Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00207219DOJ Data Set 9Other

From: '

From: ' To:' Subject: Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM Doe v. Epstein Response/Reply (Other) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 18:26:47 +0000 Importance: Normal This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Pike, Michael on 4/9/2010 at 2:26 PM EDT and filed on

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00207219
Pages
2
Persons
3
Integrity

Summary

From: ' To:' Subject: Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM Doe v. Epstein Response/Reply (Other) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 18:26:47 +0000 Importance: Normal This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Pike, Michael on 4/9/2010 at 2:26 PM EDT and filed on

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
From: ' To: ' Subject: Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM Doe v. Epstein Response/Reply (Other) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 18:26:47 +0000 Importance: Normal This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Pike, Michael on 4/9/2010 at 2:26 PM EDT and filed on 4/9/2010 Case Name: Doe v. Epstein Case Number: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Filer: Jeffrey Epstein Document Number: 522 Docket Text: RESPONSE/REPLY to [493] Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court Defendant's Response in Opposition to Jane Does 2-8' Rule 4 Appeal with Incorporated Memorandum of Law by Jeffrey Epstein. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A)(Pike, Michael) 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Notice has been electronically mailed to: Adam D. Horowitz Bradley James Edwards Isidro Manuel Garcia Jack Alan Goldberger Jack Patrick Hill Jeffrey Marc Herman Katherine Warthen Ezell EFTA00207219 Michael James Pike Paul G. Cassell Richard Horace Willits Robert C. Josefsberg Robert Deweese Critton , Jr Stuart S. Mermelstein 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Notice has not been delivered electronically to those listed below and will be provided by other means. For further assistance, please contact our Help Desk at Martin G. Weinberg 20 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filenamem/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_11: 1105629215 [Date=4/9/2010] [FileNumber=7453013-0] [5513b85d772b3f0fcd84e4906b4fe624400747b85d6d48841b034473e779a1e43972 1293c 1699b071bfceddf3417666bc358f4f758863 a4c1bbe87da2023428d]] Document description:Exhibit A Original filenamem/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_11: 1105629215 [Date=4/9/2010] [FileNumber=7453013-1] [311f4b0lcebd9244259 faelbb33a2940305d60eb279184e8ec84888dc94e76e87e71 75453195 ft3 a574e9d509d459143 adb262e3d68972a5e1c5666324946599]] EFTA00207220

Technical Artifacts (8)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Case #9:08-CV-80119-ICAM
Case #9:08-CV-80119-KAM
Phone5453195
Phone5629215
Phone6324946599
Phone7453013
Phone9244259
Wire Refreferenced

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files his Answer to the Second Amended Complaint and states: 1. Without knowledge and deny. 2. As to the allegations in paragraphs 2, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 41h DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[fit would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege ba

7p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2008 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR STAY Defendant Jeffrey Epstein respectfully moves for a mandatory stay of this action under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3509(k). As discussed below, this action is subject to a mandatory stay based on the existence of two pending parallel criminal actions. Introduction This civil action is a private counterpart to two ongoing criminal actions, one in Palm Beach state court, the other in Miami federal court. Both cases purport to arise from the same occurrence: the alleged sexual assault of a minor, Jane Doe No. 2. A federal statute directly on point provides that when an alleged sexual assault involving a child victim results in a "criminal proceeding," a commonly EFTA00221641 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

6p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 7 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files his Answer to the Second Amended Complaint and states: 1. Without knowledge and deny. 2. As to the allegations in paragraphs 2, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege bas

7p
DOJ Data Set 11OtherUnknown

EFTA02729648

53p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

J. MICHAEL BURMAN. RA'

18p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM

Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 07'16'2008 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA NO. 08-80232-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff, 1. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to File Ex Parte and Under Seal, filed July 10, 2008. Defendant seeks to file a Notice of Continued Pendency of Federal Criminal Action under seal.' The Court has carefully considered the motion and the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. As stated in the Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida, "proceedings in the United States District Court are public and Court filings are matters of public record." S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.4(A). It is well settled that the media and the public in general possess a common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records. See Nixon I Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978).

18p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.