Epstein Secrets

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 16-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2008 Page 2 of 4 : tiP • ' CASE PIO ±-122OO.1.:IFO-51/4 541sXXX CF V. JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Z41 'FP ^i ria4 Y tr..mr.y..PRzia"rtnivz•zrt : . • . 7 'Crt. Rep. lun,L__ Date : • -17 vcri J „Asir )----=-- • / PD e--P:9fot Pres, D

events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. Factual Allegations 7. At all relevant times, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") was an adult male, 52 years old. Epstein is a financier and money manager with a secret clientele limited exclusively to billionaires. He is hims

, represented by Assistant United States , and Mr. Epstein, entered into a deferred- prosecution agreement (

' CASE PIO ±-122OO.1.:IFO-51/4 541sXXX CF V. JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Z41 'FP ^i ria4 Y tr..mr.y..PRzia"r

ach, Florida 33401 Tel. 561 659 8300 Fax. 561 835 8691 By: Jack A. Goldberger Fla. Bar No. 262013 jgoldberger®agwpa.com Attorneys for Defendant Jay Epstein CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 711.A.3 While defense counsel admittedly did not confer with plaintiffs' counsel prior to filing the moti

l distress based on the same factual allegations. Defendant Epstein has moved to dismiss only Count I of the Complai

' CASE PIO ±-122OO.1.:IFO-51/4 541sXXX CF V. JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Z41 'FP ^i ria4 Y tr..mr.y..PRzia"rt

mplaint are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a c

ket 06/05/2009 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, VS. Y EPSTEIN and Defendants. PLAINTIFF, M.'S, CONDITIONAL NOTICE OF INTENT TO EXCLUSIVELY RELY ON STATUTORY DAMAGES PROVIDED BY 18 U.S.C. 42255 Plaintiff, ,

Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned counsel, files his reply to Plaintiffs 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

tion either under statutory or common law against Defendant EPSTEIN. Count I fails to plead any requisite elements o

tion to recover money damages against Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for acts of sexual abuse and prostitutio

eed under section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enum

v. Epstein, et al. age 4 doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506. 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992. 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams. 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827. 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a c

03/12/2009 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON C.M. A., Plaintiff, v. EPSTEIN and Defendants, DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION, AND MOTION FOR MORE

ATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON C.M. A., Plaintiff, v. EPSTEIN and Defendants, 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 SU

adopted." Id. Plaintiffs position would subject Defendant EPSTEIN to a punishment that is not clearly prescribed —

aintiff, v. EPSTEIN and Defendants, DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLA

omplaint are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (198.9) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRAIJOHNSON C.M. A., Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants, DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned counsel

KELLEN, Defendants, DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned counsel, moves to dismiss Count I of Plaintiffs Complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Rule 12(b)(6),

tion either under statutory or common law against Defendant EPSTEIN. Count I fails to plead any requisite elements o

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

. Epstein, et al. Page 4 doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.. 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1. 122 S.Ct. 992. 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327. 109 S.Ct. 1827. 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a c

/2008 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-Hurley-Hopkins JANE DOE NO. 7 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS & FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO.7'S COMPLAINT Defendant, JEFFER

CT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-Hurley-Hopkins JANE DOE NO. 7 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS & FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO.7'S COMPLAINT Defendant, JEFFERY EPSTEIN, by and through his un

7 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS & FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMEN

3-Hurley-Hopkins JANE DOE NO. 7 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION

mplaint are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a c

2'2009 Page 1 of 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Defendant's, Epstein. Motion To Dismiss, For More Definite Statement & To Strike Directed To Plaintiff Jane Doe's Amended Complaint,

Plaintiff. . .was called on the telephone by. . .Epstein and other employees. . ., and transported to. . .

Florida Civil Rico action is, at this time, only defendant Epstein. . . ." However, the RICO enterprise must be dis

.: 08-CIV- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Defendant's, Epstein. Moti

omplaint are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Q. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(bX6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a com

in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, bearing the Case No. 3:10-cv-00034, captioned J.P.Molyneux Studio. Ltd. and Juan Pablo Molyneux against Jeffrey Epstein and L.S.J., LLC. (the "Molyneux Action'), dated June 11, 2010, arising out of the same 5 EFTA00300057 transaction or series of transactions as th

Punch List items falling under the Design Services Agreement (Molyneux Action, First Amended Complaint, ¶17) * * * On March 25, 2010 Defendants' [Epstein's] agent signed off on all items enumerated on the Punch List by signing it and noting that all the woodwork on the list was done with the exceptio

T. THOMAS & ST. JOHN --------------------1 I ) JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. )

d a signature of a person with authority to bind Mr. Epstein. If there are additional items which your client

its Memorandum Opinion dated May 16, 2011, however, the Court stated: C. The Court Will Not Dismiss the Matter Based on Fancelli's Defense of 3 See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326-27 (1989) See Leuthner v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Northeastern Pa., 454 F.3d 120 (3d Cir. 2006)(affirming dismissal under Ru

RGIN ISLANDS' DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., * * * * * ) ) ) Plaintiffs,

MAR 1 4 2011I IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS' DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., * * * * * ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) NO. ST-10-CV-443 ) FANCELLI PANELING, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) (CARROLL, J.) ) I DEFEND

t the outset that Plaintiffs' failed to reference the V.I. long-arm EFTA00310009 DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS Epstein. et aL v. Fanelli Paneling. Inc. Page 7 statute within its First Amended Complaint. Nevertheless, this statute is lustily utilized in opposing Def

00310020 03/10/11 11:1SAM HP LASF.RJET FAX p.02 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN * * * * * ) JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) NO. ST-I 0-CV-443 ) FANCELLI PANELING, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) (CARROLL,I) ) STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUN

Island known as the Office Pavilion." FAC„ para. 4, p. 2. They also state that Plaintiff L.S.J., LLC, is the owner of Little St. James Island. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326-27 (1989) 2 See Leuthner v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Northeastern Pa. 454 17.3d 120 (3d Cir. 2006)(affirming dismissal under

/2008 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT'S. EPSTEIN, MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, J

COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT'S. EPSTEIN, MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, JEFFERY EPSTEIN, by and through his

19-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT'S. EPSTEIN, MOTIO

mplaint are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a c