Epstein Secrets

ct of Florida and is a member in good standing of the bars of the State of Connecticut and District of Columbia, and is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Seventh Circuit, Ninth Circuit, District of Columbia Circuit, and Federal Circuit, and

lorida; and (2) I am a member in good standing of the bars of the State of Connecticut and District of Columbia, and am admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Seventh Circuit, Ninth Circuit, District of Columbia Circuit, and Federal Circuit, and

RECEIVE NOTICES OF ELECTRONIC FILINGS In accordance with Local Rule 4.13 of the Special Rules Governing the Admission and Practice of Attorneys of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the undersigned respectfully moves for the admission of Michael D. Shumsky, of the law firm of Kirkland & Ell

trict of Florida and is a member in good standing of the bars of the State of New York and District of Columbia, and is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Second Circuit, Fourth Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Eighth Circuit, Ninth Cir

f Florida; and (2) I am a member in good standing of the bars of the State of New York and District of Columbia, and am admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Second Circuit, Fourth Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Eighth Circuit, Ninth Cir

ritton Luther & Coleman, P.A. 515 N. Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Bei Telephone: Facsimile: Attorney for ant Jet Epstein EFTA00728156 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Jane Doe 101, Plaintiff, vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Defendant. CERTIFICATION OF JAY P. LEFK

tatute in effect at the time of the alleged criminal conduct applies. As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,9 9 In Landaraf the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before the e

te, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos supra, at 2025: 3 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed

the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives h

ion testimony. An analogy can be made to cases involving impermissibly suggestive showups.3 See e.g. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972). In Neil, the United States Supreme Court, addressing suggestive showups, noted that the primary evil to be avoided is a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." Id. a

ein's Fifth Amendment concerns are not unwarranted. In a federal companion case, Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, Case No. 08- CIV-80119 MARRA/JOHNSON, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, United States Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson found, "pin 2008, Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agr

2009 FILED CLERK'S OFFICE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION GENERAL ORDER AMENDING FILING DEADLINES On March 26, 2009, the United States Supreme Court approved revisions to federal court procedural rules, inter alia, changing the method by which time is calculated in the federal courts to multiple

CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO-3) Jan 07, 2010 FILED CLERK'S OFFICE MDL No. 1963 On August 18, 2008, the Panel transferred one civil action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See 572 F.Supp.2d 1377 (J.

e, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed

nt be followed and fulfilled. Your truly, MARTIN WEINBERG, ESQ. ROY SACK, ESQ. /wg By Black. Srebnick. Kornspan & Stumpf. I'.A. EFTA00207723 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 10-80309-CIV- JANE DOE No. 103, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFERY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO

e, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed

nt be followed and fulfilled. Your truly, MARTIN WEINBERG, ESQ. ROY LACK, ESQ. /wg By Black. Srebnick. Kornspan & Stumpf. I'.A. EFTA00213247 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 10-80309-CIV- JANE DOE No. 103, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFERY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO

7. Corte 4w4$9(2) The state courts are the final arbiters of the meaning and appropriate application of state statutes, subject only to review by the United States Supreme Court if such construction or application is appropriately challenged on constitutional grounds. & Coons itio508(7) Interference with the process of th

of California, Appel. ken. Mime. Nos. 895, 596. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. Nov. 5, 1958. Accused, who had been indicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for alleged- t mailing circulars in violation of the o.ne Mail Statute, and who had been arrested on the indi

ssentials of prison life. D. Litigation challenging conditions of detention at ADX Florence 110. In Sattar v. Gonzales 2009 WL 606115 (D.Colo.2009) the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed a challenge to conditions of detention at ADX Florence and to the imposition of special administrative measu

ce had been served. Additionally, any defendant had a statutory right of appeal against sentence to a federal court of appeals and, though rare, to the United States Supreme Court. He could also seek review of the sentencing by the trial judge within one year of the sentence being passed. 132. The Department of Justice's let