UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: JANE DOE NO. 1, by and through 08 JANE DOE's FATHER as parent and natural guardian, and JANE DOE's FATHER, and JANE DOE's STEPMOTHER, individually, Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. 80Q69 CIV-MARRA WaLSTRATE 111116B IONNSON FILED by INTAKE JAN 24 2008 SSC.LEM0RIC CIIr a:•14DIR ASDT.721b. COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 1 ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), by and through Jane Doe's Father as parent and natural guardian, and Jane Doe's Father and Jane Doe's Stepmother, individually, bring this Complaint against Jeffrey Epstein, as follows: Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue 1. Jane Doe is a citizen and resident of the State of Florida. She is a minor under the age of 18 years. 2. Jane Doe's Father brings this action individually and as parent and natural guardian of Jane Doe. Jane Doe's Father is a citizen and resident of the State of Florida. 3. Jane Doe's Stepmother brings this action indi
Summary
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: JANE DOE NO. 1, by and through 08 JANE DOE's FATHER as parent and natural guardian, and JANE DOE's FATHER, and JANE DOE's STEPMOTHER, individually, Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. 80Q69 CIV-MARRA WaLSTRATE 111116B IONNSON FILED by INTAKE JAN 24 2008 SSC.LEM0RIC CIIr a:•14DIR ASDT.721b. COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 1 ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), by and through Jane Doe's Father as parent and natural guardian, and Jane Doe's Father and Jane Doe's Stepmother, individually, bring this Complaint against Jeffrey Epstein, as follows: Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue 1. Jane Doe is a citizen and resident of the State of Florida. She is a minor under the age of 18 years. 2. Jane Doe's Father brings this action individually and as parent and natural guardian of Jane Doe. Jane Doe's Father is a citizen and resident of the State of Florida. 3. Jane Doe's Stepmother brings this action indi
Persons Referenced (3)
“...t and proximate result of Epstein's intentional or reckless conduct, Jane Doe, Jane Does' Father and Jane Doe's Stepmother have suffered and will continue to suffer sev...”
Stuart S. Mermelstein“...ttorneys for Plaintiffs iami, rton Tel: 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 By: Stuart S. Mermelstein Adam D. Horowitz HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. - 6 - www.hermanlaw.com EFTA00214201...”
Jeffrey Epstein“...JANE DOE's FATHER, and JANE DOE's STEPMOTHER, individually, Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. 80Q69 CIV-MARRA WaLSTRATE 111116B IONNSON FILED by INTAKE JAN 24 2008 SSC.LEM0RIC C...”
Tags
Ask AI About This Document
Extracted Text (OCR)
Technical Artifacts (6)
View in Artifacts BrowserEmail addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.
ww.v.hermanlaw.comwww.hermanlaw.comFax: 305-931-0877305-931-0877305-931-2200reflectedRelated Documents (6)
Epstein Depositions
10. 11. 12. l3. 14. 16. 17. l8. 19. Jeffrey Epstein v. Bradley J. Edwards, et Case No.: 50 2009 CA Attachments to Statement of Undisputed Facts Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein taken March 17, 2010 Deposition of Jane Doe taken March 11, 2010 (Pages 379, 380, 527, 564?67, 568) Deposition of LM. taken September 24, 2009 (Pages 73, 74, 164, 141, 605, 416) Deposition ofE.W. taken May 6, 2010 (1 15, 1.16, 255, 205, 215?216) Deposition of Jane Doe #4 (32-34, 136) Deposition of Jeffrey Eps
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
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Du..ument 511 Entered on FLSD Docku, J3/29/2010 Page 1 of 11
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM
J. MICHAEL BURMAN. RA'
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.