Epstein Secrets

A00599889 Jeffrey Epstein's Level 3 sex offender status upheld by NY appeals court By Dareh Gregorian November 18, 2011 5:00am Multimillionaire pery Jeffrey Epstein may not consider his Florida conviction for soliciting a minor a big deal, but New York does. A state appeals court yesterday upheld the financier'

office in Dade County. The causes of action and damages against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein accrued in Dade County, Florida, due to specific acts by Epstein there, and accordingly, venue is appropriate there. Florida Statute 47.011. 2. Florida Statute 48.193(1)(a)(I) ("long-arm") authorizes service on

. Plaintiffs have been damaged by the conduct of Defendant Epstein, and have accordingly retained undersigned couns

nal Service on a Natural Person VS. DEFENDANT(' JEFFREY EPSTEIN. TYLER MCDONALD. TYLER MCDONALD D/B/A

ot be any pending criminal investigations, given Mr. Epstein's complete fulfillment of all the terms of his no

27, 2010 from Michelle Stockman of Agence France Presse. (Exhibit E attached). Agence France Presse is a newswire service with a world- wide reach. Stockman wanted to meet with Plaintiff Brunel to arrange a model shoot with MC2. However, due to the adverse publicity surrounding Plaintiffs as a result of

n’s private jets. The U.S. Attorney General’s Office in Florida says that it is against policy to confirm or deny the existence of an investigation. Jeffrey Epstein’s lawyer, Jack Goldberger, says he has no knowledge of an ongoing probe, and he told The Daily Beast, "Jeffrey Epstein has fully complied with all stat

an office in Dade County. The causes of action and damages against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein accrued in Dade County, Florida, due to specific acts by Epstein there, and accordingly, venue is appropriate there. Florida Statute 47.011. Ds Florida Statute 48.193(1)(a)(1) (‘long-arm”’) authorizes service on b

4. Plaintiffs have been damaged by the conduct of Defendant Epstein, and have accordingly retained undersigned counse

Natural Person VS. DEFENDANT(S) JEAN-LUC BRUNEL JEFFREY EPSTEIN, TYLER MCDONALD, TYLER MCDONALD D/B/A Y

not be any pending criminal investigations, given Mr. Epstein’s complete fulfillment of all the terms of his no

t 27, 2010 from Michelle Stockman of Agence France Presse. (Exhibit E attached). Agence France Presse is a newswire service with a world- wide reach. Stockman wanted to meet with Plaintiff Brunel to arrange a model shoot with MC2. However, due to the adverse publicity surrounding Plaintiffs as a result of E

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 1 of 37 JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, VS, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON I -------------- Related cases: 08-

4, 2010 (DE 462), (DE 480) AND APRIL 1, 2010 (DE 513), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Consolidated Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Orders (DE 462)

o. 19 Beach State Attorney and the USAO may not want to disclose their files for one reason or another. (ii) Third Party Privacy Rights And Judge Jeffrey's Colbath's Order The Magistrate's Order does not consider the privacy rights of other alleged victims. As this Court knows, attached to the NP A i

n fact and opinion attorney work product of both Mr. Epstein's attorneys and government attorneys. Particular

Crim, P. 11 (f) and 410: "to encourage non- litigious solutions to disputes." Reichenbach v. Smith, 528 F.2d 1072, 1074 (11th Cir. 1976). See, Lls·, Stockman v. Oakcrest Dental Center, P.C., 480 F.3d 791, 805 (6th Cir. 2007)("the purpose underlying Rule 408 ... is the promotion of the public policy favori

ent 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 0226;2010 Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,

HE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 462), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration and/or for Request Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of

n this regard and/or providing self-incriminating information is substantial, real and not merely imaginative. Third Party Privacy Rights And Judge Jeffrey's Colbath's Order The Magistrate's Order does not consider the privacy rights of other alleged victims. As this Court knows full well, attached to

n fact and opinion attorney work product of both Mr. Epstein's attorneys and government attorneys. Particular

lying Rules 11(f) and 410: "to encourage non-litigious solutions to disputes." Reichenbach v. Smith, 528 F.2d ion, 1074 (11th Cir. 1976). Zes, zgr. Stockman v. Oakcrest Dental Center, P.C., 480 F.3d 791, 805 (6th Cir. 2007)("the purpose underlying Rule 408 . . . is the promotion of the public policy favo

ent 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 1 of 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARR A/JOHNSON Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,

4, 2010 (DE 462), (DE 480) AND APRIL 1, 2010 (DE 513), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Consolidated Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Orders (DE 462)

o. 19 Beach State Attorney and the USAO may not want to disclose their files for one reason or another. (ii) Third Party Privacy Rights And Judge Jeffrey's Colbath's Order The Magistrate's Order does not consider the privacy rights of other alleged victims. As this Court knows, attached to the NPA is

n fact and opinion attorney work product of both Mr. Epstein's attorneys and government attorneys. Particular

. R. Crim, P. 11(f) and 410: "to encourage non- litigious solutions to disputes." Reichenbach v. Smith, 528 F.2d 1072, 1074 (11th Cir. 1976). ee ug. Stockman v. Oakcrest Dental Center P.C., 480 F.3d 791, 805 (6th Cir. 2007)("the purpose underlying Rule 408 . . . is the promotion of the public policy favor

d therefore insulates the particular parties to a settlement discussion FRE 410(4) is particularly directed to communications in matters which, like Epstein's, did not result in a plea of guilty to ni t federal charge. Fla. Stat. §90.410 provides parallel protections in state criminal matters. Epstein p

n fact and opinion attorney work product of both Mr. Epstein's attorneys and government attorneys. Particular

ying Rules 11(0 and 410: "to encourage non-litigious solutions to disputes." Reichenbach v. Smith, 528 F.2d 1072, 1074 (11th Cir. 1976). See, e.g., Stockman v. Oakcrest Dental Center, P.C., 480 F.3d 791, 805 (6th Cir. 2007)("the purpose underlying Rule 408 . . . is the promotion of the public policy favo

d therefore insulates the particular parties to a settlement discussion FRE 410(4) is particularly directed to communications in matters which, like Epstein's, did not result in a plea of guilty to ni t federal charge. Fla. Stat. §90.410 provides parallel protections in state criminal matters. Epstein p

n fact and opinion attorney work product of both Mr. Epstein's attorneys and government attorneys. Particular

ying Rules 11(0 and 410: "to encourage non-litigious solutions to disputes." Reichenbach v. Smith, 528 F.2d 1072, 1074 (11th Cir. 1976). See, e.g., Stockman v. Oakcrest Dental Center, P.C., 480 F.3d 791, 805 (6th Cir. 2007)("the purpose underlying Rule 408 . . . is the promotion of the public policy favo