016.pdf

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

M.J.,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and
SARAH KELLEN,
Defendants.
_________________________________/

CASE NO. 9:10-CV-81111-WPD

M.J.’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER BARRING DIRECT OR INDIRECT
CONTACT BY EPSTEIN

COMES NOW M.J. to ask for a protective order, barring direct or indirect contact
by Epstein (including any contact by “private investigators”) unless first approved by the
Court after notice to and a hearing with M.J.. Epstein is a registered sex offender, who
should not have contact with any of the victims of his sexual assaults – including M.J..
Moreover, in a prior court case quite similar to M.J.’s, Epstein has directly harassed
victims of his abuse through the device of sending “private investigators” to do his
harassment. Accordingly, the Court should forbid any such direct or indirect contact
without prior approval of the Court.

BACKGROUND
Previous Protective Orders
Epstein has pled guilty to state sex charges on June 30, 2008. When he pled
guilty before Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo, she ordered
Epstein “not to have any contact, direct or indirect” with any victims. She also expressly
stated that her no-contact order applied to “all of the victims.” The relevant transcripts
are attached as Exhibit 1.

To avoid any uncertainty about the scope of this state court order, several of the
plaintiff/victims with other suits pending against Epstein before this Court filed a motion
for an order prohibiting defendant or his agents from communicating with them directly
or indirectly. (Case No. 9:08-cv-80119, DE 113.) Exhibit 2. Epstein opposed these
requests as “needless, unwarranted and excessive.” DE 127 at 5. Exhibit 3 This
Court, however, firmly overruled Epstein’s objections. On July 31, 2009, this Court
(Marra, J.) entered its own no-contact order (in addition to the state court order), ruling:

In light of Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s motion for no contact order,
suggesting that the state court’s order only applies to some victims and
that parties are always allowed to contact each other directly, the Court
finds it necessary to state clearly that Defendant is under this court’s order
not to have direct or indirect contact with any plaintiffs, regardless of the
intended scope of the state court court’s order.

Order, Case No. 9:08-cv-80119, DE 238, at 4-5 (emphasis added). Exhibit 4

As one of the victim’s (Jane Doe’s) case approached trial, this Court ordered
Jane Doe to attend a settlement conference on July 6, 2010. Jane Doe had concerns
that the upcoming settlement conference, demanded by Epstein, was going to be used
to harass and intimidate her. See Plaintiff Jane Doe’s Motion for Modification of
Magistrate Judge Palermo’s Order Schedule settlement Conference, Case No. 9:08-cv-
80893, DE 187. Exhibit 5. After a response from Epstein (DE 191), the Court modified
its order regarding the settlement conference to avoid harassment of Jane Doe.
Significantly, in the final paragraph, the Court (Palermo, J.), starkly commanded:

The parties are instructed not to communicate, speak or harass one
another in any way. Any violation of this Order will not be tolerated. The
parties are instructed to GOVERN THEMSELVES ACCORDINGLY.

Case no. 9:08-cv-80893, DE 193 at 2 (italic added, capitalization in original). Exhibit 6

Intimidating Activities Against Jane Doe on the Evening of July 1, 2010
In spite of three court orders forbidding contact and harassment of victims –
including Jane Doe, the plaintiff in case No. 9:08-cv-80893 -- Epstein showed his
unwillingness to follow the rules. On the evening of July 1, 2010, sometime after the
issuance of Judge Palermo’s order, Jane Doe left her house to go to the store and
noticed a car (Infiniti SUV, license tag T-KNOLZ) following her everywhere she went.
Feeling frightened, she pulled into a driveway in a nearby neighborhood at one point to
allow the car to proceed past her, but the car pulled into the neighborhood and stopped
nearby. It was clear the person in the car was following her and was intentionally
making his presence known. Jane Doe pulled out of the driveway and headed home,
with this other car tailing close behind. Once Jane Doe arrived to her house, she went
inside and the person following in the Infiniti parked across the street outside her home.
Jane Doe called her attorney expressing her fear and asking what could be done to
protect her. She observed that the car kept creeping closer to her home every once in
awhile.

This intimidation of Jane Doe was so serious that, alerted by Jane Doe’s counsel,
a retired police officer called the police. The police responded to Jane Doe’s home and
confronted the man in the car. The man told the police that he was “private
investigator.” However he would not tell the police who had hired him, only that he was
hired to “watch” Jane Doe. The name of the investigator appears to be Thaddeus
Knowles. The police reported these facts to Jane Doe, but advised her that they did not
have a legal basis to order him to leave the public street.

Counsel for Jane Doe then arranged for the retired police officer to go to Jane
Doe’s home. This retired officer arrived at Jane Doe’s home at approximately 10 p.m.
He immediately saw a car parked 25 feet from Jane Doe’s home, facing her home. He
also observed the purported “private investigator” in the car intermittently flashing his
high beam lights into Jane Doe’s home. The investigator was also intermittently
attempting to videotape anyone inside the home. The retired police officer took
videotapes of the investigator lighting up the interior of the home with his high beam
lights, and also took photographs of this harassing action as well. The videotape and
photographs could be provided quickly to the Court upon request.

After consulting with Jane Doe, the retired police officer determined that Jane
Doe felt like a prisoner in her own home and that she believed her physical safety was
threatened if she remained there. She further believed that this intimidation was being
orchestrated by defendant Epstein. Jane Doe was not involved in other litigation and is
not aware of any other person who would want to do something like this to her. Also, in
the previous 48 hours, Jane Doe had received telephone calls from two ex-boyfriends
that investigators were at their homes, knocking on their doors and trying to talk to them
about Jane Doe – apparently because of this case.

In light of Jane Doe’s concerns, the retired police officer believed that it was best
to take Jane Doe from her home. He advised Jane Doe to pack a suitcase and leave
the home with him.

At approximately 10:30 p.m., the retired police officer then took Jane Doe in his
car and pulled up next to the “private investigator.” The retired police officer advised the
investigator that Jane Doe was leaving the home to go to another location and that he
should not attempt to follow them. Nonetheless, the investigator attempted to follow the
retired police officer as they drove away from Jane Doe’s home. The retired police
officer then took evasive action and was able to elude his pursuer.

As a result of these activities, Jane Doe felt very threatened. She knew that she
was followed for much of the day. She also knew that this was not surreptitious
surveillance by someone who was trying to discovery something about her, but rather
quite visible surveillance by someone whose manifest intent was to make sure that she
knew she was being followed. Thus, when she pulled over, he pulled over; when she
parked, he parked visibly close by. The only reason for such activities could be to
intimidate her on the eve of the court-ordered mediation. It may also be worth noting
that Jane Doe was a petite young woman, physically smaller and younger than the male
private investigator who has been following her.

Jane Doe went into the protective custody of her attorneys and was hidden at a
secure location. On the afternoon of Friday, July 2, 2010 (shortly before the 4th of July
weekend), Jane Doe filed a Emergency Motion for A Hearing, Finding That Epstein is in
Civil Contempt of the Court’s Two Orders Forbidding Harassment and Indirect Contact,
For Appropriate Sanctions and Additional Remedies Including Referral for Criminal
Contempt. Case No. 9:08-Cv-80893, Exhibit 7.

Other Intimidation of Victims and Witnesses By Epstein
The Court should be aware that the intimidation of Jane Doe was not the first
time Epstein used scare tactics to intimidate victims and witnesses. Indeed, as the
Court is aware, despite numerous civil suits being filed against Epstein for sexual
abuse, none of the victims in those cases have felt able to proceed to trial. Counsel for
Jane Doe have been advised that many of these victims were afraid to take their cases
all the way to trial.

In determining where to enter a protective order, this Court can consider all of the
circumstances, including other documented examples of harassment by Epstein:1

Previous use of “investigators” to scare witnesses: The use of “investigators” to
aggressively harass his victims is not new to Epstein, as investigators have in the past
aggressively followed key witnesses to intimidate and scare them. See Palm Beach
Police Incident Report at p. 86 (Complete Incident Report attached as Exhibit 8).

Victim-to-victim communication: One of Epstein’s sexual abuse victims was
relayed a message from another victim speaking on Epstein’s behalf regarding the
criminal investigation of Epstein in 2006: “Those who help will be compensated and
those who hurt will be dealt with.” See Palm Beach Police Department Incident Report,
page 83.

1 The Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to this motion and, in any event, the
federal rules authorize the Court to consider other bad acts in reaching a conclusion
about disputed events. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).

Witness tampering during the federal investigation: During the FBI investigation
of his sexual abuse of young girls, Epstein intimidated and harassed other possible
witnesses against him -- namely Sarah Kellen, Leslie Groff and Nadia Marcinkova.
Indeed, this intimidation was so serious that federal prosecutors prepared draft federal
charges against him for witness tampering charges. (attached as Exhibit 9).
Ultimately, for reasons that are unclear, these charges were not filed.

Threats Against Jane Doe 102: Epstein has even tracked down adverse
witnesses as far away as Australia in the past to send the message not to testify against
him regarding his illegal sexual exploits. See Complaint of Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein
(attached as Exhibit 10).

Threats Against Alfredo Rodriguez: Jane Doe is not the only person to have
received this impression that she is at risk if she does not accede to Epstein’s demands.
The Court is familiar with Alfredo Rodriguez, an employee of Epstein who kept a “black
book” of the names of minor girls Epstein’ was sexually abusing. See Criminal
Complaint, U.S. v. Rodriguez, No. 9:10-CR-80015-KAM (DE 3) Exhibit 11. Rodriguez
stated that he was afraid that Jeffrey Epstein would make him “disappear” unless he
had an “insurance policy” (i.e., the black book). Id. at 3.

“Accidentally” Encountering a Victim on the Way to a Deposition.
During civil litigation of other cases brought against Jeffrey Epstein by other
Epstein victims, Epstein himself attempted to intimidate those victims whenever he got
the chance. At the deposition of one of his victims who proceeded civilly against
Epstein under the pseudonym Jane Doe #4, Epstein intentionally crossed paths with the
victim and stared her down as an attempt to intimidate her. (DE 306 in case 08-80119,
attached at Ex. 12). On November 5, 2009, Epstein again appeared in the location
where one of his victims, this time Doe #3. Jane Doe #3, was present for her 8 hour
psychological IME. Epstein knew at that time that Jane Doe #3 was already emotionally
fragile and suffering through a grueling psychological examination and he chose to
exacerbate her condition by suddenly appearing within feet of her. See Ex. 13. Each of
these encounters occurred despite the court’s elaborate procedures to prevent these
encounters and irrespective of the various court orders in place warning Epstein against
this behavior.

LEGAL MEMORANDUM
The Court can consider all of the foregoing information as circumstantial
evidence pointing to only one conclusion: that defendant Epstein – a registered sex
offender with vast financial resources – may well try to intimidate M.J. during this
lawsuit. The Court should accordingly enter a protective order barring direct or indirect
contact by Epstein with M.J., including contact by purported “private investigators”
without approval by the Court.

It is clear that the intent of Palm Beach circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo
was to keep Epstein from having any contact with “all” of his victims, and she barred
both “direct or indirect” contact. Epstein, however, has obviously absurdly narrow
interpretations of these orders to engage in threats and harassment.

In a case similar to this one, Judge Marra entered a no-contact order, barring
Epstein from having any direct or indirect contact with the victims. Order, Case No.
9:08-cv-80119, DE 238, at 4-5 (emphasis added). Epstein, however, ridiculously
interpreted that order as allowing him to send private investigators to Jane Doe’s home
late at night and terrorize her. Accordingly, to avoid any such harassment in this case,
the Court’s order should make clear that it extends to “private investigators” unless
Epstein obtains permission for investigation after notice to M.J. and a hearing.

CONCLUSION
Harassment of plaintiffs who have filed civil suits – particularly civil suits alleging
sexual assaults – strikes at the very heart of the legal system. Harassment may prevent
a victim from obtaining justice in Court. This Court should not pretermit any such
behavior by Epstein. The Court should enter an order barring Epstein from having any
direct or indirect contact with M.J., including contact through “private investigators,”
without first obtaining leave of the Court after notice to and a hearing with M.J..

POSITION OF THE PARTIES
M.J. has conferred with Counsel for defendant Epstein and understands that
defendant Epstein objects to all these requests.

DATED: November 11, 2010
Respectfully Submitted,
s/ Bradley J. Edwards
Bradley J. Edwards
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone (954) 524-2820
Facsimile (954) 524-2822
Florida Bar No.: 542075
E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 11, 2010 I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the
foregoing document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List
in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated
by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not
authorized to receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing.

s/ Bradley J. Edwards
Bradley J. Edwards

SERVICE LIST

M.J. v. Jeffrey Epstein
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida

Lilly Ann Sanchez
lsanchez@fowler-white.com
Christopher E. Knight
cknight@fowler-white.com
Helaine S. Goodner
hgoodner@fowler-white.com

FOWLER WHITE BURNETT PA
Espirito Santo Plaza, 14th Floor
1395 Brickell Avenue
Miami, FL 33131-3302

Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein