Michael J. Pike
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Client |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Robert D. Critton Jr.
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Robert D. Critton Jr.
|
Correspondents involved in same case |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Adam Horowitz
|
Correspondents involved in same case |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-04-12 | N/A | Date of signature/service of the document. | West Palm Beach, FL | View |
| 2010-03-23 | N/A | Service of Motion for Extension of Time via CM/ECF | Electronic Filing | View |
| 2009-07-28 | N/A | Defendant Jeffrey Epstein filed a Notice of Compliance regarding the Court's Order DE #192. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2009-07-28 | N/A | Filing of Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Notice of Compliance with Court Order (DE #192) | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2009-06-11 | N/A | Certificate of Service mailed to opposing counsel. | West Palm Beach, FL | View |
| 2009-06-05 | N/A | Filing of Notice of Appearance by Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP for Jeffrey Epstein | US District Court, Southern... | View |
| 2009-05-11 | N/A | Notice of Appearance filed by attorneys Robert D. Critton, Jr. and Michael J. Pike on behalf of J... | US District Court Southern ... | View |
068.pdf
This document is a Mandate from the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida, dated September 18, 2009, regarding the case of Jeffrey Epstein v. State of Florida. The mandate follows an opinion issued on September 2, 2009, where the court affirmed the lower court's decision, treating Epstein's petition for writ of certiorari as a full appeal. The document lists numerous attorneys involved, including R. Alexander Acosta on the distribution list, and identifies Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. as an appellee alongside the State and a redacted party.
058.pdf
This document is a legal response filed on behalf of an unnamed Intervener opposing Jeffrey Epstein's motion to stay the release of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The filing argues that the NPA is a public record that was never properly sealed and that Epstein failed to demonstrate the necessary 'irreparable harm' or 'likelihood of success' required to grant a stay. The document was filed in the 15th Judicial Circuit Court of Palm Beach County in July 2009.
047.pdf
Legal motion filed on June 25, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Critton, Pike, Goldberger) in Palm Beach County Circuit Court. Epstein requests a stay on the disclosure of his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) pending an appellate review, arguing that unsealing the document would cause irreparable harm to privacy rights and innocent third parties. The motion opposes efforts by the Palm Beach Post and a redacted non-party to unseal these court records.
042.pdf
This document is a 'Motion to Intervene' filed on June 15, 2009, in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, in the criminal case against Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 2008CF009381AXX). An unnamed (redacted) applicant, represented by Spencer T. Kuvin, seeks to intervene to join the Palm Beach Post in arguing for access to the sealed Federal non-prosecution agreement. The applicant argues they have a pending civil complaint against Epstein with similar allegations and require the sealed document for discovery and impeachment purposes.
017-17.pdf
This document is a Motion for Protective Order filed on June 30, 2010, by Jeffrey Epstein's defense team in the civil case Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein seeks permission to redact specific portions of his tax returns regarding investment vehicles, claiming they contain trade secrets and confidential business information. The motion argues that Plaintiff's counsel, Brad Edwards, has a history of sharing discovery material with media and investigators, specifically citing an instance involving Alfredo Rodriguez's journal.
017-15.pdf
This document is a Motion for Protective Order filed on June 28, 2010, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein. The motion requests that the court issue an order of confidentiality regarding information Epstein was compelled to produce, specifically his tax returns, passport, and information provided by the federal government during prior criminal proceedings. The defense seeks to prevent this information from being disclosed to third parties or the media and to limit its use strictly to the current litigation.
017-12.pdf
This document is an appeal by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein against a Magistrate's Order compelling him to produce discovery materials, including correspondence with prosecutors, tax returns, and passport/travel records. Epstein argues that producing these documents violates his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because he still faces a real threat of federal prosecution outside the Southern District of Florida, despite his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The filing also details privacy concerns for third parties (alleged victims), claims attorney work-product privilege over files selected by his defense counsel, and argues that his offer to stipulate to a high net worth renders the production of his tax returns unnecessary.
017-09.pdf
This document contains a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in February 2010, arguing against a Magistrate's order compelling him to produce sensitive documents. The motion relies heavily on Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination, arguing that despite a Non-Prosecution Agreement, Epstein faces real risks of prosecution in other jurisdictions. Attached exhibits include the Plaintiff's 2009 requests for production of massage logs, photos of Epstein's Palm Beach home, financial records, and medical records from Dr. Stephan Alexander, to which Epstein consistently objected.
017-02.pdf
This document is a legal response filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on October 6, 2009, opposing a Motion to Compel discovery filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2. Epstein asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to refuse the production of photographs of his Palm Beach home (specifically massage rooms), financial records, tax returns, passport/travel records, and medical records from Dr. Stephan Alexander. The defense argues that despite the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), the threat of federal prosecution remains real and substantial, particularly in districts outside the Southern District of Florida, and that the act of producing these documents would be testimonial and incriminating.
016-02.pdf
This document is a Motion for No-Contact Order filed by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 against Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida on May 22, 2009. The plaintiffs argue that despite a state plea agreement prohibiting contact, Epstein's counsel refused to confirm he would not contact federal victims. The filing includes exhibits of correspondence between attorneys and a transcript of the 2008 plea conference where Judge Pucillo explicitly defined 'indirect contact' to include Facebook and MySpace.
020.pdf
This document is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on June 16, 2010, in the case of L.M. v. Epstein. Epstein's lawyers argue the case should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to serve the complaint within the required 120 days (Rule 4(m)). Furthermore, the motion alleges that the complaint filed by L.M. (represented by Bradley Edwards) was used as a prop in Scott Rothstein's massive $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme to lure investors with fabricated settlement agreements. The document cites depositions where L.M. contradicts allegations made in her complaint regarding sexual acts and travel.
019.pdf
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.
018.pdf
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.
017.pdf
This document is a legal notice filed on June 14, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, regarding the case of Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The filing, submitted by attorney Spencer T. Kuvin on behalf of Plaintiff 'C.L.', serves to withdraw a subpoena and cancel the scheduled deposition of Maritza Milagros Vasquez, which was set for the following day, June 15, 2010. The document also includes a certificate of service listing various attorneys representing different parties in related cases against Epstein.
014-02.pdf
This document contains notices for the videotaped deposition of Jean Luc Bruhel (spelled Bruhnel in one instance), scheduled for November 3, 2009, at Esquire Court Reporters in West Palm Beach, Florida. The deposition is relevant to two civil cases pending in the 15th Judicial Circuit Court of Palm Beach County: B.B. v. Jeffrey Epstein and L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein. The document lists numerous attorneys involved in the litigation, including Spencer Kuvin, Bradley Edwards, Jack Goldberger, and Bruce Reinhart.
010.pdf
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.
009.pdf
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.
080.pdf
This document is a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed on June 30, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe II v. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen in the Southern District of Florida. The parties agreed to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled, with each party bearing their own legal costs. The document notes that a settlement was reached, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce its terms.
078.pdf
This document is a legal notice filed on June 14, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The notice, filed by attorney Spencer T. Kuvin on behalf of Plaintiff C.L., withdraws a subpoena and cancels the deposition of Maritza Milagros Vasquez, which was scheduled for the following day, June 15, 2010. The document also includes a certificate of service listing legal counsel for various parties involved in related cases.
071.pdf
A 2009 legal motion filed in the Southern District of Florida on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein requesting permission to attend mediation in a case involving Carolyn Andriano (C.M.A.). The motion notes that a prior 'no contact order' exists regarding Andriano, but states that neither she nor her counsel object to Epstein's presence at depositions, mediation, or trial. The document includes a comprehensive service list of attorneys involved in multiple related cases against Epstein.
061.pdf
This document is Jeffrey Epstein's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to a civil complaint filed by Jane Doe II in the Southern District of Florida in October 2009. Epstein pleads the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination in response to most factual allegations. He asserts multiple affirmative defenses, claiming the plaintiff consented to the acts, that he believed she was 18 years or older, and that the claims are barred by the statute of limitations and various constitutional challenges to the retroactivity and application of 18 U.S.C. §2255.
050.pdf
This document is a Notice of Compliance filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team (Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman) on July 28, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It addresses a court order regarding the preservation of evidence and a protective order, noting that while the parties agreed on many sections, they could not finalize a joint order, leading Epstein to submit his own proposed order separately. The document lists numerous related civil cases involving Jane Doe plaintiffs and provides a comprehensive service list of attorneys involved in the various Epstein-related litigations at that time, including Bruce Reinhart representing Sarah Kellen.
040.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Reliance' filed on June 19, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe II v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-CIV-80469) in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's legal team informs the court that despite the Plaintiff filing an Amended Memorandum of Law on June 12, 2009, Epstein will not file a new supplemental reply but will instead rely on his previous arguments filed on June 1, 2009. The document outlines the procedural history of the motion to dismiss and includes a certificate of service listing attorneys for both parties.
032.pdf
This document is a legal reply filed on June 4, 2009, by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs are requesting a court order prohibiting Jeffrey Epstein and his agents from contacting them directly or indirectly, citing his status as a convicted sex offender and their fear of intimidation. The document also includes a service list detailing the legal representation for various parties, including Bruce E. Reinhart representing co-defendant Sarah Kellen.
031.pdf
This document is a Reply by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein to Plaintiff Jane Doe II's opposition to his motion to dismiss a civil suit (Case 09-CIV-80469). Epstein's defense argues that a concurrent state action requires dismissal of the federal case, that the 2006 amendment to 18 U.S.C. §2255 ('Masha's Law') cannot be applied retroactively to conduct from 2003-2005 to increase damages, and that the Plaintiff misrepresents the terms of Epstein's non-prosecution agreement with the US Attorney's Office. The document details specific dates in 2003 and 2004 where the Plaintiff alleges she received payments for acts of prostitution.
Jane Does v. Epstein
Requesting Dr. Kliman's questionnaires used with clients, based on transcript review.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity