Epstein Secrets

Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe 6 EFTA00175540 Case 9:08-cv-8uo04-KAM Document Entered ..i FLSD Docket 09115L . J8 Page 7 of 8 SERVICE LIST Doe Epstein, et. al. CASE NO: 08-80804-Civ-MARIUUJOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Robert Critton, Esq. Burman, Critton, Lut

natabase - flsd Page 1 of 6 U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Doe v. Epstein et al Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Referred to: Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson ' Case in other court: 15th Judicial Circuit, 50 2008 C

stion Plaintiff Jane Doe represented by Spencer Todd Kuvin Ricci Leopold 2925 PGA Boulevard Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens , FL 33410 Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Fax: 515-2610 Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Theodore Jon Leopold Leopold—Kuvin, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard Suite 200 Palm Beach Garden

SD Do t 3.8/1b,..,08 Page 4 of 21 Iktb4-1 PLEA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT THE FOLLOVVING IS TO REFLECT Al .l TERMS OF THE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMEN*1 Name: Jeffrey E. Epstein Plea: Guilty 1 NP.---_.. SIMI .,lister _Dellloe a D 06CF009454A Felony Solicitation of Prostitution 1 No 3.FEI rocuring Person Under 18 for

nying as moot 2 Motion for Hearing. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 8/5/08. (ir) (Entered: 08/06/2008) 08/08/20(8 a r ns KB MOTION Defendant Jeffiwy Epstein's Opposed Motion to Align Response Date by Jeffrey Epstein. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed OrderXTein, Michael) (Entered: 08/08/2008) 08/13/2008

F.3d at 1314. conditions, and sensitive protocols concerning the fact of Epstein's previously disclosed incarceration. See DE 24 in Jane Doe No. 2 I. Epstein, Case No. 9:08-CV-80119-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed Feb. 6, 2Q08) (disclosing fact of Epstein's criminal sentence and incarceration); DE 19 in Jane Doe No

1332: the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000; Defendant Epstein is a citizen of the U.S. Virgin Islands; and Def

Al .l TERMS OF THE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMEN*1 Name: Jeffrey E. Epstein Plea: Guilty 1 NP.---_.. SIMI .,liste

Al .l TERMS OF THE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMEN*1 Name: Jeffrey E. Epstein Plea: Guilty 1 NP.---_.. SIMI .,lister

a/k/a, JANE DOE NO. 1, Plaintiff, vs. IF'.F .EY EPSTEIN , and Defendants. PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO OPPOSIT

ked jurisdiction on removal. Id. (citing Parks'. The New York Times Co., 308 F.2d 474, 478 (5th Cir.1962); Cowan Iron Works, Inc.'. Phillips Constr. Co., Inc., 507 F.Supp. 740, 744 (S.D. Ga. 1981)). Here, Defendants argue that removal is proper because Plaintiff cannot state a cause of action against Def

40800XXXXMBAG Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, JUDGE HAFELE v. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, et al., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS'S FOURTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION F

DERATION OF ORAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULING, REOUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.510 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby files this Renewed Motion for

of March 23, 2010; dockets and pleadings in LM v. Jeffrey Epstein, 502008C44028051)OOCXMB AB; EW v. Jeffrey Epstein, 502008CA028058DOCAMB AB; LM v. Jay Epstein, 09-81092 Marra/Johnson and Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, 08-80893-CIV Marra/Johnson; copies of subpoenas; Deposition Transcript of Jeffrey Epstein,

e of these potentially explosive facts, putative defendant Epstein had allegedly offered $200,000,000.00 for settlem

CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN, No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG Plaintif

(the "Epstein Cases"). See pleadings in LM v. Jee•ey Epstein, 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB; EW v. Jeffrey Epstein,

t Epstein, warranting Summary Judgment. 10 EFTA00799348 In Florida, "an action for malicious prosecution is a serious matter." Cent. Fla. Mach. Co., Inc. v. Williams, 424 So. 2d 201, 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Malicious prosecution actions are "not generally favored" in Florida. Id. at 202. There are si

SD Do ;,A8/18/2008 Page 4 of 21 ktIVA4 . PLEA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT THE FOLLOWING IS TO REFLECT ALI. TERMS OF THE NEGOTIATED SI TTLFMEN I Name: Jeffrey E. Epstein Plea: Guilty A 6e4 /9—,—..... . _charge Cpynt Lessei _Dee' ep &b 06CF00945 Felony Solicitation of Prostitution 1 No 3 FUT rocuring Pers

told detectives, 'I'm like a Heidi Fleiss.'"). EFTA00234424 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08)18:2008 Page 2 of 11 Epstein," (Notice of Removal, DE 1, p. 3) and that Plaintiff fraudulently joined her in this action to prevent complete diversity.2 3. As demonstrated in Pl

ALI. TERMS OF THE NEGOTIATED SI TTLFMEN I Name: Jeffrey E. Epstein Plea: Guilty A 6e4 /9—,—..... . _char

ut, however, that there is a question of whether Defendant Epstein is actually a citizen of Florida because he is n

ALI. TERMS OF THE NEGOTIATED SI TTLFMEN I Name: Jeffrey E. Epstein Plea: Guilty A 6e4 /9—,—..... . _charg

cked jurisdiction on removal. Id. (citing Parks, The New York Times Co., 308 F.2d 474, 478 (5th Cir.1962); Cowart Iron Works, Inc.. Phillips Constr. Co., Inc., 507 F.Supp. 740, 744 (S.D. Ga. 1981)). Here, Defendants argue that removal is proper because Plaintiff cannot state a cause of action against Def

ed by counsel for the plaintiff in an action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entitled Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein (08 Civ. 80893 KAM), in which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages arising out of the defendant's alleged sexual abuse of her when she was a mino

endant's alleged sexual abuse of her when she was a minor. The subpoenas seek the production of "[ail' taped conversations between George Rush and Jeffrey Edward Epstein, including telephone recordings, all emails to and from Jeffrey Edward Epstein or someone representing themselves to be Jeffrey Epstein," and the t

a weekly columnist in the Daily News, that in the fall of 2009 he began to follow criminal and civil legal proceedings in Florida relating to Mr. Epstein (Rush Aff., Apr. 6, 2010 [Carroll Decl., Apr. 7, 2010, Ex. G) 11 1-2), and that in November of 2009 he was able to arrange a telephone interview of

outhern District of Florida entitled Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein (08 Civ. 80893 KAM), in which the plainti

d civil legal proceedings in Florida relating to Mr. Epstein (Rush Aff., Apr. 6, 2010 [Carroll Decl., Apr. 7,

2 privilege protecting journalists' confidential sources but also a privilege that extends to nonconfidential materials. Gonzales v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29, 33 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Gonzales III") .2 In the present case, Mr. Rush's source -- Mr. Epstein -- is not confidential: Mr. Rush disclosed

ed by counsel for the plaintiff in an action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entitled Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein (08 Civ. 80893 KAM), in which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages arising out of the defendant's alleged sexual abuse of her when she was a mino

endant's alleged sexual abuse of her when she was a minor. The subpoenas seek the production of "(ail' taped conversations between George Rush and Jeffrey Edward Epstein, including telephone recordings, all emails to and from Jeffrey Edward Epstein or someone representing themselves to be Jeffrey Epstein," and the t

a weekly columnist in the Daily News, that in the fall of 2009 he began to follow criminal and civil legal proceedings in Florida relating to Mr. Epstein (Rush Aff., Apr. 6, 2010 [Carroll Decl., Apr. 7, 2010, Ex. G) 11 1-2), and that in November of 2009 he was able to arrange a telephone interview of

outhern District of Florida entitled Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein (08 Civ. 80893 KAM), in which the plainti

d civil legal proceedings in Florida relating to Mr. Epstein (Rush Aff., Apr. 6, 2010 [Carroll Decl., Apr. 7,

6 privilege protecting journalists' confidential sources but also a privilege that extends to nonconfidential materials. Gonzales v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29, 33 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Gonzales III") .2 In the present case, Mr. Rush's source -- Mr. Epstein -- is not confidential: Mr. Rush disclosed

3)(United States District Court, S.D. Fl.); v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB)(Florida Circuit Court, 15th Judicial Circuit). v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 502008CA028058XXXXMB ABXFlorida Circuit Court, 15th Judicial Circuit). 3. In December 2009, Epstein brought a vendetta action against me

itution in Florida. Subsequently, Bradley James Edwards, a Florida lawyer, brought civil actions on behalf of several girls alleging molestation by Epstein while they were minors. Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, (08- 80893)(United States District Court, S.D. Fl.); E v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 502008CA

endant's alleged sexual abuse of her when she was a minor. The subpoenas seek the production of "(a)11 taped conversations between George Rush and Jeffrey Edward Epstein, including telephone recordings, all emails to and from Jeffrey Edward Epstein or someone representing themselves to be Jeffrey Epstein," and the t

n between George Rush, one of its reporters, and Jeffrey Epstein, and granting such other relief as the C

d civil legal proceedings in Florida relating to Mr. Epstein (Rush Aff., Apr. 6, 2010 [Carroll Decl., Apr. 7,

3 privilege protecting journalists' confidential sources but also a privilege that extends to nonconfidential materials. Gonzales v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29, 33 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Gonzales III").2 In the present case, Mr. Rush's source -- Mr. Epstein -- is not confidential: Mr. Rush disclosed

to as Exhibit C is the Supplementary Affidavit of George Rush in this proceeding, sworn to on April 30, 2010. 6. Jane Doe's brief in opposition to Jeffrey Epstein's motion for summary judgment dismissing the federal claims in this action ("Si °pp.') may be found on PACER, S.D. Ma. Civil Docket for Jane Doe v. J

A00207294 expressions of confidence in the strength of the evidence in her own case may be found at, e.g., SJ Opp 2 (Doe "has ample evidence that [Epstein] committed federal sex offenses against her"); 11 (Epstein's fraudulent concealment of assets "evidences [his] awareness that he is liable to the gi

sue EPSTEIN and like other RRA clients, sought tens of millions of dollars. a. For example, in her sworn statement to the FBI, was insistent that "Jeffrey is an awesome man." (p. 21 — FBI); At the conclusion of she stated: "I hope Jeffrey, nothing happens to Jeffrey because he's an awesome man and it

sh attesting to the fact that he had interviewed Mr. Epstein. Mr. Edwards said he would not. 10. On Friday,

hly material and relevant, (2) necessary or critical to its claims, and (3) not obtainable from other available sources. Gonzales v. National Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29 [27 Med.L.Rptr. 2459] (2d Cir. 1999), Krase v. Graco Children's Products, Inc., 79 F.3d 346 [24 Med.L.Rptr. 1599] (2d Cir. 1996). Gall

1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 3 I. EPSTEIN'S SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINOR GIRLS AND HIS CRIMINAL PROSECUTION 3 II. THE CIVIL ACTIONS AGAINST EPSTEIN FOR SEXUAL MOLESTATION OF MINOR GIRLS AND ASSERTION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT BY EPSTEIN AND OTHERS 4 III. THE DAILY NEWS' RECORDED CONVERSATON WIT

in Detail to Others 11 II. ANY QUALIFIED JOURNALIST'S PRIVILEGE OF THE DAILY NEWS IS OVERCOME BY JANE DOE'S CLEAR AND COMPELLING NEED TO OBTAIN JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S OWN WORDS ABOUT HIS SEXUAL ABUSE AND LACK OF REMORSE 13 i EFTA00728062 A. The Epstein Interview is Highly Material and Relevant to Edwards' De

MIGHT OTHERWISE ATTACH TO THE TAPE RECORDING OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN BY PLAYING THE TAPE TO THREE PEOPLE AND

cluded in the first full paragraph attributed to Mr. Epstein at page 15 of the transcript." Id. at 5. 7 EFTA

pe was not protected by the journalist's privilege. (Judge McKenna's Opinion is attached as Ex. 5 to Lewis Aft). Applying Gonzales v. Nat 'I Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999) (Gonzales ///), the district court explained that a reporter's privilege extended even to non-confidential sources. The

to as Exhibit C is the Supplementary Affidavit of George Rush in this proceeding, sworn to on April 30, 2010. 6. Jane Doe's brief in opposition to Jeffrey Epstein's motion for summary judgment dismissing the federal claims in this action ("Si °pp.') may be found on PACER, S.D. Ma. Civil Docket for Jane Doe v. J

A00612027 expressions of confidence in the strength of the evidence in her own case may be found at, e.g., SJ Opp 2 (Doe "has ample evidence that [Epstein] committed federal sex offenses against her"); 11 (Epstein's fraudulent concealment of assets "evidences [his] awareness that he is liable to the gi

pportunity and content with their experiences: A: None of my girls ever had a problem and they'd call me. They'd beg me, you know, for us to go to Jeffrey's house because they love Jeffrey. Jeffrey is a respectful man. He really is. I mean, and he all thought we were of age always. This is what's so s

sh attesting to the fact that he had interviewed Mr. Epstein. Mr. Edwards said he would not. 10. On Friday,

hly material and relevant, (2) necessary or critical to its claims, and (3) not obtainable from other available sources. Gonzales v. National Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29 [27 Med.L.Rptr. 2459] (2d Cir. 1999), Krase v. Graco Children's Products, Inc., 79 F.3d 346 [24 Med.L.Rptr. 1599] (2d Cir. 1996). Gall

40800XXXXMBAG Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, JUDGE HAFELE v. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, et al., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWAFtDS'S FOURTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM, REOUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND SUPPORTIN

EDWAFtDS'S FOURTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM, REOUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.510 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby files this Motion for Summary

s Rights Act: When asked whether Epstein "pulled you closer to him in a sexual way," [LM] replied: A. I wish. No, no, never, ever, ever, no, never. Jeffrey is an awesome man, no. At the end of her interview, [LM] was asked if she had any questions for the agents or AUSA Villafana. [LM] responded: A. N

and Summary Judgment against Edwards is therefore mandated. In Florida, "an action for malicious prosecution is a serious matter." Cent. Fla. Mach. Co., Inc. v. Williams, 424 So. 2d 201, 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Malicious prosecution actions are "not generally favored" in Florida. Id. at 202. There are si