ADL
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
ISRAEL
|
Pro israel group |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Rothstein
|
Founder principal |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE DOE NO. 2
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Herbert Stettin
|
Fiduciary management |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Herbert Stettin
|
Chief restructuring officer |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
BRAD EDWARDS
|
Employment |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Department of Justice seized 40+ boxes of documents from RRA offices | RRA Offices | View |
| 1989-01-01 | N/A | Release year of 'Donald TRUMP The Game' by Milton Bradley. | N/A | 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.
061.pdf
This document is a Supplemental Appendix filed by Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. in a Florida state court case involving Jeffrey Epstein. It contains a transcript of a June 2009 hearing regarding the unsealing of court records, administrative orders, case law, and federal court filings including a declaration by AUSA A. Marie Villafana regarding the federal Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The appendix documents the legal arguments surrounding the transparency of the Epstein proceedings and the government's interaction with victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act.
060.pdf
This document is a response filed by Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. (The Palm Beach Post) to an emergency petition for writ of certiorari by Jeffrey Epstein. The Post argues that the trial court correctly unsealed a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and its addendum related to Epstein's solicitation of minors, asserting that the documents were improperly sealed in the first instance and that no valid legal basis exists for their continued closure.
053.pdf
This document is a court order from June 26, 2009, issued by Judge Jeffrey J. Colbath in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida. The order denies Jeffrey Epstein's motion to stay the disclosure of his Non-Prosecution Agreement and sets a deadline of July 2, 2009, for the Clerk to release the documents, allowing time for an appeal to the 4th DCA. The document includes a service list of attorneys involved, including U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta and defense attorneys like Jack Goldberger.
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.
041.pdf
This document is a 'Motion to Make Court Records Confidential' filed by Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys on June 11, 2009, in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County. The defense seeks to maintain the seal on the Non-Prosecution Agreement (filed July 2008) and its Addendum, citing threats to the administration of justice and privacy rights of third parties. The motion references interventions by the Palm Beach Post and a non-party identified as 'EW' (whose name is redacted in one section) seeking access to these records.
035.pdf
This document is a motion filed on June 2, 2009, by The Palm Beach Post seeking to intervene in the criminal case against Jeffrey Epstein to unseal a non-prosecution agreement and its addendum. The Post argues that the sealing was improper, lacked necessary legal findings, and that the documents are of significant public interest given the accusations of soliciting minors. The document cites numerous civil lawsuits against Epstein and criticizes the secrecy surrounding his plea deal.
034.pdf
This document is a motion filed on June 3, 2009, by a redacted nonparty (a victim of Jeffrey Epstein) seeking to unseal the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and its addendum in the Florida state criminal case. The motion argues the sealing violated Florida judicial rules and public policy, and that the documents are material to the victim's pending civil suit. Exhibits include judgments of conviction against Epstein for solicitation and procuring a minor, sealing orders from 2008, and transcripts from the June 30, 2008 plea conference where the existence of the federal NPA was discussed in open court.
029.pdf
A Notice of Hearing filed in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County regarding the case State of Florida vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 2008-CF9381 AXX). The hearing, scheduled for May 29, 2009, before Judge Jeffrey J. Colbath, concerns a motion by a redacted non-party (represented by Bradley J. Edwards for client 'E.W.') to vacate an order sealing records and to unseal said records. The file path in the footer references 'Wild v. Epstein', suggesting the redacted party may be named Wild.
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.
017-01.pdf
This document is a Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff's First Request for Production filed by Jane Doe in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff argues that Epstein's blanket invocation of Fifth Amendment privileges to refuse producing documents (such as phone records, tax returns, and correspondence) is improper and that he should be compelled to answer or provide a privilege log. The motion details specific discovery requests and Epstein's uniform response asserting his constitutional rights against self-incrimination.
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.
020-01.pdf
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.
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.
014-01.pdf
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.
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.
003.pdf
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.
001-02.pdf
This document is a legal filing (Counts 108 through 156 of a larger complaint) from Case 9:09-cv-81092-KAM, filed on July 24, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiff L.M. alleges that Jeffrey Epstein committed multiple federal sexual offenses against her, including coercion, prostitution, and sex trafficking of a minor, occurring repeatedly between October 2004 and October 2005. The document concludes with a civil cover sheet demanding a jury trial and damages in excess of $1,000,000.
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.
073.pdf
This document is a legal response filed on November 28, 2009, by Plaintiff Carolyn M. Andriano (Jane Doe No. 2) in her civil case against Jeffrey Epstein. The filing opposes a motion by third-party witness Igor Zinoview—Epstein's driver, bodyguard, and trainer since November 2005—who sought to avoid being deposed by claiming he had no knowledge of relevant facts. The Plaintiff argues that Zinoview must be deposed because he worked for Epstein during the active Palm Beach Police investigation (2005-2006) and likely possesses knowledge regarding activities at the Epstein residence, especially since Epstein himself invoked the Fifth Amendment.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity