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

removal statutes very strictly, and "all doubts about jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand to state court." Univ. of South Alabama'. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 41I (11th Cir. 1999) (citing Burns'. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994), and Coker'. Amoco Oil 3 EFTA00175559

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

removal statutes very strictly, and "all doubts about jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand to state court." Univ. of South Alabama I American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing Bums. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994), and Coker. Amoco Oil 3 EFTA00234426 Cas

notice of court proceedings as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2) are frivolous; the only court proceedings that have taken place in connection with Epstein's criminal offenses were state court proceedings involving state criminal offenses, for which the CVRA does not 2 EFTA00799496 Case 9:08-cv-8073

ling was also necessary to ensure secrecy, so that as few persons as possible were aware that minor girls were coming at unusual hours to Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's mansion. 48. Defendant, Sarah Kellen, also needed (directly or indirectly) to make transportation arrangements for many of the girls, as they were

f is included in the list of victims identified by the Federal Government as victims of the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's illegal conduct. Defendant, Jeffrey Page 5 of 17 EFTA00799582 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 90 of 101 Epstein, is thus estopped by his ple

ert[ing] a cause of action against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to [18 U.S.C. § 2255] and the

nd we are going to be filing civil cases against Mr. Epstein, and this agreement, undoubtedly it will play a b

lve the question of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction before proceeding any further with this matter. E.g., University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the district court should have resolved the issue of subject matter jurisdiction before reaching

notice of court proceedings as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2) are frivolous; the only court proceedings that have taken place in connection with Epstein's criminal offenses were state court proceedings involving state criminal offenses, for which the CVRA does not 2 EFTA00208824 Petitioners' righ

ling was also necessary to ensure secrecy, so that as few persons as possible were aware that minor girls were coming at unusual hours to Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's mansion. 48. Defendant, also needed (directly or indirectly) to make transportation arrangements for many of the girls, as they were often too yo

f is included in the list of victims identified by the Federal Government as victims of the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's illegal conduct. Defendant, Jeffrey Page 5 of 17 EFTA00208910 Epstein, is thus estopped by his plea and agreement with the Federal Government from denying the acts alleged in this Compla

ert[ing] a cause of action against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to [18 U.S.C. § 2255] and the

nd we are going to be filing civil cases against Mr. Epstein, and this agreement, undoubtedly it will play a b

lve the question of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction before proceeding any further with this matter. E.g., University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the district court should have resolved the issue of subject matter jurisdiction before reaching

notice of court proceedings as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2) are frivolous; the only court proceedings that have taken place in connection with Epstein's criminal offenses were state court proceedings involving state criminal offenses, for which the CVRA does not 2 EFTA00081017 Case 9:08-cv-8073

ling was also necessary to ensure secrecy, so that as few persons as possible were aware that minor girls were coming at unusual hours to Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's mansion. 48. Defendant, Sarah Kellen, also needed (directly or indirectly) to make transportation arrangements for many of the girls, as they were

f is included in the list of victims identified by the Federal Government as victims of the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's illegal conduct. Defendant, Jeffrey Page 5 of 17 EFTA00081103 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 90 of 101 Epstein, is thus estopped by his ple

ert[ing] a cause of action against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to [18 U.S.C. § 2255] and the

nd we are going to be filing civil cases against Mr. Epstein, and this agreement, undoubtedly it will play a b

lve the question of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction before proceeding any further with this matter. E.g., University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the district court should have resolved the issue of subject matter jurisdiction before reaching

notice of court proceedings as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2) are frivolous; the only court proceedings that have taken place in connection with Epstein's criminal offenses were state court proceedings involving state criminal offenses, for which the CVRA does not 2 EFTA00795172 Case 9:08-cv-8073

ling was also necessary to ensure secrecy, so that as few persons as possible were aware that minor girls were coming at unusual hours to Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's mansion. 48. Defendant, Sarah Kellen, also needed (directly or indirectly) to make transportation arrangements for many of the girls, as they were

f is included in the list of victims identified by the Federal Government as victims of the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's illegal conduct. Defendant, Jeffrey Page 5 of 17 EFTA00795258 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 90 of 101 Epstein, is thus estopped by his ple

ert[ing] a cause of action against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to [18 U.S.C. § 2255] and the

nd we are going to be filing civil cases against Mr. Epstein, and this agreement, undoubtedly it will play a b

lve the question of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction before proceeding any further with this matter. E.g., University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the district court should have resolved the issue of subject matter jurisdiction before reaching

notice of court proceedings as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2) are frivolous; the only court proceedings that have taken place in connection with Epstein's criminal offenses were state court proceedings involving state criminal offenses, for which the CVRA does not 2 EFTA00205603 Petitioners' righ

D) see also First Am. Compl. 1 32-33, Doe'. Epstein, Case No. 08-80893-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.) ("assert[ing] a cause of action against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to [18 U.S.C. § 2255] and the [Non-Prosecution] agreement between the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and the United States Government"); Comp

ert[ing] a cause of action against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to [18 U.S.C. § 2255] and the

nd we are going to be filing civil cases against Mr. Epstein, and this agreement, undoubtedly it will play a b

solve the question of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction before proceeding any further with this matter. E.g., University of South Alabama American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the district court should have resolved the issue of subject matter jurisdiction before reaching

notice of court proceedings as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2) are frivolous; the only court proceedings that have taken place in connection with Epstein's criminal offenses were state court proceedings involving state criminal offenses, for which the CVRA does not 2 EFTA00205625 Petitioners' righ

D) see also First Am. Compl. 1 32-33, Doe'. Epstein, Case No. 08-80893-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.) ("assert[ing] a cause of action against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to [18 U.S.C. § 2255] and the [Non-Prosecution] agreement between the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and the United States Government"); Comp

ert[ing] a cause of action against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to [18 U.S.C. § 2255] and the

nd we are going to be filing civil cases against Mr. Epstein, and this agreement, undoubtedly it will play a b

solve the question of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction before proceeding any further with this matter. E.g., University of South Alabama American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the district court should have resolved the issue of subject matter jurisdiction before reaching

to the EFTA00205483 criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, including the prosecution memo and draft

elief they seek and that, because Petitioners still have the opportunity to confer with an attorney for the government and to pursue charges against Jeffrey Epstein in other Districts, their claim is not ripe. F2 Pursuant to Eleventh Circuit law, Respondent respectfully requests that the Court stay discovery in

the U.S. Attorney, asking for an investigation of various alleged improprieties occurring in the negotiation of the non-prosecution agreement with Epstein (Request for Production No. 17). This allegation of misconduct was referred to the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility. Ho

jurisdiction must properly be addressed and resolved before this Court takes any further action in the case. E.g. , University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co. , 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the district court should have resolved the issue of subject matter jurisdiction before reaching