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

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down before October 1, 1981. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 5 of 17 various non-party sou

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON C.M.A., Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants. PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S, MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

M.A., Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants. PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE

mplaint Page 4 of 18 of the predicate federal criminal statutes. The underlying approach to statutory construction was succinctly set forth in the Fifth Circuit decision in Hammers v. Internal Revenue Service, 988 F.2d 32 (51h Cir. 1993): The sole purpose of statutory construction, including, when appropri

ree computers were his private papers. As set forth in the Recarey Declaration, one of the computers was in an area that appears to be the office of Sarah Kellen and another was in the pool cabana. 4. The act of production doctrine would not have protected Epstein from producing the computers if they had rem

n an area that appears to be the office of Sarah Kellen and another was in the pool cabana. 4. The act o

ury. UIn Bonner1 City of Prichard , 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) ( en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as precedent all decisions of the prior Fifth Circuit court of Appeals decided prior to October 1, 1981. FIThe Supreme Court called this "a novelty in criminal procedure with which we are wholly unacqu

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

ard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en bane), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October I, 1981. 9 Lewis Tein n. 3059 GRAND AVINUI. Suits 340, Cocoma Won, CIORIOA 33133 9o33,6 EFTA00234232 Case 9:08-cv-80

to so participate, through a pattern of criminal activity in violation of Florida Statutes §772.103(3)-(4). 42. Defendants, Jeffrey Epstein's and Sarah Kellen's enterprise included, at a minimum, a group of individuals associated in fact to assist Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, in recruiting and procuring mino

z. r 1 1-1 2O - z) JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, C N Lc; •74 > -41, 1 n -< 73 i Defendants

r v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981). 24 EFTA00799518 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 26 of 101

to so participate, through a pattern of criminal activity in violation of Florida Statutes §772.103(3)-(4). 42. Defendants, Jeffrey Epstein's and Sarah Kellen's enterprise included, at a minimum, a group of individuals associated in fact to assist Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, in recruiting and procuring mino

z. r 1 1-1 2O - z) JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, C N Lc; •74 > -41, 1 n -< 73 i Defendants

r v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981). 24 EFTA00795194 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 26 of 101

to so participate, through a pattern of criminal activity in violation of Florida Statutes §772.103(3)-(4). 42. Defendants, Jeffrey Epstein's and Sarah Kellen's enterprise included, at a minimum, a group of individuals associated in fact to assist Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, in recruiting and procuring mino

B AD Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants. . 91 c. C AMENDED COMPLAINT 61

r v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981). 24 EFTA00081039 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 26 of 101

United States hereby opposes Epstein's motion and moves for an order to compel the appearance of witnesses and production of the requested items. 'Sarah is one of Epstein's personal assistants. -5- EFTA00179104 ARGUMENT I. THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT OPPOSE THE MOTION TO INTERVENE, IN PART. The

974 'In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en bane), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as precedent all decisions of the prior Fifth Circuit court of Appeals decided prior to October 1, 1981. -8- EFTA00179107 F.2d 127 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v. White, 950 F.2d 426, 430 (7th Cir.

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

ard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en bane), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981. 9 Lewh:Fein n. 3059 CUPID AWNIJI, Syllt 340. Cocowl GROW, flow 33131 9 01316 EFTA00180361 Case 9:08-cv-8080

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

ard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en bane), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981. 9 LeNyiA,Tyin 3059 GPM° AVTOPX. Swig 340, COCOINI 69091, halm 33133 9 91310 EFTA00180415 Case 9:08-cv-80804