Epstein Secrets

EMARCO JR,FRANKLYN P LAVERTY,ANNE M GRIFFIS,NIXON MARCUS,JEFFREY A SUMMERS,RUTH

QUINN,OLIVER H LOCKER,NANCY OWEN,JANE D CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD KELLER,MICHAEL

entitled to both his silence and his lawsuit." Boys & Girls Clubs of Marion County, Inc. v. J.A., 22 So.3d 855, 856 (Fla. 5th Dist. Ct. App. 2009) (Griffin, J., concurring specially). Thus, "a person may not seek affirmative relief in a civil action and then invoke the fifth amendment to avoid giving di

atement of Undisputed Facts. 12 EFTA00725980 In addition, if Epstein had thought that there was some improper coercion involved in, for example, Jane Doe's case, his remedy was to raise the matter before Federal District Court Judge Kenneth A. Marra who was presiding over the matter. Far from raising an

ss his motion to the issue of "good cause," and because it is the policy of this Court to rule on the merits of a case whenever possible, see, e.g., Griffin IT Media, Inc. Intelligentz Corp., No. 07-80535-CIV, 2008 WL 162754 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2008), the Court grants Defendant leave to file a second m

and is ripe for review. The Court has carefully considered the motion and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. On April 14, 2008, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4 ("Plaintiff") filed the instant action against Jeffrey Epstein ("Defendant"), alleging claims of sexual assault and intentional infliction of

ss his motion to the issue of "good cause," and because it is the policy of this Court to rule on the merits of a case whenever possible, see, e.g., Griffin IT Media, Inc.. Intelligentz Cap., No. 07-80535-CIV, 2008 WL 162754 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2008), the Court grants Defendant leave to file a second mo

and is ripe for review. The Court has carefully considered the motion and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. On April 14, 2008, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 5 ("Plaintiff') filed the instant action against Jeffrey Epstein ("Defendant"), alleging claims of sexual assault and intentional infliction of

Q2941898,03 arrist QiighlerCe»gnIalif~ kilerCisdatil 4[Ø: W.9 323 Sa6 Calf,9 POW; Welter° rI,S 24 hr - Send this* with Your cheque - parbiar, Griffin Eniar9Y Hold'vrgslimited.£.90 5dx2437 AdolaideSA 5Wr IN PERM° Pay atortyPo=Cato awryCods 2959 Refi 3.500 01393 2362. 6 r9117.2AWO:',.{~ Catcty

es v. United States (201,55 40 f-1 A (— 5 L \ ""‘ piws-ti N)EiCri A December 3o, 2014, federal civil suit was filed in Florida by Jane Doe and Jane Doe 2 against the United States for violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act by the U.S. Department of Justice's ' and his limited 2008 state plea. Th

1 (1988) 1, 2, 22 People ex reL Scott v. Silverstein, 412 II2d 692 (III. App. Ct. 1980), rev d on other rounds, 429 M2d 483 (1981) 29 People v. Griffin, 1992 WL 474518 (Sup. Ct. ig Co. Nov. 12, 1992) 24, 26 People v. Royster, 43 .U1758, 842 ad 12 (1st Dep't 2007) 26 Pugh v. Avis Rent A 1997 W

that Rush had waived sa applicable reporter's privilege by disclosing brief portions of the Epstein interview to third parties (Balin Aff. Ex. K (Jane Doe's Response in Opposition to Motion of Daily News, to Quash Subpoena), at 6-13) — the same exact waiver argument he makes here. The federal District

more analysis from us than that. Neither can titles of statutory or Guidelines provisions limit the pia' meaning of the provisions themselves. See Griffin Steeltek, Inc., 160 F.3d 591, 594 n. 4 (10 Cir.1998) ("Mlle title to a statutory provision is not part of the law itself."); 2A Sutherland Statuto

s. To inform Jane Doe of dates that he had arranged, Evans called Jane Doe on a cellular telephone that she had acquired from him. Evans also gave Jane Doe's cellular telephone number to customers and told Jane Doe to arrange dates when customers called. During the dates, Ev- ans called Jane Doe on the