Epstein Secrets

e statutory provision," not by outside objectives, such as those facilitating successful prosecution. See Cuellar, supra, Slip op. at 7. As Justice Alito stated in his concurring opinion, the government must prove not just the "effect" of the secretive transportation, but also that "petitioner knew th

er in the former firm of Herman, , & Mermelstein, filed five lawsuits, each asking for $50 million, against Mr. Epstein. Each lawsuit is entitled "Jane Doe # vs. Jeffrey Epstein," despite the fact that each of the plaintiffs is an adult and not entitled to plead anonymously. See Tab 32, Examples of Feder

ving one of these effects was a design (i.e. purpose) of the transportation" of currency. Cuellar v. United States, supra, 553 U.S., Slip op. At I (Alito, J. concurring). Similarly, it is not enough that one effect of a communication scheduling a visit between Mr. Epstein and a minor was that there mi

the formcr firm of Herman, Sloman, & Mermelstein, filed five lawsuits, each asking for $50 million, against Mr. Epstein. Each lawsuit is entitled "Jane Doe # vs. 'effigy Epstein" despite the fact that each of the plaintiffs is an adult and not entitled to plead anonymously. See Tab 32, Examples of Federa

TES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S REPLY TO INTERVENOR EPSTEIN'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED REMEDIES Bradley J. Edwards Edwards Pottinger LP 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite

of all relevant circumstances, it is important to understand the very limited reference the victims made to Epstein's NPA in their civil lawsuits. Jane Doe I and 2 filed their civil lawsuits in about September 2008, only after their CVRA petition had been filed — and had succeeded in forcing the USAO- SDF

Rather, federal courts sit `solely, to decide on the rights of individuals.'" Hein v. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 598 (2007) (Alito, J.) (citing Marbwy v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 170, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)). Epstein does not have a "right" to separation of powers. Second, as discuss

TES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S REPLY TO INTERVENOR EPSTEIN'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED REMEDIES Bradley J. Edwards Edwards Pottin er LP Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice T

also extends to "Other Potential Defendants," defined as any "other person or entity would could have been included as a potential defendant" in the Jane Does lawsuit alleging sex abuse. Obviously, the United States was a not sex abuser and could not have been included in the lawsuit against Epstein. 42

Rather, federal courts sit `solely, to decide on the rights of individuals.'" Hein v. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 598 (2007) (Alito, J.) (citing Marbwy v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 170, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)). Epstein does not have a "right" to separation of powers. Second, as discuss

d & Ellis. And while Acosta had a sterling résumé, which included a stint leal that Krischer had offered to clerking for future Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito, he had Now the grand jury was recom- FF only argued two cases before a judge. zed with just one felony count of 4 At the time, Reiter did not know

e. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010532 --- PAGE BREAK --- James PATTERSON In the meantime, Epstein began to settle out of court with his victims. In Februar Jane Doe #2 brought a fifty-million-dollar lawsuit against Epstein. At the time of their meeting, she claimed, Epstein was fifty-two years old. She was a tee

ive statutory provision,” not by outside objectives, such as those facilitating successful prosecution. See Cuellar, supra, Slip op. at 7. As Justice Alito stated in his concurring opinion, the government must prove not just the “effect” of the secretive transportation, but also that “petitioner knew tha

in the former firm of Herman, Sloman, & Mermelstein, filed five lawsuits, each asking for $50 million, against Mr. Epstein. Each lawsuit is entitled “Jane Doe # vs. Jeffrey Epstein,” despite the fact that each of the plaintiffs is an adult and not entitled to plead anonymously. See Tab 32, Examples of Feder