Epstein Secrets

s from Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing her. Ex. P. On September 11, 2008, Jane Doe No. 2 file an action in Palm Beach County, Florida, L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 50-2008-CA- 28051-XXXXMB, seeking money damages from Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing her. Ex. Q. 6 "A judicial admission is a formal conce

r than to assert that Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused both. However, the differing circumstances of the two petitioners during the investigation of Epstein are highly relevant in determining whether each petitioner can even invoke the CVRA. Through her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq.,' Jane Doe No. 2 r

0. When asked whether Epstein "pulled you closer to him in a sexual way," Jane Doe No. 2 replied: A. I wish. No, no, never, ever, ever, no, never. Jeffrey is an awesome man, no. Id. at 22. At the end of her interview, Jane Doe No. 2 was asked if she had any questions for the agents or AUSA Villafafia

agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion." Ex. N, Nov. 27, 2007 email

separate and distinct meanings. "We refrain from concluding here that the differing language in the two subsections has the same meaning in each." Russello 464 U.S. at 23. At the inception of the Epstein investigation, the U.S. Attorney's Office provided letters to the victims. On or about August 4, 2006,

s from Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing her. Ex. P. On September 11, 2008, Jane Doe No. 2 file an action in Palm Beach County, Florida, L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 50-2008-CA- 28051-XXXXMB, seeking money damages from Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing her. Ex. Q. 6 "A judicial admission is a formal conce

r than to assert that Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused both. However, the differing circumstances of the two petitioners during the investigation of Epstein are highly relevant in determining whether each petitioner can even invoke the CVRA. Through her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq.,' Jane Doe No. 2 r

0. When asked whether Epstein "pulled you closer to him in a sexual way," Jane Doe No. 2 replied: A. I wish. No, no, never, ever, ever, no, never. Jeffrey is an awesome man, no. Id. at 22. At the end of her interview, Jane Doe No. 2 was asked if she had any questions for the agents or AUSA Villafafia

agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion." Ex. N, Nov. 27, 2007 email

separate and distinct meanings. "We refrain from concluding here that the differing language in the two subsections has the same meaning in each." Russello 464 U.S. at 23. At the inception of the Epstein investigation, the U.S. Attorney's Office provided letters to the victims. On or about August 4, 2006,

DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE No. 101, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his u

ed on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 27 of 36 Defendant's mansion in or about the spring of 2003," FAC ¶ 18, and that she later was "lured ... to the Epstein mansion on at least one and perhaps two other occasions in the spring and/or summer of 2003." Id. ¶ 19. Since these vague allegations leave open the

01, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S

the removal of language from draft legislation as proof that the enacted bill carried the same meaning. Instead, courts draw the opposite inference. Russello 464 U.S. at 23-24 ("Where Congress includes limiting language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed tha

DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE No. 101, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his u

ed on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 27 of 36 Defendant's mansion in or about the spring of 2003," FAC ¶ 18, and that she later was "lured ... to the Epstein mansion on at least one and perhaps two other occasions in the spring and/or summer of 2003." Id. ¶ 19. Since these vague allegations leave open the

01, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S

the removal of language from draft legislation as proof that the enacted bill carried the same meaning. Instead, courts draw the opposite inference. Russello 464 U.S. at 23-24 ("Where Congress includes limiting language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed tha

DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE No. 101, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his u

ed on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 27 of 36 Defendant's mansion in or about the spring of 2003," FAC ¶ 18, and that she later was "lured ... to the Epstein mansion on at least one and perhaps two other occasions in the spring and/or summer of 2003." Id. ¶ 19. Since these vague allegations leave open the

01, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S

the removal of language from draft legislation as proof that the enacted bill carried the same meaning. Instead, courts draw the opposite inference. Russello 464 U.S. at 23-24 ("Where Congress includes limiting language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed tha

DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE No. 101, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his u

ed on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 27 of 36 Defendant's mansion in or about the spring of 2003," FAC ¶ 18, and that she later was "lured ... to the Epstein mansion on at least one and perhaps two other occasions in the spring and/or summer of 2003." Id. ¶ 19. Since these vague allegations leave open the

01, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S

the removal of language from draft legislation as proof that the enacted bill carried the same meaning. Instead, courts draw the opposite inference. Russello 464 U.S. at 23-24 ("Where Congress includes limiting language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed tha

DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE No. 101, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his u

ed on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 27 of 36 Defendant's mansion in or about the spring of 2003," FAC ¶ 18, and that she later was "lured ... to the Epstein mansion on at least one and perhaps two other occasions in the spring and/or summer of 2003." Id. ¶ 19. Since these vague allegations leave open the

01, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S

the removal of language from draft legislation as proof that the enacted bill carried the same meaning. Instead, courts draw the opposite inference. Russello 464 U.S. at 23-24 ("Where Congress includes limiting language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed tha