Epstein Secrets

ralian Avenue, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 202-6360 Fax: (561) 828-0983 [email protected] Counsel for Co-Defendant, Sarah Kellen Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida

ereinhartlaw.com Counsel for Co-Defendant, Sarah Kellen Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy

ithout the protection provided by rape shield statutes, victims may find trial an ordeal not worth enduring.” Stephens, 13 F.3d at 1010 (Cummings, C.J., dissenting) (quoting 124 Cong. Rec. H11944 (1978) (statement of Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman)); see Fed. R. Evid. 412 advisory committee’s note (“Too of

Epstein's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. Upon arrival at Epstein's mansion, the underage victim would be introduced to Sarah Kellen, Epstein's assistant, who gathered the girl's personal information, including her name and telephone number. Ms. Kellen would then bring the girl u

would be introduced to Sarah Kellen, Epstein's assistant, who gathered the girl's personal information, including her name and telephone number. Ms. Kellen would then bring the girl up a flight of stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table in addition to other furnishings. There were photograph

ealth Care Plan, Inc., 843 So. 2d 842, 852 (Fla. 2003)). See also, e.g., Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Ferre, 636 F. Supp. 970 (S.D. Fla. 1985) (King, C.J.) (holding that violation of Florida's criminal extortion statute does not give rise to a civil cause of action for damages). 2 Chapter 800, Florida

THERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 08-80804-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: JANE DOE, a/k/a JANE DOE #1, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, HALEY ROBSON, and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants. NOTICE OF REMOVAL July 18, 2008 STEVEN M. LARIMORF CLERK D.S. DIST. CT. S.O. OF FLA. • MIAMI In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441

stroy diversity jurisdiction, and to prevent any application of 18 § 3509(k), a mandatory stay provision applicable in federal court 2 2 Defendant Kellen is a citizen of New York (Am. Compl. ¶ 5), and is therefore a nonresident defendant for purposes of diversity jurisdiction and removal. 3 Section

lth Care Plan, Inc.. 843 So. 2d 842, 852 (Fla. 2003))). See also, e.g., Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Ferre, 636 F. Stipp. 970 (S.D. Fla. 1985) (King, C.J.) (holding that violation of Florida's criminal extortion statute does not give rise to a civil cause of action for damages); Mantooth v. Richards,

1, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl, in the presence of Jane Doe #2, who was then a fourteen-year-old girl. (2) In or around 2001, Defendant SARAH ICELLEN led Jane Doe #2 from the kitchen of 358 El Brillo Way upstairs to Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's bedroom at 358 El Brillo Way. (3) In or around 2001

in exchange for posing for nude photographs. (13) In or around 2003, Defendant SARAH KELLEN told Jane Doe #2 that auJant JEFFREY EPSTEIN had asked KELLEN to take nude photographs of Jane 1.J1 Doe #2. (14) In or around 2003, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #2, who w

ancola, 4 F.2d 8 Pofin, Nos. 85-5009, 85-5010, slip op. at (11th Cir.1985 ; see also United States (4th Cir. March 4, 1985) (opinion of Mumaghan, C.J., as a single circuit judge). In this case the majority, adopting the reas- oning of both the nuird and Eleventh Cir- cuits, rewrites the statutory p

y jurisdiction, and to prevent any application of 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k), a mandatory stay provision applicable in federal court .3 Haley 2 Defendant Kellen is a citizen of New York (Am. Compl. ¶ 5), and is therefore a nonresident defendant for purposes of diversity jurisdiction and removal. 3 Section

th Care Plan, Inc.. 843 So. 2d 842, 852 (Fla. 2003))). See also, e.g., Miami Herald Publ 'g Co. v. Ferre, 636 F. Stipp. 970 (S.D. Fla. 1985) (King, C.J.) (holding that violation of Florida's criminal extortion statute does not give rise to a civil cause of action for damages); Mantooth v. Richards,