Epstein Secrets

Docket 03/03;2010 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80893-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Defendant")'s Motion to Dismiss, for More Definite Statement &

stein. A list of more than 30 such minor females has previously been provided by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida to Epstein (but not to Jane Doe). See DE 38-2 at ¶ 4. Finally, Defendant argues, and Plaintiff concedes, that punitive damages are not available under 18 U.S

ICO statement that the "enterprise" consisted of Defendant Epstein, and his paid employees and . See Am. Comp. ¶

. 08-80893-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER THIS CAUSE is before

. To allege a RICO enterprise, Plaintiff must "name a RICO person distinct from the RICO enterprise." State of Fla., Office of Atty. Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs v. Tenet, 420 F.Supp.2d 1288 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (citation omitted). Both the United States Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court have required

The names of all of the victims are unknown to the plaintiff at this time. However, they include Jane Doe herself as well as the victim in E.W. v. Jeffrey Epstein and L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein. A list of more than 30 such minor females has previously been provided by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern

stein. A list of more than 30 such minor females has previously been provided by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida to Epstein (but not to Jane Doe). See DE 38-2 at ¶ 4. Finally, Defendant argues, and Plaintiff concedes, that punitive damages are not available under 18 U.S

ICO statement that the "enterprise" consisted of Defendant Epstein, and his paid employees Sarah Kellen and Nadia Ma

. 08-80893-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER THIS CAUSE is before

. To allege a RICO enterprise, Plaintiff must "name a RICO person distinct from the RICO enterprise." State of Fla., Office of Atty. Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs v. Tenet, 420 F.Supp.2d 1288 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (citation omitted). Both the United States Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court have required

The names of all of the victims are unknown to the plaintiff at this time. However, they include Jane Doe herself as well as the victim in E.W. v. Jeffrey Epstein and L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein. A list of more than 30 such minor females has previously been provided by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern

stein. A list of more than 30 such minor females has previously been provided by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida to Epstein (but not to Jane Doe). See DE 38-2 at ¶ 4. Finally, Defendant argues, and Plaintiff concedes, that punitive damages are not available under 18 U.S

ICO statement that the "enterprise" consisted of Defendant Epstein, and his paid employees and Sec Am. Comp. 1 43

. 08-80893-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER THIS CAUSE is before

. To allege a RICO enterprise, Plaintiff must "name a RICO person distinct from the RICO enterprise." State of Fla., Office of Atty. Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs v. Tenet, 420 F.Supp.2d 1288 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (citation omitted). Both the United States Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court have required

HE INDICTMENT On April , 2008, a Grand Jury sitting in the Southern District of Florida returned a twenty-nine-count indictment charging defendant Jeffrey Epstein' with one count of conspiracy to use a means of interstate commerce to persuade, induce, or entice nineteen minors to engage in prostitution, in vio

under 18 years of age, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). Jane Does #1 through #19 were all minors at the time of their involvement with defendant Epstein. Jane Doe #11 was a resident of New York; the remaining Jane Does were all residents of Palm Beach County, Florida, at the time of their involvemen

all minors at the time of their involvement with defendant Epstein. Jane Doe #11 was a resident of New York; the re

FLORIDA Case No. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Notice of Appeal From Magis

lant, Cross-Appellee. No. 86-6880. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Sept 4, 1987. Richard E. Doran, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs, Miami, Fla., Peggy A. Quince, Dept. of Legal Affairs, Tampa, Fla., for respondent-appellant, cross-appel- lee. Capital Collateral Representative,