Epstein Secrets

Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 1 of 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE No. 101, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED

at two district courts have held that plaintiffs may pursue a § 2255 action even without a prior conviction. Smith v. Husband. 376 F. Supp. 2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2005); Doe v, Liberatore, 478 F. Supp. 2d 742 (ED. Pa. 2007). But with due respect, these decisions overlook the relevant legislative history set forth a

Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 1 of 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE No. 101, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED

at two district courts have held that plaintiffs may pursue a § 2255 action even without a prior conviction. Smith v. Husband. 376 F. Supp. 2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2005); Doe v, Liberatore, 478 F. Supp. 2d 742 (ED. Pa. 2007). But with due respect, these decisions overlook the relevant legislative history set forth a

Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 1 of 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE No. 101, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED

at two district courts have held that plaintiffs may pursue a § 2255 action even without a prior conviction. Smith v. Husband. 376 F. Supp. 2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2005); Doe v, Liberatore, 478 F. Supp. 2d 742 (ED. Pa. 2007). But with due respect, these decisions overlook the relevant legislative history set forth a

Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 1 of 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE No. 101, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED

at two district courts have held that plaintiffs may pursue a § 2255 action even without a prior conviction. Smith v. Husband. 376 F. Supp. 2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2005); Doe v, Liberatore, 478 F. Supp. 2d 742 (ED. Pa. 2007). But with due respect, these decisions overlook the relevant legislative history set forth a

Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 1 of 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE No. 101, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED

at two district courts have held that plaintiffs may pursue a § 2255 action even without a prior conviction. Smith v. Husband. 376 F. Supp. 2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2005); Doe v, Liberatore, 478 F. Supp. 2d 742 (ED. Pa. 2007). But with due respect, these decisions overlook the relevant legislative history set forth a

IM G., the first victim identified in PBPD's investigation. Plaintiff filed motion to remand to state court, which was granted by Judge Marra. 2. Jane Doe #2I. Epstein, 08-CV-80 I 19-KAM: Complaint filed on February 6, 2008, alleging: sexual assault (Count l), and intentional infliction of emotional di

at two district courts have held that plaintiffs may pursue a § 2255 action even without a prior conviction, Smith I. Husband, 376 F. Supp. 2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2005); Doe I. Liberatore 478 F. Supp. 2d 742 (E.D. Pa. 2007). But with due respect, these decisions overlook the relevant legislative history set forth a

16 move ore tenus to add the victim that's in the 17 courtroom to this conference with the U.S. 18 Attorney's Office. 19 THE COURT: So is that Jane Doe 2 for 20 purposes of this? 21 MR. EDWARDS: Exactly, Your Honor. 22 THE COURT: All right. Let me hear from the 23 government then. 24 MR. LEE:

hy the provision limits tolling to "prosecution" rather than simply all claims. This conclusion is supported by Smith'. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2005), which contemplated the statute of limitations period for 2255 claims and was decided after the PROTECT Act was enacted. In Smith, the Court did n