r to Take Charge of Properly of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe I. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint

r to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint

ages in order to property preserve all issues pertaining to the proper application of §2255 for appeal. See C.MA. v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CIV-80811 Marra/Johnson; and Jane Doe II v. Epstein, Case No. 09-CW-80489 Marra/Johnson. EFTA00207698 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 128 Entered on FLSD Docket 03 05 20

E NO. 5 (Case No. 08-CV-80381-Marra/Johnson). Defendant is also filing similar motions in the actions filed by JANE DOE NO. 6 (Case No. 08-CV-80994- Marra/Johnson), and JANE DOE NO. 7 (Case No. 08-CV-80993-Hurley/Hopkins). The motions are directed to the Counts for Count I - "Sexual Assault and Battery," andCo

l Release ("Settlement Agreement") in order to resolve the pending litigation (the "Litigation") between them as follows: 1. Case No. 09-CV-80591—Marra/Johnson. The Parties agree to immediately dismiss the pending lawsuit presently styled Jane Doe No. 101 vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 09-CV-80591 — Marra/J

Release ("Settlement Agreement") in order to resolve the pending litigation (the "Litigation") between them as follows: 1. Case No. 09-CV-80656— Marra/Johnson. The Parties agree to immediately dismiss the pending lawsuit presently styled Jane Doe No. 102 vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 09-CV-80656 — Marra/J

er to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint

ds already had been prosecuting against Epstein on behalf of that same plaintiff for the better part of a year. See LM v. Jeffrey Epstein, 09-81092 Marra/Johnson; Deposition Transcript of Jeffrey Epstein, p. 23; line 4-p. 38; line 22. The federal complaint, signed by Edwards, himself, was filed in federal cou

records was to obtain them for use in a separately filed Criminal Victims Rights Act (CVRA) suit, Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2, Case No. 08-80736-CIV, Marra/Johnson, which was brought for several purposes, including invalidating the /Non-Prosecution) Agreement . . . Amended Complaint at paragraph 29(4) (emphasi

records was to obtain them for use in a separately filed Criminal Victims Rights Act (CVRA) suit, Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2, Case No. 08-80736-CIV, Marra/Johnson, which was brought for several purposes, including invalidating the /Nor-Prosecution/Agreement Agreement... Amended Complaint at paragraph 29(4) (e

er to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, In Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint

er to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint

r to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint

records was to obtain them for use in a separately filed Crime Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA") suit, Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2, Case No. 08-80736-CIV, Marra/Johnson which was brought for several purposes, including invalidating the [Non-Prosecution] Agreement . . . (Emphasis added). Despite now expressly acknow

egations in depositions and other court filings. (See, e.g., Jane Doei Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen, Court File No. 08-80804-Civ- Marra/Johnson, DEl at 44-52.) 42 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000861 EFTA00230685 fmney,'" Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 4

egations in depositions and other court filings. (See, e.g., Jane Doe' Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen, Court File No. 08-80804-Civ- Marra/Johnson, DEl at 44-52.) 42 EFTA00177092 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 43 of 54 Petitioners' allegations pro

er to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe I pstein, Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint

ver to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint

er to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint