographs of naked females throughout the house. € +* stated Epstein came in the room; wearing only a +towel; and laid on the table. +•"e stated he picked out the oils he wanted her to use and requested she +remove hier clothing to provide the massage. ON stated that on the first massage she provided she did not +remove her clothing: +s@stated she had returned several times after that: Each time she returned it was +more than a massage. +Epstein would walk into the +bedroom/bathroom area wearing only a towel. He +would masturbate as she provided a massage. WE stated she was unsure if he climaxed as he masturbated +under the towel. Additionally, she never looked below his waist. She claimed that Epstein would convince her to. +remove her clotlies. She eventually removed her clothes and stayed in her thong panties. On occasion, Epstein. +would use a massager/yibrator, which she described as +in color and a large head. Epstein would rub the +vibrator/massager on her vaginal area as he would masturbate. +• stated she had been to the house +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Signature/\ +05/01/2006: +ing Officer +Page FSr 22 + + +numerous times. +added she has no formal training in providing a massage. +stated she brought +two females during her visits to provide massages. +stated she brought a girl named +• and C +from ( +stated she received $200.00 for each girl she brought. +On November 8, 2005, I met with +W/F, +at the Palm Beach Police +Department. During a sworn taped statement, l +stated she had met Jeffrey Epstein approximately one year +ago. She was approached by a subject known to her as +had asked her if she wanted to make money +providing massages to Epstein. C +•had heard that several girls from +were +doing this and making money. She agreed and was taken to the house byd +•had introduced her to Sarah +and Epstein and brought her upstairs to a +bedroom where a massage table was prepared and the proper +oils were selected. deft the room and waited downstairs for her. +•stated Epstein entered the room +wearing a towel and laid on his stomach. She provided a massage wearing only her thong panties. +advised Epstein had masturbated every time she provided a massage. She stated Epstein continued to +masturbate until he climaxed. Once that occurred the massage was over. She felt the whole situation was weird +but she advised she was paid $200.00 for providing the massage. She also stated was paid $200.00 by +Epstein for bringing +stated she had gone a total of 15 times to Epstein's residence to provide a +massage and things had escalated from just providing a massage. Epstein began touching her on her buttocks and +grabbed her closer to him as he masturbated. Epstein also grabbed her breasts and fondled her breasts with his +hands as she provided the massage. +•stated on one occasion, while she was only seventeen years of age, he +offered extra monies to have vaginal intercourse. She stated this all occurred on the massage table. stated +Epstein penetrated her vagina with his penis and began having intercourse with her until he reached the point of +climax. Epstein removed his penis from her vagina and climaxed onto the massage table. ‹ +s received +$350.00 for her massage. I asked her if she had any formal training in providing massages, +•stated she did +not. l +continued to state on one other occasion, Epstein introduced his girlfriend, Nadia, into the massage. +Nadia was brought into room withd +to provide a massage. Epstein had them kiss and fondle each other +around the breasts and buttocks as they provided a massage to Epstein. Epstein, watched and masturbated as +this occurred. On other occasions, Epstein, introduced the large +vibrator/massager in the massage. Epstein +stroked the vibrator/massager on! +vagina as she provided the massage. +On November 14, 2005, Det +and I met with +•, dobl +During a +swor taped statement she advised she started going to the house approximately one year ago and has been there +approximately five or six times. +• also stated she was sixteen years old when she first went to Epstein's +house. On her first visit she was brought by a fellow student from +known to her +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Signature/ +rresting Officer +....15. +1577 + + +as t +Estated & +• brought her into the house and she was introduced to Sarah. Sarah then +brought her upstairs into a +bathroom, located within the bedroom. Al +*i stated she met Epstein in the +bathroom. He laid on the table and picked the massage oils. She provided the massage as he laid naked on the +massage bed. She stated she rubbed his calves and back area. Upon the end of the massage, Epstein removed +himself from the massage table and paid her $300.00 for the massage. said each subsequent time she +went to the house, she was notified by +that Epstein was in town and would like her to "work". +•estated she returned to the house and was again led upstairs by Sarah. She provided the massage, +clothed. +was asked if she ever removed her clothing to provide a massage. +D stated it was not +until the third time that she went that she removed her clothing.. +stated she was notified by Sarah that +'Epstein, wanted her to come to work. She arrived at the house and was led upstairs by Sarah, She started +providing the massage when Epstein asked her to remove her clothing. i. i +removed her pants, shirt and +bra. She stayed in her thong panties and continued rübbing Epstein. Epstein turned over onto his back and she. +rubbed his chest area. +estated she knew he was masturbating himself as she providing the massage. +P stated she believed he climaxed based on his breathing. She did not want to view either the climax or +the fact that he was masturbating. +stated once the breathing relaxed. he got up and told her to get +•dressed. She was paid $300.00 for her services. +•stated on the last time she went to provide a +massage, she was notified by +to come to the house and "work" +• stated she was row +dating her current boyfriend and did not feel comfortable going. She recalled it was approximately January 2005. +She said she went; already thinking that this would be the last time. She went upstairs and went into the +bathroom. She met with Epstein, who was wearing only a towel, and laid onto the table. ! +stated +Epstein caught her looking at the clock on several occasions.. Epstein asked her if she was in a hurry. +stated her boyfriend was in the car waiting for her. Gir further stated that Epstein got upset as he wasn't +enjoying the massage. She told him that she didn't want to continue and she would not be back. Epstein told her +to leave as she was ruining his massage.€ +advised she had no formal training in providing any massages. +* stated although she had a falling out with Epstein, she still received a Christmas bonus from Epstein. +D stated she was wired money from Western Union for her Christmas bonus: Subpoena results from +Western Union revealed money was sent from Jeffrey Epstein on December 23, 2004. +received +$200.00 from Epstein for her Christmäs bonus.. +On November 15, 2005, Det. +and I met with Che, doble +During a sworn taped +statement, stated she met Jeffrey. Epstein over a year ago. She was sixteen years of age and was +approached by ease a fellow eatl +student, who informed her that shẹ could +make $200.00. providing a massage 1o Epstein. +had informed her that she would have to provide this +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +1. fueles +Signature of Police Officer: (I.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of Palin Bopch +05/01/2006. +16 + + +massage topless. +made the arrangements with Epstein and his assistants and took C +oto the house. +stated CRK and she entered through a glass door that led into a kitchen. She was taken upstairs bye 2, to a +bedroom. She recalled the +bathroom had a large +'sauna and matching shower. +Epstein entered into the room wearing only a towel. & +and Demoved their clothing remaining only in +thong underwear. She further stated that Epstein laid on his chest on the table. The oils were selected on which +ones to use. Both and Cloprovided the massage on his legs, back and feet. Forty minutes into the +massage, Epstein turned over onto his back and requested? +3 wait downstairs in the kitchen area for d +Epstein instructed +Pto finish the massage. Asi +Dgot dressed, FrAstarting rubbing Epstein's chest. « +left the room; and Epstein began masturbating as & +Drubbed Epstein's chest. +estated Epstein continued +masturbating until he climaxed on the towel he was wearing. When asked if he had removed the towel she stated +he turned the towel around so that the opening would allow him to expose himself. After he cleaned himself off +with the towel he instructeda +the massage was done and to get dressed and meet with him downstairs. € +got dressed and met with Epstein in the kitchen area. She was paid $200.00 dollars for providing the massage. +She stated she was aware that also received monies for the same thing. The second time she went to the +house she was again approached by and Maladvised if she wanted to return to the house to provide another +massage. bagreed and the arrangements were made by +I for her to return to the house:& stated€ +drove her to the house and knocked on the same +door which leads to the kitchen area. They were allowed +entry into the house by one of the staff members. E +• led her upstairs tọ the +bedroom and +bathroom area. Caleft Be this time to do the massage alone. Epstein entered the room again wearing only.a +towel. 8 began removing her clothing as she did the last time she was at the house. Epstein instructed her to +gei naked. He laid on the table onto his stomach as began massaging his legs and back, As Finished +with Epstein's back and legs, Epstein then turned over onto his back, & started to rub his chest and he began +• masturbating: As ErDrubbed his chest, Epstein leaned over and produced a massager/vibrator. He turned it on +and began rubbing +• vagina and masturbating himself at the same time: E2B stated she continued to rub his. +chest as this was occurring. She described the vibrator/massager as large grey with a large head. Epstein +rubbed her vagina for approximately two to three minutes with the massager/vibrator. He then removed the +vibrator from her vaginal area and concentrated on masturbating himself. stated Epstein climaxed onto the +towel again and informed her that the massage was done. ( +53 got dressed and met wither. who was waiting +in the kitchen area. She received $200:00 for the massage. & said she never returned to the house and had no +desire to return to the house. REwas asked if she received any formal massage training. She advised she had +no formal training. Glywas asked if Epstein knew her real age. Seedstated he knew, as he asked her questions +about herself and high school. He was aware she attended, and is still attending f +The foregoing instrument was sivorn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +1. Audies +Signature of Police Officer (f.S.S: 117,10) +State of Florida +05/01/2006. +Pand Tir 22 + + +During the course of the investigation a search warrant was executed at Jeffrey Epstein's home located at +358 El Brillo Way in Palm Beach. While in the home I observed the pink and +within the +bedroom area just as the girls previously mentioned. The stairway, which is located from the kitchen area to the +bedroom area, is lined with photos of naked young girls. Additionally, numerous photographs of naked +young females, some of which appeared to be the girls I previously interviewed, were on display throughout the +house. Also located in the house were various phone message books. The telephone message books have a' +duplicate copy (Carbon Copy) which, once a phone message is written into the book, the top copy is then torn +on the perforated edge and the carbon copy is left in the book. First names of girls, dates and telephone numbers +were on the copy of the messages. I recognized various numbers and names of girls that had already been +interviewed. The body of the messages were time of the day that they called for confirmation of "work." Other +names and telephone numbers were located in which the body of the messages were, "I have girls for him" or "I +have 2 girls for him." These messages were taken by| +, who signed the bottom of the messages. +During the execution of the warrant, I located a +transcript ford in Epstein's +bedroom desk. This desk had stationary marked Jeffrey E Epstein. Located a +colored armoire beside +Epstein's bed that contained a bottle of "Joy Jelly," which is used to provide a warm massage. Several massage +tables were located throughout the second floor of the residence, including a massage table found in Epstein's +bedroom. On the first floor of the residence I found two covert cameras hidden within clocks. One was located +in the garage and the other located in the library area on a shelf behind Epstein's desk. A computer was located +which was believed to contain the images from the covert cameras. The computer's hard drive was reviewed +which showed several images of +and other witnesses that have been interviewed. All of these +images appeared to come from the camera positioned behind Epstein's desk. +On December 13, 2005, Det. Dawson and I met with +, dob +During a sworn taped +statement, +'stated that when she was sixteen years old she was taken to Epstein's house to provide a massage +for money. +stated it was before Christmas last year (2004) when an associate, +approached her and +asked if she needed to make money for Christmas. +made arrangements to take +to the house and drove +• to the house to "work." They were encountered by al +female with long blond hair. +Swas unable to +remember the name of the white female with blond hair but knew she was Epstein's assistant. She was led +upstairs by the +female who explained that there would be lotions out already and Epstein would choose the +lotion he wanted her to use. She was led through a spiral staircase which led to a +bedroom and +bathroom. The +ssage table was already set up in the bathroom. C described the bathroom as a large +spacious bathroom with a steam room and shower beside it. +was introduced to Epstein who was on the +phone when she entered the room. Epstein was wearing a +towel and laid on his stomach so +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +1. Tutes +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of Palm Beash +Signature +stine Officer +18 + + +massage his feet and calves. +started the massage with the oils Epstein chose and rubbed his feet and calves. +Epstein got off the phone and requested she massage his back as well. +began rubbing his back and got to +the small of his back. During the rubbing of his back, Epstein asked her to get comfortable. He requested she +remove her pants and shirt. +removed her shirt and pulled her pants off. +stayed in her bra and thong +panties. As she finished massaging the small of Epstein's back, he then turned onto his back. Epstein +instructed +do rub his chest and pinch his nipples. As she began to rub his chest, Epstein asked her questions +about herself. +remembered telling him she attended +». Epstein asked her if +she was sexually active. Before could answer, he also asked what sexual position does she enjoy. 4 +stated she was shy and didn't like talking about those things. She continued rubbing his chest. Epstein reached +up and unsnapped her bra from the front. C... explained the bra she used had a front snapping device. Epstein +rubbed her breasts and asked her if she like having her breasts rubbed.! +said "no, I don't like that." Epstein +then removed his towel and laid on the bed naked exposing his penis tol +• He began touching his penis and +masturbated as he touched her breasts. ( +explained Epstein then touched her vaginal area by rubbing her +vagina with his fingers on the outside of her thong panties. C +•tensed up and stated Epstein was aware that she +was uncomfortable. C +•stated that Epstein said to her, "Relax, I'm not going inside." She further explained +Epstein commented to her how beautiful and sexy she was. Epstein then moved her thong panties to one side +, and began stroking her clitoris. +• said, "He commented how hard my clit was." He then inserted two fingers in +her vagina and was stroking her within her vagina. She tried pulling back to pull out his fingers from within her +vagina. Epstein removed his fingers from within her yagina and apologized for putting his fingers inside her. +During this time, he kept his hand on her vaginal area and continued to rub her vagina. ( +stated he rubbed her +really hard as he was masturbating. ( +said he climaxed onto the towel he had been previously wearing and got +up from the table. Epstein told her there was $200.00 dollars for her on the dresser within the +bathroom. +Epstein also told her that there was an additional $100.00 that was to be given to for bringing her there to +massage him. Epstein told her to leave her telephone number with his assistant as he wanted to see her again. +Epstein stated his assistant would contact her to work again soon. I asked her if she ever received any formal +massage training to which d +stated she did not. +•stated it was the only time she ever went to work for Jeff +and knew what happened to her was wrong. She further stated that she had never been contacted for any +additional work. +On January 9, 2006, Hocated and interviewed another victim, +•, dobl +was identified +as a potential victim/witness from information obtained during trash pulls from Epstein's residence. stated she +met Epstein when she was fifteen years of age. She was approached by a friend fromd +to be taken to Jeffrey Epstein's house to work. She was originally told she would be able +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Cha 1. +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida + + + +to model lingerie for a wealthy Palm Beacher. ( +•was taken to Epstein's house located on El Brillo Way. C +introduced to Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein had his personal chef prepare dinner for +Pand l +At the +conclusion of dinner, +and Epstein brought. +•upstairs into a 1 +bedroom area. +observed a large +massage table with a sheet on it. Epstein entered through a door and exited wearing only a towel. +informed that they were going to provide a massage on Epstein.C +asked why were they doing this instead +of modeling lingerie. +explained to d +that this was his routine and to rub his calves and feet. Epstein had +told to get comfortable. +removed her pants and blouse. stated she stayed only in panties as she did +not wear a bra that evening. +•stated while rubbing his calves and feet, Epstein turned over onto his back. +Epstein told to rub his chest and rub his nipples. C +•stated that as she started rubbing his chest, Epstein +began masturbating himself. Epstein touched her breasts and stroked her vagina with his fingers. Epstein +continued to masturbate himself as he stroked her vagina. Epstein ejaculated on his towel and paid $200.00 +for the massage. Epstein told +that if she told anyone what happened at his house that bad things could +happen. +and C +were brought home by Epstein's houseman andl +was afraid that Epstein knew where +she lived! +•stated that several days later she received a telephone call from +who coordinated for +Sto return to "work." { +returned to the house and was brought to Epstein's bedroom area by Sarah who +prepared the room for the massage. Epstein entered the room wearing only a towel. Epstein had remove her +clothing and provide the massage naked. +began rubbing his feet and calves and Epstein turned over onto his +back. Epstein rubbed her vagina with his fingers. Epstein began to masturbate himself with an upwards and +downward motion on his penis. Epstein continued to touch her vagina with one hand and masturbate with the +other hand. Once Epstein ejaculated onto the towel he was wearing, the massage was over. was paid +$200.00 for the massage. Epstein again told +not to speak of what happened at his house or bad things would +happen. +•wanted to notify authorities however she was afraid of what would happen to either her or her +family. +During the course of the investigation, several subjects were identified as a potential witness/victim +through information obtained during the trash pulls, physical surveillance and telephone message books retrieved +from the search warrant. While conducting research on the subjects, I discovered that the females were age +eighteen or older. Interviews were conducted on the consenting adults whose statements provided the same +massage routine when they went to "work" for Epstein. The females would be notified by +, and +made appointments for the females to "work" for Epstein. The females would come to Epstein's house and were +led upstairs, through a stairwell from the kitchen area, by +Ito Epstein's bedroom. Epstein would then +enter the room wearing only a towel, and ask them to get comfortable. The females would then provide the +massage naked as Epstein would either touch their vaginas with his fingers and/or utilize the massager/vibrator on +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Done 20/27 + + +their vaginal area. He would masturbate during the massage and upon his climaxing, the massage would end. The +girls were then paid two or three hundred dollars for the massage. +On November 21, 2005 1 interviewed Jose Alessi, a former houseman for Jeffrey Epstein. Alessi stated +he was employed for eleven years with Mr. Epstein, from approximately 1993 through 2004. Alessi stated he +was the house manager, driver and house maintenance person. It was his responsibility to prepare the house for +Epstein s arrival. When asked about cooks or assistants, Alessi stated they traveled with Epstein on his private +plane. I asked Mr. Alessi about the massages that have occurred at Epstein's home. Alessi stated Epstein +receives three massages a day. Each masseuse that visited the house was different. Alessi stated that towards +the end of his employment, the masseuses were younger and younger. When asked how young, Mr. Alessi +stated they appeared to be sixteen or seventeen years of age at the most. The massages would occur in Epstein's +bedroom or bathroom. He knew this because he often set up the massage tables. I asked if there were things +going on other than a massage. Alessi stated that there were times towards the end of his employment that he +would have to wash off a massager/vibrator and a long rubber penis, which were in the sink after the massage. +Additionally, he stated the bed would almost always have to be made after the massage. +On January 4, 2006 1 interviewed another former houseman, Mr Alfredo Rodriguez. During a sworn +taped statement, Mr. Rodriguez stated he was employed by Jeffrey Epstein for approximately six months, from +November 2004 through May of 200S. His responsibilities as house manager included being the +chauffeur, chef, houseman, run errands for Epstein and provide for Epstein's guests. I asked Rodriguez about +masseuses coming to the house. Rodriguez stated Epstein would have two massages a day. Epstein would have +one massage in the morning and one massage in the afternoon everyday he was in residence. Rodriguez stated +he would be informed to expect someone and make them comfortable until either +or Epstein would +meet with them. Rodriguez stated once the masseuses would arrive, he would allow them entry into the kitchen +area and offer them something to drink or eat. They would then be encountered by either +Epstein. They would be taken upstairs to provide the massage. I asked Rodriguez if any of the masseuses +appeared young in age. Rodriguez stated the girls that would come appeared to be too young to be masseuses. +He stated one time under Epstein's direction, he delivered a dozen roses to d +for +one of the girls that came to provide a massage. He knew the girls were still in high school and were of high +school age. I asked Rodriguez about the massages. He felt there was a lot more going on than just massages. +He would often clean Mr. Epstein's bedroom after the alleged massages and would discover massagers/vibrators +and sex toys scattered on the floor. He also said he would wipe down the vibrators and sex toys and put them +away in an armoire. He described the armoire as a small +armoire which was on the wall close to Epstein's +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +a 1. pede +Signature of Police? +Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of Palm Beatl +Damnzhen + + +bed. On one occasion Epstein ordered Rodriguez to go to the Dollar rent a car and rent a car for the same girl +he brought the roses to, so that she could drive her self to Epstein's house without incident. Rodriguez said the +girl always needed rides to and from the house. +Rodriguez produced a l +folder which contained documents, and a note with Mr. Epstein's stationary +with direction to deliver a bucket of roses to l +• aftered +high school drama +performance. Also in that same note was direction to rent a car for C +and direction to extend the rental +contract. +During the course of the investigation, subpoenas were obtained for cell phone and home phone records +from several victims and witnesses along with the cell phone records of +An analysis of these +records was conducted which found numerous telephone calls were made between +and the victims. +These records indicate the dates the calls were made are consistent with the dates and times they +victims/witnesses stated they were contacted. Specifically, The phone records showed +called +during the exact times and dates when victim ( +advised the incident occurred. +also coordinated +the encounters with +and +during the time frame the girls +stated they occurred. +Pursuant to a lawful subpoena I obtained Epstein's private plane records for 2005 from Jet Aviation. +The plane records show arrival and departure of Epstein's plane at Palm Beach International airport. These +records were compared to the cell phone records of +This comparison found that all the phone calls +made to +and the victims were made in the days just prior to their arrival or during the time Epstein +was in Palm Beach. +Therefore, as Jeffrey Epstein, who at the time of these incidents was fifty one years of age, did have +vaginal intercourse either with his penis or digitally with +Dand 1 +who were minors at the time this +occurred, there is sufficient probable cause to charge Jeffrey Epstein with four counts of Unlawful Sexual Activity +with a Minor, in violation of Florida State Statute 794.05(1), a second degree felony. As Epstein, whọ at the time +of the incident was fifty two years of age, did use a vibrator on the external vaginal area of, a fourteen year +old minor, there is sufficient probable cause to charge him with Lewd and Lascivious Molestation, in violation of +Florida State Statute 800.04 (5), a second degree felony. +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +Signature role bricer +Dana27ar77 + + +OBTS Number +ARREST / NOTICE TO APPEAR +Juvenile Referral Report +Agency ORl Number +no 50 0 6 0 +Charpe Type +as many +as appy:: +Traffic Felony +Location of Arrest (Including Name of Business) +Date of Arrest +Time of Arrest +Name (Last: First, Middle) +Agency Name +PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT +Misdemeanor +• 4. Traffic Misdemeanor +1 Arrest +3 Request for Warrant +2 NTA- +4 Request for Capia +Agency Report Number (N.T.A.'s only) +#Weapon Seized +3 +Location of Vehicle +AN +SATALI +0,57,979 +Scars, Marks, Tattoos, Unique Physical Features (Location, Type, Description) +Local Address (Street, Apt. Number) +(City) +(City) +(City) +See See Number +Complexion +90== +Permanent Adcress (Street, Apt. Number) +157 +LIADICON AVE +Business Address (Name, Street) +D/L Number, State +241534676 Liz +Co-Delandant Name (Last, Firsi, Mode) +Co-Defendant Name (Last, First, Moste) +Name (Last) +(State) +(State) +(State) +Parent +• Legal Cusiodian - +Other: +Address (Strect, Apt. Number) +(First) +(City) +(2p) +Phone +) +(2p) +none + +(2p) +Phone +). +INS Number +Race +Sex +Date of Birth +Race +Sex +Date bi Birth +(Modia) +(Slate) +Drug Infuence +Residence Type: +1. City +2. County +2. Our ot State. +Address Source +Occupation +SISTANT +Flace of Birth (Cily, Stale) +Arrested +182. Ai Lar +_ Arrested +©sizenship +33. Felony +• 4, Misdemeanor +75. Juvenile +• 4. Misdemeanor • +Residence Phone +(Zip) +Business Phone +Date +Time +School Antended • +Grade +Property Came? +• Yes +• No +TRAcenty. +Sell +P. Possess +4. Traine +Charge Description +Hannit. +Drug Activly Drug Type +N +y Charge Descripton +Drug Activity Drug Type +N +Charge Description +Description of Property +R. Smuggle +Deliver +E. Usa +K. Dispense/ +Disibute +M. Manufacture/ +Produce/ +Cultivate +Counts +2. Other +Domestic +Amount / Unit +Ottense F +Value of Property +Type +b. Barbiturale +H. Halluanogen +Cocaine +M. Man uana +A. Amphetamine +E. Heroin +O. Opium/Deriv +Statute Violation Number + +Warrant / Capias Numbor +(z) +Counts +Amount / Unit +Offense r +Statute Violation Number +Warrant / Capias Number * +quipmen +i Synthebt +Violation of ORD # +Bond +Violation of ORD F +Bond +26P: (2) +Counts +Domestc +Amount / Unil +Statute Violation Number +Warrant / Capias Number: +Charge Descnption +Drug Activity +Drug Type +Amount / Line +Ortense # +Band +Counts +Domestic +Statute Violation Number +/Violation of ORD F +Ottense * +Waran/ Capas Numed 11 +Bond +Location (Court, Room Number, Address) +- Instruction No. 1 +Mandatory Appearance in Court +• Insiruction No. 2 +You need not appear in Court but must +Court Date and Time +comply with instructions on Reverse Side. +HOLD for othar Agency +Name: +• Dangerous +• Suicidal +Intake Deputy +DISTRIBUTION: +Signature of Defendant (or Juvenile and Parent / Cusiodian). +Date Signed +Sonature of Anestiyo +X +Name Vanfication (Printed by Arrestee) +• Resisted Arrest +• Ober:_ +DO RE CAREY +191- LANT +LD. P Pouch +Transporting Officer +Apency +Witness here if subjeci signed with an X: +PAGE +_ OF. +- COURT COPY +- STATE ATTORNEY +• YELLOW - AGENCY +PINK. - JAIL +GOLD - DEFENDANT (N.T.A's ONLY) + + +CERTIFIED COPY + + +Police Case#: 05-368 (2) +Defendant: +Race/Sex: +DOB: +Charges: +Female +05-25-1975 +Principal in the 1" Unlawful Sexual Activity with a Minor (4) counts +Principal in the 1" Lewd and Lascivious Molestation (1) count +From March 15, 2005, through February 2006, the Palm Beach Police Department conducted a sexual +battery investigation involving Jeffrey Epstein, +and +• Sworn taped statements were +taken from five victims and seventeen witnesses concerning massages and unlawful sexual activity that took place +at the residence of Jeffrey Epstein, 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach. Several of the victims were recruited by and +brought to the residence by +to perform massages for Epstein, for which +received +monetary compensation. During the visit they would be introduced to +• Epstein's assistant, who in +turn would record their telephone numbers and name. The victims would be brought to Epstein's bedroom to +provide the massage. Epstein would enter the room and order the victims to remove their clothing to provide the +massage. As the victims complied and provided the massages, Epstein would rub his fingers on their vaginas. +On occasion, Epstein would introduce a massager/vibrator and rub the victims vaginas as they provided the +massage. On three separate occasions, Epstein had intercourse and inserted his penis/fingers in the victims +vaginas. At the conclusion of the massages the victims were paid sums of money ranging from $200 - $1,000. +The facts, as reported, are as follows: +On 03/15/2005, A fourteen year old +female, hereinafter referred to as " +dob +, and +her family reported unlawful sexual activity which occurred at a residence within the Town of Palm Beach. +reported that a subject known to her as "Jeff" had touched her vaginal area with a vibrator/massager while within +his residence. "Jeff" was later identified as Jeffrey Epstein through a photo line up. +During a sworn taped interview, +stated that +dob 04/09/1986, a cousin of +boyfriend and classmate at +* worked for a wealthy man and did sexual favors for +him. She also admitted that +had offered her an opportunity to make money. During the beginning of +the month of February 2005. +explained that she was first approached by +to go with her to Epstein's +house. +stated that +along with a Hispanic female, later identified at +pick her up at +her father's house on a Sunday. +•was not sure of the exact dates but knew it was a Sunday. +• told her +father that they were going shopping but in reality +drove them to Palm Beach. During the drive a +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +C.lferty +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +05/01/200€ +Page / of 22 + + +conversation occurred between 1 +and whereas +she should say she was eighteen. It was later confirmed by the! +on February 6, 2005. According to father, 1 +reportedly told C +•that if Jeff asked her age, +•father that +picked his daughter up +drove a pick up truck. +"described Epstein's house as a two-story pink house with a Cadillac Escalade parked in the +driveway. She recalled that Jeffs house was on a dead end street. Upon arriving at the housed +stated that +they walked up a driveway, past what appeared to be a small guard/security room. A male approaching them +asking what they wanted. +stated they were there to see Epstein. The male allowed them to continue +walking up to the house. +stated the man told them that Epstein was not there but was expected back. He +allowed them to enter the house, via the kitchen. He offered them something to drink while they waited inside. +Shortly thereafter, Epstein and his assistant, described as +female with blond hair and later identified as +entered the kitchen. Epstein introduced himself to described Epstein as being +approximately forty-five years old, having a long face and bushy eyebrows, with graying hair. +and Epstein left the kitchen leaving alone in the kitchen. They returned a short time later. +They all spoke briefly in the kitchen. +was instructed to follow +upstairs. recalled walking up a +flight of stairs, lined with photographs, to a room that had a massage table in it. Upon entering the room there +was a large bathroom to the right and a hot pink and +sofa in the room. There was a door on each side of +the sota. +recalled there being a mural of a naked woman in the room, as well as several photographs of +naked women on a shelf. +told the victim that Epstein would be up in a second. +Epstein entered the room wearing only a towel and told to take off her clothes. stated Epstein +was stern when he told her to take off her clothes. C +said she did not know what to do as she was the only one +there in the room so she took off her shirt leaving her bra on. Epstein had removed his towel and told the to +take off everything. +stated Epstein was nude when he took his towel off, placing it on the floor as he laid +down on the table. +stated she then removed her pants leaving her thong panties on. Epstein then instructed +her to give him a massage pointing to a specific lotion for her to use. As began to give Epstein the massage, +he told her to get on his back. stated she straddled herself on Epstein's back whereby her exposed buttocks +were touching Epstein's bare buttocks. said Epstein was specific in his instruction to her on how to massage +him, telling her to go clockwise or counter clockwise. Epstein then turned over and instructed ( +chest. C +was now standing on the ground and resumed massaging Epstein's chest area. C +stated Epstein held +onto the small of her back as she massaged his chest and shoulder area. Epstein then turned to his side and +started to rub his penis in an up and down motion. Epstein then pulled out a purple vibrator and began to +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Ch. 1. Auro +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +Signature/A +nresting Officer +65101/2006 +Page 2of 22 + + +• vaginal area. • +• stated there was no penetration as the vibrator was on top of her underwear. +recalled Epstein ejaculating because he had to use the towel to wipe himself as he got off the table. Epstein +then left the room and +•got dressed. She went back downstairs where she met with +• said she +was paid three hundred dollars in cash from Epstein. Before she left, Epstein asked to leave her phone +number. As +ande +were leaving the house, +told +she received two hundred +dollars that day for bringing her. +During the course of the investigation, parental consent was granted for +to assist with the +investigation. At our direction a conducted controlled taped phone calls to +cellular telephone 561- +308-0282. C +•spoke with +in an attempt to arrange another meeting with Epstein. +asked +what did she need to do to make more money. +stated, "the more you do, the more you get paid." +had subsequently called back and left a voice mail message for her indicating that she had set up an +appointment for to go to Epstein's house at 11:00 am on April 5, 2005. This message was recorded from +• voice mail. +Based on the above, trash pulls were established at Epstein's residence with Supervisor Tony Higgins of +the Sanitation Bureau of the Town of Palm Beach. The trash pull from April 5, 2005 revealed a telephone +message for Epstein which stated Haley and +• name at 11:00 am. This was the time frame +had +informed to be ready to go work at Epstein's house. +On October 3, 2005, Sgt Frick and I went to +residence and viewed her vehicle parked in the +driveway, a red Dodge Neon. Sgt. Frick and I knocked on the door and met with +was +told that we were investigating a claim involving Jeffrey Epstein of El Brillo Way, in Palm Beach. +was +asked if she would accompany us back to the police station for further questioning. She was also told that at the +conclusion of the interview she would be returned home. +voluntarily came with us back to the Palm +Beach Police Department. +Upon our arrival at the police station, +was brought to the interview room in the Detective Bureau +where I obtained a taped, sworn statement. I began the interview by asking +how she became +acquainted with Epstein. +stated that approximately two years ago, just after she turned 17 years of age, +she was approached by a friend named Molly at the Canopy Beach Resort in | +Beach. +was asked +if she wanted to make money. She was told she would have to provide a massage and should make $200.00. +thought about the offer and agreed to meet with Jeffrey. +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +1. Autops +Signature of Police Officer (F/S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of Palth Beach +Sian roaring oncer +0540n/2006 +Page3of22 + + +Molly (Unknown last name) and Tony (Unknown last name) picked +• up and she was taken to +Epstein's house. Upon her arrival to the house she was introduced to Epstein in the kitchen of the house. She +was also introduced to a +* female known to her as Sarah. She was led upstairs to the main bedroom known +to her as Jeff Epstein's bedroom. Sarah arranged the massage table and covered the table with a sheet. She +brought out the massage oils and laid them next to the massage bed. Sarah, then left the room and informed +Jeff would be in, in a minute. Jeff entered the bedroom wearing only a towel. He removed the towel +and laid nude on the massage table. He laid on the table onto his stomach and picked a massage oil for +to rub on him. During the massage, +stated "He tried to touch me and I stopped him." I asked how he +tried to touch her. +, stated that Epstein grabbed her buttocks and she felt uncomfortable. +told +Epstein, I'll massage you but I don't want to be touched. +the conclusion of the massage, Epstein paid +• stated she performed the massage naked. At +$200. +After the massage Epstein stated to +that he understood she was not comfortable, but he would +pay her if she brought over some girls. He told her the younger the better. +i stated she once tried to bring +a 23 year old female and Epstein stated that the female was too old. +stated that in total she only +remembers six girls that she brought to see Epstein, each time she was paid $200. +stated she had +brought the following girls: ( +• (alб year old female), 4 +(a 16 year old +female) andi +said that at the time she brought these girls to Epstein's house they were all14 +through 16 years of age. I asked +which one was the youngest. +advised +she was fourteen when the massage occurred. +was the youngest as +stated every girl she brought knew what to expect when +they arrived. They were told they would provide a massage, possibly naked, and allow some touching. I asked +her if +was aware. She stated every girl she brought knew what to expect. She explained she knew that! +wanted to make money. She approached +and explained about going to work for Jeff, & +agreed and +arrangements were made to bring her to Epstein's house on a weekend. +, stated that she ande +(Later identified as ( +picked up Cat her house. +stated that at that time she was driving +a red pickup truck. They traveled to Epstein's house and entered through the kitchen door. They met with the +house chef and Epstein's assistant Sarah. I +awas introduced to Epstein while they were in the kitchen area. +Sarah led +upstairs and Epstein went upstairs. When the massage was over +returned to the kitchen area. +stated she was paid $200.00 for bringing to Epstein's house. +stated told her she was +paid $300.00 for the massage. +stated that (dwas the last person she brought to Epstein's house. She had changed her cellular +number to avoid being contacted by Sarah. She continued stating that she had no direct contact with Epstein +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +County of +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Signature/A +Page Yof 22 + + +when he was going to travel to Palm Beach. +said when Epstein announces to his assistant, Sarah, that +he is traveling to Palm Beach, Sarah would then contact +to arrange girls to "work" for Epstein. +stated that once her parents discovered that she was visiting Epstein, they disapproved of the encounters with him +and she stopped. +further stated that Sarah still tries to call +house and leaves messages. +Sgt Frick entered the room and explained to +that based on her own statements, she had +implicated herself by bringing underage girls to Epstein's house. +provided cellular telephone numbers for +the girls she had mentioned previously. Additionally, she also provided possible addresses and areas in which +they lived. +As +was being taken home in the vehicle, a tape recorder was placed within the vehicle to record +any conversations within the vehicle. During the drive back to her home, +made the comment "I'm like +a Heidi Fleiss." (Hollywood Madam who sent girls to clients for sexual favors in California). | +was +dropped off at her house without incident. +On October 3, 2005, Sgt Frick and I went to speak with +a sixteen year-old female who was +brought to Epstein's residence by +1 We met with +•mother at their front door. We explained +the ongoing investigation and asked to speak withd +as we had information that she had "worked" for Jeff. +Mrs. •introduced us to her husband and allowed us entry into the home. We sat in the dining room and met +with Date of Birth! +• As she was under the age of eighteen, Mrs was advised we would be +speaking with her. She expressed if her daughter had information, she wanted to assist. We interviewed far, who +denied having any inappropriate encounters with Jeff (Epstein). She stated she had gone to Jeff's house with +approximately eight months ago and sat in the kitchen with the house chef, but nothing happened. +As the parents were present during the interview, we felt that was withholding information from us. She made +several comments as to putting the entire incident behind her. I left my telephone number and advised should she +wish to speak with me again to telephone me. Sgt Frick and I thanked Mrs. • for her time and left the area. She +stated she would ask again after we left as to what happened at Epstein's house. I informed her that had +my telephone number and hopefully she would call. +On October 4, 2005, Det Dawson and I drove to the C +During a sworn taped statement, +when she was seventeen years old, she was taken to a house by +because they both attend +home and met with +stated approximately a year ago +stated she knows +1. She was told she could make money working +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +- judge +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Page 5of 22 + + +for Jeff. She was told she would have to provide a massage to Jeff. +• stated upon her arrival to the house +she was brought to the kitchen area by +•. They met with the house chef who was already in the kitchen +area. +astated +would wait for her in the kitchen. +• was introduced to Sarah, Jeff's +assistant, who brought her upstairs to the +bedroom. Sarah prepared the room and massage table for a +massage. Epstein entered the room wearing only a towel and she provided a massage. I +• stated she kept +her clothes on during the massage. She advised sometime during the massage, Epstein grabbed her buttocks and +pulled her close to him. +• said she was uncomfortable by the incident involving Jeff. At the conclusion of +the massage, she was paid $200.00 for the massage. I asked! +if she has any formal training in massages to +which she replied no. I asked her if +received any monies for taking her to perform the massage. +stated +had received money for taking her there but was unsure in the amount. +i stated she +returned to Epstein's house on another occasion with +and another girl, +• stated +she waited in the kitchen with +• while! +was taken upstairs by Sarah. +stated she only did the +massage once as she was uncomfortable with the whole experience. +At the conclusion of the interview, the tape was stopped. Iwas informed that Sarah had attempted to +reach ( +• via cell phone. A voice mail message on October 4, 2005 at 10:59 am, revealed a female voice +who identified herself as Sarah who requested +to call her back reference the police questioning. I +provided the incoming telephone number as 917-855-3363 +stated she inadvertently told +about the police investigation becaused +• had called her to tell her about how she just received a rental car +from Jeff Epstein. ( +had called her to tell her that she was given a rental car, a 2005 Silver Nissan Sentra, +to utilize to visit family and visit Epstein. +•asked her what was going on at the house that the police would +be asking questions. +stated C +then called Jeff and Sarah and asked what was going on +reference the ongoing police investigation. According tol +• Sarah has since then been trying to contact her +to ask about the police questions. I instructedl +not to contact Sarah and do not provide any more +information tol +as she would notify Jeff Epstein and Sarah what was transpiring. +On October4, 2005, I made telephone contact with +who had left several messages for me to contact +her. During the message, she advised she was not completely truthful when we met in person but would like to +speak with me to advise what had happened. She further advised she did not want to speak of this incident in +front of her mother. At approximately 3:48 pm I made telephone contact with During a taped recorded +statemente stated the foll wing: approximately a yet hey buentee was sixieen years of age, Robser took her +time she went, +drove to the house. They entered through the kitchen area where she was +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Signature/Ay +Page 60f 22 + + +introduced to Sarah and Epstein. She was taken upstairs to a bedroom by Sarah who set the room up with a +massage bed and brought out the oils to use. Epstein then entered the room wearing a towel. He laid on the +table and picked out a lotion for to rub on him. At one point during the massage he tried to remove her shirt, +at which point she became very upset and discontinued the massage. Both +Epstein had a verbal +disagreement, at which time she left without being paid. She got with +who was sitting in the +kitchen and told her "let's go." ( +sadvised she received no money for that day. +•also said that +had told her if she was uncomfortable with what was going on, to let him know and he'll stop. She knew that the +more you do the more you get paid. advised that several weeks later she agreed to be taken a second time +by +Once they arrived at the residence, +sat in the kitchen and Sarah took her +upstairs to the +bedroom again. Sarah set the room up with a massage bed and brought out the oils to +use. Epstein then entered the room wearing a towel. He laid on the table and picked out a lotion for to rub +on him. At one point during the massage he tried to touch her buttocks. As +was wearing tight jeans and had a +tight belt on Epstein was unable to touch her buttocks. Epstein then rolled onto his back during the massage and +then attempted to touch her breasts. +then became upset again and told Epstein she didn't want to be touched. +discontinued the massage and was paid $200.00. +then went downstairs where +was waiting +for her. She told +she wanted to leave. +said she never returned to the house. +stated she is aware +that her friend, +was also at the house and had a problem with Epstein. +Ilater researchedd +taped statement, +dob i +and met with her at her residence. During a sworn +stated the following: on of about November 2004, she was approached at +by +, a fellow student. +asked +if she wanted to make money. +She agreed and was told she would provide a massage to wealthy man in Palm Beach. +picked her up +and drove her to a house in Palm Beach. She was brought into the kitchen area of the house. She further stated +that fellow +Students ( +and +came with them. They were +brought into the kitchen where she was introduced to Epstein and other females. +stated she was +introduced to a female helper of Epstein, the female was described as +female (unknown name ), with +blond hair. She stated that the assistant was familiar with +The assistant brought her upstairs into a +bedroom area. The assistant set up the massage table and put out lotions to be used. She told C +Epstein would be available in a minute. Epstein entered the room wearing only a towel. Epstein removed his +towel, and laid naked on the massage table and picked a lotion to rub on his thighs and back. d +stated during the massage, Epstein asked her to remove her clothes. She complied and removed her pants and +blouse. +• didn't remember if she had removed her bra but feels that she did. { +•was certain that she +stayed in her thong underwear. +continued the massage and at one point she climbed onto the massage +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +CL.l.fedap +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +Date: 05/07/2006 +Page7 of 22 + + +table, straddling Epstein to massage his back. While doing this her buttocks were touching Epsteins. +was instructed to return to the ground at which time Epstein turned to have his chest rubbed. ( +• advised she +was sure he was masturbating based on his hand movements going up and down on his penis area. +not want to look at his penis area because she was uncomfortable. Epstein removed a large +Vibrator which +was next to the massage table and turned it on. C +• stated Epstein began rubbing the vibrator over her thong +underwear on her vaginal area. Shortly thereafter, Epstein ejaculated and removed himself from the table. He +walked over to where the shower was and opened the +door. She waited as he was taking a shower in her +direct view. When I asked +•how old she was when this occurred, she stated she had just turned +seventeen. At the conclusion of the shower, d +was paid either $350.00 or $400.00. She stated she +wasn't sure, but knows it was close to $400.00. C +stated she never returned to provide a massage for +Epstein. +At approximately 2:10 pm, Det Dawson and I met with +, dob l +at her residence. Ast +was only seventeen years of age, I had notified her mother, that she would be interviewed reference an ongoing +investigation in Palm Beach. I assured her that her daughter was not a suspect. I explained the possibility of her +being either a witness or victim. Mrs@advised she wanted ( +to cooperate and consented to the interview. +During a sworn taped statement, +stated the following: at the age of sixteen, during the month of +September 2004, she was approached by +for a chance to make money. ( +was friends with +associates of +and knew the same people. had been previously told by her friends from +what +did for Epstein. +called a person known tod +bas Sarah and +scheduled the appointment. +| picked up and drove her to Palm Beach to a street called "Brillo Way". +They drove to the end of the street and entered a large driveway. They entered the kitchen area of the house and +met with Epstein. ( +was introduced to Jeff Epstein. +led upstairs to the main bedroom area and +set up the room with a massage table and set out the oils. +stated that while going up the stairs and into the +bedroom she observed numerous photographs of naked young girls. +dimmed the lights and turned on +soft music. +exited the room and Epstein entered the room wearing only a towel. Epstein picked oils and +instructed her to rub his legs, under his buttocks, back and chest area. Epstein asked her to get comfortable. +advised she did not remove her clothes. She was wearing tight jeans and a cropped tank top exposing her belly +area. During the massage, Epstein removed his towel and laid on the massage table naked. As rubbed +Epstein's chest area, he attempted to reach down her pants to touch her buttocks area however was unable to +due so due to the tightness of the jeans and a tight belt. • +•advised Epstein began to masturbate as she rubbed +his chest. Epstein moaned as she rubbed his chest. She observed he was continuing to masturbate and +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1 day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Signatured +esting Officer +PageBof 22 + + +attempted to reach up her tank top and touch her breasts. +* pulled back and Epstein stopped, however he +kept masturbating until he climaxed. He cleaned himself with the towel he was previously wearing. was +paid $200.00 for the massage and left the area. She met with +who was waiting in the kitchen area and +left the house. +then explained she never provided another massage for Epstein. She did however, go to the house +with +has they took another friend of! +Dadvised she was present when +went to work for Epstein. She advised she rode over and sat in the kitchen area with ! +wait for +advised while they waited ford +to +• the house chef prepared lunch for them as it was +almost lunchtime when they went. When +was finished with the massage they left the area. I asked •if +ever told her what would be expected when she provided a massage. C +stated yes, +told her +that a massage would be expected, possibly naked and possibly some touching involved. +›has no formal +training in providing massages. +spoke about a third and last time she went to Epstein's house. +drove another girl, +• (sixteen years of age) who is +friend, to Epstein's house. +stated +knew that +•had made money massaging Epstein and wanted to make money herself. +took them in the kitchen +area of the house and introduced C +• to Sarah. +and Sarah took +upstairs to the main bedroom. +advised she doesn't know what happened ast +did not speak about what happened in the room. +received +$100.00 from +for going with her to Epstein's house and recommending +On October 6, 2005, at 11:45 am, I met with +•dobe +at +y and +explained to her why we there to interview her, She advised she was aware of the ongoing investigation. I +stated she had previously spoken with +who told her she was interviewed by detectives. During a +sworn taped statement, +• stated she knew that +worked for Jeff Epstein in Palm Beach. +advised she originally had been taken to the Epstein house by +whom she met when they both +attended +She began going to the house when she was sixteen years of age and +stated she had been there a lot of times to provide massages over the past two years. I asked her if she had +formal training in providing massages, which! +stated she had not. +advised she was told what was +expected of her by providing massages and she would have to remove clothing but if she felt uncomfortable just +to say so and Epstein would stop pushing the issue. +•began providing massages and advised she kept her +clothes on. She considered Epstein a pervert and he kept pushing to go further and further. explained she +would keep telling him she had a boyfriend and would not be right to her boyfriend. It wasn't until recently that +→ began removing her clothes and staying in her thong underwear to provide a massage. +Dexplained +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this I" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +1. pedose +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of PAlm Beach +Signature +Page9o822 + + +Epstein wanted to be rubbed on his back and recently he began turning over and have her rub his chest as he +masturbated. He would try to touch her breasts as she rubbed his chest. +stated "Jeff would try to get away +with more and moré on each massage". +stated Epstein would try to touch her more and on one occasion +he attempted to use a massager/vibrator on her. +drovel +•to the house for the original massage. I +left Sarah her cell phone number and every time Epstein would come into town, Sarah would call her for an +appointment to "work". Each time she went, Sarah would meet her at the kitchen door area. She would bring +her upstairs and prepare the massage table. +•advised Epstein would ask her questions about herself. Epstein +knew she was a soccer player and would be attending +Iasked +•if Epstein knew her real +age! +• stated Epstein did and didn't care. The most recent massage she provided was on October 1, 2005. +During the massage, she asked Epstein if she could borrow one of his vehicles to visit her family and boyfriend in +Orlando, Florida. Epstein had told her she could borrow one of his vehicles but later stated he would rent her a +car. She continued with the massage as Epstein grabbed her buttocks and caressed the buttocks cheeks. I +asked +•if she was wearing undergarments to which she replied her thong underwear. Once he tried to touch +her breasts, she would pull away from him and he would stop. +was asked if he ever used a vibrator on her. +• was aware of the vibrator but advised she never would allow him to use the vibrator on her.. She described +the vibrator as the large +vibrator with a huge head on the tip of the vibrator. She stated he kept the vibrator +in a closet near the massage table. +=.• +stated that on October 3, 2005, she was contacted by Epstein's assistant, Sarah, who informed her +that Jeff Epstein had rented her a new Nissan Sentra and she should come by the house to pick it up. Sarah +informed +•she would have the car for a month, ( +• stated Epstein knew her car was not working properly +and that she had missed appointments in the past because of her car being inoperable. C +explained the car is +currently parked next to the +Gym field. I asked her if she ever took any one to the house. +explained she took +a friend of hers who attended +, who has +relocated to Orlando to attend college. Iasked if she ever allowed another female in the room. +advised no +one was brought into the room with her. +At the conclusion of the interview, Det Dawson and I went to the gym area of n +› and +located the Silver Nissan Sentra bearing Florida tag X98-APM. The vehicle is registered to Dollar Rent a Car +out of the Palm Beach International Airport. The vehicle was rented by Janusz Banasiack, later learned to be +Epstein's houseman, and paid with Epstein's credit card. +On September 11, 2005, w/f C, dob +, was arrested by the Palm Beach Police Department +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +County of PalmBeach +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Signature/ +Date: 05701/2006 +Pageldof 22 + + +for misdemeanor possession of marijuana. During the arrest +told the arresting officer that she had information +about sexual activity taking place at the residence of Jeffrey Epstein. Additionally, during the ongoing trash pulls +from Epstein's residence, discarded papers were found which contained ( +name and cell phone number. +On October, 11, 2005, Det Dawson and I met with +and obtained a sworn taped statement. +explained she had been going to Epstein's house since 2002, when she was sixteen years of age. Since then she +has gone to the house hundreds of times. stated she became his "number one girl." She explained that on +her first visit she was brought to the house by fellow +classmate, +said she was brought through the kitchen area where she met +. for the first time. +was led to +the +bedroom, Epstein s room. +explained that as she was walking up the stairs she observed several +photographs of naked women along the walls and tables of the house. ( +further explained that she was +brought into the bedroom, where Sarah prepared the room by setting up the massage table and provided the oils +for her to rub on Epstein. ( +explained she remembered the steam room area, which contained two large +showers. Epstein entered the room from the steam room area and introduced himself. Epstein lay on the table +and told her to get comfortable. ( +removed her skirt and kept her shirt on. Epstein then instructed her to +remove her shirt. +Premoved her shirt and remembered she was not wearing a bra. +•stated she provided +the massage wearing only her panties. She continued rubbing his legs, thighs and feet. +I advised he turned +over onto his back. Epstein touched her breasts and began to masturbate. Epstein ejaculated which meant the +massage was over. At the conclusion of the massage, +was paid $200.00. They walked together downstairs +where +and +were waiting. +stated +• received an unknown amount of +money for taking her to Epstein. Epstein instructed to leave her cellular telephone number so that he could +contact her when he is in town. +stated that during her many visits a routine was established between her and Epstein. She would enter +the house and get naked in the bedroom. She would then start with a back massage. Epstein would roll on to his +back and allow her to massage his chest area. stated Epstein would then began to masturbate himself and at +the same time would insert his fingers in her vagina and masturbate her with his fingers. C +•explained Epstein +would continue this process until he ejaculated. He would then utilize a vibrator/massager on her vagina until +climaxed. C +advised that during her frequent visits, Epstein asked for her real age, stated she was sixteen. +Epstein advised her not to tell anyone her real age. C +• advised that things escalated within the home as Epstein +would instruct and pay to have intercourse with his female friend, +explained the +intercourse included using strap on dildos, large rubber penis' and other devices that Epstein had at his disposal. +Epstein would watch them have intercourse and masturbate himself. Occasionally, Epstein would then join in +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida 1 +County of Palm/Beach +Date: 05/07/2006 +Pagel of 22 + + +during the female on female intercourse and provide oral sex to both o +Band +the time I was sixteen years of age. +This occurred during +advised this continued to escalate during two years. The routine became familiar tod +Epstein's +assistant Sarah would telephone her every time Epstein was in the Town of Palm Beach and would place +appointments for her to visit and work for Epstein. Each time something new was introduced, additional monies +were produced and offered for do allow the acts to happen. ( +•consented to perform all these acts but was +adamant that there was an understanding with Epstein that no vaginal penetration would occur with his penis. +explained that Epstein's penis was deformed. • +explained that his penis was oval shaped. ( +•claimed when +Epstein's penis was erect, it was thick toward the bottom but was thin and small toward the head portion. +called Epstein's penis "egg-shaped." * stated Epstein would photograph +and her naked and +having sex and proudly display the photographs within the home. +stated during one visit to Epstein's house +in which she provided a massage to Epstein, his female friend, +was also present. +provided the massage in which +and her would fondle each others breasts and kiss for Epstein to +enjoy. Towards the end of this massage, Epstein grabbed ( +band turned her over onto her stomach on the +massage table and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina. +stated Epstein began to pump his penis in her +vagina. C +became upset over this. She said her head was being held against the table forcibly, as he continued +to pump inside her. She screamed "No!" and Epstein stopped. She told him that she did not want to have his +penis inside of her. Epstein did not ejaculate inside of her and apologized for his actions and subsequently paid +her a thousand dollars for that visit. +• stated she knows he still displays her photographs through out the house. +On October 12, 2005, Det Dawson and I met with +dob +who stated during +a sworn taped statement, that nothing happened between her and Epstein. +appeared nervous during the +interview. I assured her that I have spoken with other people who advised differently. +stated on several +occasions she provided a massage to Epstein. She stated she was brought to the Epstein house in March of +2005. - +a classmate ad +- approached her and asked her if she +wanted to "work". +made the arrangements with Sarah, Epstein's assistant. +who has no formal +training in providing massages, stated she provided a massage, fully clothed for $200.00. As I sensed hesitancy +in her answers, I askede +if she had been contacted by anyone from Epstein's organizations or his house. +y stated she was interviewed already by a private investigator for Epstein. He identified himself as "Paul" +and inquired about the police investigation, and left his telephone number 305-710-5165 for additional contact. +provided no additional information, as it appeared her responses were almost scripted. +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Or 1 Auto +Signature of Police ( +officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +Signature/A +arresting Officer +Page 17f22 + + +On November 6, 2005, at approximately 3:30 pm, I met with +• dob ( +, at the +Palm Beach Police Department. ( +• was identified as a potential witness/victim through information +obtained during the trash pulls. During the sworn taped statement, +advised she was at Jeffrey Epstein's +house one time, approximately two months ago. She was approached by a girl, l +who was dating +roommate, for an opportunity to make some quick money. +•advised she needed to make some +quick cash to make the rent that month. She agreed to go to the house. She had been told by +s that +the massage would have to be done in her underwear. She advised +drove with her and brought her into the +house. They walked into the kitchen area, and took the stairs upstairs. +further stated she was brought +into a 1 +bedroom area. She advised she recalled seeing portraits of naked women throughout the room. A +massage table was already out near the sauna/shower area in the +bedroom. Epstein entered the room +wearing only a towel and introduced himself as "Jeff." At Epstein's direction, +ande +•Temoved their +clothing down to their panties, Epstein laid on his stomach area and they provided a massage on his legs and feet +area. I asked +if she had any formal massage training and she replied "no." +advised she was +topless and the panties she wore were the boy shorts lace panties. She and& +continued the massage until the +last ten minutes of the massage, Epstein, told +to leave the room so that +could finish the massage. +got dressed, and left the room as Epstein turned over onto his back. Epstein then removed the towel and +laid naked. Epstein requested that +arub his chest area. +•stated as she did this, Epstein, began +masturbating. +stated Epstein pulled down her boy short panties, and he produced a large +vibrator +with a large head. She stated it was within his reach in a drawer in his +bathroom. He rubbed the vibrator +on her vaginal area. +advised he never penetrated her vagina with the vibrator. He continued to rub her +vagina with the vibrator as he continued to masturbate. +• stated she was very uncomfortable during the +incident but knew it was almost over. Epstein climaxed and started to remove himself from the table. He wiped +himself with the towel he had on previously and went into the shower area. +got dressed and met with +in the kitchen area. Epstein came into the kitchen and provided 6200.00 for bringing +paid $200.00 tol +for providing the massage. +was told to leave her telephone number with Sarah +for future contact. +provided her cellular telephone number. { +• was asked if she was recently +contacted about this investigation by anyone from the Epstein organization. She replied she was called but it was +for work. She stated she was called by Sarah for her to return to "work" for Epstein. +stated "work" is +the term used by Sarah to provide the massages and other things. +› advised she declined as she was not +comfortable in providing that type of "work." +On November 7, 2005, Det +and I met wither +sworn taped statement, +stated she met Jeffrey Epstein through +›dob +•During a +when they were still +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +County of Palry Beach +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Page/30f22 + + +attending +•Robson would approach females who wished to work for Epstein. +stated she was offered to work for Epstein but declined. L +•explained that "work" means give +massages. She was asked about any formal training in providing massages which she said "no." +said +she accompanied +and other females who were taken to Epstein's house to provide massages. +further stated she had been to the house approximately 4 or 5 times in the past year. She accompanied +with +•and +• Each time the girls were taken +over, they were previously told they would have to provide a massage, possibly naked. They were also told that +should Epstein require them to do anything extra, and they were not comfortable just to tell him and he would +stop. +stated +received $200.00 for each girl she brought over to massage Jeffrey Epstein. +When I asked which girl appeared to be the youngest, she replied, , who was really young, fifteen years old at +the most. +further stated each time she went to the house, she sat in the kitchen and waited with +until the massage was over. She further stated that the +would make lunch or a snack for them as they +waited. I asked her if there was anything that caught her attention within the home. +stated there were a +lot of naked girls in photographs throughout the house. +On November 8, 2005, at approximately 2:00pm, I met with +, dob +at the +Palm Beach Police Department. During a sworn taped statement, +stated she had met Epstein +approximately two years ago when she was first approached by +a classmate at +approached her about working for Epstein and providing a massage to him for $200.00. +had made the arrangements however was unable to take her the day the arrangements were made. +had +take +•iso attended! +•and was familiar +with Epstein. +recalled she was brought there and entered through the back kitchen door. She had met +with an assistant Sarah and another assistant Adrianna. Sarah brought her upstairs as she observed several +photographs of naked females throughout the house. +stated Epstein came in the room, wearing only a +towel, and laid on the table. ( +• stated he picked out the oils he wanted her to use and requested she +remove her clothing to provide the massage. +stated that on the first massage she provided she did not +remove her clothing. +stated she had returned several times after that. Each time she returned it was +more than a massage. +Epstein would walk into the +bedroom/bathroom area wearing only a towel. He +would masturbate as she provided a massage. +stated she was unsure if he climaxed as he masturbated +under the towel. Additionally, she never looked below his waist. She claimed that Epstein would convince her to +remove her clothes. She eventually removed her clothes and stayed in her thong panties. On occasion, Epstein +would use a massager/vibrator, which she described as +in color and a large head. Epstein would rub the +vibrator/massager on her vaginal area as he would masturbate. +stated she had been to the house +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +1. actu +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of Pali Beach +Signature/Asting Officer +Page/yof 22 + + +numerous times. +added she has no formal training in providing a massage. +• stated she brought +two females during her visits to provide massages.' +stated she brought a girl named! +and +Prom +stated she received $200.00 for each girl she brought. +On November 8, 2005, I met with! +W/F, +Pat the Palm Beach Police +Department. During a sworn taped statement, +stated she had met Jeffrey Epstein approximately one year +ago. She was approached by a subject known to her as +•had asked her if she wanted to make money +providing massages to Epstein. ( +Shad heard that several girls from +Swere +doing this and making money. She agreed and was taken to the house by +Shad introduced her to Sarah +and Epstein and brought her upstairs to a +bedroom where a massage table was prepared and the proper +oils were selected. [ left the room and waited downstairs for her. d +stated Epstein entered the room +wearing a towel and laid on his stomach. She provided a massage wearing only her thong panties. +advised Epstein had masturbated every time she provided a massage. She stated Epstein continued to +masturbate until he climaxed. Once that occurred the massage was over. She felt the whole situation was weird +but she advised she was paid $200.00 for providing the massage. She also stated was paid $200.00 by +Epstein for bringing +stated she had gone a total of 15 times to Epstein's residence to provide a +massage and things had escalated from just providing a massage, Epstein began touching her on her buttocks and +grabbed her closer to him as he masturbated. Epstein also grabbed her breasts and fondled her breasts with his +hands as she provided the massage. +astated on one occasion, while she was only seventeen years of age, he +offered extra monies to have vaginal intercourse. She stated this all occurred on the massage table. C +• stated +Epstein penetrated her vagina with his penis and began having intercourse with her until he reached the point of +climax. Epstein removed his penis from her vagina and climaxed onto the massage table. +received +$350.00 for her massage. I asked her if she had any formal training in providing massages, +•stated she did +not. +continued to state on one other occasion, Epstein introduced his girlfriend, Nadia, into the massage. +Nadia was brought into room with +•to provide a massage. Epstein had them kiss and fondle each other +around the breasts and buttocks as they provided a massage to Epstein. Epstein, watched and masturbated as +this occurred. On other occasions, Epstein, introduced the large +vibrator/massager in the massage. Epstein +stroked the vibrator/massager on +vagina as she provided the massage. +On November 14, 2005, Det +and I met with +dob +During a +sworn taped statement she advised she started going to the house approximately one year ago and has been there +approximately five or six times.C +• also stated she was sixteen years old when she first went to Epstein's +house. On her first visit she was brought by a fellow student from +1 known to her +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +The 1ped +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +County of Palf Beach +Signature/Arreting Officer +05X03/2006 +Page /§of 22 + + +as y +o stated +brought her into the house and she was introduced to Sarah. Sarah then +brought her upstairs into a +• bathroom, located within the bedroom. 4 +stated she met Epstein in the +bathroom. He laid on the table and picked the massage oils. She provided the massage as he laid naked on the +massage bed. She stated she rubbed his calves and back area. Upon the end of the massage, Epstein removed +himself from the massage table and paid her $300.00 for the massage. +• said each subsequent time she +went to the house, she was notified by +n that Epstein was in town and would like her to "work". +-stated she returned to the house and was again led upstairs by Sarah. She provided the massage, +clothed. +was asked if she ever removed her clothing to provide a massage. +• stated it was not +until the third time that she went that she removed her clothing. +stated she was notified by Sarah that +Epstein wanted her to come to work. She arrived at the house and was led upstairs by Sarah. She started +providing the massage when Epstein asked her to remove her clothing. +removed her pants, shirt and +bra. She stayed in her thong panties and continued rubbing Epstein. Epstein turned over onto his back and she +rubbed his chest area. +stated she knew he was masturbating himself as she providing the massage. +stated she believed he climaxed based on his breathing. She did not want to view either the climax or +the fact that he was masturbating. +•stated once the breathing relaxed he got up and told her to get +dressed. She was paid $300.00 c +vices. +• stated on the last time she went to provide a +massage, she was notified by +to come to the house and "work". +•stated she was now +dating her current boyfriend and did not feel comfortable going. She recalled it was approximately January 2005. +She said she went, already thinking that this would be the last time. She went upstairs and went into the +bathroom. She met with Epstein, who was wearing only a towel, and laid onto the table. +stated +Epstein caught her looking at the clock on several occasions. Epstein asked her if she was in a hurry. • +stated her boyfriend was in the car waiting for her. / +further stated that Epstein got upset as he wasn't +enjoying the massage. She told him that she didn't want to continue and she would not be back. Epstein told her +to leave as she was ruining his massage. +•advised she had no formal training in providing any massages. +stated although she had a falling out with Epstein, she still received a Christmas bonus from Epstein. +stated she was wired money from Western Union for her Christmas bonus. Subpoena results from +Western Union revealed money was sent from Jeffrey Epstein on December 23, 2004. +received +$200.00 from Epstein for her Christmas bonus. +On November 15, 2005, Det.) +and I met with 1, dob d +During a sworn taped +statement, +•stated she met Jeffrey Epstein over a year ago. She was sixteen years of age and was +approached byl +•a fellowe +student, who informed her that she could +make $200.00 providing a massage to Epstein. +had informed her that she would have to provide this +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +Signature/A +Date: 05/0142006 +PagelLof22 + + +massage topless. +made the arrangements with Epstein and his assistants and took to the house. +stated ! +and she entered through a +¡ door that led into a kitchen. She was taken upstairs bye +, to a +bedroom. She recalled the +bathroom had a large pink +1, sauna and matching shower. +Epstein entered into the room wearing only a towel. +andO +_removed their clothing remaining only in +thong underwear. She further stated that Epstein laid on his chest on the table. The oils were selected on which +ones to use. Both. +and +provided the massage on his legs, back and feet. Forty minutes into the +massage, Epstein turned over onto his back and requested! +wait downstairs in the kitchen area for +Epstein instructed 1 +to finish the massage. Ast +•got dressed, Cd starting rubbing Epstein's chest. I +left the room, and Epstein began masturbating as +Grubbed Epstein's chest. | +• stated Epstein continued +masturbating until he climaxed on the towel he was wearing. When asked if he had removed the towel she stated +he turned the towel around so that the opening would allow him to expose himself. After he cleaned himself off +with the towel he instructed • +the massage was done and to get dressed and meet with him downstairs. +got dressed and met with Epstein in the kitchen area. She was paid $200.00 dollars for providing the massage. +stated she was aware that +also received monies for the same thing. The second time she went to the +house she was again approached byd +advised if she wanted to return to the house to provide another +massages +agreed and the arrangements were made by +Ofor her to return to the house. I +statedl +drove her to the house and knocked on the same +door which leads to the kitchen area. They were allowed +entry into the house by one of the staff members. +bathroom area. +›left +•led her upstairs to the +bedroom and +this time to do the massage alone. Epstein entered the room again wearing only a +towel. +began removing her clothing as she did the last time she was at the house. Epstein instructed her to +get naked. He laid on the table onto his stomach as +began massaging his legs and back. Ast +finished +with Epstein's back and legs, Epstein then turned over onto his back. +• started to rub his chest and he began +masturbating. As +rubbed his chest, Epstein leaned over and produced a massager/vibrator. He turned it on +and began rubbing +I vagina and masturbating himself at the same time. • stated she continued to rub his +chest as this was occurring. She described the vibrator/massager as large grey with a large head. Epstein +rubbed her vagina for approximately two to three minutes with the massager/vibrator. He then removed the +vibrator from her vaginal area and concentrated on masturbating himself. +stated Epstein climaxed onto the +towel again and informed her that the massage was done. ( +got dressed and met withd +who was waiting +in the kitchen area. She received $200.00 for the massage. •d said she never returned to the house and had no +desire to return to the house. +was asked if she received any formal massage training. She advised she had +no formal training. +was asked if Epstein knew her real age. A stated he knew, as he asked her questions +about herself and high school. He was aware she attended, and is still attending +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +Sipate dung oner +Pageppf 22 + + +During the course of the investigation a search warrant was executed at Jeffrey Epstein's home located at +358 El Brillo Way in Palm Beach. While in the home I observed the pink and & +within the 1 +bedroom area just as the girls previously mentioned. The stairway, which is located from the kitchen area to the +bedroom area, is lined with photos of naked young girls. Additionally, numerous photographs of naked +young females, some of which appeared to be the girls I previously interviewed, were on display throughout the +house. Also located in the house were various phone message books. The telephone message books have a +duplicate copy (Carbon Copy) which, once a phone message is written into the book, the top copy is then torn +on the perforated edge and the carbon copy is left in the book. First names of girls, dates and telephone numbers +were on the copy of the messages. I recognized various numbers and names of girls that had already been +interviewed. The body of the messages were time of the day that they called for confirmation of "work." Other +names and telephone numbers were located in which the body of the messages were, "I have girls for him" or "I +have 2 girls for him." These messages were taken by +who signed the bottom of the messages. +During the execution of the warrant, I located a d +a transcript for +in Epstein's +bedroom desk. This desk had stationary marked Jeffrey E Epstein. I located a +colored armoire beside +Epstein's bed that contained a bottle of "Joy Jelly," which is used to provide a warm massage. Several massage +tables were located throughout the second floor of the residence, including a massage table found in Epstein's +bedroom. On the first floor of the residence I found two covert cameras hidden within clocks. One was located +in the garage and the other located in the library area on a shelf behind Epstein's desk. A computer was located +which was believed to contain the images from the covert cameras. The computer's hard drive was reviewed +which showed several images of +and other witnesses that have been interviewed. All of these +images appeared to come from the camera positioned behind Epstein's desk. +On December 13, 2005, Det. Dawson and I met with +- dob +During a sworn taped +statement, +•stated that when she was sixteen years old she was taken to Epstein's house to provide a massage +for money. +stated it was before Christmas last year (2004) when an associate, +approached her and +asked if she needed to make money for Christmas. ( +made arrangements to take +to the house and drove +to the house to "work." They were encountered by a +female with long blond hair. +was unable to +remember the name of the +female with blond hair but knew she was Epstein's assistant. She was led +upstairs by the +female who explained that there would be lotions out already and Epstein would choose the +lotion he wanted her to use. She was led through a spiral staircase which led to a +bedroom. and +bathroom. The massage table was already set up in the bathroom. +L described the bathroom as a large +spacious bathroom with a steam room and shower beside it. +was introduced to Epstein who was on the +phone when she entered the room. Epstein was wearing a +towel and laid on his stomach so that +may +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +05/012006 +Page/g0522 + + +massage his feet and calves. C +started the massage with the oils Epstein chose and rubbed his feet and calves. +Epstein got off the phone and requested she massage his back as well. +began rubbing his back and got to +the small of his back. During the rubbing of his back, Epstein asked her to get comfortable. He requested she +remove her pants and shirt. d +•removed her shirt and pulled her pants off. ( +•stayed in her bra and thong +panties. As she finished massaging the small of Epstein's back, he then turned onto his back. Epstein +instructed to rub his chest and pinch his nipples. As she began to rub his chest, Epstein asked her questions +about herself. C +• remembered telling him she attended! +1. Epstein asked her if +she was sexually active. Before L +could answer, he also asked what sexual position does she enjoy. +stated she was shy and didn't like talking about those things. She continued rubbing his chest. Epstein reached +up and unsnapped her bra from the front. L explained the bra she used had a front snapping device. Epstein +rubbed her breasts and asked her if she like having her breasts rubbed. said "no, I don't like that." Epstein +then removed his towel and laid on the bed naked exposing his penis to . He began touching his penis and +masturbated as he touched her breasts. +explained Epstein then touched her vaginal area by rubbing her +vagina with his fingers on the outside of her thong panties. +tensed up and stated Epstein was aware that she +was uncomfortable. T +stated that Epstein said to her, "Relax, I'm not going inside." She further explained +Epstein commented to her how beautiful and sexy she was. Epstein then moved her thong panties to one side +and began stroking her clitoris. +¿ said, "He commented how hard my clit was." He then inserted two fingers in +her vagina and was stroking her within her vagina. She tried pulling back to pull out his fingers from within her +vagina. Epstein removed his fingers from within her yagina and apologized for putting his fingers inside her. +During this time, he kept his hand on her vaginal area and continued to rub her vagina. stated he rubbed her +really hard as he was masturbating. • +said he climaxed onto the towel he had been previously wearing and got +up from the table. Epstein told her there was $200.00 dollars for her on the dresser within the +bathroom. +Epstein also told her that there was an additional $100.00 that was to be given to for bringing her there to +massage him. Epstein told her to leave her telephone number with his assistant as he wanted to see her again. +Epstein stated his assistant would contact her to work again soon. I asked her if she ever received any formal +massage training to which +•stated she did not. +• stated it was the only time she ever went to work for Jeff +and knew what happened to her was wrong. She further stated that she had never been contacted for any +additional work. +On January 9, 2006, I located and interviewed another victim, dob +•was identified +as a potential victim/witness from information obtained during trash pulls from Epstein's residence. stated she +met Epstein when she was fifteen years of age. She was approached by a friend from +,, to be taken to Jeffrey Epstein's house to work. She was originally told she would be able +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +The 1. put +: Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +Date: 05/012006 +Page/gof 22 + + +to model lingerie for a wealthy Palm Beacher. C +was taken to Epstein's house located on El BrilloWay. ( +introduced to Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein had his personal chef prepare dinner for and +• At the +conclusion of dinner, +pand Epstein brought +lipstairs into a +bedroom area. +observed a large +massage table with a sheet on it. Epstein entered through a door and exited wearing only a towel. +informed that they were going to provide a massage on Epstein. +asked why were they doing this instead +of modeling lingerie. ( +•explained to that this was his routine and to rub his calves and feet. Epstein had +told to get comfortable. +•removed her pants and blouse. stated she stayed only in panties as she did +not wear a bra that evening. +•stated while rubbing his calves and feet, Epstein turned over onto his back. +Epstein told Loto rub his chest and rub his nipples. stated that as she started rubbing his chest, Epstein +began masturbating himself. Epstein touched her breasts and stroked her yagina with his fingers. Epstein +continued to masturbate himself as he stroked her vagina. Epstein ejaculated on his towel and paid $200.00 +for the massage. Epstein told that if she told anyone what happened at his house that bad things could +happen. +were brought home by Epstein's houseman and +•was afraid that Epstein knew where +she lived. +•stated that several days later she received a telephone call from +who coordinated for +to return to "work." returned to the house and was brought to Epstein's bedroom area by Sarah who +prepared the room for the massage. Epstein entered the room wearing only a towel. Epstein had remove her +clothing and provide the massage naked. began rubbing his feet and calves and Epstein turned over onto his +back. Epstein rubbed her vagina with his fingers. Epstein began to masturbate himself with an upwards and +downward motion on his penis. Epstein continued to touch her vagina with one hand and masturbate with the +other hand. Once Epstein ejaculated onto the towel he was wearing, the massage was over. C was paid +$200.00 for the massage. Epstein again told not to speak of what happened at his house or bad things would +happen. +•wanted to notify authorities however she was afraid of what would happen to either her or her +family. +During the course of the investigation, several subjects were identified as a potential witness/victim +through information obtained during the trash pulls, physical surveillance and telephone message books retrieved +from the search warrant. While conducting research on the subjects, I discovered that the females were age +eighteen or older. Interviews were conducted on the consenting adults whose statements provided the same +massage routine when they went to "work" for Epstein. The females would be notified by +and +made appointments for the females to "work" for Epstein. +The females would come to Epstein's house and were +led upstairs, through a stairwell from the kitchen area, by +[to Epstein's bedroom. Epstein would then +enter the room wearing only a towel, and ask them to get comfortable. The females would then provide the +massage naked as Epstein would either touch their vaginas with his fingers and/or utilize the massager/vibrator on +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Ca. 1. Audie +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +Statures it oner +Page2o0822 + + +their vaginal area. He would masturbate during the massage and upon his climaxing, the massage would end. The +girls were then paid two or three hundred dollars for the massage. +On November 21, 2005 I interviewed Jose Alessi, a former houseman for Jeffrey Epstein. Alessi stated +he was employed for eleven years with Mr. Epstein, from approximately 1993 through 2004. Alessi stated he +was the house manager, driver and house maintenance person. It was his responsibility to prepare the house for +Epstein s arrival. When asked about cooks or assistants, Alessi stated they traveled with Epstein on his private +plane. I asked Mr. Alessi about the massages that have occurred at Epstein's home. Alessi stated Epstein +receives three massages a day. Each masseuse that visited the house was different. Alessi stated that towards +the end of his employment, the masseuses were younger and younger. When asked how young, Mr. Alessi +stated they appeared to be sixteen or seventeen years of age at the most. The massages would occur in Epstein's +bedroom or bathroom. He knew this because he often set up the massage tables. I asked if there were things +going on other than a massage.. Alessi stated that there were times towards the end of his employment that he +would have to wash off a massager/vibrator and a long rubber penis, which were in the sink after the massage. +Additionally, he stated the bed would almost always have to be made after the massage. +On January 4, 2006 I interviewed another former houseman, Mr Alfredo Rodriguez. During a sworn +taped statement, Mr. Rodriguez stated he was employed by Jeffrey Epstein for approximately six months, from +November 2004 through May of 2005. His responsibilities as house manager included being the +chauffeur, chef, houseman, run errands for Epstein and provide for Epstein's guests. I asked Rodriguez about +masseuses coming to the house. Rodriguez stated Epstein would have two massages a day. Epstein would have +one massage in the morning and one massage in the afternoon everyday he was in residence. Rodriguez stated +he would be informed to expect someone and make them comfortable until either +or Epstein would +meet with them. Rodriguez stated once the masseuses would arrive, he would allow them entry into the kitchen +area and offer them something to drink or eat. They would then be encountered by either +or +Epstein. They would be taken upstairs to provide the massage. I asked Rodriguez if any of the masseuses +appeared young in age. Rodriguez stated the girls that would come appeared to be too young to be masseuses. +He stated one time under Epstein's direction, he delivered a dozen roses to +for +one of the girls that came to provide a massage. He knew the girls were still in high school and were of high +school age. I asked Rodriguez about the massages. He felt there was a lot more going on than just massages. +He would often clean Mr. Epstein's bedroom after the alleged massages and would discover massagers/vibrators +and sex toys scatfered on the floor. He also said he would wipe down the vibrators and sex toys and put them +away in an armoire. He described the armoire as a small +armoire which was on the wall close to Epstein's +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +State of Florida +County of PAlm Beach +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +Signature/Arrasting Officer +Pagezof 22 + + +Agency ORI# FLO 500600- +bed. On one occasion Epstein ordered Rodriguez to go to the Dollar rent a car and rent a car for the same girl +he brought the roses to, so that she could drive her self to Epstein's house without incident. Rodriguez said the +girl always needed rides to and from the house. Rodriguez produced a +, folder which contained documents, +and a note with Mr. Epstein's stationary with direction to deliver a bucket of roses to +after high school drama performance. Also in that same note was direction to rent a car for +direction to extend the rental contract. +During the course of the investigation, subpoenas were obtained for cell phone and home phone records +from several victims and witnesses along with the cell phone records off +An analysis of these +records was conducted which found numerous telephone calls were made between +and the victims. +These records indicate the dates the calls were made are consistent with the dates and times they +victims/witnesses stated they were contacted. Specifically, The phone records showed +called +during the exact times and dates when victim +advised the incident occurred. +also coordinated +the encounters with ! +and +•during the time frame the girls +stated they occurred. +Pursuant to a lawful subpoena I obtained Epstein's private plane records for 2005 from Jet Aviation. +The plane records show arrival and departure of Epstein's plane at Palm Beach International airport. These +records were compared to the cell phone records off +• This comparison found that all the phone calls +made to +and the victims were made in the days just prior to their arrival or during the time Epstein +was in Palm Beach. +Jeffrey Epstein, who at the time of these incidents was fifty one years of age, did have vaginal intercourse +either with his penis or digitally with f +,, and l +, who were minors at the time this occurred, and +who at the time of the incident was fiftytwo years of age, did use a vibrator on the external vaginal area of a a +fourteen year old minor. Therefore, as +coordinated and aided in the recruitment of minors to +frequent Epstein's house so that sexual services were provided to Epstein, scheduled the said minors to return to +the work for Epstein, secured their appointments for the purpose of sexual activity and lewd and lascivious acts +and arranged the bedroom for said minors, there is sufficient probable cause to charge +with four +counts of Principal in the 1° degree Unlawful Sexual Activity with a Minor, in violation of Florida State Statute +794.05(1), a second degree felony and there is sufficient probable cause to charge her with Lewd and +Lascivious Molestation, in violation of Florida State Statute 800.04 (5), a second degree felony. +The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed +before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by +Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. +Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) +State of Florida +Signature/Arre +sting Officer +Date: 05/04/2906 +Pagezzof 22 + + +Appendix 6 + + +INDICTMENT +: D60F9454 +A TRUE BILL. +IN THE NAME OF AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA E +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL +CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA +.. +For Palm Beach County, at the Spring Term thereof, in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Six, to-wit: +The Grand Jurors of the State of Florida, inquiring in and for the body of said County of Palm Beach, upon their +oaths do present that JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN in the County of Palm Beach aforesaid, in the Circuit and State. +aforesaid, +COUNT ONE +FELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION. +on or about or between the 1st day of August in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Four and October 31, +2005, did solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution lewdness; or assignation, contrary to +Florida Statute 796.07(1) on three or more occasions between August 01, 2004 and October 31, 2005, +contrary to Florida Statute 796.07(2)(f) and (4)(c). (3 DEG FEL)(LEVEL 1) +against the form of the statute, to the evil example of all others, and against the peace and dignity of the State +of Florida. +I hereby certify that I have advised the Grand Jury returning this indictment as authorized and required by law. +Assistant State Attorney of the +Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of the State +of Florida, prosecuting for the said +State +GRAND JURY FOREPERSON +DATE +Jeffrey E. Epstein, Race: +Sex: Male, DOB: January 20, 1953, SS#: +; Issue Warrant + + + +N THE CIRCUI +JOURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JÜDI +AL CIRCUIT +FINAND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY: FLORIDA: CRIMINAL DIVISION LU +•COURT CASE NO. +06- 9454CF14; +AGENCY & CASE NO +Pao 5881704308 +INVESTIGATING OFFICER NAME S ReCaicej + +TO: ALL SHERIFFS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA YOU ARE COMMANDED TO ARREST +NAMe Jefre E Epsters +ADDRESS 358 EL Brillo Ways Palm Bar PU 33480 +BUSINESS ADDRESS: +PHONE: (HOME) 3(561) 832:41A +RACE: +BLo +HAIR gray +EYES Blue +(BUSINESS) +120153. +SS#: 21. +HEIGHT LO" WEIGHT 180. 165 +FOR APPEARANCE BEFORE THIS COURT TO ANSWER A CHARGE OF +i Felony Solicitalion of Postitutm +(2): +(34 Felony) m +4) +п1 +ARON R. +5) +ECIC +NCIC +• EXTRADITION AUTHORIZATION, YES +NO. +CLE +05 JUL 19. PM 2:44 +2 +CAPIAS +This capias is issued pursuant to an information filed by the State +Attomoy, Fitteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida; +APPEARANCE BOND set by Count Order per bond schedule: +WITNESS my hand and the seal of this Court on this +day +of +199 +(SEAL) +DOROTHY H. WILKEN,. +'CLERK OF COURT. +ARREST WARRANT +BAIL ENDORSEMENT +The defendant is to be admitted to bail in the sum of +A PER SCHEDULE +O OWN RECOGNIZANCE +O OTHER'S +retumable to this Court on the third Friday following the date of +arrest at 9:00 A.M. before the Judge assigned the case +GIVEN UNDER my hand and seat on the 17 +day of +CO: +Staio of Florida +at Palm Beach County: +BY: +Deputy Clerk: +(SEAL) +Executed on the +PESO roOTa REV. 10/95 +_day of +By: = +JUDGE/FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT: +199 = +-by arresting the within named. +I.D. # +PageRyty Sherill- Palm Beach Couble Records Request No.: 17-295* + + +J#0338617 +OBTS Numier +приру оні питов +-82 To +AREST / NOTICE TO APPEAR: +Juvenile Referral Report'* +PALM BEACH COURTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE: +eapon Solzed +3 Ordinance * +Location of Oftense (Business Name, Address) +1291 +: 3. Request for Warrant +4, Request for Capias: +Clearances al +322g. +072510i6 +Name (Last, Fist; Middle) +013,0 +Locaten of Venice +Alias (Name, DOB, Soc. Sec. ; Etc.) +hit. +Marks. Taloos, Unique Physical Features (Locaton, Type, Descoption +Local Address +356 122/41116 +Prim Bach re 35450 5L725-3704 Eung Not one sine +Permanent Address (Street, Apt. +(Zip) (/5VPhone +Tallie +Cannel Chen Suters surren +Business Address (Name, Street +28(2) +D/L Number, Sale +Co-Detendant Name (Last, First, Mccle) +Soc: Sec. Number- +Race +Sex +Co-Defondant Name (Last est, Modie) +LUCKETEE +DESTRAY US +02 Mistersano +-f4- +Juvende - +Misdemeano +-Name (Last): : +Legal Custodian +Other; +Address (Street. Apt: Number) ".. +(Cayly: +hed by: (Name) - +Data +(Zp) +Juvenie Dispostion +1, Handied/Processed within +:Dept, and Released, +Business Phone +2. TOT HRS/DYS 2 +Incarcerated: +Reessed To: (Name) +18 Yes. by (Name) +Property Came?- +Descrption of Prpperty +•Yes +•No +DONA +Actedly • +S. Sell " • +R. Smuggle +N. +P. Posseii.. +F. Fratic. +K. Dispense/ +Disinbuta: +E. Use: +Charge Description +behiyakin. detailed +Drag Activity Drug Type +Ortense # +School Anendel +Vere of Propery +M. Manufacture/: +2. Orner +Cultivate +Counts +Charge Description +E OrgActiny Drug Type +Charge Description +Drug Acanty Drug Type +Counts. +Domestic +Violence +DY +ON +Domestic +Amount FUnti. +Charge Description +Drug Aclinty Drug Type +Counts +Domestic +Violence +DY. +Amount / Und +Ottense # +Hallucinogen • +: P. Paraphernaliar. +. Unknown: +synthatic +Statute Violation Number +74,L0217)71(:2(0,65 +Violation of ORD: +Warrant / Capias Numbe +0600G4S4 GADveteo +Statute 1 +olation l +-Violation of ORD • +Warrant / Capias Number +Statute Viclation Number.. +water capa mor +Statute Violation Numbe +varan Capia Mumbar +J0L-28 zu 1:c +: Violation of OlD +Bond • +Bond +Violation of ORD./ +Location (Court, Room Number, Address) +Court Date and Time +Sonature of Defendant (or Juvenile and Parent/ Custodian) +HOLD for other Agency"* +Name " +• Dangerous +• 'Suicidal +Signature of Arresting OMicer, ++ Date Signed +Name Verification (Prinled by Arrestee) +Name of Arresting Officer (Print) +•ID. +(PRINT) +| Other: : +• 07/26/17 +LD. • Pouch # +PAGE +OF +PBSO #143 REV. 8/97 +DISTRIBUTION: +- COURT COPY +Witness here Pidy sands Resipest No.: 17-295 +I STATE ATTORNEY: YELLOW-AGENCY !, +PINK - AGENCY" +GOLD • DEFENDANT (N.T.A.'s ONLY) + + +Appendix 7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-8Q736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 2 of 15 +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT +IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State +Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County hereinafter, +the "State Attorney's Office) have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey +IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Office has charged Epstein by indictment +with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07; +IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of +Investigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any +offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or +around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including: +(1) +knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to +commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means +of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice +minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States +Code, Section 2422(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section +371; +knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel +in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as +defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, in violation of Title 18, +United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States +Code, Section 2423(e); +using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly +persuid intric 0 united ate Code, Sections 2412 b) and airion, in +traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual +conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(D), with minor females; in violation + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 3 of 15 +of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and +knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, +enticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had +not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a +commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(I); in violation of Title +IT APPEARING that Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal crimina +iability and Epstein understands and acknowledges that, in exchange for the benefit +aron wily the state tore sees to comply with is erms, including underuling cortain +IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background by +both State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State +Attorney's Office, that the interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the +Defendant will be served by the following procedure; +THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for +the Souther District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be +deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the +following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below. +If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that, +during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this +Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the +expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely +notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate its +prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of the violation. Any +notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the +United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of +the Agreement. +After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution +for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have +been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the +United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury +investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be +dismissed. + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 4 of 15 +Terms of the Agreement: +10 +6. +one (I) count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Fl. Stat. +796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an Information filed +equires him to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation c +linors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Sectio +Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a +thirty (30) month sentence to be divided as follows: +(a) +Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) +months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without +ny opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, an +ithout probation of community control in lieu o +imprisonment; and +(0) +Epstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (12) months of +community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail +as described in Term 2(a), supra. +This agreement is contingent upon a Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit +accepting and executing the sentence agreed upon between the State +Attorney's Office and Epstein, the details of which are set forth in this +agreement. +The terms contained in paragraphs 1 and 2, supra, do not foreclose +and the State Attorney's Office from agreeing to recommend +any additional charge(s) or any additional term(s) of probation and/or +incarceration. +Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State +Sentence, cople snal vat there to is sal birth in paringrand +(2), supra. +Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 5 of 15 +proposed agreements with the State Attomey's Office prior to entering +into those agreements. +7. +9. +If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to +file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the +jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District +of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives +his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages +up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and +Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed +exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other +claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. +Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names +appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on +this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such +damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any +criminal or civil liability. +Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an +admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional +or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the +list provided by the United States. +Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under +10. +10 +11. +Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be + + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 6 of 15 +entenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has n +alertian tanuary i, zol reporting to begin serving his sentence no +12. +accounting of the gain time he earned during his period of +13. +The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any +public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information +Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of +the agreement, it will provide notice to Ep +before making that +disclosure. +Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the +State Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that +it is his obligation to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office and to use his +best efforts to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary +to satisfy the United States' interest. Epstein also understands that it is his obligation to use +his best efforts to convince the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein's binding +recommendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, and understands that the failure to +do so will be a breach of the agreement. +In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation +in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions +of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges +against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to +Lesley Groff, or +Further, upon execution of this +agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Grand Jury +investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Grand Jury subpoenas will be held +in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement. The +defendant likewise agrees to withdraw his pending motion to intervene and to quash certain +grand jury subpoenas. Both parties agree to maintain their evidence, specifically evidence +requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that have been issued, and +including certain computer equipment, inviolate until all of the terms of this agreement have +been satisfied. Upon the successful completion of the terms of this agreement, all +outstanding grand jury subpoenas shall be deemed withdrawn. + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 7 of 15 +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certilies that each of these terms is +federal offenses. +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that +the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in ail criminal +a charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein +hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such +prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to +the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be +deemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such +prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of +the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the +United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute +of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this +agreement and the breach of this agreement as to those offenses that were the subject of the +grand jury's investigation. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the +Fifh Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all +felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees +and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted for any offense that was the +subject of the grand jury's investigation, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed +by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury as +to any such offense. +/1/ +!11 + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 8 of 15 +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read +und explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non +rosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with then +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Dated: +Dant 1ertoz +By: +À. +VILLAFAÑA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY +JEFPREY EPSTEI +Dated: +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Dated: + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 9 of 15 +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifics that the above has been read +and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non +Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Dated: +By: +VILLAFANA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY +Dated: _ +Dated: 9/24/07 +JEPFREY EPSTEIN +LEFCOURT/ESQ. +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Dated:_ + + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 10 of 15 +By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read +and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non- +Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Dated: +By: +AL +VILLAFANA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY +Dated: _ +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Dated: +GERALD LEPCOURT, ESQ. +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTE +Dated: 9-2407 +(ANNS + + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 11 of 15 +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +ADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT +7A. The United States has the right to assign to an independent third-party the responsibility +for consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, selecting +the attorney representative for the individuals identified under the Agreement. If the +United States elects to assign this responsibllity to an independent third-party, both the +United States and Epstein, retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney +representative suggested by the independent third-party prior to the final designation of +the attorney representative. +7B. +The parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-party +regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to +pay such attorney representative his or her regular customary hourly rate for representing +such victims subject to the provisions of paragraph C, infra. +7C. +Pursuant to additional paragraph 7A, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney +representative selected by the independent third party. This provision, however, shall not +obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Thus, +if after consideration of potential settlements, an attorney representative elects to file a +contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. s 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested +remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the costs of the attorney +representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable +attorneys fees and costs such as those contained in s 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 12 of 15 +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read anc +*rosention Agreement and gres to camp het he understands the clarifications to the Non +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +By: +Dated: +Da 1127/7 +VILLAPANA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY +STEREY PPSTEIN +Dated: +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Dated: +NOT A CERT + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 13 of 15 +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and +explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non- +Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Dated: +By: +VILLAFANA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY +Dated; +Dans 0/1907 +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Dated: +_ ESQ. + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 14 of 15 +By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and +explained to him. Epstein hereby states that ho understands the clarifications to the Non- +Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Dated: +By: +VILLAFAÑA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY +Dated: +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Dated: +GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. +COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTED +Dated: 10-29-07 +LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, BS +ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY BPSTEIN + + +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 15 of 15 +Dac-07-07 +04:55pe +Fros +Burnatt + +T-966 P.003/004 F-976 +Affirmation +I, Jeffrey B. Epstein do bertby re affirm the Noo-Proscoution Agreement and Addendum to +name dared Octuber 30, 2007. +1hbz +Date + + +Appendix 8 + + +VS. +IN THE CIRCU... COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA +08 CF 9381 +ARISES FROM BOOKING NO.: + +JEFFREY E EİSTEIN, WIM, 01/20/1953 +Circuit Crimin +INFORMATION FOR: +JUN 2o +1) +PROCURING PERSON UNDER 18 FOR PROSTITUION +Stianurt... +Clerk & Comptro: +Palm Beast +In the Name and by Authority of the State of Florida: +BARRY E. KRISCHER, State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida, by and +through his undersigned Assistant State Attorney; charges that JEFFREY E EPSTEIN on or about or between +the 1" day of August in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Four and October 9, 2005, did knowingly and +unlawfully procure for prostitution, or caused to be prostituted, A.D, a person under the age of 18 years, +contrary to Florida Statute 796.03. (2 DEG FEL) +BELOHLAVEK +FL. BAR NO. 0776726 +Assistant State Attorney +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +• Appeared before me, LANNA BELOHLĄVEK Assistant State Attorney for Palm Beach County, +Florida, personally known to mc, who, being first duly sworn, says that the allegations as set forth in the +foregoing information are based upon facts that have been sworn to as true, and which, if true, would constitute +the offense therein charged, that this prosccution is instituted in good faith, and certifies that testimony under +oath has been received from the material witness or witnesses for the offense +ssistant State Attorney +Sworn to and subscribed to before me this e day of June, 2008. +Camaris pira +Damaris Pinc +MY COMMISSION # DD560798 EXPIRE +JOTARY PUBLIC State of Florid +LB/dp +FCIC REFERENCE NUMBERS: +1) FELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION 3699. + + + +Defendant: +CLOSE OUT SHEET +Case Number: 08-9381 +Division: UN +Nolle Prossed: +Pled to Lesser Felony: _ +Negotiated Plea: +Jury Trial: +: Acquitted: +_Pled to Lesser Misd: +_ Pled to Court: +Non-Jury Trial: +Dismissed; +Guidelines Score. +Non DOC: +Mandatory DOC: (minimum) +Pre October 1998 Discretionary DOC: +Adjudicated: +Withheld: +County Tail: Lemonith Doc: +Months - Days - Years - Time Served +Probation: +Months ewed an +Community Control: 12 Months +Habitual Offender: +_ Youthful Offender: +Juvenile: +PRR: +10-20-Life: +Restitution:. +Amount: +Designated. +a Sexual Ofender + +Public Records Request No.: 17-295 . + + +Defendant: +Date Closed: +Nolle Prossed: +Pled to Lesser Felony: +Negotiated Plea: +Jury Trial:. +Acquitted: +CLOSE OUT SHEET +Jetrey Epstein +Case Number: 06-9454 +4/30/08 ASA, B +_ Division: W +_ Pled to Lesser Misd:. +_ Pled to Court: +Non-Jury Trial: +Dismissed: +Guidelines Score +Non DOC: +Mandatory DOC: (minimum) +Pre October 1998 Discretionary DOC: +Adjudicated: +Withheld: +County Jail: +- Probátion: +Habitual Offender: +i2 monitos : +Months - Days - Years - Time Served +_ Months- Xears: Community Control 2 +Youthful Offender: +Juvenile: +PRR: +Restitution: +_ 10-20-Life: +Amount: +TeSt + + + +918.101 Terms and conditions of community control and criminal quarantine communily +control.: +(1), The court shall dotermino the terms and conditions of community control. Conditions +spocified in this subsoction do not require oral pronouncomont at the time of sontoncing and +may be considered standard conditions of community control: +(a) The court shall roquire intonsive suporvision and survelllance for an offondor, placed into +community control, which may, include but is not limited to: +1 Specified contact with the parole and probation officer: +2. Confinemont to an agrood-upon residonco during hours away from omploymont and public +service activities. +3. Mandatory public sorvico. +4 Supervision by the Department of Corrections by means of an olectronic monitoring davica +or system. +5.. The standard conditions of probation set forth in s. 948.03. +(b) For an offondor placed on criminal quarantino community control, the court shall roquire: +1-Eloctronic monitoring 24 hours per day. +24: Confinemont to a designated rosidonce during designated hours, +(2). The onumeration of specific kinds of terms and conditions doos not prevent the court from +adding therate any other tarms or conditions that the court considors proper. flowovor, tho +sentencing court may only impose a condition of supervision allowing an offendor convicted of +S. 794.011 s: 800.04, S. 827.071, or s. 847.0145 to reaide in anothor stato if the ordor +stipulatos that it*s contingent upon the approval of the roceiving stato interstate compact +authority. Tho +rescind or modify at any timo the torms and conditions theratoforo +imposed by it upon the offondor in community control: Howovor, If the court withholds +adjudication of guilt or imposes a period of incarcoration as a condition of community control; +the poriod may not exceod 364 days, and incarcaration shall bo rostrictad to a county facility, +a probation and rostitution contor under the jurisdiction of the Dopartment of Corractions, a +probation program drüg punishment phaso i socuro residontial troatment institution, or a +community residential facility owned or oporatod by any entity providing such services. +(3) The court may placo a defendant who is boing sontanced for criminal transmission of HIV in +violation of s. 775.0877 on criminal quarantino community control: Tho Departmont of s +Corroctions shall dovolop and administer a criminal quarantino community control program +emphasizing intensivo supcrvision with 24-hour-por-day olectronic monitoring. Criminal +quarantine community control status must fncludo surveillance and may includo othor moasures +normally associatod, with community control, oxcopt that spocific conditfons nocossary, to a +monitor this population may be orderod +07/26/17. +Page 4 of.114 + + +1943.0435 Sexual offenders roquired to register with the department, penalty. +(1) As usod in this section, the term: +(a)! Sexual offender" means a person who moots the criterla in sub-subparagraph a, subsubparagraph bi, sub subparagraph c., or sub subparagraph di, as follows: +a.(I)) Has boon convicted of committing, or attompting, solfciting, or conspiring to commit, any +of the criminal offonsos proscribed in the following statutes in this state or similar offonses in +another jurisdiction: s. 787.01; s. 787.02, ors. 787.025(2)(c), where the victim is a minor and +tho defondant is not tho victim's paront or guardian; s. 794.011, excluding s, 794.011(10); S. +794.05: 1. 796.03; 5. 796.035; 5. 800.04;5. 825.1025; 3: 827.071 C. 847.0133: 5 847.0135, +oxcludings. 847.0135(4); 5. 847.0137; 5. 847.0138; s. 847.0145; or 5. 985.701(1); or any similar +offonso committed in this stato which has boon rodasignated from a formor statute number to +one of those listed in this sub-sub-subparagraph; and +(1) Has boon rolansed on or after Octobor 1, 1997, from the sanction imposed for any +conviction of an offense described in sub sub subparagraph (l). For, purposes of sub subsubparagraph (1), a sanction imposod in this state or in any other Jurisdiction includes, but is: +not limitod to, a fine, probation, community control, parole, conditional reloase, control +rolonso, or Incarcoration in a stato prison, foderal prison, private correctional fackity, or local +detantion facility; +6. Establishes or maintains a residence in this state and who has not beon designated as a +sexual prodator by a court of this stato but who has boor designated as a sexual prodator, as a +sexuelly violont predator, or by anothor soxual offondor dosignation in another state of +Jurisdiction and was, as a rosult of such designation, subfected to rogistration or community or +public notification, or both; or would be if the person were a resident of that state or +Jurisdiction, without rogard to whother the person otherwise moots the criteria for rogistration +, as a sexual offandor; +.: Establishes or maintains a residonce in this state who is in the custody or control of, or +under the supervision of any other stato or jurisdiction as a result of a conviction for +committing, or attompting, solfeiting, or conspiring to commit, any of tho criminal offensas +proscribed in the following statutos or similar offonso in another jurisdiction: s, 767.01, s. +787.02, or. s. 787.025(2)(c); whore the victim is a minor and the dofendant is not the victim's +parent or guardian; 5. 701.011 exclúding 3. 794.011(10); 5. 794.05; 5. 796.03; 5. 796.035; 5. +800.04: 3. 825.1025. 827.071: 847.0133 3. 817.0135, excluding: 847.0135(4); 3. +847.0137; s: 847.0138; s. 817.0145; or s. 985.701(1); or any similar offenso committed in this +stato which has boon rodosignated from a formor statute number to ono of those listad in this +sub-subparagraph; or +d. On or aftor July 1, 2007, has been adjudicated delinquont for committing, or attompting, +soliciting, or conspiring to commit, any of the criminal offanses proscribod in the following +statutos in this stato or similar offensos in another jurisdiction whon the juvenile was 14 years +of ago or older at the timo of the offonso: +(1) Soction 794.011, oxcluding s. 794.011(10); +(01) Soction 800.04(4)(b) whore tho victim is undor 12 years of ago or whore the court finds +soxual activity by tha usa of force or coercion; +(Il) Section 800.04(5)(c)1. where the court finds molestation involving unclothod gonitals; or + +*Public Records Request No.: 17-295 + + +(IV): Soction 800.04(5)(d) where the court finds the use of force or coercion and unclothod: +genitals. +2. For all qunlifying offonsos listed in sub subparagraph (1)(a)1. d., the court shall make a +written finding of the ago of the offendor at the time of the offense. +For each Molation of a qualifying offanse listed in this subsoction, the court shall make a +written finding of the ago of the victim at the time of the offenso, For a violation of s. +800.04(4), the court shall additionally make a written finding indicating that the offense did or +did not involve sexual activity and Indicating that the offonse did or did not Imolve force or +coercion. For a violation of s. 800.04(5), the court shall additionally make a writton finding +that the offorso did or did not involve unclothed gonitals or genital aron and that the offonso +did or did not Involve the use of force or coorcion. +(b) "Convictod. means that there has boon a dotermination of guilt as a rosult of a trial or the +entry of a plea of gullty or nolo contondore, rogardless of whether adjudication is withhold, +and includes an adjudication of dalinquoncy of a juvonile as spocifiöd in this soction. +Conviction of a similar offense includes, but is not limited to a conviction by a faderal or +military tribunal, Including courts martial conducted by the Armed Forces of the United Statos, +and includes a conviction or entry of a plon of guilty or nolo contendore rosulting in a sanction +In any state of the United Statos or othor jurlsdiction. A sanction includes, but Is not limited +to a fine, probation, community control, parole conditional release, control roinase, or +Incarcoration in a state prison, fedoral prison, private corroctional facility, or local detontion +facility: +(c) "Pormanont rosidonico" and "tomporary rosidence" have the same meaning ascribed in s. +725:21: +(d) Institution of higtier education" means a caroor contor, community collogo, college, state +university, or indopendent postsocondary institution. +(e) Change in onrollment or employmont status means the commoncemónt or tormination of +onrollment or employment or a change in location of onrollmant or employmont: +(f) Electronle mail address" has the samo meaning as provided in s. 668.602. +(g) Instant mossago namo" noans an idontifier that allows a porson to cominunicato in real +time with another porson using the Intornet. +(2) A sexual offondor shall: +(a): Roport in porson at the shoriff's offfico: +1. In the county in which the offonder ostablishes or maintains a pormanent or temporary +residonco within 48 hours after: +a. Establishing pormanent or tomporary residonce in this stato; or +br Boing rolossed from the custody, control, or suparvision of the Dopartmont of Corrections +or from tho custody of a privato corroctional facility, or +2. In tho county whore ho or she was convicted within 48 hours aftor boing convicted for a: +qualifying offense for registration undor this soction If the offendor is not in the custody or +Page 6 of 114: + + +control of, or undor the suporvision of, the Department of Corrections; or is not in the custody +of a private correctional facility +Any chango in the sexual offonder's permanent or tomporary residonco, name, any olectronic +mail address and any instant message name required to be providod pursuant to paragraph +(4)(d), after the soxual offender reports in porson at the shoriff's office, shall be accomplishod +:In the manner provided in subsoctions (4), (7), and (8): +b). Provide his or her namo, date of birth, social socurity number, race, sex, hoight, woight, +heir and oye color, tattoos or othor idantifying marks, occupation and place of omploymont, +address of permanent or Legal residence or address of any current temporary rosidonce, within +the stato and out of stato, including a rural route address and a post office box, any olectronic: +mail address and any instant mossago name required to be providod pursuant to paragraph +(*)(d), date and place of each conviction, and a brief description of the crime or crimes +committad by the offondor. A post office box shall not bo provided in liou of a physical +residontial addross. +If the sexual offender's place of residence is a motor vohicle, trafler, mobile home, or +manufactured home, as defined in chaptor 320, the sexual offonder shall also provide to tho +dopertmont through the shoriff's office writton notice of the vohicle identification number; the: +licenso tag numbor; the registration number; and a doscription, including color schemo, of the +motor vehicle, trailer, mobile home, or manufactured homo, If tho saxual offendor's place of +ordance is a vossol, lívo-aboard vossel, or houseboat, as defined in chapter 327, the sexual +onder shall also provide to the dapartment written notice of the hull identification number; +the manufacturor's serial number; the name of the vessel, Live aboard vessel, or housoboat, the +regfstration numbor; and a description, including color schome; of the vassol, live-aboard? +vessel, or houseboat. +2. If the sexual offender is onrolled, omployed, or carrying on a vocation at an institution of +highor, education in this stato, the sexual offender chall also provide to the departmont through +the shoriffs office the name; addross, and county of oach institution, including cach campus: +attonded, and the sexual offender's enrollment or omploymont status. Each chango in +onrollmont or omployment status shall be roportod in porson at the sharifts office, within 18 +hours aftor any change in status. The shoriff shall promptly notify oach institution of the sexual +offonder's presence and any chango in the soxual offondor's onrollment or employmont status: +When a soxual offonder roports at the shoriffs office, tho sheriff shall tako a photograph and a +set of fingorprints of the offendor and forward the photouraphs and fingorprints to tho +dopartmont, along, with the information providod by the saxual offondor. Thi sheriff shall +promptly provide to the department the information rocolved from the sexual offondor. +(3) Within 48, hours after the roport required undor subsoction (2), a soxual offendor shall +report in porson at a drivor's liconso offico of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor +* Vehiclos, unloss a divor's license or identification card that compllos with the roquiromonts of +s. 322.141(3) was prevously secured or updatod under's. 944.607. At the drivers liconso office +the soxual offondor shall: +(a) If otherwiso qualificd, socuro a Florida drivor's liconso, renew a Florida drivar's license, or +socuro an idontification card. The saxual offendor shall identify himsolf or horself as a soxual: +offonder who is roquired to comply with this soction and shall provide proof that tha soxuel +offonder roportod as required in subsoction (2). The soxual offendor shall provide any of tho +Information spocific in subsoction (2), If requastod. Tho soxual offendor shall subinit to tho +taking of a photograph for uso in issüing a driver's licenso, ronowed licanso, or Idontification +card, and for use by tho departmont in maintaining curront records of soxual offenders. + +Public Records Request No.: 17:295 + + +(b) Pay the costs assessod by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vohicles for issuing c +or renowing a drivor's liconso or idontification card as requirod by this soction. The driver's +license or Identification card issued must be in cempliance with s. 322:141(3). • +(c) Provido; upon request, any additional Information nocessary to confirm the Identity of the +sexual offender, Including a set of fingerprints, +(4)(e) Each timo a sexual offender's drivor's liconso or idontification card is subject to ronawal, +and, without regard to the status of the offendor's driver's license or identification card, within +18 hours after any change in the offendor's permanont or, tornporary rosidonce or change in the +offender's namo by roason of marriago or other legal process, the offendor shall report fn +person to a drivors license office, and shall be subject to the roqurements spocifiod in +subsoction (3) Tho Dopartmont of Highway Safaty and Motor Vohicles shall forward to the +departmont all photographs and information provided by sexual offenders. Notwithstanding the ! +restrictions set forth in s. 322:142, the Department of Highway Safoty and Motor Vehiclos Is. +authorizod to rolease a roproduction of a color photograph or digital-image License to tho +Departmont of Law Enforcement for purposes of public notification of soxual offenders as +provided in this soction and ss. 943.043 and 944.606.: +(b) A sexual offender who vacates a permanent residence and fails to establish or maintain +another permanent or temporary residence shall, within 48 hours after vacating the pormanont +residonce, roport in porson to the sheriffs office of the county in which ho or she is located: +The sexual offendor shall spocify the date upon which ho or she intonds to or did vacate such +residonce. The sexual offondor must provide or update all of the rogistration information +requred undor paragraph (2)(b). The sexual offindor, must provido an addross for the residance +or othor location that ho or sho is or will be occupying during the time in which he or sho fails +to ostablish or maintain a pormanont or temporary residonce. +(c) A sexual offender: who romalns at a pormanent rosidonce after roporting his or hor intent +to vacate such residence shall, within 48 hours after the deto upon which the offondor +;indicated he or sho would or did vacate such residonce, report in parson to the agency to which +he or she roported pursuant to paragraph, (b) for tho purpose of roporting his or hor addross at: +such rosidenca: Whon tho shoriff rocolves the roport, the shoriff shall promptly convy the +infornation to tho departmont. An offender who makes a roport as rogufrod under paragraph: +(b) but fails to make a roport as required under this paragraph commits a folony of the sacond +dogroo, punishablo as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or. s. 775.034. +(d) A sexual offender must register any olectronic mail addross or instant messago name with. +the dopartmont prior to using such clactronic mail addross or instant mossage namo on or after +Octobor 1:2007. The department shall astablish an onlino systom through which soxual +offonders +/securely access and update all electronic mail addross and instant messago +name information. +(5) This section does not apply to a sexual offondor who is also a soxual prodator, as definod fn +$ 125.21. A sexual predator must registor as roquired undor s. 775.21. +(6) County and local law enforcoment agoncies, in conjunction with tho dopartmont, shall +verify the addresses of saxual offonders who aro not under the caro, custody, control, or +suparvision of the Departmont of Corractions in a mannor that is consistont with the provisions +of the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 and any other federal +standards applicablo to such vorification or required to be mot as a condition for the roceipt of +fodcral funds by tho stato. local law onforcoment agoncies shäll roport to tho departmont any +feilure by a sexual offender to comply with registration requiremants. + +Public Records Request No. z.17-2953 + + +-(7)-A sexual offender who intends to establish residence in anothor state or jurisdiction othor +han the State of Florida shall roport in porson to the sheriff of the county of current residonce +within 48 hours before the date ho or sho intends to loavo this state to ostablish residonce in +anothor state or jurisdiction. The notification must include tho addross, municipalfty, county, +and stato of intonded residonce. The shoriff shall promptly provide to the departmont the +Information recolvod from the saxual offondor. Tho dopartment shall notify the statewide law +enforcoment agancy, or a comparable agoncy, in the intended state or Jurisdiction of residonce +of tho saxual offender's intondod residence The fallure of a sexual offender to provide his or a +hor Intended place of residence is punishablo as provided in subsoction (9); +(5) A sexual offonder who indicates his or her intent to roside in another state or Jurisdictión +other than the State of Florida and later docides to remain in this state shall, within 18 hours +raftor the date upon which the soxual offondor indicatod he or she would leave this state, +report in person to the sheriff to which the sexual offonder reportod the intonded change of: +residence, and report his or her intent to remain in this state: The sheriff shall promptly roport +this information to tho departmont. A saxual offender who reports his or her intent to resido in +anothor stato or jurisdiction but who remains in this state without reporting to the shoriff in +the manner roquirod by this subsection commits a folony of the socond dogree, punishable as +provided in s. 775.082, s: 775.083; or s. 275.064. +(9)(.) A sexual offondor who does not comply with the roquirements of this section commits a: +falory of the third degreo, punishablo as provided in s. 775:082, s 775.083, or s. 775.084. +(b) A sexual'offender who commits any act or omission in violation of this soction +bo +prosocuted for the act or omission in the county in which the act or omission was committad, +the county of the last rogistorod addross of the sexual offender, or the county in which the +conviction occurred for the offonse or offenses that meot the criteria for dosignating & porson +as a sexual offondor.' +(c) An arrest on charges of failuro to registor whon the offonder has bean providod and advised +of hts or hor statutory obligatfons to rogistor under subsoction (2), the service of an? +information or a complaint for a violation of this soction, or an arraignmont on charges for. a +Violation of this soction constitutes actual notice of the duty to registor. A sexual offondor's +failuro to immodiatoly register as required by this section following such arrest, sorvice, or +arraignmont constitutes grounds for a subsequont charge of failure to rogistor. A sexual +offonder chargod, with the crimo of failuro to rogistor who assorts, or intonds to assert, a lack +of notico of the duty to register as a defonso to a charge of failuro to rogistor shall? +: Immediately rogistor as roquired by this section. A sexual offondor who is charged with a +subsoquont failure to register, may not assort tho dofonse of a lack of notico of the duty to +registor +(d). Rogistration following such arrost, sorvico, or arragnmont is not a dofense and does not +rolfavo the soxuel offondor of criminal lability for the failuro to rogister +(10) Tho dopartmont, the Departmont of Highway Safoty and Motor Vehicles, the Dopartmont +of Corrections, the Departmont of Juvonilo Justice, any law onforcomont agoncy in this stato, +and the parsonnel of thoso dopartmonts; an clacted or appointed official, public employce, or +school administrator, or an employeo, agoncy, or any individual or entity acting at the roquost +or upon tho diroction of any law onforcement agency is immune from civil liability for damages +for good faith compliance with the requiromonts of this soction or for the rolanse of +information undor this soction, and shall be prosurned to have actod in good faith in compiting, +: rocording, reporting, or reloasing tho information: The presumption of good faith is not +overcomo If a tochnical or clerical error is made by the dopartment, the Dapartmont of +Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, tho Departmont of Corroctons, the Departmont of Jivenile + +Public Records Request No. +: 17-295- + + +Justice, the personnel of those departments, or any Individual or entity acting at the request +or upon the diroction of any of those departments in compiling or providing information, or if +Information is Incomplete or incorract bacause a soxual offondor fails to report or falsoly: +reports his or hor current placo of permanent or tamporary residence. +(11) Excopt as provided in s: 943.04354, a sexual offendor, must maintain registration with the +departmont for the duration of his or her life, unless the sexual offender has roceived a full +pardon or has had a conviction set aside in a postconviction proceeding for any offonso that +moets the critoria for classifying the person as a sexual offonder for purposes of rögistration. +Howaver, a sexual offender: +(a)1: Whe has beon lawfully roleased from confinomont, supervision, or sanction, whichaver is +Later; for at loast 25 yoars and has not beon arrostad for any folony or misdomoanor, offonso +since reloase, provided that the sexual offender's roquiromont to register was not based upon +an adult convictioni: +a.. Por a violation of s. 787.01 or s. 787.02; +b. for a violation of s. 794.011, excluding s. 794:011(10); +i yours of ago or or ual activity by who us of force or coreoffense involved a victim under +dr For a violation of s. 800.04(5) (b); +o. For a violation of s. 800.04(5)c.2. whore the court finds the offonso involved unclothod +genitals or gonital area; +For any attompt or conspiracy to commit any such offonse; or +2. Por a Molation of similar law of anothor jurisdiction, +522L +inay petition the criminal division of the circuit court of the circuit in which the saxual +offonder resides for the purpose of removing the roquirement for rogistration as a saxual +offender. +.25 The court may grant or dony rollof if the offonder domonstratos to the court that ho or sho +has not bean arrestod for any crimo since rolease; the roquestod rollof complics with the +provisions of the fodoral Adam Walsh Child Protoction and Safoty Act of 2006 and any othor +federal standards applicable to tho romoval of registration roquiranonts for a sexual offonder +or required to ba mat as a condition for the recoipt of toderal funds by the stato; and the court +is othorwise satisfiod that the offondor is not a current or potential threat to public safty. Tho +state attornoy in tho circuit in which the potition is filed must be givon notico of the petition +at least 3 wooks bofore the hearing on the mattor. Tho stato attornoy may prosont ovidonco in +opposition to the roquested reliof or may otherwiso domonstrato the roasons why the potition +should bo doniod. If the court denios the potition, the court may sat a futuro date at which tho +sexual offender may again petition tho court for rollof, subjoct to the standards for reliof +provided in this subsoction. +3.: Tho department shall removo an offender from classification as a soxual offender for +purposes of registration if the offondor provides to the department a cortifiod copy of tho +court's written findings or order that Indicatos that the offondor is no longer roquired to +comply with the requirements for registration as a sexual offander. + + + +(b) As definod in sub-subparagraph (1)(a)1-D, must maintain registration with the dopartmont : +for the duration of his or her lifo until thie person provides the dopartmont with an order issued +by the court that dosignated the porson as a sexual predator, as a sexually violont prodator, or +by anothor sexual offondor designation in the stato or jurisdiction in which the ordor. was. +issued which states that such designation has been removed or demonstrates to the +dopartmont that such designation, if not imposed by a court, has boon remoyad by oporation of +law or court order in the state or jurisdiction in which the dosignation was mado, and provided +such person no longer moets the critoria for registration as a sexual offender under tho laws of +this state. +(12) The Legislature finds that sexual offonders, ospocially those who have committed offerses +against minors, ofton poso a high risk of ongaging in sexual offonses oven after being roloesod +from incarcoration or commitment and that protection of the public from soxual offendors is a +paramount govornment interest. Sexual offondors have a reduced oxpectation of privacy +bocause of the public's interest in public safety and in the offective operation of governmont. +Rolaasing Information concorning sexual offondors to law enforcement agoncies and to porsons +who roquost such information, and the rolonse of such information to the public by a law +onforcement agoncy or public agency, will further the governmontal interests of public safoty. +The desenation of a parson as a saxual offendor is not a sentonce or a pimishmont but is simply +the status of the offendor which is th result of a conviction for having committed cortain +crimes: +(13) Any person who has reason to belfove that a saxual offondor is not complying, or has not +complied, with the requirements of this section and who, with the intent to assist the soxual: +offonder in aluding a law enforcemont agency that is seoking to find the sexual offondar to +question the sexual offender about, or to arrest the saxual offender for, his or her +noncompliance with the requiromonts of this soction: +(a): Withholds information from, or does not notify, the law enforcement agency about the +sexual offender's noncompllance with the roquirements of this section, and, if known, tha +whercabouts of, thö saxual offendor; +(b) Harbors, or, attompts to harbor, or assists another parson in harboring or attempting to +harbor, the soxual offorder; or +:(c) Conceals or attempts to conceal, or assists anothor porson in concoaling or attompting to! +concoal, the saxual offender; or +(d) Providos information to the law enforcoment agancy regarding the soxual öffondor that tho +porson knows to bo falso information, +commits a folony, of the third dogrce, punishablo as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or. 5. +775:084. +(14) (a) A soxual offendor must roport in person onch ycar during the month of tho soxual +offendor's birthday and during the sixth month following tho soxual offonder's birth month to +the shoriff's office in the county in which ho or she rosides or is otherwiso located to rorogister. +(b) Howevor, a soxual offender who is roquired to registor as a result of a conviction for: +1. Saction 707.01 or s 787.02 whore tho victim is a minor and the offonder is not the victim's +parent or guardian; + +Public Records Request No.: 17-295•: + + +2.-Soction 794.011, oxcluding s. 794.011(10); +3 Section 800.04(4)(b) where the court finds the offanse Involved a victim under 12 years of +age or sexual activity, by the use of force or coercion; +47 Soction 800.04(5)(b); +5; Section 300.04(5)(c)1. where the court finds molestation involving unclothed gonitals or +gonital area; +6z Soction 800.04(5)c.22 whore the court finds molestation involving unclothed gonitals or +genital area; +7. Soctlon 800.04(5)(d) whore the court finds the use of force or, coercion and unclothed +rentals or porital aroa; +B. Any attempt or conspiracy to commit such offonse; or +9. A violation of a similar law of another jurisdiction, +must rerogister each year during the month of the saxual offonders birthday and ovory third +month thoreafter. +C) The shoriffs office may determine the appropriate times and days for roporting by the +sexual offender which shall be consistent with the roporting roquirements of this subsection. +Reragistration shall Include any changos to the following information: +1. Name; social socurity numbor; ago; race; sex; date of birth; haight; wright; hair and ayo +color, address of any permanent residonce and address of any curront tomporary rosidence, +within the state or out of state, Including a rural route address and a post offico box; any +doctronic malt address and any instant message namo required, to be provided pursuant to: +paragraph (4)(d); dato and place of any omploymont; vehicle make, model, color, and license +tag number, fingerprints; and photograph. A post office box shall not be providod in liou of a +physical residential address. +2. If the sexual offender is onrolled, omployed, or carrying on a vocation at an institution of +higher oducation in this stato, the sexual offonder shall also provide to the departmont the +name, address, and county of oach institution, Including each campus attended, and the saxual +offonder's onrollmont or employment status. +3alf the sexual offender's place of rosidenco is a motor vehfcle, traflor, mobile homo; or +manufacturod homo, as defined in chaptor 320, the soxual offondor shall also provide tho +vehiclo identification numbor, the liconso tag numbor, the rogistration number; and a +"description, Including color schemo, of the motor vehicle, traflor, mobile home, or +manufactured home. If the saxual offondor's placo of residonco is a vossol, livo-aboard vossol,; +or housoboat, as defined in chapter 327, the soxual offondor shall also provide the hull +-idontification number; the inanufacturer's sorial number; the name of the vossol, live aboard +vessel, or houseboat; the rogistration number; and a description, Including color schome, of +the vossel, Ive aboard vessol or houseboat: +1 Any soxual offendor who fails to roport in porson as roquired at the sheriff's office, or who +fails to respond to any address verification correspondonce from the departmont within 3 +wooks of the date of the correspondance or who fails to report olectronic mail addresses or +• 07/26/17 + +Public Records Request No.: 17-295. + + +73.062, 1-175.083, or 75,08, felony of the third degroo, puritable as prodd in s +alectronically submit and update all +in mation preded by tale sexual offender to the departmont in a manner proscribed by the +departmont. +ERTIFIED CO + +Públic Records Request No: 17-295 + + +INTHE +'COURT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA +Jeff Eaten +1: DEFENDANT +2. DEFENDANT +3. DEFENDANT: +4: DEFENDANT +S. DEFENDANT +6. DEFENDANT: +7. DEFENDANT: +PLEA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT +I am the defendant in the above-mentioned matters), and I am represented by the attorney indicated below, +understand I have the right to be represented by an atomey at all stages of the proceeding until the case is terminated +and if 1 canriot afford an attorney, one will be appointed free of charge. +1 understand t have the right to a speedy and public trial either by jury or by court. I hereby waive and give up this +right. +I understand i have the right to be confronted by the witnesses against me and to cross examine them by myself or +through my attorney: I heréby give up these rights. +1 understand i have the right to testify on my own behalf, but I cannot be compelled to be a witness against myself. +and may remain silent if I so choose. I hereby give up these rights. +I understand I have the right to call witnesses to testify in my behalf and to invoke the compulsory process of the +Court to subpoena those witnesses. I hereby give up these rights. +8: DEFENDANT +:9. DEFENDANT: +. 10.DEFENDANT: +• I]: DEFENDANT: +[understand that ifT am not a United States Citizen; my plea may subject me to deportation pursuant to the laws and +regulations govering the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service;, and, this Court has no jurisdiction: +; (authority) in such matters. +CA +I have not reccived any promises from anyone, including my attorney, concerning eligibility for any form of early +release authorized by law and further no promises have been made to me as to the actual amount of time that I wil! +•scrye under the sentence to be imposed. Further, I understand that this plea may be used to enhance future criminal +penalties in any court system, ever if adjudication of guilt is withheld. +öffer my plea freely and voluntarily and of my own accord, with full understanding of all matter set fort in the +pleadings and this waiver. +I have personally placed my initials in each bracket above, and I undersiand each and every one of the rights outlined +above. i hcreby waive and give up each of them in order to enter my plea to thie within charge(s). I understand that +even though the Court may approve the agreement of sentence, the Court is not bound by the agreement, the Court +may withoraw its approval at any time before pronouncing judgment, in which case I shall be able to withdraw my. +plea should I desire to do so. +Choose one: +'If applicable, I choose a program which is or may be spiritually based. +If applicable, I choose a program which is NOT spiritually based. +If applicable, i have no preference if the program is or may be spiritually based. +• DEFENDANT +DATE +DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY ONLY: +I am attomey of record. I have explained each of the above rights to the defendant and have explored the facts with him/her and studied his/her +possible defenses to the charge(s).. I concur with his/her decision to waive the rights and to enter this plea. I further stipulate that this document +nay be received by the Court as evidence of defendant's intelligent waiver of these rights and that it shall be filed by the Clerk as permanent record +of that waiver. +it 1. Call a +ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDAN! +DATE +Form Circuit 1 (rev 8/2000) + + +* DATE OF SENTENCE +6 30/08 +5. NAME: (LAST. FIRST, MI.L.): +Epslin Jeffrey +RULE 3.992(a; CH +MINAL PUNISHMENT CODE SCO: +SHEET +PREPARERS NAME: EUbC SAO +Belchlace la +11/20/33 +BAW MOTHER +FELONY' +DEGREE +FIS.# +294:03 +-4,2-103:10-11 +• DESCRIPTION: +fair, Perso lender 8 o +ADDITIONAL OFFENSES), Supplemental page attached E +DOCKET# +FEUMMA +1190,0 +POINTS +110: PRIMARY PEE +Reclassification) +OFFENSEN O POINTS +"LEVEL +07 +QUALIFY COUNTS +000O +0000 +I TOTAL +2202 +Level-Poins: M-021=0.7,2-1.2 1=0.7212 3-24 6-54. 6-54. 6-18.7:28,1 +Prior capital felony inples Adorional Oliense points D +•VICTIM INJURY: +'Number +2* Degree Murder +: Death +Severe +*Moderate +240 X +120X +' 40X +:18 X +Slight +Sex Penetration +-Sex Contact +IV. PRIOR RECORD: supplemental page altached E +FEL/MM.- +,F.S # +DEGREE.' +OFFENSE: +QUALIFY'" DESCRI +:LEVEL +A S CIR +0000; +0000 +: 0000; +0000 +0000- +0000 +(Level: Points: M=0.2, 150.5, 250.8. 3=1.6; 4:24, 5-36,619 7914; 8119, 9+23, 10=29) +*80 +40X +: NÜMBER +143, 1 +POINTS +*- TOTAL +" Page 15 of 114 +Supplementat page points +Page 1 Subtotal: + + +Pago 1 Subtotal +$67 +egal Stalus violation +11 Poi +Com +unity Sanction +sippins x each succo sive wotation OR +(olation before the court for sentencing +New felony convictions +12 points x each süccessive violation +Firearm/Semi Automatic.or Machine Gun # 16 or 25 Points +*Prior Serious Felony = 30 Points +Enhancements (only if the primary offense +qualifies for enhancement) +VIl.3 +5617 +Subtotal Sentence Points +• Street Gang +primated on or ate 10 1-06) +:x1.5 +(ofenses +ater 10-1-97) +Enhanced Sübtotal Sentence Points i I +FOTAL SENTENCE POINTS +4... +'SENTENCE COMPUTATION +rotal sentence points are jese inan or equal o he lowest permissible sentence is any non-state prison candlen. +¿total sentence points are greater than 4 +x.75 - +entenca. +2/6 +owest permissiblo prison +i sentence in months +Me maximum sentence is Of to the statutory maximum folie primary and any aditional oftenses as provided in 8. 775.082, +FS unless the lowest permissible sentence under the code exceeds the statulory maximum. Such sentences may be imposed +concurrendy or consecutiyely. it total'sentence points are greater than or equal to 363 alife sentence may be imposed, +maximum sentence +• in years +TOTAL SENTENCE IMPOSED +Months +Days: +• State Prison +ity, Jail +A tie +• Time Served +munity Control +• Probation +Вмести +Please check if sentenced as O habitual offender, +habitua valen brender. +reollender, or a f +• mandatory minimum applies. +ka +I to Minths +(vrurt! +voient care criminal: co prison rodso in! +ed Der +rture, +3 Plea Bargain +er Reason +JUDGE'S SIGNATURE +L-06950 + + + +S67 +Pade i Subtotal +Legal Status violation 4. Points +Community Sanction Violation before the courtfor sentencing +a points x each successive volation OR +Now felony conviction 12 points x each successive violation +Fream/Sem Aufomatic or Machine Gun - 18 or 25 Points: +Vill: Prior Serious Felony - 30 Points, +Enhancements (only.if the primary offense quatries for enhancement) +VIlL +Subtotal Sentence Points +Enhanced Subtotal Sentence Points: +TOTAL SENTENCE POINTS +SENTENCE COMPUTATION +If total sentence points are less than or equal to 44, the lowest permissible sentence Is any, monstate naison sanction +210. +lowest permissible prison +-sentence in months* +je maximum sentence is up to the statutory, maximum fonthe primary +and any additional offenses as provided in s 775.082, +i unless the lowest permissible sentence under the coder exceeds the statutory maximum Such sentences may be imposed +currently or consecutively. If total sentence points are greater +than or equal to 363 la he sentence may be imposed +maximum sentence +- in ycars +TOTAL SENTENCE IMPOSED +• Months +30 State Prison +County Jail +o Life +O Time Served +20 Community Control: +7E0 Probation + +Please check if senionced a a habituat oftender: habita ween oftender: +reoffender, or a • mandatory minimum applies. +an are dimini prison opace CCT +Milgaled Departure / Plea Bargain +Other +JUDGE'S SIGNATURE! +86958* + + + +Page 1 Subtotal: +egal status violation ad Point l +•Comm +unly Sancion violation before the court for sentencing +e points reach successive iolation oR +New felony conviction, +n,k12 points x each successive violation +Fiream/Somi Automatic or Machine Gun 0 or 25 Points +Pror Serious Félony - 30 Points +VIl! +46 +Enhancements (only if the primaty offense qualifies for enhancement) +Subtotal Sentence Points +: 10-1-077 +Enhanced Subtotal Santence Points IX +TOTAL SENTENCE POINTS +207 +SENTENCE COMPUTATION +If total sentence points are less than or equal to 4 +4, the lowost permissible sentence is any: non state prison sanctio +irtola sentence points are greater than 44. +tence point +lowest permissible prison +sentenco in months! +The maximum sentence is up to the statutory maximum for the primary and any additional offenses as provided in s. 775,082, +stunless the lowest permissible sentence under, the code, exceeds the statutory maximum. Such sentences may be imposed +concurrently or conseculively if total sentence points are greater than or equalito, 363, a lifo sentence may be imposed +maximum sentence +tain years +TOTAL SENTENCE IMPOSED +Months +-O State Prison: +© County Jali- +O Time Served +• Community Control• +/ • Probation +FAT. +Please check if sentenced as O habitual offender, & habitual violent offender. +reofferider, or a O mandatory minimum applies: +oh care mini prison ribase C +•'Mitigated Departure •i Plea Bargain, +Other Reason +JUDGE'S SIGNATURE +:L-86050 +• Page 18 of 114 + + +PLEA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT +THE FOLLOWING IS TO REFLECT ALL TERMS OF THE NEGOTATED SETTLEMENT" +Name: Jefirey E. Epslein +Plea: Guilty X +Case No.. +06CF009454AMB +08CF009381AMB +Charge +Felony Solicitation of Prostilution +Procuring Person Under 18 for Prostitution 1 +Count Lesser: +1 +No +_Degree +3 FEL +2 FEI. +PSI: Waived/Not Required X. +ADJUDICATION: +Adjudicate [× ] +Required/Requested__ +SENTENCE: +On 06CF009454AMB, the Defendant is sentenced to 12 months in the Palm Beach County +Detention Facility, with credit for 1 (one) day time served, +On 08CF009381AMB, the Defendant is sentenced to 6 months in the Palm Beach County +Detention Facity, with credit for 1 (one) day time served. This 6 month sentence is to be +OTHER COMMENTS OR CONDITIONS: +As a special condition of his community control, the Defendant is to have no unsupervised +contact with minors, and the supervising adult must be approved by the Department of +Corrections. +The Defendant is designated as a Sexual Offender pursuant to Florida Statute 943.0435 and +must abide by all the corresponding requirements of the statute, a copy of which is attached +hereto and incorporated herein. +The Defendant must provide a DNA sample in court at the time of this plea. +Assistant State Attorney +Date of Plea +Attorney for the Defendant +Defendant +• BE +- =. + + + +918.101 Terms and conditions of community control and criminal quarantine commurity +control.- +(a) The court shall require intensive supervision and surveillance for an offonder placed into +community control, which may include but is not limited to: +1. Spocified contact with the parole and probation officer. +2. Confinement to an agreed-upon residonce during hours away from employmont and public +service activities. +3. Mandatory public service. +4. Supervision by the Department of Corrections by means of an electronic monitoring device +or system. +5. The standard conditions of probation set forth in s. 248.03. +(b) For an offendor placed on criminal quarantino community control, the court shall require: +1. Eloctronic monitoring 24 hours per day. +2: Confinement to a designated rosidence during dosignatod hours. +(2) The enumeration of specific kinds of terms and conditions does not prevent the court from +adding thoroto any other terms or conditions that the court considers proper. Howover, the +sentencing court may, only imposo a condition of suporvision allowing an offender convicted of +s. 794.011, s. 800.04, s. 827.071, or s. 847.0145 to resido in another state if the ordor +stipulates that it is contingent upon the approval of the rocolving stato interstate compact +authority. The court may rescind or modify at any time the terms and conditions theretofore +imposed by it upon the offender in community control. However, if the court withholds +adjudication of guilt or imposes a period of incarceration as a condition of community control, +the period may not exceed 364 days, and incarceration shall be restricted to a county facility, +probation and restitution center under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections, i +robation program drug punishment phaso I socure rosidential treatment institution, or t +community residential facility owned or opcrated by any entity providing such services. +(3) The court may place a defendant who is being sentenced for criminal transmission of HIV in +violation of s. 775.0377 on criminal quarantine community control. The Department of +Corrections shall dovelop and administer a criminal quarantino community control program +amphasizing intensive supervision with 24-hour-per-day olectronic monitoring. Criminal +quarantine community control status must includo surveillance and may include other measures +normally associatod with conmunity control, axcept that specific conditions necessary to +monitor this population may be ordered. + + + +1943.0435 Sexual offenders required to register with tho department; penalty.. +(1) As used in this section, the term: +(a). Sarat of and-s maragrapers, humodparagrapad, as salowbaragraph a, subsubparagraph b., sub-subparagraph c., +(I) Has been convicted of committing, or attempting, soliciting, or conspiring to commit, an +of the criminal offenses proscribed in the following statutes in this state or similar offensos ir +another jurisdiction: s. 787.01, s. 787.02, or s. 787.025(2)(c), where the victim is a minor and +the dafendant is not tho victim's paront or guardian; s. 794.011, excluding s. 794.011(10); s. +794.05; s. 796.03; s. 796.035; s.. 800.04; s. 825.1025; 5. 827.071; s. 847.0133; s. 847.0135, +oxclus committed is this stato 13h has boon edesignated from a former statue number tor +one of thoso listed in this sub-sub-subparagraph; and +(Il) Has been rolcased on or after Octobor 1, 1997, from the sanction imposed for any +conviction of an offense described in sub-sub-subparagraph (I). For purposes of sub-subsubparagraph (I), a sanction imposod in this state or in any other jurisdiction includes, but is +not limited to, a fino, probation, community control, parolo, conditional reloaso, control +roloaso, or incarceration in a stato prison, foderal prison, privato correctional facility, or local +detention facility; +b. Establishes or maintains a residence in this state and who has not been designatod as a +saxual prodator by a court of this state but who has boen designated as a soxual predator, is a +saxually violont prodator, or by anothor sexual offonder designation in another stato or +jurisdiction and was, as a result of such designation, subjectod to registration or community or +public notification, or both, or. would be if the person were a resident of that state or +jurisdiction, without rogard to whether the person otherwise moets the critoria for registration +as a sexual offonder; +c. Establishes or maintains a residence in this stato who is in the custody or control of, or +under the supervision of, any other stato or jurisdiction as a result of a conviction for +committing, or attempting, soliciting, or conspiring to commit, any of the criminal offenses +proscribed in the following statutes or similar offenso in another jurisdiction: s. 787.01, s. +78/.0z, or s. 787.025(2)(c), whore the victim is a minor and tho defendant is not the victim's +parant or guardien; s. 794.011, excluding s. 791.011(10); s. 794.05; s. 796.03; s. 796.035; s. +800.04; s. 825.1025; s. 827.071; s. 847.0133; s. 847.0135, oxcluding s. 847.0135(4); s. +847.0137; s. 847.0138; 5. 847.0145; or s. 985.701(1); or any similar offenso committed in this +stato which has beon redosignatad from a former statuto number to one of those listed in this +sub-subparagraph; or +d. On or after July 1, 2007, has baon adjudicated delinquent for committing, or attompting, +soliciting, or conspiring to commit, any of the criminal offenses proscribed in the following +statutes in this stato or similar offensos in another jurisdiction when the juvenile was 14 yoars +of ago or older at the time of the offenso: +(1) Section 794.011, oxcluding s. 794.011(10); +(I) Section 800.04(4)(b) whore the victim is under 12 yoars of ago or whore the court finds +soxual activity by the use of force or coercion; +(III) Section 800.01(5)(c)1. where the court finds molostation involving unclothed genitals; or + + + +(IV) Section 800.04(5)(d) whero the court finds the use of force or corcion and unclothed +genitals. +2. For all qualifying offanses listed in sub-subparagraph (1)(a)1.d., the court shall make a +writton finding of the ago of the offender at the time of the offonso. +For oach violation of a qualifying offonso listed in this subsection, the court shall make a +written finding of the ago of the victim at the time of the offense. For a violation of s. +800.04(4), tho court shall additionally mako a written finding indicating that the offonse dic or +did hot involvo sexual activity and indicating that the offanso did or did not involve forco or +cocrcion. For a violation of s. 800.04(5), the court shall additionally make a written finding +that tho offonso did or did not involvo unclothed gonitals or gonital area and that the offense +did or did not involve the use of force or coercion. +b) "Convictod" moans that there has been a determination of guilt as a result of a trial or th +entry of a ploa of guilty or nolo contondore, regardloss of whether adjudication is withhold +and includes an adjudication of delinquoncy of a juvonile as spocified in this section. +Conviction of a similar offenso includes, but is not limitad to, a conviction by a foderal or +military tribunal, including courts martial conducted by the Armed Forcos of the Unitod States, +and includes a conviction or entry of a ploa of guilty or nolo contendere resulting in a sanction +in any stato of the United States or othor jurisdiction. A sanction includes, but is not limited +to, a fino, probation, community control, parole, conditional release, control roleaso, or +incarcoration in a state prison, fedoral prison, privato correctional facility, or local dotontion +facility: +(c) "Permanent rosidonce" and "temporary residence" have the same meaning ascribed in s. +775.21. +(d) "Institution of higher education" means a caraor center, community collego, çolloge, stiste +university, or indopendent postsecondary institution. +(c) "Change in enrollment or employment status" means the cominencoment or tormination of +enrollmont or employment or a change in location of enrollment or employment. +(f) "Electronic mail address" has the same meaning as provided in s. 668.602. +(g) "Instant messago name" incans an identifier that alloys a person to communicate in res! +time with another person using the Internot. +(2) A sexual offender shall: +(a) Report in person at the shariff's office: +1. In the county in which the offonder stablishes or maintains a permanent or temporary +residence within 48 hours after: +a. Establishing permanent or tomporary rosidence in this stato; or +b. Being released from the custody, control, or supervision of the Dopartmont of Correction: +or from the custody of a private correctional facility; or +2. In the county where he or she was convicted within 48 hours after being convicted for 2 +qualifying offonse for registration under this suction if the offender is not in thu custody or + + + +control of, or undor the suporvision of, the Departmont of Corrections, or is not in the custody +of a private correctional facility. +in the manner provided in subsections (4), (7), and (8). +hair and oyo color, tattoos or othor idontifying marks, occupation and place of employment, +address of permanent or legal residence or address of any current temporary residence, within +. the state and out of stato, including a rural route address and a post offico box, any olectronic +mail address and any instant messago name required to be provided pursuant to paragraph +(4)(d), date and place of cach conviction, and a brief description of the crime or crimos +committed by the offender. A post office box shall not be provided in lieu of a physical +residential address. +1. If the soxual offender's place of residence is a motor vehicle, trailer, mobile homo, or +manufactured homo, as defined in chaptor 320, the sexual offonder shall also provide to the +dopartment through the shoriffs office written notice of the vehicle identification number; the +license tag number; the rogistration number; and a description, including color scheme, of tho +motor vohicle, trailer, mobile homo, or manufactured home. If the saxual offender's place of +residenco is a vossol, live-aboard vessal, or houseboat, as defined in chaptor. 327, the sexual +offonder shall also provide to the department written notice of the hull identification number; +tho manufacturer's serial number; the name of the vessel, live-aboard vessel, or housboat; the +registration numbor; and a doscription, including color schome, of the vessol, live-aboard +vessel, or housoboat. +2. If the sexual offender is onrolled, employed, or carrying on a vocation at an institution of +highor education in this state, the soxual offender shall also provide to the departmont through +the sheriff's office the name, addross, and county of oach institution, including cach campus +attended, and the sexual offonder's onrollment or employment status. Each change in +enrollmont or omployment status shall be reported in person at the sheriff's office, within 19 +hours after any change in status. The shoriff shall promptly notify each institution of the sexual +offonder's prosonce and any change in the sexual offondor's enrolliment or employment statis. +When a sexual offender roports at the sheriff's office, the sheriff shall taite a photograph and a +rap rt in poison at a fores rest riced the Department of i way Sorted ator +Vehiclos, unloss a driver's licenso or identification card that complies with the roquirements of +s. 322.141(3) was previously secured or updated under s. 944.607. At the driver's licenso office +the soxual offendor shall: +(a) If otherwise qualified, secure a Florida driver's licenso, renew a Florida driver's license, or +offender pend read in ecle a the el and hired any rea +information specified in subsoction (2), if requested. The soxual offender shall submit to the +taking of a photograph for use in issuing a driver's license, renowed licenso, or identification +card, and for use by the department in maintaining current records of sexual offenders. + + + +(b) Pay the costs assessod by the Departmont of Highway Safety and Motor Vohicles for issuing. +r renowing a drivers licenso or identification card as required by this section. The driver +cense or idontification card issuod must be in compliance with s. 322.141(3 +(c) Provido, upon roquest, any additional inforination necessary to confirm the idontity of the +soxual offender, including a sot of fingerprints. +4)(4) Each timo a sexual offender's driver's license or identification card is subjoct to ronewal +ind, without regard to the status of the offendor's driver's licenso or identification card, within +46 hours after any change in the offender's permanent or tomporary residonce or change in the +offendor's namo by roason of marriago or other logal process, the offender shall report in +parson to a driver's license office, and shall be subjoct to the requiroments spocified it +subsoction (3). Tho Departmont of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles shall forward to tho +dopartment all photographs and information provided by soxual offendors. Notwithstanding the +restrictions set forth in s. 322.112, the Departmont of Highway Safoty and Motor Vehiclos is +authorized to rolease a roproduction of a color-photograph or digital-image licenso to the +Department of Law Enforcement for purposes of public notification of soxual offenders as +provided in this soction and ss. 243.043 and 941.606. +(b) A sexual offender who vacates a pormanent residonco and fails to establish or maintain +another permanent or temporary residence shall, within 48 hours aftor vacating the permanent +residance, roport in person to the sheriff's office of tha county in which ho or she is located. +The saxual offender shall specify the date upon which he or she intends to or did vacate such +residence. The sexual offender must provido or update all of the registration information +required undor paragraph (2)(b). The sexual offonder must provido an address for the residence +or other location that he or she is or will be occupying during the time in which he or sho fails +to establish or maintain a permanent or tomporary rosidence. +(c) A sexual offender who remains at a permanent residence after roporting his or her intent +to vacate such residence shall, within 48 hours after the date upon which the offender. +indicated ho or she would or did vacate such residence, report in person to the agoncy to which +he or she reported pursuant to paragraph (b) for the purposo of roporting his or her address at +such residence. When the shoriff recoives the roport, the shoriff shall promptly convey the +information to the department, An offender who makes a report as required under paragraphi +(b) but fails to make a roport as required under this paragraph commits a felony of the second +degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. +(d) A sexual offender must register any electronic mail address or instant mossage name with +ho departmont prior to using such electronic mail addross or instant message namo on or afte +Ictober 1, 2007. The department shall establish an online system through which soxua +offenders may securely accoss and update all olectronic mail address and instant message +namo information. +(5) This section does not apply to a sexual offonder who is also a saxual prodator, as defined in +s. 775.21. A sexual predator must register as roquired under s. 775.21. +(6) County and local law erforcement agoncies, in conjunction with the department, shall +vority the addresses of sexual oftendors who are not under the care, custody, control, or +supervision of the Department of Corrections in a mannor that is consistent with the provision +of the faderal Adam Walsh Child Protoction and Safcty Act of 2006 and ariy other foderal +standards applicablo to such verification or required to be mot as a condition for the receipt of +foderal funds by the stato. Local law enforcomont agencies shall roport to the dopartment any + + + +(7) A sexual offender who intends to establish residenco in anothar state or jurisdiction othor +than the State of Florida shall report in person to the sheriff of the county of current residonce +within 48 hours bofore the date ho or shọ intends to loave this state to ostablish rosidence in +another stato or jurisdiction. The notification must include the address, municipality, county, +and stato of intended residence. The sheriff shall promptly provide to the department the +information recoivod from the saxual offender. The department shall notify the statowido law +enforcement agency, or a comparable agency, in the intanded state or jurisdiction of residence +of the sexual offender's intendod residence. The failure of a sexual offonder to provide his or +her Intended place of residonce is punishable as provided in subsection (9). +(8) A sexual offender who indicatos his or her intent to reside in another state or jurisdiction +other than the State of Florida and later decides to romain in this state shall, within 48 hours +after the date upon which the saxual offonder indicated ho or she would loave this state, +report in person to the shariff to which the sexual offonder reported the intended change of +residanco, and report his or her intont to romain in this state. The sheriff shall promptly report +this information to the dopartment. A soxual offender who reports his or her intent to reside in +anothor stato or jurisdiction but who remains in this state without reporting to the shoriff in +tho manner required by this subsection commits a folony of the socond degree, punishable as +provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. +(9)(a) A sexual offondor who does not comply with the requiremonts of this section commits a +felony of the third degreo, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. +(b) A soxual offender who commits any act or omission in violation of this soction may be +prosecuted for the act or omission in the county in which the act or omission was committod, +the county of the last registered address of the sexual offender, or the county in which the +conviction accurred for the offenso or offonsos that moet tho critoria for designating a person +as a sexual offendor. +(c) An arrest on charges of failure to registor when the offonder has beon provided and advised +of his or her statutory obligations to register under subsaction (2), the service of an +information or a complaint for a violation of this section, or an arraignment on charges for a +violation of this section constitutes actual notice of the duty to registor. A soxual offonder's +failure to iminediatoly register as required by this section following such arrest, servico, or +arraignment constitutes grounds for a subsequent charge of failure to register. A soxual +offender charged with the crime of failure to register who assorts, or intonds to assort, a lack +of notice of the duty to register as a defonso to a charge of failure to register shall +immodiatoly registor as required by this section. A soxual offender who is charged with a +subsoquont failure to register may not assert the defonso of a lack of notice of the duty to +register. +(d) Rogistration following such arrost, service, or arraigninent is not a dofense and does nut +relieve the soxual offender of criminal liability for the failure to register. +(10) The department, the Departmont of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, the Department +of Corrections, the Department of Juvenile Justice, any law enforcement agency in this states, +and the personnel of those departments; an elected or appointed official, public employee, or +school administrator; or an omployco, agency, or any individual or ontity acting at the roquest +or upon the direction of any law enforcomont agency is immune from civil liability for damagos +for good faith compliance with the requirements of this section or for the release of +information under this section, and shall be presumod to have acted in good faith in compiling, +rocording, roporting, or releasing the information. The presumption of good faith is not +overcomo if a tochnical or clerical error is made by the department, the Department of +Highway Safaty and Motor Vehicles, the Department of Corroctions, the Department of Juvenile + + + +Justice, the personnel of those departments, or any individual or entity acting at the request +Information is incomplete or incorrect because a orcal ofondo farate report or ation, or if +reports his or hor current place of permanent or temporary residenco. +(11) Except as provided in s. 943.04354, a sexual offendor must maintain registration with the +copartment for the duration of his or her life, unless the sexual offender has received a full +pardon or has had a conviction set aside in a postconviction proceeding for any offonso that +neets the critoria for classifying the parson as a sexual offender for, purposes of registration, +Howover, a sexual offonder: +(a)1. Who has been lawfully released from confinoment, supervision, or sanction, whichover l! +later, for at least 25 years and has not been arrostod for any folony or misdomoanor offonsc +since roloase, provided that the sexual offendor's requiremont to register was not based upon +an adult conviction; +a. For a violation of s. 787.01 or s, 787.02; +b. For a violation of s. 794.011, excluding s. 794.011(10); +c. For a violation of s. 800.04(4)(b) where the court finds the offonso involved a victim under +12 yoars of ago or sexual activity by the use of force or coercion; +d. For a violation of s. 800.04(5) (b); +c. For a violation of s. 800.04(5)c. 2. where the court finds the offonse involved unclothed +gonitals or gonital area; +.f. For any attompt or conspiracy to commit any such offonso; or +g. For a violation of similar law of another jurisdiction, +may potition the criminal division of the circuit court of the circuit in which the soxual +offender resides for the purpose of removing the requirement for registration as a sexual +offonder. +2. The court may grant or deny rolief if the offender domonstratos to the court that ho or shie +has not been arrested for any crime since rolease; the requested rolfef complies with the +provisions of the fodoral Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 and any other. +foderal standards applicable to the removal of registration requiremonts for a soxual offender +or required to bo met as a condition for the roceipt of federal funds by the state; and the court +is othorwiso satisfied that the offendor is not a current or potential threat to public safty. The +state attorney in the circuit in which the petition is filed must bo givon notice of the petition. +at least 3 wooks before the hearing on the matter. The state attorney may present ovidence in +opposition to the roquested relief or may otherwiso domonstrato the reasons why the petition +should be denied. If the court denies the petition, the court may set a future date at which the +sexual offender may again petition the court for reliaf, subjoct to the standards for. reliof +provided in this subsection. +3. The department shall romovo an offonder from classification as a sexual offendor for +urposes of rogistration if the offondor provides to the department a cortified copy of th +ourt's writton findings or order that indicates that tho offender is no longer required t +comply with the requirements for registration as a sexual offander. + + + +(b) As definod in sub-subparagraph (1)(a)1.b. must maintain rogistration with the dopartment +for the duration of his or her life until the person provides the departmont with an order issued +by the court that designated the porson as a soxual predator, as a sexually violent predator, or +by another soxual offendor designation in the stato or jurisdiction in which the order was +issued which states that such designation has been removed or demonstrates to the +dopartmont +designation, if not imposed by a court, has bean romoved by operation of +law or court order in the state or jurisdiction in which the dosignation was mado, and provided +such person no longer meets the criteria for registration as a sexual offender under the laws of +this stato. +(12) The Legislature finds that sexual offenders, espocially those who have committed offenses +against minors, ofton pose a high risk of ongaging in saxual offonsos ovon after boing rolcased +from incarcoration or commitment and that protoction of the public from saxual offanders is a +paramount government interest. Sexual offenders have a reduced oxpectation of privacy +because of tho public's interest in public safoty and in the offectivo operation of government. +Releasing information concorning sexual offenders to law enforcement agencies and to persons +who roquest such information, and the rolcase of such information to the public by a law +onforcement agency or public agency, will further the governmental interests of public safoly. +The designation of a person as a sexual offender is not a sentenco or a punishment but is simply +the status of tho offender which is the result of a conviction for having committed cortain +crimos. +(13) Any porson who has reason to believe that a sexual offonder is not complying, or has not +complied, with the requirements of this section and who, with the intont to assist tho soxual +offender in oluding a law enforcement agoncy that is seoking to find the saxual offender to +quastion the saxual offender about, or to arrest the saxual offordor for, his or her +noncompliance with the requiremants of this saction: +(a) Withholds information from, or does not notify, the law enforcement agoncy about the +sexual offender's noncompliance with the requirements of this section, and, if known; the +whereabouts of the soxual offender; +(b) Harbors, or attempts to harbor, or assists another person in harboring or attempting to +harbor, the saxual offender; or +(c) Conceals or attempts to conceal, or assists another person in concealing or attempting to +concoal, the sexual offender; or +(d) Provides information to the law enforcement agency regarding the saxual offonder that the +porson knows to be fálso information, +commits a felony of the third degroo, punishable as provided in s. 775.08Z, s. 775.083, or 5. +775.084. +(14)(a) ^ soxual offender must report in person each year during the month of the sexual. +offonder's birthday and during the sixth month following the soxual offender's birth month to +the sheriff's office in the county in which he or sho rosides or is otherwiso located to rerogister. +(b) Howevor, a soxual offender who is required to register as a result of a conviction for: +1. Soction 787.01 or s. 787.02 where the victim is a minor and the offender is not the victim's +parent or guardian; + + + +) +2. Soction 794.011, excluding s, 794.011(10); +3. Section 800.04(4)(b) where the court finds the offense involved a victim under 12 years of +ago or saxual activity by the uso of force or coarcion; +4. Soction 800.04(5)(b); +5. Seal ar g00.0115 (c)1. where the court finds molestation involving unclothed genitals or +6. Section 800.04(5)c. 2.. where the court finds molestation involving unclothed genitals or +gonital area; +7. Soction 800.04(5)(d) whore the court finds the use of force or coorcion and unclothed +gonitals or gonital aroa; +8. Any attompt or conspiracy to commit such offonse; or +9. A violation of a similar law of another jurisdiction, +must reregister cach year during the month of the soxual offender's birthday and every third +month theroafter. +(c) Tho sheriff's office may detormine the appropriate times and days for reporting by the +oxual offender, which shall be consistent with the reporting requirements of this subsection +lorogistration shall include any changos to the following information +1. Name; social security number; age; race; sox; date of birth; height; weight; hair and aye +color; address of any permanent residence and address of any current tomporary residence, +within the state or out of stato, including a rural route address and a post offico box; any +clectronic mail address and any instant mossage namo required to bo provided pursuant to +paragraph (4)(d); date and place of any omploymont; vohicle make, model, color, and licenso +tag number; fingerprints; and photograph. A post office box shall not be provided in liou of a +physical residential address. +2. If the sexual offender is enrolled, employed, or carrying on a vocation at an institution of +offender's enrollmont or omploymont status. +4. Any sexual offender who fails to roport in person as required at the sheriff's office, or who +fails to respond to any address verification corrospondance from the departmont within 3 +weeks of the date of the correspondince or who fails to report electronic mail addresses or + + + +Instant mossago names, commits a felony of the third dogroo, punishable as providod in s. +775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. +(d) The shoriff's offico shall, within 2 working days, electronically submit and update al +information provided by the sexual offender to the dopartmont in a manner prescribed by th +department. + + + +Appendix 9 + + +U.S. Department of Justice +United States Attorney +Southern District of New York +The Silvio J. Mollo Building +One Saint Andrew's Plaza +New York, New York 10007 +VIA ECF +The Honorable Henry Pitman +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl Street +New York, New York 10007 +Re: United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB) +COPY +Dear Judge Pitman: +The Government respectfully submits this letter in advance of the bail hearing scheduled +for July 8, 2019, in the above-captioned case. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court should +order that the defendant be detained pending trial; he cannot meet his burden of overcoming the +presumption that there is no combination of conditions that would reasonably assure his continued +appearance in this case or protect the safety of the community were he to be released. +As set forth below, the charges in this case are exceptionally serious: the defendant is +evidence of his guilt. In light of the strength of the Government's evidence and the substantial +incarceratory term the defendant would face upon conviction, there is an extraordinary risk of +flight, particularly given the defendant's exorbitant wealth, his ownership of and access to private +planes capable of infernational travel, and his significant international ties. Indeed, the arrest of +the defendant occurred when he arrived in the United States on his private jet after having returned +from a multi-week stay abroad. + + +Page 2 +BACKGROUND +A. Overview +On July 2, 2019, a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York returned a sealed +indictment (the "Indictment") charging the defendant with one count of sex trafficking of minors, +in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, and one count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors, +in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. +As charged by the grand jury, the facts underlying the charges in the Indictment arise from +a years-long scheme to sexually abuse underage girls. In particular, beginning in at least 2002, the +defendant enticed and recruited dozens of minor girls to engage in sex acts with him, for which he +paid the victims hundreds of dollars in cash. +He undertook this activity in at least two different locations, including his mansion in +Manhattan, New York (the "New York Residence") and his estate in Palm Beach, Florida (the +"Palm Beach Residence"). In both New York and Florida, the defendant perpetuated this abuse in +similar ways. Victims were initially recruited to provide "massages" to the defendant, which +would be performed nude or partially nude, would become increasingly sexual in nature, and +would typically include one or more sex acts, including groping and direct or indirect contact with +victims' genitals. The defendant paid his victims hundreds of dollars in cash for each separate +encounter. +Moreover, the defendant actively encouraged certain of his victims to recruit additional +girls to be similarly sexually abused. He incentivized his victims to become recruiters by paying +these victim-recruiters hundreds of dollars for each additional girl they brought to him. In this +fashion, the defendant created a vast network of underage victims for him to exploit, in locations +including New York and Palm Beach. +The defendant's vietims were as young as 14 years old when he abused them. Many of his +victims were, for yarious reasons, often particularly vulnerable to exploitation. The defendant +intentionally sought out-and knew that he was abusing-minors. Indeed, in some instances, his +victims expressly told him they were underage before or during the period in which he abused +them. +In c +ting and maintaining a network of minor victims whom he abused, the defendant +worked with others, including employees and associates who facilitated his exploitation of minors +by, among other things, contacting victims and scheduling their sexual encounters with the +defendant, both in New York and in Florida. +B. The Defendant +Jeffrey Epstein designed, financed, and perpetrated this scheme, both as its main participant +and through his direction of others, including certain of his employees, to further facilitate his +rampant abuse of underage girls. + + +Page 3 +As has been widely reported, the defendant is extraordinarily wealthy, and he owns and +maintains luxury properties and residences around the world, including in Manhattan, New York; +Palm Beach, Florida; Stanley, New Mexico; and Paris, France. Additionally, Epstein owns a +private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands which, as noted above, is believed to be his primary +residence in the United States. His mansion in Manhattan alone—a multi-story townhouse +reported to be one of the largest single residences in all of Manhattan, which previously housed a +school and which he owns through an LIC—has been valued at approximately $77 million. +Entities controlled by the defendant also own at least two private jets in active service, at least one +of which is capable of intercontinental travel. +As described further below, the defendant possesses three active United States passports, +and his international connections and travels are extensive. +For example, in addition to +maintaining a residence in Paris, France, as described above, in the past 18 months alone, the +defendant has traveled abroad, via private jet, either into or out of the country on approximately +more than 20 occasions. +C. The Prior Florida Investigation +In or about 2005, the defendant was investigated by local police in Palm Beach, Florida, in +connection with allegations that he had committed similar sex offenses against minor girls. The +investigation ultimately also involved federal authorities, namely the U.S. Attorney's Office for +the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL") and the FBI's Miami Office, and included interviews +with victims based in the Palm Beach area, including some of the alleged victims relevant to Count +One of the instant Indictment.' +In fall 2007, the defendant entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the SDFL in +connection with the conduct at issue in that investigation, which the non-prosecution agreement +identified as including investigations into the defendant's abuse of minor girls in the Palm Beach +area. The Southern District of New York was not a signatory to that agreement, and the defendant +was never charged federally? In June 2008, the defendant pled guilty in state court to one count +of procuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution, a felony, and one count of solicitation +of prostitution, a felony. As a result, the defendant was designated as a sex offender with +registration requirements under the national Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. +' The non-prosecution agreement, further discussed below, was entered into at the conclusion of +the SDFL investigation and did not purport to cover any victims outside of the State of Florida. +As noted above, the instant Indictment expressly alleges the existence of dozens of victims who +were abused in this District in addition to dozens of victims who were abused in Florida. +2 While beyond the scope of a bail hearing, as discussed further below, it is well-established in the +Second Circuit that absent an express provision to the contrary in the agreement, one District is +not bound by the terms of an agreement entered into between a defendant and a U.S. Attorney's +Office in another district. See page 6, infra. + + +Page 4 +ARGUMENT +Applicable Law +Under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141 et seq., federal courts are empowered to +order a defendant's detention pending trial upon a determination that the defendant is either a +danger to the community or a risk of flight. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) ("no condition or combination of +conditions would reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any +other person and the community"). A finding of risk of flight must be supported by a +preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., United States v. | +1. 823 F.2d 4, 5 (2d Cir. 1987); +United States v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400, 405 (2d Cir. 1985). A finding of dangerousness must +be supported by clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Ferranti, 66 F.3d 540, +542 (2d Cir. 1995); Chimurenga, 760 F.2d at 405. In addition, a court may also order detention if +there is "a serious risk that the [defendant] will ... attempt to obstruct justice, or ... to threaten, +injure, or intimidate, a prospective witness or juror." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(B); see also United +States v. +837 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1988). +The Bail Reform Act lists four factors to be considered in the detention analysis: (1) the +nature and circumstances of the crimes charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; +(3) the history and characteristics of the defendant, including the person's "character ... [and] +financial resources"; and (4) the seriousness of the danger posed by the defendant's release. See +18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). Evidentiary rules do not apply at detention hearings and the government is +entitled to present evidence by way of proffer, among other means. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2); +see also United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2000) (government entitled +to proceed by proffer in detention hearings); Ferranti, 66 F.3d at 542 (same; United States v. +Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1145 (2d Cir. 1986) (same). +Where a judicial officer concludes after a hearing that "no condition or combination of +conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any +other person and the community, such judicial officer shall order the detention of the person before +trial." 18 U.S.C(§ 3142(é)(1). Additionally, where, as here, a defendant is charged with +commit to an of the nologi mior citin tide of usin 5 esbal by assumed, +appearancé of the defendant as required and the safety of the community. 18 U.S.C. +§ 3142(e)(3)(E). +Il. Discussion +The defendant should be detained pending trial. For the reasons set forth below, it is +difficult to overstate the risk of flight and danger to the community if the defendant is released, +and for those reasons, the defendant cannot overcome the statutory presumption in favor of +detention in this case. + + +Page 5 +A. The Defendant Poses an Extreme Flight Risk +Each of the relevant factors to be considered as to flight risk - the nature and circumstances +of the offense, the strength of the evidence, and the history and characteristics of the defendant - +counsel strongly in favor of detention. +1. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense and the Strength of the Evidence +The "nature and circumstances" of this offense plainly favor detention. 18 U.S.C. +§ 3142(g)(1) (specifically enumerating "whether the offense... involves a minor victim" as a +factor in bail applications). Indeed, the crime of sex trafficking of a minor is so serious that for a +defendant charged with that offense, there is a presumption that no condition or combination of +conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the +community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (e)(3)(E). Here, as specified in the Indictment, the defendant's +conduct was committed serially, over a period of years, and affected dozens of victims. +The seriousness of the charge is also reflected in the penalties the defendant faces, which +include up to 45 years of incarceration for Counts One and Two of the Indictment. As the Second +Circuit has noted, the possibility of a severe sentence is a significant factor in assessing the risk of +flight. See +• 823 F.2d at 7; see also United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610, 618 (10th Cir. +2003) (defendant was a flight risk because her knowledge of the seriousness of the charges against her +gave her a strong incentive to abscond); United States 1 Townsend, 897 F.2d 989, 995 (9th Cir. 1990) +("Facing the much graver penalties possible under the present indictment, the defendants have an even +greater incentive to consider flight."). Here, the defendant is facing a statutory maximum of decades +in prison. Even in the absence of means—-which, as discussed in detail below, the defendant has +in abundance—this fact alone would provide a compelling incentive for anyone to fail to appear. +It is particularly compelling for a defendant who is 66 years old and therefore faces the very real +prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison if convicted. +The likelihood of a substantial period of incarceration is buttressed by the strength of the +evidence. As set forth in the Indictment, the evidence in this case is strong. The Indictment alleges +that the defendant sexually abused dozens of minor victims, and the conspiracy count lists +numerous overt acts committed in furtherance of the defendant's crimes.* +3 The current penalties for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 include a 10 year mandatory minimum +sentence. However, that punishment was created through an amendment to the statute in 2006. +The penalty for a violation of Section 1591 during the period charged in the Indictment, and +therefore relevant here, was a maximum of 40 years' imprisonment. +4 With respect to the evidence in this case, the Court should start its analysis by accepting that the +Indictment is sufficient, on its own, to establish probable cause that the defendant committed the +crimes of sex trafficking and sex trafficking conspiracy. Contreras, 776 F.2d at 54. (Were an +evidentiary hearing addressing the existence of probable cause required in every § 3142(e) case in +which an indictment had been filed, the court would spend scarce judicial resources considering +that which a grand jury had already determined, and have less time to focus on the application of + + +Page 6 +Multiple victims, including several specified in the Indictment, have provided information +against the defendant. That information is detailed, credible, and corroborated, in many instances, +by other witnesses and contemporaneous documents, records and other evidence—including, as +further detailed below, evidence from a search of the New York Residence on the night of the +defendant's arrest that reflects an extraordinary volume of photographs of nude and partially-nude +young women or girls. Such corroborating evidence also includes documents and other materials, +such as contemporaneous notes, messages recovered from the defendant's residence that include +names and contact information for certain victims, and call records that confirm the defendant and +his agents were repeatedly in contact with various victims during the charged period. Put simply, +all of this evidence - the voluminous and credible testimony of individuals who were sexually +abused by the defendant as minors, each of whom are backed up by other evidence - will be +devastating evidence of guilt at any trial in this case and weighs heavily in favor of detention. +conviction. As an initial matter, all of the conduct is timely charged, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3283, +which was amended in 2003 to extend the limitations period for conduct that was timely as of the +date of the amendment, to any time during the lifetime of the minor victim. See United States v. +Chief, 438 F.3d 920, 922-25 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding that because Congress extended the statute +of limitations for sex offenses involving minors during the time the previous statute was still +running, the extension was permissible); United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 Cr. 541 (CM), 2018 +WL 4043140, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018) (same). +Moreover, with respect to the NPA, that agreement, to which the Southern District of New +York was not a party, which by its express language pertained exclusively to the SDFL +investigation, and which did not purport to bind any other Office or District, does not preclude +prosecution in this District for at least fwo reasons. First, it is well settled in the Second Circuit +that "a plea agreement in one U.S. Attorney's office does not, unless otherwise stated, bind +another." United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010) ("A plea agreement binds +only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it +affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.") (citing United States +v. Annabi, 77/ F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam)). This is true even if the text of the +agreement purports to bind "the Government." See Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. This analysis +similarly extends tó a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, +854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement +to the contrary, it is presumed that a non-prosecution agreement binds offices of the United States +Attorney that are not parties to the agreement. This position is at odds with the law in this Circuit, +which presumes a narrow reading of the boundaries of a plea agreement unless a defendant can +affirmatively establish that a more expansive interpretation was contemplated.") (citing Annabi, +771 F.2d at 672). Second, the Indictment charges conduct not covered by the NPA, namely +the presumptions and the § 3142(g) factors in deciding whether the defendant should be +detained."). + + +Page 7 +conduet that occurred in New York. The prior NPA included a list of several dozen victims +identified in the prior investigation, all of whom were abused in the State of Florida, and none of +whom are a part of the conduct charged in Count Two of the instant Indictment. +Each of these factors—the seriousness of the allegations, the strength of the evidence, and +the possibility of lengthy incarceration—creates an extraordinary incentive to flee. And as further +described below, the defendant has the means and money to do so. +2. The Characteristics of the Defendant +The history and characteristics of the defendant also strongly support detention. The +defendant is extraordinarily wealthy and has access to vast financial resources to fund any attempt +to flee. Indeed, his potential avenues of flight from justice are practically limitless. +tom, he detendar acknow ended in the mole ree ev +private island), and one each in Palm Beach, Florida; Paris, France, New York, New York; and +Stanley, New Mexico. The most recent estimated value of the defendant's New York City mansion +alone is more than $77 million. The most recent tax-assessed value of the defendant's Palm Beach +estate is more than $12 million. The defendant's primary residence is a private island in the U.S. +Virgin Islands, a place where any sort of meaningful supervision would be all but impossible. +Moreover, the defendant has access to innumerable means to flee. His sex registration +documentation of "current vehicles" lists no fewer than 15 motor vehicles, including seven +Chevrolet Suburbans, a cargo van, a Range, Rover, a Mercedez-Benz sedan, a Cadillac Escalade, +and a Hummer II. These cars are registered in various states and territories including the Virgin +Islands, New York, Florida, and New Mexico. The defendant also has access to two private jets, +giving him the ability to leave the country secretly and on a moment's notice and to go virtually +anywhere he wants to travel. He is a very frequent international traveler and regularly travels to +and from the United States by private plane. In particular, between January 1, 2018, and the +present, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol has logged approximately more than 20 flights in which +Epstein was traveling to or from a foreign country. Indeed, he was arrested at Teterboro Airport +arriving on just such a private international flight after having spent approximately three weeks +abroad. Extensive international travel of this nature further demonstrates a significant risk of +flight. See, e.g., United States v. +, 384 F. Supp. 2d 32, 36 (D.D.C. 2005). There can be +no assurance that, upon release, the defendant would suddenly lack access to such means of travel. +Finally, the defendant has no meaningful ties that would keep him in this country. The +defendant has no known immediate family. He is not married and has no children. He has friends +and associates worldwide, as demonstrated by his extensive international travel, and his +professional obligations, if any, can and seemingly are plainly capable of being handled by the +defendant remotely. Simply put, there would be no meaningful reason for the defendant to remain +in the country, while he would have every incentive (and every resource needed) to flee. +Nor would home confinement with electronic monitoring reasonably assure the +defendant's presence as required. At best, home confinement with electronic monitoring would + + +Page 8 +merely reduce his head start should he decide to flee. See United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773, +2000 WL 1134364, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application +for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring "at best ... limits a fleeing +defendant's head start"); see also United States v. Casteneda, No. 18 Cr. 047, 2018 WL 888744, +at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2018) (same); United States v. | +• 384 F.Supp.2d 32, 41 (D.D.C +2005) (same); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. +Oct. 10, 2002) (same). +Finally, there can be little doubt that the defendant is in a position to abandon millions of +dollars in cash and property securing any potential bond and still live comfortably for the rest of +his life. These resources, and the ease with which the defendant could flee and live outside the +reach of law enforcement—particularly considering his vast wealth and lack of meaningful ties to +this District-make the risk of flight exceptionally high in this case, particularly when considered +in conjunction with the strength of the government's case and the lengthy sentence the defendant +could receive if convicted. +B. The Defendant Poses a Risk of Danger to the Community and of Engaging in +Obstruction of Justice +The release of the defendant, under any conditions, would pose a significant threat to the +community and to the ongoing investigation. +As described above, where there is probable cause to believe that an individual has +committed an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1591, it is presumed that no condition or combination of' +conditions can reasonably assure the safety of the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3). Here, not +only is the defendant charged with very serious sex crimes against minors, he has already +previously admitted to—and been convicted of—engaging in related conduct. Specifically, in +June 2008, the defendant pled guilty in state court to one count of procuring a person under the +age of 18 for prostitution, a felony, and he currently is a registered sex offender, under +classification level three in New York-defined as presenting a "high" risk of committing another +sex crime and harm to the community. While the conduct presently alleged does not post-date the +2008 conviction, it nevertheless underscores the risk he poses to the community if released +Additionally, and in connection with the investigation of the defendant's offense in Florida, +there were credible allegations that the defendant engaged in witness tampering, harassment, or +other obstructive behaviors. In fact, according to publicly-filed court documents, there were +discussions between prosecutors and the defendant's then-counsel about the possibility of the +defendant pleading guilty to counts relating to "obstruction," as well as "harassment," with +reference to 18 U.S.C. § 1512, which criminalizes "[t]ampering with a witness, victim, or +informant." For example, in a communication from the defendant's then-counsel to prosecutors +in SDFL, his counsel set forth a possible factual proffer that included statements that the defendant +had "attempted to harass both [redacted] delay and hinder their receipt of a [redacted] to attend an +official proceeding" and that the defendant "in particular, changed travel plans and flew with both +[redacted] to the United States Virgin Islands rather than to an airport in New Jersey in order to +attempt to delay their receipt of what Mr. Epstein expected to be a [redacted]" and "further verbally + + +Page 9 +harassed both [redacted] in connection to this attempt to delay their voluntary receipt of process +all in violation of 18 USC 1512(d)(1)." Doe v. United States, 08 Civ. 80736 (S.D. Fla.), Dkts. +361 at 3-4, 361-7 through 361-11. In addition to 18 U.S.C. § 1512(d), prosecutors also proposed +that the defendant could plead guilty to 18 U.S.C. § 403, that is, a knowing or intentional violation +of the privacy protection of child victims and child witnesses, to which the defendant's thencounsel replied: "Already thinking about the same statutes." Id. Dkt. 361-11. They also discussed +a possible obstruction plea that "could rely on the incident where Mr. Epstein's private +investigators followed [redacted] father, forcing off the road." Id. Dkt. 361-10. +The defendant's apparent previous willingness to obstruct a federal investigation, harass or +tamper with witnesses, and hire private investigators that "forced] off the road" the father of an +individual relevant in the investigation is alarming. It should especially weigh on the Court's +consideration here because the defendant was apparently willing to take those steps before even +being charged and thus facing federal indictment; the incentive to interfere in the Government's +case here, where an Indictment has been returned, is exponentially greater. And as discussed +above, the defendant has nearly limitless means to do so. +Finally, despite having been previously convicted of a sex offense involving an underage +victim, the defendant has continued to maintain a vast trove of lewd photographs of young-looking +women or girls in his Manhattan mansion. In a search of the New York Residence on the night of +his arrest, on July 6-7, 2019, pursuant to judicially-authorized warrants, law enforcement officers +discovered not only specific evidence consistent with victim recollections of the inside of the +mansion, further strengthening the evidence of the conduct charged in the Indictment, but also at +least hundreds—-and perhaps thousands of sexually suggestive photographs of fully- or partiallynude females. While these items were only seized this weekend and are still being reviewed, some +of the nude or partially-nude photographs appear to be of underage girls, including at least one girl +who, according to her counsel, was underage at the time the relevant photographs were taken. +Additionally, some of the photographs referenced herein were discovered in a locked safe, in which +law enforcement officers also found compact discs with hand-written labels including the +following: "Young [Name] + [Name]," "Misc nudes 1," and "Girl pics nude." The defendant, a +registered sex offender, is not reformed, he is not chastened, he is not repentant;® rather, he is a +continuing danger to the community and an individual who faces devastating evidence supporting +deeply serious charges. +5 The redactions above are contained in the publicly filed version of the quoted document. +• See, e.g., Amber Southerland, Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein: I'm a sex offender, not a predator, +N.Y. Post (2011) (**I'm not a sexual predator, I'm an "offender," the financier told The Post +resterday. 'It's the difference between a murderer and a person who steals a bagel.'"); Phili +Veiss, The Fantasist, New York Magazine (2007) (**It's the Icarus story, someone who flies to +close to the sun,' I said. 'Did Icarus like massages?' Epstein asked."). + + +Page 10 +CONCLUSION +As set forth above, in this case, the risk of flight in this case is extraordinarily real. The +defendant is extremely wealthy, has extensive foreign contacts, and is charged with serious +offenses that carry a potential statutory sentence of up to 45 years' imprisonment—even a fraction +of which could result in the defendant, who is 66 years old, spending the rest of his life in jail. In +sum, the defendant's transient lifestyle, his lack of family or community ties, his extensive +international travel and ties outside the country, and his vast wealth, including his access to and +ownership of private planes, all provide the defendant with the motive and means to become a +successful fugitive. Further, the nature of the offenses he is alleged to have perpetrated —the abuse +dozens of underage, vulnerable girls—along with his demonstrated willingness to harass, +intimidate and otherwise tamper with victims and other potential witnesses against him, render his +dangerousness readily apparent. +Accordingly, the Government respectfully submits that the defendant cannot and will not +be able to meet his burden of overcoming the strong presumption in favor of detention, that there +are no conditions of bail that would assure the defendant's presence in court proceedings in this +case or protect the safety of the community, and that any application for bail should be denied. +Very truly yours, +GEOFFREY S. BERMAN +United States Attorney +By: +Alex Rossmiller / Alison Moe / Maurene Comey +Assistant United States Attorney +Southern District of New York +Tel: (212) 637-2415 / 2225 / 2324 +Cc: +Martin Weinberg, Esq., and Reid Weingarten, Esq., counsel for defendant +Hon. Richard M. Berman, United States District Judge + + +Appendix 10 + + +3) United States Department of ustice +THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE +SOUTHERN DISTRICT of NEW YORK +U.S. Attorneys » Southern District of New York » News » Press Releases +Department of Justice +U.S. Attorney's Office +Southern District of New York +FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE +Monday, July 8, 2019 +Jeffrey Epstein Charged In Manhattan Federal Court With Sex +Trafficking Of Minors +Alleged Conduct Occurred in both New York and Florida over Multiple Years, Involving +Dozens of Victims +Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, William F. Sweeney +Jr., the Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation +("FBI"), and James P. O'Neill, Commissioner of the New York City Police Department ("NYPD"), announced +that JEFFREY EPSTEIN was arrested Saturday and charged with sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to +commit sex trafficking of minors. The indictment unsealed today alleges that, between 2002 through 2005, +EPSTEIN sexually exploited and abused dozens of underage girls by enticing them to engage in sex acts +with him in exchange for money. Epstein allegedly worked with several employees and associates to ensure +that he had a steady supply of minor victims to abuse, and paid several of those victims themselves to +recruit other underage girls to engage in similar sex acts for money. He committed these offenses in +locations including New York, New York, and Palm Beach, Florida. EPSTEIN is expected to be presented in +Manhattan federal court this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman. The case is assigned +to U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman. +U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: "As alleged, Jeffrey Epstein abused underage girls for years, +operating a scheme in which girls he victimized would recruit others for Epstein to exploit and abuse. +Epstein exploited girls who were vulnerable to abuse, enticed them with cash payments, and escalated his +conduct to include sex acts, often occurring at his residence on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. While +the charged conduct is from a number of years ago, the victims - then children and now young women - are +no less entitled to their day in court. My Office is proud to stand up for these victims by bringing this +indictment." +FBI Assistant Director William F. Sweeney Jr. said: "We are asking anyone who may have been victimized +by Jeffrey Epstein, or anyone who may have information about his alleged criminal behavior, to please call +us. The number is 1-800-CALL-FBI. We want to hear from you, regardless of the age you are now, or +whatever age you were then, no matter where the incident took place. The bravery it takes to call us might +empower others to speak out about the crimes committed against them. It is important to remember there +was never, nor will there ever be an excuse for this type of behavior. In the eyes of the FBI, the victims will +always come first." + + +NYPD Commissioner James P. O'Neill said: "Today's charges serve as a warning to individuals who +continue to prey upon some of our society's most vulnerable population: we are coming for you. I thank and +commend the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District and the FBI for their tireless efforts to ensure +child predators are taken off our streets. The NYPD will continue to work with our law enforcement partners +to eradicate the trafficking of children in our city and nation and work to bring justice to victims of these +heinous crimes." +If you believe you are a victim of the sexual abuse perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein, please contact the +FBI at 1-800-CALL FBI, and reference this case. +According to the Indictment[1] unsealed today in Manhattan federal court: +From at least 2002 through at least 2005, JEFFREY EPSTEIN enticed and recruited, and caused to be +enticed and recruited, dozens of minor girls to visit his mansion in New York, New York (the "New York +Residence*), and his estate in Palm Beach, Florida (the "Palm Beach Residence"), to engage in sex acts +with him, after which he would give the victims hundreds of dollars in cash. In order to maintain and +increase his supply of victims, EPSTEIN also paid certain victims to recruit additional underage girls whom +he could similarly abuse. In this way, EPSTEIN created a vast network of underage victims for him to +sexually exploit, often on a daily basis, in locations including New York and Palm Beach. +EPSTEIN's victims were as young as 14 at the time he abused them, and were, for various reasons, often +particularly vulnerable to exploitation. Moreover, EPSTEIN knew that many of his victims were under 18, +including because, in some instances, victims expressly told him they were underage. +In creating and maintaining this network of minor victims in multiple states to abuse and exploit sexually, +EPSTEIN worked with others, including employees and associatés who facilitated his conduct by, among +other things, contacting victims and scheduling their sexual encounters with EPSTEIN at the New York +Residence and at the Palm Beach Residence. +In both New York and Florida, EPSTEIN perpetuated this abuse in similar ways. Victims were initially +recruited to provide "massages" to EPSTEIN, which became increasingly sexual in nature and would +typically include one or more sex acts. EPSTEIN paid his victims hundreds of dollars in cash for each +encounter. +In particular, during encounters at the New York Residence, victims would be taken to a room where they +would perform a massage on EPSTEIN, during which EPSTEIN would frequently escalate the nature and +scope of physical contact with his victims to include, among other things, sex acts such as groping and +direct and indirect contact with the victims' genitals. In connection with the encounters, EPSTEIN, or one of +his employees or associates, typically paid each victim hundreds of dollars in cash. Once minor victims +were recruited, EPSTEIN or his employees or associates would contact victims to schedule appointments +for "massages." As a result, many victims were abused by EPSTEIN on multiple subsequent occasions. +To further enable him to abuse underage girls, EPSTEIN asked and enticed certain of his victims to recruit +additional minor girls to perform "massages" and similarly engage in sex acts with EPSTEIN. When a victim +would recruit another underage girl for EPSTEIN, he paid both the victim-recruiter and the new victim +hundreds of dollars in cash. Through these victim-recruiters, EPSTEIN maintained a steady supply of new +victims to exploit, and gained access to dozens of additional underage girls to abuse. +* +* +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 66, is charged with one count of sex trafficking of minors, which carries a maximum +sentence of 40 years in prison, and one count of conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking of minors, which +carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. + + +The statutory maximum and mandatory penalties are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for +informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant would be determined by the judge. +Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the FBI and the NYPD. He also thanked the U.S. +Customs and Border Protection for their assistance. +This case is being handled by the Office's Public Corruption Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Alex Rossmiller, +Alison Moe, and Maurene Comey are in charge of the prosecution, with assistance from the Office's Human +Trafficking Co-Coordinator, Abigail Kurland. +The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations. The defendant is presumed innocent +unless and until proven guilty. +[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment, and the description of the +Indictment set forth herein, constitute only allegations, and every fact described therein should be treated as +an allegation. +Attachments): +Download U.S. V. Jeffrey_Epstein Indictment +Topic(s): +Project Safe Childhood +Component(s): +USAO - New York, Southern +Press Release Number: +19-211 +CERTIFIED CO +Updated July 9, 2019 + + +Appendix 11 + + +1 +2 +3 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +- -x +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +19 CR 490 (RMB) +Defendant. +-X +New York, NY. +August 27, 2019 +10:30 a.m. +Before: +HON. RICHARD M. +BERMAN, +District Judge +APPEARANCES +GEOFFREY S. BERMAN +United States Attorney for the +Southern District of New York +BY: MAURENE R. COMEY +Assistant United States Attorneys +G. WEINBERG, PC +Attorney for Defendant +BY: MARTIN G. WEINBERG +STEPTOE & +I, LLP +Attorneys for Defendant +BY: REID WEINGARTEN +MICHAEL + + +3 +4 +5 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +2 +(Case called) +THE COURT: Good morning, everybody. Please be +seated. +So just some housekeeping. We have a podium here for +both attorneys and others who may be speaking, and so we would +like you, attorneys and others who are speaking, to come up to +the podium. This room is a little cavernous. +We thought the +podium over there would be more comfortable. +For starters, and for this you don't have to go up to +the podium, if you could just indicate your names. This table +in front to my left, your right, are defense counsel, and that +table to my right, your left, are government attorneys. +If we could just ask the attorneys to introduce +themselves. +MS. COMEY: Good morning, your Honor. Maureen Comey +and Alison Moe for the government. Joining us at counsel table +are Special Agent Amanda Young of the FBI and Detective Paul +Byrne of the NYPD. +MR., WEINGARTEN: Good morning, your Honor. +Roid weingarten. +MR. WEINBERG: +Weinberg. +Good morning, your Honor. +THE COURT: Good morning. +MR. +: Good morning, your Honor. +Michael +| from Steptoe & +on behalf of the + + +3 +3 +4 +5 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +defendant. +THE COURT: Great. +Again, good morning to all of you. This hearing that +we're having today considers the government's motion to dismiss +the indictment in this case. +I must add that it also serves as the opportunity for +me to thank all of you, the attorneys and the victims who are +here today, among others, for your very hard work and +dedication in this case. +We also have here today the US. Attorney for the +Southern District of New York, Geoffrey Berman, who has also +been very helpful and indispensable in this matter. +The news on August 10, 2019, that Jeffrey Epstein had +been found dead in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional +Center, at the MCC, was certainly shocking. Most of you, and +myself for that matter, were anticipating that the next steps +in this case would be defense motion practice, including a +motion to dismiss, followed by a trial on the merits before a +jury, if the motions were not successful, and through which the +accusers and the accused would come face to face, allowing +everyone to get their day in court. Mr. Epstein's death +obviously means that a trial in which he is a defendant cannot +take place. It is a rather stunning turn of events. +The government's motion to dismiss the indictment +because of Jeffrey Epstein's death on August 10, 2019, is + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +4 +relatively straightforward. (In my view, a public hearing) +Clearly is nevertheless the preferred vehicle for its) +(resolution. +Incidentally, while I'm on this subject, I got some +help today from the New York Law Journal from two professors +who write that a hearing is -- let me tell you exactly what +they said. They say, in part, that this is an odd moment for +transparency in a criminal case. I think that is an odd +sentence to hear about, transparency in a criminal case. +They go on to say that normally, if a prosecutor seeks +to dismiss an indictment for such an obviously worthy reason, +the court would simply grant the request. As to that +statement, I respectfully say it is incorrect as a matter of +law. +They go on to say the judge would not schedule a +hearing and he definitely would not allow the victims to speak. +If he did hold a hearing, whatever informational interests the +victims may have would be served by affording them a chance to +attend the hearing, not by giving them a speaking role. +I read it. It was incredulous. I'm still +incredulous. I don't quite understand at all. There is a +suggestion in the article that the reason they are making these +suggestions has to do with minimization of drama in this case. +In the Jeffrey Epstein case, there has not been much a +minimization of drama, and what little drama might happen + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +5 +today, I don't think it would be very significant. +On a somewhat more +serious note, don't quote me on +this, but it is my understanding that one of the authors of +that article is himself counsel in one of the Epstein-related +cases. I was surprised to learn that very recently. I'm +certain it is true. I was also surprised that that aspect was +not disclosed in the Law Journal. +But in any event, I think you know where I'm heading. +I respectfully disagree with the Law Journal piece. I was +saying that the government's motion is relatively +straightforward, and in my view, a public hearing is clearly, +nevertheless, the preferred vehicle for its resolution. I'm +still convinced of that. +'A few may differ on this, but public hearings_are) +exactly what judges do (Hearings_promote_ transparency and they) +provide the court with insights and information which the court) +may not_otherwise_ be_aware_of. +The victims have been included in the proceeding today +both because of their relevant experiences and because they +should always be involved before rather than after the fact. +Indictment 19 CR 490 charges Jeffrey Epstein with sex +trafficking and with conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. The +U.S. Attorney, on August 19, 2019, requested that the court +approve the government's proposed order of nolle prosequi. +I +think that's a rough justice. That means nolle prosequi, + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +6 +discontinuance by the prosecutor of all or of a part of the +case that he or she has commenced. +The government in its motion concludes that Epstein's +death abates these proceedings. In accordance with Federal +Rule of Criminal Procedure 57(b), I determined to hold a public +hearing and I notified the victims that they would be given the +opportunity to be heard before any final action on the motion. +That is the purpose also of today's proceeding. +would do +that every time. +Also, recognized that Epstein, Mr. Epstein died before +any judgment of conviction against him had been obtained, and +that the government's proposed order appears, in form and +substance, to be appropriate. +Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) codifies the +nolle prosequi process, lne +It is entitled dismissal, and it +states in relevant part that the government may, with leave of +the court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint, +and that leave of the court proviso, you should know, was added +as an amendment to the original draft of Rule 48, which had +originally provided for automatic dismissal upon the motion of +the government. +This proviso, in my judgment, is clearly directed +toward an independent judicial assessment of the public +interest in dismissing the indictment. Thus, even whereas, in +this case, the standard of court review is deferential, the + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +7 +court must still make its own independent determination. A +conclusory statement from the government that dismissal is +appropriate does not satisfy the court's obligations. +It is also, in my view, required that the court +consider the views of the victims in the case at the hearing +and before deciding whether to grant the motion. This is being +done here both as a matter of law and as a measure of respect +that we have for the victims' difficult decisions to come +forward in this matter. +In a case called United States V. +H-e-a-t-o-n-, the government filed a Rule 48 motion for leave +to dismiss a charge against a defendant who allegedly committed +a sexual offense against a young yictim. Although I should +point out, very importantly, that that defendant was still +alive, which distinguishes it from our case. +Nevertheless, I think it is irrelevant because in +evaluating the Rule 48 motion, then district Judge Paul G. +Cassell +-who is now a law professor at the University of Utah +and is regarded to be a noted expert in victims' rights -- +concluded that under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, victims +have, broad rights that extend to a court's decision whether to +grant a government motion to dismiss under Rule 48. +I completely share that viewpoint in these +circumstances, even though the facts of our case, as I said, +are somewhat different from those in +- I believe it is + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +8 +the court's responsibility, and manifestly within its purview, +to ensure that the victims in this case are treated fairly and +with dignity. +The fundamental substantive principle which applies in +considering the government's motion is termed the rule of +abatement. This principle originated in the English common +law. It was adopted by most U.S. federal courts, but more +recently, it has faced some appropriate criticísm. +The rule of +abatement is best explained in the Second Circuit case of +U.S. V. +In that +I case, two defendants had pled guilty to +embezzlement and tax evasion. Both defendants appealed, but +one of the defendants died while his appeal was pending in the +Second Circuit. The Court of Appeals rule that under the rule +of abatement, the judgment of conviction against the deceased +defendant was required to be vacated and the indictment was to +be dismissed. +The +court held that when a convicted +defendant dies while his direct appeal as of right is pending, +his death abates not only the appeal, but also proceedings had +during the course of the prosecution. +The Second Circuit incidentally has also held that +when a criminal conviction abates upon the death of a +defendant, any restitution ordered as a result of that +conviction must also abate, and it is also ruled the same with +respect to associated forfeiture orders. + + +9 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +This latter application of the rule of abatement +regarding forfeiture has not been universally accepted among +federal courts, but it certainly is the law in this circuit. +Some of you may be interested to know that some United States +courts, state courts, have criticized the rule of abatement, +particularly in the face of growing recognition of viétims' +rights in the criminal justice system, including the Crime +Victims' Rights Act. +It has been written and contended in the Brooklyn Law +Review -- I can give you the cite later - that when courts +abate criminal convictions, they redmpose a burden on victims +that legislatures intended to alleviate through these victim +rights statutes. The state Supreme Court has even concluded +that the expansion and codifigation of victims' rights provides +the changed conditions needed for overruling the rule of +abatement. It has also been stated that Alaska's statute and +its constitution now require the criminal justice system to +accommodate the rights of crime victims. Further, that the +abatement of criminal convictions has important implications +for these rights. +But coming back to our case, which is what you are +concerned about and I am as well, it is appropriate to conclude +that if the rule of abatement applies to a convicted defendant +as in the +case, it should also apply a fortiori in the +Epstein case, which was still in the pretrial phase when + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +10 +Mr. Epstein died, when there had been no conviction. +So that's just some background I wanted to share with +you. At this point in time, I would like to turn to the +government prosecutors to hear from them in support of their +Rule 48 application to dismiss the Epstein indictment. +MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor. +Would you like me to address the court from the +podium? +THE COURT: If you wouldn't mind. +MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor. +I believe your Honor has accurately summarized the +state of the law, as set forth in our papers, in light of the +clear Second Circuit law, that upon the death of a defendant +before a final entry of a +judgment of conviction, all +proceedings must be abated. +In light of that clear law, the government is legally +obligated to seek dismissal of the pending indictment against +Jeffrey Epstein, and we respectfully submit, likewise, that the +entry of the proposed order is similarly required by law. +A few notes to make about that, though, your Honor. +To be very clear, dismissal of this indictment as to Jeffrey +Epstein in no way prohibits or inhibits the government's +ongoing investigation into other potential coconspirators, nor +does it prevent the bringing of a new case in the future or the +prosecution of new defendants. + + +11 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +It also does nothing to prevent the government from +continuing to explore the possibility of seeking civil +forfeiture of any assets that were used to facilitate the +crimes charged in this indictment. Indeed, as has been stated +publicly, investigations into those matters have been ongoing, +remain ongoing, and will continue following dismissal of the +indictment here. +I would also like to note that, as thé government has +previously mentioned, this dismissal in no way lessens the +government's resolve to stand up for the victims in this case, +both those who have come forward and those who have yet to do +so. We agree with your Honor's sentiment that those victims +should be respected, and we appreciate your Honor's recognition +of that. +for your Honor. +One housekeeping matter that I did want to reference +The protective order in this case requires +destruction or return of any and all discovery material upon +conclusiom of the case. We have been in communication with +defense counsel, who have confirmed that they have returned all +physical copies that they have of discovery that the government +has produced to date, and they are in the process of deleting +any copies that they may have made. So the parties are in +compliance with the protective order. +Finally, I just wanted to say a word about the victims +in this case, and particularly those who are here in court + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +12 +today. I'll note that in light of the court's order indicating +that the victims and their counsel would be permitted to be +heard in court here today, the government has endeavored to +provide notice to all known victims of today's proceeding. We +did so either directly where a victim was not represented by +counsel or through counsel +where a victim is represented by an +attorney. +The government does not know exactly how many victims +or their attorneys are here today and we do not know how many +of them or their counsel would like to speak. +To the extent +any individuals do wish to speak, we do hot know the substance +of what they would like to say. +^we have left that entirely up +to the individual decisions of the victims and their attorneys. +I will note, though, that throughout this case, the +government has endeavored and done our utmost to fulfill our +obligations under +the Crimes Victims' Rights Act. We have done +so by trying to keep as many victims as we are aware of up to +date about the ongoing case and about any developments in the +case. +We will continue to provide services and offer +services to any of the victims in this case, even after the +indictment is dismissed. Both the U.S. Attorney's office and +the FBI have been in touch with all known victims or have +attempted to be in touch with all known victims, either again +directly where victims are not represented by counsel or + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +13 +through counsel where they have attorneys. We have expressed +to them that services are available for those who wish to take +advantage of them. +Unless the court has any questions for me, the +government will otherwise rest on its papers. +THE COURT: I just have one question. +The protective order, is that self-executing of do I +need to do something? +MS. COMEY: It is self-executing, your Honor. +THE COURT: Thanks very much, Ms. +Coney. +MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor. +THE COURT: Yes. +I'll turn to counsel forythe defense at this time. +Mr. Weingarten, I'm happy to hear from you. +MR. WEINGARTEN: +Thank you. +Your Honor, +I think it is an understatement of the +year to say the world looks and feels differently today than it +did the last time I was before you. For us, the elephant in +the room is what happened to our client. I would like to tell +you 'how we see the world and where we are on that subject. +We start with the Attorney General's statements, +public statements, that there were very serious improprieties +in the jail. We obviously read the press. We see that the +warden has been taken out. We see that the guards on duty at +the time have been put on leave. We understand guards are + + +14 +4 +5 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +refusing to cooperate with the investigation. We have heard +allegations that people at the time who had responsibility for +protecting our client falsified information. We understand +that there were orders out there that Jeffrey Epstein was never +to be left alone and that the orders were ignored by many of +the employees of the prison. +In a word, yikes. +In addition, obviously we føllowed +the medical examiner's report, or we haven't followed the +report, we haven't seen it, but heard conclusions, initially +not enough evidence to come to a conclusion, wanted to see +more. We assumed she was talking about the videotapes, but +then came to the conclusion that it was suicide. +We report to the court that - +THE COURT: Suicide by hanging — +MR. WEINGARTEN: +Yes. +THE COURT: +I was her conclusion? +MR. WEINGARTEN: Yes. +And we, report to the court that we had a doctor there +at the time, and we also have been in receipt of a tremendous +amount of medical and scientific evidence volunteered to us +opining that the injuries suffered, as reported, were far more +consistent with assault than with suicide, and we are happy to +supply the court with all the information that we have. +Now, in addition, as the court noted, we were underway +with our pretrial motions, and as the court obviously + + +15 +4 +5 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +understands, the NPA and the role of the NPA was going to be +critically important. And I would simply like to report that +we went pretty far along. +We interviewed all of the relevant lawyers on the +defense side who participated in the NPA, and we were satisfied +that we had a very strong argument that every one of those +lawyers believed with an objective basis that the deal was +global. That is, at the time - +THE COURT: I'm sorry, that? +MR. WEINGARTEN: The deal of the NPA was global. That +is, more specifically, at the time, the Florida prosecutors and +agents knew of conduct in New York, and that no competent +defense counsel negotiating in good faith with the prosecutors +would have ever agreed to a deal back then that allowed New +York prosecutors to indict for precisely the same conduct in +the future, which, +of. +course, is what happened. +In addition, we have come up with very powerful +evidence, we believe, that Florida prosecutors, who +participated in the deal, steered the victims and the alleged +victims to New York on more than one occasion because they did +not want to suffer the sleights of attacks against them. So we +have advanced the ball on this very subject and we are prepared +to completely report to the court as to where we are and what +we've done. +Another point. We obviously had contact with our + + +16 +4 +5 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +client at or around the time of his death, and obviously the +attorney-client privilege survives death and we are not going +to forfeit the privilege, but we will report to the court, with +as much specificity as the court may want, that at or around +the time of his death, we did not see a despairing, despondent +suicidal person. Details to follow, if the court wishes. +The 800-pound gorilla, for us, of course are the +video surveillance tapes. Obviously we assume there is a tape +that leads directly to the door where Jeffrey Epstein was +housed. If that tape reports for 12 hours before his death +that no one went in and out of that room, then the suggestion +that there was something other than a suicide seems +preposterous. +But there is no such evidence that has surfaced to +date. +Just the opposite. +We have heard, and we actually read +in the press, that the tapes were either corrupted or not +functioning. +Talk about a yikes. If, in fact, the system was +broken for six months before Jeffrey Epstein was housed, I +mean, that would be stunning incompetence. If it was allowed +to continie to be inoperative when Jeffrey Epstein was housed, +it would be incompetence times ten. But what if the tapes only +broke down or were inoperative or were corrupted on the day he +was killed or the day he died? Then we're in a completely +different situation. +So where does this lead? I think where it leads, + + +17 +4 +5 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Judge, is there are incredibly important questions that remain +open. The public interest in this matter is obvious from this +courtroom. There are conspiracy theories galore. We are all +for finding the truth. We believe this court has an +indispensable role to play. +Whether or not this indictment is dismissed, (I think +this court has the inherent authority to find out what happened +on its watch. Obviously, when the court detained Jeffrey +Epstein, the court did not anticipate that weeks later he would +be dead in his cell. I think given the inherent authority of +the court, the court should make inquiry, +This could come in many forms. Obviously the court +made inquiry as to what happened in the first incident. When +there was an allegation of an attempted suicide, the court made +inquiry. The court obviously was interested. +I recall your Manguage. You talked about that being +one of the several open questions indicating an interest on the +court for the others as well. Obviously, the ultimate question +is what happened to the client. +THE COURT: You're talking about the July 23, 2019 +incident? +MR. WEINGARTEN: Yes. +The court obviously could hold hearings. The court +could assign a lawyer to help the court. I think this is an +area where there is intense public interest. We have complete + + +18 +4 +5 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +confidence in the prosecutors in the Southern District and the +FBI to do a competent investigation. But these are allegations +against serious components of the United States Department of +Justice. Sometimes the appearance of justice is just as +important as justice itself. +I think the court supervising, or at least keeping an +interest in this proceeding, is incredibly important for the +public to have confidence in the ultimate findings, yand +certainly for us to have confidence in the ultimate findings. +One more issue, Judge. The conditions of the jail, in +a word, they were dreadful. Not just for Jeffrey Epstein, but +for many of the prisoners over there! +This is a prison within +the shadows of this courthouse. +The situation is rife with +vermin. The abuse and the conditions in that prison, in a +word, are a disgrace and everybody knows it. +A person with authority told us, someone with +knowledge, that the prisoners in Guantanamo -- and he spoke +with personal knowledge -- are treated better than the +prisoners right across the way. The feds certainly know how to +run a +disciplined, clean prison. I've been in 20 of them. +They, know how to do it just fine. And the question is, why in +the world does it not happen down the road? I think that is a +perfectly legitimate subject for the court to make inquiry. +In a word, we want the court to help us find out what +happened. The court has a role to play. It (is the institution + + +19 +(that most people have confidence in in these very troubled! +(times.) +4 +5 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +So whether or not you dismiss the indictment, to us, +is beside the point. We want you to stay on the case, we want +you to conduct an investigation, and we want to know what +happened here. +Thank you, your Honor. +THE COURT: Just so it is clear, so your view on the +motion directly on its merits of the nolle prosequi order and +application by the U.S. Attorney, do you have a view on that? +MR. WEINGARTEN: I think if the court felt that the +case had to stay alive for the court to continue, we would +oppose it. I think -- +THE COURT: I'm sorry, if what? +MR. WEINGARTEN: +If the issue, if you took the +position for you to conduct the investigation or lead the +investigation or participate in the investigation, then we +want, the sole we want you to play, if the indictment has to be +alive, we would oppose the motion. +I don't think you need to do that. I think you can +dismiss the indictment. +THE COURT: So you're suggesting that you support the +government's motion, just viewed in the context of -- +MR. WEINGARTEN: Yes, of course. +THE COURT: Great. + + +20 +1 +2 +3 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. WEINBERG: Judge, if I can just supplement? +THE COURT: Absolutely. +MR. WEINBERG: Thank you, sir. +Thank you, as an out-of-town lawyer for the privilege +to appear in front of you, your Honor. +THE COURT: It's my pleasure. +MR. WEINBERG: First, as to the conditions, wethink +your Honor trusted the government, the Bureau of Prisons, to +keep our client safe and keep him in civilized conditions. The +government will again ask, as to other defendants, that they be +detained at the MCC, some subset of them will end up in the SHU +unit. +It is a horrific. +I've called it medieval. There's +vermin on the floor. There is wet from the plumbing. There is +no sunlight. There is limited exercise. It is simply +conditions that no pretrial detainee -- and I would go farther +as a criminal defense lawyer -- no United States defendant +should be subjected to. +Certain judges have taken views of the conditions. We +would urge your Honor, the government talks about and we talk +about transparency, to see what kind of conditions there exist +within 50 or 100 yards of one of the great United States +district courts. +Second, in terms, we have a profound problem with the +conclusions of the medical examiner. There are for three + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +21 +reasons, your Honor. +One is the timing of Mr. Epstein's demise. It was on +August 10. On August 12, a bail pending appeal motion was +being filed in the Second Circuit. On August 12 or 13, the +United States Attorneys were going to respond to our request +for the preservation and production of documents that would +have facilitated and furthered our efforts to demonstrate +communications between the Southern District of Florida, the +Northern District of Georgia, which was standing in the shoes +of the Southern District of Florida in justice and the +Southern District. +In other words, we were beginning the process +discharging our responsibilities. There had been no new +evidence that Mr. Epstein had committed any offense against a +minor after 2005. The +¿subject matter of the New York +prosecution was squarely within the heartland of the Florida +NPA. +We had a significant motion to dismiss. This was not a +futile, you know, defeatist attitude. +Third, we had all the discovery motions that your +Honor had scheduled. So the timing for a pretrial detainee to +commit suicide on August 10, when his bail pending appeal +motion is being filed on August 12, strikes us as implausible. +Second, we had an independent doctor who was present +at the autopsy which occurred on August 11. On August 11, the +city medical examiner's findings were inconclusive. We are + + +22 +4 +5 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +told by a very experienced forensic pathologist that the broken +bones in Mr. Epstein's neck, in his larynx, are more consistent +with external pressure, with strangulation, with homicide, if +you will, than with suicide. It doesn't exclude suicide, but +the pure medical forensic evidence creates profound issues +about what happened to him. +Also the time of death. Our medical examiner's +opinion is it occurred at least 45 minutes and probably hours +before 6:30 a.m. on August 10, when he was first found, if you +will, according to the reports. +Yet he was moved, something +that is not ordinary in these circumstances. +I would also -- +THE COURT: Excuse me. +He was moved? +MR. WEINBERG: Instead of having the cell in the +condition it was foundr +if he had been dead for 45 minutes or +two hours or four hours, there were efforts to move him and, +therefore, +ake it more difficult to reconstruct whether or not +he died of suicide or some other cause. +I spoke to Stacey Richmond, who is a responsible +member of this court who represents the family of Mr. Epstein. +She spoke to the medical examiner on the Friday after +Mr. Epstein's death and asked why, if the conclusion was made +late in the afternoon on Friday that week. She specifically +asked about what extrinsic nonmedical evidence caused the +medical examiner to go from uncertain to suicide, and she was + + +23 +4 +5 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +told that the medical examiner had seen nine minutes of one +video which was on a stairwell between floors at the MCC. She +was told that the principal video that would have showed the +whole +was corrupted. It was in DC with the FBI to see if +they can reconstruct it. +And I asked the same questions that my co-counsel did, +you know, was the dysfunction of the critical pivotal video, in +the most secure prison east of Florence, out in Colorado known +to the MCC before August 10, or was this corruption occurring +on August 10, which would again cause us to be skeptical of the +servitude of the medical examiner's conclusions that this was +suicide rather than some other cause. +So with my co-counsel, we ask your Honor, it is not a +question of trust or not trust. They ask you to detain people +and you trust the Bureau of Prisons. And it is within your +inherit authority/ +your Honor, to find out what happened to our +client. +we are, angry about the conditions he was held in. And +we're also angry, quite frankly, your Honor, that the only +source of information that we get as to what happened to him is +through the media rather than through the United States +Attorney's office. We've made requests informal. We have +made Touhy requests. We've been told there is a pending +investigation. +But we trust your Honor and the judiciary, and with + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +24 +all due respect, we believe there is an inherent and central +role, a pivotal role in your Honor to find out what happened to +a defendant in a case before the court, whether or not the +court grants the nolle pros today or whether it holds it +pending an investigation into Mr. Epstein's death. +We're not here without significant doubts regarding +the conclusion of suicide. We are not here to say whaty +happened. We don't know what happened. But we deeply want to +know what happened to our client. +Thank you, sir. +THE COURT: And you, as Mr. Weingarten, have the same +view of the nolle prosequi motion? +MR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor. +THE COURT: OK. +MS. COMEY: +Your Honor, may I respond to some of those +points? +THE COURT: +Sure. +MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor. +Just briefly. With the exception of the noting that +the defense does not have an objection to the government's +motion, virtually everything else that defense counsel just +argued, respectfully is completely irrelevant to the purposes +of today's proceeding and to the motion that is pending before +your Honor. +As an initial matter, the question -- + + +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +THE COURT: Well, it may be. Well, I don't know. You +say irrelevant. +It is a public hearing, and I think it is fair game +for defense counsel to raise its concerns. +MS. COMEY: Certainly, your Honor. But it is +irrelevant to whether or not the motion should be granted. +THE COURT: Right. I get that. +MS. COMEY: I would also note that the question of +Mr. Epstein's death is the subject of an ongoing and active +investigation, as has been publicly noted, by a separate team +of Assistant United States Attorneys from the Southern District +of New York, separate from the team who is handling this +prosecution, as well as a separate team of FBI agents. +There is an ongoing and active grand jury +investigation into the circumstances surrounding Mr. Epstein's +death. It is the function of a grand jury and of the Federal +Bureau of Investigation to investigate crimes in the federal +court system. +It is not the purview, respectfully, of the +court to conduct an investigation into uncharged matters. +So respectfully, we disagree with defense counsel's +suggestion that the court has some authority to conduct an +independent investigation. To the extent any other defendants +who are detained in the MCC have concerns about the conditions +or believe that the conditions are relevant to a future or +current bail determination, it is for those defendants and + + +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +26 +their counsel to raise those arguments and for the judges +hearing those arguments to evaluate those claims. It is not +relevant to today's proceedings. +Thank you, your Honor. +THE COURT: In those other cases, Ms. Comey, judges do +have authority to investigate, but don't here? +MS. COMEY: Not to investigate, your Honor, but to +hear arguments about the conditions of confinement in the MCC +as they may relate to any bail determination. +believe that +was the argument that was made. +The bigger picture here, your Honor, is that the focus +of today's proceeding, as we understand it, is to allow the +victims who have gathered here today to be heard and to comment +upon the case and to comment ypon the motion that is pending, +and to bring this case to a close. +THE COURT: Got it. +MR. WEINGARTEN: May I? +THE COURT: Sure. +MR., WEINGARTEN: We obviously saw this as, perhaps, +the Last opportunity to be before you, and we wanted to take +advantage of the opportunity to say our peace and thank you for +allowing us. +There is precedent here. Ted Stevens, the Senator +from Alaska case in Washington, DC, Judge Emmet +ordered an independent investigation by a private lawyer when + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +27 +he was deeply troubled by the alleged Brady violations. I +represented the prosecutors in that case, so I'm very, very +familiar with it. +It is analogous. It is a situation where there was +tremendous controversy over what happened in the case and +whether or not the prosecutors went off the reservation. Judge +-- and there were three or four independent → not +independent, DOJ inquiries into the very same matter. But +Judge +wanted his own opportunity to make a judgment +with his own independent investigation +THE COURT: OK. +MR. WEINBERG: If I could just add one precedent, your +Honor. +The Chief judge in the District of Massachusetts or +the Chief Judge at the time, Judge +| in a case called +V.S. V. Fleming, when the conditions at Walpole, which is a +state prison where federal prisoners were being held -- we +don't +pra federal MCC in Boston -- went to the prison, +stayed in the prison to determine whether or not the complaints +about the conditions were authentic. +I think your Honor has the inherent authority to go to +the ninth floor and see how the MCC houses pretrial detainees. +Thank you. +THE COURT: Are you saying that whether of not the +motion is granted that is pending before us? + + +28 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor. +I think, like when appeals are taken, bail issues +remain before the district court. Jurisdiction is not +completely divested. Your Honor issued a pretrial detention +order and your Honor has the power, the inherent authority, +they are not going to refuse to allow you to go look at the +ninth floor. They are going to count on you to make decisions +in the future. +I just trust that the executive branch is not going to +prevent the judicial branch from looking into the death of +Jeffrey Epstein or the conditions +in the SHU unit at the MCC, +sir. +THE COURT: Great. Thank you. +MS. COMEY: May I, your Honor? +Just very briefly, your Honor. I would note that upon +the dismissal of the indictment, which I believe the parties +agree is appropriate in this case, there would be no case. +There would be no jurisdiction for the court to conduct any +sort of inquiry, even if the court had such authority. +THE COURT: Right. +OK. I think we've heard enough. +(It is at this point in the hearing that I would like +(to call upon victims' counsel,_plural, for any remarks they may) +(have_and they may wish to make. (Also, to introduce_their +Clients, those of them who wish to be heard. + + +29 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +It would be helpful if, in doing that, if counsel → +Mr. +and I see and I see Mr. Boise as well -- I know +(they are counsel to several, at least several of the victims. +(It would be helpful if whoever is speaking,_both Mr. Edwards) +and Mr. Boise, would indicate to the court whether or not they +have discussed the pending motion with their clients, that_ is +(to say and the rule of abatement,etc..etc. with them prior to +(today's hearing. +'Are we going to hear from Mr. Edwards first, is that) +(Fight?) +MR. +(Thank you,_your Honor. +THE COURT: You bet. +It would be helpful, Mr. Edwards, if you would state +(and spell your name for the court reporter. +If you are going to introduce_ someone else, which I +(trust that you are, if you could state and spell their name as +we117 +IMR. EDWARDS• (Yes,_your Honor.) +MayZit_please_ the_court. (Brad +_B-r-a-d! +E-d-w-a-p-d=s, with the law firm of +Pottinger. +(I have_in the courtroom today 15 victims that_I) +(represent and have represented over the years. (There are +at +(least 20 more who didn't make this hearing today for a +multitude of reasons, some out of fear of public exposure,) +others because the way in which this case ended will never + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +30 +bring full justice, and they decided it was best for them not) +(to talk today• +(Some of my clients are going to address the court that) +(are here today. (Others are not. (Some are_going to use their +(names,and have in the past,_and others wish to remain +(anonymous. And I have instructed each of them to inform the +court reporter that they will be proceeding as Jane Doe so that +the court reporter can take them down. +(THE COURT: For those who wish to remain anonymous?) +'MR. +Exactly,_your Honor • +(THE COURT: (And that is satisfactory, as far as I am +(concerned. +MR. EDWARDS: Before we do that, I would like to +(address a couple of the things that have occurred this morning. +First of all, whether relevant or not, I personallyn +(and on behalf of my clients, do appreciate thepresentation +(that Mr. Weingarten made and Mr. Marty Weinberg made. +[have tremendous_respect_ for Mr. Weinberg. (I've +worked with him through this and related cases for years,and I) +understand the reason why they made the presentation that they +made,) +There is two things of interest to our clients in that) +(respect. (One is, because of the tragic ending, that none of my) +Clients wanted, nor did I, nor did anyone else, if there is +(some civil rights violation and there is some civil remedy for + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +31 +Mr. Epstein that goes to the estate, certainly the victims are +(interested in that as they might help to repair the damage) +done. +(Second, Mr. Epstein's untimely death, the timing_ is +curious to us. But more so, it makes it absolutely impossible +(for the victims to ever get the day in court that they wanted! +(in court and to get full justice. That now can never happen. +I know that Mr. Epstein's attorneys say he wanted it,_and they +(know, we did too. And there are a lot of people here today) +(that are very sad by the way that this ended for both +Mr. Epstein and the fact that full Justice was robbed from +(them,_once_again.) +The second issue I wanted to address was the Law +Review or the law Journal article that your Honor referenced, +which is troubling because the opinion seems to say_that) +(transparency is not appropriate in the criminal system and is) +not appropriate at this_point in time. +That's tough to swallow, especially in_this_case,) +(given +"the long history of this case. Personally,_it is tough +(to swallow, and on behalf of my clients, I can say that is very +concerning. (Iransparency is the only way that the justice +system works. We_know this because there was a similar) +(investigation of Mr. Epstein many years ago, from 2005 to 2008D +My personal involvement in this case was because a +young female came into my office named +and she + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +32 +came to me not asking to file a lawsuit against Jeffrey) +Epstein, but simply asking for the government to talk to her. +(She was cooperating in an FBI investigation and wanted the +(government to speak with her, and I thought that was_ going to +(be an easy task. +It was only a few months later that we learned that) +(this investigation that was represented to my client in written +(form, that it would be a long investigation, and to be patient. +Basically. to hang tight. (It was resolved by way of a secret +deal that never allowed any of the more than 30 victims who had! +(been identified of Mr. Epstein's abuse in Florida to ever) +participate in a single hearing. There was a hearing. (They) +were never notified. +I then went on to represent many of them in civil +cases_and also in extensive_pro bono work• And I can tell your +(Honor that while Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of them hurt them and! +(harmed them for many years, the feelings they had was) +(aggravated exponentially by the facts that they had no rights) +(in the criminal justice system,_by the fact that they were +(treated as if they didn't matter. (They were not allowed their +rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act to meaningfully +confer with prosecutors, to be treated with fairness, to be +(treated with dignity. That is what this is supposed to_be +about,_and to have notice of hearings.) +(So I do want to thank your Honor, and especially the + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +33 +prosecutors who have worked this investigation and this case,) +which is very different in experience for all of my clients_ and +(the other Epstein victims in this case, because they were +(allowed to be a part of the process. While some of them +elected not to be here today, that opportunity should always be +allowed for them. +(In 2008, we filed that case under the crime Victims" +Rights Act because our clients' rights were violated,_and as +(your Honor knows, a federal judge has ruled in our clients" +(favor that their rights were violated. (So this hearing today +means a lot to them. Ihe fact that they may never get their +Chance to speak in court, they may never get complete closure. +(and all of us have to wonder, if their rights had been afforded +(them the first time, would any of us be here right now. (Or) +wouldn't it more likely be the case that everyone,including) +(Jeffrey Epstein, would have turned out better for it?) +Today, I have not only represented, but met and become +very close with many of these victims. Many of these +(survivors. They_ are very strong people. (They are_people who +have persevered through a lot of adversity. (It's been a roller) +coaster of emotions that has led us to where we are today. And! +while they have all been_ cast_ over the years because of the +secrecy of the first investigation, in the shadow as victims, +you can't put them all in one bucket and say one size fits all. +(They are each individual people who were harmed differently and! + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +34 +distinctly through not only the abuse, but the system.) +(And on behalf of all of them, I would like_ to thank +(your Honor for the fairness with which they've been treated,) +and the United States Attorney's office for the way in which +you have handled this investigation, and especially how you +(have treated the victims in this case. +Like I said, I have many who want to speak. Some that) +can't. This is a very difficult day for them.) But we +appreciate the opportunity and the invitation. +The first client that I have that is going to address +your Honor is the one who walked into my office in 2008 asking) +Gust to be heard, +THE COURT: (Hold on one second. Did you all want to +be seated?) +You don't need to be standing. Whatever is more +comfortable until you're ready to give some comments. (It's up) +(to you. +Ms. Wild, if you could spell your name for the court) +(reporters,_PLease. +MS. +[_C-o-u-r-t-n-e-Y,_last_name wildn +W=1X=d0 +((Continued on_next_page)) + + +35 +1 +2 +3 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +IMS. WILD: My name +is +and I'm a victim +of Jeffrey Epstein. Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused me for +(years, robbing me of my innocence and mental health. (Jeffrey) +Epstein has done nothing but manipulate_ our_ justice_system,) +where he has never been held accountable for his actions,_ even +(to this day. +(Jeffrey Epstein_robbed myself and all the other) +victims of our day in court to confront him one by one,_and for +(that he is a coward.) +I want to thank the U.S. Attorney's for seeking) +Gustice that has been long over duer and most importantly. +given us, the victims, our day in court to speak our peace and! +(find some sort of closure. (I feel very angry and sad that) +Gustice has never been +served in this case. (Thank you.) +THE COURT: Thanks very much. +MR. EDWARDS lI believe my next client who is going to +(speak +is_probably going _to_speak as_ Jane Doe. +(JANE DOE NO. I (Yes, Jane Doe.) +(THE COURT: We'll say Jane Doe_No. I,_just_ for the +(records) +(JANE DOE NO. 1B Okay. Thank you for allowing_us to +speak today. I've shifted what I want to say in hearing) +what's already been said, and_ just about the question of +(Jeffrey's death.) (I don't know what the relevance is to this +(hearing, but I do know that it is profoundly relevant to my) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +36 +(life, as a victim. (I don't like that word, but I still feel +like I am learning the ways that he's impacted me_ as a complex +situation, but he was also a major part of my life. As +destructive as that relationship was and as much of a villain +as we have created him to be -- based on facts we've created) +him to be a villain -- he's a complex villain and actually all +of that is irrelevant. Anybody deserves -- an investigation is +the right thing to do. Like, we do need to know how he died. +(It felt like a whole_new trauma_ all over again,_and I) +don't know why,_you know, because I -I'm trying to defend +myself against him at this point in my life, but it still does +not feel good. (It didn't feel good to wake up that morning_and! +(find out that he had allegedly committed suicide. (Okay. But I) +(also wanted to say to the press, I'm reading -- I read my story +(in the paper. (I read so many other girls' stories that are_so +similar to my own. +and everything that's been focused on is not) +(the most important_part_of it. +There was -- the problem with focusing_on these,_the +(facts of the situation, that were out of the ordinary and like) +(because he was such a grand person, and it was just a unique) +(situation. I know that that's the more interesting_side of the +Story, but I don't want to be used as entertainment. And the +problem, the fundamental problem of the whole situation is the +element of exploitation _and coercion,_and these are things_ that) +(so many girls can relate to. + + +37 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +And even though this Jeffrey Epstein brought it to a +grand scale, on some level, a lot of girls could relate_to_ the +(trauma +that we are talking about, and even though this whole +situation_ sucks, I would like to think that it may be possibly) +a catalyst for change because, obviously,_as we're seeing with +the "Me Too" movement, change needs to happen and it's - what) +I'm seeing in the papers is not a common story,_ but it's so +much more common than you realize. That's all! Chank you.) +(THE COURT: (Thank_you very much. +'MR. +(I believe that the next client is going) +(to also be a Jane Doe; so I think for the purposes of the +record it will be Jane Doe 2. +THE COURT- (Yes.) +(JANE DOE NO. 2D (Good morning,_your Honor. +THE COURT: (Good morning. (How are_you?) +(JANE DOETNO. 2: Doing_okay. (I hadn't prepared any) +words to speak today, but there is something that was on my +mind this morning when I got here. (It's been on my mind in +(reading through the press and through the people that I've +(spoken to about it, friends, family. (It's something that's) +bothered me because I think it has a lot of blame in it,_as) +well, a little bit of what my friend, who was up here,_was) +(speaking_about. +I think that a lot of people asked why we spent_so +much time, why we stayed. (It's an experience that's really) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +38 +hard to explain to people who haven't gone through it. (I think) +(there's a writer, +Nagel, who wrote_ an essay called "what) +(is it like to be a bat?" And I think that he touches on it +pretty strongly and if_you haven't_ experienced_something,_it's +very hard to fully understand why someone makes the decisions +they do and what the circumstances were. +I don't want to speak for all of the victims. I think +each of us has a different story and different circumstances +(for why we stayed in it, but for me, I think he was really) +strategic in how he approached each of us. Things happened! +Slowly over time. We didn't - it almost was like,_putting it +(like that_ analogy of a frog being in a pan of water and slowly +(turning the flame up. (You didn'tyrealize it was happening,_and +(it just -- I don't think anyone can fully understand the +experience, but I just -the_ blame feels very strong. +There's a lot of support as well, but I just want) +people to try and understand that we aren't bad people. We) +weren't trying to - it wasn't a situation where we were trying) +(to extort money from_someone. (A lot of us were in very +vulnerable situations and in extreme_poverty,_circumstances +where we didn't have anyone on our side, to speak on our +(behalf,_and that's really scary. +You start to blame yourself because,_at first,_you +don't tell anyone what's happening,_and it becomes your deep.) +dark secret that you tried to keep from everyone. And I didn't) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +39 +even know I was a victim until I spoke with my lawyers. (I had +(no idea. (I had so much self-hatred and doubt_ and just_guilt) +(for everything. (I still do. (I still don't feel like I deserve) +to say I'm a victim, and I think that's a big problem with our +society right now, that people are still blaming victims, and I) +(think that does need to change. +(I hope that today people understand that each of us +(has a story. has a past, has a family and just give us a chance +(to - you know, that's basically all I just wanted to say. +(THE COURT: Thank_you so much? +(JANE DOE NO. 2F) Thank you so much. +(THE COURT: +(Okay.) +IMR. +(Okay) I think that the next person who +(is going to speak is also going to be speaking as Jane Doe;_so +(for the purpose of the record, Jane Doe No. 3. +(JANE DOETNO. 3. Thank you for allowing_ us to speak +(today. (I came to New York City 15 years ago to pursue modeling) +from a +_ small town. (I signed_on with_an agency and was excited +(to_ pursue my passion_ and my dream. (Several months later, I met) +a female who told me about Mr. Epstein. (She portrayed him as) +an amazing man who genuinely cared for_people and that he was) +(going to be able to help me in a modeling_ career. +I was excited to meet him, after hearing her talk +about him. He sounded like an amazing_person.) 'An introduction +was made at his New York home, and it is there that I was + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +40 +sexually assaulted. (I left his home, after he threw me. +(basically put money on the table,_and I was_ashamed. (I was) +embarrassed. (This was not the way I was brought up, and I +couldn't believe this had happened to me.) +(I left and my world kind of spiraled after that. (I) +stopped_ going _on modeling castings. (I gained weight? I_became +depressed. (I stopped going_ out with my friends,_and only five +months after I had been in New York City to putsue my dream,_I) +(left. (I left the modeling_industry, and I/left New York City.) +and I totally switched my career_ paths? +(I buried this deep within me, and all of the new +occurrences_that have_come_up in the media is what brought it +back up for me. And I feel sickened and saddened that it took +so many years,_and God knows how many victims, for this to +(finally come out, but I'm thankful it did. And I'm just_ angry) +(that he's not +ve anymore to have to pay the price for his) +actions. (So I thank you for your time. +(THE COURT: (You're very welcome.) +MR +D Your Honor, Jane_Doe No. 4,I believe,) +(is going to speak_now. +(JANE DOE NO. 4 (Good morning,_your Honor. +(THE COURT: (Good morning. +(JANE DOE NO. 4D (I just have something very short to +(say.) (I met Jeffrey Epstein at a very vulnerable_place in my +(life, and whatever the outcome is with everything, I just) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +41 +wanted to express that we, the victims, we will always carry) +(irreparable damage_and pain throughout_our lives after this. +(It's something that's never going to go away.) +You know, whoever we marry in our life, whatever) +future we have in our life, it's always going to be something) +(that's always there for us. And I'm very nervous right now. +'And Jeffrey Epstein, he took away the chance I had at having) +(the future I had envisioned for myself as a young girl, and I) +(think many of us here today will never fully heal from_that) +pain and the heartache that we'll continue carrying with us. +(So I just wanted to say that (It's something_that) +(it's irreparable. I can't_ even really use a better word to +(describe that• (So thank you for hearing_ us today• +(THE COURT: You're very welcome.) +MR. +D Your Honor, Jane Doe No. 5 would like to +(speak • +(JANE DOE NO. 5: This is a letter that I wrotei_so) +(it's going to be: Dear Jeffrey. I think you are a mentally) +disturbed human being. You used_your power to make me_believe +at a young age that I could have my dreams of being a model. +You paid for your freedom. You violated my rights. You should! +have_to_ pay for them,_just as anyone else. (You got a_plea deal) +(that no one else would have been able to get. You used_ your +money to get out of paying the price for your actions. +Also, as a victim, I never got to see what the + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +42 +agreement was_or why the special treatment_got approved. (I) +(think you should have been in jail for several years in +population and live like everyone else that is mentally) +disturbed like_you. You paid for _yourself to_get_special) +(treatment while you were in jail. (I don't even think_you spent) +a day in a jail as a normal human being. +You had investigators come to my house and also went) +(to my friend's house to question them. (I will never be able to +over =- I will_ never be_able to_get_over the_overwhelming) +emotions and embarrassment I experienced from that trauma. I) +needed therapy several times a week and had high stress and +(anxiety levels.) +You paid your way to make the public think that the +(girls had nothing in life going on for them.) (You wanted to try +and blame that we were lower class and that was the_problem +with the_girls.) +from a middle class family_and did well +(in school• (I lived the American girl dream -- or the American +(girl life? (I went on +family vacations_ around_the world,_grew) +up in a good city,_and my parents are still married to this +day. +Basically, everything_you said that we didn't have in our +(life,_ I did. +(It all came down to I was told I was making_$200 in_an +(hour. Being_young, that was a lot of money, and I didn't know +(any better. (Sadly,_you were the one with an illness that_you +should have to go and see a doctor and also have a mentor group + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +43 +for the sickness you have. (I will continue with writing my) +book about that secret life, with all the newspaper articles_ of +(the case, my high school agenda book of official dates. I'm +(basing that proof that I deposited cash after leaving) +Jeffrey's. (I still have all of the information,_articles that) +I collected over the years. +You mentally and physically traumatized me +(I went to +(therapy,and it was the best thing I did for myself (If anyone +only learns one thing from this case, I hope_is that money) +Should not let you buy your way free. A crime is a crime and a +victim is a victim. (Thank you. +THE COURT: (Thank you. Thank you very much. +MR. EDWARDS: Your Honory my next client is Chauntae +_C-h-a-u-n-t-a-e, Davies. D-a-v-i-e-s.) +IMS. +D I met Jeffrey Epstein through my first) +massage teacher, +a man who took me in as his apprentice_to +(teach me a practice I wanted to learn while in desperate_search +(to find a cure for a debilitating neurological disorder that I) +(have, which manifests into violent vomiting_attacks,_largely) +(triggered by stress. (It's called Cyclic Vomiting_Syndrome.) +(I was_recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell. Upon_my first) +meeting of her, I wouldn't know I had been_recruited until many) +(years later, when I would read it in a headline. Ghislaine and! +(Jeffrey took me in. They sent me to school. They gave me a +(job. They flew me around the world, introduced me to a world I + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +44 +had only dreamt of and made me feel as though I had become a +part of their family,_another thing I was desperately searching) +(for.) +But on my third or fourth time meeting them,_they +brought me to jeffrey's island for the first time,_and on the +(first night there, +came tapping_on my door late_at) +(night to inform me Jeffrey was ready for another massage. My +instincts told me this didn't feel right, but I got up and! +(followed her to a villa I hadn't_yet seen. Jeffrey and +(Ghislaine's villa. +(I began my massage, trying not to let him smell my) +(fear and obvious discomfort, but before I knew what was +(happening, he grabbed onto my wrist and tugged me towards the +(bed. (I tried to pull away, but he was unbuttoning my shorts) +(and pulling my body onto his already naked body faster than I) +could think. (I was searching for words but all I could say was) +meek, "No, _Please_ stop,"-but that just seemed to excite him +more. +He continued to_rape me,_and when he was finished,_he +hopped off and went to the shower. (I pulled my shorts up,_and +I ran as fast as I could back to my own villa, my feet bloodied! +(from the rocks. (I cried myself to sleep that night. +(I spent two weeks vomiting,_almost to death, in a +(Los Angeles hospital after that first encounter. (Jeffrey's) +abuse would continue for the next three years, and I allowed it) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +45 +(to continue because I had been taken advantage of my entire +life and had been conditioned to just accept it. +It took me a long time to come forward, too long) +maybe, and all it took to bring -- and all that it took to +bring this man to justice has been robbed by his death. (Every) +day, every week I've spent in the hospital since, I've suffered! +and he has won. Every job offer that's been offered to me and +(then retracted because of my connection to this case, I have +(suffered and he has won.) Every public humiliation I have) +endured,_I have suffered and he has word Every relationship +that I've had to end because of the abuse that I have endured +by the hands of this man, I have suffered and he has won. +Every woman sitting in this room today, and all of the +women who have yet come forward and who have not yet to_come +(forward and whose lives have been affected by Jeffrey Epstein's) +sick abuse of young girls, we have all suffered, and he is) +still winning in death. +(I refuse to let this man win in death. (I couldn't) +(fight back when Jeffrey Epstein_sexually_ abused me_because I) +hadn't yet found my voice.) Well, I have found my voice now,) +and while Jeffrey may no longer be here to hear it, I will not) +stop fighting, and I will not be silenced anymore. (I needed! +him to hear the pain he's caused, what I've gone through +because of him.) (I wrote a 350 page book of all the pain that I) +have endured at the hands of this man that I really needed him + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +46 +(to hear. (His death has robbed me of that justice. +Please don't rob us of justice_ again. (Thank you.) +(THE COURT: (Thank you.) +MR. EDWARDS Your Honor, I think_I have_one more +Client that is going to speak today. +(THE COURT Would you spell that?) +'MS. DE GEORGIOUD (Good morning,_your Honon, +(THE COURT: (Good morning. +'MS. DE +'My name_is spelled A-n-o-u-s-k-a,) +D-e, space,_G-e-o-r=9=1-0-u. +Thank you,_your Honor, for giving us the opportunity) +(to be heard this morning. +(THE COURT• (Sure.) +IMS. DE +When I was introduced to Jeffrey) +Epstein, +I was young and full of hope and the foolishness of a +(teenager.) (I was idealistic, and I saw the good in people.) +(Jeffrey Epstein manipulated me, coerced me_and sexually_abused +me. +(Something I think is very important to communicate_ is +(that loss of innocence, trust and joy is not recoverable. (The +abuse, spanning several years, was devaluing beyond measure and! +affected my ability to form and maintain healthy relationships.) +both in my work and my personal life. (He could not begin to +(fathom what he took from us, and I say "us" because I am every) +(girl he did this to, and they're all me. And today we stand! + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +47 +(together, those that are present and those that aren't. +(I was a victim,_and it has taken me many, many_years +(to stand here and say,_yes, it was me. (I was a victim, but I) +will not_ remain a victim and be silent for one more_ day. +Although I think it's tragic when anybody dies before their +(Eime,_I'm extremely relieved that Jeffrey Epstein will not be +(in a position to hurt anymore children or anymore women/and' +I'm glad to be part of a group of women who are now bonded! +(forever in the trauma that we endured at the hands of this man.) +(Thank_you. +THE COURT: (Thank you.) +MR. EDWARDS: (Your Honor, we had one client who was +not able to be here but sent a message through a letter. Her +name is +1M-i-q-h-e-1-1-ei_last namen +(L-i-c-a-t-a. And Brittany +of my office, is going_ to +read her letter as +instructed. +(THE COURT• (Sure.) +IMS. HENDERSON: (Thank_you,_your Honor. +(THE COURT: (Yup. +MS. HENDERSON: What happened to me occurred many) +(years ago when I was in high school, but it still effects my) +(life. (I was told then that Jeffrey Epstein was_ going_ to be +(held accountable, but he was not. (In fact, the_government) +worked out a secret deal and didn't tell me about it. (The case) +ended without me knowing what was going on, without him being) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +48 +(held responsible, without any explanation and without a chance) +(for my voice to be heard. (I was treated like I did not matter.) +Many years later, he was arrested again. (These) +(investigators and attorneys representing the United States have +(been completely different. (I am still mad,_concerned and +confused about how he committed suicide and escaped! +(responsibility again, but I know it is not the fault of the +Gudge of the_government attorneys. +I was allowed to be a part of the process this time.) +My attorney was able to tell me what was going on at every +stage because they kept him informed. Thank you for inviting) +me. (It means more to me than you can ever know. (I was not) +able to be here this time, but I know that I was allowed to be +and I had the chance to attend this hearing, which is helping) +me in my healing process. The fact that I mattered this time +(and the other victims mattered is what counts. For that. +(grateful. +(THE COURT: +(Thank_you.) +MR +D Your Honor, finally,_in 2008 when_I) +(filed the case under the Crime Victims Rights Act, it wasn't me +(alone. (I did it with Paul Cassell and Jay Howell. +Paul Cassell is here today,_and I think your Honor) +even cited to a piece of -- an opinion of his from when he was) +on the bench,_and he has some remarks to make. +Once again, your Honor, I really do believe that this + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +49 +(is a model for how victims should be treated in a criminal +process,_and we really do appreciate it. Thank you.) +(THE COURT: (Thank you.) +'MR. CASSELL (I'II be very brief because_ I_know there +are others that want to speak here. (I'm Paul Cassell. +(C-a-s-s-e=1=1,_previously served as a federal judge at the +District of Utah, currently a law professor, where I teach +crime victims rights at the University of Utah, College of Law.) +(I_just_ wanted to take_one minute to_ address_some) +suggestion that there would be no need for a hearing this +morning. (I think, having heard already from these powerful +victims and recognizing how important giving_those_statements) +will be in the trajectory of their lives, makes clear that_your +(Honor has followed exactly the right path. Legally, there is) +one_precedent, which is UrS. v. +_a case that_you cited +that I wrote about +a decade ago, and as explained in that) +opinion, victims have important interests in the criminal +Gustice system that can +_ only be recognized if they're_ given +(their day in court. +With all due respect to other law professors that have +(recently written an article, I think transparency is one of the +overriding objectives in our criminal justice system,_and the +one substantive action that I would urge your Honor to_ take +(today is to publish your remarks as a published opinion. (The +case is, to my knowledge, the only reported decision on + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +50 +this particular issue, even though it's more than a decade old +(and,_yet, we can see today that_ these problems recur in many) +other cases. (Your remarks today, I think, should be published! +so that they can serve as a guide for other_judges around the +(countryD +I would encourage_ you to add into your remarks a +(reference to the Crime Victims Rights Act. (The Crime Victims) +Right Act promises victims the right to be treated with +(fairness, dignity and respect,_and the process that we_see +unfolding this morning is a clear example of how victims can be +(treated with fairness, dignity and respect. +(So I know that_your Honor is wondering what is the +(appropriate action here. Unfortunately. it seems like_there +(are no other legal options, but there was a legal option for +you to decide to exercisen, which was to allow these victims to +(come forward. And if there's been one positive thing_that has +come out of the tragedies, the abuse, the other events of this +(case, it's been, your decision to allow these victims to be +(heard this morning,_and I encourage you to publish_ your +decision and to encourage other_ judges to follow what is +Clearly a model for crime victims rights and is clearly an +example that should be followed in other cases_down the road.) +(THE COURT: (Thank_you very much. (I appreciate_your +(being here. (I had no idea that you would be here when I wrote +the remarks, but it was clear from the literature that you are + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +51 +(the leading expert formerly of the District Court of Utah, I +believe, and it's a pleasure to have_you here_ today. +MR. CASSELL: (Thank you, your Honor. +(THE COURTE (Thanks. +'Mr. Boies?) +MR. BOIES Thank you,your Honor. (David Boles of) +Boies Schiller Flexner. We have with us today five of the +victims that we represent. There are a number of additional) +victims who either were unable to_ attend or are still unwilling) +(to come forward publicly. This has been an enormously) +(traumatic aspect of their lives, something that,_as you've +already heard and will hear more today, is something that_they +can never entirely escape from. +I want to, as prior counsel have, commend both the +Court and counsel for the Department of Justice for the +consideration and respect and attention that they have paid to +(the victims. We believe that that is not_only right,_as a +matter of human dignity, but we think that is exactly what the +(law requires and intends.) +(I will be more blunt than the Court has been, or) +Professor Cassell has been about Professor +article. +That is an article that cites no authority,_and I believe there +(is no authority for his proposition. (I entirely respect_ his +right to advocate on behalf of his client Alan Dershowitz, who +has retained him in connection with litigation that we've + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +52 +(brought against Mr. Dershowitz, but I would have expected that) +(the Law Journal or Professor +himself would have disclosed! +(that connection, which I think is a conflict. +But_ regardless of the appropriateness of his +disclosure,_or lack of disclosure, I think that his article +opposing allowing the victims to have a voice in this +proceeding is inconsistent not only with the policy that +underlies the Crime Victim Rights Act and the very statute that) +Mr. Epstein is being prosecuted under, but it ignores the) +actual language of those statutes, and many other statutes, in +which Congress has made clear that the purpose of the criminal) +(law is no longer simply to punish the individual defendant,_but) +(it is to find some way of trying to mitigate the damage that) +(has been done to the victims through restitution and economic +mitigation, but also through the ability to confront and to +(have the court system and the justice system and the +prosecutors treat these victims_as they are victims,_as_ they +are human beings, and they are entitled to the respect that our) +society needs to give every human being. (So I think that this +(is not only commendable, but I think it is what the law) +requires. +(In response to the question the Court asked,_I have +discussed this hearing with my clients. (I have told them that,) +under the applicable law, the government has no alternative but) +(to move to dismiss this case, and I believe under the + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +53 +applicable law in this circuit, the Court has no alternative +but to grant that motion. +(I think the current law is outdated, as the Court) +suggested in some of its remarks. (I think there will come a +(time when either an Appellate court or the Congress will make +Clear that,_just as it's possible to continue civil cases +(against someone after they have deceased, it is possible,_at) +(least for purposes of things like restitution, to continue +criminal cases, but we are not there now. (And, +fortunately._in +(this case, there are other ways and perhaps even more efficient) +ways to vindicate the interests of the victims here. +We_ greatly appreciate the remarks_of the +(representative of the Department of Justice today,and we, too, +on behalf of the victims, are, not going to stop when we walk) +out of this courtroom. +We are_going to continue_to_seek) +vindication against Mr. Epstein's_ estate and, in some_senses. +perhaps_even more important,_against the people who worked with +(him_and enabled him.) +As you have already heard, and will hear more, +Mr. Epstein did not act alone. (He could not have done what he +did, on the scope and the scale of what he did, for as many) +(years as he did it without the activities and support_and the +co-conspirator activity of a number of other key individuals,) +and those individuals also need to bear their share of +(responsibility,_ and those people need to have a reckoning_as + + +54 +well +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +'My partner Sig MaCawley. +who's been working with me +(for more than five years on this case, is going to, with the +(Court's_ permission,_introduce five of our clients who will) +(speak briefly to your court. +(Thank you very much. +THE COURT- (Thank_you very much, Mr. Boies. Pleasure +(to have you here.) +'MS. MCCAWLEY: Thank_you,_your Honor, the first victim +that would like to speak today is Theresa J. +(THE COURT: (Can we have the spelling of your name?) +'MS. MCCAWLEY: (Sure. (Sigrid,_S-i-g-r-i-d,_and the +(last name is M-c-C-a-w-1-e-yr and I'm a partner at Boies +(Schiller Flexner.) +(THE COURTE +Thank you.) +(Good morning.) +THE COURT: (Good morning. +IMS. HELM: +(Thank you,prosecutors and Judge,_and the +(Court. My name is +• I_note_today I_do_ feel +(respected and listened to; so I appreciate that, and I have to +(say that I commend the_boldness of the New York_prosecutors_ for +pursuing a man that has,_you know -- and others,_ that have +Clearly taken a lot from a lot of_people. +(17 years ago I knew him only as "Jeffrey.") (I was) +recruited and brought from California to New York, and that) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +55 +experience for the last 17 years has been a dark corner in my) +Story, in my life, in my life story and that has been +definitely made worse by my own self-shame and that -- and +(anger for normalizing all of the red flags. I feel like we_are +conditioned to do that,and that's something that needs to +Change. +(So I'm here today._you know, I'm coming forward +because it is time to bring light to that darkness, yand it's +(time to replace that darkness with light. And I am a_survivor +of this, and I do aim to progress further from being a +(survivor, you know. (I feel I've worked hard, quite hard, to +get to where I'm at now, and I'm definitely at a place in my) +(life where I will no longer coveryup. (I'll no longer cover up +what needs to be brought to light. +(Jeffrey is no longer here, and the women that helped +(him are, Ghislaine Maxwell. My experience is with Ghislaine) +Maxwell and Sarah +_and they definitely need to be heldi +accountable for helping him, helping themselves,_helping_one +another carry on this huge,almost like a system. (So they need +to be held accountable, all of them, and I would like to see +(thaty certainly on behalf of myself and for everyone here. +(Thank_you.) +(THE COURT: (Thanks_so_ much. +'MS. MECAWLEY: (Our next client, who is_ going_to_ speak) +this morning, is + + +56 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +(Good morning,_your Honor. +(THE COURT• +(Good morning. (How are you?) +(Okay. (Thank you. My name is +that's V-i-r-g=i-n=i-a,. +(R-o-b-e-r-t-s,_ +_G=i-u, double_E,for Fred,_-r-e. +I am a victim of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine_ Maxwell) +(in the dark and cruel and criminal acts they committed against) +me and hundreds of other girls and young women for years and! +(years and_years,unstopped. +Thank you for allowing me to address the Court and +(speak the truth. (I commend the prosecutors from the Southern +District of New York for the _ongoing Investigation and its +pursuit of justice for us victims, (It has given me hope,_and I) +will not let go of that hope. +When I was recruited by Chislaine Maxwell at) +Mar-a-Lago,_just before I was 17, I thought I was given a big) +break, and I'd be able to reset my life and become an actual +(real massage therapist. My hopes were_quickly dashed, and my) +dreams were stolen. (Jeffrey Epstein is no longer alive,_ but) +this is not about how he died. (This is about how he lived!) +He will not have his day in court,but the reckoning) +of accountability has begun, supported by the voices of these) +brave and beautifül women in this courtroom today. (The +(reckoning must not end. (It must continue. (He did not_act) +(alone and we, the victims, know that. We trust the government) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +57 +(is listening and that the others will be brought to justice.) +(Thank you, your Honor. +(THE COURT: (Thank you very much. +MS. MCCAWLEY: The next client of ours that will be +speaking this morning_ is +Thank you, your Honor. +) My name is +• I'm a victim of Jeffrey Epstein andi +Ghislaine Maxwell's international sex trafficking ring. +I would like to thank the Court for the dignity_ and +the respect you are showing me here today. as well as the other) +victims. (I would also like to acknowledge and extend my) +(gratitude to the prosecutors from the Southern District_of +New York for pursuing justice on behalf of the victims.) +Please,_please finish what you have started. (I struggled to +(find the words to adequately say how important your work is to +(us.) +For a very long time Jeffrey Epstein gamed the system +at every level,, and when he realized he couldn't do that any) +(longer, he showed the world what a depraved and cowardly human) +being he is by taking his own life. But we, the victims, are +(still here, prepared to tell the truth, and we all know he did! +(not_ act alone. We are survivors, and the pursuit of justice +should not abate. Thank you,_your Honor. +(THE COURT: You're very welcome. +'MS. MECAWLEY: Our next client who is going to be + + +58 +(speaking_ this morning is _ +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +(Good morning,_your Honor. +(THE COURT: (Good morning. +I had the opportunity to speak at Jeffrey Epstein's +bail hearing,_and I really appreciate that_you heard me and +(listened to me that day. (I am so sorry that others will not) +have the opportunity to stand before him the way that I did. +But I'm here today to speak on behalf of my sister, +who could not be here. +(Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell not only assaulted! +her, but as we're hearing from so many of these brave women +(here today, they stole her dreams and her livelihood. (She +risked her safety in 1996. +so many years ago, to report_them, +(to no avail, and it is heartbreaking to her and to me that all +(this destruction has been wrought since that time.) +We were deeply disappointed and disturbed by Epstein's +death_and the fact that that was allowed to happen while he_was +(in the government's custody, and I'm encouraged to hear that) +there will be a full investigation as to how that was allowed! +(to happen.) +But it is extremely important, as others are saying, +that he did not act alone and that the other people that were_a +part of what he did are held accountable and that that) +(investigation continues. + + +59 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +I believe that we have a real problem in this country +with perpetrators of sexual abuse and sexual assault being held! +accountable. (There are so many roadblocks to victims being) +(heard, to cases being investigated thoroughly,_and then to +(those cases being_prosecuted. And so I think this is a really) +(important signal to send a message to victims out there that) +people will take you seriously._people will follow through, and +(that even those in power, as we have unfortunately seen, that +(has_not_been_often are_able to escape that, that even_those_in +power will be held accountable. (Thank You• +(THE COURT: (Thanks so muchz) +'MS. MCCAWLEY? Our next client, who's_going_to_address +(the Court is Marijke Chartouni. (She_says it much more +beautifully than I do; so I'I|let her say it. +'MS. CHARTOUNT My first name is spelled. +M-a-r-i-j-k-e; last nane is C-h-a-r-t-o-u-n-i.) +'My nam +and I am a victim of +(Jeffrey Epstein and the sophisticated sex trafficking operation +(he_ran, where he allegedly was to be a financier. +(I was 20 and previously modeled and was living in the +West Village. (I met a young woman named Rena through a mutual) +(friend. We were friends for a few months. (She was an_amazing) +artist and liked to party. One day she called me and asked if +(I was interested in meeting a friend of hers. (She told me he +wanted to meet me and really liked blonds, and I thought he was + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +60 +our age and liked to do the same things we did at that age; so +(I agreed.) +On a sunny, crisp day, we took the train together to +(the Upper East Side. (She then began to talk a little bit about) +(him on our way to his house. (I was at his house. (I was +sexually assaulted by both Rena and Jeffrey Epstein in his +mansion. (It left me feeling both disgusted and betrayed. +'As we walked home to the subway afterwards/she +continued to tell me about the man who had just abused me with +(her participation. (She seemed exhilarated from the horrific +experience. (I was shocked and in a daze) (This is a few things) +(that she had told me. She told me he went to +Union.) (He) +was a mathematical genius. That he had favorite girls that he +would take to Chanel for 15-minute,all-you-can-buyshopping) +(trips. (She told me his right-hand person had connection to the +(arts and the fashion world, and she could help me.) +This is not my complete story. I'll stop here. I'm +(in a good, stable place in my life, and I had decided to come +(forward to be a voice to the victims who may not be able_to +(tell their story, or at least not yet. (I feel like I am a +survivor. +(Thank_you, Judge Berman, +for inviting victims to speak +(today before_you. We hope the government is listening very +Closely to the words we are saying. +(THE COURT: (Thank you very much.) + + +61 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. BOIES: (Your Honor,_just very briefly. +(THE COURT: +(Sure.) +MR. BOIES: (I would like to express to the Court how +proud I am of all of these women who have come forward! (It's +(taken an enormous amount of strength and courage for them to do +SO. (Thank_you. +(THE COURT: (Thanks, Mr. Boies. (Hold on one second.) +((Pause)) +MS. LERNER: (Thank_you,_your Honor.) My name is +Kimberly Lerner, of Lerner and Lerner, and your Honor, with +your permission, I would like my client, Jennifer Aroz, to +stand next to me.) +THE COURT: (Sure.) +MS. LERNER: Would that be_ okay?) +(THE COURT- Absolutely. +'MS. LERNER: Your Honor, I would like to begin by) +saying that I am in awe of all of these beautiful women. (I) +Gust want to let_you know, on behalf of Jennifer and myself,_we +admire you, we_respect_you, and we applaud you,_and you are +brave survivors.) 'And Jennifer's heart is with all of you,_and! +we thank you so much for coming forward. +Jennifer, when she went_public, she thought she was) +one of the only ones, and to see all of these faces is, I know,) +(amazing for her.) +(Jeffrey Epstein was a predator, a pedophile and a sick) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +62 +(individual. (However, he was also a thief. (He stole Jennifer's) +childhood dreams, her innocence_and her self-confidence. (She +was 14 years old. What he could not buy, he forcibly took. +Why?) Because he surrounded himself with a network_of_powerful +people who not only looked the other way,_but also actively) +(facilitated and participated in his sexual abuse of children. +(Jeffrey Epstein thought he was above the law,_and' +essentially he was until now. The system let Jennifer and the +other victims_down,_but it does not have to end here. (We_ask +the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI to bring all of +Epstein's enablers and co-conspirators to justice. +It has taken Jennifer 18 years to find her voice,_and! +(again, Jeffrey Epstein has tried to silence her. While_she +never have her chance to face him in court, he no longer +(has any power over her Ioday, this brave survivor will be +(heard.) +'MS. AROZ: Thank you for allowing me to be_ able_to +have my chance in court today. to be able to tell you what this +horrific +n did to my life. You can't even_imagine_ how_much +(it affected my childhood, all the way through my adult life. +(He robbed me of my dreams. (He robbed me of my chance to_pursue) +(a career I always_ adored. (He_stole my chance_ at_really feeling) +(love because I was so scared to trust anyone for so many_years) +(that I had such severe anxiety. (I didn't want to leave my) +(house let alone my bed.) + + +63 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +(The fact that he felt entitled to take away my) +(innocence, the fact that he felt that he could do whatever he +wanted, regardless of the laws, hurts me so very much. (It took) +me years to tell anyone what Epstein did to me because I was so +ashamed and embarrassed at what people would say or think of me +until I found out there were other victims, girls just like me. +(I knew I could no longer keep my silence no matter how ruthless) +and powerful Epstein was, and still is even after his death. +The fact I will never_have_ a chande to face_my) +predator in court eats away at my soul? Even in death, Epstein +(is trying to hurt me. (I had hoped to atylast get an apology.) +but this evil man had no remorse or caring for what he did to +(anyone. (I felt let down by the people who were supposed to +watch him in prison. They let this man kill himself and kill +(the chance of justice for so many others in the process,taking) +(away our ability to speak.) +Out of all the damages and side effects that Epstein +caused by his heartless and selfish acts, it's very hard to_put) +my feelings and emotions into words, trying to let his +horrendous actions go and attempting to forgive him, has been +(so difficult for me.) Yet, as hard as it's been to come so +publicly forward, I refuse to let Epstein take me as a victim +(anymore. +(I am a survivor. The many that stand before me here +(today that have shared the horrific experiences with this + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +64 +deplorable human being, because even though this weak, evil +coward tried to steal all of our childhoods, tried to steal all +of our innocence and tried to steal all of our means of +(ustice, he will never steal our inner strength,_and he will +never, ever, ever steal our voice. (Thank you so much. +(THE COURTE You're welcome• +'MS. GIBBS: (Good morning,_your Honor. (Teri_ Gibbs,) +(I-e-r-i,_G=i=b-b-s. For the record, I am a california +(attorney. I'm not admitted to the New York State bar. (I am +here to make a statement on behalf of New York attorney.Lisa +(Bloom.) (I work for her firm, The Bloom Firm.) +Lisa Bloom represents four of Jeffrey Epstein's +victims, Jane Doe 6, for the record, Jane Doe 7 and Jane Doe 87 +(I am so proud of all of you victims who are here today and are +(able to voice yourselves today. (I will not and cannot_comment) +on the criminal case, or Ms. Bloom's communications with her) +clients. +Ms. Bloom would like to share three of her client's +statements for the record. (Here_are_the statements. (Statement) +of Jane Doe 6.) +(To the Honorable_Richard M. Berman.) (Jeffrey Epstein) +stole my innocence. (He gave me a life sentence of guilt_and +shame. (I do not consider myself a victim. (I see myself a +survivor. The abuse that I endured cannot continue. (Let's) +stop this before it happens to other young women. (Jane Doe.) + + +65 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +(Statement of Jane Doe 7. (Io the Honorable Richard M. +(Berman. (I used to be relatively carefree, inquisitive, hopeful +(and excited about life, but my life changed because of Jeffrey) +Epstein. My perspective on life became very dark when_I was +unknowingly recruited by one of his agents. (Jeffrey Epstein +ruined me. (His recruiter ruined me. The far-reaching +consequences of that day ruined my family's lives? +I've chosen to remain anonymous in order to protect my +(family from_unwanted media attention. +I was just trying to figure out my path in life when I) +encountered Jeffrey Epstein in his New York City mansion. (I +cannot_even begin to _summarize_ the many detriments_this +(experience of sexual assault has had on my life. (Immediately) +following the incident, I was unable to function and be around! +other people. My parents had to rescue me and bring me home,) +where I became a recluse for years.) +I was changed forever and buried my assault deep down,) +where the darkness couldn't hurt me anymore, but of course,_it) +(has always been here, lingering and affecting me unconsciously. +At the time, I was mired in shame, guilt and humiliation. (I +had somehow tricked myself into thinking that I had allowed the +assault to happen, that I did it to myself, that I don't +deserve to be alive or to be loved. I believed that I was a +disgusting, shameful person who does not deserve to ever be +(happy• These are the thoughts I've lived with on a daily) + + +66 +(basis. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Furthermore, because I couldn't tell anyone, out of +fear of judgment, blame or retaliation, keeping this secret) +completely hindered my ability to uncover why these issues +existed for me, which could have led to a path of healing_over) +(the years. +(It is time for those of +_power to do the right thing. +(It is time for compassion toward our fellow human beings to +(reign over money._power and greed. We need to protect our most) +vulnerable to allow them a chance at a normal life, and nothing) +should come in the way of that. (I believe that for future +(generations, including my own children, this_case will set_a +precedent that victims must no longer suffer in silence_ on our +own or be shamed for coming for +to_ seek protection. +This case should demonstrate to those who want to harm +others that there will be a reckoning, and they will pay dearly) +(for the harm they inflict on innocent people. (Judge Berman,_I) +(thank +you for from the bottom of my heart for this forum and! +opportunity. +(Io all of those survivors who came before me,_I) +commend your bravery. (There is no way I could have done this +without_you. +(Thank you to the public following this story,_for_your +outrage and desire for answers, which will hopefully move this +case forward so that victims can stop having to relive their + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +67 +(experiences every day and move on to begin to heal +God bless the victims, +their families, +the +(investigators and public servants working so diligently to findi +(those_answers and to_ right all these wrongs.) +(Jane Doe 7. +(Continued on next page) + + +68 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +(THE COURT: (Thanks very much. +IMS. GIBBS: (One more. (Statement_of Jane Doe_8. +(In the past few weeks, I have had to reflect on my) +(interaction with Jeffrey Epstein and realized that,_ though_I) +have_yet to put it all behind me, I am still a victim. (I_say) +this because I have to come to terms with it in an effort to +(truly get_past the abuse I suffered at the hands of Epstein.) +Pursuing criminal penalties against him and having_an +opportunity to address the egregious crimes he committed +against me and other young woman would have helped my recovery) +process.) Ihis all came to an abrupt halt when he took his own +(life. This_ point of disclosure/is lost. +I cannot say that Jam pleased he committed suicide. +but I am at peace knowing he will not be able to hurt anyone +else. However, a sad truth remains. (I, along with other +people, will never have an answer as to why. (I will never have) +an apology for the wrongdoing. And most importantly.Epstein +will not be justly sentenced for his crimes. Now I_sit_in my) +(home questioning the well-being of those girls like myself. (In +Choosing death, Epstein denied everyone_ justice.) +Any efforts made to protect Epstein's name and legacy) +send a message to the victims that he wins and that he is +untouchable. (I understand his case may be dismissed or closed,) +(but this makes me feel as though I,_ and anyone else who fell) +pry to his hands, simply do not matter. + + +69 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +(I ask that you very seriously consider the final) +decision, because it will undoubtedly affect_all other facets) +of this case, including any future charges brought against the +recruiters or third parties to his crimes. (I do not want the +narrative to be, Those poor girls. (I want to send a message to +anyone who would consider engaging in similar acts to think +(twice beforehand. (I want some sort of closure for those of us) +who relive those horrible moments where we were assaulted, +abused,_and taken advantage of by Epstein.) +You have the opportunity to help us seek that closure. +(I appreciate your time and consideration and ask for your +continued support in dealing with this case to illustrate_that) +we, Epstein's victims, do matter. +(Sincerely. Jane Doe 87 +On behalf of Lisa Bloom and The Bloom Firm, thank your +(your Honor•) +THE COURT: (Thank you, Ms. Gibbs. +Did we have any other victim's counsel or victims? +Ms.Allred. +MS. ALLRED: (Good morning,_your Honor. +THE COURTE (Good morning. How are you?) +MS. ALLRED: Fine. (Thank_you.) +'Allred, Maroko & Goldberg_ by Gloria Allred, +(G-1-o-r-i-a A-1-1-r-e-d. +Your Honor, thank you so much for this opportunity to + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +70 +afford the victims their voice, because many of them have never) +spoken before. They never spoke in Florida. They never spoke) +anywhere. They never told their mother. (They never told their +(father. They never told their family members. (This is an +opportunity for them to be heard. We thank you for that. +Your Honor, for 43 years my firm has been the leading) +women's rights private law firm in the United States. We have +helped thousands of victims. And I, as an officer of the +court,_and as a believer in the system, have tried to encourage +(the victims to have confidence in the system that should +provide them access to justice that should help them to assert) +and vindicate their rights in a court of law. (It has been +(increasingly difficult in this case for me to say to my clients) +(that they should have confidence in the system of justice_given +what has +occurred in this case, People v. Jeffrey Epstein.) +(Having said that, I am encouraged by the fact_ that) +(this court, essentially, in an unprecedented situation where +(the defendant is deceased, is still affording these victims an +opportunity to be heard. (So we thank you for that. (It is some) +(encouragement. +Your Honor,_you also asked do our clients wish to be +(heard in reference_to_ some_of the +_issues that_have_been_raised +this morning,_ including what_should happen_ into this case.) +Your Honor, there has been a suggestion that the court should! +(investigate the circumstances of the death of Mr. Epstein. (I'm + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +71 +not going to repeat the arguments made by counsel, but I would! +(say that if there is jurisdiction, and I know that is a legal +(issue which has been previously argued, that certainly it would! +(increase the confidence of my clients. Not_just my clients. +but victims all over, and some are,_by the way._located in +other_parts of the world, to have the court oversee the +(investigation. +We are encouraged by the sensitivity of the attorneys +(for the United States Attorney's office for the Southern +District of New York and the investigation that is going on +with the separate team. However,and of course, the defense +(is also conducting its_ own investigation. But I do think the +(greatest confidence would be if the court in some way would be +able to oversee an investigation because the court is a neutral) +(party. 'And although the court certainly has a stake in finding) +out what happened to defendants who are in the custody of the +(federal system and who should be there to face the prosecutors) +and the charges, against them, but now are not because clearly) +(the system has failed. +And the United States Attorney has admitted that,and +even before he admitted that, everybody knows the system +(failed Failed the victims, failed the court,_ failed everyone.) +(In any event,_your Honor, having_seen so many) +(thousands of victims of gender violence, sex harassment,_sexual) +(assault, I've dealt with child sex trafficking, child + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +72 +molesters, I mean, this is a unique case because there are so +many victims and so many failures of the system. At_this +point, what we would really ask for is not just words, but) +words have been helpful, but deeds, and that is very important. +(In addition, I would like to say, throughout this case +(is the running theme of the betrayal of trust. Betrayal of +(trust by Jeffrey Epstein. Betrayal of trust by the system. +'And betrayal of trust to the victims who had a right to +Gustice. 'And the Crime Victims' Act should not just be words,) +(it should have meaning and it should be enforced. +In essence, we are asking, although you may need tor +of course,_grant this motion to dismiss. I think because_the +court has shown sensitivity to victims and victims' needs, if +(there is a way to at least keep the record open so that victims) +Who have not been able to be physically present in the +courtroom today and who have not been able to submit to the +court_any letters, victim impact, and who have not been able_to +(secure attorneys or speak to attorneys yet -- so, for example, +I'll still hearing from victims who I have_ not been _able_to +meet with yet because they just recently are now contacting) +me t so if they could submit,_at least for the_record, their +victim impact statements, that, I think, would be a very +(important assistance to them. (So that would be, at least they) +would know that what they are sharing is on the record.) +(So, in summary, I would say that they are looking) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +73 +forward to the very serious investigation by the United States) +Attorney of who may have conspired in this case, and that is +very hopeful, and we're hoping that everyone who may have a +(role to this criminal prosecution will submit that evidence. +(This is about power. This is about many victims) +having lived in fear =- fear of the rich, the powerful, the +(famous, fear that the system will not afford them justice. (So +(fear of not coming forward. And fear, of course, is a weapon +(that the rich,_powerful,_famous,and sexual predators used to +silence the victims. But that is gone for a lot of victims +(because they refuse to suffer in silence, +Finally. it does take courage to speak truth to power. +We thank this honorable court for giving these victims a voice.) +We thank them, even after the death of the defendant, for +showing respect for the victims, allowing them dignity. +(allowing them a voice.) We do want truth, we do want justice,) +we do want_accountability,_and we do want those conspirators_to +(face the justice system. +Your Honor, right now we have two of our clients who +would like to address the court.) +THE COURTE (Sure.) +MS. ALLRED: (Then I have a couple of statements_on +victims who do not wish to address the court. +As they come up, we'll give them the opportunity to +(say either their name or Jane Doe.) + + +74 +J8RSEPS3 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +By the way, thank you, your Honor, for allowing_some) +of these victims to be called Jane Doe. What number the court) +affords to them, we"Il accept whatever that is.) +(Thank_you.) +THE COURT: We're up to nine.) +MS. ALLREDE (Thank_you. +(Hello. +My name_ is +That_is) +(I was going to start this statement by saying that I) +was a victim of Jeffrey Epstein. But that's not the case. (I'm +still a victim of Jeffrey Epstein.) I'm still a victim because) +(the fear of not being heard stopped me from telling my story +(for so many years. This lingering fear almost stopped me from +attending this monumental movement of strength and power. +I'm still a victim because I am fearful for my +daughters and everyone's daughters. I'm fearful for their +(future in this world, where there are predators in power,_a +world where people can avoid justice if their pockets run deep +enough. +I'm still a victim because the 17=year-old +was +manipulated into thinking +she_had found_someone who_cared,) +someone who wanted to help. Jeffrey knew I had nowhere to_go. +He_knew I was vulnerable, and he took advantage of that poor) +(girl, who will never be the same.) +(I cannot eat at the thought that Jeffrey Epstein -- I) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +75 +cannot eat at the thought of Jeffrey Epstein not serving the +(time he needed to realize the pain and suffering he caused so +many vulnerable young girls. He thought he was untouchable. +and honestly, so did I (I thought he was the most powerful +iperson I would ever meet. +But the end is here and here I stand becoming_more +powerful than he will ever be. Thank_you. +(THE COURT: Thank +_yOU. +(JANE DOED (Jane Doe.) +Op +Um, in 2004, when I was 15 years old, I flew on +(Jeffrey Epstein's_plane to zorro Ranch, where I was sexual) +molested by him for many hours.What/I remember most vividly) +was him explaining to me how beneficial the experience was for +me +and how much he was helping me to grow. Yikes. +I remember feeling so small and powerless,_especially) +after he positioned me by laying me on his floor so that I was) +confronted by all the framed photographs on his dresser of him +(smiling with wealthy celebrities and politicians. +After he finished with me, he told me to describe in +detail how good my first sexual experience felt. (That was the +(first of many lies I was forced to carry for him, the weight of +which proliferated my trauma. (I felt_powerless not merely) +(because one man wanted to strip me of my innocence,_but because) +(I was the victim of a system that_ just enfranchises human +beings, making them vulnerable to pedophilic exploitation.) + + +76 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +'As unjust as what happened to me was, I believe that +experience to be a symptom of insidious and pathological) +violence that extreme wealth yields, a violence which +ultimately stays hidden through_channels of extreme_power that) +serve it. +I first identified with this feeling the night after I) +was molested by Epstein, when another girl and I took out two +of his AIVs and raised them across the mesa. (I crashed mine +and expressed my concern to the other girl of_getting_in +(trouble, which she replied to me, Don't worry, no one gets in +(trouble for anything here. +Even as a child, I understood, in a sad and precocious +way, what I hoped we have the ability of changing now. Even +(though Epstein is dead, there, is still justice to be brought) +for the crimes we felt powerless against concealing for him and! +(the system that supported him for all these years.) +(Thank you.) +(THE COURT: +You're very welcome. +MS ALLRED (Thank_you.) +Nour Honor, may it please the court. (I would like to +(read a statement for Jane Doe, my client, who is present in +court, but requested that I read it• +We_only have_one opportunity at childhood. (One +opportunity to develop.) (One _opportunity to find direction for) +our lives. (Jeffrey Epstein robbed and denied me at each + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +77 +opportunity he had. +(I came from a small Texas town, not far from the New) +Mexico border. My mother died when I was 1l, after suffering) +(from cancer for many years. My father was devastated,_as were +my siblings and I. My father was saddled with debt. My only +hope for college was to get a scholarship. +When I was 15, I was a blossoming freshman in high +school and was trying to carry on my mother's dream) (She +wanted me to +the violin. After school, I would often_go +(to a mall in a nearby city. A lady approached me and saw I had! +(a violin case with me and asked if I wasyany good. We talked +about the violin, my family, and why I had clothes that looked! +(Like hand-me-downs. +The lady told me she works for a very rich man who had! +a home close by and that he would pay to hear me play. (I was +(told that if I could get away, she could arrange for +(transportation to and from his place and have me back before +anyone_knew I was gone. After some hesitation,_I agreed. (This) +decision was the_beginning of the end of my childhood. +The man who only identified himself as jor Jeff had +asked if I would give him a massage, and over four visits, +eventually progressed to forced oral copulation. (The money he) +(gave me further_placed my young soul into a perverse_sense of) +(hell +I was so utterly disgusted with myself and what he did + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +78 +(to me that I stopped going to see him. (I had documented the +events with a Texas rape crisis center about the man I know now +(as Jeffrey Epstein.) +Epstein targeted and took advantage of me,_a_young) +(girl, whose mother had recently died a horrific death and whose +(family structure had deteriorated His actions placed me,_a +young _girl, into a downward spiral to the point where 1) +purchased a gun and drove myself to an isolated place to end my) +suffering. +'A voice that could only have been from my mother told +me, quote, I am not the victim, I am the victor, and I dare not) +pull the trigger."-I returned the gun days later. +Epstein is a coward. He,lived his life leaching off +(the souls of inspiring,_ young girls due to the fact that he +could never know how it feels inspired to live. (Like a leach,) +once Epstein had his fill, he would unlatch and seek out) +another victim. +The only sense of justice I had hoped to see was +Epstein being_sentenced. (However, Epstein died as he lived,) +(taking the_easy way out without any responsibility. +Your Honor, the next statement is also a statement_of) +(a Jane_ Doe. May it_please the court. +(I was a 16-year-old virgin when Jeffrey Epstein first) +(raped me.) (I was naive and gullable. (He was a pillar of +(finance and a giant in the world that I was an insignificant) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +79 +part of. I was so impressed that this great man would even +(talk to me and impart any of his wisdom on me. (I gladly jumped +at the chance to meet him again, when he told me how impressed! +(he was with my personal story and maturity for my age. +When I was in his presence, he made an effort to call +celebrities and influential people_on speakerphone,like +Academy Award-winning actresses and super models, who always +answered his calls. (Sadly._I was impressed. +(He was friends with former and future heads of states +and every other fixture in the New York social scene and +(beyond. (He knew important people in my own world that I looked! +up to and revered, but he spoke about them like they were_sweet) +distractions far beneath his stature. (He could easily reach +down from his position and influence the people directly) +(involved with my daily life and future prosperity. (I was the +perfect victim.) +My whole life was_ extremely turbulent. But_one of my +mother's_greatest wishes was that all her children would +(graduate from respectable universities. He_promised me that_he +would write me a letter of recommendation for Harvard if I_got) +(the grades and scores needed for admission. His word was worth +a lot, he assured me, as he was in the midst of funding_and! +(leading Harvard's studies on the human brain,_ and the_president) +was his friend. +(The fact that all of you already know these next) + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +80 +details, which I"ll share, should ignite fire instead of induce) +(the complacency they did in the past, when heard repeatedly) +over the years, but yes, an innocent massage turned sexual +almost_immediately. +"Here, come. (Come help me with a kink in my shoulder +while we finish our discussion." A large vibrator and a couple +of hundred dollars, disgust and dirty secret, more praise and! +imparted wisdom from a godlike figure, a deliberate diabolical +depression _of_grooming_and submission for his pleasure_and' +(release. Even if I resisted, I was no match for him. I felt +powerless,ashamed, and embarrassed. I wanted to vomit) +(remembering_these_moments•) +What I learned in those depraved sessions, staring_up +at +the dome ceiling in his private massage room, tore a violent) +(hole through any normal sexual awakening. (I'm haunted forever, +(having learned everything there is to know about sex through al +vile criminald Every time a new molestation would bring_a new +(lesson, the_progressive and constant unwinding. (I_was_nothing) +more than a teenage prostitute. (I was his_slave.) +I had never even kissed a boy before I met him, and! +never throughout the horrific abuse did Jeffrey Epstein kiss me) +even once. When he stole my virginity, he washed my entire +body compulsively in the shower and then told me, "If you're +not a virgin, I will kill you.") 'And then I wasn't a virgin +(anymore.) + + +81 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +He forcefully penetrated me. (I was numb. (There was +ipain, but his_ use of the vibrator and his fingers in previous) +sessions with me had left a black hole-like void between my +(legs. (I protested, but he forced my face into the bed to +stifle my cries. That was my first time. +I got a few hundred dollars,_as usual,_as he led me +out of his mansion with assurances that I was on the right_ path +(guided by him. (I lied to myself and tried to believe him. (I) +(became a hollow shell. If I missed an appointment,_he +(threatened me and let me know who was in charge. "Do you know +(how important my time is?) (I'II bury you,) (I owe this - I) +won't say the word -- F'ing town." He would hang_up. +I would stand there frozen in the street, terrified +that his +assistant would call to reschedule. (I made sure to +stay in line and not disobey him. (I was in complete denial. +Being paid after every scheduled meeting felt routine and! +disgusting. (He was_ the +of the universe and the worldi +(bent to his will. +He would eventually brag to his assistants about_my +(ability to please him sexually right in front of me, leaving_me) +(feeling_grotesque and worthless. Everything in my outside life +was falling apart. (I distanced myself from friends and grew) +(further away from my family. (I felt less human after each +ordeal. My psyche broke down completely and wouldn't let me) +continue. + + +82 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +One day I walked out of his residence and passed a +(girl similar to myself. When I turned around, she was entering) +(Jeffrey's residence. (He no longer even tried to schedule his +appointments with other girls in secrecy from me. Maybe_he +(never did. (I was too stupid to see. +My world shattered. (I had been so naive. Ihad an +epiphany in a calvary of desperation. (I realized I was/just) +one of many young girls he had in rotation come to perform for) +(him for money. (I went into a deep depression and never lifted +completely. (I wanted to inflict pain on myself. (I was +(humiliated, angry, and suicidal. (Ilocked myself away from +everything. (I cut myself off forever from the world I had! +(known.) +I endured the daily agony of knowing my life would +never be the same. (I could never go back to New York City and +(the wonderful life I had taken for granted before I met this +(demon named jeffrey Epstein. +This dreature had manipulated and outwitted the whole +system, including_some of the most intelligent_ scientists,) +political people,_prosecutors,_and power_players. (How easy was +(it to manipulate a 16-year-old virgin who never had a boyfriend +and _came from a_background of hardship with_ no_ parental +(guidance_or support.) +I went to therapy and was given antidepressants for +(severe anxiety and depression. My only solace, years later, + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +83 +was my desire to succeed on my own terms. (I emersed myself +(into my studies and was accepted to every college I applied to, +(graduating from a top university. (Io this day, there is still) +(an ache in my being that I did not apply to Harvard in fear of) +(his influence there. +(They say you never forget your first. I'm in a +(never-ending nightmare trying to do just that. I/m forever) +suffering because everything reminds me of that horror. (Ihis +(new wave of worldwide publicity only worsens my despair. +(It was only many years later that I was finally) +(intimate with a man again, and those moments were marred by my) +actions_as a child with Jeffrey Epstein. Even now is +impossible to separate his treachery from any care of a good! +man. +For one brief moment there was elation when he was +(recently_arrested! +(I would finally get my chance to see him +again face to face and show him what I had become, that I had +(succeeded on my own, that I was worth something in spite of his +abuse, and that I had surmounted the monumental_ obstacles_he +(Laid before me throughout my entire life_since falling_prey to +(him.), +(I had hoped humanity would prevail,_ but it_seems to_ me +that he outsmarted everyone so far, and his ghost is still) +(laughing_at us. (I appeal to all of those just and true that) +his evil legacy and his death not stand in the way of + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +84 +(resolution and justice for all of his underaged victims.) +(Thank you,_your Honor. +'And then just one last one, and this is much shorter. +(Statement of Jane Doe,_also my client. +(I was a model in another country when I came to the +United States. (I was told by a booker that I needed to meet) +with a man named Jeffrey Epstein, who was the owner of> +Victoria's Secret. The booker told me that Mr. Epstein could +(help me get into Victoria Secret's world. +(It was my childhood dream to be a Victoria's Secret) +model. (So I went one day in the afternoon and I met) +•Mr. Epstein in his office in his mansion in New York. 'A woman +(introduced herself and suggested to me that I should be +extremely nice to Mr. Epstein, because if he liked me, he would! +probably have photographers shooting photos of me right away. +The told me to go upstairs and directed me to Jeffrey) +Epstein's office. +Mr. Epstein had a +robe on and we +Chatted very briefly. (I had my portfolio of photos, but he +didn't even look at it. (Suddenly, he took his robe off and_got) +close to me.) (I got up to leave, but the door was locked! +(I didn't know what was_going_on. (It was my first) +official meeting to be cast in the United States. (I was_a +young girl and confused. He got very close to me, and I had al +skirt on. (He started to touch my genitals. (I refused him.) +(Then he went to the massage table and showed me the vibrator. + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +85 +(I took it and threw it at him.) +At that_ point, I ran to the door again and figured out) +(how to get out of there. (A girl outside asked me where I was) +(going and she said to be careful. (She said that Mr. Epstein +(knew a lot of powerful people, including Bill Clinton,_and that +if I didn't do what Mr. Epstein wanted, I would not be able to +(have any job in the industry. +I was so scared. (I couldn't wait to get out of there, +(and I left. (I took the train home. (I had spent all of my +savings getting Victoria's Secret lingerie to prepare for what) +(I thought would be my audition. But instead, it seemed like a +casting call for prostitution. I felt like I was in hell. +Thank you,_your Honor +(Thank you.) +THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Allred. +Was there +anybody else, any victim's counsel or any of +the other victims who have not been heard and wish to be heard? +Well, OK then. All I have to say, really, is thank +you, all of you, for your participation in today's remarkable +hearing. I think everybody has benefited greatly from your +inpuț, and especially from the testimony of victims here today +and who have had the courage to come forward. +We have also benefited throughout these proceedings, +however brief altogether, from the attorneys' legal advocacy +and their written and oral submissions. I'm grateful to them + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +86 +as well, both for the government and the defense and those +representing the victims. +Finally, we're also grateful to the press for their +very diligent coverage of seemingly every detail of this case. +That concludes our work for today and we stand +adjourned. +Thanks. +(Adjourned) + + +Appendix 12 + + +The Man Who Had Everything: Jeffrey Epstein craved big +homes, elite friends and underage girls +By Andrew Marra +Posted Jul 17, 2019 at 6:02 AM +From the archives: When Palm Beach detectives started asking +questions and teenage girls started talking, a wave of legal resistance +followed. +Editor's Note: This article appeared in The Palm Beach Post on August 14, 2006, three weeks after +Jeffrey Epstein's arrest in Palm Beach County on a charge of felony solicitation of prostitution. +WINGED GARGOYLES guarded the gate at Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Inside, +hidden cameras trolled two rooms, while the girls came and went. +For the police detectives who sifted through the garbage outside and kept records of visitors, it +was the lair of a troubling target. +Epstein, one of the most mysterious of the country's mega-rich, was known as much for his +secrecy as for his love of fine things: magnificent homes, private jets, beautiful women, +friendships with the world's elite. +But at Palm Beach police headquarters, he was becoming known for something else: the +regular arrival of teenage girls he hired to give him massages and, police say, perform sexual +favors. +Epstein was different from most sexual abuse suspects; he was far more powerful. He counted +among his friends former President Bill Clinton, Donald Trump and Prince Andrew, along +with some of the most prominent legal, scientific and business minds in the country. +When detectives started asking questions and teenage girls started talking, a wave of legal +resistance followed. +_... + + +» NEW: Jeffrey Epstein: Lawyer said financier had sex with woman during workrelease +If Palm Beach police didn't know quite who Jeffrey Epstein was, they found out soon enough. +Epstein, now 53, was a quintessential man of mystery. He amassed his fortune and friends +quietly, always in the background as he navigated New York high society. +When he first attracted notice in the early 1990s, it was on account of the woman he was +dating: Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the late British media tycoon Robert Maxwell. +In a lengthy article, headlined "The Mystery of Ghislaine Maxwell's Secret Love," the British +Mail on Sunday tabloid laid out speculative stories that the socialite's beau was a CIA spook, a +math teacher, a concert pianist or a corporate headhunter. +"But what is the truth about him?" the newspaper wondered. "Like Maxwell, Epstein is both +flamboyant and intensely private." +The media frenzy did not begin in full until a decade later. In September 2002, Epstein was +flung into the limelight when he flew Clinton and áctors Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker to +Africa on his private jet. +Suddenly everyone wanted to know who Epstein was. New York magazine and Vanity Fair +published lengthy profiles. The New York Post listed him as one of the city's most eligible +bachelors and began describing him in its gossip columns with adjectives such as "mysterious" +and "reclusive." +Although Epstein gave no interviews, the broad strokes of his past started to come into focus. +Building a life of extravagance +He was born blue-collar in 1953, the son of a New York City +department employee, and +raised in Brooklyn's Coney Island neighborhood. He left college without a bachelor's degree +but became a math teacher at the prestigious Dalton School in Manhattan. +The story goes that the father of one of Epstein's students was so impressed with the man that +he put him in touch with a senior partner at Bear Stearns, the global investment bank and +securities firm. + + +In 1976, Epstein left Dalton for a job at Bear Stearns. By the early 1980s, he had started J. +Epstein and Co. That is when he began making his millions in earnest. +Little is known or said about Epstein's business except this: He manages money for the +extremely wealthy. He is said to handle accounts only of $1 billion or greater. +It has been estimated he has roughly 15 clients, but their identities are the subject of only +speculation. All except for one: Leslie Wexner, founder of The Limited retail chain and a +former Palm Beacher who is said to have been a mentor to Epstein. +Wexner sold Epstein one of his most lavish residences: a massive townhouse that dominates a +block on Manhattan's Upper East Side. It is reported to have, among its finer features, closedcircuit television and a heated sidewalk to melt away fallen snow. +That townhouse, thought to be the largest private residence in Manhattan, is only a piece of +the extravagant world Epstein built over time. +In New Mexico, he constructed a 27,000-square-foot hilltop mansion on a 10,000-acre ranch +outside Santa Fe. Many believed it to be the largest home in the state. +In Palm Beach, he bought a waterfront home on El Brillo Way. And he owns a 100-acre +private island in the Virgin Islands. +» PHOTOS: The players in the Jeffrey Epstein saga +Perhaps as remarkable as his lavish homes is his extensive network of friends and associates at +the highest echelons of power. This includes not only socialites but also business tycoons, +media moguls, politicians, royalty and Nobel Prize-winning scientists whose research he often +funds. +"Just like other people collect art, he collects scientists," said| +Nowak, who directs the +Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard University and was reportedly the recipient of +a $30 million research donation from Epstein. +Epstein is said to have befriended former Harvard President Larry Summers, prominent law +Professor Alan Dershowitz, Donald Trump and New York Daily News Publisher Mort +Zuckerman. + + +And yet he managed for decades to maintain a low profile. He avoids eating out and was rarely +photographed. +"The odd thing is I never met him," said Dominick Dunne, the famous chronicler of the trials +and tribulations of the very rich. "I wasn't even aware of him," except for a Vanity Fair article. +Epstein's friendship with Clinton has attracted the most attention. +Epstein met Clinton as early as 1995, when he paid tens of thousands of dollars to join him at +an intimate fund-raising dinner in Palm Beach. But from all appearances, they did not become +close friends until after Clinton left the Oval Office and moved to New York. +Epstein has donated more than $100,000 to Democratic candidates' campaigns, including John +Kerrys presidential bid, the reelection campaign of New Mexico Gov. Bill +and the +Senate bids of Joe +, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Christopher Dodd and Charles +Schumer. +Powerful friends and enemies +A Vanity Fair profile found cracks in the veneer of Epstein's life story. The 2003 article said he +left Bear Stearns in the wake of a federal probe and a possible Securities and Exchange +Commission violation. It also pointed out that Citibank once sued him for defaulting on a $20 +million loan. +The article suggested that one of his business mentors and previous employers was Steven +Hoffenberg, now serving a prison term after "bilking investors out of more than $450 million +in one of the largest Ponzi schemes in American history." +As he amassed his wealth, Epstein made enemies in disputes both large and small. He sued the +man who in 1990 sold him his multimillion-dollar Palm Beach home over a dispute about less +than $16,000 in furnishings. +A former friend claimed Epstein backed out of a promise to reimburse him hundreds of +thousands of dollars after their failed investment in Texas oil wells. A judge decided Epstein +owed him nothing. +» Jeffrey Epstein: Model prisoner who swept, mopped floors, official says + + +"It's a bad memory. I would rather not have ever met Jeffrey Epstein," said Michael Stroll, the +retired former president of +Electronics and Sega Corp. "Suffice it to say I have +nothing good to say about him." +Among the characteristics most attributed to Epstein is a penchant for women. +He has been linked to Maxwell, a fixture on the high-society party circuits in both New York +and London. Previous girlfriends are said to include a former Ms. Sweden and a Romanian +model. +"He's a lot of fun to be with," Donald Trump told New York magazine in 2002. "It is even said +that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No +doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys his social life." +Investigation leads to Epstein +Although he was not a frequenter of the Palm Beach social scene, he made his presence felt. +Among his charitable donations, he gave $90,000 to the Palm Beach Police Department and +$100,000 to Ballet Florida. +In Palm Beach, he lived in luxury. Three black Mercedes sat in his garage, alongside a +Harley-Davidson. His jet waited at a hangar at Palm Beach International Airport. At home, a +private chef and a small staff stood at the ready. From a window in his mansion, he could look +out on the Intracoastal Waterway and the West Palm Beach skyline. He seemed to be a man +who had everything. +But extraordinary wealth can fuel extraordinary desires. +>> Epstein wants to leave jail for mansion in sex-trafficking case +In March 2005, a worried mother contacted Palm Beach police. She said another parent had +overheard a conversation between their children. +Now the mother was afraid her 14-year-old daughter had been molested by a man on the +island. +The phone call triggered an extensive investigation, one that would lead detectives to Epstein +but leave them frustrated. + + +Palm Beach police and the state attorney's office have declined to discuss the case. But a Palm +Beach police report detailing the criminal probe offers a window into what detectives faced as +they sought to close in on Epstein. +Detectives interviewed the girl, who told them a friend had invited her to a rich man's house to +perform a massage. She said the friend told her to say she was 18 if asked. At the house, she +said she was paid $300 after stripping to her panties and massaging the man while he +masturbated. +Police interview 5 alleged victims +The investigation began in full after the girl identified Epstein in a photo as the man who had +paid her. Police arranged for garbage trucks to set aside Epstein's trash so police could sift +through it. They set up a video camera to record the comings and goings at his home. They +monitored an airport hangar for signs of his private jet's arrivals and departures. +They quickly learned that the woman who took the 14-year-old girl to Epstein's house was +1, a Palm Beach Community College student from Loxahatchee. In a sworn +statement at police headquarters, +• then 18, admitted she had taken at least six girls to +visit Epstein, all between the ages of 14 and 16. Epstein paid her for each visit, she said. +During the drive back to her house, +told detectives, "I'm like a Heidi Fleiss." +Police interviewed five alleged victims and 17 witnesses. Their report shows some of the girls +said they had been instructed to have sex with another woman in front of Epstein, and one said +she had direct intercourse with him. +In October, police searched the Palm Beach mansion. They discovered photos of naked, younglooking females, just as several of the girls had described in interviews. Hidden cameras were +found in the garage area and inside a clock on Epstein's desk, alongside a girl's high school +transcript. +Two of Epstein's former employees told investigators that young-looking girls showed up to +perform massages two or three times a day when Epstein was in town. +They said the girls were permitted many indulgences. A chef cooked for them. Workers gave +them rides and handed out hundreds of dollars at a time. + + +One employee told detectives he was told to send a dozen roses to one teenage girl after a high +school drama performance. Others were given rental cars. One, according to police, received a +$200 Christmas bonus. +The cops moved to cement their case. But as they tried to tighten the noose, they encountered +other forces at work. +In Orlando they interviewed a possible victim who told them nothing inappropriate had +happened between her and Epstein. They asked her whether she had spoken to anyone else. +She said yes, a private investigator had asked her the same questions. +» Jeffrey. Epstein: Acosta, Krischer trade barbs over sweetheart deal +When they subpoenaed one of Epstein's former employees, he told them the same thing. He +and a private eye had met at a restaurant days earlier to go over what the man would tell +investigators. +Detectives received complaints that private eyes were posing as police officers. When they told +Epstein's local attorney, Guy Fronstin, he said the investigators worked for Roy Black, the +high-powered Miami lawyer who has defended the likes of Rush Limbaugh and William +Kennedy +While the private eyes were conducting a parallel investigation, Dershowitz, the Harvard law +professor, traveled to West Palm Beach with information about the girls. From their own +profiles on the popular Web site MySpace.com, he obtained copies of their discussions about +their use of alcohol and marijuana. +He took his research to a meeting with prosecutors in early 2006, where he sought to cast +doubt on the teens' reliability. +The private eyes had dug up enough dirt on the girls to make prosecutors skeptical. Not only +did some of the girls have issues with drugs or alcohol but also some had criminal records and +other troubles, Epstein's legal team claimed. And at least one of them, they said, lied when she +told police she was younger than 18 when she started performing massages for Epstein. +After the meeting, prosecutors postponed their decision to take the case to a grand jury. + + +In the following weeks, police received complaints that two of the victims or their families had +been harassed or threatened. Epstein's legal team maintains that its private investigators did +nothing illegal or unethical during their research. +By then, relations between police and prosecutors were fraying. At a key meeting with +prosecutors and the defense, Detective +Recarey, the lead investigator, was a no-show, +according to Epstein's attorney. +"The embarrassment on the prosecutor's face was evident when the police officer never +showed up for the meeting," attorney Jack Goldberger said. +Later in April, Recarey walked into a prosecutor's office at the state attorney's office and +learned the case was taking an unexpected turn. +The prosecutor, Lanna Belohlavek, told Recarey the state attorney's office had offered Epstein +a plea deal that would not require him to serve jail time or receive a felony conviction. +Recarey told her he disapproved of the plea offer. +The deal never came to pass, however. +Future unclear after charge +On May 1, the department asked prosecutors to approve warrants to arrest Epstein on four +counts of unlawful sexual activity with a minor and to charge his personal assistant, +1, now 27, fo her alleged role in arranging the visits. Police officials also wanted to +charge +, the self-described Heidi Fleiss, with lewd and lascivious acts. +By then, the department was frustrated with the way the state attorney's office had handled the +case. On the same day the warrants were requested, Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter +wrote a letter to State Attorney Barry Krischer suggesting he disqualify himself from the case if +he would not act. +Two weeks later, Recarey was told that prosecutors had decided once again to take the case to +the grand jury. + + +It is not known how many of the girls testified before the grand jury. But Epstein's defense +team said one girl who was subpoenaed - the one who said she had sexual intercourse with +Epstein - never showed up. +The grand jury's indictment was handed down in July. It was not the one the police +department had wanted. +Instead of being slapped with a charge of unlawful sexual activity with a minor, Epstein was +charged with one count of felony solicitation of prostitution, which carries a +ximum penalty +of five years in prison. He was booked into the Palm Beach County Jail early July 23 and +released hours later. +Epstein's legal team "doesn't dispute that he had girls over for massages," Goldberger said. But +he said their claims that they had sexual encounters with him lack credibility. +"They are incapable of being believed," he said. "They had criminal records. They had +accusations of theft made against them by their employers. There was evidence of drug use by +some of them." +What remains for Epstein is yet to be seen. +The Palm Beach Police Department has asked the FBI to investigate the case. It also has +returned the $90,000 Epstein donated in 2004. +In New York, candidates for governor and state attorney general have vowed to return a total +of at least $60,000 in campaign contributions from Epstein. Meanwhile, Epstein's powerful +friends have remained silent as tabloids and Internet blogs feast on the public details of the +police investigation. +Goldberger maintains Epstein's innocence but says the legal team has not ruled out a future +plea deal. He insists Epstein will emerge in the end with his reputation untarnished. +"He will recover from this," he said +Staff writer Larry +Melanie Mena contributed to this story. +and staff researchers Bridget Bulger, Angelica Cortez, Amy Hanaway and +amarra@pbpost.com + + +@AMarraPBPost +THIF MOST +INTELLIGENT GRID +NOT A CERTIFIED +NOT A CERTIFIED + + +273 / 278 - Tuesday, November 16, 2004 +Section: A SECTION +Page: 1A +Source: By PAUL OWERS Palm Beach Post Staff Writer +Illustration: PHOTO (C & 2 B&W) & MAP (B&W) +Memo: Ran all editions. +Dateline: WEST PALM BEACH +TRUMP SNAGS GOSMAN ESTATE FOR $41 MILLION +When it came time to bid Monday for the palatial Palm Beach digs of Abe Gosman, The +Donald was not about to be trumped. +"Nobody was going to outbid me," the brash developer-turned-TV personality said from his +New York office. +Trump bested two other bidders with a $41.35 million offer for the 43,000-square-foot, +seven-bedroom estate on 6 oceanfront acres along the storied "Raider's Row." +But Trump, 58, proud possessor of Mar-a-Lago, has no plans to live in the Gosman home at +513 N. County Road. He wants to - what else? - sell it and make more money. +The star of the mega-hit The Apprentice said he intends to redevelop the site into a "super +luxury house" that would be the "finest anywhere in the United States." He might build +another house before flipping the entire package. +"I've known about this house for quite some time," Trump said. "It's probably the best piece +of land in Florida - and probably the country - for luxury real estate." +Although Trump said he could subdivide the property into nine lots, Palm Beach Mayor +Lesly +said zoning regulations allow for only two houses - and maybe a third. +said she's not worried about Trump's plans. +"He's been a very good property owner in the town of Palm Beach," she said. "He does his +projects very well. He's a perfectionist." +Monday's auction took place at U.S. Bankruptcy Court in West Palm Beach as part of +Gosman's Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. Proceeds from the sale will go into escrow for eventual +distribution to creditors. +The auction began at exactly noon after Judge Steven +dismissed an objection from +an attorney representing money manager Jeffrey Epstein. The lawyer argued unsuccessfully +that Trump was not a qualified bidder because his contract stipulated that he would not close +on the sale unless title insurance was in place beforehand. +With Trump listening via conference call, Epstein began the bidding at $37.25 million - +$250,000 higher than Trump's initial offer. +Mark Pulte, son of the founder of home-building giant Pulte Homes, passed when his turn +came, letting lawyers for Trump and Esptein bid against each other until the price hit $38.85 +million. +Pulte then bid $39.1 million, briefly raising the ire of Trump, who believed that Pulte had +given up his right to bid by passing the first time. + + +But +allowed the offer to stand, and Pulte and Trump went back and forth until +Pulte dropped out at $41.1 million. Epstein, a part-time Palm Beach resident, bowed out at +$38.6 million. +closed the bidding 10 minutes after it started, leaving Trump with the right to buy +the 29,000-square-foot home (a typical Palm Beach County single-family house is about +2,200 square feet). The property also has a tennis house, a pool house and 1930s-era service +quarters. +The closing could take place within a week but probably won't happen until next month. +Trustee Joe Luzinski and creditors said they were pleased with the outcome. +"We knew we were dealing with some substantial people ... who were going tø bid it up a +bit," Luzinski said. +"The system worked," said Charles Tatelbaum, a lawyer for creditor JPMorgan Chase Bank. +"In bankruptcy court, the idea is to get the most for creditors, and that's what happened." +The auction proved to be a bonanza for creditors, Luzinski said, noting that the highest offer +former listing agent Sotheby's International Realty received was $32 million. Sotheby's won't +receive a commission, he said +Pulte, 42, of Boca Raton, said he figured Trump wouldn't back down Monday. +"I got the feeling he was willing to go a lot higher, and I didn't want to chase it," Pulte said. +Pulte said Gosman asked him before the auction whether he would be willing to let him stay +in the mansion after the closing until he decides where he wants to move. Trump and +Luzinski said they have had no such discussions with Gosman. +Gosman, 75, had the house built after paying $12,1 million for the land in 1986. +The former health-care magnate declined interview requests before and after the auction +Monday. He was at the courthouse but left before the auction took place. +The $41.35 million price tag eclipses the $30.35 million sale of Lowell "Bud" Paxson's Palm +Beach home and guest house but falls short of the $45 million that Virginia home builder +Dwight Schar paid for Ron Perelman's 26,000-square-foot estate, Casa Apava, a designated +landmark. +Schar also paid $18.6 million for a lakefront lot across the street from the main house, for a +total of $63.6 million. Insiders say Schar spent a total of $70 million for his new property, +making it the priciest residential sale in U.S. history. +Gosman once had a fortune that Forbes magazine estimated at $480 million. He voluntarily +filed for Chapter I1 bankruptcy protection in 2001, listing assets of $250 million and +liabilities of $233.6 million. +When a judge ruled that Gosman had to give up all of his exempt assets to creditors if he +wanted to reorganize under Chapter 11, Gosman converted the case to Chapter 7 liquidation. +Last year, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Larry Lessen ruled that Abe and Lin Gosman's marriage is +invalid because Florida law does not recognize a Dominican Republic divorce that Lin +Gosman tried to obtain from another man, Michael Castre. +The judge's decision was a huge victory for creditors because it prevents Abe Gosman from +protecting assets by claiming joint ownership with his wife. Gosman's assets, which include +an extensive collection of artwork, could total as much as $70 million and will be sold later. +Without Lessen's ruling, Luzinski would have had a much harder time selling Gosman's +estate, said David Cimo, special counsel for the trustee. +"We would have been thwarted... or at least substantially impaired," Cimo said. + + +The trustee alleged during a weeklong trial in May that Gosman fraudulently gave his wife +an ownership interest in his home and other belongings only to avoid losing them in +bankruptcy. Gosman has denied any wrongdoing, saying he made the property transters in +1999, well before he filed for bankruptcy. +Lessen is expected to rule in the next two months whether Gosman made improper transfers, +a decision that will affect how much money will be available to creditors. +Cimo acknowledged that Monday wasn't the best of days for the Gosmans but said they were +willing to move forward, in part because the upkeep of the estate now exceeds their means. +"This is not a happy occasion for them, but at least we're moving to the next level," Cimo +said. "That's not a house you want to live in unless you're making large amounts of money +like Donald Trump." +paul_owers@pbpost.com +NOT A CERTIFIED COP + + +Indictment: Billionaire Solicited 3 Times - News - The Palm Beach Post - West Palm Beach, FL +Indictment: Billionaire Solicited 3 Times +Posted Jul 1, 2008 at 12:01 AM +Updated Oct 2, 2019 at 2:30 PM +(EDITOR'S NOTE: This story originally published in The Palm Beach Post on July 25, +2006) +Billionaire money manager and Palm Beach part-time resident Jeffrey Epl +solicited or procured prostitutes three or more times between Aug. 1 and Oct. 31 +of last year, according to an indictment charging him with felony solicitation of +prostitution. +Epstein, 53, was booked at the Palm Beach County jail at 1:45 a.m. Sunday. He +was released on $3,000 bond. +Epstein's case is unusual in that suspected prostitution johns are usually charged +with a misdemeanor, and even a felony charge is typically made in a criminal +information - an alternative to an indictment charging a person with the +commission of a crime. +His attorney, Jack Goldberger, declined to discuss the charge. +State attorney's office spokesman Mike Edmondson also had little to say. +"Generally speaking, there is a case that has a number of different aspects to it," +Edmondson said of a prostitution-related charge being submitted to a grand jury. +"We first became aware of the case months ago by Palm Beach police." +Prosecutors and police worked together to bring the case to the grand jury, he +said. +https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/20080701/indictment-billionaire-solicited-3-times +1/2 + + +Indictment: Billionaire Solicited 3 Times - News - The Palm Beach Post - West Palm Beach, FL +Palm Beach police confirmed that and said the department will release a report +today regarding its investigation. +Epstein has owned a five-bedroom, 7 1/2-bath, 7,234-square-foot home with a +pool and a boat dock on the Intracoastal Waterway since 1990, according to +property records. A man answering the door there Monday said that Epstein +wasn't home. A Cadillac Escalade registered to him was parked in the driveway, +which is flanked by two massive gargoyles. +Epstein sued Property Appraiser Gary Nikolits in 2001, contending that the +assessment of his home exceeded its fair market value. He dismissed his lawsuit +in December 2002. +A profile of Epstein in Vanity Fair magazine said he owns what are believed to +be the largest private homes in Manhattan - 51,000 square feet - and in New +Mexico - a 7,500-acre ranch. Those are in addition to his 70-acre island in the +U.S. Virgin Islands and fleet of aircraft. +Epstein's friends and admirers, according to the magazine, include prominent +businessmen, academics and scientists and famed Harvard law professor Alan +Dershowitz. +https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/20080701/indictment-billionaire-solicited-3-times +212 + + +After long probe, billionaire faces solicitation charge - News - The Palm Beach Post - West Palm Beach, FL +After long probe, billionaire faces solicitation +charge +Posted Jul 27, 2006 at 12:01 AM +Updated Oct 3, 2019 at 3:11 PM +(EDITOR'S NOTE: This story originally published in The Palm Beach Post oriJuly 26, +2006) +Palm Beach billionaire Jeffrey Epstein paid to have underage girls and young +women brought to his home, where he received massages and sometimes sex, +according to an investigation by the Palm Beach Police Department. +Palm Beach police spent months sifting through Epstein's trash and watching his +waterfront home and Palm Beach International Airport to keep tabs on his +private jet. An indictment charging Epstein, 53, was unsealed Monday, charging +him with one count of felony solicitation of prostitution. +Palm Beach police thought there was probable cause to charge Epstein with +unlawful sex acts with a minor and lewd and lascivious molestation. +Police Chief Michael Reiter was so angry with State Attorney Barry Krischer's +handling of the case that he wrote a memo suggesting the county's top +prosecutor disqualify himself. +"I must urge you to examine the unusual course that your office's handling of this +matter has taken and consider if good and sufficient reason exists to require your +disqualification from the prosecution of these cases," Reiter wrote in a May 1 +memo to Krischer. +While not commenting specifically on the Epstein case, Mike Edmondson, +spokesman for the state attorney, said his office presents cases other than +murders to a grand jury when there are questions about witnesses' credibility and +their ability to testify. +https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/20060727/after-long-probe-billionaire-faces-solicitation-charge +1/5 + + +After long probe, billionaire faces solicitation charge - News - The Palm Beach Post - West Palm Beach, FL +By the nature of their jobs, police officers look at evidence from a "one-sided +perspective," Edmondson said. "A prosecutor has to look at it in a much broader +fashion," weighing the veracity of witnesses and how they may fare under +defense attorneys' questioning, he said. +Epstein's attorney, Jack Goldberger, said his client committed no crimes. +"The reports and statements in question refer to false accusations that were not +charged because the Palm Beach County state attorney questioned the credibility +of the witnesses," Goldberger said. A county grand jury "found the allegations +wholly unsubstantiated and not credible," and that's why his client was not +charged with sexual activity with minors, he said. +Goldberger said Epstein passed a lie detector test administered by a reputable +polygraph examiner in which he said he did not know the girls were minors. +Also, a search warrant served on Epstein's home found no evidence to +corroborate the girls' allegations, Goldberger said. +According to police documents: +- A Palm Beach Community College student said she gave Epstein a massage in +the nude, then brought him six girls, ages 14 to 16, for massage and sex-tinged +sessions at his home. +- A 27-year-old woman who worked as Epstein's personal assistant also +facilitated the liaisons, phoning the PBCC student to arrange for girls when +Epstein was coming to town. And she escorted the girls upstairs when they +arrived, putting fresh sheets on a massage table and placing massage oils nearby. +- Police took sworn statements from five alleged victims and 17 witnesses. They +contend that on three occasions, Epstein had sex with the girls. +A money manager for the ultra-rich, Epstein was named one of New York's most +eligible bachelors in 2003 by The New York Post. He reportedly hobnobs with +the likes of former President Clinton, former Harvard University President +Summers and Donald Trump, and has lavish homes in Manhattan, +New Mexico and the Virgin Islands. +https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/20060727/after-long-probe-billionaire-faces-solicitation-charge +2/5 + + +After long probe, billionaire faces solicitation charge - News - The Palm Beach Post - West Palm Beach, FL +He has contributed tens of thousands of dollars to Democratic Party candidates +and organizations, including Sen. John Kerry's presidential bid, and the Senate +campaigns of Joe +, Hillary Clinton, +Dodd and Charles +Schumer. +COPY +Goldberger is one of five attorneys Epstein has retained since he became the +subject of an investigation, Edmondson said. Among the others: Alan +Dershowitz, the well-known Harvard law professor and author, who is a friend +of Epstein. Dershowitz could not be reached for comment. +Police said the woman who enlisted young girls for Epstein was +20, of +Palm Beach. +has worked at an Olive Garden restaurant in +Wellington and said she was a journalism major at Palm Beach Community +College when she was questioned by police last October. She has an unlisted +phone number and could not be reached for comment. +said she met Epstein when, at age 17, a friend asked her if she would like +to make money giving him a massage. She said she was driven to his fivebedroom, 7 1/2-bath home on the Intracoastal Waterway, then escorted upstairs +to a bedroom with a massage table and oils. Epstein and +were both naked +during the massage, she said, but when he grabbed her buttocks, she said she +didn't want to be touched. +https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/20060727/after-long-probe-billionaire-faces-solicitation-charge +3/5 + + +After long probe, billionaire faces solicitation charge - News - The Palm Beach Post - West Palm Beach, FL +Epstein said he'd pay her to bring him more girls - the younger the better, +told police. When she tried once to bring a 23-year-old woman to him, +Epstein said she was too old, +said. +who has not been charged in the case, said she eventually brought six +girls to Epstein who were paid $200 each time, +said. "I'm like a Heidi +Fleiss," police quoted her as saying. The girls knew what to expect when they +were taken to Epstein's home, +said. Give a massage - maybe naked - and +allow some touching. +One 14-year-old girl +took to meet Epstein led police to start the +investigation of him in March 2005. A relative of the girl called to say she +thought the child had recently engaged in sex with a Palm Beach man. The girl +then got into a fight with a classmate who accused her of being a prostitute, and +she couldn't explain why she had $300 in her purse. +The girl gave police this account of her meeting with Epl +She accompanied +and a second gitl to Epstein's house on a Sunday in +February 2005. Once there, a woman she thought was Epstein's assistant told the +girl to follow her upstairs to a room featuring a mural of a naked woman, several +photographs of naked women on a shelf, a hot pink and +sofa and a massage +table. +She stripped to her bra and panties and gave him a massage. +Epstein gave the 14-yéar-old $300 and she and the other girls left, she said. She +said Robson told her that Epstein paid her $200 that day. +Other girls told similar stories. In most accounts, Epstein's personal assistant at +the time, +now 27, escorted the girls to Epstein's bedroom. +whose most recent known address is in North Carolina, has not been +charged in the case. +Palm Beach police often conducted surveillance of Epstein's home, and at Palm +Beach International Airport to see if his private jet was there, so they would +know when he was in town. Police also arranged repeatedly to receive his trash +https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/20060727/after-long-probe-billionaire-faces-solicitation-charge +4/5 + + +After long probe, billionaire faces solicitation charge - News - The Palm Beach Post - West Palm Beach, FL +from Palm Beach sanitation workers, collecting papers with names and phone +numbers, sex toys and female hygiene products. +One note stated that a female could not come over at 7 p.m. because of soccer. +Another said a girl had to work Sunday - "Monday after school?" And still +another note contained the work hours of a girl, saying she leaves school at 11:30 +a.m. and would come over the next day at 10:30 a.m. +Only three months before the police department probe began, Epstein donated +$90,000 to the department for the purchase of a firearms simulator, said Jane +Struder, town finance director. The purchase was never made. The money was +returned to Epstein on Monday, she said. +NOT A CERTIFIED CO +https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/20060727/after-long-probe-billionaire-faces-solicitation-charge +5/5 + + +Police say lawyer tried to discredit teenage girls - News - Palm Beach Daily News - Palm Beach, FL +Police say lawyer tried to discredit teenage +girls +Posted Jul 29, 2006 at 12:01 AM +Updated Oct 3, 2019 at 2:00 PM +(EDITOR'S NOTE: This story originally was published in The Palm Beach Post on July +29, 2006) +Famed Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz met with the Palm Beach County +State Attorney's Office and provided damaging information about teenage girls +who say they gave his client, Palm Beach billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, sexually +charged massages, according to police reports. +The reports also state that another Epstein attorney agreed to a plea bargain that +would have allowed Epstein to have no criminal record. His current attorney +denies this happened. +And the documents also reveal that the father of at least one girl complained that +private investigators aggressively followed his car, photographed his home and +chased off visitors. +Police also talked to somebody who said she was offered money if she refused to +cooperate with the Palm Beach Police Department probe of Epstein. +The state attorney's office said it presented the Epstein case to a county grand +jury this month rather than directly charging Epstein because of concerns about +the girls' credibility. The grand jury indicted Epstein, 53, on a single count of +felony solicitation of prostitution, which carries a maximum penalty of five years +in prison. +Police believed there was probable cause to charge Epstein with the more serious +crimes of unlawful sex acts with a minor and lewd and lascivious molestation. +Police Chief Michael Reiter was so angry that he wrote State Attorney Barry +Krischer a memo in May suggesting he disqualify himself from the case. +https://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/article/20060729/NEWS/190917573 +114 + + +Police say lawyer tried to discredit teenage girls - News - Palm Beach Daily News - Palm Beach, FL +The case originally was going to be presented to the grand jury in February, but +was postponed after Dershowitz produced information gleaned from the Web +site myspace.com showing some of the alleged victims commenting on alcohol +and marijuana use, according to the police report prepared by Detective +Recarey. +, a 20-year-old +Palm Beach woman who told police she +recruited girls for Epstein, also is profiled on myspace.com. Her page includes +photos of her and her friends, including one using the name "Pimpin' Made EZ." +who was not charged in the case, is a potential prosecution witness. +According to Recarey, prosecutor Lanna Belohlavek offered Epstein attorneys +Dershowitz and Guy Fronstin a plea deal in April. Fronstin, after speaking with +Epstein, accepted the deal, in which Epstein would plead guilty to one count of +aggravated assault with intent to commit a felony, be placed on five years' +probation and have no criminal record. The deal also called for Epstein to submit +to a psychiatric and sexual evaluation and have no unsupervised visits with +minors, according to Recarey's report. The plea bargain was made in connection +with only one of the five alleged victims, the report states. +Fronstin - who declined to comment on the case - was subsequently fired and +veteran defense attorney Jack Goldberger was hired. He denies there was any +agreement by any of Epstein's attorneys to a plea deal. +"We absolutely did not agree to a plea in this case," he said. Neither Belohlavek +nor a state attorney's spokesman could be reached for comment. +The parent or parents of alleged victims who complained of being harassed by +private investigators provided license tag numbers of two of the men. Police +found the vehicles were registered to a private eye in West Palm Beach and +another in Jupiter, according to Recarey's report. +"I have no knowledge of it," defense attorney Goldberger said. +The report also says a woman connected to the Epstein case was contacted by +somebody who was still in touch with Epstein. That person told her she would +be compensated if she didn't cooperate with police, Recarey's report says. Those +https://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/article/20060729/NEWS/190917573 +2/4 + + +Police say lawyer tried to discredit teenage girls - News - Palm Beach Daily News - Palm Beach, FL +who did talk "will be dealt with," the woman said she was told. Phone records +show the woman talked with the person who allegedly intimidated her around +the time she said, Recarey reported. +Phone records also show that the person said to have made the threat then +placed a call to Epstein's personal assistant, who in turn called a New York +corporation affiliated with Epstein, the report states. +The issue in the Epstein case is not whether females came to his waterfront +home, but whether he knew their ages. +"He's never denied girls came to the house," Goldberger said. But when Epstein +was given a polygraph test, "he passed on knowledge of age," the attorney said. +After the indictment against Epstein was unsealed this week, Police Chief Reiter +referred the matter to the FBI. "We've received the referral, and we're reviewing +it," said FBI spokeswoman Judy Orihuela in Miami. +The chief himself has come under attack from Epstein's lawyers and friends in +New York, where he has a home. The New York Post quoted Epstein's +prominent New York lawyer, Gerald Lefcourt, as saying his client was indicted +only "because of the craziness of the police chief." +Reiter has declined to comment on the case. +Prosecutors have not presented a sex-related case like Epstein's to a grand jury +before, said Mike Edmondson, spokesman for the state attorney's office. "That's +what you do with a case that falls into a gray area," he said. +The state attorney's office did not recommend a particular criminal charge on +which to indict Epstein, Edmondson said. The grand jury was presented with a +list of charges from highest to lowest, then deliberated with the prosecutor out of +the room, he said. +"People are surprised at the grand jury proceeding," West Palm Beach defense +attorney Richard Tendler said. "It's a way for the prosecutor's office to not take +the full responsibility for not filing the (charge), and not doing what the Palm +Beach Police Department wanted. I think something fell apart with those +underage witnesses." +https://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/article/20060729/NEWS/190917573 +3/4 + + +Police say lawyer tried to discredit teenage girls - News - Palm Beach Daily News - Palm Beach, FL +Defense attorney Robert Gershman was a prosecutor for six years. "Those girls +must have been incredible or untrustworthy, I don't know," he said. +Other attorneys said Epstein's case raises the issue of whether wealthy, connected +defendants like Epstein - whose friends include former President Clinton and +Donald Trump - are treated differently from others. Once he knew he was the +subject of a criminal probe, Epstein hired a phalanx of powerful attorneys such as +Dershowitz and Lefcourt, who is a past president of the National Association of +Criminal Defense Lawyers. +Miami lawyer Roy Black - who became nationally known when he successfully +defended William Kennedy +on a rape charge in Palm Beach - also was +involved at one point. +Said defense attorney +Suskauer: "I think it's unfortunate the public may +get the perception that with power, you +may be treated differently than the +average Joe." +CERTIFIE +https://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/article/20060729/NEWS/190917573 +4/4 + + +Expert: Ignorance of age isn't +defense in sex cases +Posted Aug 5, 2006 at 12:01 AM +Updated Oct 3, 2019 at 1:38 PM +(EDITOR'S NOTE: This story originally published in The +Palm Beach Post on Aug. 5, 2006) +Even if Palm Beach money manager Jeffrey Epstein didn't +know that girls who police say gave him sexual massages at +his Intracoastal home were under the legal age, that alone +wouldn't have exempted him from criminal charges of +sexual activity with minors. +"Ignorance is not a valid defense said Bob Dekle, a legal +skills professor who was a Lake City prosecutor for nearly +30 years, half of that time speci +zing in sex crimes against +children. +"There is no knowledge element as far as the age is +concerned," Dekle said. +After an 11-month investigation, Palm Beach police said +there was probable cause to charge Epstein, 53, with +unlawful sex acts with a minor and lewd and lascivious +molestation. They contend that Epstein - friend of the rich +and famous and financial patron of Democratic Party +organizations and candidates - committed those acts with +five underage girls. +In the past week, New York Attorney General and +gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer has returned about +$50,000 in campaign contributions he received from +Epstein, and Mark | +a candidate to replace Spitzer in + + +his current job, has returned $10,000 to him because of the +Palm Beach scandal, the New York Daily News has +reported +Rather than file charges, the state attorney's office +presented the case to a county grand jury. The panel +indicted Epstein last week on a single, less serious charge of +felony solicitation of prostitution. +The case raised eyebrows because the state attorney's office +rarely, if ever, kicks such charges to a grand jury. And it +increases the difficulty of prosecuting child sex abuse cases, +especially when the defendant is enormously wealthy and +can hire high-priced, top-tier lawyers. +At least one of Epstein's alleged victims told police he knew +she was underage when the two of them got naked for +massages and sexual activity. She was 16 years old at the +time and said Epstein asked her questions about her high +school, according to police reports. +A girl who said she met Epstein when she was 15 said he +told her if she told anybody what happened at his house, +bad things could happen, the police reports state. +Epstein's youngest alleged victim was 14 when she says she +gave him a massage that included some sexual activity. She +is now 16. The girl's father says he doesn't know whether +she told Epstein her age. +"My daughter has kept a lot of what happened from me +because of sheer embarrassment," he said. "But she very +much looked 14. Any prudent man would have had second +thoughts about that." +Defense attorney Jack Goldberger maintains that not only +did Epstein pass a polygraph test showing he did not know +the girls were minors, but their stories weren't credible. +The state attorney's office also implied that their credibility +was an issue when it decided not to charge Epstein directly, +but instead give the case to the grand jury. + + +"A prosecutor has to look at it in a much broader fashion," a +state attorney's spokesman said last week. +THE S00 +INTELLIGENT GRID +TEAR NORAL +LEARN MONE D +Epstein hired Harvard law Professor Alan Dershowitz +when he became aware he was under investigation, and +Dershowitz gave prosecutors information that some of the +alleged victims had spoke of using alcohol and marijuana on +a popular Web site, according to a Palm Beach police +report. +Prosecutors typically consider two things in deciding +whether to charge somebody with sex-related offenses +against minors - whether there is sufficient evidence and +whether there is a public interest in doing so, Dekle said. +If two teens are in a sexual relationship and the boy turns +18 before the girl, he could be charged with a sex crime if +the sex continues. There would be no public interest in +pursuing that, Dekle said. +But where there is a large gap in ages - and especially in +cases of teachers with students - there is a public interest in +prosecuting, he said. Likewise if the accused has a track +record of sex with minors. + + +Still there is a "universal constant" in prosecuting these +cases, Dekle said. Men who exploit underage children for +sex often carefully choose their victims in ways that will +minimize the risk to them, he said. +Victims usually are from a lower social status, and they may +suffer from psychological problems, Dekle said. +"Lots of child sexual abuse victims have been victimized by +multiple people over a period of time. Then the act of abuse +produces behavior in the victims that further damages their +credibility." Examples include promiscuous behavior and +drug abuse. +Some of the alleged victims in the Epstein case returned to +his home multiple times for the massage sessions and the +$200 to $300 he typically paid them per visit. "That would +be a definite problem for the prosecutor," said Betty Resch, +who prosecuted crimes against children in Palm Beach +County for five years and now is in private practice in Lake +Worth. +"The victim becomes less sympathetic" to a jury, Resch said. +"But she's a victim nevertheless. She's a kid." +Most men charged with sex crimes against minors look +normal, Dekle said. A jury expecting to see a monster +seldom will. And the victims' ages work against them and in +favor of the defendant in a trial, Dekle said. +If a child and an adult tell different stories and both swear +they're telling the truth, adult jurors are more likely to +believe the adult, Dekle said. +"You have all these things working against you in a child +sex abuse case. Prosecutors normally try to be very careful +in filing those cases because they know what they're getting +into. There is no such thing as an iron-clad child sexual +abuse case." + + +Epstein camp calls female accusers +liars +Posted Aug 8, 2006 at 12:01 AM +Updated Oct 3, 2019 at 3:35 PM +(EDITOR'S NOTE: This story originally published in The +Palm Beach Post on Aug. 8, 2006) +Attorneys and publicists for Palm Beach financier Jeffrey +Epstein went on the offensive Monday, contending that +teenage girls who have accused Epstein of sexual +shenanigans at his waterfront home are liars and saying +that the Palm Beach Police Department is "childish." +"There never was any sex between Jeffrey Epstein and any +underage women," his lead attorney, Jack Goldberger, said +from Idaho where he was vacationing with his family. +Epstein did have young women come to his house to give +him massages, Goldberger said. "Mr. Epstein absolutely +insisted anybody who came to his house be over the age of +18. How he verified that, I don't know. The question is, did +anything illegal occur. The law was not violated here." +He had no explanation as to why Epstein would pay girls or +women with no massage training - as the alleged victims +said was the case - $200 to $300 for their visits. "The +credibility of these witnesses has been seriously +questioned," Goldberger said. +Epstein, 53, was indicted by a county grand jury last month +on a charge of felony solicitation of prostitution. After an +11-month investigation that included sifting through +Epstein's trash and surveilling his home, Palm Beach police +concluded there was enough evidence to charge him with +sexual activity with minors. When the grand jury indicted + + +Epstein on the less serious charge, Police Chief Michael +Reiter referred the case to the FBI to determine whether +there were federal law violations. +After a spate of stories about the case last week, New York +publicist Dan Klores - whose client list has included Paris +Hilton and Jennifer +- said on Saturday that Epstein's +camp was ready "to get their story out." +They did that Monday via Goldberger and a Los Angeles +publicist for Miami criminal defense attorney Roy Black, +who also has represented Epstein in the case. +"We just think there has been a distorted view of this case +in the media presented by the Palm Beach police, +Goldberger said. +Reiter has consistently declined to comment on the case +and did not respond to a request for comment Monday. +The implication that State Attorney Barry Krischer was +easy on Epstein by presenting the case to a grand jury +rather than filing charges directly against him is wrong, +Goldberger said. + + +The Palm Beach Police Department was "happy and +ecstatic" that the panel was going to review the evidence. "I +think what happened is they weren't happy with the result. +They decided to use the press to embarrass Mr. Epstein." +But records show that Reiter wrote Krischer on May 1 - +well before the case went to the grand jury - suggesting that +Krischer "consider if good and sufficient reason exists to +require your disqualification from the prosecution of these +cases." +Rather than flat-out decline to charge Epstein, Krischer +referred the case to the grand jury to "appease" the chief, +R +Goldberger said. +A state attorney's spokesman would say only that the office +refers cases to the grand jury when there are issues with the +viability of the evidence or witnesses credibility. +Both the state attorney and the grand jury concluded there +was not sufficient evidence that Ep +had sex with +minors, according to Goldberger. "It was just a childish +performance by the Palm Beach Police Department," +Goldberger said. +The defense attorney said one of the alleged victims who +claimed she was a minor was in fact over the age of 18. +Another alleged victim who was subpoenaed to testify to +the grand jury failed to do so. Epstein's accusers, he added, +have histories of drug abuse and thefts. "These women are +liars. We've established that." +But why would they all invent their stories about meeting +Epstein for sexual massages? +"I don't have an answer as to what was the motivation for +these women to come forward and make these allegations," +Goldberger said + + +Newspapers +ly Blancestry +The Palm Beach Post (West Palm Beach, Florida) • 14 Aug 2006, Mon • Page 7 +Downloaded on Nov 11, 2019 +Palin Beach chief focus +of fire in Epstein case +OPY +Reiter focus of fire in Epstein case +Clipped By: +reiter_m +Sat, Apr 22, 2017 +Copyright @ 2019 Newspapers.com, All Rights Reserved. +Newspaper" + + +Delays in Epstein case unusual, +lawyers say +Posted Mar 13, 2007 at 12:01 AM +Updated Oct 3, 2019 at 3:48 PM +(EDITOR'S NOTE: This story originally published in The Palm +Beach Post March 13, 2007) +A federal probe or a plea deal could explain the wait in the +Palm Beacher's solicitation case. +Nearly eight months after Palm Beach tycoon Jeffrey +Epstein was charged with felony solicitation of prostitution, +there has been no discernible progress in his case. No +witnesses deposed. No trial date set. Nothing, save for +routine court hearings reset without explanation. +"Usually that would be unusual," said criminal defense +attorney Glenn Mitchell, who has no involvement in the +case. +"As a general rule, it would be unusual for nothing to have +happened agreed Michael Dutko, a criminal defense +attorney in Fort Lauderdale. He represents +20, of +Palm Beach, potentially a key witness in the +case. +A routine hearing for Epstein was pulled from the court +docket last week and reset for May 16. The delays and +inaction could be due to a potential federal probe of Epstein +or because a plea deal is in the works, attorneys say. +Unusual is the word that best describes everything about +the case against Epstein, 54, an enigmatic money manager +in New York City who counts Bill Clinton and Donald +Trump among his friends. + + +"Highly unusual" is how Palm Beach Police Chief Michael +Reiter described State Attorney Barry Krischer's handling +of the case in a bluntly critical letter to Krischer last year +before Epstein was indicted. +Reiter referred the matter to the FBI to determine whether +any federal laws had been violated. Epstein's allies +countered by attacking the chief personally and +professionally. +Reiter's department investigated Epstein for 11 months. +Police sifted repeatedly through his trash and conducted +surveillance on his five-bedroom, 7 1/2-bath, 7,234-squarefoot home on the Intracoastal Waterway. +Police said Epstein paid women and girls as young as 14 to +give him erotic massages at his home. Police thought there +was probable cause to charge him with unlawful sex acts +with a minor and lewd and lascivious molestation. +Epstein responded by hiring a phalanx of lawyers. One of +them, Harvard law professor and author Alan Dershowitz, +provided the state attorney's office with information about +alcohol and marijuana use by some of the girls who said +they were with Epstein. +Prosecutors then referred the case to the grand jury rather +than file charges directly against Epstein. +Epstein's attorneys deny he had sex with underage girls. +The lawyers say the girls' stories are not credible. But if the +court file is any indicator, they've made no effort to depose +the girls. +Neither prosecutors nor defense attorneys have sought to +question +, said Dutko, her attorney. She recruited +teenage girls to visit Epstein for massages and sexual +activity, Palm Beach police said, and presumably would be a +key witness. + + +Epstein's attorney Jack Goldberger did not return phone +messages. +A source close to the case suggested it is languishing +pending a decision by the FBI on whether to refer it to +federal prosecutors. +"We still have a pending case," FBI spokeswoman Judy +Orihuela said Monday. +State Attorney Krischer did not return a call for comment. +His spokesman, Mike Edmondson, declined to say whether +federal investigators are delaying the Epstein case. But, he +added, "if another agency is looking at something, we +wouldn't want to step on their toes." +Attorneys say inertia in a criminal case often points to a +pending plea deal. +"It would not surprise me if something has happened that's +not reflected in the court file," said Dutko, such as an +agreement that will be for +lized later. +Defense attorney Mare Shiner said defense attorneys +sometimes put off overtly conducting discovery -- deposing +witnesses, requesting documents and the like -- because +doing so creates more work for harried prosecutors who +may become angry and not offer a plea deal. +"Sometimes defense lawyers, knowing that, will try and do +discovery without taking depositions," said Shiner, a former +prosecutor for 13 years. +Instead, they may conduct a below-the-radar probe such as +having a private investigator check out leads, he said. +Shiner and others say a plea deal for Epstein probably +would result in pretrial intervention, in which a defendant +may be ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation, +counseling or other conditions in return for dropping the +charge. + + +Edmondson, spokesman for State Attorney Krischer, said +there is no plea offer and no request for the prosecution to +show its cards. +"To my knowledge, it's never happened before on a filed +case," he said. + + +252 / 278 - Thursday, October 18, 2007 +Section: LOCAL +Page: 5B +Source: The Associated Press +Illustration: PHOTO (B& W) +Memo: Ran all editions. +Dateline: NEW YORK +WOMAN SUES BILLIONAIRE INVESTOR, SAYS THEY HAD SEX WHEN SHE WAS 16 +A billionaire investor, already facing jail in Palm Beach County on charges of soliciting underage +prostitutes, is being sued by a young woman who says he had sex with her when she was 16 and had +sought his help becoming a model. +The lawsuit, filed late Tuesday in Manhattan's state Supreme Court, says financier Jeffrey Epstein had +the teen perform a sex act when she brought photographs of herself for him to review in his Upper +East Side mansion sometime in 2000. +Epstein, 54, a money manager, told the teen he managed finances for Victoria's Secret and "could get +you into the catalog" if she were "nice" to him, court papers say. The papers say being "nice" +included massages and other favors. +When the girl told Epstein, "I am 16 years old and just want to model," he replied, "Don't worry, I +won't tell anybody," court papers say. +Epstein, said by London's Mail on Sunday to be a close friend of England's Prince Andrew, has been +indicted in Palm Beach on charges of soliciting underage prostitutes. That case is pending. +The girl visited Epstein "several times over the several months and engaged in bizarre and unnatural +sex acts" while she was a minor, the lawsuit says. +Epstein "repeatedly requested that (the girl) return with her 14-, 15-, and 16-year-old girlfriends, +stating, 'Come by with your friends your age next time. Don't bring Sherrie (a mutual friend in her +40s). I love girls your age.'" +The young woman, now 23, kept returning to Epstein because she has "mental issues," said her +lawyer, William J. Unroch. He refused to elaborate, but court papers say she was "disabled as a result +of severe mental disease and defect." +Epstein's lawyer in New York, Gerald Lefcourt, said, "The girl has admitted she is insane, but she can +read a newspaper and recognize the word 'rich." +Lefcourt also said the statute of limitations has expired for the woman's case criminally and civilly, +and will almost certainly be dismissed. +He refused to comment on Epstein's Florida charges. +Meanwhile, Unroch, 57, also acknowledged that his client was living with him and was at the center +of a $10 million lawsuit he filed last year against a neighbor who said he was having sex with +underage girls. That case is pending. +"What she was doing at 22 is irrelevant to what happened to her when she was 16," Unroch said +Wednesday. He went on the say he hoped Epstein would agree to "do right" by his client and resolve +the case out of court. + + +Palm Beacher pleads in sex case +Posted Jul 1, 2008 at 12:01 AM +Updated Oct 3, 2019 at 1:47 PM +(EDITOR'S NOTE: This story originally published in The +Palm Beach Post on July 1, 2008) +Jeffrey Epstein will serve 1 1/2 years on teen solicitation +charges. +He lives in a Palm Beach waterfront mansion and has kept +company with the likes of President Clinton, Prince +Andrew and Donald Trump, but investment banker Jeffrey +Epstein will call the Palm Beach County Jail home for the +next 18 months. +Epstein, 55, pleaded guilty Monday to felony solicitation of +prostitution and procuring a person under the age of 18 for +prostitution. After serving 18 months in jail, he will be +under house arrest for a year. And he will have a lifelong +obligation to register as a sex offender. He must submit to +an HIV test within 48 hours, with the results being +provided to his victims or their parents. +As part of the plea deal, federal investigators agreed to drop +their investigation of Epstein, which they had taken to a +grand jury, two law enforcement sources said. +Epstein was indicted two years ago after an 11-month +investigation by Palm Beach police. They received a +complaint from a relative of a 14-year-old girl who had +given Epstein a naked massage at his five-bedroom, 7,234- +square-foot, $8.5 million Intracoastal home. +Police concluded that there were several other girls brought +in 2004 and 2005 to an upstairs room at the home for +similar massages and sexual touching. + + +The indictment charged Epstein only with felony +solicitation of prostitution. The state attorney's office later +added the charge of procuring underage girls for that +purpose. +Prosecutor Lanna Belohlavek said of the plea: "I took into +consideration the length the trial would have been and +witnesses having to testify" about sometimes embarrassing +incidents. +Epstein may have made a serious mistake soon after he was +charged. He rejected an offer to plead guilty to one count of +aggravated assault with intent to commit a felony, +according to police documents. He would have gotten five +years' probation, had no criminal record and not been a +registered sex offender, the documents indicate. +Epstein arrived in court Monday with at least three +attorneys. He wore a blue blazer, blue shirt, blue jeans and +and gray sneakers. After Circuit Judge Deborah Dale +Pucillo accepted the plea, he was fingerprinted. Epstein +then removed his blazer and was handcuffed for the trip to +jail while his attorneys tried to shield him from +photographers' lenses. +When he eventually is released to house arrest, Epstein will +have to observe a 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew, have no +unsupervised contact with anyone younger than 18 and +neither own nor possess pornographic or sexual materials +"that are relevant to your deviant behavior," the judge said. +Epstein will be allowed to leave home for work. The New +York-based money manager told the judge he has formed +the not-for-profit Florida Science Foundation to finance +scientific research. "I'm there every day," Epstein said. +The foundation was incorporated in November. Epstein +said he already has awarded money to Harvard and MIT. + + +When he is released from jail, there is a chance that Epstein +will be forced to move. Sex offenders are not allowed to live +within 1,000 feet of a school, park or other areas where +children may gather. No determination has been made as to +whether Epstein's home complies, but attorneys said it +likely does. +Sex offenders also typically must attend counseling sessions. +Belohlavek said that was waived for Epstein because his +private psychiatrist is working with him. The judge was +skeptical but agreed to it. +Epstein's legal woes don't end with Monday's plea. There +are four pending federal civil lawsuits and one in state court +related to his behavior. At least one woman has sued him in +New York, where he owns a 51,000-square-foot Manhattan +mansion. +"It's validation of what we're saying in the civil cases," said +Miami attorney Jeffrey Herman, who represents the alleged +victims in the federal lawsuits, West Palm Beach attorney +Ted Leopold represents one alleged victim in a civil suit in +state court. He said he anticipates amending that lawsuit to +add "a few other clients" as well. +In the criminal case, police went so far as to scour Epstein's +trash and conduct surveillance at Palm Beach International +Airport, where they watched for his private jet so they +would know when he was in town. They concluded that +Epstein paid girls $200 to $300 each after the massage +sessions. +"I'm like a Heidi Fleiss," +• now 22, told police +about her efforts in recruiting girls for Epstein. +There was probable cause to charge Epstein with unlawful +sex acts with a minor and lewd and lascivious molestation, +police concluded. + + +The state attorney's office said questions about the girls' +credibility led it to take the unprecedented step of +presenting the evidence against Epstein to a grand jury, +rather than directly charging him. +Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter was furious with +State Attorney Barry Krischer, saying in a May 2006 letter +that the prosecutor should disqualify himself. "I continue to +find your office's treatment of these cases highly unusual," +he wrote. He then asked for and got a federal investigation. +Epstein hired a phalanx of high-priced lawyers - including +Harvard law professor and author Alan Dershowitz - and +public relations people who questioned Reiter's competence +and the victims' truthfulness. +In addition to mansions in Palm Beach and Manhattan, +Epstein owns homes in New Mexico and the Virgin Islands. +He's a frequent contributor to Democratic Party candidates. +He also donated $30 million to Harvard in 2003. +Former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer returned a $50,000 +campaign contribution from Epstein after his indictment, +then resigned this year during his own sex scandal. And the +same Palm Beach Police Department that vigorously +investigated Epstein returned his $90,000 donation for the +purchase of a firearms simulator. +Staff writer Eliot Kleinberg and former staff researcher +Quigley contributed to this story. + + +Jeffrey Epstein: Scientist, +stuntman, 'sex slave' visit jailed +tycoon +By LARRY +/ Palm Beach Post Staff Writer +Posted Aug 13, 2008 at 12:01 AM +Updated Jul 16, 2019 at 4:54 PM +Tycoon Jeffrey Epstein mingled with an eclectic mix of +people, including beautiful young women, before he got +into trouble for paying teenage girls to give him sexual +massages at his Palm Beach mansion. +Not much has changed, even though he now resides in a +dorm at the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office's 17-acre, +967-bed stockade near the fairgrounds. +During his first month of confinement, Epstein was visited +by the female assistant who, girls told police, had escorted +them to the room at his mansion where they gave him +naked massages. +Also trekking to the jail was a young woman whom Epstein +purportedly described as his Yugoslavian sex slave. +The wealthy financier and science wonk also has been +visited by an expert on artificial intelligence, as well as a +man who is a mixed martial arts aficionado and sometime +movie stuntman. +The only other people to visit him at the jail, according to +records, are a +Island man and an individual who +listed Epstein's Palm Beach address as his own. +Epstein, 55, pleaded guilty on June 30 to two prostitutionrelated charges and was sentenced to 18 months in jail, +followed by a year of house arrest. Epstein paid teenage + + +girls $200 to $300 in 2004 and 2005 for massages in his +home that sometimes included sexual touching, Palm Beach +police said +His jail visitors in July included: +, 29, who some of the teen masseuses said +phoned them when Epstein was in town and escorted them +upon their arrival at his Palm Beach waterfront home to an +upstairs room, where she prepared the massage table and +provided the oils for their encounters with him. +visited Epstein three times in July, according to a jail +visitor's log. +lists a Manhattan home address. +Reached by telephone, she declined to discuss Epstein. +Op +23, whose family in Yugoslavia +Epstein paid money to so that he could bring her to the +United States to be his "sex slave," two teenage girls told +police. One girl told police that Epstein instructed +and her to kiss and have sex while he watched +and masturbated. Another said she engaged in sex with +at Epstein's urging. +visited Epstein +in jail four times in 13 days. She lists her address as on the +Upper East side of Manhattan, not far from Epstein's +enormous apartment. +- Roger Schank, 62, founder of the Institute for Learning +Sciences at Northwestern University and an expert on +artificial intelligence, paid one visit to Epstein. Schank has +written numerous books on that subject and has a doctorate +degree from Yale University in linguistics. He was one of 19 +people who applied to be president of Florida Atlantic +University in 2003. He became "chief learning officer" at the +online Trump University in 2005. Schank listed his address +as being in Stuart, and records show he also owns a home +in Lake Worth. + + +Epstein has financed a number of scientists over the years, +including Nobel Prize winners. He gave $30 million to +Harvard University in 2003. In November, he formed the +not-for-profit Florida Science Foundation, which he said +finances scientific research. +- Igor Zinoviev, a Russian mixed martial arts fighter, who +coaches a Chicago team in the International Fight League. +He also has worked as a personal trainer, celebrity +bodyguard and movie stuntman, according to the league's +Web site. The New Jersey resident visited Epstein seven +times in July. +Zinoviev, Schank and +comment. +could not be reached for +Staff researcher +N +liels +Heimeriks +NOT A CERTIFIE +contributed to this story. + + +Billionaire sex offender leaves jail +six days a week for work +Posted Jul 1, 2008 at 12:01 AM +Updated Oct 4, 2019 at 9:27 AM +Palm Beach billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who's serving 18 +months in jail for soliciting an underage girl for +prostitution, is allowed to leave the Palm Beach County +Stockade six days a week on a work-release program. +Teri Barbera, spokeswoman for the Palm Beach County +OPY +Sheriff's Office, confirmed that Epstein, 55, has been in the +work-release program since Oct. 10. +"He works six days a week: Friday through Wednesday 10 +a.m. to 10 p.m.," Barbera said via e-mail. "(He) works at his +local West Palm Beach office, monitored on an active GPS +system (he wears an ankle bracelet). Mr. Epstein hires a +permit deputy, at his expense, for his own security at his +workplace during the time he is out." +Miami attorney Jeffrey Herman represents six young +women who've sued Epstein, claiming he sexually abused +them at his Palm Beach home when they were minors. +Herman said he received a letter about the work-release +program from the U.S. Attorney's Office within the past +few days. But Herman says Epstein had been out on workrelease for several weeks before the notification. +"My clients expressed shock and disappointment," Herman +said. "I find it incredible that he's on work-release in the +community and my clients aren't notified of this and we get +this letter weeks after the fact." +Jack Goldberger, Epstein's criminal attorney, said the +...... +-.-- + + +arrangement is not unusual. +"He goes to work every single day and goes back to jail at +night, just like everybody else (in the program)," +Goldberger said. +Epstein pleaded guilty June 30 to two felony counts: +soliciting prostitution and procuring a person under 18 for +prostitution. As part of the plea agreement, Epstein must +serve one year of house arrest and register as a lifelong sex +offender. + + +Women want Epstein sex plea deal +unsealed +Posted Jul 1, 2008 at 12:01 AM +Updated Oct 2, 2019 at 2:23 PM +(EDITOR'S NOTE: This story originally published in The +Palm Beach Post June 10, 2009) +When wealthy money manager Jeffrey Epstein of Palm +Beach pleaded guilty last year to procuring teens for +prostitution, his case detoured around local and state rules +regarding the sealing of court documents. +At a plea conference on the state charges, a judge, a defense +lawyer and a prosecutor huddled at the bench and decided +that a deal Epstein had struck with federal prosecutors to +avoid charges should be sealed, according to a transcript of +the hearing. +And so it was. +But Florida rules of judicial administration, as well as rules +of the Palm Beach County court system, require public +notification that a court document has been or will be +sealed, meaning kept from public view. The rules also +require a judge to find a significant reason to seal, such as +protecting a trade secret or a compelling government +interest. +Yet no notification or reason occurred in Epstein's case, +according to court records. +- - - + + +Epstein's own attorneys, in federal filings, have referred to +his confidential deferred prosecution agreement with the +U.S. attorney's office, struck in September 2007, as +"unprecedented" and "highly unusual." And it was "a +significant inducement" for Epstein to accept the state's +deal, observed the state judge who accepted his plea, +County Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo. +Epstein now faces at least a dozen civil lawsuits in federal +and state courts filed by young women who said they had +sex with him and now are seeking damages. +Attorneys for some of those women want his agreement +with federal prosecutors unsealed and will ask Circuit Judge +Jeffrey Colbath to do so today. +"It is against public policy for these documents to be have +been sealed and hidden from public scrutiny. As a member +of the public, E. W. has a right to have these documents +unsealed," wrote former Circuit Judge Bill Berger, now in +private practice and representing one of the women. +The Palm Beach Post also will ask Colbath to unseal the +agreement. Post attorney Deanna Shullman will argue that +the public has a right to know the specifics of Epstein's deal. +According to various media accounts, Epstein moved in +circles that included President Clinton, Donald Trump and +Prince Andrew. "International Moneyman of Mystery," +declared a 2002 New York magazine profile of Epstein. +Epstein, 56, is in the Palm Beach County Stockade, serving +an 18-month sentence after pleading guilty nearly a year +ago to felony solicitation of prostitution and procuring +teenagers for prostitution. +He is allowed out from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., escorted by a +deputy, said Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office +spokeswoman Teri Barbera. + + +During a Palm Beach Police Department investigation, five +victims and 17 witnesses gave statements. They told of +young women brought by his assistants to Epstein's +mansion on El Brillo Way for massages and sexual activity, +and then being paid afterward. +At Epstein's plea conference last year, his attorney, Jack +Goldberger, and then-Assistant State Attorney Lanna +Belohlavek approached Pucillo in a sidebar conference. +Pucillo, who had left the bench nine years earlier, was +filling in temporarily as a senior judge. +According to a transcript, Goldberger told Pucillo that +Epstein had entered a confidential agreement with the U.S/ +attorney's office in which federal prosecutors brokered not +pursuing charges against him if he pleaded guilty in state +court. Pucillo then said she wanted a sealed copy of the +agreement filed in his case, and Goldberger concurred that +he wanted it sealed. Belohlavek later signed off on it. +The Florida Supreme Court has expressed "serious concern" +and launched an all-out inquiry into sealing procedures +across the state following media reports in 2006 of entire +cases being sealed and disappearing from court records. +"The public's constitutional right of access to court records +must remain inviolate, and this court is fully committed to +safeguarding this right," justices wrote in their final report. +Epstein's office on Tuesday referred any questions to +Goldberger, who declined to comment. Pucillo also has +declined to comment. + + +Epstein secret pact with Feds +reveals "highly unusual" terms +Posted Jun 10, 2009 at 12:01 AM +Updated Oct 4, 2019 at 9:23 AM +(EDITOR'S NOTE: This story originally published in The +Palm Beach Post on September 19, 2009) +A secret non-prosecution agreement multimillionaire +financier Jeffrey Epstein struck with federal prosecutors is +being called "highly unusual" by former federal prosecutors +and downright outrageous by attorneys now representing +young women who serviced him. +The deal reveals that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office +investigated him for several federal crimes, including +engaging minors in commercial sex. The crimes are +punishable by anywhere from 10 years to life in prison. +But federal prosecutors backed down and agreed to recall +grand jury subpoenas if Epstein pleaded guilty to +prostitution-related felonies in state court, which he +ultimately did. He received an 18-month jail sentence, of +which he served 13 months. +The U.S. Attorney's Office also agreed not to charge any of +Epstein's possible co-conspirators: +, Lesley Groff and +The deal was negotiated in part by heavyweight New York +criminal defense attorney Gerald Lefcourt. +Unsealed on Friday after attorneys for some of Epstein's +victims and The Palm Beach Post sought its release, it offers +the first public look at the deal Epstein's high-powered legal +counsel brokered on his behalf. + + +Mark +of Stuart, a former federal prosecutor, +described the disparity in potential sentences as unusual, +but even more so a provision on attorney payment. +The first draft of the agreement in September 2007 +required that Epstein pay an attorney -- tapped by the U.S. +Attorney's Office and approved by Epstein -- to represent +some of the victims. That attorney is prominent Miami +lawyer Bob Josefsberg. +But an addendum to the agreement signed the following +month struck Epstein's duty to pay Josefsberg if he and the +victims did not accept settlements -- capped at $150,000 - +and instead pursued lawsuits. +said it appears the government was trying to +balance the lesser sentence for Epstein with recovering +$150,000 for each victim. "I've never, ever seen anything +like that in my life," he said. "It's highly ynusual." +The deal does not say whether any victims were contacted +or consulted before the deal was made. +Attorney Brad Edwards of Fort Lauderdale, who represents +three of the young women, believes that none of the 30 to +40 woman identified as victims in the federal investigation +were told ahead of time. +said his clients received +letters from the U.S. Attorney's Office months after the deal +was signed, assuring them Epstein would be prosecuted. +"Never consulting the victims is probably the most +outrageous aspect of it," +said. "It taught them that +someone with money can buy his way out of anything. It's +outrageous and embarrassing for United States Attorney's +Office and the State Attorney's Office." +Epstein now faces many civil lawsuits filed by the women, +who are represented by a variety of attorneys. In many, the +allegations are the same: that Epstein had a predilection for +teenage girls, identified poor, vulnerable ones and used + + +other young women to lure them to his Palm Beach +mansion. They walked away with between $200 and +$1,000. +Former Circuit Judge Bill Berger, also representing victims, +called the agreement a "sweetheart deal." +"Why was it so important for the government to make this +deal?" Berger asked rhetorically. "We have not yet had an +honest explanation by any public official as to why it was +made ... and why the victims were sold down the river." +Former federal prosecutor Ryon McCabe described the +agreement as "very unorthodox." Such agreements, he said,) +are usually reserved for corporations, not individuals. +"It's very, very rare. I've never seen or heard of the +procedure that was set up here," said McCabe, who has no +involvement in any Epstein litigation. +"He's essentially avoiding federal prosecution because he +can afford to pay that many lawyers to help those victims +review their cases. ^ If a person has no money, he couldn't +be able to strike a deal like this and avoid federal +prosecution." +The backroom deal with federal prosecutors is all the more +interesting in light of the legal powerhouses who have +worked for Epstein, including Harvard professor Alan +Dershowitz and Bill Clinton investigator Kenneth Starr. +Lefcourt is a past president of the National Association of +Criminal Defense Lawyers. +Epstein's local defense attorney, Jack Goldberger, issued a +statement Friday saying he had fought the release of the +sealed agreement to protect the third parties named there. +"Mr. Epstein has fully abided by all of its terms and +conditions. He is looking forward to putting this difficult +period in his life behind him. He is continuing his longstanding history of science philanthropy." + + +The investigation triggered tensions between police and +prosecutors, with then-Palm Beach Chief Michael Reiter +saying in a May 2006 letter to then-State Attorney Barry +Krischer that the chief prosecutor should disqualify himself. +"I continue to find your office's treatment of these cases +highly unusual," Reiter wrote. He then asked for and got +the federal investigation that ended in the sealed deal. +"The Jeffrey Epstein matter was an experience of what a +many-million-dollar defense can accomplish," Reiter told +the Palm Beach Daily News upon his retirement. + + +187 / 278 - Wednesday, January 27, 2010 +Section: LOCAL & BUSINESS +Page: 3B +Source: By JANE MUSGRAVE Palm Beach Post Staff Writer +Dateline: WEST PALM BEACH +JUDGE RULES EPSTEIN ATTORNEYS CAN SUBPOENA ABORTION RECORDS +In a decision that could spark a constitutional showdown over privacy rights, a judge +Tuesday gave lawyers representing multimillionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein the right to +subpoena abortion records from women who are seeking millions in damages from the parttime Palm Beach resident. +Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Donald Hafele said the records could help Epstein rebut +the women's claims that they suffered psychological ills after being paid to give him +sexually-charged massages at his Palm Beach mansion when they were as young as 14. +Hafele told Epstein's attorneys they couldn't go on a fishing expedition. The medical records, +he said, can't be sought until the women are asked whether they have ever had an abortion, +how many and where. Further, he said, the records would not be made public and might not +be admissible during trial. +But, he said, since the women claim Epstein, now 57, is responsible for their emotional +distress, his attorneys can explore the impact of other events. Medical records, Hafele said, +are a better source of information than a person's memory. +Attorney Louis Silver, who represents the Presidential Women's Health Center, a West Palm +Beach clinic where abortions are performed, warned Hafele that he was stepping on shaky +constitutional grounds. +"These records are protected by our constitutional right of privacy," he said, referring to the +Florida Constitution. +After the hearing, Silver said an appeal won't be necessary until Epstein attorneys seek the +records. +In another ruling Wednesday, Hafele also said that videos from depositions in the state cases +can't be released without a court order. The ruling came after Epstein attorney Robert Critton +complained that a video of Epstein being asked whether he had an "egg-shaped" penis +became a youtube.com sensation. It first appeared on The Palm Beach Post Web site. +Critton blamed attorney Spencer Kuvin for releasing it. Kuvin said it was public record +The civil suits began mounting after Epstein agreed to plead guilty to two state charges: +procuring a minor for prostitution and soliciting prostitution. He served 13 months of an 18- +month sentence. As part of the deal brokered with federal prosecutors, he agreed not to +contest the accusations in the civil lawsuits. He can argue the women don't deserve the +millions they are seeking. +~jane_musgrave@pbpost.com + + +Epstein Journal's Findings Could +Resurrect Case +By Jane Musgrave +Posted Sep 17, 2019 at 12:01 AM +Updated Oct 1, 2019 at 10:51 AM +(EDITOR'S NOTE: This story originally published in The +Palm Beach Post on March 20, 2010) +A purloined journal that is said to contain the names of +"hundreds" of victims of convicted sex offender Jeffrey) +Epstein could be used to reopen the investigation into the +multi-millionaire's appetite for teenage girls, an attorney +representing seven of the victims said Friday. +New details about the contents of the journal were released +this week when Alfredo Rodriguez, who worked as a +property manager for the Palm Beach resident, pleaded +guilty to obstruction of justice for lying to federal agents +when asked if he had any information about his former +boss' criminal activity. He later tried to sell the journal he +stole from Ep +for $50,000 to an unidentified person, +who alerted authorities, according to court records. +As part of the plea agreement, federal prosecutors said the +journal "contains information material to the Epstein +investigation, including the names of material witnesses +and additional victims." +"Had the items been produced in response to the inquiries +of state or federal authorities ... the materials would have +been presented to the federal grand jury," federal +prosecutors wrote. +..... + + +Instead, prosecutors short-circuited the grand jury +investigation and cut a deal with Epstein. They agreed not +to pursue federal charges if he didn't contest prostitutionrelated felonies in state court. The money manager pleaded +guilty in July 2008 to procuring a minor for prostitution +and soliciting prostitution. He served 13 months of an 18- +month sentence. +Attorney Adam Horowitz, who represents seven of the +roughly 18 women who have filed civil suits against +Epstein, said the new information could trump the socalled non-prosecution agreement. +The multifaceted agreement, he said, deals only with a +specific list of victims that the U.S. Attorney's Office knew +about when it penned the deal in 2007. If additional victims +are listed in the journal Rodriguez stole, Horowitz said +federal prosecutors could reopen the investigation. +"It opens the door for further prosecution," he said. +In addition to turning over the journal to federal agents, +Rodriguez told them he knew his former boss was having +sex with underage girls when he worked for him in 2004 +and 2005. He had seen naked girls, who looked like minors, +in the pool of Epstein's $8.6 million mansion. He had seen +pornographic images of young girls on Epstein's computer, +according to court records. +Neither Epstein's criminal defense attorney, Jack +Goldberger, nor attorney Robert Critton, who represents +Epstein in the civil lawsuits, could be reached. Federal +prosecutors have consistently declined comment. +The wording of the controversial agreement is unclear. It +says federal prosecutors would provide Epstein's attorneys +"with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims." +Miami attorney Robert Josefsberg was appointed to + + +represent any of the victims on the list who wanted to +pursue Epstein in civil court. As part of the agreement, +Epstein is to pay for Josefsberg to represent the women. +Some of the women, most identified as Jane Doe in +lawsuits, had already hired attorneys to represent them. +Some have since settled their suits with Epstein, although +terms were not disclosed. +Horowitz said he has filed court papers to get the journal +that Rodriguez stole. "It's another piece of evidence that +shows our clients were at Epstein's mansion," he said. +Rodriguez told prosecutors he didn't turn over the journal +when both FBI and Palm Beach police asked for it because +he wanted money for it. He also said he was afraid Epstein +would make him "disappear." The information, he told +investigators, was his "insurance policy." +He faces a maximum 20 years in prison when he is +sentenced on June 18. +jane_musgrave@pbpost.com +@pbpcourts + + +Epstein paid three women $5.5 million to end underagesex lawsuits +By Jane Musgrave +Posted Oct 3, 2017 at 12:01 AM +Updated Oct 4, 2017 at 12:46 AM +Ending years of speculation about how much Palm Beach billionaire Jeffrey Epstein paid young +women who claimed he used them as sex toys, court documents filed last week show he shelled +out $5.5 million to settle lawsuits with three of more than two dozen teens who sued him. +Responding to requests from Epstein's attorneys in a complex lawsuit that was spawned by the +sex scandal, attorney +said the politically-connected 64-year-old convicted sex +offender paid more than $1 million to each of the three women +represented. +Identified in court papers only by their initials or pseudonyms because of the nature of the +allegations and their youthful ages, L.M, was paid $1 million, E. W. $2 million and Jane Doe +$2.5 million, +said of the settlements he negotiated with Epstein to end the lawsuits. +Jack Goldberger, one of Epstein's criminal defense attorneys, on Tuesday declined comment on +the revelations, citing confidentiality agreements that were part of the settlements. For the +same reason, he declined to say whether Epstein paid similar amounts to settle roughly two +dozen lawsuits filed by other young women against Epstein, claiming he paid them for sex +when some were as young as 14 years old. +Attorney Jack Scarola, who is representing +said his client was compelled to divulge +the confidential settlements to answer questions posed by Epstein's attorneys. "Brilliant move +on their part," he said. +Even if Epstein's attorneys hadn't opened the door, Scarola said the information would have +likely come out. He says the information will help him undermine Epstein's claims that +"ginned up" the allegations to help his former law partner, imprisoned and disbarred +Fort Lauderdale lawyer Scott Rothstein, perpetuate a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme. +----- + + +The revelations of the settlements came as part of an ongoing lawsuit that started as a dispute +between Epstein and Rothstein, both billionaires. +A year after Epstein in 2008 pleaded guilty to solicitation of prostitution and procuring a +minor for prostitution, he sued Rothstein and +• claiming they trumped up the +allegations of sexual molestation to perpetuate the Ponzi scheme. +Rothstein was sentenced to 50 years in prison in 2010 after admitting he had built his wildly +successful law firm by forging the names of federal judges and others to persuade investors he +had negotiated settlements in lawsuits against high-profile people. Investors were told they +could get a cut of the cash. +One of the high-profile people Rothstein used to lure investors was Epstein, according to a +lawsuit West Palm Beach attorney Robert Critton filed on Epstein's behalf. According to the +lawsuit, Rothstein told investors Epstein, a money manager, had ag +to settle the lawsuits +with the teens for $200 million — a claim Critton described as "a complete fabrication." +After Epstein dropped the lawsuit in 2012, +turned the tables on him. +accused +Epstein of filing the lawsuit maliciously to punish him for representing the young women. +Although | +was a partner in Rothstein's now defunct firm, Scarola claims Epstein had +no evidence +was involved in the Ponzi scheme. Federal prosecutors successfully +charged other attorneys and members of the firm, but +was never implicated, Scarola +said in the malicious prosecution lawsuit. +The revelations about the money Epstein paid to three of the young woman came last week in +documents filed for a hearing Tuesday in preparation for a December trial on the lawsuit. +Attorney Tonja Haddad Coleman, who represents Epstein, on Tuesday sought a delay of the +trial, in part, because she claimed she has been unable to talk to her client since his estate on his +private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands was devastated last month by Hurricane Irma. "I've had +no ability to communicate with Mr. Epstein," she said. + + +Pointing out Epstein's enormous wealth and his private jet, Palm Beach County Circuit Judge +Donald Hafele rejected her request. While saying he didn't want to appear insensitive to those +victimized by the storm that hammered the Caribbean and roared through South Florida, he +said Coleman offered no proof, such as an affidavit from Epstein, to shore up her claims. +Still, Hafele gave Coleman extra time to respond to various motions that he will have to decide +before the case goes to trial. +Despite Scarola's insistence that| +had nothing to do with Rothstein's Ponzi scheme, +Coleman said the evidence indicates otherwise. Why else would he try to depose Epstein's +well-known friends, such as now President Donald Trump, former President Bill Clinton and +illusionist David Copperfield, she asked. He used the celebrities as a draw, she said. +"The Epstein cases were used to fleece money and defraud inyestors," she said. +Edward's malicious prosecution case has been difficult for both sides because both Epstein and +have refused to answer questions. As he did in the civil lawsuits, Epstein has invoked +his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when questioned by Scarola. +has claimed that much of the information Epstein is seeking is protected by attorney-client +privilege. +The malicious prosecution lawsuit is one of two hotly-contested lawsuits that continue to pit +against Epstein. Edwards also is suing the U.S. attorney's office, claiming it violated +the federal Crime Victims Rights Act when it negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with +Epstein. +Only after federal prosecutors agreed to drop their investigation of Epstein, did he agree to +plead guilty to two prostitution charges in Palm Beach County Circuit Court. In federal court +records, prosecutors claim one of the key reasons they agreed to drop their case was Epstein's +agreement to settle lawsuits filed against him by dozens of his underage victims. + + +Judge rules feds' agreement with +Jeffrey Epstein pact violated teen +victims' rights +By Jane Musgrave +Posted Sep 17, 2019 at 4:02 PM +Updated Oct 8, 2019 at 12:31 PM +(EDITOR'S NOTE: This story originally published in The +Palm Beach Post on February 22, 2019) +Federal prosecutors violated the rights of Jeffrey Epl +COPY +teenage victims by failing to reveal they had dropped plans +to prosecute the billionaire on dozens of federal charges in +connection with the girls' claims that he paid them for sex +at his Palm Beach mansion, U,S. District Judge Kenneth +Marra ruled on Thursday. +In a blistering 33-page ruling, Marra meticulously and +methodically detailed the numerous steps federal +prosecutors took to hide the agreement from more than 40 +young women who claim Epstein paid them for sex when +they were as young as 14. +"While the government spent untold hours negotiating the +terms and implications of the NPA with Epstein's attorneys, +scant information was shared with the victims," Marra +wrote. "Instead, the victims were told to be 'patient' while +the investigation proceeded." +By then, it was too late. A deal had already been cut with +then-South Florida U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta and Epstein's +attorneys to shelve a 52-page federal indictment against +Epstein, a former math teacher turned money manager +who counts Presidents Donald Trump and Bill Clinton +among his friends. +..... + + +Prosecutors' failure to alert the young women about the +deal violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act, Marra ruled. +"At a bare minimum the (act) required the government to +inform (the young women) that it intended to enter into an +agreement not to prosecute Epstein," he wrote. +Still, Marra said he wasn't second-guessing prosecutors' +decision not to pursue Epstein on federal charges if he +pleaded guilty to minor state prostitution charges and +agreed to compensate his victims for the trauma he caused. +"The court is not ruling that the decision not to prosecute +was improper," Marra wrote. "The court is simply ruling +that, under the facts of this case, there was a violation under +the CVRA." +Further, he made no decision about what the remedy +should be. He gave prosecutors and attorneys representing +the young women 15 days to meet to decide how to unravel +the complex legal web that has been hanging over Epstein +and his young victims for more than a decade. +The chances an accord will be reached are slim, said +attorney Jack Scarola, who is representing the two Jane +Does who challenged the prosecutors' actions. +Further, he said, there is no road map to follow. The +lawsuit attorney +filed on behalf of the two +unidentified young women, claiming prosecutors violated +the federal act, is unique, he said +"We are treading on virgin ground, to use what is probably +an inappropriate phrase in this situation," he said. +Scarola said he and +will ask that the nonprosecution agreement be thrown out. That would open +the possibility that the long-shelved federal indictment +could be dusted off and filed against the 66-year-old +Epstein, who spends most of his time on a private island he +owns in the U.S. Virgin Islands. + + +"I don't see the government conceding to that remedy," +Scarola admitted. Further, he said, it is likely Epstein will be +allowed to weigh in. Miami attorney Roy Black years ago +filed papers asking to intervene on Epstein's behalf. +The U.S. Attorney's Office said it wouldn't comment on +Marra's ruling. Neither Black nor New York City attorney +Jay Lefkowitz, who led efforts to bury the federal +indictment, responded to emails or phone calls for +comment. West Palm Beach attorney Jack Goldberger, who +represents Epstein, also didn't respond. +Scarola said it is likely Epstein's star-studded legal team will +argue that Epstein fully complied with the terms of the +agreement he made in 2007 with federal prosecutors and +therefore the agreement can't be undone. +As he promised, Epstein pleaded guilty in June 2008 to state +charges of soliciting a minor for prostitution and soliciting +prostitution. He served 13 months of an 18-month jail term +in a vacant wing of the county stockade that he was allowed +to leave 12 hours a day, six days week. +Further, as agreed, he paid settlements to the young women +who sued him. While the settlements were confidential, +court records show he paid three women a total of $5.5 +million. +In return, federal prosecutors held up their end of the +bargain. Their investigation ceased. +Having done all that prosecutors asked of him, Scarola said +Epstein will make a simple argument: "You can't turn +around and deprive me of the benefits I bargained for." +However, Scarola said, using Marra's ruling, he will counter +that the contract Epstein signed was illegal and therefore +unenforceable. + + +Even if Marra agrees to toss out the non-prosecution +agreement, Scarola conceded that doesn't mean Epstein will +face federal charges. +"The contract can be set aside and the federal government +can attempt to enter into the same agreement," he said. +"Except the spotlight of public attention will be on them +and the 40 victims will be able to explain to the court why +this sweetheart deal should not be approved." +Scarola said that prosecutors may have had good reason not +to pursue Epstein. "There may be a reasonable explanation +but we don't know what that reason may have been," he +said. +In court papers, federal prosecutors have said that many of +the young women were afraid to cross the powerful, +politically connected money manager and simply refused to +testify against him. +In other cases, they said, the women changed their stories. +Jane Doe 2, who is trying to have the non-prosecution +agreement thrown out, initially described Epstein as "an +awesome man" and told prosecutors she hoped "nothing +happens" to him. While she later agreed to testify against +Epstein, prosecutors said they feared Epstein's attorneys +would use her words to destroy her if she ever took the +witness stand. +Marra, however, said the young woman's comments didn't +mean she wasn't entitled to know about the prosecutors' +plans to drop the charges. "There is no dispute that Epstein +sexually abused Jane Doe 2 while she was a minor," he +wrote. "Therefore, regardless of her comments to the +prosecutor, she was a victim." +Before the case is finally resolved, Scarola predicted that "a +lot of people are going to have to answer a lot of questions." + + +In his ruling, Marra detailed what appeared to be a cozy +relationship between Acosta, his line prosecutors and +Epstein's team of lawyers. His phalanx of lawyers included +noted Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth +Starr, the former U.S. solicitor general whose investigation +led to the impeachment of President Clinton. +Marra describes an October 2007 breakfast meeting +between Acosta, who is now U.S. labor secretary, and +Lefkowitz shortly after the non-prosecution agreement was +inked. +After the meeting, Lefkowitz sent Acosta a note thanking +him for "the commitment you made to me during our +October 12 meeting in which you assured me that your +Office would not ... contact any of the identified +individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants +and their respective counsel in this matter," +Marra quoted an equally pleasant note then-Palm Beach +County State Attorney Barry Krischer sent to Assistant U.S. +Attorney +Villafana, who was the lead prosecutor in +Epstein's case. "Glad we could get this worked out for +reasons I won't put in writing," Krischer wrote, shortly +after the non-prosecution agreement was signed. "After this +is resolvedI would love to buy you a cup at Starbucks and +have a conversation." +Many of the notes that were exchanged dealt with +prosecutors' and Epstein's lawyers' shared desire to keep the +deal secret from Epstein's accusers. In a September email, +Villafana asked Lefkowitz for guidance about what she +should reveal. "And can we have a conference call to discuss +what I may disclose to ... the girls regarding the +Agreement," she asked. + + +Such cooperation between prosecutors and defense +attorneys is unusual, Marra said. "It was a deviation from +the government's standard practice to negotiate with +defense counsel about the extent of crime victim +notifications," he wrote. +Further, he noted, that when +and his two young +clients asked for information, they were repeatedly misled. +"The CRVA was designed to protect victims' right and +ensure their involvement in the criminal justice process," +Marra wrote. "When the government gives information to +victims it cannot be misleading." +Ultimately, the terms of the non-prosecution agreement +were revealed only after +press successfully sued to +make +jmusgrave@pbpost.com +@pbpcourts +CERTIFIED +and attorneys for the + + +76 / 278 - Tuesday, July 9, 2019 +Edition: Final +Section: A Section +Page: 1A +Source: By Jane Musgrave, The Palm Beach Post +Epstein indicted on sex charges +Part-time Palm Beacher pleads not guilty to sex +trafficking, conspiracy charges in federal court in +Manhattan +Dressed in a blue prison jumpsuit, billionaire Jeffrey Epstein on Monday pleaded not guilty +to charges accusing him of creating a vast network of girls as young as 14 that he exploited +for his sexual pleasure at his homes in Palm Beach and Manhattan. +The 66-year-old money manager's appearance in U.S. District Court in New York City +capped more than a decade of recriminations by young women and their attorneys who +claimed Epstein used his money and political influence to avoid federal prosecution. +Epstein's attorney Reid Weingarten dismissed the two-count indictment on sex trafficking +charges as "essentially a do-over" of allegations that landed Epstein in the Palm Beach +County Jail for 13 months more than a decade ago. +However, unlike in 2007 when then-South Florida U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta agreed to +shelve a 53-page federal indictment after Epstein agreed to plead guilty to two state +prostitution charges, prosecutors in New York indicated they aren't willing to deal. Acosta is +now U.S. labor secretary. +"The alleged behavior shocks the conscience," New York City U.S. Attorney Geoffrey +Berman said at a +morning news conference. "And while the charged conduct is from a number of years ago, it +is still profoundly important to many of the alleged victims, now young women. They +deserve their day in court." +At a detention hearing scheduled for Monday, Berman said he will ask a federal judge to +keep Epstein behind bars until he is tried on charges of sex trafficking and conspiracy to +commit sex trafficking. Epstein paid dozens of young women to give him nude massages +that, for most, led to sex, he said. +If convicted of exploiting dozens of young women, including many Palm Beach County girls +who were students at +Palm Beach High School, Epstein faces a maximum 45-year +prison sentence. +Citing Epstein's enormous wealth, his homes in New York, Palm Beach, the U.S. Virgin +Islands, New Mexico and Paris and his ownership of two jets, Berman said there are few +conditions that could keep Epstein from fleeing to a foreign country to evade prosecution. + + +"We think he's a significant flight risk," Berman said of the man who ferried Britain's Prince +Andrew, actor Kevin Spacey, famed Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz and former +President Bill Clinton on his jet, dubbed the Lolita Express. +Berman's hard-line stance was welcomed by young women who for years have been told that +Epstein couldn't be touched because Acosta signed off on the nonprosecution agreement, +promising not to charge Epstein in federal court. +Former Palm Beach County resident Virginia Guiffre, who has accused Epstein of turning +her into his sex slave and forcing her to have sex with others, including Dershowitz and +Prince Andrew, praised Berman. He showed the case is "being taken in a serious way," she +told the Associated Press. Dershowitz has vehemently denied Guiffre's claims. / +New York prosecutors were able to ignore the controversial nonprosecution agreement +because it contained some significant fine print, said former federal Judge Paul Cassell, who +for years has fought to get the agreement thrown out. It says only that no charges could be +filed against Epstein in South Florida, he said. +Berman agreed. "That agreement only binds, by its terms, only binds the Southern District of +Florida," he said. "The Southern District of New York is not bound by that agreement and +wasn't a signatory of it." +That means the sordid allegations that have been leveled at Epstein for years are now part of +a federal indictment. +Contrary to Epstein's claims, he knew the women who came to his homes in New York and +Palm Beach were minors because they told him their ages, according to the indictment. +Epstein preyed on young girls because he knew they were "vulnerable to exploitation," +prosecutors added. +As part of a carefully orchestrated sex ring, Epstein or his associates would call girls while +he was in New York so they would be available for sex once he returned to Palm Beach, the +indictment says. The employees weren't named. They were identified only as "Employee-1," +"Employee-2" and "Employee-3." +To ensure he had a steady stream of young girls, Epstein would turn some victims into +recruiters. He would pay them to bring new girls to his home on El Brillo Way along the +Intracoastal Waterway in Palm Beach or to his palatial townhouse on New York's Upper East +Side. +"This allowed Epstein to create an ever-expanding web of new victims," Berman said. +In both New York and Palm Beach, the lurid operation was similar. Unidentified employees +of Epstein's would escort the teens into a room. They were told to take off all or most of their +clothes before giving the naked billionaire massages, according to the indictment. +"Epstein would also typically masturbate during these encounters, ask victims to touch him +while he masturbated, and touch victims' genitals with his hands or with sex toys," the +indictment says. +As part of the criminal complaint, prosecutors are asking that Epstein be forced to turn over +his multimillion-dollar townhouse on East 71st Street. The complaint does not seek forfeiture +of Epstein's house in Palm Beach. +While heartened that Epstein now faces serious criminal charges in New York, Cassell said +he would continue to push a West Palm Beach-based federal judge to throw out the +nonprosecution agreement that Acosta forged with Epstein's star-studded legal team. + + +U.S. District Judge Kenenth Marra has already ruled that Acosta violated the federal Crime +Victims' Rights Act by not telling Epstein's victims about the agreement before it was inked. +Coincidentally, Cassell and Epstein attorney Roy Black had to file papers by midnight +Monday, explaining what action Marra should take to redress that wrong. +Cassell insisted Epstein should face charges in federal court in West Palm Beach. "Florida +victims deserve justice in Florida," said Cassell, who is working on behalf of Epstein's +victims with attorneys +and Jack Scarola. +Since it's likely Florida women will get to testify against Epstein in New York, Scarola said +he's not focused on whether Epstein will face charges here. Instead, he said he wants to know +how and why the agreement was reached. +"There's been no explanation as to how a deal like this could have been cut and how the +federal government could have been involved in a conspiracy to violate federal law," Scarola +said of his interest in continuing the legal battle over the nonprosecution agreement. +When Acosta agreed to drop the federal investigation, Epstein in 2008 pleaded guilty to two +prostitution charges and served 13 months of an 18-month sentence in a yacant wing of the +Palm Beach County Jail - a cell he was allowed to leave 12 hours a day, six days a week. He +was also forced to register as a sex offender and settle civil lawsuits more than 30 young +women filed against him. +U.S. Rep. Lois Frankel, D-West Palm Beach, said she shares Scarola's interest in finding out +how the agreement came to be."I am especially more interested in why Epstein got the deal +he got," Frankel said. "We need to know why he was given such an easy sentence. +While she has asked the House Oversight Committee to investigate Acosta, Frankel said she +is not sure that will happen. "It just seems to me it was a travesty that this guy got off the +way he did and, without pre-judging it, let's have a proper court case," Frankel said. +Former Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter was inflamed in 2006 when then-State +Attorney Barry Krischer refused to charge Epstein with serious crimes. Reiter took the +information his officers had gathered from dozens of Epstein's victims to Acosta, believing +he would prosecute Epstein. He didn't. +Reiter said he was heartened that 13 years later, Epstein will finally face justice. +"Thankfully, U. S. Attorney Berman and the other authorities in New York have the good +judgment to investigate and prosecute Epstein in the way that should have occurred in +Florida over a decade ago," Reiter said in a statement. +And, Scarola said, there are signals that Berman's investigation is far from over. +Berman declined to answer questions about whether others, such as Epstein's high-powered +friends, would be charged. He brushed off questions about the significance that the +investigation was being handled by the Public Corruption Unit. +While agents on Saturday were arresting Epstein aboard his private jet at the Teterboro +Airport in New Jersey after returning from Paris, other officers were searching his New York +City townhouse. Agents seized nude photos of young girls who appeared to be minors, +Berman said. +He said his focus was on finding more women who were exploited and abused by Epstein. +Turning to a poster, detailing the charges that had been filed against Epstein, he pointed a +finger at a photo of the convicted sex offender who was once described as "a man of +mystery." + + +"If you believe you are a victim of this man, Jeffrey Epstein, we want to hear from you," +Berman said. A special number, 1-800-CALLFBI, will link victims of authorities. +Bill Sweeney, assistant director of the FBI's New York office, said after years of being +ignored by federal agents, the victims' voices will be heard. +"The Jeffrey Epstein matter is No. 1 on the major case list in the country," Sweeney said +Turning to address Epstein's victims directly, he said: "Your bravery may empower others to +speak out against crimes against them." +jmusgrave@pbpost.com +NOT A CERTIFIED COP + + +Appendix 13 + + +HEARING +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS vs DAVE ARONBERG +June 03, 2020 +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +ASE NO. +50-2019-CA-014681 +IRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION: "AG +OF TO PROTEST PUBLISHERE +Plaintiff/Petitioner +-VS- +DAVE ARONBERG, +SHARON R. BOCK, +Defendant/Respondents. +HEARING +"CERTINIED +TED COPY +BEFORE THE HONORABLE KRISTA MARX +(ZOOM CONFERENCE) +Wednesday, +June 3, 2020 +10:08 a.m. - 10:28 a.m. +REMOTE ZOOM CONFERENCE +Port Saint Lucie, Florida +Stenographically Reported By: +SONJA M. +Court Reporter +→ ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +HEARING +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS vs DAVE ARONBERG +June 03, 2020 +APPEARANCES: +On behalf of the Plaintiff/Petitioner: +GREENBERG TRAURIG, _P.A. +1840 Century Park East +Suite 1900 +Los Angeles, +310.586.7700 +California 90067 +boyajian@gtlaw.com +BY: NINA D. BOYAJIAN, ESQUIRE +On behalf of the Defendant/Respondent: +JACOB, SCHOLZ & WYLER, LIC +961687 Gateway Boulevard +Suite 2011 +Fernandina Beach, +Florida 32034 +COPY +904.261.3693 +doug.wyler@comcast.net +BY: DOUGLAS A. WYLER, ESQUIRE +On behalf of the Defendant/Respondent: +CLERK & COMPTROLLER, +PALM BEACH COUNTY +P.O. Box 229 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +561.355.2983 +nfingerhut@mypalmbeachclerk.com +BY: NICOLE R. +EINGERHUT, ESQUIRE +- - +• ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +HEARING +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS vs DAVE ARONBERG +June 03, 2020 +PROCEEDINGS +***** +THE COURT: We are here today for a very +limited purpose. I'm sure the attorneys are aware of +that, but I just don't want there to be any +confusion. We are here on Defendant Dave Aronberg +and Defendant Sharon Bock for the Comptroller and the +State Attorney's motion to dismiss Count II, +You're all acutely aware as the lawyers that +this is a question of law. So we're not going to be +diving into facts and the Court will not be deciding +the merits of this motion this morning. We are +simply here for the sole purpose of that motion to +dismiss. +So I just wanted to make sure that we all +stay on track and we're all on that same page. +So, Ms. Boyagilan, I'll send it to you first, +- 9f course, we all know that the Law 101, +I must look at the four corners of the motion, which +alleges that the State Attorney, David Aronberg, and +the alerk and comptroller, Sharon Bock, actually have +custody and control of these grand jury proceeding. +Whether that is true or not is not for this +court to determine because I'm looking simply at the +four corners of the complaint. But, not for nothing, +I think we all know that they don't have control and +• ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +HEARING +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS vs DAVE ARONBERG +June 03, 2020 +custody of the records. But I'm going to assume that +it's correct because that's what has been alleged. +So what I first want to hear from is the +attorney for Florida Holdings with regard to, +assuming arguendo, that Florida Statute 905.27 does +create a cause of action, what relief is it that +you're seeking from -- in Count II, specifically. +Not the dec action. +We're not here on that today - +what is it you hope to get, a judgment? +MS. BOYAGIAN: Thank you, your Honor. Good +morning, and thank you for the privilege of appearing +before this court. +The relief we are seeking is disclosure of the +grand jury records, pursuant to the Furtherance of +Justice Exception to 905.27. And under the First +Amendment. +The press,, as your Honor is aware, has a right +of access undér the First Amendment as a surrogate of +the public +=- +THE COURT: Let me just stop you for a minute. +I'd like you to answer my specific question. +So I am not particularly convinced -- and I'd +like for you to address that. So we're not going to +dive into facts or the press's standing because +that's not something we're here to discuss today. +• ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +HEARING +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS vs DAVE ARONBERG +June 03, 2020 +And I have read the voluminous paperwork -- +I've received paperwork as -- and -- five-minute ago +from some of the other parties. But I deeply +appreciate the fact that you sent this to me so much +in advance and I have been able to spend some time +with, as I said, the voluminous paperwork that was +provided. +But as you know, M +• we are here for such an +extremely limited issue today, and that their motion +to dismiss where they state "you're suing the wrong +people"; that the court has these records. +And so, more importantly, I want you to address +whether Section 905.27 gives, you a private cause of +action against the state attorney and the clerk. +Again, I'm +going to assume the facts are true +that are asserted in the motion. Whether they are or +not - because I think we can all agree we're not for +sure if they éver -- that the state attorney doesn't +have these records. +So what is it you're seeking in +Count +II - not the dec action. I know you want the +records. +I've got that. But in Count II, +specifically, what do you -- what's the relief you're +seeking and, more importantly, how under this statute +do you get to assert a private action -- a private +cause of action against the state attorney and the +• ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +HEARING +June 03, 2020 +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS vs DAVE ARONBERG +clerk? +MS. BOYAGIAN: Your Honor, we are aware, of +course, that there is no expressed private right of +action, 905.27. But that does not end the inquiry. +As the Florida Supreme Court stated: +"Where a statute like 905.27 +forbids an act which is to Plaintiff's +injury, the party injured should have +an action." +And that's the +Piezo case in the volume +of materials that we sent you• +There's no question here that the denial of the +FIRST AMENDMENT right to the press is an injury which +gives rise to a right of action. +Stated another way, looking at the analysis +that the Fischer Metcalf Court looked at, there are +three factors in determining whether there is a +private right of action where a statute does not +expressly provide for one. +One is whether the Plaintiff is part of the +class for which the statute is intended to protect; +second is a legislative history; and the third is the +underlying purposes of the statutory scheme. +The first factor I already addressed, that the +press is part of the class that the statute is +• ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +HEARING +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS vs DAVE ARONBERG +June 03, 2020 +intended to benefit, being the surrogate of the +public and exercising its first amendment right. +The second issue of legislative history and the +purpose -- statutory purpose are somewhat related. +We were unable to find much legislative history on +this issue of a private right of action under/ the +Y +statute. +There is nothing that says we intend to create +a private action, but there's certainly nothing that +says we do not want to create a private right of +action. +What we do have is that in 1994, the same time +that 905.27 was reenacted, a statute that pertains to +the secrecy of State Grand Jury -- statewide grand +juries was also enacted. That provision, which is +905.395, has no exceptions for -- for revealing these +records. By contrast, the legislature intentionally +enacted 905.27 with the Furtherance of Justice +Exception. +If the public through the press can't bring a +private right of action to enforce that exception or +to seek relief under that exception, that +intentionally placed exception of furthering justice +is essentially rendered hollow -- +(Speaking simultaneously.) +• ESQUIRE + + +1 +12 +(3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +HEARING +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS vs DAVE ARONBERG +June 03, 2020 +THE COURT: Okay. +Pause for a minute. +I don't think anybody is saying that there +isn't a cause of action or that the press doesn't) +have standing. That's not what I'm asking you. I'm +asking you, how are the clerk and the state attorney +the proper defendants? +So, you know, nowhere have I said there isn't a +cause of action. )Clearly there is. +I'm puzzled by +the procedural posturing of this case naming the +state attorney. +And, you know, I'm further stymied by the fact +that you allege in your complaint that they have -- +particularly David Aronberg, the State Attorney -- +that he has these records. +But I'm going to assume that's true. So I'm +not telling_you, you don't have a cause of action. +I'm just saying, okay, let's run this all the way +out. Let's say you win and you get a judgment +against the State Attorney Dave Aronberg. +What's he supposed to do with it? He can't +release +the grand jury testimony. He has no +authority whatsoever to do that. +MS. BOYAGIAN: Well, your Honor, as you stated, +this is a motion to dismiss stage, and we are +entitled to discovery on the issue of possession, +→ ESQUIRE +GEPOSITION SOLUTIONS + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +HEARING +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS vs DAVE ARONBERG +June 03, 2020 +custody, and control. +My understanding is that the +state attorney has asserted that he does not have +possession. It's not my understanding that the clerk +has taken that position. +So the clerk may indeed be +the -- someone who does have possession, custody, and +control. +In any event, we would submit that the state +attorney, even it does not have actual possession at +this time, it might be able to have the power to +control or direct the entity or persons who do have +control and possession to release those -- to effect +the judgment. +THE COURT: So let me ask you this: so the +clerk is the keeper of the record. But even if you +got a judgment against her -- let's say you asserted +this cause of action and let's say you win and you +get a judgment against the clerk. The clerk cannot +release grand jury testimony to you. Only the court +can. +So really -- all I'm saying to you is I do not +understand the way this case was filed or why these +are the defendants because it's impossible for them +to perform. +I mean, I'm going to assume, based on your +motion, again, that they do have the records. But we +• ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +HEARING +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS vs DAVE ARONBERG +June 03, 2020 +10 +all know - everyone in the room knows they do not -- +that only the court -- they're -- they're with a +court interpreting. And only the court can release +the records. +So if you get a judgment against either the +state attorney or the clerk, they cannot -- I mean, I +guess what you're saying to me is, well, we +•want +I to +do discovery and we want them to say unequiyocally "I +have these records" or "I don't have them." +And - I mean, the law is abundantly clear. +You cannot do it without a court determining whether, +in the furtherance of justice, +the release is +appropriate. +MS. BOYAGIAN: +And that is a determination +we're asking your Honor to make, and we're asking for +an order from your court. +THE COURT:, When we get to the merits of the +case, sure it' is. But, again, you're asking me to +make that determination and for me to make a +determination of whether the grand jury records +should be released. And the only thing we're here +today about is why should the clerk and the state +attorney have to defend a civil action when it's a +possibility of performance? They -- even if you were +to win and get a judgment against them, they cannot +& ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +HEARING +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS vs DAVE ARONBERG +June 03, 2020 +11 +give you what they don't have. +So - I mean, it's +as simply as this: Are +you - you just want to engage in some discovery for +them to absolutely assert, particularly, the state +attorney, "I don't have these records"; 100k to the +rules that say the moment the grand jury's overh +they're sealed and they're turned over and they +cannot be released without court order? +So I'm not addressing the merits or whether you +have an exception or you're able to argue that +there's an exception in the furtherance of justice. +We're not getting there today. I'm simply saying why +should these two entities have to defend this lawsuit +when even down the road if they win they can't give +you what they don't have? +MS. BOYAGIAN: ) 'As your Honor stated, I'm not +sure that's the case with the clerk. That was not in +their -7 +that issue was not stated in their papers. +THE COURT: Let me ask you this, then: Do you +think, +if you got a judgment and I or the court +doesn't make the determination that the grand jury +records should be released, that the clerk would be +able to perform? +Would they be able to say "here you go"? I +mean, could the clerk just make that unilateral +• ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +HEARING +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS vs DAVE ARONBERG +June 03, 2020 +12 +decision "I'm going to release the records, sealed +confidential records"? +Does she have any authority to do that? +MS. BOYAGIAN: My understanding, your Honor, is +that 905.27 requires a court order before the records +are unsealed. +THE COURT: Exactly. Exactly. +All right. Let me hear from Mr. Aronberg's +attorney, Mr. Wyler. +MR. WYLER: Thank you, your Honor. +May it +please the Court -- +THE COURT: Good morning, +Sir. +MR. WYLER: Good morning. +Your Honor, I just wanted to let you know that +I spoke with counsel for the clerk, Ms. Fingerhut, a +couple of days before this hearing, and we decided +that I would just make the presentation for both of +of us, being that our arguments overlap except for +the fact of who this claim -- whether they have the +records or not, which, of course, we've said we don't +have custody of the records. +But, nonetheless, our arguments overlap. The +Plaintiff is attempting to assert a cause of action +under Section 905.27. +That statute settled testimony +not to be disclosed exceptions. So it's just +• ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +HEARING +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS vs DAVE ARONBERG +June 03, 2020 +13 +explaining exceptions to the disclosure of the grand +jury testimony. +Our position is that it doesn't set forth a +cause of action and that it's impossible for us to +perform what they're asking. +I know you said you didn't really want to get +into the Furthering Justice Exception, but I know +that's what they're using as their basis to get to +these. But it's our position that the clear +unambiguous statutory language, it shows that this +disclosure only applies to a civil)or criminal case, +and that within that civil or criminal -- +(Speaking simultaneous]y.) +THE COURT: Again, +sir - I'm sorry. As I told +Plaintiff's counsel y +MR. WYLER: +• can only be used in the defense +for -- +THE COURT: Okay. We're not there. We're not +discussing the merits of the case, and -- I'm not +ready to cross that bridge. I'm here for a very, +very limited hearing today. +So just as I stopped Plaintiff's counsel from +arguing the merits of the case and whether or not the +Furtherance of Justice Exception will apply in this +instance, we're not even there yet. +• ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +HEARING +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS vs DAVE ARONBERG +June 03, 2020 +14 +I'm only here for the purpose of determining +whether or not the clerk and state attorney should be +dismissed. And I am bound by the four corners of the +document, which assert that you do have control and +custody over it. +So if you'll fashion your argument with regard +to that limited purpose, I would appreciate it. +MR. WYLER: No problem, your Honor. +apologize. +Within the four corners of their complaint, our +position is that they failed to state a cause of +action under 905.27. It does not provide for -- it +doesn't list that there's no element that they have +adequately pled to assert a cause of action under +that. There's -- and the only thing they're asking +for is records +that we don't have. +There's really not much more to it, your Honor. +And we would ask that you would grant our motion to +dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. +THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Fingerhut, are you still +on the phone? +MS. FINGERHUT: Yes, your Honor. +THE COURT: Is there anything you wish to add? +MS. FINGERHUT: We agree with the state +• ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +HEARING +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS vs DAVE ARONBERG +June 03, 2020 +15 +attorney's position, and we also agree with what the +Court has said, that the plain language of the +statute, a cause of action doesn't exist. And we +really cannot -- we'll be defending something without +the four corners. +We're simply involved in this +action because the clerk is the custodian of the +records. +THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Ma'am +Ms. Boyagian, back to you. +MS. BOYAGIAN: Your Honor, Id like to note +that in the Butterworth case in which the Supreme +Court limited the application 905.27 by saying that a +witness can reveal her own testimony and prohibiting +that they violate the First Amendment -- +THE COURT: +Say that again, please. +MS. BOYAGIAN:) In the Supreme Court case, the +Butterworth case, in which the Supreme Court ruled +that 905.27 cán't restrict a Grand Jury witness from +revealing her own testimony, that would be a +violation of First Amendment, in that case, the state +attorney was, in fact, a party. +THE COURT: Well, I assume the state attorney +that was present -- I mean, I don't find that that's +close to what we're talking about here, and that's +whether or not - I mean, as we know, this was in +• ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +HEARING +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS vs DAVE ARONBERG +June 03, 2020 +16 +2006. Certainly Dave Aronberg wasn't even the state +attorney then. But this is about the release of +records. +I want to give you ample opportunity -- and +again, I sincerely appreciate that all of the case +law and the way that it was presented to the Court in +such a timely fashion. I really do. And I did spend +some time with it. But I want to give you whatever +opportunity you want to take to convince me that it +is in -- as to Count 2, again. Not the dec action - +whether these would be the appropriate defendants. +And, you know, reallyr +Iwant you to boil it +down for me as to this +let's take it all the way +down the road. You win. +You get a judgment against +the clerk and the state attorney. +I know there's other reasons why you might have +filed it this way. But I'm just simply puzzled +because 4 do hear what the clerk and the state +attorney are saying, and that is, performance is +impossible. +They don't have the records and +cannot -- absolutely. There's not even an inch of +wiggle room -- that they could release the records +even if you got a judgment. It is solely a +determination for the court. +I, frankly, think, you know, there's ways to +& ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +HEARING +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS vs DAVE ARONBERG +June 03, 2020 +17 +get to your records. There's ways to get +confidential records. But it isn't by suing the +state attorney and the clerk. +So I just want to hear your last final argument +on how Count II, the appropriate defendants are the +clerk and the state attorney. Even assuming arguendo +they have the records -- we know they don't +-- you +were to get a judgment against them, how would you +expect them to perform? +MS. BOYAGIAN: Iwo points, your Honor: One is +that, again, the clerk did not assert in her papers +that she does not have control. That is a position +that the State Attorney/s Office has asserted. It is +our allegation, and as your Honor noted, allegations +must be accepted. +as true -- as true at this stage of +the proceedings +Second, it is also our understanding that the +state attorney and the clerk intend to block access +to these records. +So our allegation is that they do +have possession, custody, or control, which the clerk +has not denied; and second, that they are trying to +block access to the records -- +THE COURT: What do you mean? What do you +mean? They're not trying to block it. They're +saying that despite the fact -- let's just talk about +• ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +HEARING +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS vs DAVE ARONBERG +June 03, 2020 +18 +the clerk, because we all know the state attorney +doesn't have it. +So the clerk is the custodian of records. +That's her main job. There's no doubt about it. We +all know that. But we also know, unequivocally - +unequivocally, only the court can make the +determination of whether the moving party has +satisfied that there is an exception that these +should be released. +So, again, I ask you -- she +is, +in fact, the +custodian of the records -- is it your opinion that +if you got a judgment saying clerk and comptroller +gets a judgment against them, that she can release +the records without the court -- without the court +weighing in, without the court making that +determination as required by law? +MS. BOYAGIAN: No, your Honor. We are asking +your Honor to order the clerk to do that under your +discretion. +THE COURT: All right. +Mr. - Ms. Fingerhut, you wish to be heard on +that? +MS. FINGERHUT: Your Honor, our position is +that we're not trying to block access to the +records --) +• ESQUIRE +GEPOSITION SOLUTIONS + + +1 +2 +(3 +(4 +(5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +HEARING +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS vs DAVE ARONBERG +June 03, 2020 +19 +(Speaking simultaneously.) +(THE COURT: Can you hear? Can the attorneys +hear? +MS. FINGERHUT: +- custodian the records and +that he cannot release the records without court -- +THE COURT: Exactly. +Okay. All right. Anything further, Mr! +Wyler? +MR. WYLER: No, your Honor. I concur with the +attorneys for the clerk's office that it's impossible +for us to release these records. +There's no intent +to hide them or block anything from the Plaintiff. +THE COURT: Okay. Anything further, +Ms. Fingerhut? +MS. FINGERHUT: No, your Honor. +THE COURT: +And, Ms. Boyagian, anything +further, +. BOYAGIAN: Nothing further, your Honor. +THE COURT: Okay. I will get an order out +quickly +Thank you, folks so much. And I'll see you +on the next +round. Thanks a lot. +MS. BOYAGIAN: Thank you, your Honor. +MR. WYLER: +Thank you, your Honor. +(The proceedings concluded at 10:28 a.m.) +→ ESQUIRE +BEPOSITION SOLUTIONS + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +HEARING +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS vs DAVE ARONBERG +CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER +June 03, 2020 +20 +I, Sonja M. | +, Court Reporter, certify that +I was authorized to and did stenographically report the +foregoing proceedings and that the transcript, pages 1 +through 19, is a true and complete record of my +stenographic notes. +Dated this 3rd day of +June, +2020. +Sonja M. +Court Reporter +•ESQUIRE \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d364864c888874bf7a92bddff8b6deb0c62568fcb658a1187e76d89ef596ee4e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d364864c888874bf7a92bddff8b6deb0c62568fcb658a1187e76d89ef596ee4e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cf39ebb836435589df6d60476e88a192fdf3924f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d364864c888874bf7a92bddff8b6deb0c62568fcb658a1187e76d89ef596ee4e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -29618, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d364864c888874bf7a92bddff8b6deb0c62568fcb658a1187e76d89ef596ee4e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 813, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "61cda6dc99846f6ec84a8754aa631d8b0c210d165ea8f25e6332ddf923076bef", + "output_sha256": "4624268dc8cf061e21000ac878a849c3c90bb54786cdf49515ae257d83f87d66", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3649acdc0741f070e14d304e107e5655b56b0e08424c1ffb73d0ceea45564ff.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3649acdc0741f070e14d304e107e5655b56b0e08424c1ffb73d0ceea45564ff.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9a009e79fc8989fdada8085c99bb2f8a4f45f1dc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3649acdc0741f070e14d304e107e5655b56b0e08424c1ffb73d0ceea45564ff.md @@ -0,0 +1,114 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2008 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80804-CIV-MARRA/. +JANE DOE, a/k/a, +JANE DOE NO. 1, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +and +Defendants. +JOINT STIPULATION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL +IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED that the law firm of Ricci-Leopold, P.A., withdraws as +counsel for the Plaintiff, and be relieved of any further responsibility herein and that the law firm +of Leopold-Kuvin, P.A. hereby notice their entry of appearance and request an Order +substituting said firm as counsel of record for the Plaintiff. +Dated: Sept. 16 +, 2008 +s/ Theodore J. Leopold +THEODORE J. LEOPOLD (FNB 705608) +Email: tleopold@riccilaw.com +RICCI-LEOPOLD, P.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +Telephone: (561) 684-6500 +Facsimile: (561) 697-2383 +s/ Theodore J. Leopold +THEODORE J. LEOPOLD (FNB 750608) +Email: tleopold@riccilaw.com +LEOPOLD~KUVIN, P.A +2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2008 Page 2 of 5 +Certificate of Services +I hereby certify that on Sept 16 +> 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document +is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached +Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing +generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are +not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +s/ Theodore J. Leopold +Theodore J. Leopold (Florida Bar Number 705608) +Attorney E-Mail Address: +RICCI-LEOPOLD, P.A. +2925 PGA Blvd. +Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +Telephone: (561) 684-6500 +Facsimile: (561) 697-2383 +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +2 of 4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2008 Page 3 of 5 +SERVICE LIST +Doe v. Epstein, et. al. +CASE NO: 08-80804-Civ-MARRA +United States Distriet Court, Southern Distriet of Florida +Robert Critton, Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 842-2820 +Fax: (561) 515-3148 +Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein +Served via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid +Guy Alan +.Esq. +Email: +Tein +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, FL 33133 +Phone: (305) 442-1101 +Fax: (305) 442-6744 +Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein +Served via CM/ECF +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 202-6360 +Fax: (561) 828-0983 +Counsel for +Served via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid +Michael R. Tein, Esq. +Email: tein@lewistein.com +Tein +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, FL 33133 +Phone: (305) 442-1101 +Fax: (305) 442-6744 +Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein +Served via CM/ECF +3 of 4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2008 Page 4 of 5 +Douglas M. McIntosh, Esq. +Jason A. +, Esq. +McIntosh, Sawran, Peltz & Cartaya, P.A. +Centurion Tower, Suite 1110 +1601 Forum Place +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 682-3202 +Fax: (561) 682-3206 +Counsel for +Served via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid +4 of 4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2008 Page 5 of 5 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3649acdc0741f070e14d304e107e5655b56b0e08424c1ffb73d0ceea45564ff.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3649acdc0741f070e14d304e107e5655b56b0e08424c1ffb73d0ceea45564ff.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d3e0fc66ac13a531901da1e362f2103578d02d72 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3649acdc0741f070e14d304e107e5655b56b0e08424c1ffb73d0ceea45564ff.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d3649acdc0741f070e14d304e107e5655b56b0e08424c1ffb73d0ceea45564ff", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "76e5a9a719372ceeb7296f3f5e77699d18fb6845c6be256984e28cbc57de050b", + "output_sha256": "60b8a43d5ab313e3b2b20966439e794312fb969b66a53ec66fcc9abfaaf74575", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d374c3feac82ea2c6c71fc6532f3e1b877aec1f290ae457906fefcf7338a77db.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d374c3feac82ea2c6c71fc6532f3e1b877aec1f290ae457906fefcf7338a77db.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e698bbe9712223f339891cfe306a337b38a982dd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d374c3feac82ea2c6c71fc6532f3e1b877aec1f290ae457906fefcf7338a77db.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 39 +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2009 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +NO. 09-80469-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE II, +Plaintiff, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN and +Defendants. +ORDER OF DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT +THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Default against Defendant +(DE 37), filed June 12, 2009. The Court has carefully reviewed the motion and the +record and is otherwise advised in the premises. +Plaintiff Jane Doe II filed a Complaint against Defendants Epstein and | +on March +24, 2009 (DE I). The Court has reviewed the affidavit of service accompanying Plaintiff's +motion for default against +and concludes that Plaintiff effected service on Defendant +in a manner authorized by New York state law. See N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 308(4). Defendant +has failed to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. Accordingly, it is hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: +1. Plaintiff's Motion for Default against Defendant | +(DE 37) is GRANTED. +1 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2009 Page 2 of 2 +2. An order of DEFAULT is hereby entered against Defendant +DONE AND ORDERED in +this 16" day of June, 2009. +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies furnished to: +All counsel of record +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d374c3feac82ea2c6c71fc6532f3e1b877aec1f290ae457906fefcf7338a77db.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d374c3feac82ea2c6c71fc6532f3e1b877aec1f290ae457906fefcf7338a77db.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8990f4c15813a1b3173038cda8dbf1a99345fbb4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d374c3feac82ea2c6c71fc6532f3e1b877aec1f290ae457906fefcf7338a77db.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d374c3feac82ea2c6c71fc6532f3e1b877aec1f290ae457906fefcf7338a77db", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4c0b1711d013f62c692aca8f1d1e3a53238de5486c9f45e57c9cc1456edc9046", + "output_sha256": "107c3e8847f94c6e1adf05b6a462ce52f59c2c1bd75a0e44b2c6a4de67d73b4e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3935d665d6e3ba8b006c0f2e16f6fd0a021e8e07ec6e613afa1163fb1e22f51.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3935d665d6e3ba8b006c0f2e16f6fd0a021e8e07ec6e613afa1163fb1e22f51.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a4bd0d9f755d3ac08560fa96dbe8a7f4554fc0e1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3935d665d6e3ba8b006c0f2e16f6fd0a021e8e07ec6e613afa1163fb1e22f51.md @@ -0,0 +1,392 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 109-1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 1 of 13 +AO 133 +(Rev. 12/09) Bill of Costs +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +for the +Southern District of New York +JANE DOE +V. +Case No.: 20-CV-00484-JGK +DARREN K. INDYKE et al. +BILL OF COSTS +Judgment having been entered in the above entitled action on +the Clerk is requested to tax the following as costs: +03/22/2021 +against +Plaintiff +Fees of the Clerk +Fees for service of summons and subpoena +Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case +Fees and disbursements for printing +Fees for witnesses (itemize on page reo) +Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are +necessarily obtained for use in the case. +Docket fees under 28 U.S.C. 1923 +Costs as shown on Mandate of Court of Appeals +Compensation of court-appointed experts +Compensation of interpreters and costs of special interpretation services under 28 U.S.C. 1828 +Other costs (please itemize) . +$ +0.00 +5.00 +8.70 +13.70 +TOTAL +$ +SPECIAL NOTE: Attach to your bill an itemization and documentation for requested costs in all categories. +Declaration +I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing costs are correct and were necessarily incurred in this action and that the +services for which fees have been charged were actually and necessarily performed. A copy of this bill has been served on all parties +in the following manner: +Electronic service +First class mail, postage prepaid +Other: +s/ Attorney: +For: +Laura A. Menninger +Name of Attorney: Laura A. Menninger +Ghislaine Maxwell +Name of Claiming Parry +Taxation of Costs +Date: +05/27/2021 +Costs are taxed in the amount of +Clerk of Courr +By: +Deputy Clerk +and included in the judgment. + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 109-1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 2 of 13 +AO 133 (Rev. 12/09) Bill of Costs +NAME, CITY AND STATE OF RESIDENCE +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +Witness Fees (computation, cf. 28 U.S.C. 1821 for statutory fees) +ATTENDANCE +SUBSISTENCE +Days +Total +Total +Days +Miles +MILEAGE +Total +Total Cost +Each Witness +$0.00 +$0.00 +$0.00 +$0.00 +$0.00 +TOTAL +$0.00 +$0.00 +NOTICE +ee also Section 1920 of Title 28, which reads in part as follows +'A bill of costs shall be filed in the case and, upon allowance, included in the judgment or decree. +The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contain the following provisions: +RULE 54(d)(1) +Costs Other than Attorneys' Fees. +Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs — other than attorney's fees — should be allowed to the +prevailing party. But costs against the United States, its officers, and its agencies may be imposed only to the extent allowed by law. The clerk +may tax costs on 14 day's notice. On motion served within the next 7 days, the court may review the clerk's action. +RULE 6 +(d) Additional Time After Certain Kinds of Service. +When a party may or must act within a specified time after service and service is made under Rule5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F), 3 days are +added after the period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a). +RULE 58(e) +Cost or Fee Awards: +Ordinarily, the entry of judgment may not be delayed, nor the time for appeal extended, in order to tax costs or award fees. But if a +nely motion for attorney's fees is made under Rule 54(d)(2), the court may act before a notice of appeal has been filed and becor +fective to order that the motion have the same effect under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4) as a timely motion under Rule +Print +Save As... +Reset + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document:@Đind Histjled 05/27/21 Page 3 of 13 +An official website of the United State +Here's how you know. Y +BILLING HISTORY +Logout +Detailed Transaction Report by Date +All +from 07/01/2020 to 09/30/2020 +Thu Mar 11 12:29:49 CST 2021 +Menninger34444 +| Time +Pages +Back +New Search +Billing Transactions +| Client Code +07/07/2020 +15:44:57 +7| NYSDC +020Z/L0/20 +15:48:01 +10 +NYSDC +MAXWELL: +MAXWELL- +DOCKET +REPORT +IMAGE9-0 +1:20-CV- +00484-JGK- +DCF +1:20-CV- +00484-JGK- +DOCUMENT 9. +$0.70 +$1.00 +https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/csobill-hist/billingmenu.jsf +1/14 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Documentr:®9irk Histriled 05/27121 +Time +Pages + +07/08/2020 +14:16:40 +1 +NYSDC +MAXWELL +IMAGE51-0 +1:20-CV- +00484-JGK- +DOCUMENT 51- +$0.10 +07/09/2020 +17:20:40 +1 +WAWDC +MAXWELL +SEARCH +LAST NAME: +$0.10 +07/09/2020 +17:50:43 +8 +NYSDC +MAXWELL +DOCKET +REPORT +1:20-CV- +00484-JGK- +DCF +$0.80 +https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/csobill-hist/billingmenu.jsf +3/14 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Documentr:®9irg Histriled 05/27121 +Time +Pages + +08/10/2020 +16:55:23 +9 +NYSDC +DOCKET +REPORT +1:20-CV- +00484-JGK- +DCF +$0.90 +https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/csobill-hist/billingmenu.jsf +8/14 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Documentr®9ind Histajled 05/27/21 +Time +Pages + +08/13/2020 +23:42:45 +1 +NYSDC +MAXWELL +SEARCH +LAST NAME: +INDYKE FIRST +NAME: DARREN +$0.10 +08/17/2020 +08/17/2020 +10:52:06 +10:52:15 +10 +4 +NYSDC +NYSDC +DOCKET +REPORT +IMAGE68-0 +1:20-CV- +OCA4- CK. +1:20-CV- +00484-JGK- +DCF +DOCUMENT +68-0 +$1.00 +$0.40 +https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/csobill-hist/billingmenu.jsf +10/14 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 1@9ing Histyled 05/27/21 Page 7 of 13 +An official website of the United State +BILLING HISTORY +Logout +Detailed Transaction Report by Date +New York Southern District Court +from 10/01/2020 to 12/31/2020 +Thu Mar 11 12:33:36 CST 2021 +Menninger34444 +| Time +Pages +Back +New Search +Billing Transactions +| Client Code +| Cost +10/21/2020 +16:32:28 +12| NYSDC +MAXWELL +DOCKET +REPORT +1:20-CV- +00484-JGK- +DCF +$1.20 +https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/csobill-hist/billingmenu.jsf +1/13 + + +Case 1:20-Cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 1®Đina Histyled 05/27/21 Page 8 of 13 +Time +Pages +11/08/2020 +14:37:47 +11/08/2020 +14:4015 +2 +NYSDC +3 | NYSDC +PARTY LIST +1:20-CV- +00484-JGK- +DCF +HISTORY/DOCUM 1:20-CV- +00484-JGK- +DCF +$0.20 +$0.30 +https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/csobill-hist/billingmenu.jsf +3/13 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Documentr:®9irk Histriled 05/27/21 +Time +Pages + +11/09/2020 +19:02:30 +2 +NYSDC +PARTY LIST +1:20-CV- +00484-JGK- +DCF +$0.20 +https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/csobill-hist/billingmenu.jsf +6/13 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Documente:09rdg Histiyed 05/27/21 +Time +Pages + +12/22/2020 +12:02:34 +2 NYSDC +MAXWELL. +IMAGE88-0 +1:20-CV- +00484-JGK- +B8CUMENT +$0.20 +Back || New Search +PACER FAQ +https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/csobill-hist/billingmenu.jsf +Privacy & Security +Contact Us +12/13 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Documenteb09tdg Histoiled 05/27/21 Page 11 of 13 +Here's how you know. Y +An official website of the United State +BILLING HISTORY +Logout +Detailed Transaction Report by Date +New York Southern District Court +from 01/01/2021 to 03/11/2021 +Thu Mar 11 12:36:07 CST 2021 +Menninger34444 +Back +New Search +| Time +Pages +| Court +Billing Transactions +| Client Code +https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/csobill-hist/billingmenu.jsf +1/6 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Documentek09rdg Hisliyed 05/27/21 +Time +Pages + +02/05/2021 +11:49:32 +2 +NYSDC +MAXWELL +IMAGE95-0 +1:20-CV- +00484-JGK- +DOCUMENTS. +$0.20 +https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/csobill-hist/billingmenu.jsf +3/6 + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Documentek09rdg Hisiyed 05/27/21 +Time +Pages + +03/09/2021 +09:28:48 +13 +NYSDC +Docket Report +1:20-cv-00484 +JGK-DCF +$1.30 +Back New Search +PACER FAQ +Privacy & Security +Contact Us +This site is maintained by the Administrative Office of the +U.S. Courts on behalf of the Federal Judiciary: +PACER Service Center +(800) 676-6856 +pacer@psc.uscourts.gov +https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/csobill-hist/billingmenu.jsf +6/6 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3935d665d6e3ba8b006c0f2e16f6fd0a021e8e07ec6e613afa1163fb1e22f51.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3935d665d6e3ba8b006c0f2e16f6fd0a021e8e07ec6e613afa1163fb1e22f51.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0f5580f4763dbe2effeed77bff2212c9d0ab0cb4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3935d665d6e3ba8b006c0f2e16f6fd0a021e8e07ec6e613afa1163fb1e22f51.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -849, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d3935d665d6e3ba8b006c0f2e16f6fd0a021e8e07ec6e613afa1163fb1e22f51", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 21, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "389fa9771ca2854eb79337db1721c2799f48ab51d3a28727021f2450376f1cc6", + "output_sha256": "24177d40d8768783a8eb09f77bcc091ee2130ffcc38d1bc1bf44e06deedeab10", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3a1842e2b875475bad4c6e0b51a4e0544e9af05ced2a3a3c2bb93853e64f0a1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3a1842e2b875475bad4c6e0b51a4e0544e9af05ced2a3a3c2bb93853e64f0a1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6263cd752620269ff21f317136144c3361a6d899 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3a1842e2b875475bad4c6e0b51a4e0544e9af05ced2a3a3c2bb93853e64f0a1.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 7 Filed 01/21/20 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE +Plaintiff, +-against- +DARREN. INDYKE and RICHARD D. +KAHN, in their capacities as executors of the +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, et.al +Defendant. +1:20- Civ. 00484 +MOTION FOR ADMISSION +PRO HAC VICE +_ UGK_) +Pursuant to Rule 1.3 of the Local Rules of the United States Courts for the Southern and Eastern +Districts of New York, +Kevin R. Boyle +hereby move this Court +for an Order for admission to practice Pro Hac Vice to appear as counsel for +Jane Doe +_in the above-captioned action. +I am in good standing of the bar(s) of the state(s) of _California and Washington D.C +_and +there are no pending disciplinary proceedings against me in any state or federal court. I have +never been convicted of a felony. I have never been censured, suspended, disbarred or denied +admission or readmission by any court. I have attached the affidavit pursuant to Local Rule 1.3. +Dated: January 10, 2020 +Respectfully Submitted, +Kevin R. Boyle +pian Siame. 18 +Applicant's Name:_ Kevin R Boyle +Firm Name:_PANISH SHEA & BOYLE, LLP +Address:_11111 Santa Monica Blvd. Ste 700 +City/State/Zip:_ Los Angeles, California 90025 +Telephone/Fax:_310-477-1700/ 310-477-1699 +Email:_Boyle@psblaw.com diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3a1842e2b875475bad4c6e0b51a4e0544e9af05ced2a3a3c2bb93853e64f0a1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3a1842e2b875475bad4c6e0b51a4e0544e9af05ced2a3a3c2bb93853e64f0a1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7bb5652b3f6a3df93086ca9d2caec317e8bb9b1c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3a1842e2b875475bad4c6e0b51a4e0544e9af05ced2a3a3c2bb93853e64f0a1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -23, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d3a1842e2b875475bad4c6e0b51a4e0544e9af05ced2a3a3c2bb93853e64f0a1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8eae9dbef56f5aee8f8498b73622b1e65c2f06114ce8921b4f8316a14a6187c8", + "output_sha256": "bd00dbe5e3ab71bee8ff08a15d2714e49192f9ab3e10fd9896e1718b13821920", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3a6ff7d150efa41136952db9e41f396b34491cb0645f2aa97ffdcd448cf90ca.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3a6ff7d150efa41136952db9e41f396b34491cb0645f2aa97ffdcd448cf90ca.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..84fd21a496e0c22b8e37280e375a18641f185f2d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3a6ff7d150efa41136952db9e41f396b34491cb0645f2aa97ffdcd448cf90ca.md @@ -0,0 +1,690 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 291-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 1 of +13 +Page 1 +IN RE: +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +-- +ORIGINAL +Sandy +Notary Public, State of Florida +Consor and Associates +Phone - 561.682.0905 +alle + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 291-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 2 of +13 +Page 2 +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +(Thereupon, the following interview was had:) +- - - +3 BY MALE SPEAKER: +l Today's date is October 4th, 2005. This is ID +number 7915 Detective (inaudible) of the Palm Beach Police +Department. Present at 1301 (inaudible) Road is Detective +Michael Dawson of the Palm Beach Police Department. +And can you state your name for the record? +A +Q +A +Q +A +how do you spell your last name? +A +A +Okay. How old are you? +I'm 18. +Eighteen. Okay. You're currently in college? +Yeah. +Okay. What college are you attending? +Valencia. +Valencia. +Okay. And your date of birth is? +A +Okay. Can you raise your right hand for me? Do +you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and +nothing but the truth so help you God? +A +Yes. +if you could tell me from the beginning how +you met Jeffrey Epstein. I know you have some information + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 291-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 3 of +13 +Page 3 +1 +and we are conducting an investigation. We were here last +2 +night, spoke with your mom and dad. If you can just start +3 +from the beginning as to how you met him. +4 +A +Okay. +5 +Q +And how it came about. +6 +A +I met him through my friend Haley. +7 +Okay. How long ago was that? +8 +A +It was probably about almost a year ago. +9 +10 +okay. Okay. +A And he -- I went there once with her and she gave +11 +him a massage and then she asked me if I wanted to do it and +12 I did it or whatever and then after that like he kind of +13 +scared me when I went there so I just decided not to go +14 +back. +15 +okay. The first time you went with Haley did you +16 +17 +18 +19 +go upstairs with him? +20 +A No, I stayed downstairs. +• Did Haley tell you that - what was entailed as to +what had to be done? +A Well she said the first time you go it's just like +21 +a massage and she said well like well the more you go +22 +supposedly the more he like expects and likes flirting with +23 +24 +25 +girls and that's what kind of like scared me. +l Okay. I've interviewed other girls and they've +told me pretty much the same thing about the massage but + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 291-10 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 4 of +13 +Page 4 +1 +there's more to that. More to the massage. Okay? That's +2 +why I didn't want mom to be in here. And you can talk to me +3 +about anything. Okay? Like I said, I've interviewed other +4 people already who've told me what transpired in that room. +5 I know it's going +to be difficult for you but... +6 +A Well the first time I went there I did a massage +7 +and he was just asking me a lot of questions, he seemed +8 +really nice, and then he kept like staring at me and stuff. +And then like I did a massage and he just kept looking at me +10 +and he was like , you're being shy and I'm like yeah. And +11 +12 +he's like do you feel uncomfortable and I was like yeah, a +little bit. And he's like okay. And he's like well do you +13 +14 +want to stop, and I was like no, it's okay. And he was like +why are you like being shy and I was like +, I don't know +15 +and then he would like change the subject and he started +16 +talking about other things. And then when we were done he +17 said that if like I wanted to come back and do more then he +18 +19 +20. +would like to pay me more and then I would have to talk to +Haley and I could come back. +• Okay. What kind of questions did he ask you as +21 +you were massaging him? +22 +A +He was asking about -- it was a year ago. I don't +23 +remember everything but... +24 +• Right. +25 +A +He was asking me if I had any friends that would + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 291-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 5 of +Page 5 +1 +• like to give a massage and I said I don't know. Then he +2 +asked me about what I wanted to do when I grew up and stuff +3• like that and I asked him what he did and he said he was +4 +like a scientist basically. +5 +Okay. Did he ever ask you how old you were? +6 +A +No. +7 +Q +No. Did he know that you were 17? +8 +A +No, I don't think so. +9 +Well it would have been 16 if it was a year ago, +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +right? +A +Well it was almost a year ago. (Inaudible.) +Okay. During the massage did you -- were you +naked or -- +A +A +No. I had my clothes on. +You had all your clothes on? +Uh-huh. +Okay. Did he touch you in anyway? +A +He was like kind of like leaning towards it but I +19 +was like you could tell I was shy so I think that's why he +20 didn't but I heard about other girls that he -- that he got +21 flirtatious with them and he made them take off their +22 clothes and stuff. +23 +24 +25 +• Okay. What -- that was the first time you went, +right? +A Yeah. + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 291-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 6 of +13 +Page 6 +1 +Q +okay. +2 +A +Well, no, it was the second time I gave him a +3 +massage: The first time I went up with Haley. +4 +• You went upstairs with Haley? +5 +A +6 +No, I was in the kitchen. +You were in the kitchen. You only had two times +7 +that you went there? +8 +A Yeah. +9 +The first time you didn't do anything but just sit +10 +11 +12 +13 +in the kitchen? +Yeah. +A +Who did you sit in the kitchen with? +He had a +T that was there and he had -- there +14 +15 +was like two other girls that live with him. +Okay. Did you massage his back? Was he naked +16 when you were massaging him? +17 +18 +A +Well, he had like a towel around his - his upper +was (inaudible) but he had like a towel around him. +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Okay. Did he ever remove that towel? +A +No. +When you were massaging him he never removed the +towel? +A No. +& Okay. Did you -- did he have you touch his +private area? + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 291-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 7 of +13 +Page 7 +1 +A +No. +No. I wouldn't do that. +2 +You wouldn't do that? +3 +Okay. Did he touch you in your private area? +4 +A +No. No. +5 +No. +6 +A He kept like staring at me and like, I don't know, +7 +I just felt uncomfortable and I left. But I heard other +8 +stories that like-- +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Right. I'm concerned with you. I know about +other stories and I've interviewed other people have told me +different things. That's why I'm trying to find out what +happened to you. Okay? You're the victim in this so that's +why I'm trying to find out what happens to you. +A +A +Uh-huh. +Okay? Who took you upstairs to the room? +This girl Sarah that lives with him. +Okay. So Sarah took you up? +A Yeah. +• Did she tell you anything? Did she say anything? +A Huh-huh. There's a massage table and she just +laid a towel down and she said that Jeffrey will be out for +his massage. +& Okay. Have you received any massage training? +A No. +• No. I have to ask. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 291-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 8 of +13 +Page 8 +1 +Was Sarah one of the two girls that was in the +2 +kitchen with you? +3 +A +Yeah. +4 +Okay. Did you ever go back to his house? +5 +A +Well, I just went there twice. +6 +Right. +7 +8 +9 back? +A +A +After that -- +After that you've never come back? Never went +10 +11 +12 +13 +How much did you receive for the massage? +Two hundred. +You received 200. +Okay. Did Haley explain to you what was going to +14 +be involved? +15 +A +16 +She said the first time you go there you pretty +much just give a massage but the more you go there the more +17 +18 +he expects so that's it. That scared me. +That's what scared you? +19 . BY DETECTIVE DAWSON: +Did she say (inaudible) or did she (inaudible) +20 +21 +Say -- +22 +A +Say didn't have to say it exactly but she implied +23 like, you know, like taking your clothes off and stuff like +24 that. +25 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 291-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 9 of +13 +Page 9 +1 +BY MALE SPEAKER: +2 +Okay. So you didn't remove any of your clothing? +3 +A +No. +4 +What were you wearing? Can you remember? +5 +A I don't know. +It was a long time ago. I don't +6 +remember exactly. +7 +okay. +8 +A +I don't want to tell you wrong. +9 +@ I know. And I know you already told your mom what +10 happened. And like I said, I know this is hard for you +11 but... +12 +13 +A +like -- +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +I was just scared. I just didn't want my name to +e Don't worry. You're not the only person I've +talked to. Okay? There's a lot of people that I've talked +to and I'm going to talk to. +How did you get to his house? +With Haley. +• Haley. Haley took you the first time and you sat +20 +in the kitchen. +21 +A Yeah. +22 +23 +& What about the second time? +A The second time I drove and she came with me. +24 +25 +Because I didn't want to -- +Q +You drove. What is it you drive? + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 291-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 10 of +13 +Page 10 +1 +A +I used to have a Cavalier. +2 +A Cavalier. +What color? +3 +A +Red. +4 +• Okay. Can you describe to me what Mr. Epstein +5 +6 +looks like? Jeffrey looks like? +A He's tall and he has like greyish/black hair and +7 +he usually wears like glasses and he has blue eyes. +8 +• Okay. When you messaged him, you messaged his +9 back area? +10 +11 +12 +13 +A +Yes. And I did his feet too. +And his feet. Okay. Did you do his legs? +A +Yeah, like his calves. +His calves. Thigh area? +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +A +No. +His chest area? +A +A +No. +No. Can you describe what his body looks like? +He's not fat but he's not like thin. He's like +19 normal like average. +20 +21 +22 +• Average? Okay. Is he hairy? Is he not hairy? +A little bit. +A little bit? A little bit he's got hair on his +23 +back? +24 +25 +A +A +Yeah. +Yeah? How about hair on his chest? + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 291-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 11 of +Page 11 +1 +A +Um -- +2 +You don't remember? Okay. +3 +He did not touch you inappropriately? +4 +A +NO. +5 +Q +No. Did he masturbate? +6 +A +No. +7 +Q +No. Do you know what masturbate means? +8 +A +Yeah. +9 +Okay. Why don't you tell me what it means just so +10 +I know that you know. +11 +A Playing with yourself. +12 +• Okay. Okay. I have to make sure you understand +13 +what it means. Okay? I know it's difficult. He didn't +14 +touch himself - +15 +A +16 +17 +No. +A No. +- while you were massaging him? +18 +No. Is there anything else you'd like to add? +19 +A No. I mean I heard of other stories that he did +20 +and I don't think it's very like appropriate like -- +21 +• Right. +22 +23 +A -- the stories I heard. +& Right. Well, a lot of people that I've been +24 +talking to are about your age and a couple younger than you +25 so that's the part that I have serious problems with. + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 291-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 12 of +13 +Page 12 +1 +A +Yeah. +2 +MALE SPEAKER: Do you have any questions? +3 +BY DETECTIVE DAWSON: +4 +5 +• Did you see any others -- when you were there you +said there were two girls in the kitchen. The second time +you went you went with Haley. Were there any other girls +7 +there? +8 +A +Yeah, there were the same two girls that were +9. +there. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A +Same two girls? Okay. +I'm pretty sure they like live and travel with +him. +MALE SPEAKER: Okay. All right. Well at +this time I'm going to conclude this statement. +It's 11:45 a.m. +(Thereupon, the interview ended.) +- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 291-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2009 Page 13 of +Page 13 +1CERTIFICATE +2 +3 STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH ) +4 +5 +6 +I, Sandra +1, Court Reporter, State of +Florida at Large, certify that I was authorized to +and did stenographically report the forgoing +proceedings, and that the transcript is a true and +complete record of the tape as listened to by me. +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Dated this 16th day of January, 2007. +Sanda Rossi +Sandra +Court Reporter \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3a6ff7d150efa41136952db9e41f396b34491cb0645f2aa97ffdcd448cf90ca.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3a6ff7d150efa41136952db9e41f396b34491cb0645f2aa97ffdcd448cf90ca.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..733a57d7fbbb210aeda1bfe605c15b30ccdb3b9c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3a6ff7d150efa41136952db9e41f396b34491cb0645f2aa97ffdcd448cf90ca.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -963, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d3a6ff7d150efa41136952db9e41f396b34491cb0645f2aa97ffdcd448cf90ca", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 14, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "05d4629ef67daee9e1e99331889969f9b98fb2208862007e965c08b7c7d3b8ad", + "output_sha256": "fc4c59ab8c6ea88f6cabdab87d3266f294ed7a69846a16a90f9e4ee465b46735", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3b7d6f04feb555fa3bbe8c971ed67f4edaadfb78c777a3b57a5b1b84a9af500.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3b7d6f04feb555fa3bbe8c971ed67f4edaadfb78c777a3b57a5b1b84a9af500.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4c1cbb9f1ab86cc86b43fc60d4baa030c49c4fec --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3b7d6f04feb555fa3bbe8c971ed67f4edaadfb78c777a3b57a5b1b84a9af500.md @@ -0,0 +1,1588 @@ +Filing # 116366269 E-Filed 11/09/2020 02:14:01 PM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida. +Defendants. +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEYS' FEES +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF NASSAU +BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority appeared Douglas A. Wyler, Esq., who, after +being first duly sworn, deposes and says; +1. +Affiant is a partner of JACOBS, SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC, counsel for +- Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attomney of Palm Beach County, Florida, ("Aronberg"), +as well as general counsel to the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, ("FPAA"), and makes +this Affidavit of his own personal knowledge. +2. +Affiant is licensed to practice law in the State of Florida, is an active member of +the Florida Bar in good standing and has engaged in the practice of law in the State of Florida since +2015. +3. +As detailed herein, the services rendered by Affiant and his firm pertain to Affiant's +demand letter and motion for attorneys" fees sent to Plaintiff's counsel pursuant to § 57.105, +-Florida Statutes, on June 8, 2020, in defending against Count Iöf Plaintiff 3 Amended Complaint +Party JOINT +D#. J26_ +ОТАМИ: 4/6/26 +Case No. 2919-CA-014681 +LABRUZZO CLERK +CIRCUIT COURT +CA/Aronterg 000369 BEACH COUNTY, FI +., JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM +Joint Exhibit +J26 + + +and Plaintiff's October 21, 2020 Notice of Dropping State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the +above-captioned lawsuit. See, Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto. +4. +•The total time Affiant's law firm has expended services rendered to date is 74.8 +hours, however, from the date of Defendant Aronberg's 57.105 demand, Affiant's law firm has +expended a total of 42.2 hours. Of the 42.2 hours expended since Defendant Aronberg's 57.105 +demand was served, the Affiant +Of the 42.2 hours expended since Defendant Aronberg's 57.105 demand was +served, the total time Affiant has expended services rendered to date is 35.4 hours at the rate of +$425.00 per hour. Likewise, the total time Affiant's law partner, Arthur I. +, has expended +services rendered to date is 6.8 hours at the rate of S475.00 per hour. +6. +• Accordingly, since Defendant Aronberg's 57.105 demand was served, Defendant +Aronberg's counsel, JACOBS, SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC, has rendered services in the amount +of $18,275.00, in conjunction with the defense of the instant action pursuant to § 57.105, Florida +Statutes. See, Exhibit "C" attached hereto. +7. +Affiant expects to incur an additional 4.0 hours at $425.00 an hour in preparing for +and attending the hearing on attorneys' fees. Thus, the total amount of hourly attorneys" fees the +State Attorney is seeking is 46.2 hours for a total of S19,975.00. Additionally, the State Attorney +seeks a mültiplier of 2.0, which when applied makes the grand total attorneys' fees sought herein +$39,950.00 +Dated this 9th day of November, 2020. +• FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. +Douglas Al +Wyler, Esq., Fla. Bar, No. 119979 +CA/Aropherg 009379 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF NASSAU +The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 9th day of November, 2020, +by Douglas +A. Wyler, Esquire, who is personally known to me and who did take an oath. +TARAN R JACKSON +Notary Public : State of Flarida +Commission # GG 354841 +My Commi. Expires Aug 17, 2023 +Bonded through National Notary Assn, +Taran R. Jackson +Name typed, printed or stamped +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 9th day of November, 2020, a copy of the foregoing has +been electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein. +NOT A +• SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +/s/ Douglas A. Wyler +Arthur I. +, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 10249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. +Fla. Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-I +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +(904) 261-3693 +(904) 261-7879 Fax +Primary: jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net +Altorneys for Defendant, Dave Aronberg +CA/Aronberg 00937MI BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + + + +CA/Aronherg 009370 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +Friday, September 18, 2020 at 11:09:24 Eastern Daylight Time +Subject: +SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT; CASE NO. 2019-CA-014681; CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC V. +DAVE ARONBERG ET AL. +Date: +From: +To: +Monday, June 8, 2020 at 3:58:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time +Douglas Wyler +'mendelsohns@gtlaw.com', smithl@gtlaw.com, flservice@gtlaw.com, BoyajianN@gtlaw.com, +riveraal@gtlaw.com, GRYGIELM@gtlaw.com +Attachments: 2020-06-08 Aronberg 57.105 Demand and Motion for Attorneys' Fees.pdf +Court: +Case No: +Plaintiff: +Defendant: +Title of Documents +Served: +Sender's Name and +Telephone Number: +Sincerely, +Doug Wyler, Esq. +Scholz & Wyler, LLC +961687 Gateway Bivd., STE 201-1 +Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 +904-261-3693 +904-261-7879 (fax) +Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, +Florida +Case No. 2020-CA-014681 +CA Florida Holdings, LLC +Dave Aronberg +• Fla. Stat. § 57.105 Demand Letter +• Defendant, Dave Aronberg's Motion for Attorneys' Fees +Douglas Wyler +(904) 261-3693 +Please be advised that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential attorney-client +communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or +entity to whom they are addressed, If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or +retransmit this communication but destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or +copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. + +CA/Aronterg 000370 BEACH COUNTY, FL, I + + +THE LAW OFFICES OF +ASSOCIATES, P.A. +ARTHUR I +SCHOLZ & WYLER, LIC. +LABILITY COMPANY OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS +ATTORNEYS AT LAW +GATEWAY TO AMELIA +961687 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE 201-1 +FERNANDIA BEACH, FLORDA 32034 +TELEPHONE (904) 261-3693 . +FAX NO. (904) 261-7879 +RICHARD J. SCHOLZ, P.A. +RICHARD J. SCHOLZ +DOUGLAS A. WYLER, P.A. +DOUGLAS A. WYLER +June 8, 2020 +VIA ELECTRONIC & U.S. MAIL +Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. +Greenburg Traurig, P.A. +5100 Town Center Circle, Suite 400 +Boca Raton, FL 33486 +RE: +COPY +CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronberg et al. +Palm Beach County, Case No.: 2019-CA-014681 +Dear Mr. Mendelsohn: +As you are aware our firm represents the interests of Dave Aronberg, as State Attornéy of Palm Beach +County, Florida, in the above referenced tter. The purpose of this letter is to demand the voluntary +dismissal of your First Amended Complaint, (the "Complaint"), dated January 17, 2020. This demand +is made pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes. +As you know, Section 57.105 provides: +(1) Upon the court's initiative or motion of any party, the court shall award a +reasonable attorney's fee, including prejudgment interest, to be paid to the +prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party's attorney +on any claim or defense at any time during a civil proceeding or action in which +the court finds that the losing party or the losing party's attorney knew or should +have known that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any +time before trial: +Was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or +defense; or +b. +Would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those +material facts. +Today, Judge Marx granted, with prejudice, Defendant Aronberg's Motion to Dismiss Count Il of the +Plaintiff's Complaint. Pursuant to the Court's ruling, the Plaintiff's only remaining cause of action +consists of Count I, for Declaratory Relief. Accordingly, we believe that the Complaint filed herein +and its sole remaining Count for Declaratory Relief is not supported by the material facts necessary to +establish the claims asserted, and that your claims are not supported by the application of current law +to said material facts. +CA/Arontier@000374I BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +First and foremost, the Complaint is not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the +claims asserted because neither Defendant Aronberg, nor The Office of the State Attorney for the +Fifteenth Judicial Circuit is in custody or control of the 2006 grand jury materials sought therein. +Simply put, the declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff, seeks records from my client that are +impossible for him or his office to produce. Accordingly, Defendant Aronberg is not a proper party to +this action because no matter what, he and his office do not have possession, custody, or control of the +requested materials. +In 'addition to the foregoing material facts that negate the claims asserted in the Complaint, your claims +are also not supported by the application of current law. Specifically, your action for declaratory relief +fails based on the clear, unambiguous statutory language found in Section 905.27(2), Florida Statutes, +which states: +When such disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection (1) for use in a civil +case, it may be disclosed to all parties to the case and to their attorneys and by the latter +to their legal associates and employees. However, the grand jury testimony afforded +such persons by the court can only be used in the defense or prosecution of the civil or +criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever. +Moreover, even if the Plaintiff were to prevail in the declaratory action, Mr. Aronberg would be unable +to comply with any court order granting disclosure of the requested documents because neither Mr. +Aronberg nor The Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit have possession, +custody, or control of the 2006 Epstein grand jury records. +Based on the foregoing, if the Complaint is not dismissed within 2! days of the service of this letter, +the enclosed Motion for Attorney's Fees will be filed and we will seek as sanctions, from your client +and your firm, recovery of the legal expenses incurred in defending this frivolous action. +Please govern yourself accordingly +ALAn +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. +For the Firm +NOT +Encl.: Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees +CA/Aropherg 009375 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +•CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach Courty, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida. +Defendants. +DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES +Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and +through the undersigned attorneys, moves the Court, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, +to award him reasonable attorneys' fees for the defense of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, +(the "Complain!"), and as grounds therefor, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served +a copy of this Motion, together with a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with +subsection (4) of the above Statute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior +to the filing of this Motion. In said letter, Defendant's attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which +establish that the Complaint is without support of the facts or the law. +WHEREFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach +County, Florida, respectfully requests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff's +attorneys to pay said Defendant's attorneys' fees incurred herein after service of this Motion. +CA/Arophag 009379 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on this +_ day +_ 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed +via the Florida E-File Portal for electronic service on the parties of record herein. +JACOBS SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +Is/ Douglas A. Wyler +Arthur. I. Jacobs, Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 108249 +Richard J. Scholz; Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 0021261- +Douglas A. Wyler, Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-1 +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +(904) 261-3693 +(904) 261-7879 +jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net +NOT A CERTIF +Allorneys for Defendant +CA/Aronberg 00937M BEACH COUNTY, FL, L + + + + +CA/Aronteng 000379 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +Filing # 115383434 E-Filed 10/21/2020 04:13:35 PM +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +DIVISION: AG +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida, +Defendants. +COPY +PLAINȚIFF CA HOLDINGS, LLC'S +NOTICE OF DROPPING STATE ATTORNEY, DAVE ARONBERG +Plaintiff, CA HOLDINGS, LLC, pursuant to Fla, R. Civ. P. 1250(b), hereby notifies the parties that +it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the above case. +CER +NOT A CER +Respectfully submitted, +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +Attorneys for CA Florida Holdings: LLC. Publisher +of The Palm Beach Post +Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. +401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 2000 +Boca Raton, Florida 33486 +Telephone: (561) 955-7629 +Facsimile: (561) 338-7099 +By: +Is/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN +Florida Bar No. 849324 +mendelsohns/@gtlaw.com +smithl@gtlaw.com +ELServicefalgtlaw.com +CA Aropher@PAIM BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +By: Is/ Michael J Grygiel +MICHAEL J GRYGIEL +(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) +54 State St., 6th Floor -* +Albany, New York 12207. +Telephone: (518) 689-1400 +Facsimile: (518) 689-1499 +grvgielm@gtlaw.com +By: +[s/ Nina D. Bovajian +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) +1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 +• Los Angeles California 90067 +Telephone: (310) 586-7700 +Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 +boyajiann@gtlaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 21" day of October, 2020, a true and correct copy of the +foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the State of Florida e-filing system, which +will send a notice of electronic service for all parties of record herein +(s/ Stephen 4. Mendelsohn +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN +OT A +ACTIVE 53317341V1 +2 +CA/Aronberg 009399 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +EXHIBIT "C» + +CA/Aronberg0P938M BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +Scholz & Wyler, LLC +961687 Gateway Blvd., +Suite 201F +Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 +United States +904-261-3693 +Jacobs Scholz & Wyler, LLC +Dave Aronberg +Balance +Invoice # +Invoice Date +Payment Terms +Due Date +$32,440.00 +00307 +November 6, 2020 +Aronberg (SAO15) adv. CA Florida Holdings, LLC +Time Entries +Date : +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +11/26/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/02/2019 +12/03/2019 +12/03/2019 +EE +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AL +AU +DW +AU +DW +DW +DW +AL +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +Activity +Review +Review +Teleconference +Draft +Review +Review +Meeting +Meeting +Teleconference +Research 8 +Preparation +Draft +Teleconference +Review +Teleconference +Meeting +Meeting. +Draft +Teleconference. +Description +Initial review of summons and complaint. +Reviewed motion for pro hac vice and Judge +Hafele' order granting +Teléconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit +Drafted engagement letter and sent to client +Reviewed 15th circuit local rules +Initial review of complaint +Meeting w/ DAW to discuss lawsuit and strategy +Meeting w/ AlJ to discuss lawsuit and strategy +Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit +Research and prep for Motion to dismiss +1st Draft motion to dismiss +Teleconference w/ Client, re: draft motion to +dismiss +Reviewed 1st Draft MTDismiss +Teleconference w/ client, re: draft motion to +dismiss +Meeting w/ DAW, re: motion to dismiss +Meeting w/ Ab, re: MTDismiss. +Completed final draft of motion to dismiss: filed with +Court +Spoke w/ client, re: final draft of motion to dismiss +Rate +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +.$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425:00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +Hours +1.5 +0.2 +0.5 +0.3 +1.0 +1.0 +0.5 +0.5 +0.5 +2.0 +1.0 +0.5 +0.3 +0.5 +0.2 +0.2 +0.7 +0.5 +Line Total +$637.50 +$85.00 +$127.50 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$237.50 +$237.50 +$850.00 +$425.00 +$212,50 +$142.50 +$237.50 +$95.00 +$85.00 +$297.50 +$212,50 +CA/Aronberg 009392 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +12/13/2019 +01/16/2020 +01/16/2020 +01/17/2020 +01/17/2020 +01/17/2020 +01/20/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/21/2020 +01/22/2020 +01/22/2020 +01/23/2020 +01/24/2020 +01/24/2020 +01/24/2020 +01/27/2020 +02/03/2020 +02/03/2020 +03/13/2020 +03/13/2020 +03/18/2020 +03/18/2020 +03/18/2020 +03/19/2020 +03/20/2020 +DW +ALJ +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AL +DW +DW +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AL +DW +DW +DW +DW +AL +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +Teleconference +Review +Review +Review +Review +Review +Review +Teleconference +Review +Review +Review +Review +Teleconference +Meeting +Meeting +Review +Research & Draft +Teleconference +Various +Draft +Review +Review +Review +Teleconference +Review +Review +Teleconference +Review +E-mail +E-mail +Review +Spoke with Clerk's attorney, re: response : +Reviewed final draft MȚDismiss +Reviewed Clerk's MTDismiss +Reviewed Clerk's Motion to Dismiss +Reviewed Order Setting Hearing on Defendants' +MT Dismiss +Reviewed motion for pro hac vice +Reviewed PTs Amended Complaint +Spoke with client, re: Amended Complaint: +Reviewed. PI's notice of filing +Reviewed Pl's Am. Compl +Reviewed Judge Marx's Order Cancelling +MTDismiss Hearing +Reviewed Pr's Objection to Defendarts MTDismiss +Spoke with client, re: Amended complaint +Meeting w/ DAW, re: response to Am. Compl +Meeting w/ Alu, re: response to Am. Compl +Reviewed Order granting pro hac vice admission +Researched and drafted response to Amended +Complaint +Spoke with Clerk's attomey, re: response to +amended complaint +Completed Answer/MTDismiss Amended +Complaint, filed with Court; sent copy to Client +Drafted and filed Notice of Unavailability +Reviewed final Answer/MTDismiss +Reviewed Clerk's Answer/MTDismiss +Reviewed Order setting hearing on Defs* +MTDismiss +Spoke w/ client, re: order setting MTDismiss +hearing for March 24, 2020 +Reviewed Pr's Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss +& Clerk's MTDismiss +Reviewed Pr's Opposition to Aranberg MTDismiss +& Clerk's MTDismiss +Reviewed email from Pl's counsel, re: motion to +continue hearing +Reviewed Pl's unopposed motion for continuance +Emails w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Pl's request to +continue hearing +Reviewed email from Pl, re: agreed order & +responded +Reviewed Court's agreed order continuing hearing +$425,00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +.$425.00 +$425.00 +.-$425.00 +$425.00- +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$125.00 +$425.00 +- 0.5 +0.2 +0,2 +0.5 +0.1 +0.1 +1.0 +0.5 +0.1 +0.3 +0.1 +0.2 +0.5 +0.2 +0.2 +0.1 +1.0 +0.2 +1.0 +0.4 +0.2 +0.3 +0.1 +0.5 +1.5 +0.7 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1 +0.1 +$95.00 +$95.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +-$425.00 +$42.50 +$142,50 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$95.00 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$425.00 +$85.00 +$425.00 +$170.00 +$95.00 +$127.50 +$42.50 +$212,50 +$637.50 +$332.50 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$42.501 +$42.50 +CA/Aronberg 000383 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +04/21/2020 +DW +Review +04/21/2020 +04/21/2020 +05/22/2020 +05/22/2020 +05/27/2020 +05/27/2020 +05/28/2020 +05/29/2020 +06/01/2020 +06/02/2020 +06/02/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/03/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +DW +AU +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +ALJ +DW +DW +Teleconference +Review +Review +Teleconference +Review +Teleconference +E-mail +Preparation +E-mail +Various +E-mail +Attend Hearing +Teleconference +E-mail +E-mail +Attend Hearing +Review +Review +Various +05/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/08/2020 +06/10/2020 +06/23/2020 +DW +AL +DW +AU +DW +Various +Meeting +Meeting +Review +Various +DW +Various +Reviewed order rescheduling hearing on Defs +MTDismiss +Spoke w/ client, re: oider rescheduling MTDismiss +hearing for June 3, 2020 +Reviewed Order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing +Reviewed order setting Zoom hearing, re: +MTDismiss +Spoke w/ client, re: hearing will be via Zoom +Reviewed Clerk's filing: change of atty of record +Spoke with Clerk's new counsel; Nicole Fingerhut +Reviewed Pl's email, re: cases and authorities for +MȚDismiss hearing; responded +Began oral argument prep for 6/8 MTDismiss +hearing +Reviewed email from Judge Marx's JA and +responded +Reviewed Pt's 500+ page binder, re: MTDismiss & +prepped for hearing +Drafted and sent email to client, re: MTD hearing +tomorrow +Prepped for and attended MDismiss hearing via +Zoom +Spoke w/ Client, re: debriel MTDismiss hearing +Emailed courtesy copies of Aronberg's Answer and +MTDismiss to Judge Marx +Reviewed response from Client and replied +Attended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom +Reviewed order granting MTDismiss w/ prejudice +Reviewed Court's Order Granting Defendants +MTDismiss Count It wl Prejudice +Shäred order w/ Client and spoke w/, re: result and +plan going forward, re: 57.105 +Researched § 57.105 Fla. Stat.; drafted 57.105 +demand letter and proposed mation for attorneys' +fees/sanctions; Served PI's counsel with demand +•letter and proposed motion. +Meeting w/ DAW, re: Order & 57.105 +Meeting w/ AlJ, re: Order 8 57.105 +Reviewed 57.105 demand and proposed motion for +sanction +Reviewed notice of change of attorney, re: Clerk; +called and spoke wi new counsel. Cynthia Guerra +Reviewed Pl's letter refusing to voluntarily dismiss +amended complaint despite 57.105 demand; called +and spoke w/ client, re: Pl's refusal 8 next steps +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +0.1 +0.3 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1 +1.0 +0.1 +3.0 +0.1 +1.5 +0.5 +0.1 +0.1 +1.0 +0.3 +0.5 +0.5 +$42.50 +$127.50 +$47.50 +$42.50 +-$85.00 +: $42.50 +$85:00 +$42.50 +$425.00 +$42.50 +$1.275,00 +- $42.50 +$637.50 +$42,50 +- $42.50 +$475.00 +$142.50 +$212:50 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +2.0 +$850.00 +0.3 +0.3 +0.2 +0.3 +$142.50 +$127.50 +$95.00 +- $127.50 +1.0 +$425,00 +CA/Aronberg 009384I BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +06/23/2020 +06/23/2020 +07/01/2020 +07/02/2020 +07/08/2020 +07/08/2020 +07/10/2020 +07/10/2020 +07/10/2020 +07/13/2020 +07/13/2020 +07/27/2020 +07/27/2020 +07/28/2020 +07/29/2020 +07/29/2020 +07/30/2020 +07/30/2020 +08/05/2020 +08/07/2020 +08/10/2020 +08/17/2020 +08/17/2020 +08/18/2020 +08/27/2020 +09/01/2020 +09/02/2020 +09/02/2020 +DW +AU +DW +DW +DW +ALJ +DW +ALL +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AU +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW * +E-mail +Review +Various +E-mail +Teleconference +- Teleconference +Draft +Various +Meeting +Review +Teleconference +Review +Teleconference +Draft +Draft +Research & +Preparation +T031:E1 +Draft +Teleconference +Various +Review +Teleconference +Sent client copy of Pl's letter refusing to dismiss +complaint +Reviewed Pt's letter refusing to dismiss Count V/Am. +Compl. +Spoke w/ client, re: filing of 57.105 motion for +fees/sanctions; filed motion for attorneys' fees +based +h-PI's failure to voluntarily dismiss +amended complaint count 1 +Email to client, re: affidavit and summary judgment +Discussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for +Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence +Discussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for +Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence +Created ist draft of Aronberg Affidavit; shared wi +client +Reviewed draft affidavit and discussed w/ DAW +Discussed draft affidavit w/ AIJ +Reviewed Pl's Request to Produce, re: Clerk +Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Request to Produce +Reviewed Pr's Amended Request to Produce, re: +Clerk. +Produce +Revised Aronberg affidavit +Finalized Arönberg Affidavit and sent to client +Research and prep for Mation for Summary +Judgment +Received executed Aronberg Affidavit +Began drafting Motion for Summary Judgment +Continued drafting Motion for Summary Judgment +Reviewed email from Plaintif attempting to set +hearing on 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions +Sent responsive email to Pi's counsel +Discussed draft MS.J w/ ALJ +Reviewed draft MSJ and met w/ DAW to discuss +Finalized Motion for Summary Judgment; filed i! +court along with Aronberg affidavit +Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: request to produce +Reviewed PI's email and accepted conference call +invite for 9/2/20 +Reviewed Clerk's response to request for +production-. +Spoke wi Pt's counsel, re: dispute as to whether +MSJ should be heard before 57,105 fee motion or +vis versa - call was unsuccessful +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +3425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425:00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425:00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +0.1 +0.1 +0.5 +0.1 +10.7 +1.0 +0.2 +o.i +0.2 +o.i +o.1 +0.5 +0.5 +1.0 +0.1 +2.0 +1.0 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2 +0.5 +2.0 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2 +0.5 +$42.50 +$47.50 +$42.50 +$297.50 +$332.50 +$425:00 +$142.50 +$85.00 +$42.50- +$85.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$425.00 +$42.50 +$$50.00 +$425.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$237.50 +$850.00 +$42.50 +$42,50 +$85.00 +CA/Aronterg ОРАЗЯ BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +09/02/2020 +09/02/2020 +09/16/2020 +09/17/2020 +09/17/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/18/2020 +09/22/2020 +10/02/2020 +10/02/2020 +10/02/2020 +10/02/2020 +10/12/2020 +10/13/2020 +10/13/2020 +10/13/2020 +10/13/2020 +10/14/2020 +10/14/2020 +10/14/2020 +10015/2020 +AU - +DW +DW +DW +All +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +Meeting. +Meeting +E-mail +Meeting +Meeting +Various +E-mail +E-mail +E-mail +E-mail +Various +Review +| Review +Review +Review +Research +Research & +Analyze +Draft +Meeting +Various +Draft +Telephone +Telephone +ARend Hearing +Various +Discussed w/ DAW phone call w/ Pr's counsel +Discussed w/ AlJ phone call w/ Pt's counsel +Reviewed email from Pr's counsel requested +Aronberg to withdraw sanctions motion iw/o +prejudice +Discussed w/ Ald filing motion for CMC +Discussed w/ DAW filing motion for CMC +Drafted and filed motion to set case management +conference; re: MSJ 1st or Fee hearing 1st +Responded to Pl's 9/16/20 email and refused to +withdraw 57.105 mation; provided copy of motion to +set CMC and available dates for hearing +Reviewed Pl's email insisting that 57:105 motion be +withdrawn +Replied to P's counsel that the 57.105 mation for +sanctionis will not be withdrawn and asking for +response, re: CMC +Sent client copy of email exchange w/ PI's counsel; +called and spoke w/ Client +Drafted and filed Notice of Hearing on 10/15/20; set +up Court Call; spoke w/ client, re: hearing date +Reviewed Pr's Merio of Law opposing Aronberg's +57.105 motion for fees/sanctionis +leviewed Pl's Response to Aronberg's request t +schedule 57.105 motion for fees after MS. +Reviewed Pt's Memo of Law opposing 57.105 +motion +Reviewed Pr'S Response to Aronberg's request to +schedule 57.105 motion after MSJ +Research caselaw & statutes, re: response to Pl's +Memo of Law +Continued researching caselaw, ré: response to +Pr's memo of law +Created 1st draft of Response to Pl's Memo of Law +and shared w/ Clien! +Discussed wi AlJ caselaw and draft response to +memo +Reviewed draft MSJ, discussed draft w/ DAW and +caselaw +Finalized and filed Response to Pl's Memo of Law +Spoke w/ client, re: memo of law +Spoke w/ client again, re: response to memo of law +Attended hearing, re: Motion to Set CMC: called +client to discuss-.. +Reviewed email and letter from Pi, re: settlement. +Sent copy to Client and called to discuss. : +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425:00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +.$425.00 +$425.00 +0.2 +• 0.2 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.5 +0.1 +0.1 +05 +0.7 +0.7 +0.5 +0.5 +0.4 +1.0 +1.0 +4.0 +0.5 +0.7 +1.0 +0.2 +0.1 +1.5 +0.5 +$95,00 +.$85.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$47.50 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$42.50 +3212.50 +$297.50 +$297.50 +$237.50 +$190.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$1,700.00 +$332.50 +$425.00 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$637,50 +CA/Aronherg0P9389 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +10/16/2020 +10/16/2020 +10/16/2020 +10/16/2020 +10/16/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/19/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +.10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/20/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/21/2020 +10/22/2020 +DW +DW +AU +AIJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AL +DW +DW- +DW +ALJ +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +•DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +DW +AIJ +DW +DW +Telephone +Telephone +Various +Various +Meeting +Various +Telephone +Telephone +Meeting +Meeting +Various +Telephone +Telephone +Meeting +Meeting +Various +Telephone +Telephone +Telephone +Meeting +Meeting +Various +Review +Telephone +Telephone +Telephone +Telephone +Telephone +E-mail +Meeting +Meeting +Various +Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: settlement +Spoke w/ client, re: Pl's settlement proposal +Attended hearing, re: motion to set CMC; +discussed w/ client +Discussed Pr's settlement proposal w/ DAW and +then w/ Client. +Discussed PI's settlement proposal w/ AlJ +Drafted and shared proposed order w/ Pl's counsel +Spoke w/ Pts counsel, re: settlement +Spoke w/ client, re: PTs settlement proposal +Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ ALJ +Discussed PI's settlement proposal w/ DAW +Uploaded proposed order, re: CMC for Judge +Hafele +Spoke w/ client, re: PTs settlement proposal +Spoke w/ Pr's counsel, re: settlement +Discussed PI's settlement proposal w/ DAW +Discussed Pl's settlement proposal wi ALl. +Reviewed email from Pl, re: settlement; sent copy +to Client and called to discuss +Spoke w/ client, re: settlement +Spoke w/ Pr's counsel, re: settlement +Spoke w/ client, re: settlement +Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ AlJ +Discussed PI's settlement proposal w/ DAW +Drafted and filed Motion to Set Hearing on +Aronberg MSJ; drafted proposed order granting +motion to set; checked court availability: emailed +Pl's counsel, re: choose date for hearing +Reviewed Order, re: CMC unnecessary +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Spoke w/ client, re: media response +Sent email w/ Aronberg statement to media +Discussed media response w/ DAW +Discussed media response w/ AU +Reviewed Pl's Notice of Dropping: Aronberg as *** +party: spoke w/ Client and AU, re: notice and next +steps +$425.00 +$425,00 +$475.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +$425.00, +$475.00 +$425.00 +$425.00 +0.1 +0.2 +1.0 +0.4 +0.2 +0.5 +0.2 +0.5 +0.2 +0.2 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1 +0.2 +0.2 +0.5 +0.4 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2 +0.2 +1.0 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1. +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.3 +0.3 +0.5 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$475.00 +$190.00 +$85.00 +$85.00 +:$212.50 +$85.00 +- $95.00 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$95.00 +$85.00 +$170.00 +$42.50 +$42,50 +$85.00 +$95.00 +$425.00 +$42.50 +$85.00 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$42.50 +$142.50| +$127.50| +CA/Aronterg 0₽0ЗM BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +, 10/22/2020 +Various +Reviewed Pl's Notice of Dropping Aronberg.as +party; spoke w/ Client and DAW, re: notice and next +steps +- $475.00 +Totals: +0.5 +74.8 +-$237.50 +$32,440.00 +Time Entry Sub-Total: +Sub-Total: +Total: +Amount Paid: +Balance Due: +NOT A CERTIFIED CO +COP +$32,440.00 +$32,440.00 +$32,440.00: +50.00 +$32,440:00 +CA/Aronberg 009389 BEACH COUNTY, FL, \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3b7d6f04feb555fa3bbe8c971ed67f4edaadfb78c777a3b57a5b1b84a9af500.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3b7d6f04feb555fa3bbe8c971ed67f4edaadfb78c777a3b57a5b1b84a9af500.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..431559fdeb69ace8eb9453ea3caf586270b0913a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3b7d6f04feb555fa3bbe8c971ed67f4edaadfb78c777a3b57a5b1b84a9af500.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -1346, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d3b7d6f04feb555fa3bbe8c971ed67f4edaadfb78c777a3b57a5b1b84a9af500", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 27, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "96768ffaa6f68a9d40ac04dcfd2492e3a91e435f220e64a7ea7864ba26c5ace6", + "output_sha256": "5a06322312c8f9588b045ac40af6b91353a334565f6ca6f875f25f9118e6cec1", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3ce3c6eb27fe4ffd9280fefe31077d954f6e929bfe54874988f28f314ff7c80.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3ce3c6eb27fe4ffd9280fefe31077d954f6e929bfe54874988f28f314ff7c80.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1f7d30f84f910a868a0694df7a0ab536153981e8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3ce3c6eb27fe4ffd9280fefe31077d954f6e929bfe54874988f28f314ff7c80.md @@ -0,0 +1,249 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2011 Page 1 of 9 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, +Plaintiffs, +V. +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, +Defendant. +Motion For LImIteD INTERVENTION OF JeFFrey EPsteIn +This is a motion by Jeffrey Epstein pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a) and +24(b) to intervene for the limited purpose of seeking a protective order and responding to the +motions of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 for disclosure, evidentiary use, and widespread dissemination +of the plea negotiation letters and emails between his lawyers and federal prosecutors. Those letters +and emails were written in furtherance of plea negotiations, encouraged by the broad protections of +Federal Rule of Evidence 410, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(f), and the constitutional right +to effective assistance of counsel. They are privileged, confidential, not discoverable, and +inadmissible as evidence at any proceeding in this case. +I. MANDATORY AnD DIsCRETIONARy INTERVENTION Are ProPEr +Intervention is proper as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) +because Mr. Epstein has an interest in protecting his privileged and confidential plea negotiations, +and "disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede [his] ability to protect [his] +interest ….." FED. R. Civ. P. 24(a). Unless allowed to intervene, Mr. Epstein could suffer the +injustice of having his privilege and confidentiality claims erased without ever having been heard. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2011 Page 2 of 9 +See El-Ad Residences at Miramar Condo. Ass n, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 716 F. Supp. 2d 1257, +1262 (S.D. Fla. 2010), quoting In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Newparent Inc.), 274 F.3d 563, 570 (Ist +Cir. 2001) (in the context of the attorney-client privilege, ruling that colorable claims of privilege +are a textbook example of the right to intervene as of right); Appeal of Hughes, 633 F.2d 282, 286 +(3d Cir. 1980) ("The governing rule in these circumstances is that the possessor of the claimed +privilege or right may intervene to assert it"). +Discretionary intervention is also proper under Rule 24(b) because Mr. Epstein's interests +in protecting his plea negotiations "share with the main action a common question of law or fact." +FED. R. CIv.P.24(b). That common question of law involves the privileged and confidential nature +of Mr. Epstein's plea negotiations, and the unprecedented request of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 to +use those negotiations as evidence to vacate the product of Mr. Epstein's plea bargain. This is +plainly prohibited by Rule 410, and for good reason. The "central feature" of Rule 410 is that "the +accused is encouraged candidly to discuss his or her situation in order to explore the possibility of +disposing of the case through a consensual arrangement." United States v. Herman, 544 F.2d 791, +797 (5th Cir. 1977). To allow Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 to now "introduce statements uttered in +reliance on the rule would be to use the rule as a sword rather than a shield." Id. +II. THE OBJECTION OF JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2 +As required by Local Rule 7.1, we asked counsel for Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 whether they +objected to Mr. Epstein's limited intervention. Counsel responded that they "oppose the motion on +timeliness and other grounds." Mr. Epstein's motion is timely for the reasons set forth below. As +to the "other grounds" that Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 may advance, counsel for both plaintiffs +previously admitted that Mr. Epstein has a right to intervene. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2011 Page 3 of 9 +First, they argued in their opposition to the intervention of attorneys Black, Weinberg, and +Lefkowitz that Mr. Epstein "is the real party in interest" and that "harm from the release of the +materials (if any) could be only to Jeffrey Epstein." Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Response To +Motion To Intervene of Roy Black, L +Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz [DE 78] at 6. +Second, also in opposing the intervention of attorneys Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowtiz, the +plaintiffs argued that "[o]nly Epstein has an interest in the validity of the non-prosecution agreement +...." Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Response To Motion To Intervene of Roy Black, L +Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz [DE 78] at 4. +And third, in their "Motion to Use Correspondence To Prove Violations of The Crime +Victim's Rights Act And To Have Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed, " filed five months ago, Jane Doe +1 and Jane Doe 2 expressly state that they do not object to Mr. Epstein's timely intervention: +The victims have no objection to Epstein intervening in this case - at this time. If, +however, Epstein delays intervention until after a reasonable period of time, the +victims will argue that his motion to intervene is untimely. +[DE 51 at 8]. +III. MR. EPSTEIN's MoTION To INTERVENE Is TIMELY +We address at the outset what has not yet happened in this litigation: +There has been no trial or adjudication on the merits of the claims and defenses, and +this motion to intervene is not made on the eve of such trial. +There is no final judgment that would be undone or affected by Mr. Epstein's +intervention. Nor is a final judgment imminent given the discussions about discovery +and related matters addressed during the August 12, 2011 hearing +There are no discovery cut off dates, and the motion to intervene is therefore not filed +on the eve of such deadlines or after they have passed. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2011 Page 4 of 9 +There have been no evidentiary hearings or factual findings by the Court that would +be undone by the motion to intervene. Rather than impede the litigation, Mr. +Epstein's participation will aid the Court in ruling on the sensitive and novel legal +issues concerning plea negotiations. +Finally, time is not of the essence to Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 - after all, they +ignored this litigation for a year and a half while they pursued money damages +against Mr. Epstein. The Court's order dismissing this case for lack of prosecution, +which is dated September 8, 2010, noted that there had been no activity in the case +since April 2009. [DE 38]. +A motion to intervene must be timely. But "[t]imeliness is not a word of exactitude or of +precise measurable dimensions ... [T]imeliness is not limited to chronological considerations but +"is to be determined from all the circumstances."" Stallworth v. Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257, 263-64 +(5th Cir. 1977). Those circumstances are considered in light of four factors: +1. The length of time during which the would-be intervenor actually knew or +reasonably should have known of his interest in the case before he petitioned for +leave to intervene. +2. The extent of the prejudice that the existing parties to the litigation may suffer as +a result of the would-be intervenor's failure to apply for intervention as soon as he +actually knew or reasonably should have known of his interest in the case. +3. The extent of the prejudice that the would-be intervenor may suffer if his petition +for leave to intervene is denied +4. The existence of unusual circumstances militating either for or against a +determination that the application is timely. +Id. +1. The length of time during which the would-be intervenor actually knew or reasonably +should have known of his interest in the case before he petitioned for leave to intervene: +Mr. Epstein's interests arose during the August 12, 2011 hearing, when the plaintiffs argued +for the first time that their rights under the CVRA were violated not only by the government, but also +by Mr. Epstein. Even though Mr. Epstein has no legal duties to the plaintiffs under the CVRA, the +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2011 Page 5 of 9 +plaintiffs argued at the hearing that Mr. Epstein was somehow responsible for the government's +communications with each Jane Doe and that Mr. Epstein, a private citizen, caused the government +to violate its obligations under the Act. According to the plaintiffs, Mr. Epstein "engineered" and +"orchestrated" the claimed CVRA violations, and he "insisted that the rights of these victims" be +violated. [Trans. August 12, 2011 at 33-34, 61]. The plaintiffs argued that because of this supposed +conspiracy between Mr. Epstein and the government, the plaintiffs are entitled to copies of all the +plea negotiation letters and emails, to use them as evidence in these proceedings seeking invalidation +of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Id. at 33-34, 61, 107-09. +When the plaintiffs articulated a supposed conspiracy directed by Mr. Epstein to use +Assistant United States Attorneys to deny the plaintiffs their rights, it became clear that the plaintiffs' +purpose in seeking the plea negotiations is to offer them as evidence against Mr. Epstein, in violation +of Federal Rule of Evidence 410. This showed that Mr. Epstein's interests were being implicated +in the ongoing litigation between the government and the Jane Does and that limited intervention +was timely and warranted. +2. The extent of the prejudice that the existing parties to the litigation may suffer as a result +of the would-be intervenor's failure to apply for intervention as soon as he actually knew or +reasonably should have known of his interest in the case: +Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 will suffer no prejudice if Mr. Epstein is allowed to intervene. +As noted earlier, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 ignored this case for a year and a half while they +pursued claims for money damages against Mr. Epstein. They obviously do not view time as being +of the essence and were in no hurry to litigate their claims, despite their knowledge that as of June +30, 2008 Mr. Epstein was in a county jail, and that as of the summer of 2009 he was serving a term +of community control, which did not end until July of 2010. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2011 Page 6 of 9 +Additionally, during the time period when the plaintiffs demonstrated no urgency and sought +no expedited relief, Mr. Epstein, pursuant to his obligation under the Non-Prosecution Agreement, +paid an attorney representative, Robert Josefsberg, substantial legal fees to represent many of the +witnesses against him and settled many civil cases brought by the attorney representative. Mr. +Epstein settled those cases in large part because one of the conditions of the Non-Prosecution +Agreement was that Mr. Epstein waive certain defenses in civil litigation if certain identified +plaintiffs sued him exclusively under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 2255. In short, Mr. Epstein met +every condition of his Non-Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office between June +30, 2008 and the Summer 2010, during which time there was inaction by the plaintiffs. +Counsel for the plaintiffs are aware that the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) & (5)(B) +require that CVRA claims be raised and resolved on an exigent basis, and that litigation, including +appeals from adverse rulings, be expedited in order to avoid the current circumstance, where a +plaintiff seeks to invalidate an agreement after a citizen has fully served his sentence and has been +subjected to a myriad of collateral and adverse consequences, none of which can be reversed. +There is also no prejudice to the plaintiffs because there has been no trial or adjudication of +the merits of the claims or defenses raised by the existing parties, depositions have not been taken, +there have been no evidentiary hearings or factual findings by the Court, and there is no final +judgment or decree that would be undone or affected by Mr. Epstein's intervention. +In their "Motion to Use Correspondence To Prove Violations of The Crime Victim's Rights +Act And To Have Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed, " Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 argue that any +motion to intervene by Mr. Epstein would be untimely if filed "after the date on which the +government must respond to the victims' motion for a finding of violation of the CVRA," because +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2011 Page 7 of 9 +"that is when the victims must begin drafting a reply pleading." Id. This argument of inconvenience +does not go far because many of the issues raised by Mr. Epstein parallel the issues raised by +attorneys Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz as well as those raised during the August 12, 2011 +hearing, and Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 do not have to file their responsive pleadings addressing +those issues for one more month.' Thus, by the time Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 would have to +respond to the merits of Mr. Epstein's motion for a protective order, they will have already done +most if not all of the work involved in addressing the common legal issues. Allowing Mr. Epstein +to intervene will bring the plaintiffs no undue prejudice. +3. The extent of the prejudice that the would-be intervenor may suffer if his petition for leave +to intervene is denied: +The issues concerning Mr. Epstein's plea negotiations are significant. As both sides +expressed to the Court during the hearing on August 12, 2011, there are no reported cases that +address these precise facts. As far as we know, in our combined decades of experience as criminal +defense attorneys, there has been no case where third parties in a civil case have sought to discover, +much less use, plea negotiations as evidence to vacate the product of the client's plea bargain years +after the client has served a prison sentence, served a year of community control, completed his +entire sentence, and paid enormous sums of money to the attorney representing persons bringing +or threatening to bring lawsuits against him for money damages. To adjudicate these issues without +Mr. Epstein's intervention would bring him irreparable harm, especially because if his plea +negotiations are disclosed, Mr. Epstein will forever lose the benefit of their confidentiality and +' The government has two weeks to respond to the supplemental brief to be filed by +attorneys Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz, and Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 then have two weeks +after that to file their response. [DE 91 & 92]. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2011 Page 8 of 9 +privilege. +4. The existence of unusual circumstances militating either for or against a determination that the +application is timely: +At least two unusual circumstances militate for a determination that the motion to intervene +is timely and should be granted. First, the plaintiffs ignored this case for a year and a half, waiting +until this Court dismissed it for lack of prosecution to pay it any attention. Their main concern +during all that time was their claims for money against Mr. Epstein. They can now hardly complain +that Mr. Epstein's motion to intervene is untimely. +Second, the Court's ruling on the issues concerning Mr. Epstein's plea negotiations will reach +far beyond the parties in this case and will impact every criminal investigation and prosecution in +this and other Districts. Releasing the plea negotiation letters and emails and using them as evidence +to invalidate the bargain itself, as Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 request, will chill the ability of lawyers +and clients to engage in candid plea discussions with the government. This will ultimately crowd +the dockets of the district courts, where judges rely on plea negotiations to dispose of 96.1% of all +criminal cases? The ruling urged by Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 will also shift the ethical and +constitutional obligations of all criminal defense attorneys, because few criminal defense lawyers +would consider entering into plea discussions and making candid written statements during plea +negotiations if those statements are later discoverable and could be used against the client in a yetunfiled lawsuit by yet-unknown plaintiffs at some unknown time in the future. No lawyer would +agree to have open discussions with a prosecutor about resolving a criminal matter or to make +2 The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Department of Justice reports that as of 2005, +only 3.9% of all federal criminal cases proceed to trial. These statistics are reported at +www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/tjsst/2005/tjs05st.htm. +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2011 Page 9 of 9 +written submissions of their positions and views of the evidence and law, if plea negotiations could +be used to damage a client in a future civil case. With these additional serious interests at stake, the +motion to intervene should not be denied as untimely. +IV. CONCLUSION +Mr. Epstein's motion for a limited intervention is timely and should be granted as of right +under Rule 24(a) or, alternatively, as a matter within the Court's discretion under Rule 24(b). +If allowed to intervene, Mr. Epstein would file the attached motion for a protective order in +response to the motion of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 for disclosure of the defense plea negotiation +letters and emails [DE 50 at 5], their motion to use these letters and emails as substantive evidence +in their quest to invalidate the Non-Prosecution Agreement [DE 51], and their motion to disseminate +the letters and emails to the media [DE 51 at 7]. +We certify that on September 2, 2011, the foregoing document was filed electronically with +the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. +Respectfully submitted, +BLACK, SREBNICK, KORNSPAN +& STUMPF, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 1300 +Miami, Florida 33131 +Office: (305) 371-6421 +Fax: (305) 358-2006 +By +/S/ +ROY BLACK, ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 126088 +JACKIE PERCZEK, ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 0042201 +On Behalf of Jeffrey Epstein +9 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3ce3c6eb27fe4ffd9280fefe31077d954f6e929bfe54874988f28f314ff7c80.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3ce3c6eb27fe4ffd9280fefe31077d954f6e929bfe54874988f28f314ff7c80.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..853a1f1f91a5a1e66583ca6237bbcaf4209a75be --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3ce3c6eb27fe4ffd9280fefe31077d954f6e929bfe54874988f28f314ff7c80.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -110, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d3ce3c6eb27fe4ffd9280fefe31077d954f6e929bfe54874988f28f314ff7c80", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 10, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4cb591d974c90320c27aeb11886879fef29eafd53f1e0d945a03e8b077025a40", + "output_sha256": "9d3d21f563299a937567b4c97ef694fbd624bee1d2b32ccab54172cd3d2d2afb", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3cf69ea8951cf817a11058e55e9a549da2190e7db7b249db6051ee5cdd33fd7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3cf69ea8951cf817a11058e55e9a549da2190e7db7b249db6051ee5cdd33fd7.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0b229a93b1621566ac6fa882965ccbe1366a1d69 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3cf69ea8951cf817a11058e55e9a549da2190e7db7b249db6051ee5cdd33fd7.md @@ -0,0 +1,533 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 119 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2011 Page 1 of 20 +CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, +Petitioners, +NOV 0.7 2011 +STEVEN M. LANIMORE +CLERK U.S. DIST. CT +S.D. OF FLA. - W.RB. +VS. +UNITED STATES, +Respondent. +UNITED STATES' SEALED MOTION TO DISMISS +FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION +The United States hereby requests that this Court enter an order dismissing these +proceedings and the Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section +3771 (DE 1, the "Petition"), through which Petitioners Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have +advanced claims pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA"), for lack of subject +matter jurisdiction.' This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition because +' See, e.g., Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 571 (2004) +("Challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction can of course be raised at any time prior to final +judgment."); United States v. Giraldo-Prado, 150 F.3d 1328, 1329 (11th Cir. 1998) (recognizing +that "a party may raise jurisdiction at any time during the pendency of the proceedings"); Harrell +& Sumner Contracting Co. v. Peabody Petersen Co., 546 F.2d 1227, 1229 (5th Cir. 1977) +(lU]nder Rule 12(h)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., the defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be +raised at any time by motion of a party or otherwise."); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). In the +present motion, the United States seeks dismissal of Petitioners' claims based on both a legal and +factual challenge to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. This Court may properly consider +and weigh evidence beyond Petitioners' allegations when evaluating such a challenge to the +Court's subject matter jurisdiction: +Factual attacks [on a Court's subject matter jurisdiction] ... "challenge subject +matter jurisdiction in fact, irrespective of the pleadings." In resolving a factual +attack, the district court "may consider extrinsic evidence such as testimony and +affidavits." Since such a motion implicates the fundamental question of a trial + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 119 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2011 Page 2 of 20 +Petitioners lack Article III standing and because the claims raised by Petitioners in these +proceedings are not constitutionally ripe. +I. +The Claims Raised in the Petition Must Be Dismissed for Lack of Subject +Matter Jurisdiction Because the Petitioners Lack Standing to Bring Those Claims. +These proceedings pursuant to the CVRA must be dismissed for lack of subject matter +jurisdiction because Petitioners lack standing to pursue the remedies that they are seeking for +alleged CVRA violations. As the Supreme Court has explained, +to satisfy Article Ill's standing requirements, a plaintiff must show (1) it has +suffered an "injury in fact" that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or +imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the +challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely +speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. +Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 +(2000); see also, e.g., Young Apartments, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter, 529 F.3d 1027, 1038 (11th Cir. +2008) (quoting Harris v. +, 20 F.3d 1118, 1121 (11th Cir. 1994) (en banc)). Moreover, "a +plaintiff must demonstrate standing separately for each form of relief sought." Friends of the +Earth, 528 U.S. at 185. +Here, the record incontrovertibly demonstrates that Petitioners cannot satisfy the third +prong of the standing test, and the Petition and these proceedings must accordingly be dismissed +for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.? Eg., Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. South Florida +court's jurisdiction, a "trial court is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as +to the existence of its power to hear the case" without presuming the truthfulness +of the plaintiff's allegations. +Makro Capital of America, Inc. v. UBS AG, 543 F.3d 1254, 1258 (11th Cir. 2008) (citations +omitted); see also, e.g., McMaster v. United States, 177 F.3d 936, 940 (11th Cir. 1999) ("[WJe +determine whether this lawsuit survives the government's factual attack [on subject matter +jurisdiction] by looking to matters outside the pleadings, and we do not accord any presumptive +truthfulness to the allegations in the complaint."); Scarfo v. Ginsberg, 175 F.3d 957, 960-61 +(lith Cir. 1999). +Although Petitioners also fail to satisfy the first and second prongs of the standing test, +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 119 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2011 Page 3 of 20 +Water Management Dist., 647 F.3d 1296, 1302 (1Ith Cir. 2011) ("If at any point in the litigation +the plaintiff ceases to meet all three requirements for constitutional standing, the case no longer +presents a live case or controversy, and the federal court must dismiss the case for lack of subject +matter jurisdiction."); Phoenix of Broward, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 489 F.3d 1156, 1161 (11th +Cir. 2007) ("[T]he issue of constitutional standing is jurisdictional ...."); National +Conservation Ass'n v. Norton, 324 F.3d 1229, 1242 (I1th Cir. 2003) ('[BJecause the +constitutional standing doctrine stems directly from Article Ill's 'case or controversy' +requirement, +, this issue implicates our subject matter jurisdiction, and accordingly must be +addressed as a threshold matter regardless of whether it is raised by the parties.") (citation +omitted). +In these proceedings, the only identified legal relief that Petitioners have sought pursuant +to the CVRA is the setting aside of the Non-Prosecution Agreement that was entered into +between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida +("USAO-SDFL"). See, e.g., DE 99 at 6 (recognizing that the relief Petitioners seek "is to +invalidate the non-prosecution agreement"). But even assuming arguendo that Petitioners' rights +under the CVRA were violated when Epstein and the USAO-SDFL entered into the Non- +Prosecution Agreement, constitutional due process guarantees do not allow either the Non- +Prosecution Agreement - which by its terms induced Epstein to, inter alia, plead guilty to state +criminal charges and serve an 18-month sentence of state incarceration? - or the governmental +this Court need not reach or address those issues because an analysis of the third prong of the +standing test incontrovertibly establishes the Petitioners' lack of standing. Nonetheless, the +circumstances which demonstrate Petitioners' lack of a concrete injury traceable to government +conduct are explored infra in Section II of this memorandum, which addresses how Petitioners' +claims and these proceedings lack constitutional ripeness. +3 See also July 11, 2008 Hr'g Tr. at 20-21 (Petitioners' acknowledgement that Epstein's +reliance on promises in Non-Prosecution Agreement led to his guilty plea to state charges and his +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 119 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2011 Page 4 of 20 +obligations undertaken therein to be set aside.* See, e.g., Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, +262 (1971) (*[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the +prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise +must be fulfilled."); United States v. Harvey, 869 F.2d 1439, 1443 (11th Cir. 1989) ("Due +process requires the government to adhere to the terms of any plea bargain or immunity +agreement it makes."). Indeed, even if this Court were somehow to set aside the Non- +Prosecution Agreement on the authority of the CVRA, and even if after consultation with +Petitioners the United States determined that it would be proper and desirable to institute a +criminal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida against Epstein on the criminal charges +contemplated in the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the United States would still be +constitutionally required to adhere to the negotiated terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. +See, e.g., Santobello, 404 U.S. at 262; Harvey, 869 F.2d at 1443. +Due process considerations further bar this Court from setting aside a non-prosecution +agreement that grants contractual rights to a contracting party (Epstein) who has not been made a +party to the proceedings before the Court. See, e.g., School Dist. of City of Pontiac v. Secretary +of U.S. Dept. of Educ., 584 F.3d 253, 303 (6th Cir. 2009) ("It is hornbook law that all parties to a +contract are necessary in an action challenging its validity ...."); Dawavendewa v. Salt River +Project Agr. Imp. d Power Dist., 276 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 2002) (*[A] party to a contract is +necessary, and if not susceptible to joinder, indispensable to litigation seeking to decimate that +subsequent 18-month state incarceration). +4 To the extent that the Petitioners' requested invalidation of the Non-Prosecution +Agreement would implicitly reject and nullify the correctness of both the state court's acceptance +of Epstein's guilty plea and the resulting judgment of conviction -which were induced in part by +the Non-Prosecution Agreement - such judicial action might raise additional questions about this +Court's jurisdietion under the Rooker/ +doctrine. See, e.g., Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d +1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 119 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2011 Page 5 of 20 +contract."); Lomayaktewa v. Hathaway, 520 F.2d 1324, 1325 (9th Cir. 1975) ("No procedural +principle is more deeply imbedded in the common law than that, in an action to set aside a lease +or a contract, all parties who may be affected by the determination of the action are +indispensable."); see also National Licorice Co. v. NLRB, 309 U.S. 350, 362 (1940) ("It is +elementary that it is not within the power of' any tribunal to make a binding adjudication of the +rights in personam of parties not brought before it by due process of law.")." +Additionally, a "favorable ruling" from this Court will not provide Petitioners with +anything for the alleged CVRA violations that is not already available to them. For the due +process reasons already discussed above, the United States must legally abide by the terms of the +Non-Prosecution Agreement even if this Court should somehow set the agreement aside for +Petitioners to consult further with the government attorney handling the case. Moreover, as will +be explained in greater detail below, see infra at 8-12, Petitioners already have the present ability +to confer with an attorney for the government about a federal criminal case against Epstein - +whether or not the Non-Prosecution Agreement is set aside - because the investigation and +potential federal prosecution of Epstein for crimes committed against the Petitioners and others +remains a legally viable possibility.® +The present proceedings under the CVRA must accordingly be dismissed for lack of +standing because Petitioners simply have no injury that is likely to be redressed by a favorable +ruling in these proceedings. See, e.g., Scott v. Taylor, 470 F.3d 1014, 1018 (11th Cir. 2006) +(holding that there was no standing where it was speculative that remedy that Plaintiff sought +5. Significantly, it is Epstein's contractual rights under the non-prosecution agreement that +Petitioners seek to void through these proceedings. +" Petitioners' present, as well as past, ability to confer with an attorney for the government +also demonstrates that Petitioners tail to satisly the first two prongs of the standing test: +Petitioners have simply not suffered a concrete injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged +government conduct. +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 119 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2011 Page 6 of 20 +would redress claimed injury). +Il. +The Claims Raised in the Petition Are Not Constitutionally Ripe, and These +Proceedings Must Thus Be Dismissed for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. +This Court must also dismiss these proceedings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction +because the Petitioners' claims are not constitutionally ripe. +Ripeness, like standing, "originate[s] from the Constitution's Article III requirement that +the jurisdiction of the federal courts be limited to actual cases and controversies." Elend v. +Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1204-05 (11th Cir. 2006). 'The ripeness doctrine keeps federal courts +from deciding cases prematurely,' Beaulieu v. City of Alabaster, 454 F.3d 1219, 1227 (11th Cir. +2006), and "protects [them] from engaging in speculation or wasting their resources through the +review of potential or abstract disputes,' Digital Props., Inc. v. City of Plantation, 121 F.3d 586, +589 (11th Cir.1997)." United States v. +613 F.3d 1046, 1050 (11th Cir. 2010); see also +Pittman v. +267 F.3d 1269, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001) (**The ripeness doctrine prevent[s] the +courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract +disagreements ....''') (quoting Coalition for the Abolition of Marijuana Prohibition v. City of +Atlanta, 219 F.3d 1301, 1315 (11th Cir. 2000) (citations and quotations omitted))). Under the +ripeness doctrine, a court must therefore determine "whether there is sufficient injury to meet +Article Ill's requirement of a case or controversy and, if so, whether the claim is sufficiently +mature, and the issues sufficiently defined and concrete, to permit effective decisionmaking by +the court."" In re Jacks, 642 F.3d 1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Cheffer v. Reno, 55 F.3d +1517, 1524 (11th Cir. 1995)). +When evaluating whether a claim is ripe, a court considers: "'(1) the fitness of the issues +for judicial decision, and (2) the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.'" Id. +(quoting Cheffer, 55 F.3d at 1524 (citing | +Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149 (1967))); +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 119 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2011 Page 7 of 20 +see also, e.g., Association For Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc. v. Conger, 899 F.2d +1164, 1165 (11th Cir. 1990). Under the doctrine, "[a] claim is not ripe when it is based on +speculative possibilities," In re Jacks, 642 F.3d 1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011), such as if the claim +"rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur +at all,'" Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. FERC, 140 F.3d 1392, 1404 (11th Cir. 1998) (quoting Texas v. +United States, 523U.S. 296, 300 (1998)). Indeed, "[t]he ripeness doctrine is designed to prevent +federal courts from engaging in such speculation and prematurely and perhaps unnecessarily +reaching constitutional issues." Pittman, 267 F.3d at 1280. +In these +proceedings, the Petitioners have sought to set aside the Non-Prosecution +Agreement between Epstein and the USAO-SDFL so that Petitioners can "confer with the +attorney for the Government" about the possible filing of federal criminal charges against +Epstein and the potential disposition of any such charges. See, e.g., July 11, 2008 Hr g Tr. at 6-7 +(seeking an "lo]rder that the [non-prosecution] agreement that was negotiated is invalid" so that +Petitioners can exercise the right to confer with the government); id. at 19-20, 24; 18 U.S.C. +§ 3771(a)(5); see also DE 1 at 2 9 5 (claiming that Petitioner was "denied her rights" under the +CVRA because she "received no consultation with the attorney for the government regarding the +possible disposition of the charges"). +Notwithstanding the Non-Prosecution Agreement, Petitioners are and have been free to +confer with attorneys for the government about the investigation and potential prosecution of +Epstein. At least one attorney for the government (Assistant United States Attorney Villafaña +from the USAO-SDFL) had spoken to Petitioners about the offenses committed against them by +Epstein prior to the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, see, e.g., July 11, 2008 Hr'g Tr. +at 22 (acknowledging that prosecutors spoke to Petitioners "about what happened" to them); DE +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 119. Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2011 Page 8 of 20 +48 at 6 1 8; see also DE 99 at 3, and government attorneys have on multiple occasions offered to +confer with Petitioners, see, e.g., July 11, 2008 Hr'g Tr. at 13 ("I will always confer, sit down +with Jane Doe 1 and 2, with the two agents and Ms. Villafana. We'll be happy to sit down with +them."). Indeed, on December 10, 2010, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of +Florida, accompanied by supervisory and line prosecutors from the USAO-SDFL, personally +conferred with Petitioners' counsel and with Petitioner Jane Doe #1 and entertained discussion +about Petitioners' desires to see Epstein criminally prosecuted on federal charges? The United +States Attorney and prosecutors in the USAO-SDFL have also corresponded with Petitioners +counsel on multiple occasions about Petitioners' desires to have Epstein criminally prosecuted on +federal charges. +Additionally, evidence gathered in the federal investigation of Epstein's conduct has +revealed that a number of districts outside the Southern District of Florida (e.g., the Southern +District of New York and the District of New Jersey) share jurisdiction and venue with the +Southern District of Florida over potential federal criminal charges based on the alleged sexual +acts committed by Epstein against the Petitioners. Epstein is thus subject to potential +prosecution for such acts in those districts. Furthermore, because of the nature of the allegations +against Epstein, the filing of such potential charges against Epstein still remains temporally +viable; charges for such sexual activities involving minors are not barred by the applicable +• The United States Attorney also offered to confer with Jane Doe #2, but Jane Doe #2 +declined the invitation and did not attend the meeting that was scheduled with the United States +Attorney. +Since that time, the USAO-SDFL has been recused by the Department of Justice from +prospective responsibility for any criminal investigation or potential prosecution relating to +Epstein's alleged sexual activities with minor females. The Department of Justice has reassigned +responsibility for the investigation and potential prosecution of such criminal matters in the +Southern District of Florida to the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of +Florida for consideration of any prosecutorial action that may be authorized and appropriate. +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 119 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2011 Page 9 of 20 +statutes of limitations. See 18 U.S.C. §$ 3283, 3299. Petitioners are free to contact the United +States Attorney's Office in those districts and seek to confer with government attorneys in those +offices about investigating and potentially prosecuting Epstein based on the alleged federal +crimes committed against them.? +Petitioners nonetheless have appeared to contend throughout these proceedings that the +many opportunities that they have been given to consult with the attorneys for the government +about Epstein's offenses and the potential charges against Epstein - opportunities which continue +to be available to Petitioners - are not meaningful under the CVRA due to the existence of the +Non-Prosecution Agreement. According to Petitioners, the Non-Prosecution Agreement has +given Epstein a "free pass" on federal criminal charges for the offenses he committed against +Petitioners and others. See, e.g., DE 9 at 15 (characterizing Non-Prosecution Agreement as "a +'free pass' from the federal government"), 2 (contending that the Non-Prosecution Agreement +"allowed [Epstein] ... to escape all federal prosecution for dozens of serious federal sex offenses +against minors"), 7 ("the wealthy defendant has escaped all federal punishment"), 12 ("IT]he +agreement prevents federal prosecution of the defendant for numerous sex offenses."); DE 77 at +2 (describing Non-Prosecution Agreement as "an agreement that blocked federal prosecution of +Epstein for the multitude of sex offenses he committed again [sic] the victims"), 17 ("The [Non- +• The USAO-SDFL has no present knowledge about whether the United States Attorney's +Offices in those districts have opened any investigations into the allegations that have been made +against Epstein, whether those offices are even aware of those allegations or the evidence +supporting them, or what investigative or prosecutorial actions, if any, those offices might take in +the future. Nonetheless, should any investigation be underway or should any investigation be +nitiated involving such allegations, the evidence gathered by the grand jury in the Southen +District of Florida could be disclosed to federal prosecutors and federal grand juries in New Yor +or New Jersey. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(A)-(C). + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 119 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2011 Page 10 of 20 +Prosecution Agreement] barred prosecution of the federal sexual offenses that Epstein had +committed against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ....").' That is simply not so. +Contrary to Petitioners' contentions, there has been no disposition by the government of +any federal criminal charges against Epstein. No federal charges involving Petitioners have ever +been brought against Epstein, and no such federal charges have been resolved. The Non- +Prosecution Agreement about which Petitioners complain disposes of no federal criminal +charges against Epstein, and that agreement does not bar the United States from bringing federal +criminal charges against Epstein. Instead, when addressing potential federal criminal charges +against Epstein, the USAO-SDFL merely agreed in the Non-Prosecution Agreement that: +on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern +District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred +in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the +following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below. +and that +After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no +prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any +other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federa +Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any offense: +that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this +District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed. +Non-Prosecution Agreement at 2 (emphasis added). +Thus, the Non-Prosecution Agreement simply obligated the government not to prosecute +Epstein in the Southern District of Florida for the offenses set forth in the Non-Prosecution +10 This Court has also previously described the Non-Prosecution Agreement as "an +agreement under which ... the U.S. Attorney's Office would agree not to prosecute Epstein for +federal offenses." DE 99 at 2-3. That description of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, however, +was not based on the Court's interpretation of the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, but +was instead based on "allegations" by Petitioners that the Court concluded were "not yet +supported by evidence" but upon which the Court nonetheless relied "solely to provide the +context for the threshold issues addressed in" its September 26, 2011 Order. Id. at 2 n.2. +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 119 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2011 Page 11 of 20 +Agreement. +., The Non-Prosecution Agreement does not bar the United States from bringing +federal criminal charges against Epstein for the offenses set forth in the Non-Prosecution +Agreement in any other district in the nation." See, e.g., United States v. Cain, 587 F.2d 678, +680 (5th Cir. 1979) ("Where ... the prosecutor is not found to have made promises relating to +nonprosecution of charges in another district and the [defendant] is not found to have relied on +such alleged promises, this Court will affirm the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss the +subsequent prosecutions."). Neither does the Non-Prosecution Agreement bar prosecution in any +district for offenses not identified in the agreement. +Petitioners contend that the CVRA gives a victim the right to confer with the attorney for +the government before there is a disposition of contemplated, but-not-yet-filed federal criminal +charges arising from offenses against the victim. But, although the government disputes that the +CVRA creates such a right, the Petitioners have never been denied any such right. The +Petitioners have had and still have the ability confer to with the attorney for the government +about potential federal criminal charges against Epstein and about the potential disposition of +any such charges, should they be filed. In fact, Petitioners are free to approach the United States +Attorney's Offices in districts such as the Southern District of New York and the District of New +Jersey - whose authority to institute criminal charges against Epstein in their districts has not +" Significantly, under the governing provision of the United States Attorney's Manual, the +USAO-SDFL did not have the authority to unilaterally bar Epstein's prosecution in any other +district in the country: +No district or division shall make any agreement, including any agreement not to +prosecute, which purports to bind any other districts) or division without the +express written approval of the United States Attorney(s) in each affected district +and/or the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division. +USAM 9-27.641 (Multi-District (Global) Agreement Requests). +The government acknowledges that this Court has nonetheless ruled that "as a matter of +law the CVRA can apply before formal charges are filed," DE 99 at 10; see also id. at 6-9, but +has not yet determined "whether the particular rights asserted here attached," id. at 10. +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 119 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2011 Page 12 of 20 +been curtailed by the Non-Prosecution Agreement - to discuss the possibility of pursuing federal +criminal charges against Epstein.' Nothing precludes Petitioners from doing so, and there is +nothing to indicate that Petitioners' wishes to confer with government attorneys in those districts +would be rebuffed in any way. Indeed, it would be rank speculation by Petitioners to contend +otherwise. +Here, Petitioners have acknowledged that the best relief they can hope to obtain through +these proceedings is the ability to confer with the attorneys for the government. See, e.g., July +11, 2008 Hr'g Tr. at 7 (agreeing that "the best [Petitioners] can get" is the "right to confer"). +Yet, under the circumstances, a claim that Petitioners have been denied the opportunity to confer +with the attorney for the government about the filing and disposition of criminal charges against +Epstein is premature and constitutionally unripe. "This is plainly the type of hypothetical case +that [a court] should avoid deciding." Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc. +v. Conger, 899 F.2d 1164, 1166 (11th Cir. 1990). Any speculation by Petitioners that they might +prospectively be denied the opportunity to confer with the government about still-legally-viable +federal charges against Epstein simply cannot ripen Petitioners' claims. See id. (recognizing that +courts "do not generally decide cases based on a party's predicted conduct"). +For these reasons, Petitioners' claims in these proceedings should be dismissed for lack +of subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., In re Jacks, 642 F.3d 1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011) +(holding that claims that are "based on events that may take place in the future" are to be +"dismissed for lack of jurisdiction") (citing Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, +1574 n.7 (11th Cir. 1989) ("[RJipeness goes to whether the district court had subject matter +13 Petitioners could also approach the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle +Distriet of Florida, but, due to that office's recusal-based derivative prosecutorial responsibilities +in the Southern District of Florida, see supra note 8, the Non-Prosecution Agreement would +constrain the possible filing of federal charges by that office in the Southern District of Florida. +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 119 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2011 Page 13 of 20 +jurisdiction to hear the case.")); Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d 1412, 1415 (11th Cir. 1994) +("The question of ripeness 'goes to whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction.'") +(quoting Greenbriar, 881 F.2d at 1573); see also Jacksonville Property Rights Ass'n, Inc. v. City +of Jacksonville, 635 F.3d 1266, 1276 (11th Cir. 2011) (concluding that when plaintiffs ask a +court "to issue a declaration on an issue that might never impact their substantive rights," they +are "asking th[e] court either to issue an impermissible advisory opinion, or to decide a case that +is not yet ripe for decision"), reh'g & reh'g en banc denied, Case No. 09-15629, _ Fed. App'x +_ (11th Cir. Jun. 29, 2011) (Table). +Conclusion +For the reasons set forth above, the United States respectfully requests that this Court +enter an order dismissing the Petitioners' claims and these proceedings for lack of subject matter +jurisdiction. +13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 119 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2011 Page 14 of 20 +Respectfully submitted, +WIFREDO A. FERRER +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Cellaretor +Dexter A. Lee +Assistant United States Attorney +Florida Bar No. 0936693 +99 N.E. 4th Street +Miami, Florida 33132 +Tel: (305) 961-9320; Fax: (305) 530-7139 +Email: dexter.lee@usdoj.gov +Eduardo I. +Assistant United States Attorney +Florida Bar No. 877875 +99 N.E. 4th Street +Miami, Florida 33132 +Tel: (305) 961-9057; Fax: (305) 536-4676 +Email: +A. +Villafaña +Assistant United States Attorney +Florida Bar No. 0018255 +500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Tel: (561) 820-8711; Fax: (561) 820-8777 +Email: +Attorneys for Respondent +14 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 119 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2011 Page 15 of 20 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing United States' Sealed +Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction was served via United States Mail this +7th day of November, 2011, upon Counsel for Petitioners Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, +accompanied by a copy of the November 7, 2011 Sealed Order Granting Government's Motion +for Limited Disclosure of Grand Jury Matter. Pursuant to the Order regarding the disclosure of +Grand Jury Information, a copy was not served upon the proposed intervenors. +Assistant United State& Attorney +15 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 119 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2011 Page 16 of 20 +SERVICE LIST +Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, +Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA. +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Brad +Esq., +The Law Offices of Brad +2028 +Street, Suite 202 +Hollywood, Florida 33020 +(954) 414-8033 +Fax: (954) 924-1530 +& Associates, LLC +Paul G. Cassell +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 +(801) 585-5202 +Fax: (801) 585-6833 +E-mail: casselp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 +16 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 119 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2011 Page 17 of 20 +IN RE: +GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS +FEDERAL GRAND JURY 05-02(WPB) AND +FEDERAL GRAND JURY 07-103(WPB) +Sealed Order Granting +Government's Motion for Limited Disclosure of Grand Jury Matter +UNDER SEAL + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 119 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2011 Page 18 of 20 +IN RE: +S. D. OFFLA - W.P.B. +NOV 07 2011 +GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS +FEDERAL GRAND JURY 05-02(WPB) AND +FEDERAL GRAND JURY 07-103(WPB) +Sealed Order Granting +Government's Motion for Limited Disclosure of Grand Jury Matter +This cause comes before the Court on the Government's Sealed Ex Parte Motion for +Limited Disclosure of Grand Jury Matter Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(i). After +careful consideration of the grounds raised in said motions, and the Court being otherwise +advised in the premises, +IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Government's Motion for Limited Disclosure of +Grand Jury Matter Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(i) is GRANTED. The Government +is authorized to disclose in Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 v. United States, Case No. 08- +80736-Civ-Marra (S.D. Fla.), that evidence gathered in the federal investigation of Jeffrey +Epstein's conduct has revealed that a number of districts outside the Southern District of Florida +(including the Southern District of New York and the District of New Jersey) share jurisdiction +and venue with the Southern District of Florida over potential federal criminal charges based on +the alleged sexual acts committed by Epstein against both the Petitioners in Case No. 08-80736- +Civ-Marra, thereby making Epstein subject to potential prosecution for such acts in those +Districts. +IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that disclosure pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(i) +shall be conditioned on the following: +FILED by +D.C. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 119 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2011 Page 19 of 20 +(1) the disclosure of the aforementioned grand jury information shall be limited to filings +made under seal in Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra; +(2) the service of filings containing the aforementioned grand jury information shall be +limited to counsel for Petitioners Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 and for the +government in Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra, and shall be accompanied by a copy of +this Order; and +(3) further dissemination by any person or entity receiving disclosure of the grand jury +information authorized to be disclosed by this Order shall be limited to the individual +Petitioners in Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra, and any dissemination of such grand +jury information shall be accompanied by a copy of this Order. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Florida, this 7_ day of +November, 2011. +DÓNALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +ty Clerk +Date +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 119 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2011 Page 20 of 20 +CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, +Petitioners, +VS. +UNITED STATES, +Respondent. +UNITeD STATes' SEALED MotIon To DIsMISS +FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION +UNDER SEAL \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3cf69ea8951cf817a11058e55e9a549da2190e7db7b249db6051ee5cdd33fd7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3cf69ea8951cf817a11058e55e9a549da2190e7db7b249db6051ee5cdd33fd7.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5bc54bf1772d433f7e31507b3ce19f337316cb1f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3cf69ea8951cf817a11058e55e9a549da2190e7db7b249db6051ee5cdd33fd7.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -473, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d3cf69ea8951cf817a11058e55e9a549da2190e7db7b249db6051ee5cdd33fd7", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 21, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "9d98b508e7a0cf1bbe256a76a6c2aa78a9426de9c57ff4b9a9890dc12536189f", + "output_sha256": "e4a90eb79ce1cd346b8386c06ab8b12aebacdb5de4ceec821ea2972c9e6c8121", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3da730e774a4d4d1c365a1bc961dbafab1d983ab0a8bf734f75011cfb4d52da.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3da730e774a4d4d1c365a1bc961dbafab1d983ab0a8bf734f75011cfb4d52da.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0e618c03592d9216a5a605884b3b8c30590179ea --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3da730e774a4d4d1c365a1bc961dbafab1d983ab0a8bf734f75011cfb4d52da.md @@ -0,0 +1,132 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 207-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 1 of 4 +: +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRALJOHNSON +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +.VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN and +Defendants. +PLAINTIFF, C.M.A.'S, CONDITIONAL NOTICE OF INTENT TO EXCLUSIVELY RELY +ON STATUTORY DAMAGES PROVIDED BY 18 U.S.C. §2255 +Plaintiff, C.M.A., by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files her +Conditional Notice of Intent to Exclusively Rely on Statutory Damages Provided by 18 +U.S.C. §2255, and in support thereof states as follows: +1. This is an action to recover money damages against Defendant, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for acts of sexual abuse and prostitution committed upon the thenminor, C.M.A. +2. +Plaintiff has plead thirty separate counts against EPSTEIN for separate +incidences of abuse committed by EPSTEIN against Plaintiff pursuant to 18 U.S.C. +§2255. 18 U.S.C. §2255, entitled "Civil remedy for personal injuries", creates a private +right of action for minor children who were the victim of certain enumerated sex +offenses. 18 U.S.C. §2255 also creates a statutory floor for the amount of damages a + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 2 of 4 +Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 2 of 4 +victim can recover for a violation of same. Plaintiff has also alleged a single count of +Sexual Battery against EPSTEIN as well. +3. +There presently exists between the Plaintiff and EPSTEIN a disagreement +as to whether the statutory damage floor established in 18 U.S.C. §2255 is recoverable +for each commission of an enumerated sex offense listed in 18 U.S.C. §2255, or +whether the statutory damage floor can only be enforced once, regardless of how many +times a defendant perpetrates an enumerated sex offense against a minor victim. +4. +This disagreement between the parties is properly the subject of +Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint For Failure to State a Cause +of Action, and Motion For More Definite Statement; Motion to Strike, and Supporting +Memorandum of Law (D.E. 47) which is currently pending before this Court. +5. +In the event that the Court rules that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the +statutory damages created by 18 U.S.C. §2255 for each violation', Plaintiff will be +pursuing only those statutory damages, and will not pursue damages available at +common law. +6. +Should the Court rule however, that the statutory damage floor can only +be applied once, Plaintiff will be pursuing any and all damages available to her, whether +they be pursuant to statute or by common law. +The parties also disagree about the amount the statutory damage floor should be for this case. ' +.S.C. §2255 was amended in 2006 to increase the floor from $50,000 to $150,000. The partie +essentially disagree about which version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 should apply in this case. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 3 of 4 +Case 9:08-cV-80811-KAM +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 3 of 4 +Respectfully submitted, +Is/Jack P. +JACK SCAROLA +Florida Bar No. 169440 +JACKP. +Florida Bar No.: 0547808 +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: +(561) 686-6300 +(561) 383-9456 +Attorneys for Plati, C.M.. +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 5th, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached +counsel list via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. +Ls/Jack P. +JACK SCAROLA +Florida Bar No. 169440 +JACK P. +Florida Bar No.: 0547808 +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: +(561) 686-6300 +Fax: +(561) 383-9456 +Attorneys for Plaintiff, C.M.A. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 207-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009 Page 4 of 4 +Case 9:08-CV-80811-KAM +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009| + +COUNSEL LIST +Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australlan Avenue S. +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: +(561) 863-9100 +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esquire +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A +250 South Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: +(561)-202-6360 +Fax: +(561)-828-0983 +Robert Critton, Esquire +Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman LLP +515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33414 +Phone: +(561)-842-2820 +Fax: +(561)-844-6929 +Richard H. Willits, Esquire +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 10th Avenue North +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Phone: +(561)-582-7600 +Fax: +(561)-588-8819 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3da730e774a4d4d1c365a1bc961dbafab1d983ab0a8bf734f75011cfb4d52da.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3da730e774a4d4d1c365a1bc961dbafab1d983ab0a8bf734f75011cfb4d52da.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9233fabd5cdbeb581219a2c5bfef0fa35f0bae50 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3da730e774a4d4d1c365a1bc961dbafab1d983ab0a8bf734f75011cfb4d52da.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -119, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d3da730e774a4d4d1c365a1bc961dbafab1d983ab0a8bf734f75011cfb4d52da", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "1177768306dc3973b1fd5b768515ce45cadb799aa3f6d6cb51905ab32958aa01", + "output_sha256": "de506fae45693652e4e59cd0c8b6a53158e73a6fc8887cfcae12d011b18bd41a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3f2608e9e28ad885f1d9cd62bc9c0bac8ce3f6ee34cb384c2ca2e4f2331f323.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3f2608e9e28ad885f1d9cd62bc9c0bac8ce3f6ee34cb384c2ca2e4f2331f323.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..808314b811362f8573722242dbfe3e23e5fa28c8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3f2608e9e28ad885f1d9cd62bc9c0bac8ce3f6ee34cb384c2ca2e4f2331f323.md @@ -0,0 +1,99 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2008 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +IN RE: JANE DOE, +Petitioner. +SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF A. I +[VILLAFAÑA +1. I, A. Villafaña, do hereby declare that I am currently employed as an +Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA") in the Southern District of Florida and was so +employed during all of the events described herein, and that I was the AUSA assigned to the +investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. +2. +This Declaration is meant to supplement the information provided in the +Declaration that was filed on July 9, 2008, and to correct some statements in that Declaration +based upon events that occurred after the filing of the July 9 Declaration. +As explained in the July 9 Declaration and in Court presentations related to this +matter, the resolution of the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein included a series of +documents: (1) a September 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement ("Part 1"'); (2) an October +2007 Addendum ("Part 2"); and (3) a letter dated December 19, 2007, from the U.S. Attorney +to Attorney Lilly Ann +T, counsel to Jeffrey Epstein (*Part 3") + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2008 Page 2 of 4 +4. +On July 9, 2008, your Affiant sent a victim notification letter to Jane Doe #1, +which contained pertinent language from "Part 3" of the Agreement (Ex. 6 to the July 9 +Decl.). +5. +Prior to preparing and sending that letter, your Affiant sent a draft of the letter +to counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. On July 9, 2008, Mr. Epstein's attorney wrote to your Affiant +objecting to parts of the draft, but accepting the part of the draft letter that contained the +language from "Part 3" of the Agreement. Based upon that communication, your Affiant +sent the victim notification letter to Jane Doe #1 and attached it to your Affiant's July 9, 2008 +Declaration. +6. +Although copies of all of the victim notification letters, including the one +addressed to Jane Doe #1, were provided to Mr. Epstein's attorney, and despite the fact that +counsel for Mr. Epstein filed a copy of your Affiant's July 9, 2008 Declaration in some of +the civil suits filed against Mr. Epstein, none of Mr. Epstein's attorneys ever informed your +Affiant that they considered the language in the letters and the Declaration to be inaccurate. +7. +In August 2008, in anticipation that the Court might order the United States to +make the Agreement available to the victims, the United States sought to confirm that +counsel for Mr. Epstein had filed the complete Agreement under seal with the State Court +at the time of the entry of his guilty plea to the State charges, to insure that an exact copy of +that Agreement would be provided in this case, should the Court order its production. +-2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2008 Page 3 of 4 +8. +On August 14, 2008, Mr. Epstein's counsel communicated to your Affiant that +Mr. Epstein did not consider the modification contained in "Part 3" to be operative. This was +confirmed on August 18, 2008. +Following that date, your Affiant prepared a corrected victim notification letter +and worked with Mr. Epstein's counsel to resolve certain issues related to the implementation +of the Agreement comprised only of "Parts 1 and 2." Those issues were resolved on +September 2, 2008, and on September 3, 2008, your Affiant sent the corrected victim +notification letter to Jane Doe #1 via her attorney, Brad | +Esq. +10. +As explained in the July 9, 2008 Declaration, at the time that the Agreement +was negotiated, Jane Doe #2 was represented by an attorney paid for by Mr. Epstein, and, +accordingly, all contact with Jane Doe #2 was made through that attorney. +11. +At the time that all portions of the Agreement were signed, Jane Doe #2 was +openly hostile to the prosecution of Mr. Epstein and had provided a statement denying that +she was a victim. Thus, she was not included in the list of victims provided to Mr. Epstein's +counsel and did not receive either of the victim notification letters. She is, however, +represented by Attorney +who was informed of these developments and who +received both the initial and corrected victim notification letters that were sent to Jane +Doe #1. +12. +In accordance with the Court's instructions at the status conference of August +14, 2008 and the terms of the Protective Order entered by the Court on August 21, 2008, +-3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2008 Page 4 of 4 +beginning on September 2, 2008, I sent corrected Victim Notifications to all victims whom +I knew to be represented by counsel. In those letters, I advised counsel of the Court's +Protective Order and the procedure for obtaining a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. +Since that time, I have provided the Non-Prosecution Agreement to several attorneys, who +represent twelve identified victims, and have received Protective Orders counter-signed by +those attorneys and their clients. Two attorneys for other victims have not requested the +opportunity to review the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Victims whom I believe are +unrepresented have also received corrected Victim Notification letters that advise them of +the existence of the Protective Order. No one has expressed to me any concerns regarding +their access to the Non-Prosecution Agreement. +13. +I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the +foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. +Executed this 22nd day of December, 2008. +Mullalara +Villafaña, Esq. +-4- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3f2608e9e28ad885f1d9cd62bc9c0bac8ce3f6ee34cb384c2ca2e4f2331f323.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3f2608e9e28ad885f1d9cd62bc9c0bac8ce3f6ee34cb384c2ca2e4f2331f323.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2713365284351000fd70c535321963c03edefe65 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3f2608e9e28ad885f1d9cd62bc9c0bac8ce3f6ee34cb384c2ca2e4f2331f323.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d3f2608e9e28ad885f1d9cd62bc9c0bac8ce3f6ee34cb384c2ca2e4f2331f323", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "9b965220bfcc3b501464312494e137a8b6adc290edf009c21aefb979fbb15b6f", + "output_sha256": "dd005032756c3ce81ae54b5ea652f77dd5f5434ff16244face5f4fb75ad7f722", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3f275e0803af810399bac92c4d7b9f6e4ccf5ceeb162d704fb2317e836860d3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3f275e0803af810399bac92c4d7b9f6e4ccf5ceeb162d704fb2317e836860d3.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..afb800d3035c2d9f6339ddb00ad88cbdcd0a9d24 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3f275e0803af810399bac92c4d7b9f6e4ccf5ceeb162d704fb2317e836860d3.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-11869-MKV-DCF Document 39 +Sanders LLP +Troutman Pepper +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +troutman.com +Filed 10/01/20 Page 1 of 1 +troutman" +pepper +Bennet J. Moskowitz +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +October 1, 2020 +VIA ECF +Hon. Debra C. Freeman +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +New York, NY 10007 +Re: +Anastasia Doe v. Darren Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as co-executors +of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein +No. 1:19-cv-11869-MKV-DCF +Dear Judge Freeman: +Pursuant to the Court's September 4, 2020 Order (ECF No. 38), Plaintiff and +Defendants Darren _. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey +E. Epstein jointly submit this status report. +Plaintiff has submitted her claim to the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program; it +is currently under review. +To preserve the parties' resources and in the interests of judicial economy, the +parties respectfully request that this case remain stayed at this time. +Respectfully submitted, +/s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3f275e0803af810399bac92c4d7b9f6e4ccf5ceeb162d704fb2317e836860d3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3f275e0803af810399bac92c4d7b9f6e4ccf5ceeb162d704fb2317e836860d3.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..be5c4177a1278e174a1174b4176dec62fcd1c38b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3f275e0803af810399bac92c4d7b9f6e4ccf5ceeb162d704fb2317e836860d3.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d3f275e0803af810399bac92c4d7b9f6e4ccf5ceeb162d704fb2317e836860d3", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "1191dac95b81211d329e73d29168ec7df73bebdcf91c79daf11e14c743bd43f3", + "output_sha256": "ee4f3fc83967684a89cf363522b97afd37c6e8fcc64de6635e27cfe4d3257b1f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3f6aac68dcebeb7f95a34a2d70d3326803a465b82530e440ef1d93248a6f438.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3f6aac68dcebeb7f95a34a2d70d3326803a465b82530e440ef1d93248a6f438.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7eca1ce3c46ea886766e5a59718165ea8afcc182 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3f6aac68dcebeb7f95a34a2d70d3326803a465b82530e440ef1d93248a6f438.md @@ -0,0 +1,126 @@ +Filing # 176430017 E-Filed 06/29/2023 11:44:53 AM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION: AG +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC +PUBLISHER OF THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff/Petitioner +VS. +DAVE ARONBERG, as the State Attorney of Palm +Beach County, Florida, and +ABRUZZO, as the Clerk of the Circuit Court +and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida, +Defendant/Respondents. +COPY +ORDER DIRECTING TRANSCRIPTION OF THE TESTIMONY IN THE GRAND +JURY PROCEEDING +THIS CAUSE came before this Court sua sponte. After brief review of the materials +delivered by the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller of Palm Beach County on June 26, +2023, and kept secure by the Court since that time, the Court finds the materials are audio +recordings, and in order to facilitate an effective review of the grand jury records the Court finds +that transcription of the materials in conformity with Florida Rule of General Practice & Judicial +Administration 2,535 is required. +The Plaintiff seeks review of the records. This is a Civil Matter and the costs associated +with transcription will NOT be borne by the taxpayers, but instead the costs are the responsibility +of the Plaintiff. Payment will be due at the conclusion of the transcription. To be clear, this does +NOT make the transcripts the property of the Plaintiff, it only allows the court to do its duty +effectively for the Plaintiff. +Accordingly, it is hereby: +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, +ABRUZZO, CLERK, 06/29/2023 11:44:53 AM + + +ORDERED that the testimony in the grand jury proceeding shall be transcribed by a Court +approved transcriptionist. +The materials shall be provided to the approved transcriptionist. The approved +transcriptionist is to adhere to an Oath of Confidentiality and will secure all grand jury materials +at all times under lock and key and maintain a chain of custody log. +The Transcriptionist will not copy or duplicate any portion of the records for any purpose +other than the official transcription. Immediately upon completion, the transcriptiónist must hand +deliver the completed transcripts and original materials only to Judge Delgado in his +so the Court may continue the review. +The Costs associated with transcription will be paid by the Plaintiff. +DONE AND ORDERED, in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, +1629293 IRCUIT +302019CA02499/X7L parado CHeat Juage +06/29/2023 +502019CA014681XXXXMB +Luis Delgado +Circuit Judge +Copies to: +Name +COLLIN D. +CYNTHIA M +GUERRA +DOUGLAS A. +WYLER +Address +Email +P.O. BOX 229 WEST clerk_ +_e-service@mypalmbeachclerk.com; +PALM BEACH, FL +33401 +eservice@mypalmbeachclerk.com; +cdjackson@mypalmbeachclerk.com +Clerk_e-service@mypalmbeachclerk.com +961687 GATEWAY doug@jswflorida.com; +BLVD SUITE 201-1 doug.wyler@comcast.net + + +Name +JESSICA NEER +MCDONALD +JOHN SCAROLA +Address +FERNANDINA +BEACH, FL 32034 +POST OFFICE BOX +229 WEST PALM +BEACH, FL 33401 +Email +LAUREN R. +WHETSTONE +777 S FLAGLER DR +STE 300 E WEST +PALM BEACH, FL +33401 +MARK F BIDEAU +MARK F. BIDEAU +CLERK_E- +SERVICE@MYPALMBEACHCLERK.COM; +jnmcdonald@mypalmbeachclerk.com +_scarolateam@searcylaw.com; +mmccann@searcylaw.com +WHETSTONEL@GTLAW.COM; +flservice@gtlaw.com; +sandra.famadas@gtlaw.com +bideaum@gtlaw.com; thomasd@gtlaw.com; +FLServicel@gtlaw.com +bideaum@gtlaw.com; thomasd@gtlaw.com; +FLService@gtlaw.com +GRYGIELM@GTLAW.COM +54 STATE STREET ^ +MICHAEL GRYGIEL 6TH FLOOR +ALBANY, NY 12207 +MICHAEL J. +GRYGIEL +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +grygielm@gtlaw.com +boyajiann@gtlaw.com; riveraal@gtlaw.com +1840 CENTURY +NINA D. BOYAAN +PARK EAST SUITE +1900 LOS ANGELES, +CA 90067 +5100 TOWN CENTER +STEPHEN A. +CIR SUITE 400 +MENDELSOHN, ESQ +BOCA RATON, FL +33486 +mendelsohns@gtlaw.com; +: flservice@gtlaw.com + + +NOT A CERTIFIED COPY diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3f6aac68dcebeb7f95a34a2d70d3326803a465b82530e440ef1d93248a6f438.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3f6aac68dcebeb7f95a34a2d70d3326803a465b82530e440ef1d93248a6f438.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ea52e6154a38602e403cd845df35b48e45484d4e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d3f6aac68dcebeb7f95a34a2d70d3326803a465b82530e440ef1d93248a6f438.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d3f6aac68dcebeb7f95a34a2d70d3326803a465b82530e440ef1d93248a6f438", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c1853374439da8527fd6e2ba9a61555f88d2a2e8f9e9ec65356bc7ce200cb89f", + "output_sha256": "b2f199a06c3ff2affd1deb11c21673b62c1417f4431cacebb232f168bda9bed1", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4187fe1131f1d506583d35f62db5413b7734a87241491f25a146696c12de862.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4187fe1131f1d506583d35f62db5413b7734a87241491f25a146696c12de862.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4bbbf3cee29a50370bb85a6b12ec869d59a4f457 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4187fe1131f1d506583d35f62db5413b7734a87241491f25a146696c12de862.md @@ -0,0 +1,85 @@ +Filing # 127525660 E-Filed 05/25/2021 05:19:40 PM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Case No.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +Plaintiff, +Division: AG +v. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida. +Defendants. +/ +COPY +NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND DESIGNATION OF E-MAIL ADDRESSES +Kenneth G. Turkel, Shane B. Vogt and James C. Mooney of the law firm of Bajo | Cuva | +| Turkel hereby enters their appearance as counsel of record for Defendant, +Abruzzo, +as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida ("Abruzzo"). +Abruzzo requests that any and all motions, pleadings, petitions, applications, requests, +demands, memoranda, briefs, notices, discovery, orders, opinions and all such similar papers of +any nature or description, made or filed by anyone pertaining to the above styled case be served +on its counsel, Kenneth G. Turkel, Shane B. Vogt and James C. Mooney of the law firm of Bajo | +Cuva | Cohen | Turkel, +Pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516, Abruzzo hereby designates the +following e-mail addresses for its counsel: +Kenneth G. Turkel +Primary E-mail: kturkel@bajocuva.com +Secondary E-mail: teri.deleo@bajocuva.com +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, +ABRUZZO, CLERK, 05/25/2021 05:19:40 PM + + +Shane B. Vogt +Primary E-mail: svogt@bajcocuva.com +Secondary E-mail: garnold@bajocuva.com +James C. Mooney +Primary E-mail: jmooney@bajocuva.com +Secondary E-mail: lheckman@bajocuva.com +Is/ Kenneth G. Turkel +Kenneth G. Turkel - FBN 867233 +E-mail: kturkel@bajocuva.com +Shane B. Vogt - FBN 257620 +E-mail: svogt@bajocuva.com +James C. Mooney - FBN 111668 +I-mail : jmooney@bajocuva.com +BAJO | CUVA | COHEN TURKEI +100 North Tampa Street, Suite 1900 +Tampa, Florida 33602 +Telephone: (813) 443-2199 +Facsimile: (813) 443-2193 +Attorneys for Defendant, +Abruzzo, as Clerk +and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida +NOT A CER + + +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 25th day of May, 2021, I caused a true and correct copy +of the foregoing to be served via the Florida Court's E-Filing Portal upon the following counsel of +record: +E-mails: mendelsohns@gtlaw.com +smithl@gtlaw.com +FL.Service@gtlaw.com +Michael J. Grygiel +Greenberg Traurig, P.A. +54 State St., 6th Floor +Albany, NY 12207 +E-mail: +grygielm@gtlaw.com +Nina D. Boyajian +Greenberg Traurig, P.A. +1840 Century Park East, Ste. 1900 +Los Angeles, CA 90067 +E-mails: boyajiann@gtlaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com +Attorneys for Plaintiff +CERTIFIED +/s/ Kenneth G. +Turkel +Attorney +COPY +NOT diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4187fe1131f1d506583d35f62db5413b7734a87241491f25a146696c12de862.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4187fe1131f1d506583d35f62db5413b7734a87241491f25a146696c12de862.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..60b8ddef45bae093eecf8ede343209617294c4b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4187fe1131f1d506583d35f62db5413b7734a87241491f25a146696c12de862.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d4187fe1131f1d506583d35f62db5413b7734a87241491f25a146696c12de862", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "759b2b5817e874dcda6045022934a3d65568eb24e1b4d4cb70ad22ac572ff45f", + "output_sha256": "b6475e655b65ba214acb2384e7772ddfa180f7e1af56241269b9b010265b9ec7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d42a3aa9c335028a7037d266c596c05dc3c26a1df0fcaf48659bdbb86800623c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d42a3aa9c335028a7037d266c596c05dc3c26a1df0fcaf48659bdbb86800623c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a0aac33331cfde0c14755e62ea35365a4288ee72 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d42a3aa9c335028a7037d266c596c05dc3c26a1df0fcaf48659bdbb86800623c.md @@ -0,0 +1,207 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 134 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/07/2011 Page 1 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra +2011 DEC -6 +FILED 8T. +5. +FL. +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 +V. +UNITED STATES +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S SEALED SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE +REGARDING REMEDIES IN RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT'S SEALED MOTION +TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION +UNDER SEAL + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 134 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/07/2011 Page 2 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marral +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 +V. +UNITED STATES +JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S SEALED SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE +REGARDING REMEDIES IN RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT'S SEALED MOTION +TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION +COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and +through undersigned counsel, to fill this sealed supplemental response regarding remedies in +response to the Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. +The response is in addition to the victim's unsealed response. It is filed separately and under +seal because it discusses material that the Court has placed under seal. It explains that the Court +should deny the Government's motion to dismiss for the additional reason that a declaration that +the non-prosecution agreement violates the CVRA will useful to the victims in presenting their +case for prosecution to U.S. Attorneys Offices in New York and New Jersey. +In its sealed pleading, the Government argues that the non-prosecution agreement it +signed with Epstein does not bar his prosecution for crimes committed against Jane Doe #1 and +Jane Doe #2 in New York City and New Jersey. Accordingly, the Government suggests that the +victims' exclusive remedy is simply to confer with federal prosecutors there about a possible +prosecution. +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 134 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/07/2011 Page 3 of 8 +The simplest answer to the Government's argument is that this remedy is not an exclusive +one, but rather a supplemental one to the other remedies that the victims seek. Nothing requires +the victims to limit themselves to one remedy, and they are certainly not required to restrict +themselves to the limited remedy the Government proposes. +In any event, the victims remain skeptical about the viability of such a "remedy" for +illegal actions by the Government in the Southern District of Florida. For starters, they have not +been to these districts, so it is not clear exactly how the prosecutors there would prosecute +Epstein for sex offenses Epstein committed against them in Florida. Presumably the +Government has in mind some sort of conspiracy or RICO prosecution, relying on isolated overt +acts (perhaps telephone calls or plane travel) Epstein undertook there. But a conspiracy or RICO +prosecution would not appear to allow prosecution for the numerous substantive sex offenses +committed by Epstein against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in the Southern District of Florida. +A sex offense does not appear to be a "continuing offense," and therefore the Government must +prosecute it where it took place - namely, in the Southern District of Florida. Accordingly, the +Government's "remedy" is not a complete one - it simply does not permit the victims to confer +with prosecutors about prosecuting substantive sex offenses against them. +Moreover, precisely how the victims are going to meaningfully be able to convince +federal prosecutors in New York City and New Jersey to prosecute a conspiracy to commit sex +offenses against them in Florida is unclear. One significant problem is that the Government first +disclosed this possible "remedy" to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in November 2011 - 40 +months after they had filed their CVRA action. Why the Government waited so long to disclose +this information it fails to explain. In fact, its unexplained delay in disclosing this information is +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 134 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/07/2011 Page 4 of 8 +itself a new and separate violation of the CVRA, because it was unfair for the Government to +withhold this information for so long. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8) (Government must treat crime +victims with "fairness"). But in any event, the long delay means that the victims will now have a +much more difficult time convincing the federal prosecutors in these remote areas to pursue a +criminal charge that more properly would appear to belong in the Southern District of Florida. +The most important stumbling block to convincing these other prosecutors to act, +however, would appear to be the fact that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of +Florida has already investigated Epstein's crimes at length and decided to enter into a nonprosecution agreement. Federal prosecutors in New York and New Jersey reviewing that fact +alone might decide that the Epstein has been punished enough. +For this reason, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 propose the following additional remedies +so that they may be afforded their CVRA right to reasonably confer with prosecutors in New +York City and New Jersey about crimes committed against them: +• A ruling from this Court that the non-prosecution agreement is not a "global" +resolution of Epstein's criminal liability for sex offenses committed against young +girls in Florida in that it does not bar prosecution in New York City and New Jersey +for conspiracy and RICO offenses related to these offenses; +• A declaration that the Government entered into the non-prosecution agreement in +violation of Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's rights under the CVRA; +• An injunction from this Court forbidding the Government from relying on the nonprosecution agreement in making any decision about whether or not to prosecute +Epstein for other crimes; +• An order from this Court that the Government provide Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 +all information in its possession, including documents and correspondence, that they +could use to present to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New +York and the District of New Jersey to help persuade those offices to initiate criminal +prosecutions of Epstein; +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 134 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/07/2011 Page 5 of 8 +• An order from this Court pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E) releasing the grand +jury material that the Government has referred to in its sealed pleading helping to +establish venue over Epstein's sex offenses in the Southern District of New York and +the District of New Jersey; +• A order from this Court directing the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District +of Florida to report to Jane Doe #l and Jane Doe #2 whether the U.S. Attorney's +Offices for the Southern District of New York and the District of New Jersey +currently have or have ever had an investigation of Epstein for sex offenses against +young girls; +• An award of attorney's fees and costs from this Court under the Court's inherent +authority to enter such an award for Jane Doe #l and Jane Doe #2's presentations to +the Offices in the Southern District of New York and the District of New Jersey; and +• Any other remedy that the Court deems just and proper. +Because Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 are seeking these remedies (in addition to the +remedies outlined in their unsealed pleading), they clearly possess standing to pursue their claim +that the Government violated the CVRA in entering into the secret non-prosecution agreement. +The above-outlined remedies respond to injuries that they have suffered and are currently +suffering with regard to being able to confer with the U.S. Attorney's Offices in the Southern +District of New York and New Jersey. An order from this Court awarding these remedies would +directly address these injuries. +Moreover, under the holding of the D.C. Circuit in Byrd v. EPA, 174, F.3d 239, 244 (D.C. +Cir. 1999), the victims plainly have standing to litigate the illegality of the non-prosecution +agreement. Under Byrd, a ruling from the Court that the agreement is illegal will be useful to the +victims in attempting to persuade these other offices to pursue criminal charges against Epstein. +In Byrd, the D.C. Circuit considered the Government's argument that an environmental +consultant trying to obtain timely access to information under the Federal Advisory Committee +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 134 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/07/2011 Page 6 of 8 +Act about an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advisory committee meeting failed to +meet the "redressability" requirement to pursue his claim. The government argued that because +the committee had already finally concluded its deliberations and the consultant had since been +given access to the requested information, the consultant could not show that a ruling on whether +he should have been given timely access would redress any injury to him. The D.C. Circuit +rejected the Government's argument. The Circuit explained: +[The consultant's] injury, however, resulted from EPA's failure to furnish him +with the documents until long after they would have been of any use to him. Thus, +contrary to EPA's contentions, declaratory relief will redress [the consultant's] +injury because it will provide him with this Court's declaration that the agency +failed to comply with FACA; and such a declaration will give [the consultant] +"ammunition for [his] attack on the Committee's findings" in subsequent agency +proceedings that make use of the [Committee's recommendation]. +Byrd v. U.S. E.P.A., 174 F.3d 239, 244 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Similarly in this case, a declaration +from this Court that the Government entered into the non-prosecution agreement in violation of +the CVRA would provide "ammunition" for the victim's "attack" on that agreement in further +discussions with the Government, as well as in any other fora where the issue may arise. As the +Eleventh Circuit has indicated in applying the D.C. Circuit's holding, a person disadvantaged by +an allegedly illegal Government action possesses standing to challenge that illegal action and +seek an injunction against further use of that action. See Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida +v. Southern Everglades Restoration Alliance, 304 F.3d 1076, 1081 (11" Cir. 2002) finding +standing because plaintiff's alleged injury could well be redressed by prohibiting the use of +allegedly illegal agency recommendations by other federal agencies) (relying on Byrd v. EPA, +174 F.3d 239, 244 (D.C.Cir.1999)). Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 are seeking such an injunction + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 134 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/07/2011 Page 7 of 8 +here and accordingly possess standing to challenge the legality of the non-prosecution +agreement. +One final reason exists for rejecting the Government's claim, as least at this time. The +Government argues that it would be possible for Epstein to be prosecuted in New York City and +Jersey. This is a factual claim, however, that the Government has failed to support with any +facts. +Until the Government proves this factual proposition, the Court must deny the +Government's motion to dismiss. +CONCLUSION +The Court should deny the Government's motion to dismiss. +DATED: December 6, 2011 +Respectfully Submitted, +JAFFE, WEISSING, +1, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 524-2820 +Facsimile (954) 524-2822 +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +ro Hac Vice +5.J. Quinney College of Law at th +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 134 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/07/2011 Page 8 of 8 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +The foregoing document was served on December 6, 2011, on the following parties by +deposit into First Class U.S. Mail. +Dexter Lee +A. +Villafaña +Assistant U.S. Attorneys +500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Fax: (561) 820-8777 +E-mail: Dexter. Lee@usdoi.gov +E-mail: +@usdoj.gov +Attorneys for the Government +7 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d42a3aa9c335028a7037d266c596c05dc3c26a1df0fcaf48659bdbb86800623c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d42a3aa9c335028a7037d266c596c05dc3c26a1df0fcaf48659bdbb86800623c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8713979b95489f569d2d65d44a1e7c825b577774 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d42a3aa9c335028a7037d266c596c05dc3c26a1df0fcaf48659bdbb86800623c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -101, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d42a3aa9c335028a7037d266c596c05dc3c26a1df0fcaf48659bdbb86800623c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 10, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "7bf1fca9996b81ca227541164b2b81c11eb50acc9dee6eadc913dd46b4fbbf00", + "output_sha256": "f1fd47ab26209df3b52c487780dabcfe39392223f7ebeffb28886698e37e49a8", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d45b9326ea8c74b5e511bb8ea05b6149043f55e62bfdd523187703eb6e361258.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d45b9326ea8c74b5e511bb8ea05b6149043f55e62bfdd523187703eb6e361258.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7e0913ae58e8883d1f6c504737b357b6e4438ead --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d45b9326ea8c74b5e511bb8ea05b6149043f55e62bfdd523187703eb6e361258.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 18-1 Filed 02/06/20 Page 1 of 1 +DOBAR +• • +СОЛІТ ОР АРУЕТА +On behalf of JULIO A. CASTILLO, Clerk of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, +the District of Columbia Bar does hereby certify that +Robest Glassman +was duly qualified and admitted on May 13, 2011 as an attorney and counselor entitled to +practice before this Court; and is, on the date indicated below, an Active member in good +standing of this Bar. +In Testimony Whereof, +I have hereunto subscribed my +name and affixed the seal of this +Court at the City of +Washington, D.C., on January +9,2020. +Galis d. Ensello +JULIO A. CASTILLO +Clerk of the Court +Issued By: +District of Columbia Bar Membership +For questions or concerns, please contact the D.C. Bar Membership Office at 202-626-3475 or email +memberservices@dcbar.org. diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d45b9326ea8c74b5e511bb8ea05b6149043f55e62bfdd523187703eb6e361258.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d45b9326ea8c74b5e511bb8ea05b6149043f55e62bfdd523187703eb6e361258.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eaa1d1330a6eed75d7962db0ed9a8bef373cef99 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d45b9326ea8c74b5e511bb8ea05b6149043f55e62bfdd523187703eb6e361258.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d45b9326ea8c74b5e511bb8ea05b6149043f55e62bfdd523187703eb6e361258", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "dd9cf8b5cc93ea28f7753cef6479b1174f5a097d71757a7a0c4085db45167bee", + "output_sha256": "5bc726ef0c1dc8e9c77afd9e9783f8a888ec182b4c2535d771ffefa77bc96157", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d49e2ca7671869e6929e44a03d41560c6dd3a9f3bd822ae66e9cf907671e6a0b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d49e2ca7671869e6929e44a03d41560c6dd3a9f3bd822ae66e9cf907671e6a0b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6bb6b4d04640c83d0b6a37b52a72473aa52b3e49 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d49e2ca7671869e6929e44a03d41560c6dd3a9f3bd822ae66e9cf907671e6a0b.md @@ -0,0 +1,167 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRAL I +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME +TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NOS. 2-8' +MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR NET WORTH +DISCOVERY AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Defendant, +Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Epstein") by and through his +undersigned attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time in which to +Respond to Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 2-8' Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for +Net Worth Discovery and Incorporated Memorandum of Law dated September 30, 2009. +Defendant seeks an extension until November 2, 2009, to file his Response. As good +cause in support of granting the motion, Defendant states: +1. Defendant's Reply to the Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for +Net Worth Discovery and Incorporated Memorandum of Law is due on October 20, +2009. As certified below, Plaintiff's counsel is in agreement with the requested extension +of November 2, 2009. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2009 Page 2 of 4 +2. The requested extension is fair in reasonable under the circumstances as it will +provide time to allow the Defendant, EPSTEIN, to fully and adequately Respond to this +Motion to Compel. +WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court enter an Order granting the +Defendant an extension until November 2, 2009, in which to Respond to Plaintiffs Jane +Does Nos. 2-8" Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Net Worth Discovery and +Incorporated Memorandum of Law. +Local Rule 7.1 Certification +Counsel for the movant conferred by electronic mail with counsel for the +Plaintiffs and Counsel for the Plaintiffs is in agreement with the requested extension until +November 2, 2009 for Defendant to Respond to the Motion to Compel. +Robert D. Critton, Jr. +Michael V. Pike +Attorneys for Defendant Epstein +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is +being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List ir +the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 1g'" day of Octobef, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +ROBERT D. CRITTON, IR, ESP. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2009 Page 3 of 4 +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, +08-80232, +08-80380, +08-80381, 08-80993, +08-80994 +Brad +Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 3330 +Phone: 954-522-345 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +bedwards@rra-law.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80893 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A +2290 10th Avenue North +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80811 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +801-585-5202 +801-585-6833 Fax +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Isidro M. N +Esq. +_ Law Firm, P.A. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +Jack Scarola, Esq. +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack P. +. Esq. i +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, 08-80469 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2009 Page 4 of 4 +P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-686-6300 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +isx@searcylaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ect@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +305 358-2800 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases +Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d49e2ca7671869e6929e44a03d41560c6dd3a9f3bd822ae66e9cf907671e6a0b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d49e2ca7671869e6929e44a03d41560c6dd3a9f3bd822ae66e9cf907671e6a0b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..78925dedfd8bfd06efe69f65ba17f27f8c6a32dc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d49e2ca7671869e6929e44a03d41560c6dd3a9f3bd822ae66e9cf907671e6a0b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d49e2ca7671869e6929e44a03d41560c6dd3a9f3bd822ae66e9cf907671e6a0b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "6e746ebee7ee27962209b1441f350f5c4c570eb769ca36bbd791330c9eccbede", + "output_sha256": "77b3cf7c19a18e7200bcb270a461d1bcfb9cb6b2a3181e2ba1e669e451acaf4b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4a6e5f4649dededb8bde3abea3161667b18afb859a4259fe1c344208e822435.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4a6e5f4649dededb8bde3abea3161667b18afb859a4259fe1c344208e822435.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8967b5ef82462c56c050ad27a545a0aaa5432dc6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4a6e5f4649dededb8bde3abea3161667b18afb859a4259fe1c344208e822435.md @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80802-MARRA/JOHNSON +JANE DOE NO. 8, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 8'S UNOPPOSED MOTION +TO CONSOLIDATE FOR DISCOVERY PURPOSES +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 8, by and through undersigned counsel, files this Unopposed Motion +to Consolidate for Discovery Purposes, and states as follows: +This case involves the alleged sexual abuse of Jane Doe No. 8 in 2001 by Jeffrey +Epstein in Palm Beach, Florida. +The facts of this case arise from the same series of events as the multiple cases +pending in this Court against Jeffrey Epstein which are consolidated for purposes of discovery as +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case no. 08-CV-80119-Marra/ +3. +It is anticipated by the parties that there will be a significant overlap in witnesses, +evidence, and depositions in this case and the consolidated proceedings. +Accordingly, Jane Doe No. 8 requests that this Court consolidate this case with Jane +Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case no. 08-CV-80119-Marra/ +and consolidated cases, for +purposes of discovery only and amend the caption of the consolidated cases accordingly. +Prior to the filing of this Motion, Plaintiff's counsel conferred with Defendant's +- 1- + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 2 of 3 +counsel, who advised that Defendant does not oppose the relief requested. +Dated: August 11, 2009. +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Adam D. Horowitz +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz.@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiff Jane Doe 8 +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on August 11, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either vi a transmission of +Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those +parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +/s/ Adam D. Horowitz +- 2- + + +Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 3 of 3 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80802-MARRA/ +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +- 3- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4a6e5f4649dededb8bde3abea3161667b18afb859a4259fe1c344208e822435.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4a6e5f4649dededb8bde3abea3161667b18afb859a4259fe1c344208e822435.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..66b0f58e3cf8611e64fac9db1da5d962ff9c96ff --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4a6e5f4649dededb8bde3abea3161667b18afb859a4259fe1c344208e822435.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d4a6e5f4649dededb8bde3abea3161667b18afb859a4259fe1c344208e822435", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c579da52f2e815cb53669711342f99c9a8a53bbeb73b69728ba9d79c12ff6789", + "output_sha256": "1a6be82e7f6cab8b7eb73d3e2152b31ac5a545519118f75129ca18102b75c070", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4a9c6a925f0a98fd712bf615b91495e6b15a271526c0dd1b663a2bdc5c02c90.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4a9c6a925f0a98fd712bf615b91495e6b15a271526c0dd1b663a2bdc5c02c90.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..82fcc17b5f3e19c131790b1024c941b5eabc03c1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4a9c6a925f0a98fd712bf615b91495e6b15a271526c0dd1b663a2bdc5c02c90.md @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2010 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +NO. 09-80469-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOE II, +Plaintiff, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN and +Defendants. +/ +ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE +THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. +This Court's Order of March 25, 2009 directed the parties to confer within twenty-one +(21) calendar days after the filing of the first responsive pleading by the last responding +defendant, to submit a written report of this conference outlining their proposed discovery plan +within 14 days after the conference, to hold a scheduling conference either at the same time as +the discovery conference or within fourteen (14) calendar days thereafter, and finally, within +fourteen (14) days of the scheduling conference, file a joint scheduling report. Thus, since the +Complaint in this case was filed March 24, 2009 and Defendant +filed a responsive +pleading on October 21, 2009, the latest a joint scheduling report should have been filed was in +January of 2010. +Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff shall show cause why +1 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2010 Page 2 of 2 +they have failed to follow this Court's Order, and shall further file a report on or before Friday, +July 2, 2010 as to the status of this case. Failure to timely file a status report as ordered may +result in dismissal of the case. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +Florida, this 25" day of June, 2010. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies furnished to: +All counsel of record +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4a9c6a925f0a98fd712bf615b91495e6b15a271526c0dd1b663a2bdc5c02c90.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4a9c6a925f0a98fd712bf615b91495e6b15a271526c0dd1b663a2bdc5c02c90.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67234c3ec2d7994e382b54694b336dabc3342862 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4a9c6a925f0a98fd712bf615b91495e6b15a271526c0dd1b663a2bdc5c02c90.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d4a9c6a925f0a98fd712bf615b91495e6b15a271526c0dd1b663a2bdc5c02c90", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f9c36ae8ba3e1b2307579c67c95ad09b33655f23b0ca1ad913949265ea5e0174", + "output_sha256": "4484f219903ac4607b20691c193ba907dd9622381722664c93c998949a38748c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4b5186a3867bdd8c02b84c94e0887121874933c773964a0c1e8f8cafc1ffa44.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4b5186a3867bdd8c02b84c94e0887121874933c773964a0c1e8f8cafc1ffa44.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2b9e38d6905737be13cf8acda3445caa34cb1ba4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4b5186a3867bdd8c02b84c94e0887121874933c773964a0c1e8f8cafc1ffa44.md @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/16/2014 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra|H +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Petitioners, +V. +UNITED STATES, +Respondent. +STEVEN M. LARIMORE +CLERK U.S. DIST. CT. +S.D. OF +FLA-FTL +2014 MAY 16 PM 4: 00 +FILED BY. +SEALED DOCUMENT +MOTION TO SEAL +Petitioners Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), through +counsel, hereby move to seal their DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S RESPONSE IN +OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIALITY +ORDER for the following reasons: +1. This Honorable Court's Order [DE 249 at 1] states that "...petitioners should not +comply with the Order Granting Petitioners' Motion to Proffer Government Correspondence in +Support of CVRA Claims & Granting Motion to Unseal Correspondence and Related +Unredacted Pleadings of Petitioners (DE 188) until further order of this Court." +Petitioners seek leave to file this DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S RESPONSE IN +OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIALITY +ORDER under seal, in an abundance of caution, because it discusses material that Epstein has +Moved to prevent the disclosure of, and the Court has ordered the victims not to file other similar +material in its previous Order [DE 249]. + + +'Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/16/2014 Page 2 of 4 +3. +While the victims, for all of the reasons stated previously by this Court and those +recounted within their Response, do not believe that their Response or any of the materials +contained therein should be sealed, we are proceeding with extreme caution so as to allow the +Court to definitively decide that issue before any materials subject to Epstein's Motion are made +part of the public file. +WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request that DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S +RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE +CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER be sealed until further order of the Court. Alternatively, if the +Court denies the instant motion to seal, then Petitioners respectfully request that their Response +in Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Protective Order be filed in the public file and docketed as +of today's date, as timely filed. +DATED: May 16, 2014. +Respectfully Submitted, +J. +JAFFE, WEISSING, +_ FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 524-2820 +Facsimile (954) 524-2822 +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +and +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/16/2014 Page 3 of 4 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 + + +• Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/16/2014 Page 4 of 4 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I certify that the foregoing document was served on May 16, 2014, on the following using +the Court's CM/ECF system: +Dexter Lee +A. Villafaña +500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Fax: (561) 820-8777 +E-mail: Dexter.Lee @usdoi.gov +E-mail:!! +Attorneys for the Government +Roy Black, Esq. +Jackie Perczek, Esq. +Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. +201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 +Miami, FL 33131 +Email: pleading@royblack.com +(305) 37106421 +Jay P. Lefkowitz +Kirkland & Ellis, LLP +601 Lexington Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +Email: lefkowitz@kirkland.com +(212) 446-4970 +_G. Weinberg, P.C. +20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 +Boston, +02116 +Email: owlmgw@att.net +(617) 338-9538 +Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4b5186a3867bdd8c02b84c94e0887121874933c773964a0c1e8f8cafc1ffa44.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4b5186a3867bdd8c02b84c94e0887121874933c773964a0c1e8f8cafc1ffa44.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3f6288882a88de250afe3d72c4f235e4b779df74 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4b5186a3867bdd8c02b84c94e0887121874933c773964a0c1e8f8cafc1ffa44.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d4b5186a3867bdd8c02b84c94e0887121874933c773964a0c1e8f8cafc1ffa44", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f8b99fe0e90b6061e9a219172b551c4aa5e7e1ce352bdcd1ec05755384ab7873", + "output_sha256": "3a36064f7285869a686cac816c1f4b294d5d32e14dcb2484c5f5e6b32ff84adf", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4d67cd5e1d6933b8f81ee8caf1271d0cfda643cdb5271b93a21b5ff0b15f618.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4d67cd5e1d6933b8f81ee8caf1271d0cfda643cdb5271b93a21b5ff0b15f618.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0619699c33e8259bf2a904f059aed9e0325249f1 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4d67cd5e1d6933b8f81ee8caf1271d0cfda643cdb5271b93a21b5ff0b15f618.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 486-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2010 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/ +Vs. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, +08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +PRIVACY ACT COURT ORDER +This Order is entered for the purpose of protecting the right of privacy of those +individuals, including Jeffrey Epstein whose names appear in records described in the +attached Subpoena to Produce Documents in a Civil Action. +An agency is prohibited from disclosing records or information contained in +records protected under the Privacy Act unless such disclosure falls within one of the +exception set forth at U.S.C. Section 522a(b). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section +522a(b)(11), disclosure is allowed if made "pursuant to the order of a court of competent +jurisdiction." To invoke this exception to the Privacy Act, the Court must make a +determination that the need for disclosure of information outweighs the privacy interests +of the subject of the disclosure. +_ v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, 734 +F.2d 1441, 1447 (11" Cir. 1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 1108 (1985); Tootle v. Seaboard + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 486-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2010 Page 2 of 2 +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/S +Coast Line R&R, 468 So. 2d 237, 239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984). In this case, the Court +finds that the records described are relevant to the issues raised in the above captioned +case that the need of the party requesting the records outweighs the potential harm to +the subjects of the disclosure. This Order permits the disclosure in the course of this +action of the records described in the attached subpoena issued on October 14, 2009 +and served on the Federal Bureau of Investigation October 16, 2009. +The materials are provided to counsel for Jane Doe and shall not be disclosed to +any person other than attorneys and support staff working directly on the case. +Florida, this +DONE AND ORDERED in +day of +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +_, 2010 +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies furnished to: +All counsel of record +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4d67cd5e1d6933b8f81ee8caf1271d0cfda643cdb5271b93a21b5ff0b15f618.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4d67cd5e1d6933b8f81ee8caf1271d0cfda643cdb5271b93a21b5ff0b15f618.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..23c9d97d9804ce867c0b3248772750f746eb5bef --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d4d67cd5e1d6933b8f81ee8caf1271d0cfda643cdb5271b93a21b5ff0b15f618.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d4d67cd5e1d6933b8f81ee8caf1271d0cfda643cdb5271b93a21b5ff0b15f618", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "5b34237d4d28a1f45110b8e2a1e5cc08fca90ee8af629968564ac7757cecb475", + "output_sha256": "e825b341bfc9cc50e69fcdae34b0100a2dc64ac8b90fb41cb28ad399d140c525", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5107c19a6b215da74c12129cfb8554d9b62fb79962749526b8b82fa98b44dc7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5107c19a6b215da74c12129cfb8554d9b62fb79962749526b8b82fa98b44dc7.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..df216a824dbb76414511d2cae73f193a1d25375d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5107c19a6b215da74c12129cfb8554d9b62fb79962749526b8b82fa98b44dc7.md @@ -0,0 +1,184 @@ +Friday, September 18, 2020 at 11:09:24 Eastern Daylight Time +Subject: +SERVICEOFC OURTDOCUMEN T; CASE NO. 2019-CA-014681; CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC V. +DAVE ARONBERG ET AL. +Date: +From: +To: +Monday, June 8, 2020 at 3:58:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time +DouglasW yler +'mendelsohns@gtlaw.com', smithi@gtlaw.com, flservice@gtlaw.com, BoyajianN@gtlaw.com, +riveraal@gtlaw.com, GRYGIELM@gtlaw.com +Attachments: 2020-06-08Ar onberg57.105DemandandMotionf orA ttorneys' Fees.pdf +Pleaseseea ttached and below in this matter. +Court: +CaseN o: +Plaintiff: +Defendant: +TitleofDocumen ts +Served: +Sender's Name and +Telephone Number: +CircuitCourtofthefifteenthludicialcir cuit, inandf orP almBeachCoun, ty, +Florida +CaseN o.2020-CA -014681 +CAFloridaHoldings, LLC +Dave Aronberg +• Fla.St at. § 57.105 Demand Letter +• Defendant, Dave Aronberg's Motion for Attorneys' Fees +DouglasW yler +(904) 261-3693 +Sincerely, +Doug Wyler, Esq. +Scholz & Wyler, LLC +961687 Gateway Blvd., STE 201-1 +Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 +904-261-3693 +904-261-7879 (fax) +doug.wyler@comcast.net +Pleasebeadvisedtha tthise-mailandan yfilestr ansmittedwithitar ec onfidential attorney-client +communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or +entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or +retransmit this communication but destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or +copying of this communication is strictly prohibited, +CAVArontar@009239 BEACH COUNTY, FL. L +Party_ JOINT +ID#. 14 EV#J14 +DATEADMITTED: 9/6/2022 +Case No. 2019-CA-014681 +BRUZZO CLEF +CIRCUIT COUF +Joint Exhibit +. J14 + + +THE LAW OFFICES OF += ASSOCIATES, P.A. +ARTHUR-L +SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLO. +A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS +ATTORNEYS AT LAW +GATEWAY TO AMELIA +961687 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE 201I +FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA 32034 +TELEPHONE (904) 261-3693. +FAX NO. (904) 261-7879 +RICHARD J. SCHOLZ, P.A. +RICHARD J. SCHOLZ +DOUGLAS A. WYLER, P.A. +DOUGLAS A. WYLER +June 8, 2020 +VIA ELECTRONIC & U.S. MAIL +Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. +Greenburg Traurig, P.A. +5100 Town Center Circle, Suite 400 +Boca Raton, FL 33486 +COPY +RE: CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronberg et al. +Palm Beach County, Case No.: 2019-CA-014681 +Dear Mr. Mendelsohn: +As you are aware our firm represents the interests of Dave Aronberg, as State Attorney of Palm Beach +County, Florida, in the above referenced matter. The purpose of this letter is to demand the voluntary +dismissal of your First Amended Complaint, (the "Complaint"), dated January 17, 2020. This demand +is made pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes. +As you know, Section 57.105 provides: +(I) Upon the court's initiative or motion of any party, the court shall award a +reasonable attorney's fee, including prejudgment interest, to be paid to the +prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party's attorney +on any claim or defense at any time during a civil proceeding or action in which +the court finds that the losing party or the losing party's attorney knew or should +have known that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any +time before trial: +a. +Was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or +defense; or +b. Would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those +material facts. +Today, Judge Marx granted, with prejudice, Defendant Aronberg's Motion to Dismiss Count Il of the +Plaintiff's Complaint. Pursuant to the Court's ruling, the Plaintiff's only remaining cause of actior +consists of Count!, for Declaratory Relief. Accordingly, we believe that the Complaint filed hereir +and its sole remaining Count for Declaratory Relief is not supported by the material facts necessary to +• establish the claims asserted, and that your claims are not supported by the application of current law +to said material facts. +CA/Aronberg 000233 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +First and foremost, the Complaint is not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the +claims asserted because neither Defendant Aronberg, nor The Office of the State Attorney for the +Fifteenth Judicial Circuit is in custody or control of the 2006 grand jury materials sought therein. +Simply put, the declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff, seeks records from my client that are +impossible for him or his office to produce. Accordingly, Defendant Aronberg is not a proper party to +this action because no matter what, he and his office do not have possession, custody, or control of the +requested materials. +In addition to the foregoing material facts that negate the claims asserted in the Complaint, your claims +are also not supported by the application of current law. Specifically, your action for declaratory relief +fails based on the clear, unambiguous statutory language found in Section 905.27(2), Florida Statutes, +which states: +When such disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection (1) for use in a civil +case, it may be disclosed to all parties to the case and to their attorneys and by the latter +to their legal associates and employees, However, the grand jury testimony afforded +such persons by the court can.only be used in the defense or prosecution of the civil or +criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever. +Moreover, even if the Plaintiff were to prevail in the declaratory action, Mr. Aronberg would be unable +to comply with any court order granting disclosure of the requested documents because neither Mr. +Aronberg nor The Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit have possession, +custody, or control of the 2006 Epstein grand jury records. +Based on the foregoing, if the Complaint is not dismissed within 21 days of the service of this letter, +the enclosed Motion for Attorney's Fees will be filed and we will seek as sanctions, from your client +and your firm, recovery of the legal expenses incurred in defending this frivolous action. +Please govern yourself accordingly +Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. +For the Firm +Encl.: +Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees +CA Aronter 0P023A BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +-IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC +Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida. +Defendants. +COPY +CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 +DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES +Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and +through the undersigned attorneys, moves the Court, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section $7.105, +to award him réasonable attorneys' fees for the defense of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, +(the "Complaint"), and as grounds therefor, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served +a copy of this Motion, together with a letter from the undersigned attornéy, in accordance with +subsection (4) of the above Statute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days-prior +to the filing of this Motion. In said letter, Defendant's attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which +establish that the Complaint is without support of the facts or the law. +WHEREFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach +County, Florida, respectfully requests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff's +attorneys to pay said Defendant's attorneys' fees incurred herein after service of this Motion. +CA/Aronbefg0₽0236 BEACH COUNTY, FL, + + +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on this day +, 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed +via the Florida E-File Portal for electronic service on the parties of record herein. +SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +/s/ Douglas A. Wyler +Arthur I. +Esquire +Fla. Bar No.: 108249 +Richard J. Scholz, Esquire +*la. Bar No.: 002126 +Douglas A. Wyler, Esquir +Fla. Bar No.: 119979 +961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-I +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +(904) 261-3693 +(904) 261-7879 +jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net +Attorneys for Defendant +NOT A CER +CA/Arohberg 000234 BEACH COUNTY, FL, I \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5107c19a6b215da74c12129cfb8554d9b62fb79962749526b8b82fa98b44dc7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5107c19a6b215da74c12129cfb8554d9b62fb79962749526b8b82fa98b44dc7.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b174c4f4622ad6fa9d963e442950f8ac7f5d309d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5107c19a6b215da74c12129cfb8554d9b62fb79962749526b8b82fa98b44dc7.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -246, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d5107c19a6b215da74c12129cfb8554d9b62fb79962749526b8b82fa98b44dc7", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f25fa6e6a95976a69570fb956b03997abacb3b7ea6256f8872f0269a9f9029b2", + "output_sha256": "21330f9fcc9d21207e1c9ae3b770297209ea69a47449382ebba405bdd9f9faa2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d522bd0963ee457dc5dd9c55a2152b14278f61385e5878f18036712e983db6bf.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d522bd0963ee457dc5dd9c55a2152b14278f61385e5878f18036712e983db6bf.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7d4ddc3b7260468b8d7953838091afc0bd39e0ae --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d522bd0963ee457dc5dd9c55a2152b14278f61385e5878f18036712e983db6bf.md @@ -0,0 +1,152 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 124-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 1 of 7 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON +vs. +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON +EXIST A + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 124-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 2 of 7 +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/JOHNSON +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA +Plaintiff, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 124-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 3 of 7 +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/! +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. II, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469-MARRA/ +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/ +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 124-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 4 of 7 +Defendant. +ORDER +THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. +102's Motion for an Order for the Preservation of Evidence and Incorporated Memorandum of +Law (DE #114), filed May 26, 2009, and this court's order (DE #192). The parties having +agreed and the Court having carefully considered the motion and being otherwise fully advised +in the premises. +It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Motion (DE # 114) is GRANTED as +follows: +A.l Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and such employees and agents (currently under his control) +and his attorneys are directed to take every reasonable step to preserve any evidence, resulting +from the October 25, 2005 search of his home as set forth in this Court's order (DE #151-2; DE +#20 in Case 9:08 -CV-80804-KAM) previously entered. +A.2 Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and such employees and agents (currently under his control) +and his attorneys are directed to take every reasonable step to preserve any evidence relevant to +these cases that have been filed in federal court or that may lead to the discovery of admissible +evidence relevant to these cases which includes, documents, data, and tangible things, including, +writings; records; files; correspondence; digital or chemical process photographs (including +negatives); reports; memoranda; calendars; diaries; minutes; electronic messages; voicemail; e- +mail; telephone message records or logs; computer and network activity logs; hard drives; + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 124-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 5 of 7 +backup data; removable computer storage media, such as tapes, disks, and cards; printouts; +document image files; web pages; databases; spreadsheets; software; books; ledgers; journals; +orders; invoices; bills; vouchers; checks; statements; worksheets; summaries; compilations; +computations; charts; diagrams; graphic presentations; drawings; films; charts; video, +phonographic, tape, or digital recordings or transcripts thereof; drafts; jottings; and notes. +Information that serves to identify, locate, or link such material, such as file inventories, file +folders, +and indices, is also included. Specifically, Defendant must preserve the following +evidence as defined herein: records of phone communications; records of domestic and +international travel, including travel in Defendant's private airplanes; former and current +employee records; tax returns; any document evidencing payment by Defendant of U.S. currency +and/or merchandise to each person on the list provided by the United States Attorney's Office +("USAO list"); any evidence stored in Defendant's storage unit; all photographs of the interior +and exterior of Defendant's Palm Beach residence as it appeared in 1998 through October 2005; +any diary, log, memo pad, calendar, or other writing which reflected the date that each person on +the USAO list visited Defendant's residence; any diary or document wherein each person on the +USAO list wrote regarding any visits) to Defendant's residence; all documents sent by the Palm +Beach Police Department ("PBPD"), the FBI, the USAO, or the Palm Beach State Attorney's +Office ("PBSAO") to the defendant; and all computers used by Defendant and/or such agents +and employees (currently under his control) to the extent the computers have evidence relating to +these cases. The time period for the preservation of evidence shall be 1998 - 2002 as it relates to +Jane Doe 102; and 2002 through October 25, 2005 as it relates to other persons on the USAO +list. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 124-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 6 of 7 +B. +"Evidence" is defined as any document or information that is in the possession, custody +or control of the defendant as of the date of this order and that is relevant to these cases or that +may lead to the discovery of evidence relevant to these cases. The duty to preserve evidence +extends to documents, data, and tangible things in the possession, custody, and/or control of +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and such employees or agents (currently under his control) or +attorneys who possess materials reasonably anticipated to be subject to discovery in these +actions. Counsel for the Defendant shall be directly responsible only to the extent they are in +possession or control of evidence. Counsel shall provide a copy of this Order to the Defendant +and to those employees or agents whom defense counsel knows or has reason to believe may +have evidence. +C. +"Preservation" is to be interpreted broadly to accomplish the goal of maintaining the +integrity of all documents, data, and tangible things reasonably anticipated to be subject to +discovery in these actions under Rules 26, 45, and 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. +D. +If an objection or privilege is raised, the parties may raise the issue with this Court in +a timely fashion and shall preserve the evidence in question pending resolution by the Court. +An agreement to preserve evidence and this Order is not a waiver of any existing or future right +to object to production or any constitutional or evidentiary basis. +E. +The parties, without leave of Court, may agree in writing that certain documents or +categories of evidence need not be preserved as otherwise required by this Order. If such +agreement is reached, such agreement is effective upon signing and without further order of this +Court. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 124-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2009 Page 7 of 7 +F. +If this Court determines that evidence has been wrongfully destroyed or lost in +violation of this Order, it may impose appropriate sanctions based upon motion and an +evidentiary hearing, if necessary. +G. +Each party shall bear its own costs for complying with this Order. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, +this +- of +- 2009. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Court Judge +Copies to: +All counsel of record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d522bd0963ee457dc5dd9c55a2152b14278f61385e5878f18036712e983db6bf.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d522bd0963ee457dc5dd9c55a2152b14278f61385e5878f18036712e983db6bf.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fbf621d1374e042bcac4ac797cd7bb5e86fc8c03 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d522bd0963ee457dc5dd9c55a2152b14278f61385e5878f18036712e983db6bf.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -312, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d522bd0963ee457dc5dd9c55a2152b14278f61385e5878f18036712e983db6bf", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "445f741e76f6ccb16939be1be307acf63f5a271305d6ffd89639ac4e4dff27a1", + "output_sha256": "41b2192df5d0c4231379c33262b9df0e7e3e866b345babc5e0b3980a776b1acb", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d56d9ef6c5d225bc8f139d62d2732045f25215221a412758f875595e90299c54.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d56d9ef6c5d225bc8f139d62d2732045f25215221a412758f875595e90299c54.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a2e9e7d064e8109ee010693b89245b7c213b0ea6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d56d9ef6c5d225bc8f139d62d2732045f25215221a412758f875595e90299c54.md @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@ +Filing # 115383434 E-Filed 10/21/2020 04:13:35 PM +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +DIVISION: AG +v. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida, +COPY +Defendants. +PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS, LIC'S +NOTICE OF DROPPING STATE ATTORNEY, DAVE ARONBERG +Plaintiff, CA HOLDINGS, LLC, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1250(b), hereby notifies the parties that +it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the above case. +NOT A +Respectfully submitted, +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +Attorneys for CA Florida Holdings, LLC, Publisher +of The Palm Beach Post +Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. +401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 2000 +Boca Raton, Florida 33486 +Telephone: (561) 955-7629 +Facsimile: (561) 338-7099 +By: Is/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN +Florida Bar No. 849324 +mendelsohns@gtlaw.com +smithl@gtlaw.com +FL.Service@gtlaw.com +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, 10/21/2020 04:13:35 PM + + +By: +Is/ Michael J Grygiel +MICHAEL J GRYGIEL +(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) +54 State St., 6th Floor +Albany, New York 12207 +Telephone: (518) 689-1400 +Facsimile: (518) 689-1499 +grygielm@gtlaw.com +By: Is/ Nina D. Boyajian +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) +1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 +Los Angeles California 90067 +Telephone: (310) 586-7700 +Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 +boyajiann@gtlaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 21ª day of October, 2020, a true and correct copy of the +foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the State of Florida e-filing system, which +will send a notice of electronic service for all parties of record herein +NOT A +/s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN +ACTIVE 53317341V1 +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d56d9ef6c5d225bc8f139d62d2732045f25215221a412758f875595e90299c54.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d56d9ef6c5d225bc8f139d62d2732045f25215221a412758f875595e90299c54.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c6b5aab34ac8e5d9472d235ae4e8e3647985bc26 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d56d9ef6c5d225bc8f139d62d2732045f25215221a412758f875595e90299c54.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d56d9ef6c5d225bc8f139d62d2732045f25215221a412758f875595e90299c54", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8baec56c5a0c7f05c6f9e14880e0b272707246f2d4c5943dc434c1d1e13a3075", + "output_sha256": "c965f7f8359f992657ae230c942225a0e55564230a0698d0a4d79dde13845bd8", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d576bb26e7e4e1c32e9b7dffc747c4da3e556b8b9e997997fdcc9e0a54a3d7ac.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d576bb26e7e4e1c32e9b7dffc747c4da3e556b8b9e997997fdcc9e0a54a3d7ac.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..11fd4a3e5fb2cefddae14bcb292ae147cf78afd0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d576bb26e7e4e1c32e9b7dffc747c4da3e556b8b9e997997fdcc9e0a54a3d7ac.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +Filing # 115339550 E-Filed 10/21/2020 10:47:03 AM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BÉACH POST, +Plaintiff, +v. +CASE NO: 2019-CA-014681 +DIVISION: AG +Defendants. +ORDER +THIS CAUSE having come before this Court on Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG's, Motion to +COPY +Set Case Management Conference, and the Court having considered the Motion and the arguments of +counsel, and the Court otherwise being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: +The Case Management Conference requested herein is unnecessary as Defendant +Aronberg's Motion for Summary Judgment shall be heard prior to any hearing on fees or +sanctions. Defendant's counsel shall proceed to set said motion online in the normal course. +DONE AND ORDERED in Chamers in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. +- Donald Hafele:_Judge- +ANMINIS +Ivr arrier or THE COURT +50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB +Doral Hafete +10/21/2020 +Copies furnished: +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN, ESQ., Greenberg Traurig, P.A., 5100 Town Center Circle, Suite +400, Boca Raton, Florida 33846; mendelsohns@gtlaw.com +CYNTHIA M. GUERRA, ESQ., For Sharon R. Bock, Clerk & Comptroller, PO Box 229, West Palm +Beach, Florida 33401; Clerk_E-service@mypalmbeachclerk.com +DOUGLAS A. WYLER, ESQ., +Scholz & Wyler, LLC, 961687 Gateway Blvd, Suite 201-I, +Fernandina Beach, FL 32034; doug.wyler@comcast.net + +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, 10/21/2020 10:47:03 AM diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d576bb26e7e4e1c32e9b7dffc747c4da3e556b8b9e997997fdcc9e0a54a3d7ac.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d576bb26e7e4e1c32e9b7dffc747c4da3e556b8b9e997997fdcc9e0a54a3d7ac.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..09f001f25c12f0695cf069bd6b106bf173ba287b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d576bb26e7e4e1c32e9b7dffc747c4da3e556b8b9e997997fdcc9e0a54a3d7ac.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -23, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d576bb26e7e4e1c32e9b7dffc747c4da3e556b8b9e997997fdcc9e0a54a3d7ac", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2643d11890dc5a6ab091675e49ef911b9f7ec1e83b3ea8e175335966b1db29f9", + "output_sha256": "ac6f7982a927404926474dd4e9c8f62a200ec397c67b6f3e6e1757569f56ae30", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d57d69510ff87fc1592151da93c76f4ede033e0171f80289ffa80632a5167550.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d57d69510ff87fc1592151da93c76f4ede033e0171f80289ffa80632a5167550.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bf09d8a59163e6c06664911260acf4dc74887678 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d57d69510ff87fc1592151da93c76f4ede033e0171f80289ffa80632a5167550.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2008 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-80381-CIV-MARRA +Jane Doe No. 5, +Plaintift, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +ORDER DENYING MOTIONS AS MOOT +THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for Enlargement of Time to +Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint (DE 12) and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss +Complaint (DE 45). As Plaintiff's Complaint has been replaced by an Amended Complaint, it is +hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: +(1) Defendant's Motion for Enlargement of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to +Complaint (DE 12) is DENIED as moot. +(2) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (DE 45) is DENIED as moot. This denial +is without prejudice to Defendant reasserting the grounds asserted in the motion if he deems it +appropriate as to the Amended Complaint. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, +this 23" day of September, 2008. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +copies to: +All counsel of record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d57d69510ff87fc1592151da93c76f4ede033e0171f80289ffa80632a5167550.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d57d69510ff87fc1592151da93c76f4ede033e0171f80289ffa80632a5167550.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..34aa1be60fb5bdd27838d5bd667cda117cf52806 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d57d69510ff87fc1592151da93c76f4ede033e0171f80289ffa80632a5167550.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d57d69510ff87fc1592151da93c76f4ede033e0171f80289ffa80632a5167550", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "b550fc27c0960d791cafc55663a82a36f021e28878f30d03e689a7ac7eedd3cc", + "output_sha256": "2963165fd331cd35a9444329ccbb8dc7e32bc837aba84b32e356e9a18222af8a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d58d5491595ccb58fab714572252eab357dee484cb190f26fa3bdb3b700a1881.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d58d5491595ccb58fab714572252eab357dee484cb190f26fa3bdb3b700a1881.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c4b1a7eaa24283c221bd30e31ebaa8ada6a896fe --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d58d5491595ccb58fab714572252eab357dee484cb190f26fa3bdb3b700a1881.md @@ -0,0 +1,225 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 31 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/18/2008 Page 1 of 9 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN +RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR STAY +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 4, by and through her undersigned counsel, submits this +Memorandum of Law in Response to Motion for Stay, as follows: +INTRODUCTION +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay this action is based on the incorrect premise that +there are criminal actions pending against him in Palm Beach Circuit Court, State of Florida v. +Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 2006 CF 09454 AXXMB (Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County), +and in the Southern District of Florida, In re Grand Jury, No. FGJ 07-103 (WPB) (S.D. Fla.). The +Motion to Stay as to the state court criminal action was rendered moot on June 30, 2008 when +Jeffrey Epstein entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida Statute $796.07 (felony solicitation of +prostitution) and §796.03 (procurement of minors to engage in prostitution) in the state criminal +action. (See Defendant's Notice Concerning Motion to Stay dated July 1, 2008). Jeffrey Epstein, +now an admitted sex offender, was sentenced to a term of imprisonment followed by community +control and sex offender registration. +As to the federal prosecution, Defendant's mistitled "Notice of Continued Pendency of +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/18/2008 Page 2 of 9 +Federal Criminal Action," which has now been unsealed, makes clear that there is in fact no criminal +federal action pending. This Notice discloses a confidential Agreement between the U.S. Attorney +and Defendant, the terms of which were triggered when Epstein began serving his state imposed +criminal sentence. Under the Agreement, according to the Notice, the U.S. Attorney "agreed to +suspend its grand jury investigation", while "retain(ing] the right to reactivate the grand jury and +indict Mr. Epstein should he breach any part of the Agreement during its term, which runs for 33 +months, beginning on the date Mr. Epstein began serving his sentence in the Florida Criminal +Action." (The terms of this Agreement are also described in the notice letter to the victim Plaintiff, a +redacted copy which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".) Accordingly, as represented in Defendant's +own filing, Mr. Epstein is not under indictment and the grand jury is not active in his case. There is +simply no pending criminal action, a necessary prerequisite for a stay under 28 U.S.C. §3509(k). +Additionally, the stay provision of 18 U.S.C. 3509(k) is limited to circumstances in which the +plaintiff is a "a person who is under the age of 18..." The Statute is therefore inapplicable in that +Plaintiff is not a minor, and was not a minor when she filed this lawsuit. The Motion is also +procedurally defective because (i) Defendant failed to comply with the Local Rules of the United +States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in that Defendant's counsel neither +conferred nor attempted to confer with counsel for the Plaintiff as to the relief request prior to filing +the Motion to Stay; and (i) in light of changed circumstances after the filing of the Motion to Stay, +the Motion fails to inform the Plaintiff or the Court of the grounds for the relief sought. +For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion to Stay must be denied in its entirety. +THE DEFENDANT HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT +28 U.S.C. $3509(k) IS APPLICABLE AND A STAY MANDATED +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/18/2008 Page 3 of 9 +As the movant, it is the Defendant's burden to demonstrate that the requirements for a stay +have been met. He has not met this burden. 18 U.S.C. §3509(k) states as follows: +Stay of civil action. -- If, at any time that a cause of action for recovery of +compensation for damage or injury to the person of a child exists, a criminal action +is pending which arises out of the same occurrence and in which the child is the +victim, the civil action shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the criminal +action and any mention of the civil action during the criminal proceeding is +prohibited. As used in this subsection, a criminal action is pending until its final +adjudication in the trial court. +(emphasis added). +A threshold inquiry in determining whether to invoke the stay provision of 18 U.S.C. +§3509(k) is whether the plaintiff in a civil action is also the victim of a "criminal action ... pending +which arises out of the same occurrence and in which the child is the victim...." (Emphasis +supplied). Given Jeffrey Epstein's plea of guilty to the criminal charges in the state case and the +Agreement entered into with the U.S. Attorney, his argument that a stay of this lawsuit should be +granted because of pending criminal charges appears at this point to be specious. Nonetheless, +Defendant Epstein represents to this Court in his "Notice Concerning Motion to Stay" dated July 1, +2008 that "the federal criminal proceeding ... remains pending." No further explanation is +provided. The argument supporting this assertion is unknown to Plaintiff.' There is no indication in +the statutory language or elsewhere that 18 U.S.C. §3509(k) can be applicable in a situation, such as +here, where there is an agreement concerning federal crimes but there has been no indictment. +The notice letter attached hereto as Exhibit "A" further sets forth one of the conditions +imposed by Mr. Epstein's Agreement with the U.S. Attorney, as follows: "Any person [including +'The developments relating to the Defendant's plea deal arose after the Defendant filed his Motion +to Stay. As a result, the Motion does not explain why a stay is justified under the present +circumstances. Plaintiff is at a disadvantage in filing this Memorandum in Response, and is left to +guess as the present grounds for the Motion. For this reason alone, the Motion should be denied. +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/18/2008 Page 4 of 9 +this plaintiff], who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, +United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she +would have had, if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense." +Thus, not only is a necessary prerequisite for a statutory stay missing in that no criminal case is +pending, but a stay under 28 U.S.C. §3509(k) would be inconsistent with Mr. Epstein's Agreement +with the U.S. Attorney, which contemplates civil claims by victims pursuant to federal law. +Defendant Epstein apparently contends that a stay should nonetheless apply for the next 33 months, +preventing for this extended period the civil litigation of these claims, to see if Mr. Epstein complies +with his Agreement. Needless to say, this would be absurd. It cannot be seriously argued in the +circumstances of this case that a stay under 28 U.S.C. §3509(k) is mandated because there is a +"pending" federal criminal action. +18 U.S.C. $3509(k) DOES NOT AUTHORIZE A STAY +OF A CIVIL LAWSUIT FILED BY AN ADULT PLAINTIFF +Even if there were a criminal case pending, which there is not, 18 U.S.C. §3509(k) would not +apply to the claim of a child victim who is now an adult. This Statute applies in situations in which a +child who has been the victim of sexual abuse is the plaintiff in a civil lawsuit at the same time that +the child is a victim in a criminal proceeding arising out of the same occurrence. That is not the case +here. The Plaintiff is an adult and was an adult at the time she filed this civil lawsuit. Defendant +misinterprets 18 U.S.C. §3509(k) to suggest that the Statute also applies in instances where an adult +plaintiff in the civil lawsuit was a victim of sexual abuse during childhood. A careful reading of the +definitions section of 18 U.S.C. §3509 reveals that Defendant's interpretation is incorrect. See 18 +U.S.C. §3509(a)(2) (defining "child" as person who is under the age of 18). +18 U.S.C. §3509(k) states, in relevant part, as follows: +- 4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/18/2008 Page 5 of 9 +(k) Stay of civil action. -- If, at any time that a cause of action for recovery of +compensation for damage or injury to the person of a child exists, a criminal +action is pending which arises out of the same occurrence and in which the child is +the victim, the civil action shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the criminal +action.... +(emphasis added). +18 U.S.C. §3509(2) defines as a "child" as "a person who is under the age of 18." Thus, the term +"child" is limited for purposes of 18 U.S.C. §3509 to a person who is currently under the age of 18. +While the statute could have been written to say "a person who is under the age of 18 or was under +the age of 18 at the time of the abuse", it does not. Yet, this is the precise interpretation suggested +by the Defendant. +The plaintiff's interpretation of 18 U.S.C. $3509(k) is not only consistent with the plain +language of the statute, but also with the policies underlying the stay provision. The statute is +designed to protect children who are involved in legal proceedings arising from physical, sexual, or +mental abuse. For instance, 18 U.S.C. §3509 provides protections for persons under the age of 18, +including alternatives to live in-court testimony, competency examinations, psychological +examinations, privacy issues, filing under seal, closing the courtroom, the handling of videotaped +testimony, adult attendants, speedy trials, the use of guardians ad litem and testimonial aids. Each of +these protections is only implicated when the victim "is under the age of 18." See 18 U.S.C. +§3509(a)(2). In the context of a civil lawsuit, a child similarly needs protection from the possibility +of concurrent proceedings involving deposition or trial testimony, psychological examinations, and +competency examinations. Moreover, the use of a stay of a civil lawsuit involving a child-plaintiff +may be particularly warranted in circumstances where the child may not have had made the decision +to file the lawsuit in the first instance. Thus, the law protects the children from multiple concurrent +proceedings. These concerns do not exist to the same degree when a competent adult such as the +- 5- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/18/2008 Page 6 of 9 +Plaintiff elects to file suit on her own behalf. Yet, the Defendant seeks to carve out an exception +where none exists by arguing that the "Stay of Civil Action" provision in subsection (k) must be +applied to victims who are 18 or older who were under the age of 18 at the time of their abuse. This +argument is unsupported by the statute or its underlying policies. +The unpublished, trial court decisions cited by Defendant of Doe v. Francis, 2005 WL +517487 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2005) (Francis I) and Doe v. Francis, 2005 WL 950623 (N.D. Fla. Apr. +20, 2005) (Francis II) are readily distinguishable. The Plaintiffs in Francis / and Francis II +"offered no legal authority or evidence to support their argument that the stay should be lifted." +Francis II, at *1. By contrast, in this case, the Plaintiff has cited the definition of "child" found in 18 +U.S.C. $3509(a)(2). The Francis cases also involved seven plaintiffs, three of whom were victims in +the criminal case. That is not the case here were the only plaintiff in this lawsuit is not a victim in a +pending criminal case. Additionally, the stay in the Francis cases was imposed before the plaintiffs +reached the age of majority. Here, the civil lawsuit was not even filed until after the plaintiff +reached the age of majority. +DEFENDANT'S MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED IN THAT +DEFENDANT DID NOT CONFER WITH PLAINTIFF'S +COUNSEL PRIOR TO FILING HIS MOTION, AND THE MOTION +FAILS TO INFORM PLAINTIFF OR THE COURT OF THE +GROUNDS FOR RELIEF IN LIGHT OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES +Defendant's Motion should be denied in that Defendant failed to comply with the Local +Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in that Defendant's +counsel neither conferred nor attempted to confer with counsel for the Plaintiff as to the relief +request prior to filing the Motion to Stay. See S.D. Fla. L. R. 7.1.A.3. Notably, Defendant's Motion +also contains no certification as to any such attempt as required by the Local Rules. See id. The +Local Rules provide that the "[flailure to comply with the requirements of this rule may be cause for +- 6 - + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/18/2008 Page 7 of 9 +the court to grant or deny the motion and impose on counsel an appropriate sanction, which may +include an order to pay the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the violation, +including a reasonable attorney's fee." Id. +Finally, when the circumstances materially changed after the filing of the Motion, it was +incumbent upon the Defendant to either withdraw the Motion or at least amend it to explain the +grounds for a stay in light of the plea deal. Defendant has not done so, to the prejudice of Plaintiff in +preparing this Memorandum in response. For this reason alone the Motion to Stay should be denied +CONCLUSION +Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff requests that this Court deny Defendant's Motion to Stay +pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3509(k) in its entirety, award attorney's fees to +Plaintiff for Defendant's failure to comply with Southern District of Florida Local Rule 7.1.A.3, and +all other relief this Court deems just and appropriate. +Dated: July 18, 2008. +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Jeffrey M. Herman +Jeffrey M. Herman (FL Bar No. 521647) +jherman @hermanlaw.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@hermanlaw.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +- 7- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/18/2008 Page 8 of 9 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on July 18, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day +to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices +of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who +are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Jeffrey M. Herman +- 8- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/18/2008 Page 9 of 9 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/, +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Michael R. Tein +tein@lewistein.com +Is/ Jeffrey M. Herman +- 9- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d58d5491595ccb58fab714572252eab357dee484cb190f26fa3bdb3b700a1881.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d58d5491595ccb58fab714572252eab357dee484cb190f26fa3bdb3b700a1881.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..11438bff0dc87c86392a034781a9b513b1c3ee98 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d58d5491595ccb58fab714572252eab357dee484cb190f26fa3bdb3b700a1881.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -108, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d58d5491595ccb58fab714572252eab357dee484cb190f26fa3bdb3b700a1881", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "23771395354aba0465f9a0cef3b33177a833fa9982bd133a3265563e478e5518", + "output_sha256": "461f579e74e31222396cd881ceac8ab9f9d04b2d51d58665a95150a7c67cb847", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5927bb953ac2a0ecc44ac78cfef479100359bd64709744602c0b75c9f1ede88.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5927bb953ac2a0ecc44ac78cfef479100359bd64709744602c0b75c9f1ede88.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..72ed25111248fb72188f99b1089715a3fc98120e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5927bb953ac2a0ecc44ac78cfef479100359bd64709744602c0b75c9f1ede88.md @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ +Filing # 197073396 E-Filed 04/26/2024 11:36:42 AM +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE +FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND +FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-AG +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, +Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, +Plaintiff, +V. +DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of +Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. +BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm +Beach County, Florida, +Defendants. +COPY +CERTIFICATE OF NON-OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION +TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT +Plaintiff CA Florida Holdings, LLE, Publisher of The Palm Beach Post, through its +undersigned counsel, hereby certifies that all parties that currently appear in the above-captioned +case have been canvassed and all have given their consent or non-objection to plaintiff's Motion +for Leave to Amend its Complaint. +WHEREFORE, CA Florida Holding, LLC, Publisher of The Palm Beach Post, hereby +respectfully requests that its Motion for Leave to Amend Its Complaint be granted, and the court +grant such other relief it deems just and proper. +Respectfully submitted, +/s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN +Florida Bar No. 849324 +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +*** FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL +ABRUZZO, CLERK. 04/26/2024 11:36:42 AM *** + + +Tel.: 954.768.8225 +mendelsohns@gtlaw.com +smithl@gtlaw.com +MICHAEL J. GRYGIEL +(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) +GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP +54 State Street, 6th Floor +Albany, NY 12207 +Tel.: 518.689.1400 +grygielm@gtlaw.com +NINA D. BOYAJIAN +(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) +GREENBERG TRAURIG, LIP +1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 +Los Angeles, CA 90067 +Tel.: 310.586.7700 +boyajiann@gtfaw.com +riveraal@gtlaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff CA Florida Holdings, +LEC, Publisher of The Palm Beach Post +NOT AC +NOT A CER +2 + + +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been +electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein on +April 26, 2024. +Is/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn +NOT A CERTIFIED COPY +3 +ACTIVE 697739199v2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5927bb953ac2a0ecc44ac78cfef479100359bd64709744602c0b75c9f1ede88.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5927bb953ac2a0ecc44ac78cfef479100359bd64709744602c0b75c9f1ede88.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..54b9a79f5c78e48e31d380d33a0fe3623c898ae9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5927bb953ac2a0ecc44ac78cfef479100359bd64709744602c0b75c9f1ede88.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d5927bb953ac2a0ecc44ac78cfef479100359bd64709744602c0b75c9f1ede88", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "be20685a9f150355d3a13f5c390f1d1b6322dd47ad973d0f77386c1398818c66", + "output_sha256": "2d50ffcbe6c2ac8960c6e9db3cec12933dc1dfc4d864720304958f5aefc58947", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5b21bb6acc71aa14e4bd43aab19a24ac96790471e986dd02c82d87b9a0f8343.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5b21bb6acc71aa14e4bd43aab19a24ac96790471e986dd02c82d87b9a0f8343.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aee1e58025b6c015a7ee0ceac83183746ee4d106 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5b21bb6acc71aa14e4bd43aab19a24ac96790471e986dd02c82d87b9a0f8343.md @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 5 | +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2008 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA1 +IN RE: JANE DOE, +Petitioner. +ORDER +TAKE NOTICE that the above-styled cause has been set for a hearing on Petitioner's +Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights Act on Friday, July 11, 2008 at +10:15 A.M. before United States District Judge Kenneth A. Marra, 701 Clematis Street, +Courtroom 4, West Palm Beach, Florida. +DONE and ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida +this 10 day of July, 2008. +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +copies to: +all counsel of record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5b21bb6acc71aa14e4bd43aab19a24ac96790471e986dd02c82d87b9a0f8343.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5b21bb6acc71aa14e4bd43aab19a24ac96790471e986dd02c82d87b9a0f8343.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5207bff3e99635c410c4235f5bdc3269edeee62b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5b21bb6acc71aa14e4bd43aab19a24ac96790471e986dd02c82d87b9a0f8343.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d5b21bb6acc71aa14e4bd43aab19a24ac96790471e986dd02c82d87b9a0f8343", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "016d711c79cb5a482952b6c6c3c492ad971bc9b0b60ff5da3fb5d1e02f4a4b03", + "output_sha256": "2368bd6ea9341f9631386b349efb490a6ce14481953e54ccd05439ad0932205c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5b391ca8461e6e02cdc25731495cdf78bf57f7b8e236b1885bb2bfbefd92821.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5b391ca8461e6e02cdc25731495cdf78bf57f7b8e236b1885bb2bfbefd92821.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7c9cccbfe2f0f2f92373e264aa46415b6907c3ee --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5b391ca8461e6e02cdc25731495cdf78bf57f7b8e236b1885bb2bfbefd92821.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 19 Filed 01/10/20 Page 1 of 2 +BSF +BOIES +| SCHILLER +I FLEXNER +January 10, 2020 +VIA ECE +The Honorable Debra Freeman +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +New York, NY 10007-1312 +Re: +v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as +executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Edward Epstein, 19-10479 +Jane Doe 1000 v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as +executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Edward Epstein, 19-10577 +Annie Farmer v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as +executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Edward Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell, 19- +10475 +v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as +executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Edward Epstein, 19-10476 +Dear Judge Freeman: +Pursuant to the Court's request at the November 21, 2019, Case Management Conference, +Plaintiffs and Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of +Jeffrey E. Epstein, jointly submit this letter to provide the Court with an update as to the progress +of discussions regarding both discovery and settlement. +The parties have thus far engaged in two productive conferences pursuant to Rule 26(f) of +the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. During those conferences, the parties agreed to exchange +initial disclosures by January 23, 2020, and to exchange discovery plans one week thereafter, on +January 30, 2020. +As the Court is aware, Defendants have arranged for a Victims' Compensation Program +hat will be available to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' counsel has conferred with the Program's designer +ind administrators, the Program's administrators provided Plaintiffs with a proposed protocol fo +the Program, and Plaintiffs have provided some feedback to the administrators. The motion for +the Superior Court of the United States Virgin Islands to approve the establishment of the Progran +will be heard on February 4, 2020. +The parties request a conference with the Court on February 6 or 7, 2020, to resolve any +potential disagreements as to how these matters should proceed. The parties will provide the Court +with their proposed discovery plan(s) 48 hours before any such conference. +BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP +55 Hudson Yards, New York, NY 10001 | (t) 212,446.2300 | (f) 212.446.2350 | www.bsfllp.com + + +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 19 Filed 01/10/20 Page 2 of 2 +BSF +Respectfully submitted, +/s/ Joshua I. Schiller +David Boies, Esq. +Joshua I. Schiller, Esq. +Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. +Boies Schiller Flexner LLP +/s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz, Esq. +Troutman Sanders LLP +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5b391ca8461e6e02cdc25731495cdf78bf57f7b8e236b1885bb2bfbefd92821.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5b391ca8461e6e02cdc25731495cdf78bf57f7b8e236b1885bb2bfbefd92821.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5dd48bbf11a4ccd49f78fc0e1607f88a58ff948d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5b391ca8461e6e02cdc25731495cdf78bf57f7b8e236b1885bb2bfbefd92821.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d5b391ca8461e6e02cdc25731495cdf78bf57f7b8e236b1885bb2bfbefd92821", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2a673e3b90d077d0b169edebeecf81ee0e1af80977132d5cce88c147e8c4a6a0", + "output_sha256": "e345e1b4804ff7995ec1eb5008d6e9fab48efb5202514fbbc82e4c5d8668408e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5b43451e8886ea41e62dabef6db75b614d33b51a4ce91bed6e1d4acefb2036e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5b43451e8886ea41e62dabef6db75b614d33b51a4ce91bed6e1d4acefb2036e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..29cc66b00089234426265973309a4ce3eece39c0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5b43451e8886ea41e62dabef6db75b614d33b51a4ce91bed6e1d4acefb2036e.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 79-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2009 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2009 Page 2 of 2 +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- 80993-CIV-MARRA/ +ORDER +Upon Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Response to Motions to +Compel Plaintiffs to Respond to Defendant's First Request to Produce and First Set of +Interrogatories, et al., and good cause being shown, it is hereby +ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is granted. Plaintiffs shall have an enlargement of time of +until May 6, 2009, to respond to the Defendant's Motions to Compel, et al. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, +this +day of +- 2009. +DISTRICT COURT JUDGE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5b43451e8886ea41e62dabef6db75b614d33b51a4ce91bed6e1d4acefb2036e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5b43451e8886ea41e62dabef6db75b614d33b51a4ce91bed6e1d4acefb2036e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9aa9d272cfa4f41d6e4da1146aad3eaf9ea81360 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5b43451e8886ea41e62dabef6db75b614d33b51a4ce91bed6e1d4acefb2036e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d5b43451e8886ea41e62dabef6db75b614d33b51a4ce91bed6e1d4acefb2036e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "185cd67282bf895aabc9a5fb53c468d8120122df3a7125cd6604f3059cb40ecb", + "output_sha256": "12641a310a8978da7bdef78c09c89241085656b15c1bd064713157c33136ba2f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5b99e8c293b94559dd88c5a5d450af3119628d0ce6c4981b69e67d37c4e540a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5b99e8c293b94559dd88c5a5d450af3119628d0ce6c4981b69e67d37c4e540a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f5ec77ec9d804e12c2421541ff50f0a1fe929168 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5b99e8c293b94559dd88c5a5d450af3119628d0ce6c4981b69e67d37c4e540a.md @@ -0,0 +1,84 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/. +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +/ +NOTICE OF FILING +Plaintiff, JANE DOE No. 101, hereby gives notice of filing Motion to Proceed Anonymously +and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, which was filed in the conventional manner with the Court +on April 17, 2009, along with the Summons and Complaint. +Plaintiff inadvertently omitted said +motion when the initial documents were served on Defendant's counsel. +Dated this 6' day of May, 2009. +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiff +By: +s/Katherine W. Ezell +Robert C. Josetsberg +Fla. Br No. 040856 +rjosefsberg/@podhurst.com +Katherine W. Ezell +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +kezell@podhurst.com +City National Bank Building +25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 2 of 3 +Telephone: (305) 358-2800 +Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 6'* day of May, 2009, we electronically filed the +foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List +either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other +authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically +Notices of Electronic Filing. +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiff +By: s/Katherine W. Ezell +Robert C. Josefsberg +Fla. Br No. 040856 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Katherine W. Ezell +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +ezell@podhurst.com +ity National Bank Buildir +25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +Telephone: (305) 358-2800 +Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 14 +Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 3 of 3 +SERVICE LIST +JANE DOE NO. 101 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Case No. 08-CV-80591-MARRA/ +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Robert Critton Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman LIP +515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +rcrit@bcldlaw.com +Jack Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 202-6360 +Fax: (561) 828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Co-counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5b99e8c293b94559dd88c5a5d450af3119628d0ce6c4981b69e67d37c4e540a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5b99e8c293b94559dd88c5a5d450af3119628d0ce6c4981b69e67d37c4e540a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..85f3d28c201daaf91198dc4f92c740a75cedfb4f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5b99e8c293b94559dd88c5a5d450af3119628d0ce6c4981b69e67d37c4e540a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d5b99e8c293b94559dd88c5a5d450af3119628d0ce6c4981b69e67d37c4e540a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ca946bcf3e906b6c408330c73a8f01932345ace3985c26cb140c96ef82255e88", + "output_sha256": "829061f17f80c650a3e6613f2deff64b468bc14c807d830f578f06b34f2dc1b7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5bf7abd14ca731aa565cc01aee8a4f46bf7e0ca65edf1a208db81533277411f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5bf7abd14ca731aa565cc01aee8a4f46bf7e0ca65edf1a208db81533277411f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2be083ad124c61cd7e867b141f7e347d313d1fa0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5bf7abd14ca731aa565cc01aee8a4f46bf7e0ca65edf1a208db81533277411f.md @@ -0,0 +1,100 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2008 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT +OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO +DISMISS AND FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2008 Page 2 of 4 +Plaintiffs, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4 and Jane Doe 5, by and through undersigned +counsel, file this Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendant's Motions to Dismiss +and for More Definite Statement, and state as follows: +1. +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein filed a similar Motion to Dismiss and Motion for More +Definite Statement (the "Motions to Dismiss") in each of the above-captioned cases, on October 6, +2008. Plaintiffs' response to the Motions to Dismiss under Local Rule 7.1 is presently due on +October 24, 2008. +2. +Plaintiffs seek an enlargement of time of five (5) business days, until October 31, +2008, to file their response to the Motions to Dismiss. This enlargement of time will synchronize +the response date to the Motions to Dismiss in the above-captioned cases with the response date to +the similar Motions to Dismiss filed in Jane Doe Nos. 6-7 v. Epstein, case nos. 08-80994-CIV-Marra +and 08- 80993-CIV-Marra, which is October 31, 2008. +Additionally, this request for enlargement of time is necessitated by Plaintiffs' +counsel's prior commitments and the demands of other cases and matters, including upcoming +discovery cutoffs in Jane Doe v. School Board of Broward County and Scavella, case no. 07-21367- +CIV-SEITZ, U.S. District Court, Southern District Court of Florida, and Doe v. Faerber, case no. 05-CV- +142-FTM-33DNF, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida. +4. +This Motion seeks a brief enlargement of time and is not brought for purposes of delay. +5. +Plaintiff has conferred with Defendant's counsel, Robert Critton, regarding this request for +enlargement of time, and he has no objection to this request. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests an Order granting an enlargement of time of five (5) +business days, until October 31, 2008, to file the Plaintiffs' response to the Motions to Dismiss. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2008 Page 3 of 4 +Dated: October 24, 2008. +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Jeffrey M. Herman +Jeffrey M. Herman (FL Bar No. 521647) +jherman@hermanlaw.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@hermanlaw.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 303-931-0877 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on October 24, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of +Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those +parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +s/ Jeffrey M. Herman + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2008 Page 4 of 4 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Michael R. Tein, Esq. +tein@lewistein.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Michael Pike, Esq. +mpike@belclaw.com +s/ Jeffrey M. Herman diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5bf7abd14ca731aa565cc01aee8a4f46bf7e0ca65edf1a208db81533277411f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5bf7abd14ca731aa565cc01aee8a4f46bf7e0ca65edf1a208db81533277411f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5f85623cac01416791f6c0fdafc266d76c40b90a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5bf7abd14ca731aa565cc01aee8a4f46bf7e0ca65edf1a208db81533277411f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d5bf7abd14ca731aa565cc01aee8a4f46bf7e0ca65edf1a208db81533277411f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e277afc9622c71b6c91a0874b05371565e4467cf16f82d790ce1c573aaa657fb", + "output_sha256": "f472de5d6078bfcce49ce6074e9972e7a020a5bfdbf877ed1595e5d8d0a4567b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5c52c922848c1520b98a7a70c823e6c6a8666614929fd8f9b50fb0eb12a66e9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5c52c922848c1520b98a7a70c823e6c6a8666614929fd8f9b50fb0eb12a66e9.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bb0e946502aa12491732e706b21edaabba13a817 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5c52c922848c1520b98a7a70c823e6c6a8666614929fd8f9b50fb0eb12a66e9.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 86-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2009 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +AGREED ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO ATTEND MEDIATION +(AS TO CMA V. EPSTEIN AND +, 08-CIV-80811) +This matter came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion to Attend +Mediation and Plaintiffs counsel being in agreement with the entry of this order, it is +HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: +The court's no contact order, [DE 238], shall not preclude Defendant Epstein +deposition, mediation, or the trial of this +from attending Plaintiff +case. +DONE and ORDERED this +_day of +_ 2009 +Linnea R. +United States Magistrate Judge +Courtesy Copies: +Judge Kenneth Marra +Counsel of record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5c52c922848c1520b98a7a70c823e6c6a8666614929fd8f9b50fb0eb12a66e9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5c52c922848c1520b98a7a70c823e6c6a8666614929fd8f9b50fb0eb12a66e9.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..72753d27c93838a141633407876cdfbbee287988 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5c52c922848c1520b98a7a70c823e6c6a8666614929fd8f9b50fb0eb12a66e9.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d5c52c922848c1520b98a7a70c823e6c6a8666614929fd8f9b50fb0eb12a66e9", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c7f961a79e2eae4b1c6a1f5c3272f26c8e4fdc5d08d42d1f144d016e500cba89", + "output_sha256": "e6763e56a979d22a57ec39098f0b906a8dd46281dd4066dbbdbddb4ef8620c37", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5d69c52abf248fd9996da128733cfb0f0fa45e38b82b21284d541e85a5204f7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5d69c52abf248fd9996da128733cfb0f0fa45e38b82b21284d541e85a5204f7.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3704d9e9923c034bd6a1366f94ac7d365faf3ae6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5d69c52abf248fd9996da128733cfb0f0fa45e38b82b21284d541e85a5204f7.md @@ -0,0 +1,112 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2010 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOES #1 and #2, +Petitioners, +V. +UNITED STATES, +Respondent. +PETITIONERS JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S NOTICE +IN RESPONSE TO ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER CLOSING CASE +As the Court is aware, this is an action under the Crime Victims' Rights Act +(CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, in which two crime victims, petitioners Jane Doe #1 and +Jane Doe #2, allege that the U.S. Attorney's Office violated their rights under the Act by +failing to advise them of a plea agreement it had reached with sex offender Jeffrey +Epstein. On September 9, 2010, this Court sua sponte entered an administrative order +"closing" the case. The basis for this order was "the underlying [civil settlements] +between the victims and Mr. Epstein." Order at 1. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 +hereby give notice that they intend to make subsequent filings in this case shortly. They +accordingly request administrative reopening of the case and, if the Court deems it +advisable, a scheduling conference with the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the case. +Precisely what the effect is of an order administratively closing a case is not +immediately clear to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. They believe that such an order + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2010 Page 2 of 4 +would automatically lose effect in the event of a subsequent filing. They note that the +Court did not dismiss their case. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution - and to +provide the Court with additional information about the status of the case -- Jane Doe #1 +and Jane Doe #2 are filing this brief notice that they will be making subsequent filings +shortly. +The fact that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have settled their civil cases against +sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in no way affects their determination to move forward with +the above-captioned CVRA action against a different entity - the U.S. Attorney's Office +for the Southern District of Florida. For reasons explained in their earlier pleadings, that +Office grossly violated their rights under the Act. The fact that Epstein has settled with +Jane Doe #1 and #2 to resolve his civil liability in no way exonerates the U.S. Attorney's +Office for its failure to discharge its responsibilities under the Act. +If the Court wishes to proceed to an expeditious conclusion to this case, Jane +Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have no objection to the Court setting up an expedited +schedule for proceeding on the case. The Court should be aware, however, of the +reasons why Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have not yet filed for summary judgment in +this case. +Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have long believed that correspondence between +the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein would corroborate their argument that the +Office had grossly violated their rights under the CVRA. Just two months ago, in +connection with their civil case against Epstein, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's +suspicions were confirmed when their legal counsel received correspondence between + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2010 Page 3 of 4 +Epstein's criminal defense lawyers and the Office proving that the Office had tried to +conceal the existence of the plea agreement from them. +In addition to the +correspondence, Counsel has received other information from witnesses that further +strengthens our clients' case under the CVRA. Counsel are now in the process of +attempting to move forward on this new information and prove their clients' cases +against the Defendant United States and will be filing the appropriate pleadings to do +SO. +In light of all this, Jane Doe #1 and #2 ask that the case be administratively +reopened and, if the Court deems it advisable, that a scheduling conference be set for +this case. +DATED: September 13, 2010 +Respectfully Submitted, +/s/ +MALENESS. +_ FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +Telephone (954) 524-2820 +Facsimile (954) 524-2822 +Florida Bar No.: 542075 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +Paul G. Cassell +Pro Hac Vice +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +Telephone: 801-585-5202 +Facsimile: 801-585-6833 +-Mail: cassello@law.utah.edi +-and- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2010 Page 4 of 4 +Jay Howell, Esq. +jay@jayhowell.com +Jay Howell & Assoc. +644 Cesery Boulevard +Suite 250 +Jacksonville, FL 32211 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +1 HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 13, 2010 | electronically filed the +foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the +foregoing document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List +in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated +by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not +authorized to receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing. +s/ +J. +J. +SERVICE LIST +Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/ +Attorney for United States +A. +Villafana +U.S. Attorney's Office +500 S. Australian Ave.., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Telephone: 561-820-8711 +Facsimile: 561-820-8777 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5d69c52abf248fd9996da128733cfb0f0fa45e38b82b21284d541e85a5204f7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5d69c52abf248fd9996da128733cfb0f0fa45e38b82b21284d541e85a5204f7.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..131a7d6cd1e146c110e7d807234f218e0f8f2462 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5d69c52abf248fd9996da128733cfb0f0fa45e38b82b21284d541e85a5204f7.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d5d69c52abf248fd9996da128733cfb0f0fa45e38b82b21284d541e85a5204f7", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "113ed076600ca4951fd503aba57713474f60ae1087d156630c5b4788f5b6ca72", + "output_sha256": "872de2605f08298b0917c0f1d54308cdb322d7e3001f30790912153cd62616a4", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5df18520224ab86a9d327796d7dc6c10f67687897b87421ed5ff9c7cffd0815.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5df18520224ab86a9d327796d7dc6c10f67687897b87421ed5ff9c7cffd0815.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a154c69ec6937aa0c493d04efc8ea6b81987c36d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5df18520224ab86a9d327796d7dc6c10f67687897b87421ed5ff9c7cffd0815.md @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 67 Filed 06/01/20 Page 1 of 2 +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP +350 FIFTH AVENUE | SUITE 7110 +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 +TEL (212) 763-0883 | FAX (212) 564-0883 +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884 +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com +June 1, 2020 +VIA ECE +Hon. Judge Freeman +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +New York, NY 10007 +Re: +Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) +Dear Judge Freeman: +We write on behalf of both parties in the above-referenced action pursuant to this Court's +Order dated April 21, 2020 (Doc. No. 60) to update the Court as to the status of discovery and the +progress of settlement discussions. +Discovery. As the Court is aware, fact discovery in this matter began on January 21, 2020 +(Doc. No. 48), and the parties exchanged their First Sets of Interrogatories and Requests for +Production of Documents on March 10, 2020. Since that time, the parties have met and conferrer +repeatedly on the scope and timeline of discovery, including issues pertaining to specifically te +lectronically-stored information (ESI) discovery. The parties have made substantial progress o +narrowing the areas of dispute between them and on agreeing to a process for searching an +producing ESI. While some disputes remain, discussions between the parties are ongoing and, as +a result, there are no issues that parties wish to raise with the Court at this time, though both parties +reserves their rights to do so in future if necessary. +Since the commencement of fact discovery, Plaintiff has made two productions of +documents and is on track to substantially complete her production of documents by the week of +June 8, 2020. Defendants have not yet produced any documents; however, they have represented +to Plaintiff that they are working to remedy this and intend to begin production of documents this +week. +Settlement. With respect to settlement, the parties have had no meaningful discussions +since the last status conference before this Court on February 11, 2020. On May 29, 2020, +Jordana +•. the program administrator selected by the Estate, sent Plaintiff's counsel a +final version of the protocol for the Program and indicated that she will be reaching out to +plaintiffs' counsel directly to discuss the process. Earlier today, the Co-Executors filed in the + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 67 Filed 06/01/20 Page 2 of 2 +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP +2 +Superior Court of the Virgin Islands the status report attached hereto as Exhibit A. As stated +therein, the Co-Executors, with the support of claimants' counsel and the USVI Attorney +General, intend to authorize commencement of the Program on Monday, June 15, 2020. +While Plaintiff remains open to continued dialogue about the program, she continues to +believe that her best option is to proceed to trial before Judge Failla and is unlikely to agree to +any stay of the proceedings pending any discussions with +and her colleagues.' +Indeed, at the conference before Judge Failla on December 11, 2019, Plaintiff already offered to +waive her right to a jury trial and proceed with a bench trial. Plaintiff's view is that this +concession should mitigate, if not eliminate, many of the logistical concerns presented by the +current pandemic. +Motion to Dismiss. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages +has been fully briefed since February 8, 2020 and remains pending before Judge Failla. +Respectfully submitted, +Roder +Roberta A. Kaplan +cc: Judge Failla +Counsel of Record +' The protocol established by the claims administrator explicitly states that to claimants can or should be required to +stay her case in order to participate in the claims program. See Ex. A at 13. diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5df18520224ab86a9d327796d7dc6c10f67687897b87421ed5ff9c7cffd0815.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5df18520224ab86a9d327796d7dc6c10f67687897b87421ed5ff9c7cffd0815.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ee9bbf3ff6b1738c43d8910d788b499f4d734609 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5df18520224ab86a9d327796d7dc6c10f67687897b87421ed5ff9c7cffd0815.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d5df18520224ab86a9d327796d7dc6c10f67687897b87421ed5ff9c7cffd0815", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "edd212b5a780fe78c89823cf7555ee23b77064465cd514bfc2e9823225b57f2f", + "output_sha256": "746e589648a0fc9ef09fa9e5885f38b45c11b7d64c54a154dc23b5a42c833331", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5e217adb5f1d46cd172aa1249a1668079111ed39486ad9dee479a90ad7fb0a0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5e217adb5f1d46cd172aa1249a1668079111ed39486ad9dee479a90ad7fb0a0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..affb4da4077c3f17ffe0784ae17e59d147654a5c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5e217adb5f1d46cd172aa1249a1668079111ed39486ad9dee479a90ad7fb0a0.md @@ -0,0 +1,217 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 10 Filed 10/24/19 Page 1 of 9 +CASE NO. 19-cv-9610 +JANE DOE 17, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE AND +RICHARD D. KAHN, AS JOINT +PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF +THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +NINE EAST 71st STREET CORPORATION, +LAUREL, INC., FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, +INC., NES, LLC, MAPLE, INC., LSJE, LLC, +HBRK ASSOCIATES, INC., NAUTILUS, INC., +CYPRESS, INC. and JEGE, INC. +Defendants. +UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ADMIT COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE +PURSUANT TO RULE 1.3(c) of the Local Rules of the United States District Courts for +the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, I, Andrew S. Buzin, a member in good standing +of the bar of this Court, hereby move for an Order allowing the admission pro hac vice of: +Laura J. Starr, Esq., FBN 0491888 +1301 N. Federal Highway +Lake Worth, FL 33460 +Telephone: (561) 588-9500 +Facsimile: (561) 588-9500 +Email: Istarr@yourfloridacounsel.com +Ms. Starr is a member in good standing of the Florida Bar. There are no pending +disciplinary proceedings against Ms. Starr in any State or Federal court. +I have consulted with counsel for Defendants, Bennet Moskowitz, Esq., of Troutman +Sanders LLP, who has advised that Defendants do not oppose this Motion. + + + +Case 1:19-cV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 10 Filed 10/24/19 Page 2 of 9 +Dated: +New York, New York +October 24, 2019 +By: +Respectfully Submitted, +Is/ Andrew S. Buzin +Andrew S. Buzin +BUZIN LAW, P.C +111 Broadway, Suite 1204 +New York, NY 10006 +Tel: (646) 470-4878 +Fax: (347) 736-9490 +abuzin@buzinlaw.com +Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jane Doe 17 + + + +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 10 Filed 10/24/19 Page 3 of 9 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on October 24, 2019, I caused true and correct copies of the foregoing +Motion to Unopposed Motion To Admit Counsel Pro Hac Vice, Affidavit of Laura J. Starr, Esq. +in Support of Motion to Admit Counsel Pro Hac Vice, and Order for Admission Pro Hac Vice on +Written Motion to be served by electronic mail on defense counsel listed below: +Bennet J. Moskowitz +Troutman Sanders +875 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +Direct: 212.704.6087 +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +By: +ANDREW S. BUZN +abuzin@buzinlaw.com + + + +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 10 Filed 10/24/19 Page 4 of 9 +CASE NO. 19-cv-9610 +JANE DOE 17, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE AND +RICHARD D. KAHN, AS JOINT +PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF +THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +NINE EAST 71st STREET CORPORATION, +LAUREL, INC., FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, +INC., NES, LLC, MAPLE, INC., LSJE, LLC, +HBRK ASSOCIATES, INC., NAUTILUS, INC., +CYPRESS, INC. and JEGE, INC. +Defendants. +DECLARATION OF LAURA J. STARR, ESQ. +IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ADMIT COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE +1, Laura J. Starr, Esq., declare under penalty of perjury as follows: +Pursuant to Rule 1.3 of the Local Rules of the United States Courts for the Southern +and Eastern Districts of New York, I hereby seek admission from this Court to practice Pro Hac +Vice to appear as counsel for Plaintiff JANE DOE 17 in the above-captioned action. +I am in good standing of the bar of the State of Florida and there are no pending +disciplinary proceedings against me in any state or federal court. I have never been convicted of a +felony. I have never been censured, suspended, disbarred or denied admission or readmission by +any court. I have attached the affidavit pursuant to Local Rule 1.3. +3. +I have consulted with counsel for Defendants, Bennet Moskowitz, Esq., of +Troutman Sanders LLP, who has advised that Defendants do not oppose this Motion. + + + +Case 1:19-cV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 10 Filed 10/24/19 Page 5 of 9 +Dated: Lake Worth, Florida +October 24, 2019 +Respectfully submitted, +WEISMAN, BRODIE, STARR +& MARGOLIES, P.A. +Is/ Laura J. Starr +Laura J. Starr, Esq., FBN 0491888 +1301 N. Federal Highway +Lake Worth, FL 33460 +Telephone: (561) 588-9500 +Facsimile: (561) 588-9500 +Email: Istarr@yourfloridacounsel.com +Attorney for Plaintiff, Jane Doe 17 + + + +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 10 Filed 10/24/19 + +CASE NO. I +JANE DOE 17, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE AND +RICHARD D. KAHN, AS JOINT +PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF +THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +NINE EAST 71st STREET CORPORATION, +LAUREL, INC., FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, +INC., NES, LLC, MAPLE, INC., LSJE, LLC, +HBRK ASSOCIATES, INC., NAUTILUS, INC., +CYPRESS, INC. and JEGE, INC. +Defendants. +I, Laura J. Starr, hereby declare as follows: +I make this Affidavit in connection with my Motion for Admission Pro Hac +Vice in the above-captioned matter as co-counsel for Plaintiff, Jane Doe 17. +2. +I am a partner with the law firm of Weisman, Brodie, Starr & Margolies, P.A. +I am a member of good standing of the bar of the state of Florida. (Exhibit A.) +4. +I have never been convicted of a felony. +I have never been censured, suspended, disbarred or denied admission or +readmission by any court. +6. +Federal Court. +There are no pending disciplinary proceedings against me in any state or + + + +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE-DCF Document 10 Filed 10/24/19 Page 7 of 9 +FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. +Lame Stern +LAURA J. STARR +STATE OF FLORIDA +55.: +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 16 "day of October, 2019, by +LAURA J. STARR, who is [°] personally known to me or [ ] has produced the following +identification +which is current or +has been issued within the past five years and bears a serial or other identifying number, and who +did take an oath. +Notary Public +( +Printed Notary Nar +My Commission Expires: 3/18 2023 +CHRISTY BRADY JANSSEN +MY COMMISSION # GG 290033 +EXPIRES: March 18, 2023 +Bonded Thru Notary Public Undenerito + + + +Case 1:19-cv-09610 PAE-DCF Document 10 Filed 10/24/19 + +Supreme Court of Florida +Certificate of Good Standing +I JOHN A. TOMASINO, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of Florida, do +hereby certify that +LAURA JANE STARR +was admitted as an attorney and counselor entitled to practice law in all the +Courts of the State of Florida on July 20, 2001, is presently in good +standing, and that the private and professional character of the attorney +appear to be good. +SUPREME +COURT +STATE +OF +PLORID +THE +WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the +Supreme Court of Florida at Tallahassee, +the Capital, this October 24, 2019. +22 +Clerk of the Supreme Court of Florida. + + +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 10 Filed 10/24/19 Page 9 of 9 +CASE NO. 1:19-cv-09610-PAE +JANE DOE 17, +Plaintiff, +V. +DARREN K. INDYKE AND +RICHARD D. KAHN, AS JOINT +PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF +THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +NINE EAST 71st STREET CORPORATION, +LAUREL, INC., FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, +INC., NES, LLC, MAPLE, INC., LSJE, LLC, +HBRK ASSOCIATES, INC., NAUTILUS, INC., +CYPRESS, INC. and JEGE, INC. +Defendants. +Upon motion, for an order permitting her to appear and practice pro hac vice in the +within action on behalf of Plaintiff, Jane Doe 17, it is hereby +ORDERED that the Motion for Laura J. Starr to Appear Pro Hac Vice be GRANTED. +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE +Dated: October +_ 2019 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5e217adb5f1d46cd172aa1249a1668079111ed39486ad9dee479a90ad7fb0a0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5e217adb5f1d46cd172aa1249a1668079111ed39486ad9dee479a90ad7fb0a0.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..50374bdd68b601a6b47707462b1358feda101b7b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5e217adb5f1d46cd172aa1249a1668079111ed39486ad9dee479a90ad7fb0a0.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -455, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d5e217adb5f1d46cd172aa1249a1668079111ed39486ad9dee479a90ad7fb0a0", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 20, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "75f1f589c54f35afc5597925af413ffbe3f2976802aeb5e91fc8862e933a2495", + "output_sha256": "0fc93c79c6ec8ba741ec4aca14d410c59d0e792d4e279b4328aaa22f396cd8d4", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5ebba434711cea0f0e1cd4665c06cc13cc265b405fbec5ae554fd7bf5dd494e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5ebba434711cea0f0e1cd4665c06cc13cc265b405fbec5ae554fd7bf5dd494e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ac7a21de84a0883b6c94814ae1c48e75fcfc8383 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5ebba434711cea0f0e1cd4665c06cc13cc265b405fbec5ae554fd7bf5dd494e.md @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ +AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +for the +Southern District of New York +JANE DOE 1000 +Plaintiffs) +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, +in their capacities as the executors of the +ESTATE OF JEFFREY EDWARD EPSTEIN +Defendant(s) +Civil Action No. +) +SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION +To: (Defendant's name and address) Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn +c/o Bennet J. Moskowitz, attorney +875 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +A lawsuit has been filed against you. +Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you +are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. +P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of +the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney, +whose name and address are: Joshua Schiller +Boies Schiller Flexner LLP +55 Hudson Yards +New York, NY 10001 +(212) 446-2300 +jischiller@bsfllp.com +If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. +You also must file your answer or motion with the court. +CLERK OF COURT +Date: +11/18/2019 +DISTAN +Sure g +IS/ P. NEPTUNE +Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk + + +AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2) +Civil Action No. +PROOF OF SERVICE +(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (I)) +This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) +was received by me on (date) +• I personally served the summons on the individual at (place) +on (date) +; 0r +] I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name) +, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there, +on (date) +, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or +• I served the summons on (name of individual) +designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) +on (date) +; or +, who is +• I returned the summons unexecuted because +• Other (specify): +; or +My fees are S +for travel and S +for services, for a total of $ +0.00 +I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. +Date: +Server's signature +Printed name and title +Server's address +Additional information regarding attempted service, etc: diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5ebba434711cea0f0e1cd4665c06cc13cc265b405fbec5ae554fd7bf5dd494e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5ebba434711cea0f0e1cd4665c06cc13cc265b405fbec5ae554fd7bf5dd494e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6dc996e12f3b9b0d8cf500867c32154ed4644f06 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5ebba434711cea0f0e1cd4665c06cc13cc265b405fbec5ae554fd7bf5dd494e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d5ebba434711cea0f0e1cd4665c06cc13cc265b405fbec5ae554fd7bf5dd494e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "7b18ec275fca235ed724a85df22428da0c6c1a453bdde696f436ae6303f5a674", + "output_sha256": "f73840b2ce5ea454a909b5b7c6f6ebafaf380ec4c07386a28672daca143c4e9a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5edb5381f971b7f73ec1aff323fe65ffdb3e0b6e2ec72c2bde7bcbd3b072a84.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5edb5381f971b7f73ec1aff323fe65ffdb3e0b6e2ec72c2bde7bcbd3b072a84.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5f081277aa374ff78ef4ce0019e238f73e6df120 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5edb5381f971b7f73ec1aff323fe65ffdb3e0b6e2ec72c2bde7bcbd3b072a84.md @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 19-3 Filed 02/07/20 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE +Plaintiff, +-against- +DARREN. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their +capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. +EPSTEIN, et.al +Defendant. +1:20-cv-00484 (JGK) +ORDER FOR ADMISSION +PRO HAC VICE +The motion of +Kevin R. Boyle +, for admission to +practice Pro Hac Vice in the above captioned action is granted. +Applicant has declared that he/she is a member in good standing of the bar(s) of the state(s) of +California and Washington D.C. +_; and that his/her contact information is as follows +(please print): +Applicant's Name: +Kevin R. Boyle +Firm Name: +PANISH SHEA & BOYLE, LLP +Address: +11111 Santa Monica Blvd. Ste 700 +City / State / Zip: +Los Angeles, California 90025 +Telephone / Fax: +310-477-1700/310-477-1699 +Applicant having requested admission Pro Hac Vice to appear for all purposes as counsel for +Plaintiff, Jane Doe +in the above entitled action; +IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Applicant is admitted to practice Pro Hac Vice in the above +captioned case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. All attorneys +appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, including the Rules governing +discipline of attorneys. +Dated: +United States District / Magistrate Judge diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5edb5381f971b7f73ec1aff323fe65ffdb3e0b6e2ec72c2bde7bcbd3b072a84.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5edb5381f971b7f73ec1aff323fe65ffdb3e0b6e2ec72c2bde7bcbd3b072a84.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b8756bf2b0f0b6b1d6464211099b8b0e15c7dddd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d5edb5381f971b7f73ec1aff323fe65ffdb3e0b6e2ec72c2bde7bcbd3b072a84.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d5edb5381f971b7f73ec1aff323fe65ffdb3e0b6e2ec72c2bde7bcbd3b072a84", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "093d99f6107c90789e619fe0a9daed055ec0d904ef2b9bb70fd0d986ab1c9741", + "output_sha256": "3d3961f5340218856849b3dd6acfd17e484e01692245a3decb00b97d4db01d41", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d612ffafbd2135659cc4701fe5f1a995899a69c2ff11f6acdf1451ca25a990fb.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d612ffafbd2135659cc4701fe5f1a995899a69c2ff11f6acdf1451ca25a990fb.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6d6dca7080fa7f91bb5a895bc3ac6c0da6a8e696 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d612ffafbd2135659cc4701fe5f1a995899a69c2ff11f6acdf1451ca25a990fb.md @@ -0,0 +1,2119 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 539-2 +Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2010 Page 1 of 13 +Page 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/|/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +-VS- +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +VOLUME I OF II +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, +08-80994 +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, +09-80469 +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +VIDEO-CONFERENCED AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF { +JANE DOE NO. 2 +wednesday, March 3, 2010 +10:02 - 6:19 p.m. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1500 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Reported BY: +Cynthia +I, RPR, EPR +Notary Public, State of Florida +Prose Court Reporting +Job No.: 1325 + +(561) 832-7500 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80T19-KAM Document 539-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2010 Page 2 of 13- +Page 199 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/I +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +- VS- +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +VOLUME II OF II +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994 +08-80993, 08-80811, +08-80893, 09-80469 +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +VIDEO-CONFERENCED AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF I +JANE DOE NO. 2 +Wednesday, March 3, 2010 +10:02 - 6:19 p.m. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1500 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Reported By: +Cynthia +/ RPR, FPR +Notary Public, +State of Florida +Prose Court Reporting +Job No.: 1325 +561) 832-7500 +ronically signed by cynthia +ronically signed by cynthi +tronically signed by cynthia +PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC: +96.02 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 539-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2010 Page 3 of 13 +2 +3 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 212 +either by phone or by mail? +A. By mail. I got mail that's, I think that's +how I kept in contact with everyone. I don't, I don't +think I had conversations with them on the phone about +it. +Q. Okay. Did she ask you whether you had, +"she," the agent, ever ask you whether you had had +telephone, any telephone conversations with +Mr. Epstein? +A. I don't think she asked me that. +Q. Okay. And just let me ask just a couple +of questions. Is, is - you never gave Mr. Epstein +or anyone on his behalf your phone number, did you? +A. Yes, 1 did. +Q. To whom did you give your phone number? +A. The lady downstairs, his assistant. +Q. All right. +A. Or whatever she is. +Q. No one, Mr.- you have never spoken with +Mr. Epstein by phone, correct? +A. Correct. +Q. Okay. He has never texted you nor have +you ever texted him, correct? +A. Correct. +Q. You have never communicated to him, +3 +5 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 213 +communicated with Mr. Epstein or anyone on his +behalf over the Internet, either to or from, +correct? +A. Correct. +Q. You have not used your computer Facebook, +a social networking site, to communicate with +Mr. Epstein or anyone on his behalf, correct? +A. Correct. +Q. Okay. And if 1 may just so it's correct +you have never texted or no one on behalf -- strike +that. You have had no contact by phone, text, +Internet, computer with Mr. Epstein or anyone acting +on Mr. Epstein's behalf, correct? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: Correct. +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. Okay. Did, the only contact that you ever +had with Mr. Epstein or really anyone on his behalf +was that one-time visit in the latter part of +December of 2004, correct? +A. Well, Dr. +and now you. +Q. But that's a different issue. Back in the +time period - +MR. HOROWITZ: That's a good answer. +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +124 +25 +Page 214 +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. The only contact you had with Mr. Epstein +at his home or with him or someone working on his +behalf, other than me as his attorney or Dr. +who did a medical examination on you -- I forgot the +question. I have to start again. +Other than myself who represents +Mr. Epstein and other than Dr. +I who did an +examination of you, you've had no contact either +with Mr. Epstein or with anyone who has been acting +on his behalf at any time other than that one +occasion in December of '04; is that correct? +A. Correct. +Q. With the FBI, did you ever get a letter +from them or from the Department of Justice, the +United State's Attorney's Office, at any time? +A. I believe so. They were keeping me updated. +Q. Okay. And at some point did you learn +that Mr. Epstein was, had pled guilty to state +offenses and was serving time in jail? +A. Yes. +Q. Okay. How did you learn that? +A. Through the, the letters that I got like once +every couple of months or once year. +Q. And in any of the letters that you ever +Page 215 +(561) 832-7500 +received from the, either the FBI or the United +State's Attorney's office, did they ever tell you +you had the ability to bring a civil lawsuit for +money damages against Mr. Epstein? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +. THE WITNESS: I'm not sure. I don't know +actually. +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. And how did -- again I don't want to know +any - is the first lawyer that you met from the law +firm that your, that your, that you currently +employ, is that Mr. Herman? +A. Correct. +Q. Okay. And where did you first meet +Mr. Herman? +A. My mother contacted him. +Q. Okay. And how did she get in contact with +him, do you know? +A. I believe she read about one of the other +girls that had come out and talked and spoke about her +day with Mr. Epstein, and then she wanted me to talk to +somebody as well. +Q. Is this someone who had filed a lawsuit +against Mr. Epstein - +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +5 (Pages 212 to 215) +Electronically signed by cynthia +Electronically signed by cynthia +Electronically signed by cynthia +|(601-051-976-2934) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 539-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2010 Page 4 of 13 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +121 +122 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +5 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +125 +Page +38 +Q. Okay. Where does Nicole +live? +A. What do you -- are you going to follow her or +something? +Q. I just ask a question. +A. She lives in La Mancha. +Q. Where does she live, please? She lives in +La Mancha? Is that a housing area? +A. It's a neighborhood. +Q. Do you know what her address is? +A. 110 Prado Street. +Q. P-r-a-d-o? +A. Yes. +Q. West Palm Beach? +A. Yes. +Q. Do vou know what +- or I'm sorry, +Nicole +' phone number is? +A. Her house phone number is 795-4371. +Q. And are you still best friends with +Nicole +A. Yes. +Q. Have you seen her since you've been down +here? +A. No. +Q. Do you plan to see her before you return +home to Tennessee? +1 +2 +3 +4 +6 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +117 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 39 +A. Yes. +Q. When are you going to see her, tonight? +A. I haven't gotten that far. +Q. How long do you plan to be in Florida now +that you're down here? +A. A couple of days, a week. +Q. Okay. Where are you staying? +A. At my brother's house. +Q.. Natural brother or step-brother's? +A. Natural brother. +Q. What's his name? +Q. Where does he live? +A. I have no idea. +Q. I'm sorry? +A. He lives on E Road. I don't know his address. +Q. In West Palm Beach? +A. Yes. Why do you need to know where I'm +staying? I don't think that's relevant to this. That +is not - I don't want to be scared for my life. +O. There would be no reason that you would be +scared for your life. +A. Well, why - +Q. Okay. +A. - is the reason for you to ask where I'm at? +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 40 +Q. I get to ask the questions. I'll let your +lawyer at a break tell you why I get to ask or not +ask questions. Okay? There should be no reason +that you or anyone else should be scared for their +lives. +A. I would hope not. +Q. Is your brother married, I +A. Yeah. +Q. You say you told your, your best friend +Nicole| +| what had happened at Mr. Epstein's +house. When did you tell Nicole +that? Did +you tell her that day that you came back from +Mr. Epstein's home? +MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form. +THE WITNESS: No. I told her the next +day. +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. Do you recall the exact date you were at +Mr. Epstein's home? +A. No. +Q. Okay. You went to Mr. Epstein's home on +one occasion, correct? +A. Yes. +Q. Do you remember the year it was in? +A. 2004. +Page 41 +(561) 832-7500 +Q. Do you remember - +A. Eleventh grade. +Q. Do you remember the month? +A. I believe it was in December, near Christmas +time. +Q. So, if I understand, when you left +Mr. Epstein's home -- and Til just use late +December of '04; is that okay with you? +A. Yeah. +2. When you went to his home, you didn't say +nything about your experience to Ms. Doe No. 3; is +that correct? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: I told her one thing that he +tried fingering me, and she said that it was +okay, that she, that that happened to her +friend. +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. And did she - when she said it was okay, +did it seem, at least to Ms. Doe No. 3, that that +was no big deal? +A. Yes. +Q. Okay. Did Ms. Doe No. 3 tell you, either +before or after you went to Mr. Epstein's home, that +she had been with Mr. Epstein personally? +11 (Pages 38 to 41) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 539-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2010 Page 5 of 13 +Page 42 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +125 +A. No. +Q. Okay. Did she ever express to you any +type of emotion, anger, being upset based upon her +having been to Mr. Epstein's home, what, whatever +her experience had been? +A. No. +Q. Okay. When you told her that he tried to +finger you, did you, did she -- other than saying, +okay, yeah, that happened with another friend of +hers, did she say anything else? +A. She said that he thought - that if he thought +I was pretty, he would want me to come back again. And +I told her that I wasn't going to ever go back there. +Q. Okay. Did, did she -- at least, she +meaning Jane Doe No. 3, did she give at least -- +well, let me strike that. +Did Jane Doe No. 3 express to you that +she, that Ms. Doe No. 3, would like you to come back +or may want you to come back, I mean prior to your +saying that's not something that I want to do? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: Did she -are you asking, +did she want me to -- did she ask me if she +wanted me to go back there? +1 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 43 +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. Yeah. +A. (Non verbal response.) +Q. Yes? +A. Yes. +Q. Okay. Did, did anything about your +experience - well, let me strike that. +Did Ms. - did Jane Doe No. 3 express to +you any type of concern about your having been at +Mr. Epstein's home based on your experience? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: Did she seem concerned? +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. Yeah. +A. No. +Q. Okay. Did she say anything that would +have led you to the, to the -- led you to an +impression that she somehow had been emotionally +traumatized at all by Mr. Epstein? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: Not really. +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. Okay. Did she appear to you to be +uncomfortable; that is, when you went to +Mr. Epstein's home with her -- let me strike that. +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 44 +Is Jane Doe No. 3 the one who took you to +Mr. Epstein's home? +A. Correct. +Q. Was she -- was anyone else there with you +at the time? When I say "anyone else," did anyone +else of your friends or acquaintances go with you to +Mr. Epstein's home on that one occasion in December, +late December of 2004? +A. No. +Q. Okay. Do you remember, did you know a +girl named Jane Doe No. 4, Doe No. 4? +A. I know - 1 know of her. I know of her, but +I, I don't know her really. +Q. Okay. Do you remember Jane Doe No. 4 +being there with you? +A. No. +Q. So, it was, did Ms. Doe No. 3 pick you up +in her car? +A. Yes. +Q. And on the way to Mr. Epstein's -- and I'm +going to come back to this a little later, but just +so I get a couple of facts squared in my mind, is +either on the way to Mr. Epstein's or after you left +Mr. Epstein's; that is, the entire time you spent +with Jane Doe No. 3, did she ever say or express any +Page 45 +concern that she had ever had being at Mr. Epstein's +home or being around Mr. Epstein's home? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. Okay. Did she, during the time you were +with her on the trip over, when you were in the +house, when you left the house, did Jane Doe No. 3 +appear to you in any way to be anxious or, or +nervous or unhappy; that is, did you see anything in +her demeanor that, that looked to be uneasy in any +way? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: Not really. +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. Did Jane Doe No. 3 say to you anything +along the lines of, like, this is no big deal, you +know, something like that? +A. No. +Q. Okay. Was Jane Doe No. 3 paid when you -- +let me strike that. +Do you have any knowledge as to what Jane +Doe No. 3, whether Jane Doe No. 3 received any money +for your having come to Mr. Epstein's home? +A. Yes. +(561) 832-7500 +12 (Pages 42 to 45) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 539-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2010 Page 6 of 13 +46 +Page 48 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page +Q. How much was she paid? +A. $100. +Q. Did she have to share that with anyone to +your knowledge? +A. No. +Q. Okay. Did you, when you -- and were you +aware when you left Mr. Epstein's home that she +received $100? +A. I had to give it to her. +Q. Okay. Were you -- did she tell you before +you went to Mr. Epstein's home that she would +receive money? +A. No. +Q. Okay. Do you think Jane Doe No. 3 shares +responsibility for having taken you to Mr. Epstein's +home? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: Yes. +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. Okay. Have you ever expressed to anyone +other than your lawyers that you think Jane Doe +No. 3 should be sued because she - but for Jane Doe +No. 3 taking you to Mr. Epstein's home, you never +would have met him? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +Page 47 +THE WITNESS: Your question is, do I think +Jane Doe No. 3 should be sued for taking me +there? +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. Yeah. Because but, but for Jane Doe +No. 3, you would have never heard of Mr. Epstein, +would you? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: I would have never heard of +him if she hadn't come up to me and mentioned +him, yeah -- +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. Okay. +A. - but... +Q. Have you ever considered suing Jane Doe +No. 3 for having taken you there? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. I am going to assert +a privilege. That would be work product. +MR. CRITTON: I'm, I'm just asking her - +MR. HOROWITZ: No, I, I get that, but her, +you're asking -- hold on a second. You're +asking her what her legal theories are, and it +overlaps with what -- as her counsel, we +infiltrate our legal opinions, and I don't +think you can separate the two. I am asserting +3 +4 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +(561) 832-7500 +the privilege. +MR. CRITTON: I, I disagree. +MR. HOROWITZ: Don't answer. +MR. CRITTON: Okay. We disagree on that. +Let's move on. +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. Okay. Have, have you told anyone other +than your lawyers you would like to sue Jane Doe +No. 3 because you hold her responsible for taking +you to Jeffrey Epstein's home? +A. I've thought about it. I don't - I didn't +say anything to anyone. +Q. Okay. +A. I already got my revenge with her. +Q. How did you get your revenge with her, +Jane Doe No. 3? +A. We got into an argument and a fight - +Q. About what? +, I'm sorry, I didn't mean +to - that's another rule, or a pro, process here, +is if you interrupt me on a question, and I haven't +finished my question, I am going to say, hold on, +Ms. Doe No. 2, let me finish my question so you +understand what I'm asking. +If I interrupt you with one of your +answers and you hesitate and I start with another +Page 49 +question, tell me you haven't finished and I'll let +you finish. Okay? +A. Okay. +Q. You said you got into a fight with Jane +Doe No. 3? +A. Yes. +Q. Okay. And what was the fight about? +A. To her, it was about a boy. I'm not even sure +what it was about. She just wanted to come after me, +and for me it was more of, of, like, I don't like you, +and I want you to know that I never want you to hurt +anybody and that she was wrong. +Q. Okay. I didn't understand your answer. +From your perspective -- well, let me strike that. +When did the fight occur with Jane Doe No. 3? +A. Going -- summer of going into 12th grade. +Q. Which would have been the summer of 2005, +or the August-ish 2005? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. And you say it's Jane Doe No. 3's +view -- and how do you know what Jane Doe No. 3's +view of the fight was? +A. Because she kept calling me a slut and saying +that, that I was hanging out with this guy that she +liked, that I didn't like, but... +13 (Pages 46 to 49) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 539-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2010 Page 7 of 13 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +25 +Page 34 +Q. All right. Now, you said when you looked +at the police report you noticed - I'm going to +come back to this later, but just so I have a basic +understanding. What did you see in the police +report that was different from what you +understood - or let me strike that. +What did you see in the police report that +stood out to you that you indicated that you had +forgotten? +A. The fact that he unsnapped my bra and was +touching me on my breasts. +Q. Okay. Anything else? +A. That his fingers went slightly inside my +vagina. +Q. And you -- is that something when you +saw -- You can take a break anytime you want. +THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record at +10:33. +(A brief recess taken.) +THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the +record at 10:38 a.m. +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. Jane Doe No. 2, you indicated that the, in +reviewing the police report you were talking about +the areas of the police report that reminded you, or +Page 36 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 35 +when you saw them you now recall that this, these +two events may have happened; one is, you say he, +he, I assume you mean Mr. Epstein, unsnapped your +bra and touched your breasts, is item 1, correct, if +I understood you? +A. Correct. +Q. And the second is you say you think his +fingers may have slightly gone inside or touched you +inside your, your vagina; is that correct? +A. I don't think. I know. +Q. Well, with regard to anything else that +you saw in the police report that, as you've +described, quote/unquote, reminded you or called - +made you able to recall what occurred at +Mr. Epstein's home as you sit here today now? +A. What was the question? +Q. Okay. Was there anything else that you +saw from the police report that you indicate; that +is, the police - let me strike that. +Just so it's clear, it's, the police +report is not what you said, it's what a police +officer recorded in his or her report that you said +to them; is that correct? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: Yes. That's correct. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. CRITION: +Q. All right. And was there anything else +that saw in the police officer's recordation; that +is, what he put on the page, of what you purportedly +said to him at that time that you -- that refreshed +your recollection in some way about what happened at +Mr. Epstein's, that, that prior to yesterday was not +in your recollection? +A. Those were the only two things. +Q. All right. Now, if the police officer - +you indicated that Item 1 is, is that he unsnapped +your bra and touched your breasts, correct? +A. Correct. +Q. And when you say "he" - had that not been +in the police report, is that something that you, at +least as of yesterday, you didn't remember? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form, improper +hypothetical. +THE WITNESS: I remember it being worse +than what I keep telling everybody had +happened, because I don't want people to think, +think that some old man touched me like that +and was allowed to get away with it and +everything was okay. +Page 37 +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. Well, what do you - what do you mean, +he's been allowed to get away with it? +A. No matter what I say or do, nothing is going +to happen to him. And that's the only thing that I +want. +Q. What - +A. I want him to know that what he did was wrong +and to never ever do that to anybody, because nobody +deserves to feel the way that I deserve - that I felt +that day. I would never want anyone to have to go +through that. +Q. Okay. And did -- that day you were at +Mr. Epstein's home, when you left did you express +just what you did on the video camera and to the +court reporter here, did you express that to your +close personal friend, Jane Doe No. 37 +A. Close personal was not -- she was not close +and personal. She was a girl that I went to school +with. I did not express that to her because she was the +person that had brought me there. I expressed that same +statement to my best friend, the only person in this +entire world that I told. +Q. Who was that? +A. My friend Nicole +(561) 832-7500 +10 (Pages 34 to 37) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 539-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2010 Page 8 of 13 +Page 62 +Page 64 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +124 +25 +(561) +The police talked to you about a year +later, which would have been in approximately +1 +2 +December of '05? +A. Yes. +4 +Q. Between the time that you went to +5 +Mr. Epstein's home and the police talked to you in +6 +December of '05, had you, other than speaking with +7 +Nicole +;, had you spoken -- had you told anyone +8 +else what purportedly happened to you at +9 +Mr. Epstein's home? +10 +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +11 +THE WITNESS: I told Mitch Burgher, +12 +because I had worked with him at Publix, that +13 +she did some bad things and that she wasn't a +14 +good person. +15 +BY MR. CRITTON: +16 +Q. "She" meaning Jane Doe No. 37 +17 +A. Yes. +18 +Q. Okay. And what did he say? +19 +A. He just couldn't believe. I didn't tell him +20 +like the full-on story. I just told him some of the +21 +things that happened and how she had lied to me about +everything. And then he was, you know, very comforting, +22 +23 +gave me a hug and said, you know, that was wrong, she +24 +should have never done that, you know. +25 +Page 63 +Q. Are you aware of anyone else that Jane Doe +No. 3 ever took to Mr. Epstein's home? +A. I heard of a girl, but I don't, I don't know +her name. I heard of a girl going there and the boys +were all talking to me at school saying how they can't +believe some girl went there and she was young and she +did things to him. And I thought at first they were +talking about me, and then it ended up they said this +other girl's name, and I was like, who's that, and then +that was it. And that's all I heard. +Q. Okay. So you don't know anyone else who +ever went to Mr. Epstein's home, any other females +that went? +A. I now know that a couple of girls were the +recruiters. +Q. Who? +• A. I've heard of that Jane Doe No. 4. I don't +know her last name. I know of a girl Jane Doe No. 103 +and +Q. With Mitch Burgher, what did you tell - +did you tell Mitch within a few days - well, let me +strike that. When did you tell Mitch about Jane Doe +No. 3 and what she had done? +A. It was weeks afterward. +Q. But before the Palm Beach Police talked to +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +you? +A. Yes. +Q. Did you ever talk to the FBI? +A. Yes. +Q. All right. What did you tell Mitch +happened? What did you tell him about Jane Doe +No. 3 and what happened at Mr. Epstein's? +A. About the note and about how she -- +Q. The note? +A. The note that she wrote to me in class about +what she, how she wanted me to go and give just old guys +a massage and you get like $200. And I said, okay. +It's right around Christmastime. I have eight people in +my family that I have to get presents for, you know. +And, and then she said if I ever told anybody that she +would punch me in the face or beat me up, and -- +Q. Did she say something like, I'll beat your +ass or something like that? +A. Yeah. +Q. That's what she said? +A. Yeah. +Q. All right. So she basically gave you a +note and said, do you have an interest in going to +a -- to give a massage to this old - an old guy or +guys? +Page 65 +A. She said it's in the -- you know, it's in a +place where there's a bunch of old guys and there's +young girls. You don't need experience, and you just +give them a massage and they pay good money just to have +Q. This is what Jane Doe No. 3 told you in +the note? +A. Yeah. +Q. And then she said, if you tell anybody, +I'm going to beat you up of 11l beat your ass? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. And was Jane Doe No. 3 a friend of +yours at the time? +A. She was -- she sat next to me in classes, and +she - Id known her since middle school and high +school. +Q. What was Jane Doe No. 3's reputation; that +is, was she someone who was -- like, did you +consider her a truthful person? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: She was just more of - +like, she hung out with more of, like, the +cooler girls and she, she -- I just, I just +personally didn't really want to hang out with +her until high school we hung out in the same +832-7500 +17 (Pages 62 to 65) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 539-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2010 Page 9 of 13 +Page 212 +Page 214 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +9 +1 +0 +1 +1 +WNH +4 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +either by phone or by mail? +A. By mail. I got mail that's, I think that's +how I kept in contact with everyone. I don't, I don't +think I had conversations with them on the phone about +it. +1 +4 +5 +Q. Okay. Did she ask you whether you had, +6 +"she," the agent, ever ask you whether you had had +7 +telephone, any telephone conversations with +Mr. Epstein? +A. I don't think she asked me that. +Q. Okay. And just let me ask just a couple +of questions. Is, is -- you never gave Mr. Epstein +or anyone on his behalf your phone number, did you? +A. Yes, I did. +Q. To whom did you give your phone number? +A. The lady downstairs, his assistant. +Q. All right. +A. Or whatever she is. +Q. No one, Mr.- you have never spoken with +Mr. Epstein by phone, correct? +A. Correct. +Q. Okay. He has never texted you nor have +you ever texted him, correct? +A. Correct. +Q. You have never communicated to him, +9 +1 +0 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 213 +communicated with Mr. Epstein or anyone on his +behalf over the Internet, either to or from, +correct? +A. Correct. +Q. You have not used your computer Facebook, +a social networking site, to communicate with +Mr. Epstein or anyone on his behalf, correct? +A. Correct. +Q. Okay. And if 1 may just so it's correct +you have never texted or no one on behalf - strike +that. You have had no contact by phone, text, +Internet, computer with Mr. Epstein or anyone acting +on Mr. Epstein's behalf, correct? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: Correct. +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. Okay. Did, the only contact that you ever +had with Mr. Epstein or really anyone on his behalf +was that one-time visit in the latter part of +December of 2004, correct? +A. Well, Dr. +and now you. +Q. But that's a different issue. Back in the +time period -- +MR. HOROWITZ: That's a good answer. +2 +10 00 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. The only contact you had with Mr. Epstein +at his home or with him or someone working on his +behalf, other than me as his attorney or Dr. +who did a medical examination on you -- I forgot the +question. I have to start again. +Other than myself who represents +Mr. Epstein and other than Dr. I who did an +examination of you, you've had no contact either +with Mr. Epstein or with anyone who has been acting +on his behalf at any time other than that one +occasion in December of '04; is that correct? +A. Correct. +Q. With the FBI, did you ever get a letter +from them or from the Department of Justice, the +United State's Attorney's Office, at any time? +A. I believe so. They were keeping me updated +Q. Okay. And at some point did you learn +that Mr. Epstein was, had pled guilty to state +offenses and was serving time in jail? +A. Yes. +Q. Okay. How did you learn that? +A. Through the, the letters that I got like once +every couple of months or once year. +Q. And in any of the letters that you ever +Page 215 +received from the, either the FBI-or the United +State's Attorney's office, did they ever tell you +you had the ability to bring a civil lawsuit for +money damages against Mr. Epstein? +MR. HOROWITZ: Fonn. +THE WITNESS: I'm not sure. I don't know +actually. +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. And how did - again I don't want to know +any - is the first lawyer that you met from the law +firm that your, that your, that you currently +employ, is that Mr. Herman? +A. Correct. +Q. Okay. And where did you first meet +Mr. Herman? +A. My mother contacted him. +Q. Okay. And how did she get in contact with +him, do you know? +A. I believe she read about one of the other +girls that had come out and talked and spoke about her +day with Mr. Epstein, and then she wanted me to talk to +somebody as well. +Q. Is this someone who had filed a lawsuit +against Mr. Epstein - +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +(561) 832-7500 +5 (Pages 212 to 215) +Electronically signed by cynthia +Electronically signed by cynthia +Electronically signed by cynthia + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +119 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +7 +8 +9 +110 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 539-2 +Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2010 Page 10 of +Page 30 +would that be generally -- well, let me see. When +you saw Dr. Kliman that was about a year ago, / +think his visit with you. And I actually, I think I +have the date someplace. It was, I think it was on +December 4th of '08. I'll represent to you that's +at least what his records reflect. Okay? +A. Okay. +Q. Which is a little over a year ago. So at +the time you were seeing Dr. Kliman, were you using +or smoking pot generally a couple of times, two or +three times a week? +A. Yes. +Q. Okay. And has that been true since you +saw Dr. Kliman up through the current date? +A. Yes. +Q. And even at home, do you smoke -- well, +let me strike that. Do you smoke pot at home? +A. Not in my parents' house. +Q. Okay. Do they smoke pot? +A. No. +Q. Do, does your brother Michael or your half +sister, do they smoke pot with you? +A. My brother, no. My sister, yes. +Q. Okay. And is she one of the people that +you smoke with or you have over, say, in the last +Page 31 +1 +2 +3 +4 +6 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +six months? +A. Yes. +Q. Okay. And how do you purchase it? Are +you currently employed? +A. Yes. +Q. Okay. And are you the one who purchases +it, or do you and Kris, Kristen both purchase it and +share it? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: 1 purchase it, and I share +it with people. +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. Okay. For how long a time period have you +used pot on a two-or-three-times-a-week basis? +A. Probably since 12th grade. +Q. And I assume when you started using pot, +or let's see, 12th grade would have made you about +17 or 18 at the time? +A. Uh-huh. +Q. Yes? +A. Yes. +Q. And you're now? +A. Twenty-two. +Q. Twenty-two. So, for about the last four +or five years, you've been smoking pot two to three +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +125 +Page 32 +times a week on that, I would say, a regular basis; +would that be a fair statement? +A. Yes. +Q. And I assume that's a choice that you +make. You obviously like it, so you smoke it? +A. Yes. +Q. All right. And you don't attribute that +to anything other than you like to smoke pot? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: What is "attribute to +anything"? +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. That is, attribute is, is, there is, out +in California, maybe other states, they have +medicinal marijuana, and so people who have severe +symptoms associated with possibly cancer or +something else, they are allowed under the law to +smoke pot. So, they would attribute -- they may not +like to smoke pot. They may be against smoking pot, +but because marijuana helps alleviate their +symptoms, it would be they take pot or use pot, and +they attribute it, because they have cancer, it +helps them feel better. All right. So they, +that - there's a reason for it. +If 1 understand your testimony, is, is, +Page 33 +you smoke pot and you started in the 12th grade at +age 17-ish because you like it, and because you like +it you have continued to use it. Is that a fair +statement? +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: It helps me relax; take my +mind off of things. +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. Okay. But it's a choice you make either +to smoke pot or not smoke pot? +A. Yes. +Q. All right. Is there anything else you +lied or misrepresented to Dr. Kliman about with +regard to amount of drug use -- +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. - other than your reference to marijuana. +A. No. +Q. Everything else you told Dr. Kliman about, +drug use or any other aspect, was true -- +MR. HOROWITZ: Form. +THE WITNESS: Yes. +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. - is that correct? +A. Yes. +(561) 832-7500 +9 (Pages 30 to 33) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 539-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2010 Page 11 of +13 +Page I +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: +08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +- VS- +VOLUME I OF II +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232; 08-08380, 08-80381, +08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, +09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF +JANE DOE NO. 3 +Friday, +February 19, 2010 +10:07 - 5:09 p.m. +250 Australian Avenue +Suite 1500 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Reported By: +Cynthia +• RPR, FPR +Notary Public, +State of Florida +Prose Court Reporting Services +Job No.: 1298 +561) 832-7500 +CeVE, s6, DI + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +119 +20 +21 +22 +23 +124 +25 +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 539-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2010 Page 12 of +Page 174 +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. All right. Let me go back to J.L., okay. +At the time that Mr. Epstein, at least based on what +you testified earlier today, is because Mr. Epstein +did touch your breasts - well, in fact, I should +probably clear up one thing. He only touched you in +the vaginal area, from what you've testified to +today, is over your boy shorts, correct? +A. +Yes. +Q. And you have said that there was never any +penetration? +A. Correct. +Q. Okay. You never touched any of his +private parts, true? +A. Correct. +Q. Okay. You never had any kind of +intercourse? +A. No. +Q. All right. Never had oral sex? +A. No. +Q. He to you, you to him, correct? +A. No. +Q. Any type of other -- no type of sexual +contact whatsoever? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, form. +1 +2 +3 +6 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +119 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 175 +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. That is, your, your sexual organ with one +of his sexual organs; that never occurred, correct? +A. You're asking me if I've had sex with him? +Q. No. None of your sexual organs ever came +in contact with his sexual organs, true? +A. Correct. +Q. All right. So, again, what -- based on +what you told Haley that he did touch your breasts, +and that you did take your shirt and your skirt off +but left on your bra and your boy shorts, that you +were in shock and emotionally disturbed at what +happened within -- at the time, and then you told +Haley within an hour how upset you were, you also +took Jane Doe No. 2 there, correct? +A. Yes. +Q. All right. And was Jane Doe No. 2 a good +friend of yours, then? +A. Yes. +Q. All right. So despite this, I'd say, +shocking incident to you, you were willing to expose +your friend Jane Doe No. 2 as well to, at least +based on your testimony, to this shocking, +disturbing experience that you had had, true? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Form. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +(561) 832-7500 +Page 176 +THE WITNESS: Yes. +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. Okay. And what kind of a friend, at least +with Jane Doe No. 2, what kind of a friend exposes +another good friend to a shocking, disturbing, +emotionally disturbing event? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Form, argumentative, +rhetorical. +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. Why did you do that? +A. I don't know. +Q. Okay. You also did that to J., J.L., +correct? +A. Yes. +Q. Okay. Why did you do that with J.L.? +A. I don't know. +MR. CRITTON: Let's go about ten more +minutes, and we'll take a break. Okay? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: All right. Is that +okay? +THE WITNESS: (Witness nods head.) +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Okay. +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. Did you tell J.L. what had occurred? Did +you tell her what you had told +? +Page 177 +A. Not exactly. +Q. But did you tell her she might be asked to +take off her clothes? +A. And that you don't have to, yes. +Q. All right. And you said you, you may be +asked to take off your clothes, but you don't have +to? +A. Yes. +Q. Okay. And did you say he might try to +touch you, but if he does, just tell him you're no +comfortable? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Form. +THE WITNESS: Can you -- +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. Yeah. Did you, did you tell her as well, +is if he tries to touch you, just tell him you don't +feel comfortable? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Form. +THE WITNESS: I told her if he tries to do +anything, you can say no. +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. Okay. And, and then he will stop? +A. Yes. +Q. Okay. And did you tell Jane Doe No. 2 the +same thing -- +45 (Pages 174 to 177) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 539-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2010 Page 13 of +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 194 +A. Yes. +Q. So you met them both about the same time, +a year or two before June of '04? +A. Yeah. +Q. Okay. And again, after you, at any time +from the time that you first talked with - or Jane +Doe No. 4 knew that you were going to Mr. Epstein's, +did she ever appear to you to have any emotional or +psychological issues? And I know you're not a +psychiatrist or psychologist or a counselor, but did +she ever express any issues with you, emotional +kinds of issues? +A. I don't remember. +Q. Okay. Nothing stands out anyway? +A. Right. +Q. All right. Same with Jane Doe No. 7, did +she ever express any type of emotional issues that +she was having, any kind of psychological trauma +that she had experienced or that she wanted to share +with you? Did you ever note it - either did they +share - did Jane Doe No. 7 either share it with +you, or did you observe something that concerned you +at all about her? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Form. +THB WITNESS: No. +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +118 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 195 +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. How about Jane Doe No. 2, did she ever +express any emotional trauma or concerns or +psychological types of issues to you- +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Form. +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. - as a result of being at Mr. Epstein's? +MR. MERMELSTEIN: Form. +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. CRITTON: +Q. Okay. Did she ever tell you - well, let +me strike that. +Did Jane Doe No. 2, after she went to +Mr. Epstein's, did she ever say anything to you? +A. No. +Q. Okay. Did J.L? +A. No. +Q. Okay. So after J.L. went to +Mr. Epstein's, she never -- after you took her +there, she never said anything to you about what had +happened or what had occurred? +À. Correct. +Q. Okay. She never told you anything +inappropriate occurred. +A. Correct. +1 +2 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +115 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Page 196 +Q. Because she didn't tell you anything. +A. Correct. +Q. Okay. And I think she, is she the one, +J.L. the one that you fought over the boyfriend? +A. No, it's Jane Doe No. 2. +Q. Okay. That's Jane Doe No. 2. Okay. +J.L. and you are still acquaintances? +A. Yes. +Q. Okay. And J.L. -- and Jane Doe No. 2, she +never said that anything inappropriate happened with +Mr. Epstein, nor did she express any anger with you, +correct? +A. Correct. +Q. Okay. And whatever parting you had was +over, what's his name, Mr. Brook? +A. Uh-huh, yes. +Q. John Brook; is that correct? +A. Yes. +Q. All right. Did you know -- let me talk to +you about Jane Doe No. 7 just a little bit. Did you +know -- what did you know about -- so you had been +around Jane Doe No. 7 for about a year or two before +you first went to Mr. Epstein's. Did you ever know +any of her boyfriends? +A. No. +Page 197 +Q. Jane Doe No. 7, was she your age? +A. Older. +Q. And did she, did Jane Doe No. 7 ever - +were you, did you do -- well, let me start again. +What was Jane Doe No. 7's, what was, were +her interests in school -- well, strike that. +That's a bad question, too. +Were you both from the same school? +A. Yes. +Q. Okay. +Palm High? +A. Yes. +Q. All right. And was she popular in school? +A. Yes. +Q. I guess it's in the eyes of the beholder, +but you would have considered to be a popular +person? +A. Would I? +Q. Have considered Jane Doe No. 7 to be like +a popular person. +Q. Okay. Very social? +A. Yes. +Q. Okay. And this would have been both +before and after she saw Mr. Epstein? +A. Yes. +(561) 832-7500 +5 (Pages 194 to 197) +Electronically signed by cynthia +Electronically signed by cynthia +da88ed07-Occe-4c7a-95e1-d4d21eb3cf35 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d612ffafbd2135659cc4701fe5f1a995899a69c2ff11f6acdf1451ca25a990fb.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d612ffafbd2135659cc4701fe5f1a995899a69c2ff11f6acdf1451ca25a990fb.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..464126ce3b4648f283902e4cf180de006dfe103f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d612ffafbd2135659cc4701fe5f1a995899a69c2ff11f6acdf1451ca25a990fb.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -1101, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d612ffafbd2135659cc4701fe5f1a995899a69c2ff11f6acdf1451ca25a990fb", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 15, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "6ad33bacd0702b104f48834615a9cb5a87698ff4ff96eb60e48c1f7f61628ba0", + "output_sha256": "0ca44996ced17970cdda9e94e2581a6b2aafa9bea875ed8656fe61f74afb6918", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d63599aeb54129625e4c9b654128e8188a27b2217c299d8b8f4160f7de514ac3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d63599aeb54129625e4c9b654128e8188a27b2217c299d8b8f4160f7de514ac3.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0d248574ec025e9c383641232531b67ff9c33a45 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d63599aeb54129625e4c9b654128e8188a27b2217c299d8b8f4160f7de514ac3.md @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 213 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA +JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, +Petitioners, +Vs. +UNITED STATES, +Respondent. +RESPONDENT'S NOTICE OF FILING RESPONSE TO +PETITIONERS' FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT +Respondent United States files its Response to Petitioners' First Request for Admissions +to the Government. +DATED: July 19, 2013 +Respectfully submitted, +WILFREDO A. FERRER +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +By: +s/ Dexter A. Lee +DEXTER A. LEE +Assistant U.S. Attorney +Fla. Bar No. 0936693 +99 N.E. 4" Street, Suite 300 +Miami, Florida 33132 +(305) 961-9320 +Fax: (305) 530-7139 +E-mail: dexter.lee @usdoj.gov +ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 213 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 2 of 2 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 19, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. +s/ Dexter A. Lee +DEXTER A. LEE +Assistant U.S. Attorney +SERVICE LIST +Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, +Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/ +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +J. +Esq. +, Jaffe, Weissing, +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 +(954) 524-2820 +Fax: (954) 524-2822 +E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com +Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. +Paul G. Cassell +S.J. Quinney College of Law at the +University of Utah +332 S. 1400 E. +Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 +(801) 585-5202 +Fax: (801) 585-6833 +E-mail: casselp@law.utah.edu +Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d63599aeb54129625e4c9b654128e8188a27b2217c299d8b8f4160f7de514ac3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d63599aeb54129625e4c9b654128e8188a27b2217c299d8b8f4160f7de514ac3.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..74320f2770376928936d679e2bfe10f8efb42df9 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d63599aeb54129625e4c9b654128e8188a27b2217c299d8b8f4160f7de514ac3.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d63599aeb54129625e4c9b654128e8188a27b2217c299d8b8f4160f7de514ac3", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2ed32837c7a01d1b3b6fb49b90a5eaea15b64b6a39fcb1a5ec9599d7ce7f7d5f", + "output_sha256": "b245ef4f754e9963351dc37898a2142a18bcc0225e7cca7f3cb335d5a8db7d42", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d64175ba403984f901a23950a1bf57454412c000f23e34bc91ef7a03c456e7d5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d64175ba403984f901a23950a1bf57454412c000f23e34bc91ef7a03c456e7d5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..44bde9b0abfae59d0aa4652582a702b313284db3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d64175ba403984f901a23950a1bf57454412c000f23e34bc91ef7a03c456e7d5.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 9 Filed 11/20/19 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK +JANE DOE 1000, +Plaintiff, +Case No. 1:19-cv-10577 (LGS) +NOTICE OF APPEARANCE +VS. +DARREN I. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, +in their capacities as the executors of the ESTATE +OF JEFFREY EDWARD EPSTEIN, +Defendants. +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney, David Boies, who is a +member in good standing of the bar of this Court, hereby appears as counsel for Plaintiff +Jane Doe 1000 in the above-captioned proceeding. +Dated: New York, New York +November 20, 2019 +BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP +By: Is/ David Boies +David Boies +333 Main Street +Armonk, NY 10504 +Telephone: (914) 749-8200 +Fax: (914) 749-8300 +dboies@bsfllp.com +Attorney for Plaintiff Jane Doe 1000 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d64175ba403984f901a23950a1bf57454412c000f23e34bc91ef7a03c456e7d5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d64175ba403984f901a23950a1bf57454412c000f23e34bc91ef7a03c456e7d5.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f81aa10502cdb913457eddc246436bfb78978fa5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d64175ba403984f901a23950a1bf57454412c000f23e34bc91ef7a03c456e7d5.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -23, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d64175ba403984f901a23950a1bf57454412c000f23e34bc91ef7a03c456e7d5", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "901df905a5954e2806efb61dcebb4ba36fcdfe6d23f3acadc350d17998a4adb0", + "output_sha256": "378a74957396d8ceb0c55447d19974c1d97a0b3399b551ee52277773839db974", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d66af8b895a2c68b89c55eed765df6b39266ab710945b8956b0cff5da8f49709.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d66af8b895a2c68b89c55eed765df6b39266ab710945b8956b0cff5da8f49709.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3423bb16e36f33ab99ee346cd767a5f4a8aab3cf --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d66af8b895a2c68b89c55eed765df6b39266ab710945b8956b0cff5da8f49709.md @@ -0,0 +1,138 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 59 Filed 06/03/20 Page 1 of 1 +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +troutman™ +sanders +troutman.com +Bennet J. Moskowitz +bennet.moskowitz(@troutman.com +June 3, 2020 +VIA ECF +Hon. Debra C. Freeman +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +New York, NY 10007 +Re: +Katlyn Doe, 1:19-cv-07771-PKC-DCF; Priscilla Doe, 1:19-cv-07772-ALC-DCF; +Lisa Doe, 1:19-cv-07773 ER-DCF; VE., 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF; +Jane Doe, 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCE:| +. 1:19-CV-10475-LGS-DCF; +1, 1:19-CV-10476-PGG-DCF; +* 1:19-CV-10479-ALC-DCF; +Jane Doe 1000, 1:19-CV-10577-LGS-DCF: Jane Doe 15, 1:19-cv-10653-PAE-DCF; +Mary Doe, 1:19-cv-10758-PAE-DCF; | +1. 1:19-CV-10788-GHW-DCF; +Anastasia Doe, 1:19-CV-11869-AJN-DCF; Jane Doe, 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF +Dear Judge Freeman: +We represent Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the +Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, the "Co-Executors"), in the above-referenced actions. We +are pleased to inform the Court that, today, the Superior Court of the United States Virgin +Islands entered an order granting the Co-Executors' Motion to establish the Epstein Victims' +Compensation Program. A copy of the Order is attached hereto. +Respectfully submitted, +Is/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) + + +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 59-1 Filed 06/03/20 Page 1 of 3 + + + +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 59-1 +Filed 06/03/20 + +IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS +District of St. +/St. John +In the Matter of the Estate of JEFFREY E. Case Number: ST-2019-PB-00080 +EPSTEIN, deceased. +Action: Administration of Testamentary +Estates +NOTICE of ENTRY +of +ORDER +To: +Kroblin, Esq. +John H. Benham, Esg. +Douglas B. Chanco, Esq. +Richard P. Bourne-Vanneck, Esq. +John K. Dema, Esq. +Denise N. +Esq. +Melody D. Westfall, Esq. +Sean E. +1. Esq. +Gaylin Vogel, Esq. +A. Jeffrey Weiss, Esq. +Ariel M. +1. Esq. +Kevin F. D'amour, Esq. +Kevin Boyle, Esq. +Robert Glassman, Esg. +a(n) +Please take notice that on June 3, 2020 +ORDER +dated +June 2, 2020 +was entered +by the Clerk in the above-titled matter. +Dated: June 03, 2020 +By: +Tamara Charles +Clerk of the Court +to Тобде +Edotcia -Hodge +Court Clerk + + +Case 1:19-cv-10577-LJL-DCF Document 59-1 Filed 06/03/20 Page 3 of 3 +IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS +DIVISION OF ST. +AND ST. JOHN +IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF: +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +PROBATE NO. ST-19-PB-80 +ACTION FOR TESTATE +ADMINISTRATION +deceased. +ORDER +THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Co-Executors' Status Report on Voluntary +Compensation Program and Presentation of Program Protocol filed on June 1, 2020, wherein, in +pertinent part, the Co-Executor notify that all interested parties have finalized and are in support of +the protocol for the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (hereinafter "the Program")! The +Court having received testimony concerning the Program at the hearing held on February 4, 2020, +and having reviewed said Status Report, it is hereby +ORDERED that the Expedited Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims +Resolution Program filed on November 14, 2019, is GRANTED; and it is further +ORDERED that the Co-Executors are AUTHORIZED to commence the Epstein Victims' +Compensation Program on or about June 15, 2020. +Dated: June O +- 2020 +CAROLYN P. HERMON PERCELL +Magistrate Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands +ATTEST: +TAMARA CHARLES +Clerk of the Court +DATE +By: _ +EDOTCIA THOMAS-HODGE +Court Clerk Supervisor 6/3 /2020 +BY +CERTIFIED 312020 +TAMARA CHARLES +CLERK GETU E COURT +COURT CLERK +'At the hearing held on February 4, 2020, while the Court did not allow the Attorney General of the U.S. Virgin +Islands to intervene, the Court did request the Co-Executors and the Attorney General to resolve their differences +concerning the proposed compensation program, which has garnered the support of all interested parties, including +claimants' counsel. The Co-Executors now inform that "(b]ecause the need for the Program has grown increasingly +urgent, and with the support of claimants" counsel and the USVI Attorney General - and because the remaining +impediments have been resolved and the interested parties have consented to the Protocol." they and the Attorney +General have reached an agreement in which the latter will promptly lift previously imposed liens to pay amounts +owed for the Program and to begin funding the Program's active operations, including payment of compensation +determinations to eligible claimants. Co-Executors' Status Report on Voluntary Compensation Program and +Presentation of Program Protocol, at 6, June 1. 2020. diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d66af8b895a2c68b89c55eed765df6b39266ab710945b8956b0cff5da8f49709.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d66af8b895a2c68b89c55eed765df6b39266ab710945b8956b0cff5da8f49709.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e306945090f85ab67c547722b43f258e07c63dd2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d66af8b895a2c68b89c55eed765df6b39266ab710945b8956b0cff5da8f49709.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -66, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d66af8b895a2c68b89c55eed765df6b39266ab710945b8956b0cff5da8f49709", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e2d542f4bad612616348322317b6f8a16788c1debdf2c5731ed9171a17351cbf", + "output_sha256": "0cac12892eeb4fdaea6bd95a8dac6453727fef0cb0c3a2f9d483fd65d02b1294", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d66ba0cdc42846e324d38c3c0b4590f32a77edc533787aa904d067f3af20a00d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d66ba0cdc42846e324d38c3c0b4590f32a77edc533787aa904d067f3af20a00d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..53ac649d39207839865f1e0c8f8e9b9d101ebd97 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d66ba0cdc42846e324d38c3c0b4590f32a77edc533787aa904d067f3af20a00d.md @@ -0,0 +1,356 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 1 of 12 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA-v +JANE DOE NO. 4, +v. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +MOTION TO COMPEL AND/OR IDENTIFY JANE DOE #4 IN THE STYLE OF +THIS CASE AND MOTION TO IDENTIFY JANE DOE IN THIRD-PARTY +SUBPOENAS FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY, OR ALTERNATIVELY, +MOTION TO DISMISS SUA SPONTE, WITH INCORPORATED +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein" or "Defendant"), by and +through his undersigned attorneys, hereby requests that this Court enter an order +identifying in the style of this case the complete legal name of the Plaintiff, JANE +DOE #4 ("JANE DOE"), to substitute her complete legal name in this case in +place of "JANE DOE" and, equally important, allowing Defendant to identify her in +various subpoenas that Epstein must serve so Epstein can defend this case or, +alternatively, Motion to Dismiss Entire Action Sua Sponte. In support, Mr. +Epstein states as follows: +1 Several of the discovery responses attached to this Motion and to the +companion "Motions to Identify" filed in other related matters are +Therefore, each requires the court's attention on +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 2 of 12 +I. Motion And Incorporated Memorandum Of Law +a. +Background +1. On April 14, 2008, Plaintiff, a 20-year-old female, filed this action +against Epstein. +2. On February 27, 2009, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended +Complaint against Epstein, which alleges three causes of action against him: +Count I - Sexual Assault and Battery; Count II - Intentional Infliction of Emotional +Distress; and Count III - Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in violation +of 18 U.S.C. §2422. +3. +The Second Amended Complaint appears to raise both Federal +and Florida State substantive issues (DE 62). +4. +Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that she is entitled to money +damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. §2422 and 2255 (in the wherefore clause) and +by virtue her claims that Epstein sexually battered her and caused her emotional +distress. Plaintiff alleges separate counts against Mr. Epstein, on which he must +conduct discovery to defend this case. +In particular, JANE DO claims, in Count I for sexual battery, that +she has and will suffer "...severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including +mental, psychological and emotional damages." T22, 2nd Am. Comp., DE 62. +In Count II for Sexual Battery, plaintiff claims entitlement to recover for ".. +.mental or sexual injury...mental or emotional health..." 126, 2nd Am. Comp., +DE 62, and ".. severe mental anguish and pain." T28, 2nd Am. Comp., DE 62 +In Count Ill for Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in violation of 18 +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 3 of 12 +U.S.C. §2422, plaintiff claims entitlement to recover for "...personal injury, +including mental, psychological and emotional damages" 133, 2nd Am. Comp., +DE 62. Plaintiff also claims entitlement to "punitive damages" and "actual and +compensatory damages." DE 62. See also Exhibit "A", Interrogatory Response +Number 9. +Epstein has a constitutional due process right to defend himself and +to seek the production of information that will assist in his defense of the +allegations in the 2nd Amended Complaint. In this case, Plaintiff's counsel +objected to Epstein serving subpoenas on Plaintiff's treating physicians and other +third parties. Thus, this motion seeks to identify JANE DOE in the style of this +case, to identify JANE DOE in various third-party subpoenas for discovery +purposes and, alternatively, to dismiss this entire action sua sponte. The +undersigned's experience in "Jane Doe" lawsuits is that once a Plaintiff is +identified, other individuals come forward in the discovery phase with information +which often directly contradicts allegations as to the events and damages. For +instance, witnesses may testify that Plaintiff was paid by others for similar sexual +acts she claims Mr. Epstein forced upon her or that she willingly participated in +certain acts) that would negate or lessen her damages. This goes directly to +Plaintiff's damage claim. +Likewise, subpoenas must be issued to third-party treaters and +current and former employers, and those subpoenas will seek to obtain records +related directly to Plaintiff's claims and her damages (i.e., her claim for severe +and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and emotional +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 4 of 12 +damages" and loss of self-esteem and dignity as referenced above). Cherenfant +v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., 2004 WL 5315889 (S.D. Fla. 2004)(order allowing +discovery of medical records consistent with Plaintiff's allegations in complaint). +This too goes directly to Plaintiff's damage claims. Medical providers, employers, +co-employees, etc...have direct and relevant personal knowledge and +observations regarding damages, i.e., emotional state, activities, self-esteem, +etc.... +8. +Fed. R.Civ.Pro. 26 allows for broad discovery. Epstein is not +required to rely solely on Plaintiff's discovery responses in defending this case, +nor is Epstein required by any statute or law to rely only upon what Plaintiff +produces in discovery or may obtain from her own medical treaters through her +counsel, and to then provide to Epstein only after Plaintiff has reviewed same. In +certain related state court actions involving Epstein, the undersigned offered to +serve certain subpoenas on the medical treaters and other third-parties with full +name, date of birth and Plaintiff's social security number (last four digits), but +agreed that the subpoenas filed with the clerk would be redacted. Several +attorneys agreed to this procedure in those cases. In Federal Court, subpoenas +are not filed with the clerk. Thus, in this matter, the undersigned offered to serve +the third-party subpoenas with plaintiffs full name, date of birth and social +security number (last four digits) and would agree to redact any identifying +information on any documents filed with this court if that ultimately became +necessary. +As discussed below, Plaintiff's counsel did not agree. Further, +Plaintiff's counsel claims a HIPPA complaint protective order is necessary. Such + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 5 of 12 +is not the case when a Plaintiff places her mental, emotional, psychological and +physical condition at issue. +9. +Moreover, when an order from the court is attached to the +Subpoena, treaters and other third parties produce the records and show up to +the depositions with the records requested because the deponent knows what to +bring by virtue of knowing the identity of the Plaintiff. +10. Epstein's counsel intends to serve and depose witnesses duces +tecum. If Epstein is not permitted to identify JANE DOE, how will any deponent +know who the parties are and what to bring to the deposition pursuant to the +duces tecum? Further, how will Epstein be able to defend the claims. Just like +the Plaintiff, Epstein is entitled to due process. +11. While it is within the sound discretion of this court to allow a party to +proceed anonymously, Plaintiff should not attempt to utilize that discretion as a +shield from legitimate and necessary discovery. Epstein has a fundamental due +process right to conduct discovery. +b. Motion To Identify JANE DOE In Style Of This Case +12. As discussed below, Epstein has fundamental due process right to +defend himself in this civil litigation. While JANE DOE travels under a +pseudonym, various newspaper articles identifying Epstein have been released +discussing the alleged claims against him. Allowing JANE DOE to litigate this +matter under a pseudonym is preventing Epstein from defending this suit +including, but not limited to, preventing him from locating individuals that may +have information about this lawsuit and information about JANE DOE that may +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 6 of 12 +discredit her allegations and/or lessen the monetary damages she seeks to +recover. It is the undersigned's experience that once identified, witnesses begin +to come forward. See supra. +13. +In Doe v. Lepley, 185 F.R.D. 605 (D. Ct. NV 1999), a sexual +harassment case, the court reasoned that there is no express or implied right to +bring an action anonymously. Id. at 606. Moreover, Fed. R. Civ. P 10(a) +requires that the complaint include the names of the parties. Id. When Plaintiffs +are permitted to proceed anonymously, the court must employ a balancing test to +decide if the plaintiff has a substantial privacy interest that outweighs the +presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. Id., citing, Doe v. +951 +F.2d 320, 323 (11"h Cir. 1992)(requiring complaint to include the names of the +parties serves more than administrative convenience, it protects the public's +legitimate interests in knowing all the facts involved, including the identity of the +parties - thus denying request to proceed anonymously). The factors include: +a. +whether the plaintiff is challenging governmental activity; +whether the party defending the suit would be prejudiced; +C. +e. +f. +g. +whether the plaintiff is required to disclose information of +utmost intimacy; +whether the plaintiff is compelled to admit an intention to +engage in +illegal +conduct, thereby +risking criminal +prosecution; +whether the Plaintiff would risk suffering injury if identified; +whether the interests of children are at stake; and +whether there are less drastic means of protecting the +legitimate interests of either party. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 7 of 12 +Doe v. i +½, 951 F.2d at 323. +Plaintiff does not fall under any of the factors. Moreover, even if she did +meet one of the factors, "It]he fact that [a] Doe [Plaintiff] may suffer some +personal embarrassment, standing alone, does not require the granting of a +request to proceed under a pseudonym." Id; see also Doe v. Rostker, 89 F.R.D. +159 (N.D. Calif. 1981). Any substantial privacy interests JANE DOE has must +outweigh the customary and constitutionally embedded presumption of openness +to judicial proceedings. Doe v. li +951 F.2d at 323; Doe v. Bergstron, 2009 +WL 528623 (C.A.9(Or.))(denying request to proceed anonymously in civil action +by Plaintiff where Plaintiff's arrest, prosecution and acquittal were matters of +public record). +14. In Sweetland v. State, 535 So.2d 646 (Fla. 1* DCA 1988), the court +reasoned that the purpose of discovery is to eliminate the likelihood of surprise +and to insure a fair opportunity to prepare for trial. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure +1.280(b)(1); see also Surf Drugs, Inc., V. Vermette, 236 So.2d 108, 111 (Fla. +1970)(stating that the rules of discovery should be afforded broad and liberal +treatment to effectuate their purpose), citing, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, +501, 507 (1947). +15. Next, the right to go to court to resolve disputes is a fundamental right. +D.R. Lakes, Inc. v. Brandsmart U.S.A. of West Palm Beach, 819 So.2d 971 (Fla. 4"h +DCA 2002). All litigants are afforded an equal opportunity. Lingle v. Dion, 776 +So.2d 1073 (Fla. 4" DCA 2001). The Florida Constitution establishes the right +commonly known as access to courts. Mitchell v. Moore, 786 So.2d 521 (Fla. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 8 of 12 +2001). Courts shall be open to any person for the redress of any injury and justice +shall be administered without sale, denial or delay. Art. I, §21, Fla. Const.; 10A Fla. +Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, §360. +16. +If Jane Doe's name is not disclosed and identified, Mr. Epstein will not +be afforded his fundamental right to fairly litigate this dispute and prepare for trial. +Accordingly, Epstein requests that JANE DOE be identified by her legal name in the +pleadings. +c. +Motion To Identify JANE DOE In Third-Party Subpoenas +17. While discovery in this matter is underway; Epstein is effectively +being denied due process rights by Plaintiff's counsel from conducting broad, +open and liberal discovery in that Plaintiff's counsel has objected to, among other +things, Epstein identifying JANE DOE in various third-party subpoenas to her +medical providers and other third parties. +18. The undersigned must serve subpoenas on medical doctors to +obtain medical information on JANE DOE's alleged psychological and physical +damages as same goes to the heart of Epstein's defenses and Plaintiff's +damages. Plaintiff is claiming emotional/psychological damages. See Exhibit +"A", Interrogatory Response Number 9. Therefore, Epstein is entitled to know +her psychological condition(s) before and after the alleged incidents) she +references in the Second Amended Complaint. In particular, JANE DOE alleges +specific disorders as a result of Epstein's alleged conduct - ".. psychological +and emotional injuries. +.corruption of morals, anxiety, intrusive thoughts, +disturbed sleep, impaired concentration, disruption and distortion of normal + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 9 of 12 +development, loss on innocence." (Emphasis Added). Id. Epstein is also +entitled to know, among other things, whether she had any physical complaints +or whether there was ever any evidence of physical battery on JANE DOE's body +from the acts she complains of in the 2d Amended Complaint. The need to +serve third-party subpoenas on medical doctors is a basic discovery need related +to the claims alleged by JANE DOE for which Plaintiff's counsel refuses to +compromise. Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 5* DCA 1997), rev. denied, +719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998)(discoverability of Plaintiff's history of sexual activity is +relevant to damages); United States v. Bear Stops, 997 F.2d 451 (8"h Cir. +1993)(deals with "admissibility of other acts of sexual abuse by individuals other +than the defendant to explain why a victim of abuse exhibited behavioral +manifestations of a sexually abused child.") If Plaintiff saw a psychologist or +other physician during or after the time periods she claims she was assaulted by +Epstein but either did not discuss or did discuss the incidents (or lack thereof) +would be directly relevant to her damage claims. Plaintiff seeks physical and +emotional/mental personal injury type damages, and the Epstein must conduct +his own discovery thereon. See supra. No valid discovery objections or +exemptions exist preventing necessary and reasonable discovery. To hold +otherwise prevents Mr. Epstein from preparing and defending this matter. +19. +In defending this lawsuit, Mr. Epstein should be permitted broad +discovery, whether admissible at trial or not. Fed. R.Civ.Pro. 26 provides, in +pertinent part, that "parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not +privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action." + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 10 of 12 +Plaintiff's counsel's refusal to identify JANE DOE in the third-party subpoenas +referenced above is prejudicing Mr. Epstein by virtue of preventing discovery all +together, which is in complete contradiction of the discovery rules and Epstein's +substantive due process rights. +20. +In addition, subpoenas must also be served upon various local and +state institutions in order to determine what crimes, if any, JANE DOE has +committed (i.e., crimes that involve dishonesty and/or false statement). +Obviously, this goes directly to the heart of JANE DOE's damages she claims ".. +psychological and emotional injuries. ..corruption of morals, anxiety, intrusive +thoughts, disturbed sleep, impaired concentration, disruption and distortion of +normal development, loss on innocence." - caused by Epstein or other events in +her life) for which a jury is entitled to hear about at trial, and certified records +must be obtained from the clerk should JANE DOE answer certain questions +regarding her crimes incorrectly. See Exhibit "A". +21. At this time, the undersigned is aware that Jane Doe may have +committed the crime of shoplifting. +22. If Jane Doe was involved in other crimes, Epstein is entitled to +obtain certified copies of those crimes Plaintiff may have committed for purposes +of discovery and impeachment. Questions will be asked regarding those crimes +(e.g., Have you been convicted of a crime of dishonesty or false statement? If +so, how many times? Have you been convicted of a felony? If so, how many +times?) To hold otherwise would not only prevent broad discovery but would +ultimately result in reversible error at any trial. +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 11 of 12 +Il. Conclusion +23. +Epstein requests the following relief: +a. +That JANE DOE be identified by her legal name in the style of +this case; +b. +That Epstein be granted leave to identify JANE DOE by her +legal name in Third-Party Subpoenas (but not file them in Court +or, if required, in a redacted form); and +That, on an alternative basis, this court dismiss this action Sua +Sponte until such time as JANE DOE identifies herself in the +style of this matter. Doe v. Rostker, 89 F.R.D.at 163. +WHEREFORE, Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein, respectfully requests that this +Court enter said order granting the relief requested above, and for such other +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically +filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing +document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the +following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this l +, 2009: +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #4 +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 12 of 12 +Respectfully submitted, +CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +12 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d66ba0cdc42846e324d38c3c0b4590f32a77edc533787aa904d067f3af20a00d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d66ba0cdc42846e324d38c3c0b4590f32a77edc533787aa904d067f3af20a00d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3f717ea1166ab70a8450ad17cf0a68de853162f5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d66ba0cdc42846e324d38c3c0b4590f32a77edc533787aa904d067f3af20a00d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -144, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d66ba0cdc42846e324d38c3c0b4590f32a77edc533787aa904d067f3af20a00d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 12, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "a2c83c4947e7799a5989329eb1b36d00f826e025036519706900ceee65fee01c", + "output_sha256": "a7c4f1be9b8c8098e7b24476a0d996efa648a14b9166d71133e900212b9efd13", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d67caa17b0293ae04b64898ed1f1341f4d9d219078d53f26359c195cedae7728.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d67caa17b0293ae04b64898ed1f1341f4d9d219078d53f26359c195cedae7728.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d4c30047ac6eccb0c7fa4afcada83fbe7d4425f7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d67caa17b0293ae04b64898ed1f1341f4d9d219078d53f26359c195cedae7728.md @@ -0,0 +1,216 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 223 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 1 of 8 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/_ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRAJ +1 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 223 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 2 of 8 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA1 +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80993-MARRA/ +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80811 -MARRA/JI +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80893-MARRA/ +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 08-CV- 80469-MARRA /C +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 223 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 3 of 8 +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al., +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80591-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80656-MARRAJ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFFS JANE DOES' 2-7 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE +ORDER AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-7 ("Plaintiffs" or individually, "Plaintiff"), by and through +undersigned counsel, hereby file Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order, pursuant to +S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1, and state as follows: +1. +Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 are proceeding with a Jane Doe pseudonym as this case +involves facts of the utmost intimacy and there is a genuine risk of psychological harm if their +identities are disclosed. See Exhibit "A" (Declaration of Gilbert Kliman, M.D.) (See also DE +144, Jane Does' 2-7 Response to Defendant's Motion to Compel Identity, et al.). +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 223 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 4 of 8 +2. +Despite the obvious need for Plaintiffs to have their identities protected, +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein has employed investigators who have made repeated contacts with exboyfriends, former employers, and others who know nothing of the underlying facts of the case. +These investigators have contacted such nonparties asking them for extensive personal +information about a Plaintiff, such as names and contact information of former boyfriends and +other friends and acquaintances in the Plaintiff's community. +The Defendant's repeated contacts with these nonparties is harassing and +designed to intimidate the Plaintiffs. The purpose and intent of these contacts is to brand the +Plaintiffs as alleged sexual abuse victims to their families, friends and communities. +4. +A Motion is pending in which this Court is being asked to determine whether and +how Defendant may obtain discovery from nonparties. (DE 91, 144). Defendant's investigative +efforts improperly circumvent the issues in the pending Motion, and only serve to highlight the +need for this Court to implement appropriate protective measures to prevent Defendant from +harassing, intimidating, and intruding unnecessarily into the personal lives of the Plaintiffs. +5. +While it is not unusual for a defendant to use appropriate means to obtain records +from former employers and others referenced in a plaintiff's discovery responses, it is not +customary for a defendant to retain private investigators to make personal contact with these +individuals. Indeed, this practice is particularly inappropriate in a sexual abuse case where these +nonparties are unaware of the underlying abuse. Plaintiffs have a well-grounded fear that the +investigators will use the opportunity of their contacts with these nonparties to "out" the +Plaintiffs' as alleged childhood sexual abuse victims of Jeffrey Epstein. (See Kliman Decl., Exh. +"A" hereto). +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 223 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 5 of 8 +6. +As an example of the investigators' intimidation tactics, three of Defendant's +investigators recently called the former employer of Jane Doe 4 on repeated occasions over a +two-day period, asking personal questions about her, including the name and telephone number +of her ex-boyfriend. See Exhibit "B", Declaration of Jane Doe 4. +7. +Similarly, one of Defendant's investigators contacted the former employer of Jane +Doe 6. See Exhibit "C", Declaration of Jane Doe 6. +8. +There is no basis for Defendant or his multiple investigators to make repeated +personal contacts with former employers and ex-boyfriends to ask personal questions about a +Plaintiff. It is apparent that these contacts are not designed to obtain relevant information, but +rather are intended to intimidate the Plaintiffs and to reveal that they are childhood sexual abuse +victims. +9. +Accordingly, Plaintiffs request the entry of a protective order that would prevent +Defendant, his attorneys and investigators from making ex parte contacts concerning this +litigation with nonparties who have no knowledge that a Plaintiff was a childhood sexual abuse +victim of Jeffrey Epstein. +10. This Court has discretion to enter a protective order designed to protect a party +from, among other things, annoyance or embarrassment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). As set forth above, +given the investigators' conduct, a protective order is appropriate to prevent unnecessary +intrusion into the Plaintiffs' personal lives and divulgation of Plaintiffs in their communities as +childhood sexual abuse victims. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7, respectfully request that this Court grant +Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order, as follows: (i) order Defendant, his attorneys and +investigators to cease making ex parte contacts with nonparties identified in plaintiffs" discovery +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 223 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 6 of 8 +responses, such as, for example, former employers; (ii) order Defendant, his attorneys and +investigators to cease making ex parte contacts with nonparties found during the course of +discovery or investigation who know the Plaintiff or live in her community, such as, for example, +current and former boyfriends and family friends of the Plaintiffs; (il) order Defendant, his +attorneys and investigators to cease making ex parte contacts with nonparties who otherwise +know one of the Plaintiffs personally but who are unaware that she is an alleged victim of +childhood sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein; and (iv) grant all such other relief this Court deems +just and appropriate. +CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1.A.3 +Undersigned counsel has conferred with Defendant's counsel in a good faith effort to +resolve the issues raised in this motion, and has been unable to do so, as Defendant's counsel has +advised that Defendant opposes this motion. +Dated: July 29, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By:_ +s/ Adam D. Horowitz. +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 223 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 7 of 8 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on July 29, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served +this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission +of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for +those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 223 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2009 Page 8 of 8 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +bedwards@rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike @bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +8 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d67caa17b0293ae04b64898ed1f1341f4d9d219078d53f26359c195cedae7728.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d67caa17b0293ae04b64898ed1f1341f4d9d219078d53f26359c195cedae7728.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1c71601fcbbfc45f3d7dbc347e897a24f158f365 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d67caa17b0293ae04b64898ed1f1341f4d9d219078d53f26359c195cedae7728.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -98, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d67caa17b0293ae04b64898ed1f1341f4d9d219078d53f26359c195cedae7728", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 9, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "7b1d8bcce8d0fc93b3f89f0ca2c2f08e51e60a0f72228efca33517c8a642b542", + "output_sha256": "d00dac2e013362bd9ddb65150d4852dae7c0135316af1f56488fcd35e3dfaa88", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d6896e66de13bf4838ef068d28ad5e902e32f446f3b523a20f593c1f5f8ec210.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d6896e66de13bf4838ef068d28ad5e902e32f446f3b523a20f593c1f5f8ec210.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fb9c1e479e081760a90b91de9a3208bda70c183e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d6896e66de13bf4838ef068d28ad5e902e32f446f3b523a20f593c1f5f8ec210.md @@ -0,0 +1,431 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 1 of 15 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/] +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/C + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 2 of 15 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80993-MARRA +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811 -MARRA/ +JANE DOE, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80893-MARRA/ +DOE II, +VS. +CASE NO.: 08-CV- 80469-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 3 of 15 +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al., +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80591-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80656-MARRA +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFES JANE DOES 2-7'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO +COMPEL AND/OR IDENTIFY PLAINTIFFS IN THE STYLE OF THIS CASE AND +MOTION TO IDENTIFY JANE DOE IN THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS FOR +PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY, OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO DISMISS +"SUA SPONTE", WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-7, hereby serve their Response to Defendant's Motion to +Compel and/or Identify Plaintiffs in the Style of this Case and Motion to Identify Jane Doe in +Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, or Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss "Sua +Sponte", With Incorporated Memorandum of Law, and state as follows: +The lawsuits filed by JANE DOES 2-7 involve private, intimate facts pertaining +to their own childhood sexual abuse and exploitation by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 4 of 15 +2. +Jane Does 2-7 filed their suits under a pseudonym' to prevent public disclosure of +the private, highly sensitive and intimate facts pertaining to their sexual assaults, and the public +association of their identities with Defendant Epstein and these assaults. +Dr. Gilbert Kliman," a well-known forensic psychiatrist with an expertise in the +field of child trauma, has met with and evaluated each of Jane Does 2-7 and opined that public +disclosure of their real names would create a substantial risk to them of further psychological +harm. See Exhibit "A", Declaration of Gilbert Kliman, M.D. +Dr. Kliman opines as follows: +Releasing names of the plaintiffs to the public will reenact experiences of +powerlessness and helplessness in the face of a boundary violation. Repetition and +reenactment represent central features of Criterion B in the DSM-IV-TR diagnosis +of posttraumatic stress disorder trauma. In effect, release of their identity and +public intrusion into their personal life represents a reenactment of the shame of +sexual traumatization. Repetition and reenactment are central pathologies that +afflict sexual trauma survivors. +Victims of sexual abuse often rely upon some form of dissociation, splitting or +denial, as a defensive means to manage overwhelming affects associated with the +sexual trauma. Each of the plaintiff girls has employed some variation of this +defense, both during the massages and then subsequently following disclosure of +the abuse. Primitive, maladaptive responses of this nature will become +additionally reinforced as a result of public disclosure. +Another aspect of the plaintiffs' experience, which is recognized by DSM-IV-TR, +is that the trauma was associated with human design factors (such as cruel +intention to do harm, rape, torture). Trauma of this origin has a tendency to +produce more "severe or long lasting" posttraumatic stress disorder than natural +events (DSM IV TR p. 464). À policy of deliberate revelation of the names of the +victims would reinforce the sense of design, pattern and policy of human +intentions. +It is my opinion, with a reasonably high degree of medical certainty that the +defense motion to allow public disclosure of the plaintiffs' identity is clinically +" Defendant and his counsel are aware of the real names of Jane Does 2-7. +" A copy of the curriculum vitae of Dr. Gilbert Kliman is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 5 of 15 +and ethically a wrongful plan. The act of revealing their identity against their +wishes places the plaintiffs at risk, in the best of circumstances, of suffering an +aggravation of existing diagnostic concerns. It is more probable than not that +releasing personal identities will +an exacerbation and magnification of +symptoms lending to increased risk of revictimization and retraumatization. +See Exhibit "A", 99l 13-15, 21 +5. +Given the private nature of the allegations in this lawsuit and the serious risk of +harm to the mental health of Jane Does 2-7 if a public disclosure of their identities were required, +Jane Does 2-7 should be permitted to continue using a pseudonym in this lawsuit. +6. +Notably, in one of the cases consolidated for purposes of discovery, Jane Doe v. +Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08-80893, this Court recognized the harm likely to result from public +disclosure of the victims' identities in these cases, and allowed the Plaintiff in that case to +"proceed in this action under the pseudonym Jane Doe'", by Order dated October 6, 2008. +Jeffrey Epstein sets forth no facts to support his bare contention that Jane Does 2- +7 use of a pseudonym in these proceedings interferes with his "constitutional due process right." +See Motion to Compel, p. 3. Defendant and his counsel know the identities of these Plaintiffs. +8. +Defendant also requests the Court's permission to use the real names of Jane Does +2-7 in various third-party subpoenas for discovery purposes. Defendant does not identify any of +the entities or persons to whom he intends to send subpoenas. An order granting the relief +requested without limitations would essentially nullify Jane Does 2-7's right to proceed +anonymously. Jane Does 2-7 therefore object to the issuance of third-party subpoenas, and +submit that Defendant can obtain the discovery he seeks by alternative means that will preserve +the confidentiality of the Jane Does 2-7's identities. +9. +If this Court were to permit third party subpoenas or records custodian +depositions using the existing captions and identifying Jane Does 2-7 in the body of the +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 6 of 15 +subpoena by their names, due to publicity surrounding the Defendant's crimes, then Jane Does 2- +7 would effectively be revealed as abuse victims in these cases against Defendant Epstein. Any +subpoenas or notices to third parties therefore should not disclose the type of action or the +Defendant's identity. There are alternatives which would preserve Jane Does 2-7's anonymity +and be more efficient and cost-effective at the same time. For instance, Defendant can obtain +records from various non-party sources through Plaintiffs' counsel, who can certify that they +have obtained the records through authorizations signed by Jane Does 2-7. Another means to +obtain non-party records concerning Plaintiffs is the appointment of a special +who would +verify authenticity and completeness of the records. +10. +Finally, Jeffrey Epstein's request that this Court order a "sua sponte" dismissal is +illogical. Sua sponte means "[w]ithout prompting or suggestion; on its own motion." Black's +Law Dictionary 1437 (7th ed.1999). Thus, the definition of sua sponte does not fit these +circumstances, because the Court is being prompted by Epstein's Motion. Velchez v. Carnival +Corp, 331 F.3d 1207 (11th Cir. 2003). In any event, there is no basis or authority to support a +dismissal of these cases. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 respectfully request that (i) this Court deny +Defendant's Motion to Compel and/or Identify Plaintiffs in the Style of this Case and Motion to +Identify Jane Doe in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, or Alternatively, Motion +to Dismiss "Sua Sponte", in its entirety; (ii) Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 be permitted to continue +using their pseudonyms in this litigation; (ill) this Court order that records from non-parties +relating to Jane Does 2-7, including medical and employment records, only be obtained through +Plaintiffs' counsel by means of signed authorizations that do not include the caption or identify +Epstein as the party seeking records, or alternatively, appoint a special +to obtain the +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 7 of 15 +records, who would verify authenticity and completeness of the records; and (iv) all other relief +this Court deems just and appropriate. +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +PLAINTIFFS JANE DOES 2-7 SHOULD BE PERMITTED +TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY IN THIS CASE DUE TO THE +SENSITIVE, PRIVATE NATURE OF THE UNDERLYING FACTS +AND THE RISK OF PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM TO THE PLAINTIFFS +Federal courts permit a party to proceed under a pseudonym when special circumstances +warrant anonymity. See, e.g., Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 685-87 +(11th Cir.2001); Does / thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068-69 (9th +Cir.2000); James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 238-39 (4th Cir. 1993); EW v. New York Blood Center, +213 F.R.D. 108, 110-12 (E.D.N.Y.2003); Javier v. +-Botello, 211 F.R.D. 194, 196 +(W.D.N.Y.2002); Doe v. | +105 F.Supp.2d 40, 43-44 (E.D.N.Y.1999); Doe v. United Servs. +Life Ins. Co., 123 F.R.D. 437, 439 (S.D.N.Y.1988). Sexual assault victims are a paradigmatic +example of those entitled to a grant of anonymity. See Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193 (E.D. +N.Y. 2006); Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisc., 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir.1997) +("fictitious names are allowed when necessary to protect the privacy of ... rape victims, and other +particularly vulnerable parties or witnesses"); see also Doe v. City of Chicago, 360 F.3d 667, 669 +(7th Cir. 2004). +The decision whether to allow a plaintiff to proceed anonymously is within the court's +discretion. See Aware Woman Ctr., 253 F.3d at 684; Javier, 211 F.R.D. at 195; EW, 213 F.R.D. +at 110. As set forth above, this Court exercised its direction in one of the consolidated cases, +Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08-80893, to allow a plaintiff to proceed under the +pseudonym "Jane Doe" in an Order dated October 6, 2008. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 8 of 15 +Courts will permit a party to proceed under a pseudonym where "the party's need for +anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public's interest in knowing the +party's identity." Does I Thru XXIII, 214 F.3d at 1068; see Javier, 211 F.R.D. at 195; EW, 213 +F.R.D. at I11; As set forth herein, the balancing test in this case weighs in favor of permitted +plaintiff to continue to proceed anonymously: +In undertaking this balance, courts have considered such facts as +(1) whether the plaintiff is suing the government or a private +person; (2) whether the plaintiff would be compelled to disclose +intimate information; (3) whether plaintiff would be compelled to +under a pseudonym would thereby be prejudiced; (6) the ages of +the parties whose identity is to be suppressed; (7) the extent to +which the identity of the litigant has been kept confidential; (8) +whether, because of the purely legal nature of the issues presented +or otherwise, there is an atypically weak public interest in knowing +the litigants' identities; and (9) the public interest in guaranteeing +open access to proceedings without denying litigants access to the +justice system. +Doe v. Del Rio, 241 F.R.D. 154, 157 (S.D. N.Y. 2006) +The public has a strong interest in protecting the identities of sexual assault victims so +that other victims will not be deterred from reporting such crimes. See Doe v. +, 202 F.R.D. +173, 176 (E.D.Pa.2001) (granting anonymity to sexual assault victim); Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 +F.R.D. 193 (E.D. N.Y. 2006). That is particularly true in these consolidated cases where there +are numerous victims with similar claims. Although these cases have gained considerable media +attention, there appears to be little public interest in knowing the specific identity of each of the +victims. +With regard to the second factor, courts have granted anonymity to protect against +disclosure of a wide range of issues involving matters of the utmost intimacy, including sexual +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 9 of 15 +assault. See, e.g., Aware Woman Cir., 253 F.3d at 685 (abortion); EW, 213 F.R.D. at 111 +(infection with hepatitis B); Doe v. L +•. 202 F.R.D. 173, 176 (E.D.Pa.2001) (sexual assault +victim); [ +, 105 F.Supp.2d at 42 (sexual assault victim); WGA v. Priority Pharmacy, Inc., 184 +F.R.D. 616, 617 (E.D.Mo.1999) (status as AIDS patient); Doe v. United Servs. Life Ins. Co., 123 +F.R.D. 437, 439 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (sexual orientation); see also Blue Cross, 112 F.3d at 872 +(recognizing rape victims as entitled to anonymity). It cannot be reasonably denied that a +person's sexual history - especially during their childhood - is an intimate fact. When the +childhood sexual history includes criminal sexual contact by an adult, the facts are even more +intimate and personal. In the electronic age in which we live, these concerns are heightened. As +federal courts have recognized in this context, it is now possible to "determine whether a given +individual is a party to a lawsuit in federal court anywhere in the country by the simplest of +computer searches, to access the docket sheet of any such case electronically, and ... that entire +case files will be accessible over the Internet." Doe v. City of New York, 201 F.R.D. 100, 102 +(S.D.N.Y.2001) (denying anonymity where any injury was purely reputational and case did not +involve private or intimate matter); see EW, 213 F.R.D. at 112-13. +As Dr. Kliman explains in his Declaration, disclosure of Jane Does 2-7's identities will +place these Plaintiffs "at-risk of having their personal lives scrutinized by friends, extended +family, spouses, children, fellow students, employers and fellow employees, the media and +general public. This type of exposure humiliates many victims and represents another betrayal of +trust. Public exposure places the plaintiff's at further risk of stigmatization, shame and +retraumatization." See Exhibit "A" at 9l 3. Dr. Kliman also finds it of no consequence that some +of the plaintiffs are now legally adults in that "[dJue to traumatization the plaintiffs are arrested +in their development, and even those who are now legally adult are arrested in part to adolescent +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 10 of 15 +aspects of psychology." Id. at 9 4 +The policy of protecting victims of sexual misconduct from undue embarrassment and +disclosure of their private affairs is firmly established in Fed.R.Evid. 412. The protections of +Rule 412 are designed to "encourage victims of sexual misconduct to institute and participate in +legal proceedings against alleged offenders." (Committee Notes to 1994 Amendment). +Likewise, many states in this country, including Florida and New York, have similarly enacted +laws to protect the anonymity of sexual assault victims. See Fla. Stat. $$794.024, 794.026 +(2008); N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 50-b (McKinney 2009). In 1994, the Florida Legislature passed +The Crime Victims Protections Act. The legislative stated purpose for the Act was "to protect +the identity of victims of sexual crimes." Fla. AGO, 2003-56, 2003 WL 22971082 (Dec. 15, +2003). Under §794.024, Florida Statutes, court records that identify the name and/or address of a +victim of a sexual crime are presumed to be confidential and exempt from public access. Id. +Similarly, upon approving New York's rape shield law, then Governor Mario +stated, +"sexual assault victims have unfortunately had to endure a terrible invasion of their physical +privacy. They have a right to expect that this violation will not be compounded by a further +invasion of their privacy." 1991 McKinney's Sessions Laws of N.Y., at 2211-2212 (quoted in +Deborah S. v. Diorio, 153 Misc.2d 708, 583 N.Y.S.2d 872 (N.Y.City Civ. Ct.1992)); see also +Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 597, 97 S.Ct. 2861, 53 L.Ed.2d 982 (1977) ("Short of homicide, +[rape] is the ultimate violation of self"). +As to the fourth factor of risk injury, Dr. Kliman has evaluated Jane Does 2-7, and has +concluded that the childhood sexual abuse at issue has caused features of post-traumatic stress +disorder (PTSD), including shame, guilt, helplessness, and powerlessness. See Exhibit "A" at TYl +4-7. Dr. Kliman further states, +"it is more probable than not that releasing personal identities +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 11 of 15 +will +an exacerbation and magnification of symptoms lending to increased risk of +revictimization and retraumatization." Id. at 9| 21. Thus, this is not a case analogous to those +cited by defendant in which the plaintiffs were merely at risk of "personal embarrassment." +Instead, there is a genuine and immediate risk of psychological harm. +None of the cases cited by Defendant where courts denied a plaintiff's request for +anonymity involved victims of childhood sexual assault or evidence of emotional or +psychological harm that would result from disclosure of the plaintiff's identity. See Doe v. Hartz, +52 F.Supp.2d 1027 (N.D.Iowa 1999); Doe v. Shakur, 164 F.R.D. 359 (E.D.N.Y.1996); Doe v. +Bell Atlantic Bus. Sys. Servs., 162 F.R.D. 418 (D.Mass.1995); Doe v. Univ. of Rhode Island, 28 +Fed.R.Serv.3d 366, 1993 WL 667341 (D.R.I. Dec. 28, 1993). +As to the factor of prejudice, the Defendant does not identify how his ability to conduct +discovery or impeach Jane Does 2-7's credibility has been or will be impaired if these Plaintiffs +are permitted to proceed under a pseudonym. See EW, 213 F.R.D. at 112, +105 F.Supp.2d +at 44-45. Other than the need to make redactions and take measures not to disclose these +Plaintiffs' identities, Defendant will not be hampered or inconvenienced merely by Plaintiffs' +anonymity in court papers. As set forth above, Defendant already knows their true identities. See +Aware Woman Center, 253 F.3d at 687 (no prejudice where plaintiff offered to disclose her name +to defendant); EW, 213 F.R.D. at 112; +105 F.Supp.2d at 44-45. +Il. +DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO USE +THE REAL NAMES OF JANE DOES 2-7 IN THIRD-PARTY +SUBPEONAS EXCEPT FOR THOSE ISSUED TO PERSONS WHOM +PLAINTIFES HAVE ALREADY DISCLOSED THEIR SEXUAL ABUSE +As for the use of Jane Does 2-7's real names in subpoenas issued to non-parties, a party +may obtain discovery of any non-privileged matter that is relevant to a claim or defense of any +party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(I). However, a district court may limit discovery "for good cause +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 12 of 15 +shown" by making "any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from +annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense," including that the +discovery not be had or that it be had only by a method other than that selected by the party +seeking discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). Jane Does 2-7 have articulated a specific and substantial +harm from disclosure of their identities. +If this Court were to permit Defendant to issue third-party subpoenas containing Jane +Doe 2-7's real names, the identity of the Defendant, and/or facts pertaining to the nature of the +case to whomever Defendant wants, it would be akin to requiring these Plaintiffs to use their real +name in the pleadings. +Instead, Jane Does 2-7 propose to voluntarily execute authorizations +(which would not contain the case names or the identity of the Defendant) to allow Defendant to +obtain education, employment, and medical records to be used for purposes of this litigation +only. Alternatively, Defendant can obtain the records through a special +who would +verify authenticity and completeness of the records. Either of these approaches would not only +place Jane Does 2-7 at less risk of psychological harm, but would also be more cost-effective and +efficient. +CONCLUSION +Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 respectfully request that Defendant's +Motion to Compel and/or Identify Plaintiffs in the Style of this Case and Motion to Identify Jane +Doe in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, or Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss +"Sua Sponte" be denied in its entirety, and that Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 be permitted to continue +using their pseudonyms in this litigation. Additionally, to avoid public disclosure of the +Plaintiff's identities in non-party records discovery, Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 request that such +3 Defendant and Plaintiff have previously agreed that education records can be obtained in this +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 13 of 15 +discovery be obtained either through Plaintiffs' counsel by means of written authorizations, or by +the appointment of a special +Dated: June 8, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Adam D. Horowitz +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 2-7 +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +manner in lieu of subpoenas. +13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 14 of 15 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on June 8, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served +this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission +of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for +those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Adam D. Horowitz +14 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 15 of 15 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +bedwards@rra-law.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +/s/ Adam D. Horowitz +15 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d6896e66de13bf4838ef068d28ad5e902e32f446f3b523a20f593c1f5f8ec210.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d6896e66de13bf4838ef068d28ad5e902e32f446f3b523a20f593c1f5f8ec210.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b88a54b6032a218432875e2bf0c90f72367cb248 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d6896e66de13bf4838ef068d28ad5e902e32f446f3b523a20f593c1f5f8ec210.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -180, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d6896e66de13bf4838ef068d28ad5e902e32f446f3b523a20f593c1f5f8ec210", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 15, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "01bd94be83d74117fae1d028ee1e0097548c50e9e51e52538e4b092aed0ce919", + "output_sha256": "e7be338c81dd03a5ecad1c806177e1dd39c320867da7664563edfde86317d787", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d69dc3db3f0f55d8ada5aa91d685dd8e142fde6643a17b49339ea845e317e916.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d69dc3db3f0f55d8ada5aa91d685dd8e142fde6643a17b49339ea845e317e916.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b1dd86e7943b6b413ee07f024172d60598cd0b9c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d69dc3db3f0f55d8ada5aa91d685dd8e142fde6643a17b49339ea845e317e916.md @@ -0,0 +1,837 @@ +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2010 Page 1 of 19 +Unsealed 05/09/10 +Sealed +IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Civil Action No. +10-80309 +JANE DOE No. 103, +Plaintiff, +FILED by EB D.c. +FEB 2 3 2010 +STEVEN M. LARIMORE +CLERKU S DIST. CT +S. Dot FLA - MIAMI +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +/ +COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 103 ("Plaintiff"), brings this Complaint against Defendant, Jeffrey +Epstein ("Defendant"), and states as follows: +PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE +At all times material to this cause of action, Plaintiff was a resident of Palm Beach +1. +County, Florida. +2. This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name to protect the identity of +Plaintiff because this Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse of a then +minor, +At all times material to this cause of action, Defendant owned a residence located +at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. +4. +Defendant is presently a citizen of the United States Virgin Islands. Pursuant to +the plea agreement entered by the Defendant in state court and the sentencing which occurred on +June 30, 2008. Defendant is curently under community control in Palm Beach County lerida +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2010 Page 2 of 19 +5. +Defendant is an adult male born on January 20, 1953. +6. +This Court has jurisdiction over this action and the claims set forth herein +pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. +7. +This Court has venue of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as a +substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. +STATEMENT OF FACTS +8. +At all relevant times, Defendant was an adult male spanning the ages of 45 and 55 +years old. Defendant is known as a billionaire financier and money manager with a secret +clientele limited exclusively to billionaires. He is a man of tremendous wealth, power, and +influence. He owns a fleet of aircraft that includes a Gulfstream IV, a helicopter, and a Boeing +727, as well as a fleet of motor vehicles. Until his incarceration pursuant to the plea entered and +sentencing, which occurred on June 30, 2008, he maintained his principal place of residence in +the largest dwelling in Manhattan, a 51,000-square-foot eight-story mansion on the Upper East +Side. He also owns a $6.8 million mansion in Palm Beach, Florida, a $30 million 7,500-acre +ranch in New Mexico he named "Zorro," a 70-acre private island known as Little St. James in +the U.S. Virgin Islands, a mansion in London's Westminster neighborhood, and another +residence in the Avenue Foch area of Paris. The allegations herein concern Defendant's conduct +while at his lavish residence in Palm Beach and numerous other locations both nationally and +internationally. +9. +Defendant has a sexual preference for underage minor girls. He engaged in a +plan, scheme, or enterprise in which he gained access to countless vulnerable and relatively +economically disadvantaged minor girls, and sexually assaulted, molested, and/or exploited these +girls, and then gave them money. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +2 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2010 Page 3 of 19 +.. +10. +Beginning in or around 1998 through in or around September 2007, Defendant +used his resources and his influence over vulnerable minor girls to engage in a systematic pattern +of sexually exploitative behavior. +11. +Defendant's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. +Defendant coerced and enticed impressionable, vulnerable, and relatively economically less +fortunate minor girls to participate in various acts of sexual misconduct that he committed upon +them. Defendant's scheme involved the use of underage girls, as well as other individuals, to +recruit underage girls. Defendant and/or an authorized agent would call and alert Defendant's +assistants shortly before or after he arrived at his Palm Beach residence. His assistants would +call economically disadvantaged and underage girls from West Palm Beach and surrounding +areas who would be enticed by the money being offered and who Defendant and/or his assistants +perceived as less likely to complain to authorities or have credibility issues if allegations of +improper conduct were made. The then minor Plaintiff and other minor girls, some as young as +14 years old, were transported to Defendant's Palm Beach mansion by Defendant's employees, +agents, and/or assistants in order to provide Defendant with "massages." +12. +Many of the instances of illegal sexual conduct committed by Defendant were +perpetrated with the assistance, support, and facilitation of at least three assistants who helped +him orchestrate this child exploitation enterprise. These assistants would arrange times for +underage girls to come to Defendant's residence, transport or cause the transportation of +underage girls to Defendant's residence, escort the underage girls to the massage room where +Defendant would be waiting or would enter shortly thereafter, urge the underage girls to remove +their clothes, deliver cash from Defendant to the underage girls and/or their procurers at the +conclusion of each "massage appointment," and assist Defendant in taking nude photographs +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +3 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL 3130, Miami 305 358.2800 Fax 305.58.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 951.463.1346 / + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2010 Page 4 of 19 +and/or videos of the underage girls with and/or without their knowledge. Defendant would pay +the procurer of each girl's "appointment" hundreds of dollars. +13. +Defendant designed this scheme to secure a private place in Defendant's Palm +Beach mansion where only persons employed and invited by Defendant would be present, so as +to reduce the chance of detection of Defendant's sexual abuse and/or exploitation, as well as to +make it more difficult for the minor girls to flee the premises and/or to credibly report his actions +to law enforcement or other authorities. The girls were usually transported by his employee(s), +agents), and/or assistants) and/or by taxicabs) and/or motor vehicles) paid for by Defendant, +which also made it difficult for the girls to flee his mansion. +14. Upon her initial arrival at Defendant's Palm Beach mansion, each underage +victim would generally be introduced to one of Defendant's assistants, who would gather the +girl's personal contact information. The minor girl would be led up a remote flight of stairs to a +room that contained a massage table and a large shower. +15. At times, if it was the girl's first "massage" appointment, another female would +be in the room to "lead the way." Generally the other female would leave, or Defendant would +dismiss her. Often, Defendant would start his massage wearing only a small towel, which +eventually would be removed. Defendant and/or the other female would direct the girl to +massage him, giving the minor girl specific instructions as to where and how he wanted to be +touched, and then direct her to remove her clothing. Defendant would then perform one or more +lewd, lascivious, and sexual acts, including masturbation; fondling the minor's breasts and/or +sexual organs; touching the minor's vulva, vagina, and/or anus with a vibrator, back massager, +his finger(s), and/or his penis; digitally penetrating her vagina; performing intercourse, oral sex, +and/or anal sex; and/or coercing or attempting to coerce the girl to engage in lewd acts and/or +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +4 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2010 Page 5 of 19 +prostitution and/or enticing the then minor girl to engage in sexual acts with another female in +Defendant's presence. The exact degree of molestation and frequency with which the sexual +exploitations took place varied and is not yet completely known; however, Defendant committed +such acts regularly on a daily basis and, in most instances, several times a day. In order to +facilitate the daily exchanges of money for sexual assault and abuse, Defendant kept U.S. +currency readily available. +16. +Defendant traveled out of Florida to Palm Beach for the purpose of luring +minor girls to his mansion to sexually abuse and/or batter them. He used the telephone to contact +these minor girls for the purpose of coercing them into acts of prostitution and to enable himself +to commit sexual battery against them and/or acts of lewdness in their presence, and he conspired +with others, including his employee(s), assistants), driver(s), pilots), and/or agents), to +facilitate these acts and to avoid police detection. Defendant's systematic pattern of sexually +exploitative behavior described above also occurred in Defendant's other domestic and/or +international residences, places of lodging, and/or modes of transportation. +17. +Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, Defendant used his money, +wealth, and power to unduly and improperly manipulate and influence the then minor Plaintiff. +A vulnerable young girl, Plaintiff was merely a seventeen year old high school student when she +was first lured into Defendant's sexually exploitative world in or about January 2004. Plaintiff +was recruited while at work by a co-worker, one of the minor victims Defendant paid to procure +underage females. Plaintiff went to Defendant's Palm Beach mansion accompanied by this coworker. Upon arriving, Plaintiff was led by one of Defendant's assistants up a flight of stairs to a +spa room with a shower and a massage table. Defendant entered this room wearing only a towel. +Defendant suddenly removed his towel, exposing his naked body, and then lay on the massage +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +5 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2010 Page 6 of 19 +table. Defendant told Plaintiff to massage his back and take off her clothing, which she refused +to do. Defendant then began to try to touch the minor Plaintiff and/or take off her clothing. +After Defendant's relentless pawing, she reluctantly removed some of her clothing. During this +encounter, Defendant turned over on his back and fondled Plaintiff's breasts, despite her +repeatedly telling him not to do so. As Plaintiff massaged Defendant, Defendant proceeded to +masturbate until ejaculation. Defendant then paid Plaintiff two hundred dollars, and Plaintiff +was escorted out of Defendant's mansion and left Defendant's property. +18. A similar pattern of grooming continued, and the sexual exploitation +progressively escalated, over the course of approximately seventeen months during which +Defendant would often travel to Palm Beach. Prior to arriving and while in Palm Beach, +Defendant and/or his agents) would frequently call Plaintiff at her home telephone number +and/or other telephone numbers, arranging for encounters with her for Defendant, sometimes +twice daily. While usually such contacts were made by his assistants, Defendant personally +called Plaintiff repeatedly, despite being told to leave Plaintiff alone. After the first few +encounters, Defendant coerced Plaintiff to remove all her clothing, and Defendant penetrated the +minor Plaintiff's vagina digitally. Defendant sexually abused and/or battered and/or exploited +Plaintiff at least a hundred times between approximately January 2004 and May 2005. Such +exploitation included, but was not limited to, Defendant's sexual abuse and battery of Plaintiff +with vibrator(s), back massager(s), his fingers), and his penis. At times, Defendant manipulated +Plaintiff to interact sexually with another female. During one encounter, Defendant penetrated +the minor Plaintiff's vagina with his penis, all the while narrating and demonstrating his sexual +battery of Plaintiff to another female present in the room. While some of the precise dates that +Defendant's acts of sexual exploitation occurred are unknown to Plaintiff, these dates are known +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +6 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 33130, Miami 305.358.2900 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2010 Page 7 of 19 +to Defendant, as he and/or his assistants kept written records, some of which are in the custody +of law enforcement, of each instance in which he committed lewd acts upon minor girls, +including the then minor Plaintiff. +19. +Defendant's preference for underage girls was well-known to those who regularly +procured them for him. The above-described acts of abuse began to occur during a time when +Defendant knew that Plaintiff was a minor. Defendant, at all times material to this cause of +action, knew and/or should have known of Plaintiff's age of minority. In fact, Defendant +repeatedly urged the minor Plaintiff to become legally emancipated in order to accompany him +as he traveled, both nationally and internationally. Additionally, Defendant, knowing that +Plaintiff was merely seventeen years old, lured her by inviting her to stay with him at his +mansion in Manhattan and arranging and/or paying for airplane tickets, theater tickets, and a +personal chauffeur as gifts for her upcoming birthday. +20. As part of Defendant's persistent process of grooming Plaintiff and immersing her +in his lewd and abusive lifestyle, Defendant regularly showered the adolescent Plaintiff with +gifts, including, but not limited to lingerie, flowers, bikini bathing suits), art books), purse(s), +envelopes of U.S. currency, use of a car, and/or other accoutrements. +21. +Defendant possessed photographs of nude underage girls, some of which may +have been taken with hidden cameras set up in his residence in Palm Beach. On the day of +Defendant's arrest, police found two hidden cameras and photographs of underage girls in +Defendant's mansion. Defendant took lewd photographs of Plaintiff with his hidden cameras +and transported lewd photographs of Plaintiff and other victims elsewhere using a facility or +means of interstate and/or foreign commerce. On one occasion, Defendant manipulated the +minor Plaintiff to pose nude for him and photographed her using several rolls of film. One or +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +7 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2010 Page 8 of 19 +more of those nude photographs of Plaintiff that were taken by the Defendant when she was a +minor were confiscated by the Palm Beach Police Department during its execution of a search +warrant of Defendant's Palm Beach mansion on October 20, 2005. +22. +Defendant was particularly skillful at discerning his minor victims' respective +hopes, dreams, and ambitions. As he did with many of his victims, Defendant lured Plaintiff +early-on with modeling opportunities, impressing her with his modeling business and contacts +with supermodels, indicating that he could help her with a modeling career. +23. Knowing that the minor Plaintiff was an excellent student and desired to attend +New York University or Columbia University, Defendant pretended to show great interest in her +college admission, and offered to help her with her applications and to assist her with her +tuition. Defendant had told Plaintiff of his substantial connections within the academic +community, a matter about which he often bragged. Defendant took it upon himself to take +control of Plaintiff's college application process and led Plaintiff to believe that he was sincere +about helping her. Even though she had earned a Bright Futures Scholarship to the Florida +college of her choice, Defendant insisted that she would not need it, and that, with his +involvement, she would be admitted into one or both of the universities in New York. As a +result of Defendant's manipulation, Plaintiff did not apply timely for the Bright Futures +Scholarship or to any college, and therefore missed the fall semester of her freshman year. When +the Palm Beach Police Department executed the search warrant on Defendant's mansion, among +the artifacts found and confiscated were Plaintiff's high school transcript. +24. +In June 2008, after an investigation by the Palm Beach Police Department, the +State Attorney's Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the United States Attorney's +Office, Defendant entered pleas of "guilty" to one count of solicitation of prostitution, in +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +8 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2010 Page 9 of 19 +violation of Fla. Stat. § 796.07, and one count of solicitation of a minor to engage in prostitution, +in violation of Fla. Stat. § 796.03 in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida. +25. +As a condition of that plea, Defendant entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement, +Addendum, and Affirmation (collectively, the "NPA") with the United States Attorney's Office +for the Southern District of Florida on September 24, 2007, October 29, 2007, and December 7, +2007, respectively. In so doing, Defendant acknowledged that Plaintiff was one of his victims +and agreed to the following provisions of the NPA: +8. If any of the [acknowledged victims] elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. +§2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court +for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and +Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest +damages up to an amount agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein, +so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. +§2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to +state, federal or common law. +10. Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 18 +U.S.C. §2255, as set forth in paragraph (8), supra, neither Epstein's signature on +this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or settlements by Epstein +are to be construed as admissions of evidence or evidence of civil or criminal +liability or a waive of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person, whether +or not her name appears on the list provided by the United States (emphasis +added). +Plaintiff was among the individuals identified by the United States Attorney's +Office as victims of Defendant upon whose testimony it intended to base its federal prosecution +of Defendant for his illegal conduct. Consequently, Defendant is estopped by his state court plea +and the Non-Prosecution Agreement from denying the acts alleged in this Complaint and must +effectively admit liability to Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 103. +COUNT ONE +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +9 +25 West Flagler Stret, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 3130, Miami 305358-2800 Fax 305358-2382 • Fort Lauderdale 9544634346 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2010 Page 10 of 19 +(Cause of Action for Coercion and Enticement of Minor to Engage in Prostitution or +Sexual Activity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) +27. +Plaintiff hereby adopts, repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the +allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 26 above. +28. +Defendant used a facility or means of interstate and/or foreign commerce to +knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce Plaintiff, when she was under the age of 18 years, +to engage in prostitution and/or sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a +criminal offense, or attempted to do so, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § +2422(b). +29. +Plaintiff was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, +and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant pursuant to this Section of the United +States Code. +30. +As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 +being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past suffered, +and will in the future continue to suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, +psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, +loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, +separation from her family, and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulating and +luring her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical +and psychological expenses, and Plaintiff will in the future incur additional medical and +psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn +income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in +nature, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +10 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2010 Page 11 of 19 +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for all damages available +under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, including, without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, +attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, +and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. +COUNT TWO +(Cause of Action for Travel with Intent to Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct pursuant +to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b)) +31. +Plaintiff hereby adopts, repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the +allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 26 above. +32. +Defendant traveled in interstate and/or foreign commerce for the purpose of +engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, +including the then minor Plaintiff, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). +33. +Plaintiff was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, +and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant pursuant to this Section of the United +States Code. +34. +As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 +being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past suffered, +and will in the future continue to suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, +psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, +loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, +separation from her family, and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulating and +luring her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical +and psychological expenses, and Plaintiff will in the future incur additional medical and +psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +11 +25 West Flagler Stret, Suite 800, Miami, FL 33130, Miami 305.35.2800 Fax 305.358 2382 Fort Lauderdale 9544634346 | + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2010 Page 12 of 19 +.. +income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in +nature, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for all damages available +under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, including, without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, +attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, +and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. +COUNT THREE +(Cause of Action for Sexual Exploitation of Children pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in +Violation of 18 U.S.C. $ 2251) +35. +Plaintiff hereby adopts, repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the +allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 26 above. +36. Defendant knowingly persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced the then minor +Plaintiff to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of +such conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251. +37. +Plaintiff was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, +and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant pursuant to this Section of the United +States Code. +38. +As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 +being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past suffered, +and will in the future continue to suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, +psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, +loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, +separation from her family, and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulating and +luring her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +12 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2010 Page 13 of 19 +and psychological expenses, and Plaintiff will in the future incur additional medical and +psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn +income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in +nature, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for all damages available +under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, including, without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, +attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, +and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. +COUNT FOUR +(Cause of Action for Transport of Visual Depiction of Minor Engaging in Sexually Explicit +Conduct pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1)) +39. +Plaintiff hereby adopts, repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the +allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 26 above. +40. Defendant knowingly mailed, transported, shipped, or sent via computer and/or +facsimile in or affecting interstate and/or foreign commerce at least one visual depiction of the +minor Plaintiff engaging in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1). +41. +Defendant transported lewd photographs of Plaintiff and other victims elsewhere +using a facility or means of interstate and/or foreign commerce. +42. Plaintiff was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, +and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant pursuant to this Section of the United +States Code. +43. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 +being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past suffered, +and will in the future continue to suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, +psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +13 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 9544634346 | + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2010 Page 14 of 19 +loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, +separation from her family, and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulating and +luring her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical +and psychological expenses, and Plaintiff will in the future incur additional medical and +psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn +income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in +nature, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for all damages available +under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, including, without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, +attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, +and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. +COUNT FIVE +(Cause of Action for Transport of Child Pornography pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 +in Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1)) +44. +Plaintiff hereby adopts, repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the +allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 26 above. +45. +Defendant knowingly mailed, transported, shipped, or sent via computer and/or +facsimile in or affecting interstate and/or foreign commerce child pornography, in violation of 18 +U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1). +46. Defendant transported lewd photographs of Plaintiff and other victims elsewhere +using a facility or means of interstate and/or foreign commerce. +47. Plaintiff was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, +and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant pursuant to this Section of the United +States Code. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +14 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305358-2382 • Fort Lauderdale 9544634346 T + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2010 Page 15 of 19 +48. +As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 +being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past suffered, +and will in the future continue to suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, +psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, +loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, +separation from her family, and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulating and +luring her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical +and psychological expenses, and Plaintiff will in the future incur additional medical and +psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn +income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in +nature, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for all damages available +under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, including, without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, +attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, +and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. +COUNT SIX +(Cause of Action for Engaging in a Child Exploitation Enterprise pursuant to 18 +U.S.C. § 2255 in Violation of 18 U.S.C. $ 2252A(g)) +49. +Plaintiff hereby adopts, repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the +allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 26 above and Counts One through Five above. +50. +Defendant knowingly engaged in a child exploitation enterprise, as defined in 18 +U.S.C. § 2252A(g)(2), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(g)(1). As more fully set forth above, +Defendant engaged in actions that constitute countless violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 (sex +trafficking of children), Chapter 110 (sexual exploitation of children in violation of 18 U.S.C. §$ +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +15 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2010 Page 16 of 19 +2251, 2252(a)(1), and 2252(A)(a)(1)), and Chapter 117 (transportation for illegal sexual activity +in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 242l. 2422(b), and 2423(b)). As more fully set forth above in +paragraphs 1 through 26, Defendant's actions involved countless victims and countless separate +incidents of sexual abuse, which he committed against minors, including Plaintiff, in concert +with at least three other persons. +51. +Plaintiff was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, +and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant pursuant to this Section of the United +States Code. +52. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 +being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past suffered, +and will in the future continue to suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, +psychological and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, +loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, +separation from her family, and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulating and +luring her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical +and psychological expenses, and Plaintiff will in the future incur additional medical and +psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn +income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in +nature, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for all damages available +under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, including, without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +16 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL. 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463-4346 T + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2010 Page 17 of 19 +attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, +and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. +Date: +February 23.2010. +Respectfully Submitted, +By: +Robert C. Josefsberg +Bar No. 040856 +Katherine W. Ezell +Bar No. 114771 +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler St., Suite 800 +Miami, Florida 33130 +Telephone: (305) 358-2800 +Fax: (305) 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Attorneys for Plaintiff +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL, 33130, Mlami 305.358.2800 Fax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 9544634346 Y + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2010 + +• US%:" ¡gEv. 2/08) +CIVIL COVER SHEET +list + +The JS 44 civil cover shect and the information contained herein neither replace nor suppicment the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided +by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for thouse of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating +the civil docket shect. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.) +NOTICE: Attorneys MUST Indica +ailed Cases Below. +I. (a) PLAINTIFFS +Jane Doe No. 103 +10-80309 +ANTS +FILED by Eb +(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff West Palm Beach +County of Residence of First Listed Deferlant +.D.C. +United States Virgin I land +(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) +(IN U.S. PLAINTI +FF CASES ONLY) +(C) Altomey's (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) +NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION GASES. FEB: 232019 THE TRACT +LAND INVOLVED, +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq./Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +STEVEN M. LARIMORE +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +Altomeys (if Known) +CLERK U.S. DIST. CT +25 W. Flagler St., Suite 800 +Mismi FI 77170 +Robert D. Critton, Esq., Burman, Citar, PadtEA cMAMA, u +303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(a) Check County Where Action Arose: • MIAMI-DADE 5 MONROE • BROWARD # PALM BEACH O I +• ST. LUCIE • INDIAN RIVER +• OKEECHOBEE +HIGHLANDS +I. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only) +HII. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an 'X" in One Box for Plaimtiff +(for Diversity Cases Only) +and One Box for Defendant) +• 1 U.S. Government +Plaintiff +/ 3 Federal Question +(U.S. Goverment Not a Party) +Citizen of This State +7 +PTF +DEF +PTF +DEF +Incorporated or Principal Place +of Business In This State +4 +• 1 U.S. Goverament +34 +Defendant +Diversity +* Citizen of Another State +3 = 0 = +Incorporated and Principal Place +• 5 +(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item HI) +oí Business In Another State +Citizen or Subject of a +} • 3 Forcign Nation +Fonien Country +NATURE OF SUIT (Passan-y" in One Has Only) +CONTRACT +TORTS +• |I0 Insurance +120 Marine +• 130 +Act +• 140 Negotiable Instrument +150 Recovery of Overpaymest +& Enforcement of Judgment +• 151 Medicare Act +• 152 Recovery of Defaulied +Student Loans +(Excl. Veterans) +• 153 Recovery of Overpayment +of Veteran's Benefits +• 160 Stockholders" Suits +• 190 Oiler Contract +195 Contract Product Liability +• 196 Franchise +REAL PROPERTY +3 210 Land Condemnation +• 220 Foreclosure +• 230 Rent Lease & Ejeciment +240 Torts to Land +• 245 Tort Product Liability +• 290 All Other Rcal Property +PERSONAL INJURY +J 310 Airplane +3 315 Airplane Product +Liability +3 320 Assault, Libel & +Slander +3 330 Federal Employers' +Liability +O 340 Marine +• 345 Marine Product +Liability +• 350 Motor Vehicle +• 355 Motor Vehicle +Product Liability +• 360 Other Personal +Injury +CIVIL RIGHTS +J 441 Voting +• 442 Employment +O 443 Housing/ +Accommodations +• 444 Welfare +445 +" Employment +Amer. w/Disabilities +446 Amer. »/Disabilitics +° Other +3 440 Other Civil Rights +PERSONAL INJURY +362 Personal Injury - +Med. Malpractice +365 Personal Injury +Product Liability +J68 Asbestos Personal +Injury Product +Liability +PERSONAL PROPERTY +370 Other Fraud +371 Truth in Lending +380 Other Personal +Property Damage +385 Property Damage +Prodact Liability +PRISONER PETITIONS +510 Motions to Vacate +Sentence +Habeas Corpus: +530 General +535 Death Penalty +540 Mandamus & Other +550 Civil Rights +555 Prison Condition +FORFEITURE PENALTY +510 Agriculture +620 Other Food & Drug +625 Drug Related Seizura +of Property 21 USC 881 +630 Liquor Laws +640 R.R. & Truck +630 Airline Regs +660 Occupational +BANKRUPTCY +• 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 +• 423 Withdrawal +28 USC 157 +PROPERTY RIGHTS +3 820 Copyrighss +O 830 Patent +• 840 Trademari +Safety/Hcalth +690 Other +LABOR +SOCIAL SECURITY +710 Fair Labor Standards +• 861 HIA (1395M) +Act +• 862 Black Lung (923) +720 Labor/Mgmt, Relations +5 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) +730 Labor/Mgmt.Reperting +• 864 SSID Tille XVI +& Disclosure Act +D 865 RSI (405(g)) +740 Railway Labor Act +FEDERAL TAX SUITS +790 Other Labor Litigation +• 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff +791 Empl. Ret. Inc. Security +or Defendant) +Act +O $71 IRS-Third Party +IMMIGRATION +26 USC 7609 +462 Naturalization +Application +463 Habras Corpus-Alien +Detaince +465 Other Imesigration +Actions +6 +OTHER STATUTES +400 State Reapportionmen: +410 Antitrust +430 Banks and Banking +450 Commerce +460 Deportation +470 Racketeer Influenced and +Corrupt Organizations +480 Consumer Credit +490 Cable/Sat TV +810 Sclective Service +850 Securities/Commodities +Exchaage +835 Customer Challenge +12 USC 3410 +890 Other Statutory Actions +891 Agricultural Acts +892 Economic Stabilization Act +893 Environmental Matters +894 Energy Allocation Act +895 Freedom of Information Act +• 900 Appeal of Fee Determination +Under Equal Access to Justice +950 Constitutionality of State +Statutes +V. ORIGIN +JI Original +Proceeding +(Place an -X" in Onc Box Only) +• 2 +Removed from +• 3 +State Court +Re-filo +4 Reinstated or • 5 +Transferred from +see VI below +another district +• 6 Multidistrict +• 7 +Reopened +(specity) +Litigation +Appeal to Distric +Judge from +Magistrate +Jadement +a) Re-filed Case • YES FINO +b) Related Cases 2 YES • NO +VI. RELATED/RE-FILED +CASE(S). +(See instructions +second page): +JUDGE Kenneth A. Marra +DOCKET NUMBER See Attached. +Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and Write a Brief Statement of Cause (Do not cite jurisdietional statutes unless +diversity): +VII. CAUSE OF ACTION 18 U.S.C. 2255 (Predicate Statutes 18 U.S.C. 2422(b), 2423(b), 2423(e), 2251, 2252, 2252A(a)(1), 2252A(gX1) +LENGTH OF TRIAL via 2 +days estimated (for both sides to try entire case) +VIII. REQUESTED IN +• CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION +DEMAND S +CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: +COMPLAINT: +UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 +ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE & CORRECT TO +IN exaesS of $75,000° JURY DEMAND: +Sealed No +THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE +SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD +s/ Katheire W. Ezell +FOR OFFICE USE ONLY +2(ö3/10 +AMOUNT 350.00 +RECEIPT * 10/ 8042 IP. +2/23/10 + + +Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2010 Page 19 of 19 +• +• +VI. +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION +ATTACHMENT TO CIVIL COVER SHEET +FOR: Jane Doe 103 v. Jeffrey Epstein +RELATED PENDING CASES +08-80119 - KAM +08-80232 - KAM +08-80380 - KAM +08-80381 - KAM +08-80811 - KAM +08-80893 - KAM +08-80993 - KAM +08-80994 - KAM +09-80469 - KAM +09-80802 - KAM +09-81092 - KAM \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d69dc3db3f0f55d8ada5aa91d685dd8e142fde6643a17b49339ea845e317e916.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d69dc3db3f0f55d8ada5aa91d685dd8e142fde6643a17b49339ea845e317e916.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0aedcad2604a35ff2e7c838f5c8eb0694cf82d85 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d69dc3db3f0f55d8ada5aa91d685dd8e142fde6643a17b49339ea845e317e916.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -523, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d69dc3db3f0f55d8ada5aa91d685dd8e142fde6643a17b49339ea845e317e916", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 23, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "f33283ad7885105036ced641b66427b6401dc2d781e35ffc50c3f322fdd10b98", + "output_sha256": "cbb92fcf14afe0ad14cd9b9efa47e32f267a47e7f1220d7f20c42a6d3d66a09d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d6ba98694c89befeeb79f3255da145e606f2f738b65cc1416c107371ee49e9a9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d6ba98694c89befeeb79f3255da145e606f2f738b65cc1416c107371ee49e9a9.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d73478b2f1bb8222b1905d8bec8577d3a1b54295 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d6ba98694c89befeeb79f3255da145e606f2f738b65cc1416c107371ee49e9a9.md @@ -0,0 +1,1090 @@ +Filing # 131329589 E-Filed 07/23/2021 05:06:18 PM +COPY +In the Matter Of: +50-2019-CA-014681 +COPY +June 03, 2020 +NOT A CERTIF +FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, +ESQUIRE +ABRUZZO, CLERK, 07/23/2021 05:06:18 PM + + +NOT A CERTIFIED COPY + + +June 03, 2020 +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +50-2019-CA-014681 +CARENT CIVIL DO 441 +OR THE TREATE PURISHER +-VS- +NOT +BEFORE THE HONORABLE KRISTA MARX +(ZOOM CONFERENCE) +Wednesday, +June 3, +2020 +10:08 a.m. - 10:28 a.m. +Stenographically Reported By: +SONJA M. +Court Reporter +ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +June 03, 2020 +2 +APPEARANCES: +On behalf of the Plaintiff/Petitioner: +GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. +1840 Century Park +East +Suite 1900 +Los Angeles, +California 90067 +310.586.7700 +boyajian@gtlaw.com +BY: NINA D. BOYAJIAN, ESQUIRE +On behalf of the Defendant/Respondent: +JACOB, SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC +961687 Gateway Boulevard +Suite 2011 +Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 +COPY +904.261.3693 +doug.wyler@comcast.net +BY: DOUGLAS A. WYLER, ESQUIRE +On behalf of the Defendant/Respondent : +CLERK & COMPTROLLER, +PALM BEACH COUNTY +P.O. Box 229 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +561.355.2983 +nfingerhut@mypalmbeachclerk.com +BY: NICOLE R. +FINGERHUT, ESQUIRE +NOT A +- +→ ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +June 03, 2020 +PROCEEDINGS +***** +THE COURT: We are here today for a very +limited purpose. I'm sure the attorneys are aware of +that, but I just don't want there to be any +confusion. We are here on Defendant Dave Aronberg +and Defendant Sharon Bock for the Comptroller and the +State Attorney's motion to dismiss Count II. +You're all acutely aware as the lawyers that +this is a question of law. So we're not going to be +diving into facts and the Court will not be deciding +the merits of this motion this morning. We are +simply here for the sole purpose of that motion to +dismiss. So I just wanted to make sure that we all +stay on track and we're all on that same page. +So, Ms. Boyagian, I'll send it to you first, +• I - of course, we all know that the Law 101, +I must look at the four corners of the motion, which +alleges that the State Attorney, David Aronberg, and +the clerk and comptroller, Sharon Bock, actually have +custody and control of these grand jury proceeding. +Whether that is true or not is not for this +court to determine because I'm looking simply at the +four corners of the complaint. But, not for nothing, +I think we all know that they don't have control and +2 ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +June 03, 2020 +custody of the records. But I'm going to assume that +it's correct because that's what has been alleged. +So what I first want to hear from is the +attorney for Florida Holdings with regard to, +assuming arguendo, that Florida Statute 905.27 does +create a cause of action, what relief is it that +you're seeking from -- in Count II, specifically. +Not the dec action. We're not here on that today -- +what is it you hope to get, a judgment? +MS. BOYAGIAN: Thank you, your Honor. Good +morning, and thank you for the privilege of appearing +before this court. +The relief we are seeking is disclosure of the +grand jury records, pursuant to the Furtherance of +Justice Exception to 905.27. And under the First +Amendment. +The press, as your Honor is aware, has a right +of access under the First Amendment as a surrogate of +the public -- +THE COURT: Let me just stop you for a minute. +I'dylike you to answer my specific question. +So I am not particularly convinced -- and I'd +like for you to address that. So we're not going to +dive into facts or the press's standing because +that's not something we're here to discuss today. +→ ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +June 03, 2020 +And I have read the voluminous paperwork -- +I've received paperwork as -- and -- five-minute ago +from some of the other parties. But I deeply +appreciate the fact that you sent this to me so much +in advance and I have been able to spend some time +with, as I said, the voluminous paperwork that was +provided. +But as you know, +,, we are here for such an +extremely limited issue today, and that their motion +to dismiss where they state "you're suing the wrong +people"; that the court has these records. +And so, more importantly, I want you to address +whether Section 905.27 gives you a private cause of +action against the state attorney and the clerk. +Again, I'm going to assume the facts are true +that are asserted in the motion. Whether they are or +not -- because I think we can all agree we're not for +sure if they'ever -- that the state attorney doesn't +have these records. So what is it you're seeking in +Count II -- not the dec action. I know you want the +records. I've got that. But in Count II, +specifically, what do you -- what's the relief you're +seeking and, more importantly, how under this statute +do you get to assert a private action -- a private +cause of action against the state attorney and the +ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +June 03, 2020 +clerk? +MS. BOYAGIAN: Your Honor, we are aware, of +course, that there is no expressed private right of +action, 905.27. But that does not end the inquiry. +As the Florida Supreme Court stated: +"Where a statute like 905.27 +forbids an act which is to Plaintiff's +injury, the party injured should have +an action." +And that's the +Piezo case in the volume +of materials that we sent you. +There's no question here that the denial of the +FIRST AMENDMENT right to the press is an injury which +gives rise to a right of action. +Stated another way, looking at the analysis +that the Fischer Metcalf Court looked at, there are +three factors in determining whether there is a +private fight) of action where a statute does not +expressly provide for one. +One +• is whether the Plaintiff is part of the +class for which the statute is intended to protect; +second is a legislative history; and the third is the +underlying purposes of the statutory scheme. +The first factor I already addressed, that the +press is part of the class that the statute is +→ ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +June 03, 2020 +intended to benefit, being the surrogate of the +public and exercising its first amendment right. +The second issue of legislative history and the +purpose -- statutory purpose are somewhat related. +We were unable to find much legislative history on +this issue of a private right of action under the +statute. +There is nothing that says we intend to create +a private action, but there's certainly nothing that +says we do not want to create a private right of +action. +What we do have is that in 1994, the same time +that 905.27 was reenacted, a statute that pertains to +the secrecy of State Grand Jury -- statewide grand +juries was also enacted. That provision, which is +905.395, has no exceptions for -- for revealing these +records. By contrast, the legislature intentionally +enacted 905.27 with the Furtherance of Justice +Exception: +If the public through the press can't bring a +private right of action to enforce that exception or +to seek relief under that exception, that +intentionally placed exception of furthering justice +is essentially rendered hollow -- +(Speaking simultaneously.) +ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +June 03, 2020 +8 +THE COURT: Okay. Pause for a minute. +I don't think anybody is saying that there +isn't a cause of action or that the press doesn't +have standing. That's not what I'm asking you. I'm +asking you, how are the clerk and the state attorney +the proper defendants? +So, you know, nowhere have I said there isn't a +cause of action. Clearly there is. +I'm puzzled by +the procedural posturing of this case naming the +state attorney. +And, you know, I'm further stymied by the fact +that you allege in your complaint that they have -- +particularly David Aronberg, the State Attorney -- +that he has these records. +But I'm going to assume that's true. So I'm +not telling you, you don't have a cause of action. +I'm just saying, okay, let's run this all the way +out. Lef's say you win and you get a judgment +against the State Attorney Dave Aronberg. +What's he supposed to do with it? He can't +release the grand jury testimony. He has no +authority whatsoever to do that. +MS. BOYAGIAN: +Well, your Honor, as you stated, +this is a motion to dismiss stage, and we are +entitled to discovery on the issue of possession, +→ ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +June 03, 2020 +custody, and control. +My understanding is that the +state attorney has asserted that he does not have +possession. It's not my understanding that the clerk +has taken that position. +So the clerk may indeed be +the -- someone who does have possession, custody, and +control. +In any event, we would submit that the state +attorney, even it does not have actual possession at +this time, it might be able to have the power to +control or direct the entity or persons who do have +control and possession to release those -- to effect +the judgment. +THE COURT: So let me ask you this: so the +clerk is the keeper of the record. But even if you +got a judgment against her -- let's say you asserted +this cause of action and let's say you win and you +get a judgment against the clerk. The clerk cannot +release grand jury testimony to you. Only the court +can. +So really -- all I'm saying to you is I do not +understand the way this case was filed or why these +are the defendants because it's impossible for them +to perform. +I mean, I'm going to assume, based on your +motion, again, that they do have the records. But we +ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +DEFLORIDA HOLDINGS US DAVE ARONBERG +June 03, 2020 +10 +all know -- everyone in the room knows they do not -- +that only the court -- they're -- they're with a +court interpreting. And only the court can release +the records. +So if you get a judgment against either the +state attorney or the clerk, they cannot -- I mean, I +guess what you're saying to me is, well, we want to +do discovery and we want them to say unequiyocally "I +have these records" or "I don't have them." +And -- I mean, the law is abundantly clear. +You cannot do it without a court determining whether, +in the furtherance of justice, the release is +appropriate. +MS. BOYAGIAN: And that is a determination +we're asking your Honor to make, and we're asking for +an order from your court. +THE COURT: When we get to the merits of the +case, sure it is. But, again, you're asking me to +make that determination and for me to make a +determination of whether the grand jury records +should be released. And the only thing we're here +today about is why should the clerk and the state +attorney have to defend a civil action when it's a +possibility of performance? They -- even if you were +to win and get a judgment against them, they cannot +→ ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +June 03, 2020 +11 +give you what they don't have. +So -- I mean, it's as simply as this: Are +you -- you just want to engage in some discovery for +them to absolutely assert, particularly, the state +attorney, "I don't have these records"; look to the +rules that say the moment the grand jury's over, +they're sealed and they're turned over and they +cannot be released without court orden? +So I'm not addressing the merits or whether you +have an exception or you're able to argue that +there's an exception in the furtherance of justice. +We're not getting there today. I'm simply saying why +should these two entities have to defend this lawsuit +when even down the road if they win they can't give +you what they don't have? +MS. BOYAGIAN: As your Honor stated, I'm not +sure that's the case with the clerk. That was not in +their +that issue was not stated in their papers. +THE COURT: Let me ask you this, then: Do you +think, if you got a judgment and I or the court +doesn't make the determination that the grand jury +records should be released, that the clerk would be +able to perform? +Would they be able to say "here you go"? I +mean, could the clerk just make that unilateral +ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +June 03, 2020 +12 +decision "I'm going to release the records, sealed +confidential records"? +Does she have any authority to do that? +MS. BOYAGIAN: My understanding, your Honor, is +that 905.27 requires a court order before the records +are unsealed. +THE COURT: Exactly. Exactly. +All right. Let me hear from MI. Aronberg's +attorney, Mr. Wyler. +MR. WYLER: Thank you, your Honor. +May it +please the Court -- +THE COURT: Good morning, Sir. +MR. WYLER: Good morning. +Your Honor, I just wanted to let you know that +I spoke with counsel for the clerk, Ms. Fingerhut, a +couple of days before this hearing, and we decided +that I would just make the presentation for both of +of us, being that our arguments overlap except for +the fact of who this claim -- whether they have the +records or not, which, of course, we've said we don't +have custody of the records. +But, nonetheless, our arguments overlap. The +Plaintiff is attempting to assert a cause of action +under Section 905.27. That statute settled testimony +not to be disclosed exceptions. So it's just +• ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +June 03, 2020 +13 +explaining exceptions to the disclosure of the grand +jury testimony. +Our position is that it doesn't set forth a +cause of action and that it's impossible for us to +perform what they're asking. +I know you said you didn't really want to get +into the Furthering Justice Exception, but I know +that's what they're using as their basis to get to +these. But it's our position that the clear +unambiguous statutory language, it shows that this +disclosure only applies to a civil or criminal case, +and that within that civil or criminal -- +(Speaking simultaneously.) +THE COURT: Again, sir -- I'm sorry. As I told +Plaintiff's counsel y +MR. WYLER: +can only be used in the defense +for -- +THE COURT: Okay. We're not there. We're not +discussing the merits of the case, and -- I'm not +ready to cross that bridge. I'm here for a very, +very limited hearing today. +So just as I stopped Plaintiff's counsel from +arguing the merits of the case and whether or not the +Furtherance of Justice Exception will apply in this +instance, we're not even there yet. +→ ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +June 03, 2020 +I'm only here for the purpose of determining +whether or not the clerk and state attorney should be +dismissed. And I am bound by the four corners of the +document, which assert that you do have control and +custody over it. +So if you'll fashion your argument with regard +to that limited purpose, I would appreciate it. +MR. WYLER: No problem, your Honor. (I +apologize. +Within the four corners of their complaint, our +position is that they failed to state a cause of +action under 905.27. It does not provide for -- it +doesn't list that there's no element that they have +adequately pled to assert a cause of action under +that. There's -- and the only thing they're asking +for is records that we don't have. +There's really not much more to it, your Honor. +And we would ask that you would grant our motion to +dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. +THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Fingerhut, are you still +on the phone? +MS. FINGERHUT: Yes, your Honor. +THE COURT: Is there anything you wish to add? +MS. FINGERHUT: We agree with the state +→ ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS vs DAVE ARoNBERg +June 03, 2020 +15 +attorney's position, and we also agree with what the +Court has said, that the plain language of the +statute, a cause of action doesn't exist. And we +really cannot -- we'll be defending something without +the four corners. We're simply involved in this +action because the clerk is the custodian of the +records. +THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, +. Boyagian, back to you. +MS. BOYAGIAN: Your Honor, I'd like to note +that in the Butterworth case in which the Supreme +Court limited the application 905.27 by saying that a +witness can reveal her own testimony and prohibiting +that they violate the First Amendment -- +THE COURT: +Say that again, please. +MS. BOYAGIAN: +In the Supreme Court case, the +Butterworth case, in which the Supreme Court ruled +that 905.27 can't restrict a Grand Jury witness from +revealing her own testimony, that would be a +violation of First Amendment, in that case, the state +attorney was, in fact, +a party. +THE COURT: Well, I assume the state attorney +that was present -- I mean, I don't find that that's +close to what we're talking about here, and that's +whether or not -- I mean, as we know, this was in +ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +June 03, 2020 +16 +2006. Certainly Dave Aronberg wasn't even the state +attorney then. But this is about the release of +records. +I want to give you ample opportunity -- and +again, I sincerely appreciate that all of the case +law and the way that it was presented to the Court in +such a timely fashion. I really do. And I did spend +some time with it. But I want to give you whatever +opportunity you want to take to convince me that it +is in -- as to Count 2, again. Not the dec action -- +whether these would be the appropriate defendants. +And, you know, really. I want you to boil it +down for me as to this & let's take it all the way +down the road. You win. +You get a judgment against +the clerk and the state attorney. +I know there's other reasons why you might have +filed it this way. But I'm just simply puzzled +because I do hear what the clerk and the state +attorney are saying, and that is, performance is +impossible. They don't have the records and +cannot -- absolutely. There's not even an inch of +wiggle room -- that they could release the records +even if you got a judgment. It is solely a +determination for the court. +I, frankly, think, you know, there's ways to +→ ESQUIRE + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +June 03, 2020 +17 +get to your records. There's ways to get +confidential records. But it isn't by suing the +state attorney and the clerk. +So I just want to hear your last final argument +on how Count II, the appropriate defendants are the +clerk and the state attorney. Even assuming arguendo +they have the records -- we know they don't +- - you +were to get a judgment against them, how would you +expect them to perform? +MS. BOYAGIAN: Iwo points, Your Honor: One is +that, again, the clerk did not assert in her papers +that she does not have control! That is a position +that the State Attorney's Office has asserted. It is +our allegation, and as your Honor noted, allegations +must be accepted as true .. as true at this stage of +the proceedings. +Second, +it is also our understanding that the +state attorney and the clerk intend to block access +to these records. So our allegation is that they do +have possession, custody, or control, which the clerk +has not denied; and second, that they are trying to +block access to the records -- +THE COURT: What do you mean? What do you +mean? They're not trying to block it. They're +saying that despite the fact -- let's just talk about +ESQUIRE +[POSITION SOLUTIONS + + +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +June 03, 2020 +18 +the clerk, because we all know the state attorney +doesn't have it. +So the clerk is the custodian of records. +That's her main job. +There's no doubt about it. We +all know that. But we also know, unequivocally -- +unequivocally, only the court can make the +determination of whether the moving party has +satisfied that there is an exception that these +should be released. +So, again, I ask you -- she is, +in fact, the +custodian of the records -- is it your opinion that +if you got a judgment saying clerk and comptroller +gets a judgment against them, that she can release +the records without the court -- without the court +weighing in, without the court making that +determination as required by law? +MS. BOYAGIAN: No, your Honor. We are asking +your Honor to order the clerk to do that under your +discretion. +THE COURT: All right. +Mr. +-- Ms. Fingerhut, you wish to be heard on +that? +MS. FINGERHUT: Your Honor, our position is +that we're not trying to block access to the +records -- +→ ESQUIRE + + +(Speaking simultaneously.) +THE COURT: Can you hear? Can the attorneys +June 03, 2020 +19 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +hear? +MS. FINGERHUT: -- custodian the records and +that he cannot release the records without court -- +THE COURT: Exactly. +Okay. All right. Anything further, +Mr. Wyler? +MR. WYLER: No, your Honor. I concur with the +attorneys for the clerk's office that it's impossible +for us to release these records: +There's no intent +to hide them or block anything from the Plaintiff. +THE COURT: Okay. Anything further, +Ms. Fingerhut? +MS. FINGERHUT: +THE COURT: +No, your Honor. +And, Ms. Boyagian, anything +further, ( +. BOYAGIAN: Nothing further, your Honor. +THE COURT: Okay. I will get an order out +quickly +Thank you, folks so much. And I'll see you +on the next round. Thanks a lot. +MS. BOYAGIAN: Thank you, your Honor. +MR. WYLER: Thank you, your Honor. +(The proceedings concluded at 10:28 a.m.) +ESQUIRE +EPOSITION SOLUTIONS + + +CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER +June 03, 2020 +20 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +I, Sonja M. +Court Reporter, certify that +I was authorized to and did stenographically report the +foregoing proceedings and that the transcript, pages 1 +through 19, is a true and complete record of my +stenographic notes. +day +of +Engrose +NOT A +Sonja +M. +Court +Reporter +→ ESQUIRE \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d6ba98694c89befeeb79f3255da145e606f2f738b65cc1416c107371ee49e9a9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d6ba98694c89befeeb79f3255da145e606f2f738b65cc1416c107371ee49e9a9.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..26394a98823bd8aab02739e8f7abece8c8fc0ce8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d6ba98694c89befeeb79f3255da145e606f2f738b65cc1416c107371ee49e9a9.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -2396, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d6ba98694c89befeeb79f3255da145e606f2f738b65cc1416c107371ee49e9a9", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 23, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "c18863627ee61429d38da13f08653e4cc61f6f588ec9256b34d7ab1a2b0f5020", + "output_sha256": "4dca1f5f1e76de5a72778715efc856c0224f105259dcbf6e2115cba6232074f7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d6bbe43560e6184dc1565404760a612f5ec8d75e487a9068e3b8783fd00df688.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d6bbe43560e6184dc1565404760a612f5ec8d75e487a9068e3b8783fd00df688.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cf21d26ad62fc6deb72445bc2112e1d19a1cfca8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d6bbe43560e6184dc1565404760a612f5ec8d75e487a9068e3b8783fd00df688.md @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2009 Page 1 of 5 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2009 Page 2 of 5 +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRAJ_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/_ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +2 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2009 Page 3 of 5 +Defendants. +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09- 80469-CIV-MARRA +Plaintift, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09- 80591-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102 +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09- 80656-CIV-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +/ +ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY AND +PROCEDURAL MOTIONS THAT RELATE TO MULTIPLE CASES +THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. +In the interests of judicial economy and +3 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2009 Page 4 of 5 +efficiency, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: +1. The above-styled cases are hereby CONSOLIDATED for purposes of discovery and +for procedural motions that relate to multiple cases. +2. Hereinafter, all motions and other court filings that relate to discovery and all +procedural motions that relate to multiple cases shall be styled with all of the case names and +numbers, consistent with the styling of this Order, and shall be FILED ONLY IN Jane Doe No. +2 v. Epstein, case no. 08-80119, which is the lowest-numbered pending case. Any motions styled +incorrectly or filed in multiple cases will be stricken from the docket for failure to follow the +Court's Order. +3. The parties may file separate motions to dismiss, answers to the complaint, summary +judgment motions, motions in limine and other substantive motions that pertain to their +individual cases and their individual trials under their individual case styles. +4. Production of documents by any party or non-party that relate to multiple cases need +be produced only once. +5. Defendant is limited to a single deposition of each Plaintiff, during which Defendant +may depose the Plaintiff as both a party and a witness. +6. Defendant(s) may be deposed only once. +7. Any other witnesses common to multiple cases may be deposed only once. +8. For depositions, Local Rule 26.1 K (limiting deposition time to one day of seven +hours) is waived so as to allow each party an adequate opportunity to develop fully the record as +it may relate to that party. However, this waiver shall not be construed as authority for any party +to take unnecessarily long depositions, or abuse the process. Any abuses of this waiver +4 + + +Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2009 Page 5 of 5 +shall result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions against the offending party. +DONE AND ORDERED in +Florida, this 14" day of May, 2009 +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies furnished to: +all counsel of record +Magistrate Judge Linnea R. +5 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d6bbe43560e6184dc1565404760a612f5ec8d75e487a9068e3b8783fd00df688.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d6bbe43560e6184dc1565404760a612f5ec8d75e487a9068e3b8783fd00df688.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..35213e5cd63497f7d06576a15d2694efd4cffaa6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d6bbe43560e6184dc1565404760a612f5ec8d75e487a9068e3b8783fd00df688.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d6bbe43560e6184dc1565404760a612f5ec8d75e487a9068e3b8783fd00df688", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "dfcc879c5077620c7cc21774622e36dc820d3523396d4eb0fa54f5f36de3477d", + "output_sha256": "d59362123814df3603bb3889df39b8da9880f6725dc33d6cab865f551bd5b382", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7191c11c982452d95995d8b9599a661abbc618ca549152a7e157b66cb662c7b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7191c11c982452d95995d8b9599a661abbc618ca549152a7e157b66cb662c7b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..926295843f47df83adc976f7ef3b3cdae452d771 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7191c11c982452d95995d8b9599a661abbc618ca549152a7e157b66cb662c7b.md @@ -0,0 +1,242 @@ +Case 9:08-CV-80380-KAM Document 70-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 1 of #D +Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 4 ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), brings this Amended Complaint against +Jeffrey Epstein, as follows: +Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue +Jane Doe No. 4 is a citizen and resident of the State of Florida, and is sui juris. +2. +This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name to protect the identity of the +Plaintiff because this Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon a +minor. +3. +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen and resident of the State of New York. +4. +5. +This is an action for damages in excess of $50 million. +This Court has jurisdiction of this action and the claims set forth herein pursuant to 28 +U.S.C. §1332(a), as the matter in controversy (i) exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs; +and (ii) is between citizens of different states. +6. +Additionally, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 because +Plaintiff alleges a claim under the laws of the United States. This Court has supplemental +jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a) over all other claims set forth herein, which form part of +-1- + + + +Case 9:08-cV-80380-KAM Document 70-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 2 of 8 +Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 2 of 8 +the same case or controversy. +This Court has venue of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(a) and 1391(b) as a +substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. +Factual Allegations +8. +At all relevant times, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"') was an adult male, 52 +years old. Epstein is a financier and money manager with a secret clientele limited exclusively to +billionaires. He is himself a man of tremendous wealth, power and influence. He maintains his +principal home in New York and also owns residences in New Mexico, St. +and Palm Beach, +FL. The allegations herein concern Epstein's conduct while at his lavish estate in Palm Beach. +9. +Upon information and belief, Epstein has a sexual preference and obsession for +underage minor girls. He engaged in a plan and scheme in which he gained access to primarily +economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home, sexually assaulted these girls, and then gave +them money. In or about 2002-2003, Jane Doe, then approximately 15 years old, fell into Epstein's +trap and became one of his victims. +10. +Upon information and belief, Jeffrey Epstein carried out his scheme and assaulted +girls in Florida, New York and on his private island, known as Little St. James, in St. || +11. Epstein's scheme involved the use of young girls to recruit underage girls. I +, a Palm Beach Community College student from Loxahatchee, Florida recruited girls +ostensibly to give a wealthy man a massage for monetary compensation in his Palm Beach mansion. +The young girls would be contacted when Epstein was planning to be at his Palm Beach residence +or soon after he had arrived there. +, upon information and belief, generally sought out +economically disadvantaged underage girls from western Palm Beach County who would be enticed +by the money being offered - generally $200 to $300 per "massage" session - and who were +perceived as less likely to complain to authorities or have credibility if allegations of improper +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 70-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 3 of 8 +Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 3 of 8 +conduct were made. This was an important element of Epstein's plan. +12. +Epstein's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. The underage +victim would be brought to the kitchen entrance of Epstein's mansion, where she would be +introduced to +, Epstein's assistant. +I would then bring the girl up a flight of +stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table in addition to other furnishings. There were +photographs of nude women lining the stairway +and in the bedroom. The girl would then find +herself alone in the room with Epstein, who would be wearing only a towel. He would then remove +his towel and lie naked on the massage table, and direct the girl to remove her clothes. Epstein +would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual acts, including masturbation and +touching the girl's vagina. +13. +Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, when Jane Doe was approximately 15 +years old, she was recruited by +to give Epstein a massage for monetary compensation. +Jane was brought to Epstein's mansion in Palm Beach, to the kitchen entrance. Once there, Jane +was introduced to +who led her up the flight of stairs to the room with the massage +table. In this room, Jane was directed by Epstein to remove her clothes and give him a massage. +Jane initially kept her panties and bra on, and complied with Epstein's instructions. Jane was paid +by Epstein for this massage. +14. +Jane returned on many occasions to the Palm Beach mansion to provide Epstein with +massages. On those occasions, Epstein engaged in sexual contact and activity with the minor Jane, +which included, among other things, directing Jane to remove all her clothes, masturbating during +the massage, and digitally penetrating Jane's vagina. Jeffrey Epstein often used a vibrator on the +minor Jane during the massage. This sexual abuse continued for approximately three years. +15. +As a result of these encounters with Epstein, Jane experienced confusion, shame, +humiliation and embarrassment, and has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries. +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 70-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 4 of 8 +Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 4 of 8 +COUNTI +Sexual Assault and Battery +16. +Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 15 above. +17. +Epstein acted with intent to cause an offensive contact with Jane Doe, or an imminent +apprehension of such a contact, and Jane Doe was thereby put in such imminent apprehension. +18. +Epstein made an intentional, unlawful offer of offensive sexual contact toward Jane +Doe, creating a reasonable fear of imminent peril. +19. +Epstein intentionally inflicted harmful or offensive contact on the person of Jane Doe, +with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent. +20. +Epstein tortiously committed a sexual assault and battery on Jane Doc. Epstein's acts +were intentional, unlawful, offensive and harmful. +21. +Epstein's plan and scheme in which he committed such acts upon Jane Doe were +done willfully and maliciously. +22. +As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's assault on Jane, she has suffered and +will continue to suffer severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and +emotional damages. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and such other and further relief as this +Court deems just and proper. +23. +24. +25. +of decency. +COUNT II +Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress +Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 15 above. +Epstein's conduct was intentional or reckless. +Epstein's conduct with a minor was extreme and outrageous, going beyond all bounds +-4. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 70-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 5 of 8 +Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 5 of 8 +26. +Epstein committed willful acts of child sexual abuse on Jane Doe. These acts resulted +in mental or sexual injury to Jane Doe, that caused or were likely to cause Jane Doe's mental or +emotional health to be significantly impaired. +27. +Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. Epstein knew or had +reason to know that his intentional and outrageous conduct would cause emotional distress and +damage to Jane Doe, or Epstein acted with reckless disregard of the high probability of causing +severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. +28. +As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's intentional or reckless conduct, Jane +Doe, has suffered and will continue to suffer severe mental anguish and pain. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for compensatory damages, costs, punitive damages, and such other and further relief as this +Court deems just and proper. +COUNT III +Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422 +29. +30. +Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 15 above. +Epstein used a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, +induce or entice Jane Doc, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or +sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. +31. +On June 30, 2008, Epstein entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida §§ 796.07 +and 796.03, in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case nos. 2008-cf- +009381AXXXMB and 2006-cf-009454AXXXMB), for conduct involving the same plan and +scheme as alleged herein. +32. +As to Plaintiff Jane Doe, Epstein could have been charged with criminal violations of +Florida Statute §796.07(2) (including subsections (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) thereof), and other +- 5- + + +Case 9:08-cV-80380-KAM Document 70-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 6 of 8 +Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 6 of 8 +criminal offenses including violations of Florida Statutes §§ 798.02 and 800.04 (including +subsections (5), (6) and (7) thereof). +33. +Epstein's acts and conduct are in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422. +34. +As a result of Epstein's violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422, Plaintiff has suffered personal +injury, including mental, psychological and emotional damages. +Plaintiff hired Herman & Mermelstein, P.A., in this matter and agreed to pay them a +reasonable attorneys' fee. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. §2255(a), including without limitation, actual +and compensatory damages, costs of suit, and attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as +this Court deems just and proper. +JURY TRIAL DEMAND +Plaintiff demands a jury trial in this action on all claims so triable. +Dated: February 27, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By:_ +s/ Adam D. Horowitz +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +m@sexabuseattorney.com +dam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 37698( +horowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A +Attorneys for Plaintiff +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +- 6- + + +Case 9:08-cV-80380-KAM Document 70-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 7 of 8 +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 7 of 8 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on February 27, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of +Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those +parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +/s/ Adam D. Horowitz +-7- + + +Case 9:08-cV-80380-KAM Document 70-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 8 of 8 +Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 + +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@)bclclaw.com +/s/ Adam D. Horowitz +- 8- \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7191c11c982452d95995d8b9599a661abbc618ca549152a7e157b66cb662c7b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7191c11c982452d95995d8b9599a661abbc618ca549152a7e157b66cb662c7b.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9408649dc626c52929d324b514758685b8a50953 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7191c11c982452d95995d8b9599a661abbc618ca549152a7e157b66cb662c7b.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -327, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d7191c11c982452d95995d8b9599a661abbc618ca549152a7e157b66cb662c7b", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 12, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "9c517718068c2e5aeb65c3528fe4f9114c1773f5c0da7983475db007bb62f750", + "output_sha256": "914b14caa0270f67c00139626a8353f2aea6ee760a6381c34e147c97be894656", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d719827f7269f82a2b0cdcb05bfcedd98dc7c6accca4d2e6eb30866b27fc886f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d719827f7269f82a2b0cdcb05bfcedd98dc7c6accca4d2e6eb30866b27fc886f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b5aa0e7455d11bd7987468b2166820b8cc610137 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d719827f7269f82a2b0cdcb05bfcedd98dc7c6accca4d2e6eb30866b27fc886f.md @@ -0,0 +1,3420 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 1 of 58 +PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROVIDE RECENTLY-OBTAINED DEPOSITIO +TESTIMONY AND AFFIDAVIT DEMONSTRATING FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS BY EPSTEIN I/ +SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE CHARGE OF PROPERTY OF +EPSTEIN AND INCORPORATED SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM +CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +EXHIBIT A-2 +(2 of 4) + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 2 of 58 +57 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +helicopter. +l. In the last two years, did you tell me the +helicopter has flown? +A. Yes. +l. And where to? +A. I have flown the helicopter to Fort Lauderdale +on several occasions for maintenance. I've flown it to +Miami. And I try to fly the helicopter at least every +two weeks just either by myself to run it up to its -- +it's important that it keeps moving. +e. other than maintenance-type flights, have you +flown the helicopter in the last couple of years? +A. +Yes. +e. And who was on the helicopter? +A. I flew to Miami with Mr. Epstein. +e. +When was that? +A. It was a couple weeks ago or a month ago, I +think. +A. +e. For what? +sorry? +For what occasion? +A. +I think he had a meeting with his attorneys in +Miami. +Today is October the 15th. Is this during the +month of October that you had this flight in the +sa Alexasder Gallo Company +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 +Pam Ba Co CA 2-3600 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 3 of 58 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +58 +helicopter with Mr. Epstein? +A. I'd have to look at the book to be exact for +you. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +l. Okay. But it's either the end of September or +the beginning of October? +A. Yeah. +l. How do you know that he was meeting with his +attorneys? +A. I believe that he had mentioned that he was +meeting his attorneys. +e. Did he tell you why? +A. No. +l. Why did he tell you he was meeting with his +attorneys? Did you ask him? +A. NO. +l. Okay. That's just something that he said to +you in conversation? +A. Yes, sir. +2. Was there anyone else on the airplane besides +you and Mr. Epstein? +A. +Yes. +Who was that? +A. +e. +A. +Nadia. +Nadia who? +oll Free: 866.709.877 +acsimile: 561.394.262 +a= Alexaader Gallo Company + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 4 of 58 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +59 +Q. How long have you known +A. I don't know, five years. A guess again, +four, five years. +Q. Do you know what her relationship is, if any, +with Jeffrey Epstein? +A. I do not know. +e. Do you know if she knows Jeffrey Epstein? +A. I would assume so. They talk. I would +imagine she knows him. +Q. And how many times has she been on the +airplane or the helicopter on flights at the same time +as a passenger with Jeffrey Epstein? +A. +Many. I'd have to look at the logs. +Hundreds of times? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: Sure. +BY MR. +If you were going to, as somebody who has been +Jeffrey Epstein's pilot for 18 years, tell me today who +the five closest people are to Jeffrey Epstein, would +Nadia be one of them? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: I'd only be guessing and +speculating. I have no idea. +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 +#= Alexasder Callo Company + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 5 of 58 +60 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. +okay. Well, as his pilot and the person who +travels with Jeffrey Epstein on the majority of his +flights, who are the people who travel most frequently +with Jeffrey Epstein? +A. I'd have to look at the logs. +MR. REINHART: Can we get a time period? +BY MR. +l. In the last ten years, which people travel +most frequently with him? +A. I'd have to look at the flight logs to give +you an accurate answer. +l. You can't give me one single name of somebody +who you would say is a frequent flyer? +A. +• +A. +Yes. +Anybody else? +A. +A. +Yeah. +Okay. Anybody else? +A. +Just mainly those two. +e. +How about Ghislaine Maxwell? +A. Not for some time. +oll Free: 866.709.871 +icsimile: 561.394.26 +a3 Alexander Gallo Company + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 6 of 58 +1 +2 +3 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +61 +&. What's your understanding between the +relationship of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein? +A. I don't really know. +l. All right. So when you say you're guessing +that +and l +know or are +associated with Jeffrey Epstein, that guess is being +made on the -- with the observation that they have been +frequent flyers with Jeffrey Epstein on more than +hundreds of flights on his private plane? +A. Yes, that's what I'm basing it on. +l. And do you know where : +is +staying these days? +A. +No. +2. Do you know what car she's driving these days? +A. +No, I don't. +l. okay. Do you know if she's living with +Jeffrey Epstein these days? +A. I don't know that. +e. Do you know how L +met Jeffrey +Epstein? +A. +I don't. +l. Were you on an international flight bringing +her into the country from some other country at any +time? +A. +I don't know. +aD Alexander Galle Compass +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 7 of 58 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +62 +MR. REINHART: Can we clarify? You mean with +Mr. Epstein or -- +MR. +: No. +BY MR. +l. Did you ever bring +from some +foreign country into the United States? +A. I'd have to look at the log books, honestly. +e. That's not something you remember? +A. No. I mean, she -- I think she's been on +Europe trips with us, and I think she's returned from +Europe with us, but I could not say that honestly. +on this recent helicopter flight with +and Jeffrey Epstein, did you talk with them +during that flight? +A. NO. +e. Where did the flight go from? And obviously, +it landed in Miami, but where did you leave from? +A. West Palm Beach. +l. And did Nadia and Jeffrey Epstein arrive +together? +A. +You know, I don't remember. I was out at the +helicopter and I think they both started walking up. So +I don't know if they came separately or not. I was +already at the helicopter. +e. +How long is that flight from Palm Beach to +all Free: 866.709.871 +csimile: 561.394.262 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 8 of 58 +63 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +Miami? +A. Iwenty-five minutes. +l. And did they talk to one another during that +flight? +A. +No. +l. They were both completely silent during that +flight? +A. +Yes. +l. Okay. Is that typical when they are on +flights together, especially with the helicopter, where +you're in pretty close quarters, that they would abstain +from speaking to one another? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: Yeah, it would be typical. It's +very noisy and communicating in a helicopter is, +you know, not that comfortable. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. +over the last five or six years that you have +known or been familiar with ! +MMM, have you +heard her and Jeffrey Epstein conversing with one +another? +A. +I've heard them conversing, but if you ask me +what they had said, I could say it -- I wouldn't even +know what they had said to each other. I've seen them +talking to each other. +as Alexaader Callo Company +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 9 of 58 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +64 +e. +But you don't remember a single specific +conversation between Jeffrey Epstein and +? +A. +An honest answer, no. +l. Okay. And the same for +seen or -- have you seen Jeffrey Epstein speak with +? +i have you +A. +I've seen him speak with her, yes. +l. Can you tell me a single specific conversation +that you have overheard between Jeffrey Epstein and +A. One thing that comes to mind would be make +sure we have Oreo cookies on the airplane. It would be +something completely nonchalant. +Q. Okay. And do you know or have reason to know +of any employment relationship between +and +Jeffrey Epstein? +A. I have no knowledge of any of that. +e. Do you know if l +works for Jeffrey +Epstein? +A. I do not know. +2. Do you know if l +schedules massages +for Jeffrey Epstein? +A. I have no idea. +Has Jeffrey Epstein ever indicated to you that +as Alexander Galle Company +oll Free: 866.709.877 +icsimile: 561.394.26: + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 10 of +1 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +65 +he is fascinated or infatuated or appreciates or loves +or likes massages? +A. I have no knowledge of that. +2. All right. How about Ghislaine Maxwell, has +she ever talked to you about massage therapy or have you +ever overheard her talking about that? +A. No. +e. You certainly read the papers over the last +couple of years, correct? +A. Not on my top ten list. I mean, I've read a +couple articles, but I'm not one to focus on that so +much as some people would. +l. Okay. When the investigation about Jeffrey +Epstein came about, the criminal investigation -- you're +aware that's what I'm talking about, right? +A. +That was last year? +l. Well, it was a couple years ago. +A. Right, okay. +l. Did you speak with Jeffrey Epstein about that +investigation? +A. +No. +Were you told not to speak with him about that +investigation? +A. +I think we knew ourselves that we weren't -- +it wouldn't be proper to even bring it up. +as Alexander Gallo Company +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 11 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +66 +l. All right. When you read in the newspapers +the allegations that Mr. Epstein was involved with +numerous underage girls for sexual reasons, were you +surprised? +A. I didn't believe it. +2. Do you believe it today? +A. I don't believe it. +e. You don't believe that Jeffrey Epstein was +involved with underage girls in a sexual way? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: You're asking for my opinion, +and I don't think my opinion is relevant in that +matter. +BY MR. +l. I think it's relevant. Can you just tell me +whether today you believe that Jeffrey Epstein has +engaged in sex with underage girls? +MR. CRITTON: Form; speculation, irrelevant, +always. +THE WITNESS: It's irrelevant. +BY MR. +e. +I need an answer. +A. +I don't believe he had sex with underage +women. +e. +Or engaged in any sexual acts with underage +Toll Free: 866.709.8771 +acsimile: 561.394.262: + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 12 of +67 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +women? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: No. +BY MR. +Q. +You think that this is just a story that a +bunch of underage women have made up? +A. Speculation. +MR. CRITTON: Objection. Now it's +argumentative. Who gives a darn what he thinks one +way or another? If he has personal knowledge -- +MR. +| You're objecting to the form? +MR. CRITTON: +It's +argumentative. +MR. +You're objecting to the form? +MR. CRITTON: +Yes. +MR. +okay. +BY MR. +Q. +Is that something that you believe that a +bunch of women -- some of which know each other, some +don't, some of which have been on the airplane and some +which haven't -- made this up, that Jeffrey Epstein +engaged in some sexual conduct with them? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: What I believe doesn't matter in +this case, does it? +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 13 of +68 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +BY MR. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Q. I need an answer. Do you believe it? Do you +believe these girls made this up? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +MR. REINHART: I'm going to instruct him not +to answer. +Move on. +MR. +Is there a privilege that we're +asserting? +MR. REINHART: No, it's irrelevant. It's +harassment and not likely to lead to discoverable +evidence. +MR. +: I'm going to put on the record +right now that it is -- we are allowed discovery +into a RICO count. We are also allowed discovery +into the intent of Mr. Epstein in developing +criminal enterprise designed to sexually exploit +and sexually abuse underage girls. +We believe that +in doing so, he associated intentionally with +people of similar beliefs that sex with underage +girls is okay, and that there have been many +discussions with this witness, as well as many +other witnesses with -- to insure his protection +from law enforcement that they not answer these +specific questions. And thus, the opinions and +beliefs of all of these witnesses that we are +an Alesander Gallo Company +Facinie: 361. 99.2621 +alm Beach Gardens, FL 3341 +ww.esquiresolutions.co + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 14 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +69 +alleging associated with this criminal enterprise +are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to the +discovery of admissible evidence. And if you're +still instructing the witness, based on that +proffer, not to answer any of these questions, I'm +going to continue to ask the questions and you can +instruct him not to answer and we can go to the +court. +MR. REINHART: My response is to his opinion +whether people making allegations in this case are +colluding or making up a story is irrelevant to +what you just said. So I am going to instruct him +not to answer any question that goes to his opinion +of someone else's motivation or the truth of facts +to which he has no knowledge. +So yes, I'm instructing him not to answer. +MR. CRITTON: Let me add in my part, is that I +think -- you're certainly not only capable to ask +questions with regard to what his personal +knowledge is, and if he knows something or he has +reasonable basis for it; certainly you are entitled +to that information. I think you've asked those +questions and he's given you straightforward +answers as to what he knew or what he didn't know +under those circumstances. And as to what his +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 +aa Alexasder Gallo Campany + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 15 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +70 +thoughts are on something which he has no factual +basis or even an assumption to know one way or +another is irrelevant. That's ultimately for a +fact-finder in this case. +While it's interesting, it's argumentative and +I don't think he's -- I mean, do it on a +question-by-question basis. If he has knowledge, +that's great, but to argue your case with this +witness or any other witness doesn't serve a +purpose and I think is, you know -- I think it's +not a good use of our time, I'll put it that way. +But you know, you can go ahead and ask. +MR. I +1: I can ask the question and if +the witness is being instructed not to answer, +we'll let a judge decide whether he needs to answer +the question and whether it's discoverable or not. +MR. REINHART: Absolutely. Make your record. +BY MR. +l. Do you have any reason to believe that Jeffrey +Epstein engaged in sexual activity with underage women? +A. I have no reason to believe. +Q. Okay. +So as you sit here today, based on your +18 years of knowledge, experience and observation of +Jeffrey Epstein, is it your belief that he has not had +sex or engaged in sexual activity with underage women? +an Alexander Galla Company +Facine: 36. 9-2621 +Palm Bad Ching, 35000 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 16 of +71 +A. It's an opinion, and I believe that he has +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +not. +l. Okay. Isn't it true that at some point in +time you learned that Jeffrey Epstein has -- strike +that. +MR. CRITTON: When you ultimately get to a +good place to break, will you let us know? +MR. +: Let's break now. +(A break was had at 11:28 a.m.) +BY MR. +All right. Eighteen years of being a pilot +for Jeffrey Epstein and in terms of being able to name +somebody that you would say you've observed with Jeffrey +Epstein and would classify that person as Jeffrey +Epstein's friend, can you name anybody? +A. Nadia, Sarah; just people that we see +routinely on the airplane. +l. That's people you see routinely in the last +five to ten years, right? +A. Yes. +e. Prior to that time, anybody that you've +noticed as Jeffrey Epstein's friend may be Ghislaine +Maxwell? +A. +What time frame? +l. Is that a person that at some point in time +a= Airxander Gallo Company +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 +Facsimile: 561.394.262: + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 17 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +72 +you would classify as Jeffrey Epstein's friend? +A. I would classify it. I don't know if it's +true. +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +l. But that's only because they were on the +airplane together? +A. +Yes. +l. Do you know what Jeffrey Epstein does for a +living in your 18 years of observing and talking with +Jeffrey Epstein? +A. NO. +l. No idea? +A. NO. +e. Ever asked him? +A. No, actually. +l. Ever been curious? +A. Sure. +l. Ever done anything to satisfy that curiosity? +A. If you mean Google it, not really, actually. +I mean, I really have not. +Okay. So in 18 years of traveling and being +the pilot and driving -- and taking this person, Jeffrey +Epstein, from one property in New York to New Mexico and +Florida and around the world, you have no idea what he +does in terms of how he makes money? +A. +No, sir. +an Alexander Callo Compasy +Fact mie: 36 3043621 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 +Page 18 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +73 +Q. I was produced this flight 1og -- tell me if +I'm using the wrong term. What is this called, this +book that I've been provided by Dave Rogers? +A. I've never seen that book. +Q. I'll let you see it. I don't know that it was +always in a book, so maybe that's why you haven't seen +it. Tell me what we're looking at. +A. +well, judging with the name at the bottom, +I +believe this is Dave's flight log, log book. +l. I didn't know if it was called a flight log. +A. Pilot 1og book, how's that? That's the +appropriate name. +l. It was marked as Composite Exhibit 1 in +Roger's deposition, as indicated by the exhibit sticker. +We'll mark it the same in your deposition as well. +MR. CRITTON: Why don't you refer to it as +his? +MR. +: Fine. +BY MR. +It's the pilot log book of Dave Rogers? +A. +Yes. +And the years provided in this book are 2002 +through 2005; I can represent that to you. I'm going to +ask you about certain people that David Rogers wrote +down as being on the airplane and I want to ask you if +*s Alezaader Gallo Company +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 +Palm as Co CA, 5800 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 19 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +74 +you know who they are. This person right here is o +It seems like she flew on numerous flights. Do +you know who that is? +A. No. I heard the name, but I don't know who +that is. +l. All right. Is that somebody that you remember +seeing on any of the flights that you were on? +A. What year are we talking about here? I don't +remember. +l. Well, this is January 2002. You'd probably +know how to read this book a little bit better than me, +so I don't know. +A. He keeps his a lot more current, so I know the +name. If she walked in here right now, I would probably +look right through her, to be honest. +l. Do you know what affiliation or relationship +she had with Jeffrey Epstein? +A. NO. +l. Okay. There are various - - each row I'm told +by David Rogers is a different flight and it indicates +where it takes off from and where it lands, et cetera. +There's a lot of other information, especially over on +this side of the page that I'm not familiar with, nor do +I need to be. +A. Right. +an Alexander Galle Company +Facile: 361.394.327 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 20 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +75 +l. But it's evident that the plane is being used, +at least for this time period, January of 2002 through +2005, on a fairly regular basis. I mean, we're looking +at January 6th, 11th, 13th, 13th, 14th, right? +A. +Uh-huh. +Q. I mean, is that something that you would say +accurately reflects the amount of use of Jeffrey +Epstein's planes? +A. +Yes. +So he travels quite frequently? +A. Yes. +e. And he travels with many different people, +right? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: Yes. +MR. CRITTON: Can I ask one question? I was +wondering what happened, who has possession of now +what's the original Exhibit No. 1 of Mr. Rogers' +deposition? Did you retain it? +MR. REINHART: The actual book itself? +MR. +The court reporter took it, +right? +MR. CRITTON: The one marked as an exhibit, +did you keep that? +MR. REINHART: This is it. +*= Alexander Gallo Company +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 21 of +1 +2 +3 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +76 +MR. +This is it? +MR. CRITTON: Who took it from the deposition +the other day? +MR. 1 +I have this one right now. +MR. REINHART: That's the only copy? +MR. +Okay. +MR. CRITTON: +So you took the original? +MR. +Apparently. It has the original +sticker. +MR. CRITTON: When I say "the original, " the +original copy. Would you have someone recreate +what you've got and send it to us so we have it? +MR. +Sure. In fact, why don't I wait +until I get the whole thing and I'll copy all the +pages and send it to you instead of piecemeal. +MR. HOROWITZ: You mean before the transcript +comes? +MR. +|: We can copy it. +MR. CRITTON: If you give it to me, I'1l copy +it and send it back to you. +MR. REINHART: I have a copy. It just doesn't +have the exhibit sticker on. +MR. MAN: That's what was told to me the +other day, that's why I took it. +MR. CRITTON: I want something -- I just don't +Toll Free: 866.709.8771 +acsimile: 561.394.262: + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 22 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +77 +want to -- if you give me a copy, I'll put a +sticker on it. +MR. REINHART: Or just copy the page that has +the exhibit sticker on it. +MR. CRITTON: Sorry. +BY MR. +A. +l. Like on this flight, we have "JE." +I'm +assuming that's Jeffrey Epstein, correct? +Yes, I'll assume. +"GM, " Ghislaine Maxwell, right? +A. +Yes. +"SK," +A. I would assume. +l. I mean -- okay. And then this name, do you +recognize that person, Alexia? +A. +Never heard it. +And then +? +A. +e. +A. +Yes. +You've heard that name? +I've heard the name. +Not sure who that is, though? +A. +No. +l. There's only one, two, three, four, five, six +people on that flight? +A. +Uh-huh. +as Alexander Gallo Compasy +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 23 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +78 +l. That's pretty typical of the amount of +passengers that you would have on a flight? +A. It varied, sure. +Q. Okay. But it varied between -- if we look a +few lines down, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell +were the only two passengers. Certainly there were +flights like that as well, right? +A. Mm-hmm. +e. And so it varied from having one or two people +to six or seven people, right? +A. Yes. +l. What's the most people that you remember +traveling on any of Jeffrey Epstein's airplanes? +A. Iwenty-five. +l. Okay. That would be a rarity, wouldn't you +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +say? +A. +• yeah. +l. Because I've looked through this log. I +haven't seen any place where there were 25, but there +are lines that have maybe eight or nine people listed. +A. Right. +Q. Let's +see. +There's a flight from +January 15th -- sorry, January 17th, January 20th and +January 22nd of 2002 that all had +I. That +doesn't serve to refresh your recollection as to who +an Alexander Galle Company +Fact mie: 36. 30-3621 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 24 of +79 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +that is, does it? +A. No. +l. Okay. Do you know what the purpose of her +being on the airplane flight along with Jeffrey Epstein, +Ghislaine Maxwell and +would be? +A. NO. +l. Okay. Do you know how it comes about that +gets on that flight? How does she even know +there's a flight available? +A. I don't know. +2. All right. Well, let's go down to somebody +that we may all know a little bit better. February 9th, +2002, there's a flight that has Bill Clinton, four +Secret Service agents and then instead of listing names +or initials or anything else, it's just listed as two +males, one female, Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, +and I forget who Dave Rogers told me "AP" +is. +Do you remember who that is? +A. No. +l. Okay. Either way, how is it that someone like +Bill Clinton gets on a Jeffrey Epstein flight? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: I don't know. +BY MR. +Q. +an Alexasder Callo Company +Do you know before the flight takes off that +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 25 of +80 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +Bill Clinton's going to be a passenger on the flight? +A. Yes. +l. And how do you know? How do you get that +information? +A. The day before I'd get a phone call from, say, +Sarah saying we're leaving tomorrow going to wherever, +and sometimes she'll say who's going, sometimes she +won't. On a case where President Clinton would be on +board, we would put a little extra catering on board or +do that little extra TLC to the aircraft. +l. If it's leaving -- this says it's leaving from +MIA and where is it landing? +A. HPN I believe is MI Plains. +e. okay. Do you remember that flight? +A. I remember being on it. +2. Well, I mean, if you look through here, +obviously you had Bill Clinton on the airplane ten or +twenty times, right? +A. Yeah. He's my main focus. I remember him +being on the aircraft, sure. +2. Do you remember him being on the airplane with +younger girls? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: No. +an Alexander Galls Company +Fastene: 301-399.621 +4440 PGA Boulevar +Palm Beace Caressions com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 26 of +81 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. +l. Okay. Do you know what his relationship was +with Jeffrey Epstein? +A. NO. +2. Do you know if they were friends? +A. Assuming. +I. But you're assuming why? Just because he's on +his plane? +A. Yeah. +e. Okay. So you assume that the people that are +listed on here are friends of Jeffrey Epstein's and +that's why they are riding on his plane? +A. I'm speculating. +e. I'm just not familiar with the -- because I've +never been on a private flight - - with the manner in +which you go about getting on one of these flights. I +mean, you have to, I guess, know that Jeffrey Epstein +has a plane, that it's going from a destination that you +are at and want to go to, and that it's available and +those kind of things. Can you tell me, enlighten me -- +A. +well, it's not publicly offered, no. It would +be no different than you jumping in your car and knowing +you're going to the mall. I mean, it's not public +information, you know, where planes are coming to and +from, and you don't put your name out there to get +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 +45 Alexander Gailo Company + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 27 of +82 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +onboard a flight. +l. Does Jeffrey Epstein charge these people as +passengers? +A. I don't know. +l. Okay. Are these people such as Bill Clinton, +does that mean that Bill Clinton called +somebody affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein to get on the +plane or that Jeffrey Epstein called Bill Clinton and +asked do you want a ride? +MR. CRITTON: Form; predicate. +THE WITNESS: I have no idea. +BY MR. +: +No idea? +A. No idea whatsoever. +l. Joe Pagano, do you know who that is? +A. Yes. +I. What's his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, +or what was it back in February -- sorry, March 17th of +2002, when he and +• and Jeffrey Epstein and +Todd and one female were on this flight? +A. +I don't know to what extent or what his +relationship is. He just was a passenger on the +airplane. +e. Okay. And the next day -- sorry, two days +later on the 19th of March, Bill Clinton flies again, +| Alexander Callo Compan +Fact mie: 361. 04-3621 +1440 PGA Bute ard + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 28 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +83 +this time with Doug Band, three Secret Service agents, +Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and +you remember that flight? +A. +Where did we go? +l. Starts in JFK. +A. Right. +Q. Where is that? +MR. CRITTON: Do you have a date? +MR. +: March 19th, 2002. +THE WITNESS: EGGW I believe is Luton, +England. +DO +BY MR. +Okay. Do you remember flying to England? +A. I do remember flying to England. I just don't +remember that trip. What airplane were we in? We were +in the Boeing. +e. Do you remember the purpose of the trip? +A. +No. +l. Do you know who Doug Band is? +A. I heard he's Clinton's, how would you say, +assistant. I mean, I've seen that in the newspaper, +seen it on CNN. +e. Okay. Did you ever hear that Doug Band and +Ghislaine Maxwell were together, even for a day or a +night? +1] Alexaader Gallo Company +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 +ww.esquiresolutions.com + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 29 of +84 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. NO. +l. Did you ever hear that Doug Band and Ghislaine +Maxwel1 were the people attributed to introducing Bill +Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: I don't know. +BY MR. +l. +All right. There's another flight here on +January -- I can't read this upside down. Maybe it says +May -- +A. Looks like. +e. +-- 22nd, 2002. Again, with President Bill +Clinton, Janice, Jessica. Can you tell me who Janice +and Jessica are? +A. I don't remember. +2. Would you know them if you saw them? +A. Probably not because the names don't even ring +a bell. +l. All right. And then there are plenty of +flights, many of flights where Jeffrey Epstein, +Ghislaine Maxwell and | +are the primary +passengers, or at least are some of the passengers on +the flights, correct? +A. Mm-hmm, yes. +l. And still, as you sit here, you being the +Facile: S61. 394-3621 +ww.esquiresolutions.com + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 30 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +24 +25 +85 +pilot of these flights, you're not sure what their +relationship is or whether any of them were socially +connected in any real way? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: No. When you're flying the +airplane, there's a lot more going on than +passengers' relations. +BY MR. +All right. You remember this person, +are you familiar with her at all? +A. +I remember the name, that's it. +l. What do you think her relationship is to +Jeffrey Epstein? +A. No idea. +MR. CRITTON: What date are you on, Brad? +MR. +• sorry. I am at June 21st, +2002. +BY MR. I +: +That's not somebody that you specifically +remember? +A. +Mm-mm, no. +No? Is that somebody that you think was a +regular flyer for any period of time in Jeffrey +Epstein's life? +A. +Not a regular. +sa Alexander Gallo Company +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 +Palm Beace Gure to come + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 31 of +86 +l. Okay. Jean Luc Brunel, is that a name that +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 A₴ +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +you know? +A. Yes. +l. How do you know that name? +A. Only because it's a unique name and his attire +is very unique. So you remember certain things. So I +know he who that is. +2. Do you know what he does? +No. +l. Do you know his association with Jettegri +Epstein, if any? +A. No, I don't know what the relationship is. +e. Have you ever heard of him owning or running +or managing a modeling company? +A. I have seen that in the paper a few years +back. +l. Okay. Other than seeing it in the paper, have +you ever talked to Jean Luc Brunel or Jeffrey Epstein +about owning or running or managing a modeling company? +A. No. +l. Do you know if Jeffrey Epstein's affiliated +with the modeling company that's owned, run or managed +by Jean Luc Brunel? +A. +No, I have no idea. +l. And seeing that this is a flight now, that +exander Gallo Company +Toll Free: 866.709.877 +acsimile: 561.394.2621 +4440 PGA Boulevar + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 32 of +1 +2 +3 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +87 +we're referring to the same flight on June 21st of 2002, +that includes Jean Luc Brunel, +Jeffrey +Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, +• those are the +passengers of this flight, does that serve to jog your +memory as to who +is? +A. No. I mean, you see how frequently we fly. I +mean, it's -- the passengers in the back are so far +removed from an operation of commanding an airplane like +that, it's nothing that sticks in your head. +l. And you as the pilot, is there any way that +you would know what's going on in the back of the +airplane? +A. No. My concerns are all on the cockpit. +MR. CRITTON: Brad, the last one that you +mentioned, was that the same date, June 21st, '02? +MR. +: Yes. +BY MR. +2. There's another name here that I was going to +ask you do you know. June 23rd, 2002, +are you familiar with that name? +A. +No. +l. Also on the same flight with Jean Luc Brunel. +That doesn't help to jog your memory either, right? +A. +No. +e. +That's somebody that you remember as a +Toll Free: 866.709.8771 +acsimile: 561.394.262 +a Alexander Galle Company + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 33 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +frequent passenger? +88 +referring to? +A. +No. +e. Dr. Jareck heraldy that you +remember flying? +A. I know the name. +He may have been on the +airplane once or twice. I'm guessing only. +l. Do you remember meeting him? +A. Yes, I have met him. +e. Do you remember his purpose for being on the +airplane? +A. No, sir. +l. Amanda Venaro, do you remember her purpose for +being on the airplane? +A. NO. +MR. REINHART: Can we get a date? +MR. +•: I was asking him if he +remembered Amanda Venaro. I wasn't referring to a +specific flight. +BY MR. +.. +e. +You don't remember her being on the flight? +A. +I don't remember the name. +l. Me showing you the flight isn't going to jog +the memory? +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 +an Alexasder Gallo Company + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 +Page 34 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +89 +A. +No. The name that would launch it first -- +MR. CRITTON: Could I ask you a question? You +have the original exhibit marked at the deposition. +It looks like it's been highlighted. +MR. EDWARDS: I highlighted it. +MR. CRITTON: +• okay. So you've highlighted +the original exhibit that's marked for the +deposition? I just want the record to reflect +that. +MR. +: Yeah. +MR. CRITTON: Okay. Thank you. +MR. +: At the time I highlighted it I +didn't realize I was holding on to the original +exhibit. I didn't realize that until you just +pointed that out. +MR. CRITTON: I've noticed that. +MR. +: So now when I give it to you, +I'm giving you my work product as well. I don't +see how this works against you, but anyway. +BY MR. +is that a name that you +remember? +No. +e. +Okay. And then Jean Luc Brunel is solfebads +who I noticed flew relatively frequently, so is that why +all Free: 866.709.87 +icsimile: 561.394.26: +as Alexasder Gallo Company + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 35 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +90 +you - that name jogs your memory a little better than +some of these other people? +A. He dresses uniquely. +O. In what way? +A. Just loud ¿lothes, so something that you would +remember, that's all. +e. Do you know his role in Jeffrey's life? +A. NO. +l. Ever heard that he is affiliated with Jeffrey +Epstein because they both have a sexual attraction to +underage girls? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: You're making an assumption on +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +that. +BY MR. +Have you ever heard that? +MR. REINHART: He's asked you if you ever +heard that. +BY MR. +: +Q. +If your answer is no, it's no. +A. +I'm sorry, I thought foundermey did. No, I +have not. +Okay. I keep highlighting this name, +just because it 100ks like somebody that's +regularly flying on the airplane. But the more that you +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 +Facsimile: 561,394.262: +se Alexander Callo Company + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 36 of +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +91 +see her name, that doesn't change your opinion as to +whether or not you remember her or what -- +A. I remember the name, you know, that's all. +e. Do you remember about what age she was when +she was flying on the airplane? +A. NO. +l. This could be somebody who is 50 years old or +ten years old, for all you know? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: Yes. +BY MR. +e. +okay. +A. I mean, I would only be guessing at an age. +e. Yeah, but I mean, you don't remember her at +all. So you don't -- +A. I remember the name, exactly. +e. Other than the name? +A. Right, yes, sir. +l. But you can't even come close to putting a +face with that name? +A. "I mean» no. I mean, if you said draw her +picture with +-- I couldn't come close to even getting +it. +Okay. You remember this flight where +President Clinton, Kevin Spacey and Chris Iucker, +as Alexander Gallo Compazy +Fact mie: 36. 9-3627 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 37 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +92 +Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell? +A. Yes. +Q. From JFK to what is this, LPAZ? +A. LPAZ, that is -- +Q. South Africa or something? +A. No, it's the Azores Islands, Santa Maria. +l. Do you know the purpose of that trip? +A. That was a fuel stop. +l. okay. And do you know why Chris Tucker and +Kevin Spacey were on that airplane? +A. No. +l. Did you talk to them? +A. They came up in the cockpit and said hello. +So they conversed, nothing more. +2. Another name that is on here a few times, I'm +specifically referring right now to the dates of +September 23rd and 24th of 2002, is Ron Burkle. Do you +know who that is, Ron Burkle? +A. I know what that is, yes. I didn't realize he +was on our airplane. +l. Right now that is the first time that you +remember Ron Burkle being on your airplane? +A. Yeah. +l. You don't know the purpose for him being on +that airplane? +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 +Palm Beach Gar pens, FL 33410 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 38 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +93 +A. No. Granted, I'm seeing this for the first +time, so I'm trying to -- +2. Let me ask you that. Because this was given +to me at a deposition of Dave Rogers, who I understand +was the chief pilot for Mr. Epstein, and now you're the +cheap pilot, but you always kind of worked in tandem, +correct? +A. +Sure; we complemented each other. +e. And you both worked for the same company that +flies Jeffrey Epstein's airplanes, right? +A. Yes. +l. So I was of the presumption, which may have +been -- I may have been misled here, or I may have, you +know, misunderstood the purpose behind this book or how +it was created. I thought that you had probably seen +this before at some point in time? +A. +• no. +e. +Did you know that Dave Rogers was keeping this +book? +A. +No. I know he keeps a pilot log book. +e. +okay. But you didn't know he was keeping the +names of the people who were on the airplane? +A. +No. It's not required, so I mean, it's... +e. +So today is the first time that you are +Learning that the names of the people that are on the +in Airzander Gailo Compray +oll Free: 866.709.877 +simile: 561.394.26: +Paim Beach Gardens, FL 33410 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 39 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +94 +airplane was kept by Dave Rogers? +A. +Yes, in his log book. +l. Okay. And it's my understanding when you fly +back into the country through Customs, you have to +report the people that are on the airplane, right? +A. Yes. +l. And who would create that document or call +that information into Customs? +A. Whoever the captain was for the day. +e. At times would that be you? +A. Yes. +l. Okay. And at times when you would come into +the country with passengers -- well, not at times. +Didn't you also have to report their date of birth? +A. Sure. +l. At times weren't there also people that you +would bring in from other countries into the United +States that were under the age of 18? +A. Yes. +e. And at some times those were flights that +included Jean Luc Brunel and girls that were under the +age of 18, right? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: I don't remember those flights. +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 40 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +95 +BY MR. +Okay. You don't remember which flights it +would have been where there would have been girls under +the age of 18? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: Well, I would have to look at +the flight logs. +BY MR. +l. It's not illegal to have somebody under the +age of 18 on a flight anyway, right? +A. No, not at all. +l. Were you ever aware that you, as pilot, were +transporting girls under the age of 18 who were supposed +to be models? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: I had no knowledge. +BY MR. +Okay. You never knew who the people on the +airplane were, what their purpose was, their role with +Jeffrey Epstein or Jean Luc Brunel? +A. +No. +e. +All right. Do you know +? +A. +No, I don't remember that name. +A. +I remember the name. +aa Alexander Galle Company +•ll Free: 866.709.877 +csimile: 561.394.26: +ww.esquiresolutions.con + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 41 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +96 +2. She flew frequently at least for a period of +time. Do you remember that? +A. Yes. +l. Is that somebody that you thought was familiar +with the modeling industry or related to the modeling +industry? +A. No. +l. Okay. And these people, did Jeffrey Epstein +ever tell you how he was associated with any of them? +A. NO. +l. Did you ever wonder how he was associated with +any of them? +A. No, never interested. +Q. And on several of these -- on most of these, +the names or initials of the people that are on the +flight are listed. Do you know on the occasions where +it lists generically two females or three females or six +females, do you know why that was done? +A. Just because we didn't know our -- the +person's name. We tried to do the best we could to keep +the records. +When you say "we tried to do the best that we +could" -- +A. +Dave and I. +l. Okay. But the first time that you learned +an Alexandar Gallo Company +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 42 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +97 +that he kept anybody's names was today, right? +A. Well, I didn't know he kept them in his log +book. We would fill out the passenger manifest as +we're -- having passengers' names in your pilot 1og +book, he's probably the only person in the world that +does that. +e. Okay. +A. So when you were mentioning putting the names +down, when you said female or male, you know, I was +referring to the passenger manifest. +2. For each of these same flights, then, that +we're referring to out of this log book that was marked +as Composite Exhibit 1 in Dave Rogers' deposition, am I +understanding you correctly, then, there would also be a +passenger manifest for each of these flights? +A. Yes. +2. Now, where would I find the passenger +manifest? Who keeps that documentation? +A. +Corporate -- our corporate office. +Q. +Which is whom? +A. +Up in New York, Darren Indyke. +At what corporation is that, though? +A. +NES, LLC, I guess. +MR. REINHART: Do you know for sure? +THE WITNESS: I don't know for sure. I mean, +an Alexander Callo Company +Fact mie: 36. 304-3627 +Palm Bad Carding, 3000 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 43 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +98 +when you say -- we would just send them up to New +York. +BY MR. +e. Did you ever keep a copy of them? +A. NO. +l. Why did you keep a passenger manifest? +A. Just for tracking of -- to have the times on +there for -- +MR. REINHART: Can I confer with him on one +thing before you ask a question? +MR. +: Yeah, yeah. +(Off the record discussion.) +MR. REINHART: Mr. +• let him amend his +prior answer. I think he misunderstood the +question. +MR. +: I don't know what question we're +amounting the answer to. +MR. REINHART: Let me clarify this way: As +the passenger manifests, they are corporate +documents of either JEGE or Hyperion Air, whatever +company owns the plane. Mr. Visoski has physical +custody of them. He retains them but they're not +his documents. They're the corporate documents. +So they're not in New York. +THE WITNESS: Those are the ones that I have +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 +www.esquiresolutions.con + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 44 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +99 +at the airport office that I had turned into +counsel that has the passenger names on them. +24 +25 +BY MR. +e. +Okay. +A. It's called a passenger manifest. +e. Okay. +MR. REINHART: Right. +BY MR. +l. The passenger manifest, just so I understand +exactly what that is, tell me. Tell me in your own +words. +A. It's departure time, the city, the landing +time exactly and the passengers that would have been on +that flight. +l. And at times on that passenger manifest would +you list also generically female or male? +A. Yes. That was the document I was referring to +stating that if we didn't know a person, we did not go +out of our way to find out a name. We just put in to +account for how many people were on the aircraft at that +time. +e. +Who is currently in the custody or control -- +sorry. Who currently maintains or has possession of the +passenger manifest from 1998 through the present, +through today for those airplanes that you flew related +Toll Free: 866.709.877: +acsimile: 561.394.262 +aa Alexander Gallo Company + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 45 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +100 +to Jeffrey Epstein? +A. I currently have, which counsel has now, 2005, +I believe, until the present time. And the records +previous to that I believe +were turned into counsel with +the previous investigation with Jack Goldberger's +office, I believe. I believe they maintain those +records. +l. When you say "turned into counsel, " there are +a lot of counsel involved here. +A. Jack Goldberger's office, I believe. +l. When you say "the previous investigation," +you're talking about the criminal investigation? +A. Exactly, yes, sir. +Q. And you're aware in that criminal +investigation, obviously, that Jeffrey Epstein pled +guilty to certain charges, correct? +A. +From what I read, yes. +Q. Well, you did visit him in jail, right? +A. +Yes. We didn't talk about that. +Okay. You know in order to go to jail, +though, you have to be convicted of some crime, right? +MR. CRITTON: Form; argumentative. +THE WITNESS: Yes. +BY MR. +e. +It wasn't like he was visiting the jail and +Toll Free: 866.709.8771 +an Alexander Gallo Compasy + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 46 of +1 +2 +3 +101 +you were visiting and you happened to bump into each +other. You actually went to see him while he was an +inmate in jail? +A. Right, yes. +l. okay. So when we're talking about the +criminal investigation, we're talking about the criminal +investigation revolving around the allegations of +Jeffrey Epstein engaging in sex acts with minors? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. +That's the criminal investigation you're +talking about, right? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: I don't know the full definition +of really what happened there. I know that it was +something to do with solicitation of prostitution. +That's all I read. +BY MR. +e. +Okay. Were you aware that the allegations +revolved around underage girls or girls under the age of +18? +MR. CRITTON: +Form. +THE WITNESS: I was aware it revolved around +it, yes. +as Alexaade: Gallo Campazy +oll Free: 866.709.877 +acsimile: 561.394.262 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 47 of +102 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. +e. Who first made you aware of that? +A. The newspaper. +e. Were you ever questioned by the police? +A. I don't know who questioned me, actually. I +did have a questioning session, but I don't even +remember who questioned me. +l. Where did that take place? +A. I don't remember. +l. At your house? +A. No. I'm thinking it was Jack Goldberger's +office, or it may have been downtown at the Palm Beach +County Courthouse or something in that area there. +l. Okay. So it either happened at an attorney's +office that represented -- +A. Exactly, yeah, I think so. +l. - Jeffrey Epstein or the other side? +A. Yeah. +l. And during that questioning, is that when you +turned over the passenger manifest from prior to 2005? +A. +Yes. +Q. +And you turned those manifests directly over +to Jack Goldberger? +A. +Yes. +Actually, I believe Dave Rogers did +that. I wasn't in possession of those records. +a3 Alexander Gallo Company +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 48 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +103 +e. And for the passenger manifest prior to 2005, +how far do those passenger manifests go back in time? +A. They should go back, I guess, to 1991 or +whenever we started existence. +l. And did you turn them over from 1991 all the +way through to 2005? +A. I don't know. I didn't turn them in. Dave +Rogers did. +l. Are you in possession of a copy of any of +those materials? +A. +No. +l. I thought that, you know, ten minutes ago when +we were talking about this you said you had them back at +an office or -- +A. That was the office, the airplane office, +which I've given to Bruce, which is the current log. He +is in possession of them now. I had possession of them. +Okay. What he's in possession of -- just so I +know what documents are where, he's in possession of the +passenger manifests from 2005 through the present? +A. +Correct. +If I want to obtain the passenger manifests +from 1998 through 2005, that's something that I would +request from whom? +THE WITNESS: Help me out. That's -- +a Alexaade: Gallo Company +Toll Free: 866.709.8771 +acsimile: 561.394.2621 +Paim Beach Gardens, FL 33410 + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 49 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +23 +24 +25 +104 +MR. REINHART: If you know. +THE WITNESS: I don't know who possesses them +right now. They were turned into Jack Goldberger's +office a year and a half or two years ago. +BY MR. +You started out by indicating that you sent +these passenger manifests, or a copy thereof, to Darren +Indyke or someone at NES, ILC; is that correct? +A. Correct. +l. If I requested them from NES, LLC, that's +somebody at some point in time was in possession of all +the passenger manifests? +A. Sure. +e. And NES, LLC's address is the one you gave me +at 301 East 66th Street? +A. I believe so. I don't know what address +they're using for that. I know that -- +But Darren Indyke's the attorney that I would +call -- +A. +direction? +A. +Yes, sir. +- and he could probably steer me in the right +yes. +MR. CRITTON: Form. +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 +Sulte 600 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 50 of +105 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +BY MR. +Q. +Do you know Amy Taylor? +A. Yes. +l. How do you know her? +A. +She was on the airplane. +l. How old is she? +A. I have no idea. +e. +Age range? +A. +Iwenty-eight. +Q. Now? +A. Yeah, 28, or maybe if not older now. She was +probably 28 probably, I guess. She was somebody in her +late 20s. +l. So we're talking about 2003? That's what I'm +trying to understand. +A. I'm guessing. +e. We're talking 2009 now. We're saying 28. By +that do you mean in 2003 she was 23 or 24 years old? +A. You're having me guess on her age. +Q. Yeah. +A. +I mean, I can't be accurate. +e. +Somebody between 18 and 25? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +BY MR. +At the time you were seeing her back in -- +oll Free: 866.709.871 +simile: 561.394.26 +an Alezander Gallo Company + + +Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 51 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +106 +A. If you want me to guess -- +l. No, I don't want you to guess. +A. I don't know then. +l. Well, if I say between ten and fifty? +A. That's a range. +Q. It I say between ten and fifty, you're not +guessing there anymore. You know she's in there, right? +A. +She's in the middle there, yeah. +l. Okay. How can we narrow that down? We're +talking about somebody in her 20s? +A. In her 20s. +I. At least that's what you believed? +A. Yes. +l. All right. Is that somebody that you know to +be associated or friendly with Ghislaine Maxwel1? +A. I don't know. +l. Do you know what her relationship was to +Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwel1? +A. No. +e. Do you know where she is now? +A. +No idea. +e. +When's the last time you talked to her? +A. +I don't know. +What date do you have on there? +February 2003. +A. +So, probably that long ago. I may have said +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 52 of +107 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +hello. +l. That's somebody who was on the airplane +multiple times? +A. More than once. I mean, I have no account for +how many times. +Well, I've asked you about a bunch of names, +most of which you don't really remember, but that's one +name you do remember. +A. Yeah, I remember the name, yeah. +l. Okay. And that's somebody who you actually -- +you would remember the face too? +A. I might remember Amy's face. +2. All right. Do you remember why she would have +ever been on your airplane? +A. No idea. +l. President Andres Postrana, at the time I guess +that was the president of Colombia back in February -- +sorry, March 20th of 2003. Do you know who that is? +A. I don't remember him being on the airplane, +but I know who that is. +Q. +Okay. He's on the airplane with Jeffrey +Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, | +and Jean Luc +Brunel? +A. +• Alexasde: Callo Compasy +Where did we go? +I'11 let you 100k at it. I'm talking about +Toll Free: 866.709.877 +acsimile: 561.394.262 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 53 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +24 +25 +108 +this line, PBI, left out of Palm Beach? +A. Palm Beach to Nassau. +I'm sorry, I don't +remember that one. +e. When we're saying we're going down to Nassau, +is that a place that you frequently went to with the +airplane? +A. No, not at all. +l. And is that a route that you would take for +the ultimate destination to be Little St. James? +A. NO. +l. If the ultimate destination was Little +St. James -- show me a flight where the ultimate +destination was Little St. James. +A. Yeah, right here. TIST, that's st. M +l. okay. So on that flight that you just pointed +to, March 27th, 2003, we have Jeffrey Epstein, Hi +again, Brent Tyndall +-- do you know +who Brent Tyndall is? +A. Yes. +And who is that? +A. I believe he was the chef. +l. And Magale Blanchen (phonetic), is that +somebody you know to be a model these days? +A. I have no idea. +l. Do you remember that flight? +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 +an Alexander Galle Company + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 54 of +109 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +A. NO. +l. Do you remember Naomi ( +picking her up +from st. +along with Jean Luc Brunel? +A. I remember her being on board. I don't +remember the flight. +2. Do you know Joel Pashcow? +A. Yes. +e. How do you know him? +A. +He was on the airplane. +e. And is that somebody you knew at one point in +time to be a friend of Jeffrey Epstein's? +A. He was on the airplane. I don't know what the +relationship was. +l. Do you know what the relationship is today? +A. No idea. +2. How about Todd Mister, do you know what that +relationship is or was today? +A. NO. +e. Do you remember him? +A. +No. +Not at all? +A. +e. +A. +I mean, I know the name. I don't know. +Paula Epstein, do you know who that is? +Yes. +Who is that? +#a Alexasder Gallo Campany +Toll Free: 866.709.8771 +acsimile: 561.394.262 +4440 PGA Boulevaro + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 55 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +24 +25 +110 +A. That's Jeffrey's mom. +l. She's passed away? +A. +Yes. +l. At least that's your understanding, right? +A. That's what I heard, yes. +l. Okay. Tila +, do you know her? +A. Tilal +• I know the name. +e. Somebody who flew on the airplane with some +regularity? +A. Yes. +Maxwell or | +l. And do you know her to be friends of Ghislaine +or Jeffrey Epstein? +MR. CRITTON: Form. +THE WITNESS: I have no idea who she was +friends with. +BY MR. +All right. Do you know what role she ever +played, if she played one, in Jeffrey Epstein's life? +A. NO. +All right. Glenn +, are you familiar with +him? +A. +Yes. +e. +How do you know Glenn +A. +I met him on the airplane. +l. Outside of the airplane, have you ever seen +ader Gallo Company +Toll Free: 866.709.8771 +acsimile: 561.394.2621 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 56 of +111 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +him around Jeffrey Epstein? +A. +No. +l. All right. +A. +No. +do you know that name? +A. No. +l. She was on several flights. +You don't +remember seeing her? +A. +No. +l. All right. And how about Alan Dershowitz, I'm +sure you know who that is? +A. +Sure. He's famous. +e. What was your understanding of Alan +Dershowitz's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein? +A. Never talked about it. +l. Forrest Sawyer, do you know why he was on your +airplane? +A. +Never heard the name, actually. +e. +Really? +A. +No. +e. +Larry Summers? +A. +I know the name. I don't remember flying him. +Have you ever talked to Joe Fontanela? +A. +Yes. +How do you know him? +as Alezaader Gallo Company +Toll Free: 866.709.877 +acsimile: 561.394.262: + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 57 of +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +112 +A. He usually drops Jeffrey off at the airport. +l. In fact, you've called him directly before, +right? +A. +Yes. +l. You still have his number? +A. I haven't -- yes, I think I still got it in my +memory. +Q. okay. What is it? +A. It's been a few years. (917)945-7500. It's +kind of an easy one. +MR. CRITTON: 917 is the first -- +THE WITNESS: Yes. +MR. CRITTON: Who was this for? +MR. REINHART: Joe, Joe Fontanela. +MR. +: Fontanela. +BY MR. +e. +Do you know his address, where he resides? +A. No, I don't. +2. Do you know if he -- what his role is in +Jeffrey Epstein's life? +A. +Not really. He just -- he drove the car. +l. He drove what car? +A. +The car up in New York. +okay. Do you know if he's a housekeeper up at +that house up in New York? +an Alexander Gella Company +Toll Free: 866.709.8777 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 387-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2009 Page 58 of +october 15, 2009 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +113 +A. I don't know what his role is. +l. Have you ever worked for a company called Air +Ghislaine? Do you know that company? +A. Yes. +e. Do you know what that company does? +A. NO. +e. +Have you ever been an employee of that +company? +A. +No. +e. Do you know who runs that company? +A. +No. +l. Is Jeffrey Epstein associated with that +company? +A. +I don't know. +e. How have you heard of that company? +A. It's the company name that our registration +for the helicopters is under, Air Ghislaine. +l. Is that somebody who's ever paid you, a +company who's ever paid you? +A. +No. +Do you know Igor Zinoviev? +A. +Yes. +e. +How do you know him? +A. +Met him on the airplane. +What is your understanding of his affiliation +Toll Free: 866.709.877 +acsimile: 561.394.262: +a0 Alexander Gallo Compazy \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d719827f7269f82a2b0cdcb05bfcedd98dc7c6accca4d2e6eb30866b27fc886f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d719827f7269f82a2b0cdcb05bfcedd98dc7c6accca4d2e6eb30866b27fc886f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2c5d41457ada288d526b537758bb53622a5a3b97 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d719827f7269f82a2b0cdcb05bfcedd98dc7c6accca4d2e6eb30866b27fc886f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -6910, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d719827f7269f82a2b0cdcb05bfcedd98dc7c6accca4d2e6eb30866b27fc886f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 59, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "a3fd9b3de4745e9b0eaa8fefbf9433f2320ebfbca10c0cb6cfcbfb154d805873", + "output_sha256": "6411a76015bbd1415b9817a5c51fcd0088c198a0b5424cd158ceb337d6959acc", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d763ff3ae5ed707148483f047bff3543c34c4d9c0933c2bed858e9270a614087.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d763ff3ae5ed707148483f047bff3543c34c4d9c0933c2bed858e9270a614087.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dc5fa801caa8337fa27a4301f100b76998723aa6 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d763ff3ae5ed707148483f047bff3543c34c4d9c0933c2bed858e9270a614087.md @@ -0,0 +1,137 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff +CASENO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08080119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, +08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +NON-PARTY, JEAN LUC BRUHNEL'S RESPONSETO PLAINTIFF +JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR +AN ORDER TO COMPEL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Non-party Jean Luc Bruhnel hereby files his Response to Plaintiff, Jane Doe's Motion +for an Order to Show Cause and for an Order to Compel and Incorporated Memorandum of Law +which was filed on March 10, 2010. (DE#483). Plaintiff's counsel seeks to compel Mr. Bruhnel, +| citizen who is not a party to the instant action, to sit for a deposition that was canceled +and for which he has never been re-noticed. This motion is premature at best, and frivolous. +While visiting New York, Mr. Bruhnel was served with a Subpoena and Notice of +Videotape Deposition in this matter.' As a courtesy, undersigned counsel for Mr. Bruhnel +' Please see Exhibit A, annexed hereto and incorporated by reference. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 2 of 6 +agreed to produce Mr. Bruhnel for deposition in Florida on November 3, 2010 for the +convenience of the parties because Mr. Bruhnel had plans to travel to Florida at that time. The +videotape deposition was accordingly canceled. Two new deposition notices were then e-mailed +to counsel for Bruhnel, both of which emanated from related cases in Florida Circuit Court, with +no additional notice emanating from the instant matter before this Court. ^ That scheduled +deposition was then canceled by agreement of the parties, who mutually agreed that plaintiff's +counsel's secretary would call counsel for Mr. Bruhnel to reset the deposition. +Neither plaintiff's counsel nor his secretary called to reschedule the deposition until +January, 2010. In the intervening time, all depositions in the myriad related matters had been +canceled, upon information and belief, due to the scandal involving plaintiff's counsel's previous +law partner. Further, Mr. Bruhnel had left the United States with no firm plan to return, which +was conveyed to plaintiff's counsel during a telephone conversation in January. +Mr. Bruhnel's counsel attempted to secure firm dates on which Mr. Bruhnel would be +traveling to the United States, but was unable to do so. Undersigned counsel accordingly +informed planitiff's counsel that she could not secure any firm dates. When plaintiff's counsel +insisted that Mr. Bruhnel provide deposition dates, plaintiff's counsel was informed that Mr. +Bruhnel could not be compelled to return to the United States. Undersigned counsel told +plaintiff's counsel that there were appropriate mechanisms through which he could secure Mr. +2 Please see Exhibit B, annexed hereto and incorporated by reference. +-2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 3 of 6 +Bruhnel's testimony abroad pursuant to Florida, Federal and International law. Indeed, +undersigned counsel directed plaintiff's counsel to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the +Hague Convention, each of which provide specific mechanisms for the securing of testimony +abroad. +Plaintiff's counsel has never served Mr. Bruhnel or undersigned counsel with a re-notice +for deposition since the cancellation of the prior scheduled depositions, and has never attempted +to avail himself of proper legal procedures to secure Mr. Bruhnel's testimony abroad. Further, +contrary to plaintiff's counsel's Certification to this court, plaintiff's counsel never conferred +with undersigned counsel for Mr. Bruhnel regarding the instant Order to Show Cause and for an +Order to Compel. +MEMORANDUM OF LAW +As stated above, the previously scheduled depositions were canceled by agreement of the +parties herein and Mr. Bruhnel has never been re-noticed for deposition. The motion currently +before the court is therefore premature and frivolous. Regardless, it is respectfully noted that the +Court lacks authority to compel Mr. Bruhnel to return to the United States for deposition. +Indeed, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically decline to confer upon the Court the +power to compel foreign nationals to appear before it. See Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 45, 28 USC +$ 1783. +The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the Hague Convention, however, have each +-3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 4 of 6 +adopted procedural rules to facilitate the deposition of a non-party foreign national. Indeed, The +Uniform Foreign Depositions Act, as adopted by Florida in section 92.251 ("UFDL") provides +a road map for litigants seeking to secure evidence from foreign non-party witnesses, stating: +(2) Whenever any mandate, writ or commission is issued out of any court of record in any +other state, territory, district, or foreign jurisdiction, or whenever upon notice or +agreement it is required to take the testimony of a witness or witnesses in this state, +witnesses may be compelled to appear and testify in the same manner and by the same +process and proceeding as may be employed for the purposes of taking testimony in +proceedings pending in this state. +§ 92.251 Florida statutes. +Thus, whenever a Florida litigant desires to depose a witness residing in another state, +that litigant must first secure the appointment of a commissioner from the court where the +litigation originates. See Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 507 So.2d 1180 (Fla 2" DCA 1987), at 1183. +The foreign litigant may then apply to the court having personal jurisdiction over the witness for +the process necessary to secure the attendance of the witness. Id. (citing Travelers Indem. Co. v. +. 388 So.2d 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)). See Greenlight Financial Services, Inc. v. Union +America Mortg., Inc., 971 So.2d 983 (Fla. 3" DCA 2008). This may be done through mechanisms +provided via The Hague Convention, to which France is a signatory. Given that several cases are +currently pending in Florida Circuit Court that are related to the instant matter, plaintiff may +avail herself of this mechanism to secure Mr. Bruhnel's testimony, but has chosen not to. +Accordingly, there has been no malfeasance herein by Mr. Bruhnel or his counsel, only +nonfeasance by plaintiff's counsel. +-4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 5 of 6 +Plaintiff's counsel has misrepresented to this court that he spoke to Mr. Bruhnel's +counsel about this motion prior to filing it with the Court. Undersigned counsel for Mr. Bruhnel +was never notified in any manner that any such motion was being prepared or filed. +Plaintiff's counsel has further misrepresented to this Court that undersigned counsel for +Mr. Bruhnel stated that Mr. Bruhnel, "has been out of this country since prior to the New Year +with no plans to return." In fact, undersigned counsel has consistently told Plaintiff's counsel +that she was unaware of Mr. Bruhnel's travel schedule and that she did not know when Mr. +Bruhnel planned to return to this country. +WHEREFORE, JEAN LUC BRUHNEL, a non-party to the instant matter, and +undersigned counsel for Mr. Bruhnel, respectfully request that the Court DENY plaintiff's +Motion for an Order to Show Cause and an Order to Compel in its entirety. Mr. Bruhnel and +undersigned counsel further respectfully request that the Court impose sanctions and attorney's +fees incurred in the defense of Plaintiff's frivolous motion, and for whatever further relief this +Court deems appropriate. +Dated: March 12, 2010 +Respectfully submitted, +TAMA BETH KUDMAN, P.A. +Attorney for Non-Party Witness, Jean Luc Bruhnel +777 South Flagler Drive +Suite 800 - West Tower +-5- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2010 Page 6 of 6 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 515-6032 +Fax: +(561) 828-0210 +E-mail: Tama@tkudmanlaw.com +By: s/ Tama Beth Kudman +TAMA BETH KUDMAN +Fla. Bar No.: 0637432 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on March 12, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document +with the clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day on all parties identified via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated +by CM/ECF. +-6- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d763ff3ae5ed707148483f047bff3543c34c4d9c0933c2bed858e9270a614087.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d763ff3ae5ed707148483f047bff3543c34c4d9c0933c2bed858e9270a614087.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..47ddca61a1d193b0ef6bdecd54c5210f9f71787c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d763ff3ae5ed707148483f047bff3543c34c4d9c0933c2bed858e9270a614087.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d763ff3ae5ed707148483f047bff3543c34c4d9c0933c2bed858e9270a614087", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4b4b7b98f6613beae87f9a349d4187e855ddf3bdca2174df71b86ed6aa0c7a9d", + "output_sha256": "aa625e649d31b0f83bba06489a1405789a61127d10876191906787a3da1e9ed8", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7684d01f2da247ea7697a9b4851e63ee4e9a13ef60807a6bc81f40713fa45f4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7684d01f2da247ea7697a9b4851e63ee4e9a13ef60807a6bc81f40713fa45f4.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0cbcd022b23dcce8c124645e45203fbb25de2147 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7684d01f2da247ea7697a9b4851e63ee4e9a13ef60807a6bc81f40713fa45f4.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 412 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2009 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO +EXTEND PRETRIAL DEADLINES IN CASE 08-80893 +THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for an Extension +of Time to Complete Trial Deadlines (DE 361), filed October 20, 2009. In his Motion, Defendant +suggests that the parties are not able to comply with the deadlines in the Court's scheduling order +for this case (Jane Doe 08-80893) and proposes new deadlines for experts, discovery, substantive +pretrial motions, and mediation. The Court seeks Plaintiff Jane Doe (08-80893)'s position regarding +Defendant's Motion. Accordingly, it is hereby +ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff Jane Doe (08-80893) shall file a response to + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 412 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2009 Page 2 of 2 +Defendant's Motion on or before Monday, November 23, 2009. +DONE AND ORDERED in +Florida, this 16" day of November, 2009. +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies to: +all counsel of record +2 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7684d01f2da247ea7697a9b4851e63ee4e9a13ef60807a6bc81f40713fa45f4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7684d01f2da247ea7697a9b4851e63ee4e9a13ef60807a6bc81f40713fa45f4.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ddd5255d568b9ae213234753063d1a90014772dc --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7684d01f2da247ea7697a9b4851e63ee4e9a13ef60807a6bc81f40713fa45f4.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d7684d01f2da247ea7697a9b4851e63ee4e9a13ef60807a6bc81f40713fa45f4", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "eb46f790f305ade4bfa74a7453c2440da31de228a49705846f3b599e234ede7d", + "output_sha256": "6adcf9cd04da57f187954c184a86fc303ff1018cc8065679c34b3d368a143917", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d795192211005db271d254bbf53f2c7e5cecbb18484ee55ff0a7dade47d91622.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d795192211005db271d254bbf53f2c7e5cecbb18484ee55ff0a7dade47d91622.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..feec977a481083ec049e6638587ab7d790a479db --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d795192211005db271d254bbf53f2c7e5cecbb18484ee55ff0a7dade47d91622.md @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 56 +Sanders LLP +Troutman Pepper +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +troutman.com +Mary +W. Metcalfe +marygrace.metcalfe@troutman.com +Filed 07/16/20 Page 1 of 2 +troutman™ +pepper +July 16, 2020 +VIA ECF +The Honorable Debra C. Freeman +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +Daniel +Moynihan Courthouse +500 Pearl Street +New York, NY 10007 +Re: Jane Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as +executors of the Estate of Jefferey E. Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell, +No. 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF +Dear Judge Freeman: +We represent Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as Co-Executors +of the Estate of Jefferey E. Epstein (the "Co-Executors"), in the above-referenced action. +We write in response to the letter counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe, Robert Glassman, filed +yesterday afternoon (Doc. 54). Mr. Glassman's letter is, as counsel for Ms. Maxwell +stated in an email yesterday, "very premature." It also misrepresents what occurred. +As evidenced by the email chain submitted herewith as Exhibit A, last Friday, July +10, 2020, counsel for Co-Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, who had only appeared in this +action a day earlier, asked the parties to meet and confer, among other things, to set new +dates for Mr. Indyke's deposition and all other discovery dates and deadlines set before +her appearance. +Moreover, and as we promptly advised Mr. Glassman, shortly after we agreed to +commence our rolling document production earlier this week, we realized that the Parties +have yet to agree upon a confidentiality order, which must occur before we produce +documents that refer to the Plaintiff, who filed this case anonymously, by her real name. +That is for Plaintiff's benefit. The terms of the confidentiality order will also be discussed +during the Parties' upcoming meet and confer call. +As indicated in the attached email chain, rather than discuss the confidentiality +order or advise us that he thought we were mistaken about counsel for Ms. Maxwell's +request, Mr. Glassman instead chose to immediately burden the Court by filing his letter + + +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 56 Filed 07/16/20 Page 2 of 2 +July 16, 2020 +Page 2 +troutman? +pepper +shortly before the parties are supposed to speak about discovery. In any event, counsel +for Ms. Maxwell has since then expressly confirmed that we were correct in our +understanding, stating: "That is correct. I understand that we were having a call tomorrow +to discuss a number of scheduling issues, including scheduling depositions ... Let me +know if you all still want to have a discussion or not, given Mr. Glassman's very +premature letter to the court." (See Ex. A at p. 1. (emphasis added).) +As for Mr. Glassman's contention that the Co-Executors are violating their +discovery obligations, it bears mentioning that he filed his letter only after weeks of our +attempts to have him remedy various discovery deficiencies in Plaintiff's discovery +responses. We have sent Mr. Glassman letters detailing Plaintiff's discovery deficiencies. +By contrast, Mr. Glassman has not met and conferred with us about many of the issues +he raises in his letter to Your Honor. We do not intend to burden Your Honor with any of +these discovery issues if they can be resolved among the parties. However, the meetand-confer process is far from complete now that Ms. Maxwell has appeared in this action. +Based on the foregoing, Counsel for the Co-Executors requests that the Parties +be given the opportunity to finalize a confidentiality order and new discovery schedule +that is agreeable to Ms. Maxwell's counsel, produce those documents that are not in +dispute (something that can be done promptly after entry into the confidentiality order), +and finish meeting and conferring so as to narrow the remaining issues in dispute as +much as possible before seeking the Court's assistance. +Respectfully submitted, +s/ Mary +Mary +W. Metcalfe +W. Metcalfe +CC: All Counsel (via ECF) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d795192211005db271d254bbf53f2c7e5cecbb18484ee55ff0a7dade47d91622.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d795192211005db271d254bbf53f2c7e5cecbb18484ee55ff0a7dade47d91622.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..478ffe5e2a37a3580ff48a9d2ab3aa4e66d5730b --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d795192211005db271d254bbf53f2c7e5cecbb18484ee55ff0a7dade47d91622.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -26, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d795192211005db271d254bbf53f2c7e5cecbb18484ee55ff0a7dade47d91622", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "711732fd0ae6cf5b423abd98b282a65c54be5e4d272420a5a1d819280c21281e", + "output_sha256": "f15752b00fadf33542ad1c6796266f9645e4c198b5d46f2c5b12b2b9f6cd6254", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d799b27e8a6bc526c3b20b6871ea414ee5353a8ddc5c8370e5bca73e4e621531.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d799b27e8a6bc526c3b20b6871ea414ee5353a8ddc5c8370e5bca73e4e621531.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8deaf517ef919a9d547fcf31e0f781ea511d914d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d799b27e8a6bc526c3b20b6871ea414ee5353a8ddc5c8370e5bca73e4e621531.md @@ -0,0 +1,99 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 09-CIV- 80469 - MARRAL| +JANE DOE II, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant. +DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE +LIMITATION FOR DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS & SUPPORTING +MEMORANDUM OF LAW DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, moves +to exceed the page limitation of 20 pages imposed by Loc. Gen. Rule 7.1. C. 2. (S.D. +Fla.), in his memorandum of law in support of his motion to dismiss directed to Plaintiff +JANE DOE Il's Complaint [DE 1], filed March 25, 2009. In support of his motion, +Defendant states: +1. Local Gen. Rule 7.1 C. 2. provides in part that absent prior permission of the +court, no party shall file any legal memorandum exceeding 20 pages in length. +Defendant is in the process of preparing his motion to dismiss and supporting +memorandum of law directed to Plaintiff's Complaint, (which is due by an extension to +May 6, 2009), and the legal memorandum will exceed the 20 page limitation. It is clear +based on the issues raised in Plaintiff's Complaint that in excess of 20 pages is required +to fully and adequately discuss the issues raised in moving to dismiss Plaintiff's action. +2. The issues being addressed include but are not limited to constitutional law +issues and what version of 18 U.S.C.A. §2255 applies to this action, and the meaning of +§2255 with respect to the cause of action created and the presumptive minimum + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009 Page 2 of 3 +Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. +Page 2 +damages amount imposed. (It is Defendant's position that the 2006 amended version +does NOT apply to this action; rather, it is the statute in effect during the time of the +alleged conduct that apply). +3. Plaintiff's Complaint seeks to multiple the presumptive minimum damages +amount under 18 U.S.C. §2255 and references the 2006 amended version of the +statute, which most significantly increased triple-fold the presumptive minimum +damages amount imposed from $50,000 to $150,000. +4. A length exceeding 20 pages is required so that Defendant may fully address the +issues raised in Plaintiff's Complaint and in seeking dismissal thereof. Under the +constitutional guarantees of due process, including a fair and full opportunity to be +heard, and in the interests of justice so that the Court may render a fully informed +decision on the issue, Defendant is entitled to an order granting his motion to exceed +the page limitation. (Excluding endnotes, quoting statutory text and Complaint +allegations, it appears that Defendant's legal memorandum will be approximately 24 to +28 pages.) +5. As certified below herein, Plaintiff's counsel agreed to the request to exceed 20 +pages. +WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant Defendant's +motion, and enter an order allowing Defendant's legal memorandum in support of +dismissal of Plaintiff's action to be in excess of 20 pages. + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009 Page 3 of 3 +Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. +Page 3 +Rule 7.1 Certification +Pursuant to communication by telephone, Plaíhtiff's counsel has no objection to +the request to exceed 20 pages herein. +llul +Counsel for Defendant EPSTEIN +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following service list in the +manner specified via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF +on this -day of May, 2009: +Isidro M. +Esq. +Law Firm, P.A. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +561-835-8691 Fax +jagesq@betlsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +y: < +OBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESC +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bcclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Fax: 561-515-3148 +(Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d799b27e8a6bc526c3b20b6871ea414ee5353a8ddc5c8370e5bca73e4e621531.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d799b27e8a6bc526c3b20b6871ea414ee5353a8ddc5c8370e5bca73e4e621531.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cb057f47bb2c639fea9d082662ea5b4e4dc6b273 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d799b27e8a6bc526c3b20b6871ea414ee5353a8ddc5c8370e5bca73e4e621531.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d799b27e8a6bc526c3b20b6871ea414ee5353a8ddc5c8370e5bca73e4e621531", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "05970cedcee5f1644b11e0a68ababcfc6ee269b50c28e82d57c069bf9fdc3a3c", + "output_sha256": "0adec0a156d91b2b55c38f8beba0e99f1cb89bbe1b551187888e551ac54c6ba1", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7a5c58ef35a5367fd3957da08e6132fd010a9fed09dd5fd1af4781323d578ad.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7a5c58ef35a5367fd3957da08e6132fd010a9fed09dd5fd1af4781323d578ad.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..86d96f60c5b5364861df80ddd8b015b5e7df1f93 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7a5c58ef35a5367fd3957da08e6132fd010a9fed09dd5fd1af4781323d578ad.md @@ -0,0 +1,114 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 104 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/_ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/__ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 104 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 2 of 4 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/ +vS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +-2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 104 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 3 of 4 +DOE II, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102 +Plaintiff, +/ +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF LIMITED APPEARANCE +AS AMICUS CURIAE TO FILE RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER +REQUESTING POSITION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY [DE 99] +Comes now the United States, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States +Attorney, and makes this limited appearance to file via CM/ECF its response to the Court's +Order requesting the position of the United States on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to +Stay Proceedings [DE 99]. By filing this notice of limited appearance and its response, the +United States does not make itself a party to this litigation and takes no position with respect +-3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 104 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 4 of 4 +to the outcome of any of the civil suits. By filing this notice of limited appearance and +response, the United States also does not waive any procedural or statutory bars to suit. +Respectfully submitted, +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +By: +A. A +Villafaña +VILLAFAÑA +Assistant United States Attorney +Florida Bar No. 0018255 +500 East Broward Boulevard, 7th Floor +Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 +Telephone: 954-356-7255 +Facsimile: 954-356-7230 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 28, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. According to the Court's website, counsel +for all parties are able to receive notice via the CM/ECF system. +S/A. +Villafaña +A. +VILLAFAÑA +Assistant United States Attorney +-4- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7a5c58ef35a5367fd3957da08e6132fd010a9fed09dd5fd1af4781323d578ad.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7a5c58ef35a5367fd3957da08e6132fd010a9fed09dd5fd1af4781323d578ad.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0e8dc64ea1ab2f90790533a59fda03f964eb8302 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7a5c58ef35a5367fd3957da08e6132fd010a9fed09dd5fd1af4781323d578ad.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d7a5c58ef35a5367fd3957da08e6132fd010a9fed09dd5fd1af4781323d578ad", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ba612d9044eed9200b41a92581ec13fde8176f10cbe7530157b82d1777dcd508", + "output_sha256": "0b85d2e08fda0f1ef5b96f0aa9470aa7bbe413a7c91584880b5b26ce5dc42e6e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7b8059ee1a1744ebe7e38ebf862b10df20f971c590a75867c6f7e5c797451ce.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7b8059ee1a1744ebe7e38ebf862b10df20f971c590a75867c6f7e5c797451ce.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..980443b485be500c275b257f3f1b522a3133e8d2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7b8059ee1a1744ebe7e38ebf862b10df20f971c590a75867c6f7e5c797451ce.md @@ -0,0 +1,74 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-KAM-LRJ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN. +CASE NO.: 08-80232-CIV-KAM-LRJ +CASE NO.: 08-80380-CIV-KAM-LRJ +CASE NO.: 08-80381-CIV-KAM-LRJ +DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF FILING EXHIBITS +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein hereby files the following two exhibits to his Reply in Support +of Motion to Stay, filed under seal on July 28, 2008: +A. +Exhibit "A" is the July 9, 2008 Declaration of Assistant United States Attorney Ann +C. Villafana, previously filed by the United States in In re: Jane Doe, Case No. 08- +80736-CIV-Marra/ +(S.D. Fla.) (DE 14). +Teinr. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 2 of 3 +B. +Exhibit "B" is a copy of Title 18, United States Code, section 1595. +These exhibits were inadvertently omitted from the reply memorandum. +Respectfully submitted, +TEIN, P.L. +3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 +Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 +Tel: 305 442 1101 Fax: 305 442 6744 +By: +Is/ Michael R. Tein +GUY A. +Fla. Bar No. 623740 +MICHAEL R. TEIN +Fla. Bar No. 993522 +tein@lewistein.com +ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Tel. 561 659 8300 Fax. 561 835 8691 +By: Jack A. Goldberger +Fla. Bar No. 262013 +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +1 HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 29, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing +document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document +is being served this day on all counsel of record on the attached service list by transmission of +Notice of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. +Is/ Michael R. Tein +2 +Tein. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 3 of 3 +SERVICE LIST +Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +3 +Teinr. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7b8059ee1a1744ebe7e38ebf862b10df20f971c590a75867c6f7e5c797451ce.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7b8059ee1a1744ebe7e38ebf862b10df20f971c590a75867c6f7e5c797451ce.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2167ca219ec2ded6451ee55dae71b9628bb8792c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7b8059ee1a1744ebe7e38ebf862b10df20f971c590a75867c6f7e5c797451ce.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -214, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d7b8059ee1a1744ebe7e38ebf862b10df20f971c590a75867c6f7e5c797451ce", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "63bc8d42ba8a4e16ca4de8a31dc5e39979c1db661db0196fe06cc1ba28c5d58d", + "output_sha256": "de2b4ed249d5b9ce87500ab2c181b835c180ac33a460bd777215cba1ffb5a118", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7e703775b8ea7660bbb42f74086c32239d19fa1128e4c194765f637beb28fb6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7e703775b8ea7660bbb42f74086c32239d19fa1128e4c194765f637beb28fb6.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e3af5ead61f467fd82c5f5407fb7a236eab34fb5 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7e703775b8ea7660bbb42f74086c32239d19fa1128e4c194765f637beb28fb6.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 26 Filed 06/30/21 Page 1 of 1 +Troutman Pepper +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +Sanders LLP +troutman.com +troutman" +pepper +Bennet J. Moskowitz +bennet.moskowitz(@troutman.com +June 30, 2021 +VIA ECF +Hon. Debra C. Freeman +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +New York, NY 10007 +Re: +Jane Doe v. Darren I. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as +the Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF +Dear Judge Freeman: +Pursuant to the Court's July 13, 2020 Joint Stipulation and Order Staying Action +("Order") (ECF No. 13), Plaintiff and Defendants Darren _]. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, +Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, write to inform the Court that Plaintiff +desires to lift the stay of this action. +Pursuant to the Order, the parties have conferred and agree that Defendants shall +have 45 days after the stay is lifted to answer, move, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's +Complaint. Plaintiff will file a motion on or before July 23, 2021 if she wishes to proceed +anonymously. +Respectfully submitted, +/s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7e703775b8ea7660bbb42f74086c32239d19fa1128e4c194765f637beb28fb6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7e703775b8ea7660bbb42f74086c32239d19fa1128e4c194765f637beb28fb6.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..692c437c000304445ea6d583db342911a32a272c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d7e703775b8ea7660bbb42f74086c32239d19fa1128e4c194765f637beb28fb6.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d7e703775b8ea7660bbb42f74086c32239d19fa1128e4c194765f637beb28fb6", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "3ef0840c77f68fd918b0b000699159c13732caadae8749c78f53b9d575948876", + "output_sha256": "66f0b769136350d76daa5101188c8e3c588b6243f366ac95c1e6bfbb6c990ba5", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d825a29b6379f2de692e4c851e98eefc2cba4353c66f9edcf83d0171168be67e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d825a29b6379f2de692e4c851e98eefc2cba4353c66f9edcf83d0171168be67e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d609e35dd9cbd9f9da510048e3992f2b3ce2238 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d825a29b6379f2de692e4c851e98eefc2cba4353c66f9edcf83d0171168be67e.md @@ -0,0 +1,100 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2008 Page 1 of 4 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT +OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO +DISMISS AND FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2008 Page 2 of 4 +Plaintiffs, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4 and Jane Doe 5, by and through undersigned +counsel, file this Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendant's Motions to Dismiss +and for More Definite Statement, and state as follows: +1. +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein filed a similar Motion to Dismiss and Motion for More +Definite Statement (the "Motions to Dismiss") in each of the above-captioned cases, on October 6, +2008. Plaintiffs' response to the Motions to Dismiss under Local Rule 7.1 is presently due on +October 24, 2008. +2. +Plaintiffs seek an enlargement of time of five (5) business days, until October 31, +2008, to file their response to the Motions to Dismiss. This enlargement of time will synchronize +the response date to the Motions to Dismiss in the above-captioned cases with the response date to +the similar Motions to Dismiss filed in Jane Doe Nos. 6-7 v. Epstein, case nos. 08-80994-CIV-Marra +and 08- 80993-CIV-Marra, which is October 31, 2008. +Additionally, this request for enlargement of time is necessitated by Plaintiffs' +counsel's prior commitments and the demands of other cases and matters, including upcoming +discovery cutoffs in Jane Doe v. School Board of Broward County and Scavella, case no. 07-21367- +CIV-SEITZ, U.S. District Court, Southern District Court of Florida, and Doe v. Faerber, case no. 05-CV- +142-FTM-33DNF, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida. +4. +This Motion seeks a brief enlargement of time and is not brought for purposes of delay. +5. +Plaintiff has conferred with Defendant's counsel, Robert Critton, regarding this request for +enlargement of time, and he has no objection to this request. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests an Order granting an enlargement of time of five (5) +business days, until October 31, 2008, to file the Plaintiffs' response to the Motions to Dismiss. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2008 Page 3 of 4 +Dated: October 24, 2008. +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Jeffrey M. Herman +Jeffrey M. Herman (FL Bar No. 521647) +jherman@hermanlaw.com +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@hermanlaw.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 303-931-0877 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on October 24, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this +day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of +Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those +parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +s/ Jeffrey M. Herman + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2008 Page 4 of 4 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Michael R. Tein, Esq. +tein@lewistein.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Michael Pike, Esq. +mpike@belclaw.com +s/ Jeffrey M. Herman diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d825a29b6379f2de692e4c851e98eefc2cba4353c66f9edcf83d0171168be67e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d825a29b6379f2de692e4c851e98eefc2cba4353c66f9edcf83d0171168be67e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..abddca11f79a80656be7396ea75f6011882e56bd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d825a29b6379f2de692e4c851e98eefc2cba4353c66f9edcf83d0171168be67e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -48, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d825a29b6379f2de692e4c851e98eefc2cba4353c66f9edcf83d0171168be67e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "1826c97dfa33359155eed37d028dc352655b6792f1741264491774788659be14", + "output_sha256": "7e32f531ad24b2a4e5ed151a9b6861c9c5ef5027adf195423d667361229a9c75", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d89b414e495343d5f7f729911ee53a4455510a64edab40fe5d628ab00de3ae58.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d89b414e495343d5f7f729911ee53a4455510a64edab40fe5d628ab00de3ae58.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ca19631e4107c8267b4e71d5e8834b3358d66c6c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d89b414e495343d5f7f729911ee53a4455510a64edab40fe5d628ab00de3ae58.md @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 1 of 2 +IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR +PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA +CASE NO. 502008CA006596XXXXMB +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +and +Defendants. +AFFIDAVIT OF +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH +BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared +I, who after being first duly sworn, deposes and says: +My name is +2. I am and have been represented by McIntosh, Sawran, Peltz & Cartaya, P.A. +I was a Defendant in the case styled, Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein. +and +, Case No. 502008CA006596XXXXMB AB. +4. +I have read the document entitled " Plaintiffs Jane Does' 2-7 Notice of Joinder +in Plaintiffs' Jane Does 101 and 102's Motion for No-Contact Order." +5. +I am writing this affidavit in response to the statements within the motion that +refer to me. +I have not had any contact with Jeffrey Epstein since he was arrested. +7. +I have not been asked by Mr. Epstein or his attorneys to gather information +about Jane Doe 4 and Jane Doe 7. + +A +"A + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 262-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 2 of 2 +I am not being supported by Mr. Epstein nor did I say that to Jane Doe 4 and +7. +9. +Based on the statements within the motion, I can identify Jane Doe 7 and only +spoke to her when she and her boyfriend approached and confronted me at Dr. +Feelgood's. +10. +When Jane Doe 7 and her boyfriend confronted me, I told her that I could not +believe she was bringing a lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein, as I know that she +has taken money from a number of older men and even traveled to Chicago +with one of them. +11. Ialso told Jane Doe 7 and her boyfriend that I intended to tell the truth about +everything I know about her and what she has done with other men. +12. I will tell the truth about Mr. Epstein, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 7 or anyone else +that I am asked about. I resent any suggestion that I would lie to assist Mr. +Epstein. +FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT., +SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this 2ndday of July +(name of person), who is personally +no, to me or ley has produced fe Drive tense on +identification) as identification. +Cheme Hushes +SIGNATURE OF NOTARY +"Notary Pubie Stale affonda" +Charyt A Hughes +My Commission DD592524 +Expiras 09/06/2010 +PRINTED NAME OF NOTARY diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d89b414e495343d5f7f729911ee53a4455510a64edab40fe5d628ab00de3ae58.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d89b414e495343d5f7f729911ee53a4455510a64edab40fe5d628ab00de3ae58.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..45720fb1b99c8fa049c885e4f42f08e38886b974 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d89b414e495343d5f7f729911ee53a4455510a64edab40fe5d628ab00de3ae58.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -31, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d89b414e495343d5f7f729911ee53a4455510a64edab40fe5d628ab00de3ae58", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f34bfa7de08fabf26bd2e14d4f400210de91ab7f9f80cf7294b583fedfce312a", + "output_sha256": "fc751a5a2be240576be819b384660d16d662e4fdc2bdbaf3252f495c273882f1", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d89d94f6e776467cca3f97ca0673170e4475faac470403c72fc722779793e072.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d89d94f6e776467cca3f97ca0673170e4475faac470403c72fc722779793e072.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bfc2f64db552b3244c3d3a20ad699ca0854f1653 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d89d94f6e776467cca3f97ca0673170e4475faac470403c72fc722779793e072.md @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 57-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2008 Page 1 of 2 +U.S. Department of Justice +United States Attorney +Southern District of Florida +500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 +July 10, 2008 +VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL +Jeffrey Herman, Esq. +Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Re: +Jeffrey Epstein. +IDENTIFIED VICTIM +NOTIFICATION OF +Dear Mr. Herman: +By virtue of this letter, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District +of Florida asks that you provide the following notice to your client, +On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter referred to as "Epstein) entered a plea +of guilty to violations of Florida Statutes Sections 796.07 (felony solicitation of prostitution) +and 796.03 (procurement of minors to engage in prostitution), in the 15th Judicial Circuit in +and for Palm Beach County (Case Nos. 2006-cf-009454AXXXMB and 2008-cfcolowed by an ad and at senion to a perm of en, te nech y neive ments of +Community Control 1, with conditions of community confinement imposed by the Court. +In light of the entry of the guilty plea and sentence, the United States has agreed to +defer federal prosecution in favor of this state plea and sentence, subject to certain +conditions. +One such condition to which Epstein has agreed is the following: +"Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense +enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 57-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2008 Page 2 of 2 +JEFFREY HERMAN, ESQ. +NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIM +JULY 10, 2008 + +rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein +had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes +of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's +attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an +Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial +authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining +which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is +the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position +as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no +less." +Through this letter, this Office hereby provides Notice that your client, | +y is an individual whom the United States was prepared to name as a victim of an +enumerated offense. +Should your client decide to file a claim against Jeffrey Epstein, his attorney, Jack +Goldberger, asks that you contact him at Atterbury Goldberger and Weiss, 250 Australian +Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401. +Please understand that neither the U.S. Attorney's Office nor the Federal Bureau of +Investigation can take part in or otherwise assist in civil litigation; however, if you do file a +claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and Mr. Epstein denies that your client is a victim of an +enumerated offense, please provide written documentation of that denial to the undersigned. +Please thank your client for all of her assistance during the course of this investigation +and express the heartfelt regards of myself and Special Agents Kuyrkendall and Richards for +the health and well-being of L +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +By: +L VILLAFAÑA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY +CC: +Jack Goldberger, Esq. diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d89d94f6e776467cca3f97ca0673170e4475faac470403c72fc722779793e072.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d89d94f6e776467cca3f97ca0673170e4475faac470403c72fc722779793e072.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..80af215897586e17685a7b79bdedc5c8bdf3482c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d89d94f6e776467cca3f97ca0673170e4475faac470403c72fc722779793e072.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -37, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d89d94f6e776467cca3f97ca0673170e4475faac470403c72fc722779793e072", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "10aa70f6bd83fd0cc5fe11ec89673704348a3c2158b9ef5b628ca3d69c0ffab9", + "output_sha256": "b276d9b7364f931201067336c4433cfcbab3dfafbeb52aae56906b8303261b45", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d8a33dd061e1f6e6411b7762af34eaa76f3d98a3cb04e8683291a7e477685d76.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d8a33dd061e1f6e6411b7762af34eaa76f3d98a3cb04e8683291a7e477685d76.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5573d1098c955387c50f5d95a3e38c1dc7dad80f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d8a33dd061e1f6e6411b7762af34eaa76f3d98a3cb04e8683291a7e477685d76.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 36-1 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2009 Page 1 of 1 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 09-80656-MARRA/ +JANE DOE No. 102, +V. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Plaintiff, +Defendant, +ORDER +This matter came before the Court on Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S +Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time in Which to Serve a Responsive Pleading to +Plaintiff, Jane Doe 102's Complaint. Having considered Defendant's Unopposed Motion +and Plaintiff's counsel being in agreement with the requested extension, it is HEREBY +ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: +Defendant's Unopposed Motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall file a Responsive +Pleading to Plaintiff, Jane Doe 102's Complaint on or before August 20, 2009. +DONE and ORDERED this +day of July, 2009 +Kenneth A. Marra +United States District Judge +Courtesy Copies all counsel diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d8a33dd061e1f6e6411b7762af34eaa76f3d98a3cb04e8683291a7e477685d76.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d8a33dd061e1f6e6411b7762af34eaa76f3d98a3cb04e8683291a7e477685d76.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d67a58b52948f690ccfafa840ea5217c0c0033f4 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d8a33dd061e1f6e6411b7762af34eaa76f3d98a3cb04e8683291a7e477685d76.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d8a33dd061e1f6e6411b7762af34eaa76f3d98a3cb04e8683291a7e477685d76", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e9f227a4814f4f82fc07642bc71e3b684c8792edb2249398644990f64a5ab0a6", + "output_sha256": "2540c91739e3da0624047d50c51cc37d40a2506387c9fadc00f551894db08022", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d8df8d11b7f7758c8207f00d30248a2971315981a4505ad8fbe5047d7c1e0109.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d8df8d11b7f7758c8207f00d30248a2971315981a4505ad8fbe5047d7c1e0109.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0b124177da802a75b5c751476b54af5e26e1f81d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d8df8d11b7f7758c8207f00d30248a2971315981a4505ad8fbe5047d7c1e0109.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 33 +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +troutman.com +Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 1 +troutman™ +sanders +Bennet J. Moskowitz +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +March 30, 2020 +VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING +Hon. Debra Freeman +Daniel +Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +New York, NY 10007-1312 +Re: +Jane Doe v. Darren I. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as co-executors +of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF +Dear Judge Freeman: +We represent Defendants Darren I. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of +Jeffrey E. Epstein, in the above-referenced action. We write to request that you enter the +enclosed proposed scheduling order, to which Plaintiff Jane Doe has agreed. +Respectfully submitted, +/s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +Encl.: Proposed Scheduling Order diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d8df8d11b7f7758c8207f00d30248a2971315981a4505ad8fbe5047d7c1e0109.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d8df8d11b7f7758c8207f00d30248a2971315981a4505ad8fbe5047d7c1e0109.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..21533cb609420b17275861a756a1ca23fd882df8 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d8df8d11b7f7758c8207f00d30248a2971315981a4505ad8fbe5047d7c1e0109.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d8df8d11b7f7758c8207f00d30248a2971315981a4505ad8fbe5047d7c1e0109", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "588de8afb77232e6ba862b6fbd4079ddfcc91f3f698d7de0a837987a490efcb3", + "output_sha256": "8d34cb33697d4addfd8cea5de7cf17fc8b836e07fd2509c92a05339d70d124f3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d8f31db3b8ba8eb5b05cf0ea4d6bca22e647b30bc7984ac1cfe53a32a4b512ef.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d8f31db3b8ba8eb5b05cf0ea4d6bca22e647b30bc7984ac1cfe53a32a4b512ef.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d62b3039c5df6a0accdb603b410eb229ee6f103a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d8f31db3b8ba8eb5b05cf0ea4d6bca22e647b30bc7984ac1cfe53a32a4b512ef.md @@ -0,0 +1,888 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 303-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 1 of +22 +CURRICULUM VITE +Ryan C. W. +M.D. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 303-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 2 of +Updated 06/17/09 +TABLE OF CONTENTS +PRESENT POSITION +EDUCATION +MEDICAL LICENSE +CERTIFICATION +ADDITIONAL TRAINING +SOCIETY MEMBERSHIPS, PAST AND PRESENT +COMMITTEES +HONORS +PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES +REVIEWER +BOOK REVIEWS +PUBLICATIONS +ABSTRACTS +PRESENTATIONS AT NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS +AND INVITATIONAL ACADEMIC LECTURES +MEDIA +2 +2 +2 +3 +3 +3 +4 +4 +5 +5 +5 +7 +9 +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 303-10 +Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 3 of +NAME: +DATE OF BIRTH: +PLACE OF BIRTH: +MARITAL STATUS: +PRESENT POSITION: +07/2008 - +Present +Ryan Chaloner Winton. M.D. +May 10, 1976 +Titusville, Florida +Single +03/01/2008 - +07/31/2011 +03/03/09 - +06/30/12 +EDUCATION: +1995 - 1999 +Psychiatrist +Richard C. W. +1, MD, PA +2500 West Lake Mary Blvd; Ste 219 +Lake Mary, FL 32746 +Ph: 407-322-8199 +Affiliate Instructor +University of South Florida +Department of Psychiatry +Assistant Professor of Psychiatry +University of Central Florida College of Medicine +Department of Medical Education +1999 - 2003 +2003-2004 +2004-2007 +2007 - 2008 +Johns|||||| University +Baltimore, Maryland +Double Major - Biology and Psychology +B.A. Degree, graduated Phi Beta Kappa with honors +Georgetown University School of Medicine +Washington, DO +M.D. Degree +Internal Medicine Internship +Sinai Hospital of Baltimore/Johns|| +Baltimore, Maryland +lesideno +ohns ||||| Hospita +Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences +Baltimore, Maryland +Fellow in Forensic Psychiatry +Case Western Reserve University +Cleveland, Ohio + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 303-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 4 of +MEDICAL LICENSE: +2004 +2007 +2007 +CERTIFICATION: +2008 +ADDITIONAL TRAINING: +2006 +2007 +2008 +Maryland - D62746 - Inactive +Ohio - 89483 - Inactive +Florida - ME99792 +Diplomate, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, #58286 +Forensic Psychiatry Review Course +American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Chicago, IL +rena Paay i Can and the a Marmi Beach, FL +Florida Forensic Examiner Training +University of South Florida College of Behavioral and Community +Sciences, Ft. Lauderdale, FL +SOCIETY MEMBERSHIPS, PAST AND PRESENT: +Member, Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine +Member, American Psychiatric Association +Member, Maryland Psychiatric Society +Member, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law +Member, American Medical Association +Member, Ohio Psychiatric Association +Member, Florida Psychiatric Society +Member, Southern Psychiatric Association +Member, The American College of Psychiatrists +COMMITTEES: +2005 - 2007 +Public Relations Committee, Maryland Psychiatric Society +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 303-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 5 of +22 +2005 - 2007 +2005 - 2007 +2005 - 2007 +2007 - present +2007 - present +2007 - 2009 +2008 - 2009 +Legislative Committee, Maryland Psychiatric Society +Disaster Committee, Maryland Psychiatric Society +Resident and Fellows Committee, Maryland Psychiatry Society +Psychopharmacology Committee, American Academy of +Psychiatry and the Law +Research Committee, American Academy of Psychiatry and the +Law +Corresponding Committee on Graduate Education, American +Psychiatric Association +Member, New Member Task Force, Southern Psychiatric +Association +HONORS: +1999 +2004 +2005 +2005 +Phi Beta Kappa, Johns +University +"Superior" performance rating, 1st-year residency, by Sinai +Hospital Department of Medicine's Clinical Competency and +Evaluation Committee +Dorfman Award, presented by The Academy of Psychosomatic +Medicine for best review article of the year for Definition, +Diagnosis, and Forensic Implications of Postconcussional +Syndrome. Psychosomatics, 46(3):195-202, May-June 2005. +Rappeport Fellowship, American Academy of Psychiatry and the +PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES: +2008 +2009 +Written testimony on Elder Abuse in support of bills +HB873/SB501 +Criminal Law - Crimes Against the Elderly or +Persons with a +Disability - Penalties, presented to Maryland +House Judiciary +Committee for Delegate +Kramer, +District 19| +County, Maryland. Hearing March 4. +Central Florida Psychiatric Society representative to Florida +Psychiatric Society's Council Meeting, January 10. +4 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 303-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 6 of +2009 +Testified before the Florida Senate Banking and Insurance +Committee (SB 354) on Mental Health Parity. March 17. +REVIEWER: +-Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness +-Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience +-Nature Clinical Practice Neurology +-Social Science & Medicine +-World Journal of Surgical Oncology +BOOK REVIEWS: +1. Clark MR and Treisman GJ: Pain and Depression: An Interdisciplinary, Patient- +Centered Approach. Psychosomatics, July-August 2006, 47(4)365-366. +PUBLICATIONS: +1. RCW, Dunlap PK, RCW. +CA, Blakey RE, +J: Thyroid +disease and abnormal thyroid function tests in patients with eating disorders +and depression. The Journal of the Florida Medical Association, Inc. 82(3)187-192, +2. +6. +RCW +RCW: Anxiety and Endocrine Disease. In Popkin, MK, Seminars in +Clinical Neuropsychiatry 4(2)72-83, 1998 +Factors for Suicide in 100 Patients den Made Severe StA do Atonik +Psychosomatics 40:(1)18-27, 1999. +_RCW, +RCW: Fee-Splitting: Ethical Implications and Principles for +Practice Management. Transference 20(2)14, 1999. +RCW, +RCW: Long-term Psychological and Neurological Complications +f Lindane Poisoning. Psychosomatics 40(6)513-517, 1999. +RCW: False Allegations: The Role of the Forensic Psychiatrist. +Journal of Psychiatric Practice 7(5)343-346, September 2001. +5 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 303-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 7 of +7. +8. +9. +RCW, Hall RCW: Principles of Physician Recruiting. In Handbook of Mental +Health Administration and Management; Reid WH and Silver S (ed.): Brunner- +Routledge, New York, NY; Chapter 34:440-448, 2003. +RCW, +RCW, Chapman M: Identifying Geriatric Patients at Risk for Suicide +and Depression. Clinical Geriatrics 11(10)36-44, October 2003. +IRCW, +RCW: Establishing Liaison Before Disaster Strikes. +http://www.psych.org/disasterpsych/pdfs/apadisasterhandbk.pdf; Chapter 2:12-19. +2004. +10. +RCW, +RCW, Chapman MJ: Emotional and Psychiatric Effects of Weapons +of Mass Destruction in First Responders. In: Bioterrorism: Psychological and Public +Health Interventions; Ursano RJ, Norwood AE & Fullerton CS (eds). Cambridge +University Press:Cambridge; Chapter 14:250-273; 2004. +11. +RCW, Appleby B, +RCW: Atypical Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome +Presenting as Fever of Unknown Origin in the Elderly. Southern Medical Journal +1(98) 114-117, January 2005. +12. +RCW, +RCW, Chapman MJ: Exploitation of the Elderly: Undue Influence as +a Form of Elder Abuse. Clinical Geriatrics 13(2)28-36, February 2005. +13. +RCW, +RCW, Chapman MJ: Definition, Diagnosis, and Forensic +Implications of Postconcussional Syndrome. Psychosomatics, 46(3)195-202, May- +June 2005. +14. L +RCW, +RCW: Abuse of Supraphysiologic Doses of Anabolic Steroids. +Southern Medical Journal, 98(5)550-555, May 2005. +15. +IRCW, +RCW, Chapman MJ: Psychiatric Complications of Anabolic Steroid +Abuse. Psychosomatics, 46(4)285-290, July-August 2005. +16. +RCW, +RCW, Chapman MJ: Medical and Psychiatric Casualties caused by +Conventional and Radiological (Dirty) Bombs. General Hospital Psychiatry, +28(3):242-248, May-June 2006. +17. RCW. +RCW, Chapman MJ: Postconcussional Syndrome: A Work in +Progress (Response to Dr. +Letter to the Editor. Psychosomatics, 47(3):272, +May-June 2006. +18. +RoW, +_RCW, Chapman MJ: Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome in the +Elderly: Diagnostic Criteria, Incidence, Risk Factors, Pathophysiology, and +Treatment. (CME article) Clinical Geriatrics, 14(5):39-46, 2006. +19. +RCW, +RCW, Chapman MJ: Effects of Terrorist Attacks on the Elderly, +Part I: Medical and Psychiatric Complications of Bombings and Biological, +Chemical, and Nuclear Attacks. Clinical Geriatrics, 14(8):26-35, 2006. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 303-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 8 of +22 +20. k +RCW, i +RCW, Chapman MJ: Effects of Terrorist Attacks on the Elderly, +Part 2: Posttraumatic Stress, Acute Stress, and Affective Disorders. Clinical +Geriatrics, 14(9):17-24, 2006. +21. +RCW, I +RCW: Malingering of PTSD: forensic and diagnostic +considerations, characteristics of malingerers and clinical presentations. +General Hospital Psychiatry, 28(6):525-535, 2006. +22. +RCW, +RCW: A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of +Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues. Mayo Clinic +Proceedings, 82(4):457-471, 2007. +23. +RcW, +RCW: Detection of Malingered PTSD: An Overview of Clinical, +Psychometric, and Physiological Assessment: Where Do We Stand? Journal of +Forensic Sciences, 52(3):717-725, 2007. +24. +RCW, Macvaugh GS Ill, Merideth P, +J: Commentary: Delving +Further Into Liability for Psychotherapy Supervision. The Journal of the American +Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 35(2):196-9, 2007. +25. +RCW, Chapman MJ: Psychiatric Effects of Terrorism: Medical and +(e) ava Silences of ri hate 1, Piction tie. 3 uater Linden EV +26. +RCW, +RCW: The 1995 Kikwit Ebola outbreak - Model of virus properties +on system capacity and function: A lesson for future viral epidemics. American +Journal of Disaster Medicine, 2(5):270-276, 2007 +27. +RcW, +RCW, Chapman MJ: Central Serotonin Syndrome: Part I— +Causative Agents, Presentation, and Differential Diagnosis. Clinical Geriatrics, +15(12):18-25, 2007 +28. +RCW, +RCW, Chapman MJ: Central Serotonin Syndrome: Part II - +Pathophysiology, Drug Interactions, and Treatment. Clinical Geriatrics, 16(1):24- +28,2008 +29. +_RCW, Resnick PJ: Psychotherapy Malpractice: New Pitfalls. Journal of +Psychiatric Practice, 14(2): 119-121, 2008 +RCW, Chapman MJ: Violence in Older Persons: Part I - +currence in Forensic/Criminal Situations, Partner Relationships, and Sexual +Offenses. Clinical Geriatrics, 16(5):27-32, 2008 +31. RCW. +RCW, Chapman MJ: Violence in Older Persons: Part II - +Occurrence in Hospitals and Pharmacological/Behavioral Treatment of Agitation +Aggression and Violence. Clinical Geriatrics, 16(6):28-32, 2008 +7 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 303-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 9 of +32. +RCW, +RCW, Chapman MJ. The 1995 Kikwit Ebola outbreak: lessons +hospitals and physicians can apply to future viral epidemics. Gen Hosp +Psychiatry. 2008 Sep-Oct;30(5):446-52. Epub 2008 Jul 23 +33. +RCW, +SH: Drug Diversion Program Rights. Legal Digest. The +Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 36(4):579-580, 2008 +34. L +RCW, +RCW, Chapman MJ: Nursing Home Violence: Occurrence, Risks, +and Interventions. Annals of Long-Term Care, 17(1):25-31, 2009 +35. Paul RK, Lockey C, +RCW, Bursztajn H: Practice Management: Managing Risks +When Practicing in Three-Party Care Settings. Psychiatrictimes.com, 26(2), Feb. 3, +36. RCW, RCW, Chapman MJ: Letter to the Editor response re: Nursing Home +Violence: Occurrence, Risks, and Interventions) Annals of Long-Term Care, +17(1):25-31, 2009), Annals of Long-Term Care, 17(4):17-21, 2009. +37. RCW, RCW, Myers W, Chapman M: Testamentary Capacity: History, +Physicians' Role, Requirements, and Why Wills are Challenged. Clinical Geriatrics, +in press. +* Boldface indicates Ryan C. W.. MD +ABSTRACTS: +1. +•RCW, Hazard SC, Rcw, +CA, Blakey RE, +Disease in Eating Disordered and Depressed Patients. +J: Thyroid +-146th Annual Meeting, American Psychiatric Association, May 25, 1993, San +Francisco, CA, P.1.57 (Poster Session). +2. +Rcw, +DE, RCW: Suicide Risk Assessment: A Review of Risk +Factors for Suicide in 100 Patients Who Made Severe Suicide Attempts: +Evaluation of Suicide Risk in a Time of Managed Care. +- Psychiatric Practice and Managed Care, American Psychiatric Association, Vol. 5, +No. 5, P 12, Sept-Oct 1999. +3. +•RCW, Gould N, McCann U, McKibben J: The Role of Morphine in the +Development of Acute Stress Disorder and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in +Patients with Severe Burn Injury. +- 41 Annual Meeting, American Burn Association. San Antonio, TX, Mar 25, 2009. +8 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 303-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 10 of +22 +4. Gould N, McCann U, McKibben J, +RCW: Peri-traumatic Heart Rate as a +Predictor of Acute Stress Disorder and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder in +Patients with Burn Injury. +- 41" Annual Meeting, American Burn Association. San Antonio, TX, Mar 25, 2009. +* Boldface indicates Ryan C. W. +,, MD +PRESENTATIONS AT NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS AND INVITATIONAL +ACADEMIC LECTURES: +1. +RCW, Hazard SC, Dunlap PK, RcW, +CA, Blakey RE, +J: +Thyroid disease and abnormal function tests in patients with eating disorders +and depression. Poster Session - American Psychiatric Association Annual +Meeting, San Francisco, CA, May 25, 1993 +2. +RCW, +RCW: Management of Hostage Situations. Psychiatric Responses +to Trauma, U.S. State Department Conference on International Terrorism, hosted by +Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Washington, D.C., April 28, 1999 +3. +RCW, +RCW: Terrorism: Its Aftermath and Long-term Effects on +Survivors - A Consultation-Liaison Perspective -- Part I. Psychiatric Responses +to Trauma, U.S. State Department Conference on International Terrorism, hosted by +Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Washington, D.C., April 28, 1999 +4. +RCW, +RCW: Terrorism: Its Aftermath and Long-term Effects on +Survivors - A Consultation-Liaison Perspective - Part II. Psychiatric Responses +to Trauma, U.S. State Department Conference on International Terrorism, hosted by +Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Washington, D.C., April 28, 1999 +5. +RCW, +RCW, +DE: Impact of Managed Care on Suicide Risk +Assessment. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 1999 Annual Meeting, +Baltimore, MD, October 15, 1999 +6. +RCW, +RCW: Ethical Issues in Managed Care. American Psychiatric +Association, 1999 Ethics Workshop, Washington, DC, November 3, 1999 +7. RCW, | +RCW: Terrorism, Bioterrorism and Disaster - Aftermath and +Long-term Effects on Survivors. Cycle of Violence: Assessment and Management +of Aggression - A Mardi Gras Symposium, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, +February 26, 2000 +8. +RCW, +RCW: Bioterrorism - Dealing with Medical and Psychiatric +Consequences of Victims and Responders. Cycle of Violence: Assessment and +Management of Aggression - A Mardi Gras Symposium, Tulane University, New +Orleans, LA, February 26, 2000 +9. +IRCW, +RCW: Psychiatric Consequences of Terrorism, Bioterrorism and +9 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 303-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 11 of +22 +Disaster. Rocky Mountain Emotional Trauma Symposium, Pathways Treatment +Center, Kalispell, MT, June 29, 2000 +10. | RCW, +RCW: Suicide in an Era of HMO's and Managed Care. Rocky +Mountain Emotional Trauma Symposium, Pathways Treatment Center, Kalispell, MT, +June 30, 2000 +RCW, +RCW: Psychological Response to Disasters and Terrorism. +International Society of Political Psychology, 23rd Annual Scientific Meeting, Seattle, +WA, July 4, 2000 +12. 1 +RCW, RCW: Biological Warfare - Attack Scenarios, Response to +Terrorist Attacks, and Sources of Conflict. American Academy of Psychiatry and +the Law, Pre-AAPL meeting, Ireland, September 16-26, 2000 +13. | RCW, | RCW, Chapman M: Workplace Violence. American Academy of +Psychiatry and the Law, Pre-AAPL meeting, Ireland, September 16-26, 2000 +14. +RcW, { +RCW: Biological Warfare: Attack Scenarios and Public Health +Issues. Grand Rounds, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, +December 8, 2000 +15. +ROW, +RCW: Bioterrorism: A Short History of Biowarfare & Analysis of +the Threat. Grand Rounds, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, August 15, 2001 +16. +IRCW, +RCW: Situational Suicide. Halifax Medical Center, Daytona Beach, +FL, September 13, 2001 +17. +RCW, +RCW: Domestic Violence: The Physician's Role. Halifax Medical +Center, Daytona Beach, FL, September 14, 2001 +18. +RCW, +RCW: Terrorism, Bioterrorism and Assault with Anthrax as a +Biological Weapon. +-Florida Psychiatric Society, Fall Meeting, Coconut Grove, FL, November 4, 2001 +-Grand Rounds, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, +January 30, 2002 +19. +RCW, +RCW: Smallpox. Grand Rounds, Louisiana State University Health +Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, January 30, 2002 +20. +RcW, +RCW: Psychopharmacology - Forensic Risk and Clinical +Practice: Things the clinician must know. Apopka Community Health Center, +Apopka, FL, March 13, 2002 +21. +ROW, +RCW: Overview of Terrorism and Bioterrorism. Orlando Police +Academy, Orlando Police Department, Orlando, FL, August 2, 2002 +10 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 303-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 12 of +22 +22. HI ROW, +I RCW: Workplace Violence, School Shootings and Occupations +at Risk: Analysis of current data and psychological profiles. Orlando Police +Academy, Orlando Police Department, Orlando, FL, August 2, 2002 +23. I RCW +| RCW: Smallpox as a Biological Weapon. Orlando Police +Academy, Orlando Police Department, Orlando, FL, August 2, 2002 +24. RCW, +RCW: Smallpox as an Agent for Biological Warfare. Southern +Psychiatric Association Annual Meeting, Loews Ventana Canyon Resort, Tucson, +AZ, October 3, 2002 +25. RCW +RCW: Domestic Violence: The Physician's Role. Mandatory +Madness, Halifax Medical Center, Daytona USA, Daytona Beach, FL, December 14, +2002 +26. +- RCW, RCW, Chapman MJ: Workplace Violence, School Shootings and +Occupations at Risk: Analysis of current data and psychological profiles. +Orlando Police Department, Orlando, FL, February 11, 2003 +27. +I RCW, +RCW: Medical and Psychological Sequelae of Bombings: +Implications for First Responders and Critical Government Staff. Orlando Police +Department, Orlando, FL, February 11, 2003 +28. +RCW, +RCW: Domestic Violence: The Physician's Role. Florida +Psychiatric Society Spring Meeting, Orlando, FL, April 5, 2003 +29. +RCW, +RCW: Terrorist Bombings: Medical and Psychiatric Impact. +Southern Psychiatric Association's Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN, October 11, 2003 +30. +RCW, +University of Florida, +torida, Departient of Paychay, veting priatessor program +November 7, 2003 +31. +RCW, +RCW: Domestic Violence: The Physician's Role. Tampa Bay +Psychiatric Society, Tampa, FL, sponsored by Pfizer, January 29, 2004 +32. +| RCW, +RCW: Smallpox as an Agent for Biological Warfare. Orlando +Police Academy, Orlando Police Department, Orlando, FL, August 13, 2004 +33. +RCW, +RCW: Medical and Psychiatric Casualties of Terrorist Bombings. +Orlando Police Academy, Orlando Police Department, Orlando, FL, August 13, 200‹ +34. |||| RCW, +I RCW: Medical and Psychological Consequences of Bombings. +Grand Rounds, Tulane University, Department of Psychiatry, New Orleans, LA, +January 28, 2005 +35. +|| RCW, +RCW: Psychological Sequelae of Weapons of Mass Destruction +on First Responders. South Central Center for Public Health +11 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 303-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 13 of +22 +Preparedness/Alabama Department of Public Health, +, AL, Satellite +Conference, May 6, 2005 +36. I RCW, +RCW: Medical and Psychological Aspects of Terrorist +Bombings. Grand Rounds, Sinai Hospital, Department of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, +June 2, 2005 +37.|| RCW, +RCW: Managed Care Disrupting the Physician-Patient +Relationship: The New Realities. (Abbreviated version) Forensic Psychiatry +Fellows and Residents, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, January 24, 2006 +38. +| RCW, Chapman MJ: Managed Care Disrupting the Physician- +Patient Relationship: The New Realities. Presidential Address. Southern +Psychiatric Association, Baltimore, MD, September 30, 2006. +39. ||| RCW, RCW: When the System is Overwhelmed: Protecting the +Provider during Biodisaster. Satellite Conference, University of Alabama +Birmingham South Central Center for Public Health Preparedness/Alabama. +Department of Public Health/Tulane University School of Public Health, +AL, February 27, 2007. +40. +| RCW: Testamentary Capacity from Isaac Ray to Anna Nicole +. Grand +Rounds, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, +1. March 28, 2008 +41. | RCW, ||| RCW, Rundell JR, Winstead DK: Psychiatrists' Role in Disaster +Management: Lessons Learned. Course 14, American Psychiatric Association, +Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, May 3, 2008. +42. +RCW: Violence in the Elderly: Forensic and Treatment Concerns. Forensic +Forum, Florida Psychiatric Society, ChampionsGate, FL, September 20, 2008. +43. +RCW: Testamentary Capacity: From Isaac Ray to Anna Nicole +Southern Psychiatric Association, September 25, 2008. +44. +|| RCW: Testamentary Capacity: From Isaac Ray to Anna Nicole +Forensic Psychiatry Program, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, January 29, +2009. +45. | RCW, +RCW: Domestic Violence as Portrayed in Film - A Realistic +Appraisal? Florida Psychiatric Society, St. Petersburg Beach, FL, March 20, 2009. +46. |||| RCW, Silberman E, Preven D, Weissman S (chairperson): Indications for the +* Boldface indicates Ryan C. W +I. MD +12 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 303-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 14 of +22 +MEDIA: +1. Time Magazine, Definition, Diagnosis, and Forensic Implications of +Postconcussional Syndrome, May 16, 2005 +2. Reach MD Radio, Pedophilia. April 25, 2007 +3. MD Consult. Doug +.. Joint telephone interview with Richard C. W. +MD, +Pedophilia. May 2, 2007 +4. The Korean Broadcasting System, KBS Special, Pedophilia. March 11, 2008. +5. Tony Pipitone, WKMG-TV Channel 6, Mothers Who Kill Their Children. October +28, 2008. +6. J. L. +Orlando Medical News. Cyberchondriacs. November 13, 2008. +7. Fox 35 News, Orlando. Forensic Implications of +Anthony case. December +11,2008. +8. Fox 35 News, Orlando. The +Anthony Case: DNA Evidence. December 12, +2008. +9. Jessica +WKMG-TV Channel 6. The +Anthony Case: Baker Act +and Stressors. January 23, 2009. +10. Nam Nae Won and Jihyun Song. Korea Educational Broadcasting System. +Pedophilia. March 30, 2009. +11. Keith Landry, Fox 35 News, Orlando. Effects of Stress and Financial Strain. +June 15, 2009. +12. Heidi Hatch, Fox 35 News, Orlando. Effects of Stress on Families. June 16, 2009. +13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 303-10 +/Aus 8as8 9.68v -8017ig9RXn. Hocument 247-5 +Entered on FLSD 240732289636/2009 Pagg 15 of +2Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 + +Jane Doe #4 +V. +Jeffrey Epstein +AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD C.W.! +M.D. +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF SEMINOLE +On this day personally appeared before me, the undersigned authority, Richard +C.W.) +M.D., who, being by me first duly sworn under oath deposes and says: +1. My name is Richard C.W. || M.D. Iam over the age of majority, and make +this affidavit and declaration upon the basis of personal knowledge of the factual matters +contained herein. +• +2. I have maintained a private practice in psychiatry and forensic psychiatry +since 1996. +3. +I, also, currently serve as a Courtesy Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the +University of Florida, College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida; Affiliate Professor, Deptof +Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, University of South Florida; and Professor of +Psychiatry, Department of Medical Education, University of Central Florida College +Medicine. +4. +I received my undergraduate degree from the Johns +University and +1 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 303-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 16 of +Aug Case 908cV-801RBhaI. Halodlinent 247-5 +Entered on FLSD S87cR27 88985/2009 Page 2 of 8 +medical degree from the University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida. +5. +I served as a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy, where I +researched and evaluated biological and neurochemical factors associated with the onset of +psychiatric disorders and served as a representative to the Joint Services Task Force +planning Operation Homecoming, the return of POW's from Vietnam. +Thave previously served as an assistant clinical professor at the University of +South Florida College of Medicine, directed one of the ten model mental health centers in +the United States, and served as a medical consultant to the Kennedy Space Center. +7. +I am a former member of the academic faculty at the University of Texas, in +Houston, Texas where I served as Assistant Professor and then Associate Professor of +Psychiatry and Internal Medicine, Director of Clinical Research, Director of Residency +Training, Chief of the Consultation/Liaison Service, and Chief Psychiatrist at the M.D. +Cancer Hospital in Houston. +I, also, have served as a Professor of Internal Medicine and Psychiatry at the +Medical College of Wisconsin where I was appointed Chief of Psychiatry at the Milwaukee +County and Froedtert Hospitals. +9. +In addition, I have served as a Professor of Psychiatry and Internal Medicine +and Associate +I at the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, Memphis. +10. +The amended complaint filed by Jane Doe #4 against Jeffrey Epstein makes +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 303-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 17 of +Entered on FLSD 507R87 98985/2009 Page 3 of 8 +sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon a minor and seek damages in excess +of $50 million. Jane Doe #4 alleges confusion, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, and +severe psychological and emotional injuries. It is further alleged that she suffered, and will +continue to suffer, severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, +psychological, and emotional damages. +11. She alleges the intentional infliction of emotional distress and that Mr. +Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress, severe mental anguish and pain. +12. She further alleges that she has suffered personal injury including mental, +psychological and emotional damage. +13. Plaintiff's counsel has retained an expert witness, Dr. Kliman of the +Psychological Trauma Center, a division of Preventive Psychiatry Associates Medical +Group, Inc., of San Francisco, California, of which Gilbert W. Kliman, MD, is the medical +director. Dr. Kliman's initial records indicate the following concerning Jane Doe #4. +14. Plaintiff reports a history of alcohol use and an ex-boyfriend who drank +alcohol and used pills that were "a form of oxycodine [sic] a form of heroine [sic]." (Page +18, tape 1) +15. +Plaintiff reports obtaining a restraining order against her ex-boyfriend, stating +that he would spit in her face, push her, and was abusive. (Page 20, tape 1) +16. +Plaintiff reports talking with two psychiatrists at age 16 or 17 due to family +3 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 303-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 18 of +Aug base 84065pcv-80 1-li0hdk2ldl. HeDolüment 247-5 +'Entered on FLSD $70R885/2009 Påge 4of8 +issues and boyfriend issues. (Pages 2 and 3, tape 3). In the tapes, she makes no mention of +telling the psychiatrists of her alleged encounters with Epstein. Moreover, while Plaintiff +denies recruiting other girls, on page 24 of the Palm Beach Police Report, Plaintiff said she +left a note for Epstein that indicated "for a good time call [Plaintiff] and [friend]" and left +the girls' phone numbers. +17. Plaintiff noted that while in high school a friend, Chris, died in a motor +vehicle accident, that she was in shock from his death, and that she got over it after about 1 +½ to 2 years, but that it still bothers her. (Page 4, GK Contemp notes) +18. Plaintiff noted that a close friend, Jen, died in a motor vehicle accident and +that she was in shock for two months. (Page 4, GK Contemp notes) +19. Plaintiff reported, "I probably went there over 50 times." (Page 3, tape 4) +20. Plaintiff was arrested at age 17 for DUI on 3/09/05. (Police Offense Report) +21. On 10/31/04, fight occurred between plaintiff and Preston +in back of +cab. Plaintiff (age 17) had been drinking. Police were called for theft of cab fare. Upon +arriving at residence, police found plaintiff in home with no shirt on. Plaintiff refused to +cooperate with police and threatened to kill herself. C +was arrested for violation of +protective order. (Police Offense Report) +22. +On 2/28/02, plaintiff was charged with shoplifting bras from Burdines and +was issued a juvenile referral form. (Police Offense Report) + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 303-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 19 of +Aug Case 9008v-801RBhkANG. Heloolinent 247-5 +Entered on FLSD 0870R2781985/2009 Page 5 of8 +23. +On 9/21/04, a protective order was filed against Preston +after an +incident on 9/20/04 in which he accused her of cheating on him. He then began choking +her, threw her against a wall, and yelled at plaintiff. He dumped beer on her, threw +cigarettes in her face, and slammed her into the ground. On a previous incident in August +2004, plaintiff reported they agued and Mr. +grabbed her by her arms and threw +her to the ground outside her house. Plaintiff noted she was in fear because he has a +violent history and has verbally threatened her friends, family and herself. (Petition for +Injunction for Protection) +24. +All of the above show that this plaintiff came from an unstable and disturbed +home, had been subject to previous physical and sexual abuse, was fearful, isolated, and +had had suicidal ideation prior to meeting Mr. Epstein. For further elaboration of her +history and background, access to all available records is crucial if one is to fully +understand the impact of any of these events on her subsequent behavior and proportion +the impact of specific events, if any, or her current and future level of function. +25. In Dr. Kliman's initial replenishment retainer agreerent and fee schedule +(date 7/18/08), in a heading entitled "Regarding Full Disclosure," Dr. Kliman notes that +prior to deposition, counsel will make every effort necessary to provide experts with +information requested by the experts including: 1) a list of all depositions, statements, +declarations, and motions in the case, 2) a copy of any requested items, and 3) most +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 303-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 20 of +Aug Case 9:08pv-801RgKANF. H@oolment 247-5 +Entered on FLSD 6070RE 83985/2009 Page 6 of 8 +importantly, a list of all medical, clinical, school, and work records known to the attorney +in the case. +26. +Dr. Kliman notes on page 8 of his contract opinion formation that he will not +form opinions, give reports, or testify in certain circumstances. +These include +circumstances where he has reason to believe a retaining attorney has "available important +and relevant documents which are being deliberately withheld from us." "We define such +as documents in possession of retaining attorney, which we have requested or that we have +stated would ordinarily be part of medical opinion formation on the topics concerning, +which our input is requested." We request the same. +27. It is critical for an IME examiner to be able to make a cogent assessment of +any plaintiff and to understand their medical, social, academic, psychological and +'psychiatric condition/state prior to any act of alleged victimization. There are a number of +variables that combine to determine the effects of such alleged victimization; including the +type and character of the alleged assault; and key victim variables such as demographics; +psychological reactions at the time of the trauma; previous psychiatric or psychological +history, history of previous victimization; current or previous psychological difficulties; +general personality dynamics and coping style; sociocultural factors such as drug +use/abuse; poverty; social inequity and/or inadequate social support; any previous history +of abuse within or outside the family; whether individuals were abused by strangers, +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 303-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 21 of +Aug 9:08@v-801R9ha/4Nf. H@belment 247-5 +Zentered on FLSD 187cR2784985/2009 Page 7 of 8 +acquaintances or family members; and whether there was any history of indiscriminate +behavior that may have placed them at increased risk. It is important to know if there had +been previous sexual conduct, contact with police or welfare agencies, alcohol or drug +use/abuse, voluntary sexual activity, contraceptive use, genital infections, or apparent +indifference to previous abuse. +28. +It is also essential to understand the plaintiff's level of emotional support, +whether any significant psychiatric illnesses were present, whether they were taking any +medications (prescribed or non-prescribed), whether there had been previous suicide +attempts, thoughts, plans, etc. +29. Knowledge of plaintiff's relationships to her family and familial factors, +including social disadvantage, family instability, impaired parent/child relationship, and +parental adjustment difficulties is also critical. +30. It is, therefore, crucial that the independent medical examiner has available to +him a full and complete record that includes medical, previous legal, social, criminal, +academic, psychological and psychiatric records/data; psychological tests; laboratory tests; +and clinical, hospital, physician records. +31. +These, in essence, are the same or similar records that plaintiff's expert +witness (Dr. Kliman) feels are essential for him to do an appropriate evaluation. To obtain +the necessary information, it will be necessary to identify the plaintiff by name. Such +7 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 303-10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2009 Page 22 of +Aug Ease 9055Rv-801RighRANG. HeloPment 247-5 +ZEntered on FLSD 68CR27 83585/2009 Page 8 of 8 +identification will not humiliate the plaintiff since all we are requesting is pertinent +information as noted above relative to their past medical and psychiatric histories and +conduct. We would concur and request of the court that the same and/or similar +information be made available to us to conduct our examination. +Respectfully submitted, +R +what. in Hall Ms +Richard C. W. Hall, N +Courtesy Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, University of Florida, College of Medicine +Affiliate Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, University of South Florida +Professor of Psychiatry, Department of Medical Education, University of Central Florida College of +Medicine +STATE OF FLORIDA +COUNTY OF SEMINOLE +BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared RICHARD C.W. +, M.D., who is (A) personally known to me or ( ) who has produced +_ as identification, and who did take an oath, deposes and says that +the attached Affidavit is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. +SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on this 4ik day of August +- 2009. +Marcia 1. Clyman +"MARCIA CHAPMAN +Comme DD0561004 +Expires 6/6/2010 +Florida Notary some. 1 +Notary Public +Printed Name: HARGA J. CHAPMAN +My Commission Expires: +8 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d8f31db3b8ba8eb5b05cf0ea4d6bca22e647b30bc7984ac1cfe53a32a4b512ef.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d8f31db3b8ba8eb5b05cf0ea4d6bca22e647b30bc7984ac1cfe53a32a4b512ef.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f1c627a7fe01a5c0a2bbb0f048845fcd9e45c908 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d8f31db3b8ba8eb5b05cf0ea4d6bca22e647b30bc7984ac1cfe53a32a4b512ef.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -275, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d8f31db3b8ba8eb5b05cf0ea4d6bca22e647b30bc7984ac1cfe53a32a4b512ef", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 23, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8da9337988ec358d5894dd0d8c057401c79d8e7719833af84e29e0e343d7eed8", + "output_sha256": "82a508e9b2a361cad98c158339e7af0fbfcca9a032d18298bb0ab4c620d9812c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d8fafb0a09ea6f13686226ccf5fc5e544e7eec88e9f2ad04abeeaec11632d16f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d8fafb0a09ea6f13686226ccf5fc5e544e7eec88e9f2ad04abeeaec11632d16f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..68e1bf9b60d215c908d282ccef01331c6341247e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d8fafb0a09ea6f13686226ccf5fc5e544e7eec88e9f2ad04abeeaec11632d16f.md @@ -0,0 +1,408 @@ +Case 9:08-CV-80232-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2008 Rageby of meal +ELECTRONIC +March 5, 2008 +CLERK U.S +DIST. +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: +08-CV-80232-Marra- +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +COMPLAINT +Plaintiff, Jane Doe No.3 ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), brings this Complaint against Jeffrey +Epstein, as follows: +Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue +Jane Doe is a citizen and resident of the State of Florida, and is sui juris. +2. +This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name to protect the identity of the +Plaintiff because this Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon her +when she was a minor. +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen and resident of the State of New York. +4. +This is an action for damages in excess of $50 million. +5. +This Court has jurisdiction of this action and the claims set forth herein pursuant to 28 +U.S.C. §1332(a), as the matter in controversy (i) exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs; +and (ii) is between citizens of different states. +6. +This Court has venue of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a) as a substantial +part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. +- 1- +1 of 6 + + +• +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2008 Page 2 of 6 +Factual Allegations +At all relevant times, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") was an adult male, 52 +years old. Epstein is a financier and money manager with a secret clientele limited exclusively to +billionaires. He is himself a man of tremendous wealth, power and influence. He maintains his +principal home in New York and also owns residences in New Mexico, St. +and Palm Beach, +FL. The allegations herein concern Epstein's conduct while at his lavish estate in Palm Beach. +Upon information and belief, Epstein has a sexual preference and obsession for +underage minor girls. He engaged in a plan and scheme in which he gained access to primarily +economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home, sexually assaulted these girls, and then gave +them money. In or about 2004-2005, Jane Doe, then 16 years old, fell into Epstein's trap and +became one of his victims. +9. +Upon information and belief, Jeffrey Epstein carried out his scheme and assaulted +girls in Florida, New York and on his private island, known as Little St. James, in St. +10. An integral player in Epstein's Florida scheme was +a Palm Beach +Community College student from Loxahatchee, Florida. She recruited girls ostensibly to give a +wealthy man a massage for monetary compensation in his Palm Beach mansion. Under Epstein's +plan, +would be contacted when Epstein was planning to be at his Palm Beach residence +or soon after he had arrived there. Epstein or someone on his behalf directed +to bring +one or more underage girls to the residence. +, upon information and belief, generally +sought out economically disadvantaged underage girls from Loxahatchee and surrounding areas who +would be enticed by the money being offered - generally $200 to $300 per "massage" session - and +who were perceived as less likely to complain to authorities or have credibility if allegations of +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. +- 2- +20f6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2008 Page 3 of 6 +improper conduct were made. This was an important element of Epstein's plan. +11. +Epstein's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. Upon arrival at +Epstein's mansion, the victim would be brought to the kitchen. She would then be led up a flight of +stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table in addition to other furnishings. Once the girl was +alone in this room, Epstein would enter wearing only a towel to cover his private area. He then +would lay down on the massage table and perform one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual acts, +including masturbation and touching the girl sexually. +12. Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, +recruited Jane Doe to +give Epstein a massage for monetary compensation. +brought Jane to Epstein's mansion +in Palm Beach. Jane was led up the flight of stairs to the room with the massage table. She was +alone in the room when Epstein arrived wearing a towel to cover his private parts. He laid down on +the massage table, and sexually assaulted Jane Doe during the massage. In addition, Jeffrey Epstein +masturbated during the massage. +13. +After Epstein had completed the assault, he left the room. Jane was then able to leave +the room and go back down the stairs. She then met +again who brought Jane home. +Jane was paid $200 by Epstein. +was also paid by Epstein for bringing Jane to him. +14. As a result of this encounter with Epstein, the 16-year old Jane experienced trauma, +shock, confusion, shame, humiliation and embarrassment. +COUNTI +Sexual Assault +15. Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. +16. Epstein tortiously assaulted Jane Doe sexually in or about 2004-2005. Epstein's acts +were intentional, unlawful, offensive and harmful. +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. +- 3- +3016 + + +• +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2008 Page 4 of 6 +17. +Epstein's plan and scheme in which he committed such acts upon Jane Doe were done +willfully and maliciously. +18. +This sexual assault was in violation of Chapter 800 of the Florida Statutes, which +recognizes as a crime the lewd and lascivious acts committed by Epstein upon Jane. +19. +As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's assault on Jane, she has suffered and will +continue to suffer severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and +emotional damages. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe, demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein for +compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court +deems just and proper. +COUNT II +Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress +Plaintiffs Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. +20. +21. +Epstein's conduct was intentional or reckless. +22. +23. +Epstein's conduct was outrageous, going beyond all bounds of decency. +Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. Epstein knew or had +reason to know that his intentional and outrageous conduct would cause emotional trauma and +damage to Jane Doe. +24. As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's intentional or reckless conduct, Jane Doe +has suffered and will continue to suffer severe mental anguish and pain. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein for +compensatory damages, costs, punitive damages, and such other and further relief as this Court +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. +-4- +4016 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2008 Page 5 of 6 +deems just and proper. +JURY TRIAL DEMAND +Plaintiffs demand a jury trial in this action. +Dated: March I, 2008 +Respectfully submitted, +HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd. +Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +By: +Jeffrey M. Herman +jherman@hermanlaw.com +Florida Bar No. 521647 +Stuart S. Mermelstein +smermelstein@hermanlaw.com +Florida Bar No. 947245 +Adam D. Horowitz +Florida Bar No. 376980 +ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com +Herman & Mermelstein, P. A. +- 5- +5 of 6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Docu6#41L1 COVERdSHEESD Docket 03/05/2008 Page 6 of 6 +The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing, and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, +except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of +the Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.) +I(a) PLAINTIFFS +DEFENDANTS +JANE DOE NO. 3, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF +COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT NEW YORK +(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) +PALM BEACH COUNTY +(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) +(c) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER) +ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN) +Herman & Mermelstein, P.A., 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218, Miami, +FL 33160, (305) 931-2200 +(d) CIRCLE COUNTY WHERE ACTION AROSE: PALM BEACH +II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION +(PLACE AN X ONE BOX ONLY) +• 1. U.S. Govemment • 3. Federal Question +Plaintiff +(U.S. Government Not a Party) +• 2. U.S. Govemment +X 4. Diversity +Defendant +(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item +9:08CV 80232.KAm-Johnsoe +III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES +(For Diversity Case Only) +PTF +DEF +Citizen of This State +X 1 +01 +Citizen of Another State +02 × 2 +Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country +'0 3 0 3 +PLACE AN ORDERED +AND ONE FOR DEFENDANT +DEF +Incorporated of Principal Place of +• 4 +Business in This State +Incorporated and Principal Place of 0 5 0 5 +Business in Another State +Foreign Nation +0 6 0 6 +IV. CAUSE OF ACTION +(CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE. +DO NOT CITE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY.) +DIVERSITY ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1332(a) FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT +IVa. _5 days estimated (for both sides) to try entire case +V. NATURE OF SUIT +(PLACE AN X IN ONE BOX ONLY) +A CONTRACT +A TORTS +00000 +110 insurance +120Maine +Act +150 Recovery of Overpayment +STEE ME +Judgmem +151 Medicare Act +152 Recovery of Defaulted +Student Loans (Excl. +Veterans) B +• 183 Recovery of Overpay: +• Veteran's Bene's B +• 160 Stockholder's Suls +195 Contract Product Liability +PERSONAL INJURY +• 310 Airplane +© 382 Personal Injury Med Maipracice +• 315 Airplane Product Liablity +• 355 +Personal Injury Product Liability +• 320 Assault, Libel & Slander +0 358 +• 338 Federal Employers Liabilty +Injury Product Liably +• 34 +Product Liability +PERSONAL PROPERTY +• 350 Motor/ehicie +• 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability +• 370 Other Fraud +X 380 Oher +Personal jury +O371 +Truth in Lending B +• 380 Oever Personnel +Property Damage +• 385 Property Damage +Product Liabity +B FORFEITURE +PENALTY +0610 Agricuture +• 620 Other Food & Drug +© 625 Drug Related Seizure +of Property 21 USC 881 +O 630 Liquor Laws +• 640 R.R. & Truck +• 650 Airline Regs +• 060 Occupational +Safety/Heath +0 020 Other +A BANKRUPTCY +A OTHER STATUS +• 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 +D 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 +A REAL PROPERTY +• 210 Land Condemnation +220 Foreciosure B +230 Rent Lease & Ejectment +240 +Torts to Land +8 280 Torped pery +A CIVIL RIGHTS +• 441 Voting +• 442 Employment +• 443 Housing/Accommodations +444 Welfare +• 440 Other Civi Rights +B PRISONER PETITIONS +A PROPERTY RIGHTS +• 820 Copyrights +C 830 Pasent +• 840 Trademark +B SOCIAL SECURITY +0051 HIA (13051) +© 862 Black Lung (823) +D863 DIWC/DWW(405(gl) +C864 SSD Tile XVI +0 865 R5I (405(g)) +• 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence +• 530 General" +• 535 Death Penalty +8 530 dares & Cler +*A or B +A LABOR +X 710 Far Labor Standards +Act +• 720 Labor Management +Relatone B +• 730 Labor Management +Reporting 4 Disclosure +Act +• 740 Raiway Labor Act +• 790 Other Labor Ltigator +• 791 Empioyee Ret. inc. +Security Act B +A FEDERAL TAX SUITS +• 400 +Status Reappointment +• 410 Antrust +• 430 +Banks and Banking +© 450 +Commerce/CC Ratesietc B +480 +Deportation +• 470 Racketeer influenced and +Compt Organz aons +0 80 Secove serve +850 +Securties/ Commodies +D 875 +Customer Challenge +12USC3410 +• 891 +Agricultural Acts +880 +Economic Stabilization Act +Enwronmental Maters +8S4 +Energy Allocarion Act +Freedom of information Act +Appeal of Fee Determinaser +Under Equal Access to +Justice +• 950 Constlutonally of Stale +Statutes +• 890 Other Statutory Actions' +*Aor B +Declaratory relief and state law claims +for defamation +VI. ORIGIN +* 1. Original +Proceeding +VIl. REQUESTED +IN COMPLAINT +• 2. Removed from 3. Remanded from +• 4. Refilled +• 6. Multidistrict Litigation +Appeal to District Judge from +State Court +Appellate Court +• 5. Transferred from another district +(Specify) +Magistrate Judgment +GENDER THIS A +• CLASS ACTION +DEMAND $ +1870 Tases (U.S. Plaintif or Delendar +1871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC 760 +FILED by +INTAKE +_D.C. +MAR - 5 2008 +CLARENCE +Hox +eLERK U.S. DIS +Check YES onlyif deltanded muck YE +complaint: +JURY DEMAND: +• NO +VIII. RELATED +(See Instructions): +CASE(S) IF ANY +Jane Doe 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +DATE +3-4-08 +NEVER STATES DISTRCT COURT +SEE ATTACHEL +UDGE KENNETH A. MARF +DOCKET NUMBER 08-CV-80119-MARRA +SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD +FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Receipt No. +mount: 35000 +Date Paid: +M/ifp: + +GorG \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d8fafb0a09ea6f13686226ccf5fc5e544e7eec88e9f2ad04abeeaec11632d16f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d8fafb0a09ea6f13686226ccf5fc5e544e7eec88e9f2ad04abeeaec11632d16f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4ffb5b9e48787158eb243dd660b23a82ee9e0a7c --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d8fafb0a09ea6f13686226ccf5fc5e544e7eec88e9f2ad04abeeaec11632d16f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -169, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d8fafb0a09ea6f13686226ccf5fc5e544e7eec88e9f2ad04abeeaec11632d16f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 8, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "c535765b9d567e05b28116d2b7dd4004cd909677dcc3e643f7f159996f721dd8", + "output_sha256": "62e8c32745c2b0e0c4e2d2fe5efcadd5f34d6ed34219dad3c9a9644d35e7bba9", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9041f07153c72a459803280e8e4427cbb92d8aa1bc62b9ec40669a03bdc535d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9041f07153c72a459803280e8e4427cbb92d8aa1bc62b9ec40669a03bdc535d.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..003695029e5e85e7b9021cbfe99edf4f89cd5517 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9041f07153c72a459803280e8e4427cbb92d8aa1bc62b9ec40669a03bdc535d.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF Document 21 +Filed 11/05/19 Page 1 of 1 +Case 1:19-CV-09610-PAE Document 20 Filed 11/04/19 Page 1 of 1 +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +troutman™ +New York, New York 10022 +sanders +troutman.com +Bennet J. Moskowitz +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com +November 4, 2019 +ECF +Hon. Paul A. Engelmayer +Thurgood Marshall +United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 +Re: +Jane Doe 17 v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as Joint Personal +Representatives of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, et al., 1:19-CV-09610 (PAE) +Dear Judge Engelmayer: +We represent Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of +Jeffrey E. Epstein (named herein as "Joint Personal Representative[s] of the Estate of Jeffrey E. +Epstein"), Nine East 71st Street, Corporation, Financial Trust Company, Inc., NES, LLC, Laurel, +Inc., Maple, Inc., LSJE, LLC, HBRK Associates, Inc., Nautilus, Inc., Cypress, Inc., and JEGE, +Inc. (together, "Defendants") in the referenced action. We write to respectfully request the +Court's approval of the parties' agreement described below. +On October 22, 2019, subject to the Court's approval: (1) we agreed to accept service of +Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF #1) on Defendants' behalf; and (2) Plaintiff consented to Defendants +having through December 21, 2019 to answer, move, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's +Complaint and any motion by Plaintiff to proceed anonymously. There have been no previous +requests for adjournments or extensions of time in this action. +Thank you for your attention to this matter. +Respectfully submitted, +Granted. +SO ORDERED. +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz +Bennet J. Moskowitz +10/5/19 +Pan a Englan +United States District Judge diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9041f07153c72a459803280e8e4427cbb92d8aa1bc62b9ec40669a03bdc535d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9041f07153c72a459803280e8e4427cbb92d8aa1bc62b9ec40669a03bdc535d.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..69c6f80d973dc8a7c1105842a0db97cbae038377 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9041f07153c72a459803280e8e4427cbb92d8aa1bc62b9ec40669a03bdc535d.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -12, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d9041f07153c72a459803280e8e4427cbb92d8aa1bc62b9ec40669a03bdc535d", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c4941e03363f390e897964c6e46b07f500e7f9b4c008f279bbe2972ee82e1f96", + "output_sha256": "e601bbae3bf28225be5e2968c6e0e5e97440c187ef2204833ce7101e377175f1", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d920cba310d067939146812ac7d7453db70f66709d08d958e25e04167768912c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d920cba310d067939146812ac7d7453db70f66709d08d958e25e04167768912c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a16947ed1adb87e67747b92542f58fdea243035a --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d920cba310d067939146812ac7d7453db70f66709d08d958e25e04167768912c.md @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 116-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +VS. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 116-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 2 of 3 +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80993-MARRA/ +C.M.A., +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80811 -MARRA/_ +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80893-MARRAJ +DOE II, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al., +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV- 80469-MARRA/_ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 116-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2009 Page 3 of 3 +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80591-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- CV-80656-MARRA/ +ORDER +Upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendant's Motion to +Compel and/or Identify Jane Doe in the Style of this Case and Motion to Identify Jane Doe in Third +Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, or Alternatively Motion to Dismiss Sua Sponte, and +good cause being shown, it is hereby +ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is granted. Plaintiffs shall have an enlargement of time of +twenty (20) days until June 11, 2009, to respond to the Defendant's Motions to Compel and/or +Identify Jane Doe in the Style, et al.. +DONE AND ORDERED in +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, +this +day of +• 2009. +DISTRICT COURT JUDGE diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d920cba310d067939146812ac7d7453db70f66709d08d958e25e04167768912c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d920cba310d067939146812ac7d7453db70f66709d08d958e25e04167768912c.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..22902c58f75c53e8fcd700d47b1b1c83ad324483 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d920cba310d067939146812ac7d7453db70f66709d08d958e25e04167768912c.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d920cba310d067939146812ac7d7453db70f66709d08d958e25e04167768912c", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "775f6873631edfa1f192b8eabc175894696105898412b2a57361f28ed1483cb5", + "output_sha256": "ca3fc2dba3735a31db777fa35436ba0b5e84aa633570d3c6db8611241aebbfed", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d924dc8b1660b351f9b3e00db65a929fb1100bb561fab77502dba0b482b46f7e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d924dc8b1660b351f9b3e00db65a929fb1100bb561fab77502dba0b482b46f7e.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2b5e366d530a22180c3b4cb303f2698041fe0fd3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d924dc8b1660b351f9b3e00db65a929fb1100bb561fab77502dba0b482b46f7e.md @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 1 of 3 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 09-CIV- 80469 - MARRAN +JANE DOE II, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +NOTICE OF RELIANCE ON AND INCORPORATION OF DEFENDANT'S +REPLY (DE 31) TO PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION +TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DE 20 & 36) +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his +undersigned attorneys, hereby gives notice of his intent to rely on and incorporate hereon +Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to +Dismiss: +Defendant, EPSTEIN, filed his Motion to Dismiss on May 9, 2009 (DE 13). +Plaintiff, Jane Doe II, filed her initial Memorandum of Law in Opposition to +Defendant Epstein's Motion to Dismiss on May 22, 2009 (DE 20). +Defendant, EPSTEIN, filed his Reply to Plaintiff, Jane Doe II's, Memorandum of +Law in Opposition to Defendant Epstein's Motion to Dismiss on June 1, 2009 (DE 31). +After a hearing on June 12, 2009, counsel for Plaintiff, Jane Doe II, stated he +would withdraw certain claims in Plaintiff, Jane Doe II's initial Memorandum of Law in +Opposition to Defendant Epstein's Motion to Dismiss (DE 20). + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 2 of 3 +Jane Doe Il v. Epstein, et al. +Page 2 +5. +Therefore, Plaintiff, Jane Doe II, filed her Amended Memorandum of Law in +Opposition to Defendant Epstein's Motion to Dismiss on June 12, 2009 (DE 36). +Based upon the forgoing, Defendant relies on his Reply to Plaintiff, Jane Doe Il's, +Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Epstein's Motion to Dismiss (DE 31) and +incorporates same herein by reference as if same was filed in Reply to Plaintiff, Jane Doe II's, +Amended Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Epstein's Motion to Dismiss (DE +36). Accordingly, Defendant, EPSTEIN, stands on those arguments set forth in DE 31 and, +therefore, will not be filing an additional supplemental reply. +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +crit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com + + +Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 3 of 3 +Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. +Page 3 +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being +served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following service list in the +manner specified via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF +on this 11 day of une. 2009: +Isidro M. +7, Esq. +# Law Firm, P.A. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-835-8691 Fax +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Respectfully submitted, +By: _ +ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-842-2820 +Fax: 561-515-3148 +(Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d924dc8b1660b351f9b3e00db65a929fb1100bb561fab77502dba0b482b46f7e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d924dc8b1660b351f9b3e00db65a929fb1100bb561fab77502dba0b482b46f7e.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1f3c480fed8832dd1a85c11d79532b2a49e9dc5e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d924dc8b1660b351f9b3e00db65a929fb1100bb561fab77502dba0b482b46f7e.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d924dc8b1660b351f9b3e00db65a929fb1100bb561fab77502dba0b482b46f7e", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "062f8fb8df56afaae9921f20094d8c53c32a75bf4a99b377266899559c46138a", + "output_sha256": "8aa2a4dba5f57a95affc0aae4e10e22bd98a7e07cb511f9bf49aaac2207a586e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d93362db35ff33c5b0d52396762dd0add7a572f276860577ec7e5dc4b2ab8d81.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d93362db35ff33c5b0d52396762dd0add7a572f276860577ec7e5dc4b2ab8d81.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..635270d61179bbedc752673685f7855c23ca8ca3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d93362db35ff33c5b0d52396762dd0add7a572f276860577ec7e5dc4b2ab8d81.md @@ -0,0 +1,721 @@ +Case 9:08-cV-80380-KAM Document 75-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 14 +IN THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT +IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA +CASE NO. 50 2008CA020614XXXXMB AF +JANE DOE II, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN and +Plaintiff, +Defendants. +COPY +/ +COURT REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF +PROCEEDINGS HAD BEFORE +THE HONORABLE DIANA +DATE: +PLACE: +March 3, 2009 +Palm Beach County Courthouse +205 N. Dixie Highway +West +Palm Beach, Florida 33401 + + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 75-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 14 +2 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +B +9 +10 +11 +12 +APPEARANCES: +LAW FIRM, P.A. +224 Datura Avenue +Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Counsel for Plaintiff +BY: +ISIDRO M. +1, ESQUIRE +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler +Drive +Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 +Counsel for Defendant +BY: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR.r +ESQUIRE +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +... +(561) +835-0220 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80380-KAM Document 75-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 3 of 14 +11 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +that but I'd just like to do that. +THE COURT: Right. And if you want to +contact the other individuals saying, you know, +I'm the one that's questioning whether or not +these need to be before one judge. You may have +a different perspective than your colleagues who +are prosecuting some of the cases. +I understand the damages. I'm not +saying consolidate. I'm saying transfer. It's +not a consolidation issue. Everybody gets that +confused for some reason. The words are very +different out of my mouth, your mouth and how +they're written. +So let me go ahead and take a gander at +this. I did read it last night. I'm not sure +that we need to get -- we need names? +MR. CRITTON: Right. Well, here's what some +of the issues are is that, as an example -- if I +could approach the bench. +THE COURT: Sure. +MR. CRITTON: This is some of the +information that we've obtained through discovery +from some of the -- from at least in this +instance, it would be this particular Jane Doe. +THE COURT: You know who Jane Doe is I take + + +Case 9:08-cV-80380-KAM Document 75-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 4 of 14 +12 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +it? +MR. CRITTON: Right. +THE COURT: You know who the Jane Doe is? +MR. CRITTON: Yes, correct. And so this +particular lady has kept in part a diary and +she -- which appears to have started some time -- +this is not in any way significant -- but some +time after she learned that she could file a +lawsuit. I think she's also been to Oakwood +Center some time after she learned she could file +a lawsuit and seek damages from Mr. Epstein. +There's no history of this lady +beforehand other than in some of the Oakwood +records where she was Baker Acted, she started +drinking beer at 16, she started Xanax at 16, +started marijuana at 15, that she's sexually +active. +So how she has interacted -- she has a +claim for emotional damages, mental pain and +anguish, psychiatric-type damages. How she's +interacted with friends, with family, the events +in her life, school, work, her interpersonal +relationships both with men and let's -- we'll +use an example men here, but other individuals. +She's saying that this event with Mr. Epstein, + + +Case 9:08-CV-80380-KAM Document 75-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 5 of 14 +13 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +this sexual assault and whatever occurred during +these events is that -- has caused her damage. +And therefore damages in the case such +as the emotional, mental, psychiatric-type +damages are completely subjective, I mean +separate and apart from any medical bills that +may be -- which are clearly intangible. So these +are intangible damages. And the jury is +instructed, you know, you advise the greater +weight of the evidence, what's fair and +reasonable under the circumstances. +So what we would have is basically this +young lady's testimony as to what she claims her +damages are and what the circumstances are with +her situation with Mr. Epstein. She claims on +page 13, you know, I love this guy, I'm dating +this guy Chris. On page 15 -- +THE COURT: Is this part of a diary for +treatment? +MR. CRITTON: I have no idea what it is. It +was just produced in response to discovery. And +she apparently started in, I think this is +December of '08. You know I took Jay Lyntenis' +girl to the zoo, had an amazing day, I love her, +i.e., the girl. +We have so much fun. I want a + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM +Document 75-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 6 of 14 +14 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +baby especially with him. Okay. So I know who +this person is. We are all so open together, I +love him and Jay and +, what do I do with +Chris, who is another guy in her life. +All right. This is circumstances where +this young lady is saying, 1o0k, Jeffrey Epstein +has ruined my life from a damage standpoint, +okay. Let me depose other individuals with whom +you've had a relationship. And what if it turns +out - as with some of these girls did -- is they +had relationships or had escapades or +circumstances with individuals, older men similar +to Mr. Epstein well before Mr. Epstein. +And this girl, I don't know one way or +the other, but let's assume she had a situation +where she was assaulted or molested or raped, ' +that all is going to affect her emotional and her +mental pain and anguish and it will all factor +into evaluating damages. +You know, it's not something that I'm +going to spread around. I'm happy to keep it, +you know, within the confines of the discovery of +this case. But if she says every other +relationship in my life has been perfect but Jeff +Epstein has done this to me and it has affected + + +Case 9:08-cV-80380-KAM Document 75-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 7 of 14 +15 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +my ability to trust men and my sexual +relationships with other men, which is part of +her interpersonal relationships, okay, let's talk +to MI +THE COURT: When does your client allege +that she had her first encounter with +Mr. Epstein? +MR: +: At what age? +THE COURT: Well, what year? +MR. CRITTON: June of '03. +MR. +•: June of '03, Judge. +'MR. CRITTON: She claims from June of '03 +through November of '04. +MR. +: She was I believe 16 at the +beginning and ended at 17. She was a minor +during all this time. +THE COURT: June of '03 to now is six years. +Let me hear from Mr. +MR. +: Judge, in the criminal case +that was filed against Mr. Epstein, he would not +have had a right to do this type of discovery and +I -- if I could hand up -- +THE COURT: They wouldn't care about the +women. +MR. +Right. Well, I mean -- +• U.S. Legal Support + + +Case 9:08-cV-80380-KAM Document 75-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 8 of 14 +16 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +THE COURT: This is damages. There's no -- +they weren't seeking damages at the time. +MR. +: Right. And we have not alleged +in the complaint or in the answers to +interrogatories that her ability to have a +relationship with a man has been affected by +Mr. Epstein's conduct. +We have alleged that she has been +hospitalized for depression, anxiety but we have +not alleged any damages concerning -- the only +reason this would be relevant is if we were +making a claim at her ability to have either +sexual relations or to have emotional relations +with men was effected by her experience with +Mr. Epstein. +So this damages' claim is just a smoke +screen to attempt to get evidence to show the +jury that this woman has had other consensual +relationships with young men that are +approximately her age what I would characterize +as a slut defense. +She had it coming to her +because she engaged in other voluntarily +consensual -- +THE COURT: Mr. Critton wouldn't try the +slut defense in my courtroom, I'm sure. + + +Case 9:08-cV-80380-KAM Document 75-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 9 of 14 +17 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +MR. +: Maybe not, but certainly that's +the way this discovery is going. And, Judge, +what -- +THE COURT: What are the damages you think +your client is seeking? +MR. +: She is seeking emotional +distress +: damages for depression and anxiety and +she has been hospitalized at the Oakwood Center. +Her friend -- she was on the phone to a friend +who called the sheriff's office because she +thought she was suicidal. The sheriffs +responded. They Baker Acted her that day and +they took her eventually to the Oakwood Center. +THE COURT: How do we know it's not +intertwined with her rejection by three other men +since Mr. Epstein? +MR. +: Well, even if it was related to +her rejection by three other men -- you mean +other men's rejection of her? +THE COURT: Yeah. Well, how do you not know +that? I mean you can't do it until you do +discovery. Has anybody attempted to review the +records from Oakwood to find out what's going on? +MR. CRITTON: It's like a one-time visit +when she was Baker Acted and then there's some + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 75-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 10 of 14 +18 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +other -- +THE COURT: She didn't receive treatment? +MR. CRITTON: She received treatment for +that day and she's been back a couple of times. +She's on medication. Again, I don't know what or +the extent but she's got -- her medical bills are +de minimis. +Again as an example, Judge, did the +Court have an opportunity to 1o0k at the case +that I also attached to the motion? Because +there's a case that's almost on all fours with . +this which I attached to our motion which is +called Balles versus Russo. +THE COURT: Right. +MR. CRITTON: It was a case where the +plaintiff was sued -- the plaintiff sued the +former owners of a house of prostitution. So +that part is different, but within it there were +a number of claims including a sexual assault +claim and they sought emotional pain, humiliation +and emotional distress. +Within the complaint that was filed in +this particular case, she is seeking severe +emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, +embarrassment, past and future, compensatory +v.s. Legal Support + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 75-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 11 of 14 +19 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +humiliation, loss of reputation, mental anguish, +pain and suffering, the same type of damages. +And what the Court said -- +THE COURT: How old is she now? +MR. +: She's 21 now. +MR. CRITTON: She's 21 now. What the Court +said is, you know, if you'd only brought this +claim under 796 evidence of past issues, it's not +an issue. You can't use this defense for +anything, but because you brought these other +claims which include, you know, sexual assault +and you're seeking damages for other causes of +action since the information sought by discovery +may be relevant or may lead to the discovery of +admissible evidence in one or more of the other +causes of action or determination of damages, we +cannot conclude the trial court parted from +essential requirements of law in granting -- +THE COURT: So in other words, she's not +only seeking -- she's seeking current emotional +damage as a result of this relationship and +you're trying to find out if she had prior +relationships that perhaps could be intertwined +with it so that it's not just Mr. Epstein's -- +MR. CRITTON: Right. A perfect example is + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 75-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 12 of 14 +20 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +one of the cases that I have is there's a young +Lady who claims that she was molested in the past +and raped, pretty significant issues, well in +advance of her even meeting with Mr. Epstein. +And they seem to play a large role in her +psychiatric and psychological evaluation. +We're going to come to the Court in +this case as we have others and ask for a +psychological evaluation of this lady, and if she +was raped or if she was molested or just she had +a bad experience or some -- whether it was a +young or old man assaulted her in some fashion, +that may play a role in her damages and what -- +THE COURT: What I'm going to allow for +discovery purposes only not necessarily getting +it in at the time trial are two years before her +first encounter with Mr. Epstein and anything +subsequent. +MR. +•: Judge, I just wanted to say on +the record because I forgot to mention it, +there's also -- I did state an objection to the +identity of people that are unrepresented in this +courtroom. They have rights too. So what I -- +THE COURT: Well, my suggestion is that you +send those people a letter and tell them that + + +Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 75-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 13 of 14 +21 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +you're going to disclose them and if they have a +problem with it that they come to see me before +you disclose it. +So I'm going to give you 20 days to +respond to this rather than the usual five and +that will give you time to put these people on +notice and if they want to come visit with me and +have a John Doe, I'll have a John Doe hearing +but, you know, this is her case. She's doing it. +She's the one seeking damages, and he is entitled +to be able to confront other individuals to find +out information that may be relevant to the +damages she's seeking or she can drop the +damages. That's her choice. If you seek +damages, you've got to do it - if you could put +that in an order so that we have a time for him +to do this. +Just fill out an order, hand it back up +to me and I'll deal with it. +(The proceedings were concluded.) +u.s. Legal Support + + +• Case 9:08-CV-80380-KAM Document 75-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 14 of 14 +22 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE +THE STATE OF FLORIDA, +COUNTY OF PALM BEACH. +I, Teresa Bell, Court Reporter, certify that +I was authorized to and did stenographically report +the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a +true and complete record of my stenographic notes. +I further certify that the proceedings were +taken at the time and place shown herein and that all +counsel and persons as hereinabove shown were present. +I further certify that I am not a relative, +employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, +nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' +attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am +I financially interested in the action. +pated this 11th day waBell. +TERESA BELL, +Court Reporter +U.s. Legal Support +(561) +835-0220 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d93362db35ff33c5b0d52396762dd0add7a572f276860577ec7e5dc4b2ab8d81.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d93362db35ff33c5b0d52396762dd0add7a572f276860577ec7e5dc4b2ab8d81.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b9efb55a26b7bd5dad8b65cfd10321dfff029006 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d93362db35ff33c5b0d52396762dd0add7a572f276860577ec7e5dc4b2ab8d81.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -550, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d93362db35ff33c5b0d52396762dd0add7a572f276860577ec7e5dc4b2ab8d81", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 16, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "6456907817f508de158a40e1e8afb698ffc87cf4e216ad24c6f5c2b6671768eb", + "output_sha256": "df1bf73a00ba6c8e1db808c46b2994a2ebe9393ac09951a841df312a5d39344c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9372bd11246840ffd3296837ab55f3a1547743f7055c3b35e0df2245470951f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9372bd11246840ffd3296837ab55f3a1547743f7055c3b35e0df2245470951f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7f2a94799e57709fffaf3a745b6a8a808e0c99dd --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9372bd11246840ffd3296837ab55f3a1547743f7055c3b35e0df2245470951f.md @@ -0,0 +1,1105 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 144-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 1 of 23 +professional publications include books and peer-reviewed medical journal articles on mass +disasters, most recently concerning the Attack on America. +He was extensively interviewed in 1997 by CBS Dallas TV regarding psychiatric testimony +concerning eleven altar boys, testimony which had resulted in a record-making jury verdict +against the Archdiocese of Dallas. In April, 1998, Dr. Kliman was interviewed by Channel Four +anchorwoman, Linda +i, concerning his Salvation Army project providing the Cornerstone +form of psychoanalytic psychotherapy for homeless preschoolers and toddlers,. The Cornerstone +project itself was viewed on the Channel II Five O'Clock News. KGO TV interviewed Dr. +Kliman concerning a forensic testimony, with a focus on a Stanford football player who had +allegedly become a child molester. During the Lewinsky-Clinton matter, Kliman was +interviewed by Channel 12/20 concerning psychoanalytic views of leaders having exceptional +sexual access to partners and the risk of a position of power overcoming the judgments of such +leaders. During 2001 following the World Trade Building terrorism, Dr. Kliman was +interviewed by Channel II News and appeared on five occasions thereafter through 2003 +concerning the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. In May 2003, he was discussant with U.N. Secretary +General Olaru Otonu, featured on Dhubai Business TV concerning the plight of children in war. +In 2004, together with the International Psychoanalytic Association, Dr. Kliman helped organize, +establish +and supervise a therapeutic preschool project in Buenos Aires. +"Cornerstone +Argentina" is now in its second year of treating severely disturbed and impoverished +preschoolers, with his continuing collaboration. +Following the hurricane disasters of 2005 he collaborated with Mercy Corps and the Children's +Psychological Health Center to produce a mental health resource. The result, "My Katrina and +Rita Story", a guided activity resource of families who had to deal with the hurricanes. Mercy +Corps is distributing copies to 20,000 families. +In 2005, RE DISTURBED PRESCHOOLERS Dr. Kliman helped organize. establish and +supervise a therapeutic project in Piedmont California, at the nonprofit Ann +Center. +In 2007, RE HOMELESS CHILDREN: Dr. Kliman helped establish a Reflective Network +Therapy service for homeless preschoolers in Seattle. He provided four days of training in that +method for the Family Service Center of +• County (located in Seattle), and created an +organizational link between The Family Services Center and The Children's Psychological +Health Center, Inc. of San Francisco in order to continue serving homeless children in Seattle. +In 2008, Dr. Kliman activated the Reflective Network Therapy services for preschoolers in +Seattle. He supervises there in person and by phone and video. +In 2008, RE DISASTER SERVICES: Following the Sichuan Earthquake Disaster of May 12, +008, Dr. Kliman established a link between Children's Psychological Health Center, Inc +Mercy Corps, and The China America Psychoanalytic Alliance. He created mental healt +resources (see Publications) which were licensed for mass distribution in China by Mercy Corps. +In 2008, Dr. Kliman helped found a new non-profit organization called Teach with Africa and is +a member of its Board of Directors. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 144-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 2 of 23 +PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS: +Medical Director: The Children's Psychological Health Center, Inc. (a non-profit agency), San +Francisco, 1993- Responsible for standards of research. clinical treatment, clinical supervision, +staff training and forensic evaluations - reporting directly to the Board of Directors. Psychiatrie +Consultant: Ann +Center, Piedmont, CA. Psychiatric Consultant: +• County Family +Services, Seattle, WA. Private Practice: Medical Director, The Psychological Trauma Center, +(a division of Preventive Psychiatry Associates, Medical Group, Inc.), San Francisco, 1989-. +Chief Psychiatric Consultant, Children's Garden, San Rafael, CA, 1990-1991. (Children's +Garden is a residential +i care facility, consisting of group care cottages and a school.) +Director, Preventive Psychiatry Services and Unit for Study of Mass Violence and Genocide, St. +Mary's Hospital, San Francisco, CA 1987-1989. Private practice of Psychiatry and +Psychoanalysis (Adult, Child, and Adolescent), San Francisco, CA, 1985-. Director and +Principal Investigator, +Care Study Unit, Columbia University, College of Physicians and +Surgeons, New York, N.Y., 1984-87. Associate Clinical Professor, Columbia University, +Department of Child Psychiatry, New York, N.Y., 1985-87. Founder, Editor-in-Chief, the +Journal of Preventive Psychiatry, New York, N.Y., 1980-. Principal Investigator, NIMH +project ("Preventive Mental Health Services for Children Entering +¡ Care"), The Center for +Preventive Psychiatry, +| Plains, N.Y., 1979-1985. Consultant, Children's Television +Workshop, New York 1976. Assistant Clinical Professor, Mount Sinai Medical School, +Department of Psychiatry, New York, N.Y., 1969-70. Director, Preventive Psychiatry Service, +Elmhurst General Hospital, Queens, N. Y.,1969-70 +GRANTS AWARDED: +Grants have been received as Principal Investigator for research and service in preventive +psychiatry from: The Aaron Norman Foundation, American Chai Trust, +Barrie +Foundation, Bydale Foundation, Cheesborough Pond's Inc., Ciba-Giegy Corporation, Julius H. & +Bessie R. Cohn Foundation, David and Ruth Kosh Foundation, James +Foundation, +Estate of Florence Mascias, Birny Mason Foundation, The Charles and Emma Goldmann +Foundation, The Haas Foundation, The Savin Corporation, The Harris Foundation, The Abelard +Foundation, AMF Corporation, CNA Financial Corporation, D. & R. Gottesman Foundation, +Stella & Charles Guttman Foundation, Longhill Charities, Virginia & Leonard Marx Foundation, +The Klingenstein Foundation, The Lavanburg-Corner House Foundation, Herman Muehlstein +Foundation, Nestle Corporation, Louise Ottinger Charitable Trust, Pettus Crowe Foundation, +Edward & Ellen Roche Relief Foundation, Samuel Rubin Foundation, Savin Business Machines +Corp., S. & H. Scheuer Foundation, +Tannenbaum Foundation. +Grants have been received as Principal Investigator for a project to develop nonmedical training +in Early Childhood Psychotherapy from: The Cleveland Foundation, The Van Ameringen +Foundation. A grant was received for equipment for preschool therapeutic services, from: The +Hecksher Foundation. Grants have been received as Principal Investigator for Research in the +Etiology of Early Childhood Psychosis from: The Bochm Foundation. Grants have been received +as Principal Investigator for Research in Assessment of Preventive Clinical Interventions with +Children Entering | +Family Care, from: The National Institute of Mental Health (Grant # +RO1 MH 27944), and The Harris Foundation. Grants received as Principal Investigator, The +Columbia University +I Care Study Unit, for development of preventive interventions with +children, from the following foundations: The Daniel and Florence Guggenheim +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 144-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 3 of 23 +Foundation, The Dreyfus Foundation, The Seth Sprague Foundation, The Gralnick Foundation, +The Harris Foundation, U.S. Trust, and The Scheuer Family Foundation. +Most recent grants: +1996-2002: Support from The Office of Education, Division of Special Education, San Mateo +County, California. +1996 The Windholz Foundation, San Francisco, for video documentation of an experimental +project concerning treatment of disturbed and traumatized preschool patients in a public +education special education division. +1999 Morris Stulsaft Foundation for video-recording facility to document treatment in The +Cornerstone Therapeutic School. +1999-2001 The Cadence Corporation - for early childhood treatment services +2000-2001 The Harris Foundation for Cornerstone Therapeutic School. +2000 Funding and Recognition by the State of California: In 2001, The Department of +Education, Division of Special Education, certified the Cornerstone Therapeutic School as a +nonpublic special education school, allowing public entities to fund the school by contracts with +Unified School Districts. +2001 The San Francisco Day Care Corporation - for Cornerstone Therapeutic School. +2001 The Sophie Murvis Foundation for Training of Teachers and Therapists in the Cornerstone +Method. +2002, 2003. The Five +Preschool 2003. +Foundation for development of The Cornerstone Therapeutic +2005 The Sophie Murvis Foundation grant for Training of Teachers and Therapists in the +Cornerstone Method. +2005 Mercy Corps for creation of "My Personal Story about Hurricanes Katrina and Rita" +2008 Mercy Corps for creation of "My Sichuan Earthquake Story" +JANUSZ KORCZAK INTERNATIONAL LITERARY PRIZE: +Albert Rosenfeld, co-authors of Responsible Parenthood, published by Holt, Rinchart and +Winston, New York, 1980 +PUBLISHED PAPERS AND BOOKS: +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 144-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 4 of 23 +01. "Adrenal Medullary Function," in G. +Yearbook of Endocrinology, Yearbook +Publishers, 1955. +02. Improved Visual Recognition in Hypnotic Versus Control State," Archives of General +Psychiatry, Vol. 7:155-162, October 1962. +03. Children and the Death of a President, Editor and Contributor (with Martha +Wolfenstein, Ph.D.), Doubleday & Company, New York, 1965. +04. Oedipal Themes in Children's Reactions to the Assassination of President Kennedy," +in Wolfenstein and Kliman, Children and the Death of a President, Doubleday, New +York, 1965. +05. "The Role of Stimulus Ambiguity in Hypnotic Recognition," (with Eugene Goldberg, +M.D.), Arch. Gen. Psychiat. 14: 100, Jan. 1966. +06. "Sharing Truths for Mental Health," in Mental Health in Our Daily Life. Mental +Health Association, +Plains. New York, 1966. +07. "A Psychoanalyst Looks at +Violence as a Factor in Black Violence," The +Center for Preventive Psychiatry, 1968. +08. Teacher Recognition of Psychiatric Needs Among Preschoolers," The Center for +Preventive Psychiatry, 1968. +09. Psychological Emergencies of Childhood. Grune and +New York, 1968. +10. +"A Psychiatrist Speaks Out: 3,000 Blighted Children of Westchester," The Center for +Preventive Psychiatry, 1969. +11. "On a Vacuum in Mental Health Practices," The Center for Preventive Psychiatry, +1969. +"Psychological Management of the Dying Child," in W. Kutscher (Ed.) Death and +Bereavement, Charles C. +Company, Springfield, III. 1969. +13. "The Unique Function of the Teacher in an Experimental Therapeutic Nursery School" +(with Doris Ronald), The Center for Preventive Psychiatry, +Plains, New York, +1970. +14. The Open Family Series (Consultant Editor, with Sarah Bonnett +author). A +series of five books entitled About Dying, Making Babies, That New Baby, A Hospital +Story, and About Handicaps, +Publishing Co., New York, 1974. +15. "Death in the Family-Its Impact on Children," Terry +Klein Memorial +16. +Lecture. Behavioral Sciences Tape Library, Leonia, New Jersey, 1974. +"Death of a Parent Occurring During a Child's Analysis," in Trauma: Monograph V of +17. +the Monograph Series of the Ernst Kris Study Group, New York, 1974. +"A Case of a Dying Child," in Trauma: Monograph V of the Monograph Series of the +Ernst Kris Study Group, New York Psychoanalytic Institute, International Universities +Press, New York, 1974. +18. "Analyst in the Nursery: Application of Child Analytic Techniques in a Therapeutic +Nursery," The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, Volume 30, New York Times +Publishing Company, 1975. +19. "A Study of Maternal Depression in the First Two Years of Life: A Possible +Contributing Factor in the Etiology of Infantile Psychosis and Neurosis" (with Judyth +Katz), The Center for Preventive Psychiatry, +Plains, New York, 1975. +20. Introduction to Love and Mankind's Future, by Alexander Arzoumanian, Persepolis +Press, New York, 1976. +21. "Preventive Measures in Childhood Bereavement," in Linzer, N. Understanding +Bereavement and Grief. Yeshiva University Press, New York, 1977. +22. "Childhood Mourning: A Taboo Within a Taboo," in Gerber, I., Wiener, A., Kutscher, +A., et al., Perspectives on Bereavement, MSS Information Corporation, New York, +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 144-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 5 of 23 +23. "Mourning, Memory, and Reconstruction: The Analysis of a Four-Year-Old +Maternally Bereaved Girl at Age Sixteen Months" (With +1, Ph.D.), in +The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, Volume 34, The New York Times Press, New +York, 1979. +"Facilitation of Mourning During Childhood," in Gerber, I., Wiener, A., Kutscher, A., +et al., Perspectives on Bereavement, MSS Information Corporation, New York, 1979. +25. "The Cornerstone Treatment of a Preschool Boy from an Extremely Impoverished +Environment" (with +, Ph.D.), The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, +Vol. 35, The New York Times Press, New York, 1980. +26. Responsible Parenthood: The Child's Psyche Through the Six-Year Pregnancy, Holt, +Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1980. +27. "Death: Some Implications in Child Development and Child Analysis," in Advances in +Thanatology, Vol. 4, No. 2, Arno Press, New York, 1980. +28. +"Children in +Care: A Preventive Service and Rescarch Program for a High Risk +Population" (with M. Harris Schaeffer, +, and Bernard G. +Pasquariella). The Journal of Preventive Psychiatry, Volume I: 1, 1981. +Editorial(s). The Journal of Preventive Psychiatry. Volume I, 1981-1982, Volume II, +1983-4, Volume III, 1985-7, Volume IV, in press. +30. Preventive Mental Health Services for Children Entering +Assessment (with M. Harris Schaeffer, and M. +Family Care: An +The Center for Preventive +31. +Psychiatry, +Plains, New York, 1982. +"Summary +of Two Psychoanalytically Based Service and Research Projects: +Preventive Treatments for +Children" with M. Harris Schaeffer, Ph.D. J. of +Preventive Psychiatry, Vol. II, No. 1, 1983. +"Three New Areas in Litigation on behalf of Children," in Child Psychiatry and the +33. +Law, Diane Schekty, Editor, Volume 2, Bruner/Mazel, New York, 1985. +Preventive Psychiatry: Early Intervention and Situational Crisis Management, coeditor, with S.C. Klagsbrun, M.D., E.J. Clark, Ph.D., others. The Charles Press, +Philadelphia, 1989. +34. My Earthquake Story: A Guided Workbook for Children, Parents and Teachers, with +Harriet Wolfe, M.D. and Edward Oklan, M.D. Psychological Trauma Center Press, +35. +Kentfield, CA. October, 1989. +"Facilitation of Mourning During Childhood," chapter in Preventive Psychiatry: Early +Intervention and Situational Crisis Management. (Eds) S. Klagsbrun, G. Kliman, E. +Clark, A. Kutscher, R. DeBellis, C. Lambert. The Charles Press, Philadelphia, 1989. +36. +"Toward Preventive Intervention in Early Childhood Object Loss," chapter in +Noshpitz, H. and Coddington, D. (Eds) Stressors and Clinical Techniques in Child +Psychiatry. Charles +, NY, 1990. +37. "Brief Report: Loss of Parental Services—-A Guide to Categorization." J. Preventive +Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines 4:1, 1990. Human Sciences Press, NYC. +38. +"A Methodologic Breakthrough: The Saga of Delivering Effective Primary Preventive +Psychotherapy to Groups of | +| Children." J. Preventive Psychiatry and Allied +Disciplines 4:1, 1990. Human Sciences Press, NYC. +39. +"The Rise of Adolf Hitler and Other Genocidal Leaders—Psychoanalytic and +Historical Symposium (Summary)," J. Preventive Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines +4:1,1990. Human Sciences Press, NYC. +6 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 144-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 6 of 23 +40. Kliman, G. et al (2007). "Facilitating Effective Coping in Children Following +Disasters: A Psychoanalytic Informed Guided Narrative Intervention." J. Am Psan. +Assoc. In Press +41. Kliman, G. and M.H. Schaeffer, Ph.D. "A Breakthrough in Prediction and Prevention: +Diagnoses as Social Predictors for +Children." J. Preventive Psychiatry and +Allied Disciplines 4:1, 1990 Human Sciences Press, NYC. +42. "My Flood Story-a Guided Activity Workbook for Children, Families and +Teachers," co-authored with Edward Oklan, M.D., Family Development Press, 1010 +Sir Francis Drake Blvd, Kentfield, CA 94960. +43. "My Earthquake Story, A Guided Activity Workbook for Children, Families and +Teachers," co-authored with Harriet Wolfe, M.D., Preventive Psychiatry Associates +Medical Group, Inc., 2105 Divisadero Street, San Francisco, CA 94115 and Edward +Oklan, M.D., Family Development Press, 1010 Sir Francis Drake Blvd, Kentfield, CA +94960. +44. "Field Notes: +| Care: The Personal Life History Book: A Psychoanalytically +Based Intervention for +Children," Journal for the Psychoanalysis of Culture & +Society, Fall 1996 1:2. 159-162. +45. Kliman G and Zelman A. (1996). "Use of a Personal Life History Book in the +Treatment of +_ Children-An Attempt to Enhance Stability of +Care +Placements." Chapter in Zelman A (ed). Early Intervention with High-Risk Children: +Freeing Prisoners of Circumstance. Jason Aronson, Northvale, NJ. 105-124. +46. "Cornerstone Project: Analysis in Special Ed Classes," The American Psychoanalyst, +1997. 31:2.27-28 +"My Book about Kosovo - a Guided Activity Workbook for Kosovo Children, +Families, and their Teachers." English and Albanian Editions, CPHC, 1999, San +Francisco. +48. "My Book about the Attack on America", A Guided Activity Workbook for Children, +Families and Teachers, coauthored with Ed Oklan, M.D. and Ann Oklan, M.D. 2001, +CPHC, San Francisco. +49. "Helping Patients and their Families Cope in a National Disaster", The S.F. Medical +Society, January 2002. Reprinted in J. L.A. Medical Society, March 2002. +50. Discussion of Reactive Attachment Disorder. Developmental Pediatrics. 2003. +51. "My Personal Story About Hurricanes Katrina and Rita - a guided activity workbook +Portland, OR. +"My Personal Story About Tropical Storm Stan" English Ed. Feb. 24, 2006, The +Children's Psychological Health Center. Spanish Translation " Mi Historia De La +Tormenta Stan" Feb. 2006 +53. +Israeli Terror Book +54. "'Methods for Maximizing the Good Effects of +Care: Evidence Based Strategies +to Prevent Discontinuities of +Care and Raise I.Q." International Journal of +Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, April, 2006 +"My Personal Story about being Homeless" A Guided Activity Workbook to help +Children Cope. The Children's Psychological Health Center Jan 15, 2008 +56. "My Sichuan Earthquake Story - A Guided Activity Workbook to help Children +Cope" 85 pages. First English Edition May 22, 2008 available for download online at +www.childrenspsychological.org. Mandarin edition by CPHC and China America +Analytic Association, in press with Mercy Corps June 2, 2008. +7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 144-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 7 of 23 +57. "My Hurricane Story" A Guided Activity Workbook to help Children Cope. The +Children's Psychological Health Center. Sept 21, 2008 +WORKS IN PROGRESS: available in Draft: +IQ Rise among Preschoolers with Pervasive Developmental Disorders. +Child Psychoanalytic Contributions to Civil Justice System, submitted by invitation, to +Psychoanalytic Inquiry +Books in Draft: +1. Reflective Network Therapy: Early Childhood Psychotherapy in the Classroom +2. A Unifying New Theory of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder +PRESENTATIONS: +01. "Specific Traumas: Selective Review of Literature," presented at the Ernst Kris Study +Group, New York Psychoanalytic Institute, New York, 1965. +02. "Psychoanalysis of a Four-Year-Old in a Preschool Group," presented at the American +Psychoanalytic Association, Atlantic City, New Jersey, May, 1966 +03. "Covert Suicidal Impulses in Maternally Deprived Children" (with Harriet Lubin, M.S.W.), +presented at the American Association of Psychiatric Services for Children, Boston, +Massachusetts, November, 1969. +04. Children's Reactions to National Events: The 1968 Federal Elections," presented at the +American Orthopsychiatric Association, Washington, D.C., 1969. +05. "Facilitation of Mourning During Childhood," presented at the Chicago Psychoanalytic +Institute, May 1973. +06. "Preventive Approaches to Preschool Psychiatric Disorders: Some Assessments," presented +at the Academy of Child Psychiatry, Washington, D.C., October, 1973. +"Biological Drive Derivative Cycles in Preschool Patients," presented at the New York +Psychoanalytic Institute Research Seminar, 1974. +08. "Children in National Disasters," presented at the International Association for Child +Psychiatry, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1974. +09. "Childhood Mourning: Some Social Aspects," presented at Yeshiva University, New York, +October, 1974. +10. The Secter far Pral entive Rey oate Impact ors with mene and hident presented +Yeshiva University, October 15, 1975. +11. "Death: Implication for Psychoanalytic Theory and Practice," presented at The Association +for Psychoanalytic Medicine, New York, 1977. +12. "A Psychoanalytic View of an Ancient Mass Disaster: The Mayan Exodus," The Center for +Preventive Psychiatry, 1977. +8 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 144-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 8 of 23 +13. "A Psychoanalytic View of Preventive Psychiatry," presented at Stockbridge, Mass., +December, 1977. +14. "The Self-Concept and Healthy Narcissism: Relevance to Preventive Psychiatry," presented +at the Westchester Psychoanalytic Socicty, L +Plains, New York, 1978. +15. "Special Problems of the Single Parent Child," presented at Department of Child +Psychiatry, Rutgers Medical School and published by Jason Aronson Psychotherapy Tape +Library, New York, 1978. +16. "The Self-Concept: Its Significance in Prevention of Mental Illness," presented at The +Alumni Association of the Chicago Psychoanalytic Institute, Child Psychothcrapy Program, +Chicago, 1978. +17. "Treatment of an Impoverished Intellectually Retarded Ghetto Child by the Cornerstone +Method" (with +. Ph.D.), presented at the American Psychoanalytic +Association, New York, 1979. +18. "Preventive Approaches Among | +| Children Using Modern Theory of Narcissism," +presented at The Department of Psychiatry, Mountainside Hospital, Symposium on Primary +Prevention of the Mental and Behavioral Disorders, Mountainside, NJ, 1979. +19. "The Center for Preventive Psychiatry: Its Relationship to Infant Psychiatry," at the +Symposium on Infant Psychiatry, The Center for Preventive Psychiatry, +Plains, New +York, 1979. +20. "Mourning, +Memory and Reconstruction," presented at The Westchester Psychoanalytic +Association, +Plains, New York, 1980. +21. "Preliminary Report on Preventive Psychiatric Services for +Children," presented at +American Association of Psychiatric Services for Children, 1980. +22. "Assessment of Primary Preventive Services: Children Entering +Family Care," +presented at American Orthopsychiatric Association, May, 1981. +23. "Psychoanalytically-Based Approaches to the Problems of +Care: A Pilot Project," +presented at the American Psychoanalytic Association Interdisciplinary Seminar on +Psychoanalytic Observations of +| Care, New York, December, 1978. See also report of +this Seminar by +T.: "Psychoanalytic Observations of +Care (An +Interdisciplinary Seminar of the American Psychoanalytic Association)." The Journal of +Preventive Psychiatry, Volume I:1, 1981. +24. "A Project to Deliver and Evaluate Preventive Psychiatric Services," Columbia College of +Physicians & Surgeons, Division of Child Psychiatry Grand Rounds, May, 1982. +25. "New Concepts in Litigation on Behalf of Children," presented at New York Medical +College, October, 1982. +26. "Cruel Experiments of Nature: General Remarks on Childhood Bereavement and +Developmental Pathology:" Vulnerable Child Workshop, American Psychoanalytic +27. Facilitation of Mourning During Childhood: Role of The Clinician," presented at New York +28. "A Questionnaire for Surveying the Practice of Preventive Psychiatry," presented at the +American Academy of Child Psychiatry, Prevention Committee, October, 1983. +29. "Experiences and Problems in Research Concerning Childhood Bereavement," presented at +Department of Psychiatry, University of Ottawa, November, 1983. +Children" (co-authored with M. Harris Schaefter, +Ph.D.), presented at American Psychiatric Association, May, 1984. +31. "Preventive Psychiatry as Applied to +Children," Grand Rounds, +Porter +Psychiatric Institute, 1985. +32. +"The Childhood of Adolf Hitler," with Robert Pois, Ph.D., The American Psychoanalytic +Association, Denver, May 1985. +9 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 144-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 9 of 23 +33. Seminar on "New Areas in Forensic Psychiatry," at the Robert +law firm, San +Francisco, 1986. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE +34. "Children's Reactions to the Challenger Shuttle Disaster," on 20/20 (Television Broadcast), +1986. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE +35. +The Fathering of Adolf Hitler," Grand Rounds, McAuley Neuropsychiatric Institute, St. +Mary's Hospital, San Francisco, 1986. +36. "Child Sexual Abuse: Psychoanalytic and Forensic Approaches," Children's Hospital, San +Francisco, 1986. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE +37. +"Preventive Psychiatry for Children," Training Seminar at McAuley Neuropsychiatric +Institute, St. Mary's Hospital, San Francisco, 1987. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE +38. "Multi-Victim Child Sexual Abuse," San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute Extension +Division, October 1987. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE +39. "Children in +¡ Families: Advances in Preventive Psychiatry," Continuing Education +Program for Psychiatrists, U.C. +8, 1988. +40. "The Mothering of Adolf Hitler," Grand Rounds. McAuley Neuropsychiatric Institute, St. +Mary's Hospital, San Francisco, Dec. 1988. +41. "Adolf Hitler's Mothering: A Child Psychoanalytic View," Westchester Psychoanalytic +Society, New York Hospital, January, 1989. +42. "The Personal Life History Book: Preventive Psychotherapy for Children in Chaos." +Department of Child Psychiatry, Harlem Hospital, New York, NY, January, 1989. +43. Chairman: Symposium April 20-21, 1989. The Rise of Adolf Hitler and Other Genocidal +Leaders. Interdisciplinary Unit for Study of Mass Violence and Genocide. St. Mary's +Hospital Department of Psychiatry, San Francisco. +44. "The Mothering of Adolf Hitler," Symposium above. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE +45. +46. +"The Fathering of Adolf Hitler," Symposium above. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE +Public Media: Following the October 17th earthquake, Dr. Kliman and his Psychological +Trauma Center associates appeared on KRON-TV, KFAS, KQED and public service radio +network to offer advice and respond to call-in questions regarding earthquake stress and +trauma. His Earthquake Story guided workbook (see above) was distributed as a public +service by San Francisco Community Mental Health Services and the Oakland Bureau of +Education to 11,000 teachers in Oakland and San Francisco. +Psychoanalytic Society: (April 1990) "Simultaneous child and couple therapy: +emergence and interpretation of congruent unconscious themes." +48. University of California College of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Irvine. Chune +1990) "Prevention of Psychopathology among Children: Systematic Projects with +Children." +49. Preventive Interventions with Traumatized Children," Grand Rounds California Pacific +Hospital Department of Psychiatry, October 20, 1992. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE. +50. Altered Interpersonal Schemas After Life Threatening Childhood Trauma," Center for +Study of Consciousness, UCSF, October 1992. +51. Alterations of Pre-Traumatic Memory and Post Traumatic Schemas," Child Analysis +Colloquium, San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, November 1992. +52. Toward A New Theory of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder," Control Mastery Group, San +Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, December 1992. +53. Severe Psychological Trauma in Very Young Children," Grand Rounds at the Menninger- +San Mateo County Hospital Psychiatric Residency Program, March 23, 1993. +54. Psychological Crises Among Preschoolers," Department of Health, City of San Francisco, +April 1993. +55. Child Analysis Colloquium," San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, May 1993. +10 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 144-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 10 of +56. "Loss of Parental Services—a Guide for Clinicians and Attorneys," Children's +Psychological Trauma Center, September 16, 1993. (120 min. VIDEOTAPE +AVAILABLE.) +57. Catastrophic Levels of Psychological Trauma—a Guide for Clinicians and Attorneys," +Children's Psychological Trauma Center, September 27, 1993 (120 min. VIDEOTAPE +AVAILABLE.) +58. Systematic Preventive Interventions with +• Children," Keynote Address, Western +Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute Conference on Adoption and +• Care, Sept. 22, 1993. +59. Cost Benefits of Preventive Interventions with +• Children," American Behavioral +Health Institute, San Francisco, Sept. 28, 1993. (60 min. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE.) +60. True and False Allegations of Child Molestation," Children's Psychological Trauma Center, +October 1, 1993. (120 min. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE). +61. Severe Psychological Trauma in Childhood-Some New Observations," Grand Rounds, +Dept. of Child Psychiatry, Oakland Children's Hospital, Oct. 7, 1993. (60 min. +VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE.) +Preventive Approaches in Severe Psychological Trauma," Bar Association of San +Francisco, October 28, 1993. (90 min. VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE.) +63. New Theory of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder," Pediatric Grand Rounds California Pacific +Hospital, Nov. 5, 1993. +64. Preventing Depression in Yourself, Your Clients and Your Co-Workers," San Francisco +Bar Association, San Francisco, CA, December 2, 1993. +A New Theory of Post Traumatic Disorders," Center for Preventive Psychiatry, +Plains, NY, January 11, 1994. +66. KRON-TV, "Helping Children Deal with Earthquake Stress," San Francisco, CA, January +20, 1994. +67. Samuel Kahn Memorial Lecture, The Center for Preventive Psychiatry, +, Plains, N.Y. +Topic, +"Catastrophic Traumas of Childhood-New Findings, +New Theory, New +Therapeutic Tasks," February 28, 1994. +68. "Preventing Job Stress: The Disease of the 20th Century," San Francisco Bar Association, +San Francisco, CA, March 25, 1994. +69. "Controlled Assessment of Psychoanalytically Derived Psychotherapy with +Children," American Psychoanalytic Association, Philadelphia, PA, May 1994. +70. "A senior researcher's subjective experience of a new hypothesis," California School of +Professional Social Work Studies. Commencement Address, May 1994. +71. "Oppositionalism Among Traumatized Children," International Association Child and +Adolescent Psychiatry, San Francisco, CA, July 23, 1994. +72. "New Theory of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder," International Association Child and +Adolescent Psychiatry, San Francisco, CA, July 25, 1994. +73. "Violence Against Young Children-Children in War," Co-sponsored by San Francisco +Psychoanalytic Institute, San Francisco, CA, July 26, 1994. +74. "Method for Treatment of Preschool Psychiatric Patients in Groups," American +Psychoanalytic Association, Philadelphia, PA, December 15, 1994. +Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, March 31, 1995. +76. "New Theory of Child Abuse Effects," T.A.S.K., Monterey, CA, April 1, 1995. +77. "Psychological Trauma, Day Care and Mental Health," San Francisco Psychoanalytic +Institute Extension Division. April 26, 1995. +78. "Special Problems of Medical Ethics in Psychiatric Treatment: Child Abuse Concerns," San +Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute Research Group, June 30, 1995. +11 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 144-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 11 of +79. "Operational Confirmation of a Psychoanalytic Hypothesis: Detecting and Interfering with +The Repetition Compulsion," Cleveland Psychoanalytic Institute and Anni Katan Center for +Child Development, October 28, 1995. +80. The Personal Life History Book Method: Reducing Transfers Among +Family +Homes," The Center for Preventive Psychiatry, 1 +Plains, NY, October 30, 1995. +81. "A New Theory of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder," Grand Rounds, Baylor University +School of Medicine, Houston, November 8, 1995. +82. "Raising IQ's in a Therapeutic Nursery: The Cornerstone Method. How it works as +illustrated by video clips of the therapist and patients in the classroom," The Houston +Psychoanalytic Institute and Stedman West Child Development Center, Houston, TX, +November 8, 1995. +83. "The Difficult Client: Accredited Continuing Legal Education seminar for California +Attorneys." The Psychological Trauma Center, The Psychological Trauma Center, 1996. +84. "Catastrophic injuries and psychological trauma: Accredited Continuing Legal Education +seminar for California Attorneys." The Psychological Trauma Center, 1996. +85. "Why Small Clients Get Large Awards: Proving and Disproving Psychological Injuries in +Childhood. Accredited Continuing Legal Education seminar for California Attorneys." +86. "A New Public Health Approach in Public Special Education: Presentation to The San +Mateo Board of Education," San Mateo, CA. April 17, 1996. +87. A new model for special education of preschoolers: The Cornerstone Method -- for synergy +between early childhood education and psychotherapy. California State Dept. Education, +Division of Special Education September 1996, Red Lion Hotel, Orange County Airport, +88. "Synergy Between Special Education and Psychotherapy in the Classroom: Special +Education Learning Program Administrators," San Mateo, CA. October 10, 1996. +89. "The Role of Psychoanalyst as Forensic Expert in Catastrophic Psychological Trauma +Cases." American Psychoanalytic Association, Winter Meeting, Waldorf Astoria, NY. +December 1996 +"Controlled Assessment of a Psychoanalytically Derived Psychotherapy." American +Psychoanalytic Association, Winter Meeting, Waldorf Astoria, NY December 1996. +91. "Child Psychotherapy Course: Several preschool patients with different diagnosis, treated in +a preschool therapeutic nursery, showing response to interpretations, with discussions of the +role of teacher, parents and medications." San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, March 4, +11, 18, 1997 +"Synergy between Psychotherapy and early childhood special education" SELPA +Administrators, April 17, 1997 +"Analyst in the Nursery: The Cornerstone Method," San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, +May 21, 1997 +94. +"Psychological Trauma Among Preschoolers," San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, May +15, 1997 +95. ACT for Mental Health, April 17, 1997 +96. +"New Theory of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder," Fifth European Conference on Traumatic +Stress, European Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, July 1, 1997. +97. The Cornerstone Method: Intensive Preschool Psychotherapy in Public School Special +Education Classes. California State Federation/Council for Exceptional Children 48'h +Annual Conference & Special Education Fall Conference, San Francisco, CA, October 21- +24, 1998. +98. +Research and treatment with highly traumatized preschoolers. +Institute, Berkeley, +Feb. 4, 2002. +12 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 144-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 12 of +99. Five year and thirty-three year follow ups of early childhood psychotherapy: Some startling +findings among children treated by The Cornerstone Method. Grand Rounds, Dept. of +Psychiatry, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, February +1, 2000. +(VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE). +100. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and new methods of treatment. Department of Mental +Health, State of Oklahoma, and Dept. of Psychiatry, Oklahoma State College of Medicine. +Two Days of Workshops and Seminars to fellows, residents in psychiatry and child +psychiatry, medical students, and mental health clinicians. October 22,23 2000. +101. A Psychoanalytic Treatment of Young Children: Surprisingly Measurable Positive +Outcomes", San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute - Extension Division Discussion for +Clinicians, 03.05.2001 +102. Regarding the 9/11/2002 Attack on America. +2001-2002 Attack on America Events: 2001-2002 Public Health/ Public Education +Activities: +Seminar for Parents on Crisis Management following 9/11: Convent of Sacred Heart +Elementary School Seminar for Teachers on Crisis Management following 9/11: Stuart +and Convent of Sacred Heart Elementary Schools Federal Emergency Management +Agency: Web-Site Linkage for CPH's advice to parents and teachers American Academy +of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: Web-Site Linkage for free copies of guided activity +workbook for children, parents and teachers. +American Psychoanalytic Association: Web-site linkage for free copies of guided activity +workbook for children, parents and teachers. +Channel II: Three interviews on primary prevention of the effects of psychological trauma +and terror +Channel II: Three interviews on secondary prevention via early life psychiatric treatment of +children +103. Day Long Workshop on The Cornerstone Method. The Children's Psychological Health +04. Child psvchoanalysis. San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute. +author's recent treatment work with young children. +105. Theory and Intervention regarding Early Childhood Trauma: Extension Division, San +Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute. +106. Educating and treating disturbed young children: Office of Education, County of San +Mateo, ten conferences a year. (1995- 2002) +107. The Cornerstone Method of educating and treating disturbed young children: 45 +conferences a year, Children's Psychological Health Centcr, San Francisco. (1999- +continuing) +108. New methods for treatment of traumatized and/or developmentally disordered young +children. Northern California Mental Health Association, February 9, 2002. A day long +workshop. Eureka, Ca. +109. Research and treatment with disturbed and traumatized young children. +Berkeley, Feb 4, 2002. +Institute, +13 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 144-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 13 of +110. Presentations of video-taped child treatment sessions: The Child Analysis Study Group of +the San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, six occasions 2001-2002. +I11. New Theory and New Treatments of Children. Northern California Society of Mental +Health Professionals. Feb 8, 2002. +112. Treatment of Children in their Real Life Spaces. Ann ||| Center, Berkeley, CA +February 2, 2002. +113. Treatment of children in community school settings. Workshop on Community Child +Psychiatry. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. October 2002. +114. Treatment of preschoolers in real life space - The Cornerstone Method. A two day training +workshop for the L.A. County Dept. of Mental Health. October 2002. +115. The Cornerstone Method. The American Psychoanalytic Association, Workshop on Early +Childhood. January 2003, New York. +116. Treatment of Three Autistic Preschoolers: The American Psychoanalytic Association. June, +2003. Boston. +117. The Personal Life History Book: A Preventive Therapy for +| Children. A day-long +workshop at Counseling4Kids, Los Angeles, September 2003. +118. A new method of treatment of autistic preschoolers. The Chinatown Child Development +Center, San Francisco, December 4, 2003 +119. Results of the Cornerstone Method: Pervasive Developmental Disorder with eight month to +37 year followup. The M.I.N.D. Institute, U.C. +. December 19, 2003. +120. Procedures for preventing and reducing psychopathology among +| children. Joint +Committee of AACAP and Child Welfare League, November 2003, with Marilyn Benoit, +M.D. +121. The Role of Child Psychiatrists in Prevention of Child Abuse: Forensic Child Psychiatry as +a Societal Influence. Mensa Society, January 2004. +122. Psychoanalysis Confronts Autism. The L.A. and SoCal Psychoanalytic Institutes, February +22,2004. +123. Child Psychiatric Testimony and the Leading Edge of Social Change. American College of +Forensic Psychiatry, March 28, 2004 +124. The Cornerstone Method of Treating Autism. American Psychoanalytic Association, +Boston, Mass., January 2005. +125. An evidence based method for in-classroom treatment of disturbed preschoolers. Child +Welfare League of America. New Orleans, May 2005. +126. Two evidence-based methods for treating +| children. International Psychoanalytic +Association, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, July 2005. +127. A novel evidence-based method for treatment of Asperger's Disorder. Lorman Educational +Seminars, Redding, CA. November 18, 2005 +128. "Applications of The Cornerstone Method to Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders" +American Psychoanalytic Association, New York, New York. January 18, 2006 +129. "Applying The Cornerstone Method in Public Schools" Philadelphia Board of Education +April 28,06 DVD FORMAT AVAILABLE +130. "Crises Intervention Techniques Within Schools: What you Need to Know When Large or +Small Scale Disasters Strike" Lorman Educational Seminar, Sacramento, CA Oct. 6, 2006 +131. "Saying Goodbye: Termination in Psychotherapy" 53 Annual Meeting of The American +Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, San Diego, Ca October 28, 2006 +132. +JE, +A, Samples G, Kliman G: A school-based mental +health recovery effort. Poster session presentation at the 58th Institute on Psychiatric Services +Annual Meeting, New York, NY, October 5-8, 2006. +14 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM +Document 144-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 14 of +133. +¿, L, Viron M, +a JE +§ A, Samples G, Kliman G, O'Neill P. A School-based +Mental Health Recovery Effort. Poster session presentation at ADMSEP Annual meeting. Park +City, Utah, June, 2007. +134. Mishkin, AD, Viron M, +* LE, +n JE, Samples G, Kliman G. Reducing Post- +Traumatic Stress after Hurricane Katrina: A School-Based Intervention. Poster presented at the +59th Institute on Psychiatric Services Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, October 11-14, 2007. +135. Videotape evidence for a new theory of PTSD etiology and treatment. Combined meeting of +American Academy of Psychoanalysts with Academy of Psychoanalysis and Psychodynamic +Psychiatry, The Marriot, Washington, D.C. May 3, 2008 +CURRENT TEACHING: +Faculty Member: S.F. Psychoanalytic Institute. Eight 90 minute seminars on Pathogenesis in +Early Childhood, with Focus on Psychological Trauma (a course for Candidates in the Child +Analysis Program). See also Grand Rounds presentations below. +THESIS CHAIR ACTIVITIES: +Chairperson, Thesis Committee, California School of Professional Psychology, for Thesis of E. +Wayrynen, M.A. concerning "Oppositional Behavior Following Childhood Sexual Abuse." 1998 +Chairperson, Thesis Committee, +* Institute, for Thesis of Miquela +* Hope, Ph.D. on IQ +and CGAS changes following in-classroom psychotherapy and control group. 1999. +Chairperson, Thesis Committee, Pacific Graduate School of Psychology, for Tina Scovis- +Weston, Ph.D., on Early Memory Changes among Twelve Boys Raped by Men. 2001. +RECENT AND CURRENT PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION COMMITTEE WORK: +Chairperson an ensic sud a Association or a sac of Continuing Real cia rea +seminars presented by a panel of psychoanalysts. Topics presented by G. Kliman, 1993-1994: +"Post Traumatic Stress Disorder," "Prevention of Stress in the Workplace," and "Prevention of +Depressive Reactions during Legal Practice." Place: S.F. Bar Association. +CURRENT: +Member, Child Development Program Committec, San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute. +Member, Child Analysis Study Group, San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute. +Member, Committee on Psychoanalysis and the Community, American Psychoanalytic Institute. +15 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 144-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 15 of +Member, Joint Committee on +Child Welfare Association. +Care: Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the +PROFESSIONAL COMMENDATIONS: +A letter of commendation regarding clinical work in the classroom within a public school +system: +December 3, 2001 +To Whom It May Concern: +This is to report that the San Mateo County Office of Education, Special Education programs, +has benefited from the services of The Children's Psychological Health Center, specifically its +Cornerstone Therapeutic School Project. +We have worked together for the past six years. Under the leadership of Gilbert Kliman, M.D., +the Center has trained members of our teaching and school psychology staff to carry out a +mental health service on our premises. We now have a collaborative project in its sixth year for +our special education preschool children with Pervasive Developmental Disorders (PDD) and +for those with Serious Emotional Disorders (SED) which interfere with their education. As an +alternative to sending children to a private nonpublic special education school for extremely +intensive mental health services at significant cost, this project has created and provides just +such intensive service within a public preschool special class program at 65 Tower Road, San +Mateo. +To my knowledge, among the 30 children served so far under the collaborative project, we are +seeing cognitive, social and human gains which have decreased the gap between these children +and their typically developing peers. Several families and children are thriving with less +intensive special education service or returned to regular education class. Not only has the +family and child suffering been reduced, the burden to taxpayers is also reduced. The children +have been able to remain in the community, and some who were functioning as severely autistic +and retarded now appear to be developing within a somewhat normal range. We are pleased +with the quality of special education services our County provides for preschoolers with PDD or +SED. We are also gratified with the research results provided by The Children's Psychological +Health Center. +We recommend the Cornerstone project to other school systems, so that they consider it an +important opportunity should they be able to collaborate similarly with The Children's +Psychological Health Center. At California's common cost of $15,000 to $40,000 or more a +year, for a special education child who needs full time special education services and auxiliary +intensive help, the savings for even one child's 12-year career of intensive services in special +education can be substantial. The savings from one of the successes we have seen may equal the +costs of the entire Cornerstone project with the 30 children helped so far. +16 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 144-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 16 of +We have not yet seen any failures. The agency is showing measurable cognitive gains for our +collaborative work which, according to their research, averages 20 to 28 points in independent +WPPSI testing of the children in the Cornerstone program. The techniques are far more +economical to use than we have found with the Lovaas method, which we also implement for +some students. We have also seen the techniques transmitted to special education teachers as +well as inexperienced therapists. +I invite you to visit our project in action. +Sincerely, +JAYS. PARNES, Ed.D. +Senior Administrator +Special Education +MAJOR FEDERAL COURT FORENSIC ACTIVITIES: +EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS HEARD IN FEDERAL COURT, HANNIBAL +MISSOURI, November 15, 2001 +Under Dr. Kliman's leadership, a Children's Psychological Health Center team of five clinicians +na two administrative staff has been at work since May 2, 2001 conducting a behavioral aud +garding the psychiatric conditions and the residential treatment of over 100 children (most +ages 13 to 17) at Heartland Christian Academy, as requested by the Academy's general counsel. +2001: Doe vs. Three Springs Treatment Center, Nashville, TN. +2004: Does vs. L.K. Baliredy et al (An international child trafficking matter). Five days of +deposition. +2004 Doe vs. State of New Mexico and Arthur Brokup. +MAJOR STATE COURT CASES: +Some cases of public health significance, concerning allegedly traumatized minors in care of +governmental or institutional agencies: +Does vs. OK Boys Ranch and State of Washington: 44 children in care at a state-licensed +rehabilitation and +| care-related center were allegedly allowed to abuse each other while +staff and therapists did not report harmful activities of which they knew, Dr. Kliman opined. The +plaintiff children have to date all received settlements in four phases of this litigation over a nine +year period, with Dr. Kliman as the principal expert. +York vs. Chaparral/Victor Treatment Facility. Orange County Superior Court. An eleven year +old child severely and chronically molested by a residential treatment staff member was +evaluated and an opinion given by Dr. Kliman concerning harm and how to rehabilitate the child +as much as possible. Implications for standards of residential care are contained within the case. +Carlson vs. Ray-Lara | Home. Orange County Superior Court. Dr. Kliman evaluated and +testified concerning a twelve year old boy who was allegedly molested by a l +father and had +17 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 144-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 17 of +to rescue himself. The | | father's partner was negligent, Dr. Kliman opined. The judge +agreed and awarded the child compensation for psychological damages. +Does vs. Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Dr. Kliman was the lead psychiatric witness. The case +settled after six days of his deposition testimony. +Does vs. Salesian Order Western Region. Dr. Kliman was the lead psychiatric witness. The case +settled after nine days of his deposition testimony and two days of trial. +Does v South Dakota School for the Deaf. Multiple boys were molested by an older student. The +state school administration was allegedly negligent and major psychological damages were +claimed. Dr. Kliman served as the principal plaintiffs' expert on administrative liability issues +and psychological damages. The case settled with major compensation for the plaintiffs during +the time of jury deliberations. +CHILD PSYCHIATRIC EXPERT TESTIMONY: +Dr. Kliman helped set legal precedents for the inclusion of psychiatric testimony in matters +concerning wrongful death of a parent and loss of parental services, in both New York State and +California. He has testified in over 275 cases including over 100 trials. A Federal Rule 26 list is +available on request and on www.expertchildpsychiatry.com. His courtroom and deposition +testimony experience includes +cases of institutional negligence of children leading to +psychological trauma, negligent +I care, loss of parental services due to wrongful deaths, +psychological trauma as part of personal injury of adults and children, childhood molestation, +sexual harassment, termination of parental rights, and disputed custody. Since 2000 about 30% +of his forensic work has been requested by defense, about 70% by plaintiffs, with the defense +tasks increasing markedly in recent years. +Dr. Kliman's evaluations and testimony regarding 16 children negligently cared for and abused +at The Kiwanis' OK Boys' Ranch, Olympia, WA, helped lead to settlements and awards, +totalling $25,000,000. Responding to disclosures in that case, many improvements have occurred +in the publicly funded and licensed institutional care of children throughout the State of +Washington, according to newspaper accounts. +Dr. Kliman's evaluations and opinions, together with that of The Children's Psychological +Trauma Center team led by Robert Wynne MFCC, led to record-making $8,000,000 loss of +parental and other services compensation for 17 bereaved subsistence-economy Alaskan Inupiat +Native Americans (| +•vS. Ryan Airlines, Anchorage, 1997). +Principal expert regarding institutional negligence and psychological damages in Does vs. +Rudolph Kos and the Diocese of Dallas, Dallas 1997. The Catholic Church of Dallas was held +liable for institutional negligence, testimony concerning the need for major psychiatric treatment +planning was accepted by the jury, and $119,000,000-including punitive damages against the +18 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 144-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 18 of +OTHER PUBLIC HEALTH ACTIVITIES AND RECOGNITION: +In response to the mental health needs of families following recent massive firestorms, United +Way printed and distributed 10,000 copies of "My Fire Story -- a Guided Activity Workbook for +Children, Families and Teachers," co-authored with Edward Oklan, M.D. Copies can be obtained +from Family Development Press, 1010 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, Kentfield, CA 94960. The +State of lowa purchased rights to reproduce 10,000 copies of "My Book about The Attack on +America - a Guided Activity Workbook for Children, Families and Teachers", published in 2001. +During 1996 - 2002 Sophie Murvis Foundation, The Windholz Foundation, The Atkinson, +Cadence Corporation, Irving Harris Foundation and The Stullsaft Foundations have recently +awarded grants to Dr. Kliman as principal investigator for his Cornerstone Therapeutic Nursery +project, serving seriously disturbed preschoolers in the San Mateo Office of Education. +Presentations on The Cornerstone Therapeutic Nursery Project have been made by Dr. Kliman +during 1997 through 2002 at the San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute and the Seattle Institute +for Psychoanalysis. +Three documentary videotapes concerning Dr. Kliman's psychotherapies of disturbed children +treated by him using this method in a therapeutic special education class are now available for +scientific and educational purposes, parental permission having been gained. Such use requires a +confidentiality agreement. +Tape I: The Cornerstone Method. +Tape II: Treatment of an Autistic Boy +Tape III: Unique Features of The Cornerstone Method +As a pilot application of his techniques for preschoolers, Dr. Kliman opened a Cornerstone +Therapeutic Nursery at the Salvation Army Shelter for homeless families in January 1998, +serving seven homeless families with preschool children. He is supervising the project weekly as +Medical Director of The Children's Psychological Trauma Center. Unedited videotapes of that +project are available to scientists and educators with a confidentiality agreement. The +Institute has provided a psychology intern to conduct the treatment under Dr. Kliman's training +and supervision. The California School of Professional Psychology has assigned a doctoral thesis +candidate to Dr. Kliman's supervision to study the I.Q. rise phenomenon previously documented +in Cornerstone therapies. +Peer-reviewed publications of Dr. Kliman's work with +children appear in Zelman, A: +Interventions with High Risk Children, Jason Aronson 1997 (Chapter by Kliman on Controlled +Assessment of The Personal Life History Book Method for +Children). Results of Dr. +Kliman's Cornerstone Method are also reported extensively in that book, focusing on the I.Q. rise +phenomenon. +19 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 144-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 19 of +Archive of Videotaped +Seminars and Events: +- Gilbert Kliman, M.D., Medical Director +THE CHILDREN's PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAUMA CENTER +(A division of the Children's Psychological Health Center, Inc.) +Archive of Videotaped Seminars and Events: +CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION TAPES: +California MCLE credit is available to attorneys for study of these tapes. Unless otherwise +indicated, Gilbert Kliman, M.D. was the sole or principal speaker. Contact Edith Lee at 415 474 +0955 for MCLE credit fulfillment associated with study of these tapcs. +O1. True and False Allegations of Sexual Molestations, 1987. 1.5 hrs. +02. Loss of Parental Services, May 6** 1992 Elina Wayrynen and Gilbert Kliman, M.D. +2.0 hrs. +03. Abuse in Institutions, August I" 1995, 2.0 hrs. +Catastrophic Accidents with Lifetime Psychological Damage, December 5 1995 2.5 +05. Evaluating Psychological Trauma in Catastrophic Accidents (Grosvenor Hotel, San +Francisco) 1996, 2.5 hrs. +06. +Loss of Parental Services (Holiday Inn), January 9* 1996, 2.5 hrs. +07. +Loss of Parental Services, May 12" 1993 1.5 hrs. +08. +True and False Allegations of Sexual Abuse, June 7" 1993, 1.5 hrs. +09. +Catastrophic Psychological Traumas in Childhood, February 1994, 2.5 hrs. +10. +The Difficult Client, February 27* 1996, 2.5 hrs. +11. The Difficult Client (at Wells Fargo), February 6" 1996, 2.5 hrs. +Evaluating the Validity of Recovered Memories: Perspective of a Forensic Expert, +February 29# 1996, 1.0 hr. +13. How Small Clients Get Large Awards, Psychological Trauma in carly childhood +produces life time consequences in some cases. Defense and plaintiff considerations. +Giving Powerful Voices to Children in Court: I, March 20*' 1998. Windle Turley, Esq. +With Gilbert Kliman, M.D., 2.5 hrs. +Giving Powerful Voices to Children in Court II, May 8** 1998, John Connelly, Jr. with +Gilbert Kliman, M.D., 2.5 hrs. +20 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 144-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 20 of +16. Giving Powerful Voices to Children in Court III, June 12" 1998, Mare June, Esq. With +Gilbert Kliman, M.D., 2.5 hrs. +17. Psychoanalysis and the Law: How Child Psychoanalysis Contributes to Justice for +Children. Conference at the San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, March 1" 1999, +Introduction by Maureen Katz, M.D., Discussion by Katherine MaeVicar, M.D., +Gilbert Kliman, M.D., presenter. San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute Extension +Division. 1.5 hrs. +21 + + +Case 9:08-CV-80119-KAM Document 144-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 21 of +The Children's Psychological Health Center +Archive of Videotaped Seminars and Events: +- Gilbert Kliman, M.D., Medical Director +CLINICAL AND SCIENTIFIC TAPES: +STARRED (*) TAPES BELOW ARE A PRECIOUS ARCHIVE OF INFORMATION ABOUT +PROBLEMS AND TREATMENT OF SEVERELY STRESSED CHILDREN. THEY ARE +NOT FOR SALE OR COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION. THEY MAY BE STUDIED AT +CPHC ON-SITE WITH ASSISTANCE OF OUR STAFF BY QUALIFIED RESEARCHERS, +CLINICIANS, SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS OF NONPROFIT +CLINICAL ORGANIZATIONS AND SCHOOLS FOR CHILDREN, SCIENTISTS AND +STUDENTS OF RELEVANT DISCIPLINES BY APPOINTMENT AT CPTC +HEADQUARTERS. CREDENTIALS, REFERENCES AND CONFIDENTIALITY +AGREEMENT ARE REQUIRED COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH ARRANGEMENTS CAN +BE CONTRACTED FOR WITH CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS AND LONG TERM +USE OF THE TAPES. +*1. +Childhood Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (California Pacific Hospital Grand Rounds). +1992 +*2. +New Theory of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Gilbert Kliman, M.D. December 44 +1992, International Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Allied +Disciplines, Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco. +*3. Severe Psychological Trauma in very Young Children, March 23d 1993 +*4. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: Child & Adult, September 27" 1993 +5. +Cost Effectiveness: Mental Health Services for | +Children, September 28" 1993 +6. +Preventive Child Psychiatry, Mc Auley St Mary's, October 16* 1993, +*7. +New Theory of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, for Int, Association of Child and +Adolescent Psychiatry, July 25* 1994 +*8. +Cornerstone Method Conference, Wells Fargo, January 30* 1996 +*9. +Cornerstone Conference: Control - Mastery Group, San Francisco Psychoanalytic +Institute. February 9" 1996 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 144-2 +Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 22 of +10. +Conference on Childhood of Adolf Hitler: Control-Mastery Group, San Francisco +Psychoanalytic Institute, May 17" 1996 +11. +Orientation to the Personal Life History Book Method. CPTC & ACT For Mental Health, +April 4'' 1997 (two tapes) +*12. +The Cornerstone Method: A Public Health Approach. National Association for Social +Work and Psychoanalysis, Seattle. September 26* 1997 +*13. +New Theory of Psychological Trauma: Colloquium, San Francisco Psychoanalytic +Institute, October 12" 1996 +*14. +Treatment of Severely Disturbed Preschoolers in their Public School Special Education +Classrooms: A New Application of Intensive Psychotherapy. American Academy of +Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. +*15. Treatment of an Autistic Boy, the Cornerstone Method +*16. The Cornerstone Therapeutic Nursery Method +*17. The Cornerstone Method: Unique Features +18. +Investing in our Futures: Rotary Club: About the Cornerstone Method, December 9'h +1997 Robert Denebeim, Esq. With Gilbert Kliman, M.D. +19. +Salavation Army Cornerstone Program: Channel 4 News. Linda +Reporter. +20. Gilbert Kliman M.D. on Channel 4 News, April 22d 1998. Linda +Reporter. +21. Orientation to The Personal Life History Book, October 13" 1998 (three tapes) +*22. The Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy of a Four Year Old Boy, 1999. An ongoing archive +made with generous permission of the child's family, now totaling over 25 hours. This +child has had severe stressors in his life, and suffers behavioral and overanxious +symptoms. He has impulse dyscontrol, attentional deficits, and expressive language +difficulties from which he can be seen to be recovering. Two excerpted tapes have been +created to illustrate features of the child's pathology, and of the response to interpretive +aspects of treatment. Gilbert Kliman, M.D. is the psychoanalyst, and the treatment is +conducted three times a week, with parent guidance every two weeks. The videographer +is in the room. This may be the only existing video archive of a child analysis conducted +by a certified child psychoanalyst. +Cornerstone Treatment Archives: 1995-2008. Ongoing archive of intensive in-classroom +treatment of seriously disturbed preschoolers, within their public special education +classrooms in San Francisco and San Mateo, Shelters for homeless families in San +23 + + +Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 144-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 23 of +Francisco and Seattle, private therapeutic preschool in San Francisco, and Cornerstone +Argentina +24. +Thirty four year follow-up of a Cornerstone Treated autistic child, now recovered. +Presented at The San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute, Child Analysis Study Group, +2001. Permission for public viewing granted by the patient. Excerpts may be viewed on +www.childrenspsychological.org or the entire video obtained from +gilbertkliman2008@gmail.com +*25 +Orientation of the Family Services Center of 1 +2007, in Seattle. Six DVD's. +County. Four days in December, +Scientific and Educational Video Archives under Dr. Kliman's supervision: +With parental permission, The Children's Psychological Health Center, under Dr. Kliman's +leadership, is collecting unedited treatment documents of a special method of treatment in a real +life space, called "The Cornerstone therapeutic preschool method." Now totaling over 200 video +archive hours, eight different California therapists working with various educator teams have +recorded their Cornerstone therapeutic preschool method work. Beginning in 1995, this archive +started with Gilbert Kliman, M.D. working for a year as daily in-classroom therapist in a public +special education school. He was assisted by Leanne Runyan and Gail +as the teachers +at the San Mateo Early Childhood Education Center, a preschool special education facility of +The County of San Mateo. A second team under his supervision included work at The San +Francisco Unified School District (Vanessa Vigilante and Esther Kronenberg). Third and fourth +teams were at The Salvation Army Gateway Shelter (Vanessa Vigilante as therapist and Lynda +Byrd as teacher, Deanna Reardon as therapist and Lynda Byrd as teacher). A fourth was at The +Cadence Cornerstone Site at Mt. Pleasant School, San Jose (Karita Hummer, therapist and Kathy +Krall, teacher). Fifth team therapy was provided by Jane Christmas. The sixth team therapists +was Dr. Miquela +Hope, the seventh Molly Franklin, MFT. All have been extensively +videotaped carrying out the method. An eighth team was assembled in late 2002, when Linda +Hirshfeld Ph.D. joined as Fellow in Cornerstone Therapy. In 2001 Mike McDonald, Ed.D. +became Special Education Director of Cornerstone School. All the treatments are have been +under principal supervision of Dr. Kliman with additional supervision by Mali +M.D., +Myrna Frankel, Ed.D., and Jan Baeuerlen, M.D. Linda Hirshfeld, Ph.D. of the Ann +Center is conducting the archival work for her Cornerstone Services. +A professional researcher/ training confidentiality agreement is required to study this archive. +S:IGK. Private Forensic 7-13-04ICV1PPA CVs|Gilbert Kliman CV ppa 06 02 08.doc +24 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9372bd11246840ffd3296837ab55f3a1547743f7055c3b35e0df2245470951f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9372bd11246840ffd3296837ab55f3a1547743f7055c3b35e0df2245470951f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1b4f54f1ca60a8507e894b8cca9803aaf49afa7e --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9372bd11246840ffd3296837ab55f3a1547743f7055c3b35e0df2245470951f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -278, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d9372bd11246840ffd3296837ab55f3a1547743f7055c3b35e0df2245470951f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 24, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4c55f57a8ee01a2d00efddc9cd5c4c027fc604709d33402ba11daec820d8968e", + "output_sha256": "ec6e861869cac9981c97ba7fd96b8bad49dd7d2834716e5c105d0116c9c2eb51", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d93f02497af6480e2e1224594bd5b1a56afd08905d830b46a8e6dfe948e5d7e2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d93f02497af6480e2e1224594bd5b1a56afd08905d830b46a8e6dfe948e5d7e2.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd9361c5b1bb4a176879790f45d0d8fdbaea6221 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d93f02497af6480e2e1224594bd5b1a56afd08905d830b46a8e6dfe948e5d7e2.md @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 1 of 3 + +to +Plaintiffs Jane Doe 101 and Jane Doe 102's +Motion for No-Contact Order + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113-4 +Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 2 of 3 +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER +& COLEMAN LLP +A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP +J. MICHAEL, BURMAN, PA.! +GREGORY W. COLEMAN, P.A. +ROBAKI D. CRITTON, JR., PA,' +BERNARD 1EBBDEKBR +MARK T. LUTHER, P.A. +JEFFREY C. PEPIN +MICHAEL J. PIKE +HRATHER MONAMARA RUDA +I FLORIDA BOARD CERTIRED +CIVIL TRIAL LAWYUR +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +Robert Josefsberg, Esq. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +Re: +Dear Kathy and Bob: +May 18, 2009 +BBITY STOKES +TARALBGALS +RITA H. BUDNYK +OF COUNSEL. +Additionally, Bob, you wrote a letter on April 17, 2009 stating your position +regarding "No Contact" with any of your firm's clients based on your interpretation of the +Non-Prosecution Agreement. I do not concede that your position is correct nor that the +Non-Prosecution Agreement prevents some forms of contact with your clients. +L'A •W•Y•B•R•S +515 N. FLAGLER DRIVE / SUITE 400 / WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 +TELEPHONB (561) 842-2820 FAX (561) 844-6929 +mail@bolelaw.com + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 113-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 3 of 3 +May 18, 2009 +Page 2 +Cordially yours, +Robert +6. Criton, ir +RDC/ciz +CC: +Jack Goldberger, Esq. diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d93f02497af6480e2e1224594bd5b1a56afd08905d830b46a8e6dfe948e5d7e2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d93f02497af6480e2e1224594bd5b1a56afd08905d830b46a8e6dfe948e5d7e2.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8298892d369740b61c1860cf3a3213cbca0ed391 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d93f02497af6480e2e1224594bd5b1a56afd08905d830b46a8e6dfe948e5d7e2.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -45, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d93f02497af6480e2e1224594bd5b1a56afd08905d830b46a8e6dfe948e5d7e2", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "95b2bcca53e6bfaef0f9ed0a4af38f613d5432ec4a9bedc1b2b58a212143277a", + "output_sha256": "952eda17b6ef958d6632bbf5de001ac089742fa970f423e54c363cc6a0b8abb7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d942e25acca801ee8c237fc20c650ff5534a74f2259f341e4d36f2a150984d9a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d942e25acca801ee8c237fc20c650ff5534a74f2259f341e4d36f2a150984d9a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ad2e628feb316598930d7e993cc67b581aac1d46 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d942e25acca801ee8c237fc20c650ff5534a74f2259f341e4d36f2a150984d9a.md @@ -0,0 +1,705 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 26-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 1 of 22 + + + +Case 9:08-CV-80232-KAM Document 26-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 2 of 22 + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/ +IN RE: JANE DOE, +Petitioner. +FILED by INS D.C. +JUL 0 9 2008 +LEVEN M. LARIMOR +LERK U,S, DIST. C +S.D. OF FLA. - W.P.B. +DECLARATION OF A. +VILLAFANA +IN SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES' RESPONSE +TO VICTIM'S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT +OF CRIME VICTIM RIGHTS ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 +I,A. +Villafaña, do hereby declare that I am a member in good standing +of the Bar of the State of Florida. I graduated from the University of California at Berkeley +School of Law (Boalt +in 1993. After serving as a judicial clerk to the Hon. David F. +Levi in Sacramento, California, 1 was admitted to practice in California in 1995. I also am +admitted to practice in all courts of the states of Minnesota and Florida, the Eighth, Eleventh, +and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District +of Florida, the District of Minnesota, and the Northern District of California. My bar +admission status in California and Minnesota is currently inactive. I am currently employed +as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of Florida and was so +employed during all of the events described herein. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM : Document 26-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 3 of 22 + +2. +I am the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to the investigation of +Jeffrey Epstein. The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). +The federal investigation was initiated in 2006 at the request of the Palm Beach Police +Department ("PBPD") into allegations that Jeffrey Epstein and his personal assistants had +used facilities of interstate commerce to induce young girls between the ages of thirteen and +seventeen to engage in prostitution, amongst other offenses. +Throughout the investigation, when a victim was identified, victim notification +letters were provided to her both from your Affiant and from the FBl's Victim-Witness +Specialist. Attached hereto are copies of the letters provided to +three +clients, T.M., C.W., and S.R.' Your Affiant's letter to C.W. was provided by the FBI. (Ex. +1). Your Affiant's letter to T.M. was hand-delivered by myself to T.M. at the time that she +was interviewed (Ex. 2).? Both C. W. and T.M. also received letters from the FBI's Victim- +Witness Specialist, which were sent on January 10, 2008 (Exs. 3 & 4). S.R. was identified +via the FBI's investigation in 2007, but she initially refused to speak with investigators. +S.R.'s status as a victim of a federal offense was confirmed when she was interviewed by +'Attomey +filed his Motion on behalf of "Jane Doe," without identifying which of +his clients is the purported victim. Accordingly, I will address facts related to C.W., T.M., and S.R. +All three of those clients were victims of Jeffrey Epstein's while they were minors beginning when +they were fifteen years old. +¿Please note that the dates on the U.S. Attorney's Office letters to C. W. and T.M. are not the +dates that the letters were actually delivered. Letters to all known victims were prepared early in the +investigation and delivered as each victim was contacted. +-2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 26-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 4 of 22 + +federal agents on May 28, 2008. The FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist sent a letter 1o S.R. +on May 30, 2008 (Ex. 5). +4. +Throughout the investigation, the FBI agents, the FBI's Victim-Witness +Specialist, and your Affiant had contact with C. W. and S.R. Atlorney | +other client, +T.M., was represented by counsel and, accordingly, all contact with T.M. was made through +that attorney. That attorney was James Eisenberg, and his fees were paid by Jeffrey Epstein, +the target of the investigation.? +5. +In the summer of 2007, Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the +Southern District of Florida ("the Office") entered into negotiations to resolve the +investigation. At that time, Mr. Epstein had been charged by the State of Florida with +solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes § 796.07. Mr. Epstein's attorneys +sought a global resolution of the matter. The United States subsequentiy agreed to defer +federal prosecution in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, so long as certain basic +preconditions were met. One of the key objectives for the Government was to preserve a +federal remedy for the young girls whom Epstein had sexually exploited. Thus, one +condition of that agreement, notice of which was provided to the victims on July 9, 2008, is +the following: +"Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense +enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same +rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein +"The undersigned does not know when Mr. +T.M. ever formally terminated Mr. Eisenberg's representation. +-3- +began representing T.M. or whether + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 26-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 5 of 22 + +had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes +of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's +attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an +Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial +authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining +which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is +the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position +as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no +less." +6. An agreement was reached in September 2007. The Agreement contained an +express confidentiality provision. +7. +Although individual victims were not consulted regarding the agreement, +several had expressed concerns regarding the exposure of their identities at trial and they +desired a prompt resolution of the matter. At the time the agreement was signed in +September 2007, T.M. was openly hostile to the prosecution of Epstein. The FBI attempted +1o interview S.R. in October 2007, at which time she refused to provide any information +regarding Jeffrey Epstein. None of Attorney +clients had expressed a desire to be +consulted prior to the resolution of the federal investigation. +8. As explained above, one of the terms of the agreement deferring prosecution +10 the State of Florida was securing a federal remedy for the victims. In October 2007, +shortly after the agreement was signed, four victims were contacted and these provisions +were discussed. One of those victims was C.W. who at the time was not represented, and she +was given notice of the agreement. Notice was also provided of an expected change of plea +in October 2007. When Epstein's attorneys learned that some of the victims had been +-4. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 26-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 6 of 22 +• Page 5 of 21 +notified, they complained that the victims were receiving an incentive to overstate their +involvement with Mr. Epstein in order to increase their damages claims. While your Affiant +knew that the victims' +statements had been taken and corroborated with independent +evidence well before they were informed of the potential for damages, the agents and I +concluded that informing additional victims could compromise the witnesses' credibility at +trial if Epstein reneged on the agreement. +9. +After C. W. had been notified of the terms of the agreement, but before Epstein +performed his obligations, C. W. contacted the FBI because Epstein's counsel was attempting +1o take her deposition and private investigators were harassing her. Your Affiant secured pro +bono counsel to represent C.W. and several other identified victims. Pro bono counsel was +able to assist C.W. in avoiding the improper deposition. That pro bono counsel did not +express to your Affiant that C. W. was dissatisfied with the resolution of the matter. +10. +In mid-June 2008, Attorney +contacted your Affiant to inform me that +he represented C.W. and S.R. and asked to meet to provide me with information regarding +Epstein. I invited Attorney +1o send to me any information that he wanted me to +consider. Nothing was provided. I also advised Attorney +that he should consider +contacting the State Attorney's Office, if he so wished. I understand that no contact with that +office was made.. Aftorney Edwards had alluded to T.M., so T advised him that, to iy +knowledge, T.M. was still represented by Attorney James Eisenberg. +-5- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 26-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 7 of 22 +Case 9:08-cV-80736-KAM + +11. +On Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximate 4:15 p.m., your Affiant received a +copy of the proposed state plea agreement and learned that the plea was scheduled for 8:30 +a.m., Monday, June 30, 2008. Your Affiant and the Palm Beach Police Department +attempted to provide notification to victims in the short time that Epstein's counsel had given +us. Although all known victims were not notified, your Affiant specifically called attorney +/ to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. Your Affiant believes that +it was during this conversation that Attorney +notified me that he represented T.M., +and I assumed that he would pass on the notice to her, as well. Attorney +informed +your Affiant that he could not attend but that someone would be present at the hearing. Your +A fiant attended the hearing, but none of Attorney I +I clients was present. +12. On today's date, your Affiant provided the attached victim notifications to +C.W. and S.R. via their attorney, +(Exs. 6 & 7). A notification was not +provided 1o T.M. because the U.S. Attorney's modification limited Epstein's liability to +victims whom the United States was prepared to name in an indictment. In light of T.M.'s +prior slatements to law enforcement, your Affiant could not in good faith include T.M. as a +victim in an indictment and, accordingly, could not include her in the list provided to +Epstein's counsel. +13. +Furthermore, with respect to the Certification of Emergency, Attorney +did not ever contact me prior to the filing of that Certification to demand the relief that he +requests in his Emergency Petition. On the afternoon of July 7, 2008, after your Affiant had +-6- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 26-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 8 of 22 + +already received the Certification of Emergency and Emergency Petition, I received a letter +from Attorney +that had been sent, via Certified Mail, on July 3, 2008. While that +Jetter urges the Attorney General and the United States Attorney to consider "vigorous +enforcement" of federal laws with respect to Jeffrey Epstein, it contains no demand for the +relief requested in the Emergency Petition. +14. +I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant 1o 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the +foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. +Executed this 9th day of July, 2008. +Villafaña, Esa +-7- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 26-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 9 of 22 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/20@ +SOVERNNENT +ТЕХНІВЛ +U.S. Department of Justice +United States Attorney +Southern District of Florida +500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400 +Wesi Palm Bench, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Focsimile: (561) 820-8777 +June 7, 2007 +DELIVERY BY HAND +Miss C +Re: +Crime Victims' and Witnesses" Rights +Dear Miss W +Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004, as a victim and/or witness of a federal offense, +you have a number of rights. Those nghts are: +(1) +(2) +The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. +The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding +involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. +(3) +The right not to be exciuded from any public court proceeding, unless the court +determines that your testimony may be materially altcred if you are present for other +portions of a proceeding. +(4) +The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court +involving release, plea, or sentencing. +(5) +(6) +(7) +(8) +The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the casc. +The right to full and limely restitution as provided in law. +The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. +The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and +privacy. +Members of ine U.S. Department of Justice and other federal investigative agencies, +including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, must use their best efforts to make sure that these +rights are protected. If you have any concerns in this regard, please feel free to contact me at 56l +209-1047, or Special Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall from the Federal Bureau of Investigation at 561 +822-5946. You also can contact the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime in +Washington, D.C. at 202-307-5983. That Office has a website at www.ovc.gov. +You can seek the advice of an attorney with respeci to the righis listed above and, if you +believe that the rights sel forth above are being violated, you have the right to petition the Court for +relief. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 26-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 10 of 22 + +MIss CI +JUNE 7, 2007 +PAGE 2 +In addition to these rights, you are enlitled to counseling and medical services, and protection +from intimidation and harassment. If the Court determines that you are a victim, you also may be +entitled to restitution from the perpetrator. A list of counseling and medical service providers can +be provided to you, if you so desire. If you or your family is subjected to any intimidation or +harassmeni, please contact Special Agent Kuyrkendal! or myself immediately. It is possible that +someone working on behalf'of the targets of the investigation may contact you. Such contact does +not violatibe law" However, if you are contacted, you have the choice of speaking to that person +or refusing to"do so.' If you refuse and feel that you are being threatened or harassed, then plcase +contact Special Agent Kuykendall or myself. +You also are entitled to notification of upcoming case events. Atthis time, your case is under +investigation! If anyone is charged in connection with the investigation, you will be notified. +Sincerely, +R. Alexander Acosta +United States Allorney +or antillafara +Villafaña +Assistant United Stales Allomey +Special Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, F.B.L. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 26-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 . Page 11 of 22 +U.S. Department of Justice +CABANAG +31HBA +United States Altorney +• Southern District of Florida +500 South Australian /Ive., Suite 400 +Wesi Palm Beuch. FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 +August 11, 2006 +DELIVERY BY HAND +Miss T +Re: Crime Victims' and Witnesses' Rights +Dear Miss M +Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004, as a victim and/or wilness of a federal offense, +you have a number of rights. Those rights are: +(1) +(2) +The right to be reasonably prolected from the accused. +The right 1o reasonable, accurate, and timely nolice of any public court proceeding +involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. +(3) +The right not to be excluded from any public court proceding, unless the court +determines that your testimony may be materially altered if you are present for other +portions of a proceeding. +(4) +The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court +involving release, plea, or sentencing. +(5) +(6) +(7) +(8) +The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case. +The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. +The righ! to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. +The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and +privacy: +Members of the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal investigative agencies, +including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, must use their best efforts 1o make sure that these +rights are prolected. If you have any concerns in this regard; please feel free to contact me at 561 +209-1047, or Special Agent Nesbit! Kuyrkendali from the Federal Bureau of Investigation at 561 +822-5946. You also can contact the Justice Depariment's Office for Victims of Crime in +Washington, D.C. at 202-307-5983: That Office has a website at www.ovc.gov. +You can seek the advice of an allomey with respect to the righis listed above and, if you +believe that the rights set forth above are being violated, you have the right to petilion the Court for +relief. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 26-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 . Page 12 of 22 + +MISS T +AUGUST 11, 2006 +PAGE 2 +In addition to these rights, you are entitled to counseling and medical services, and . . +from intimidation and harassment. If the Court determines that you are a victim, you ..... +entitled to restitution from the perpetrator. A list of counseling and medical service pre:. +be provided to-you, if you so desire. If you or your family is subjected to any inter • +harassment; please contact Special Agent Kuyrkendall or myscif immediately. It is p' • +someone working on behalf of the targets of the investigation may contact you. Such cur:" +not violate the law. However, if you are contacted, you have the choice of speaking to in : +or refusing to do so. If you refuse and feel that you are being threatened or harassed, In- +contact Special Agent Kuyrkendall or myself. +You also are entitled to notification of upcoming case events. At this lime, your ....: +investigation. If anyone is charged in connection with the investigation, you will be rs! +Sincerely, +By: +R. Alexander Acosta +United States Allorney +Mantillabore +il Villafaña +Assistant United States Attorney +Special Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, F.B.L. + + +ase 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 26-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 13 ot 2. +entered on FLSD Docket 0761562008 Page 12of 2 +U.S. Department of Justice +Federal Bureau of Investigation +FBI - West Palm Beach +Suite 500 +505 South Flagler Drive +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (581) 833-7517 +Fax: (561) 833-7970 +January 10, 2008 +Re: Case Number: +Dear Q +This case is currently under Investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your +continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation. +As a crime victim, you have the following rights under 18 United States Code § 3771: (1) The right to +be rgasonably protected from the accused: (2) The right to reasonable, accurale, and timely nolice of any +publie court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, Involving the crime or of any release or escape of the +accused; (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after +receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materialiy altered If +the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding: (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public +proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding; (5) The +reasonable right to confer with the altomey for the Goverment in the case; (6) The right to full and timely +restitution as provided in law; (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; (B) The right.to be +treated with faimess and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. +We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights +pertain to events occurring after the arrest or indictment of an Individual for the crime, and it will become the +responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights. You +may also seek the advice of a private attomay with respect to these rights. +The Victim Notification System (VNS) is designed to provide you with direct information regarding the +case as it proceeds through the criminal justice system. You may obtaln current information about this matter +an the Internet at WWW.Notfy. USDOJ. GOV or from the VNS Call Center at 1-866-DOJ-4YOU (1-866-365- +4968) (TDD/TTY: 1-866-228-4619) (Interational: 1-502-213-2767), In addition, you may use the Call +Center or Internet to updale your contact information and/or change your decision about participation in the +notification program. if you update your Information to include a ourrent emall address, VNS will send +information to that address. You will need the fallowing Victim Identification Number (VIN) '1941737' and" +Personal Identification Number (PJN) '5502' anytime you contact the Call Center and the first time you log on to +VNS on the Internet. In addiion, the firet time you access the VNS Internet site, you will be prompted to enter +your last name (or business name) es currentiy contained in VNS. The name you should enter Is V +GOVERNMERI +AND 08-897365944 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 26-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 14 ot 22 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07115/2008•* Page 43 of 21 +If you have additional questions which Involve this matter, please contact the office listed above. When +you cal, please provide the fle number located at the lop of this letter. Please remember, your participation +in the notificetion part of this program is voluntary, In order to continue to receive notifications, it is your +responsibility to keep your contact information current. +Sincerely. +LRA +Sumito +Twiler + + +case 9:08-CV-80232-KAM Document 26-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 15 ot 2. +Case 9:08-cy-80736-KAM +Document. 14 +Entered on FLSD Docket 0745/200831 Page 440f 2' +U.S. Department of Justice +Federal Bureau of investigation +FBI - West Palm Beach +Suite 500 +505 South Flagler Drive +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 833-7517 +Fax: (561) 833-7970 +January 10, 2008 +James Elsenberg +One Clearake Center Ste 704 Australlan South +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Re: +Dear James Elsanberg: +You have requested to receive notifications for T +This case is currently under Investlgation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your +continued patierice while we conduct a thorough investigation. +As a crime victim, you have the following rights under 18 United Stales Code § 3771: (1) The right to +be reasonably protected from the accused; (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any +public court proceeding, or any parale procoding, Involving the crime or of any release or escape of the +accused; (3) The right not to be axcluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after +receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materielly altered if +the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding: (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public +proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, santencing, or any parole proceeding; (5) The +reasonable right to confer with the atlamney for the Government in the case; (5) The right to fuli and timely +restitution as provided in law; (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay: (8) The right to be +treated with faimess and with respect for the victim'e dignity and privacy. +We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights +pertain to events occurring after the arrest or Indictment of an individual for the crime, and It will become the +responsiblity of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights. You +may also seek the advice of a private attomay with respect to these rights. +The Victim Notification System (VNS) is designed to provide you with direct information regarding the +case as it proceeds through the criminal justice system. You may obtain current information about this matter +on the internet at WWW.Nallfy.USDOJ.GOV or from the VNS Call Center at 1-BB6-DQJ-4YOU (1-866-365- +4968) (TDD/TTY: 1-866-228-4618) (Intemational: 1-502-213-2767). In addition, you may use the Call +Center or Internet to update your contact information and/or change your decision about participation in the +notificstion program, If you update your information to Include a current emall address, VNS will send +information to that address. You will need the following Victim Identification Number (VIN) 1941741' and +Personal Identification Number (PIN) '7750' anytime you contact the Call Center and the first time you log on to +-VNS-on-the-Interet:-In addition, the-first time you access the:VNS-internet site, you will be prompted:to enter +your last name (or business name) as currently contained in VNS. The name you should enter is Eisenberg. +NMEN +NO. 08-30136-CYMARR +TEXHIBI + + +ase 9:08-CV-80232-KAM Document 26-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01129/2008 Page 1o of 2 +Case 9:08-ov-80736-KAM +entered on LSD Docket 07995/2008331 Page 450f +If you have additional questions which Invoive this matter, please contact the office listed above. When +you call, please provide the fle number located at the top of this letler. Please remember, your participation +in the notffication part of this program is voluntary. In order to continue to receive notifications, it is your +respons bility to keep your contact information current. +Sincerely. +Quite Smito +Twier: + + +Case 9:08-cV-80232-KAM Document 26-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 17 of 22 +Case 9:08-CV-80736-KAM +. Document 14 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/201 +CGOVERNMEHT +СЕХНІВП +U.S. Department of Justice +Federal Bureau of investigation +FBI - West Palm Beach +Sulte 500 +505 South Flagler Drive +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 833-7517 +Fax: (561) 833-7970 +BOASE +May 30, 2008 +Re: +Dear +Your name was referred to the FBl's Victim Assistance Program as being a possible victim of a federal +crime. We appreciate your assistance and cooperation while we are Investigating this case. We wouid like to +make you aware of the victim services that may be available to you and lo answer any questions you may have +regarding the criminal justice process throughout the investigation. Our program is part of the FBl's effort to +ensure the victims are treated with respect and are provided information about their rights under federal law. +These rights include notification of the status of the case. The enclosed brochures provide information about +the FBl's Victim Assistance Program, resources and instructions for accessing the Victim Notification System +(VNS). VNS is designed to provide you with information regarding the status of your case. +This case is currently under Investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your +continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation. +As a crime victim, you have the following rights under 18 United States Code § 3771: (1) The right to +be reasonably protected from the accused; (2) The right.to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any +public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the +accused; (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after +receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if +the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding: (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any pubile +proceeding in the district court involving release, ples, sentancing, or any parole proceeding; (5) The +reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Govemment in the case; (6) The right to full and timely +restitution as provided in law; (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; (8) The right to be +treated with faimess and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. +We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights +pertain to events occurring after the arrest or indictment of an individual for the crime, and it will become the +responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights. You +may also seek the advice of a private attorney with respect to these rights. +The Victim Notification System (VNS) Is designed to provide you with direct information regarding the +case as it proceeds through the criminal-justice-system. You-may-obtain-current-information about-this matter +on the Internet at WWW.Notify.USDOJ. GDV or from the VNS Call Center at 1-866-DOJ-4YOU (1-866-365- +4968) (TDD/TTY: 1-866-228-4619) (International: 1-502-213-2767). In addition, you may use the Call +Center or intemet to update your contact information and/or change your decision about participation in the +notification program. if you update your Information to include a current email address, VNS will send +information to thal address. You will need the following Victim Identification Number (VIN) 2074381' and +Personel Identification Number (PIN) '1816' enytime you contact the Call Center and the first time you log or. to +VNS on the internet. In addition, the first time you access the VNS Intermet site, you will be prompted to enter +your last name (or business name) as currently contained in VNS. The name you should enter is R + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 26-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 . Page 18 of 22 +Case, 9:08-ev-80736-KAM Document 14 +Entered on FLSD Docket 07446/2008»1 Page 47 of 21 +If you have additional questions which involve this matter, please contact the office listed above. When +you call, please provide the file number located at the top of this letter. Please remember, your participation +in the notification part of this program is voluntary. In order to continue to receive notificalions, It is your +responsibility to keep your contact information current. +Sincerely, +7 CCA. +Smitt +Twile! +TOTAL P..B7 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 26-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 19 of 22 + +4000-0 +GOVERNMENT +ЕХНІВП +U.S. Department of Justice +ND.08-80736-CV-MARRA| + +6 +United States Attorney +Southern District of Florida +500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 +July 9, 2008 +VIA FACSIMILE +Brad 1 +Esq. +The Law Offices of Brad I +20281 +Street, Suite 202 +Hollywood, Florida 33020. +& Associates, LLC +Re: +Jeffrey Epstein/C +IDENTIFIED VICTIM +NOTIFICATION OF +Dear Mr. +By virtue of this letter, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District +of Florida asks that you provide the following notice to your client, G +On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter referred to as "Epstein) entered a plea +of guilty to violations of Florida Statutes Sections 796.07 (felony solicitation of prostitution) +and 796.03 (procurement of minors to engage in prostitution), in the 15th Judicial Circuit in +and for Palm Beach County (Case Nos. 2006-cf-009454AXXXMB and 2008-cf- +009381AXXXMB) and was sentenced to a term of twelve months' imprisonment to be +followed by an additional six months' imprisonment, followed by twelve months of +Community Control 1, with conditions of community confinement imposed by the Court. +In light of the entry of the guilty plea and sentence, the United States has agreed to +defer federal prosecution in favor of this state plea and sentence, subject to certain +conditions. +One such condition to which Epstein has agreed is the following: +"Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense +enumerated in Title 18, United States-Code, Section 2255, will have the same +rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein + + +Case 9:03-CV-80232 KAM Document 2611 teren Do 52082 Page 1982210f22 +BRAD +EsQ. +NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIM CI +JULY 9, 2008 + +had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes +of'implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epslein's +attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an +Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial +authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining +which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is +the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position +as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no +less." +Through this letter, this Office hereby provides Notice that your client, One W +is an individual whom the United States was prepared to name as a victim of an enumerated +offense. +Should your client decide to file a claim against Jeffrey Epstein, his attorney, Jack +Goldberger, asks that you contact him at Atterbury Goldberger and Weiss, 250 Australian +Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, (561) 659-8300. +Please understand that neither the U.S. Attorney's Office nor the Federal Bureau of +Investigation can take part in or otherwise assist in civil litigation; however, if you do file a +claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and Mr. Epstein denies that your client is a victim of an +enumerated offense, please provide notice of that denial to the undersigned. +Please thank your client for all of'her assistance during the course of this examination +and express the heartfelt regards of myself and Special Agents Kuyrkendall and Richards for +the health and well-being of Ms. WE +By: +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +Plane Allafar +A. +VILLAFAÑA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY +Jack Goldberger, Esq. + + +Case 9:08-CV-80232-KAM Dome 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 071520082 Page 200+24 01 22 +UI.S. Department of Justice +GOVERNMENT + +NO.08-80736-CY-MARRA + +7 +United States Allorney +Southern District of Florida +500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +(561) 820-8711 +Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 +July 9, 2008 +VIA FACSIMILE +Brad +5, Esq. +The Law Offices of Brad +2028 +n Street, Suite 202 +Hollywood, Florida +33020. +Associates, LLC +Re: Jeffrey Epstein/S +IDENTIFIED VICTIM +• NOTIFICATION OF +Dear Mr. +By virtue of this letter, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District +of Florida asks that you provide the following notice to your client, St +On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter referred to as "Epstein) entered a plea +of guilty to violations of Florida Statutes Sections 796.07 (felony solicitation of prostitution) +and 796.03 (procurement of minors to engage in prostitution), in the 1 5th Judicial Circuit in +and for Palm Beach County. (Case Nos. 2006-cf-009454AXXXMB and 2008-cf- +009381AXXXMB) and was sentenced to a term of twelve months' imprisonment to. be +followed by an additional six months' imprisonment, followed by twelve months of +Community Control I, with conditions of community confinement imposed by the Court. +In light of the entry of the guilty plea and sentence, the United States has agreed to +defer federal prosecution infavor of this state plea and sentence, subjeet to certain +conditions. +One such condition to which Epstein has agreed is the following: +"Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense +enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same +rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein + + +Case 9:08-CV-80232-KAM Document 26-Entered on FLSD Docket 071502008/2 Page 2 or 22 of 22 +BRAD +ESQ. +NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIM SO +JULY 9,2008 + +had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes +of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's +attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an +Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial +authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining +which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is +the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position +as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no +Through this letter, this Office hereby provides Notice that your client, St +• is an individual whom the United Stales was prepared to name as a victim of an +enumerated offense. +Should your client decide to file a claim against Jeffrey Epstein, his attorney, Jack +Goldberger, asks that you contact him at Atterbury Goldberger and Weiss, 250 Australian +Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, (561) 659-8300. +Please understand that neither the U.S. Attorney's Office nor the Federal Bureau of +Investigation can take part in or otherwise assist in civil litigation; however, if you do file a +claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and Mr. Epstein denies that your client is a victim of an +enumerated offense, please provide notice of that denial to the undersigned. +Please thank your client for all of her assistance during the course of this examination +and express the heartfelt regards of myself and Special Agents Kuyrkendall and Richards for +the health and well-being of Ms. Ra +R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA +UNITED STATES ATTORNEY +By: +A. l +I VILLAFAÑA +ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY +Jack Goldberger, Esq. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d942e25acca801ee8c237fc20c650ff5534a74f2259f341e4d36f2a150984d9a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d942e25acca801ee8c237fc20c650ff5534a74f2259f341e4d36f2a150984d9a.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dc469f18c85a5b83d9b481eaf350bb7c99a84ce0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d942e25acca801ee8c237fc20c650ff5534a74f2259f341e4d36f2a150984d9a.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -1577, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d942e25acca801ee8c237fc20c650ff5534a74f2259f341e4d36f2a150984d9a", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 38, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "8dcc4267dbb552de289aadbf78ce78f2b9b6c89bdcbe2c1260302ac39e5e3417", + "output_sha256": "cfe62f896048767f4f450edc7ca03b19553bb422bfd9c31096f2b642523c3af1", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d949b246c5beb57aaef9bd32e180e42b45689f0434f242366e8554912f3e42a1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d949b246c5beb57aaef9bd32e180e42b45689f0434f242366e8554912f3e42a1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..430e4423530e04d66051e275b1f2c490415d618f --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d949b246c5beb57aaef9bd32e180e42b45689f0434f242366e8554912f3e42a1.md @@ -0,0 +1,121 @@ +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 36 Filed 12/04/19 Page 1 of 3 +350 FIFTH AVENUE | SUITE 7110 +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 +TEL (212) 763-0883 | FAX (212) 564-0883 +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884 +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com +December 4, 2019 +VIA ECE +The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 +The Honorable Debra Freeman +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +Daniel +Moynihan United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +New York, NY 10007-1312 +Re: +Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) +Dear Judges Failla and Freeman: +We represent Plaintiff Jane Doe in the above-captioned action. Pursuant to Rule 4(A) of +Your Honor's Individual Rules of Practice, we write to respond to Defendants' letter, dated +December 2, 2019, concerning their anticipated motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 35.) +First and most importantly, some basic explanation of this case is in order. Plaintiff (who +was fourteen years old when the relevant events began) has filed a Complaint sounding in diversity +and containing the following four common law causes of action: (1) sexual assault; (2) sexual +battery; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (4) negligent infliction of emotional +distress. The factual allegations supporting these four causes of action are set forth in paragraphs +1-86 of the 90-paragraph Complaint. +Federal Rule 12(b)(6) permits a defendant to file a motion to dismiss for "failure to state a +claim upon which relief can be granted" (emphasis added). Here, however, Defendants have +conceded that they have no viable, non-frivolous argument to dismiss any of Plaintiff's four causes +of action, or "claims upon which relief can be granted," as we predicted in our prior letter to the +Court dated November 13, 2019 (ECF No. 27). In other words, in contrast to many of the other + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 36 Filed 12/04/19 Page 2 of 3 +2 +cases in this District against Mr. Epstein's Estate, Defendants here have not identified a single +reason to dismiss any of the four causes of action.' +The only argument that Defendants have advanced in their December 2 letter relates to +the question of damages. Defendants argue that the phrase "punitive damages" should be deleted +from the "Prayer for Relief" section at the very end of the Complaint (11 87-90). Because, as +outlined above, none of Plaintiff's four claims for relief would actually be impacted even if +Defendants were to succeed on this argument, we believe that Defendants' motion is more +properly denominated as a motion to strike pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), rather than a motion +to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).= Rule 12(f) motions, however, are strongly disfavored in +this District, in large part because they are commonly used by litigants (as is the case here) to +unreasonably delay proceedings. Wine Mkts. Int'l, Inc. v. Bass, 177 F.R.D. 128, 133 (E.D.N.Y. +1998) ("Because striking a portion of a pleading is often sought by the movant as +a dilatory tactic, motions under Rule 12(f) are viewed with disfavor."); see also, e.g., Bank +Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais (Suisse) S.A., No. 93 CIV. 6876 LMM, 2000 WL 1876916, +at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2000). Indeed, as Judge Kaplan has observed, Rule 12(f) motions +"have been described aptly as ... time wasters." Carmona v. Spanish Broad. Sys., Inc., No. 08 +Civ. 4475, 2009 WL 890054, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2009). +Defendants' proposed motion is precisely the sort of "time-waster" that Judge Kaplan +criticized. Certainly, Plaintiff will oppose Defendants' motion on the merits: although +Defendants contend that New York Estates, Powers, and Trusts Law § 11-3.2(a)(1) prohibits +Plaintiff from seeking punitive damages, Defendants ignore the threshold question of whether +New York probate law even applies to the question of punitive damages in this case, given that +Mr. Epstein purposefully availed himself of the presumed benefits of Virgin Islands law when he +chose to probate his Estate there just days before his death. It is therefore only reasonable that he +and his beneficiaries should expect that USVI law would govern all matters relating to the estate, +including the availability of punitive damages. See +v. Car Rentals, Inc., 29 A.D.3d 205, +212 (2d Dep't 2006) (explaining importance of parties' reasonable expectations to choice-of-law +analysis). +But equally as important, there is no reason why resolution of this choice-of-law question +should cause any further delay in this case beyond the sixty-day extension that Defendants have +' See VE v. Nine East 71st Street et al., No. 19 Civ. 7625 (Nathan, J.) (ECF No. 38) (Defendants filed +motion to dismiss battery claim on statute-of limitations grounds and duplicativeness and negligence +claims for failure to adequately allege sufficient facts); Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et al., No. 19 Civ. 7771 +(Castel, J.) (ECF No. 43) (Defendants filed pre-motion to dismiss letter arguing that plaintiff failed to +adequately allege claims against corporate defendants, among other grounds); Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et +al., No. 19 Civ. 7772 (Carter, J.) (ECF No. 38) (Defendants filed pre-motion to dismiss letter arguing that +plaintiff's claims are not adequately alleged, rely on impermissible group pleading, are duplicative, and +are time-barred, among other grounds); Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et al., No. 19 Civ. 7773 (Ramos, J.) +(ECF No. 31) (same). +2 See, e.g., Rapay v. Chernov, No. 16 Civ. 4910, 2017 WL 892372, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2017); Com- +Tech Assocs. v. Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc., 753 F. Supp. 1078, 1093 (E.D.N.Y. 1990) (denying Rule +12(f) motion to strike punitive damages), aff'd, 938 F.2d 1574 (2d Cir. 1991); +v. Ketchum +Advert. Co., 865 F. Supp. 166, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). + + +Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 36 Filed 12/04/19 Page 3 of 3 +3 +already received. (ECF No. 10.) In addition to punitive damages, Plaintiff seeks actual, +compensatory, statutory, and consequential damages, as well as a declaratory judgment that +Defendants are liable for Mr. Epstein's violations of law, and Defendants have no legal basis to +strike any of those. Compl. 111 87-90. As a result, there is no question that Plaintiff would be +entitled to damages if she proves her claims; the only question presented by Defendants is the +type of damages available. There is no reason to decide that question before discovery begins. +Indeed, it is not uncommon in this District for issues concerning the availability of certain forms +of relief to be deferred for resolution until after the close of discovery. Stepski v. M/V NORASIA +ALYA, No. 06 Civ. 1694, 2010 WL 6501649, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2010) (deciding +availability of punitive damages at summary judgment stage); Light v. W2001 Metro. Hotel +Realty LLC, No. 10 Civ. 4449, 2011 WL 2175778, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2011) (same). +In addition, because Defendants' anticipated motion concerns the availability of only a +single aspect of the relief sought and does not relate to a single factual allegation in the +Complaint, the Court should order Defendants to respond to those allegations by answering the +Complaint while their motion to strike punitive damages is pending. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4) +(setting forth impact of filing a Rule 12 motion on party's time to file a responsive pleading +"unless the Court sets a different time.") Nor is there any justification for a continued delay in +commencing discovery. See, e.g., Hollins v. U.S. Tennis Ass n., 469 F. Supp. 2d 67, 78 +(E.D.N.Y. 2006) (discovery should presumptively proceed during pendency of motion to +dismiss). In fact, given the small number of anticipated witnesses, Mr. Epstein's obvious +unavailability to testify, and the straightforward nature of Plaintiff's tort claims, minimal +discovery is required. This case can and should be ready for trial within six months. +Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that either Judge Failla or Judge Freeman +promptly schedule a Rule 16 conference, so that a discovery schedule can be established in this +case in short order. In sum, regardless of whether Defendants' motion is construed as a motion +to dismiss or a motion to strike, one thing is clear—there is no good reason for further delay in +this case. +Respectfully submitted, +cc: Counsel of Record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d949b246c5beb57aaef9bd32e180e42b45689f0434f242366e8554912f3e42a1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d949b246c5beb57aaef9bd32e180e42b45689f0434f242366e8554912f3e42a1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..58155b4301f4b3218b0277e9d3040be90f7f5af3 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d949b246c5beb57aaef9bd32e180e42b45689f0434f242366e8554912f3e42a1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -112, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d949b246c5beb57aaef9bd32e180e42b45689f0434f242366e8554912f3e42a1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "15580cdb8c049de14495c8a42ae517b8253144a27d390b0d2b1bbe8bc8b55301", + "output_sha256": "827f2b1b079ba5b62e1d424983d07410ba643478982b05ad5abc5f3946ce9d18", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9514bebc17805cec501e24dc20b459724ee42d4f6d079df1e301de2407581ae.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9514bebc17805cec501e24dc20b459724ee42d4f6d079df1e301de2407581ae.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..23050152a63bfef265fa1a0fd2c773e767068a10 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9514bebc17805cec501e24dc20b459724ee42d4f6d079df1e301de2407581ae.md @@ -0,0 +1,473 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2009 Page 1 of 20 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/. +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related cases: +08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 +DEFENDANT'S, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR REQUEST +FOR RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF THE +MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED AUGUST 4, 2009 (DE 242), WITH +INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his +undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration and/or for Request +Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Order (DE 242) pursuant to +Rule 60, Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 4, Rule 4(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(e). In support, Epstein +states: +Procedural Background +1. +This court entered an order (DE 242) stating that Epstein must provide +responses to interrogatory numbers 7, 8 and 12 (sic 11) within 10 days from the date of +said order. The same ruling was made as to request for production numbers 7 and 23. +See DE 242. +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2009 Page 2 of 20 +However, Epstein is submitting his motion for Reconsideration and/or +Request for Rule 4 Appeal and specific objections with supporting case law only as to +Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11. Responses will be provided as to Interrogatory Number +8 and Request for Production numbers 7 and 23. +Il. Rule 4 Appeal and Review +Rule 4 provides, in pertinent part, that: +Any party may appeal from a Magistrate Judge's Order. . [and] [s]uch +objections which shall specifically set forth the order, or part thereof, +appealed from a concise statement of the alleged error in the Magistrate +Judge's ruling, and statutory, rule, or case authority in support of the +moving party's position.... The District Judge shall consider the appeal +and shall set aside any portion of the Magistrate Judge's order found to be +clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The District Judge may also +reconsider sua sponte any matter determined by a magistrate Judge under +this Rule. +a. +Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11 +Plaintiff served her Amended First Set of Interrogatories on Defendant and +Request for Production, and Epstein served his responses thereto raising his constitutional +privileges and guarantees and, in the alternative, raising specific other applicable +objections. +See Exhibits "A" and "B". Plaintiff filed her Motion to Compel (DE 57) +Epstein filed his Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories +and Responses to 1" and 2nd Production of Documents, and Incorporated Memorandum +of Law. (DE 63) The arguments set forth therein are incorporated herein by reference +(the "Response Memorandum") such that a concise statement of the Magistrate's error(s) +relative to Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11 may be the focus of this Motion for +Reconsideration and/or Rule 4 Appeal and Review. Plaintiff filed her Reply thereto at +2 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2009 Page 3 of 20 +DE 81. +Thereafter, the Magistrate-Judge entered an order on the above at DE 242 +requiring, among other things, that Epstein respond to Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11. +Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11 and the Responses thereto provide: +Interrogatory Number 7 - List all time periods during which Jeffrey +Epstein was present in the State of Florida, including for each the date he +arrived and the date he departed. +Answer: +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the +interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to +respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my +attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any +questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk +my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. +Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, +Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States +Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances +would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, +would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In +addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant +also objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is +neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it +appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible +evidence. +Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about +2004-2005." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for a time period +from January 1, 2003 until present. +Interrogatory Number 11 - Identify all telephone numbers used by +Epstein, including cellular phones and land lines in any of his residences, +by stating the complete telephone number and the name of the service +provider. +Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2009 Page 4 of 20 +(i). +also objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is +neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action not does it +appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible +evidence. Plaintiff's allegations claim a time period of "in or about 2004- +2005" and involve Defendant's Palm Beach residence.' +The Allegations In the Second Amended Complaint and The NPA? +' The Court also considered various objections set forth in Defendant's Response Memorandum. See Order +at [DE 242,] +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2009 Page 5 of 20 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2009 Page 6 of 20 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2009 Page 7 of 20 +7 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2009 Page 8 of 20 +11. +The Magistrate Judge also denied interrogatory numbers 1, 2, and 10 +because those interrogatories sought the names of Epstein's employees or their telephone +numbers and thus "would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute +Epstein of a crime." (DE 242, p.8-9). Additionally, this court denied interrogatory + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2009 Page 9 of 20 +numbers 13, 14 and 17 because those asked Epstein to identify persons or witnesses that +have knowledge of the events in question. Id. at p. 8. In making the decision, the court +recognized, much like this Motion for Reconsideration and/or Appeal contends, that "... +the facts alleged in the Complaints, the elements needed to convict Epstein of' a crime, +and ... the Court's knowledge concerning the cases at issue" provide a basis for Epstein +to raise the privilege based upon "genuinely threatening questions" which could furnish a +link in the chain of evidence needed to convict Epstein of a crime. +(DE 242, p.18) +United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (" Cir. 1980). +b. +The District Court Judge Court Should Reverse or Modify The Magistrate +Judge's Order (DE 242) Relative to Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11 Because The +Specific Findings Therein Are Erroneous and Contrary to Law +(i) Specific Objections +12. In his Response Memorandum, Epstein cites authority supporting his +application of the 5" Amendment Privileges and other constitutional privileges in which +he relies upon in objecting to Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11. In addition to those +arguments and objections, this court should consider the arguments and objections set +forth herein. +13. In short, the Magistrate Judge's Order requires Epstein to answer +Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11 based upon the finding that his objections are "... so +general and sweeping in nature [that they] amount] to a blanket assertion of the [Fifth +Amendment] privilege." (DE 242, p.11) Obviously, Epstein objects to such a ruling, and +provides below detailed reasoning demonstrating the validity of Epstein's objections that +answers to the subject interrogatories would realistically and necessarily furnish a link in +the chain of evidence needed to prove a crime against him and would require him to + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2009 Page 10 of 20 +provide self-incriminating evidence relative to this case and to the other related cases that +could result in a specific hazard of self-incrimination. For the reasons set forth below, +Epstein's justified concern with regard to answering Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11 and +the resulting waiver of his Fifth Amendment Privilege in this regard and/or providing +self-incriminating +information is substantial, real and not merely imaginative. +Accordingly, the District Court Judge should reverse and/or modify the Magistrate's +Order relative to Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11. +(i) Argument and Memorandum of Law +14. By answering Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11, Epstein is being compelled +to testify as to the issues and facts not only asserted in Plaintiff's Second Amended +Complaint, but also to facts which present a real and substantial danger of selfincrimination in this case, in other related cases and as well in areas that could result in +criminal prosecution. Again, the information sought all relate to potential federal claims +of violations of +15. +Here, Epstein's whereabouts and telephone numbers are central issues to +this case and other related cases. Answers to the interrogatories will undoubtedly result in +subsequent subpoenas requesting information regarding Epstein's whereabouts and his +numbers for his cellular telephones and landlines in ANY of his residences, which will +obviously reveal the individuals Epstein spoke to, and the time and place where the +conversations occurred. If Epstein's travel to and from Florida is identified and he is +compelled to provide his telephone information, that information coupled together could +subsequently be used to incriminate him and it might be used to prosecute him for a +criminal offense. See infra. In fact, providing his telephone information would not only +10 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2009 Page 11 of 20 +incriminate Epstein on the elements required to establish a criminal offense, but in this +case it is asking Epstein to incriminate himself by providing information that could lead +to the identification of potential witnesses against him. Epstein would also be providing +information that would later result in documents being subpoenaed and possibly +produced relative to his travel itinerary and his telephone records. As such, Epstein is +now being asked to provide testimonial disclosures that would communicate statements +of fact by admitting that he did travel to and from Florida on certain occasions and by +admitting that he had certain telephone numbers and providers, thereby requiring him to +admit the very facts upon which Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is based i.e. +presence in Florida at the time of an allegation of misconduct or control of a particular +telephone at the time of a claim that the plaintiff was recruited and will inexorably result +in leads to further documents such as travel records and/or telephone records that +themselves can be predictably used to bolster the criminal-related allegations against +Epstein. See generally Hoffman v United States 341 US 479, 486 (1951). U.S. V +Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36 (2000). +11 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2009 Page 12 of 20 +12 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2009 + +Significantly, this Court sustained Epstein's objections to Interrogatory Number +12, which requested information similar to Interrogatory Number 11 (i.e., "… telephone +numbers of employees of Epstein, used in the course or scope of their employment, +including cellular phones and land lines in any of his residences, by stating the complete +13 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2009 Page 14 of 20 +telephone number and the name of the service provider.") (DE 242, p.10). In short, the +Court considered "the nature of the allegations, to wit, a scheme and plan of sexual +misconduct carried out at Epstein various residences... [finding it] entirely reasonable +for Epstein to assert that forcing him to testify as to... his employee's telephone numbers +[Interrogatory 12] may provide a lead or clue to evidence tending to incriminate him." +The Magistrate Judge further reasoned that "[njot only would such compelled testimony +self-incriminate him on the elements required to establish a criminal violation, and thus +serve as a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute Epstein for a crime, but in +some cases serve to incriminate him by asking Epstein to identify potential witnesses +against him." (DE 242) That same reasoning and conclusion should have been reached +with regard to Interrogatory Number 11. +19. +In addition, compelling Epstein to provide the requested information could +also lead to or provide a link in the chain of evidence allowing Plaintiff or others to +satisfy one or more of the elements +Given the nature of the allegations, to wit, a scheme and plan of sexual +misconduct, this court should find it entirely reasonable for Epstein to assert his Fifth +Amendment privilege as to Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11. For instance, Plaintiff + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2009 Page 15 of 20 +alleges and the Magistrate Judge's Order acknowledges allegations of a scheme where +Epstein, with the help of his assistant +disadvantaged minor girls to his homes in Palm Beach, New York and St. +allegedly lured economically +with +the promise of money in exchange for a massage. As this Court noted in its order, "... +the fact there exists a Non-prosecution Agreement does not mean that Epstein is free +from future criminal prosecution, and that in fact, 'the threat of prosecution is real, +substantial, and present."" +Accordingly, +Epstein's travel to and from Florida and the telephone numbers to his cellular telephones +and landlines would provide information which is protected by the privilege i.e., where +"the responses would merely provide a 'lead or clue' to evidence having a tendency to +incriminate." United States v., Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9"' Cir.), cert. denied, 447 +U.S. 825 (1980). +19. +15 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2009 Page 16 of 20 +20. +On their face, Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11 may not seem to seek +incriminating evidence. However, after review of the objections and analysis set forth +herein, it is clear that responding to same would violate Epstein's Fifth Amendment +privilege against self incrimination. Accordingly, forcing Epstein to answer the +interrogatories unconstitutionally places him in the position of being compelled to testify +and provide information that support Plaintiff's version of the facts and which may lead +to future criminal prosecution. +21. +The Fifth Amendment serves as a guarantee against testimonial +compulsion and provides, in relevant part, that "InJo person...shall be compelled in any +Criminal Case to be a witness against himself." (DE 242, p.5). In practice, the Fifth +Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination "permits a person not to answer +official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or +informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." +Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11" Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. +70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded "liberal construction in favor of the right it was +intended to secure," Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951), and extends +not only to answers that would in themselves support a criminal conviction, but extends +also to those answers which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to +prosecute the claimant for a crime. Id.; Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950). +Thus, information is protected by the privilege not only if it would support a criminal +16 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2009 Page 17 of 20 +conviction, but also in those instances where "the responses would merely provide a "lead +or clue' to evidence having a tendency to incriminate." United States v., Neff, 615 F.2d +1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 825 (1980). The Fifth Amendment's +privilege against self-incrimination comes into play only in those instances where the +witness has "reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer." Hoffman 341 +U.S. at 486 (citing Manson v. United States, 244 U.S. 362, 365 (1917)). "The claimant +must be 'confronted by substantial and "real,' and not merely trifling or imaginary, +hazards of incrimination." United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980). +Accordingly, for these reasons, Epstein's objections to the Magistrate's Order should be +sustained, and this Court should enter an order reversing and/or modifying the Order +allowing Epstein to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege and not requiring Epstein to +provide compelled testimony that might incriminate him. +Based upon the underlying criminal elements of the targeted offenses, answers to +Interrogatory Number 7 involving Epstein's travel to and from Florida and Interrogatory +Number 11 involving Epstein's use of his telephones could provide a lead or clue to +evidence of an alleged violation of any one of the above target offenses, which could +result in criminal prosecution, a breach of the NPA and/or self-incriminating evidence +relating to this case and/or to other cases that may result in criminal prosecution. +Accordingly, any compelled testimony that provides a "lead or clue to a source of +evidence of such [a] crime" is protected by Fifth Amendment. SEC v Leach, 156 +F.Supp.2d 491, 494 (E.D. PA. 2001). Questions seeking "testimony" regarding names of +witnesses, leads to phone or travel records, or financial records that would provide leads +to tax or money laundering or unlicensed money transmittal investigations are protected. +17 + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2009 Page 18 of 20 +See also Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951)("the right against selfincrimination may be invoked if the answer would furnish a link in the chain of evidence +needed to prosecute for a crime"). +22. +In this instance, the danger Epstein faces by being forced to testify in this +case and on these subject matters is substantial and real, and not merely trifling or +imaginary. Epstein has met his burden to sustain his st* Amendment Privilege, and has +further established that "[t]he danger [he] faces by being forced to testify in this case is +substantial and real, and not merely trifling or imaginary as required." (DE 242) +Accordingly, this Court should reverse and/or revise the Magistrate's Order as set forth +below. +Wherefore, Epstein respectfully requests that this Court issue and order: +finding that the danger Epstein faces by being forced to testify in +this case relative to Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11 is substantial and real, and +not merely trifling or imaginary; +b. +sustaining Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege as it relates to +Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11 and denying Plaintiff's Motion in that regard; +reversing and/or revising the Magistrate's Order (DE 242) relative +to Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11 and entering an amended order sustaining +Epstein's objections to the Magistrate's Order as to those specific interrogatorie +and not requiring him to testify as to same; and/or +remanding this appeal to the Magistrate-Judge for her +reconsideration of these portions of her order and +e. +for such other and further relief is this Court deems just and +proper. +Florida Bar #617296 +Certificate of Service + + +Case 9:08-cV-80119-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2009 Page 19 of 20 +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is +Respectfully submitted, +By: +Ile +• CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON +Brad +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Phone: 954-522-3456 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +bedwards@rra-law.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, +08-80232, +, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +08-80994 +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +19 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2009 Page 20 of 20 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 10* Avenue North +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No +08-8081j +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack P. +Esq. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, +P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +561-686-6300 +Fax: 561-383-9424 +jsx@searcylaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-202-6360 +Fax: 561-828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Defendant +Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. +Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. +Leopold, Kuvin, P.A. +2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +561-684-6500 +Fax: 561-515-2610 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-08804 +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +801-585-5202 +801-585-6833 Fax +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Isidro M. +Esq. +_Law Firm, P.A. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80469 +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +Miami, FL 33130 +305 358-2800 +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases +Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South +Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +20 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9514bebc17805cec501e24dc20b459724ee42d4f6d079df1e301de2407581ae.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9514bebc17805cec501e24dc20b459724ee42d4f6d079df1e301de2407581ae.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4ec928f6e12e9f22883158076c98621c518f47af --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9514bebc17805cec501e24dc20b459724ee42d4f6d079df1e301de2407581ae.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -257, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d9514bebc17805cec501e24dc20b459724ee42d4f6d079df1e301de2407581ae", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 23, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "9a2845ae2a35ebd5566069a72fd88905ab58ea6a93bbd1575707a3a06da28f2f", + "output_sha256": "dc2c1274ec7c890e5d5f99d26126955cd8068dd9fcccedbaf781121ae4a53cbd", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d96076d7e58d44c908338c6387680966eab8b818de9cd6da7965c9fd6cbd65e6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d96076d7e58d44c908338c6387680966eab8b818de9cd6da7965c9fd6cbd65e6.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..75e6650e46ec3d49bee9c8e7e52059da0bae5f79 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d96076d7e58d44c908338c6387680966eab8b818de9cd6da7965c9fd6cbd65e6.md @@ -0,0 +1,305 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 1 of 11 +-UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119- +MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232- +MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 4, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380- +MARRAJ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 5, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381- +MARRA/ + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 2 of 11 +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 6, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994- +MARRA/J +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 7, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993- +MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/ +vS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 3 of 11 +JANE DOE, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. II, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469- +MARRA/ +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591- +MARRA/JOHNSON +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 102, +CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656- +MARRA/JOHNSON + + +Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 4 of 11 +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +PLAINTIFES JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102's +REPLY TO DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS +JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102'S MOTION FOR A NO- +CONTACT ORDER +Plaintiffs, JANE DOE No. 101 and JANE DOE No. 102 (together, the +"Plaintiffs"), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby reply to Defendant Jeffrey +Epstein's Response to Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Motion for a +No-Contact Order (" Response") as follows: +Plaintiffs have not, and will not, engage in any name-calling. For +purposes of Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Motion for a No- +Contact Order ("Motion"), it does not matter whether "many of the alleged victims ... +were or are admitted prostitutes, dancers at strip clubs... or have criminal records or +warrants for their arrests ...," Def.'s Resp. 4, or whether they were living in a monastery +or planning on becoming nuns, lawyers, or judges. This matter is quite simple: The +allegations are that, when these victims were minors, Defendant sexually exploited, +abused, molested, and/or battered them. Regardless of the victims' character or +Defendant's character, it is obvious that Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, a 55-ycar-old +designated sexual offender and convicted felon, should have no contact with his victims. +2. +Defendant makes much ado that one victim allegedly telephoned Jack +Goldberger's office to complain that Mr. Goldberger was holding up the matter. Def.'s + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 5 of 11 +Resp. 5. We have no reason to doubt the truth of that statement by defense counsel. +Unsurprisingly, a 21-year-old homeless, ill, and desperate victim who had waited for +settlement funds for seven weeks regretfully may have called Mr. Goldberger's office; +but whether she did so has nothing to do with Plaintiffs' Motion. Likewise, if Defendant +attempts to telephone undersigned counsel to complain or have any other contact with +undersigned counsel, undersigned counsel will handle the matter as professionally as Jack +Goldberger did by refusing to speak to the opposing party. +The troublesome part of Defendant's position is his counsel's statement in +the attached correspondence that, pursuant to Rule 4-4.2 of the Rules of Professional +Conduct, "parties to a matter may communicate directly with each other ...." In this +case, Plaintiffs' counsel are concerned that Defendant or his agents may assert that +alleged right, and we vehemently disagree that they should have that prerogative in these +Plaintiffs' cases. No legal justification exists for Defendant or his agents to have any +direct communications with victims whom Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, sexually +exploited, abused, molested, and/or battered. +In his Response, see Def.'s Resp. 4, and in his letter, counsel for Defendant, +Jeffrey Epstein, professes that "it is not Mr. Epstein's intention to have any direct contact +with [our] clients." This statement poses two significant problems. First, it leaves the +door open for Defendant's investigator(s) or other agents) to contact the victims. Such +contact would not be direct and would not be inconsistent with his professed intention to +refrain from direct contact with his victims. See, e.g., +v. All State Home Mortgage, +Inc., No. 08-3564, 2009 WL 1391527, at *1 (6th Cir. May 15, 2009) (intimidation of +plaintiffs-loan officers with contentious relationship with defendant-mortgage company + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 6 of 11 +through threatening phone calls by defendant's employees considered indirect contact in +violation of no-contact order in civil suit claiming violation of Fair Labor Standards Act); +Commonwealth v. +661 N.E. 2d 666, 666-67 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996) (defendant's +anonymous delivery of flowers to victim considered indirect contact in violation of nocontact order). Second, Defendant's counsel does not state that Defendant will not have +any contact with his victims. He merely states Defendant's intentions. Unfortunately, +the last five months is replete with other incidents in which Defendant, through his +counsel, has stated his intentions and thereafter changed his mind. Defendant, Jeffrey +Epstein, feels free—-and actually is free- +-to change his mind and his stated intentions. +His victims deserve more than that. Because they are traumatized and fearful, they +require for their security a firm, unambiguous commitment that Defendant will not +directly or indirectly contact either of them; considering the situation, any secure +commitment is attainable only via a Court order. Plaintiffs cannot emotionally afford to +be in a position in which Defendant can unilaterally change his mind. +4. +In the event that Defendant wants to be present at the deposition of a +Plaintiff or at a Court hearing where a Plaintiff is to attend, the Court can easily resolve +such situations at that time. Meanwhile, the sole purpose of Defendant's refusal to agree +to not contact these Plaintiffs is to leave them intimidated and in fear of being in the +presence of the man who has sexually exploited, abused, molested, and/or battered them. +One would think that, instead, Defendant would have voluntarily agreed with Plaintiffs' +prior request to have no contact directly or indirectly, including through his agents, and +would want to demonstrate to the Court that he will not contact his victims; his refusal to +stay away from them is nothing short of disturbing. + + +Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 7 of 11 +Although not requested, if Defendant's counsel seeks some type of +reciprocity, Plaintiffs' counsel would agree in writing, and would not oppose a Court +order prohibiting Plaintiffs from contacting Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. It is obvious to +undersigned counsel that there should be absolutely no contact between the parties to +these lawsuits. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Court to enter an Order prohibiting +Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and/or his agents from directly or indirectly contacting them. +Dated: June 4, 2009. +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. +101 and Jane Doe No. 102 +By: +s/ Robert C. Josefsberg +Robert C. Josefsberg +Fla. Bar No. 040856 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Katherine W. Ezell +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +kezell@podhurst.com +City National Bank Building +25 W. Flagler Street, Ste. 80( +Miami, FL 3313( +Telephone: (305) 358-2800 +Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 + + +Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 8 of 11 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +WE HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this 4th day of June, 2009, we electronically +filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify +that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on +the attached Service List either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated +by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not +authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Respectfully submitted, +PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. +ttorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe N +01 and Jane Doe No. 10 +By: +s/Katherine W. Ezell +Robert C. Josefsberg +Fla. Bar No. 040856 +osefsberg@podhurst.co +atherine W. Ezc +Fla. Bar No. 114771 +kezeil@podhurst.com +City National Bank Building +25 W. Flagler Street, Ste. 800 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 9 of 11 +SERVICE LIST +JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Robert Critton, Esq. +Michael J. Pike, Esq. +Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman LLP +515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 842-2820 +Fax: (561) 515-3148 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +mpike@bclclaw.com +Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Jack Goldberger, Esq. +Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 659-8300 +Fax: (561) 835-8691 +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Co-Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein +Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 202-6360 +Fax: (561) 828-0983 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +Counsel for Co-Defendant, +Jack Scarola, Esq. +Jack P. +, Esq. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 +Phone: (561) 686-6300 +Fax: (561) 383-9456 +jsx@searcylaw.com +jph@searcylaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 10 of 11 +Adam Horowitz, Esq. +Stuart Mermelstein, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +Phone: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +ahorowitz@sexabuscattorney.com +smermelstein@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Case Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,08-80232, 08-80380, 08- +80381, 08-80993, 08-80994 +Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq. +Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq. +Leopold Kuvin, P.A. +2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +Phone: (561) 515-1400 +Fax: (561) 515-1401 +skuvin@leopoldkuvin.com +tleopold@leopoldkuvin.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804 +Richard Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A +2290 10" Ave North, Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +Phone: (561) 582-7600 +Fax: (561) 588-8819 +lawyerwillits@aol.com +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811 +Brad +Esq. +Law Office of Brad +& Associates, LIC +2028 +Street, Suite 202 +Hollywood, FL 33020 +Phone: (954) 414-8033 +Fax: (954) 924-1530 +bedwards@rra-law.com +be@bradedwardslaw.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 +Isidro Manuel +„Esq- +Elkins & Boehringer + + +Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2009 Page 11 of 11 +224 Datura Avenue, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Phone: (561) 832-8033 +Fax: (561) 832-7137 +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d96076d7e58d44c908338c6387680966eab8b818de9cd6da7965c9fd6cbd65e6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d96076d7e58d44c908338c6387680966eab8b818de9cd6da7965c9fd6cbd65e6.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..227ebd8d1a04154e2b9bd328e5968aefcc77db18 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d96076d7e58d44c908338c6387680966eab8b818de9cd6da7965c9fd6cbd65e6.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -325, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d96076d7e58d44c908338c6387680966eab8b818de9cd6da7965c9fd6cbd65e6", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 13, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "87b6de096f037d79177d1942563d040ef50b98805d17fac15726456833927ca3", + "output_sha256": "de58957baa8a5d7f4d54004e98410da8d47ce4eb6d3cf12b47827d0bfb444656", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d96e5637c9dd6cfea0ba7980879b05c2d86a63aca732798ae9d453345566ab9f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d96e5637c9dd6cfea0ba7980879b05c2d86a63aca732798ae9d453345566ab9f.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b5362a3ee4491235693eeccfab81da5d223daefa --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d96e5637c9dd6cfea0ba7980879b05c2d86a63aca732798ae9d453345566ab9f.md @@ -0,0 +1,156 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 525 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +Related Cases: +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, +08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, +09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092, +PLAINTIFFS JANE DOES NOS. 2-8' MEMORANDUM +IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR +LEAVE TO FILE REDACTED VERSIONS OF SENSITIVE +FIFTH AMENDMENT ARGUMENTS AND SUBMIT +UNREDACTED ARGUMENTS TO THE COURT (DE 518) +Plaintiffs Jane Does Nos. 2-8, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby file this +Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Redacted Versions of +Sensitive Fifth Amendment Arguments and Submit Unredacted Arguments to the Court (DE +518), and state as follows: +Introduction +Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Defendant" or "Epstein") seeks to make additional in +camera submissions in support of his appeal of Orders of the Magistrate Judge. Epstein has +already made in camera submissions in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Net Worth +Discovery, which were reviewed and considered by the Magistrate Judge in making her rulings. +1 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 525 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 2 of 6 +(See, e.g., Order dated March 4, 2010 (DE 480), p. 6). Defendant now seeks to make new +submissions in camera for purposes of this Local Mag. R. 4 appeal. Defendant's Motion should +be denied, first, because he had ample opportunity to make in camera submissions and create a +record while the matter was before the Magistrate Judge.' Additional in camera submissions +should not be allowed on appeal. Second, it appears that Defendant is seeking permission to +redact legal arguments in his memoranda to be filed on appeal. Plaintiffs are unfairly prejudiced +by the filing of memoranda with legal arguments redacted. It is difficult, if not impossible, for +Plaintiffs to respond to such arguments, and it is not necessary for purposes of protecting +Defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege that Defendant be allowed to file redacted legal +memoranda.? +Factual Submissions on Appeal Should Not be Allowed +This Court has discretion to reject newly offered evidence in an appeal of a magistrate +judge's decision. See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-22 (9th Cir. 2000) (reviewing +cases on this issue decided under 28 U.S.C. §636). Defendant had the right to make in camera +submissions on the underlying Motion, and he exercised that right. He was given every +opportunity to substantiate his claims of privilege before the Magistrate Judge. See U.S. v. +Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349 (11th Cir. 1991) (discussing in camera procedure for determining +application of privilege). Indeed, his claims of privilege were upheld by the Magistrate Judge as +' Nothing in Defendant's Motion indicates that he seeks to submit in camera evidence that is +newly discovered subsequent to the Magistrate's Orders. +" Indeed, Defendant's Memorandum in response to Plaintiff's Rule 4 appeal of the same +Magistrate Judge's Order (DE 522) contains no redactions. +That Memorandum refers to +Defendant's in camera submissions provided to the Magistrate Judge, and generally to the +"target offenses" outlined in those submissions. Certainly, if Defendant was capable of making +his legal arguments without redactions in that filing, there is no reason why he should have to file +redacted legal memoranda in his own appeal of the same Magistrate Judge's Order. +2 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 525 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 3 of 6 +to the great majority of the documents requested. Under these circumstances, there are no +considerations of fairness or the Fifth Amendment that would make it necessary or appropriate +for Defendant to file anything further in camera. +Defendant Should Not Be Authorized to +Redact His Legal Memoranda on Appeal +The Orders issued by the Magistrate Judge refer generally to the Defendant's in camera +submissions, without discussing their contents. Nothing in the Magistrate's Order is redacted or +hidden from Plaintiffs and the public record. Nonetheless, Defendant seeks to make in camera +arguments on appeal in response to these Orders, to which Plaintiffs cannot fairly respond. It can +be expected that, if authorized, Defendant will file memoranda of record that are laden with thick +black lines at all relevant points. At this time, on appeal, it is unnecessary and unfairly +prejudicial for Defendant to make his arguments in this manner. The in camera submissions and +the memoranda filed of record should be separate and distinct. Defendant has already made his +in camera submissions. As the Magistrate Judge did in her Orders, the legal arguments on +appeal can be made in such a manner that does not require redaction, to which Plaintiffs can +then reasonably formulate a response. +Defendant Epstein cites to no authority that would +authorize him to make new in camera submissions on appeal. The cases relied upon by +Defendant in his initial Memorandum apply only to in camera inspection of the documents the +movant seeks to protect in discovery, and not the arguments made to protect those documents. +See United States v. Baez-Alcaino, 718 F. Supp. 1503, 1504 (M.D. Fla. 1989); In re Duque, 134 +B.R. 679 (S.D. Fla. 1991). +Defendant has also filed a "Notice of Supplemental Authority" presenting two additional +cases, only one of which merits discussion. In Methodist Hospitals, Inc. V. +91 F.3d +" See footnote 2 above. +3 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 525 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 4 of 6 +1026, 1031-32 (7th Cir. 1996), the Court instructed a party to redact from its legal memorandum +the personal income figures of five physicians, in lieu of filing the entire document under seal. +The Court found that the inclusion of this income information in the memorandum was +"gratuitous." 91 F.3d at 1031. In contrast, Defendant Epstein undoubtedly intends to redact +wholesale portions of his Memorandum containing the critical portions of his legal arguments. +Methodist Hospital is not authority for such an unfairly prejudicial submission. +Conclusion +Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request that Defendant's Motion to File +Redacted Versions of Papers in Appeal of the Magistrate Judge's Orders be denied, and such +other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate. +Respectfully submitted, +By:_ +/s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Jessica D. Arbour (FL Bar No. 67885) +jarbour@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: (305) 931-2200 +Fax: (305) 931-0877 +4 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 525 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 5 of 6 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on April 12, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document with +the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served +this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission +of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for +those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +5 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 525 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 6 of 6 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +jgoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +James +brad@pathtojustice.com +Isidro Manuel +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack +jph@searcylaw.com +Katherine Warthen Ezell +KEzell@podhurst.com +Michael James Pike +MPike@bclclaw.com +Paul G. Cassell +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Richard Horace Willits +lawyerwillits@aol.com +Robert C. Josefsberg +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +6 diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d96e5637c9dd6cfea0ba7980879b05c2d86a63aca732798ae9d453345566ab9f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d96e5637c9dd6cfea0ba7980879b05c2d86a63aca732798ae9d453345566ab9f.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..91b56068ed5fc324030ef934fe8ab95b7a1d2b1d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d96e5637c9dd6cfea0ba7980879b05c2d86a63aca732798ae9d453345566ab9f.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d96e5637c9dd6cfea0ba7980879b05c2d86a63aca732798ae9d453345566ab9f", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "35e8501a4c543d7fd90f0dee4e9131f9fbfea148aa53da897558e6479b3d20a2", + "output_sha256": "732f731334f05c88b176fa930acd492fe3198a2b2ecc7bad480f293338ee5f9f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9892d43a6e9445b2e913aab3f5d58edd7b25c4a113578a148b6a83b8f262e34.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9892d43a6e9445b2e913aab3f5d58edd7b25c4a113578a148b6a83b8f262e34.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8689bd60bce18e94c75c5da03838b030495359d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9892d43a6e9445b2e913aab3f5d58edd7b25c4a113578a148b6a83b8f262e34.md @@ -0,0 +1,208 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 1 of 6 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/. +JANE DOE NO. 2, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/_ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 2 of 6 +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/, +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +/ +CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/_ +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +C.M.A., +CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/_ +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 3 of 6 +JANE DOE, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRA/. +DOE II, +CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA-. +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, +Defendants. +JANE DOE NO. 101, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA-| +JANE DOE NO. 102, +Plaintiff, +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/. +NOTICE TO STRIKE +Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN") by and through his +undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Notice to Strike: + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 4 of 6 +1. Strike DE 141. Incorrectly filed. +Certificate of Service +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoin +with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is +being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in +the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 5_ day of June, 2009 +By: . +CRITTON, JR., ESQ. +Florida Bar No. 224162 +rcrit@bclclaw.com +MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. +Florida Bar #617296 +mpike@bclclaw.com +BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & +COLEMAN +515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561/842-2820 Phone +561/515-3148 Fax +(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) +Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. +Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. +Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. +18205 Biscayne Boulevard +Suite 2218 +Miami, FL 33160 +305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs +Certificate of Service +Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein +ase No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/. +Brad +Esq. +Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler +401 East Las Olas Boulevard +Suite 1650 +Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 +Phone: 954-522-3456 +Fax: 954-527-8663 +bedwards@rra-law.com +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80893 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 5 of 6 +In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, +08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, +Paul G. Cassell, Esq. +08-80994 +Pro Hac Vice +332 South 1400 E, Room 101 +Richard Horace Willits, Esq. +Richard H. Willits, P.A. +2290 10* Avenue North +Suite 404 +Lake Worth, FL 33461 +561-582-7600 +Fax: 561-588-8819 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-80811 +reelrhw@hotmail.com +Salt Lake City, UT 84112 +801-585-5202 +801-585-6833 Fax +cassellp@law.utah.edu +Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe +Isidro M. +1. Esq. +Law Firm, P.A. +224 Datura Street, Suite 900 +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +561-832-7732 +561-832-7137 F +Jack Scarola, Esq. +isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net +Jack P. +. Esq. +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, +08-80469 +P.A. +2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard +Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. +West Palm Beach, FL 33409 +Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. +561-686-6300 +Podhurst Orseck, P.A. +Fax: 561-383-9424 +25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 +isx@searcylaw.com +Miami, FL 33130 +iph@searcylaw.com +305 358-2800 +Counsel for Plaintiff. C.M.A. +Fax: 305 358-2382 +rjosefsberg@podhurst.com +Bruce Reinhart, Esq. +kezell@podhurst.com +Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases +Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. +Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 +250 S. Australian Avenue +Suite 1400 +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +West Palm Beach, FL 33401 +Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. +561-202-6360 +250 Australian Avenue South +Fax: 561-828-0983 +Suite 1400 +ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com +West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 +Counsel for Defendant +561-659-8300 +Fax: 561-835-8691 +Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. +jagesq@bellsouth.net +Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. +Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein +Ricci-Leopold, P.A. +2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 +Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 +561-684-6500 +Fax: 561-515-2610 + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 6 of 6 +Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. +08-08804 +skuvin@riccilaw.com +tleopold@riccilaw.com diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9892d43a6e9445b2e913aab3f5d58edd7b25c4a113578a148b6a83b8f262e34.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9892d43a6e9445b2e913aab3f5d58edd7b25c4a113578a148b6a83b8f262e34.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..40dffe5c43147747a0ac66db65322673508b9ab0 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9892d43a6e9445b2e913aab3f5d58edd7b25c4a113578a148b6a83b8f262e34.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -72, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d9892d43a6e9445b2e913aab3f5d58edd7b25c4a113578a148b6a83b8f262e34", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 6, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "bbae93d08d7cfa1fac4a96385ee82f05590d285b7b60a2b801ba4073058f7f13", + "output_sha256": "c0351c77dcfa9001c95c12381188519e373c77c2e76ccf008756c40bf2370d7f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9944a40f47ae4fba66b5ab7266e13bd5960f17be3be3acac613fde6c07527e1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9944a40f47ae4fba66b5ab7266e13bd5960f17be3be3acac613fde6c07527e1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5f349d4344b8486e4af870d6e765e8b3664fc34d --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9944a40f47ae4fba66b5ab7266e13bd5960f17be3be3acac613fde6c07527e1.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 44 +Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2010 Page 1 of 2 +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/ +JANE DOES #1 AND #2, +Petitioners, +VS. +UNITED STATES, +Respondent. +ORDER +THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Status Report and Response to Court's +Order to Show Lack of Prosecution. (DE 41). On September 8, 2010, the Court entered an +Order administratively closing this case in light of related settlements and a lack of activity for +nearly seventeen months. (DE 38). On September 13, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Notice in +Response to the Court's Order, requesting that the case be reopened. (DE 39). On October 12, +2010, the Court entered an Order requiring Plaintiffs to show good cause why this case should +not be dismissed for want of prosecution. (DE 40). Having carefully considered Plaintiff's +Status Report and Response, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs have +shown good cause. This case is hereby REOPENED. +The Court will allow the parties to continue their attempt to resolve this matter. In the +event that the parties cannot reach a resolution, the Court will schedule a status conference to + + +Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2010 Page 2 of 2 +determine how this case will proceed. +DONE and ORDERED in +this 28" day of October, 2010. +at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida +KENNETH A. MARRA +United States District Judge +Copies to: +Counsel of record diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9944a40f47ae4fba66b5ab7266e13bd5960f17be3be3acac613fde6c07527e1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9944a40f47ae4fba66b5ab7266e13bd5960f17be3be3acac613fde6c07527e1.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0fef3fc45ce75349c9ad9efa585747776763bfd2 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d9944a40f47ae4fba66b5ab7266e13bd5960f17be3be3acac613fde6c07527e1.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d9944a40f47ae4fba66b5ab7266e13bd5960f17be3be3acac613fde6c07527e1", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c84ccd938e2380ebbbb9af8f6adb5245f192df82e1411d5b841aae12a779bcca", + "output_sha256": "6278608c8e299f7f5867ec9c4ad1c29da9583698ba49505728b559e1ec20a0b9", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d996840760c20ad847bffc65e69193bc1022145035fff71cee695940c4379008.md b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d996840760c20ad847bffc65e69193bc1022145035fff71cee695940c4379008.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..77a485e959c28716c652b1a3f07640d1367fc375 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d996840760c20ad847bffc65e69193bc1022145035fff71cee695940c4379008.md @@ -0,0 +1,108 @@ +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2009 Page 1 of 5 +JANE DOE NO. 2, +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +JANE DOE NO. 3, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 4, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/ +JANE DOE NO. 5, +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/ +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +- 1- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2009 Page 2 of 5 +JANE DOE NO. 6, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA +JANE DOE NO. 7, +Plaintiff, +VS. +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, +Defendant. +CASE NO.: 08- 80993-CIV-MARRA +PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT +OF TIME TO FILE MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION +TO MOTION TO STAY AND/OR CONTINUE ACTION +Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-7, by and through undersigned counsel, file this Motion for +Enlargement to Time to File Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Stay and/or Continue Action, +pursuant to S.D. Fla.L.R. 7.1 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), and state as follows: +1. +Defendant Epstein filed a Motion to Stay and/or Continue Action for Time Certain +Based on Parallel Civil and Criminal Proceedings, in each of the above-captioned cases, on March +25, 2009. Plaintiffs response to this Motion is due on April 13, 2009. +2. +Plaintiffs move for an enlargement of time to prepare and file their responses to the +Motion because of demands on Plaintiffs' counsel in other cases and matters. In particular, +Plaintiffs' counsel has an initial appeal brief due in Doe v. School Bd. of Broward County and +- 2- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2009 Page 3 of 5 +Scavella, case no. 09 - 10394-E, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. +3. +Plaintiffs request an enlargement of time of ten (10) days, until April 23, 2009. +4. +Pursuant to S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1(A), Plaintiffs' counsel has conferred with counsel for +Defendant regarding the relief sought in this Motion, who has advised Plaintiffs' counsel that +Defendant has no objection to the enlargement of time requested. +WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request an enlargement of time to file their response to +the Motion to Stay et al., until and including April 23, 2009. +Dated: April 23, 2009 +Respectfully submitted, +By: +s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) +ssm@sexabuseattorney.com +Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) +ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com +MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. +Attorneys for Plaintiffs +18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 +Miami, Florida 33160 +Tel: 305-931-2200 +Fax: 305-931-0877 +- 3- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2009 Page 4 of 5 +CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE +I hereby certify that on April 23, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the +Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day +to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices +of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who +are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. +Is/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 4- + + +Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2009 Page 5 of 5 +SERVICE LIST +DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN +United States District Court, Southern District of Florida +Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. +igoldberger@agwpa.com +Robert D. Critton, Esq. +rcritton@bclclaw.com +Is/ Stuart S. Mermelstein +- 5- diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-01/d996840760c20ad847bffc65e69193bc1022145035fff71cee695940c4379008.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d996840760c20ad847bffc65e69193bc1022145035fff71cee695940c4379008.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bdd458cc472474c1a747e369c6eb59332690e110 --- /dev/null +++ b/vision-fixhub/court-01/d996840760c20ad847bffc65e69193bc1022145035fff71cee695940c4379008.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -60, + "dataset": "marble-joined", + "doc_id": "d996840760c20ad847bffc65e69193bc1022145035fff71cee695940c4379008", + "engine": "marble-apple-vision", + "event_count": 5, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "43b7776f98928d589f48ab8246f8cf5087ea9d1e73d1bb8c071121d0bca7b66d", + "output_sha256": "196d6aa8f22aac6e5308367b2a74054fdf4d314d132ec81b33bbb01220d6e7bc", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "epstein-external", + "text_format": "markdown" +}