Epstein Secrets

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND St JOHN JEFFREY EPSTEIN and L.S.J., LLC, ) ) Plaintiffs, vs- ) ) ) CASE NO. ST-10-CV-443 ACTION FOR DAMAGES C • ) C; C I FANCELLI PANELING, INC., ) ) JURY T

. The FAC was properly served at the Defendant's correct business address on EFTA00309181 Plalnr f s' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Epstein et al. VS. Fanelli Paneling. Inc. Case No. ST-10-CK443 Defendant's President in care of Christian Barthod, who has previously acted as the Presiden

epaid on this 11'" day of February, 2011. bb K1/4 BRAD. 4 C( 30 EFTA00309210 Superior Court of the Virgin Islands - Division of St. Thomas - St. John JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND L.S.J., LLC Plaintiff v. FANCELLI PANELING, INC. Defendant STATE OF New York. COUNTY OF Nassau ss: ) Index No.: ST-10•CIV-443 ) Filing Da

RGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND St JOHN JEFFREY EPSTEIN and L.S.J., LLC, ) ) Plaintiffs, vs-

wholly owned by a Virgins Island resident (i.e., Mr. Epstein), maintains its principal address in the Virgin I

accept the summons and the FAC. Nor did Mr. Barthod inform the process server that he was not authorized to accept the summons and the FAC. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h), Plaintiff may properly effect service by serving an officer, manager, general agent or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law. F

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Complex Litigation, Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.201 CASE NO. Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and M., i

VED FOR HUNG DEC u ( 2008 sriesnoN Ii poCK COMPLAINT pLefitt Elk COMPTRQw-liti CIRCUIT CIVIL olvisiON Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this action against Defendants, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually,

■ EPSTEIN and like other RRA clients, sought tens of millions of dollars. a. For example, in her sworn statement to the FBI, was insistent that "Jeffrey is an awesome man." (p. 21 — FBI); At the conclusion of she stated: "I hope Jeffrey, nothing happens to Jeffrey because he's an awesome man and it

hat the evidence is really going to show is that Mr. Epstein — at least dating back as EFTA00729419 Epstein

onymous females were represented by RRA, with the potential for hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements, and that RRA and its attorneys would El Epstein unless he paid exorbitant-settlement amounts to protect his high-profile friends. 26. Upon information and belief, EDWARDS knew or should have kno

rivolous; 17. That the presentation of such evidence by counsel for JONES demonstrates a lack of a good faith basis to prevent same in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, 1 I: IS. That MORSE has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence, ownership of these funds by JONES, that said funds are hereby frozen and no

• IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. cor.50.2929aufactigIVP111, CASE NO. • A Aq SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and .M., individu

OTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and .M., individually, Defendants. COMPL CO Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this action against Defendants, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually,

ases and thus by using the deposition sell the cases (or a part of them) to third parties. #4S 37. Because of these facts, ROTHSTEIN claimed that Epste wanted to make certain none of these individuals would be deposed and therefoie he had offered $200,000,000.00 to settle the claims of RRA female

EPSTEIN and like other RRA clients, sought tens of millions of dollars. a. For example, in her sworn statement to the FBI, L.M. was insistent that "Jeffrey is an awesome man." (p. 21 — FBI); At the conclusion of she stated: "I hope Jeffrey, nothing happens to Jeffrey because he's an awesome man and it

hat the evidence is really going to show is that Mr. Epstein — at least dating back as completely irrelevant

ut merit and frivoh • 17. Tha, presentation of such evidence by counsel for JONES demonstrates a lack of a basis to prevent same in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, 11: MORSE has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence, ownership of these + funds by JONES, that said funds are hereby frozen and not subje

v. Indyke, Case No. 19-cv-10475-LGS See, e.g., wants Ghislaine Maxwell to `rot in jail," NY Post (Dec. 4, 2019); Andrew Denney and Bruce Golding, "Jeffrey Epstein's no-bail ruling may encourage more accusers to come forward," NY Post (July 18, 2019) ("McCawley wouldn't identify her new clients but said she enco

ted pleadings involve Plaintiff's effort which were not and should not have been relevant to Plaintiffs false claim that she was sexually abused by Epstein as a minor. The Second Circuit in Brown itself redacted from the summary judgment pleadings and exhibits all of Ms. Maxwell's deposition answers in

o tnsealinu Sealed Materials Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Ty Gee HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN,

l the questions, lawsuit filed a lawsuit against Mr. Epstein to produce In fact, in connection with her cur

iV Page 2 of 10 On December 30, 2014, two other unnamed victims, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4, moved to join as petitioners in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. (DE 280). Petitioners (Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2) support the Rule 21 Motion. (IA at 11). Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 argue that they "have suffe

t the respondent Government violated their rights under the CVRA by failing to consult with them before negotiating a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, who subjected them to various sexual crimes while they were minors. (ILL). Petitioners initiated this action in July 2008. (a). GIUFFRE002844 EF

oin this action." a at 3, 7). Specifically, Jane Doe 3 proffers that she could prove the circumstances under which a non-party introduced her to Mr. Epstein, and how Mr. Epstein sexually trafficked her to several high-profile non-party individuals, "including numerous prominent American politicians, pow

fore negotiating a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, who subjected them to various sexual cr

stances under which a non-party introduced her to Mr. Epstein, and how Mr. Epstein sexually trafficked her to

15 Page 2 of 10 On December 30, 2014, two other unnamed victims, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4, moved to join as petitioners in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. (DE 280). Petitioners (Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2) support the Rule 21 Motion. OA at 11). Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 argue that they "have suffer

t the respondent Government violated their rights under the CVRA by failing to consult with them before negotiating a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, who subjected them to various sexual crimes while they were minors. (Id.). Petitioners initiated this action in July 2008. (Id.). EFTA00210130

this action." (Li. at 3, 7). Specifically, Jane Doe 3 proffers that she could prove the circumstances under which a non-party introduced her to Mr. Epstein, and how Mr. Epstein sexually trafficked her to several high-profile non-party individuals, "including numerous prominent American politicians, pow

fore negotiating a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, who subjected them to various sexual cr

stances under which a non-party introduced her to Mr. Epstein, and how Mr. Epstein sexually trafficked her to

15 Page 2 of 10 On December 30, 2014, two other unnamed victims, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4, moved to join as petitioners in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. (DE 280). Petitioners (Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2) support the Rule 21 Motion. (IA at 11). Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 argue that they "have suffe

t the respondent Government violated their rights under the CVRA by failing to consult with them before negotiating a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, who subjected them to various sexual crimes while they were minors. (Id.). Petitioners initiated this action in July 2008. (Id.). EFTA00210559

this action." (Li. at 3, 7). Specifically, Jane Doe 3 proffers that she could prove the circumstances under which a non-party introduced her to Mr. Epstein, and how Mr. Epstein sexually trafficked her to several high-profile non-party individuals, "including numerous prominent American politicians, pow

fore negotiating a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, who subjected them to various sexual cr

stances under which a non-party introduced her to Mr. Epstein, and how Mr. Epstein sexually trafficked her to

15 Page 2 of 10 On December 30, 2014, two other unnamed victims, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4, moved to join as petitioners in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. (DE 280). Petitioners (Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2) support the Rule 21 Motion. (IA at 11). Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 argue that they "have suffe

te that the Non-Prosecution Agreement "called for Mr. Epstein to serve eighteen months in county jail followed

able through Tide 28, United States Code, Section 2461; and the procedures outlined at Title 21, United States Code, Section 853. .1 04 , 044 Co' JEFFREY a SLOMAN ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY PAUL F. SCHWARTZ ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY JEFFRE N. KAPLAN ASSIS ANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY CE D

August 4, 2009 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Leopold—Kuvin, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 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

t is necessary to correct certain inaccuracies contained in that communication. First, you state that the Non-Prosecution Agreement "called for Mr. Epstein to serve eighteen months in county jail followed by twelve months of community control." In fact, the Non-Prosecution Agreement, at 1 2 (a) and (b)

rivolous; 17. That the presentation of such evidence by counsel for JONES demonstrates a lack of a good faith basis to prevent same in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, 11: 18. That MORSE has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence, ownership of these funds by JONES, that said funds arc hereby frozen and not

AARON ANTHON MARCOS BEATON, JR. MATTHEW P. O'BRIEN JENIPER J. SOULII0AS NOAH Fox E-Mail: You emailed me a letter on November 2, asking whether Jeffrey Epstein's place of employment remained constant. It has. I reviewed a Google map to confirm that the distance between that place of employment and the locati

ime and effort. Over the past five weeks, the massive billion-dollar conspiracy created and run by Scott Rothstein has been exposed. On Monday, Mr. Epstein filed a state civil RICO lawsuit charging Rothstein, his partner Brad Edwards, and others with tortuous and fraudulent abuses of process that result

sue EPSTEIN and like other RRA clients, sought tens of millions of dollars. a. For example, in her sworn statement to the FBI, was insistent that "Jeffrey is an awesome man." (p. 21 — FBI); At the conclusion of she stated: "I hope Jeffrey, nothing happens to Jeffrey because he's an awesome man and it

by Scott Rothstein has been exposed. On Monday, Mr. Epstein filed a state civil RICO lawsuit charging Rothste

rivolous; 17. That the presentation of such evidence by counsel for JONES demonstrates a lack of a good faith basis to prevent same in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, 11; 18. That MORSE has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence, ownership of these funds by JONES, that said funds are hereby frozen and not

e remaining sealed materials. I. BACKGROUND A. Jeffrey Epstein's Conviction and the CVRA Suit The origins of thi

ffrey Epstein's Conviction and the CVRA Suit The origins of this case lie in a decade-old criminal proceeding against financier Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). On June 30, 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to Florida state charges of soliciting, and procuring a person under the age of eighteen for, prostitu

e remaining sealed materials. I. BACKGROUND A. Jeffrey Epstein's Conviction and the CVRA Suit The orig

njoy no presumption of public access." Finally, in appropriate circumstances, district courts may impose sanctions on attorneys and parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)." 40 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); see also TheStreet Com, 273 F.3d at 229-30. 41 See, e.g., S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instruction