Epstein Secrets

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. JANE DOE NO. 3, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. / JANE DOE NO. 4, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. JANE DOE NO. 5, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-KAM-L ---- DC

8. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WI 950623, at "2 (N.D. Fla. 2005). The plaintiffs there argued that "the stay should be lifted due to the fact that the mino

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. JANE DOE NO. 3, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. / JANE DOE NO. 4, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. JANE DOE NO. 5, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-KAM-L ---- DC

8. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WI 950623, at "2 (N.D. Fla. 2005). The plaintiffs there argued that "the stay should be lifted due to the fact that the mino

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. JANE DOE NO. 3, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. / JANE DOE NO. 4, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. JANE DOE NO. 5, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-KAM-L ---- DC

8. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WI 950623, at "2 (N.D. Fla. 2005). The plaintiffs there argued that "the stay should be lifted due to the fact that the mino

lerk of the Court for the purpose of Initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.) 1(a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS JANE DOE NO. 2, JEFFREY EPSTEIN (b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF OUT OF STATE (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST

, recently construed "the plain language of § 3509(k)" as "requirfing] a stay in a case . . . where . . . a parallel criminal action [is] pending." Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MCR/WCS, 2005 WL 950623, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2005) (Francis I.1) (emphasis added). Accord Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MC

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. JANE DOE NO. 3, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. / JANE DOE NO. 4, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. JANE DOE NO. 5, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-KAM-L ---- DC

8. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WI 950623, at "2 (N.D. Fla. 2005). The plaintiffs there argued that "the stay should be lifted due to the fact that the mino