This document is a letter from Jeffrey Epstein's defense counsel to Judge Richard Berman arguing for pretrial release on bail. The defense proposes strict conditions including home detention, GPS monitoring, and a substantial bond secured by Epstein's $77 million Manhattan home and private jet, with his brother and friend as co-sureties. The letter argues Epstein is not a flight risk (citing his U.S. ties and surrender of passport) and that the current charges are barred by a 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement.
This affidavit by attorney Bradley Edwards details difficulties in discovery for a civil case against Jeffrey Epstein (Case 10-81111). It alleges that key witnesses Ghislaine Maxwell and Jean Luc Brunel evaded depositions by falsely claiming to be out of the country. Crucially, it lists specific individuals for whom Epstein paid legal fees to prevent them from testifying against him, explicitly labeling Sarah Kellen as a 'procurer of girls' and Nadia Marcinkova as a 'live-in sex slave', while also identifying his personal pilots and household staff.
This document is a legal filing from Plaintiff Jane Doe 1000's counsel requesting a pre-motion conference to compel Defendants (Epstein's executors Indyke and Kahn) to produce discovery documents and answer interrogatories. The filing includes exhibits of the discovery requests, which seek detailed information on Epstein's flight logs, financial transactions, communications with high-profile individuals (Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz), and the structure of his alleged sex-trafficking operation. The Defendants have objected to almost all requests, claiming they are overbroad or that they lack knowledge because Epstein is deceased, prompting the Plaintiff to seek court intervention. Note: While flight logs are requested, no actual flight data is contained in this document.
A legal letter from Boies Schiller Flexner LLP to Judge Lorna G. Schofield arguing against the Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss in the case of Jane Doe 1000 v. Indyke et al. The letter argues that the Plaintiff's claims are timely under New York Law (CPLR § 215(8)(a) and § 213-c) and the doctrine of equitable estoppel due to Epstein's intimidation tactics. It also asserts that punitive damages should be addressed after discovery.
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, and the Court. The conversation centers on the government's plan to question a witness about photos of celebrities and nude women in Epstein's residence without submitting the photos as evidence. The Court reserves judgment on the admission of any photo exhibits but indicates it finds the proposed line of questioning acceptable.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The judge is ruling to exclude photographic evidence of a stuffed tiger and dog found in Epstein's New York apartment in 2019, deeming them irrelevant and prejudicial because they do not match the specific 'artwork of animals' described by the witness 'Jane' from years prior. However, the judge notes anticipation that 'schoolgirl outfits' found in the same apartment in 2019 will likely be introduced.
This legal document, filed on August 10, 2022, is a court ruling regarding the admissibility of photographic evidence in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Court decides to admit photos of Jeffrey Epstein's apartment and massage room to corroborate the testimony of a witness named 'Jane'. The admission of photos of the massage room is conditional upon the redaction of pictures on the wall.
This document is page 8 of a defense filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated December 5, 2021. The defense argues against the admission of government evidence, specifically photos of vibrators, a stuffed tiger, and a stuffed dog, claiming 'Jane' did not identify these specific items in her testimony. The defense also challenges photos of the interior of Epstein's New York apartment, arguing they are unauthenticated and potentially misleading.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity