Epstein Secrets

hristopher E. Knight Fla. Bar No. 607363 -13- EFTA00725488 Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD SERVICE LIST M.J. v. Epstein Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Bradley J. Edwards Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards Fistos & Lehrman, PL Telephone: Facsimile: Attorneys for Plai

proof of service from Mr. Marsigliano attesting that he left M.J.'s complaint with the caretaker at Epstein's residence or usual place of abode." (D.E. 15 at p. II). This assertion is false. Defendant has never admitted that the proof of service states that Mr. Marsigliano left the Summons and Com

copy of her complaint and other documents with someone at the home", which is all that Plaintiff alleges, or whether Mr. Epstein had actual notice (D.E. 15 at 12), but, rather, whether the suit papers were left with "someone of suitable age and discretion who resides" at 9 East 71s' Street, New York.

s of the CVRA were imported into the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (see Fed. R. Crim. P. 60; Advisory Committee Note (2008 Adoption); Kenna'. United States District Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2006) (CVRA was a legislative compromise enacted after an attempt to pass a constitutional amendment protecting vict

n letter to me. This was the first written communication I had received from the FBI. The letter was attached as Exhibit 1 to my earlier statement." D.E. 310- 1, 1 34. Exhibit 1 to her earlier statement of January 19, 2015 (D.E. 291-1), is the notification letter from the United States Attorney's Offi

on June 30, 2008, in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County to various similar state offenses including solicitation of minors for prostitution." D.E. 1,1 2. Once they received the non-prosecution Jane Doe No. 3, who seeks to be added as a party, also wasted little time in utilizing the non- prosec

t with Epstein. For the same reason, Jane Doe's claim under § 3771(a)(2) also fails. There has been no "public court proceeding" against Epstein in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, since no criminal case has been filed against him in the federal court. Consequently, there has been nothing for whi

On July 7, 2008, plaintiff Jane Doe filed her "Emergency Victim's Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771." (D.E. I). On the same day, this Court issued an Order directing the United States Attorney to file a response to the petition by 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, Jul

t with Epstein. For the same reason, Jane Doe's claim under § 3771(a)(2) also fails. There has been no "public court proceeding" against Epstein in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, since no criminal case has been filed against him in the federal court. Consequently, there has been nothing for whi

On July 7, 2008, plaintiff Jane Doe filed her "Emergency Victim's Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771." (D.E. I). On the same day, this Court issued an Order directing the United States Attorney to file a response to the petition by 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, Jul

t with Epstein. For the same reason, Jane Doe's claim under § 3771(a)(2) also fails. There has been no "public court proceeding" against Epstein in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, since no criminal case has been filed against him in the federal court. Consequently, there has been nothing for whi

On July 7, 2008, plaintiff Jane Doe filed her "Emergency Victim's Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771." (D.E. I). On the same day, this Court issued an Order directing the United States Attorney to file a response to the petition by 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, Jul

tim of a violation of [certain specified federal statutes] and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages suck minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any minor as described in

retrial motions by the parties is March 5, 2010. This action is currently set for trial on the two week calendar commencing Monday, July 16, 2010. [D.E. 119]. Thus, in order to comply with the Court's order, Defendant is filing the subject motion now. As stated above, Defendant requests and reserves

EDWARDS' RESPONSE TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OBJECTIONS TO DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS Pursuant to the ruling of United States District Court, [D.E. 222], the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), files his Reply to the Response to Real Party in Interest, Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"),

note from a review of the docket sheet in Doe v. U.S., that Judge Marra administratively closed the cases for non-prosecution on September 9, 2010 [D.E. 39]. Please recall the undersigned pointed out in Epstein's initial motion that this case has been languishing in excess -6- FOWLER WHITE BURNETT.

t with Epstein. For the same reason, Jane Doe's claim under § 3771(a)(2) also fails. There has been no "public court proceeding" against Epstein in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, since no criminal case has been filed against him in the federal court. Consequently, there has been nothing for whi

On July 7, 2008, plaintiff Jane Doe filed her "Emergency Victim's Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771." (D.E. I). On the same day, this Court issued an Order directing the United States Attorney to file a response to the petition by 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, Jul