Epstein Secrets

econd amended complaint (the "Fisher counterclaim"), is granted in all respects. The Soffer ejectment motion is granted as against deft Ron Soffer. Defls Jeffrey E. Epstein, Ivan S. Fisher, Ellyn Bank, Debra Elisa Cohen, Dianeataga?/a The Fisher Group, Fisher & Soffer a/k/a Fisher & Sophir, D. Gerzog, Robert Heilbum,

the house to the tenant we have selected should Mr. Epstein decide not to reoccupy the premises under the ne

on of the budding pursuant to the Foreign Missions Act, 22 U.S.C. § 4301 of seq. 0FM leased the building to defen- dant Jeffrey E. Epstein in 1992. Epstein sublet the building to defendant Ivan S. Fish- er in 1996, purportedly without the Govern- ment's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the

n personally liable because Epstein did not sign the con- tract as an agent or as a corporate officer. Epstein signed the contract as follows: /s/ Jeffery Epstein 1AG. Under New York law, a signature in a representative capacity would have been "Jeffrey Epstein for I.A.G." or "I.A.G., by Jeffrey Epstein". 2

atters extrinsic to the complaint. we will treat defendant Epstein's motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judg

RDERED. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, I Jeffrey E. EPSTEIN, Ivan S. Fisher, Ellyn Bank, Debra Elis

RDERED. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, I Jeffrey E. EPSTEIN, Ivan S. Fisher, Ellyn Bank, Debra Elise

would be better served if this matter were not litigated in this jurisdiction. See, e.g., Mesalic, 897 F.2d at 701 (citing Asahi Wild indua. Co. Superior Ct., 480 U.S. 102, 113, 107 &Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed2d 92 (1987)). Accordingly, I find that this Court has general jurisdiction over the defendants and t

FOR PUBLICATION FOR UPLOAD IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, INC. AND JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Plaintiffs, v. CITIBANK, N.A. AND CITIGROUP, INC. d/b/a "CITIGROUP," Defendants. ATTORNEYS: Maria Tankenson Hodge, Esq. Hodge & Francois St

ill grant leave for the plaintiffs to amend their pleadings. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In their amended complaint, Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Epstein") and Financial Trust Company, Inc. ("FTC"] [collectively "plaintiffs"] allege that Citibank, N.A. ("Citibank") and Citigroup, Inc. ["Citigroup"]

AND ST. JOHN FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, INC. AND JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Plaintiffs, v. CITIBANK, N.A. AND CI

AND ST. JOHN FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, INC. AND JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Plaintiffs, v. CITIBANK, N.A. AND CIT

uld be better served if this matter were not litigated in this jurisdiction. See, e.g., Mesalic, 897 F.2d at 701 (citing Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Ct., 480 U.S. 102, 113 (1987)). Accordingly, I find that this Court has general jurisdiction over the defendants and that litigating this matter in th

413 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Plaintlff-Appelke, —against— GHISLA1NE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant, SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY, ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, MICHAEL CERNOVICH, DBA CERNOVICH MEDIA Intervenors. ON APPEAL FROM TH

and sexual trafficking of minors. Her lawyers intended to prove the defamation claim solely by, in effect, "prosecuting" Ms. Maxwell as a proxy for Epstein. App. p 116, ¶ffil 8-10; p 119 9¶ 27; p 122, ¶ 12; p 123, 51114, 16; p 124,9120. 3 EFTA00075485 Case 20-2413, Document 40, 08/20/2020, 2913550, P

MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant, SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD

, 08/20/2020, 2913550, Page5 of 74 Nixon a Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) Nosik a Singe, 40 F.3d 592 (2d Cir. 1994) Press-Enter. Co. a Superior Ct., 464 U.S. 501 (1984) S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) passim 34 37 passim Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (198

defense of an inconvenient forum, they did not agree to sue or be sued exclusively in New York. The Amended 1999 Note states that the undersigned [Epstein] hereby irrevocably submits to the jurisdiction of any New York state or federal court sitting in New York City, and the undersigned hereby irrevoca

would be better served if this matter were not litigated in this jurisdiction. See, e.g.. Moselle, 897 F.2d at 701 (citing Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Ct. 480 U.S. 102, 113, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987)). Accordingly, I find that this Court has general jurisdiction over the defendants and that