Epstein Secrets

ES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON CAROLYN MARGARET ANDRIANO Plaintiff, V. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants, NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney will take the deposition duces tecum of: DEPONENT Sus

brucereinhartlaw.com Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen .=__,;;=-------- ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. F

9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Dock'e(03/12/2009 Page 4 of 21 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 4 factual allegations"); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very remote an

that Plaintiff’s interrogatories requesting that he identify employees may lead to evidence tending to incriminate him because one of his employees, Sarah Kellen, is identified in the Complaint. (Defendant Memorandum (DE 56), p. 18). This does not, however, support a blanket refusal to answer on Fifth Amen

criminate him because one of his employees, Sarah Kellen, is identified in the Complaint. (Defendant Mem

for which he cannot realistically or genuinely be expected to be charged with a crime are not subject to Fifth Amendment protection. See Krause v. Rhodes, 390 F.Supp 1070, 1071-72 (N.D. Ohio 1974) (allowing questions to be asked regarding personal backgrounds and experiences excluding the event at iss

s scheme, Epstein, with the help of his assistant Sarah Kellen, allegedly lured economically disadvantaged mino

me, Epstein, with the help of his assistant Sarah Kellen, allegedly lured economically disadvantaged mino

ject to Fifth Amendment protection. See Krause v. Rhodes, 390 F.Supp. 1070, 1071-72 (N.D. Ohio 1974). In s

tiff C.M.A. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss P.A. West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 ounse or a en an s Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Bruce Reinhart, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Bruce E. Reinhart. P.A. Shiolev, P A West Palm

ounse or a en an s Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Bruce Re

9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 4 of 21 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 4 factual allegations"). Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very remote an

of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRAIJOHNSON C.M. A., Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants, DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ("EPSTEIN

Count I of Plaintiffs Complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P. (2008). Count II is directed only to Defendant KELLEN, who has not yet been served. In support of dismissal, Defendant states: Plaintiff, CMA, attempts to assert a cause of action against EPSTEIN in Cou

.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations"); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232. 236. 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very remote an

criminate him because one of his employees, Sarah Kellen, is identified in the Complaint. (Defendant Memo

that Plaintiff's interrogatories requesting that he identify employees may lead to evidence tending to incriminate him because one of his employees, Sarah Kellen, is identified in the Complaint. (Defendant Memorandum (DE 56), p. 18). This does not, however, support a blanket refusal to answer on Fifth Amendm

s for which he cannot realistically or genuinely be expected to be charged with a crime are not subject to Fifth Amendment protection. See Krause'. Rhodes, 390 F.Supp 1070, 1071-72 (N.D. Ohio 1974) (allowing questions to be asked regarding personal backgrounds and experiences excluding the event at iss

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

.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations"); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very remote an

, including Plaintiff, Jane Doe, to engage in prostitution... ;" ale Amended Complaint at 133(a) (b) ". . . conspir(ind with others known (such as Sarah Kellen) and unknown to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with minors, including Plaintiff Jane Doe, as d

. . conspir(ind with others known (such as Sarah Kellen) and unknown to travel in interstate commerce fo

d.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(bX6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations"); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very remote an

egations, to wit, a scheme and plan of sexual misconduct carried out at Epstein's various residences, and that at least one of Epstein's employees, Sarah Kellen, is alleged to have aided Epstein in his alleged sexual exploitation, then it is entirely reasonable for Epstein to assert that forcing him to testi

that at least one of Epstein's employees, Sarah Kellen, is alleged to have aided Epstein in his alleged

for which he cannot realistically or genuinely be expected to be charged with a crime are not subject to Fifth Amendment protection. See Krause v. Rhodes, 390 F.Supp. 1070, 1071-72 (N.D. Ohio 1974). In summary, Epstein has failed to sustain his burden of making a particularized showing to support his