Legal stipulation filed on December 13, 2010, in the Southern District of Florida, dismissing the case of M.J. vs. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen with prejudice. The document confirms a settlement was reached, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce its terms, and states that each party will bear their own attorney's fees.
This document is a legal motion filed on November 23, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case 9:10-CV-81111-WPD). Attorney Bradley J. Edwards requests the court to admit Paul G. Cassell (a member of the Utah Bar) to appear pro hac vice as co-counsel for the plaintiff, identified as M.J., in a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. The document documents the payment of a $75 admission fee and lists the defense counsel for Jeffrey Epstein from the firm Fowler White Burnett PA.
Plaintiff Jane Doe filed an emergency motion to hold Jeffrey Epstein in contempt for failing to comply with discovery orders in a civil case (08-CV-80893). The motion alleges that Epstein failed to produce state criminal discovery materials and provided only heavily redacted correspondence with the U.S. Attorney's Office, obscuring the defense counsel's side of the communications. Doe seeks immediate production of unredacted documents, sanctions of $5,000 against Epstein's counsel, and a ruling that withheld materials be deemed admissible at trial.
This document is a protective response filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe on May 27, 2010, in the Southern District of Florida case against Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff requests the court to promptly order the production of tax returns and other documents that Epstein has withheld on Fifth Amendment grounds, emphasizing that the trial date is set for July 19, 2010. The filing notes that negotiations with Epstein's counsel failed and lists numerous related cases and attorneys involved.
This document is a Motion for a Protective Order filed by plaintiff M.J. on November 11, 2010, requesting the court bar Jeffrey Epstein from direct or indirect contact. The motion details a pattern of Epstein using private investigators to harass and intimidate victims and witnesses, specifically citing an incident on July 1, 2010, where a PI named Thaddeus Knowles followed 'Jane Doe' and flashed lights into her home. It also references Epstein's intimidation of other witnesses including Sarah Kellen, Leslie Groff, and Alfredo Rodriguez, and his history of violating no-contact orders.
This document is a motion filed on June 30, 2010, by Plaintiff Jane Doe requesting the modification of a court order regarding an upcoming settlement conference with Jeffrey Epstein. Doe requests that Epstein be kept in a secure, separate room to prevent any contact or intimidation, citing his status as a convicted sex offender and previous incidents where he intimidated victims, specifically Jane Doe No. 4, during court proceedings. The motion references Epstein's 2008 guilty plea and strict no-contact orders issued by both state and federal courts.
This document is a Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Quash Service of Process. The plaintiff, M.J., argues that service was properly effected on October 8, 2010, when a private investigator handed the papers to an employee named 'Mark' at Epstein's New York mansion. The filing accuses Epstein and his associate Richard Barnett of fraud and perjury for submitting an affidavit claiming service never occurred, and details a pattern of obstruction by Epstein and his associates (including Ghislaine Maxwell and Jean Luc Brunel) in similar civil cases.
This document is a legal notice filed on November 2, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case 9:10-cv-81111) by the plaintiff, identified as M.J. The filing strikes two previous certificates of service (DE 5 and DE 6) related to a summons and a subpoena for defendant Jeffrey Epstein due to incorrect filing. The document names Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen as defendants and lists contact information for attorneys representing both sides.
This document is a 'Summons in a Civil Action' filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on September 17, 2010. The case (No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD) involves plaintiff 'M.J.' suing defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. The summons is addressed to Sarah Kellen at an apartment in Palm Beach, FL, instructing her to respond to the complaint within 21 days via plaintiff's attorney Bradley J. Edwards.
This document is a Summons in a Civil Action filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida on September 17, 2010. The plaintiff, identified as M.J., is suing Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. The document commands Epstein to respond within 21 days and lists Bradley J. Edwards as the plaintiff's attorney. The second page is an unfilled Proof of Service form.
This document is a Civil Cover Sheet filed on September 17, 2010, in the Southern District of Florida for Case 9:10-cv-81111. The plaintiff, identified only as M.J., is suing Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen for 'Sexual exploitation of a minor' and demanding a jury trial. The plaintiff is represented by attorney Bradley J. Edwards.
This is a legal motion filed on December 14, 2015, in the Supreme Court of Florida (Case No. SC15-2286) by Jeffrey Epstein's attorney, Paul Morris. Epstein requests an extension of time until January 19, 2016, to file his initial brief on jurisdiction. The document notes that the Respondent's counsel, Philip M. Burlington, has no objection to the request, and includes a service list of attorneys involved in the related proceedings.
This document is a legal filing dated December 10, 2015, in which Jeffrey Epstein's attorney, Paul Morris, files a 'Notice to Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction' with the Supreme Court of Florida. Epstein is appealing a decision made on November 12, 2015, by the District Court of Appeal (Fourth District) in the case of 'Bradley J. Edwards v. Jeffrey Epstein'. The attached opinion reveals that the lower court reversed a summary judgment that had favored Epstein, ruling that 'litigation privilege' does not bar Edwards' claim of malicious prosecution against Epstein.
This document is a transcript of a court hearing on April 21, 2016, in the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell. The hearing addresses motions to admit Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell as counsel for the plaintiff, which the defense opposes citing conflicts with other litigation (Florida cases) and their status as potential witnesses. The judge also rules on various discovery disputes, including the production of Giuffre's medical records (limited to 1999-2002), tax returns (15 years ordered), and statements made to law enforcement (to be reviewed in camera).
This document is Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's second amended supplemental response to discovery requests from Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, dated April 29, 2016. It details Giuffre's legal representation history from 2009 to 2016, listing specific attorneys and cases including actions against Jeffrey Epstein, the US Government, and Alan Dershowitz. The document also contains objections to requests for financial records regarding payments from Epstein or media organizations, asserting attorney-client privilege and irrelevance.
This document outlines Ghislaine Maxwell's formal objections and responses to Virginia Giuffre's second request for production of documents in the 2015 civil case. Maxwell's counsel objects to numerous requests on grounds of privilege, relevance, and burden, specifically refusing to produce financial documents (tax returns, bank statements, asset lists) pending a motion for a protective order. The document also addresses requests for Joint Defense Agreements with Jeffrey Epstein and Alan Dershowitz, communications regarding sexual abuse allegations, and funding sources for the TerraMar Project, including any from the Clinton Foundation.
This document is an agreed motion filed on May 13, 2010, in the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 103 against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff requests a one-week extension to file a response to Epstein's motion to dismiss because the parties are in the process of resolving the matter via settlement, which would render the motion moot. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing legal counsel for Epstein, Co-Defendant Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and plaintiffs in several related cases.
This document is an agreed motion for an extension of time filed on April 22, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe No. 103 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 10-80309-WJZ). Plaintiff's counsel, Katherine W. Ezell, requests an extension until May 13, 2010, to file a response to Epstein's motion to dismiss because she is leaving for a vacation in Italy the following day. The motion notes that Epstein's counsel, Robert Critton, agrees to the extension, and the document includes a service list of attorneys involved in this and related cases.
This document is a Motion to Transfer filed on April 1, 2010, by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 103 in the US District Court, Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff seeks to transfer her case against Jeffrey Epstein to Judge Marra's division to consolidate it with other similar pending cases, specifically 'Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein'. The document includes a service list detailing legal counsel for Epstein, co-defendant Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and plaintiffs in several related cases.
This document is a transcript of a court hearing held on April 21, 2016, before Judge Robert W. Sweet in the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell. The proceedings cover motions to admit attorneys Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell pro hac vice, which the defense contested citing potential conflicts from related Florida litigation. The hearing also addresses discovery disputes, including the production of the plaintiff's medical records, tax returns, employment history, and communications with law enforcement. No flight logs or aircraft data are contained in this document.
This document is the first page of a 2014 legal article published in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, co-authored by Bradley J. Edwards (a key attorney for Epstein victims). The article argues that the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) should apply during criminal investigations before charges are filed, explicitly referencing a 'notorious federal sex abuse case' (the Epstein case) where victims were deprived of rights due to the DOJ's narrow interpretation. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp and the name David Schoen, indicating it was part of a production to the House Oversight Committee.
This document is Page 2 of a legal filing titled 'Notice of Filing Transcript In Supplemental Support of Bradley Edwards' Motion for Summary Judgment' in the case of Edwards adv. Epstein (Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG). It contains a 'Counsel List' providing the contact information (firm name, address, phone, and fax) for five attorneys: Bradley J. Edwards, Jack A. Goldberger, Marc S. Nurik, Tonja Haddad Coleman, and Lilly Ann Sanchez. The document is Bates stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017489.
This document is page 18 of 20 from a court filing in the case 'Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz' (Case No. CACE 15-000072), specifically a response to a motion regarding the confidentiality of court records. It contains the signature blocks and contact information for the Utah Attorney General's office, plaintiffs Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell, and a counsel list including Thomas Emerson Scott, Jr. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a congressional inquiry.
This document is an affidavit by attorney Bradley James Edwards detailing his representation of victims of Jeffrey Epstein in 2008. Edwards outlines his interactions with Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafaña, alleging that the prosecution failed to inform him of a secret non-prosecution agreement and withheld evidence despite admitting to having proof of Epstein molesting at least 40 minors. The affidavit highlights the timeline of the plea deal and the subsequent revelation that federal prosecution would be blocked.
This document is a Service List, page 24 of a larger legal filing (Bates stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013393). It lists the names and addresses of four legal teams receiving service of the document, including Jack Alan Goldberger, a key defense attorney for Jeffrey Epstein, and attorneys from Fowler White Burnett, Marc S. Nurik's office, and Farmer, Jaffe, et al.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity