Epstein Secrets

A. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-202-6360 Fax: 561-828-0983 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Ricci-Leopold, P.A. 2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 561-684-6500 Fax:

brucereinhartlaw.com Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq

65 U.S., at 613, and n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1237; Fisher, 425 U.S., at 409-410, 96 S.Ct. 1569; id., at 428, 432, 96 S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States, (487 U.S.,] at Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 151 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 7 of 11 Doe 101 v. Epstein Page

U.S.C. §2422, along with pre-2006 amended text. See Exhibit B hereto - copy of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff also alleges that "Sarah Kellen, Epstein's assistant" was a part of "Epstein's plan and scheme (which) reflected a particular pattern and method" in the alleged recruiting of girl

ed Complaint. Plaintiff also alleges that "Sarah Kellen, Epstein's assistant" was a part of "Epstein's p

65 U.S., at 613, and n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1237; Fisher, 425 U.S., at 409-410, 96 S.Ct. 1569; id., at 428, 432, 96 S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States, [487 U.S.,) at 104, 108 S.Ct. 2284; [ id.,] at 122, 108 S.Ct. 2284 (dissenting opinion). Thus, the Court made clear that the Fift

stein Page 11 Bruce Reinhart, Esq. Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Ricci-Leopold, P.A. 2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Counsel for Plainti

Palm Beach, FL 33401 Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq

465 U.S., at 613, and n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1237; Fisher, 425 U.S., at 409-410, 96 S.Ct. 1569; id, at 428. 432, 96 S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States, 1487 U.S.,I at EFTA00221594 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 151 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 7 of 11 Doe 101 v. Ep

U.S.C. §2422, along with pre-2006 amended text. See Exhibit B hereto - copy of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff also alleges that "Sarah Kellen, Epstein's assistant" was a part of "Epstein's plan and scheme (which) reflected a particular pattern and method" in the alleged recruiting of girl

ed Complaint. Plaintiff also alleges that "Sarah Kellen, Epstein's assistant" was a part of "Epstein's p

465 U.S., at 613, and n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 123T Fisher, 425 U.S., at 409-410, 96 S.Ct. 1569; id., at 428, 432, 96 S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States, 1487 U.S..'! at 104, 108 S.Ct. 2284; J id.,1 at 122, 108 S.Ct. 2284 (dissenting opinion). Thus, the Court made clear that the Fif

No. 2 v. Epstein Page 15 Request No. 15. Any and all documents consisting of, referring or relating to communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen, including, but not limited to, letters, notes, text messages, messages on social networking sites, and e-mails. Response: Defendant is asserting

communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen, including, but not limited to, letters, notes,

465 U.S., at 613. and n. 11. 104 S.Ct. 1237; Fisher. 425 U.S., at 409-410. 96 S.Ct. 1569; id. at 428. 432. 96 S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States. [487 U.S..1 at 104, 108 S.Ct. 2284; J id.] at 122. 108 S.Ct. 2284 (dissenting opinion). Thus, the Court made clear that the Fifth

! !24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON C.M. A., Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants, Defendant. Jeffrey Epstein's Motion To Stay And Or Continue Action For Time Certain Based On Parallel Civil And Criminal Proceedinas

. A., Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants, Defendant. Jeffrey Epstein's Motio

30 causesabeftemenmisn R9seurniitilit51712 EngigMergrl-PPRP098(PkWago9 PatoRN 4 #24 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 11 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States. 1487 U.S.,1 at 104. 108 S.Ct. 2284; f id..I at 122. 108 S.Ct. 2284 (dissenting opinion). Thus, the Court made clear that the Fift

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

the evidence it pro- poses to use is derived from a legitimate source wholly independent" of the testimo- ny given under the grant of immunity. See Braswell v. United States, — US. —, 108 S.Ct. 2284, 2295, 101 LEd.2d 98 (1988); Kastigar, 406 U.S. at 460, 92 S.Ct at 1666. See also Murphy v. Waterfront C