Epstein Secrets

PLAINT IDE 24, 12/14/091 Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (EPSTEIN), by and through his attorneys, files his answer and affirmative defenses to Plaintiff JANE DOE No. 8's Amended Complaint, dated December 12, 2009 [DE 24], and states: 1. Without knowledge and deny. 2. As to the allegations in paragraphs 2, D

erted. 23.Application of the 18 U.S.C. §2255, as amended, effective July 27, 2006, is in violation of the constitutional principles of due process, the "Ex Post Facto" clause, and the Rule of Lenity, in that in amending the term "minor" to "person" as to those who may bring a cause of action impermissibly and unc

d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. - EFTA00221236 Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 2 of 10 Jane Doe No. 7 v. Epstein Page 2 .. a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimi

erted. 18.Application of the 18 U.S.C. §2255, as amended, effective July 27, 2006, is in violation of the constitutional principles of due process, the "Ex Post Facto" clause, and the Rule of Lenity, in that in amending the term "minor" to "person" as to those who may bring a cause of action impermissibly and unc

d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. - EFTA00221260 Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 2 of 10 Jane Doe No. 6 v. Epstein Page 2 "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incri

erted. 18.Application of the 18 U.S.C. §2255, as amended, effective July 27, 2006, is in violation of the constitutional principles of due process, the "Ex Post Facto" clause, and the Rule of Lenity, in that in amending the term "minor" to "person" as to those who may bring a cause of action impermissibly and unc

. Defendants in civil actions. - EXHIBIT A_ EFTA00221878 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 148-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 Page 2 of 10 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 2 '... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incri

erted. 18.Application of the 18 U.S.C. §2255, as amended, effective July 27, 2006, is in violation of the constitutional principles of due process, the "Ex Post Facto" clause, and the Rule of Lenity, in that in amending the term "minor" to "person" as to those who may bring a cause of action impermissibly and unc

d on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 5 of 11 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Background Defendant Epstein has filed a boilerplate motion to strike Jane Doe's trial date — and numerous other consolidated cases involving similar allegations of his sexual abuse of minors - for an unspecified period of time,

erted. 18.Application of the 18 U.S.C. §2255, as amended, effective July 27, 2006, is in violation of the constitutional principles of due process, the "Ex Post Facto" clause, and the Rule of Lenity, in that in amending the term "minor to "person" as to those who may bring a cause of action impermissibly and unco

ould ultimately result in reversible error at any trial. II. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief 22. Epstein requests the following relief: a. That JANE DOE's Motion to Proceed Anonymously be denied; b. That this Court grant Epstein's Motion and that JANE DOE be identified by her legal name in the style

erted. 18.Application of the 18 U.S.C. §2255, as amended, effective July 27, 2006, is in violation of the constitutional principles of due process, the "Ex Post Facto" clause, and the Rule of Lenity, in that in amending the term "minor" to "person" as to those who may bring a cause of action impermissibly and unc