Epstein Secrets

portions of the Agreement. As I previously observed, our intent has been to place the victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less. From our meeting, it appears that the defense agrees that this was the intent. During the course of nego

lm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Facsimile: (56!) 820-8777 August 4, 2009 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Leopold—Kuvin, P.A. Re: Jeffrey Epstein/B.B. — Requested Disclosure of Non-Prosecution Agreement Dear Mr. Kuvin: Thank you for your letter regarding the disclosure of the Non-Prosecution Agree

ORTH. FL 334614 Page 2 of 8 Form Revised 01.18-08 EFTA00233452 11/25/2008 15:28 3553626 elKt.LII I LICIMINAL STATE OF FLORIDA Plaintiff -vs- JEFFREY E. EPSTEM Defendant IN THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY CASE NUMBER DIVISION DC NUMBER CIRCUITNUMBER: zalitcavawanua

E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: AGREED ORDER CONTINUING CASE DISPO 13 AGOR - AGREED ORDER Filing Date: 05-MAR-2007 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E IRisposition Amount: Docket Text: I(JUDGE MCSORLEY) CONTINUING CASE DISPO PREVIOUSLY- 1 SET FOR 08-MAR-2007 AND RESETTING FOR CASE DISPO ON 16-MAY

mmissioner CASE DISPOSITION MAIN BRANCH COURTROOM 11F COLBATH, JUDGE JEFFREY CASE DISPOSITION MAIN BRANCH COURTROOM] 11F COLBATH, JUDGE JEFFREY Case Parties Expn Date Type ID Name DEFENDANT 24167391 EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E. Aliases: none 3 1 22-AUG- ATTORNEY ATTY MALINSKI, NORMAN 2006 Alia

FREY CASE DISPOSITION MAIN BRANCH COURTROOM] 11F COLBATH, JUDGE JEFFREY Case Parties Expn Date Type ID Name DEFENDANT 24167391 EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E. Aliases: none 3 1 22-AUG- ATTORNEY ATTY MALINSKI, NORMAN 2006 Aliases: none hup://courtcon.co.palm-beach.flais/p1s/jiwp/ek_public_qry_docup_dkt

24 FAHIS - HISTORY FELONY/MISD ARRAIGN Filing Date: 06-OCT-2006 Filing Party: Disposition Amount: Docket Text: X/JIFA FELONY-MISDEMEANOR IS EPSTEIN JEFFREY E LEGACY 41673917332767 PRAECIPE AND 082206 DATE: JUDGE: COURT: DEFENDANT PRESENT: PLEA: ARRAIGNMENT PASSED TO: DATE: RELEASED, FAILURE OF STATE

, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFERY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS, & FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEME

in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less. From

justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective applicagion under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). FNI9. Article I contains two Ex Post Facto Clauses, one dir

due by 5/29/2009), MOTION to identify jane doe #102 in the third-party subpoenas for purposes of discovery, with incorporated memorandum of law by Jeffrey Epstein.(see docket entry 5 for image) (tas) (Entered: 05/12/2009) https://eef.flsd.uscourts.gov/egi-bin/DktRpt.p17825839498761356-L_801 0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA001

09-80656-CIV-Ryskamp JANE DOE No. 102, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant, RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY AND EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND/OR IDENTIFY JANE DOE #102 IN THE STYLE OF THIS CASE AND MOTION TO IDENTIFY JANE DOE #102 IN THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS FOR PURPOS

erve so Epstein can defend this case. In support, Mr. Epstein states as follows: EFTA00175214 • Case 9:09-c

10/03/2008 4 r 82.8 KB ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE Executed as to 2 Summons Issued, 1 Complaint Acknowledgement filed by Jane Doe No. 7. (Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/03/2008) 10/03/2008 5 fi 26.1 Ica NOTICE of Striking 4 Acknowledgment of Service filed by Jane Doe No. 7 by Jane Doe No. 7 (Her

175301 CM/Eg - Live Database - flsd Page 4 of 7 05/20/2009 18 n NOTICE by of Filing Withdrawal of Previously Raised Objections to Defendant, Jeey Epstein's Motion to Compel And/Or Identify in the Style of This Case and Motion to Identify . in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, Or, Altern

7 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO

Justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective application under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). FN19. Article I contains two Ex Post Facto Clauses, one d

80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, V. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. _____________ / 0 DEFENDANT EPSTE

ocket 05/06/2010 Page 2 of 31 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra-Johnson Page 2 in m

f Count III, Plaintiff "demands judgment against Jeffery Epstein for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. §2255(a

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. _____________ / 0 DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, INCLUDING SUPPORT

8691 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 539

suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. I, 17, 96

mi, FL 33132 BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN STUMPF - P.A. March 29, 2010 Assistant United States Attorney 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 RE: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Counsel: JESSICA FONSECA-NADER KATifunrii P. PHILUPS AARON AMMON MARCOS BEATON, JR. MATTHEW P. O'BRIEN JENIPER J. SOUUKIAS NOAH Fox Ass

ponse. We firmly believe that the issues raised in the draft motion that is appended to this letter do not conflict with, nor, if filed, breach Mr. Epstein's obligations under the NPA. Please advise if any of the issues in the draft motion authored by his civil counsel Robert Critton are, from your per

, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFERY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS, & FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEME

torney 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 RE: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Counsel: JESSICA FONSECA-NADER KA

tter do not conflict with, nor, if filed, breach Mr. Epstein's obligations under the NPA. Please advise if an

justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective application under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). FN19. Article I contains two Er Post Facto Clauses, one d

W P. Oilmen JENIPER J. SOUUKIAS NOAH Fox E-Mail March 29, 2010 Esq. Assistant United States Attorney 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 RE: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Counsel: Esq. Assistant United States Attorney 500 South Australian Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6223 Jeffrey Epstein has an April 5,

ponse. We firmly believe that the issues raised in the draft motion that is appended to this letter do not conflict with, nor, if filed, breach Mr. Epstein's obligations under the NPA. Please advise if any of the issues in the draft motion authored by his civil counsel Robert Critton are, from your per

, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFERY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS, & FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEME

torney 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 RE: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Counsel: Esq. Assistant United St

tter do not conflict with, nor, if filed, breach Mr. Epstein's obligations under the NPA. Please advise if an

justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective application under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). FN19. Article I contains two Er Post Facto Clauses, one d

uly 10, 2008, in the in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit In and For Palm Beach County, State of Florida, Case No. 50 2008CA020614 MBAF, Jane Doe II v. Jeffrey Epstein. and Sarah Kellen, based on the same factual allegations that she asserts in the instant case. Attached here to as Exhibit A is Plaintiff's First Am

T COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 09-CIV- 80469 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE II, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his

et, Defendant gives notice to the Court that issues pertaining to 18 U.S.C. §2255 in this motion to dismiss are also raised in the case of C.M.A. v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON, in Defendant's Motion to Dismiss directed to Plaintiff C.M.A.'s Amended Complaint, Plaintiff C.M.A.'s Response, and

I, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, AND S

69 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE II, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION

justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective application under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhom Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). FN19. Article I contains two Ex Post Facto Clauses, one di

10-80309-CIV- JANE DOE No. 103, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFERY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ------------~/ DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S

[email protected] Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein By: =+-t-::±::::1=-::-:--:-::::--:::c: ROBER .

s. JEFFERY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ------------~/ DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS.COUNT VI & FOR MORE DEFINITE

8691 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein By: =+-t-::±::::1=-::-:--:-::::--:::c:

suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96

Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned counsel, files his reply to Plaintiff's Memorandum in Response to Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN's, Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint For Failure to State A Cause of Action; And Motion for More Definite Statement; Motion to Strike, And Sup

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRAIJOHNSON C.M. A., Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants, DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S, MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMEDNED COMPLAINT FOR FAIURE TO STATE A CAUS

JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants, DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO

CV-80811-MARRAIJOHNSON C.M. A., Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants, DEFENDAN

justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective application under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). FN19. Article I contains two Ex Post Facto Clauses, one d

FLSD Docket 03/05/2010 Page 1 of 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA-JOHNSON Plaintiff; v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, INCLUDING SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ("EPSTEIN"), by a

TED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA-JOHNSON Plaintiff; v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, INCLUDING SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned coun

ON Plaintiff; v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, INCLUDING SUPPORT

E NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA-JOHNSON Plaintiff; v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION

justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective application under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. I, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). FN19. Article I contains two Ex Post Facto Clauses, one d