Epstein Secrets

to Palm Beach County, Florida, aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. (215) On or about February 24, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, SARAH ICELLEN, and traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida, aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (216) On or ab

Section 853. If the property described above as being subject to forfeiture, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, SARAH a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska," and (1) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; (2) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with a

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

tion of the Petite Policy, it was a clear violation of well-settled law mandating that registration cannot be used as a form of punishment. Kansas' Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 362 (1997); Johnson' State, 795 So.2d 82, 87 (Fla. App. 5th Dist. 2000) ("Analogous to the cited Federal cases, the legislative inten

ach. Once at the mansion, Jane was introduced to Sarah Kellen, who led her up a flight of stairs to the room w

nce at the mansion, Jane was introduced to Sarah Kellen, who led her up a flight of stairs to the room w

urt, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 355, at 360, citing Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 360-61 (1997). The effect of appl

13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 2 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein. et al. Page 2 50 2008CA020614 MBAF, Jane Doe II v. Jeffrey Epstein, and Sarah Kellen, (hereinafter "state action"). In attempting to allege a claim under 18 U.S.C. §2255, Plaintiff improperly relies on the §2255, as amended, effect

ENDNOTES: 1 In paragraph 11 of her Complaint, Jane Doe II alleges that — "From about June, 2003 until about February, 2005, Defendants, EPSTEIN and KELLEN persuaded, induced, or EFTA00222839 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 28 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein,

ex post facto clause is implicated." See generally, Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland v. Superior Court 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 355, at 360, citing Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 360-61 (1997). The effect of applying the 2006 version of §2255 would be to triple the amount of the presumptive minimum damages to