Relationship Details

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.

A Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice from the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, in the case of L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-CIV-81092). Judge Kenneth A. Marra dismissed the case on July 20, 2010, following a stipulation by the parties, while noting that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a settlement reached between the plaintiff and Epstein.

This document is a Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice from the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, dated July 20, 2010. Judge Kenneth A. Marra dismissed the civil case (09-CIV-81092) brought by plaintiff L.M. against Jeffrey Epstein following a settlement agreement between the parties. The court retained jurisdiction specifically to enforce the terms of said settlement.

This document is a page from a legal filing summarizing specific instances during a deposition where Jeffrey Epstein invoked his Fifth Amendment rights. Paragraphs 113 through 120 detail his refusal to answer questions regarding the procurement of minors for prostitution, sexual acts with underage females, his personal sexual preferences, the identity of those paying his legal fees, and the veracity of a complaint filed by a victim identified as L.M. in September 2008.

Court order from the Southern District of Florida in the case of L.M. vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-81092-CIV-MARRA), signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on July 30, 2009. The order outlines procedural requirements for counsel to confer and file joint scheduling and discovery reports in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida transferring civil case 09-81092 (L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein) from Judge James I. Cohn to Judge Kenneth A. Marra. The order was signed by Judge Cohn on July 28, 2009, and accepted by Judge Marra on July 29, 2009, citing Internal Operating Procedure 2.15.C.

This document is page 9 of a legal motion in the case 'Edwards adv. Epstein' (Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG). It argues that Jeffrey Epstein's claims linking Edwards to Scott Rothstein's Ponzi scheme were completely baseless, noting that Epstein voluntarily dismissed the claims right before a summary judgment hearing. The text asserts Edwards had no involvement in the scheme and characterizes Epstein's allegations as lacking substance.

This court document, filed on June 28, 2010, updates the court on the status of Doe v. Epstein. It reports that since mediation on April 5, 2010, Jeffrey Epstein has resolved/settled numerous lawsuits, including cases involving C.L., C.M.A., and multiple Jane Does, leaving only the current federal case and two state court cases unresolved, all represented by Brad Edwards. The document also notes the extensive scope of the upcoming trial, citing over 170 potential witnesses and 140 exhibits.

This document is the cover page for the videotaped deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, taken on March 17, 2010. The deposition was for a civil case in Palm Beach County, Florida, where Epstein was the plaintiff against defendants Scott Rothstein, Bradley J. Edwards, and an individual identified as L.M. The document includes the case number, location of the deposition, and details of the court reporting agency.

This document is page 18 of a legal filing (Bates HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013387) arguing for the dismissal of Epstein's claims against a party named Edwards. It lists specific unanswered discovery questions regarding physical contact with individuals identified as L.M., Jane Doe, and E.W., and cites Florida case law to argue that Epstein's refusal to answer these questions violates discovery rules and deprives Edwards of a fair defense.

This document is page 39 of a House Oversight report detailing a deposition where Jeffrey Epstein repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The questions Epstein refused to answer concern his personal relationship with Bill Clinton, allegations of fabricated claims by attorney Mr. Edwards, the destruction of evidence in his garbage, sexual assaults on private planes, and the contents of his flight logs regarding celebrities and dignitaries.