250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401
LocationRelationship Network
082.pdf
A Notice of Hearing filed in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, regarding the case State of Florida vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 2008CF009381A). The document, signed by Epstein's attorney Jack A. Goldberger on December 16, 2009, schedules a hearing for December 18, 2009, before Judge Jeffrey Colbath to discuss a 'Motion to Authorize Travel'. The notice is addressed to Barbara Burns at the State Attorney's Office and Carmen Sloane at the Department of Corrections.
076.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Hearing' filed in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, for the case State of Florida vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 2008CF009381A). Defense attorney Jack A. Goldberger notifies State Attorney Barbara Burns of a hearing scheduled for November 30, 2009, before Judge Jeffrey Colbath regarding a 'Motion for Travel'. The document was filed on November 25, 2009.
066.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Non-Agreement' filed by the State of Florida on September 11, 2009, objecting to a proposed 'Agreed Order' submitted by Jeffrey Epstein's defense counsel. The defense sought to modify Epstein's community control conditions to remove 'mandatory public service' (claiming it was a clerical error) and to authorize business travel outside Florida. The State Attorney explicitly rejected the agreement and requested an evidentiary hearing.
016-01.pdf
This document is a transcript of a plea conference for Jeffrey Epstein held in June 2008 in Palm Beach County Court. Epstein pleads guilty to state charges involving solicitation of prostitution and procuring a minor, agreeing to an 18-month jail sentence followed by community control (probation). The transcript details the specific conditions of his release, including residency at his Palm Beach home, work release at his own 'Florida Science Foundation' (located in the same building as his attorney), and strict prohibitions on contacting victims or minors.
080.pdf
This document is a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed on June 30, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe II v. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen in the Southern District of Florida. The parties agreed to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled, with each party bearing their own legal costs. The document notes that a settlement was reached, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce its terms.
040.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Reliance' filed on June 19, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe II v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-CIV-80469) in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's legal team informs the court that despite the Plaintiff filing an Amended Memorandum of Law on June 12, 2009, Epstein will not file a new supplemental reply but will instead rely on his previous arguments filed on June 1, 2009. The document outlines the procedural history of the motion to dismiss and includes a certificate of service listing attorneys for both parties.
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.
062.pdf
This document is a motion filed by Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys requesting an extension until December 15, 2009, to respond to a complaint filed by Jane Doe No. 102. The reasons cited for the extension include ongoing resolution negotiations and questions arising from the 'implosion' of the Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler, PA firm.
024.pdf
This document is a legal motion filed on May 29, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 against Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiffs request leave to file their response to Epstein's motion to stay under seal because it references the confidential Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), or alternatively, to unseal the NPA. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing the legal representation for Epstein (including Robert Critton and Jack Goldberger), Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and numerous other Jane Doe plaintiffs.
073.pdf
This document is a Notice of Agreement filed on September 8, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida court case Jane Doe 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff's counsel notifies the court that both parties have agreed to appoint Rodney Romano of Matrix Mediation, LLC as the mediator for the case. The document includes a certificate of service and a service list detailing the contact information for the attorneys representing both the plaintiff and the defendant.
056.pdf
This document is a legal response filed on June 26, 2009, by the attorneys for Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 101 in the case against Jeffrey Epstein. The Plaintiff argues against Epstein's motion to dismiss, specifically contesting his claim that multiple violations of sexual exploitation statutes should be merged into a single count with a single penalty. The response asserts that 18 U.S.C. § 2255 allows for separate civil remedies and damages (minimum $150,000) for each distinct violation of a predicate offense.
048.pdf
This document is a legal motion filed on June 9, 2009, by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 101 requesting an extension of time and page limits to respond to Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Dismiss. The request is based on an upcoming court hearing scheduled for June 12, 2009, in a related case (Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein) which addresses potential breaches of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement. The document includes certificates of conference and service, listing legal counsel for both parties, including Bruce Reinhart as counsel for a co-defendant named Sarah.
028-02.pdf
This document is a formal legal letter dated May 15, 2009, from Robert C. Josefsberg of Podhurst Orseck to Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys (Robert Critton and Jack Goldberger). The letter demands the immediate preservation of all evidence, particularly electronically stored information (ESI), relevant to pending civil actions by victims of Epstein's sexual exploitation. It specifically references the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the 2005 FBI raid, and warns that failure to preserve data could result in sanctions for spoliation.
021.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on May 18, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal counsel in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's lawyers requested permission to exceed the standard 20-page limit for their upcoming motion to dismiss, citing complex legal issues regarding the interpretation of 18 U.S.C. §2255 and its applicability to the alleged conduct. Plaintiff's counsel agreed to this request via telephone.
008.pdf
This document is a legal response filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe 101 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 1, 2009. The plaintiff agrees to the court's order to consolidate ten separate cases filed by various Jane Does and C.M.A. against Jeffrey Epstein for the purposes of discovery. The document includes a service list detailing the contact information for attorneys representing the various plaintiffs and the defendant.
016-01.pdf
This document is a Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of C.L. vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 10-CV-80447). Judge Kenneth A. Marra dismissed the case following a stipulation by the parties, denied all pending motions as moot, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a settlement. The order was entered on the docket on June 24, 2010.
012.pdf
This document is an Emergency Motion filed on June 14, 2010, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team to quash a subpoena and prevent the deposition of Maritza Milagros Vasquez, scheduled for the following day. Epstein's lawyers argue that the subpoena issued by C.L.'s counsel (Spencer Kuvin) is premature under Rule 26(d) and that the cross-notice by Jane Doe's counsel (Brad Edwards) is invalid because discovery in the Jane Doe case had already concluded on May 31, 2010. The document includes the motion, a subpoena exhibit, and a cross-notice exhibit.
DOJ-OGR-00030393.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service dated March 31, 2008. It certifies that legal documents were served via facsimile and U.S. mail to attorneys Jack A. Goldberger and Lanna Leigh Belohlavek (of the State Attorney's Office) in West Palm Beach, Florida. The document is page 40 of a larger release (114 pages) related to Public Records Request No. 17-295.
DOJ-OGR-00030387.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service dated April 2, 2008, certifying that a legal document was sent via facsimile and U.S. mail to attorneys Jack A. Goldberger and Lanna Leigh Belohlavek in West Palm Beach, Florida. The document is part of a larger file (page 34 of 114) released under a Public Records Request in 2017.
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-00031566.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service from the law firm Herman & Mermelstein, P, dated March 31, 2008. It certifies that a legal document was served via facsimile and U.S. mail to two attorneys, Jack A. Goldberger and Lanna Leigh Belohlavek, at their respective offices in West Palm Beach, Florida. This serves as a formal record of notification in a legal proceeding.
DOJ-OGR-00032368.jpg
This document is a service list for the 2008 court case No. 50 2008 CA 006596 XXXX MB AB. It provides the names, law firms, and contact information for the attorneys representing various parties in the case. Key parties and their counsel include the State of Florida (represented by Lanna Belohlavek), Jeffrey Epstein (represented by Jack A. Goldberger and Robert Critton), Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce E. Reinhart), and Haley Robson (represented by Douglas M. McIntosh and Jason A. McGrath).
DOJ-OGR-00030997.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service from the law firm Herman & Mermelstein, P, dated April 2, 2008. It attests that a copy of a legal document was served via facsimile and U.S. mail to two attorneys, Jack A. Goldberger and Lanna Leigh Belohlavek of the State Attorney's Office, at their respective addresses in West Palm Beach, Florida. The document is signed, confirming the completion of the service.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012104.jpg
This document is a 'Counsel List' page from a legal filing in the case 'Edwards adv. Epstein' (Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG). It details the contact information (addresses, phone numbers, emails) for attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein, including Jack Goldberger, Martin Weinberg, and Joseph Ackerman, as well as Marc Nurik representing Scott Rothstein. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity