Epstein Secrets

e your answer or motion with the court. Date: SEPTEMBER 177 2010 Steven M. Larimore Clerk of Court SUMMONS s/Gregory Maestre Deputy Clerk U.S. District Courts EFTA00729606 Intentionally Left Blank EFTA00729607 Case 9:10-cv-81111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 1 of 29 UNITED ST

y to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe, demands judgment against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, for compensatory damages, punitive damages as specifically allowed by this and other stat

of this Court within a reasonable period of time after service. Steven M. Larimore Clerk of Court SITABIONS si 12 Blanchard Deputy Clerk U.S. District Courts AUG 13, 2008 DATE EFTA00234803

of 1 AO 440 (Rev. (012002) Summons in • Civil Case UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Southern District of Florida. Case Number: (SCl/ g0 loqmkgs v. JANE DOE JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff Defendant 08-80893-Civ-MARRAMOHNSON SUMMONS IN A CIVIL CASE Ta(NanwandaddmssadeftsWan0 Jeffrey Epstein Palm Beach C

tence" and, indeed, in his closed criminal case. 28 U .S .C. §2255(a)—(f); see also Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, Rule 3(b) (stating that once the inmate has filed his motion with the clerk, "[t]he clerk must file the motion and enter it on the criminal docket

30 underage girls whom he sexually abused at his mansion in Palm Beach, Florida. The victims la ded one of the initial petitioners in this case, (Jane Doe I), who was 15 years old when Epstein first sexually abused her. Following the FBI's investigation, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern Di

tered on multiplicitous counts, that right is protected by vacating the convictions on all but one count. Id. The Second Circuit has clarified that District Courts should not rule on a motion to dismiss a charge on multiplicity grounds until the time of sentencing. See id. (vacating district court's 170 EFTA0

udge Netburn's Order On or about April 9, 2019, the Government advised Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently,

tered on multiplicitous counts, that right is protected by vacating the convictions on all but one count. Id. The Second Circuit has clarified that District Courts should not rule on a motion to dismiss a charge on multiplicity grounds until the time of sentencing. See id. (vacating district court's 170 EFTA0

udge Netburn's Order On or about April 9, 2019, the Government advised Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently,

tered on multiplicitous counts, that right is protected by vacating the convictions on all but one count. Id. The Second Circuit has clarified that District Courts should not rule on a motion to dismiss a charge on multiplicity grounds until the time of sentencing. See id. (vacating district court's dismissal

INIMIIIIM the definfrOn the defendant's motion for summary judgment. (See 15 Civ. 7443 (LAP), Dkt. No. 542-4). Giuffre has since self-identified as Jane Doe #3. (See id., Dkt. No. 23 n.2). 117 EFTA00095209 As described in the preceding section, in the fall of 2015, Giuffre sued the defendant for defa

tered on multiplicitous counts, that right is protected by vacating the convictions on all but one count. Id. The Second Circuit has clarified that District Courts should not rule on a motion to dismiss a charge on multiplicity grounds until the time of sentencing. See id. (vacating district court's 170 EFTA0

udge Netburn's Order On or about April 9, 2019, the Government advised Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently,