Epstein Secrets

ply Brief (Exhibit A to DE #217) and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper. By: ----t--1-7"'=---- ROBERT D. C ON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar N . 224162 MICHAEL J. IKE, ESQ. Florida Bar # 17296 DAVID A. Y AREMA, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 12492 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 244 Entered

Y EPSTEIN Defendant. I JANE DOE NO. 102, CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO JANE DOE'S MOTION TO PROVIDE RECENTLY-OBTAINED AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF MATERIAL FACTS SUPPORTING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER T

Y EPSTEIN, Defendant. -----------~/ JANE DOE NO. 7, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. I C.M.A., Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. I JANE DOE, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Defendants. I CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-80811-

following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 26th day of February, 2010. By: ---f:-'s:~~----:--:---::- ROBE ITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar N . 224 I 62 rcrit@bclclaw om MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 [email protected] BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive

des Epstein's counsel's views on the limits and inapplicability of certain elements of 18 U.S.C. §2255, one of the principal causes of action in the Jane Doe cases. This opinion work product should not be disclosed when it was incorporated into heartland plea negotiations that are accorded protection und

counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 30th day of October, 2009 . RITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar N . 224162 [email protected] MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 [email protected] BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive

Pro Hae Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax [email protected] Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law Finn, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-832-7732 561-832-7137 F isidrogarcia@b

as improper and unnecessary. CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A. Counsel for Fowler White Burnett, PA /s/Niall T. McLachlan Niall T. McLachlan Esq. Florida Bar N 5 Although L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe have sought to join in the motion for order to show cause, they have not been granted leave to intervene in this

re at issue here. See DE 6351, p. 23. Accordingly, the request to intervene should be denied. To the extent this Court will consider L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe's Joinder in Motion for Order to Show Cause and Motion for Discovery, to Access Sanctions and Costs for Other Appropriate Relief (DE 6345), this resp

659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 jagesaabellsouth.net Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully submitt By: ROBERT D. C ITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar N . 224162 rcritabdcla .com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 mpike bciclaw.com BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive,

irmative defense is not precluded from asserting EFTA00221203 Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 2 of 7 Jane Doe No. 7 v. Epstein Page 2 the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary applicati

ied on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 26th day of February, 2010. Respectfully s By: ROBE TTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar N 224162 rcrit@bc1cla MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 IER & COLEMAN (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) Certificate of Service Ja

des Epstein's counsel's views on the limits and inapplicability of certain elements of 18 U.S.C. §2255, one of the principal causes of action in the Jane Doe cases. This opinion work product should not be disclosed when it was incorporated into heartland plea negotiations that are accorded protection und

submitted, Cy, COFFEY BURLINGTON Counsel for Plaintiffs 2699 South Bayshore Drive, Penthouse Miami, Florida 33133 (305) 858-2900 KENDALL OFFEY Florida Bar N . 259861 [email protected] Annexed hereto as Exhibit A is an affidavit from Plaintiff Rosenfeldt attesting to the truthfulness of the a

, ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS (who either know or should have known) and, at times, L.M. in her Civil Action against EPSTEIN: a) ded claims for damages in Jane Doe's federal action in rces s of $50,000,000.00 rather than simply alleging the jurisdictional limits. b) Organized a Jane Doe TV media interview witho