E_OVERSIGHT_012636 --- PAGE BREAK --- 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

BREAK --- COUNT fi Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 21. Plaintiffs Jane Doe by and through her Father, as parent and natural guardian, Jane Doe’s Father and Jane Doe’s Stepmother, individually, repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 16 above, . 22. Epstein’s conduct was intentional or reck

ons, . this tape: is the only: way that Jane Doe can: ‘put Epstein’ sown perceptions of what - a he has. done‘before the j jury and the only way that Jane. Doe’ can. put Epstein’ s.admissions and statement oe Msi amnnetatm op ef og ‘before, the jury.. As even: a quick: perusal of. the 1 more. ‘than 500 ent

, 000-in: BANBEES Therefore, ‘the terms. of the NPA ad to pei Jane Doe from using the NPA to prove liability. . 5. - Epstein has filed an answer to. ‘Jane Doe’ s complaint, in witch he has invoked his Fifth Amendment right to silence with respect to the allegations that he molested. her asa child. Epstein ha

sations about Prof. Dershowitz until a month ago, even though the alleged transgressions supposedly occurred some fifteen years ago. Although neither Jane Doe #3 nor anyone else had previously asserted any improper sexual contact with Prof. Dershowitz, now Jane Doe #3 cynically exploits the yoke of victimhoo

January 2nd, 2015 statement, we have a contemporaneous document drafted by her that was produced in discovery a year ago. None of it refers to the Jane Doe 102 complaint, none of it refers to the CVRA joinder motion. None of it. It refers simply to press allegations that have been floating around about

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

ot attend the state court proceedings. 45 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011956 --- PAGE BREAK --- On July 7, 2008, Edwards and I filed a petition alleging that Jane Doe No. 1 was a victim of federal sex crimes committed by Epstein and that the United States had wrongfully excluded her from plea negotiations. We also

FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 2 of 34 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 9:08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES / JANE DOE NO. 1 AND JANE DOE NO. 2’S RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LMITED INTERVENTION BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ

e difference between absolute and relative income. Absolute income is measured using one holy and inalterable variable: the raw and almighty dollar. Jane Doe makes $100,000 per year and is thus twice as rich as John Doe, who makes $50,000 per year. Relative income uses two variables: the dollar and time,

dence between the defense team and federal prosecutors who hammered out a nonprosecution agreement. The two women identified in court papers only as Jane Doe | and Jane Doe 2 say the agreement should be invalidated because they were not adequately informed of the plan not to file federal charges against Ep

ards filed a civil sot against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of L.M. See Complaint, LM. v. Epstein, (Exhibit “V”). 3 47. Jane Doe’s federal complaint indicated that she sought damages of more than $50,000,000. Listing the amount of damages sought in the complaint was in accord wit

ng a nonprosecution agreement with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein without notifying his victims. Attorneys Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, representing Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, want a court hearing, where they will ask that the agreement be invalidated because, they say, the victims’ rights were violated.

stein's assistants, where he would ask the girl to perform massages and/or various sex acts, for which he would pay her. One victim, who is known as Jane Doe #5 in a federal court lawsuit against Epstein, said she didn't find out about the deal until after it was finalized. She was 15 at the time one of he

The British press has been having a field day digging up new details about Epstein’s friendship with Prince Andrew. Virginia Roberts — known only as Jane Doe 102 in court papers — has been dishing her story to London’s Daily Mail. Details include Roberts having been in the company of the prince three times

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

tered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2015 Page 2 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, VS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. / DECLARATION OF 1. My name is RR and 1 was born in August, 1983. Ds I am currently 31

cult for victims to discover after the fact that potential criminal charges against a criminal who has abused them have been secretly bargained away. Jane Doe Number One and Jane Doe Number Two, for example, were outraged when they discovered prosecutors had entered into an agreement blocking any prosecutio

rds filed a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of L.M. See Complaint, L.M. v. Epstein, (Exhibit “V”’). 47. Jane Doe’s federal complaint indicated that she sought damages of more than $50,000,000. Listing the amount of damages sought in the complaint was in accord wit

to trial. She was just 15 years old when she was drawn into Epstein’s exploitative world in 1998. In her civil writ against him, under the pseudonym Jane Doe 102’ she alleged that her duties included being ‘sexually exploited by Epstein’s adult male peers including royalty’. Now, horrified by the evidence

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

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