Epstein Secrets

n direct evidence, and, in some cases is even more reliable."' United States v. Ranum, 96 F.3d 1020, 1026 (7th Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. Hatchett, 31 F.3d 1411, 1421 (7th Cir. 1994 )). For all these reasons, the Court should conclude that Epstein is fraudulently transferring assets. 11 C

, Defendant I ------------- CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/JOHNSON PLAINTIFF, JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTION RESTRAINING FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF ASSETS, APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE CHARGE OF PROPERTY OF EPSTEIN, AND TO POST A $15

n direct evidence, and, in some cases is even more reliable.'" United States v. Ranum, 96 F.3d 1020, 1026 (7th Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. Hatchett, 31 F.3d 1411, 1421 (7th Cir. 1994)). For all these reasons, the Court should conclude that Epstein is fraudulently transferring assets. 11 EFTA

iff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant JANE DOE NO. 102, CASE NO: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant PLAINTIFF, JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTION RESTRAINING FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF ASSETS, APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE CHARGE OF PROPERTY OF EPSTEIN, AND TO POST A $15

d that we use retired llth Circuit Judge Joseph Hatchett instead of Judge Davis because of Judge Davis's heaith problems. (No one has contacted Judge Hatchett yet, but one of the District Judges in Miami mentioned him as a good choice.) I am available for a conference call between 9:00 and 10:00, and betwe

012635 TAB 32 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012636 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 20069 " JANE DOE NO. 1, by and through JANE DOE’s FATHER as parent and natural guardian, and JANE DOR’s FATHER, and . . JANE DOE’s STEPMOTHER, individually, ciV-MA RRA Plaintiffs, MAGISTRATE JUDGH

preclusion of all documents and discussion of the Jane Doe 102 case, including the settlement of those claim

7, 1998)... 25 United States v. Dukes, 727 F.2d 34, 37 (2d Cir. 1984) oo. ceiceeccssseeseceseesseeeseesseeeeecseessaeeseeesneeees 17 United States v. Hatchett, 918 F.2d 631, 641 (6th Cir, 1990) oo. eee ceeeesseeseeeseeeseeeseesseeeseeenaeeees 22 United States v. Lujan, No. 05—CR-924 (RB) (D.N.M. Mar. 25, 20

ceceseccecusececusseccsssecesssseescsseeeceseesenssseeestsssessnsaseess 25 17. The Parties agree to preclusion of all documents and discussion of the Jane Doe 102 case, including the settlement of those claims (Motion in Limine 17) ................0005 26 18. The Cassell/Edwards v. Dershowitz litigation is

7, 1998)... 25 United States v. Dukes, 727 F.2d 34, 37 (2d Cir. 1984) o.oo ccecccecccccccceccceesccessscssseecneeeesstecsseeenees 17 United States v. Hatchett, 918 F.2d 631, 641 (6th Cir. 1990) oo... cccccc cee ceececeeeeeseeessesenees 22 United States v. Lujan, No. 05—CR—-924 (RB) (D.N.M. Mar. 25, 2011) ..