Epstein Secrets

for more definite statement directed to the Amended Complaints filed against Defendant in this Court in JANE DOE NO. 2 (Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra/Johnson), JANE DOE NO. 3 (Case No. 08-CV- 80232-Marra/Johnson), JANE DOE NO. 4 (Case No. 08-CV-80380-Marra/Johnson), and JANE DOE NO. 5 (Case No. 08-CV-8038

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient factual allegations in the Counts and instead alleges labels and conclusions, and an attempted formulaic recitation of the elements in each Count. 2. In the alternative or in conjun

-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 07:1672008 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, 1. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient factual allegations in the Counts and instead alleges labels and conclusions, and an attempted formulaic recitation of the elements in each Count. 2. In the alternative, Defendant s

M Document 49 Entereo FLSD Docket 09,-4/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Jane Doc No. 4 ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), brings this Ame

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient factual allegations in the Counts and instead alleges labels and conclusions, and an attempted formulaic recitation of the elements in each Count. 2. In the alternative, Defendant s

M Document 50 Entere 1 FLSD Docket 0: /2009 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Jane Doe No.3 ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), brings th

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient factual allegations in the Counts and instead alleges labels and conclusions, and an attempted formulaic recitation of the elements in each Count. 2. In the alternative, Defendant s

Documett, Entert. Jn FLSD Docket 09/22. .,r8 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-80381-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 5, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 5 ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), brings this Com

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient factual allegations in the Counts and instead alleges labels and conclusions, and an attempted formulaic recitation of the elements in each Count. 2. In the alternative, Defendant s

except in the most extraordinary circumstances." Forde, 740 F.Supp.2d at 412 (citing Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 522-23). As the Supreme Court explained in Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997), "there is no doubt that materiality is an element of perjury under § 1623," and its precedent "therefore dict

f two depositions, the defendant knowingly made false material declarations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The defendant moves to dismiss those Counts, arguing that the Court can determine now—on a pre- 44 For similar reasons, the defendant's request fordiscovery regarding this matter should be deni

except in the most extraordinary circumstances." Forde, 740 F.Supp.2d at 412 (citing Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 522-23). As the Supreme Court explained in Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997), "there is no doubt that materiality is an element of perjury under § 1623," and its precedent "therefore dict

f two depositions, the defendant knowingly made false material declarations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The defendant moves to dismiss those Counts, arguing that the Court can determine now—on a pre- 44 For similar reasons, the defendant's request for discovery regarding this matter should be den

except in the most extraordinary circumstances." Forde, 740 F.Supp.2d at 412 (citing Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 522-23). As the Supreme Court explained in Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997), "there is no doubt that materiality is an element of perjury under § 1623," and its precedent "therefore dict

f two depositions, the defendant knowingly made false material declarations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The defendant moves to dismiss those Counts, arguing that the Court can determine now—on a pre- 44 For similar reasons, the defendant's request for discovery regarding this matter should be den

except in the most extraordinary circumstances." Forde, 740 F.Supp.2d at 412 (citing Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 522-23). As the Supreme Court explained in Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997), "there is no doubt that materiality is an element of perjury under § 1623," and its precedent "therefore dict

f two depositions, the defendant knowingly made false material declarations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The defendant moves to dismiss those Counts, arguing that that the Court can determine now—on a pre-trial record that is not factually developed—that the questions were fundamentally ambiguous

except in the most extraordinary circumstances." Forde, 740 F.Supp.2d at 412 (citing Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 522-23). As the Supreme Court explained in Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997), "there is no doubt that materiality is an element of perjury under § 1623," and its precedent "therefore dict

f two depositions, the defendant knowingly made false material declarations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The defendant moves to dismiss those Counts, arguing that the Court can determine now—on a pre- 44 For similar reasons, the defendant's request for discovery regarding this matter should be den