Epstein Secrets

tted willful acts of child sexual abuse on Jane Doe. These acts resulted in mental or sexual injury to Jane Doe, that caused or were likely to cause Jane Doe's mental or emotional health to be significantly impaired. 26. Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. Epstein knew or had

act, and Jane Doe was thereby put in such imminent apprehension. 17. Epstein made an intentional, unlawful offer of offensive sexual contact toward Jane Poe, creating a reasonable fear of imminent peril. 18. Epstein intentionally inflicted harmful or offensive contact on the person &Jane Doe, with the

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient factual allegations in the Counts and instead alleges labels and conclusions, and an attempted formulaic recitation of the elements in each Count. 2. In the alternative, Defendant s

E DOE NO. 7 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS & FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO.7'S COMPLAINT Defendant, JEFFERY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, moves to dismiss and for more definite statement of Plaintiff

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient factual allegations in the Counts and instead alleges labels and conclusions, and an attempted formulaic recitation of the elements in each Count. 2. In the alternative or in conjun

ant is filing similar motions to dismiss and for more definite statement directed to the Amended Complaints filed against Defendant in this Court in JANE DOE NO. 2, JANE DOE NO. 3, JANE DOE NO. 4 and JANE DOE NO. 5. The motions are directed to the Counts for "Sexual Assault and Battery," and "Coercion an

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient factual allegations in the Counts and instead alleges labels and conclusions, and an attempted formulaic recitation of the elements in each Count. 2. In the alternative, Defendant s

tted willful acts of child sexual abuse on Jane Doe. These acts resulted in mental or sexual injury to Jane Doe, that caused or were likely to cause Jane Doe's mental or emotional health to be significantly impaired. 26. Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. Epstein knew or had

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient factual allegations in the Counts and instead alleges labels and conclusions, and an attempted formulaic recitation of the elements in each Count. 2. In the alternative, Defendant s

tted willful acts of child sexual abuse on Jane Doe. These acts resulted in mental or sexual injury to Jane Doe, that caused or were likely to cause Jane Doe's mental or emotional health to be significantly impaired. 27. Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. Epstein knew or had

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient factual allegations in the Counts and instead alleges labels and conclusions, and an attempted formulaic recitation of the elements in each Count. 2. In the alternative, Defendant s

tted willful acts of child sexual abuse on Jane Doe. These acts resulted in mental or sexual injury to Jane Doe, that caused or were likely to cause Jane Doe's mental or emotional health to be significantly impaired. 26. Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. Epstein knew or had

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient factual allegations in the Counts and instead alleges labels and conclusions, and an attempted formulaic recitation of the elements in each Count. 2. In the alternative, Defendant s

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,

f two depositions, the defendant knowingly made false material declarations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The defendant moves to dismiss those Counts, arguing that the Court can determine now—on a pre- 44 For similar reasons, the defendant's request for discovery regarding this matter should be den

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,

f two depositions, the defendant knowingly made false material declarations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The defendant moves to dismiss those Counts, arguing that the Court can determine now—on a pre- 44 For similar reasons, the defendant's request for discovery regarding this matter should be den

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

f two depositions, the defendant knowingly made false material declarations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The defendant moves to dismiss those Counts, arguing that that the Court can determine now—on a pre-trial record that is not factually developed—that the questions were fundamentally ambiguous

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,

f two depositions, the defendant knowingly made false material declarations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The defendant moves to dismiss those Counts, arguing that the Court can determine now—on a pre- 44 For similar reasons, the defendant's request for discovery regarding this matter should be den