Epstein Secrets

ER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: Dated: Dated: Dated: A. MARIE ViLLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY ERALD LEK° RT ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFR Y EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-008339 EFTA00190819 By signing this Addendum, Epstein assert

, a.m. with appearances 8 as hereinbefore noted, to wit: 9 THEREUPON: 10 MR. GOLDBERGER: Good morning, Judge, 11 Jack Goldberger on behalf of Jeffrey 12 Epstein. 13 THE COURT: Good morning. 14 MR. GOLDBERGER: Your Honor, we are 15 here for a plea conference. 16 THE COURT: Raise your right hand. 17 T

ase No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA08300 p EFTA00190780 PLEA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT THE FOLLOWING IS TO REFLECT ALL TERMS OF THE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT Name: Jeffrey E. Epstein Piet Gutty Cate P . Charge Count IJisfer 0t9f41 06CF009454A1A8 Felony Solicitation of Prostitution 1 No 3 FEL 08CF0093814A46 Procuring Pe

S. ATTORNEY ERALD LEK° RT ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFR Y EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EP

ECT ALL TERMS OF THE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT Name: Jeffrey E. Epstein Piet Gutty Cate P . Charge Count IJi

ECT ALL TERMS OF THE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT Name: Jeffrey E. Epstein Piet Gutty Cate P . Charge Count IJis

in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less. From

Stay is defective and should be stricken. The Motion to Stay also raises due process concerns because it was not served on all parties according to the Certificate of Service accompanying the Motion. The Defendant has not yet filed an appearance in the case, and his response to the Complaint is not yet due. The Motion to

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

laintiff makes reference by citation only to the following federal statutes — "18 U.S.C. §§2241, 2242, 2243, 2421, and 2423." See endnote following the Certificate of Service herein for the complete statutory text.' First, Plaintiffs reliance on 18 U.S.C. §2241 in its entirety as a predicate act is improper; it is a vio

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXX MB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff(s), vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and L.M., individually, Defendant(s). / PROCEEDINGS HEL

or trial and has there been some delay in not getting it set? MR. SCAROLA: No, sir. At the time that this case was continued at the request of Mr. Epstein it was because your Honor was awaiting appellate proceedings in the Supreme Court. We had requested the case, since it was not formally stayed, th

NTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXX MB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff(s), vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, in

e that this case was continued at the request of Mr. Epstein it was because your Honor was awaiting appellate

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 today? MR. SCAROLA: I would only note, your Honor, as is reflected on the Certificate of Service, in my communications with Miss Haddad I mentioned four law firms representing Mr. Epstein. There are in fact five law firms representing Mr. Epst

FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-80069-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON y and through FATHER as arent and natural • ATHER, and STEPMOTHER, individually, Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING ACHING AGE OF MAJORITY Plaintiffs by and throu g leather as p

PMOTHER, individually, Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OP

and STEPMOTHER, individually, Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF L

Stay is defective and should be stricken. The Motion to Stay also raises due process concerns because it was not served on all parties according to the Certificate of Service accompanying the Motion. The Defendant has not yet filed an appearance in the case, and his response to the Complaint is not yet due. The Motion to

y and through JANE DOE's FATHER as parent and natural guardian, and JANE DOE's FATHER, and JANE DOE's STEPMOTHER, individually, Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING JANE DOE NO. 1 REACHING AGE OF MAJORITY Plaintiffs

PMOTHER, individually, Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OP

OE's STEPMOTHER, individually, Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF L

Stay is defective and should be stricken. The Motion to Stay also raises due process concerns because it was not served on all parties according to the Certificate of Service accompanying the Motion. The Defendant has not yet filed an appearance in the case, and his response to the Complaint is not yet due. The Motion to

y and through JANE DOE's FATHER as parent and natural guardian, and JANE DOE's FATHER, and JANE DOE's STEPMOTHER, individually, Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING JANE DOE NO. 1 REACHING AGE OF MAJORITY Plaintiffs

PMOTHER, individually, Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OP

OE's STEPMOTHER, individually, Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF L

Stay is defective and should be stricken. The Motion to Stay also raises due process concerns because it was not served on all parties according to the Certificate of Service accompanying the Motion. The Defendant has not yet filed an appearance in the case, and his response to the Complaint is not yet due. The Motion to

s. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff, JUDGE: DAVID CROW PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MEDIATION SUMMARY Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files this Mediation Su

nter-Plaintiff, JUDGE: DAVID CROW PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MEDIATION SUMMARY Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files this Mediation Summary in preparation for the Mediation scheduled before you on October 11,

UNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA0408003OOOCMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, vs. SCOT

tes upon which each and every purported abuse of process occurred, Edwards again replied: "the date of service of each of the above as reflected on the Certificate of Service of each." Accordingly, Edwards has not pointed to, and indeed cannot point to, one act either outside of or extrinsic to the litigation, undeniably

ly, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. Case No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG Judge: CROW PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES PURSUANT TO §57.105 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his

R-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES PURSUANT TO §57.105 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to §57.105 of the Florida Statutes, hereby moves this Court for an award of attorneys' fees

CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant, vs. SCO

nd every purported abuse of process occurred, Edwards again replied: "the - 5 - EFTA00612154 date of service of each of the above as reflected on the Certificate of Service of each." See Answers to Interrogatories filed June 10, 2011. Edwards has not pointed to, and indeed cannot point to, one act either outside of or

s. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff, JUDGE: DAVID CROW PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MEDIATION SUMMARY Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files this Mediation Su

nter-Plaintiff, JUDGE: DAVID CROW PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MEDIATION SUMMARY Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files this Mediation Summary in preparation for the Mediation scheduled before you on October 11,

OUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, vs. SCOT

tes upon which each and every purported abuse of process occurred, Edwards again replied: "the date of service of each of the above as reflected on the Certificate of Service of each." Accordingly, Edwards has not pointed to, and indeed cannot point to, one act either outside of or extrinsic to the litigation, undeniably