rn District of Florida and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that has been called to testify and to provide other information before the United States District Court, the Southern District of Florida, including a grand jury impaneled therein. And number two, that in a judgment of the said United States Attorne

rn District of Florida and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that has been called to testify and to provide other information before the United States District Court, the Southern District of Florida, including a grand jury impaneled therein. And number two, that in a judgment of the said United States Attorne

rn District of Florida and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that has been called to testify and to provide other information before the United States District Court, the Southern District of Florida, including a grand jury impaneled therein. And number two, that in a judgment of the said United States Attorne

the premises. As the Court has previously explained to the parties, the Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida state that “proceedings in the United States District Court are public and Court filings are matters of public record.” S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.4(A). It is well settled that the media and the public in general poss

ritton, Luttier, & Coleman, 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401, is a member in good standing of The Florida Bar and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and represents the Defendant in this matter. 4. Martin G. Weinberg, has served as one of JEFFREY EPSTEIN's a

ritton, Luttier, & Coleman, 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401, is a member in good standing of The Florida Bar and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and represents the Defendant in this matter. 4. Martin G. Weinberg, has served as one of JEFFREY EPSTEIN's a

4 C.M.A.’s Conditional Notice of Intent to Rely Exclusively on Statutory Damages (D.E. #216). For the following reasons said Motion is deferred to the United States District Court as the undersigned is without authority to grant the relief sought. The Response in Opposition, filed as part of the Motion, shall be considered by

extension of time until August 7, 2009, to file a response to Epstein’s Motion to Strike C.M.A.’s Conditional Notice of Intent to Rely is DEFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, as the undersigned is without authority to rule on same. DONE AND ORDERED this August 4, 2009, in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, Florida.

hat portion of the Motion which seeks an order striking C.M.A.’s Conditional Notice of Intent to Rely Exclusively on Statutory Damages is deferred to the United States District Court, as the undersigned is without authority to grant the relief sought. The Response in Opposition, filed as part of the Motion, shall be considered by

extension of time until August 7, 2009, to file a response to Epstein’s Motion to Strike C.M.A.’s Conditional Notice of Intent to Rely is DEFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, as the undersigned is without authority to rule on same. DONE AND ORDERED this August 10, 2009, in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, Florida.

nce] has been issued by the Court." [DE# 414]. In the meantime, on November 10, 2009, RRA had been put into an involuntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. RRA's Chapter 11 bankruptcy case is still pending as In re: Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A., Case No. 09-347

uit under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, they must agree to waive any other claim for damages. As part of the NPA, Epstein would not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court and waived his right to contest liability and damages. (NPA, DE 361-62.) Among other provisions, the NPA expanded immunity to any "potential cocons

instructions from Peters and Peters Solicitors LLP I dated 12 August 2020 in the context of bail proceedings relating to Ms Ghislaine Maxwell before the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Subsequent instructions have confirmed that Ms Maxwell will execute a waiver of her right to extradition that could

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 end/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives h

y_Clerk.pdf Ms. I'm reaching out regarding the attached subpoena, which was served on your office in connection with an upcoming criminal trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. I understand there have been some questions regarding compliance. Could you please let me know your availabil

the individuals referred to [in the paragraphs above] 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 hi

the individuals referred to [in the paragraphs above] 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 hi

you elect to file suit against [Defendant] pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, [Defendant] 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 [Defendant] waives his right to contest liability and also waiv

ent, wherein Epstein agreed that if any identified victim elects to file suit pursuant to 18 USC 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 . . ." At this po

the premises. As the Court has previously explained to the parties, the Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida state that "proceedings in the United States District Court are public and Court filings are matters of public record." S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.4(A). It is well settled that the media and the public in general poss

uant to Exemption 7(E). WITHHOLDING OF DOCUMENTS UNDER A SEALED COURT ORDER (119) The FBI has withheld 38 pages in full per a Court Order issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Case Number 08-mj-08068-LRJ. The FBI searched for any unsealing order in the Public Access to Court Electron

nks/attachments. I'm reaching out regarding the attached subpoena, which was served on your office in connection with an upcoming criminal trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. I understand there have been some questions regarding compliance. Could you please let me know your availabil