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

See Smith Husband, 428 F.Supp.2d 432 (E.D. Va. 2006); Smith Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2006); Doe'. Liberatore 478 F.Supp.2d 742, 754 (M.D. Pa. 2007); and the recent cases in front of this court on Defendant's Motions to Dismiss and For More Definite Statement — Doe No. 2 Epstein, 2009 WL 383332

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

Smith v. Husband 428 F.Supp.2d 432 (E.D. Va. 2006); Smith v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2006); Doe v. Liberatore, 478 F.Supp.2d 742, 754 (M.D. Pa. 2007); and the recent cases in front of this court on Defendant's Motions to Dismiss and For More Definite Statement — Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, 2009 WL 383

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

Smith v. Husband 428 F.Supp.2d 432 (E.D. Va. 2006); Smith v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2006); Doe v. Liberatore, 478 F.Supp.2d 742, 754 (M.D. Pa. 2007); and the recent cases in front of this court on Defendant's Motions to Dismiss and For More Definite Statement — Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, 2009 WL 383

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

Smith v. Husband, 428 F.Supp.2d 432 (E.D. Va. 2006); Smith v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2006); Doe v. Liberatore 478 F.Supp.2d 742, 754 (M.D. Pa. 2007); and the recent cases in front of this court on Defendant's Motions to Dismiss and For More Definite Statement — Doe No. 2 v. Epstein 2009 WL 38333

sts the legitimate concern that the agreement could be so used and the reality that any concern about such use significantly and unfairly burdens Mr Epstein's right to resort to the courts to resolve outstanding legal Issues regarding the criteria for payment and the amount of payment owed. I hope this

Jane Doe No. 103 1 0 - 80 (b) County of Residency of First Listed Plaintiff West Palm Beach (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIPP CASES) S int. NTS 0 it Fey stein (c) Attorney's (Tina Nam, Address. nod Telephone Hornbill) Robert C..losefsbag, Esq./Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 W. Flag' e

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

Biscayne Blvd, Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Black: Thank you for meeting w

it a breach of the Non- Prosecution Agreement for Mr. Epstein to file suit against the victim's attorney-repres

ee Smith'. Husband. 428 F.Supp.2d 432 (ED. Va. 2006); Smith I Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2006); Doe'. Liberatore. 478 F.Supp.2d 742, 754 (M.D. Pa. 2007); and the recent cases in front of this court on Defendant's Motions to Dismiss and For More Definite Statement — Doe No. 2 Epstein, 2009 WL 383332

742, 754 (M.D. Pa. 2007); and the recent cases in front of this court on Defendant's Motions to Dismiss and For More Definite Statement — Doe No. 2 I. Epstein, 2009 WL 383332 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2009); Doe No. 3'. Epstein 2009 WL 383330 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2009); Doe No. 4'. Epstein 2009 WL 383286 (S.D. Fl

sts the legitimate concern that the agreement could be so used and the reality that any concern about such use significantly and unfairly burdens Mr Epstein's right to resort to the courts to resolve outstanding legal issues regarding the criteria for payment and the amount of payment owed. I hope this

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

Biscayne Blvd, Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Black: Thank you for meeting w

it a breach of the Non- Prosecution Agreement for Mr. Epstein to file suit against the victim's attorney-repres

See Smith'. Husband, 428 F.Supp.2d 432 (ED. Va. 2006); Smith Husband. 376 F.Supp.2d 603 (ED. Va. 2006); Doe,. Liberatore, 478 F.Supp.2d 742, 754 (M.D. Pa. 2007); and the recent cases in front of this court on Defendant's Motions to Dismiss and For More Definite Statement — Doe No. 2 I. Epstein, 2009 WL 383

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

Smith v. Husband 428 F.Supp.2d 432 (E.D. Va. 2006); Smith v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2006); Doe v. Liberatore, 478 F.Supp.2d 742, 754 (M.D. Pa. 2007); and the recent cases in front of this court on Defendant's Motions to Dismiss and For More Definite Statement — Doe No. 2 v. Epstein 2009 WL 3833

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

mith v. Husband, 428 F.Supp.2d 432 (E.D. Va. 2006); Smith v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2006); Doe v. Liberatore, 478 F.Supp.2d 742, 754 (M.D. Pa. 2007); and the recent cases in front of this court on Defendant's Motions to Dismiss and For More Definite Statement — Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, 2009 WL 383

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

Smith v. Husband, 428 F.Supp.2d 432 (ED. Va. 2006); Smith v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d 603 (ED. Va. 2006); Doe v. Liberatore, 478 F.Supp.2d 742, 754 (M.D. Pa. 2007); and the recent cases in front of this court on Defendant's Motions to Dismiss and For More Definite Statement — Poe No. 2 v. Epstein, 2009 WL 3833