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

purposely availed itself of the privilege of conducting business within the forum State, thus invoking the protec- tion and benefits of its laws.'" Pennzoil Prods. Co. F Colelli & Assocs., Inc., 149 F.3d 197, 203 (3d Cir.1998). A plaintiff can meet this burden in one of two ways: EFTA00187468 568 2

mmary judgment in the Ponzi Scheme Action. SJ Motion at 1 (Edwards "is entitled to summary judgment for all claims brought against him in Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein's Complaint" because "the evidence uncontrovertibly demonstrates the propriety of every aspect of Edwards' involvement in the prosecution of legitimat

alternative sources before it may be subpoenaed from any non-party in New York. In fact, Edwards concedes in his own Florida court filings that the Epstein interview is, at best, cumulative of "overwhelming evidence" he has already obtained from several alternative sources. Second, even if Edwards were

made of a confidential unpublished interview of Jeffrey Epstein. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT In this ancillar

d not, publish the information imparted to me by Mr. Epstein during the interview. Rush Supp. Aft 17 (emphasi

Doe Action as the basis for his argument that he too is similarly entitled to production of the Epstein interview for use in the Ponzi Scheme $ As Pennzoil and Sheehan illustrate, where (as here) a party files a New York proceeding seeking discovery of newsgathering material from a New York news organiz

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

t purposely availed itself of the privilege of conducting business within the forum State, thus invoking the protection and benefits of its laws.'" Pennzoil Prods. Co. v. Colelli & Assocs., Inc., 149 F.3d 197, 203 (3d Cir. 1998). A plaintiff can meet this burden in one of two ways: by establishing spec