Epstein Secrets

ric examination in C.M.A. v. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen (Case No. 08- CIV -80811 ), as to time, subject m

xamination in C.M.A. v. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen (Case No. 08- CIV -80811 ), as to time, subject m

aintiffs generally rely on treatise material from Wright & Miller, 8 Federal Practice & Procedure Civ.2d, §2041, a

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

ht to relief above the speculative level, see 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 4 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed.2004) (hereinafter Wright & Miller) ("[T]he pleading must contain something more ... than ... a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of

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

ht to relief above the speculative level, see 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed.2004) (hereinafter Wright & Miller) ("[T]he pleading must contain something more ... than ... a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right 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

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2008 Page 4 of 10 Case No. CV-80119-Marra-Johnson Page No. 4 Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed.2004) (hereinafter Wright & Miller) ("[T]he pleading must contain something more ... than ... a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of

, 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

ht to relief above the speculative level, see 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed.2004) (hereinafter Wright & Miller) ("Mlle pleading must contain something more ... than ... a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [ofj a legally cognizable right of a

r of Epstein, including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adrian Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova.

victims, the NPA granted federal immunity not only to Epstein, but also to "any potential co-conspirator of Epstein, including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adrian Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova." It is only because the victims filed this lawsuit, and the District Court ordered the NPA be pro

t an independent grant of appellate jurisdiction" but, rather, "'may go only in aid of appellate jurisdiction' that exists on some other basis." 16 Wright & Miller, supra, § 3932 (quoting Parr v. United States, 351 U.S. 513, 520, 76 S.Ct. 912, 100 L.Ed. 1377 (1956)). The "minimum condition" for mandamus relief

ourt inspect the documents in camera in order to assess whether, in fact, continued closure is proper. 3 See, e.g.. "Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen's Motion for Stay," C.M.A. v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80811 (S.D. Fla. July 25, 2008) (filed publicly Jan. 7, 2009). 09/12/2079 CONFIDENTIAL Agency to

See, e.g.. "Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen's Motion for Stay," C.M.A. v. Epstein, Case No.

to prevent the Defendant from being present in the room where the Plaintiffs arc being deposed, Plaintiffs generally rely on treatise material from Wright & Miller, 8 asicral Practice & ?Paco:lure Civ.2d, §2041, and cases cited therein. The case of Gaella v. OnaSsis, 487 F.2d 986, at 997 (2d CG. 1973). cited by

d on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 8 of 8 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-202-6360 Fax: 561-828-0983 ecfObrucereinhartlaw.com Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Leopold-Kuvin, 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

to prevent the Defendant from being present in the room where the Plaintiffs are being deposed, Plaintiffs generally rely on treatise material from Wright & Miller, 8 Federal Practice & Procedure Civ.2d, §2041, and cases cited therein. The case of Oaella v. Onassis 487 F.2d 986, at 997 (2d Cr. 1973), cited by