Epstein Secrets

due by 5/29/2009), MOTION to identify jane doe #102 in the third-party subpoenas for purposes of discovery, with incorporated memorandum of law by Jeffrey Epstein.(see docket entry 5 for image) (tas) (Entered: 05/12/2009) https://eef.flsd.uscourts.gov/egi-bin/DktRpt.p17825839498761356-L_801 0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA001

09-80656-CIV-Ryskamp JANE DOE No. 102, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant, RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY AND EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND/OR IDENTIFY JANE DOE #102 IN THE STYLE OF THIS CASE AND MOTION TO IDENTIFY JANE DOE #102 IN THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS FOR PURPOS

erve so Epstein can defend this case. In support, Mr. Epstein states as follows: EFTA00175214 • Case 9:09-c

10/03/2008 4 r 82.8 KB ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE Executed as to 2 Summons Issued, 1 Complaint Acknowledgement filed by Jane Doe No. 7. (Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/03/2008) 10/03/2008 5 fi 26.1 Ica NOTICE of Striking 4 Acknowledgment of Service filed by Jane Doe No. 7 by Jane Doe No. 7 (Her

175301 CM/Eg - Live Database - flsd Page 4 of 7 05/20/2009 18 n NOTICE by of Filing Withdrawal of Previously Raised Objections to Defendant, Jeey Epstein's Motion to Compel And/Or Identify in the Style of This Case and Motion to Identify . in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, Or, Altern

7 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO

y not present here, and the record is devoid of any factual material that would support such a conclusion.10 As Justice Blackmun said in dissent in Landsgraf, there is no vested right to break the law." Bottom line is, a motion to dismiss a claim is not the correct procedural mechanism to determine the r

cument 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Defendants. ) CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EP

IN, and Defendants. ) CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff, JANE DOE II, through counsel, opposes Defendant's RICHARD EPSTEIN's Motion to Dismiss. Defendant's argument for a di

FF'S AMENDED' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff, JANE DOE II, thro

ISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Defendants. ) CASE NO.: 09-80469

n, but it was a damages remedy that already existed at the time of Defendant EPSTEIN's commission of the acts against the minor. Hence, here, unlike Landsgraf, there was an existing civil remedy prior to Defendant EPSTEIN's commission of the acts against the minor Plaintiff, and there continues to be such

Plaintiff has not been able to 12 EFTA00222884 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 13 of 19 dissent in Landsgraf, there is no vested right to break the law." Bottom line is, a motion to dismiss a claim is not the correct procedural mechanism to determine the r

cument 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Defendants. ) CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S M

REY EPSTEIN, and Defendants. ) CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff, JANE DOE II, through counsel, opposes Defendant's RICHARD EPSTEIN's Motion to Dismiss. Defendant's argument for a di

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff, JANE DOE II, thro

ISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Defendants. ) CASE NO.: 09-80469

y not present here, and the record is devoid of any factual material that would support such a conclusion.1° As Justice Blackmun said in dissent in Landsgraf, there is no vested right to break the law." Bottom line is, a motion to dismiss a claim is not the correct procedural mechanism to determine the r