Epstein Secrets

ce and documents between Epstein's counsel and Federal prosecutors violates an Order entered in Jane Doe No. 2. v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80893-Marra/Johnson on January 5, 2011. (See D.E. 226) (Ex. A attached hereto). Pursuant to that Order, Edwards is required to seek leave of court before filing or mak

d Bill Richardson for deposition en 70-75); purported relevancy of pilot and flight logs to show interstate airplane travel in support of Jane Doe's Federal Rico claims and punitive damages (911 77-79); Epstein's interview with a New York newspaper reporter (9191 80-81); Epstein's alleged threats to witnesse

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08-C1V- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Reply to Plaintiff's Response In Opposition to Defendant's Motion To Di

are not recoverable under Federal or Florida Rico. Plaintiff, on the other hand, wishes for this court to dismiss the objective and purpose of the Federal Rico statute and FCRCP in her flawed attempt to maintain a Florida Rico claim against Epstein under Fla. Stat. Chapter 772. In particular, Plaintiff wish

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08-C1V- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Reply to Plaintiff's Response In Opposition to Defendant's Motion To Di

are not recoverable under Federal or Florida Rico. Plaintiff, on the other hand, wishes for this court to dismiss the objective and purpose of the Federal Rico statute and FCRCP in her flawed attempt to maintain a Florida Rico claim against Epstein under Fla. Stat. Chapter 772. In particular, Plaintiff wish