Epstein Secrets

On10 Minim:um port Cab Blue Cabaret night club) ACar rental " Mr. Chateau de la Messardier Chez Denise Chez L'Ami Louis Forme Lundi 61.1arW Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein. Jeffrey (G) Hench r tine& Avenuo For', Apartment 201) I a' n )1 no Is er9e ssa Or Jean Mario @ Joan Mane* arie cell (a)

nim:um port Cab Blue Cabaret night club) ACar rental " Mr. Chateau de la Messardier Chez Denise Chez L'Ami Louis Forme Lundi 61.1arW Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein. Jeffrey (G) Hench r tine& Avenuo For', Apartment 201) I a' n )1 no Is er9e ssa Or Jean Mario @ Joan Mane* arie cell (a) Voids h) ValOsone

lue Cabaret night club) ACar rental " Mr. Chateau de la Messardier Chez Denise Chez L'Ami Louis Forme Lundi 61.1arW Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein. Jeffrey (G) Hench r tine& Avenuo For', Apartment 201) I a' n )1 no Is er9e ssa Or Jean Mario @ Joan Mane* arie cell (a) Voids h) ValOsone staff li

mpano Helicopter Vet MIcheetraell— RANCH (RH) tovek2. Bodie John EFTA00183031 Epstein, Jeffrey Fed ex Set silveryonly Co Dan and Nancy Sowlo Epstein Jeffrey Zorn, Ranch 49 Zorro Ranch Road Stank) . NM 97056 Kelly. John Kerney. Ga ardson. Bill eisBruca, Santa Fe Institute King, Rhonda - New Mexico Sin

Fed ex Set silveryonly Co Dan and Nancy Sowlo Epstein Jeffrey Zorn, Ranch 49 Zorro Ranch Road Stank) . NM 97

Sar« Pm Kerry for Presdent Kessler, Jack Kincaid, Kristina ,.m,,., I So<ref Kosslyn, Steve EFTA00183019 imtrAavistetienitt Leese, Nick so Leach, Robin 852-813-0180 Ron Shulman Lundberg Marc MOTO) Mast Industries Pres John Welch Mast Industries - Milan McMillen, C. Thomas Chairman McMi

09-80802, 09-81092 --------------~/ DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S, JANE DOE,

d on FLSD Docket 10/06/2009 Page 2 of 23 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 2 herein. Portions of DE 28

nsuming. Request No. 16: All medical records of Defendant Epstein from Dr. Stephan Alexander. Response: Defendan

uant to Florida Statute 796.09 Against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein". Erie R.Co. v. Tompkins, 58 S.Ct. 817

lau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950); SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491,494 (E.D. PA. 2001). Moreover

EW AND APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 462), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration and/or for Request Rule 4 Review and

HE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 462), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration and/or for Request Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of

250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey £stein 80893 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hae Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax cassellp@law.

n fact and opinion attorney work product of both Mr. Epstein's attorneys and government attorneys. Particular

te." See United States v. Neff, 315 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980); Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950); SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491,494 (E.D. PA. 2001). Moreover, the act of production itself may implicitly communicate statements and, for this reason, the Fift

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 1 of 37 JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, VS, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON I -------------- Related cases: 08-

4, 2010 (DE 462), (DE 480) AND APRIL 1, 2010 (DE 513), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Consolidated Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Orders (DE 462)

o. 19 Beach State Attorney and the USAO may not want to disclose their files for one reason or another. (ii) Third Party Privacy Rights And Judge Jeffrey's Colbath's Order The Magistrate's Order does not consider the privacy rights of other alleged victims. As this Court knows, attached to the NP A i

n fact and opinion attorney work product of both Mr. Epstein's attorneys and government attorneys. Particular

te." See United States v. Neff, 315 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980); Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950); SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491, 494 (E.D. PA. 2001). Add new case from my e-mail of yesterday: (Court in Englebrick v Worthington Industries Inc 670 F Supp2d 10

vision The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 99 NE 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 Dear• Mr. Menthe': July 25, 2007 Jeffiry Epstein TELEPHONE la 1E)7370400 m ailman We have previously provided you with a memo as to why we believe no charge under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) could or sho

ting this statute. We also posited that the language of the statute would have to be stretched beyond recognition to fit the particular facts of Mr. Epstein's ease.' Enclosed is data that strongly supports the arguments we previously made. We have thoroughly analyzed every prosecution brought under the

.S.C. §2422(b) could or should be brought against Jeffrey Epstein, even assuming the specific conduct that

beyond recognition to fit the particular facts of Mr. Epstein's ease.' Enclosed is data that strongly supports

.,,15--T,•4”flot a l tiera a ic.,;(,?„, :-: •.,..ir, :,,t1- : .‘,,,. a V. aka% „.. .:,. . . FACILITY FACTS/COMMUNICATION ' CHARGE U.S. v. Leach, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS Internet Internet chat room conversations with "14 year-old"; arranged to meet for sex; 2422(b); 2423(b); 2253 (criminal

09 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I -------------- Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-8081 1, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591,09-80656,

THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED AUGUST 4, 2009 (DE 242), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration and/or for Request Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of

Numbers 7 and 11. 5. Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11 and the Responses thereto provide: Interrogatory Number 7 - List all time periods during which Jeffrey Epstein was present in the State of Florida, including for each the date he arrived and the date he departed. Answer: Defendant is asserting spec

ccordingly, any compelled testimony that provides a "lead or clue to a source of evidence of such [a] crime" is protected by Fifth Amendment. SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491,494 (E.D. PA. 2001). Questions seeking "testimony" regarding names of witnesses, leads to phone or travel records, or financial

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 342 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2009 Page 1 of 14 JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON ------------------'/ Related cases:

the court from having to rule on same. (DE 316). Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 342 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2009 Page 2 of 14 Doe v. Epstein 08-CIV-80119 Page No. 2 Defendant filed his Rule 4 Appeal (DE 282) and his Supplementary Brief (DE 283), which address several of the 5th Amendmen

Phone 561/515-3148 Fax ( Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2

Accordingly, any compelled testimony that provides a "lead or clue to a source of evidence of such [a] crime" is protected by Fifth Amendment. SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491, 494 (E.D. PA. 2001). See supra. Questions seeking "testimony" regarding financial assets or transactions would, if answered, ri

Page 1 of 24 JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTH

Of Law Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, her

, With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through h

Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950); SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d49!, 494 (E.D. PA. 2001). The Cou

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 488 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/15/2010 Page 1 of 12 JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related cases: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON I 08-80232, 08-08380

F THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED MARCH 4, 2010 (DE 480), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration and/or for Request Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of

TED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through h

te." See United States v. Neff, 315 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980); Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950); SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491,494 (E.D. PA. 2001). Moreover, the act of production itself may implicitly communicate statements and, for this reason, the Fift

10 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591,09-80656,09-80802,09-81092

ant's Response In Opposition to Jane Doe 2-8s' Rule 4 Appeal (DE 493), With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Response In Opposition to Jane Doe 2-8s Rule 4 Appeal (DE 493), With Memorandum Of La

With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through h

ate." See United States v. Neff, 315 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980); Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950); SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491,494 (E.D. PA. 2001). The Request for Production Plaintiffs claim that the "act of production doctrine" does not encompass reque