Epstein Secrets

e when substituted service is used to serve a defendant. While Rule 4(eX1) allows Plaintiff to serve process on Defendant in the method permitted by New York, Rule 4(e)(I) does not alter the twenty day period specified by Rule 12(a). In other words, under Rules 4(e)(1) and 12(a), the Court is not bound by

Rule 4(e)(I) does not alter the twenty day period specified by Rule 12(a). In other words, under Rules 4(e)(1) and 12(a), the Court is not bound by New York's proof of service filing requirement nor New York's "completion" date in determining when Defendant's answer needed to be filed. Beller & Keller" Ty

Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 07'16'2008 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA NO. 08-80380-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff,

that "[a]s a threshold matter, the court must [first] address the rules pursuant to which process was served"). Service of process was valid under New York's rule for so-called "substitute-service" (i.e., service in a manner other than delivery in-hand to the defendant herself or himself), but that statu

In accordance with New York procedure, such substituted service "shall be complete ten days after such filing." Id. (emphasis added). Accordingly, New York does not use the date of delivery to the person at the defendant's "abode" as the date service is effected. This was the point of error for the depu

federal procedure. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) permits service to be 2 EFTA00222189 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13.2008 Page 3 of 11 made according to "state law for serving a summons in . . . the state . . . where service is made" as an alternative to fo

e when substituted service is used to serve a defendant. While Rule 4(eX1) allows Plaintiff to serve process on Defendant in the method permitted by New York, Rule 4(e)(1) does not alter the twenty day period specified by Rule 12(a). In other words, under Rules 4(e)(1) and 12(a), the Court is not bound by

Rule 4(e)(1) does not alter the twenty day period specified by Rule 12(a). In other words, under Rules 4(e)(1) and 12(a), the Court is not bound by New York's proof of service filing requirement nor New York's "completion" date in determining when Defendant's answer needed to be filed. Beller & Keller" Ty

cuments conventionally in any other division of the Southern District of Florida. 1 EFTA00222618 Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2008 Page 2 of 3 a presumption in favor of openness of court records, which "must be balanced against any competing interest advanced." Unit

e when substituted service is used to serve a defendant. While Rule 4(eX1) allows Plaintiff to serve process on Defendant in the method permitted by New York, Rule 4(e)(1) does not alter the twenty day period specified by Rule 12(a). In other words, under Rules 4(e)(1) and 12(a), the Court is not bound by

Rule 4(e)(1) does not alter the twenty day period specified by Rule 12(a). In other words, under Rules 4(e)(1) and 12(a), the Court is not bound by New York's proof of service filing requirement nor New York's "completion" date in determining when Defendant's answer needed to be filed. Beller & Keller" Ty

mons and complaint to Defendant on May 12, 2008, via first class mail. (DE 4.) The 1 EFTA00222636 Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2008 Page 2 of 6 envelope was marked "personal and confidential" and did not indicate that the envelope was from an attorney or related to a

etermination that Epstein had violated the agreement could the U.S. Attorney's Office move forward to prosecute Epstein. See generally Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971). Finally and most fundamentally, Epstein has it entirely within his power to avoid criminal prosecution by complying with non-

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 64-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/24/2009 Page 1 of 10 • Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/09/2009! Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOU

SF and whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action"). The Amended Complaint erroneously states that Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen of New York. 8 Lewis "reins 3059 Gt.** Avt Nur, Sum 340. Cooaaul Gaov1, Rama 33133 Sof 316 EFTA00234231 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLS

s"). 5 Lewis Tein n. 3059 Gump Ave mut Sulu 340, Cocorout Goon. haulm 33133 So1316 EFTA00234228 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07121:2008 Page 6 of 100 1. The amount in controversy in this action exceeds $75,000. This case is a duplicate of the First Federal Lawsuit. In th

Atterbury, Goldberger and Weiss-one of the law firms representing Mr. Epstein. Richard Kahn is a partner at the law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell in New York and has no association with the Atterbury firm. Checking public records available on the Internet, I located the IRS returns of "The C.O.U.Q. Found

TA00231615 Case 9:08-cv 1 2 3 4 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered UNITED STATES SOUTHERN DISTRICT WEST PALM CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 1 of 51 DISTRICT COURT OF FLORIDA BEACH DIVISION WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 5 JANE DOE, et al., 6 Plaintiffs, JUNE 12, 2009

Atterbury, Goldberger and Weiss—one of the law firms representing Mr. Epstein. Richard Kahn is a partner at the law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell in New York and has no association with the Atterbury firm. Checking public records available on the internet, I located the IRS returns of "The C.O.U.Q. Found

FTA00232735 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 1 2 3 4 Document 180 Entered UNITED STATES SOUTHERN DISTRICT WEST PALM CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 1 of 51 DISTRICT COURT OF FLORIDA BEACH DIVISION WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 5 JANE DOE, et al., 6 Plaintiffs, vs. JUNE 12, 2