West Palm Beach, FL
LocationRelationship Network
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.
030.pdf
This document is a Notice of Withdrawing Subpoena filed on June 14, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiff C.L., represented by attorney Spencer T. Kuvin, withdrew a subpoena and cancelled the deposition of Maritza Milagros Vasquez, which had been scheduled for June 15, 2010. The document includes a certificate of service listing legal counsel for various parties involved in the primary case (Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein) and related cases.
006.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on July 7, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team. Epstein's attorneys requested a one-week extension (until July 14, 2009) to respond to a complaint filed by 'Jane Doe No. 8' on May 28, 2009, citing workload from other cases involving Epstein. The motion notes that opposing counsel agreed to this extension.
004.pdf
Legal document filed on June 5, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida court case 'Jane Doe No. 8 v. Jeffrey Epstein'. The document is a Notice of Appearance indicating that attorneys Robert D. Critton, Jr. and Michael J. Pike of the law firm Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP are entering the case to represent the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. The service list includes contact information for other attorneys involved, including Jack Alan Goldberger (also for Epstein) and Adam D. Horowitz (for the Plaintiff).
020.pdf
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.
016.pdf
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.
056.pdf
This document is an 'Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time' filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in the case of Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein on November 16, 2009. The motion requests an extension until November 27, 2009, for Epstein to respond to the complaint, citing that the parties are working together and are 'close to a resolution' of the case. The document includes a certificate of service listing the attorneys involved for both the plaintiff (Podhurst Orseck, P.A.) and the defendant (Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. and Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman).
053.pdf
This is an unopposed motion filed on October 29, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team. Epstein requests an extension until November 16, 2009, to respond to a complaint filed by 'Jane Doe No. 102' on May 1, 2009, citing that the parties are working together to potentially resolve the case. The document lists legal counsel for both sides, including Robert Critton and Jack Goldberger for Epstein, and Robert Josefsberg and Katherine Ezell for the plaintiff.
051.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on October 15, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team requesting an extension of time until October 30, 2009, to respond to a complaint filed by Jane Doe No. 102. The document indicates that the parties are working together to potentially resolve the case. It lists legal counsel for both the plaintiff (Podhurst Orseck, P.A.) and the defendant (Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman; Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.).
034.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on June 18, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 09-80656) by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team. Epstein requests an extension until July 5, 2009, to respond to a complaint filed by Jane Doe No. 102, citing the workload from multiple concurrent cases where he is a defendant. The document confirms that Plaintiff's counsel agreed to this extension and lists the legal representatives for both parties.
006.pdf
Legal document filed on May 11, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case 09-80656). Attorneys Robert D. Critton, Jr. and Michael J. Pike of the firm Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman formally entered their appearance as counsel for the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, in a civil suit brought by Jane Doe No. 102. The document includes a certificate of service listing other counsel involved, including Jack Alan Goldberger for the defense and attorneys from Podhurst Orseck, P.A. for the plaintiff.
087.pdf
This document is a Motion for Extension of Time filed on December 2, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The defense requested an extension until December 15, 2009, to file a reply, citing ongoing settlement negotiations and the need to investigate the implications of the 'Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler, PA' firm implosion on the Plaintiff's counsel. The document notes that Plaintiff's counsel opposed this extension request.
070.pdf
This document is an 'Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time' filed on August 7, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's legal team requests an extension until October 15, 2009, to reply to the Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss, citing that the parties are working together to find a resolution. The motion lists legal counsel for both sides, including attorneys from Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, and Podhurst Orseck.
053.pdf
Legal filing from June 12, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's legal team withdraws seven specific arguments previously made in a Motion to Dismiss regarding the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, including arguments about the plaintiff's minority status and predicate offenses. The defense states it will now rely solely on arguments regarding count merger and subparagraph D.
026.pdf
This document is a Motion for Limited Appearance filed on May 21, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case 9:09-CV-80591-KAM). Robert D. Critton, Jr. requests the court to admit Michael D. Shumsky of Kirkland & Ellis LLP as co-counsel for the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. The document lists legal counsel for both the plaintiff (Jane Doe 101) and the defendant, along with their contact information.
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.
EFTA00013628.pdf
An email chain from November 7, 2007, involving an Assistant U.S. Attorney in West Palm Beach. The attorney asks a colleague if there is news from the defense, State Attorney, or Judge Davis, and reports a concerning development where private investigators have approached girls who were not part of the state's case against Epstein. The recipient replies simply with 'No.'
DOJ-OGR-00030281.tif
This document is a legal letter dated August 27, 2009, from Robert D. Critton, Jr. of Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP to Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. of Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. It concerns the case Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein, informing Mermelstein that Mr. Epstein intends to be present at his client's deposition as a party-defendant, but will not engage in conversation with Mermelstein's client.
DOJ-OGR-00000319.jpg
This document is the signature page of a legal filing submitted on July 9, 2010, by the office of the United States Attorney. It lists Wifredo A. Ferrer as the U.S. Attorney and Dexter A. Lee, Eduardo I. Sánchez, and A. Marie Villafaña as Assistant U.S. Attorneys representing the respondent, providing their contact information and Florida Bar numbers.
DOJ-OGR-00030428.jpg
This document is a service list for the legal case 'State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein' (Case No: 2006CF009454A), faxed on February 5, 2008. It provides the names and contact information for the attorneys involved, identifying Lanna Belohlavek as an 'Attorney For: Party' and Jack A. Goldberger as the 'Attorney For: Jeffrey Epstein'.
DOJ-OGR-00030385.jpg
In a letter dated April 21, 2008, attorney Stuart S. Mermelstein informs attorney Jack A. Goldberger that his firm is representing a client identified as 'Jane Doe No. 5' in matters concerning the case *State of Florida v. Jeffrey E. Epstein*. Mermelstein requests that all future communication regarding his client be directed to his office and proposes scheduling a single deposition to be used for both the criminal and civil matters, subject to agreement and approval from the State Attorney's Office.
DOJ-OGR-00030533.jpg
This document is the cover page or envelope for a letter dated July 26, 2017, from the law firm Atterbury Goldberger Richardson & Weiss, P.A. to the State Attorney's Office, Circuit Court Division. Both entities are located in West Palm Beach, Florida. The document includes a public records request number (17-295) and a Department of Justice control number (DOJ-OGR-00030533).
DOJ-OGR-00030508.jpg
This is a letter dated April 17, 2006, from attorney Guy Fronstin to Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek regarding a settlement offer for his client, Jeffrey Epstein. Fronstin accepts the offer with several clarifications, including the type of plea, the terms of supervised contact (naming Ms. Marcinkova and Ms. Kellen), payment for investigation costs, and a request for Epstein to be allowed to travel for philanthropy as well as business. The document outlines key points of the negotiation in Epstein's legal case.
DOJ-OGR-00030483.jpg
This letter, dated June 5, 2006, is from Jeffrey Epstein's attorney, Gerald B. Lefcourt, to prosecutor Lanna Belohlavek of the Florida State Attorney's Office. Following up on a recent meeting, the attorney argues against Epstein pleading to a felony aggravated assault charge, primarily due to the risk of mandatory sex offender registration. The letter proposes a plea to misdemeanor solicitation as a more suitable resolution and addresses legal arguments to support this, including that the victim need not be legally defined as a "prostitute" for the charge to apply.
DOJ-OGR-00030475.jpg
This is a fax transmittal cover sheet dated June 16, 2006, from the law firm Atterbury Goldberger Richardson & Weiss, P.A. in West Palm Beach, FL. The fax, sent by Jessica Cadwell (assistant to Jack A. Goldberger, Esq.), is addressed to Lanna Belohlavek, Esq., and concerns a subject identified only as 'Epstein'. The total transmission is 8 pages, including the cover sheet, and contains a standard legal confidentiality warning.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity