Epstein Secrets

se of action under §2255, a plaintiff is required to prove all the elements of one of the statutory enumerated criminal predicate acts. See Gray v. Darby, 2009 WL 805435 (ED. Pa. Mar. 25, 2005), requiring evidence to establish predicate act under 18 U.S.C. §2255 to state cause of action. I. A. The s

ersion of 18 U.S.C. §2255, effective 1999 to Jul. 26, 2006, the period of time during which EPSTEIN's alleged conduct occurred, applies to Plaintiff JANE DOE's claim brought pursuant to §2255 in Count II of the First Amended Complaint [D.E. 38]; (2) the version of 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in effect when the predic

legations setting forth the requisite elements of the cited predicate act. See Smith v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d, and 428 Supp.2d, supra; and Gray v. Darby, 2009 WL 805435 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 25, 2005), requiring allegations/evidence to establish predicate act under 18 U.S.C. §2255 to state cause of action.

of sexual exploitation and abuse. In the Jane Doe II state action, an Order was entered reassigning the state action to a Division in which other Jane Doe cases against EPSTEIN had been filed. See "Clerk's Notice Of Reassignment," dated April 10, 2009, and attached hereto as Exhibit B. The state court

f review and rejecting the argument that the term "knowingly" applies to the interstate-commerce element of U.S.C. § 2252A(aX5XB)); United States Darby, 37 F.3d 1059, 1067 (4th Cir.1994 ("Numerous cases have held that criminal statutes based on the government's interest in regulating interstate co

s. To inform Jane Doe of dates that he had arranged, Evans called Jane Doe on a cellular telephone that she had acquired from him. Evans also gave Jane Doe's cellular telephone number to customers and told Jane Doe to arrange dates when customers called. During the dates, Ev- ans called Jane Doe on the

tered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 1 of 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. OPINION AND ORDER This cause is before the Court upon Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion for Parti

. (DE 407 at ¶ 5.) The FBI ultimately determined that both Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 were victims of sexual abuse by Epstein while they were minors. Jane Doe 1 provided information about her abuse and Jane Doe 2's abuse to the FBI on August 7, 2007. (DE 407 at ¶ 6.) From January of 2007 through September

ng the opposing party's position will not suffice; there must be enough of a showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party." Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990). If the evidence advanced by the non- moving party "is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, the

tered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 1 of 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE I AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. OPINION AND ORDER This cause is before the Court upon Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion for Parti

. (DE 407 at ¶ 5.) The FBI ultimately determined that both Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 were victims of sexual abuse by Epstein while they were minors. Jane Doe 1 provided information about her abuse and Jane Doe 2's abuse to the FBI on August 7, 2007. (DE 407 at ¶ 6.) From January of 2007 through September

ng the opposing party's position will not suffice; there must be enough of a showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party." Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990). If the evidence advanced by the non- moving party "is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, the