Epstein Secrets

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

comprehensive disposition of litigation, would a federal court be authorized to dismiss federal parallel' claims that are initiated in state court. Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). However, for the Colorado River doctrine to even apply, there must be clear Cong

N, ITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP 4 EFTA00602006 Page 1 of I Connie Zaguirre From: Connie Zaguirre Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 3:09 PM To: 'Jeffrey Epstein'; 'Darren Indyke' Cc: Robert D. Critton Jr. Subject: Epstein Matter - BCLC Invoice dated May 8, 2009 Attachments: 20090508150207001.pdf Enclosed

EFFREY C. PEPIN MICHAEL I. PIKE HEATHER Mr..NAMARA RUDA I FLORIDA BOARD LERIIII ED CIVIL TRIAL LAWYER Sent by E-mail Only Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jeffrey: BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP May 8, 2009 ADELQUI J. BENAVENIE PARALEGAL I INVESTIGATOR BARBARA M. M

ORIDA 33401 May 08, 2009 Darren K. Indyke, Esq. 301 East 66th Street, Ste. 10B New York, NY 10065 INVOICE Matter ID: 2008-029 Client ID: 3371 EPSTEIN, JEFFREY Invoice # 29879 Federal ID # 59-2827481 For Professional Services Rendered: 03/26/2009 LG Prepare remaining Subpoena for Deposition Du

Protective Order; search Southern District docket sheets for Motions for Protective Order; print; scan and pdf Motions for Protective Order to JG, JE and DI; receipt of 16 e-mails from Southern District Cleric's office; print all attachments 04/02/2009 ROC Conference with Joe G. 0.60 hr $300.

IAL LAWYER Sent by E-mail Only Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jeffrey: BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN LLP A LIMI

nsel Stat. 2255 issues, constitutional issues 04/30/2009 RHB Legal research concurrent jurisdiction. comity, Jane Doe II, state/federal actions, Colorado River abstention 04/30/2009 RHB Draft Motion to Dismiss Jane Doe II (federal) 04/30/2009 RDC Receipt and review EW, LM, Doe -Federal - Edwards April

cument 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Defendants. ) CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EP

IN, and Defendants. ) CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff, JANE DOE II, through counsel, opposes Defendant's RICHARD EPSTEIN's Motion to Dismiss. Defendant's argument for a di

FF'S AMENDED' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff, JANE DOE II, thro

ISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Defendants. ) CASE NO.: 09-80469

purely federal issues in this case because there is an independent action under State law is absurd. For this argument the Defendant relies on the Colorado River abstention doctrine, clearly inapplicable to this case. Only in "exceptional" circumstances, to promote conservation of judicial resources and comp

cument 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Defendants. ) CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S M

REY EPSTEIN, and Defendants. ) CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff, JANE DOE II, through counsel, opposes Defendant's RICHARD EPSTEIN's Motion to Dismiss. Defendant's argument for a di

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff, JANE DOE II, thro

ISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Defendants. ) CASE NO.: 09-80469

purely federal issues in this case because there is an independent action under State law is absurd. For this argument the Defendant relies on the Colorado River abstention doctrine, clearly 4 EFTA00222845 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 5 of 20 inapplicable to

9-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE II, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and Defendants. ORDER AND OPINION THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (DE 13), filed May 6, 2009. The motion is now fully briefed and ripe for review. The Court has carefully re

Complaint, are as follows: During the events giving rise to this claim, Plaintiff was a minor but has now reached majority. Compl. ¶ 4. Defendant Epstein has a history of enticing young women, who are minors, and soliciting them to engage in prostitution for his own sexual gratification. Compl. 8. Eps

minor but has now reached majority. Compl. ¶ 4. Defendant Epstein has a history of enticing young women, who are m

-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE II, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and Defendants. ORDER AND OPINION THIS

oses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr., 460 U.S. 1 (1983). As the Eleventh Circuit explained in American Bankers Ins., 891 F.2d at 884: In Colorado River [Water Conserv. Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976)] the Supreme Court announced that a federal court may dismiss an action because of para

1/20, Erickson, Jackson, Morgan), the New York Times (11/20, Bolton), the Washington Post (11/20, Alemany, Goodwin, et al.) (2) (3), the BBC (11/20, Epstein), CNN (11/20, Ferris, Raju, Grayer) (2), Fox News (11/20, Elkind, Olson) (2), ABC News (11/20, Pecorin, Cherner, et al.), NBC News (11/20, Wong, St

t Hegseth; Western Official Says Missile Used in Ukraine Attack Was Not an Icbm; The Biden Administration Is Trying to Throw a Hail Mary to Save the Colorado River Before Trump Takes Over Back to Top WASHINGTON SCHEDULE White House President Biden • 10:00 AM: In-Town Pool Call Time • 12:00 PM: The Preside