WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA
LocationRelationship Network
031-01.pdf
This document is a Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 09-CV-80802-MARRA-JOHNSON). Judge Kenneth A. Marra ordered the case between Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 8 and Defendant Jeffrey Epstein dismissed following a settlement stipulation between the parties. The court retained jurisdiction specifically to enforce the terms of said settlement.
021.pdf
This document is a legal response filed by Plaintiff Carolyn M. Andriano (Jane Doe No. 2) opposing a motion by third-party witness Igor Zinoview to avoid deposition. Zinoview, who worked as Epstein's driver, bodyguard, and trainer starting in November 2005, claimed he had no relevant knowledge of Epstein's legal matters. The Plaintiff argues that Zinoview worked for Epstein during the police investigation period and likely has relevant observations, regardless of whether he discussed legal matters with Epstein.
023.pdf
This document is a Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice issued by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on May 19, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe No. 103 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 10-CV-80309) in the Southern District of Florida. The order dismisses the case following a stipulation by the parties and notes that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement.
019.pdf
A court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe No. 103 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 10-80309-CIV-MARRA). Judge Kenneth A. Marra orders counsel to confer, file a joint scheduling report, and file a joint discovery report, outlining specific deadlines and procedural rules for the pretrial phase.
013.pdf
This document is a legal notice filed on May 20, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, involving multiple consolidated cases against Jeffrey Epstein. Plaintiff C.M.A. formally withdraws her objections to Epstein's motion to identify her by her legal name in the case style and in third-party subpoenas, rendering the motion to dismiss moot, though she continues to object to dismissal on alternative grounds. The document lists numerous 'Jane Doe' plaintiffs and provides a service list of attorneys representing both the plaintiffs (Jack Scarola, Jack P. Hill) and the defendant (Richard Willits, Robert Critton, Jack Goldberger, Bruce Reinhart).
009.pdf
This document is an Order of Transfer from the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, dated May 2009. Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp transfers the case of Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein to Judge Kenneth A. Marra because it is related to multiple other actions pending before Judge Marra against Epstein. Judge Marra formally accepts the transfer on the second page.
086.pdf
This document is a response filed by Plaintiff Carolyn M. Andriano on November 28, 2009, opposing a motion by third-party witness Igor Zinoview to prevent his deposition. Zinoview, who worked as Epstein's driver, bodyguard, and trainer starting in November 2005, claims he has no relevant knowledge of legal matters involving Epstein. The Plaintiff argues that because Zinoview worked for Epstein during the active police investigation (2005-2006), he likely possesses relevant information regarding activities at the Epstein residence, and that a complete bar on his deposition is legally unjustified.
048.pdf
This document is a legal motion filed on June 9, 2009, by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 101 requesting an extension of time and page limits to respond to Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Dismiss. The request is based on an upcoming court hearing scheduled for June 12, 2009, in a related case (Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein) which addresses potential breaches of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement. The document includes certificates of conference and service, listing legal counsel for both parties, including Bruce Reinhart as counsel for a co-defendant named Sarah.
046.pdf
This document is a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, dated June 7, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe 101 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 9:09-CV-80591-KAM). The order grants a motion for the limited appearance of attorney Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. to represent Jeffrey Epstein and authorizes him to receive electronic filing notifications at jay.lefkowitz@kirkland.com.
023.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Filing Withdrawal of Previously Raised Objections' filed on May 20, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiff C.M.A. withdraws her objections to Jeffrey Epstein's motion to compel her to identify herself by her legal name in the case style and third-party subpoenas, though she maintains her objection to the case being dismissed sua sponte. The document lists numerous related cases involving Jane Doe plaintiffs and provides a service list of attorneys involved.
018.pdf
This document is a court order dated May 14, 2009, from the Southern District of Florida, consolidating eleven separate civil cases against Jeffrey Epstein for the purposes of discovery and procedural motions. Judge Kenneth A. Marra designates 'Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein' as the lead case for filings and sets strict limits on depositions to prevent duplication, ruling that defendants and common witnesses may be deposed only once across all cases. The order aims to improve judicial economy and efficiency in handling the multiple lawsuits filed by various Jane Does and other plaintiffs.
017.pdf
Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice for Case No. 10-CV-80447 (C.L. vs. Jeffrey Epstein) in the Southern District of Florida. The case was dismissed following a stipulation by the parties, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce settlement terms. The order was signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on June 24, 2010.
014.pdf
This is a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dated June 15, 2010, in the case of C.L. v. Jeffrey Epstein. Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson denied Epstein's emergency motions for a protective order and attorney's fees as moot. The denial was based on a representation that the dispute was resolved because the plaintiff (C.L.) agreed to postpone a deposition.
009.pdf
This document is a legal response filed by Plaintiff C.L. opposing Jeffrey Epstein's motion to dismiss Count III of her complaint. The core legal argument concerns whether the Adam Walsh Act (2006) can be applied retroactively to Epstein's conduct; the Plaintiff argues it provides a civil, non-punitive remedy and thus does not violate the Ex Post Facto clause. The document also graphically describes Epstein's 'systematic' child exploitation enterprise, involving at least three assistants who recruited, groomed, and paid minor girls, which Epstein sought to strike from the record.
EFTA00038259.pdf
This document is an email dated August 25, 2020, from a Detective in the NYPD/FBI Child Exploitation Human Trafficking Task Force. The email requests approval for travel expenses totaling $2,771 for two investigators to travel to West Palm Beach, Florida, between September 28 and October 2, 2020, specifically for the 'Epstein investigation'. The document outlines estimated costs for flights, hotels, car rentals, and per diem expenses.
EFTA00037378.pdf
This document is a post-indictment (circa July 2019) investigative summary by federal authorities detailing the history of investigations into Jeffrey Epstein from 2005 to 2019. It outlines his sexual abuse of minors in New York, Florida, and other locations, specifically noting that victims were as young as 14 and were paid $200-$300 per encounter. The text mentions cooperating witnesses (Victim-1, 2, and 3), the role of redacted co-conspirators in recruiting minors, and the prosecution's intent to pursue these co-conspirators following Epstein's indictment.
EFTA00037316.pdf
This document is a chain of emails from May 2019 between the FBI and SDNY regarding the transfer of Jeffrey Epstein's case files from the FBI's West Palm Beach office to New York. SDNY officials express frustration with the six-month delay (having requested the files in December 2018) and pressure from their supervisors to begin scanning the documents using a third-party vendor. The chain discusses logistics, the involvement of the ASAC and SSA, and cites precedents for using outside vendors for sensitive case files.
EFTA00032879.pdf
This document contains a series of email exchanges between Assistant U.S. Attorneys from the Southern District of New York and their supervisors, requesting travel approval for the 'United States v. Epstein' investigation (Case ID 2018R01618). The emails, spanning from March 2019 to February 2020, detail planned trips to West Palm Beach, Los Angeles, Pensacola, and Stockholm for the purpose of interviewing witnesses and victims. The requests consistently reference the investigation into the 'enticement of minors for sexual activity' and seek approval for flights and hotel conference rooms.
EFTA00032495.pdf
This document contains a series of email exchanges between Assistant U.S. Attorneys from the Southern District of New York and their supervisors, requesting travel approval for the 'Epstein investigation' (Case 2018R01618, United States v. Epstein). The emails, dating from March to December 2019, detail planned trips to West Palm Beach, Florida, and Los Angeles, California, for the purpose of conducting 'meetings and interviews' and specifically 'interviewing the victims.' The requests consistently reference the nature of the investigation as 'relating to enticement of minors for sexual activity.'
EFTA00032493.pdf
This document is an email thread from March to May 2019 containing travel authorization requests by an Assistant U.S. Attorney (SDNY) for the 'United States v. Epstein' investigation (Case 2018R01618). The attorney requests approval for multiple trips to West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to conduct meetings and interviews with victims regarding the enticement of minors for sexual activity. The emails also discuss logistical details, such as reserving hotel conference rooms for interviews and a personal travel deviation to San Francisco.
EFTA00032491.pdf
This document contains an email chain between Assistant U.S. Attorneys from the Southern District of New York (SDNY) regarding travel approvals for the 'United States v. Epstein' investigation (Case ID 2018R01618). The emails, dated between March and May 2019, detail requests to travel to West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale, Florida, specifically to conduct meetings and interview victims related to an investigation into the 'enticement of minors for sexual activity'.
EFTA00032238.pdf
This document is a transcript of the June 30, 2008, plea conference for Jeffrey Epstein in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida. During the proceedings, Epstein pleads guilty to state charges of soliciting prostitution and procuring a person under 18 for prostitution. The transcript details the terms of the plea agreement, including an 18-month jail sentence, community control conditions, sex offender registration requirements, and the existence of a non-prosecution agreement with federal authorities.
EFTA00031984.pdf
This is a legal declaration filed in the SDNY case Jane Doe v. Darren Indyke. A pilot who worked for Epstein starting in 1991 provides testimony regarding his flight logs from 1994-1997. The pilot confirms two specific flights (Nov 11, 1996, and May 9, 1997) involving a specific female passenger (name redacted) traveling between West Palm Beach, Teterboro, and Santa Fe, noting that he used generic descriptions like 'Baby' or 'Nanny' when names were unknown.
EFTA00031883.pdf
This document contains a thread of internal emails from the Southern District of New York (SDNY) requesting and granting travel approval for prosecutors investigating 'United States v. Epstein' (Case 2018R01618). The requests cover the period from March 2019 through November 2019, detailing trips to West Palm Beach, Florida, and Los Angeles, California, specifically for the purpose of 'interviewing victims' and conducting meetings related to the enticement of minors for sexual activity. The emails confirm active investigation efforts continued through late 2019.
EFTA00030748.pdf
This document is a chain of emails from the Southern District of New York (SDNY) regarding travel approvals for the 'United States v. Epstein' investigation (Case 2018R01618). The emails span from March to November 2019 and detail multiple trips by an Assistant U.S. Attorney and their team to West Palm Beach, FL, and Los Angeles, CA, for the purpose of interviewing victims and holding meetings. The final email in the chain requests specific commercial JetBlue flights and hotel accommodations in Santa Monica for a trip in November 2019.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity