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 |
016.pdf
This document is a legal response filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on May 11, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein's attorneys oppose the plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously, arguing that Epstein's due process rights to conduct discovery—specifically issuance of third-party subpoenas to medical providers and employers—require the use of the plaintiff's legal name. The filing asserts that the plaintiff's privacy interests do not outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings and Epstein's right to defend himself against allegations of sexual exploitation and coercion.
015.pdf
This document is a Notice of Appearance filed on May 7, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 09-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON). Attorneys Robert D. Critton, Jr. and Michael J. Pike of the law firm Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman formally enter their appearance as counsel for the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. The document includes a Certificate of Service listing counsel for the Plaintiff (Jane Doe No. 101) and co-counsel for the Defendant.
012.pdf
Legal filing from May 4, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's legal team accepts consolidation of multiple civil cases for depositions but opposes general consolidation for all discovery, arguing that individual cases have distinct facts and defenses that would be confused by a blanket consolidation. The document lists numerous related case numbers (e.g., 08-80119, 08-80381, 09-80469) and requests clarification on the court's previous orders regarding case management.
011.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on May 4, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-80591) in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's counsel requests an extension until May 26, 2009, to respond to the complaint filed on April 17, 2009. The reasons cited include the burden of other cases naming Epstein as a defendant and a conflicting state court trial scheduled for mid-May involving the defense counsel.
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.
016.pdf
This document is a 'Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice' filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 24, 2010. It formally ends the lawsuit between Plaintiff 'C.L.' and Defendant Jeffrey Epstein following a settlement agreement. The document is signed by attorneys Robert D. Critton, Jr. (representing Epstein) and Spencer T. Kuvin (representing C.L.).
016-01.pdf
This document is a Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of C.L. vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 10-CV-80447). Judge Kenneth A. Marra dismissed the case following a stipulation by the parties, denied all pending motions as moot, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a settlement. The order was entered on the docket on June 24, 2010.
012.pdf
This document is an Emergency Motion filed on June 14, 2010, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team to quash a subpoena and prevent the deposition of Maritza Milagros Vasquez, scheduled for the following day. Epstein's lawyers argue that the subpoena issued by C.L.'s counsel (Spencer Kuvin) is premature under Rule 26(d) and that the cross-notice by Jane Doe's counsel (Brad Edwards) is invalid because discovery in the Jane Doe case had already concluded on May 31, 2010. The document includes the motion, a subpoena exhibit, and a cross-notice exhibit.
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.
006.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on May 11, 2010, in the Southern District of Florida (Case 10-80447) by Plaintiff C.L. requesting a 10-day extension to respond to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Dismiss. The extension was requested because Plaintiff's counsel, Spencer T. Kuvin, had a conflicting trial starting the same day in Palm Beach Civil Circuit Court. The document includes a Certificate of Service listing Epstein's legal team (Critton, Pike, Goldberger) and a proposed order for Judge Kenneth A. Marra to sign.
001-01.pdf
This document is a Civil Cover Sheet filed on March 31, 2010, initiating a federal lawsuit by plaintiff 'C.L.' against Jeffrey Epstein. The cause of action is cited as sexual assault of a minor under 18 U.S.C §2255 and §2422. The document lists Epstein's legal team, including Jack Goldberger, Bruce Reinhart, and Robert Critton, and references numerous related federal cases.
DOJ-OGR-00030293.tif
This document contains a series of emails from September and August 2009 related to the 'Jane Does v. Epstein' case. Key events include confirmation that Jeffrey Epstein will not attend Jane Doe No. 4's deposition and requests by Michael J. Pike for Dr. Kliman's client questionnaires, threatening to file a motion if they are not provided promptly.
DOJ-OGR-00030292.tif
This document is a page from a legal filing, listing contact information for various attorneys and their respective clients in several related court cases. It details counsel for plaintiffs, including C.M.A., and counsel for defendants Sarah Kellen and Jeffrey Epstein, along with their law firms and contact details.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013479.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service filed on June 28, 2010, in the case of Doe v. Epstein (Case No. 08-CIV-80893). It certifies that defense counsel Robert D. Critton, Jr. electronically served a preceding document to plaintiff's counsel (Edwards and Cassell) and co-defense counsel (Goldberger). The document lists the contact information for the attorneys involved, though specific email addresses or contact details have been redacted.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013478.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing entered on June 28, 2010, in the case of Doe v. Epstein (Case No. 08-CIV-80893). Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys request a court order for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson or further mediation with Rodney Romano before July 1, 2010. The Rule 7.1 Certification indicates that the Plaintiff's counsel opposes this request, stating that mediation requirements have already been met.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030464.jpg
This document is an email chain from March 8, 2011, where Jeffrey Epstein forwards a new Vanity Fair article about himself and Ghislaine Maxwell to his paralegal, Jessica Cadwell. Cadwell replies with a supportive message, calling the article 'well written' and asking how he is. The forwarded article details Maxwell's alleged role as a 'procurer,' Epstein's past legal troubles, and his connections to prominent figures like Prince Andrew and Les Wexner.
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