| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Client |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-06-30 | N/A | Defendant files motions regarding Jury Questionnaire, Sequestration, and to Continue Trial. | Court | View |
| 2010-02-17 | N/A | Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein where Mr. Edwards questions him about the Palm Beach Police Departm... | Unknown | View |
This document is a page from a court docket covering filings on June 29 and 30, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD). Key entries include orders by Judge Kenneth A. Marra granting an open trial and identifying Jane Doe, as well as denying Epstein's request to redact tax records. It also lists motions by Epstein's defense regarding jury selection, sequestration, and a request to continue the trial, alongside Plaintiff's motion for a writ regarding witness Alfredo Rodriguez.
Legal filing from July 2, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe II vs. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. Plaintiff's counsel Isidro Garcia responds to a court order, apologizing for delays in filing a scheduling report, partly attributing the delay to difficulty serving Sarah Kellen who was 'believed to have been avoiding service.' The document announces that a settlement has been reached resolving all claims in this federal case and a companion state court case.
This document is a Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law filed on July 14, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe II v. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. The Plaintiff opposes Sarah Kellen's motion to set aside a default judgment, arguing that Kellen was properly served via 'nail and mail' in New York on April 23, 2009, after six attempts, and deliberately ignored the lawsuit. The filing asserts Kellen has provided no evidence she didn't receive service and has failed to present a meritorious defense as required by law.
This document is a Plaintiff's Motion for Default filed on June 12, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida against Sarah Kellen in the case of Jane Doe II vs. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. The motion asserts that Kellen has been avoiding service but was successfully served according to New York law and failed to respond. Notably, it alleges that Kellen is aware of the legal action and has visited Jeffrey Epstein at the Palm Beach County Jail on several occasions.
This document is the Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Epstein's Motion to Dismiss in a civil case. The Plaintiff argues that the federal court has jurisdiction alongside state claims, that the 2006 amendments to 18 U.S.C. ยง2255 regarding damages should apply retroactively or are procedural, and that interstate commerce requirements were met via phone calls made by co-defendant Sarah Kellen from a New York number. The document details specific dates of solicitation between 2003 and 2005 and alleges a conspiracy involving Epstein, Kellen, and Haley Robson to procure minors for prostitution.
This document is a legal motion filed on May 15, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida, case number 09-80469-CIV-MARRA. Plaintiff Jane Doe II requests an extension until May 22, 2009, to file a reply to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Dismiss, citing complex issues and other business. Epstein's counsel, Robert Critton, was consulted and did not oppose the extension.
This document is a Clerk's Notice of Reassignment from the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, dated April 10, 2009. It notifies parties in the case of Jane Doe II vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case ID: 502008CA020614XXXXMB) that the case has been reassigned from Judge Diana Lewis to Judge Donald W. Hafele. The document lists attorneys Robert Critton Jr, Michael Pike, Isidro Garcia, and Jack Goldberger on the distribution list.
This document is an unopposed motion filed on September 18, 2008, by Plaintiff Jane Doe in the Southern District of Florida (Case 08-80804) against Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. The plaintiff requests an extension of time to respond to Epstein's Motion to Dismiss until 15 days after the court rules on a pending motion to remand the case to state court due to alleged lack of federal jurisdiction. The document lists legal counsel for all parties, including Bruce Reinhart representing Sarah Kellen.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity