Epstein Secrets

ad, the purpose of requesting those records was to obtain them for use in a separately filed Criminal Victims Rights Act (CVRA) suit, Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2, Case No. 08-80736-CIV, Marra/Johnson, which was brought for several purposes, including invalidating the /Non-Prosecution) Agreement . . . Amended

1: . . . Instead, the purpose of requesting those records was to obtain them for use in a separately filed Criminal Victims Rights Act (CVRA) suit, Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2, Case No. 08-80736-CIV, Marra/Johnson, which was brought for several purposes, including invalidating the /Non-Prosecution) Agreem

tes case in paragraph 29(4) of his Amended Complaint filed on April 12, 2011, wherein he acknowledged that one of the potential outcomes of Doe was the Federal Court "invalidating the [Non-Prosecution] Agreement." In 2012, Epstein voluntarily dismissed his claims against Mr. Edwards only days before a scheduled

ad, the purpose of requesting those records was to obtain them for use in a separately filed Criminal Victims Rights Act (CVRA) suit, Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2, Case No. 08-80736-CIV, Marra/Johnson, which was brought for several purposes, including invalidating the /Nor-Prosecution/Agreement Agreement... A

1: . . . Instead, the purpose of requesting those records was to obtain them for use in a separately filed Criminal Victims Rights Act (CVRA) suit, Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2, Case No. 08-80736-CIV, Marra/Johnson, which was brought for several purposes, including invalidating the /Nor-Prosecution/Agreeme

tes case in paragraph 29(4) of his Amended Complaint filed on April 12, 2011, wherein he acknowledged that one of the potential outcomes of Doe was the Federal Court "invalidating the [Non-Prosecution] Agreement." In 2012, Epstein voluntarily dismissed his claims against Mr. Edwards only days before a scheduled

Victim's Rights Act Case. On July 7, 2008, Doe v. United States, case no. 08-cv-80736-KAM, a Crime Victims' Rights Act case, was filed on behalf of Jane Doe, who was sexually assaulted by Jeffrey Epstein when she was a minor child. Four days later, Jane Doe filed her Reply to the Government's response t

ad, the purpose of requesting those records was to obtain them for use in a separately filed Crime Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA") suit, Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2, Case No. 08-80736-CIV, Marra/Johnson which was brought for several purposes, including invalidating the [Non-Prosecution] Agreement . . . (Emphasi

vernment's response to the Doe petition, confirming her belief that Epstein's non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") should be declared illegal and that the Federal Court should "direct the Government to proceed to negotiate a new agreement — in a process that respects Petitioner's (and the other victims') rights."'

lleged the following: In fact, RRA did have inside information due to its representation of one of Epstein's alleged victims in a civil case styled Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, pending in the Southern District of Florida. Representatives of D3 were offered Tonja Haddad?... • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort L

t the exact time, according to both Rothstein and the Federal government, that the Ponzi scheme was unraveling. Just days before the RRA implosion, the Federal Court rejected Edwards's bond motion, stating that it was "entirely devoid of evidence." Finally, while Epstein's suit was pending against Edwards, Scott

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

at all deadlines in this Order are satisfied in a timely fashion, subject to further order of this Court; Page 5 of 6 EFTA00729489 28. That both the Federal Court of the Southern District of Florida and this Court have concurrent jurisdiction over these matters and same may be enforced in either venue; and 29

, 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

hat all deadlines in this Order arc satisfied in a timely fashion, subject to further order of this Court; Page 5 016 EFTA00795673 28. That both the Federal Court of the Southern District of Florida and this Court have concurrent jurisdiction over these matters and same may be enforced in either venue; and 29

Wc: 839 Dershowitz: We can now prove that Jane Doe #3 lied about Clinton, Gore and Dershowitz Alan Dershowitz's lawyers have now filed a detailed reply to Jane Doe #3 false charges. In it they defi

tasized alleged meetings she had with former President Clinton, former Vice President Gore and the then Mrs. Gore. In an affidavit she submitted to the Federal Court, Jane Doe #3 has now repeated a flagrant lie she has sold to a British tabloid. Namely that "former President Bill Clinton was present on the islan

6, 09-80802, 09-81092, DECLARATION OF ADAM D. HOROWITZ 1. My name is Adam D. Horowitz. I am an attorney for Jane Doe No. 4. 2. The deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 was scheduled for September 16, 2009 at 1:00 p.m. at 350 Australian Ave. South, Suite 115, West Palm Beach, Florida. On the day before the de

at all deadlines in this Order are satisfied In a timely fashion, subject to further order of this Court; Page 5 of 6 EFTA00193900 28. That both the Federal Court of the Southern District of Florida and this Court have concurrent jurisdiction over these matters and same may be enforced in either venue; and 29

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

at all deadlines in this Order are satisfied In a timely fashion, subject to further order of this Court; Page 5 of 6 EFTA00223353 28. That both the Federal Court of the Southern District of Florida and this Court have concurrent jurisdiction over these matters and same may bo enforced in either venue; and 29