A Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice from the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, in the case of L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-CIV-81092). Judge Kenneth A. Marra dismissed the case on July 20, 2010, following a stipulation by the parties, while noting that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a settlement reached between the plaintiff and Epstein.
This document is a Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice from the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, dated July 20, 2010. Judge Kenneth A. Marra dismissed the civil case (09-CIV-81092) brought by plaintiff L.M. against Jeffrey Epstein following a settlement agreement between the parties. The court retained jurisdiction specifically to enforce the terms of said settlement.
This document contains a series of court orders and motions from the case *Morse v. Jan Jones International, Inc.* (Case 9:09-cv-81092-KAM) in the Southern District of Florida. The Plaintiffs, represented by Scott Rothstein, successfully argued that Jan Jones committed fraud and illegally moved funds to the Cayman Islands, resulting in an order for over $23 million in damages and the seizure of assets. The document includes a Stipulated Confidentiality Order and a subsequent Order on Emergency Writ of Mandamus from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which reinstated the District Court's orders and mandated review by the Department of Treasury and FBI due to the sensitive nature of the government's investigation.
A Notice of Appearance filed on June 16, 2010, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case 09-CIV-81092-Marra/Johnson). Attorneys Robert D. Critton, Jr. and Michael J. Pike of Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP formally enter their appearance as counsel for the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. The document includes a certificate of service to Brad Edwards, counsel for the Plaintiff.
This document is a Notice of Appearance filed on June 16, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for Case No. 09-CIV-81092 (L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein). The law firm Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP, specifically attorneys Robert D. Critton, Jr. and Michael J. Pike, formally enters their appearance as legal counsel for the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. The document includes a certificate of service indicating that the notice was electronically served to Brad Edwards, attorney for the plaintiff.
This document is a legal memorandum filed on May 28, 2010, by Plaintiffs (Jane Does 2-8) opposing Jeffrey Epstein's appeal of a Magistrate Judge's order compelling him to produce income tax returns for the years 2003-2008. The Plaintiffs argue that tax returns are 'required records' not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and are critical for determining punitive damages. The document notes that Epstein attempted to avoid producing these records by offering to stipulate to a net worth in the 'nine figures,' which the Plaintiffs rejected as insufficient.
This document is a legal response filed on March 12, 2010, by attorney Tama Beth Kudman on behalf of non-party witness Jean Luc Bruhnel (likely Jean-Luc Brunel) in the civil case Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein. Bruhnel opposes the plaintiff's motion to compel his deposition, arguing that he is a French citizen who has left the United States and cannot be legally compelled to return for testimony. The filing claims the plaintiff's motion is frivolous, notes that previous deposition dates were canceled by agreement, and suggests the plaintiff should use the Hague Convention to secure testimony abroad.
This document is a Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition and a Subpoena issued by the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein. It commands Jean Luc Bruhel to appear for a deposition on September 22, 2009, at Esquire Court Reporters in New York City. The subpoena was issued by Brad Edwards, attorney for the plaintiff.
This is a motion filed by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys requesting a court order to allow him to attend mediation, deposition, and trial in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The motion notes that a prior no-contact order involving Carolyn Andriano might technically preclude this, but states that Plaintiff's counsel and Ms. Andriano have no objection. The document includes a certificate of service listing numerous attorneys involved in related cases.
This is an Agreed Order from the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, dated 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein. The order grants Epstein permission to attend the deposition, mediation, or trial of Plaintiff Carolyn Andriano (in the related case CMA v. Epstein and Kellen, 08-CIV-80811), explicitly overriding a previous no-contact order [DE 238] for these specific legal proceedings.
Legal filing from November 2009 in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein's attorneys argue for the preservation of evidence held by the law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (RRA), noting that the DOJ has seized boxes of documents from RRA, including 13 boxes related to Epstein. The document also disputes delays in the deposition of RRA's Chief Restructuring Officer, Herbert Stettin, citing upcoming trial deadlines.
Court order from the Southern District of Florida in the case of L.M. vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-81092-CIV-MARRA), signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on July 30, 2009. The order outlines procedural requirements for counsel to confer and file joint scheduling and discovery reports in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida transferring civil case 09-81092 (L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein) from Judge James I. Cohn to Judge Kenneth A. Marra. The order was signed by Judge Cohn on July 28, 2009, and accepted by Judge Marra on July 29, 2009, citing Internal Operating Procedure 2.15.C.
This document is a 'Motion to Proceed Anonymously' filed on July 24, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 09-CV-81092). The plaintiff, identified as 'L.M.', is a 20-year-old female alleging she was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein between the ages of 14 and 17. The motion argues that her identity should be protected due to the sensitive nature of the allegations and notes she was previously identified as a victim by the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office in a criminal investigation against Epstein.
This document is a legal notice filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys on December 16, 2016, in the Southern District of Florida regarding a subpoena served on Bradley J. Edwards. Maxwell argues that rulings made by the Southern District of New York on a similar subpoena served on Paul Cassell (another attorney for Virginia Giuffre) should be binding (res judicata) on the Edwards subpoena. The filing includes a table comparing the requests in both subpoenas and the corresponding rulings from the SDNY court, asking the Florida court to issue a consistent order requiring production of certain documents and granting the motion to quash for others.
This document is a formal notice filed on December 16, 2016, in the Southern District of Florida, by attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell. It informs the court and opposing counsel (specifically Bradley J. Edwards' attorney Jack Scarola) that 'Exhibit B' related to a subpoena status notice has been filed under seal. The underlying case referenced is Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York.
This document is a motion filed on December 16, 2016, by Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys in the Southern District of Florida. The motion requests permission to file 'Exhibit B' under seal, noting that the exhibit is a sealed order from the Southern District of New York in the underlying 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' case. The document lists legal counsel for Maxwell and for Bradley J. Edwards, who is the subject of a subpoena in this miscellaneous action.
This document is a Motion to Seal filed on July 7, 2016, by attorney Jack Scarola on behalf of Bradley J. Edwards in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Edwards seeks to seal exhibits attached to his Motion to Quash a subpoena, specifically referencing confidential depositions of Ghislaine Maxwell and Rinaldo Rizzo, as well as documents related to Alan Dershowitz, which are already under seal in the Southern District of New York. The motion argues that sealing is necessary to comply with protective orders from the underlying case.
This is a court order from the Southern District of Florida filed on July 7, 2016. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman granted a request by Bradley J. Edwards to seal his reply regarding a Motion to Quash Subpoena (or for a Protective Order) in relation to the underlying civil case of Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell.
This document is a declaration by FBI Special Agent Timothy R. Slater, executed in 2015, detailing his involvement in the 2006-2007 investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Slater describes locating and calling a potential victim (whose name is redacted) in early 2007 while accompanied by lead agent Nesbitt E. Kuyrkendall. During the call, the woman confirmed knowing Epstein but refused to cooperate, stating she had moved away to distance herself and wanted to leave the situation in her past.
This document is a motion filed on July 7, 2016, in the Southern District of Florida by attorney Jack Scarola on behalf of Bradley J. Edwards. Edwards requests permission to file a reply exceeding the standard page limit (up to 25 pages) in support of his motion to quash a subpoena served by Ghislaine Maxwell. The motion explains that the extra length is necessary to address allegations made by Maxwell regarding Edwards' prior filings and alleged discovery withholding by his client, Virginia Giuffre.
This document is a proposed court order filed on July 7, 2016, in the Southern District of Florida. It grants a motion by Bradley J. Edwards to file a reply exceeding the standard page limit (up to 25 pages) in support of his motion to quash a subpoena related to the underlying civil case of Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell.
Declaration by Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on June 30, 2016, in the Southern District of Florida. The document lists 18 exhibits (A-R) supporting Maxwell's opposition to Bradley J. Edwards' motion to quash a subpoena. Several exhibits are filed under seal, while others include procedural documents from related cases (Cassell v. Dershowitz, Epstein v. Rothstein, Jane Doe v. US) and communications regarding discovery and subpoenas.
This document is a Protective Order designated as Exhibit L (and Exhibit 1) in Case 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON, filed in May 2014. Issued by Judge Kenneth Marra, it grants a motion by Intervenors (led by Roy Black) to keep correspondence between themselves and the United States Attorney's Office confidential ('CDM'). The order establishes strict protocols for the handling, marking, and limited disclosure of these materials during the litigation between Jane Does #1-2 and the United States.
This is a court order from September 2014 in the case of Jane Doe v. United States, concerning Jeffrey Epstein's intervention. Judge Kenneth Marra granted in part and denied in part Epstein's motion for a protective order regarding correspondence between his lawyers and the US Attorney's Office. While the court agreed to restrict dissemination of materials to the press to avoid publicity in this 'high profile' case, it rejected Epstein's request to automatically require court permission to seal every future filing.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity